Update from the Heartland
No.356
6.10.08 – 12.10.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.356
6.10.08 – 12.10.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The United States Government removed the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea from the terrorism blacklist, and the DPRK agreed to re-allow IAEA inspectors back into the country for inspection and monitoring to nuclear sites. [354] This does not appear to be the strongest or best negotiating technique, but hey, if it works, then perhaps all’s well that ends well.
The McCain-Obama townhall meeting – the second of the so-called presidential debates – was not a particularly impressive event. Sadly, to me at least, John projected an air of desperation that did not serve him or us well. Barack came across as a steady hand with a calm, cool delivery. We need reassurance and focus. We got all this gibberish about tax cuts. I am so tired of listening to both these guys harping on tax cuts. Whether we like it or not, taxes are the revenue of government. Probably the most relevant, contemporary question of the lot “What sacrifices would you propose for the American People to contribute?” Neither candidate answered the question; and, it was a perfect opportunity to raise the issue of taxes as a necessary sacrifice for the greater good on this Grand Republic. All the presidential candidates are at distinct disadvantage; they do not have access to the apparatus of State, the information of the Executive, or any authority to do anything. Further, none of them will decide; neither of them is the oracle of solutions. One of them will be the leader that will gather the best thinkers and do’ers we have. They will evaluate the root causes of any situation and determine the best course of action from a variety of options presented to them. They will negotiate and compromise with Congress to establish the necessary laws to carry out the decided actions. They will not decide law by themselves.
The World economic news became overwhelming this week. Please pardon my filtration process. This is my take of what may become a perpetual chronicle of economic history.
-- BNP Paribas agreed to buy the Belgian & Luxembourg operations of Fortis for €14.5B (US$19.7B), relieving the governments of that intervention. The Dutch government nationalized their branch of the company.
-- Lehman Brothers Chief Executive Richard Severin Fuld, Jr. testified before a House banking committee. Watching him squirm provided some satisfaction in an otherwise dreary week. Even better would be watching his conviction and sentencing to forfeiture of his worldly goods and remand to an all-expenses paid, long duration incarceration as our guest, and his cohorts in crime should receive the same invitation.
-- Secretary Paulson appointed Neel T. Kashkari, currently Assistant Secretary of International Affairs, as the Interim Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability. Kashkari was a former Goldman Sachs executive with Paulson. He will presumably be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Kashkari reportedly contributed to the drafting the Paulson Plan, and apparently, he has begun to execute the plan.
-- Germany’s central bank (Bundesbank) and the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht AKA BaFin) agreed to a €50B+ rescue plan for the mortgage lender Hypo Real Estate Holding AG – the contagion continues to spread.
-- In the spirit of the day, the British government ponied up £50B (US$88B) to buy preferred shares of eight banks -- Abbey, Barclays, HBOS plc, HSBC, Lloyds TSB, Nationwide Building Society, Royal Bank of Scotland and Standard Chartered. The Bank of England further made available ‘at least’ £200B for a Special Liquidity Scheme.
-- The U.S. Federal Reserve cut a key, short-term, interest by 0.5%, to 1.5%, in conjunction with the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, the Bank of Canada, the Swiss National Bank, and Sveriges Riksbank – the central bank of Sweden.
-- The G-7 finance ministers (I guess Russia has been un-invited) along with leaders of global banking apparati met in the White House with President Bush on Saturday, to coordinate the global governmental actions.
-- Prime Minister Gordon Brown is considering legal action against the government of Iceland over their alleged mishandling of the credit-liquidity-bad-debt crisis.
Despite the extraordinary and unprecedented, coordinated, governmental action to restore stability to the international banking system, the stock markets across the globe tanked – a measure of corroded confidence within the banking system. In the last year, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) has lost 40% of its value. The last eight trading days, the stock market lost 2,400 points (22%). So far, for those of us who have not sold, these are all paper losses that can and will be recovered. We had ‘irrational exuberance’ 10 years ago. Today, we see ‘irrational fear.’ This is NOT 1929. And, Franklin Roosevelt’s words of encouragement remain valid, applicable and relevant: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
I strongly recommend the FOX News, David Asman exposé on the genesis of the current bad-debt, credit crisis, which offered the best assessment I have seen so far.
“Saving Our Economy: What'$ Next?”
FOX News program hosted by David Asman
Broadcast: 11.October.2008; 21:00 EDT
Once more . . . yes, absolutely, the bailout is wrong! The market can and will sort this out . . . in time. The salient question today remains, how much pain are We, the People, willing to tolerate as the market sorts this mess out? . . . a deep recession, a short, sharp depression, or a long, enduring depression? Where is our pain threshold? And, lest we forget, we have been and still are engaged with an enemy bent upon killing as many American citizens as they can. The economy is the engine that sustains the War on Islamic Fascism. In addition to losing jobs, savings, homes, and our very standard of living, are we willing to diminish or sacrifice our national security while the market sorts out the credit crisis?
Shortly after Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 [PL 106-102; AKA Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act], and under pressure from congressional leaders, Fannie Mae eased credit standards ostensibly to enhance mortgage lending and bring more first-time homeowners into the market. Some experts claim the genesis of the sub-prime debacle originated with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) [PL 95-128], signed into law by President Carter. Just these facts alone should be sufficient to recognize the broad, across party lines culpability of politicians, and places ‘San Fran Nan’ Pelosi’s vulgar, politically biased, public, floor-debate remarks during a time of crisis all the more disgusting. To me, the truly sad part of this particular election will be the reelection of parochial politicians who put party over nation, and even worse criminal politicians who literally spit on the law and the Constitution for their personal gain and aggrandizement.
We appear to be headed toward an undisputed dominance of Democratic Party to include the White House and Congress including a possible filibuster-proof Senate. If anyone ever wondered what total domination of the instruments of State looked and acted like, we may soon see another, at least, two-year demonstration. Just a remember, from 2001 to 2007, we had a near domination of the Legislative and Executive branches of the Federal government by the Republican Party (they did not have a filibuster-proof, Senate majority), and that did not work out so well, in my humble opinion. The Democrats regained majority control of both chambers of Congress in 2006, but total domination by any political faction will never be a good thing for this Grand Republic or We, the People, no matter who it is. We seem to be on the verge of an extreme shift. Think about it!
Comments and contributions from Update no.355:
. . . my belated reply to a thread from last week:
I suspect we are headed toward a repeal of the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 [PL 106-102; AKA Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act], or at least a serious amendment to it. I truly hope we do not overreact as we did with intelligence reform in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) [PL 95-511]; we still have not regain a proper footing after that debacle. We need checks & balances in the financial system as well as health metrics that would allow gradual throttling rather than force us to such drastic action as the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 [PL 110-343] sure is.
