Custom Search

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Obama, Geithner, and Olbermann Tag Team GOP

When it comes to going to the wall for something you believe in then President Obama has his stimulus planning covered. Treasury is in line with Geithner towing the line on what will work and what will not work. MSNBC has Olbermann all over the stimulus plan approved today by the Senate but needs reconciliation by the House.

President Obama flew to the hardest hit area of Indiana today to talk up the stimulus bill in a city with over 15% unemployment. That wasn’t good enough, he then flew to Florida to an area with the highest mortgage foreclosure rate in the nation to talk up his stimulus plan. Both cities by the way voted against him in the election for President in 2008 by large margins. Obama’s staff didn’t screen the visitors to his visit, there was no bank of military members forced to sit and listen to the President speak. The house was full of regular folks in each city just wanting help. And they loved him for it!

Keith Olbermann has this to say on it over at MSNBC…

Video Link





One has to give President Obama credit for knowing how to play the game of politics when the representatives elected to serve you refuse to serve you the voter in your government. I’m sure that in the days to come we will see the backlash of Republican refusal in the Congress to help the ordinary working class people get through this tough economic time paid off by a vote in opposition to their re-election and their political party. You don’t have to be of any political party to be unemployed and that is the message that President Obama can and will sell right in the GOP back yard.

Hypothetical conversation between President Obama to the GOP… “Check Mate”. AKA If you are not going to work with us in Washington, then I will work directly with the people in your home state. Deal with the consequences and let the political chess pieces fall where they may. How strong are your morals when 15% of the people in your political district are unemployed and the President offers relief, help, a hand up? How strong are your political convictions when it comes to helping distressed homeowners when your constituents are the leader in home foreclosure?

While the GOP wants to strong arm the stimulus to our economy they are not even looking out the window of their local political office. Not Hiring and House for sale signs mean nothing to them as they jet out to Washington and place blinders on simply because they are told to do so by the leaders of the party. Who elected you to your seat in our nations government? It sure as hell was not anyone in Washington, D.C.!

Papamoka

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Saturday, December 06, 2008

Washington to Detroit Loan Deal Done

It’s finally going to be a done deal for the Big Three in Detroit to get some bailout money to save millions of Automaker jobs. Believe it or not it was a loan deal worked out by the White House and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi! I’m still in shock that President Bush cleared his house shopping schedule to find a compromise deal with the Speaker of the House. Over at CBS News they have this to say on it…

CBS News correspondent Kimberly Dozier reports that significant progress came Friday night, when Democrats from both the House and Senate agreed to bail out the struggling General Motors, Chrysler and Ford with federal funds.

Several officials say the White House and congressional Democrats have agreed on $15 billion in loans, which is less than half of what the car chiefs were seeking.

They say the breakthrough came after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bowed to a demand by President Bush that any aid come from a fund that had been intended to help Detroit produce more fuel-efficient cars.

Pelosi said the House would consider legislation next week to provide "short-term and limited assistance" to the U.S. auto industry.
- CBS News

I have to say that I knew that this deal was going to come sooner or later. Matter of fact anyone that follows the automotive industry knew it too. GM, Ford, and Chrysler were going to get a bailout loan, it was just a question as to how much each would actually get that was an unknown fact. The federal government could not let the big three fail or go into bankruptcy because of the ripple effect it would eventually expose. You know that $700 billion they have in bailout cash for the banking industry, that bailout cash would have been just a drop in the bucket if Ford, GM, and Chrysler filed for bankruptcy.

I propose the following hypothetical scenario. All three automakers file bankruptcy protection. If you are a supplier to any of them then you do not get paid for any outstanding invoices and thus you can not keep paying your suppliers for continuing orders so your company is forced to file bankruptcy. Suppliers feel the pinch hard and can not pay their suppliers for raw materials so they are forced to file bankruptcy. And the cycle continues down the food chain. The layoffs from all of the suppliers to the Big Three would dwarf all of the layoffs from the Big Three. Lastly, not all of the suppliers are in Detroit.

I think it is fair to say that this bailout will save more jobs than the $700 billion in bailout cash that the banks received a free pass on. I believe it was the Steel Workers President that summed this controversy up best; “If you shower before work you get a bailout, if you shower after working all day, you don’t.”

In the long haul objective, steps are being taken in the right direction to put the brakes on the economies collapse. Baby steps, but they are still steps.

Papamoka

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Obama & Bill O’Reilly Interview - Economics

First off, I am very surprised that Barack Obama even gave Fox News and Bill O’Reilly one interview after all the bias they present against Democrats period. In a five part series Bill O’Reilly is airing the thirty plus minute interview with Obama and you just might be surprised on the many things that the two of them actually agree on.

