August 31, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

If you read today’s personal section of the Wall Street Journal, you discovered, if you did not already know, that football teams at all levels are spending megabucks on computer software and systems to give them an edge over opponents.

I happen to run one of these systems, and it will begin to consume much more of my time over the next several  months, so blogging will likely slow. We spent $25,000-$30,000 on a new system recently, so I’ve got a learning curve to climb. I will, however, blog every chance I get. 

Oh, yeah, GO VOLS!!!

Posted in General post | 2 Comments »

August 31, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

I particularly enjoyed this read today. Its message, in part, is a simple one, which should only be a review even to casual market participants: The Fed’s job is to ensure stable economic growth and price stability, not to ride to the rescue of particular industries and firms, at least not when the general economy is relatively healthy. The opinion begins:

And so did a cry of lamentation arise from the multitudes unto Bernanke: Spare us, Oh Lord, from the wrath of subprime.

From the House of Countrywide wailing was heard, from the land of Dodd and Schumer there was gnashing of polls, and from the Kingdoms of Bear, Lehman and Cramer the rending of fine Italian garments: Set your righteous hand, glorious and merciful Fed, against our enemies among the rating agencies, the risk-averse and short-sellers. In your power and majesty, you need only say the word and interest rates shall fall, liquidity like manna shall descend from the skies, and easy credit shall flow once again across the parched and barren land.

Posted in General post | 1 Comment »

August 31, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

Although I’m no fan of the GOP, I did enjoy this advice for attracting more females to the Republican Party:

Here’s an example of how a smart Republican could morph an old-fashioned Democratic talking point into a modern-day vote winner. Ms. Clinton likes to bang on about “inequality” in pay. The smart conservative would explain to a female audience that there indeed is inequality, and that the situation is grave. Only the bad guy isn’t the male boss; it’s the progressive tax code.

Most married women are second-earners. That means their income is added to that of their husband’s, and thus taxed at his highest marginal rate. So the married woman working as a secretary keeps less of her paycheck than the single woman who does the exact same job. This is the ultimate in “inequality,” yet Democrats constantly promote the very tax code that punishes married working women. In some cases, the tax burdens and child-care expenses for second-earners are so burdensome they can’t afford a career. But when was the last time a Republican pointed out that Ms. Clinton was helping to keep ladies in the kitchen?

For that matter, when was the last time a GOP candidate pointed out that their own free-market policies could help alleviate this problem? Should President Bush’s tax cuts expire, tens of thousands of middle-class women will see more of their paychecks disappear into the maw of their husband’s higher bracket. A really brave candidate would go so far as to promise eliminating this tax bias altogether. Under a flat tax, second-earner women would pay the same rate as unmarried women and the guy down the hall. Let Democrats bang the worn-out drum of a “living wage.” Republicans should customize their low-tax message to explain how they directly put more money into female pockets.

Posted in General post | 1 Comment »