"I don’t like those guys so I’ll vote for this guy, I don’t like him either, but at least he’s not THAT guy!"

- Kevin on Hawthorne Villager, talking about how people vote.  It’s funny cuz it’s true.

It’s yet another thing I’d been saying for years.  Finally, a study confirms it:

Perhaps most useful for them is the fact that researchers found perceptions of economic prosperity are not the leading drivers of attachment feelings among residents. Instead, most of the 14,000 respondents rated social offerings (such as entertainment and other venues that promote interconnectivity among residents), openness (acceptance of diversity) and community aesthetics as the top qualities that influenced decisions on where to anchor their lives and careers.

Did you read?  Social offerings, openness and community aesthetics as the top qualities, the three things I’ve been a broken record about.  The conclusion of the study:

Translated, it means that communities able to inspire loyalty and passion among residents are also likely to see a swell in their financial outlook.

More info here.

I met Councillor Schau a couple of months ago.  Unfortunately, I did not talk to her ‘on the record’.  I intended to, but we chatted for a couple of hours and then I had to head back for work.  I never really got a chance to ask her to be ‘on the record’.

She pointed something out that was interesting.  As most of you know (if you’ve been reading my rants), I am a big fan of an urban plan that keeps Milton a low-rise (or a low-mid rise) community (outside of core urban areas around Go station(s) of course). 

I had always wondered about why cities go with creating high density ‘nodes’ (putting buildings on major intersections). She clarified that it was to optimize transit.  It does make sense.  I still don’t like it for Milton though.

Fortunately, there are alternatives.  Sustainable Urban Development Association has a detailed report called Newburg that Councillor Schau sent me.  It’s interesting and thought-provoking.  I will blog about it later. However, you may want to check out the Newburg project in the mean time.  We will discuss it later. 

Today’s book is All Marketers are Liars by Seth Godin.  I recommend it.

This is something I have been saying for years, I just did not have the eloquence to put it as clearly. 
This issue is sort of close to my heart anyway (why is it that a tech company, one that does it best to play nice with partners and customers, has a reputation of being a ruthless monopoly while another, one that is ruthless monopoly and hardly ever plays nice, has a reputation of being cool and friendly?)

Ultimately marketing is about storytelling.  Deep down we all know that.  When my brother forked out big $$$ to buy a Burberry cashmere coat, he did not really do it for value-for-money.  There are plenty of other high quality cashmere coats that cost a fraction of what he paid. He did it because he bought the story Burberry created. I have no doubt the coat makes him feel smarter, taller, more attractive and more confident.  Going back to tech companies, one failed at creating its own story (so its competitors created the story for it) and the other did a remarkable job at selling its story. 

Being a Math major I would have preferred hard numbers and studies to demonstrate his point. However, I do not think lack of data takes anything away from the book. In fact, for most people it makes the book far more entertaining to read. 

Godin also drives a point home that it’s not enough to simply create a story.  Whether the story is actually true is irrelevant, what counts is whether it fits the customer’s frame or not.  If it does then the customer will buy the story and create a preference for the brand.  You can think of the ‘frame’ as a simple way of thinking about the world.  Not all ‘soccer moms’ are same, but the frame ‘soccer mom’ conjures thoughts of busy mothers of young children.  A story created for ‘soccer moms’ must then fit that pre-existing frames.  Marketers typically do not create frames, they simply create stories that resonates with frames. 

After reading this book I spent a fair amount of time thinking about cities and towns.  Why do people pay a premium to live in one town while not another?  I believe it’s because one town tells a different story than another.  Most people I know would pay less money for a similar house in Brampton than they would in Oakville.  Oakville, all in all, has done a better job selling its story.  Where does Milton fit? What’s Milton’s story (my guess is that it’s very different for Miltonians than it is for outsiders.  People outside of Milton likely see Milton as a cheaper alternative to Mississauga.  Once they move in and experience the town, they realize it has its own character and charm.)  

Amazon also has a Look Inside for this book that allows you to read the first few pages.  I recommend this book. 

I was at the Duncan Lane today for a bit.  It’s runs parallel to the CN track just North of Derry (and East of Scott).  The funny thing is that there is no sound barrier between the houses and rail tracks (okay, well, it’s not funny at all).  On some sections you can actually see the tracks from the other end of the street! 

