“We’re supporting El Baradei to lead the path to change,” Mr. Beltagui said as he joined him in Liberation Square. “The Brotherhood realizes the sensitivities, especially in the West, towards the Islamists, and we’re not keen to be at the forefront.”
So says the Muslim Brotherhood in a N.Y. Times piece sure to bring obvious counterpoint to those pontificating about the glories of Twitter Revolutions and the idea that revolution in itself harbors change for the better. Sometimes it's just changing the velvet glove on the iron fist.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Israeli Minds Racing...
Israel’s military planning relies on peace with Egypt; nearly half the natural gas it uses is imported from Egypt; and the principle of trading conquered land for diplomatic ties began with its 1979 peace treaty with Egypt. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has met with President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt more than with any other foreign leader, except President Obama. If Mr. Mubarak were driven from power, the effect on Israel could be profound.
“For the United States, Egypt is the keystone of its Middle East policy,” a senior official said. “For Israel, it’s the whole arch.”(N.Y. Times)
Right about now placing faith in stability in the form of Mubarek is looking no so good. Meanwhile conservatives here in the U.S. (Althouse blog) are making sure to lay the glories of revolution at Bush's feet. While we grant Bush the often ignored wisdom of seeing Iraq invasion as a way to spread the example of democracy to the stubborn parts of the Middle East, we remain wary as to what replacements an interim of democracy might usher in. We suspect Israelis rightfully remain the most worried. It's life or death for them, and the dictator who offers stability is often better than the faceless man flying in on a magic carpet of democracy.
The Twitterization of News Analysis: Egyptian Revolution Episode
 |
| Twitter, the new George Washington |
A broadening of horizons is in order, as the scope of many Americans is quite limited to a redundant version of this, that, and the other.
All the news coming out of Egypt is the perfect moment to realize the narrow scope of our our usual thought patterns, and this link via EastSouthWestNorth, one of my favorite blogs, has a neat little discussion (from Mother Jones online) about the merits of glorifying technology at the expense of understanding deeper reasons for change in countries like Tunisia and Egypt.
An excerpt:
In April 2009, Evgeny Morozov wrote a blog post about antigovernment protesters' use of social networking tools in Moldova, wondering if the country was in the midst of a "Twitter revolution." The demonstrations soon dropped from the headlines, but a meme was born: When Iranians took to the streets—and the tweets—a few months later, Western pundits and journalists declared a "Twitter revolution"; Andrew Sullivan announced, "The Revolution Will Be Twittered." The phrase has since been applied to events from Guatemala to Uganda. Most recently, it's been used to describe the protests in Tunisia that led to the flight of its autocratic president.
Yet Morozov has become intensely skeptical of the concept he helped introduce.(Mother Jones)
The tendency to reduce everything to the simplistic or irrelevant was not lost on us while watching CNN's coverage on Egypt over the weekend. The anchors must have said the word "Twitter" a bazillion times over, lacking any definitive turn in events to report. They could have spent the hours familiarizing the ignorant and blissful (me, you, us) about the intricate possibilities that might rise from the fall of Hosni Mubarek.
Our thoughts lead us to conclude that much of this sudden activity is the work of more than a few intelligence agency efforts by the U.S. and others, combined with long planned internal efforts by the peoples in these nations. To focus on Twitter somehow seems almost demeaning to the efforts of others.
The Koch Klan Meets to Beat Down Obama, Again
 |
| D.B. Norton or David Koch? |
Amid great secrecy, about 200 of America's wealthiest and most powerful individuals from the worlds of finance, big business and rightwing politics are expected to come together on Sunday in the sun-drenched California desert near Palm Springs for what has been billed as a gathering of the billionaires. They will have the chance to enjoy the Rancho Mirage resort's many pools, spa treatments and tennis courts, as well as walk in its 240 acres away from the prying eyes of TV cameras.
D.B. Norton or David Koch?
But the organisers have made clear that the two-day event is not just "fun in the sun". This will be a meeting of "doers", men and women willing to fight the Obama administration and its perceived attack on US free enterprise and unfettered wealth.(UK Guardian)
Previously we pointed out how much the Koch brothers remind us of D.B. Norton in Frank Capra's Meet John Doe, and that resemblance shows no sign of abating.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Wednesday Music Thought: Nick Cave, Danger, Hermione and You, Perfect Together
I saw Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows on a Sunday night beneath a dark sky at a little drive-in between Scottsdale and Tempe. Street lights in the distance initially distracted, and the screen seemed darker, murkier than it should have been. The film was equally dark, but not dark enough to make me any more enthused with the Potter series. There is always that point where Harry is headed off to take care of things on his own, only to be lectured by Hermione that he shant take the burden all upon himself, and if you haven't read the books or invested in the series (guilty, guilty), but instead watched the bulk of the movies in a one day dvd binge (guilty), then Harry comes off as a repetitive clod. Not to mention his failure to be interested in Hermione, who consistently is the most appealing character in the series.
The shining moment in the film came with the introduction of the two characters dancing to Nick Cave's "Oh Children." You almost wished you were on the run, with something on the line, and someone to share it with (and with no annoying, jealous, whiny Ron in sight).
The shining moment in the film came with the introduction of the two characters dancing to Nick Cave's "Oh Children." You almost wished you were on the run, with something on the line, and someone to share it with (and with no annoying, jealous, whiny Ron in sight).
Arby's Fallen, Peltz Can't Get It Up
 |
| Happiness! |
At the time we said, "a sale to Triarc does not necessarily solve any problems in the fundamental business." It would seem that thought still holds, no matter which restaurant Peltz manages.
The Wendy's/Arbys Group plans to dispense with its Arby's component, reports the Wall Street Journal, thus allowing them to focus on running Wendy's as badly as they ran Arby's.
With Perfect Behavior By All, Financial Crisis Can Be Avoided: Leave Avarice at Door
 |
| You! |
The report from the commission tasked with clarifying what happened to us over the last two years has finally issued its report. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission actually split along partisan lines, with the Democrat appointed members opting to blame everyone and the dissenting Republicans opting to blame, in essence, poor sub-prime borrowers and their Federal enablers (Fannie Mae and Freddie).
The majority report finds fault with two Fed chairmen: Alan Greenspan, who led the central bank as the housing bubble expanded, and his successor, Ben S. Bernanke, who did not foresee the crisis but played a crucial role in the response. It criticizes Mr. Greenspan for advocating deregulation and cites a “pivotal failure to stem the flow of toxic mortgages” under his leadership as a “prime example” of negligence.
It also criticizes the Bush administration’s “inconsistent response” to the crisis — allowing Lehman Brothers to collapse in September 2008 after earlier bailing out another bank, Bear Stearns, with Fed help — as having “added to the uncertainty and panic in the financial markets.”(N.Y. Times)
The report largely dismissed the theme pushed in conservative circles, that all can very nearly be blamed on Democratic support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and laws like the CRA encouraging non-real Americans of dubious background to hit the sacred suburbs.
The report does knock down — at least partly — several early theories for the financial crisis. It says the low interest rates brought about by the Fed after the 2001 recession; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance giants; and the “aggressive homeownership goals” set by the government as part of a “philosophy of opportunity” were not major culprits.(N.Y. Times)
The general implication of everyone (with no Obama in sight mind you), points to the type of equal opportunity incompetence that we here have always acknowledged. This crisis involved everyone, from regulators to Democrats to Wall Street to mortgage brokers to homeowners. While the government oversight component was sorely lacking, the Wall Street incompetence component was surely excessive and blind to the risk of amassing notional value atop manageable real mortgage losses. It had the effect of amplifying instability and forcing excessive action to prevent financial collapse. We watched Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers fall under the risk, and without bold action, the United States could have been the final collapsing entity on that list.
The Times leads with the statement that it was all avoidable, but we presume that means that all human parties would have had to defy human nature and act responsibly at every point along the invisible path to perdition. In other words, it was pretty much unavoidable.