Part of the reason for my earlier query rest in my novice status, regarding banking and finance. You are far closer to the front lines than me. A rural, Ag bank is not going to see the same trauma as Wall Street is experiencing. And, I highly doubt y’all are involved with ‘default credit swaps,’ ‘derivates,’ and such. I do not know how much y’all do in basic residential mortgages and the like. I surmise from your earlier remarks that y’all do not see the liquidity or bad debt crisis, which would be a good sign to me. But, I worry that even local, rural, Ag banks might be seeing increased resistance to the acquisition of short-term funds to fill gaps or deal with a panic run induced by outside forces. If your bank does not feel any increased stress, then perhaps we are better off than we think.
Another contribution:
“Which pain do I choose: being beheaded by terrorists, or being broke? Perhaps the money mess has taken our eye off the primary threat. It is hard for me to put Wall Street ahead of beheading. But, one thing is certain. The folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B is an old formula for disaster written about long ago. Our economy is worse off for bailing out with money, without going back and fixing the root problems as well as imprisoning the thieves. The bailout may prove to be a monumental mistake or a brilliant move. I would rather let the market fail the losers out of business and government punish the thieves. Time will tell on some things, but not on killing terrorists before they kill us.”
My response:
Indeed! Choose our poison. I would rather let the market sort it out and punish the bad men, as well. But, my problem, are we willing to give up our jobs, our savings, our homes, to let the market sort it out? That is what I worry about . . . collateral damage to punish the bad guys. As I wrote, I believe, or perhaps more appropriately, I trust, the Paulson Plan is simply dropping the gear or flaps to change the center of pressure to erect the spin and allow proper anti-spin controls to work – the tourniquet to stop the bleeding – and then, we shall have the laws to apply proper regulation of the market and truly punish the guilty bastards who have taken us to the abyss. Those Wall Street greed-merchants have done far more damage than al-Qaeda; the only thing they haven’t done yet is kill innocent people, yet.
. . . a follow-up:
“To continue your aviation analogy (non-aviators bear with us), the futility of flaps making any real difference in a flat spin is real not to mention the rare possibility of split flaps (a worse condition). In other words, letting it take its course may be the only way to end the mess. Regardless, like you I am concerned about the collateral damage to the regular folks while it happens. The market will recover. Let's hope the innocent people hurt the most do as well.”
. . . my follow-up response:
First, of course, the market will indeed handle this situation, just as it eventually did in the late 1930’s. My question remains the same . . . at what cost? If we are prepared for 25% unemployment, 20% business failure, and a 10-year depression, then I’m good with letting the market handle it. Unfortunately for me, I am not wealthy enough to insulate my family from a full-on depression.
Second, I see economic threat in much more personal terms than I do military threat. Thus, the shenanigans of the mortgage lenders like Fannie Mae, Countrywide, and all the others, along with this insane nonsense of ‘credit default swaps’ and all these other foolish derivatives of the banks and now-defunct investment houses, represent far more direct threat to our well-being than al-Qaeda ever did or ever will.
Third, our ability to prosecute the War on Islamic Fascism depends directly upon the strength of the economic engine that supplies and supports the war. I shudder to think of what might happen if we enter a depression with the magnitude of national debt already racked up by this administration, and field the force necessary to win the War on Islamic Fascism.
Fourth, I still believe the underlying economic fundamentals are strong – unemployment remains comparative low, people are still building houses and buying airplanes. By my simple, direct measures, we’re not doing too bad. However, there are signs that business is not getting access to the funds they need for growth. The longer this period of credit uncertainty lasts, the more damage will be done.
Now, to the technical point of my analogy . . . Depending on the aircraft and configuration at entry, a flat spin blanks all control surfaces, thus traditional anti-spin inputs are ineffective. My point was, when in a bad situation, where traditional controls do not work, we must ‘invent’ other means to regain control. I do not advocate dropping the gear or flaps in a spin for the reasons you gave and more, but doing nothing in such a situation has only one, inevitable, rapidly approaching outcome. I would not just wait to see if higher density air might change the physics equation sufficiently to allow proper spin recovery; doing nothing won’t work. The bottom line is, there are times when we do have time to study the situation and properly evaluate correction actions. Sometimes, we have to react, to do the best we can, and sometimes to do the illogical to get out of an otherwise fatal event. Whether the current credit crisis is as serious as I think it is, remains a viable point of debate. Concomitantly, my opinion remains that the downside consequences justify aggressive, immediate response. I do not know if the Paulson Plan is sufficient, proper or adequate, but I do know it is an action to do something for stimulation of the credit markets.
A different contribution:
“Very good piece this week. I enjoyed your thoughts on the VP debate. Pretty much my own. Also liked your analogy of the flat spin to our economic situation now. Guess we shall see what we shall see.”
My reply:
Indeed. As General Julius Caesar said upon crossing the River Rubicon, “Iacta alea est” = the die is cast. I heard on 60 Minutes last night that the size of the root cause (‘credit default swaps’) may be as large at US$60T, far in excess of the paltry US$700B in the bad-debt package. The best we can hope for is surgical application for the greatest good. Time will tell the tale.
Another contribution:
“As a naval aviator, you might appreciate this.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain
“And this LA Times article ‘Mishaps mark John McCain's record as naval aviator’”
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-aviator6-2008oct06,0,7633315.story
My response:
I’m certain there more than a few folks among us who could muster up some pretty bad things to say about me. Lord knows I have an ample supply of mistakes, missteps, sins and gaffs.
The, at least implied, presumption that McCain is bad, therefore Obama is good, seems a bit jaundiced to me. As with most things human, we choose to see that which we wish to see and to view any given condition in a half-full, half-empty parlance. I simply refuse to view any of the candidates including Barr & Nader through any political party lens. I can level a fair amount of criticism at any political candidate of our current variety as well as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and even Sir Winston himself. They were all flawed men, as we all are. So, such clearly biased journalism does little but confirm the political bias of the author, and certainly does not further our inquisitive, intellectual inquiry.
One of the many axioms I have learned over the years is . . . if folks believe I am going to fail, there is nothing I can do to succeed; but, if they believe I can succeed, then I cannot fail – a question of confidence, trust, perception and loyalty. The parochial, political lens ensures an artificial and significant skewing of my confidence axiom.
You probably did not seek this political diatribe, for that I apologize; but alas, I am a flawed man as well.
. . . a follow-up:
“I consider myself an Independent, and want to get the facts. These stories provide balance and insight into the public persona that surrounds McCain. To a degree, he has gotten a free ride on his military record (and he won't release more than a few pages of his official record, at that). He has also gotten a free ride on his supposed support for military personnel and veterans, notably on the new GI Bill, which he tried to pre-empt and then took credit for passage. The DAV gives him a ‘D’ grade.
