On the Wisdom of Increasing Regulation

Here's another email debate with my smart liberal email buddy:

MN: I just had dinner with an ERISA attorney. ERISA was passed to stop companies from comingling employees' retirement funds with the corporate general fund. Like most government regulations, in original conception it made sense but, over time, it metastasized into a monstrous, strangling cancer. My dinner partner (a liberal Democrat) smilingly agreed that that's exactly what's happened to ERISA--with thousands of lawyers and others trying to interpret (and skirt) the mountains of regulations that ERISA has grown into. Google ERISA and you'll see--the law has created an entire industry which, en toto, does so much less for humanity with all those resources than could otherwise be done. Multiply ERISA by the thousands of other local, state, and federal regulations, and you see how America's recovery is strangled by government. My wife who is Napa County Supt. Of Schools says, she spends a fortune trying to comply with an endless array of often contradictory regulations, which en toto provide dubious benefit, certainly less benefit than if given directly to schools to spend as it saw fit. Every word uttered by every teacher is constrained by district, county, SELPA (don't ask), state, and federal laws and regulations. Be careful when you ask for reregulation--what you get in 2009 will increase manyfold in years to come, and will never get undone.

DB: I fully agree that regulating is hard to get right and hard to undo. But what’s the option? It’s hard to regulate derivatives but we have to do it. It’s hard to regulate pensions but we have to do it.

MN: The problem is that liberals refuse to accept the reality that no matter how well planned a regulation, the aforementioned metastasis is a near inevitability. And having a negotiation among left, right, and libertarian is unlikely to work because the compromise would likely end up being the worst of all worlds/lowest common denominator or because one group is so emotion-driven in their antipathy to the other side that they (or some of their loud, particularly irrational stakeholders) will refuse to act rationally. (And you must admit that anti-corporate socialists, environmentalists and advocates for minorities are among the worst of these.)

DB: We can’t afford not to do the best we can to write good regulations where regulations are needed. As you stated yesterday, when you said you were not a doctrinaire libertarian, the financial institutions need to be regulated as regards lending standards and credit default swaps. It won’t be easy and people will try to embed all the loopholes they can – but what’s the alternative?

MN: As I've said in a previous exchange, I'm okay with modernizing the regulations to include CMOs, CDOs, swaps, etc. That's a long way from the level of regulation that Obama, his minions, the liberal Congress, and liberal media have in mind. My view is that human nature is such that, lamentably, a certain amount of cheating will go on and, as with all interventions, there's a sweet spot: the amount of regulation that creates the most good with the least burden. Government starts creating regulations prudently but over their lifespan they metastasize so that the liabilities soon greatly outweigh the benefits. Another liability of regulation--you're on the losing end of a competition between a slow-moving/small group of regulators and the world, with an endless amount of ingenuity to beat the system. So, the best answer: a small number of simple, air-tight rules that are minimally constraining and with minimal reporting. Remember, the perfect is the enemy of the good.

DB: I agree with you on this.

A Liberal and a Libertarian Debate the Stimulus Plan

Here's the essence of an email debate I had with a liberal colleague regarding the stimulus plan. (He's no piker: B.A, MBA from Harvard, top of his class, senior consultant in a major national consulting firm.)

MN: Obama claims consensus on his stimulus package where none exists--Evidence: the 350 economists, including Nobelists, that took a full-page ad in the New York Times opining that Obama's spending package is a colossal mistake. Also the U.S. stock market has declined at an accelerating rate under Obama; Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund is now down 50% since Obama took the lead in the presidential polls. While there are covariates, of course, if there was consensus that Obama's stimulus plan was good, it's extraordinarily unlikely that the stock market would have declined at an almost unprecedented rate. Obama's claim of consensus, both re the stimulus plan and the wisdom of massive spending to try to cool the earth, are disingenuous.

DB: I don’t really care about consensus. There never has been a consensus of economists and there never will be.

MN: Whether you care about consensus or not, Obama's claim of consensus is a major basis on which he's tried to persuade Congress and the public to adopt his unprecedentedly large spending package, more than had been spent in total from American independence to 1980. He's using The Big Lie to push through his radical policies.

