Update no.737

Update from the Heartland

No.737

25.1.16 – 31.1.16

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,

            The follow-up news items:

-- The United States made another naval sortie into the South China Sea to challenge the PRC’s hegemonic island-building campaign to exert dominance in the region.  This time, the USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG-54) was tasked to sail within 12 nautical miles of Triton Island, Paracel Islands, South China Sea [724/5, 731].  The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has clearly made the choice to unilaterally press their territorial claims in a wide variety of peripheral areas [567, 574, 580, 589, 624-7, 649-50].  I fear, “There will be blood.”

-- The Foreign Ministry of Turkey in Ankara reported a Russian warplane again breached its airspace despite repeated warnings.  Turkey accused Moscow of intentionally seeking to escalate tensions and warning of consequences two months after Turkish F-16s downed a Russian jet for violating its territory from Syria.  I remind everyone the Turks have a history of defending their territory and airspace, and rightly so.  They shot down a Syrian fighter in 2014 [640] and a Russian fighter-bomber in 2015 [728].  I have no doubt they will not hesitate to defend themselves in the future.

            The current Republican front-runner decided to not attend the next Republican candidate debate event in protest of his infantile pouting over the questions asked by FOX News journalist Megyn Marie Kelly née Kendall.

            His campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again,” implies this Grand Republic is no longer great.  Denigrating the United States for campaign points does not impress me, whatsoever.  What’s worse, there are more than a few citizens who actually believe that drivel.  We are not an empire.  We are one of a family of nations.  His campaign slogan connotes a desire on his part (and his supporters) to make this country the schoolyard bully among that family of nations.

            He says, “We can’t afford to be so nice, folks.”  Really?  Do we have to antagonize everyone who does not hold a U.S. passport, and even many of those who do?

            You know, to be frank and candid, I cannot think of anything the Republican front-runner does or says that does not REALLY piss me off . . . excuse the vernacular.  He reminds me of many things and one of those things is more than a few ugly Americans I have seen in my time abroad loudly demanding a hamburger in Paris or Florence – not our best representative.  We can and should do so much better.

            Divine right of kings, i.e., he can do whatever he wants, say whatever he wants whenever he wishes, and he is in control of everything, was rejected in this Grand Republic 240 years ago.  If we have ever had a petulant, maleficent, king-like figure in the contemporary era of this Grand Republic, the current Republican front-runner must be considered the number one prime suspect – a self-aggrandizing prima donna far better suited for entertainment than the difficult job of working with disparate political factions to find solutions to our very real problems.

           The CNN Democratic Presidential Town Hall at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, was an interesting and far more informative format.  The candidates faced the audience (and the larger televised audience) in sequence: Senator Bernie Sanders, Governor Martin O’Malley, and finally Secretary Hillary Clinton.  The moderator Chris Cuomo did a magnificent job; I do like his inquisitive style.  We finally got to hear O’Malley.  In fact, my choice, the two more memorable statements, both came from O’Malley.  “I am honored to be able to offer my candidacy in the company of Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders.  If you look at our Democratic primary and the debates we’ve had, we’re certainly done a much better job of speaking the goodness within our country than the fear, anger and loathing like we’ve heard from some of these other people.”  I say, amen brother.  “Fear, anger and loathing” indeed!  The other notable quote to me was, “Climate change is the greatest business opportunity to come to the United States in a hundred years.”  Now, there is a novel approach.  As I have written many times, I make no claim, validation or endorsement of climate change in the larger global sense, but I have consistently advocated for weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels.  Whether human carbon consumption is the cause or not, logically, we cannot continue on the path we are on at present.  Let us make lemonade out of the lemons we have.

