A number of brewers announced recently that the price of beer that the consumer pays will be going up citing rising costs. In the CNN story above the reasons given are less vague. The brewers claim to be raising prices to offset rising commodity prices and fall in volumes. Though, commodity prices have fallen recently and have caused farmers and dairies to worry about staying profitable this year. Also, ten days ago Anheuser-Busch InBev announced that their second quarter profits had grown despite the drop in volume because of cost cutting measures. One has to work through the maze of business doublespeak in these non judgmental articles regarding price increase and increased profitability to understand that cost cutting and "synergies" in these cases refers to job cuts as a result of the InBev takeover of Anheuser-Busch.
If you are the kind of person who likes to buy American and support American jobs, it is gettingharder and harder to find an economicalbeer. Though some of the big brewers still employ Americans.
John Kerry hosted a discussion last week where he had a round table of experts engage in hysterics regarding the recession and asked them to criticize his party's stimulus, the one he cosponsored. One of their doomsday warnings was that major wars, such as World War II, are preceded by long periods of economic recession. They predicted such an outcome if the current recession lasts, oh say more than two years.
This, in relation to certain things I have been hearing people say, leads me to be concerned. My specific concern is a sensitive one to discuss, however I feel that it is necessary to discuss in the interests of preparedness and prevention. The subject of race riots. If we recall, WWII and most regional conflicts in recent history were preceded by racial unrest or have a racial element to the conflict. Iraq, Darfour, Bosnia, Rwanda.
The things that I have been hearing that worry me are a linking of the effects of the recession on individuals to illegal immigration of Hispanics. I have heard people remark, "why should I be worried about the civil rights of illegal immigrants I can't even find a job myself." To be sure, I have only heard this sentiment coming from racist people who already bemoan bilingual signage. Still, the linking of the bad effects of the recession on individuals, by the individuals themselves, through the issue of illegal immigration, to a specific racial category of people, is what worries me. The immigration debate already inflames gun toting extremists to the point of mobilization. And the Minutemen were in existence when we were still relatively prosperous. I fear the recruitment power the recession will have for violent racist radicals.
This will be the kind of thing that plays out like prior race riots. On the streets in the poor parts of the country people will feel the pressure building every day. That sense of racial tension will never see the light of day in the MSM until the flood waters suddenly burst forth in a regional paroxysm of violence. Local riots will break out and only local outlets will cover them until they become either large, or last multiple days, or become shocking in some other way. Then the national MSM will start saying what had been obvious to 1/4 of the country for months. This will all be a complete shock to white middle class midwesterners who will wake up one morning as the MSM brings their attention to race riots already in progress.
Honestly, I hope it doesn't happen that way. Maybe it will just be local like the riots over the killing of Oscar Grant III. Or maybe the racial tension will never reach critical mass, or maybe the catalyst will never appear. I am just worried at the pace with which racist sentiment against Latinos has changed under the influence of the recession. For practical purposes, we should be concerned with good relations with Mexico because a good portion of their GDP is remittances from the US, and they recently discovered epic shit tons of oil. We should stay friendly with our neighbors.
As commercials announce to Joe Punchclock that the Taxman commeth we are greeted with a plethora of news items detailing the failure of President Obama's cabinet nominees to pay their fair share. Many of the editorials are already decrying the "new politics of responsibility" being just like the old politics of . . . well what do you call it when the President says it's OK to torture people? Evil? Its understandable why commentators on the political right have attempted to focus on the immediate failures of the Obama administration in what appears to be a rapid return to politics as usual. I would be inclined to resist except Obama's picks for high level political positions seems less like looking to experience and more like rearranging the deck chairs on the S.S. Democratic party. Which, if I recall correctly, is exactly how the first G.W. Bush administration began.
In the first few weeks of the Obama Administration, it is becoming increasingly clear that he can't please everyone. Unfortunately, some in the military establishment have gone almost to the point of blackmail in attempting to place controls on U.S. Defense Policy.
With the word "stimulus"in the air, and every corporation with operations in the United States smelling bacon, an effort has emerged in Washington seeking to extend production of the F-22 as a sort of stimulus spending. A webpage sponsored by manufacturer Lockheed-Martin alleges that 95,000 jobs can be saved by continuing to manufacture the F-22 Raptor, without mentioning a specific cost in additional military spending. Undoubtedly, the Air Force itself is hoping for this increase as well, considering reports that the F-35 can't stand up against Russian air defense systems. However, this is the least of Obama's military problems.
Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledging the change of focus for the Defense Department from Iraq to Afghanistan, has a laundry list of potential military problems which are very far-reaching.
For instance, [Adm. Mullen] said, the United States needs to help Iran develop stability instead of fomenting terror.
Other sticking points abroad, Mullen said, are assuring stability in places like Russia and China, dealing with issues like famine and genocide in Africa, and the drug trade in Mexico.
This news report on Adm. Mullen's full lecture is well-worth reading. Obviously, the Department of Defense is going to be on the receiving end of a lot of government funding, especially considering the costs of expanding operations in Afghanistan, despite efforts to curb U.S. strategic objectives.
Two other reports regarding the military-industrial complex could serve as an early test of the new administration. The first, that the military is attempting to accuse Obama of reducing military spending, by not giving them all that the Joint Chiefs of Staff wanted, smacks of career military officials attempting to establish their role in crafting defense policy. While bureaucratic squabbling is hardly anything new, this second report, is far more disturbing. If senior military officials are truly attempting to pressure Pres. Obama into accepting a misleading plan to rename apples oranges, they are certainly making a political decision instead of respecting the orders of their new Commander-in-Chief.
Defense policy, especially spending decisions, are fundamentally political decisions, and thus the exclusive province of elected civilian leaders. Even if General Petraeus is worried that he is losing his hotline to the White House that he enjoyed in the days of the Bush Administration, it would probably be more useful for him to pursue a good working relationship with the incoming administration, rather than engaging in bureaucratic in-fighting over issues which have already been addressed.
For those worried that the Daily Show might run out of material during the next four years of an Obama administration, the Internet's savior, Sarah Palin, has come through again, launching her own new SarahPAC. Political Action Committees are compelled under federal law to comply with certain regulations, but they spend a lot of money in a city where Benjamin Franklin speaks. What exactly constitutes "a better, safer, and stronger America in the 21st Century" should provide many punchlines in the near-term. Hopefully Governor Palin's four year vacation from federal electoral politics will help her develop coherent policy positions, but I don't imagine her supporters want to hear anything more than catch phrases.
In a slightly more disturbing twist, there is a group known as PalinPAC which stole the catchy name, and as of this writing has received 2588 hits on their website. The most telling mark of something resembling the political version of a scam is that their mission page mentions the values and issues of the Republican Party, but doesn't, at any point gto into any meaningful depth on what exactly those values and issues are. The one page that might reveal the thinking behind the leaders of the group, about their Religious Values has a bible quote, and a very interesting quote which is reproduced below.
Every problem we have can't be George Bush's fault like many believe. Why don't we look to and ask the Congress and House of Representatives what they have been doing about our country's problems? The Democrats wanted control and got it. But what have they done with it?
Obviously nothing a group that supports Sarah Palin would agree with.
As reported yesterday, there is an ongoing debate of some intensity into the various types of war crimes that are being committed by both sides in the conflict, about issues arising from use of human shields to use of white phosphorus artillery shells in heavily populated areas. However, there is a new report about the conduct of Israeli soldiers which has been underreported. The story has since been deleted from the Ha'aretz website, but is posted here for your perusal. Two of the most important aspects of the laws of war govern the uniforms worn by combatants and the targeting of civilians in urban areas. The aforementioned report bears on exactly these problems. Though it might be the case that witnesses were mistaken about the identity of soldiers wearing emblems of Hamas, however even the mere allegation that Israeli soldiers were targeting buildings known to contain civilians in order to make them evacuate goes beyond the pale. This latest report, combined with reports that one of the largest hospitals in the Gaza Strip was attacked by white phosphorus and tank shells, should necessitate a response from the Hague and the United Nations if international law is going to be effectual at all during the 21st Century. But perhaps such words are empty, and will ultimately serve to alleviate the suffering felt by both sides of the conflict.
Elsewhere, there is a lot of talk aimed at calling a halt to the ongoing operations. In Egypt, officials are reportedly getting close to hammering out a ceasefire agreement, but the fundamentally conflicting goals of both sides, centering around the ongoing embargo of commercial goods aimed at stemming the flow of weapons into the Gaza Strip, stand in the way of any lasting resolution. The United States is firmly behind the government of Israel as the foreign ministers of the two countries signed an agreement obligating the U.S. to assist in preventing smuggling into Gaza and the re-arming of the militant wing of Hamas in the event of any ceasefire, whether it is formal or informal. Elsewhere, the Arab world is split into two camps, one which supports the U.S.' position in the conflict met in Kuwait, while the other camp, which is opposed, even virulently against the campaign, met in Qatar. The latter group urged member states to diplomatic and economic ties with the state of Israel. Because of this split, neither side was able to achieve a quorum sufficient for the Arab League to issue a statement in response to the conflict, ultimately proving both gatherings to be diplomatically useless in terms of finding a solution to the intractable problem of Middle East peace.