DB: It’s not like there’s a consensus on the other side of the case.

MN: No, there is no consensus on the other side but when such strong disagreement exists, it's foolish to bet all of America's future on one extreme side of the debate--whether it be re Big Govt or Massive Green spending. Obama certainly shouldn't be lying and saying there's consensus so he can force-feed us his mammoth package. (with a promise of more spending sprees to come.) He should practice the transparency he preaches.

And it's sickening that the media, which was pit-bull-like in investigating and attacking everything Bush/Cheney-related (except for going into Iraq), is absolutely a lap dog, indeed a spin doctor for Obama's truly extremist, non-consensus-based policies.

DB: Do you believe that money needs to be pumped in, that there’s a risk of systemic failure if we don’t? Yes or no. If no, then we have nothing more to talk about.

MN; The only pumping I favor is returning money to the taxpayer so the collective wisdom of 300,000,000 million Americans will put its money in the places most likely to be stimulative in an enduring sense.

DB: That is a nice cliché but if you really don’t believe there’s systemic risk here then you are out of touch with how the banking system actually works.

MN. There's risk in action as well as inaction. But I believe that "freely flowing credit" is not be the basis on which an economic can sturdily be run. I believe that most things should be bought for cash. If an individual or business can't afford it, it should wait until it can. (with some exceptions--e.g., a house, major business capital investments.) Of course, that would result in a slower economy, but a stable, sturdy one, not one built on a house of cards.

DB: I’m not referring to consumer overuse of credit cards and home equity loans, about which I agree with you. I am talking about business use of credit called “working capital” as well as capital investment, which is essential to functioning of the economy.

MN: From where I sit, you don't start a business until you have saved sufficient working capital to address the cash flow issue. Yes, you may need to borrow to buy the ovens and even pay the workers first month or three's salary until sufficient revenues start coming in, but as you know, that's not what you're talking about--you're talking about far greater sums of money.

DB: The same people who are now so worried about running a big deficit weren’t worried about it all when the issue was the consequences of starting the Iraq war while continuing the Bush tax cuts. I don’t think they are simpletons; I think they are being disingenuous.

MN: I have been very opposed to the Iraq War from the start... Why do Dems never learn? Govt spending is nearly always inefficient spending. The example that comes to me this rainy moment is the water pipeline erected across the Richmond-San Rafael bridge to share water between the East Bay and Marin, which a few years later was dismantled as unnecessary. And now, amid the nonstop California rain (with rainfall above average for the year and reservoirs at more than half of maximum (with predictions of rain continuing every day this week), Schwarzennegar announces a statewide drought emergency, which means more taxpayer spending and forcing all of us to restrict our use of water. Is our government so inept that even when rainfall is as extensive as it's been, the government can't even provide something as basic as our water. Why aren't there sufficient reservoirs and dams? (Somehow, I'm guessing environmentalists have something to do with it.)

DB: I'd like to see how the conservatives would react to the idea of a stimulus that’s 100% tax cut – but focused on the middle class worker – for example, eliminate the worker’s end of the payroll tax for incomes between $20,000 and $60,000 dollars. My guess is it would tear the conservatives apart. What would you say to this proposal?

MN: I'd totally support it. By the way, I am sickened by the slick messaging machine of the Dems. (e.g., the constant and disingenuous use of the word "responsibility.")

Ben Casnocha Interviews Marty Nemko

Ben Casnocha just interviewed me.TDTV #4: Ben Casnocha and Marty Nemko.

My affect was too flat and the hat looks stupid but I hope you'll find the content of value. The topics I talked about:

• advice for worklife success in a lousy economy
• the wisdom of championing unpopular causes that you believe in
• why the future really is China
• romance is overrated
• the frightening acceleration of media bias
• the case against work/life balance
• that life's goal should be productivity and contentment, not happiness

The interview runs 35 minutes.

The World's Shortest Course in Success

I wish I could say that ethics is paramount but if I am to be honest, nothing is more important than intelligence and drive. 

