"Too Big to Fail" by Alan Ross Sorkin

Too Big to Fail: The Inside Story of How Wall Street and Washington Fought to Save the Financial System from Crisis---and Lost by Andrew Ross Sorkin


My rating: 5 of 5 stars
This book is a must read to understand how the financial crisis was handled by the companies involved in the meltdown, as well as the administration officials who were attempting to stave off a complete meltdown. This book reads like a novel and is the kind of book you just can't put down. It helps to humanize the "masters of the universe" as they struggled to save their companies, and in many cases, their own significant investments in their companies.

While there are some inaccuracies in how the author interpreted how investments were perceiving the crisis (esp in the excerpt from Vanity Fair), they seem to have been corrected in the Kindle version and do not take away from the narrative which is told.

View all my reviews >>

Global Climate Change

Earlier this week, it has been reported that a climate research facility in England was illegally hacked and hundreds of internal e-mails suggesting manipulation of climate data were discovered. Climate change skeptics have highlighted this manipulation extrapolating that this puts into doubt all climate research data.



It is an interesting story and goes towards the hubris of any organization, but what does this story tell us about the state of climate change in the world today.



First, there is no doubt that the climate has been changing; not just regionally, but globally as well. Unfortunately, when a debate becomes as heated as this, disinformation proliferates to the point that supporters of either side of the debate make crazy claims and take extreme positions.



I'd like to look at this from a slightly different perspective; one which I believe goes to the heart of how we address these concerns. Let me start off by saying I am not a scientist, but a mere salesman of financial services products. I have no specific knowledge of how the climate changes, how climate research is done and I won't address the validity, or lack thereof, in any of the arguments. Quite simply, I don't know and I am not willing to quote statistics to prove "my side" or not.



First, the climate of the earth, as well as certain regional ecosystems has been changing. This has occurred since the earth was created and will continue long after we have left. Sometimes it changes quickly (relatively speaking) and sometimes it changes slowly. Most climate change occurs due to factors beyond our control, as it always has. The debate is not and should not have anything to do with natural climate change. What the debate should be about (and is in scientific circles, but not so much in the non-scientific community) is about how do we reduce non-natural climate change, if we can, or at least address the implications of such change.



Second, what are the worst case scenarios if our positions are wrong? If we spend hundreds of billions of dollars to attempt to halt non-natural climate change, what impact will this have on societies, economies and governments? If we don't spend the money, same question? What impact would climate change have on societies, economies and governments?



This is the bottom line for me. The cost to arrest non-natural climate change, if it can be done or if it even necessary, would literally cost the world economy hundreds of billions of dollars, if not more. Will this expense be able to make a difference and if we commit to spending this money, can those efforts even have an impact? In America, we have been told that we will have to make changes to our lifestyles. Have we been told realistically what these changes will entail? We have been given carbon emission targets, but what does this translate into lifestyles? If America were told that they needed to reduce consumption (housing, electricity use (heat during the winter, air conditioning during the summer), travel, etc) would they buy into it? Shouldn't the people be told what kind of sacrifices they must make in order to curb non-natural climate change, if it can even be done?



But the problem is, people don't know. They figure someone else will bear the burden or that technology will bail us out. The reality is that people will need to make significant changes to their lifestyles be reducing or eliminating air travel, or moving into smaller homes, consuming fewer goods, eating less energy intensive foods, setting their thermostats higher in the summer and lower in the winter, driving less. Even if all of these tasks could be undertaken, it will likely have devastating impacts on the economy as we now know it. Money which would have been spent on entitlement programs and local services must instead be directed towards reducing carbon emissions, jobs programs, etc. Is this is sacrifice most Americans or Europeans or Asians are willing to make? Or are these people more likely to spend money combating the effects of the change as they happen, such as resettling populations impacted by rising waters. That is the debate we should have in this country.

Great Pic from 7/4/09

This is my first post since...

The last time I mentioned I would be writing more frequently (one year ago). Parker is now nearly 3 1/2 years old. He is talking like crazy and is starting to develop a fairly good memory.

It has been stormy in Portland this week. We lost power 2 days ago due to high winds (upwards of 50 miles per hour). We are also receiving a good amount of rain.

It is kind of a letdown, as Kari and I returned from Las Vegas last week. We went for Kari's sister Kim's 40th birthday party and visted the location of our wedding: Bellagio. We layed pretty low and went out on the last night to Mystere (the Cirque de Soleil show). During our stay, temperatures stayed in the upper 70's, lower 80's during the day.

While in Las Vegas, I finished two books. The first was "Horse Soldiers," which discussed the incursion of US special forces soldiers into Afghanistan in 2001 on horseback. It was a harrowing tale and just happens to have been soldiers from my cousin, Henry's base in Tennessee. The second book was, "The Devil We Know," by Robert Baer. This book was a review of the United States' conflict with Iran, what their intentions are and possible solutions to this conflict. Absent was any ideological bent and was a fairly pragmatic view of the Iranian opponent. Hopefully, people in power will read this and will help to put the tension with Iran in proper perspective.

Well, that's all for now. Perhaps I will write again in less than one year.