Hello everybody. I am reenergizing my blogging after a lengthy hiatus. Unfortunately, blogging doesn't pay the bills and I had to work as a contractor for one of the high tech biggies of the Silicon Forest.
It's been a strange year. The last post I made was March 2008 about the plunge protection team (President's Working Group On Capital Markets). That's when things were getting particularly shakey with the economy and I could tell things were spinning out of control when we saw the big financial stocks begin to creak and groan. I'm not a financial advisor, but I do have friends and family who I informally advise and after July 4, I began to spread the word. "Get out of the market. Now." I had actually liquidated my own 401K funds and spread them among FDIC insured institutions (the ones with stronger balance sheets) and Euro accounts.
The problem with 401K accounts and the reason this bubble is completely different than the dot-com bubble is because this time the toxins of the financials was firmly embedded in "value funds," "long-term equity funds," and other such misnomers that imply the securities that make up the funds are of firms with strong balance sheets and conservative capital management--something I blogged about back in 2007. I predicted an early 80's type of recession--higher interest rates, bank failures, and a general blood-letting throughout the economy.
Well folks, we are now passing the 80's comparison, matching many post-WWII recession comparisons, and drifting toward a Great Depression type of scenario, but I'll leave that argument for future blog fodder.
The other big developments of the past year are political. President Obama got elected amidst much hoopla about "change" (a buzzword that if you study election history seems to pop almost every four years and has been the mantra of everyone from Clinton to Nixon to Nelson Rockefeller to Theo Roosevelt). It should come as no surprise that we're getting more of the same and Obama's cabinet appointments tell the story. Hillary suffered a humiliating primary loss, but got a consolation prize as Secretary of State. Somehow that office is now more prestigious than a Senator from New York and that itself says something about how power in America has been consolidated in the Executive Branch---and is intended to stay that way.
On the Republican side, the most formidable candidate was Rep. Ron Paul, a medical doctora who set records fundraising among troops who have served in Iraq. No matter what campaign triumph of Paul, he went virtually ignored by the mainstream media, leaving us with a Saturday Night Live skit campaign of McCain and Sarah Palin. At one point when questioned on his own life of government health care and benefits he stumbled for words and replied with, "I've never been an astronaut, but I know the challenges of space." Steve Martin couldn't have been funnier.
That left Cynthia McKinney for the Green Party, some totally forgetable Libertarian candidate, and yet another appearance from Ralf Nader who had no party affiliation. Nader, of course, got to spin his wheels on the political talk show circuit while former Georgia Congresswoman McKinney, despite being the most accomplished Green candidate ever was completely ignored. I suppose that's what happens when you question the 9-11 Commission on-record about 'Vigilant Guardian,' the NORAD exercise that was conducted in the weeks prior to September 11, to prepare for the hijacked jet-liner scenario that Bush and Condi Rice didn't think anybody could have foreseen.
Bringing the current state of democracy closer to home, Portland elected Sam Adams as mayor, making him the first openly gay mayor of a major American city. Our proudly progressive community hailed this as a major breakthrough for the gay and lesbian cause, but within weeks of being sworn in the mayor, 42, was forced to admit that he had sex with a teenage intern whom he had been mentoring. It was an accusation he vociferously denied during his campaign. When the story broke, Sam defended his actions because he waited until the very young man turned 18. In fact, the major city mayor drove to Salem to attend the lad's birthday party, thus making sure he was legal. Barely. Prior to that, the would-be role model restricted his mentoring activities to some heavy pettin' and kissing in the City Hall men's room. This chain of events now has the Portland gay community bitterly divided about whether Sam is a victim of homophobia or a reinforcement of the worse stereo-types about homosexuality.
In my own life I've done some blogging under a pen name for some more mainstream blogs, but the message of this blog needs to get out, so I'm back. The blogosphere has continued to bifurcate to the extremes--a narrow focus on the scope of debate framed by the corporate media in one direction and outlandish conspiracy theories about aliens and cults on the other. This is getting back to basics, facts. News and views for those with the eyes to see and courage not to look away. Now that we've skipped across the last year, touching topics relative to this blog, I'll bid you adieu and try to stay more up-to-date.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Working Group on Financial Markets Breeches Fed Independence, Manipulates Market
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Why the housing credit bubble is much worse han the "dot.com" bubble of the 90s
As the stock market joins the dollar on its hang-gliding trajectory back down to lower ground, many journalists and bloggers have been comparing this market collapse to the dot.com bubble of the 90s. True, you can reasonably compare the discounted risk assessments investors had for the new tech firms of the 90s with the easy credit given to sub-prime borrowers. Certainly, the market fall for tech stocks and speculative real estate securities looks the same, just like gravity will bring a falling boulder or apple to earth at an impartial rate of speed. However, the current market collapse being triggered by the easy credit, “housing bubble” is a much more dangerous phenomenon than was the dot.com implosion of 2000-01.