Balance is overrated. Most people of accomplishment work 50, 60, even 80 hours a week. And that imbalance need not be deleterious to their health. A person who works slow and steady on work he or she is good at will be far less stressed than someone who's annoyed by their children's or spouse's shenanigans or who get frustrated with every bad golf shot.

Also key to success: As long as it's ethical, ask for what you want. People who don't ask--for fear of rejection, failure, imposing, etc.--usually doom themselves to far less success than they otherwise could achieve.

Thriving (or at least Surviving) in a Diving Economy

Imagine this happened to you: You finally discover what would be your dream job at your dream employer. So you write a letter to the person with the power to hire you--and he politely declines.

That was 15 years ago. Since then, that dream job stays in your mind like the love of your life that remains unrequited. So every year or two, you write back to that employer, sending samples of your work. Sometimes he politely declines but increasingly, he doesn't even respond. So you decide to stop writing to him. Three years pass and then, out of the blue, your phone rings: It's him. "How'd you like a four-week trial on that job you've been wanting." How would you feel?

This story is not a hypothetical. It's real. And this month, it happened to me. What's the job? Hosting a show on work. The employer? KGO radio, one of America's most listened-to stations. A few weeks ago, Jack Swanson, KGO's Operations Director called to say, " Would you like to host for us--so many KGO listeners are suffering career pain. You can help them. We'll try it for four weeks and see how it goes."

In addition to trying to be good on the air, I've done some other things to try to succeed at KGO that are relevant to anyone trying to thrive or at least survive in this diving economy. These strategies have worked for many of my career coaching clients and I'm hoping they might help you.

Lesson 1: Use a moderate communication style; no irrational exuberance. When Jack offered me the job, I was tempted to yell, "Fantastic!" but in that fraction of a second before I responded, I remembered the time I hired someone and he literally jumped up and down in ecstasy. That made me wonder, "Is he a bad employee who's been unable to land a job forever and that's why he's so ecstatic?"

So, in responding to Jack, I just said, "I'm delighted, Jack. Thank you." And on reflection, remaining moderate really is a good idea. I think about how often I tell my career coaching clients: "Watch C-SPAN, which is a parade of the world's most successful people and you'll see that their emotions range only from pleased to concerned, no wider, even if they're talking about the economy's collapse. And remember when Howard Dean yelled a war whoop of ecstasy when he won the Iowa primary? That single moment killed his presidential chances." So Lesson 1: Show moderate enthusiasm, not as Alan Greenspan said, "irrational exuberance." Most Americans claim to celebrate diversity but we're not tolerant of diverse styles of communication. Extreme emotion doesn't read as passion; it reads as being high-maintenance or out of control.

Lesson 2: Unless you're darn sure they're wrong, try it their way. Jack then told me to meet with Trish Robbins, KGO's Executive Producer so I could learn "The KGO Way." My natural tendency is to propose alternative ways of doing things but as I walked into that meeting, I reminded myself that KGO is a top-of-the-mountain radio station and has decades of experience in how best to serve its listeners, so at least for that meeting, I decided to mainly just listen. So when Trish suggested how long the average call should take, how to welcome and say good-bye to callers, the importance of, before the news break, telling listeners what I'll be talking about next, and so on, I mainly just listened and took notes. So, lesson 2: Unless you're darn sure you have a better way, try it their way, at least for starters.

Lesson 3: Unless you're darn sure they're wrong, act on their feedback. Before my first show on KGO, I said to myself, "I'm going to try to be the best talk show host in the history of KGO. Even if I don't succeed, this is the time to really go for it, not hold back."

It didn't work: I tried too hard my first show and Trish told me, "Marty, dial it back." Of course, that felt bad but I didn't want to be one of those people who gets defensive when criticized and did want to let her know I am eager to get better. So I simply said, "Thank you, Trish, I'll do that." So lesson 3: Unless you have a very good reason, accept feedback and promise to work on it. Even if your first reaction is to disagree, to be sure you're not just being defensive, it's probably wise to think about it a while before pushing back.

