If you bring up the subject of the "Plunge Protection Team," don't be surprised to be labeled a conspiracy theorist or be greeted by dumb looks, even from your financial advisor. The arrogant and the dishonest will say it doesn't exist, invoking all the universal wisdom of mainsteam media to prove their point. In a way, they are right. It's actually called the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, and you won't hear about on TV, but you will see it mentioned in the back pages of The Economist, Wall Street Journal, and other channels that reach a selected audience. To save you the time and convince you of it's reality, here are some links regarding the most recent PPT meeting which was hastily called around the Fed's $30 billion bailout of Bear Stearns on Monday, March 17. Here's one from CFO Magazine titled A Visible Hand Reluctantly Grows Heavier. Here's another link to the story from Financial Week. Oh, and here's an Associated Press photo of our trusted President Bush, Treasury Secretary Paulson, and good Fed Chief Bernanke exchanging laughs and smiles as they address the economic exigencies of a nation.
What's wrong with that, you ask? Lot's of things, but I don't feel like writing a book on the subject (though a book on the subject is needed), so let's just go to the most blatantly obvious problem with the PPT. Go back and look at the AP photo link again. That's the President, his appointed Secretary of the Treasury, and Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank's Board of Governors. Together. Determining policy. Colluding on policy to deal with the Bear Stearns fiasco. Enough hints? Okay, if you didn't study economics or pay attention during civics lessons, here's the deal. The whole reason we American people have been taught to accept the Federal Reserve Bank is because we had to have a central bank that was isolated from political pressure in order to independently and objectively pursue monetary policy in the best interest of the nation as a whole.
Yet here is the Executive Branch and the Chairman of the private corporation known as the Federal Reserve Bank meeting in the White House and collectively fashioning monetary policy. The result of all this was a loan made and guaranteed by the U.S. taxpayer to save an investment bank from a run by its creditors. We're not talking about the average Joe and his $100,000 of FDIC insured savings here, we're talking about a complete bailout of an investment bank for its own risky behavior.
Yet the PPT does even more than that. The Working Group on Financial Markets actually arranges loans and interbank transfers for anonymous institutions to intervene in market sell-offs by buying futures in key market averages. The result is like buying commodities futures in gold or otherwise, except the PPT is arranging to have bets purchased on market indexes like the DOW, which puts upward pressure on the stock prices and forces margin calls on short positions. In another words, an elected President has a direct means of manipulating the U.S. stock market through the PPT. The myth of Fed independnce is shattered. Forget about cajoling congress to pass sweetheart legislation to pay off political donors. That's now soooo 20th Century. The U.S. President can now rig markets to financially ruin political enemies and reward friends within weeks. The rest of the PPT? Well, except for Bernanke, they are all Presidential appointees like the Chairman of the SEC. Congress, our Constitutionally designated guardians of the U.S. Treasury, has no members on this team.
Of course, billionaire investors like George Soros and Jim Rogers can still play certain stocks short with the funds to cover any upticks, but the average day trader and small investor like me has a whole new dimension to consider when taking a short position. It's not enough to just do your homework and bet on stock declines, now you have to try to guess what the PPT will do, knowing that the President is sitting at the table with his own approval ratings in mind.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Monday, March 3, 2008
Presidential Candidates' Stands On Political Zionism
Introducing this article, let me say up front that most developed nations with liberal press laws openly discuss the topic of political Zionism, including Israel. You can search the BBC, 'Al Haaretz, La Monde, the Canadian Globe & Mail, etc, and find articles and commentary on political Zionism. It is a hotly debated topic in Israel, generally encompassing regional relationships and settlement expansion, dividing Jewish opinion. This blog does not constrain opinion to the range of political inquiry that is presented by America's big media conglomerates for the masses to digest. The policies of Zionism since their origin in World War I have had a profound impact on the history of the world and the Jewish people themselves. Therefore, honest discussion of political Zionism is necessary.
