2010 Healthcare Food Total
United States: 13.9 6.8 20.7
Switzerland: 10.9 10.2 21.1
Germany: 10.8 11.4 22.2
France: 9.4 13.5 22.9
Canada: 9.4 9.1 18.5
Australia: 9.1 10.5 19.6
Belgium: 9 13 22
Average 10.35714286 10.64285714 21
Monday, October 24, 2011
Healthcare Costs
Because I'm not sure were else to save the spreadsheet I just made...
Healthcare & Food Expenditures, % GDP:
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
The Exasperation of a Billionaire
Nice interview in the Wall Street Journal with Mortimer Zuckerman.
His narcissism is fundamentally different then that of Bill Clinton. Clinton, genuinely, feels peoples pain. He likes to shake hands and meet folks. It's personal. Of Obama I get the impression of someone who understands that folks are hurting through the lense of policy decisions.
That's the difference when Zuckerman talks about pain (people wanted costs controlled) and policy (but Obama instead made expanded coverage a priority). Obamacare makes more sense from a policy position if you believe in healthcare as a public service; it doesn't make sense if you look at it politically or within the financial situation of 2009/2010. When people were feeling deep and severe pain, Obama's actions were primarily in long-term policy areas -- Obamacare and supporting previous government policies that expanded state and local government by funneling "stimulus" money into preventing layoffs in areas that program costs had exceeded the ability of state and local governments to fund them.
Striking the right balance between the emotional and the rational is difficult. A lot of people are far stronger on one then the other. Favoring rational thought, however, can leave you blind to emotional factors that are just as critical to good leadership.
(Side note -- besides his comments directly on Obama, his real estate transactions starting in 2006 seem to be a good example of Positive / Negative Black Swan investing; by selling the buildings that would have a negative impact by a Black Swan -- the bubble bursting -- they put themselves in the position to have strong cash reserves and buy a couple premium buildings at discounts when the economy did crash.)
'It's as if he doesn't like people," says real-estate mogul and New York Daily News owner Mortimer Zuckerman of the president of the United States. Barack Obama doesn't seem to care for individuals, elaborates Mr. Zuckerman, though the president enjoys addressing millions of them on television.Reminds me of a personally favorite line from Mad Men, when Roger Sterling says to Don Draper, "The reason you're no good at relationships is you don't value them." Obama strikes me as one with a few (very few) but deep relationships. The rest, he doesn't value; not in a personal way.
His narcissism is fundamentally different then that of Bill Clinton. Clinton, genuinely, feels peoples pain. He likes to shake hands and meet folks. It's personal. Of Obama I get the impression of someone who understands that folks are hurting through the lense of policy decisions.
That's the difference when Zuckerman talks about pain (people wanted costs controlled) and policy (but Obama instead made expanded coverage a priority). Obamacare makes more sense from a policy position if you believe in healthcare as a public service; it doesn't make sense if you look at it politically or within the financial situation of 2009/2010. When people were feeling deep and severe pain, Obama's actions were primarily in long-term policy areas -- Obamacare and supporting previous government policies that expanded state and local government by funneling "stimulus" money into preventing layoffs in areas that program costs had exceeded the ability of state and local governments to fund them.
Striking the right balance between the emotional and the rational is difficult. A lot of people are far stronger on one then the other. Favoring rational thought, however, can leave you blind to emotional factors that are just as critical to good leadership.
(Side note -- besides his comments directly on Obama, his real estate transactions starting in 2006 seem to be a good example of Positive / Negative Black Swan investing; by selling the buildings that would have a negative impact by a Black Swan -- the bubble bursting -- they put themselves in the position to have strong cash reserves and buy a couple premium buildings at discounts when the economy did crash.)
Monday, October 17, 2011
Lie Spotting
Nifty TED Talk by Pamela Meyer. What I found fascinating was that contempt is the only emotion that's asymmetric -- that must have interesting implications for the left/right brain split, and also the left-gaze bias of humans and canines (looking at humans):
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/P_6vDLq64gE?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/P_6vDLq64gE?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Emotion, Reason, and Obama
Nice article I just read:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-the-loner-president/2011/10/03/gIQAHFcSTL_story.html
It's probably also the source of his faux-pas when the "technical" Obama imagining the theater of himself on the grand stage doesn't stop and think about the "personal" side of demanding to speak at the Brandenburg Gate; an honor that the Germans should extend to someone they wish to thank, not to be asked for by a candidate.