Lesson 4: Be ready to change gears. Before my first show, Trish asked to me to make the average call shorter than in my previous radio work. I agreed but then when I met her after the first show, she said, "I'd like you to make the average call longer." I didn't get defensive, saying "But you told me to make them shorter!" I recognized that job success normally requires experiments, only some of which succeed. So I acknowledged, "I agree. That experiment with short calls didn't work. I'll make them longer." So, lesson 4: Be ready to change gears.

Lesson 5: Stay alert to your workplace's unwritten rules, the stuff that doesn't appear in the employee handbook. For example, I've gotten the sense that unlike in some workplaces, at which bosses love when you ask a lot of questions, the people at KGO seem to appreciate self-starters, who only ask a moderate number of questions. So lesson 5: Keep your antennae out for the behaviors that are respected in your workplace.

Lesson 6: Strike the balance between displaying competence and appearing like a know-it-all. In that regard, I had a dilemma this week: My producer, J Westerling sent me a copy of the letter he sends to guests he's booked on KGO. Well, when I've booked guests, I also send a confirmation letter and honestly, I like mine better. I deliberated not sending him my letter because I didn't want to appear like I was trying to one-up him. But in the end I decided to send it because I thought it might be helpful enough to him that it was worth the risk--and after all, I had praised a number of his suggestions. The point I'm trying to make here is not whether or not I was right in sending him the letter. It's Lesson 6: Stay conscious of the need to strike the balance between showing you're competent and seeming like a know-it-all.

Lesson 7: It's probably not enough to work smart; you may also need to work long. For example, while I probably could have winged a list of how to thrive in a diving economy, I spent a lot of time thinking how I could make it most valuable and interesting to the listeners--hence I came up with the approach I'm going to use on this Sunday's show: telling the listeners, as I'm telling you, what I've done to try to turn my temp job on KGO to a permanent one. So, lesson 7 again: Think twice before following the conventional wisdom: "Work smart and you won't have to work long." In this economy, that could cost you your job.

If you care to hear how this Sunday's show turns out, you can hear it live anywhere in the world on kgoradio.com, or in many places throughout the West Coast and even into the mountain states at 810 on the AM dial from 7:06 to 10 PM Pacific time. Later, the show will be archived on KGO's archive page.

Top Three Reasons to Oppose Israel... and Why They're Misguided

My friend Jeffrie Givens is tempted to support the Palestinians over the Israelis. I asked her why. Here are the reasons she gave and my responses.

Reason 1 for opposing Israel: Of course, Israel has the right to defend itself but its response to Hamas has been disproportionate."

Why that's misguided. You probably have come to believe the Israeli response to Hamas was disproportionate because you saw pictures of destroyed buildings and injured civilians in Gaza. Did you know that as an olive branch to the Palestinians, every single Jew left Gaza in 2005 and as a thank-you present, the Palestinians elected Hamas, which is committed to Israel's destruction and has backed up that goal by firing 10,000 ever stronger, ever longer-range rockets at Israeli civilians? Children can't sleep at night and frequently hear Red Alerts, which mean they have 15 seconds to run into a bomb shelter.

So Israel had to try to dismantle the Hamas terrorists' bombing installations, which Hamas embedded in homes, schools, markets, and mosques--using civilians as human shields SO they could obtain the very footage that convinces you of the the Israelis' "disproportionality." Hamas even has a name for its ploy: The CNN Strategy.

Unlike Hamas, which deliberately bombs civilians, Israel made real efforts to warn civilians to evacuate military targets: It sent tens of thousands of text messages, phone calls, and leaflets to those civilians that Hamas wanted to use as human shields. Despite those efforts, some of those innocent civilians were hit. And most Israelis grieve for them--Ask Israeli soldiers how they feel about innocent Palestinians who were injured or killed. Now ask Hamas soldiers how they feel about innocent Israelis who were killed. You'll likely see a stark contrast.

And now, Iran is putting finishing touches on a nuclear bomb and it wants to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth."

So, what would YOU have done if you were prime minister of Israel? Would you have sat idly by?