The current Bush Administration is the most neoconservative executive cabinet in U.S. history. Neoconservative foreign policy is strongly aligned with the hawkish Likud Party of Israel. Paul Wolfowitz, Michael Chertoff, Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, etc, are prominent Neocons who embrace Likud political causes. The Likud Party of Israel espouses a strong military role in the Middle East, ostensibly as a matter of national defense and this "defensive" posture must include preemptive use of force (i.e. war) in the region. The Bush Administration and the Likud Party are the main proponents of preemptive warfare against countries like Iran and Syria. This basic aspect of foreign policy is consistent with the more militant approach of political Zionism. Zionism is fundamentally the political assertion that Israel has a right to exist, deserved to be its own sovereign nation, and has a rightful claim (for a variety of reasons, both political and religious) to a certain amount of land in the Middle East. The extent of this claim and the policies of protecting it and potentially expanding it are fundamentally the subject of political Zionism. The origins of Zionism, the philosophy behind it, and the consequences of Zionism for all stakeholders in the world is beyond the scope of this article. Whether one would argue that Zionism exists primarily as a result of economic motives (oil, the Suez Canal, etc) or idealogical and religious convictions is also beyond the scope of this article. Zionism in the full scope of its implications for U.S. foreign policy is real.
Thus we arrive at the subject of this article (after the unfortunate preface that is required of any article discussing Zionism in an objective context). As the candidates for the U.S. Presidency in 2008 campaign with their visions for U.S. foreign policy, the subject of the war in Iraq and what should be done about alleged threats like Iran and Syria, is debated among these candidates. As we have seen, whatever the course of future U.S. policy in the region, it will have some relationship with Israel, a popular U.S. ally, and fall somewhere in the spectrum of what is debated throughout the world as political Zionism. That much is objective. No argument is being made here about the extent of influence exercised by pro-Israeli and pro-Jewish lobbies. Suffice to say, Israel and American Jewish groups organize politically for their own causes, just as other nations and the African-American or Latino American communities do. Jewish American political organizations are not necessarily Zionist, but pro-Israel lobbies in America are to some extent necessarily Zionist, since Zionism is the political ideology upon which Israel's founding and right to exist is based. Even if U.S. policy makers completely ignore the lobbying efforts of organizations like AIPAC and the Israeli government itself and craft U.S. foreign policy purely as a matter of American self-interest, that policy will still have an impact on Israel and the policies of political Zionism. Therefore, it is only logical to conclude that U.S. foreign policy under the next U.S. president will be to some degree either favorable or unfavorable to the various factions of political Zionism and ultimately to Israel as a whole.
Senator John McCain has outwardly commited to continuing the U.S. war in Iraq and potentially expanding it to Iran. McCain's reputation as a "maverick" Republican leaves some room to judge his intentions; however, he must cope with the inertia of Bush Administration and GOP policies after eight years in the White House. His cabinet will likely be seeded with conservatives who have earned their stripes during this time, so it is difficult to imagine too much "maverick" behavior. He's being endorsed by many prominent neocons and will certainly be under pressure from those organizations to carry on their fight. While it is difficult to imagine a McCain Administration that is worse than the Bush/Cheney Administration--McCain actually experienced war, speaks fluent English, and has 30 years of political experience--it is not likely to be very different with regard to U.S. foreign policy. Even hawkish neocons like Richard Perle have publicly blasted the Bushies for their handling of the Iraq occupation. They don't disagree with the policy, they simply want to distance themselves from the consequences of its poor execution. Thusly, McCain expressed himself in the November 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, "Only after four years of conflict did the United States adopt a counterinsurgency strategy, backed by increased force levels, that gives us a realistic chance of success." McCain makes it clear in his diatribe to the Council on Foreign Relations, that he is all in on this high stakes game in Iraq.
