Obama's parting words for Netanyahu

http://ift.tt/2cHfJBc


Speaking before their session, Obama said he was aiming to ascertain the prospects for peace in the region as he prepares to end his presidency.

"Our hope will be that in these conversations we get the sense of how Israel sees the next few years, what the opportunities are and what the challenges are in order to ensure we keep alive the possibility of a stable, secure Israel at peace with its neighbors," Obama said. "These are challenging times. One thing that I would say about Prime Minister Netanyahu is that he is always very candid with us."

That candor has become a hallmark of the relationship between Obama and his Israeli counterpart, whom the White House has accused of being less-than-diplomatic in expressing his opposition to US policies like the nuclear agreement with Iran. Obama's 30-minute meeting Wednesday with Netanyahu was likely to be their final opportunity for face-to-face consultations before a new president enters the Oval Office in January.

Obama is intent on conferring solid ties with Israel upon his successor, despite the personal animus that developed between him and Netanyahu, as he looks to boost the relationship during the homestretch of a presidential campaign in which he hopes to see Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton prevail.

Obama took a step toward solidifying the alliance this month by completing a long-term, $38 billion security aid package for Israel, the largest such agreement ever for a US ally.

The aid, Obama said, "allows the kind of certainty in a moment where there's enormous uncertainty in the region. It is a very difficult and dangerous time in the Middle East and we want to make sure Israel has full capabilities to keep the Israeli people safe."

In their talks, Obama said he and his Israeli counterpart would discuss challenges in Syria, and said he would get Netanyahu's assessment of conditions in Israel and the West Bank.

"Clearly there is great danger of not just terrorism but also flare-ups of violence," he said. "We do have concerns about settlement activity as well."

Obama hopes to take steps in his final days in office to promote renewed talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians on peace, though his previous efforts toward reconciliation in the region have fallen short.

"My hope is we can continue to be an effective partner in Israel in finding a path to peace," Obama said.

But the White House remains opposed to Israel's expanded settlement activity in the West Bank, and has expressed disappointment at Netanyahu's occasional skepticism about the viability of a two-state solution in the region.

In the meeting Wednesday Obama raised "profound US concerns about the corrosive effect that that is having on the prospects of two states."

"They've never papered over their differences," another senior administration official said of Obama and Netanyahu.

In his final United Nations address Tuesday, Obama

made scant reference

to the Israel-Palestine conflict, saying only that "Israelis and Palestinians will be better off if Palestinians reject incitement and recognize the legitimacy of Israel, but Israel recognizes that it cannot permanently occupy and settle Palestinian land."

The passing remark was in stark comparison to the large amounts of time Obama spent on the issue during addresses to the UN earlier in his tenure. The shift reflected the now-frozen peace negotiations, which moved in spurts during Obama's presidency but never materialized into a workable solution.

The White House has conceded that talks aren't likely to resume while Obama remains in office but has remained open to the possibility the President could take steps in the next months to ramp up pressure on both sides to work toward a two-state solution.

"With respect to Middle East peace, I wouldn't rule out the President taking any particular step on the issue," Ben Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security adviser, said Tuesday. "What I would say is his test has always been, can I make a positive difference by engaging on the Israeli-Palestinian issue? We've tried multiple tactics, none of them have succeeded, given the fact that the parties themselves have been unable to come together."

Obama's talks with Netanyahu Wednesday capped a tumultuous personal history, though both displayed a businesslike camaraderie during their photo-op.

The low point between the two men came in March 2015, when Netanyahu infuriated the White House

by publicly lobbying against the Iran nuclear deal before Congress

-- a move the administration

lambasted

as a breach of diplomatic protocol.

Netanyahu returned to Washington last November in an attempt to repair the relationship, meeting with Obama in the Oval Office and addressing both the conservative American Enterprise Institute and the left-leaning Center for American Progress, the think tank with ties to Clinton.

Netanyahu on Wednesday invited Obama for a round of golf in Israel once he departs office in January, saying warmly that Obama's "influential voice" on international politics would remain a force "for many decades."

"Our alliance has grown decade after decade, through successive presidents, bipartisan Congresses and with the overwhelming support of the American people," he said. "It is an unbreakable bond."



from CNN http://ift.tt/1UBaoaB
via IFTTT

Andrew 'Beef' Johnston could have been an Ohio State Buckeyes fan

http://ift.tt/2dkl6IH


COLUMBUS, Ohio -- At first glance, the fact that No. 2 Ohio State has a week off on the college football calendar is a boon to the Web.com Tour Finals event being held this week at OSU's Scarlet Course.

