Category: Business

She can’t be Sirius

Normally, I don’t bother with celebrity gossip because I don’t care. However, one quote from this story is worth highlighting. Martha Stewart is in trouble for some violation of her home confinement. As punishment, she faces an extra three weeks of being restricted to her home mansion. As inconvenient as that must be, she’s an ubelievably understanding woman. Consider:

“Martha Stewart has agreed to an extension of the terms of her home confinement until Aug. 31.,” her lawyer, Walter Dellinger, said in a statement released Wednesday.

It’s so nice to see that she agreed to the extension. I can’t imagine how much of a bind the government would’ve been in had she declined the offer.

Why do people like her?

The entry where I send my four readers elsewhere

Anyone who reads this site can decipher that I enjoy the writing process. I have a few favorite topics that appear repeatedly, but I’ll write about whatever interests me at the moment. Unfortunately, today I don’t have enough time to focus on news commentary. Instead, allow me to point you to two interesting pieces from around the Internets that fascinate me.

First, from Kip at A Stitch in Haste discusses the idiocy of Congressional Democrats and their new proposal called AmeriSave. This is the basic summary of the program:

AmeriSave Match: Help middle and working-class families achieve retirement security by matching dollar-for-dollar the first $1,000 contributed to an IRA, 401(k), or similar plan. The AmeriSave Match will not involve creating a new type of account; instead, it builds on a successful model of 401(k)s and IRAs by increasing incentives to participate. Individuals would receive their AmeriSave Match after they filed a tax return, at which time the funds would be directed to their 401(k) or other plan.

Kip responds accordingly.

This new matching scheme is apparently meant to deflect from (i.e., continue the absolute obstruction of) private accounts within Social Security.

It is also a total fraud. The matching plan will have little or no impact on national savings. It also, by definition, does nothing to address the Social Security crisis (understandable since Democrats lie by insisting that there is no crisis anyway).

He gives a detailed, point-by-point explanation for why AmeriSave is an idiotic, pandering non-solution. Remember, when the government offers us anything, we’re paying for what’s offered. It’s shameful when politicians treat us as if we’re too stupid to understand this. Unfortunately, I fear they may be right with many, though. (Yes, I’m speaking of the further left liberals, the ones who imagine that socialism is a good idea not yet given a fair chance to succeed.) Either way, read Kip’s post. It’s good and worth the short time investment. (As is the rest of his blog.)

Next, I didn’t write about the scandalous sex included in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. This type of issue is important to me, as I care most for the First Amendment and the surrounding free speech/intellectual property implications in today’s society. Unfortunately, politicians saw this non-scandal as a chance to jump up and pretend to lead. (Yes, I’m speaking of you, Senator Clinton.) I’ve read a few news reports, but I already understand the issues. If I’d had the time, I would’ve written about the stupidity surrounding the whole mess. Instead, read Timothy’s take on the topic at The One-Handed Economist. He wrote what I wish I’d written. As a bonus, I laughed out loud. Consider:

I have little to no patience for this kind of crap. Look, if you’re too goddamned stupid to not buy your child a game clearly based on violence, you don’t really have the luxury of demanding that the game company did something “irresponsible”. Hidden content is the bread and butter of gaming, that stuff has been around since the advent of computer games. Those of us familiar with the subject matter call them Easter Eggs.

Furthermore, the goddamn game is called GRAND THEFT AUTO: SAN ANDREAS, what did you think it was going to be about? Quiet strolls in the park collecting flowers? How can you not know this stuff, parents? If you refuse to “protect” whatever perceived innocence your precious little children have, then it certainly isn’t my job to do it for you. It also certainly isn’t the governments, and you certainly don’t have the right to ruin fun for everyone else.

Read the whole thing. It’s not just funny, it smacks everyone deserving of a good smack.

As a side point, for what it’s worth, I followed a link to The One-Handed Economist when Timothy defended me in a comment spat at Jeff Jarvis’ BuzzMachine. I use my intellect when I comment on other sites, but not everyone can be expected to follow the same on the Internets. When some kind folks attacked me for not being an ideologue with only sycophantic, partisan intentions, Timothy backed me up. I’ve never met corresponded with him, but I checked out his site and liked it a lot. I recommend it.