The opportunity for real change in U.S. foreign policy largely depends on Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama. To understand how a Clinton or Obama presidency would impact foreign policy, one can begin by looking to their respective commentaries in the pages of Foreign Affairs, the periodical tome of the Council on Foreign Relations. In Hillary's appeal to this austere group of foreign policy "experts,"published in November 2007, she opens her commentary with a call to "get out of Iraq," but shortly thereafter asserts that "the next administration will have to confront an unpredictable and dangerous situation in the Middle East that threatens Israel and could potentially bring down the global economy by disrupting oil supplies. " Hillary goes on to say, "Getting out of Iraq will enable us to play a constructive role in a renewed Middle East peace process that would mean security and normal relations for Israel and the Palestinians." Hillary declares that true statemanship demands engaging enemies like Iran, but "all options must remain on the table." Senator Clinton does not specifically state these options, but also does not exclude some of the most radical military proposals of the Bush-neocons, like preemptive use of nuclear weapons. To briefly summarize, Clinton is calling for a more diplomatic approach to the Israeli-Palestinian problem and independent Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, per agreements made in 2000. Additionally, she wishes to engage nations like Iran, Syria, etc, in diplomatic relations as a means of showing the Arab people that America's quarrel is with their governments, not their populations. However, the option of reigning down nuclear death over their heads is still "on the table." Clinton's vision of foreign policy in the Middle East is, at least rhetorically, much broader than the Bush-neocon approach. It outwardly suggests pressure on Israel to cease expansion in the occupied territories, thus excluding the pro-expansion factions of political Zionism, but maintains the current Bush administration's commitment to bind the fate of the U.S. to that of Israel.
Senator Obama open's his Foreign Affairs article from August 2007, calling for America to remain engaged in world affairs. Obama states his opinion that the basic failure of the Bush Administration was its response to the "unconventional" attacks of 9/11 with "conventional thinking of the past, largely viewing problems as state-based (there's a state called "terror?"--ed.) and principally amenable to military solutions. It was this tragically misguided view that led us into a war in Iraq that never should have been authorized and never should have been waged." Obama takes more time in his writing before mentioning Israel. "Our starting point must always be a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel, our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy." Obama remains ambiguous on the Israeli-Palestinian problem, promising only a "commitment" to "peace and security." Unlike Clinton, Obama does not harken back to prior resolutions or commitments made by Israel and the Palestinians. With regard to Iran, Obama says, "Although we must not rule out using military force, we should not hesitate to talk directly to Iran." He speaks of "raising the cost" to Iran of its nuclear program, but does not use language implying that preemptive nuclear warfare should be an option. In general, Obama spends less time in his essay on U.S. policy in the Middle East. This could be interpretted as reflecting the views of his foreign policy advisor, Zbigniew Brezinski, that the main players in world affairs are still the super powers and the efforts of the State Department should be focused on them. Indeed, Obama leaves the question of where his policies will fall in the political spectrum of Zionism largely open ended, speaking more generally about U.S. foreign policy in the world as a whole.
Now to editorialize, McCain seems to be hitching himself to the militant Neocon/Likud axis of power. He's publicly distancing himself from an unpopular President Bush, and the likes of even less popular administration figures like Dick Cheney have become conspicuously absent from White House press operations, but the neocons have a firm grip on the Republican party and Presidential pulpit for another year. Hillary Clinton is the only candidate willing to remind the American people that peace talks have been going on for years between Israel and its Arab neighbors, particularly the Palestinians. She deserves credit for calling on both sides to respect past treaties as a starting point for peace, but continues her "all options" rhetoric with regard to Iran, despite endorsing greater diplomacy. All options would include waging nuclear war, which is consistent with the most hawkish views of political Zionists. Barak Obama would see the most removed from foreign policy that is inter-related with political Zionism, but his views on the Middle East are vague. Looking to his foreign policy advisor Brezinsky for clues, it would appear that Obama would pursue a more Cold War-oriented approach.
Every voter should take the time to read each major candidate's Foreign Affairs article. These articles provide a much more telling glimpse at how each candidate would pursue foreign policy in the Middle East than one can get from mainstream media coverage of their campaigns, though it should be said that each of the editorials contains a litany of platitudes and half-truths that are meant to frame the foreign policy issues as conveniently as possible. Every voter should take the time to contemplate these issues, the true cost of military interventionism in the Middle East, and the opportunity cost of those policies to our well-being at home in America.