The Fringe Element has yet to comment about the ongoing Israeli military operations in Gaza, because there was seemingly little to be added to the current discussion. However, that silence must now come to an end, as we wonder the true purpose of the operations.
According to Israeli officials, the stated purpose is to make sure that Hamas can no longer fire rockets into the southern areas of Israel from the Gaza Strip. Yet, during the six month cease fire that expired just before the beginning of operations, Hamas did not fire a single rocket in violation of the ceasefire, though a handful of rockets were fired by smaller, shall we say fringe, militant groups. This is a matter of fact, and is readily admitted by Israeli officials.
So, disregarding the question of who initially broke the ceasefire, because of the rampant violations thereof, not the least of which being the Israeli embargo, we have to wonder why Israeli officials chose to attack the Gaza Strip in the way that they have done so far. Of course, electoral politics gives us a quick answer. The government of Israel has enjoyed carte blanche from the Bush Administration in everything they do, upto and including expanding settlements in the West Bank and continuing to build the separation wall, both of which are violations of international law. But the reins of the executive branch are about to turned over to a new leader, whose support for Israel has yet to be meaningfully tested. In combination with this factor, Israel itself will soon hold elections for Prime Minister. With the campaign in Gaza enjoying tremendous support amongst the general Israeli population, the various personalities in the running are trying to out-do each other to support the operation. In addition, the 20% Israeli Arab minority has been completely disenfranchised as their parties will not be able to participate in the coming election.
Yet, this still does not fully explain the rationale behind this operation. If one keeps asking questions, the answers keep leading to darker and darker answers. For instance, the Israeli military has been using some fairly advanced ammunition in the current operation, and the question must be raised whether the Israeli military, and more broadly the Israeli government, is using this as an opportunity to test the finest weapons that the world has to offer in battlefield conditions. For instance, the use of white phosphorus in artillery shells, although illegal to use against civilian targets is not necessarily against international law if used to create a passive smoke screen. But, it is definitely illegal if it is used against the headquarters of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in Gaza, which supplies essential foodstuffs to half of the enclave's population. A more insidious weapon is what is known as Dense Inert Metal Explosives, also referred to as DIME. This type of explosive, with a small blast radius, allows for specific targetting of hostile forces. However, it has also been found to be extremely carcinogenic. The apparent signs of a DIME-inflected injury, internal burns without shrapnel and entry wounds without exit wounds, have been appearing in civilian casualties.
Looking deeper into the situation, I have been left wondering if the Israeli operation is intent on forced displacement of the entire population of the Gaza Strip. Israeli forces have been dropping leaflets and warning civilians that they are going to be in the path of military operations. But, with the territory entirely surrounded and controlled by the Israeli government and for all intents and purposes cut off from the rest of the world, where are the refugees supposed to go? As is usually the case with military operations, civilian bystandards are often left with more questions than answers, and given the opacity of Israeli policy and motives behind the ongoing operation in the Gaza Strip, the rest of the world is left to wonder about true intentions.
The real question that should be asked in capitals around the world, the United Nations, and the Hague is whether or not to begin investigating whether the Israeli government is committing war crimes.
I have been trying to keep the start of the new year on this blog light with video game reviews and silly articles. I have avoided discussing the conflict in the middle east even though that is the most significant international news right now.
But the riots of last night and the, execution style, police killing of Oscar Grant III are too much to ignore. These are very much subjects which we at The Fringe Element are concerned with. I'll start with the widely viewed video.
I don't know much of the story but people attribute Officer Johannes Mehserle's apparent shock to his mistakenly using his firearm when he intended to use his tazer. I am not sure how this is much better. As you can probably guess from previous articles, we here at The Fringe Element don't approve of liberal use of tazers by police, considering them to be a substitute for lethal force only. Whereas countless news stories indicate that police around the country treat this otherwise useful device as a shortcut to incapacitate any person the officer finds inconvenient to deal with.