Then we come to learn that an opportunity was missed.

Andrew "Beef" Johnston, the corpulent young English bloke with the iconic beard and easy-going manner, has never attended a college football game in the U.S. Regrettably, the Buckeyes are idle while he competes in the Nationwide Children's Hospital Championship.

"I saw the stadium ... massive. But there's no game this week, and I'd have gone to that. Yeah, I'd have gone ... I'd have painted my chest or something," he said before his infectious laugh kicked in. "My favorite team is the first game I go to. The first home team. That'd be it."

Johnston, 27, who appears on the cover of this month's Golf Digest, has become a popular figure in golf since winning the Spanish Open earlier this year. Though he finished T-54 at the U.S. Open, the crowds at Oakmont embraced him, and his acclaim only grew after he finished eighth at the Open Championship at Troon. At last week's Albertsons Boise Open, where he finished fourth to lock up his PGA Tour card, Beef drew by far the largest crowds, according to Web.com Tour officials.

RELATED: Andrew "Beef" Johnston earns his PGA Tour card on National Cheeseburger Day (No, really)

"I didn't think it'd be this crazy, man," Johnston said of his sudden rise in acclaim. "I'm a normal geezer. Just a normal guy. I just play golf and that's it, but I just seem to relate to everyone really well."

A fact that came through in his "My Shot" feature in Golf Digest. Beef plays well to a crowd. But he still is coming to grips with the notion of being on the magazine's cover.

RELATED: Andrew "Beef" Johnston tells PETA that he won't change his name to "Tofu"

"I got some funny messages from my friends, like 'Oh, my God, they photo-shopped the crap out of you,' and stuff like that. It cracked me up. But it's really cool. It's something I never dreamed of having. When we found out, I thought, 'Really? Is this not some kind of e-mail scam?' I was quite blown away by it."

Next time we'll have him paint his chest.


WATCH: GOLF DIGEST VIDEOS



from Golf Digest http://ift.tt/Pwhu2w
via IFTTT

Two Admissions Essay Tips From Someone Who Got Into Every Ivy League School

http://ift.tt/2d51RTW


Getting accepted into an Ivy League University is a big accomplishment for most folks. Kwasi Enin got accepted into all eight schools, so if there’s somebody who knows a thing or two about writing a good admissions essay, it’s him.

Yes, it’s important to proofread your essays and make plenty of edits, but there’s more to a winning essay than grammar. Here’s what Enin recommended to high school students in a recent Ask Me Anything (AMA) on Reddit:

  1. Get help from an English teacher: Get started early! Like, the summer before your senior year if possible. That way you can have your English teacher look over it and work with you throughout the year to perfect it. Plus, when application time comes along, you’ll be more than prepared.
  2. Make your essay scream “This is who I am!”: You want your essay to be compelling and stand out from the others, but you also want it to reflect who you really are. Enin suggests you take a small idea you’ve had or event in your life, then detail it’s significance to you. By the end of your essay, whoever reviews it should have a good image of you in their mind.

It’s also a good idea to avoid cliches, says Enin. Remember, these essays are a chance for you to showcase who you are and what makes you special. Think about what makes you unique as a student and as a person, then put it on the page. You can read the entire AMA at the link below.

Whether you’re headed off to college for the first time (congratulations!) or back for a second,… Read more Read more

I’m Kwasi Enin, and I was accepted to all 8 Ivy League colleges, AMA! | Reddit via Business Insider

Photo via Associated Press.



from Lifehacker http://lifehacker.com
via IFTTT

Sony's A99 II is a powerhouse of a pro camera

http://ift.tt/2cYSBhk

Sony's big announcement for the Photokina 2016 trade show was the A99 II, a flagship, full-frame camera designed to appeal to professional photographers. The A99 II improves upon its four-year-old predecessor with a much higher resolution sensor and faster performance. It's Sony's best effort at capturing some of the pro sports photographer market that's been dominated by Canon's EOS 1D line for years.

Speed is really the name of the game with the A99 II, and it can rattle off full-resolution images at up to 12 frames per second. Even more impressive, it can maintain autofocus tracking throughout the burst, thanks to its hybrid system that has 399 autofocus points plus a supplemental 72 points. Firing the A99 II is less dramatic than you might expect — though it rattles through frames faster than the vast majority of cameras, it remains quiet and composed the entire time. You can hear the shutter, for sure, but it's not as loud as other, full-size DSLR cameras.