Make no doubts about it, Bill O pulled no punches with Obama and this was not a softball interview. Barack Obama was firm and on task as he made his points very clear when Bill O’Reilly eventually let him speak. Typical of Bill O’Reilly was the peppering of opinions while the Senator tried to answer his questions. It made O’Reilly look like he was a hostile interviewer and Obama simply laughed his harshness away with logical answers and the truth.

This is part 2 of the O’Reilly & Obama interview covering the economy and economics…

Video Link



Bill O’Reilly assumes that this was the last time he will be granted an interview with Barack Obama and I would be very sympathetic with Obama if he chose not to go on the show again. Senator Obama not only proved that he can take the hot seat, he owned this interview against the harshest right wing critic of his campaign for President. One of the things that I found interesting of this interview was the fact that Obama was on message, accommodating in his replies, and his answers did not come blasting out with a negative connotation. Bill O’Reilly on the other hand seemed very negative, interjecting his opinion while Obama tried answering his questions, and what I perceived as hostile towards the Senator.

Key points, even Bill O’Reilly admits that Obama’s tax increase plan is for those Americans making more than $250,000 per year. That the Obama tax roll back plan is for 95% of Americans where as Bill O’Reilly likes to call the Senator, Obama Hood, taking from the rich and giving it to the poor. Bill O also admitted that income for most Americans under George Bush has been depressed just like the Obama campaign has stated over and over again, they just disagree as to how much the average middle and lower income earners have lost.

It was a very interesting interview and I look forward to watching all five parts. Fox News and Bill O’Reilly have a large viewing audience in many right wing leaning homes in America and this kind of exposure of Barack Obama on tough questions will highlight the facts and where Obama really stands. The truth comes out instead of talking points on a McCain television advertisement full of sound bites of what you would like to hear.

Papamoka

Labels: , , , , , , ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Monday, September 01, 2008

Sarah Palin & The 80%

Why would someone write about Sarah Palin but place an image of Marie Antoinette in the article?

Because Marie Antoinette was the quintessential "compassionate conservative." When informed that the people of Paris had no bread to eat, the empress is reported to have replied, "Then let them eat cake." The phrase has lingered in our language for several centuries now. And why? Because it's a perfect example of someone being completely out of touch.

Not out of touch with those within her "world," but those outside of her economic and social orbit. For someone enjoying the fruits of a fuedal-style form of life (at least on the rich side of it), keeping one's bearings is dependent soley upon checking the references of all those who live in nearby castles. The empress, if anything, understood her base.

The United States has had presidents who, although born into and raised with great wealth, fashioned a credible and sincere form of sympathy for the masses. Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy are two who come to mind. However, America has swung mightily towards the worship of wealth to the exclusion of government. The masses (as Coke Roberts likes to refer to us) don't exist. Oh, wait. Yes, at election time. But not at governing time.

Currently there is great swirl about Gov. Palin. The public conversation revolves around her inexperience, behavior as governor of Alaska, her NRA membership, her views on abortion, her physical appearance, et cetera......

What I haven't heard is that little "governing bit," which the Republicans still can't get the hang of in this century. It's not "the economy, stupid," but "economics, stupid." You don't have to have a professorship in the subject, just a decent grasp on reality. One needs to ask two important (actually critical) questions:

1: Who writes the rules for how we live in this nation?
2: Who enforces those rules?

Answer: The Congress. They write them....or their lobbyists do. And whatever president in power at the time enforces them. According the Constitution. If you believe in it.....ha ha ha. (hat tip to George W.)

Those said rules have changed...slowly but perceptively towards an America that is rich in both riches and poverty. At the current rate, each generation is going to have to accept lowered expectations than the generation before. That is, for the bottom 80%; those who don't really "count" to those accustomed to a plutacracy. A Kingdom of the wealthy unbeholden to anyone who is not.

During the Saddleback rodeo, John McCain jokingly answered a question as to what his definition of rich is by saying that anyone making $5 million a year or more. It is revealing...that sarcastic dismissal of what to me was the most important question asked.

John McCain has a similar approach to the healthcare of veterans. His plan is simple (as all "great" ones are): when you leave the service, find somebody really rich and marry them. By turning his back on his "comrades" McCain has proven in vote after vote that they were never comrades at all.

It is the votes that count. And how Gov. Palin approaches the subject of the general welfare is more important than any other topic that will be covered. Sadly, promoting the general wefare was a phrase used several centuries ago...and nowadays will be twisted by the Republicans (again) into a clarion alarm for getting deadbeats off the government teat.