It’s ridiculous that a builder would think it’s acceptable, but it’s worse that the Town has a standard that allows for this.  I would think the Town would at least require a wood barrier, if not something better like what Mattamy did South of Derry.

A resident has a petition going on it.  I hope something is done about it because the train was so loud that I had trouble talking to people outside.  File this under yet another thing that Milton needs to raise its standards on.  It should not be too much to expect a better control on sound pollution. 

Hello,
I am wondering what the rationale is for the Town having a "Tennis Strategy"?  Why not have a have a generic strategy that can be applied to a host of activities? 

Overall, I am disappointed to see millions spent on outdoor tennis courts instead of indoor facilities that can be used year-round.  As far as I can tell, there is no indoor soccer turf planned or a tennis bubble or squash courts. 

Finally, Milton Sports Club’s expansion document has this text: "Squash courts are not recommended, as established through Community Services Master Plan".  What does that mean?  Community Services Master Plan’s public feedback document states: "The Town will be examining the feasibility of a bubble as part of a Tennis Strategy. This may also involve associated squash courts if deemed appropriate".  It would seem to me that since many residents are asking for a squash court, at least investigating it would be appropriate, instead of a vague “not recommended as established” comment. 

Who may I speak with to find out why Milton’s Community Services Masterplan decides that "squash courts are not recommended"?   Thanks.

Zeeshan Hamid
A Disappointed Resident

Honestly, am I wrong to expect a reason I can understand rather than “as established” when the document that “establishes” it says “will be investigated”?  It’s not about squash courts, tennis bubble or indoor soccer turf is okay.  Facilities that can be used throughout the year are better than facilities that can only be used for 4 months.  Facilities that thousands of residents will use are better than facilities that less than 200 people will use. 

Consider this from Milton’s Community Services Masterplan:

• It says: “Involvement in most organized sports (with the most notable exception being soccer) has been declining at the expense of informal and drop-in opportunities which are better able to respond to the time crunch.”
  [Zeeshan’s comment: this favours both soccer and squash]
• Milton has close to two dozen tennis courts.  Milton Sports Centre alone will have 4 ice rinks (I support it because 1) they can be used year-round and 2) can be used for drop-in solo activities)
• Also states: “…a preliminary analysis suggests that there is sufficient demand for an indoor turf facility, particularly given the
  increasing popularity of indoor turf sports and the provision of such facilities in growing municipalities of a similar size.”
• “The Town should refrain from providing any future racquet sport facilities (e.g., squash courts) as these sports are generally not deemed to be core municipal services and are best served by the private sector.”
  [Zeeshan: Why?  Mississauga provides squash court.  And why is tennis part of a “core municipal service”?  Or swimming pool (there are plenty of private pools in gyms)?  Or ice rinks?]
• “The Town should undertake a feasibility study for an indoor turf facility in order to determine the most suitable location and associated costs and operating structure.”
  [Zeeshan: Wouldn’t this be a better us of $3 million?]
• “The Town should develop a tennis strategy in order to determine the required number of facilities (lit and unlit), their location, if an enclosure/bubble is required, etc. Based on the research in this Plan, in order to meet the public demand for tennis courts there will be a need to provide six courts by 2016, with at least three likely required to be available for public use at no charge. New courts would ideally be suited in the Willmott, Scott and/or Harrison Neighbourhoods.”
  [Zeeshan: Why????  Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying not to do tennis courts. I am asking why tennis court or ice rink or swimming pool or BMX / Skateboard park is part of Milton’s core service but racquet sports is not]

I am on the case. 

The town finally updated actions it took on feedback received on the Milton Sports Club expansion plan.  Here is a quote from it :-

Squash courts are not recommended, as established through Community Services Master Plan.

I would have thought in the Canadian climate indoor squash courts (can be used year-round) would be better than outdoor tennis courts.  I would be wrong since the town disagrees by spending millions on outdoor tennis courts as part of its Community Services Master plan and tennis strategy (yes, the town has a tennis strategy).   I suppose I should mention that 2/3rd of the $3 million it’s spending on the Nassgweya Tennis Club is coming from Federal and Provincial governments (although I am sure they would have given money for an indoor soccer turf just the same). 

I would pick up tennis but what good would it do in winter?

(Apparently I wasn’t the only one who wanted it, since someone asked for it in the public workshop as well. I did not attend that).  It shouldn’t be too much to ask for activities that do not require a team and can be done year round. 