“I also thought you would appreciate the stories about his flying...had he not been the son/grandson of a four-start, he likely would have been sent packing.
“Anytime we pick a President, we are making a calculated gamble-- we really don't know how anybody will be in the office, but have to make an educated guess from a host of sources-- past record, how they run their campaigns, and what their platforms are, etc.
“You are right about Winston being flawed-- he smoked too many cigars. You have been to the Churchill Museum near 10 Downing, I would assume. It is adjacent to the Cabinet War Room. Great stuff.”
. . . and my follow-up response:
Likewise, I have been and remain as independent and non-partisan as I possibly can, from our earliest days as lieutenants of Marines. And, I see no reason to change now.
I always appreciate flying stories. And yeah, he probably got some breaks cuz of his daddy, just like W, Teddy, and all the other ‘monied’ or ‘connected’ folks do. As a side note, so much of the publishing biz seems to be name recognition or connection; the exceptions are very rare . . . probably just enuf to keep wannabes like me jousting at windmills.
Indeed, there are no guarantees with elections . . . W being the best example in our lifetime.
Yes, while I was in England, I absorbed as much as I possibly could of Sir Winston’s history & legacy. I’ve been to Blenheim, Bladon, Duxford, and the various sites in & around London. He was flawed far beyond the cigars. He was racist, sexist, colonialist, and otherwise a rather bigoted cantankerous man, who was more than a little impressed with himself. I have never been a fan of arrogant people, no matter who they think they are. But, despite his flaws, you have but to listen to his words, place them in the context to the history that boiled around them, and then, I see him in a different light. Perhaps it takes an egocentric man like Churchill, Patton or T. Boone Pickens to do what they do, but that has never my style, which is perhaps one of many reasons I am not a CEO or a general.
A different contribution:
“I saw the tail end of the Palin Biden debate ... and saw clips of recent interviews between Katie Couric and Palin (ouch on those) ... I do hope Palin steps up her game to become more credible with the American public. Her folksy appeal is not what we need right now from a woman candidate ... or any candidate for that matter. We need them all to exhibit brains and good plans for America's future.
My reply:
Based on last night’s debate, unless some miracle should happen, I think the election is a done deal. I also think Palin is far more savvy and smart than she is given credit for, but I don’t think it really matters now.
[N]one of the candidates give us anything substantive. All we get is hot air, platitudes and y’re-going-to-enjoy-this smiles. I’m not sure it really matters who the is president . . . they all just love to spend money on nonsense. I believe it was Ben Franklin who said something about democracy failing once Congress figured out how to access the Treasury. We shall see.
. . . round two:
“Hmmmm ... I can't tell from what you say [above], whether you think Obama or McCain did best last night ... ? Who is the ‘done deal?’ I think Obama could very well be the biblical ‘Anti-Christ’ .... not a joke.”
. . . my reply to round two:
I am still tweaking my opinion of this last debate, but McCain projected an air of desperation. I have been a McCain fan for a long time. He is a flawed man, as we all are, but he’s got the right idea. But, I cannot imagine his performance gave folks the confidence they need. There are also other factors that give me pause. One thing I know, I cannot tolerate another 4 years of social conservative agenda, as we have endured for 8 long yrs. And, the thot of more federalist on the Supreme Court is simply not acceptable.
I would like to hear why you think Barack is the biblical ‘anti-Christ?’
. . . round three:
“The Bible is interesting to me ... in Revelations I believe, it does talk of an appearance of an Anti-Christ that everyone will adore ... who will ultimately be the ruin of us. If he ever actually said he would forever support the Muslims over anyone else, we might be in trouble. And so will the Israeli Nation. I just worry about his ability to do the right thing in a time of crisis. Bush may have not done exactly what he should have after 911, but there has been plenty of good resulted from the moves he made. At least the world knows we can not tolerate terrorism. I like how McCain critiqued Obama on his 'big talk' . I think there will be some social conservative agendas continuing (forever perhaps) after the election, no matter WHO gets elected. Because there are alot of socially conservative people in this country that will always push for change.”
. . . my reply to round three:
As with all religious books, especially for the revealed religions, we must evaluate, assess, and place into the context of our lives. I suppose, either you believe or you do not; at least that is what clerics wish us to do. But, there is goodness in the books, even if you do not believe.
I do not believe Barack Obama is or even could be the anti-Christ of Revelations. I do believe he is a good man, trying to do the best he can to inspire the Nation . . . exactly what a President should be doing. I am far more worried about his indebtedness to the Democratic Party machine & dogma, which is too far Left for me. Then again, I think John McCain has compromised far too many of his core principles to play to the Republican Party machine & dogma, which is too far Right for me.
Yes, W. did the right things initially. I still believe going into Afghanistan had to be done. And, I also believe Iraq was the best choice to thwart state-sponsored terrorism. My biggest criticism is levied at W. and his cronies, namely Rummie, who chose to fight war on the cheap. Instead of asking us to ‘shop’ after 9/11, the President should have asked us to prepare for sacrifice, to place us on a truly war-footing, and to focus this Grand Republic on waging war successfully on Islamic fascism in all its dimensions.
I have never been and never will be socially conservative, and I will do what little I can to resist the imposition of socially conservative values on all of us. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the choices anyone makes for their private lives and families. Where I get my back up comes when they try to impose their choices on me or anyone else.
This exchange centered upon an un-attributed, highly critical, assessment of Barack Obama:
“This is an interesting compilation of information forwarded to me from an unknown original source ... some I've heard, and some not ... what do you all think ??”
[Essay not included.]
My response:
You asked what I thought, so here goes.
First, one rule, almost like a filter gate, I use in situations or topics like these is . . . balance. When an essay, article or message focuses only on the bad, alarms go off for me.
Second, one of the key elements of any propaganda campaign is having sufficient corroborate-able facts mixed in with the desired political slant.
Third, with virtually any human relationship, endeavor, activity or conduct, we can find good and bad. We can choose to see the positive or the negative.
In conclusion, I think the essay is just what it seems . . . a biased political hack job.
. . . round two:
“Possibly biased ... but is it true ??”
. . . my reply to round two:
Yes, absolutely. Barack’s mother was Caucasian and from Kansas; his father was Kenyan.
They do have an expensive house in Chicago that they purchased as a ‘sweetheart’ deal. BTW, no mention of where he lives when he’s in DC.
Numerous foreign leaders have publicly made their preferences known – yes!
His campaign has raised a record war chest of funds.
