we put them out in front of everybody and we work his way through whatever his issues were. it s something that we kept to ourselves. would never have taken it out like that. i think in basketball 12 players versus 50 or more, the captain can take care of it. the coach can take care of it. with football it s a little different. they have multiple captains. they have offensive team, defensive team. sometimes they don t even know each other or talk to each other. when two guys can t get it done, one usually has to go or both have to go. but it s something that should be regulated in a locker room in private by the leaders of the team. i think about it from just the employment side of the ball. this is his job. this is everybody s job. they re working there, they re playing a sport but they re doing it to feed their family and take care of their family. so whenever something becomes bullying or even hazing i did a story about robert champion down at florida a & m who was killed, a m
different, though. at least when you re negotiating with the private sector, you ve got shareholders to deal with on the employment side. with the public sector, it s been on a level playing field because the ones negotiating want you to vote for them so they have an incentive not to play hard with you. like in wisconsin. here s what happened. the unions go and they get a good democratic liberal candidate and they say we re going raise all this money for you. they raise it for him and he wins the election. and then the union guys come into the government and say we d like to negotiate with you now on what wages we get. and so you don t have competition. you don t have an atmospheric proceeding. you ve got individuals who are the beneficiaries of unions. i m trying to figure out the workers satisfaction with unions. workers getting dissatisfied with unions. the participation rate used to
at least when you re negotiating with the private sector, you ve got shareholders to deal with on the employment side. with the public sector, it s been on a level playing field because the ones negotiating want you to vote for them so they have an incentive not to play hard with you. like in wisconsin. here s what happened. the unions go and they get a good democratic liberal candidate and they say we re going raise all this money for you. they raise it for him and he wins the election. and then the union guys come into the government and say we d like to negotiate with you now on what wages we get. and so you don t have competition. you don t have an atmospheric proceeding. you ve got individuals who are the beneficiaries of unions. i m trying to figure out the workers satisfaction with unions. workers getting dissatisfied with unions. the participation rate used to
important position in washington and we need to pick the best person. so, ezra, what do you think the decision will be? i think they re leaning very, very strong towards summers about a week, week and a half ago. the process is pretty far along. that came out and there was an enormous backlash among hill democrats and generally. they said next week we re not going to make a decision. so they pushed that back. i m raising my personal estimation of a dark horse candidate coming out as well. i wouldn t be shocked to see somebody like roger ferguson, former vice chairman of the fed to be part of this. i think the point worth making is yellen and summers both want to continue, at least as far as we know, the current policies of ben bernanke. they re both on the worried about employment side of the federal reserve spectrum. what is a very big difference between them potentially, though it s hard to tell, the federal
one doesn t have to go back very far to see just how powerful the mere words of federal reserve chairman ben bernanke can be on our markets. for example, take a look at what he said this june. to use the analogy of driving an automobile, any slowing in the pace of purchases will be akin to letting up a bit on the gas pedal as the car picks up speed, not to beginning to apply the brakes. all right. to you and me that may seem like nothing more than a harmless car analogy. but according to forbes that simple statement about the u.s. fed potentially cutting back on bond buying drove stocks down by 1.4% the day he made it. less than a month later we heard from a very different-sounding ben. both the employment side and the inflation side are saying that we need to be more accommodating. put that all together and i think you can only conclude that