As I listen to a DJ report on the best artists for the next decade

I heard about the radio payola scandal while listening to the news on my way home last night. Consider:

In late 2002, an official at Sony music was trying to boost interest in the song “A.D.I.D.A.S.” by Killer Mike, and considered sending disc jockeys at WAMO-FM one Adidas shoe to promote the song. Jocks at the Pittsburgh station, and others throughout the Northeast, could get the second shoe after playing the song 10 times, he mused.

To which I offer a resounding “duh” and “who cares?”. Who didn’t know, or at least assume, that this still occurs? Does anyone care, other than New York’s Attorney General? Yes, payola is against the law, but is it really the largest issue Mr. Spitzer’s office faces? So Sony has to pay $10 million to make the investigation go away. So what? How does this help the people of New York? The criminals are still free, with the newly confirmed opinion that they can pay a fine, courtesy of Sony’s stockholders, to whom they have a (now broken) fiduciary responsibility, and all is forgiven. How does that help enforce the rule of law? Perhaps, instead, it’s merely election campaigning.

But no matter, there’s a more important point in this. Consider:

How the Spitzer investigation will affect the way Sony and the other big music companies work with radio to get airplay remains to be seen.

What will it mean for the listener, who supposedly owns the public airwaves? Radio is already under pressure to compete with other forms of music — from satellite radio, with its diverse formats and commercial music, and Internet radio, which offers a smorgasbord of music for every taste.

Ultimately, tightening the definitions of payola and enforcing them may benefit both music makers and music consumers. For artists without a well-oiled promotion and money machine behind them, it may level the playing field. For listeners, they may get to hear what they want — not what the music industry wants them to hear.

Ummm, I already listen to the music I want to hear. Granted, some of the same issues of repetitiveness still occur, but I can change the station to one that plays something different. If that doesn’t work, I change the medium (not form of music – that’s stupid… form is chants vs. pop, not satellite vs. the Internets) to something else. It’s called competition and it works pretty well. Terrestrial radio, where this non-scandal (apparently) occurred, may not know that because they’re too busy being suckered in by free trips to see Celine Dion, but eventually they’ll learn. The free market has a way of teaching its lesson much more effectively than any bureaucrat could.

Not just one of J.K. Rowling’s best characters

I’ve written before that I love Sirius Satellite Radio. I own stock in the company, but more importantly, I’m a subscriber. I listen to Sirius while I’m at work and when I’m in my car. I only bother with terrestrial radio to listen to Howard Stern and Don and Mike. And in January, Stern moves to Sirius. So, yeah, I think the company has a future. And I think know it’s better than XM, which, having tried both services, I feel qualified to judge.

Banc of America disagrees. Consider:

In a preview of the satellite radio industry, Banc of America Securities reiterated a “buy” rating on XM Satellite Radio Holdings (nasdaq: XMSR) and a “neutral” rating on Sirius Satellite Radio (nasdaq: SIRI).

Banc of America noted that XM preannounced second-quarter net subscriber additions of 640,000 subscribers–a sequential increase of 18%. The research firm estimates net adds for Sirius will equal 420,000 subscribers–a sequential increase of 34%. “Our estimate assumes a higher retail share of 45% in the second quarter but based on our new proprietary retail survey we believe that our second-quarter net add estimate could be 20,000 to 30,000 too high.”

The proprietary estimate indicates a second-quarter share split of 40% and 60% for Sirius and XM, respectively, which is below the research firm’s 45% and 55% estimate. “Although Sirius likely gained retail share from first-quarter levels of 33% due to the $50 promotion, 40% would be viewed as slightly disappointing in light of the $50 promo for May/June–which was more aggressive than XM’s.”

I admit that I left my detailed stock analysis days behind when I finished my MBA. However, a simple point jumps out at me from reading the second paragraph. Of course XM’s retail share was higher in the second quarter. XM has baseball, which starts in March/April (depending on your level of lunacy affinity for the sport). A reasonable person should expect XM’s sales to jump when the baseball season begins. That’s especially true when factoring in that this was the first year of XM’s Major League Baseball coverage.

That leads me to the not-so-brilliant conclusion that content matters. I don’t just want the hip factor of satellite radio. I’m not going to spend $12.95 per month just to be one of the cool kids. It has to entertain me or I won’t bother; there are too many other options. As Sirius and XM gain subscribers based on offered content, the back-and-forth subscriber war will continue.