You may also have come to believe that Israel's response to Hamas has been disproportionate because more Palestinians than Israelis have been killed. What's remarkable is how few Palestinians were killed. Hamas put their military in civilian areas in Gaza, one of the most densely populated places on earth (1.3 million people in an area half the size of Maui.) The fact the only 1200 people (fewer than 1/3 civilians) were killed is a tribute to the efforts described above to evacuate Palestinian civilians from the military target areas.

Reason 2 for opposing Israel: Israel's blockade of Gaza deprives innocent civilians of needed supplies.

Why that's misguided. First, the checkpoints are open 24 hours a day to allow needed supplies to enter Gaza and for people to leave and enter. Yes, the Palestinians would like more goods to be brought into Gaza but Israel is reducing the flow to pressure its elected government, Hamas, to release Gilad Shalit, who it abducted. And why are there checkpoints at all? Because Hamas continues to try to smuggle missile components into Gaza: the staging area for Hamas's rocket launchings into Israel. Israel has made clear that as soon as Hamas agrees to stop the bombing and recognize Israel's right to exist, the checkpoints will immediately be dismantled.

If you were the prime minister of Israel, would you remove the checkpoints before Hamas agreed to stop firing missiles at your civilians? Remember, Hamas--by charter and its leaders' statements-- is committed to destroying your country.

Reason 3 for opposing Israel: Israel is guilty of war crimes.

Why that's misguided. Israel was accused of firing rockets at a United Nations school in Gaza...until a UN investigation found that wasn't true--Israel had fired against Hamas terrorists who had cynically placed themselves near the school.

Now Israel is again accused of a war crime, this time for using the dangerous white phosphorus to illuminate a civilian area in which Hamas terrorists were embedded. As mentioned earlier, like all Israel military actions, the white phosphorus was used in a civilian area only because Hamas embedded its military there so it could use civilians as human shields--that is a war crime. If you were the Prime Minister of Israel, how would you feel if you were accused of a war crime?

Reasons TO support Israel

Iran's getting the nuclear bomb is a threat not just to Israel but to all of us. Why should we worry more about Iran having The Bomb than about other countries with nuclear capabilities? Iran is different from all the other nuclear powers in that it is the only country whose leader called for wiping another country off the face of the earth. That could trigger a war of unimaginable consequences for us all.

Of course, Israel is not perfect--just as individual U.S. soldiers have made terrible mistakes, no doubt so have some Israeli soldiers. But perfect is the enemy of the good. I believe that all peace-loving people must support Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, the only country in which women are treated as equals, in which Arabs sit alongside Jews in Israel's parliament, the country with the highest per-capita literacy rate and highest rate of biomedical patents in the world.

I worry that President Obama's willingness to negotiate more directly with Hamas will send a message to Hamas and to other radical terrorist groups such as Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Al Qaeda that terrorism pays. But in balance, I believe the Obama administration is wise in its willingness to negotiate with a wider range of Middle East players. Also, I am pleased by Obama's plan to offer a more nuanced blend of carrots, sticks, and negotiation to deter Iran's nuclear threat. I am additionally optimistic about peace in the Middle East because of the caliber of people being brought to bear: George Mitchell, Hillary Clinton, Dennis Ross, Richard Holbrook, Barack Obama himself and the increasingly moderate Benjamin Netanyahu. Betting on the triumph of hope over experience, I am cautiously optimistic that we will, sooner rather than later, see that most elusive of goals: a lasting peace in the Middle East.

Top 10 Ways to Gain Willpower

Updated: Mar. 6, 2014

So many people can't motivate themselves to do what they know they should. Here are my top ten ways to gain willpower. Might one or more help you?

10. Embrace work. Work can feel as or more rewarding than play. Even though I enjoy, for example, watching movies, I feel better about working with a client and yes, writing this blog post. Because my work isn't too hard or too easy, it is pleasurable, and I feel I'm making a contribution--unlike when I'm watching a movie.

For my dad, work was a wonderful healer. After surviving the Holocaust, he was dumped from a cargo ship into the Bronx. He took the first job he could find--sewing shirts in a Harlem factory. It distracted him from his past and gave him hope for a better future. He finally saved up enough to open a tiny retail store in a bad neighborhood. While I can't say he loved his work, it avoided his living in the past, and made him feel purposeful, providing a decent life for his wife, my sister, and me.