State of the Union: Obama Freeze Tag and Tax Simplification
Last night in his State of the Union speech Obama outlined his austere yet robust (and thus contradictory) plan for the nation. While not backing away from the merits of previous legislative efforts, like healthcare reform, he presented an openness to exploring a few deficit related initiatives, like tax reform and freezing discretionary spending. It was probably the type of message that progressives were not entirely thrilled to hear, with Obama rapidly paddling his boat away from the left bank toward some middle main stream. Nobody will be fully pleased with his non-confrontational approach, but it has been an arguable success thus far. Legislation has gotten passed in a variety of ways, both independent of, and jointly with, Republicans.
By chaining himself to some type of deficit/budget plan, we conclude that any major initiatives that involve perceived increases in spending are dead. He has to have concluded that with health care reform and the stimulus, these major pieces of law that could appear to represent expenditures were sufficient to secure his future reputation. Remaining items like immigration and tax reform, alongside spending and waste reductions present no cost imperatives that could be used against him. If he is busy cutting taxes for business, and simplifying taxes for the masses, while also helping Hispanics gain citizenship, he inoculates himself from future election attacks as being the big spending, budget busting socialist. He is betting that cutting taxes, reforming health delivery, ending Iraq, naming females and Hispanics to the high court, stabilizing the financial system and stimulating the economy away from depression will cement his legacy without the completion of the remaining projects that budget freezes will certainly hamper.
When he hits campaign mode, he can say, "I have and continue to lower your taxes." Having co-opted enough of the Republican platform, he forces them to run on the lies that were tossed about in the previous election. Except that those lies have now revealed themselves to be, lies. It will take a special blend of creativity and noxiousness to manufacture a fresh set of accusations to convince people that should know better that the president is undeserving of rehire.
Once re-elected, he can revert back to any remaining tasks, which will probably still include immigration. Current law won't change before the 2012 election, but Obama is perfectly willing to run on the immigration issue, and force Republicans to weigh the Hispanic vote against offending the conservative base.
At the moment, we give Obama a strong edge. Only a further major drop in housing prices, or a complete collapse of the employment rate should shift his momentum.
(Obama speech via N.Y. Times here)
By chaining himself to some type of deficit/budget plan, we conclude that any major initiatives that involve perceived increases in spending are dead. He has to have concluded that with health care reform and the stimulus, these major pieces of law that could appear to represent expenditures were sufficient to secure his future reputation. Remaining items like immigration and tax reform, alongside spending and waste reductions present no cost imperatives that could be used against him. If he is busy cutting taxes for business, and simplifying taxes for the masses, while also helping Hispanics gain citizenship, he inoculates himself from future election attacks as being the big spending, budget busting socialist. He is betting that cutting taxes, reforming health delivery, ending Iraq, naming females and Hispanics to the high court, stabilizing the financial system and stimulating the economy away from depression will cement his legacy without the completion of the remaining projects that budget freezes will certainly hamper.
When he hits campaign mode, he can say, "I have and continue to lower your taxes." Having co-opted enough of the Republican platform, he forces them to run on the lies that were tossed about in the previous election. Except that those lies have now revealed themselves to be, lies. It will take a special blend of creativity and noxiousness to manufacture a fresh set of accusations to convince people that should know better that the president is undeserving of rehire.
Once re-elected, he can revert back to any remaining tasks, which will probably still include immigration. Current law won't change before the 2012 election, but Obama is perfectly willing to run on the immigration issue, and force Republicans to weigh the Hispanic vote against offending the conservative base.
At the moment, we give Obama a strong edge. Only a further major drop in housing prices, or a complete collapse of the employment rate should shift his momentum.
(Obama speech via N.Y. Times here)
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
NY Mag Explores Obama's Shopping for Nice Wrapping Paper
New York Magazine has a lengthy piece on Obama and his attempts to recalibrate his image, presidency and campaign prospects. It reads interesting, though by page eight you kind of wonder whether their assessment of the problem is accurate. Like large circles of the ever echoing media that constantly tourettes out drivel--November election shellacking, American people speaking, Republican steamrolling--his people seem to be totally committed to the idea that the midterm elections represented a major twist of political fate.
The truth, simply, is that Americans are not that knowledgeable about most things, and empty minds are subject to whatever idea you can drop into them. Rather than fully and rationally debating Obama's policies in front of the voter, Republicans opted to dispense with having to argue the details on specific policies when possible. Why battle on the policy, when you can challenge the man himself, thus invalidating every deed. If it's possible to deface the identity and personhood of your opponent, then the quality of his subsequent actions is moot. If the devil arrived and offered to help you live comfortably, would you accept? Of course not, for he is the devil, and his appearance of good is tricky, masking evil intent.
Having performed this reckless mind job on largely open minds (the independent voters), it matters little what Obama proposes. His bad policies and mistakes are a sign of his evil and ineptitude, and still, his good policies remain a sign of his cunning, and obvious, evil.
Obama's advisors come up with technical and convoluted counter theorizations like this:
In reality these points don't begin to express the reality of what is going on. In fact we find them somewhat contradictory in that almost all policy initiatives are going to be the president as bully mightily pushing policy forward, or congressional proxies carrying the baton. You can't be less tied to Congress AND use the president less, and expect policies to make it to the finish line. And it's largely a platitude of ethereal proportions to suggest that solutions are "out there" somewhere: as if President Obama and Axelrod were to walk down Smith Street to surprise pop in on Thom Paine and his wife and 2.5 kids, that the "answer" would be found.
The Obama team has to address the mental fog of the voter, by telling the truth. That truth can be found in actual legislation passed. The running theme of any campaign should be "Truth for the American middle class". So when some Republican politician hems and haws about the legality of the president's citizenship, thus insulting the half of America that voted for the man, you fight back with the truth of your policies. Let the Hispanic or female voters know that you increased their representation on the Supreme Court. You tell those clamoring for lower taxes that you are on record of having cut taxes several times. You stand behind the stimulus and point out how it helped veterans and teachers and states. You introduce your achievements as the personification of truth. His State of the Union should sound like this:
The midterms, however, slapped the president upside the head—and shattered his sense of complacency. “It is hard to describe how personally upset he was at some of the members we lost, how terribly he felt, especially about the ones that were in the tough districts who’d voted with him down the line,” says someone who knows Obama well. “It was a really tough time for him.”(New York Mag)
The truth, simply, is that Americans are not that knowledgeable about most things, and empty minds are subject to whatever idea you can drop into them. Rather than fully and rationally debating Obama's policies in front of the voter, Republicans opted to dispense with having to argue the details on specific policies when possible. Why battle on the policy, when you can challenge the man himself, thus invalidating every deed. If it's possible to deface the identity and personhood of your opponent, then the quality of his subsequent actions is moot. If the devil arrived and offered to help you live comfortably, would you accept? Of course not, for he is the devil, and his appearance of good is tricky, masking evil intent.
Having performed this reckless mind job on largely open minds (the independent voters), it matters little what Obama proposes. His bad policies and mistakes are a sign of his evil and ineptitude, and still, his good policies remain a sign of his cunning, and obvious, evil.
Obama's advisors come up with technical and convoluted counter theorizations like this:
But Axelrod admits that many of the wounds were self-inflicted. “No. 1, we overloaded the message circuit board,” he says. “No. 2, so much of it was tied to Congress; I think we were too Hill-centric. A lot of that by necessity, but nonetheless, we came here basically saying that the answers to America’s problems were not all in Washington but out in the country, and that we wanted to do things differently. I think the optics did not speak to that to the degree they should have. No. 3, I think we overused him.(N.Y. Mag)
In reality these points don't begin to express the reality of what is going on. In fact we find them somewhat contradictory in that almost all policy initiatives are going to be the president as bully mightily pushing policy forward, or congressional proxies carrying the baton. You can't be less tied to Congress AND use the president less, and expect policies to make it to the finish line. And it's largely a platitude of ethereal proportions to suggest that solutions are "out there" somewhere: as if President Obama and Axelrod were to walk down Smith Street to surprise pop in on Thom Paine and his wife and 2.5 kids, that the "answer" would be found.