Banc of America (sort of) acknowledges this. Consider:

For the third and fourth quarter the research firm forecasts 47% and 51% share adds for Sirius, respectively, resulting from the introduction of Howard Stern. “Sirius, we believe, is expecting to ‘ride’ Stern versus engaging in direct price battle, as it cannot manage cost-per-gross addition in the same fashion as XM, in our view.”

And there you go. It’s obvious, of course, that Sirius is expecting to “ride” Stern. $500 million has a “betting big” connotation, but there’s the content concept again. Sirius isn’t engaging in a direct price battle; it’s engaging in a direct content battle. Which is the future.

Even XM knows this. If not, they wouldn’t go after baseball and all the other moves they’ve made. But if they thought like the analysts, assuming that price is the key motivating factor, XM wouldn’t have raised their prices to match Sirius. Short of collusion, that seems to indicate that Sirius may have judged that piece of the business better than XM. Analysts seem to forget this when they discuss the two companies.

I don’t want to imply that Sirius’ success is guaranteed. It faces huge costs in its business and has yet to reach positive cash flow. At some point, the positive trending numbers must cross from red to black and it needs to happen soon. Money going out must generate money coming in. I’m not sure Martha Stewart can achieve that. And, again, Howard Stern will cost $500 million over the next five years. Mel Karmazin may be a genius, but that’s a lot of ad revenue to generate, especially in a business that is moving from reliance on local advertising to national advertising.

Patience is necessary with a business this risky, but the necessity of providing compelling content, and all its ramifications, are the reality (and promise) of satellite radio. Past numbers may tell a story, but the true test will come later, when Sirius and XM deal with the lasting results of current content decisions. As a subscriber and investor, I’m happy with my commitment to Sirius.

Crazy liberal advertising agencies are out of ideas

This afternoon, I received an e-mail from CompUSA advertising an upcoming sale. Consider:

We’re giving you the same discount our own employees get on notebook and desktop computers. Now is the perfect time to upgrade to the machines you’ve been wanting for months.

Friday is my birthday (hint, hint), so the timing is perfect. Yet, couldn’t they put that discount on an iPod&#174, because I already have three two computers and no iPod&#174? That’s not too much to ask, I don’t think.

At least, though, I’d appreciate an original advertising campaign, one not stolen from one two car companies. Thanks.

Those guys think they’re revolutionaries

Here’s an interesting business lesson:

Apple Computer Chief Executive Steve Jobs has a reputation for thinking different. But now he might be planning a move for Apple that will leave even his biggest fans surprised–becoming a phone company.

It might sound far-fetched, but the pieces are in place for it to happen later this summer. Apple is already developing a hybrid iPod/cell phone with handset maker Motorola. And companies ranging from the Virgin Group to The Walt Disney Co. are proving that a new network model can allow all kinds of businesses to easily enter the mobile market.

Essentially, this entails Apple releasing an iTunes-branded cell phone, with the cellular network leased from an existing company such as Sprint or Cingular. The startup cost is minimal compared to the early days of cell phones because the network infrastructure is already in place. And Apple benefits from popularity currently unparalleled in customer electronics. It seems like a reasonable idea. But why would Apple want to go through the trouble when it could simplify this opportunity with an iTunes application for mobile phones?

But Apple might have a problem getting the devices into customers’ hands. Carriers will probably be loath to sell and support it, since they want to sell their own music downloads–not have customers upload tunes from home. “The carriers don’t like it,” says analyst Rob Enderle, head of The Enderle Group. “They want Apple to change the design so the phone has to sync through their networks, not with a PC.”

Of course the carriers don’t like it. They want to pretend that customers care more about the gatekeeper than what comes through the gates. customers may like the gatekeeper (Apple is the perfect example), but content is more important. Where the carriers go wrong is believing that exclusivity and control of content aren’t important. If customers thought the way carriers believe they think, AOL would still dominate.

Perhaps an example… Last year I decided to switch cell phone carriers. I’d had minor issues with Sprint so I opted to transfer my phone number to Verizon. After purchasing a new phone with exciting features, I impatiently waited for the phone to charge so I could upload my unique ringtones. Reading through the instruction manual, I found no references to uploading ringtones. I searched the internets to figure out how to do it. And that’s when I found out Verizon’s little secret. Despite all the nice features of the phone, I was beholden to their wishes. I could have any content I wanted as long as Verizon sold it. No personal ringtones, no fancy pictures, no diversionary games.