In this case the use of a tazer would have been substantially less likely to cause death. I suppose that difference in outcome is supposed to mitigate the severity of the actions of the officer in this case in the minds of some people. But again, I don't consider a tazer to be non-lethal force. Neither do its proponents who call such devices "less lethal." In the same category as rubber bullets. The idea is to incapacitate with sufficient force to be sure to incapacitate with a single use. In many cases, the requisite amount of force to do so with such certainty is enough to kill. Again, I am not arguing against the use of tazers, I am arguing that people at large, and particularly the police, need to stop thinking of using a tazer as less serious than using a firearm.
With the latest manufacturing data from the United States showing even more signs of contraction, one of the few thigns that can be said for certain about the overall situation, is that what might have been limited to the financial sector is clearly affecting the very basic sectors of the economy. Also, those were predicting that this affair was going to be a minor correction that would pass in a quarter or at most two, have been revealed as having played a guessing game, as the crisis is instead shaping up to be the worst economic crisis in almost a century.
Manifestations of the problems are appearing in sales reports of the auto industry, where all of the manufacturers were hit with double-digit drops in sales, especially trucks. On Wall Street, too, there are signs as Circuit City has received a delisting notification from the New York Stock Exchange, and plans to close 155 stores as its death spiral continues to get tighter and tighter.
Part of the misdirection that was at the heart of the financial crisis is coming unwound, as investors who bought notes from the now defunct Lehman Brothers that were promised to be sound investments worth of inclusion in retirement investment portfolios are now revealed to be worth only pennies on the dollar. Regulators are going to investgiate, but unfortunately, due to the counter-terrorism priorities of the Bush Administration, the FBI has been left critically short-handed as they try to investigate the myriad economic crimes and financial fraud. School districts in Wisconsin were caught up in their own form of financial mismanagement. Buying supposedly safe investments, the now infamous C.D.O.s, school boards all over the state are facing the prospect of cutting services in order to meet financial obligations from the defaults of various corporations.
Strains are also being seen on the macro scale, as the primary contributor to American GDP, the Federal Government, has announced plans to finance the largest budget deficit in history. The government itself won't put a number on how much the deficit will be exactly, but estimated that the total amount of bonds issued would be approximately $550 Billion for the October-December period, including $300 Billion for Federal Reserve liquidity operations. Analysts in the field estimate that the government's borrowing needs for the next fiscal year, which began in August, will total up to $2.1 Trillion. This number stems from funding the $850 Billion deficit projected in the Federal Budget, and approximately $500 Billion to further reinforce the Fed's liquidity operations of the amalgram soup, and the remainder going to roll over securities from state and local governments which are expected to see a significant drop in demand over the next year. The budget deficit is so large partly in thanks to deteriorating economic conditions and the $700 Billion bailout package passed by Congress against almost every economist's better judgment, but doesn't factor in whatever additional stimulus proposal will be passed by the Congress during the lame duck period following the election.
On the micro scale, individual homeowners and families are also showing severe signs of strain. Throughout the country, but particularly in areas that are hardest hit by the mortgage crisis, more nad more homes are going 'underwater' to use the industry phrase. That is to say, about 1 in 5 of all homes in American are worth less than the balance of the mortgage the homeowner is paying. Families are also having a harder time making ends meet with their utility bills, also. As further evidence, about 44% of families are living paycheck to paycheck, and about 48% have less than $5,000 in liquid assets. So, in the event of a family emergency, medical or otherwise, very few would have any options, especially with bank lending still not an option, despite the Treasury's and Federal Reserve's efforts.
There is no shortage of people who are ready to criticize the Treasury and the Federal Reserve for their management of this crisis and their willingness to bail out institutions that were threatening to go bankrupt. A Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert J. Aumann predicts that more banks and insurance companies will go under because of moral hazard and the lack of consequence. Others say that deflation is the order of the day, also brought about by the various interventions in the free market. My question has been, since this crisis started, where were those in the position to do something about this problem when it started becoming apparent? Why weren't more authorities, for lack of a better word, willing to stand up and make warnings? Unfortunately, someone who is such a position is also at a loss for why pronouncements against the general consensus come in whispers, rather than shouts.
I'll leave off with the latest scary charts from the Federal Resreve of St. Louis. Good night and good luck.
I am not a citizen of California, so I have not been following the news surrounding Prop. 8. I don't even know the technical wording of what it does. I recently read this article, and it reminded me of something I have tried to address in previous postings. The idea that there can be a status equivalent to marriage for homosexuals that simply uses a different word. I have explained before that separate is not equal and that there are technical differences in the law that would be difficult to account for in creating a parallel civil institution.
