Somewhere on Wall Street there is a frustrated investment banker. He's run model after model and he can't understand it. No matter what he tries, he's just not seeing the kind of numbers his high high-flying clients expect.
Instead of generating markets where more people are either buying more stuff or buying more expensive stuff, the fundamentals of the American economy just don't grow anymore. Population growth is treading water. Disposable income for most people is on a sharp decline. And globalism and the Internet have reduced everything to a commodity, so prices are driven into the dirt.
If only there were a way to break into a whole new market. A market where demand is certain, but competition is weak, and pricing can be highly controlled. Kind of like what those guys in the defense business have been enjoying.
Take public schools, for instance. It's almost 6% of our economy that is mostly off-limits to big business. Sure, you can get a contract here and there. But what about something going nation wide! Now that could yield double-digit growth right away. Maybe 20% or more!
The infrastructure has already been built. R&D; is minimal. We've all been to school. We're not talking rocket science here. And everyone pushes education in a bad economy.
Once you get around the unions, teachers are a dime a dozen. Heck, some will practically volunteer for the job. And I'm sure we can get foundation money for the start-ups. After all, "it's for the kids."
Only problem is that each school and district is so different from one another. Everything is geared to the local population, and what works for one school doesn't necessarily work for another. That makes every deal a one-off with no economies of scale to work to your advantage. If only there were a way to get some standardization across the board.
Maybe our guys on the Hill can help us out with that . . .
People have noted for some time the curious phenomenae of conservatives attracted to Barack Obama. At Salon, Joe Conasan's article "Why conservatives love Barack Obama" carried the subhead, "Clinton haters who think the Illinois senator can beat Hillary support him now, but their affection will fade if he gets the nomination." The irrational exuberance of Hillary hatred seen before the New Hampshire primary certainly reminds us of how potent a force such hatred remains, not just within the official conservative establishment, but among its Versailles enablers as well. Still, that's only part of the story.
some conservatives, in particular, can't wait to bum rush the current crop of media-anointed black leaders out the door.
"The big losers, two big losers tonight are probably Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton," George Will observed after the Illinois senator swept the Iowa Democratic caucuses last week.
The Revs. Sharpton and Jackson, Mr. Will said, were "representative of those who have a sort of investment in the traditional and, I believe, utterly exhausted narrative about race relations in the United States."
Conservative radio host Bill Bennett said Mr. Obama "has taught the black community you don't have to act like Jesse Jackson; you don't have to act like Al Sharpton. You can talk about the issues. And, this is a breakthrough."
Page's reference to "media-anointed black leaders" is bizarre, of course. Jackson ran for President twice. In the 1988 primaries, he got over 7 million votes, won ten states and went to the convention with over 1,200 delegates. Sharpton ran in 2004, and repeatedly confounded expectations with his cogent arguments in the debates. This comment by Page is indicative of how, even when he's questioning what white conservatives are saying about black political issues at one level, he's buying into their assumptions at another: Jackson and Sharpton don't really represent the black community, according to the subtext that Page has casually endorsed. They are "media-anounted black leaders." (Unlike Obama?)