Unless you're on acid and working at The Weekly Standard, you might figure out that the general welfare of the republic invovles everyone, not the top 20%.

There has not been enough sunshine in America for years. This election is either going to open the door to a new sunrise, or lead us into the shadows of twilight. Again.

Onto the stage of Karl Rove's Thousand Year Reich comes Sarah Palin. While charming, she does not appear to be deflected from the same banana republic agenda of the status quo. And if we should (God forbid) enter that economic darkness; should a President Palin ever be told that Americans don't have any bread, expect the predictable:

"Let them eat moose."

*****Reuters has picked up this entire post... Thank You!

Labels: , , , , , , ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Monday, February 18, 2008

Back To The Future: The Economic World Of Hunter-Gatherers

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

The story of human social evolution goes roughly as follows: for eons people were hunter-gatherers, collecting food while moving from place to place. Such a life was VERY in tune with nature, resulting in very short life spans. Nature, after all, is not that friendly.

Then people discovered they could grow their food in one place. This was called farming. This method lasted to modern times, although in a very mechanical and corporate form.

The industrial revolution, starting in the 19th century, led more and more people to forsake farming for an urban existence. This also created a complex co-dependency between industry and those who worked in them.

Today in Bloomberg.com, Rich Karlgaard has this piece, THE DEEPER ROOTS OF ECONOMIC ANXIETY. I highly recommend the article, as well as the comments left by readers. They are quite revealing.
The U.S. economy is in better shape than the pundits, polls and press say it is. I don’t believe America is in a recession now. I don’t think one is coming. After eight months of anxiety and stock market turbulence, if the bad event hasn’t happened by now, I doubt it will happen at all.

The Fed is on the case. Bargain hunters like Warren Buffett are moving in, signaling a bottom. Small business is curiously robust despite the credit crunch. Employment is strong. Every commercial flight I’ve taken this year has been oversold.

Much as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would like us to believe 2008 is a trap door to the 1930s, they’re wrong.

So, there IS no recession, there is not GOING to be a recession, and all it takes is one man...Warren Buffet...to signal the bottom of something that isn't happening. Unless, of course, one considers Wall Street as the American economy. With all due respect, rather than Senators Clinton and Obama wanting us to believe 2008 is a trapdoor to the 1930's, it could also be said that Mr. Karlgaard's words could have been written by Calvin Coolidge or Herbert Hoover. In the economic funhouse that set up its tent in the 1970's, lip service is paid to the vast pool of unwashed consumers. The REAL decisions; the true engine of the economy, are those of the "investing class" who are better-educated, and therefore wiser, than a bunch of chocolate cherry-chomping chumps watching TV.
Cheap production technology combined with vast pools of talent, capital and consumers around the world guarantee a world of “extreme competition” (to borrow a McKinsey phrase) and ever-accelerating business-model evolution. What could slow it down? Nothing I see. Not even war.

What goes for companies goes for careers. Your career and mine can be disrupted more easily than before. The best personal career strategy is to assume that our jobs will be disrupted. Everyone needs a Plan B.

If you and I face up to these facts and trends and likelihoods, the world will look scary but thrilling, and full of opportunity, too. If we cover our eyes or imagine that politicians can protect us from change, the world will look scary, period.

As my MIT Sloan School host on Wednesday, Howard Anderson, likes to say: Welcome to a world where you will eat well or sleep well, but not both.

Question for the day: Economic populists such as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton call for "change," yet ironically claim they can protect Americans from change. In a world where ideas and capital can move anywhere in the world at the speed of light and flock to cheap production technology and talent, what protections against the future can politicians give us?

If one is to accept the premise that this "new" economic mold is to be unquestionably adapted to, there lies a problem right on the surface. Hunter-gatherer mentality requires cooperation, whereas capitalism requires competition. As Herbert Hoover liked to say, "A man who builds a factory builds a temple. And the man who works there, worships there." Certain forms of capitalism require slavish devotion from labor. And slavish devotion TO the concept that all taxation is evil; that spending is good as long as it's not paid for, and acknowledgment that certain well-educated experts know all the pitfalls of capitalism. Of which there are none, of course.

It is amusing to hear the phrase "creative destruction" in the context of economic activity. If such were applied equally across the board it might make sense. The problem is, some destruction and creativity is more equal than others.

As regards Mr. Karlgaard's Question of The Day, economic populist is synomous with communisim to the investing class. There is great offense taken at "class warfare," even if it's been going on forever and it doesn't take an Einstein to know who has been winning. Senators Clinton and Obama offer some form of change....their policies do not differ all that much. However, they DO differ from the status quo, which as we all know is Latin for "the mess we're in." The protections that government can give us against rampant unchecked corporate supremacy is the only hope the 95% of the population have for a future that MIGHT be brighter.