I would like to try to address the underlying argument that if homosexuals are allowed to marry it somehow damages the sacred unions of heterosexual marriage. To me this seems like saying that every time I have a bacon cheeseburger, it harms every Jew that keeps kosher. Sure they might feel left out at a BBQ, but bacon is still delicious. OK, so the analogy needs work. I have yet to hear any reasoned argument behind the bare assertion, other than a veiled suggestion that the purpose of marriage is to produce future taxpayers. That upsets me as a Libertarian, but as a moral human being this concept throws me into a foaming rage that a human child is being valued only as a walking wallet. I think it shows that these people who claim to be for morality and the family are really the most cynical and selfish, if you only press them beyond their memorized talking points.
Personally I find it hard to argue with Mormons on the issue of family because they have such a strong family ethos and make it a central tenant of their religion. My bone of contention with them is that their conception of "family" is so narrow, it excludes and even rejects some of the diversity on Earth and in society that must be a part of God's plan. A faith that has a de facto exclusion of the childless and infertile, and an outright hostility to homosexual families seems to me to be directly rejecting the spark of divinity inherent in every part of God's Creation.
I have a friend that has Bacon Rage. All night diners like Denny's, Perkins, and Bob Evans are the kind of place that suburban teenagers begin to flex their growing independence by staying out late and paying for their own food and hanging out with their friends. (they serve breakfast all day long!) During this adolescent period my friend, with some others, went to one of these restaurants and ordered some breakfast combo. It did not come with bacon. Like most sane people my friend wanted some bacon so he ordered a side of bacon.
The bacon came on a separate plate. There were two pieces. Two overcooked pieces. Two small overcooked pieces of bacon on a separate plate. Sitting there, alone. Stark in their presentation and insignificance. This alone is an insult to the god of bacon if there was such a thing. Surely anyone craving bacon would only have their appetite increased rather than satisfied by this paltry offering. He ate the bacon and by all accounts it was a pleasant meal.
Then the bill came.
$6.00. The cost of the paltry serving of bacon was six fucking dollars. And this was in 1995, before people would mortgage their house to buy a TV. Some words were exchanged and things escalated. By the end of the night half of the town was engulfed in flames. If you think that is a bit extreme, you must not like bacon. Or justice. What's wrong with you?
Just in case you need a reference point to how much the bailout was, consider the number to the right, the cost of the War in Iraq thus far. Yes, the bailout that was passed last week surpasses the amount of money spent on that mistake by leaps and bounds. So, when history is written, how should this period be judged? Where were our priorities? Did we ensure that every child in America had access to primary health care? Were we more concerned about finding a cure for cancer, or spending money on making sure that phone calls and emails didn't contain terrorist-related content?
The bailout and its effects in the market place, in a nut shell. Apparently, today the chaos continues as the first market to open after Bush's signature, the Israeli Tel Aviv Stock Exchange tumbled like a rock going down a sheer slope.
The fundamental source of the entire financial crisis has been the opaque nature of the books of the biggest financial institutions. The fact that they refused to value assets which, if shown in the light of day, would be revealed to have little revenue potential, will probably end up costing the companies billions in dollars is only being papered over by the bill that the various branches of the federal government approved on Friday. This is further reinforced by new rules from the Securities and Exchange Commission stating that corporations no longer have to price these assets on a 'mark-to-market' basis. That is to say, they no longer have to value them at the price they would likely fetch in a free and open market, but rather can just pencil in whatever they want and use these assets as capital, or as collateral for the various short-term lending programs offered by the Federal Reserve. However, the hanging $55 trillion question in the air is what happens when the Credit Default Swaps start becoming unbundled. For instance, you may remember A.I.G. which met its fate and an $85 billion bailout from the Federal Treasury because of these insurance policies, but has yet to sell a single asset, despite blowing through $61 billion of the money provided in the bailout. Yet their executives party like Nero in Rome. Party on, Wayne. Why worry when none of those responsible for the lending practices will ever be prosecuted?
So, with some banks saying that they won't even participate in the No Bank Left Behind program and banks that will still fail regardless of their participation, what are we left with? A budget problem that will hamstring the domestic and foreign policies of the next President, whoever it may be, an IRS with undercover investigative powers which will be on the prowl to make sure that every dollar Uncle Sam has coming is brought to the Treasury, and good, old-fashioned ragealmost everywhere other than Wall Street.
Here we see pilfered bacon. Bacon that was snuck behind my back. Certain trecherous people waited until I left the house and then cooked up themselves a bacony breakfast even leaving a piece on the floor for the cat. Taunting me. Saying, "look, even the cat gets bacon but not you."