Sony A99 II

Sony A99 II
Dan Seifert

The A99 II is able to achieve those high speeds without a cost to resolution — each of those 12 frames snapped every second is a 42.4-megapixel image. That's the kind of performance that's lost on the vast majority of people looking to fill their Instagram profiles, but it's crucial for sports photographers to do their jobs.

Sony has crammed the A99 II's body full of dials and switches, and it says it has refreshed the user interface to be more intuitive. In the brief time I spent with the camera, it seems that Sony is mimicking Canon's interface more than its own, older systems. Sony says the changes are in response to feedback from pro photographers.

Sony A99 II

Sony A99 II
Dan Seifert

Other things of note include a fully articulate display that can even flip all the way around. You could, if you were so inclined, use the A99 II to capture 12 selfies per second with the screen flipped around.

It's going to be very tough for Sony to really break into the pro sports photographer market, but it's certainly putting all of its technological might behind the A99 II to do so. At just about $3,200, the camera even costs less than many pro rigs, but we'll see if that makes a difference when it launches in November.

Sony A99 II

Sony A99 II
Dan Seifert

Sony A99 II

Sony A99 II
Dan Seifert

Sony A99 II

Sony A99 II
Dan Seifert


from The Verge http://ift.tt/oZfQdV
via IFTTT

Why Do People Who Need Help from the Government Hate It So Much?

http://ift.tt/2cVLDK6


The people who feel this are white. The usurpers they picture are blacks and immigrants. Hochschild takes care not to call anyone racist but concludes that “race is an essential part of this story.” When she asks a small-town mayor to describe his politics, his first two issues — or is it one in his mind? — are welfare and race: “I don’t like the government paying unwed mothers to have a lot of kids, and I don’t go for affirmative action.”

In welfare politics, this is déjà vu all over again. It’s been two decades since Bill Clinton signed a tough welfare law aimed in part to end the politics of blame. “Ending welfare as we know it” would recast the needy as workers, he said, and build support for a new safety net. The rolls of the main federal cash program have fallen by 80 percent from their 1990s highs — in Louisiana, by 95 percent. But reverse class anger is more potent than ever.

Liberals have long wondered why ­working-class voters support policies that (the liberals think) hurt the working class. Why would victims of pollution side with the polluters?

Theories abound. Thomas Frank accuses the G.O.P. of luring voters with social issues but delivering tax cuts for the rich. Others point to the political machines built by ultra-wealthy donors like Charles and David Koch. Still others emphasize the influence of conservative media like Fox News.

Hochschild sees these as partial explanations but wants a fuller understanding of “emotion in politics” — she wants to know how Tea Partiers feel, on the theory that the movement serves their “emotional self-interest” by providing “a giddy release” from years of frustration.

Six characters dominate the book, including Harold Areno, who lives on a swamp so polluted even the rugged cypress trees are dead. He and his wife have had cancer. Yet Areno supports politicians hostile to environmental regulation because he cares more about banning abortion. “We vote for candidates that put the Bible where it belongs,” he said.

Mike Schaff lost his neighborhood to the Bayou Corne sinkhole, which started to swallow 37 acres in 2012 after a lightly regulated drilling company punctured an underground salt dome. But he remains a “free market man,” because “Big Government” threatens “community.”

Many Tea Party adherents warn that more regulation will cost them jobs. (A small-town mayor says the pungent chemical plant “smells like rice and ­gravy.”) But Hochschild detects other passions and assembles what she calls the “deep story” — a “feels as if” story, beyond facts or judgment, that presents her subjects’ worldview.

It goes like this:

“You are patiently standing in a long line” for something you call the American dream. You are white, Christian, of modest means, and getting along in years. You are male. There are people of color behind you, and “in principle you wish them well.” But you’ve waited long, worked hard, “and the line is barely moving.”

Then “Look! You see people cutting in line ahead of you!” Who are these interlopers? “Some are black,” others “immigrants, refugees.” They get affirmative action, sympathy and welfare — “checks for the listless and idle.” The government wants you to feel sorry for them.

And who runs the government? “The biracial son of a low-income single mother,” and he’s cheering on the line cutters. “The president and his wife are line cutters themselves.” The liberal media mocks you as racist or homophobic. Everywhere you look, “you feel betrayed.”

Hochschild runs the myth past her Tea Party friends.

“You’ve read my mind,” Lee Sherman said.

“I live your analogy,” Mike Schaff said.

Harold Areno’s niece agrees, and says she has seen people drive their children to Head Start in Lexuses. “If people refuse to work, we should let them starve,” she said.