As I said, there are facts sprinkled throughout. As a negative example, I could argue that Adolf Hitler did great things – he built the Autobahn, expanded the rail system, made the trains run on time, and unified the German people. Those are all facts. Yet, when those facts are placed into a larger context, he massacred 11 million innocent people, and contributed to the deaths of millions more. We have every right and responsibility to be suspicious and skeptical. Yet, as with all propaganda, we must find the facts, confirm their authenticity, seek disparate views of those facts, and render our opinion. My point was, when you read the facts placed into the context of questions of doubt, it is easy to see how a sinister image begins to emerge.
As counterpoint, listen to the image the uber-Left creates of John McCain and Sarah Palin – a dunderhead, old-fart, ignorant, war veteran and his airhead, country, hockey-mom side-kick. Is the uber-Left’s image of McCain any more correct than the uber-Right’s portrait of Obama? Something I think the two major political parties and the system they vigorously defend is the essential cancer deteriorating the very fabric of this Grand Republic; but, they are our heritage.
So, is the essay true? No. I do not think it is accurate or true. I think Barack Obama is a far better man than is implied in that piece, just as I think John McCain is a far better man that he is portrayed.
I have not made my voting decision as yet. I like parts of both, and I am troubled by parts of both. I will do my evaluation matrix before Election Day, as I have often done. I do know one thing precisely, I am beyond ready to have anyone in the White House, even Aunt Gladys, cuz that means W. will no longer be there. For all the good he has done, the destruction far outweighs the good . . . certainly not as grievous as Adolf, but of a similar balance.
. . . round three:
“Honestly I don't trust my facts or opinions much. Good analogy you made with Hitler. How can someone so forward thinking have been such a cold blooded killer ? Always gets to me about that guy. Don't think anyone would get away with that kind of mass human destruction again with the presence of today's massive amount of media. Gotta say there IS good in having media for that purpose anyway.
“I do agree with you on the images of McCain and Palin ... she is a lot of the time embarrassing, as a representative of women, the Republican party and as McCain's running mate. He could have done MUCH better choosing Governor Kathleen Sebelius (sp?). THAT would have been impressive I think. Or a numerous other women politicians out there (actually I think Sebelius is Democrat?). Did you see the interviews of Palin with Katie Couric ? Cringe... Makes you seriously wonder ... ‘WHAT WAS HE THINKING’ when McCain chose her. Guess he didn't want anyone that might appear smarter than him....... did I say that ? ;o))) ... I do say I can tell both McCain AND Obama are able to speak in public well enough ... unlike poor W (although he's gotten better over 8 years).
“I haven't decided yet either on who gets my precious little vote ... of course I am leaning most heavy on McCain, but I can always change my mind ... sure wish there was a good THIRD candidate we could choose from ! Still waiting for the day when they will let more people run for President and not base it on campaign funds. And then it could be narrowed down from say 20 people, a bit like American Idol does, so that by election day we truly had our best two or even three choices to vote for !!”
. . . my reply to round three:
I did not see the whole Couric-Palin interview, only snippets. The worst I can say is, Sarah is not a seasoned politician, adept at the art of interview dynamics. She is certainly not addle-minded as she is portrayed. She is a bit young and under-experienced for national / international politics, but the same can be said for Barack. Yet, I find attraction to Barack’s rhetoric, and I see similar genius in Sarah. I think we would have a fundamentally different opinion of Sarah, if she had been in a position to be an RNC keynote speaker four years ago, and taken progressively more prominent roles on national issues. Alas, that is not the case. So, hear we are.
Lastly, this contribution from the blog:
“(A) I see ‘subtle’ as an incorrect adjective for the bigotry you discuss in the California referendum. ‘Blatant’ would fit better.
“(B) I didn't think Sarah Palin came across all that well. She looked like a non-political person who had been coached for a couple of days but had no background to understand what she talked about.
“(C) I applaud your effort at balance in discussing the economic mess. One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that the rank-and-file House of Representatives revolt came from an outpouring of email and phone calls from ordinary people, including me, who did not want to see any human being (in this case, Paulson) entrusted with sole control of hundreds of billions of dollars. If you read the bill, it went through with no appeal or oversight of his decisions in distributing the money. Oops.
“I believe that the additional $110 billion in pork came from highly targeted pressure on specific representatives via the contributors who effectively own them.
“Finally, allowing Wal-Mart to operate any kind of bank would embody the abdication of duty by government that allowed us to reach this point. Business is about making money; the bankers and investment people have gone about their business. Government’s job, as you pointed out, is protecting the people. They gave that up. Here we are.”
My response:
A. Yes, I agree, but I try to respect the difference of opinion, and there is not direct mention of discrimination against homosexuals . . . or rather non-heterosexual, non-monogamous, non-family-oriented individuals.
B. Agreed. She has had her novice missteps. But, I can also see flashes of brilliance. Unfortunately, she was thrust into the national spotlight a little too early. I think she will learn quickly, if given the opportunity, and will become an effective political leader.
C. Thx. I try to find balance in often broadly diverse opinions. It appears the Pelosi floor speech was the catalytic event during the first House debate that politicized the congressional action. I am not so worried about Paulson having direct control of the US$700B recovery effort. We entrust the lives of thousands of citizens to the leadership of generals. I don’t see this as any different. And, there will be accountability in a form, one way or another.
Sure, that was what the pork was for . . . buy votes. And, the President did what he has always done, signed the pork-laden bill. If he had been vetoing and exposing pork-barrel spending since he had become President, he could have threatened Congress to avoid it on such a prominent bill . . . another failure on his part . . . but, at the end of the day, he had little choice, given the circumstances.
I have no problem with anyone opening a bank, including ‘Joe Six-Pack,’ as long as they ascribe to proper banking regulation. So, the Wal-Mart trial-balloon does not bother me; but, a bank is a bank, or at least should be.
. . . a follow-up off-line:
“Actually, I agree about anyone being allowed to operate a bank under ‘a proper banking regulation.’ The problem is that proper banking regulation has essentially vanished. Therefore, even traditionally cautious bankers find themselves with no standard or obligation beyond naked competition to improve this quarter's or this year's (at most) bottom line, leading to today's headlines. Putting traditionally aggressive Wal-Mart personnel in that position would invite further disasters, not just for Wal-Mart but for their retail customers and whatever businesses would be dragged into that vortex.”
. . . and my follow-up response:
A good deal of the traditional regulation was removed on 12.November.1999, when President Clinton signed into law the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 [PL 106-102; AKA Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act]. I suspect some or all of that deregulation will be repealed or seriously amended. You may well be correct regarding a Wal-Mart bank, but under current law, there is far more regulation of banks than there was the capital investment houses. But, the root cause of this crisis remains individual citizens who signed legal paperwork on mortgages they knew or should have know they could not afford. The crisis would be no where near what it is today, if citizens had not taken on more than they could pay for – revenue minus expenses.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
The follow-up news items:
-- The United States Government removed the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea from the terrorism blacklist, and the DPRK agreed to re-allow IAEA inspectors back into the country for inspection and monitoring to nuclear sites. [354] This does not appear to be the strongest or best negotiating technique, but hey, if it works, then perhaps all’s well that ends well.