The Obama team has to address the mental fog of the voter, by telling the truth. That truth can be found in actual legislation passed. The running theme of any campaign should be "Truth for the American middle class". So when some Republican politician hems and haws about the legality of the president's citizenship, thus insulting the half of America that voted for the man, you fight back with the truth of your policies. Let the Hispanic or female voters know that you increased their representation on the Supreme Court. You tell those clamoring for lower taxes that you are on record of having cut taxes several times. You stand behind the stimulus and point out how it helped veterans and teachers and states. You introduce your achievements as the personification of truth. His State of the Union should sound like this:
"We watched in 2008 as unemployment jumped two whole points. When I came into office it was almost 7.5% and the momentum was already established before I had passed one policy. That is the truth. We implemented a bunch of initiatives targeted at the middle class to stop that rise in unemployment and we did. That is the truth. Our goal has always been to provide a set of policies both short and long term that bring relief to the middle class and clarity to business, while providing new economic opportunities for American entrepreneurs. That, is the truth. When we came into office we were concerned about whether there would be banks around to provide loans to small businesses. Without a solid financial banking system, there is no capitalism. We saved the financial system. It was not pretty, or perfect, but it worked.That, is the truth. If the economy were a person, fallen and on its back, waiting for the ambulance, you don't ask it to balance its checkbook before you try to resuscitate. You get help and get it stabilized. We did that via tax cuts for Americans and aid to states and small business. That is the truth. And when millions of Americans were thrown out of work and forced to struggle to maintain a minimum level of support for their spouses and children, we Americans helped each other via extensions on unemployment benefits. That is the truth. Now some of my critics might be focused on whether I was born in Tonga or the moon or Panama. Some of my critics might have trouble accepting all the citizens of Hawaii as natural born. Some of my critics might even think that reforming mortgage laws, naming women to the Supreme Court, signing nuclear arms control agreements with Russia and providing benefits for 911 responders are all insignificant events. They want to focus on my name, or re-defining who can and can't be considered a real American. But that's okay. Because we remain focused on the truth, and making your daily reality better, initiative by initiative, reform by reform, policy by policy. And that, is the truth."Policies are not the problem, no matter how much the Republicans have managed to institutionalize that view among the political class. The American voter in the course of two years did not suddenly realize that they didn't like Obama's policies, or that healthcare reform was a ridiculous waste of effort. What has happened is that opponents have obscured the truth with lies and lacking a stabilizing voice in turbulent times, people grab onto anything for support.
Editor's Note: Blog Name Change
If you have been reading, and you probably haven't given the stats of our readership, you will notice that our name has changed. What used to be Blax Alternate is now called The United States of Alexander. We grew tired of the old name, and thought it might be too vague, too left leaning in sound, or too something that some people can't quite put their fingers on. (Did someone say Blacks?).
We hope to make a sustained effort at writing more under this new banner, but with the focus remaining the same. That means we will continue to say what we can about the political and financial landscape in the United States, but with our own meanderings tossed into the mix. While we have also always intended to focus on events happening in China as well, we have not always thrown much effort or thought in that direction, and that should change.
It has crossed our minds that it might be a good idea to offer monthly cash prizes for those who register and regularly comment on the blog in insightful fashion, thus inspiring greater participation. That still might happen, but for now we hope the writing itself continues to draw interest. We encourage readers to register and add your thoughts.
Thanks!
We hope to make a sustained effort at writing more under this new banner, but with the focus remaining the same. That means we will continue to say what we can about the political and financial landscape in the United States, but with our own meanderings tossed into the mix. While we have also always intended to focus on events happening in China as well, we have not always thrown much effort or thought in that direction, and that should change.
It has crossed our minds that it might be a good idea to offer monthly cash prizes for those who register and regularly comment on the blog in insightful fashion, thus inspiring greater participation. That still might happen, but for now we hope the writing itself continues to draw interest. We encourage readers to register and add your thoughts.
Thanks!
American Express Income Growth
From the Street.com:
American Express's fourth-quarter net income soared 48% to $1.1 billion and earnings per share rose 47% to 88 cents, including $133 million of restructuring and other one-time charges. Revenue increased 13%. Credit quality continued to improve. Provisions for losses dropped from $748 million in the year-earlier quarter to just $239 million in the latest period.More signs that underlying financial conditions are improving. Speaking of which, another quick way to see how we are doing is to pull up some individual homes on Zillow.com and see the little price charts that indicate the value of a home going back a few years. The drops have been huge (here in Phoenix), but it would seem that prices have kind of rested on the bed, waiting for morning. That's a plus.
Rugged Billionaire Simons Loved a Million
 |
| Simons or Robards? You Decide |
There are those who question his means and methods, having no clue as to how he generates unquestionably marvelous returns so often, but like most gods, is it our place to ask why? Or how? Of course not. We are not the government, or skeptical little Satans, or Pharisees, trying to stop the water from being turned into wine and dollars.
Dealbreaker pulls up an interview, rabbit like, out of the archives of who knows where. The interviewer--high school age, and for a high school publication--does a far better job than a professional like Charlie Rose might do, in part by letting the subject actually answer questions and without the "that's not what I am really saying" paraphrases that Rose is apt to construct when not talking over this subjects.
Someone really needs to do a comprehensive biography on this man's life, or at least a textbook on his methods.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Palin's Audacity of Libel: There Will Be Blood Edition
 |
| Blood Libel (via Boston Globe) |
That's how it works. I was listening to Diane Rehm's show on NPR today, and author Daniel Rasmussen was discussing a rebellion of slaves in the South that was ultimately crushed, with the heads of the rebels planted on spiked poles. It was the largest uprising of slaves in the U.S., with some 500 people across several plantations uniting to fight for freedom. This American Uprising (the title of the book) began with thoughts, and then words, spread from person to person in secret. It ended with death all around.
Generally you don't get to death without ideas, whether reasoned or insane. It can variations on the two. Someone thinks a thought, develops an idea, it expands into an ideology, and a host of enthusiasts and fellow travelers latch on. You cannot choose who will take your ideas and put them into action, nor can one be sure that those ideas will be represented authentically. Jesus, crusades. Communism, Stalin. Capitalism, Enron. Good food, McNuggets. Classic attire, flip-flops. Again, see how that works?
There are derivative actions that stem from foundational thoughts and words. If you create an environment where the President is a racist, biased, foreign born, Chicago crook, and if an entire ideology of resistance is centered off of these distortions, then the resulting mental equations are no surprise. If the blood of patriots is not just hyperbole and the man at the top is changing my way of life, more than words are necessary.
They found a bomb on Monday near along a parade route in Spokane, Washington. Of course the parade was in celebration of Martin Luther King Jr, who spent the majority of his life struggling against those who used every name and trick in the book to knock him down and debase his image and ideals. He was a wedge in a society where a large majority were not buying what he was selling. He was changing the American way of life. He came unto his own, his fellow Americans, and his own received him not, ultimately shooting him down and reducing his voice to a whisper across time and conscience.
The same words that he spoke then still inspire us now and in retrospect he is generally recognized for his achievements, though there is a vocal contingent that is very grudging in acknowledging King's worth. Often his name is invoked by those who are diametrically opposed to the types of activities that Martin Luther King pursued....things like social justice. Today, some conservatives can mock community organizers while making sweet verbal love to the memory of the dead King.
Despite that, the words of King inspired people. We don't acknowledge him or any great American--F.D.R, Reagan, Jefferson--because they gave a nifty speech. Usually these words inspired others into action, and credit is apportioned to the author of the spoken words. Reagan never walked into an I.R.S or Treasury office and physically rewrote the tax law. He spoke an idea and others followed: a shepherd leading the flock.
Today we have the shady shepherds who believe they can say or do anything, with no causal links to the environment being created. It's a slippery position dancing on that pole, and is nonsense amplified, with conservatives who would argue that the imagery and words deriving from Hollywood (and from the "lame-stream media") have undue influence, while words of hate, dishonesty and theatrical blood invocation move nobody at all.
Palin, atop the list, invokes blood libel, so soon after affirming that President Obama wants to kill the elderly, leaving the thinking man's head spinning on a pole, and lamenting the hypocrisy.