Actually, anger this raw may depart from the 1990s, when welfare critics often framed their attacks as efforts to help the poor by fighting dependency. The resentments Hochschild presents are unadorned, and they have mutated into a broader suspicion of almost everything the federal government does. “The government has gone rogue, corrupt, malicious and ugly,” one Tea Partier complains. “It can’t help anybody.”

Did welfare really “end”? Conservatives say no. Cash aid plummeted, but food stamp usage soared to new highs and the Medicaid rolls expanded. There’s room for debate, but the grievances Hochschild presents feel immune to policy solutions. As long as larger forces are squeezing whites of modest means, it’s going to “feel as if” people are cutting in line. In Lexuses.

None of Hochschild’s characters appear to have been directly hurt by competition from people of color. Their economic problems lie elsewhere, she argues, in unchecked corporate power and technological transformation. Still there’s no denying that demographic and cultural change have robbed white men of the status they once enjoyed. Hochschild doesn’t buy the racial finger-pointing, but she can see their pain.

Whatever racial or class resentments she finds, Hochschild makes clear that she likes the people she meets. They aren’t just soldiers in a class war but victims of one, too. She mourns their economic losses, praises their warmth and hospitality, and admires their “grit and resilience.” While her hopes of finding common political ground seem overly optimistic, this is a smart, respectful and compelling book.

Continue reading the main story


from Hacker News http://ift.tt/YV9WJO
via IFTTT

Why I’m Investing $500M in Migrants

http://ift.tt/2dcBeJj


The world has been unsettled by a surge in forced migration. Tens of millions of people are on the move, fleeing their home countries in search of a better life abroad. Some are escaping civil war or an oppressive regime; others are forced out by extreme poverty, lured by the possibility of economic advancement for themselves and their families.

Our collective failure to develop and implement effective policies to handle the increased flow has contributed greatly to human misery and political instability—both in countries...



from Hacker News http://ift.tt/YV9WJO
via IFTTT

Paul Krugman on Gary Johnson, libertarianism, and pollution

http://ift.tt/2cEHmhy

Paul Krugman is upset that many Millennials are toying with the idea of voting for Gary Johnson rather than Hillary Clinton.  He offers a number of arguments, here is one of them:

What really struck me, however, was what the [Libertarian Party] platform says about the environment. It opposes any kind of regulation; instead, it argues that we can rely on the courts. Is a giant corporation poisoning the air you breathe or the water you drink? Just sue: “Where damages can be proven and quantified in a court of law, restitution to the injured parties must be required.” Ordinary citizens against teams of high-priced corporate lawyers — what could go wrong?

That is the opposite of the correct criticism.  The main problem with classical libertarianism is that it doesn’t allow enough pollution.  Under libertarian theory, pollution is a form of violent aggression that should be banned, as Murray Rothbard insisted numerous times.  OK, but what about actual practice, once all those special interest groups start having their say?  Historically, under the more limited government of the 19th century, it was big business that wanted to move away from unpredictable local and litigation-driven methods of control, and toward a more systematic regulatory approach at the national level.  There is a significant literature on this development, starting with Morton Horwitz’s The Transformation of American Common Law.

If you think about it, this accords with standard industrial organization intuitions.  Established incumbents prefer regulations that take the form of predictable, upfront high fixed costs, if only to limit entry.  And to some extent they can pass those costs along to consumers and workers.  The “maybe you can sue me, maybe you can’t” regime is more the favorite of thinly capitalized upstarts that have little to lose.

So under the pure libertarian regime, big business would come running to the federal government asking for systematic regulation in return for protection against the uncertain depredations of the lower-level courts.  It is fine to argue the court-heavy libertarian regime would be unworkable for this reason, or perhaps it would collapse into a version of the status quo.

That would be a much more fun column: “Libertarian view untenable, implies too high a burden on polluters.”  I’m not sure that would sway the Bernie Brothers however.

Some of the criticisms of libertarianism strike me as under-argued:

And if parents don’t want their children educated, or want them indoctrinated in a cult…Not our problem.

Rates of high school completion were below 70% for decades, until recently, in spite of compulsory education.  Parents rescuing children from the neglect of the state seems at least as common to me as vice versa.

And what is the status quo policy on taking children away from parents who belong to “cults”?  Unusual religions can be a factor in contested child custody cases (pdf), but in the absence of evidence of concrete harm, such as beatings or sexual abuse, the American government does not generally take children away from their parents, cult or not.  Germany and Norway differ on this a bit, for the most part this is, for better or worse, the American way.  That’s without electing Gary Johnson.

By the way, Gary Johnson slightly helps Hillary Clinton.  Although probably not with New York Times readers.