            Without the Republican front-runner, the FOX News Republican presidential debate was less distracted and disjointed than prior renditions.  I was not impressed by Senator Cruz’s objection to the questioning – a rather glib and awkward jab.  This rendition, without the front-runner to contaminate the intercourse, proved far more helpful in seeing through the haze.  I must confess my resentment to this whole notion of ‘amnesty’ as the primary obstacle to enacting immigration reform.  We desperately need a more intelligent and contemporary immigration policy and we have been paralyzed by the ‘amnesty’ question for decades, now.  Immigration policy should be about individuals who want to engage and embrace American values and culture, and contribute to our society.  Further, I will argue, the presence of illegal aliens in our society is a direct result of our failed immigration policy and border control.  This failure rests clearly and solely with Congress, not President Obama or any other president.  I understand the Republicans must paint President Obama as the boogieman, but I do not accept their premise.

           Taken at a short distance with the clarity of hindsight, the emerging image from the debate phase of the silly season looks like only two candidates, one in each party, are interested in working with all parties to find solutions to our very real problems – Governor John Kasich of Ohio on the Republican side, and Governor Martin O’Malley of Maryland on the Democratic side.  Secretary Clinton says the correct things, but then her rhetoric points at Republicans as if they are ISIL operatives, i.e., the enemy, which negates her words of collaboration and compromise.  And then, what do we say about the chaos created by the Republican front-runner, and his sidekick and everyone’s antagonist.  How do we get things done with intransigence?  What makes their positions correct for now and for the future?  At least, actual primary voting begins next week.  The field will mostly likely narrow rapidly from here.

            News from the economic front:

-- The Federal Reserve announced they would hold their benchmark rate steady for now, between 0.25% and 0.5%, and “closely monitor” developments in global economies and markets, reflecting the central bank’s renewed worry about financial market turbulence and slow overseas economic growth.  They did not rule out raising short-term interest rates in March.  Their statement indicated they still believe the economy is on track to grow, produce jobs and gradually lift inflation to their 2% target, despite worries about falling stock and oil prices and uncertainty about overseas growth.

-- The Commerce Department reported the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) expanded at a paltry 0.7% seasonally adjusted annualized rate in 4Q2105, after the economy had advanced 2.0% in 3Q2015 and 3.9% in 2Q2015.  The economy appears to be sputtering in the face of global weakness and financial market turmoil.

            London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (LIBOR) Debacle [552]:

-- A London jury acquitted six former brokers accused of conspiring with former UBS and Citigroup trader Tom Hayes [712] of trying to rig the Libor for financial gain.  Hayes was convicted and sentenced to 14 years in prison last August, although the sentence was subsequently reduced to 11 years.  They were charged with fraudulently manipulating the widely used LIBOR.  The verdict deals a major blow to a long international investigation of many years – disappointing to say the least.  The Crown Prosecution Service cannot be happy with the outcome.

-- So we don’t lose focus . . . the infamous 16, involved, international banks are:

·      Barclays [UK] – US$454M fine [550, 701]; Singapore sanctions [600]; three charged {Johnson, Mathew, Contogoulas} [636]

·      Bank of America [U.S.] – Singapore sanctions [600]

·      BTMU [Japan] – Singapore sanctions [600]

·      Citigroup [U.S.] – Singapore sanctions [600] [701]

·      Credit Suisse [Switzerland] – Singapore sanctions [600]

·      Deutsche Bank [Germany] – US$654M LIBOR profit [578]; set aside €500M (US$641M) for LIBOR liability [589]; Singapore sanctions [600]

·      Lloyds TSB [UK] – fined US$370M [659]

·      HSBC [UK] – Singapore sanctions [600]

·      HBOS [UK]

·      JPMorgan Chase [U.S.] – Singapore sanctions [600][701]

·      Norinchuckin [Japan]

·      Rabobank [Netherlands] – fined €774M (£663M, US$1.06B); CEO resigned; 30 others censured [620]; three charged {Robson, Thompson, Motomura} [631]

·      RBC [Canada]

·      RBS [UK] – £390M (US$612.6M) in fines, 21 employees involved [582, 701]; Singapore sanctions [600]

·      UBS [Switzerland] – US$1.5B fine, two charged {Hayes [712], Darin} [575, 701]; Singapore sanctions [600]