Welcome to a world where you will eat well or sleep well, but not both. This is a credo for hunter-gatherers. There is no stability, only uncertainty. In a Sim-City economic theory bubble it sounds so exciting, so dashing. It prompts me to ask why some people get so incensed at "big government" (which they should) but bow to illusory "market forces" when it comes to big corporations. At least with big government you have SOME rights as a human being.

I believe that this nation cannot withstand another four years of Bush economics (a contradiction in terms anyway). Should a Democrat sit in the Oval Office with the same fealty to large corporate donors then we're confronted with the choice this November between a moderate Republican and a moderate Republican.

In 1942 a Japanese general warned that they were suffering from "victory disease." Everything was going too smoothly; every goal was met and all opposition crushed. Such can be said for dedicated adherents to the status quo.

As regards making a choice between eating or sleeping, it's best to be reminded of an old saying, "The castle is safe as long as the cottage is happy."
*************************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com
*************************
This post kindly featured at MemeOrandum

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Monday, February 11, 2008

Selective "Free Markets": Time To Reconsider

Courtesy www.hightowerlowdown.org

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

This doesn't make an immediate connection to the presidential campaign, and yet is has more to do with it than one could imagine.

I am very leery of those who expound upon the virtues of the "free market," as if such is a panacea, a cure-all to economic questions. Particularly the selective aspect of its proponents.

Consider this: in the 1970's, Chrysler was in trouble, big trouble. Despite objections from many Congress voted to loan Chrysler $2 billion. The labor unions made concessions, Lee Iacocca came along, and within years Chrysler was back on its feet. It is arguable that it worked to a certain degree.

Now go back to the 1930's. The economic mess that existed at that time had one unusual characteristic: DEflation. Most of us alive today have never lived it and therefore would find it difficult to think of falling prices as a bad thing.

But they were. Farmers in Iowa could not get enough for their corn to justify the cost of shipping it to market. Long before bio-fuels became a household word many people were using corn for heat.

Along came Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal. No one had all the answers; it was more a quest to end the Depression and government had a role in doing so. It was true "thinking outside the box" in that for the first time farmers were going to be paid NOT to produce. Hog farmers could not understand how their crops and animal products could give a greater return by lowering the supply.

It was inflationary, but that was a price to be paid in an effort to preserve American capitalism. Within the context of the 1930's it made sense to tax some people in order to pay other people not to produce. There was a human cost too; in the South many sharecroppers were made homeless since the land owners did better by not having anyone produce anything. These people, black and white, became part of the great internal migration of that time.

Up until the last year or so no one would have thought much about this process' impact on their lives. But.....we're over 70 years away from the Depression. The continuance of these farm subsidies is akin to building Civil War cannons for the modern Army. In the 1930's over 25% of Americans lived on farms. Now it's something under 2%. Most agricultural activity is through huge agri-business combines.

It is absurd for people like Sam Donaldson or Ted Turner to be receiving payments from the U.S. government for NOT doing anything with their land. Particularly at a time when Americans (and everyone else on the planet) are paying a lot more for food because of the emergence of ethanol as the answer to all of our energy problems. Which it is not, of course.

While not an economist, I question what the government is doing, and also question the wisdom of continuing to have government manipulation of agricultural products. With the high inflationary nature of ANYTHING to do with corn or grain, why are people being taxed to give money to people who own land but don't grow anything on it?

Why is the government STILL carrying out an inflationary program in an inflationary time? I know there's votes in them there milk buckets and corn cribs, but it seems absurd to apply an early 20th century solution to a 21st century situation that is the reverse of the program's original intent.

There's not much glamor in this subject. But there's a lot of money. It's brought home to me every time I see the latest price increase in food, always because of the high cost of corn products, wheat products, etc.

The "free market" is supposed to make thing more abundant when prices increase. It is never going to happen if we are spending money to do the opposite.

Next thing you know, the fire department will use kerosene to put out housefires. They'll only be following the example set by the geniuses.
***************************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

How Healthy Is Globalization For National Security?

Courtesy www.gateway.cartala.com

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

Today Matthew O'Keefe at PAPAMOKA STRAIGHT TALK has a piece, It's The Economy, Stupid.....Again! It's well worth a read, and the last two paragraphs sent me off in another direction.
When Barack and Hillary figure out who is a racist and who is a bitch then somebody please pass a note or tell them that “It’s the damn economy!” Vote for change or fight for your bread in the next economy.