Monday, January 17, 2011
J.P. Morgan, Raising Fees, Raising Profits, Raising Eyebrows
Nothing is worse than hypocrisy, which is usually some extension of lying put into action. Combine a little hypocrisy with arrogance, and we get our financial sector, and more specifically, J.P. Morgan Chase. We can use this company as an example of what not to do when your industry momentarily collapses around you, the government steps in to settle matters, and then passes a modicum of reform to protect taxpayers and consumers.
Like its financial brethren, J.P. Morgan received injections of liquidity from the Federal government during the recent crisis, and there is no objection to that. We favored the action, and if any of the largest four banks, which include Citibank, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo were to have been pulled under, the prospect of untangling that mess would have been difficult. Thus, while not wanting to even take the cash, with bank head Jamie Dimon saying they had no need, they were pressured into it anyway, for symbolism and safeties sake. On the surface, they were probably right, given their ability to absorb Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual without too much strain.
But it's hard to assess because there was no guarantee that Morgan would be fine if other firms were outright collapsing thus changing the psychology of those who must do business with the banks, from the small deposit holder to large institutions. So the government, short on time and with too many moving parts, did the prudent thing, bailing out firms across the board. J.P. Morgan took the help, and, paid it back it.
In the aftermath politicians more or less agreed that some changes were necessary to the industry and financial reforms were put in place, with both Republicans and Wall Street, and especially Wall Street, changing their previous stance toward President Obama. He struck a populist tone in an effort to garner public support for strengthening the financial system, but the financial sector didn't like being blamed for the economic collapse of America.
But, funny how that is. You have three major firms--Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns and Lehman--that collapse or near collapse, due to making bets on mortgage related securities that vastly amplified the number and nature of shaky mortgages in existence. Wall Street firms across the board provided the liquidity to expand the mortgage market, and the cunning to make side bets on that expanded market. The cash from Wall Street helped provide a climate for mortgage brokers to go crazy pushing product. It's hard for many segments of the financial industry, and especially the Wall Street banking sector, to become indignant about their role in the matter, despite Republicans giving them cover and trying to shift all the blame onto quasi government units like Fannie Mae and quasi un-Americans like the subprime borrowers (aka, those poor ethnics).
Which makes the recent earning news of J.P. Morgan all the more interesting. Profits rose at the firm by 47% to $4.83 billion in the 4th quarter.
Now this is good news. It's a testament to the fact that Mr.Dimon is one of the most astute and responsible financial officials in this century. He created the modern J.P. Morgan and has managed it well. The long history of the firm is a good one, helping to build America along the way. In other words, we with them well and are not of the ilk who believes producers at banks should not be paid well, or that banks should not on occasion be bailed out when necessary.
This is where get back to the hypocrisy and the arrogance. Due to swift government action, our system is stabilized and at least as far as investment banking and trading and other revenue streams of the big banks, all is well. Credit markets have eased and there is no worry about counterparty risk who you can do business with. The fact that we have reached this moment is due to action taken by Bush and followed by Obama. There should be some level, however small it might be, of gratitude toward that bailout, which was done with taxpayer money.
Second, when over the course of time various remedies are tried to contain outrageous practices, like the legislation passed to contain excessive overdraft fees, the industry, in light of its debt to consumers, ought to take the high and humble road.
Instead we are getting business as usual. Each of the major banks have now decided that free, simple checking accounts will not exist. Many people predicted this would happen, that the era of free checking would get squashed once the banks lost the income stream of gouging its poorer customers on fees. Think about that. Your more financially astute or organized customer is not the one getting those fees. Generally, that person will have enough in their accounts to avoid any account minimum balance fees, which means they will never be in a situation of incurring overdrafts. It's your day to day person who struggles and who ran the risk of paying $25 or $30 several times over if his account was initially off by, say, .02 cents.
Now that they can't tap the poor and foolish revenue stream, they have decided to stick it to everyone via monthly fees across all accounts. Sure you can avoid the fees. By having at least on direct deposit over $500 (mind you, you can't combine monthly deposits to hit that goal). Or doing about 5 debit card transactions a month (mind you, they are also thinking of adding yearly fees on owning a debit card). Or if you have some combination of accounts at the institution that puts you way over minimum balance numbers.
By turning free checking into "free checking with rules" they are well aware that the same people who incurred overdraft fees in the past will be the same people not earning $500 a paycheck (if paid weekly), or the same people too ill informed to set up direct deposit. The counter argument is that the information requirements are out there for all to see. You can go to the Chase website and the company is very clear about fees for each type of account, and how to avoid them. Those in favor of allowing banks to do as they please could argue that if a person cannot avoid a $6, $8 or $25 account fee, then they are just being lazy and choosing to pay more. To some extent that is true.
The greater problem is that you are penalizing all for the recklessness of a few. If you are a person who earns maybe $400 a week, is paid weekly, and pays your bills on time, does not like to use the debit card to shop, you are hurt by this. The actions of banks like J.P. Morgan punish the lazy and irresponsible poor at the expense of the responsible middle class and poor.
Ultimately people won't go for this. It's a foolish business stance built on an arrogance that puts profits above all. There are any number of ways they can create accounts that scale to consumer performance, but that they won't do. A good start would be to have a no fee or low fee checking account with a built in overdraft line of credit of $25 dollars and up. Maybe charge $1 for that line of credit component regardless of credit score. The usual option (like at Bank of America) is for you to get a savings account that charges $5 a month to use as "overdraft protection," which is comical. The money you don't have in your checking to cover a check is not gonna suddenly be the money you do have in your savings account to use as overdraft protection. And likely, your savings account is going to be free, and online and at one of those banks like ING or HSBC that at least pretend to pay decent interest.
At a time when the banking industry has made huge profits, it's hypocritical to complain and call for the necessity of a whole new range of fees due to the loss of one really badly implemented revenue stream that preyed on the poor. Further, that revenue stream was never turned off, given the numbers of people who opt-in to maintaining the status quo. It's a lie to suggest otherwise, and that you are using new fees to plug the outright loss of old fees.
We saw this same effect on some of the large health insurance firms. They had planned to increase premiums as they do each year, but chose to blame the increase on healthcare reform legislation and despite the likelihood that such increases would have happened anyway, as they always do, hence the need for reform. Here the banking sector has taken the cynical turn and used a government action (regulation on the industry to make it safer, regulation on overdraft practices to protect the consumer) as opportunity to increase costs to the average citizen. It's pin the tale (the lie) on the government, in order to maximize profits. By doing this you also inhibit regulatory authorities from taking action in the future that might be necessary to protect the citizens from the financial industry's avarice or stupidity.
It's particularly shameful and disappointing when a firm like J.P. Morgan, run by one of the best brains in the industry, turns its back on smaller customers. Of course, that cloud will be a silver lining to the credit unions and online banks that will snap up disaffected clients.
A few years from now we will no doubt be seeing additional curbs on these account fees, and the industry will complain, unable to acknowledge the stupidity of its actions today.
Like its financial brethren, J.P. Morgan received injections of liquidity from the Federal government during the recent crisis, and there is no objection to that. We favored the action, and if any of the largest four banks, which include Citibank, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo were to have been pulled under, the prospect of untangling that mess would have been difficult. Thus, while not wanting to even take the cash, with bank head Jamie Dimon saying they had no need, they were pressured into it anyway, for symbolism and safeties sake. On the surface, they were probably right, given their ability to absorb Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual without too much strain.
But it's hard to assess because there was no guarantee that Morgan would be fine if other firms were outright collapsing thus changing the psychology of those who must do business with the banks, from the small deposit holder to large institutions. So the government, short on time and with too many moving parts, did the prudent thing, bailing out firms across the board. J.P. Morgan took the help, and, paid it back it.
In the aftermath politicians more or less agreed that some changes were necessary to the industry and financial reforms were put in place, with both Republicans and Wall Street, and especially Wall Street, changing their previous stance toward President Obama. He struck a populist tone in an effort to garner public support for strengthening the financial system, but the financial sector didn't like being blamed for the economic collapse of America.