It was interesting to me to observe the tone of media coverage regarding the Bailout over the last week. Prior to the rejection of the first bill by the House the coverage was neutral with most coverage being directed at explaining just what the legislation was supposed to do but there was almost no coverage of popular opinion which was vastly opposed to the measure. After the shock subsided from the precipitous drop in the stock markets following the vote by the House, and it was found that the sky had not fallen and business continued as normal, the MSM started covering the vast negative public sentiment. This was mainly as a means of explaining why the Representatives voted as they did and attached to the old adage that the House is the more populist body. Suggesting that the real people of the country are only actually represented in government at the national level in the House of Representatives.
Until this morning the MSM was freely using the term "Bailout" to describe this massive gift of taxpayer dollars to the greedy rich motherfuckers that got us into this crisis in the first place. However this morning, the MSM has started referring to the bill as the "Rescue Plan." Yes, the Bailout that passed the Senate in the dark hours of the night when noone could see their shame has been spun. Instead of being a colossal failure of leadership, this is now a plan. Instead of being a giant burden of over $10,000 on every taxpayer, this is being called a "Rescue."
How long will this kind of transparent bullshit go unchallenged? Where is the voice of the American people? We, the people of the United States are overwhelmingly opposed to this legislation but if you look at the MSM you would think that we all accept this bill as a necessary evil. This is exactly the same failure of the media that got us into Iraq. Where are the pointed questions? Where are the experts holding the feet of the members of congress to the fire? Why is Kucinich the Keebler the only person that sounds sane? It takes a vegan who thinks he was abducted by aliens to raise concerns about the artificial haste with which this bill is being forced through congress? What about the old adage that the Senate is the more deliberative side of the Legislature?
Where was the thought process yesterday? It was clouded by fear and greed. Fear that there is an imminent catastrophic collapse in the future, and greed motivated by all that money. Why think about rational solutions when you can slip in a rider that directs funds back to your pet projects? If you are going to alienate millions of people by voting "yes" you might as well buy the votes of a few back home.
Like 9/11, this is another crisis that was easy to foresee but once it materializes people in government are using the ignorance of those that did not see it coming to create an unjustified panic in order to gain unfettered power. I cant' believe that exactly the same trick is working on the same people just six years later. I guess Lincoln was wrong.
I wish that was all I had to say about this but I want to highlight the behavior of the presidential candidates and I want to single out a particular economic pundit who has been causing me great personal outrage for the last three weeks.
The H-pod has been getting increasingly aggravating with his constant reliance on the trickle down theory of economics as if it is still a valid method of thinking. As if trickle down hasn't been clearly disproven by the recent recession. As if he isn't just fattening us up for the slaughter. Velshi is just trying to keep the taxpayers calm and encourage acceptance of the vastly flawed Bailout.
As for the candidates, they have both failed to show leadership in this crisis. Neither candidate has even attempted to deliver a strategy for solving this problem. Neither candidate nor their VP nominees have given concrete examples of things they would do if elected that differs from anything they have been saying since June of '07. To me its painfully obvious that they could follow FDR and his lead that propelled us out of the last Great Depression. They start a massive public works project. How about one that creates energy independence? Then you solve two national problems at once. OK, its four problems is you include oil wars in the middle east and energy's impact on the environment. Massive building projects that create super solar farms in the sun belt, wind farms in the great lakes and off the Atlantic coast, factories that produce the new solar power generating windows. The government can spend some of the seven hundred fucking billion dollars of U.S. taxpayer rape on investing in our technology future. The U.S. is falling behind. It was the lack of foresight of congress that caused the Large Hadron collider to be built in France and Belgium.
Both parties have failed. Both houses of Congress have failed. The Bush administration has failed. Local governments have failed. Wallstreet has failed. Individual investors and property buyers have failed. Foreign governments and corporations have failed. There is plenty of blame to go around but little understanding of the full scope of the failure. This colossal failure of leadership is not likely to be cured by panic and a rush to pass the first piece of legislation proposed by an administration that has showen itself to be power hungry and incompetant. We need to vote every one of these selfish beureaucrats and politicians out of office. We need to finish the job of cleaning house that we started in 2006.