It may be easier to embrace work if you always ask yourself, "What's the fun way to do this?" Even resume writing, cold calling, and interviewing can be reframed to be more fun. View resume writing as a way to figure out all the good things about yourself. Think of cold-calling as a treasure hunt, a backdoor into a crowded employment front door. Instead of an interrogation, think of a job interview as a first date, in which you're both trying to figure out if you should become more involved.

9. If possible, set an exciting goal. Goethe said, "Small dreams motivate no one." Worried about the risk of a trying for a big goal? You can usually control the risk. For example, use the time-honored approach of having a stable mundane job to fund your ability to pursue your dream. 

For example, Wallace Stegner waited tables at night and wrote during the day. He ended up winning a Pulitzer for his writing and founded Stanford's creative writing program, where his students included Sandra Day O' Connor, Ken Kesey, and Larry McMurtry. Remember too that even if you don't achieve your goal--for example, you never get published--your life is richer for having tried-- and you didn't, in the process, risk destitution.

8. Tell your goal to your loved ones--To avoid the embarrassment of admitting to your loved ones that you failed, you'll be more motivated to complete the task.

7. Don't think, act. The famous psychologist, William James, wrote, "The more we struggle and debate, the more we reconsider and delay, the less likely we are to act." Don't wait until you feel better to start the task, for example, looking for a job. Start and you're more likely to feel better.

6. The 6-step procrastination cure I teach my clients:

1. Decide if the task is worth doing: Picture the benefit. Picture the downside. If it is worth doing, do you love yourself enough to delay the short-term pleasure of avoiding the task for the long-term rewards from accomplishing it? Is it worth getting comfortable being uncomfortable?

2. Be aware of the moment you decide whether to start the task. Being conscious of that moment makes you more likely to choose to do the task.

3. Break the task down to baby steps. Don't know how? Get help.

4. Overwhelmed by the task? Try asking yourself, "What's my next one-second task?" Do that a few times and you may have jump-started yourself.

5. Be aware of your crisis points: when you're likely to procrastinate, for example, cooking when it would be wisest to work on your resume.

6. The one-minute struggle: After a minute of struggle, you're unlikely to make more progress. You are likely to get frustrated and quit the task. So after a minute, get help or see if you can do the task without doing that hard part.

5. Make it a ritual. If you're a job seeker, every day, be at your desk at 9 and take a five-minute break only after you've worked for at least a half-hour.

4. Keep your goal top-of-mind. It's easy to forget that you need to work on that project. Memotome.com will send you a reminder email twice a day. I'm trying to lose 15 pounds so I get emails saying, "Reasons to lose weight: live longer, fit in clothes better, look better. And remember, 'a moment of the lips; a lifetime on the hips.'" Update: Candidly, while this sounded good to me. It hasn't worked for me.

3. Go all the way: Instead of tackling your task in drips and drabs, totally immerse yourself in it. When it was time to start writing my first book, I moved out of my house for a week. I rented a cabin in Bolinas, just took my laptop (and my portable music synthesizer for recreation) and wrote for eight hours a day for a week. I got so into writing the book that it was easy for me to continue writing when I got home.

Another example of my going all the way: The only time I lost weight was when I was on a strict diet in which every day, I ate the same foods adding up to 1200 calories a day. That took the choice out of the matter.

2. Try affirmations. Some experts believe that repeating positive affirmations (for example, "I am going to do this!)-and visualizing your succeeding change your brain's neuronal structure, leading to more positive behavior. Viktor Frankl claims that his positive thinking helped him survive the Holocaust. Sports psychologists use visualization with pro athletes.

1. Have a cheerleader or slave-driver cheering, jeering, and/or guilt-tripping you into action.

BONUS: Don't let setbacks stop you prematurely. When you screw up, remember that winners err often. But winners don't get depressed about it--They ask themselves whether there's anything to learn from the setback, and they move on. Of course, if you fail and fail and fail again at something, perhaps the world is telling you you need a different goal. As Kenny Rogers says, "You gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em.

Okay, are any of those strategies likely to help you get unstuck?