The McCain-Obama townhall meeting – the second of the so-called presidential debates – was not a particularly impressive event. Sadly, to me at least, John projected an air of desperation that did not serve him or us well. Barack came across as a steady hand with a calm, cool delivery. We need reassurance and focus. We got all this gibberish about tax cuts. I am so tired of listening to both these guys harping on tax cuts. Whether we like it or not, taxes are the revenue of government. Probably the most relevant, contemporary question of the lot “What sacrifices would you propose for the American People to contribute?” Neither candidate answered the question; and, it was a perfect opportunity to raise the issue of taxes as a necessary sacrifice for the greater good on this Grand Republic. All the presidential candidates are at distinct disadvantage; they do not have access to the apparatus of State, the information of the Executive, or any authority to do anything. Further, none of them will decide; neither of them is the oracle of solutions. One of them will be the leader that will gather the best thinkers and do’ers we have. They will evaluate the root causes of any situation and determine the best course of action from a variety of options presented to them. They will negotiate and compromise with Congress to establish the necessary laws to carry out the decided actions. They will not decide law by themselves.
The World economic news became overwhelming this week. Please pardon my filtration process. This is my take of what may become a perpetual chronicle of economic history.
-- BNP Paribas agreed to buy the Belgian & Luxembourg operations of Fortis for €14.5B (US$19.7B), relieving the governments of that intervention. The Dutch government nationalized their branch of the company.
-- Lehman Brothers Chief Executive Richard Severin Fuld, Jr. testified before a House banking committee. Watching him squirm provided some satisfaction in an otherwise dreary week. Even better would be watching his conviction and sentencing to forfeiture of his worldly goods and remand to an all-expenses paid, long duration incarceration as our guest, and his cohorts in crime should receive the same invitation.
-- Secretary Paulson appointed Neel T. Kashkari, currently Assistant Secretary of International Affairs, as the Interim Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability. Kashkari was a former Goldman Sachs executive with Paulson. He will presumably be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Kashkari reportedly contributed to the drafting the Paulson Plan, and apparently, he has begun to execute the plan.
-- Germany’s central bank (Bundesbank) and the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht AKA BaFin) agreed to a €50B+ rescue plan for the mortgage lender Hypo Real Estate Holding AG – the contagion continues to spread.
-- In the spirit of the day, the British government ponied up £50B (US$88B) to buy preferred shares of eight banks -- Abbey, Barclays, HBOS plc, HSBC, Lloyds TSB, Nationwide Building Society, Royal Bank of Scotland and Standard Chartered. The Bank of England further made available ‘at least’ £200B for a Special Liquidity Scheme.
-- The U.S. Federal Reserve cut a key, short-term, interest by 0.5%, to 1.5%, in conjunction with the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, the Bank of Canada, the Swiss National Bank, and Sveriges Riksbank – the central bank of Sweden.
-- The G-7 finance ministers (I guess Russia has been un-invited) along with leaders of global banking apparati met in the White House with President Bush on Saturday, to coordinate the global governmental actions.
-- Prime Minister Gordon Brown is considering legal action against the government of Iceland over their alleged mishandling of the credit-liquidity-bad-debt crisis.
Despite the extraordinary and unprecedented, coordinated, governmental action to restore stability to the international banking system, the stock markets across the globe tanked – a measure of corroded confidence within the banking system. In the last year, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) has lost 40% of its value. The last eight trading days, the stock market lost 2,400 points (22%). So far, for those of us who have not sold, these are all paper losses that can and will be recovered. We had ‘irrational exuberance’ 10 years ago. Today, we see ‘irrational fear.’ This is NOT 1929. And, Franklin Roosevelt’s words of encouragement remain valid, applicable and relevant: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
I strongly recommend the FOX News, David Asman exposé on the genesis of the current bad-debt, credit crisis, which offered the best assessment I have seen so far.
“Saving Our Economy: What'$ Next?”
FOX News program hosted by David Asman
Broadcast: 11.October.2008; 21:00 EDT
Once more . . . yes, absolutely, the bailout is wrong! The market can and will sort this out . . . in time. The salient question today remains, how much pain are We, the People, willing to tolerate as the market sorts this mess out? . . . a deep recession, a short, sharp depression, or a long, enduring depression? Where is our pain threshold? And, lest we forget, we have been and still are engaged with an enemy bent upon killing as many American citizens as they can. The economy is the engine that sustains the War on Islamic Fascism. In addition to losing jobs, savings, homes, and our very standard of living, are we willing to diminish or sacrifice our national security while the market sorts out the credit crisis?
Shortly after Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 [PL 106-102; AKA Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act], and under pressure from congressional leaders, Fannie Mae eased credit standards ostensibly to enhance mortgage lending and bring more first-time homeowners into the market. Some experts claim the genesis of the sub-prime debacle originated with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) [PL 95-128], signed into law by President Carter. Just these facts alone should be sufficient to recognize the broad, across party lines culpability of politicians, and places ‘San Fran Nan’ Pelosi’s vulgar, politically biased, public, floor-debate remarks during a time of crisis all the more disgusting. To me, the truly sad part of this particular election will be the reelection of parochial politicians who put party over nation, and even worse criminal politicians who literally spit on the law and the Constitution for their personal gain and aggrandizement.
We appear to be headed toward an undisputed dominance of Democratic Party to include the White House and Congress including a possible filibuster-proof Senate. If anyone ever wondered what total domination of the instruments of State looked and acted like, we may soon see another, at least, two-year demonstration. Just a remember, from 2001 to 2007, we had a near domination of the Legislative and Executive branches of the Federal government by the Republican Party (they did not have a filibuster-proof, Senate majority), and that did not work out so well, in my humble opinion. The Democrats regained majority control of both chambers of Congress in 2006, but total domination by any political faction will never be a good thing for this Grand Republic or We, the People, no matter who it is. We seem to be on the verge of an extreme shift. Think about it!
Comments and contributions from Update no.355:
. . . my belated reply to a thread from last week:
I suspect we are headed toward a repeal of the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 [PL 106-102; AKA Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act], or at least a serious amendment to it. I truly hope we do not overreact as we did with intelligence reform in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) [PL 95-511]; we still have not regain a proper footing after that debacle. We need checks & balances in the financial system as well as health metrics that would allow gradual throttling rather than force us to such drastic action as the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 [PL 110-343] sure is.