The current Bush Administration is the most neoconservative executive cabinet in U.S. history. Neoconservative foreign policy is strongly aligned with the hawkish Likud Party of Israel. Paul Wolfowitz, Michael Chertoff, Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, etc, are prominent Neocons who embrace Likud political causes. The Likud Party of Israel espouses a strong military role in the Middle East, ostensibly as a matter of national defense and this "defensive" posture must include preemptive use of force (i.e. war) in the region. The Bush Administration and the Likud Party are the main proponents of preemptive warfare against countries like Iran and Syria. This basic aspect of foreign policy is consistent with the more militant approach of political Zionism. Zionism is fundamentally the political assertion that Israel has a right to exist, deserved to be its own sovereign nation, and has a rightful claim (for a variety of reasons, both political and religious) to a certain amount of land in the Middle East. The extent of this claim and the policies of protecting it and potentially expanding it are fundamentally the subject of political Zionism. The origins of Zionism, the philosophy behind it, and the consequences of Zionism for all stakeholders in the world is beyond the scope of this article. Whether one would argue that Zionism exists primarily as a result of economic motives (oil, the Suez Canal, etc) or idealogical and religious convictions is also beyond the scope of this article. Zionism in the full scope of its implications for U.S. foreign policy is real.
Thus we arrive at the subject of this article (after the unfortunate preface that is required of any article discussing Zionism in an objective context). As the candidates for the U.S. Presidency in 2008 campaign with their visions for U.S. foreign policy, the subject of the war in Iraq and what should be done about alleged threats like Iran and Syria, is debated among these candidates. As we have seen, whatever the course of future U.S. policy in the region, it will have some relationship with Israel, a popular U.S. ally, and fall somewhere in the spectrum of what is debated throughout the world as political Zionism. That much is objective. No argument is being made here about the extent of influence exercised by pro-Israeli and pro-Jewish lobbies. Suffice to say, Israel and American Jewish groups organize politically for their own causes, just as other nations and the African-American or Latino American communities do. Jewish American political organizations are not necessarily Zionist, but pro-Israel lobbies in America are to some extent necessarily Zionist, since Zionism is the political ideology upon which Israel's founding and right to exist is based. Even if U.S. policy makers completely ignore the lobbying efforts of organizations like AIPAC and the Israeli government itself and craft U.S. foreign policy purely as a matter of American self-interest, that policy will still have an impact on Israel and the policies of political Zionism. Therefore, it is only logical to conclude that U.S. foreign policy under the next U.S. president will be to some degree either favorable or unfavorable to the various factions of political Zionism and ultimately to Israel as a whole.
Senator John McCain has outwardly commited to continuing the U.S. war in Iraq and potentially expanding it to Iran. McCain's reputation as a "maverick" Republican leaves some room to judge his intentions; however, he must cope with the inertia of Bush Administration and GOP policies after eight years in the White House. His cabinet will likely be seeded with conservatives who have earned their stripes during this time, so it is difficult to imagine too much "maverick" behavior. He's being endorsed by many prominent neocons and will certainly be under pressure from those organizations to carry on their fight. While it is difficult to imagine a McCain Administration that is worse than the Bush/Cheney Administration--McCain actually experienced war, speaks fluent English, and has 30 years of political experience--it is not likely to be very different with regard to U.S. foreign policy. Even hawkish neocons like Richard Perle have publicly blasted the Bushies for their handling of the Iraq occupation. They don't disagree with the policy, they simply want to distance themselves from the consequences of its poor execution. Thusly, McCain expressed himself in the November 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, "Only after four years of conflict did the United States adopt a counterinsurgency strategy, backed by increased force levels, that gives us a realistic chance of success." McCain makes it clear in his diatribe to the Council on Foreign Relations, that he is all in on this high stakes game in Iraq.