This post is about to enter a ‘rant’ mode, so I will stop now.

Today’s book is “Nudge”, by Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sustein.

Let me start with the bad first. This book may get a bit dry for some people in the middle, especially when it starts talking too much about specifics of the US Social Security system.  However, there are parallels with Canada that should be useful to a Canadian reader as well.

It’s a good follow-up of my previous book review.  The underlying theme is still the same: people aren’t perfect rational beings.  The book accepts that we will make poor decisions if left to our own devices and admits that controlling people’s behaviour via over-regulation is undesirable.  Instead, it argues that governments and businesses can nudge people in the right direction.  It calls it libertarian paternalism. 

One primary argument is that the government can mandate defaults that people can opt out of.  Let me make the example somewhat Canadian.  Take RRSP.  My employer provides group RRSP with 100% matching (yes, I put in $1, they match it with $1 of their own in my RRSP).  It’s a great deal. Yet the default setting is “no contribution”.  If I did nothing when I started, I wouldn’t have any RRSP and I would be missing out on a great matching deal.  Essentially if I do not opt in myself then I miss out.

Instead, Thaler would argue that the default should have been contribution up until the company max (the point at which they stop matching).  So if I did nothing when I started working, the company would automatically take x% of my income, put it in the RRSP and match it with their own money. This means that unless I opt out, I get a great deal. 

The book gives many such examples where “choice architects” can enable people to either make better decisions (eg. by forcing credit card companies to do better disclosure in layman’s terms) or set better defaults. 

All policy makers should be required to read this book.  You can read first few pages at Amazon. I highly recommend it. 

I am a big fan of Nassem Taleb, author of The Black Swan and Fooled by Randomness (both highly recommended readings).  He spoke in Toronto today.  Margaret Wente sat down to talk to him before.  Here’s an excerpt:

Margaret Wente: Happy days are here again. The central bankers say the recession is over. The markets are buoyant. Can we relax?

Nassim Taleb: Not at all. Central bankers have no clue. In the first place, the financial crisis was not a black swan. It was perfectly predictable. They ignored the phenomenal buildup in leverage since 1980. They acted like airline pilots who’d never heard of hurricanes.

After finishing The Black Swan, I realized there was a cancer. The cancer was a huge buildup of risk-taking based on the lack of understanding of reality. The second problem is the hidden risk with new financial products. And the third is the interdependence among financial institutions.

MW: But aren’t those the very problems we’re supposed to be fixing?

MT: They’re all still here. Today we still have the same amount of debt, but it belongs to governments. Normally debt would get destroyed and turn to air. Debt is a mistake between lender and borrower, and both should suffer. But the government is socializing all these losses by transforming them into liabilities for your children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren. What is the effect? The doctor has shown up and relieved the patient’s symptoms – and transformed the tumour into a metastatic tumour. We still have the same disease. We still have too much debt, too many big banks, too much state sponsorship of risk-taking. And now we have six million more Americans who are unemployed – a lot more than that if you count hidden unemployment.

MW: Are you saying the U.S. shouldn’t have done all those bailouts? What was the alternative?

NT: Blood , sweat and tears. A lot of the growth of the past few years was fake growth from debt. So swallow the losses, be dignified and move on. Suck it up. I gather you’re not too impressed with the folks in Washington who are handling this crisis.

Ben Bernanke saved nothing! He shouldn’t be allowed in Washington. He’s like a doctor who misses the metastatic tumour and says the patient is doing very well. The first thing I would tell Chinese officials is, how can you buy U.S. bonds as long as Larry Summers is there? He’s a textbook case of overconfidence. Look what happened to Harvard’s finances. They took a lot of risk they didn’t understand, and it was a disaster. That’s the Larry Summers mentality.

MW: You argue that globalization and modern technology have made the world financial system far more fragile than ever before. How?

NT: Globalization and the Web create worldwide mass effects, whether positive or negative. We have planetary fads that cause random variables to have bigger spikes than ever before. Variables that used to move 10 per cent now move 30 per cent. The whole planet can pull its money out on the same day. The Internet is what bankrupted Iceland! You in Canada destroyed things with your BlackBerry.

MW: You also say that competition among big companies is the Achilles heel of capitalism. What do you mean by that?