But, funny how that is. You have three major firms--Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns and Lehman--that collapse or near collapse, due to making bets on mortgage related securities that vastly amplified the number and nature of shaky mortgages in existence. Wall Street firms across the board provided the liquidity to expand the mortgage market, and the cunning to make side bets on that expanded market. The cash from Wall Street helped provide a climate for mortgage brokers to go crazy pushing product. It's hard for many segments of the financial industry, and especially the Wall Street banking sector, to become indignant about their role in the matter, despite Republicans giving them cover and trying to shift all the blame onto quasi government units like Fannie Mae and quasi un-Americans like the subprime borrowers (aka, those poor ethnics).
Which makes the recent earning news of J.P. Morgan all the more interesting. Profits rose at the firm by 47% to $4.83 billion in the 4th quarter.
J.P. Morgan, led by chief executive Jamie Dimon, was the only major U.S. bank to remain profitable throughout the financial crisis. The company's record $17.4 billion in earnings last year were boosted by roughly $7 billion in pretax reserve releases on the better economic forecast, an improvement that Dimon said he doesn't count as actual earnings.(Washington Post)
Now this is good news. It's a testament to the fact that Mr.Dimon is one of the most astute and responsible financial officials in this century. He created the modern J.P. Morgan and has managed it well. The long history of the firm is a good one, helping to build America along the way. In other words, we with them well and are not of the ilk who believes producers at banks should not be paid well, or that banks should not on occasion be bailed out when necessary.
This is where get back to the hypocrisy and the arrogance. Due to swift government action, our system is stabilized and at least as far as investment banking and trading and other revenue streams of the big banks, all is well. Credit markets have eased and there is no worry about counterparty risk who you can do business with. The fact that we have reached this moment is due to action taken by Bush and followed by Obama. There should be some level, however small it might be, of gratitude toward that bailout, which was done with taxpayer money.
Second, when over the course of time various remedies are tried to contain outrageous practices, like the legislation passed to contain excessive overdraft fees, the industry, in light of its debt to consumers, ought to take the high and humble road.
Instead we are getting business as usual. Each of the major banks have now decided that free, simple checking accounts will not exist. Many people predicted this would happen, that the era of free checking would get squashed once the banks lost the income stream of gouging its poorer customers on fees. Think about that. Your more financially astute or organized customer is not the one getting those fees. Generally, that person will have enough in their accounts to avoid any account minimum balance fees, which means they will never be in a situation of incurring overdrafts. It's your day to day person who struggles and who ran the risk of paying $25 or $30 several times over if his account was initially off by, say, .02 cents.
Now that they can't tap the poor and foolish revenue stream, they have decided to stick it to everyone via monthly fees across all accounts. Sure you can avoid the fees. By having at least on direct deposit over $500 (mind you, you can't combine monthly deposits to hit that goal). Or doing about 5 debit card transactions a month (mind you, they are also thinking of adding yearly fees on owning a debit card). Or if you have some combination of accounts at the institution that puts you way over minimum balance numbers.
By turning free checking into "free checking with rules" they are well aware that the same people who incurred overdraft fees in the past will be the same people not earning $500 a paycheck (if paid weekly), or the same people too ill informed to set up direct deposit. The counter argument is that the information requirements are out there for all to see. You can go to the Chase website and the company is very clear about fees for each type of account, and how to avoid them. Those in favor of allowing banks to do as they please could argue that if a person cannot avoid a $6, $8 or $25 account fee, then they are just being lazy and choosing to pay more. To some extent that is true.
The greater problem is that you are penalizing all for the recklessness of a few. If you are a person who earns maybe $400 a week, is paid weekly, and pays your bills on time, does not like to use the debit card to shop, you are hurt by this. The actions of banks like J.P. Morgan punish the lazy and irresponsible poor at the expense of the responsible middle class and poor.
Ultimately people won't go for this. It's a foolish business stance built on an arrogance that puts profits above all. There are any number of ways they can create accounts that scale to consumer performance, but that they won't do. A good start would be to have a no fee or low fee checking account with a built in overdraft line of credit of $25 dollars and up. Maybe charge $1 for that line of credit component regardless of credit score. The usual option (like at Bank of America) is for you to get a savings account that charges $5 a month to use as "overdraft protection," which is comical. The money you don't have in your checking to cover a check is not gonna suddenly be the money you do have in your savings account to use as overdraft protection. And likely, your savings account is going to be free, and online and at one of those banks like ING or HSBC that at least pretend to pay decent interest.
At a time when the banking industry has made huge profits, it's hypocritical to complain and call for the necessity of a whole new range of fees due to the loss of one really badly implemented revenue stream that preyed on the poor. Further, that revenue stream was never turned off, given the numbers of people who opt-in to maintaining the status quo. It's a lie to suggest otherwise, and that you are using new fees to plug the outright loss of old fees.
We saw this same effect on some of the large health insurance firms. They had planned to increase premiums as they do each year, but chose to blame the increase on healthcare reform legislation and despite the likelihood that such increases would have happened anyway, as they always do, hence the need for reform. Here the banking sector has taken the cynical turn and used a government action (regulation on the industry to make it safer, regulation on overdraft practices to protect the consumer) as opportunity to increase costs to the average citizen. It's pin the tale (the lie) on the government, in order to maximize profits. By doing this you also inhibit regulatory authorities from taking action in the future that might be necessary to protect the citizens from the financial industry's avarice or stupidity.
It's particularly shameful and disappointing when a firm like J.P. Morgan, run by one of the best brains in the industry, turns its back on smaller customers. Of course, that cloud will be a silver lining to the credit unions and online banks that will snap up disaffected clients.
A few years from now we will no doubt be seeing additional curbs on these account fees, and the industry will complain, unable to acknowledge the stupidity of its actions today.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Wen, Win Situation: China Reserves Hit $2.85 Trillion
 |
| Can You Count To $4 Trillion?* |
At the rate they are going, their reserves should hit the size of the U.S. national debt sometime around Christmas, upon which they can buy up our notes and debt and forgive it all, allowing us to use our sudden financial jubilee to buy even more Chinese holiday goods. A win win. Or Wen Win. Yuan win.
We jest. The problem is less about China, as rising growth and opportunity there will be a great boon for American commerce and ingenuity, as well as an engine to jump start far corners of the earth. The problem has more to do with the United States facing its own demons (budget imbalances, spending growth rates, tech investment). It's like we are the fat person, and begging the plastic surgeon to cut his fees and do bariatrics instead, and while simultaneously cheating with that surgeon's wife (Taiwan).
Gains in China’s currency holdings highlight global economic imbalances and claims that the yuan is undervalued, topics President Barack Obama has put on the agenda for his Jan. 19 meeting with counterpart Hu Jintao in Washington.(Bloomberg)
At least we know that one of our semi-friends has some money and will be able to float us a costly payday loan down the road if we don't get our finances in order.
*("No because you Americans suck at math," says Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, and who, according to Wikipedia, is the architect of China's current economic policy).
Stupid People Refreshing the Liberty Tree
Ms. Palin has made an art of joking, using Twitter or simply talking her way out of other potentially damaging situations. When she was called out for having crib notes on her hand during a question-and-answer session last year, she laughed it off and began showing other audiences writing on her hand that read “Hi, Mom.” Predictions that her resignation in 2009 would spell her doom never panned out.
And as she continues to seriously weigh a decision to run in 2012, her potential rivals still view her as formidable. “She’s a force of nature,” Mr. Pawlenty said during the interview at The Times.(N.Y. Times)
The New York Times steps in with a piece pointed at Sarah Palin, whose words have taken on extra velocity given the inhumane violence visited upon a Democratic politician in Tucson this weekend past. People are starting to feel, for the moment at least, that words can affect others in ways that cannot wholly be contained or anticipated. While your average man or woman might not react to the rhetoric of Obama being a Nazi or to the necessity of putting the opposition in the crosshairs, there abides a certain type of person who will always take things a bit more personally than the the rest of us. These literalists, loons among them, and lacking any depth of field, will in fact seek to breath life into the whimsically spoken words of death, by attacking. They might lash out verbally, screaming and yelling and squashing debate, or they might resort to intimidation, showing up with their guns or bully pulpit to shut you down. Or, they might step up and do actual physical harm to things... or to people.