Unfortunately, the professional politicians of the Senate, including Sens. and presidential candidates Obama and McCain, voted in favor of a revised version of the bailout. Now, with some tax breaks and other pork barrel spending to enhance the bill's chances to pass through the House, and of course extra flavor. This delicious bacon costs an addition $100 billion, which is far more than I would ever pay for it, no matter how delicious it is. In addition, there are other sections that have been added to the bill, and you don't need to worry anymore about your children's wooden arrows being taxed at an exorbitant rate. One may argue that it passed through the Senate because only a portion of its members have to worry about re-election, which may or may not be the true reason. However, if one feels that this bill is overtly socialist, consider the opposition of Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist, who describes the bailout as unfair.
Also, I would like to see the opinion polls that Americans are more confused than opposed to the bill. I'm sure Mike Shedlock would have something to say about that, in between falling asleep at his computer, leading the charge against this horrible piece of legislation.
For those who need this explained, one has the choice of either the illustrious Dr. Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty, or if you need to have it put into perspective with examples, this Opinion piece by Jonathan Weil is a must-read.
I wish that I could believe that this bailout is just an inefficient piece of legislation written in a system that didn't suffer from the systemic failings that went through Sweden's financial system in the 90's. But, even with, or should I say despite, the benefit of the experience of Sweden's former Finance Minister, the legislation is going forward in the worst way possible. When these banks are able to price these horrible pieces of financial wizardry that are currently befuddling their balance sheets at a price dictated by a former head of Goldman Sachs, the economic crisis will continue unabated, as the underlying fundmental economic problems remain. People will still be losing their jobs and inflation will be destroying the purchasing power of the dollars that are still being earned by those fortunate enough to have employment. This is a very dangerous game, with even more money being wasted on tax breaks that aren't substantiated in any significant way.
If any of you are regular readers you may be wondering why these last two weeks have gone without a posting on the economy. There are several reasons. First, our senior economic analyst, TheRedKap is still stuck behind the Great Firewall. Second, my political rage peaked about a year ago. After seven years of rising outrage at this administration I finally reached my limits and fizzled out somewhat.
I haven't been able to listen to Marketplace in almost a year so I have had to try and make sense of this stuff myself. Which is difficult for even economists to understand. If the voodoo priests of the dollar can't explain on whats going on, what hope does an average American have? Here is one thought I had yesterday which I hope is not so obvious that I appear foolish for taking the time to lay it out.
One economist yesterday likened the current $700 B...B...B...Billion Bailout to that scene from Blazing Saddles when Bart, played by Cleavon Little, holds a gun to his own head to keep the town from lynching him. Wall Street, here played by Henry Paulson, is holding the gun to its own head and saying they will pull the trigger if we don't save them from their own mistakes. That's pretty obvious but it's the first step. So, what caused this situation? Housing and real property values have risen astronomically bolstered by unfettered access to credit. People were given loans that they could never pay back and the sleaze bags that sold them these loans bunched them together to hide that they were bad investments and then gave them to ratings agency sleaze bags that told the whole world that this was some good shit. Then the poor people who were lied to about how much house they could afford in George Bush's "ownership society"start defaulting on their mortgages. Banks sit up and take notice and start forecasting falling profits and eventually losses and then admit that they don't know how many of these toxic mortgages are going to explode, but they have lots of em'. Opportunist investment bankers then short sell the stock of these banks. (Short selling is either complicated, or simple and commonplace depending on which economist you are talking to and their politics, but the basic explanation is investment bankers try to drive down the value of a stock in order to make a quick buck. They do this because they don't actually have jobs and don't contribute anything of value to society and can only destroy. Like little economic vampires in suspenders.)
So, you get to our current situation with overinflated housing values putting pressure on the markets because banks are so heavily invested in these things that aren't worth what they paid. Now they want the government, meaning the taxpayers, meaning you and me, to buy these worthless bundles of mortgages. They say this will set a bottom level price that they can always be sold to the government for, so that investors can never loose all the money they put into these mortgages, eliminating the mystery of whether the one they just bought will explode in their hands, thusly bolstering confidence in the market and loosening up credit so you and I can go back to buying 72" LCD TVs and leveraging our house to put a pool in our back yards. Thusly fueling the rampant over consumption that has fueled the economy.