NT: If you make corporations compete, sometimes the one that appears most fit for survival is really the one that is most exposed to the negative black swan. What happens is that if you make $4 a share but you’re betting the ranch, like GE, the analysts will love you. But if you make only $2 a share with no risk on your book, they’ll say you’re not doing well. All the incentives are perverse.

MW: We here in Canada feel pretty good because our banks are in good shape and we’ve escaped relatively lightly. What’s your take?

NT: That’s true. You guys are slightly more insulated than others. But there’s no way you can escape the mistakes made by others. They’ll just cost you somewhat less. But if we wind up with hyperinflation, Canada will be the best place in the world to be. You’ve got energy and minerals. You’re not overspecialized. You’re self-sufficient.

MW: Up here our government is promising we can get rid of our deficit by 2015. Any views on that?

NT: Governments never got projections right before, so why should they now?

MW: So if everyone is still on the wrong track, what’s the right track?

NT: My whole idea is to lower risk in society by developing a system that can resist human error, rather than one where human error rules. The first step is to make sure that no financial institution is too big to fail. Next, make sure governments don’t favour big companies. Governments should also decrease the role of economists – they’re no more reliable than astrologers, and they do more damage.

MW: Now that you’ve painted such a rosy outlook, do you have any advice on how individuals can guard against losing 40 per cent of their money in this extremely risky world?

NT: My advice is that instead of investing in medium-risk securities, you should put most of your money in very low-risk securities, and a little bit in high-risk securities. Then you might get a good black swan. Also, it’s good to have more than one profession, in case your own profession goes out of style. A Wall Street trader who’s also a belly dancer will do a lot better than a trader who winds up driving a taxi.

I know it’s not Milton or Halton, but it is something that impacts us all.  I am hugely concerned about governments spending money like its going out of style.  Don’t get me wrong, I am not against a public sector where necessary.  But governments have gone too far lately, way too far. I worry about the world we are leaving for our children.

It’s time to start a new section: book reviews.  Today’s book: Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely. 

I took a few Economics courses in high school and university and always felt that classic economics did not work in real life.  Us humans aren’t rational machines after all.  We are emotional beings.  This is why I am very interested in behavioural economics. 

Predictably Irrational is a very easy read that uses about a lot of fun studies to demonstrate how irrational people really are.  It actually goes further and shows how our irrationality is completely predictable.  Reading about paradoxes of human behaviour is fairly entertaining. 

If you have ready other material on the subject then you won’t find the bug extremely thought provoking.  It does not really introduce anything new that other books have not touched already. I enjoyed it for the entertaining factor though.  I do think that most people will find it thought provoking and educational as well. 

I recommend it.  If nothing else then at least it is an entertaining read that will occupy you for a few hours.  that’s always worth it, right?  Amazon.com lets you read the first few pages for free. 

Wow, that was one long title.  I’ve been on 5 hours sleep for a long time, so bear with me.

I had a very long post figured out that talked about the issue from Halton’s point of view, Mattamy’s point of view and my opinion of what was going on.  I think it got detailed enough that the main point got lost.  So I decided not to post that.

Here’s a very brief summary of the conclusion that post reached:

• I spoke with many people and the charge / tax / levy / fee is here to stay.  If you’re hit with it then you can protest to the Regional Council all you like, but it’s likely not going to help: either the Council is evil and out to get new home buyers in which case they won’t care or they are genuinely concerned about the shortfall and this is really needed to fund new growth, in which case it’s needed and won’t go away.  You can see the webcast of the meeting where the Councillors voted on the issue. I don’t think anything was left unsaid [if you are talking to a Councillor then it helps to find out who your Councillor is.  It seems like people are all talking to a single Councillor].
• So the best option is to talk to Mattamy.  Notice i said talk.  Some people said they were thinking about legal actions.  I don’t see how that would possibly help.  If anything, it will likely cost you a lot more than it’s worth.
• I was asked what I would’ve done.  I talked to five Town Councillors to really understand the Nassagewaya Tennis Club funding justification.  And that did not even directly impact me.  Those who know me well know that if I got hit with it, I’d be outside Mattamy’s sales office the very next day with posters and banners, distributing flyers to all potential home buyer, telling them how Mattamy screwed it’s home purchasers.  I would have called every media outlet telling them about protests outside Mattamy’s sales office. I would do it until they reduced the charge. I am not necessarily recommending you do this, just saying this is what I would have done. 
• If I had a lawyer who did not cap the cost for me then I would certainly get that lawyer to at least do my closing for free (that’s close to $1,000 saving right there). Capping the cost is a very standard thing and any lawyer who did not recommend the cap may have done a disservice.
• Here’s what I think people should do:
  • First, get organized and get together.  There’s power in collective bargaining (oh where have I heard this term before :)
  • Find out from your lawyer if Mattamy can pass this charge.  Rest of the points assume that they can.
  • Number of people hit with the increase who did not cap their charge is fairly small.  Mattamy may be willing to reduce it since in the greater scheme of things, it’s not a huge cost to them.  Mattamy, like any other company, is looking at the cost-benefit analysis.  Giving you guys a break costs Mattamy money. You just have to make sure that the benefit they get from it saves them money or gives them goodwill that makes it worth it. I will leave it to your imagination* to figure out how to do that (just don’t get too creative).  At least try to convince Mattamy to meet you half way
  • Once you and Mattamy have agreed on the charge that you will pay, convince them to redo the Purchase & Sales agreement to reflect the additional cost in price so it is easier to finance. An additional $5,000 mortgage (especially in this interest rate environment) will likely cost $25 / month or so.  It’s money, but not the end of the world especially considering people buying now are paying the higher price any way. 