Maybe the problem we as Americans have is we keep electing millionaires as President that have forgotten what it is truly like to be hungry. Not politically hungry, stomach pain, have not eaten hungry.

I would differ in that I would qualify one statement in that we don't need, nor can afford, any more UNCARING millionaires in the White House. Or in Congress, either. Economically, the United States has been cutting off its nose to feed its face. If you think the geniuses on Wall Street or on the board of the Federal Reserve have any more common wisdom than some poor slob trying to balance a checkbook you're badly mistaken.

The experts possess a great deal of knowledge. Knowledge, as the saying goes, is power. That does not denote wisdom. And one must wonder how much of the decades-old push to de-industrialize America is advanced by stupid greed.

Don't misunderstand me: greed is part and parcel of capitalism and there is NO other economic system that beats it. Capitalism has one glaring drawback, though. It's corrosive, like living in a 100% oxygen environment is corrosive. It's the inert gases in our atmosphere that prevent everything from going up in flames.

Globalization is a very oxygen-rich capitalistic phenomenon. We're told that globalization is here to stay, so deal with it. I've been told the same thing about hurricanes. Difference is; you can avoid a hurricane if you have the economic mobility. In that, hurricanes and globalization are similar.

We can argue all the livelong day about the negative aspects of globalization, but it will not affect the ongoing process of it. What is NOT discussed is how far does globalization go before the economic and military security of the United States is compromised? I've read where workers in the new economic scheme of things will be part of the process of "innovation." Blue collar jobs were to be the only casualty of this changing order. Then white collar jobs started flying way like leaves on the wind.

But not to worry. The economy of the United States will be based on "innovation." Okay, here's a question: how many 'innovators" are there in Iraq and Afghanistan? How many divisions of "innovators" can we send into combat should the United States find itself under direct threat from another nation?

In the race to send as much manufacturing abroad as possible, to look with disdain upon a low-brow "old" economic base, corporate America has lost sight of the fact that there IS a United States. That might be understandable in that most corporations have no loyalty to anything but themselves, but for the government to lose sight of the importance of certain industries' role in national security is inexcusable.

There are little things and big things. For U.S. Special Forces to have their berets made in China is absurd. If you think, "It's only cloth" then you have no concept of what those volunteers go through to wear such an item.

Perhaps I am a throwback, a person concerned with the capability of the United States to maintain the economic and military strength required in a very hostile world. So be it. Should, God forbid, the United States find itself dealing with a belligerent Russia, China, India, or Pakistan......aircraft, bombs, tanks, soldiers and rifles cannot be overcome by innovation in the form of briefcase-toting experts.

Look back, and you will find that prior to any major war there is a period where war itself is declared obsolete. It won't ever happen again; that modern forms of diplomacy and economic interaction preclude any possibility of war. Prior to Hitler invading the Soviet Union in June 1941, the Soviet Union's largest trading partner was.....Germany.

I have deliberately used the words "the United States" because this nation is, after all, an experiemnt. And an ideal. Being American is a frame of mind. It should precede any global identity.

A dissolved or diluted United States should not be our reward for this global economy.
***************************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

Labels: , , , ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Thursday, December 06, 2007

BUSH'S PLAN TO PEE ON ECONOMIC FOREST FIRE

Courtesty Kapgar.typepad.com

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

I knew this was coming, like some movie where there is a bad dream that comes true the day the dreamer wakes up.

MORTGAGE RATE FREEZE REACHEDby Martin Crutsinger, AP economics writer, is one such story that may as well not come true at all.
WASHINGTON - Hundreds of thousands of strapped homeowners could get some relief from a plan negotiated by the Bush administration to freeze interest rates on subprime mortgages that are scheduled to rise in the coming months.

"There is no perfect solution," President Bush said Thursday as he announced an agreement hammered out with the mortgage industry. "The homeowners deserve our help. The steps I've outlined today are a sensible response to a serious challenge."

Bush has been accused of moving too slowly to address a crisis that has spread to the broader financial market. But he also was careful not to sound as if he were imposing a government solution and violating his free-market principles. He billed his plan as a voluntary, private-sector arrangement that involves no government money.

"We should not bail out lenders, real estate speculators or those made the reckless decision to buy a home they knew they could never afford," Bush said after meeting with industry leaders at the White House. "But there are some responsible homeowners who could avoid foreclosure with some assistance."

SNIP,

This offer would apply only to people living in their homes and who have not missed any payments at the lower rate. It also only would apply to loans taken out between 2005 and this past July 30 and scheduled to rise to higher rates in 2008 and 2009.