Rather than taking the outspoken position that some Republicans and many conservatives have been outright and uniquely nasty, even anti-American in their treatment of the President and supporters of his policies, weaving a type of entombment clothing out of a rich tapestry of contradictory lies, Democrats and the media have given in to the idea of equal opportunity offenses, as though liberals are the ones running around with guns, or boldly holding up signs calling for the spilling of blood from some liberty tree of death.
That ever worn bit of oft repeated situational Jeffersonian wisdom reads, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." The skill it takes to write this on a sign, or repeat it over the airwaves or quote it online or in a book, is not the same skill set that it takes create and live by such a phrase. In a time lacking anything remotely resembling tyranny, its applicability to anything at all is null, and sits like a verbal baton awaiting the grip of the unstable, the resentful, and the ignorant, who do not understand the complexities of the world we live in.
And, if it is said that you are doing un-Constitutional things, reshaping the nation into some perceived gulag, Stalin wrapped in Hitler's overcoat, and if recklessly intelligent minds are calling you out on this, it is not an unlikely possibility that lesser minds with nothing to lose will take a gander at doing something explosive that validates their place in the world. A type of elevation without education, vocation, or moral contemplation.
One day you are an off kilter student at a community college, lightly mocked for your oddness, with authority figures holding you down, and the next moment you are weaving the weave, threading the needle, putting all the disparate facts together and taking action. You alone are capable, when others stand aside weakly.
While we cannot blame Palin or Limbaugh or Beck for being a direct cause of death, we ought not to forgive them their duplicitous wordsmithing that actually creates an environment of havoc. Palin, however, stands alone in the trio, for she actually fancies herself a doer and thinker, and hopes to lead the nation. The entire nation, filled with Americans and non-Americans alike.
If anything the nation's press must at least, at minimum, make a major effort to force people to speak truth, and without glossing over the real differences in rhetoric by setting up some sort of blanket condemnation of all political speech. This is what is typically done. Party A will say, "You are racist and hate America and want to burden our children with the costs of your deathcare." Party B will say, "First off, this legislation reduces our debts and nowhere does it support death, so you are telling lies to the American people." Party A will then say, "See, you talk of wanting to tone down the rhetoric, but at the same time you are calling me a liar."
The press will then sit there, light bulb eyed and with a head tilt say, "And how about that Party B? Are you doing the very thing that you accuse your opponent of doing?"
The actual facts batted back and forth get lost. But facts will be important. Just next week we imagine the House will resume their quixotic effort to repeal Obama's health reform legislation. The justification for doing so should include much exaggeration, many distortions, and certain amount of demonization. We hope that this week's events at least lead to more honesty and civility (if not agreement), but we really doubt that. The man who does nothing, resting under the Liberty Tree instead of working the fields to improve yield, will be the most defensive.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Food Safety Laws, Successful Car Companies: Spawn of Obama Socialism?
 |
| Obama Devil Symbol |
First we have the news that the President signed into law the bipartisan food safety law. If theatrical political actress Palin had strong words for Michelle Obama's continued efforts to encourage American parents to feed their children healthier food, she should be appalled at this actual piece of real law. It's regulation pure and simple, but we doubt she will have the courage to buck the conventional wisdom of the three out of four senators who supported the bill.
The new law would:(Bloomberg)
—Increase inspections of U.S. and foreign food facilities; the riskiest U.S. facilities would be inspected every three years. The FDA rarely inspected most facilities and farms, visiting some about once a decade and others not at all.
—Allow the FDA to order the recall of tainted food. Previously, the agency could only negotiate with businesses for voluntary recalls.
—Impose new safety regulations on producers of the highest-risk fruits and vegetables.
Is this socialism? Do we give Obama a thumbs up or down on this? Because it's really getting hard to determine when social welfare policies are really socialism. I suspect that when social conservatives do something inherently socialistic, it's good for America, but when a Democrat does it, it's well, you know, socialism right there in your face, taking your way of life.
Which leads us to an update on Obama's other socialist endeavor, the bailout of American auto companies. Just yesterday we had the news that all three firms were doing rather okay, and with yearly sales hitting some records. The news was good all around, save for perhaps Toyota.
Rising consumer confidence and retail spending bode well for car sales and may help boost 2011 industrywide sales, including heavy-duty trucks, to 13 million to 13.5 million vehicles, Don Johnson, GM’s vice president of U.S. sales operations, said today on a conference call.
Credit Eases
Banks are starting to lend more freely, giving buyers with weaker credit an opportunity to purchase new cars, he said. Subprime borrowers* account for about 5 percent of GM’s sales right now, he said.(Bloomberg)
It should become increasingly clear to the public that some politicians who have talked about American jobs have done nothing to help the process, while others were doing the heavy lifting. Yes, it's a bailout and if we were concerned with balanced budgets and strict adherence to laissez faire capitalism, the car companies should have been allowed to fail. But if we are talking about deficits and debt, the very same people who vocalized against bailing out the auto industry or the banks, were quite willing to support a tax cut extension that rendered concerns over the national debt obsolete by contradiction. Thus to the extent we are not tackling the budget and deficits, and are trying to jump start the economy, keeping thousands of Americans at work via the auto companies and their derivative supply chains was the right thing to do.
Further, and this oft gets ignored (and more by the person on the street), the very ability of the car companies to enjoy this sudden bounty of American car lust is helped by banks, who are less locked down by credit concerns and who, thankfully, with the help of both Bush and Obama, still exist.
*(I know well one of those subprime buyers, who bought a vehicle via Carmax. It was very hard to get a loan given his credit score, and unless he pays more than his monthly payment he will ultimately be paying for two cars. But still, he bought a car, which kept him working and contributing to the economy. If he was not so annoyed he would probably thank that bank for their kindly exorbitant but economically wise interest rate.)
Fish, Birds and Frogs Falling Out of American Sighs
Wikipedia actually has a pretty good write up on the film, and if you are feeling at all ill at ease or in general wonderment over the world out there, it's a good film to hunker down in front of.
At the end of the film, a rare but precedented event occurs: frogs rain from the sky. While the plague of frogs is unexpected, there have been real-life reports of frogs being sucked into waterspouts and then raining to the ground miles inland.[2] While there have been incidents of a moderate number of frogs falling from the sky along with other precipitation, there has never been a recorded incident of a dry, torrential frog downpour as is depicted in the film.
All along the film there are references to the Bible's Book of Exodus 8:2 "And if thou refuse to let them go, behold, I will smite all thy borders with {a} frogs", some of the props around the characters are shaped to resemble these numbers and also clocks, weather services and other items refer to these numbers, most notably at the beginning of the contest a man is holding a sign with Exodus 8:2 which is taken away by one of the hosts and also some lines of dialogue include these numbers.
The movie has an underlying theme of unexplained events, taken from the 1920s and 1930s works of American intellectual Charles Fort. Fortean author Loren Coleman has written a chapter about this motion picture, entitled "The Teleporting Animals and Magnolia," in one of his recent books.[3] The film has many hidden Fortean themes. The fall of frogs is merely one of them. One of Charles Fort's books is visible on the table in the library and there is an end credit thanking Charles Fort.[4](Wikipedia)
Some have complained that the movie is one long soap opera, and that it's filled with a dark, depressed world that does not fully reflect reality. It is a soap opera, and dark, but it's also brilliant. Though darkness permeates the film, its impact is made light by the elevated themes of redemption, and by a romance that forms a powerful antidote to the unexplained events and sad choices.
Whenever I see birds fall out of the sky or other unlikely oddities, my mind jumps back to Magnolia, a film that did practically nothing at the box office. To me it's the perfect film for moments like now when so many things hang in the balance.
Watch the role of the police office played by John C. Reilly. He is filled with dedication to task and a quiet faith that does not make him perfect, but allows him to see where others see nothing at all.
