Yesterday on CNBC, co-anchor Dennis Kneale, late of Forbes, presented the very defensible and, in my opinion, correct view that the seemingly-widespread handwringing about the current US economic situation is overdone.
As Kneale noted, 1980 was far, far worse than 2008.
Back then, the price of a barrel of oil was roughly $107, versus $130 now, a rise of slightly less than 30%. But consider the following other measures.
The average fuel efficiency of a car was 25mpg in 1980, versus 32mpg now. Even with so many SUVs on the road. That's a rise of roughly 23%.
What about non-transportation usage of oil for power generation? Six years after the initial 1974 oil embargo, the US generated only 10% of electricity generated from oil. Now, it's down to only 1.6%! More than an 80% decline.
The inflation outlook is similarly different now from then. Back in 1980, a typical monthly CPI change was 1%, in contrast to today's modest .2%. Again, an 80% decline!
Lastly, interest rates are at totally different levels. In the Carter era, rates were north of 10%, whereas now they are far lower, with Treasuries at 4% this morning.
Yes, the Carter era was incomparably worse than today's Bush economy.
The US is nowhere near the levels of misery index and widespread despair that led to Carter's mistaken steps such as: windfall oil profit tax, gasoline rationing, and lectures to Americans on reducing credit usage and wearing more sweaters.
Certainly, with a Presidential election season gearing up, we'll be hearing a lot from at least one candidate about how the US is on the brink of depression, failure, catastrophe, etc.
Don't you believe it.
Showing posts with label Kneale. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kneale. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Kneale v. Gasparino On CNBC This Week
Today's blog visits saw quite a few readers seeking information for searches generally described by a phrase like
'gasparino dennis kneale cnbc'
Being on vacation and away from television during most of the market hours this week, I was clueless as to the reason for the search. Well, I should say clueless as to the particular reason.
If Charlie Gasparino was involved, I could guess it was some sort of ugly, on-air fracas.
Following one of the search results which also appeared along with one of my older posts, I found this YouTube video of Thursday's CNBC incident involving Dennis Kneale and Gasparino.
I have to say, I was surprised at how baseless and inappropriate Gasparino became during the exchange. The source which featured this clip noted that both Gasparino and Kneale were former Wall Street Journal staffers, which may account for the vehemence of the words they parried. It would not be hard to imagine the slightly-geeky Kneale and steroidish, hulking Gasparino not getting along well at the business paper.
Sad to say, this on-air exchange reinforces my perception of Gasparino as not much more than a business gossip reporter. There's very little 'news' in the stories that he 'breaks' which really affects me, or my view of markets or business. His stories tend to accentuate personalities, feuds, and other non-substance-oriented topics.
In contrast, I find Kneale to be insightful, intelligent and possessing much common sense.
It's a pity that CNBC so prominently showcases an on-air reporter like Gasparino. In my opinion, he cheapens the network's programs by comments and behavior like that in the clip from Thursday. Why he thinks an unsubstantiated on-air, live accusation of Kneale as a fellow customer of Eliot Spitzer's call girl service of choice matters to viewers is beyond me.
'gasparino dennis kneale cnbc'
Being on vacation and away from television during most of the market hours this week, I was clueless as to the reason for the search. Well, I should say clueless as to the particular reason.
If Charlie Gasparino was involved, I could guess it was some sort of ugly, on-air fracas.
Following one of the search results which also appeared along with one of my older posts, I found this YouTube video of Thursday's CNBC incident involving Dennis Kneale and Gasparino.
I have to say, I was surprised at how baseless and inappropriate Gasparino became during the exchange. The source which featured this clip noted that both Gasparino and Kneale were former Wall Street Journal staffers, which may account for the vehemence of the words they parried. It would not be hard to imagine the slightly-geeky Kneale and steroidish, hulking Gasparino not getting along well at the business paper.
Sad to say, this on-air exchange reinforces my perception of Gasparino as not much more than a business gossip reporter. There's very little 'news' in the stories that he 'breaks' which really affects me, or my view of markets or business. His stories tend to accentuate personalities, feuds, and other non-substance-oriented topics.
In contrast, I find Kneale to be insightful, intelligent and possessing much common sense.
It's a pity that CNBC so prominently showcases an on-air reporter like Gasparino. In my opinion, he cheapens the network's programs by comments and behavior like that in the clip from Thursday. Why he thinks an unsubstantiated on-air, live accusation of Kneale as a fellow customer of Eliot Spitzer's call girl service of choice matters to viewers is beyond me.
Monday, December 03, 2007
Dennis Kneale on Google
Last Friday on CNBC, Dennis Kneale, the network's new main print guest, and managing editor at Forbes, laid out a simple explanation for Google's continuing spreading of its resources across so many areas- search, advertising, telephony and space, to name just a few.
Kneale pointed out that Google CEO Eric Schmidt ran two companies- Novell and Sun- which were heavily damaged from competition with Microsoft. In Kneale's view, Google's many investments constitute a continuing campaign by Schmidt to pulverize his former nemesis.
Call me, well, sceptical- of pure corporate motives- but I think his explanation makes some sense. Some corporate leaders can't let go of old grudges, and begin to use their shareholders' assets to settle personal scores. Or simply advance personal agendas.
I, too, along with Kneale, think Google is courting disaster with its ever-widening business reach. I wrote this post a little over two years ago, shortly after the birth of this blog. In that post, I wrote,
"I think that the two guys who founded google are very smart. They built a better search engine, but they realize the next great search engine is likely to surpass them, just as they dethroned Alta Vista. Yes, there actually were search engines prior to Google. A friend mentioned to me a few months ago for how little Alta Vista was ultimately purchased by some European company. It was pathetic.