Part of the reason for my earlier query rest in my novice status, regarding banking and finance. You are far closer to the front lines than me. A rural, Ag bank is not going to see the same trauma as Wall Street is experiencing. And, I highly doubt y’all are involved with ‘default credit swaps,’ ‘derivates,’ and such. I do not know how much y’all do in basic residential mortgages and the like. I surmise from your earlier remarks that y’all do not see the liquidity or bad debt crisis, which would be a good sign to me. But, I worry that even local, rural, Ag banks might be seeing increased resistance to the acquisition of short-term funds to fill gaps or deal with a panic run induced by outside forces. If your bank does not feel any increased stress, then perhaps we are better off than we think.
Another contribution:
“Which pain do I choose: being beheaded by terrorists, or being broke? Perhaps the money mess has taken our eye off the primary threat. It is hard for me to put Wall Street ahead of beheading. But, one thing is certain. The folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B is an old formula for disaster written about long ago. Our economy is worse off for bailing out with money, without going back and fixing the root problems as well as imprisoning the thieves. The bailout may prove to be a monumental mistake or a brilliant move. I would rather let the market fail the losers out of business and government punish the thieves. Time will tell on some things, but not on killing terrorists before they kill us.”
My response:
Indeed! Choose our poison. I would rather let the market sort it out and punish the bad men, as well. But, my problem, are we willing to give up our jobs, our savings, our homes, to let the market sort it out? That is what I worry about . . . collateral damage to punish the bad guys. As I wrote, I believe, or perhaps more appropriately, I trust, the Paulson Plan is simply dropping the gear or flaps to change the center of pressure to erect the spin and allow proper anti-spin controls to work – the tourniquet to stop the bleeding – and then, we shall have the laws to apply proper regulation of the market and truly punish the guilty bastards who have taken us to the abyss. Those Wall Street greed-merchants have done far more damage than al-Qaeda; the only thing they haven’t done yet is kill innocent people, yet.
. . . a follow-up:
“To continue your aviation analogy (non-aviators bear with us), the futility of flaps making any real difference in a flat spin is real not to mention the rare possibility of split flaps (a worse condition). In other words, letting it take its course may be the only way to end the mess. Regardless, like you I am concerned about the collateral damage to the regular folks while it happens. The market will recover. Let's hope the innocent people hurt the most do as well.”
. . . my follow-up response:
First, of course, the market will indeed handle this situation, just as it eventually did in the late 1930’s. My question remains the same . . . at what cost? If we are prepared for 25% unemployment, 20% business failure, and a 10-year depression, then I’m good with letting the market handle it. Unfortunately for me, I am not wealthy enough to insulate my family from a full-on depression.
Second, I see economic threat in much more personal terms than I do military threat. Thus, the shenanigans of the mortgage lenders like Fannie Mae, Countrywide, and all the others, along with this insane nonsense of ‘credit default swaps’ and all these other foolish derivatives of the banks and now-defunct investment houses, represent far more direct threat to our well-being than al-Qaeda ever did or ever will.
Third, our ability to prosecute the War on Islamic Fascism depends directly upon the strength of the economic engine that supplies and supports the war. I shudder to think of what might happen if we enter a depression with the magnitude of national debt already racked up by this administration, and field the force necessary to win the War on Islamic Fascism.
Fourth, I still believe the underlying economic fundamentals are strong – unemployment remains comparative low, people are still building houses and buying airplanes. By my simple, direct measures, we’re not doing too bad. However, there are signs that business is not getting access to the funds they need for growth. The longer this period of credit uncertainty lasts, the more damage will be done.
Now, to the technical point of my analogy . . . Depending on the aircraft and configuration at entry, a flat spin blanks all control surfaces, thus traditional anti-spin inputs are ineffective. My point was, when in a bad situation, where traditional controls do not work, we must ‘invent’ other means to regain control. I do not advocate dropping the gear or flaps in a spin for the reasons you gave and more, but doing nothing in such a situation has only one, inevitable, rapidly approaching outcome. I would not just wait to see if higher density air might change the physics equation sufficiently to allow proper spin recovery; doing nothing won’t work. The bottom line is, there are times when we do have time to study the situation and properly evaluate correction actions. Sometimes, we have to react, to do the best we can, and sometimes to do the illogical to get out of an otherwise fatal event. Whether the current credit crisis is as serious as I think it is, remains a viable point of debate. Concomitantly, my opinion remains that the downside consequences justify aggressive, immediate response. I do not know if the Paulson Plan is sufficient, proper or adequate, but I do know it is an action to do something for stimulation of the credit markets.
A different contribution:
“Very good piece this week. I enjoyed your thoughts on the VP debate. Pretty much my own. Also liked your analogy of the flat spin to our economic situation now. Guess we shall see what we shall see.”
My reply:
Indeed. As General Julius Caesar said upon crossing the River Rubicon, “Iacta alea est” = the die is cast. I heard on 60 Minutes last night that the size of the root cause (‘credit default swaps’) may be as large at US$60T, far in excess of the paltry US$700B in the bad-debt package. The best we can hope for is surgical application for the greatest good. Time will tell the tale.
Another contribution:
“As a naval aviator, you might appreciate this.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain
“And this LA Times article ‘Mishaps mark John McCain's record as naval aviator’”
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-aviator6-2008oct06,0,7633315.story
My response:
I’m certain there more than a few folks among us who could muster up some pretty bad things to say about me. Lord knows I have an ample supply of mistakes, missteps, sins and gaffs.
The, at least implied, presumption that McCain is bad, therefore Obama is good, seems a bit jaundiced to me. As with most things human, we choose to see that which we wish to see and to view any given condition in a half-full, half-empty parlance. I simply refuse to view any of the candidates including Barr & Nader through any political party lens. I can level a fair amount of criticism at any political candidate of our current variety as well as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and even Sir Winston himself. They were all flawed men, as we all are. So, such clearly biased journalism does little but confirm the political bias of the author, and certainly does not further our inquisitive, intellectual inquiry.
One of the many axioms I have learned over the years is . . . if folks believe I am going to fail, there is nothing I can do to succeed; but, if they believe I can succeed, then I cannot fail – a question of confidence, trust, perception and loyalty. The parochial, political lens ensures an artificial and significant skewing of my confidence axiom.
You probably did not seek this political diatribe, for that I apologize; but alas, I am a flawed man as well.
. . . a follow-up:
“I consider myself an Independent, and want to get the facts. These stories provide balance and insight into the public persona that surrounds McCain. To a degree, he has gotten a free ride on his military record (and he won't release more than a few pages of his official record, at that). He has also gotten a free ride on his supposed support for military personnel and veterans, notably on the new GI Bill, which he tried to pre-empt and then took credit for passage. The DAV gives him a ‘D’ grade.