Atrios has some comments in NOT GONNA DO ANYTHING:
People who qualify:

have an income and live in their homes
are currently making their payments on time

would default if their interest went up
Also:

ARM mortgage has to have been taken between 1/05 and 7/7
Has a rate reset between 1/8-1/10

And you don't qualify if:

have missed payment
can afford mortgage rate increase
don't have an income
own homes which are worth less than their mortgage
The last one is the kicker, as it kicks out the class of people who might actually be able to refinance on their own.

I became increasingly skeptical that such a broad-based bailout would be workable for various reasons, but as is usually the case with anything the Bush administration gets involved in, they aren't even really trying.

Jame Joyner of OUTSIDE THE BELTWAY also has a piece, MORTAGE COMPANIES TO FREEZE "TEASER" RATES. He makes a very good point:
Duncan Black contends that stipulations in the plan will actually have the perverse impact of helping those who need it least, since to qualify your must still be worth at least the amount borrowed. Then again, it also excludes those who can “afford” to pay the higher rate, which is simply bizarre. If government is going to bail people out for poor choices, then it should be done on an equal basis.

I couldn't agree more with Mr. Joyner. Either let the so-called "free market" make its correction or help everybody out who is stuck with what is now known to be a lemon.

In the 1920's there were many who partook in buying stocks on margin. It was a great bubble as long as it lasted but the day came when that bubble burst and many people lost their shirts. This time it's subprime mortgages, a mess so badly handled that the perpetrators of the schemes are totally lost themselves.

What is NOT needed is another Jackson Square Moment whereby the President of the United States stands up, talks tough, looks tough......and does nothing more than offer a bowl of pudding that looks nice but tastes like......well, not pudding, anyway.

By saying that there are SOME "responsible" mortgage holders, President Bush reminds me of Herbert Hoover stating in 1932 that the "deserving" poor would not be allowed to starve.

That implies that the "undeserving" poor could just learn to boil bark from trees I suppose. And this "great" move by the president and Secretary Paulson is another window dressing that solves nothing. It addresses nothing.

All it does is show once again that our first M.B.A. Commander-in-Chief knows as much about the real economy of America as he does about matters military.

Mr. President, with all due respect one does not go into a room of post-party alcoholics and offer them near-beer. Either they dry out or grab a fresh supply of booze.

Your proposal, sir, is a half-step to nothing.
********************************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

*****Reuters has picked up this post...

Labels: , , ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Thursday, November 01, 2007

ECONOMIC VORTEX FORMING IN GULF OF STUPIDITY (WHY IT AIN'T LOOKIN' A LOT LIKE CHRISTMAS)

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

Recently I wrote about the possibility that an economic Nathan Bedford Forrest would come charging in on some economic experts and badly upset their applecarts. And cause a stampede.

This morning I am scanning the business section of news.yahoo.com and three stories are lined up one after the other. The Federal Reserve dropped interest rates another 1/4 point yesterday, despite the fact that the GDP grew at a rate of 3.9%. Ordinarily a cut would be strongly resisted....but...but...there are those issues to deal with involving the collapse of the subprime mortgage market and its spreading effects.

This AP article by Alex Veiga, FORECLOSURE FILINGS SOAR IN 3RD QUARTER, is one part of the equation.
LOS ANGELES - A soaring number of U.S. homeowners struggled to make mortgage payments in the third quarter, with properties in some stage of foreclosure more than doubling from the same time last year, a mortgage data company said Thursday.

A total of 446,726 homes nationwide were targeted by some sort of foreclosure activity from July to September, up 100.1 percent from 223,233 properties in the year-ago period, according to Irvine-based RealtyTrac Inc.

The current figure was 33.9 percent higher than the 333,731 properties in foreclosure in the second quarter of this year.

There was one foreclosure filing for every 196 households in the nation during the most recent quarter, RealtyTrac said.

Next, Oil above $96 on drop in US supplies by John Wilen, AP Business Writer:
SINGAPORE - The price of oil rose to a new record above $96 a barrel Thursday after a surprise drop in U.S. crude stockpiles raised concerns about supplies for coming winter demand. Other energy futures also gained.

It was the second week in a row the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported a sharp and unexpected drop in oil inventories.

"The decline in U.S. crude oil inventories has been a key driver of oil prices," said David Moore, commodity strategist at the Commonwealth Bank of Australia in Sydney.

SNIP,

Much of that decline was due to a big drop in crude supplies at a closely watched oil terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma.

