Oh goodness.

It's one thing for an anonymous blogger to make baseball comparisons (I'm writing for the masses here and all...):

Back to the sports world again:
If a player came up through the farm leagues and could pitch regularly and reliably, would you value that player more than one who was awarded scholarships for his promise, was signed to write books about his experience before he even got onto a playing field, heck was named series MVP even before any games were played?

Superstars are fine and all, but in the sports world, you don't see too many superstars kept around for many seasons without producing. Despite the hype, at some point, you have to bring your game.

But a president really should stick to his own game, dontcha think?

THE PRESIDENT: Listen, $17 million is an extraordinary amount of money. Of course, there are some baseball players who are making more than that who don’t get to the World Series either. So I’m shocked by that as well. I guess the main principle we want to promote is a simple principle of “say on pay,” that shareholders have a chance to actually scrutinize what CEOs are getting paid. And I think that serves as a restraint and helps align performance with pay.

The other thing we do think is the more that pay comes in the form of stock that requires proven performance over a certain period of time as opposed to quarterly earnings is a fairer way of measuring CEOs’ success and ultimately will make the performance of American businesses better.
...
“I know both those guys (JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. CEO Lloyd Blankfein); they are very savvy businessmen,” Obama said in the interview yesterday in the Oval Office with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands Friday.

“I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free- market system.”

Obama sought to combat perceptions that his administration is anti-business and trumpeted the influence corporate leaders have had on his economic policies. He plans to reiterate that message when he speaks to the Business Roundtable, which represents the heads of many of the biggest U.S. companies, on Feb. 24 in Washington

Krugman writes:

Oh. My. God.

First of all, to my knowledge, irresponsible behavior by baseball players hasn’t brought the world economy to the brink of collapse and cost millions of innocent Americans their jobs and/or houses.

And more specifically, not only has the financial industry has been bailed out with taxpayer commitments; it continues to rely on a taxpayer backstop for its stability.

The point is that these bank executives are not free agents who are earning big bucks in fair competition; they run companies that are essentially wards of the state. There’s good reason to feel outraged at the growing appearance that we’re running a system of lemon socialism, in which losses are public but gains are private. And at the very least, you would think that Obama would understand the importance of acknowledging public anger over what’s happening.

But no. If the Bloomberg story is to be believed, Obama thinks his key to electoral success is to trumpet “the influence corporate leaders have had on his economic policies.”
...
I mean, how hard is it for the White House to understand that it’s a really, really bad idea to be saying nice things about bailed-out bankers, Goldman Sachs in particular? Even if you think it’s a bad idea to come across too populist — and why, exactly? — be evasive and judicious, say something neutral. Do NOT praise Lloyd Blankfein’s savvy, OK?

Maybe it was a bit strong for me to say that we’re doomed, but this really is shocking and dispiriting.

Just to be clear: what freaks me out about this isn’t what it says about Obama’s policies, it’s what it says about failure to read the mood of the country. The president seems solely concerned that someone might think that he’s anti-business, without — in this interview, at least — appearing to consider it necessary to say a thing about the pervasive sense of unfair Wall Street privilege. He doesn’t have to bash bankers every step of the way, but to respond to a question about bonuses solely by praising free markets and comparing bankers to baseball stars is … clueless.

I think this mentality took root in the 80s: you are, according to what you earn. And what you outwardly show what you earn. It's false, of course.

Sometimes, the man in work clothes browsing in the car lot -- well, as a salesman, you underestimate his wealth (who knows? He might just buy, not lease, and pay it off in full, even a "lesser" model) at your own detriment. Wealth, like knowledge, need not be showy. The bubble pop kind of shows that -- true value lasts. And property titles matter much more in the long run it seems, than job titles that come and go, and are often changed or "improved" more to fit egos than job responsibilities.

Btw, what's the real difference between a leader and a follower? Look behind you. Are people following? Or is it just a title, a salary, and an ego boost to convince a person to get out ahead of the pack and figure out the lay of the land so you can guide the others coming along behind?

But that's an explorer's role really, a scout sent out on behalf of the leader to report advance conditions. (Think Jefferson, and Lewis and Clark.) The leader part -- figuring out what to do with the facts reported, the honest criticisms of past assumptions, that comes later after the facts are assembled, and for better or worse, a path is chosen. (Think Lincoln deciding where to locate the transcontinental railroad).

But a leader ... playing scout? Know your role. Imagine if Jefferson had chucked it all to journey along with Lewis and Clark, rather than trusting their judgment to guide him in what they'd seen and heard and experienced. No good.

The explorers did their bit. The leaders did theirs. The followers were happy, as some want only to be safe and warm and don't really need all that, as tradeoff for adventure or leadership roles.

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


FWIW, in other news:
For our East Coast friends, hopefully settled in and well stocked and waiting for the storms to pass...
You might think it's cold and harsh out now, even as it's beautiful and fun to see so much snow, if you can enjoy it and play it flexibly schedulewise.

But remember. The truly worst part of Big Snows, especially in the cities -- where do you put it? And remember too, it will keep the air cooler and you might have a more lengthy eventual meltdown. The more snow, the longer the winter and the more troublesome the Springs. So it goes in the colder regions, at least.

So if I'm trying to offer up some honest advice here: do remember to keep something in reserve. In two weeks, those big snow piles causing visibility problems will be darker and gloomier from the exhaust, and your schedules will be back to full-time busy, and East Coast full-time busy, at that. So just take care not to think this is the tough time, and you should put it all out there emotionally/spiritually/innerstrength-wise. Imho: the toughest days are still to come weatherwise, so somewhere inside, best be prepared.

Whether the weather is cold,
or Whether the weather is hot
We'll weather the weather
Whatever the weather
Whether we like it
Or not.