It’s a painful situation but if you can reduce the cost to less than $20 / month, then while it will still suck, it will hurt a lot less.  People were talking about refusing to close or other drastic actions.  I would highly discourage you from going down that route.  You won’t win it. 

Good luck!  I’ll post more as I get more info.

Here’s the summary: street garbage bins are mostly empty air. Yet it costs a lot of money to empty them out (mostly operation of the garbage truck).  Meet BigBelly.  

This baby is solar powered and compacts garbage on site for a 5-to-1 volume reduction. That should work really well in remote areas (where pickup is expensive) or heavy urban areas (where pickups are very frequent). 

The theory is that while it is expensive to buy up front, because it compacts on site, municipalities can save money by having to pick up garbage much infrequently. 

I haven’t run numbers to verify the claim but I am always intrigued when people come up with technology solutions to simple problems. 

City of Philadelphia leased 500 of these and placed them downtown.  It should be an interesting case study.  The company claims that the city should save $13 million over the product lifetime.  Those claims are often exaggerated but even if it’s half that, it’s not exactly pocket change.

This may well be like CFL bulbs: expensive to buy but save money over the product lifetime.  May be the City of Toronto and other larger municipalities should consider it, I am not sure if Milton is large enough to benefit (yet).

More info on the BigBelly website. 

I just thought of something.

Say development charges for new homes go up by $20,000.  Two things happen :-

1. The person buying a new house needs to get a mortgage of additional $20,000.  Their mortgage is $20K higher, so they pay higher interest
2. Since the house price goes up by $20,000 because of the additional tax (ya ya, it’s a tax), they pay higher GST!
3. Their property values are assessed $20,000 higher, so the Town / Region collects more property tax

So let me get this straight: first we hit people when they buy a house, then just because we taxed them more, we increase their property taxes. Lovely :)

A person buying a $550,000 new construction in Halton next year will pay :

• Development charges that the builder passes on
• GST [higher because of highest development charges]
• PST (both actually combined into HST)
• Ontario Land Transfer Tax [also high]

By the time it’s all done, the poor person purchasing a new home will end up paying over $100,000 extra just in taxes.

Sweet, sweet gravy train.

Here is a run-down:

• The Region passed an approximately $7,888 increase in Development Charges for SDE residential construction
• Mattamy Homes passed that on to homeowners who have purchased but not closed.  Many of them got a $7,888 bill in mail
• The Region insists that it’s a fee payable by Mattamy and implies that they should not be able to pass it on to consumers.  More info in their FAQ
• Mattamy cries foul, especially since they paid millions in development charges in advance (you can think of it as an interest-free loan). Perhaps the region should not be able to back-charge if it accepts money in advance.  Their point of view is here
• But then again, Mattamy rushed through the approval of 1500 homes in 2007 and agreed to pay remaining charges when they were calculated in the 2008-2009 budget.  They took a business risk (that the increase would be low) and lost the gamble

I have been asked where I stand. I don’t know yet.  I am trying to get more info.  I sympathize with people.  I’d be pissed if I had to come up with an extra $8,000 for closing.  That’s a lot of money.  Here’s what I agree with :-

General:

• New residents pay for all development costs.  Everyone, including Mattamy, agrees with that
• It has been argued that the Region / Town could be more efficient with projects that cost DC money.  [Zeeshan says: Perhaps]
• I am personally against stealth tax.  People should know how much of their house price was due to development fees and where that money is going. They could find out if they really cared, but it would be nice if this was spelled out for them
• I want to see development charges stay in the locale they are raised from.  If residents in a subdivision that requires an underpass have higher development charges, then that’s fair.  If residents in that subdivision pay through their noses but still do not get their infrastructure, then that’s unfair.