“I also thought you would appreciate the stories about his flying...had he not been the son/grandson of a four-start, he likely would have been sent packing.
“Anytime we pick a President, we are making a calculated gamble-- we really don't know how anybody will be in the office, but have to make an educated guess from a host of sources-- past record, how they run their campaigns, and what their platforms are, etc.
“You are right about Winston being flawed-- he smoked too many cigars. You have been to the Churchill Museum near 10 Downing, I would assume. It is adjacent to the Cabinet War Room. Great stuff.”
. . . and my follow-up response:
Likewise, I have been and remain as independent and non-partisan as I possibly can, from our earliest days as lieutenants of Marines. And, I see no reason to change now.
I always appreciate flying stories. And yeah, he probably got some breaks cuz of his daddy, just like W, Teddy, and all the other ‘monied’ or ‘connected’ folks do. As a side note, so much of the publishing biz seems to be name recognition or connection; the exceptions are very rare . . . probably just enuf to keep wannabes like me jousting at windmills.
Indeed, there are no guarantees with elections . . . W being the best example in our lifetime.
Yes, while I was in England, I absorbed as much as I possibly could of Sir Winston’s history & legacy. I’ve been to Blenheim, Bladon, Duxford, and the various sites in & around London. He was flawed far beyond the cigars. He was racist, sexist, colonialist, and otherwise a rather bigoted cantankerous man, who was more than a little impressed with himself. I have never been a fan of arrogant people, no matter who they think they are. But, despite his flaws, you have but to listen to his words, place them in the context to the history that boiled around them, and then, I see him in a different light. Perhaps it takes an egocentric man like Churchill, Patton or T. Boone Pickens to do what they do, but that has never my style, which is perhaps one of many reasons I am not a CEO or a general.
A different contribution:
“I saw the tail end of the Palin Biden debate ... and saw clips of recent interviews between Katie Couric and Palin (ouch on those) ... I do hope Palin steps up her game to become more credible with the American public. Her folksy appeal is not what we need right now from a woman candidate ... or any candidate for that matter. We need them all to exhibit brains and good plans for America's future.
My reply:
Based on last night’s debate, unless some miracle should happen, I think the election is a done deal. I also think Palin is far more savvy and smart than she is given credit for, but I don’t think it really matters now.
[N]one of the candidates give us anything substantive. All we get is hot air, platitudes and y’re-going-to-enjoy-this smiles. I’m not sure it really matters who the is president . . . they all just love to spend money on nonsense. I believe it was Ben Franklin who said something about democracy failing once Congress figured out how to access the Treasury. We shall see.
. . . round two:
“Hmmmm ... I can't tell from what you say [above], whether you think Obama or McCain did best last night ... ? Who is the ‘done deal?’ I think Obama could very well be the biblical ‘Anti-Christ’ .... not a joke.”
. . . my reply to round two:
I am still tweaking my opinion of this last debate, but McCain projected an air of desperation. I have been a McCain fan for a long time. He is a flawed man, as we all are, but he’s got the right idea. But, I cannot imagine his performance gave folks the confidence they need. There are also other factors that give me pause. One thing I know, I cannot tolerate another 4 years of social conservative agenda, as we have endured for 8 long yrs. And, the thot of more federalist on the Supreme Court is simply not acceptable.
I would like to hear why you think Barack is the biblical ‘anti-Christ?’
. . . round three:
“The Bible is interesting to me ... in Revelations I believe, it does talk of an appearance of an Anti-Christ that everyone will adore ... who will ultimately be the ruin of us. If he ever actually said he would forever support the Muslims over anyone else, we might be in trouble. And so will the Israeli Nation. I just worry about his ability to do the right thing in a time of crisis. Bush may have not done exactly what he should have after 911, but there has been plenty of good resulted from the moves he made. At least the world knows we can not tolerate terrorism. I like how McCain critiqued Obama on his 'big talk' . I think there will be some social conservative agendas continuing (forever perhaps) after the election, no matter WHO gets elected. Because there are alot of socially conservative people in this country that will always push for change.”
. . . my reply to round three:
As with all religious books, especially for the revealed religions, we must evaluate, assess, and place into the context of our lives. I suppose, either you believe or you do not; at least that is what clerics wish us to do. But, there is goodness in the books, even if you do not believe.
I do not believe Barack Obama is or even could be the anti-Christ of Revelations. I do believe he is a good man, trying to do the best he can to inspire the Nation . . . exactly what a President should be doing. I am far more worried about his indebtedness to the Democratic Party machine & dogma, which is too far Left for me. Then again, I think John McCain has compromised far too many of his core principles to play to the Republican Party machine & dogma, which is too far Right for me.
Yes, W. did the right things initially. I still believe going into Afghanistan had to be done. And, I also believe Iraq was the best choice to thwart state-sponsored terrorism. My biggest criticism is levied at W. and his cronies, namely Rummie, who chose to fight war on the cheap. Instead of asking us to ‘shop’ after 9/11, the President should have asked us to prepare for sacrifice, to place us on a truly war-footing, and to focus this Grand Republic on waging war successfully on Islamic fascism in all its dimensions.
I have never been and never will be socially conservative, and I will do what little I can to resist the imposition of socially conservative values on all of us. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the choices anyone makes for their private lives and families. Where I get my back up comes when they try to impose their choices on me or anyone else.
This exchange centered upon an un-attributed, highly critical, assessment of Barack Obama:
“This is an interesting compilation of information forwarded to me from an unknown original source ... some I've heard, and some not ... what do you all think ??”
[Essay not included.]
My response:
You asked what I thought, so here goes.
First, one rule, almost like a filter gate, I use in situations or topics like these is . . . balance. When an essay, article or message focuses only on the bad, alarms go off for me.
Second, one of the key elements of any propaganda campaign is having sufficient corroborate-able facts mixed in with the desired political slant.
Third, with virtually any human relationship, endeavor, activity or conduct, we can find good and bad. We can choose to see the positive or the negative.
In conclusion, I think the essay is just what it seems . . . a biased political hack job.
. . . round two:
“Possibly biased ... but is it true ??”
. . . my reply to round two:
Yes, absolutely. Barack’s mother was Caucasian and from Kansas; his father was Kenyan.
They do have an expensive house in Chicago that they purchased as a ‘sweetheart’ deal. BTW, no mention of where he lives when he’s in DC.
Numerous foreign leaders have publicly made their preferences known – yes!
His campaign has raised a record war chest of funds.