Five days later I returned the phone to Verizon and became a Sprint customer again because Sprint allowed me to use the phone I purchased in the way I wanted to use it. Today, when my brother calls me, a Hokie gobble announces the call.

Customers aren’t always rational, but they’re not stupid. If the customer has an iTunes account, why would Verizon think she wants a middleman to sell her music from iTunes? The existing carriers imagine monopoly powers where they don’t exist. They will learn the lesson, but as the lesson often is for large companies, the lesson probably won’t be pleasant. Competition dictates an adapt or die mentality; Apple understands this better than most.

Although an Apple phone may not happen, some form of an iTunes-capable phone will. It makes too much sense and Apple has the clout to make it happen. In the scenario I imagine, Verizon, Sprint, Cingular, and every other cellular carrier should not be surprised when cell phones show up next to iPods and PowerBooks in every Apple retail store.

(Link via Slashdot)

Profit and Proper aren’t mutually exclusive

There have been many stories of potential identity theft and fraud making the news in recent months. (Here’s one of the most recent, just as an example.) An individual’s ability to protect himself is possible, though this ability seems to fade with each new technological advance. The reach of information is almost beyond comprehension. Yet, there is one tool, however primitive, that can be used: the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.

The FACT Act allows consumers to request one free credit report every 12 months. Right, I’m thinking the same thing everyone is. Nice baby step, but when my data can be stolen by a diligent hacker with little more than an internet connection, how am I supposed to protect myself with that? That’s valid, and the consumer information industry should be doing everything it can to protect us police its business model. If it doesn’t… Okay, even if it does, legislation is coming. But we have to start somewhere and the credit report is the simplest method.

Equifax CEO Thomas Chapman doesn’t like this. Consider:

“Our company felt, and still does … that it’s unconstitutional to cause a public company who has a fiduciary responsibility to return profit to shareholders to give away the product,” Chapman said to reporters following a speech at the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco on Monday [6/27]. “Most of my shareholder group did not think that giving away our product was the American way.”

Chapman was referring to the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, which since last December has required credit agencies to provide consumers with a free copy of their credit report every 12 months to check for inaccuracies and fraudulent activity. Chapman said that viewing a credit report once a year wouldn’t protect consumers against fraud.

“That’s like turning on the smoke alarm once a year,” he said.

His point is correct but wrong. Once per year is not enough and it won’t really do much to protect fraud. It will, however, allow individuals to see the information sold, at a profit by companies like Equifax, that could affect whether or not they can purchase renter’s insurance, to name an example that erroneously happened to me. So, even though it won’t likely prevent fraud, it can help to clear mistakes. Except, it’s notoriously hard to “encourage” credit reporting agencies to fix mistakes. But Equifax is now motivated to do the right thing for its business model.

Or does it?

To ward off excessive legislation, Chapman supports the idea of tougher industry standards pressuring companies to encrypt data. He suggested that increased funding for enforcement of data-theft laws would help reverse a trend in which few identity thieves are ever prosecuted.

Chapman also discussed the need to educate consumers about monitoring their credit records on a regular basis and being wary of giving out sensitive information. He noted that during a recent visit to a museum with his grandchildren, the cashier asked for his social security number as well as his home address and phone number when he tried to buy tickets with his credit card.

To ward off excessive legislation. May I offer protecting consumers (your supply) as a worthy goal from the beginning rather than only when something goes wrong? Where business fails to protect in accordance with reasonable standards (and even where it protects, but that’s a different rant), government steps in with regulation. Welcome to America in 2005. And if you think a business subject to high profile “disasters” is going to escape extra scrutiny and governmental “care”, you’re smoking something now regulated by interstate commerce, even when it doesn’t cross state lines. As for educating consumers to monitor their credit records on a regular basis, the technology exists, but you didn’t do it because it didn’t improve the bottom line. I seem to believe that’s why Congress, correct solution or not, passed the FACT Act. And it only gets worse from here, especially if you pursue this line of logic instead of catching up to your real starting point. Just a hunch.