One big reason is that the dot.com bubble, which we’ll more accurately refer to here as the high tech bubble, yielded a productivity boom that was felt throughout the economy. As microprocessors became faster and software efficiency improved, business and personal investment in that equipment was easily justified. The money supply largely expanded with those boosts in productivity. Bets on high tech stocks were bets on which firms and competing technologies were going to win. Yahoo was a winner. Infoseek paid off when acquired by Disney. Redback was acquired by Ericcson. Exodus died. Juniper lived. Webvan failed, but Amazon succeeded. Excite At Home perished, but broadband internet flourished anyway. No matter who won, the best technologies themselves survived and became interwoven into the world we live and work in.
Housing construction and loan origination, on the other hand, do nothing to increase productivity throughout the economy. An individual home builder or mortgage broker might get better at their job over time, but this boom did not revitalize the business models of other industries, the same way computer networking and software have done.
Another reason the high tech and housing driven collapses are very different is that the high tech boom didn’t account for most of the employment generated during 90s. Growth in the economy, spurred by high tech, occurred across all sectors. Job growth during the housing boom has almost entirely been within the housing sector, so that as those companies fail or fast for survival, the impact on unemployment will be much more severe. Unlike the many high skilled workers that flourished during the high tech boom and could easily take their programming and engineering skills to other industries, housing employment has been primarily unskilled. It doesn’t take a professional degree from an accredited university to be a real estate agent or loan originator, and as these people find themselves out of work, they won’t be able to easily transition into another career. Competition for the remaining jobs will become intense. A very abrupt structural change in the nation’s employment is taking place.
Furthermore, the high tech stocks always were speculative and tended to be isolated from more traditional investments. “Value” mutual funds that most people put their 401K and IRA savings into didn’t include big stakes in JDS Uniphase or Silicon Graphics. By contrast, the collateralized debt securities in which today’s challenged mortgages are bundled are held by many of the world’s biggest banks. Take a closer look at your Oppenheimer or Fidelity “value,” “balanced,” or “long-term” funds. Don’t be the least bit surprised to see Countrywide Mortgage or Citibank or Washington Mutual as one of the bigger assets in there. In the high tech bubble, getting into “aggressive” and “tech” funds was a choice. The hangovers hurt, but investors knew what they were drinking. In the mortgage/housing market collapse, investment bankers and fund managers have spiked punch and millions of people don’t realize what they are in for.
One big reason is that the dot.com bubble, which we’ll more accurately refer to here as the high tech bubble, yielded a productivity boom that was felt throughout the economy. As microprocessors became faster and software efficiency improved, business and personal investment in that equipment was easily justified. The money supply largely expanded with those boosts in productivity. Bets on high tech stocks were bets on which firms and competing technologies were going to win. Yahoo was a winner. Infoseek paid off when acquired by Disney. Redback was acquired by Ericcson. Exodus died. Juniper lived. Webvan failed, but Amazon succeeded. Excite At Home perished, but broadband internet flourished anyway. No matter who won, the best technologies themselves survived and became interwoven into the world we live and work in.
Housing construction and loan origination, on the other hand, do nothing to increase productivity throughout the economy. An individual home builder or mortgage broker might get better at their job over time, but this boom did not revitalize the business models of other industries, the same way computer networking and software have done.
Another reason the high tech and housing driven collapses are very different is that the high tech boom didn’t account for most of the employment generated during 90s. Growth in the economy, spurred by high tech, occurred across all sectors. Job growth during the housing boom has almost entirely been within the housing sector, so that as those companies fail or fast for survival, the impact on unemployment will be much more severe. Unlike the many high skilled workers that flourished during the high tech boom and could easily take their programming and engineering skills to other industries, housing employment has been primarily unskilled. It doesn’t take a professional degree from an accredited university to be a real estate agent or loan originator, and as these people find themselves out of work, they won’t be able to easily transition into another career. Competition for the remaining jobs will become intense. A very abrupt structural change in the nation’s employment is taking place.