The post Paul Krugman on Gary Johnson, libertarianism, and pollution appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.



from Marginal Revolution http://ift.tt/oJndhY
via IFTTT

Is There A Global War Coming?

http://ift.tt/2cjebKQ

By Chris at http://ift.tt/12YmHT5

This week I speak with Erik Townsend, entrepreneur, hedge fund manager, and co-founder of Macro Voices as he joined me on the Capitalist Exploits Big Question Podcast for a discussion where we sweep through the gamut of financial issues plaguing the global landscape.

This is a conversation you won't want to miss. We covered a lot, beginning with Erik explaining how - after selling his software company in the 90's and joining the 1% - he was robbed blind by "the world's most prestigious investment bank" who managed to lie, cheat, and steal from him, obliterating about half his net worth. This is a man after my own heart who chose to kick the parasites to the kerb, educate himself, and he now successfully manages his own money full time.

We discussed where we're at in the global commodity cycle and he highlights the soft commodities, an area my friend Raoul Pal is very bullish on (you can listen to Raoul and I here):

"Grain prices are half of what they were a couple of years ago...."

 

"I think that by the end of 2016 we'll have seen another low around the inventory and refinery maintenance season, that will probably be the final low and we'll start looking for recovery in oil prices."

While picking tops and bottoms is harder than picking a broken nose, Erik had this to say on timing of the commodity cycle:

"I definitely think there is a buying opportunity in commodities coming up sometime in the next year or two."

Shifting gears and discussing Asia, Erik explains why Hong Kong is likely to increasingly become less and less a port of safety for Chinese money. Key to this is the 50-year treaty currently protecting Hong Kong, allowing it to maintain its independence and have its own democratic government. This treaty expires in 2047.

Erik points out that hot Chinese money is going to stop using Hong Kong real estate as a "safe" parking place for dirty money:

"The problem is almost nobody believes that China is going to honour that commitment and allow Hong Kong to maintain its independence till 2047."

Regular readers will recall my top candidates for a real estate bust. I find it fascinating that the market least expected to bust (at least by readers) is also the most overvalued.

Real estate bubble

Moving on from overvalued real estate, Erik and I dive into the elephant in the room: sovereign bond markets. We discuss a potential catalyst which I've been thinking a lot about which could actually create inflation.

Tied closely to the sovereign bond markets is what lies in store for the US in terms of both fiscal and monetary policy. One thing which we both agreed on was the likelihood of fiscal stimulus. Both Trump and Hillary are making this part of their campaign message: infrastructure spending.

 Trump Infrastructure

“We'll get a fund. We'll make a phenomenal deal with the low interest rates,” he said. Who would provide the money? “People, investors. People would put money into the fund. The citizens would put money into the fund,” he said, adding that he'd use “infrastructure bonds from the country, from the United States.”

Of course Trump isn't the only one promising free lollies and grand plans:

Hillary Clinton Infrastructure

“We are going to have an investment in infrastructure—our roads, our bridges, our tunnels, our ports, our airports,” Mrs. Clinton said Thursday in Las Vegas. “But it’s not only what you can see. It’s also under the ground—the water systems, the sewer systems and, yes, we need a new modern electric grid.”

Of course, spending on infrastructure projects, even if it is just digging holes and filling them up again, isn't entirely free.

Digging a bit deeper in to US politics and increasing political tensions, here's Erik's take on Hillary Clinton:

"...and you look at Hillary Clinton and her rhetoric towards Russia, and how Russia has to pay a price...her rhetoric is basically trying to pick a fight and start a war with a nuclear superpower. This is the beginning of something very very bad..." 

And on governments in general where Erik believes we're headed for war:

"I think something really horrible is coming in our lifetimes, but it could be another decade still before the governments screw things up badly enough that it gets to the point where a global war is the only way to take attention off of how badly governments have screwed up, but I think it's coming and I hope that it's farther out than I fear it might be."

As terrifying as the visions of Hillary's spasming frame hovering over the red button may be, we've also got the financial "elites" to contend with. Men such as Paul Krugman who I'm sure was hiding behind the sofa when they passed out brains. A few weeks ago, when discussing thedemographic shifts altering global markets, I touched on war as a solution to "stimulating" the economy:

"Of course there is the Krugmanesque route which involves fighting off some aliens or more likely starting a war. This suggestion in the realm of stupid runs three grades: stupid, unbelievably stupid, and war."