(Consider reading No Place to Hide by Robert O’Harrow, Jr. for more insight into many of the issues surrounding information sharing. There are examples relevant to this story. Also, request a free credit report every 12 months from AnnualCreditReport.com.)

Respect my Authoritaahhhh or I will kick you in the Nats

Congressman Loose Cannon is at it again. He and a fellow Congressional imbecile sparked a controversy yesterday with regard to the eventual sale of the Washington Nationals by Major League Baseball. Consider:

Major League Baseball hasn’t narrowed the list of the eight bidders seeking to buy the Washington Nationals and some Republicans on Capitol Hill already are hinting at revoking the league’s antitrust exemption if billionaire financier George Soros , an ardent critic of President Bush and supporter of liberal causes, buys the team [in a group headed by Washington entrepreneur Jonathan Ledecky].

“It’s not necessarily smart business sense to have anybody who is so polarizing in the political world,” Rep. John E. Sweeney (R-N.Y.) said. “That goes for anybody, but especially as it relates to Major League Baseball because it’s one of the few businesses that get incredibly special treatment from Congress and the federal government.”

Rep. Tom M. Davis III (R-Va.), who was a strong supporter of bringing a baseball team to Virginia, told Roll Call yesterday that “Major League Baseball understands the stakes” if Soros buys the team. “I don’t think they want to get involved in a political fight.”

For fuck’s sake, what is wrong with him? We all know that no one in Congress will pull Major League Baseball’s antitrust exemption because then they’d have no tool with which to threaten Bud Selig. (Representatives Davis and Sweeney make Bud Selig appear to be a statesman in this debate, which is especially pathetic for the Congressmen because Mr. Selig has said nothing.) So why the idiocy? Could it be a growing, insatiable hunger for power and nanny-statism? Consider:

Democrats weren’t about to let the broadsides go unanswered.

“Why should politics have anything to do with who owns the team,” Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) asked. “So Congress is going to get involved in every baseball ownership decision? Are they next going to worry about a manager they don’t like? I’ve never seen anything as impotent as a congressman threatening the baseball exemption. It gets threatened half a dozen times a year, and our batting average threatening the exemption is zero.”

It’s not just Democrats who are commenting on the stupidity. Consider Michelle Malkin, Instapundit and Andrew Sullivan. Representatives Davis and Sweeney should know that when Michelle Malkin and I share an opinion 100%, they’ve slammed through the wall of questionable judgment into an unambiguous zone worthy of constant mockery.

The Washington Post followed up with Rep. Davis and received this response:

Davis didn’t return calls to his office, but spokesman Robert White said, “The point [Davis] was making was how it would look if Major League Baseball sells the hottest team in the market to a guy who spent more money than the gross domestic product of Colombia to legitimize drugs.”

After all of the Republican conservative hysterical blathering about Senator Durbin’s recent comments, I’m amused that Rep. Davis wants it both ways. His party believes that every public comment should be scrutinized before it’s delivered to be sure it’s not “traitorous”, but he has permission to pretend like we’re taking his words out of context? Nope, sorry, Congressman, you don’t get a free pass on that. You said what you said and meant it. You didn’t misspeak, nor did we impose meaning where it wasn’t. You threatened Major League Baseball to harm a political enemy’s bid for the Nationals. You attempt political blackmail and expect us to accept that as reasonable? That’s a slimy leadership governance failure and you should be removed as chairman from the House Committee on Government Reform.

(Source: The Agitator)

P.S. The gross domestic product of Columbia was projected at $83.01 billion for 2004. I can’t find reliable numbers for how much Mr. Soros spent in his effort to legalize certain drugs, but his estimated net worth, as of 2004, is $7.2 billion, nearly $75 billion less than Colombia’s gross domestic product. Off-the-cuff hyperbole or deflecting heat from a political retribution by Rep. Davis? You decide.

Clark Griswold flies to Vegas tomorrow

When a business wants to encourage customers to buy its product(s), it usually offers a hook. Whether it’s an advertisement showing just how freakin’ amazing your life will be from using the company’s product, such as a commercial implying that you’ll have scantily-clad chicks hanging all over you if you drink lots of beer for breakfast, or a story explaining how much worse your life will be without the company’s product, such as a commercial showing a woman rejecting her boyfriend for being a cad without a condom, companies try to sell you on why you need what they offer. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t, but they’re always trying.