Furthermore, the high tech stocks always were speculative and tended to be isolated from more traditional investments. “Value” mutual funds that most people put their 401K and IRA savings into didn’t include big stakes in JDS Uniphase or Silicon Graphics. By contrast, the collateralized debt securities in which today’s challenged mortgages are bundled are held by many of the world’s biggest banks. Take a closer look at your Oppenheimer or Fidelity “value,” “balanced,” or “long-term” funds. Don’t be the least bit surprised to see Countrywide Mortgage or Citibank or Washington Mutual as one of the bigger assets in there. In the high tech bubble, getting into “aggressive” and “tech” funds was a choice. The hangovers hurt, but investors knew what they were drinking. In the mortgage/housing market collapse, investment bankers and fund managers have spiked punch and millions of people don’t realize what they are in for.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Ron Paul goes Mahatma Gandhi
Mahatma Gandhi once said of revolutionary change, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at your, then they attack you, then you win." Since Rep. Ron Paul announced his 2008 campaign for President of the U.S., he's been getting the classic Gandhi treatment.
Initial internet support and straw poll victories were basically ignored, as the mainstream media refused to report any of these successes. Like other alternative candidates like Dennis Kucinich, the Democrat from Ohio, Paul was ignored. Poll results often grouped his numbers in the ubiquitous "other" category, if he was included in the poll at all. When a fundraising drive centered on November 5, known in England as Guy Fawkes night for the "gunpowder plot" to blow up Parliament in 1605, brought in over $2 million, the name Ron Paul started to be muttered on TV and talk radio. Money talks and Pauls message was speaking louder than that of John McCain, Mitt Romney, etc. As the establishment media and politicians keep reminding us, we are "at war," so when the story broke that military servicemen and families were donating more to Ron Paul than any other candidate, the tactic changed.
Ron Paul began to get mentioned in the mainstream media, but was ridiculed by the right and left. George Stephanopoulas on This Week interviewed Paul, seeking to know why he was running when he had no chance of winning. Thom Hartmann spoke of Ron Paul on Air America Radio, calling libertarians "Republicans that want to get high" and support prostitution. Sean Hannity poured his smug derision over Paul's criticism of Bush Administration foreign policy while Bill O'Reilly told Paul he was "living in the land of Oz." USA Today covered Paul's questioning of Fed Chairman Bernanke as being a medical doctor talking to a professional economist. Supporters of Paul have increasingly been labeled "kooks" and "nuts." The establishment was having a good laugh at this audacious attempt to break presidential politics out of its convenient framing effects of left vs right, for the troops vs isolationism, debates over minimum wage and waterboarding.
The laughing stopped as Ron Paul had the single biggest fundraising day in presidential politics and his campaign contributions soared to over $17 million. The support that was supposed to be limited to grumpy old men and young people on the internet was starting to compete with Giuliani and Huckabee's $5,000 per plate fundraising dinners. Democrats began to see his anti-war and anti-globalist message steal primary voters over to the Republicans to support Paul. That's when the attacks began.
Tim Russert welcomed Ron Paul on Meet The Press on December 23, not with the normally jovial banter that he has for star candidates like Clinton and Giuliani, but with a scowling series of questions that were clearly meant to keep Paul on the defensive. Glen Beck dedicated his entire day-after-Christmas show to explaining why Republicans should not be duped by Ron Paul's desire to get rid of the IRS and income tax, playing a series of quotes by Paul meant to depict the candidate of being a military softy who can't be trusted with America's safety.
Yet a strange thing is happening. The more the establishment attacks Ron Paul, the more his message gets heard. The problem for the establishment media is that despite the personal insults, ridicule, and condemnation of Paul's views, more and more people jumping on board. Glen Beck's lengthy radio attack on Paul was constantly interrupted by conservative listeners refuting Beck's criticism and voicing support for the Texas congressman. Thom Hartmann, a vocal critic on the left, played Paul's comments about "soft fascism" and "corporatism" when covering the recent CIGNA Insurance decision to deny a patient an organ transplant and saw the subject of the show shift toward the topic of "soft fascism" as Paul had discussed it.