Clearly Erik is on the same page and his insights are well worth your time. Listen to the full conversation with Erik Townsend here:

Erik Townsend(Click on the image to listen to the podcast)

- Chris

There is no act of desperation central bankers won't stoop to before it's over." — Erik Townsend

Learn Python Programming

http://askpython.com/

Learn Python Programming

This site contains materials and exercises for the Python 3 programming language.
In this course you will learn how to write code, the basics and see examples.

Table of Contents:

About Python:

Python is a programming language supports several programming paradigms including Object-Orientated Programming (OOP) and functional programming.

Python 3 is backwards-incompatible with Python 2: If a program is made for Python 2, it cannot be run on Python 3 without modifying code.

The philosophy of the Python language is:

Beautiful is better than ugly
Explicit is better than implicit
Simple is better than complex
Complex is better than complicated
Readability counts


from Hacker News http://ift.tt/YV9WJO
via IFTTT

Why Do Famous People Get Paid $250,000 to Give a Speech?

http://ift.tt/2cv0AX4

Photo by Lorie Shaull; adapted by Priceonomics

***

In 2013 and 2014, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Deutsche Bank each paid Hillary Clinton $225,000 to give a speech. 

“If you're going to give a speech for $225,000, it must be a hell of a good speech," Bernie Sanders said of Clinton’s speaking fees when he ran for president. 

Sanders was insinuating that bankers had bought Clinton’s loyalty. After all, how could a speech be worth $225,000?

But that’s like asking why anyone would pay Beyoncé or the Beatles a million dollars just to play a few songs. Organizations routinely pay huge sums to have famous people say a few words or attend a conference. Paid speeches are how politicians profit when they leave office and how book authors make good money. It’s a safe bet that Rio Olympians are working with speech coaches right now. 

As one speaking agent puts it, “Hillary Clinton is just the tip of the iceberg.” 

Speaking Fee of Select Public Speakers

Fees are gathered mainly from the websites of speaking agencies. Some fee ranges may be outdated or inflated.

Selecting for speakers based on fame exaggerates the high end of the market (most speakers are lesser known business gurus or motivational speakers whose fee is under $20,000) and skews the list of speakers to be more male than it otherwise would be (largely due to the larger number of male athletes).

Anderson Cooper, Malcolm Gladwell, and co. don’t charge this much every time they speak. They make exceptions for high schools and, often, for commencement addresses. (Students and administrators tend to choose speakers with a personal connection to the college.) And a minority donate all their speaking fees to charity. 

But people with a great story, a famous name, or business acumen can profit enormously by flying to San Francisco for a Salesforce conference. Or to Orlando for the National Association of Realtors Conference and Expo.  

It’s all part of an industry of agencies that represent big-name speakers and connect them with event organizers—usually of corporate conferences—willing to pay $10,000 to $1 million for a good speech. The industry offers speakers a means to share a message or promote a book, and, above all, turn fame into money.  

The Great American Speech

People have always had a complex about speeches.

As Jerry Seinfeld once quipped, “According to most studies, people’s number one fear is public speaking. Number two is death. This means, to the average person, if you have to go to a funeral, you’re better off in the casket than doing the eulogy.” 

But for people who excel at giving speeches, the rewards have always been great. In Ancient Rome, Cicero’s great oratory made him one of the most powerful people in the world. More recently, Barack Obama’s 2004 Democratic Convention keynote about “the audacity of hope” made him an overnight star.

The birth of the modern speakers industry can be traced to the sixties and seventies, when Harry Walker, the founder of a leading agency that represents big-name speakers, pitched businesses on hiring public figures for “mind stretching programs.”

As his son explained when Harry Walker died in 2002, “That meant instead of talking to Coca-Cola executives about bottling—which is what they used to hear about—talk to them about what's happening in the world.” (Entrepreneurial agents in other countries did the same, signing up luminaries to charge for speeches they once gave for free.)

According to Bloomberg, Gerald Ford became the first former president to give paid speeches in 1977. His $25,000 appearances went largely unnoticed; the New York Times archives has no mention of them. But when Ronald Reagan gave many prominent, paid speeches in his retirement, he boosted the industry and cemented the current tradition of politicians, who are banned from giving paid speeches, cashing in once they leave office. 

Lucrative speaking appearances, however, are not a modern invention. They’re 150 years old.

The practice arose in pre-Civil War New England in response to Bostonians’ clamor to hear lectures by abolitionists like Henry Ward Beecher. A literary man named James Redpath began acting as matchmaker between anti-slavery orators and interested audiences; soon he was a de facto agent, organizing speaking tours for famous Americans. 