The opportunity for real change in U.S. foreign policy largely depends on Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama. To understand how a Clinton or Obama presidency would impact foreign policy, one can begin by looking to their respective commentaries in the pages of Foreign Affairs, the periodical tome of the Council on Foreign Relations. In Hillary's appeal to this austere group of foreign policy "experts,"published in November 2007, she opens her commentary with a call to "get out of Iraq," but shortly thereafter asserts that "the next administration will have to confront an unpredictable and dangerous situation in the Middle East that threatens Israel and could potentially bring down the global economy by disrupting oil supplies. " Hillary goes on to say, "Getting out of Iraq will enable us to play a constructive role in a renewed Middle East peace process that would mean security and normal relations for Israel and the Palestinians." Hillary declares that true statemanship demands engaging enemies like Iran, but "all options must remain on the table." Senator Clinton does not specifically state these options, but also does not exclude some of the most radical military proposals of the Bush-neocons, like preemptive use of nuclear weapons. To briefly summarize, Clinton is calling for a more diplomatic approach to the Israeli-Palestinian problem and independent Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, per agreements made in 2000. Additionally, she wishes to engage nations like Iran, Syria, etc, in diplomatic relations as a means of showing the Arab people that America's quarrel is with their governments, not their populations. However, the option of reigning down nuclear death over their heads is still "on the table." Clinton's vision of foreign policy in the Middle East is, at least rhetorically, much broader than the Bush-neocon approach. It outwardly suggests pressure on Israel to cease expansion in the occupied territories, thus excluding the pro-expansion factions of political Zionism, but maintains the current Bush administration's commitment to bind the fate of the U.S. to that of Israel.
Senator Obama open's his Foreign Affairs article from August 2007, calling for America to remain engaged in world affairs. Obama states his opinion that the basic failure of the Bush Administration was its response to the "unconventional" attacks of 9/11 with "conventional thinking of the past, largely viewing problems as state-based (there's a state called "terror?"--ed.) and principally amenable to military solutions. It was this tragically misguided view that led us into a war in Iraq that never should have been authorized and never should have been waged." Obama takes more time in his writing before mentioning Israel. "Our starting point must always be a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel, our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy." Obama remains ambiguous on the Israeli-Palestinian problem, promising only a "commitment" to "peace and security." Unlike Clinton, Obama does not harken back to prior resolutions or commitments made by Israel and the Palestinians. With regard to Iran, Obama says, "Although we must not rule out using military force, we should not hesitate to talk directly to Iran." He speaks of "raising the cost" to Iran of its nuclear program, but does not use language implying that preemptive nuclear warfare should be an option. In general, Obama spends less time in his essay on U.S. policy in the Middle East. This could be interpretted as reflecting the views of his foreign policy advisor, Zbigniew Brezinski, that the main players in world affairs are still the super powers and the efforts of the State Department should be focused on them. Indeed, Obama leaves the question of where his policies will fall in the political spectrum of Zionism largely open ended, speaking more generally about U.S. foreign policy in the world as a whole.
Now to editorialize, McCain seems to be hitching himself to the militant Neocon/Likud axis of power. He's publicly distancing himself from an unpopular President Bush, and the likes of even less popular administration figures like Dick Cheney have become conspicuously absent from White House press operations, but the neocons have a firm grip on the Republican party and Presidential pulpit for another year. Hillary Clinton is the only candidate willing to remind the American people that peace talks have been going on for years between Israel and its Arab neighbors, particularly the Palestinians. She deserves credit for calling on both sides to respect past treaties as a starting point for peace, but continues her "all options" rhetoric with regard to Iran, despite endorsing greater diplomacy. All options would include waging nuclear war, which is consistent with the most hawkish views of political Zionists. Barak Obama would see the most removed from foreign policy that is inter-related with political Zionism, but his views on the Middle East are vague. Looking to his foreign policy advisor Brezinsky for clues, it would appear that Obama would pursue a more Cold War-oriented approach.
Every voter should take the time to read each major candidate's Foreign Affairs article. These articles provide a much more telling glimpse at how each candidate would pursue foreign policy in the Middle East than one can get from mainstream media coverage of their campaigns, though it should be said that each of the editorials contains a litany of platitudes and half-truths that are meant to frame the foreign policy issues as conveniently as possible. Every voter should take the time to contemplate these issues, the true cost of military interventionism in the Middle East, and the opportunity cost of those policies to our well-being at home in America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