Ron Paul seems to be winning as he is now polling in the top three of Republican primary candidates, but don't expect that the attacks or redicule will stop any time soon. The only certainty at this point is that the ignoring phase is definitely over. Ron Paul and his supporters are challenging not just the other candidates, but the existing political order in America, like a certain Indian independence leader challenged the British Empire in the 1930s and 40s. Gandhi would be proud.
Initial internet support and straw poll victories were basically ignored, as the mainstream media refused to report any of these successes. Like other alternative candidates like Dennis Kucinich, the Democrat from Ohio, Paul was ignored. Poll results often grouped his numbers in the ubiquitous "other" category, if he was included in the poll at all. When a fundraising drive centered on November 5, known in England as Guy Fawkes night for the "gunpowder plot" to blow up Parliament in 1605, brought in over $2 million, the name Ron Paul started to be muttered on TV and talk radio. Money talks and Pauls message was speaking louder than that of John McCain, Mitt Romney, etc. As the establishment media and politicians keep reminding us, we are "at war," so when the story broke that military servicemen and families were donating more to Ron Paul than any other candidate, the tactic changed.
Ron Paul began to get mentioned in the mainstream media, but was ridiculed by the right and left. George Stephanopoulas on This Week interviewed Paul, seeking to know why he was running when he had no chance of winning. Thom Hartmann spoke of Ron Paul on Air America Radio, calling libertarians "Republicans that want to get high" and support prostitution. Sean Hannity poured his smug derision over Paul's criticism of Bush Administration foreign policy while Bill O'Reilly told Paul he was "living in the land of Oz." USA Today covered Paul's questioning of Fed Chairman Bernanke as being a medical doctor talking to a professional economist. Supporters of Paul have increasingly been labeled "kooks" and "nuts." The establishment was having a good laugh at this audacious attempt to break presidential politics out of its convenient framing effects of left vs right, for the troops vs isolationism, debates over minimum wage and waterboarding.
The laughing stopped as Ron Paul had the single biggest fundraising day in presidential politics and his campaign contributions soared to over $17 million. The support that was supposed to be limited to grumpy old men and young people on the internet was starting to compete with Giuliani and Huckabee's $5,000 per plate fundraising dinners. Democrats began to see his anti-war and anti-globalist message steal primary voters over to the Republicans to support Paul. That's when the attacks began.
Tim Russert welcomed Ron Paul on Meet The Press on December 23, not with the normally jovial banter that he has for star candidates like Clinton and Giuliani, but with a scowling series of questions that were clearly meant to keep Paul on the defensive. Glen Beck dedicated his entire day-after-Christmas show to explaining why Republicans should not be duped by Ron Paul's desire to get rid of the IRS and income tax, playing a series of quotes by Paul meant to depict the candidate of being a military softy who can't be trusted with America's safety.
Yet a strange thing is happening. The more the establishment attacks Ron Paul, the more his message gets heard. The problem for the establishment media is that despite the personal insults, ridicule, and condemnation of Paul's views, more and more people jumping on board. Glen Beck's lengthy radio attack on Paul was constantly interrupted by conservative listeners refuting Beck's criticism and voicing support for the Texas congressman. Thom Hartmann, a vocal critic on the left, played Paul's comments about "soft fascism" and "corporatism" when covering the recent CIGNA Insurance decision to deny a patient an organ transplant and saw the subject of the show shift toward the topic of "soft fascism" as Paul had discussed it.
Ron Paul seems to be winning as he is now polling in the top three of Republican primary candidates, but don't expect that the attacks or redicule will stop any time soon. The only certainty at this point is that the ignoring phase is definitely over. Ron Paul and his supporters are challenging not just the other candidates, but the existing political order in America, like a certain Indian independence leader challenged the British Empire in the 1930s and 40s. Gandhi would be proud.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Fair Weather Fans Return to Rose Garden
Remember when the Portland Trailblazers won the top selection in the NBA draft? Suddenly fans flooded Blazer websites, bought up season tickets, and showed up en masse everytime top pick, Greg Oden, did a public appearance. Then Oden had an MRI that revealed a microfracture of the knee--a season ending injury. Within days the local press was awash in stories about the Sam Bowie selection that left the NBA's (second) greatest player ever (Wilt Chamberlain is still the man), Michael Jordan, to get picked up by the Chicago Bulls--a decision that would haunt Portland years later in the NBA Finals. Next thing you know, it's all doom and gloom again. The Oregonian ran a story about hundreds of calls from people wanting a refund on their season tickets, since Oden was out for a year.