Halton:

• Halton’s share of development charges go into a general pool and can get spent anywhere.  So Halton can take a few dozen million dollars from Mattamy home buyers in Milton and spend it on overdue projects in Burlington.  That’s where the theory breaks since this money, raised by home buyers in 2009 and 2010 in one location may not necessarily fund their growth.  By the way, I am not accusing the Region.  I am saying that it’s possible.  It should not be. 
• I also agree that the Region cannot have it both ways.  Either it should take fee from a builder in advance or it should wait until it finalizes what the charges are.  That means no advance approvals of homes for builders either (sorry Mattamy).
• Does it really cost two to three times more to put infrastructure in Halton than it does in other places?  Has the cost really gone up nearly 3 times in last few years?  Is it a ploy to stop growth?
  [It’s not.  It’s all Ontario’s fault (yes, I am serious)]

Province:

• I sympathize with the Region as well. The Province funded a lot of new growth in Peel and other regions but have now left Halton with the bill.  Halton is growing like crazy and managing that growth costs a lot of money. Ontario’s Place To Grow will only make things worse.  Ontario needs to foot up the bill
• I am disappointed that Ontario even allows a builder to pass on additional cost after a purchase and sales agreement has been signed.  Ask yourself this, if your income goes down after you sign the agreement then can you pull out?  Can you buy a smaller house?  No!  You have to put up with whatever your financial circumstances become. Why shouldn’t the builder do the same? 

Builder:

• I feel bad for Mattamy, I really do.  But it seems like consumers are being used as pawns in politics between the Region and builders. That’s not right, no matter what hardship Mattamy is going through.  As I said, Mattamy gambled when it agreed in advance to a charge without knowing what it was going to be.  It was a business risk that did not work out.  Tough!

Finally, shame on lawyers who reviewed Purchase and Sales agreements but did not cap the cost to $1,000 like many other lawyers did.  Shame, shame, shame. They should refund their client’s fees and close for free!

It’s a tough situation for everyone, but especially for people who got stuck in the middle. It seems like the Region doesn’t care about them, since they represent a tiny number of votes (and new residents don’t vote anyway). The builder does not care about them, because these people are already stuck.  The Province doesn’t care.  These people are really in a tight spot.

I will write more once I have more information, I am on the case.  It is just remarkably difficult to get simple information.  You’d think that halton.ca would have a history of residential development charges in a table format that’s easy to find.

Stay tuned!

With a Federal election potentially looming, one of my pet peeves is going to come out: that’s some (many?) people’s inability to differentiate between matters of principle and policy. 

You can think of a principle as an ethical standard.  Most people actually agree on most principles. It is the policy that achieves those principles that we disagree upon.

For instance, two people may completely agree on the principle of safety.  However, one may promote a policy of banning all handguns while the other may support making them readily available with no strings attached.

It is okay to change one’s stand on policy issues. It shows the ability to compromise, which is a good thing.  However, it is not normal to change one’s principles (people’s views on principles do change over time, but it’s not typical).  For instance, either you believe in the principle of racial equality or you don’t.  If you do then chances are that you won’t suddenly turn into a racist bigot. 

Unfortunately political parties in Canada (and the States for that matter) deliberately confuse people when someone from a different party changes his or her stand on a policy issue.  People are often painted as dishonest or indecisive. 

A lot of President G.W. Bush’s failures stemmed from the fact that he was stubborn on issues of policies.  When that happens, policies become principles instead of simply a mean to achieve a principle. I remember a time when tax-cuts, wars, privatization of social security all turned into goals, rather than a method to achieve goals.  You can see how unsuccessful he was with most of his policies. 

We should not penalize people for showing flexibility on policy issues, provided that it helps achieve the principle goal sooner. Rather, we should encourage it and support it.