·      West LB [Germany]

Added to the list by the Monetary Authority of Singapore [600]:

·      ING [Netherlands] – Singapore sanctions [600]

·      BNP Paribas [France] – Singapore sanctions [600]

·      Crédit Agricole [France] – Singapore sanctions [600]

·      DBS [Singapore] – Singapore sanctions [600]

·      Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation [Singapore] – Singapore sanctions [600]

·      Standard Chartered [UK] – Singapore sanctions [600]

·      United Overseas Bank [Singapore] – Singapore sanctions [600]

·      Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. [Australia] – Singapore sanctions [600]

·      Macquarie [Australia] – Singapore sanctions [600]

·      Commerzbank [Germany] – Singapore sanctions [600]

Others involved:

·      R.P. Martin Holdings Ltd. [UK] – two charged {Farr, Gilmour} [583]

·      ICAP [UK] – fined US$87M + three executives charged {Read, Wilkinson, Goodman} [615]

I trust none of us will lose sight of what these banks have done.  Lest we forget!

            Comments and contributions from Update no.736:

Comment to the Blog:

“Your discussion of the minimum wage employs what seems to be your favorite logical fallacy, reductio ad absurdum via the slippery slope. More information on reductio ad absurdum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum. For more on logical fallacies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies.

“As far as the Democrat Party debate, it's important to realize that the Democratic National Chair, U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D?-FL), is under fire for supporting Hillary Clinton's candidacy by various misuses of her position, including the scheduling of debates.  Wasserman Schultz has probably eliminated Governor O'Malley, of whom I know little.  That maneuvering should matter to Democrats and to progressives more generally.  Clinton is the establishment candidate (and she has fared far better than her Republican counterpart, Jeb Bush).

“We know that Hillary Clinton's words mean little to nothing. The Establishment Democrats have failed to further their claimed goals ever since the Reagan campaign successfully appealed to the ‘redneck’ vote--racist, xenophobic, easily frightened, and unthinking people. Bill Clinton won elections due to his personality, but governed mostly by appropriating Republican issues and enacting Republican positions. (I personally suffered from welfare ‘reform,’ which was simple meanness, not reform.) Obama has come closer as the Republican wall finally begins to crumble, but has failed to stop the endless ‘war’ or to control the spy agencies, Wall Street, or campaign finance.  Progressives know these things. Hillary Clinton will get few of our primary votes regardless of what positions she takes now or in the next week or month.  She may not get our votes in November either.  Clinton has played along with the Establishment for too many years. Also, her personality tends to be brittle.  Remember the ‘vast right wing conspiracy’? I do, and so do the Republicans she would need to work with were she elected. Sanders' history in Congress is long, consistent, and relatively successful. (Please understand that working across the aisle does not mean conceding on all issues, as the Establishment Democrats do. Actual bipartisanship requires two parties to cooperate, and the Republican leaders publicly vowed on Election Night 2008 to block and attack Obama at every chance. They have kept their vow.)

“Several factors have gone without notice in the campaign thus far, especially polling methodology. Polls of ‘likely’ voters depend upon voting history and landline phones. The apparently-leading Republicans (Trump and Cruz) and Bernie Sanders are all appealing directly and repeatedly to voters who don't count as ‘likely’; the discouraged, the fearful, and younger voters in various mixes. They will turn out to vote if current trends hold. Do you know anyone like that who has a long voting history? Neither do I. I have no landline today, and I see no reason for one at home. I know few who do. People who still have them may be out of touch. This election may be disastrous, but it will surely disprove expert predictions. It already has: Jeb Bush and several ‘leaders’ are already out of this one.”

My response to the Blog:

            Re: reductio ad absurdum.  Once again, apparently, I failed again to communicate the question.  We have been around this weed patch more than once.  So, I do not trigger your condescension, again, why US$15/hr.?  Why not US$14.75/hr. or US$15.25?  How do we determine what the minimum wage should be?  What makes US$15/hr the correct level?