Cushing supplies have been under pressure in recent months due to differences in the price between front-month oil contracts and those for delivery in future months. This price difference, or spread, has given storage tank owners a financial incentive to sell their oil, rather than hold it in inventory. Analysts have also blamed falling Cushing supplies, in part, for the rally in which oil prices have jumped 35 percent since August

Finally, Stock Investors Fear End To Rate Cuts, again an AP story by Joe Bel Bruno.
Mindful of a warning from the Federal Reserve Wednesday about inflation, the market nervously watched the price of oil, which passed $96 a barrel overnight for the first time before dipping on profit-taking. The Fed, which cut interest rates a quarter point, said in a statement that inflation remained a concern, and oil's ascent to another record raised the possibility not only that the Fed might stop cutting rates, but that it might even consider raising them if inflation accelerates.

These, of course, are just snippets from the articles. I strongly recommend reading each in full. After reading what I've done so far I thought of renaming this "That 70's Show (Again)." If one were to take into account the three stories listed above...and Jimmy Carter was President instead of George W. Bush, there would be hell to pay. We would be talking in terms of a "malaise" or some such. But we're not, because we are being reassured (again) that everything is A-okay.

Am I crazy? Okay, don't answer that...but even if that's been established it doesn't take away the sense of wrongness when I read that oil prices go up because stocks are down because oil price "spreads" caused by the commodities markets give an incentive to keep oil storage tanks dry. Which information is used to further increase the price of oil, etc., etc. It's a nasty circular logic that does three things: makes some people a lot of money, costs many more to spend what they don't have, and screws the pooch on retail sales.

The other day I heard George Will say a couple of things. Bear in mind I admire Mr. Will's logic and prose even when I don't agree with him. He said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that even if crude oil reaches inflation-adjusted levels of the early 80's it doesn't matter that much since the influence of oil as a part of the economy has shrunk since then.

Oh yeah? Well what is the minimum wage when inflation-adjusted? I'm not arguing for the minimum wage, but rather using it as a standard of sorts since many jobs offer compensation that is compared to the minimum wage. Besides, gasoline at $3 or $4 a gallon is still that....money that would otherwise go elsewhere.

He also made the point that a lot of the subprime mortgage failures were by people speculating in 2nd or 3rd homes. Again, what difference does that make? Whether for a 1st, 2nd, or 5th mortgage, those subprime deals were sold as securities that have evaporated in value. The end effect is the same no matter WHO held the paper.

I'm a capitalist. I once lived in what once euphemistically called a "semi-state" environment and it was terrible. Capitalism is indeed the only form of economic activity that works. But, it is quite caustic in nature and also self-destructive if left unregulated. I live in a fairly stable neighborhood. I never ordinarily have contact with law enforcement. But I know that if a wildman was trying to walk off the property with everything I own I would call the police. They would intervene between stability and chaos. I think they call it the "Thin Blue Line."

For the last twenty years or so we've had one politician after another cutting that thin blue line of economic regulation like a local mayor with oversize scissors opening a county fair. Our nation has changed, as all things change, but not all change is necessarily good.

And the result is that our economic neighborhood is overrun with wildmen gleefully filling their stockings because the police are now forbidden to even look for crime. It is a sad fact that the first Chairman of the Securities & Exchange Commission, Joseph P. Kennedy (himself a notorious Wall St. speculator) had to have bodyguards while on the floor of the stock exchange.

Kennedy's job was to pour some unpalatable liquid into many bowls of cornflakes, and the consumers of said cornflakes did not like it a bit. They still don't and that's why they pay out a lot of money to ensure their meals taste sweeter every year.

So if the bottom falls out of the bucket we all can rest assured that in the long run things will straighten out. But like Harry Hopkins once told a Senate committee, " the problem is, people have to eat in the SHORT RUN."

And they have to drive cars to work so as to keep the economy going. And they have to heat their homes (those who still have them).

And they have to hold their noses next November to elect people who like the taste of their cereal and aren't about to allow any cops in THEIR neighborhood.
*********************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

WHY I AM NOT AN ECONOMIST


Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

On the surface, the answer is simple: I don't have a degree in economics. It's a fascinating subject, though, with many differing opinions influencing how we all live. And how healthy a republic we have, also.

Having been denied by fate the intellectual capacity to understand the myriad of details tossed about by economists, I can only rely upon the "big picture" to a certain degree. And the great thing about economics is that, like psychology, it is a profession of opinion. Despite many learned prognostications, economists are constantly stuck with explaining why the opinion expressed several years ago was found invalid by events.

There is that old saying, "The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing." Nathan Bedford Forrest understood that. No, not as an economist but as a soldier. Despite the fact that he never received any formal military training, and despite being looked down upon as a lucky rube by West Point-educated soldiers, it is HIS tactics used in the Civil War that are studied to this day.