The result was America’s “Lyceum Movement.” The speakers broadened their scope to address the arts, politics, and science, and the Lyceum Movement became known as “the people’s college.” Mark Twain read his literary work; Abraham Lincoln warned of the corrupting influences of slavery; and Elizabeth Cady Stanton lectured on the importance of women’s suffrage. 

"The lyceum invaded the cities and towns of the country,” The American Educational Reviewobserved in 1910, “and during these years, its apostles have been heard in school, in church, [and] wherever sufficient numbers could be banded together to warrant bringing to their town the great and the near-great." A subsequent movement called Chautauqua organized speaking events around the country—with equal success—in the early 1900s.

It wasn’t cheap to get Ralph Waldo Emerson to come talk about self-reliance. He charged $300, apparently setting a high price so he’d never be asked to speak in small markets like Cincinnati. “We found after a few years,” a Lyceum organizer wrote, “that the drift was quite toward making the lyceum a money-making affair, without regard to any higher end." 

The lecture circuit became the primary way intellectuals supported themselves. Susan B. Anthony gave up to 100 speeches a year to fund her activism, and Mark Twain organized lecture tours with entrepreneurial zeal.

Lyceum fees ranged from $50 for a popular instructor in a small town to several hundred dollars (or up to $1,000 in New York City) for luminaries like Frederick Douglass. Adjusting for inflation, this means big-name speakers in 19th century America earned $10,000 to $25,000 on the lecture circuit. 

The Economics of a $40,000 Speech

A $40,000 speech is a lot less puzzling when you think of it like a concert. If an event organizer sells out a 6,000-seat auditorium, a $10 ticket should more than cover the costs. 

For speakers like Malcolm Gladwell and Jane Goodall, ticketed events hosted by universities, libraries, local Chambers of Commerce, and theatrical promoters make up part of the lecture circuit. 

But the growth of the speakers industry since the 1970s—and the existence of six-figure speaking fees for people like Hillary Clinton—relies on the logic of hiring celebrities to speak at corporate events.

Simply put, if you want a particular group of people to attend an event, hiring a famous person is the way to go. “Everyone wants to say, ‘I had lunch with Michael Lewis yesterday,’” Don Epstein, who represented the best-selling author, told Bloomberg in 2014. “It might be you and 500 other people, but it still happened.”

“For some organizations, the speech is almost secondary,” says Jim Keppler, the president and founder of Keppler Speakers. “They are looking to bring in a VIP to schmooze at receptions, pose for pictures, and sign autographs.”

The rewards to attracting the right people in the corporate world can more than justify a six-figure speech. Hedge funds often invite potential clients to events featuring prominent speakers. As one hedge fund manager has explained, if just one client “decides to invest $10 million… the firm will snag a 2 percent management fee—which works out to $200,000” per year.

For companies like Google and Goldman Sachs, hiring a famous speaker to address their employees is a perk like free lunch. But professional associations are a more common employer of highly paid speakers. Hillary Clinton, for example, did not just speak at Morgan Stanley. She was hired by the National Association of Realtors, International Deli-Dairy-Bakery Association, American Society of Travel Agents, American Camping Association, and Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries. And they each paid her nearly a quarter of a million dollars. 

Photo by Karen Murphy

Why did a bunch of recyclers pay Hillary Clinton $225,000 for a speech? Because they know famous speakers attract a crowd. 

“We’ve essentially had every former president since Ronald Reagan,” says Chuck Carr, the Vice President for Convention, Education & Training at the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI), “and most of the secretaries of state.” As a professional association, ISRI not only wants to sell tickets to its annual conference. It wants good attendance from recycling professionals so they benefit from the networking opportunities. And people like Stanley McChrystal and Bill Clinton help them do that. 

At some conferences, speeches by authors and former presidents are highbrow entertainment, slotted into the schedule like a performance by Green Day. At a gathering of the American Camping Association, Hillary Clinton discussed her career and only addressed camping by joking that Congress might benefit from attending a bipartisan summer camp. 

A $20,000 to $200,000 check may or may not buy a customized speech. According to Jim Keppler, some motivational speakers are “one man shows,” telling each audience a practiced story of overcoming adversity. Malcolm Gladwell, on the other hand, has explained that if he addresses a group of IT specialists, then he’d “like to say something intelligent about IT.”

But highly paid speeches are not always pure entertainment.

In ISRI’s case, Chuck Carr says, the recyclers enjoyed hearing from secretaries of state about how difficult it is to do business in a particular country. Jim Keppler gives the example that after Obamacare became law, businesses wanted speeches by healthcare experts. “Healthcare is the biggest line item on a lot of corporate budgets,” he says, “and executives didn’t know how it would affect them.” 