            Re: Schulz.  Are you saying or suggesting Schulz and/or the DNC are actively or passive-aggressively favoring Hillary?  Interesting supposition.

            Re: Clinton.  Thank you for your perspective.  I will add the biggest detractor for me is the eMail server fiasco.  Her persistent claim that she never transmitted any information ‘marked’ classified may satisfy some citizens who are not familiar with the government’s information classification system or procedures, but to me, it shouts terrible ignorance or outlandish arrogance – both of which are unacceptable in a president.  Of course, the information she transmitted was not ‘marked’ classified; it was original material.  Whether marked or not, information created by or sent to the Secretary of State was quite likely highly sensitive and thus classified by default.  The audacity of her insistence on a personal server in her home, outside the protections of government’s systems (not that they are perfect, but are a damn sight better than private systems), speaks volumes to me.

            Re: polling methodology.  Very good points, actually.  We only have another week, although polling will continue in perpetuity.  Once citizens begin to actually vote, we will get beyond the polls.  Things should clarify by the end of February or March.  I would rather not see a contested convention for either party, i.e., the party hierarchy taking control from voters.  We enter the next phase of silly season next week.

 . . . Round two:

“The $15 per hour figure comes from people who study the cost of living and is close to the cost of a minimal U.S. living. While the exact average (or maybe lowest) figure is probably some odd number, $15 is far easier for most of us to work with than, for example, $15.23.

“Debbie Wasserman Schultz is actively supporting Hillary Clinton's campaign, based on various sources.

“Clinton's issues go deeper than the email fiasco. I agree that ‘fiasco’ is the correct term, but at that time policies and procedures were not in place as they are now. She has far deeper issues.

“We shall see what we shall see. The pollsters are usually wrong to some degree, and there are other factors beyond their traditional methodology to consider. As you mentioned, we have not even reached the beginning of primary season, the Iowa caucuses, yet. It's always a long and winding road to November. Millennials are a powerful force, still gaining numbers of adults, and they do not behave as we did. TV for them is something that often comes from the Internet, where many of them also get their news. Social media are natural environments for them. Some of the candidates are working with those factors to an extent that traditional media do not report, as far as I know. (I get much of my news and information from various Internet sources, so I'm not as sure as I could be on this one.) What I see on Facebook and get through email does not support TV news in some ways, and all of this is new territory. The only sure thing is that some people are in for a big surprise.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            Re: minimum wage.   Cost of living is a highly subjective calculation dependent upon definitions and assumptions.  There is also a huge difference between the cost of living in Casper, Wyoming, and New York City, New York, but they are proposing a ‘federal’ minimum wage across the entire country.

            Re: Schultz.  She is not a dictator.  Her personal support for Hillary stretches back beyond her tenure as Chair of the DNC.  You may well be correct, but I am having trouble wrapping my mind around that conspiracy.

            Re: Clinton.  I should drop eMail from my descriptor.  The issue for me is her personal server issue – her decision-making and audacity to even propose such a situation – not what is in her eMail messages.

            Re: election.  No doubt millennials are a significant voting element – a wildcard if you will.  It’s one thing to answer a phone call.  It’s another to get out and vote.  What matters at the end of the day is not who answers the phone but who votes.  The magnitude of dissatisfaction in both main parties is impressive, but for the moment, I believe it will be the moderates who will decide this thing, not either extreme.  And, the more extreme either one or the other candidate is, the easier it will be to decide.

. . . Round three:

“Just one caveat: the moderates rarely decide elections. They do not have the motivation to turn out, even though many experts believe there are many more of them. I refuse to even guess at the outcome of this November's general election, but I believe turnout will be the deciding factor. In the longer run, demographics favor progressives. The conservatives who were galvanized back in Reagan's day are aging out of the process.”

 . . . my response to round three:

            Thank you for your opinion.

            We shall see.  We only have a little more than nine months to find out.

            My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)