Forrest was not an economist, of course. But he is illustrative of the fact that there are times when a lack of formal training does not detract from someone's ability to think, and think quite well. It might never occur (and would be refuted heatedly) that common folk might actually have a grasp on the essentials, particularly when they are self-evident.

One of the problems associated with reading is that one can quite inconveniently remember things. One example is during the 1960's....Lyndon Johnson was bemoaning the fact that he wanted low taxes, the Great Society, and the Vietnam War, all at once. LBJ always liked everything all at once. When an aide suggested approaching Wilbur Mills (then chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee) LBJ balked. He said that Mills would give him all the money he wanted for war, but the Great Society would be de-funded. So Johnson did what he was very good at: he lied.

The stagflationary pressures LBJ started were passed on to Nixon, Ford, and Carter. Economically they were interesting times.....for everyone, including the very wealthy.

We have another Texan in the White House, who also wants it all....and all at once. Unlike LBJ however, George W. Bush hasn't much regard for the powers of Congress, or the Constitution, or common sense for that matter.

A nation can no more live beyond its means than an individual can. Borrowing money to invest in an enterprise that will generate a profit makes sense. Anything else is asking for trouble. One weird thing about economics is, analigous to a pond, sometimes a tossed pebble can create a tsunami.

For years the practice of subprime mortages made a lot of money in a speculative manner. It's all right, though, said the experts. Other experts with similar degrees said otherwise. Events have borne out the naysayers. But with a house of cards collapsing, what is the remedy? Save the speculators, of course....our economy is held hostage by the notion that to let (otherwise) sacred "market forces" correct the stupidity of some would hurt us all. It goes back to that old saying that pigs get fed and hogs get slaughtered.

Except in some cases the hogs just keep getting fatter. The Federal Reserve lowered interest rates in order to shore up the mortgage market...to protect the stupid. This resulted in a lower dollar, which encouraged a lot of money to flow into the oil commodities market, which is resulting in higher oil/gas/heating oil prices.

It's fair to say that when we now fill up our cars or heating oil tanks we are in essence paying a tax. Or more accurately, a penalty for others' screw-ups. Many bemoan the fact that such things hurt the middle class. Well, you have to wonder sometimes what the middle class is. I've known people who are millionaires who wear scuffed shoes and torn jeans and claim they are middle class. That doesn't jibe with the fact that such people have the OPTION of donning far more expensive clothing. Many others do not.

So if one starts contemplating the wisdom of reining in the excesses of the hogs, the first cry of "class warfare" is heard. It sounds good; we don't want any of that envy or Bolshevik stuff in our country. No, in America we're all in this together, right? With grim humor I listen to statistics being poured forth about how the top 1% pays more than the bottom 50% in taxes; how the so-called "rich" (no one in America is rich, you know, just middle class) are being burdened with the greater cost of ensuring our government works.

Okay, the government works, but for whom? And is it rude to ask what percentage of the top 1% of income earners in the U.S. are represented in Afghanistan or Iraq? An economist can explain, in cold economic terms, that those less well-off who perish in military ventures are quickly replaced by a constantly expanding population. Not so with the rich; they are of a magic world where sacrifice is only financial and isn't money all that matters in the end?

That's why I wouldn't make a good economist: financial matters affect everyone, but not equally. I'd have to make a living justifying the ever-increasing appetites of the hogs. The institutions that require cold justification for their existence depend upon constantly concurring opinions.

In any complex interaction between humans, there is always a keystone; that one thing that holds everything else in place. From time to time that keystone is nudged, and sometimes it's knocked out completely. It's happened before and will happen again because in the blind and self-justified pursuit of wealth accumulation the whole damned thing collapses.

There is not one economist alive today who could truly understand the old French saying, "The castle is safe as long as the cottage is happy." Right now the cottages have cable, they have baubles to distract from the boring yet critical decisions being made without their knowledge or consent.

There is an economic Bedford Forrest out there, unrecognized by the elite. Whatever form that phenomenon takes, it will perform the same function of that brilliant soldier. "Keep the skeer on 'em" was one of his tactics. Once the "skeer" starts it is amazing how a group of financiers convert themselves into a herd of panicked cattle.

No economist will stop the stampede; they can only explain it (again). It will require a political personage, one able to command the attention and respect of everyone.

We haven't had anyone like that in a long time, and we certainly don't have anyone like that right now.

*************************

Cross-posted at Michael Linn Jones.com

Technorati Tags:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Labels: , , , , , ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button