I believe that the owners- excuse me, senior executives now- of Google realize that their best hope for continued consistent value, and thus wealth, creation is to become so entangled in the online habits of their customers that Google is no longer perceived as a search engine. Otherwise, they face the ever present threat of rapid decline.
Consider this. The two founders of Google probably don’t spend as much time creating new and better search procedures as they once did. Further, current students at better engineering schools across the country now have something at which to aim. By virtue of its current dominance, Google probably can’t take advantage of the next smart search engine designer’s new twist. And, to be honest, using a new search engine is ultimately as simple as going to a new website.
Thus, the rapid expansion by Google into, well, just about anything online that can tie your behavior into their brand, rather than their search engine, per se. For example, email services, instant messaging programs, a whispered foray into the remains of AOL, wifi rollouts in San Francisco, and, now, a voluminous database of searchable literary content. They must be really worried. Because very little of these enterprises, by themselves, require integrated consumer behavior. Rather, a single company offering all of them hopes they can bend consumer behavior to their version of service packaging.
Not likely in this internet and information age, is that?"
I still believe this to be true. And I think it reflects what Dennis Kneale observes in Google's current environment. They are just throwing resources at anything they believe can bring traffic and make a few bucks. Anything to complicate their business model, so it doesn't appear to all hinge on a search engine which continues to age.
Sure, if someone dreams up a significant advance in search technology, Google may just buy them out. Still, isn't that a sign that a company is already aging? When it can't sufficiently improve its own core technology to fend off competitors, and needs to share its wealth with them?
Which, of course, is an insidious form of trust-forming behavior. Rather than let a competitor get a foothold, just license their technology, which is legal under Sherman and Clayton Anti-trust law. Or buy a firm that is so small that it won't trigger FTC review.
But Google seems to be already so sprawling in its business endeavors as to be unmanageable, in the conventional sense of the word.
Cisco was once deemed to be the ne plus ultra of high-growth tech firms. Then it flamed out in the bursting tech bubble of 2000.
Could Google begin to slow from a gradual inability control/manage itself, and simply fail to appropriately allocate resources among so many competing projects, many of which will have serious competition?
Personally, I think it will. It's just the way businesses mature, irrespective of the content of their industry.
Kneale pointed out that Google CEO Eric Schmidt ran two companies- Novell and Sun- which were heavily damaged from competition with Microsoft. In Kneale's view, Google's many investments constitute a continuing campaign by Schmidt to pulverize his former nemesis.
Call me, well, sceptical- of pure corporate motives- but I think his explanation makes some sense. Some corporate leaders can't let go of old grudges, and begin to use their shareholders' assets to settle personal scores. Or simply advance personal agendas.
I, too, along with Kneale, think Google is courting disaster with its ever-widening business reach. I wrote this post a little over two years ago, shortly after the birth of this blog. In that post, I wrote,
"I think that the two guys who founded google are very smart. They built a better search engine, but they realize the next great search engine is likely to surpass them, just as they dethroned Alta Vista. Yes, there actually were search engines prior to Google. A friend mentioned to me a few months ago for how little Alta Vista was ultimately purchased by some European company. It was pathetic.
I believe that the owners- excuse me, senior executives now- of Google realize that their best hope for continued consistent value, and thus wealth, creation is to become so entangled in the online habits of their customers that Google is no longer perceived as a search engine. Otherwise, they face the ever present threat of rapid decline.
Consider this. The two founders of Google probably don’t spend as much time creating new and better search procedures as they once did. Further, current students at better engineering schools across the country now have something at which to aim. By virtue of its current dominance, Google probably can’t take advantage of the next smart search engine designer’s new twist. And, to be honest, using a new search engine is ultimately as simple as going to a new website.
Thus, the rapid expansion by Google into, well, just about anything online that can tie your behavior into their brand, rather than their search engine, per se. For example, email services, instant messaging programs, a whispered foray into the remains of AOL, wifi rollouts in San Francisco, and, now, a voluminous database of searchable literary content. They must be really worried. Because very little of these enterprises, by themselves, require integrated consumer behavior. Rather, a single company offering all of them hopes they can bend consumer behavior to their version of service packaging.
Not likely in this internet and information age, is that?"
I still believe this to be true. And I think it reflects what Dennis Kneale observes in Google's current environment. They are just throwing resources at anything they believe can bring traffic and make a few bucks. Anything to complicate their business model, so it doesn't appear to all hinge on a search engine which continues to age.
Sure, if someone dreams up a significant advance in search technology, Google may just buy them out. Still, isn't that a sign that a company is already aging? When it can't sufficiently improve its own core technology to fend off competitors, and needs to share its wealth with them?
Which, of course, is an insidious form of trust-forming behavior. Rather than let a competitor get a foothold, just license their technology, which is legal under Sherman and Clayton Anti-trust law. Or buy a firm that is so small that it won't trigger FTC review.
But Google seems to be already so sprawling in its business endeavors as to be unmanageable, in the conventional sense of the word.
Cisco was once deemed to be the ne plus ultra of high-growth tech firms. Then it flamed out in the bursting tech bubble of 2000.
Could Google begin to slow from a gradual inability control/manage itself, and simply fail to appropriately allocate resources among so many competing projects, many of which will have serious competition?
Personally, I think it will. It's just the way businesses mature, irrespective of the content of their industry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