Eventually I will be back outside as the new day dawns, and looking up, wondering what might drop into my path, and hoping for something swell as I head to work.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
House Republicans Promise to Stick Pinky Inside Obama Administration's Navel
Here we go. The United States faces some tough challenges domestically and abroad. Republicans have been on the lazy side of meeting some of the challenges, opting instead to heckle from the audience, stonewall or divert attention to issues they are not ready to solve. We saw this to great effect with the recent extension of the Bush tax cuts, which contrary to Republican deficit reduction hyperventilating, will serve to make deficits grow.
Now as they take control of the House, we get more wheel spinning and nonsense mongering as they gear up to run a series of costly, time consuming and ultimately wasteful investigations in the hopes of slowing legislation, manipulating public opinion, and bogging down the Administration.
Notably, Issa has already formed conclusions about the Obama administration, calling them corrupt, and you are left to wonder what level of truth Representative Darrell is willing to accept if it conflicts with his own preconstructed narrative. One suspects his investigations will reflect the mind of Darrell, not the will or best interests of the average American. Any notion of truth and clarity will be tossed aside when these panels are used to convince us that, for example, Fannie Mae or too much regulation of business resulted in the economic panic.
Time spent investigating ought to be replaced by time spent working with other elected officials to come up with balanced solutions to the whirlwind of difficulty breezing back and forth across the country. Bailout for California and other states? Rational reductions in Federal spending? Additional targeted taxes? Maybe national sales tax? Examination of rising oil prices and how that's a drag on the average man's budget and the economy?
Don't hold your breath for any of that. The party that lectured the president on focusing too much attention on bringing Americans better healthcare at the expense of job creation and the economy (a rhetorical construction bordering on outright fabrication to begin with), will now spend valuable moments rehashing non-criminal moments of the recent past in an effort to keep a president who is working for the bulk of us from working for us.
Now as they take control of the House, we get more wheel spinning and nonsense mongering as they gear up to run a series of costly, time consuming and ultimately wasteful investigations in the hopes of slowing legislation, manipulating public opinion, and bogging down the Administration.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who will become chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee when the 112th Congress is sworn in Wednesday, said he will lead six major investigations in the first three months of the year. That would be an ambitious undertaking by conventional standards, as congressional investigations often take months to bear fruit.(Washington Post)
Notably, Issa has already formed conclusions about the Obama administration, calling them corrupt, and you are left to wonder what level of truth Representative Darrell is willing to accept if it conflicts with his own preconstructed narrative. One suspects his investigations will reflect the mind of Darrell, not the will or best interests of the average American. Any notion of truth and clarity will be tossed aside when these panels are used to convince us that, for example, Fannie Mae or too much regulation of business resulted in the economic panic.
Time spent investigating ought to be replaced by time spent working with other elected officials to come up with balanced solutions to the whirlwind of difficulty breezing back and forth across the country. Bailout for California and other states? Rational reductions in Federal spending? Additional targeted taxes? Maybe national sales tax? Examination of rising oil prices and how that's a drag on the average man's budget and the economy?
Don't hold your breath for any of that. The party that lectured the president on focusing too much attention on bringing Americans better healthcare at the expense of job creation and the economy (a rhetorical construction bordering on outright fabrication to begin with), will now spend valuable moments rehashing non-criminal moments of the recent past in an effort to keep a president who is working for the bulk of us from working for us.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Little Fockers Take On Healthcare Reform
 |
Soon after the 112th Congress convenes Wednesday, House Republicans plan to make good on a campaign promise that helped vault many new members to victory: voting to repeal the health-care law.
The vote, which Republican leaders pledged would occur before President Obama's State of the Union address this month, is intended both to appeal to the House's tea-party factions and to emphasize the muscle of the new party in power. But the vote also could yield an unintended consequence: a chance for Democrats to retry their case in support of the health-care overhaul before the public.(Seattle Times)
Republicans will probably invoke any number of contradictory theories in their dismantling efforts, including the claim that it has failed to save anyone money... a claim akin to saying the sun has failed to rise at 1:00 A.M.
Career Suicide is the New Killing It (Honoring Navy Captain Owen Honors)
As I return to my humble job today after two weeks off (yes, a derivative of the education field), there will be moments when I pause to imagine if there is some other, better use of my time. As I prepare a simple spreadsheet for distribution, I will wonder if that guy in Manhattan at some internet social media startup is living the life I should be living. As bankers smile over their bonuses on Wall Street and holders of private Facebook shares thank the gods for their employ (and Goldman's new $500 million investment) at that left coast giant, envy floods my soul, drowning my contentment.
At this time when the year somersaults, I always fall under the delusion that anything is possible, and that I can just chuck it all. My imagination has me quitting, and heading out on the open road to explore some previously unattainable task that I should have been working toward ages ago. Nike slogans like "Just Do It" fill my head, along with distant memories of kung fu movies that inspired leaping off of walls, swings and monkey bars with abandon.
The delusion became more inflamed yesterday when someone I know who is on meager hourly wages and lacking a computer asked me to type a resignation letter for them. Phil (not his name, but let's call him that) works at a company that changed owners or outsourced or something too convoluted for my attention span. Salaries for long time workers were cut by two dollars, which, if you are earning say, $50/hour is tolerable, and if you are making maybe $9 per hour is pretty much a scalping.
"Uhm, do you want anything else on your letter, like an explanation of departure," I asked, looking at the white space filling the page. "Nope," said Phil,"Just say 'I quit'. I am done with those "bleeps" and have nothing to say. Don't need to be treated this way."
Ah, now that is power (or stupidity). Being able to just walk away. No two week notice, no sitting with the committee to explore your exit reasons. You walk in, get a coffee, sit at your desk, shoot the breeze with your fellow workers, then say, "Oh yea guys, I am quitting in ten minutes, right after I look up golf club prices on Amazon" and just walk out the door ten minutes later. Maybe come back in for a second saying, "Oh yea, forgot my pencil" and then re-leave.
All of which brings me to this piece of Navy news hitting the internet, with a certain Navy officer landing in a heaping varietal bowl of NSFW by participating in a comedic video that crosses the line into bad taste, unprofessional conduct, and violation of several perceived phobias and "isms". Upon viewing it, I can't imagine that this guy really thought he could be a part of this and have a career left. Yet, as goofy as the video is, he is no moron. So I am thinking that he was just fed up with the job, and this was his way of quitting. You can quit quietly, but in this day and age there is so much money to be made when you make noise enough to catch the attention of our media culture.
So Captain Owen Honors, we honor you with your ability to take your career by the tail and just kill it. It takes a certain devil may care confidence to do that in this type of economic climate. You are either brilliant and cocky or incredibly, incredibly sea drunk and immature. I like to think you knew exactly what you were doing when you were doing exactly what you shouldn't have been doing.
At this time when the year somersaults, I always fall under the delusion that anything is possible, and that I can just chuck it all. My imagination has me quitting, and heading out on the open road to explore some previously unattainable task that I should have been working toward ages ago. Nike slogans like "Just Do It" fill my head, along with distant memories of kung fu movies that inspired leaping off of walls, swings and monkey bars with abandon.
The delusion became more inflamed yesterday when someone I know who is on meager hourly wages and lacking a computer asked me to type a resignation letter for them. Phil (not his name, but let's call him that) works at a company that changed owners or outsourced or something too convoluted for my attention span. Salaries for long time workers were cut by two dollars, which, if you are earning say, $50/hour is tolerable, and if you are making maybe $9 per hour is pretty much a scalping.
"Uhm, do you want anything else on your letter, like an explanation of departure," I asked, looking at the white space filling the page. "Nope," said Phil,"Just say 'I quit'. I am done with those "bleeps" and have nothing to say. Don't need to be treated this way."
Ah, now that is power (or stupidity). Being able to just walk away. No two week notice, no sitting with the committee to explore your exit reasons. You walk in, get a coffee, sit at your desk, shoot the breeze with your fellow workers, then say, "Oh yea guys, I am quitting in ten minutes, right after I look up golf club prices on Amazon" and just walk out the door ten minutes later. Maybe come back in for a second saying, "Oh yea, forgot my pencil" and then re-leave.
