Comments on: Silicon Valley hubris watch, Mary Meeker edition A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: MaryannGG Mon, 30 Apr 2012 14:59:32 +0000 Hey there,
I am a long time reader of your blog, don’t know why I actually have never commented and logged in here but still, I just wanted to thank you for such lovely and interesting posts and articles that you share with all the readers and visitors of this portal.
Maryann, seo professional for crossword puzzle maker

By: kaishakunin Sun, 06 Mar 2011 20:01:30 +0000 Felix,
Your underlying logic is not compelling and your message counterproductive. You argue that (1) Meeker displays hubris in presenting the complex issues and (2) that the underlying problems are driven by political rather than analytical issues. You conclude that there is no point in discussing the problem without providing a policy proscription.

However, entirely you fail to consider the possibility that solutions to political problems can be advanced with analytically clear foundations for policy decisions. Meeker is at least helping to elevate the level of dialog from the bygone era of realpolitik that helped to create these issues in the first place.

As a result, your writing sounds like whiny babble. You can do better.

By: backcaster Tue, 01 Mar 2011 12:55:08 +0000 The report is also frequently flawed in the conclusions drawn from the data. Or perhaps I should say the data chosen to make its points. The very first graph the Business Week article shows that entitlements are a very small part of current U.S. expenses – while the report draws very different conclusions.

Then there is Figure 6 and the 82 percent correlation suggesting that increases in government entitlements are driving down personal savings, while the accompanying graph shows no relationship before the Reagan era.

I also looked at the original slides to see if anything had been lost in translation and I discovered my all time favorite sloppy analysis slide on page 67 of the presentation. The slide attempts to defend current levels of defense spending by showing that while we are #1 in total expenditures, we have fallen way behind Saudi Arabia and Oman on a per capita basis!

By: frit Mon, 28 Feb 2011 19:57:52 +0000 So good-old USA Inc, what could be more democratic. I wonder, who owns it? Not a revenue problem – so there will never by any tax increases, ever. Nothing like “brutal decisions” to instill confidence. What could that possibly mean? Endless war? Perhaps with the Chinese or their surrogates? But how about pogroms here at home?

Is this noxious clap-trap taken seriously? It’s possible for something to become so euphemistic that it unintentionally reveals the reality behind the technocratic jargon.

By: TFF Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:44:40 +0000 johnhhaskell, the immediate deficit could be seen as a “revenue problem”. The long-term financial condition is dominated by projected growth in Medicare/Medicaid costs.

So depending on your timeframe it is either or both.

By: SelenesMom Sat, 26 Feb 2011 18:20:37 +0000 Huh! I spent some time as a sell-side analyst, and was constantly having my focus brought to “creating actionable recommendations” and “adding value.” How exactly does a 466-page Powerpoint do anything like this?

By: AlfonzoBSwanzo Sat, 26 Feb 2011 05:25:11 +0000 “once again Silicon Valley has managed to produce someone who thinks that their success in the tech industry qualifies them to talk with great certainty about issues they don’t really understand.” good concept but not applicable here -no way is Mary Meeker a product of silicon valley, she is a hangers-on not a real techie.

By: johnhhaskell Sat, 26 Feb 2011 05:05:29 +0000 USA Inc has a revenue problem, not a spending problem. the main contributor to the deficit is a huge drop in tax receipts and something called an ‘automatic stabilizer’ in the budget. Which would be a really bad idea to get rid of right now.

By: petertemplar Sat, 26 Feb 2011 04:44:54 +0000 So Apple has its own fiat currency???

She makes that idiotic analogy to Ireland and Greece, two countries that don’t have debt in their own sovereign currency.

The idea that the US Fed Govt can’t pay interest on debts in its own sovereign currency is laughable.

While this was a particularly stupid piece by Meeker, it’s not much worse than most punditry that imagines the central government us akin to a household and needs to balance its budget. You balance a budget and you choke off private savings. The Fed govt is not there to be profitable. If anything, our deficit is too small given deflation and the high UE.

Paul Krugman was open minded enough to debate Galbraith on this topic. For whatever reason, Felix won’t touch the “deficits don’t matter” argument.

By: TFF Sat, 26 Feb 2011 01:01:25 +0000 Wow! Restrain the growth in Medicare costs? Why didn’t anybody think of that!?!

Now, who is going to bell the cat?