Neither Pelosi nor Reid had control of their chamber, and they were more to blame for the lack of legislative success than Obama. Also, when he could get 60 votes in the senate, he had to make deals with people on both sides, which totally distorted his original goals (I don’t believe the health care plan that passed was anywhere near what he originally wanted).

Bob Rubin earned his spurs as an ‘arb’, a line of trade where hundreds of individual transactions make ‘probability theory’ exquisitely applicable, much as it is in a biz like life insurance. (‘Inside info’ works even better – Rubin’s GS protégé was feloniously good at that too.) Larry Summers never earned his spurs as anything other than an academic/bureaucrat – gotta wonder if he ever got the drift of what Rubin was talking about. Obama has no spurs; not an exaggeration to say The Presidency is the first full-time gig he’s had in his entire life. He’s in so far over his head that light barely penetrates to that depth – why expect anything from him at all, except self-promotion? He’s good at that.

Playing the odds makes sense on The Street and at the track or at the dice table, where risk can be controlled by limiting the wagers, and be distributed over many chance-events. In ‘one-off’ public policy matters, something different is required. Rubin probably gets that; who knows about Summers? Obama ….

Bob Rubin earned his spurs as an ‘arb’, a trade where hundreds of individual transactions make ‘probability theory’ exquisitely applicable, much as it is in a biz like life insurance. (‘Inside info’ works even better – Rubin’s GS crew was good at that too.) Larry Summers never earned his spurs as anything other than an academic/bureaucrat – gotta wonder if he ever got the drift of what Rubin was talking about. Obama has no spurs; not an exaggeration to say The Presidency is the first full-time gig he’s had in his entire life. He’s in so far over his head that light barely penetrates to that depth – why expect anything from him at all, except self-promotion? He’s good at that.

Playing the odds makes sense on The Street and at the track or at the dice table, where risk can be controlled by limiting the wager, and be distributed over many chance-events. In ‘one-off’ public policy matters, something different is required. Rubin probably gets that; who knows about Summers? Obama ….

In stating that “If you get to unilaterally change other people’s probabilities, and you get to frame all the questions, you can basically give yourself dictator-like powers while ostensibly running a democratic, technocratic, and probabilistic process”, you ring the bell again.

When you conclude that “…realistically, we cannot hope that a second-term Obama will have much if any ability to make his high-flying dreams a reality”, you answer the primary question of the coming election. That is “Why should I cast a vote FOR or AGAINST a second Obama term?

In stating that “If you get to unilaterally change other people’s probabilities, and you get to frame all the questions, you can basically give yourself dictator-like powers while ostensibly running a democratic, technocratic, and probabilistic process”, you ring the bell again.

When you conclude that “…realistically, we cannot hope that a second-term Obama will have much if any ability to make his high-flying dreams a reality”, you answer the primary question of the coming election. That is “Why should I cast a vote FOR or AGAINST a second Obama term?

Glad you brought it up, and here’s my question: given climate change’s importance, why don’t you write about it more? There are PLENTY of finance angles, even leaving aside the whole you-may-not-be-interested-in-{war/the-di alectic/climate-change}-but-it-is-intere sted-in-you angle.

You clearly here the call, so: please answer it.