As I said, there are facts sprinkled throughout. As a negative example, I could argue that Adolf Hitler did great things – he built the Autobahn, expanded the rail system, made the trains run on time, and unified the German people. Those are all facts. Yet, when those facts are placed into a larger context, he massacred 11 million innocent people, and contributed to the deaths of millions more. We have every right and responsibility to be suspicious and skeptical. Yet, as with all propaganda, we must find the facts, confirm their authenticity, seek disparate views of those facts, and render our opinion. My point was, when you read the facts placed into the context of questions of doubt, it is easy to see how a sinister image begins to emerge.
As counterpoint, listen to the image the uber-Left creates of John McCain and Sarah Palin – a dunderhead, old-fart, ignorant, war veteran and his airhead, country, hockey-mom side-kick. Is the uber-Left’s image of McCain any more correct than the uber-Right’s portrait of Obama? Something I think the two major political parties and the system they vigorously defend is the essential cancer deteriorating the very fabric of this Grand Republic; but, they are our heritage.
So, is the essay true? No. I do not think it is accurate or true. I think Barack Obama is a far better man than is implied in that piece, just as I think John McCain is a far better man that he is portrayed.
I have not made my voting decision as yet. I like parts of both, and I am troubled by parts of both. I will do my evaluation matrix before Election Day, as I have often done. I do know one thing precisely, I am beyond ready to have anyone in the White House, even Aunt Gladys, cuz that means W. will no longer be there. For all the good he has done, the destruction far outweighs the good . . . certainly not as grievous as Adolf, but of a similar balance.
. . . round three:
“Honestly I don't trust my facts or opinions much. Good analogy you made with Hitler. How can someone so forward thinking have been such a cold blooded killer ? Always gets to me about that guy. Don't think anyone would get away with that kind of mass human destruction again with the presence of today's massive amount of media. Gotta say there IS good in having media for that purpose anyway.
“I do agree with you on the images of McCain and Palin ... she is a lot of the time embarrassing, as a representative of women, the Republican party and as McCain's running mate. He could have done MUCH better choosing Governor Kathleen Sebelius (sp?). THAT would have been impressive I think. Or a numerous other women politicians out there (actually I think Sebelius is Democrat?). Did you see the interviews of Palin with Katie Couric ? Cringe... Makes you seriously wonder ... ‘WHAT WAS HE THINKING’ when McCain chose her. Guess he didn't want anyone that might appear smarter than him....... did I say that ? ;o))) ... I do say I can tell both McCain AND Obama are able to speak in public well enough ... unlike poor W (although he's gotten better over 8 years).
“I haven't decided yet either on who gets my precious little vote ... of course I am leaning most heavy on McCain, but I can always change my mind ... sure wish there was a good THIRD candidate we could choose from ! Still waiting for the day when they will let more people run for President and not base it on campaign funds. And then it could be narrowed down from say 20 people, a bit like American Idol does, so that by election day we truly had our best two or even three choices to vote for !!”
. . . my reply to round three:
I did not see the whole Couric-Palin interview, only snippets. The worst I can say is, Sarah is not a seasoned politician, adept at the art of interview dynamics. She is certainly not addle-minded as she is portrayed. She is a bit young and under-experienced for national / international politics, but the same can be said for Barack. Yet, I find attraction to Barack’s rhetoric, and I see similar genius in Sarah. I think we would have a fundamentally different opinion of Sarah, if she had been in a position to be an RNC keynote speaker four years ago, and taken progressively more prominent roles on national issues. Alas, that is not the case. So, hear we are.
Lastly, this contribution from the blog:
“(A) I see ‘subtle’ as an incorrect adjective for the bigotry you discuss in the California referendum. ‘Blatant’ would fit better.
“(B) I didn't think Sarah Palin came across all that well. She looked like a non-political person who had been coached for a couple of days but had no background to understand what she talked about.
“(C) I applaud your effort at balance in discussing the economic mess. One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that the rank-and-file House of Representatives revolt came from an outpouring of email and phone calls from ordinary people, including me, who did not want to see any human being (in this case, Paulson) entrusted with sole control of hundreds of billions of dollars. If you read the bill, it went through with no appeal or oversight of his decisions in distributing the money. Oops.
“I believe that the additional $110 billion in pork came from highly targeted pressure on specific representatives via the contributors who effectively own them.
“Finally, allowing Wal-Mart to operate any kind of bank would embody the abdication of duty by government that allowed us to reach this point. Business is about making money; the bankers and investment people have gone about their business. Government’s job, as you pointed out, is protecting the people. They gave that up. Here we are.”
My response:
A. Yes, I agree, but I try to respect the difference of opinion, and there is not direct mention of discrimination against homosexuals . . . or rather non-heterosexual, non-monogamous, non-family-oriented individuals.
B. Agreed. She has had her novice missteps. But, I can also see flashes of brilliance. Unfortunately, she was thrust into the national spotlight a little too early. I think she will learn quickly, if given the opportunity, and will become an effective political leader.
C. Thx. I try to find balance in often broadly diverse opinions. It appears the Pelosi floor speech was the catalytic event during the first House debate that politicized the congressional action. I am not so worried about Paulson having direct control of the US$700B recovery effort. We entrust the lives of thousands of citizens to the leadership of generals. I don’t see this as any different. And, there will be accountability in a form, one way or another.
Sure, that was what the pork was for . . . buy votes. And, the President did what he has always done, signed the pork-laden bill. If he had been vetoing and exposing pork-barrel spending since he had become President, he could have threatened Congress to avoid it on such a prominent bill . . . another failure on his part . . . but, at the end of the day, he had little choice, given the circumstances.
I have no problem with anyone opening a bank, including ‘Joe Six-Pack,’ as long as they ascribe to proper banking regulation. So, the Wal-Mart trial-balloon does not bother me; but, a bank is a bank, or at least should be.
. . . a follow-up off-line:
“Actually, I agree about anyone being allowed to operate a bank under ‘a proper banking regulation.’ The problem is that proper banking regulation has essentially vanished. Therefore, even traditionally cautious bankers find themselves with no standard or obligation beyond naked competition to improve this quarter's or this year's (at most) bottom line, leading to today's headlines. Putting traditionally aggressive Wal-Mart personnel in that position would invite further disasters, not just for Wal-Mart but for their retail customers and whatever businesses would be dragged into that vortex.”
. . . and my follow-up response:
A good deal of the traditional regulation was removed on 12.November.1999, when President Clinton signed into law the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 [PL 106-102; AKA Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act]. I suspect some or all of that deregulation will be repealed or seriously amended. You may well be correct regarding a Wal-Mart bank, but under current law, there is far more regulation of banks than there was the capital investment houses. But, the root cause of this crisis remains individual citizens who signed legal paperwork on mortgages they knew or should have know they could not afford. The crisis would be no where near what it is today, if citizens had not taken on more than they could pay for – revenue minus expenses.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment