Guy Berger

This article contains the quote I was talking about: "The dollar's decline already amounts to the biggest default in history, having wiped far more off the value of foreigners' assets than any emerging market has ever done."

The article is somewhat stale in terms of data, though the content is still correct. I saw a quote somewhere else (I thought it was this column, but apparently not) that aptly characterized the dollar's recent depreciation as the largest default in history.

1) I think Tommy is extremely overrated and agree with you completely on your assessment. Plus the plot is stupid. As you say, Quadrophenia is much better. 2) I am a big fan of the early singles. The studio sound is not a big deal for me. 3) I agree that to some degree their sound became more monotonous, and Daltrey a less interesting singer, after "The Seeker". That said, Who's Next is just a fantastic album and I do like some of the post-QF songs. Including "Squeeze Box." Guy

I don't know what that means, but I DID get the third billed actor comment. Don't dissent from that bit; third rate, among jazz musicians, is bloody good! MG It might have been intended as an insult, but I certainly don't read it that way -- as you say, third billed is better than 10th billed or not billed at all. Guy

I love those two albums as well. I can hear some influence from early 70's Pink Floyd (in a less bombastic fashion) and some David Sylvian (another of my favourite 80's pop artists) in them. I still haven't heard any Japan and/or Sylvian -- something I will have to get to eventually. Guy

I'll agree with you that Bangs was generally a wanker (though less than most of the other "respected" rock critics) but disagree with you about Astral Weeks. Guy

I think there's an interesting quote in the liner notes to Sugar which compares his BN albums to the playing of a guy who bats at 0.280. Guy

Well, the Mighty God of Rock'n Roll should condemn you to one hundred thousand years of Purgatory because of your blaspheme analogy. Some sort of Ludovico cure where you are forced to watch all the 80's videos: from Duran Duran to Back Street Boys. Porcy, Have you heard the two albums in question? I really don't think my comparison is that off the mark. Guy Not at all, I was only joking. Though in general I dislike most of the brit pop of the eighties, an era with good producers and bad/fake musicians and composers, a part few exceptions IMHO, so maybe you're right. I'll look for these album in my used record shop because "Astral Weeks" is one of my fave record. I definitely wouldn't characterize these albums as "80s brit pop". In fact I don't know how I would characterize these albums. Guy

Well, the Mighty God of Rock'n Roll should condemn you to one hundred thousand years of Purgatory because of your blaspheme analogy. Some sort of Ludovico cure where you are forced to watch all the 80's videos: from Duran Duran to Back Street Boys. Porcy, Have you heard the two albums in question? I really don't think my comparison is that off the mark. Guy

Aren't these still in print on CD? And the current SoD sounds just fine to my ears (though I am not an audiophile). Perhaps it will sell more copies if it comes out in a Rudy Van Gimmick edition. Guy

I've picked up a bunch of ST albums over the past few months -- Joyride, The Spoiler, That's Where It's At, Hustlin', Never Let Me Go. Despite enjoying his work with Jimmy Smith I guess I overlooked his work as a leader, because these albums range from very good to excellent. I especially like TWIA and Spoiler. "La Fiesta" is awesome. Guy

Anybody else a fan of these guys? I haven't heard the 80s synth pop albums, but Spirit of Eden and especially Laughing Stock are amazing records. Very hard to describe (maybe an updated version of Astral Weeks?) but this may be one case where the overused post-rock label actually fits. Guy

I picked up these two during the summer and have finally gotten around to "meets OP". What a magnificent record. I'll get to Soulville in a few weeks and am looking forward to it! Guy

Yes, not quite at the Marv Albert level but very good. As far as Musburger -- in general, he's terrible, but ever since the "proctology exam" crack he made during the Reggie Evans/Chris Kaman I think he gets to start with a clean slate. Guy

Collins is one of my favorites for basketball, actually. I was not aware that he hated the Lakers but that is a big plus in my book. Bonus points if he hates the Knicks too. As far as the ragging on Bill Walton -- yes, he is generally awful from a content standpoint but anybody that makes so many classic unintentional one-liners can't be truly bad in my book. John Stockton as a "monument to western civilization", enough said. (Myself and Darko 20/20 catalogued them in last year's NBA playoffs thread -- maybe someone can dig it up.) Awful basketball guys -- most of the people on ABC/ESPN. Breen is OK and from a content standpoint Hubie Brown is great (though also "grate" due to his voice). Guy

I was at the NYC Guggenheim for the first time this weekend. The Kandinsky gallery was something else... I've liked his art for a long time, but a bunch of it in the same place was a special treat. The two temporary exhibits were mixed -- a very interesting one on Central European photography in the interwar era, and some very silly work by a guy named Richard Prince. Guy

Here is The Economist's review:

As far as I can tell nobody is barred by law from becoming rich. But in a society where circumstances of birth matter for economic outcomes, laws and policies do make a difference. Change the quantity and quality of education spending and a working class baby's probability of becoming rich (or even middle class) will go up and down. We can all come up with anecdotes -- the Google IPO -- to come up with examples of people who did well despite tough upbringings (though I am willing to be that a substantial chunk of the IPO beneficiaries were not "self made men"). That doesn't change the fact that the child of a millionaire is more likely than the child of a call-center employee to become a millionaire. Guy

What are you talking about? How, exactly, are you attributing these ideas to me? For what it's worth, I don't think this is such a crazy idea -- in some societies with a poor underclass and a rich elite, economic growth tends to be stagnant. Resources are not diverted to productive uses. Historically this is a problem attached to agrarian societies (the #1 argument for intelligent land reform), so I don't know whether there is also a precedent in industrialized economies. Guy

Well, to the degree that large inheritances allow people to inherit money which they didn't earn (in Buffett's words, they won the genetic lottery), it does make a difference. That's how aristocracies are created. For what it's worth (and I was surprised by this), class mobility in the US is actually worse these days than it is in Europe. My personal standpoint -- regardless of what you think government expenditures should be relative to GDP, you're going to have to somehow fund them through taxes now or in the future. I think there is a strong moral argument for shifting some of the weight from taxes on income to taxes on inheritance (and for that reason, I completely agree with the Economist article that the tax should be on how much somebody inherits rather than the overall size of the estate). I am not familiar enough with the economics of taxation to offer a judgment on the relative efficiency of these two options. Guy

David, the more you rest the quicker it will go. But these things vary, sometimes it will takes me up to two weeks before the cold is completely gone. Are you sure you don't have a sinus infection? I would see a doctor if you are not better in another week. Guy

Aggie, 1) I agree with you that cash can be diverted. But so can food aid -- and in fact, food aid is notorious for being diverted to undeserving recipients. 2) Overhead is likely to be worse when moving around sacks of food. 3) Food aid can disrupt agricultural markets by lowering local produce prices. Cash aid is usually superior because it lets the poor figure out what they need most; in many cases, hunger happens not because markets don't exist, but because the poor can't afford to buy food. Food aid is probably superior in extreme emergencies when markets are completely dysfunctional -- that is, even if you gave the hungry money, they will not be able to buy food because there is none to be had (at least in the short run). There are also paternalistic arguments against giving cash, but I am pretty skeptical about them when it comes to developing countries.