All of which brings me to this piece of Navy news hitting the internet, with a certain Navy officer landing in a heaping varietal bowl of NSFW by participating in a comedic video that crosses the line into bad taste, unprofessional conduct, and violation of several perceived phobias and "isms". Upon viewing it, I can't imagine that this guy really thought he could be a part of this and have a career left. Yet, as goofy as the video is, he is no moron. So I am thinking that he was just fed up with the job, and this was his way of quitting. You can quit quietly, but in this day and age there is so much money to be made when you make noise enough to catch the attention of our media culture.
So Captain Owen Honors, we honor you with your ability to take your career by the tail and just kill it. It takes a certain devil may care confidence to do that in this type of economic climate. You are either brilliant and cocky or incredibly, incredibly sea drunk and immature. I like to think you knew exactly what you were doing when you were doing exactly what you shouldn't have been doing.
War With China Coming to a Magazine Near You
 |
| Hong Kong, China |
Ever wonder what would happen if we went to war with China over Taiwan? Popular Mechanics wonders, and wonders twice, generating two war game scenarios. The first gives a dramatically plausible case for Chinese success, followed by a second rendering that gives a dubiously relaxed counter argument for U.S. success. The comments following tend view the possibility of China winning as ridiculous, with the ultimate outcome being our nuking of Beijing. (While, presumably and miraculously avoiding the counter nuking of Washington, New York and Sarah Palin's house).
Nowhere does anyone, in the written fantasy piece or the comments, examine whether the Chinese have a legitimate case for claiming Taiwan. I tend to think they do, and that losing a civil war does not allow the losing party to corner up geographically and claim home ownership. That means you, Nationalists, circa 1949.
In any case, and like most things, perceptions are probably wrong, and war between China and the United States is one of those events better left unexplored until the moon and Mars are brought online.
So if you have long ago built your backyard ice rink and are looking for something more philosophical to capture your imagination, check out "What a War Between China and the United States Would Look Like." Despite our own possible death from radiation drifting into Arizona from a defunct and nuked Los Angeles, we think it otherwise might make for really good television to die for.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
2011 Predictions
We are at the beginning of the year, and when I look back over our predictions for 2010, I can admit they were pretty much off track. Certain things in the political world, like how much credit and voice people would give to the Tea Party, caught us by surprise. The predicted economic recovery never got moving in a manner that might impact unemployment.
Last year (how odd) in January we predicted that:
The Tea Party movement sprang out of nowhere, though not quite organically, and pushed the idea that government spending was suddenly out of control. It was formed around the issue of taxation, while rather ignoring the fact that the nation had just come out of a near collapse in 2008 and was in need of an economic restoration of confidence and functionality. Republicans saw these pockets of myopic outrage and determined it was a beast they could ride and tame. While they often pleasured their supporters during the election and immediately after that Obama was somehow making us less safe, and thus good for terrorism, reality proved otherwise. No major event evolved to make them prescient,or Obama as careless as previous presidents.
The arrival of the Tea Party activists came not a moment too soon, and contrary to prediction, terrorism faded as an issue. It was all about the economy, employment and taxation. Knowingly, the Republicans proposed austerity and tax cuts while at the same time roasting Obama over the lackluster economy. Here, the party of private enterprise focused their attention and criticism on government's failure to create work, while ignoring the private sector's unwillingness to create jobs during a period of overwhelming profitability.
So even as the economy returned to positive growth per our prediction, the unemployment rate did not move downward by much at all, largely lingering in the same range between 9 and 10%. That did not prevent other regions of the world from performing well, with places like Singapore approaching 15% growth and Qatar topping 20%.
Domestically there was no major bailout of any state, though we remain certain that can still happen. We did see success in the passing of healthcare legislation, but that effort was savaged by Republican and Tea Party rhetoric, and the use of the economy as misdirection to malign Obama's efforts to improve the health care process in the United States. That battle, which included an end of the year deal to renew the Bush temporary tax cuts, overwhelmed the ability of anyone to focus on things like illegal immigration. Overall we give ourselves a score of 2.5 out of seven, being somewhat correct on points one, three, five and seven.
The seventh prediction, of "accomplishing something" was a freebie, and one we failed at. There was a new job, offset by the loss of a great job. There was a new car, offset by huge loan payments. Overall there was a feeling of progress not being made, and personal goals left undone or self-sabotaged.
Now it's 2011 and we think Democrats and Republicans are starting on relatively even footing, with a slight advantage to Obama who will have the virtue of being able to point out his own considerable legislative achievements going forward. So what can we expect in this year when the Republicans will be seeking to put their best presidential face in yours?
Our Predictions
(We may add a few more items in the next few days, if malaise does not render us lazy).
Last year (how odd) in January we predicted that:
- Unemployment would drop to 8% by year's end, and GDP growth would average around 2.5% for the year.
- Republicans would focus on terrorism while obscuring economic improvement leading up to elections, while failing to take control of Congress.
- Healthcare reform legislation would pass, but the opposition would continue to attack the bill to win political point off the graduated implementation of the plan.
- At least one state would be bailed out by the Feds.
- Markets around the world, particularly in South America and Asia would do quite well.
- Obama would tackle illegal immigration and leave the Republicans unsure of how to confront the issue.
- I would accomplish something.
The Tea Party movement sprang out of nowhere, though not quite organically, and pushed the idea that government spending was suddenly out of control. It was formed around the issue of taxation, while rather ignoring the fact that the nation had just come out of a near collapse in 2008 and was in need of an economic restoration of confidence and functionality. Republicans saw these pockets of myopic outrage and determined it was a beast they could ride and tame. While they often pleasured their supporters during the election and immediately after that Obama was somehow making us less safe, and thus good for terrorism, reality proved otherwise. No major event evolved to make them prescient,or Obama as careless as previous presidents.
The arrival of the Tea Party activists came not a moment too soon, and contrary to prediction, terrorism faded as an issue. It was all about the economy, employment and taxation. Knowingly, the Republicans proposed austerity and tax cuts while at the same time roasting Obama over the lackluster economy. Here, the party of private enterprise focused their attention and criticism on government's failure to create work, while ignoring the private sector's unwillingness to create jobs during a period of overwhelming profitability.
So even as the economy returned to positive growth per our prediction, the unemployment rate did not move downward by much at all, largely lingering in the same range between 9 and 10%. That did not prevent other regions of the world from performing well, with places like Singapore approaching 15% growth and Qatar topping 20%.
Domestically there was no major bailout of any state, though we remain certain that can still happen. We did see success in the passing of healthcare legislation, but that effort was savaged by Republican and Tea Party rhetoric, and the use of the economy as misdirection to malign Obama's efforts to improve the health care process in the United States. That battle, which included an end of the year deal to renew the Bush temporary tax cuts, overwhelmed the ability of anyone to focus on things like illegal immigration. Overall we give ourselves a score of 2.5 out of seven, being somewhat correct on points one, three, five and seven.
The seventh prediction, of "accomplishing something" was a freebie, and one we failed at. There was a new job, offset by the loss of a great job. There was a new car, offset by huge loan payments. Overall there was a feeling of progress not being made, and personal goals left undone or self-sabotaged.
Now it's 2011 and we think Democrats and Republicans are starting on relatively even footing, with a slight advantage to Obama who will have the virtue of being able to point out his own considerable legislative achievements going forward. So what can we expect in this year when the Republicans will be seeking to put their best presidential face in yours?
Our Predictions
- Sarah Palin will decide to run (for president) and complicate Republican Party efforts to put forward a viable candidate. She will likely be defeated, but will also push to be named as the running mate.
- We think unemployment will finally move downward, below 9% by year's end.
- We expect immigration reform to play a big role this year, confounding Republicans on how to play the issue to maximum gain. Democrats will try to make it THE wedge issue to pry Hispanic votes from their subjective, sometimes unpredictable perch.
- A massive Federal intervention will be requested by some governors.
- The economic environment will dramatically improve moving into the 3rd quarter: 4% GDP
- Jeb Bush or some unexpected but competent Republican will move forward in general appeal.
- I will accomplish something.
(We may add a few more items in the next few days, if malaise does not render us lazy).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)