This once meant companies wanted to hear from Republicans and Democrats. Polarization, however, has hit the speakers industry. “Now if you bring in a Republican or Democrat,” Keppler says, “all you do is piss off 50% of the audience.” It’s safer to hire an Apollo 13 astronaut for an inspirational speech.  

Or a branding expert. Because while the most famous mostly offer star power, plenty of businesses want specific advice. Sometimes that’s a former athlete telling a sales force about football practice as a metaphor for teamwork. More often it’s a consultant or retired executive sharing their expertise. (The chart at the top of this article features household names, but we could easily fill it with business gurus unknown to the average American.) 

The current trend, Keppler says, is speakers who can talk about how to create a better company culture, improve an organization’s leadership, or stand out in a crowded market. 

***

In the case of politicians like Hillary Clinton, many observers see a more sinister explanation for how a speech can be worth $225,000: the speech is buying political influence.

This concern isn’t unique to politicians. The Columbia Journalism Review has questioned whether reporters who cover Wall Street should accept $20,000 speaking gigs from big banks, and Nate Silver raised eyebrows this week by giving a paid, closed-door presentation to Republican donors.   

It’s this concern that motivates the law that active politicians can’t give paid speeches, and most newspapers ban their beat reporters from getting paid to talk.

It’s impossible to say exactly how much the desire to influence politicians inflates their speaking fees. Critics tend to ask why anyone would pay Hillary Clinton, who acknowledges that she is “not a natural politician,” $225,000 for a speech. But speaking agents say that her status as one of the most famous people in the world justifies her fee, and a one-time speech is a poor way to get quid pro quo. 

Instead, certain organizations likely view paying a politician’s speaking fee the same way they view contributing money to his or her campaign: part of a larger lobbying effort. 

The Life of a Speaker

Earning $40,000 for a speech sounds like easy money. But the reality is that the speaking circuit can be grueling. 

Star power makes a career in speaking possible. But star power is not enough. When booking speakers for the recyclers association, Chuck Carr calls around to hear whether the previous speeches given by former presidents and bestselling authors were “dry or canned.” On the Tim Ferriss Show, Malcolm Gladwell explains that “the breakthrough for me in speaking came when I realized it took 10 times the time I was giving to it.”

Even veterans of countless press conferences find themselves working with coaches like Mary Gardner. “I’ve told some famous people, ‘Stop! Stop! You’re boring me to tears,’” says Gardner, who will fly cross-country to drill speakers in a hotel room. Especially for athletes who previously spent all their time practicing jump shots or a floor routine, launching a career takes time. Gardner coaches her clients on how to stand confidently and even to tilt their head the right way when meeting fans. 

Many speakers also struggle with imposter syndrome. “What worried me was, would anyone want to listen to this?” says Cindy Miller, a golf pro turned corporate trainer and speaker. “I had to realize that it’s not about me. It’s about the audience.” 

Photo by Erik Hersman

But even after a retired politician, former athlete, or prominent executive has earned a reputation for speaking, many will still turn down the majority of offers. Because while a speech seems like easy money, it’s really not. 

In 1895, a speaking agent said of Susan B. Anthony, that she “has done more lecturing than any other person in America, and survived it.” Speakers no longer jump off moving trains to make it to a conference. But it’s still a lonely travel schedule. 

Jonah Lehrer is a once high-flying science writer who became one of the industry’s hottest speakers before scandals revealed he plagiarized and fabricated parts of his work. But even during his heyday, he acknowledged the downsides of the lifestyle. “You end up getting existentially sad,” Lehrer toldThe Observer in 2012, when “you look through your wallet and you realize you’ve got seven hotel keys.”

Like a political campaign, a speaking tour involves unglamorous travel and repetitive events. But just as campaigns create occasional moments of genuine candidate-voter connection and inspiring events like Barack Obama’s acceptance of the presidency in 2008, the speaking industry can remind listeners that public figures are normal people and give them chills when an Apollo 13 astronaut recalls an oxygen tank exploding. 

People will pay a lot for those moments. Even if it costs tens of thousands of dollars, people want to bask in the halo of fame and accomplishment. 

Our next article explores whether the father of modern statistics was a shill for Big Tobacco. To get notified when we post it  →  join our email list. 

Announcement: The Priceonomics Content Marketing Conference is on November 1 in San Francisco. Get your early bird ticket now.





from Hacker News http://ift.tt/YV9WJO
via IFTTT