It’s even better when they offer samples of a product. The primo example of this is Costco, because seriously, who would buy a fifty pound bag of fish sticks if they didn’t offer a sample? No one, so they offer samples. A “trial version”, if you will. It’s very effective and gets you hooked. Even if you don’t buy the fifty pounds of fish sticks, it’s always in your mind that, if you’re hungry on a Saturday afternoon and don’t feel like going to the grocery store, you can always go to Costco and eat for free. Yes, they give you $3 worth of free mini-hot dogs and shots of pasta, but you spend $130 on a lifetime supply of toothpaste and ketchup to get it. There is no logic behind the customer’s actions; it just works. So, yeah, trial versions are common. Especially in software.

Because I’m going to Vegas, I’ve been playing computerized casino games, as I’ve already written about. Aside from Blackjack and Texas Hold ‘Em, I want to play Craps. But I don’t know how to play Craps, so I’m playing on my laptop. Since my laptop is tedious on the Metro, I searched for a casino game for my pda to make it much easier to practice Craps while sitting with 200 of my closest strangers. I found All Mobile Casino.

I expect to pay for a full version of any game, but the trial version is my friend with software. Without trial versions, I’d buy few software programs, particularly games, because the risk of hating the game is too high. So trial versions enable me to verify a game’s merits before laying out my dollars credit card number. All Mobile Casino offers a trial version, so I installed it.

Riding to work this morning, I fired up my trusty Dell Axim so I could roll some 1s and 0s. I created my little miniature Tony, gave myself $1,300 in imaginary funds, and set off for the digital Craps table. Oh, my, the excitement.

I always start my bets small until I lose half my money and become bitter find the winning groove, so I dropped 25 fake American smackaroos on the Pass Line. I tapped the Roll button and two giant dice tumbled across the screen. The dice stopped on a five and a three, making the Point an 8. Excellent. I’m still learning, so I placed no additional bets before clicking Roll again. The dice shot across the screen and stopped on a four and a three, giving my roll a 7. That’s bad. Bye bye imaginary money, I hardly knew ye.

I can live with one loss, so I pushed another $25 to the Pass Line. You will not believe what happened next. Imagine this:

I tapped the Roll button and two giant dice tumbled across the screen. The dice stopped on a five and a three, making the Point an 8. Excellent. I’m still learning, so I placed no additional bets before clicking Roll again. The dice shot across the screen and stopped on a four and a three, giving my roll a 7. That’s bad. Bye bye imaginary money, I hardly knew ye.

Wait, what just happened? Did I roll an 8 and a 7 back-to-back in the same breakdown I did before? Very bizarre. So I bet again and tapped Roll. Same result. Are you kidding me? I ran the test one more time to verify that this is how the trial version is coded. It is.

I studied business in college, both undergraduate and graduate school. Never, not once, did I learn that it’s wise to make a potential customer a loser on the first shot. Would a drug dealer offer you the first hit of heroin for free, but with a disclaimer telling you how much your burgeoning addiction will destroy your life? No, he says “Try this, you’ll like it.” It’s the American way. Yet, Binary Fish expects me to give them my money so that I can practice being a loser? Ummm, no. If I want to know what it feels like to be a loser, I’ll watch the Phillies play. (I’m a bit disgruntled right now about this season. I haven’t given up hope, I’m just disgruntled. Ignore that comment because I’m not really that cynical.)

Can you imagine Las Vegas advertising with the slogan “Come to Vegas – We’ll keep your money and your dignity”? No, it’s never going to happen. Gambling sells illusions of riches and life betterment. That’s the product I’m buying. If you want me to buy your product, give me a trial version that allows me to roll nothing but sevens. That’s the product I want. I’d even give you the $17.95 you’re asking for it. Until then, I’ll just give that $17.95 to Las Vegas instead. They’ll at least offer me a smile when raking my money off the table.

File under “D” for Duh.

This seems self-explanatory:

“The federal budget deficit is on an unsustainable path, in which large deficits result in rising interest rates and ever-growing interest payments that augment deficits in future years,” Greenspan said in his prepared testimony. “But most important, deficits as a percentage of [gross domestic product] in these simulations rise without limit. Unless that trend is reversed, at some point these deficits would cause the economy to stagnate or worse.”

Too bad Congress and President Bush don’t get it.