The reaction to Oden's injury was like most of the (over) reaction to the "Jailblazers" era when Rasheed Wallace threatened the downfall of Western Civilization by throwing a towel in Arvydas Sabonis's face or Zach Randolf was sighted at a titty bar. That's not to say the Jai... uh... Trailblazers didn't make their bed by smoking dope in speeding automobiles or betting on dog fights. Damon Staudamire might have been one of the greatest point guards in NBA history, but he was stoned throughout much of his prime. When he quit, his stats and consistency came back, but it was too late. Guys like Qyntell Woods basically through it all away before they got started. Yet in the case of young Greg Oden, the Rose Garden's gilded class reacted much the same way in demanding refunds, as though Oden himself was guilty of defrauding them with false hopes to bragging rights in the club and suite levels.
So it is with partial pleasure and partial sadness that the Paul Allen wanna-be's have returned to Rip City, USA, now that the Blazers are on an 8 game winning streak. That's just sad, because anybody who knows basketball could see that Greg Oden was not going to be a rookie superstar anyway. Just look at his developmental numbers in Vegas before he wend down with a tonsilectomy. Even if healthy, Oden would have been fouling out after only 15-20 minutes of play. Whatever success Portland would have in the NBA this season would depend on having guys like Roy and Aldridge come into their own, but even more it would depend on whether or not below-the-radar guys like Jarret Jack and Joel Prysbilla could live up to their rookie hype.
The reality is that Portland would have been ready to play for the 7th or 8th seed in the '07-08 playoffs even if they had fallen to the bottom of last year's draft lottery. Even with Kevin Garnett still a T-wolve, they were destined to be better than Minnesota and Seattle. While Utah and Denver are better teams "one through five" at the present, Portland has the deepest bench in the Northwest Division. Jarrett Jack has averages that put him in the top half of starting point guards, Travis Outlaw finally started to show NBA potential last season, and the Blazers have a lot of size to throw at opponents with guys like Frye and LaFrentz and McRoberts that few teams can match. Coach McMillan finally has these guys believing in his style of basketball and the Blazers are a team to contend with.
The reaction to Oden's injury was like most of the (over) reaction to the "Jailblazers" era when Rasheed Wallace threatened the downfall of Western Civilization by throwing a towel in Arvydas Sabonis's face or Zach Randolf was sighted at a titty bar. That's not to say the Jai... uh... Trailblazers didn't make their bed by smoking dope in speeding automobiles or betting on dog fights. Damon Staudamire might have been one of the greatest point guards in NBA history, but he was stoned throughout much of his prime. When he quit, his stats and consistency came back, but it was too late. Guys like Qyntell Woods basically through it all away before they got started. Yet in the case of young Greg Oden, the Rose Garden's gilded class reacted much the same way in demanding refunds, as though Oden himself was guilty of defrauding them with false hopes to bragging rights in the club and suite levels.
So it is with partial pleasure and partial sadness that the Paul Allen wanna-be's have returned to Rip City, USA, now that the Blazers are on an 8 game winning streak. That's just sad, because anybody who knows basketball could see that Greg Oden was not going to be a rookie superstar anyway. Just look at his developmental numbers in Vegas before he wend down with a tonsilectomy. Even if healthy, Oden would have been fouling out after only 15-20 minutes of play. Whatever success Portland would have in the NBA this season would depend on having guys like Roy and Aldridge come into their own, but even more it would depend on whether or not below-the-radar guys like Jarret Jack and Joel Prysbilla could live up to their rookie hype.
The reality is that Portland would have been ready to play for the 7th or 8th seed in the '07-08 playoffs even if they had fallen to the bottom of last year's draft lottery. Even with Kevin Garnett still a T-wolve, they were destined to be better than Minnesota and Seattle. While Utah and Denver are better teams "one through five" at the present, Portland has the deepest bench in the Northwest Division. Jarrett Jack has averages that put him in the top half of starting point guards, Travis Outlaw finally started to show NBA potential last season, and the Blazers have a lot of size to throw at opponents with guys like Frye and LaFrentz and McRoberts that few teams can match. Coach McMillan finally has these guys believing in his style of basketball and the Blazers are a team to contend with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