Thinking about the current uncertainty on the Republican nomination race, there's a long tradition of Republicans running more then once for the nomination. Nixon, Reagan, George H.W. Bush fit that mold. Thomas Dewey actually received the nomination twice ('44 and '48, though let's face it '44 was all about sacrificial lambs at the height of World War II), while Shrub was able to tap his father's network of relationships. Gerald Ford was the accidental President (and never ran for election), which leaves us with Eisenhower as the only "virgin" Republican nominee of the last 60 years -- but he had unbeatable name recognition and in a Republican party whose internal politics favor those who make friends the General who had to make all the other self-centered, ego filled Lieutenant Generals and higher get along in Europe he clearly had the personal diplomatic skills needed to make people feel personally valued.
Romney is very good at the science of management, though he's "flexible" to be kind on policy -- call it cold calculus, when one policy is politically dead he replaces...Obama may accept healthcare without a public option, but Romney is a chameleon who can change from pro-choice to pro-life as it suits political expediency. He's not charismatic in exuding an authentic charm, I'm certain he'd admit it himself.
Herman Cain, guy got game. The least qualified of the major candidates (though I reserve "worse" as a tie to the two psychological basket cases of Bachman and Gingrich), he can connect emotionally. I've heard some of the most genuine sounding soundbites I've ever heard from a politician listening to radio stories that included a Cain quote. Cain being the current front runner by the polls is I'm sure a shock even to him, since I don't think he ever thought of himself as an actually serious candidate. (Huntsman by the way tops the list to me as the best qualified in the range of his experience, but I have the impression he's running this time mainly with an eye on future campaigns)
Obama is, in short, a political loner who prefers policy over the people who make politics in this country work. “He likes politics,” said a Washington veteran who supports Obama, “but like a campaign manager likes politics, not a candidate.”
The former draws energy from science and strategy, the latter from contact with people.
Which raises an odd question: Is it possible to be America’s most popular politician and not be very good at American politics?We know Obama can connect emotionally, in a very particular way and with great preparation -- we've heard him deliver well prepared speeches. But that doesn't mean the fire is in the belly to, in the words of Martha Coakley, "stand outside of Fenway, in the cold, shaking hands."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-the-loner-president/2011/10/03/gIQAHFcSTL_story.html
It's probably also the source of his faux-pas when the "technical" Obama imagining the theater of himself on the grand stage doesn't stop and think about the "personal" side of demanding to speak at the Brandenburg Gate; an honor that the Germans should extend to someone they wish to thank, not to be asked for by a candidate.
Thinking about the current uncertainty on the Republican nomination race, there's a long tradition of Republicans running more then once for the nomination. Nixon, Reagan, George H.W. Bush fit that mold. Thomas Dewey actually received the nomination twice ('44 and '48, though let's face it '44 was all about sacrificial lambs at the height of World War II), while Shrub was able to tap his father's network of relationships. Gerald Ford was the accidental President (and never ran for election), which leaves us with Eisenhower as the only "virgin" Republican nominee of the last 60 years -- but he had unbeatable name recognition and in a Republican party whose internal politics favor those who make friends the General who had to make all the other self-centered, ego filled Lieutenant Generals and higher get along in Europe he clearly had the personal diplomatic skills needed to make people feel personally valued.
Romney is very good at the science of management, though he's "flexible" to be kind on policy -- call it cold calculus, when one policy is politically dead he replaces...Obama may accept healthcare without a public option, but Romney is a chameleon who can change from pro-choice to pro-life as it suits political expediency. He's not charismatic in exuding an authentic charm, I'm certain he'd admit it himself.
Herman Cain, guy got game. The least qualified of the major candidates (though I reserve "worse" as a tie to the two psychological basket cases of Bachman and Gingrich), he can connect emotionally. I've heard some of the most genuine sounding soundbites I've ever heard from a politician listening to radio stories that included a Cain quote. Cain being the current front runner by the polls is I'm sure a shock even to him, since I don't think he ever thought of himself as an actually serious candidate. (Huntsman by the way tops the list to me as the best qualified in the range of his experience, but I have the impression he's running this time mainly with an eye on future campaigns)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)