Except maybe some of these banks should fail. Maybe an economy based on credit is inherently unstable. Maybe we shouldn't just go back to buying cheaply made garbage from overseas? Maybe these same people that have been pushing for deregulation and chanting the mantra of the free market, when suddenly faced with the terrifying face of the monster that is the free market, they let up a cry for socialism such that has not been heard since Lenin. These people who have played games with our retirement and destroyed the value of our employers and our homes want it both ways just as long as they don't have to feel the pinch. Analysts point out that CEO's of these failed banks are getting fired but mention golden parachutes to them and they begin to dissemble. It doesn't take an economics degree or an MBA to understand that if someone who made over a million dollars in income last year looses their job, they aren't going to loose their house or go hungry like the guy working down at the Ford plant in Cleveland, or the GM factory in Janesville. These guys on Wall Street are more out of touch with what middle class is then McCain. When was the last time an investment banker welded the bumper onto a car or pulled a ton of coal out of the Earth with only their sweat and muscle?
OK, I got distracted by class warfare there. Where does this $700 Bubble Burst Bailout Billion come from? It doesn't just come out of the ass of Johnny Taxpayer, it gets squeezed out of the value of the Dollar. What the markets and Paulson are asking congress to do is to transfer the overinflated value of housing and real property indirectly to the value of the dollar. Inflation. I am talking about inflation with a capital "I." The value of the dollar has been falling against other currencies over the course of this whole subprime crash and since commodities are pegged to the dollar it has fueled the rise in costs of oil and food and other basic essentials. So basically after destroying the value of our homes and companies, the Wall Street voodoo machine is going to destroy the value of our labor and the dollar. I think they are doing this because they know that their "labor" doesn't have any value.
Today is Labor Day, the Sunday night of all summer. Its still warm out but kids are back in school and the leaves will soon start to turn. That doesn't stop main street from thinking about the big sales figures it draws in for the Christmas season. Especially given the struggling U.S. economy. All summer long they groan in board rooms about slagging sales and strain their little MBA minds to come up with something original and every year the answer is to try to make the holiday season as long as possible.
This is all shit you have heard before. I am just here to vent my rage at seeing Halloween advertisements and sales on fucking Labor Day. All year long I wonder to my self why I have an irrational hatred for corporations despite being "libertarian" and then this shit happens and my rage boils up and I don't have a memory problem any more.
Look at that shit! Discount Halloween candy? That shit won't make it till the end of the month even if you don't eat it. But who fucking cares about that, you are giving it to other peoples kids. Why should you bother to have candy that isn't filled with moth larva after sitting in your kitchen for two months?
Instead of waiting for scenes of peaceful protesters being outnumbered and surrounded by riot control police, or being sprayed with a pepper spray cannon that looks like a fire extinguisher, or being callously shoved to the ground as was the case in Denver, the police in the greater Minneapolis/St. Paul area have been proactive in suppressing potential problems. Instead, they have staged a series of raids on houses and meeting places of potential protesters, and confiscated computers and written materials. Of those arrested so far, the only charge that has been brought forth is a constitutionally questionable charges of "conspiracy to incite a riot." The St. Paul police spokesman Tom Walsh said that the cause for the search warrants that police were executing is not public at this time. Also targeted in the raids were journalists from other parts of the country in the area to cover the protests.
The group targeted, the RNC Welcoming Committee, which describes itself as "anarchist/anti-authoritarian," was described by Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher as "a criminal enterprise made up of 35 self-described anarchists...intent on committing criminal acts before and during the Republican National Convention."
For a bit of editorializing, the police are engaged in an active campaign to block freedoms of speech and assembly, which form the cornerstone of representative democracy is unabashedly loathesome. The fact that only a handful of those detained have been arrested is a clear indication that the authorities in Ramsey County are limiting their actions to those which rest in the ambiguous grey margins of the law, as evidenced by use of the 'conspiracy to commit riot' charges.
That's what they used to call Wal-Mart where I grew up. I worked for Wal-Mart for two years in various departments so I know first hand about their anti-union practices, among other things. When I was first hired I was taken into the HR office where I was shown some orientation videos. These were poorly written propaganda where the opinion the company wished you to have was told to you with the not so subtle undertone that your job depended on not openly disagreeing. Mostly these videos cheered how great the founder was and how powerful and efficient the company is. Next they claimed that the dead-end job you were hired into was a golden ticket to the high life as long as you keep your head down and keep your mouth shut. The most inelegant of the propaganda videos was the anti-union video. It laid out Wal-Mart's corporate line on unions: unions will lie to you, you will pay huge dues and loose all your company benefits, unions don't help workers they are just out to run national political campaigns that are against your best interest. Even as a kid the threat wasn't lost on me. Wal-Mart was saying directly to each new hire, if you try to unionize we will take away the meager benefits we have graciously seen fit to give you. Any idiot could see that the benefits were terrible, dead peasant insurance and health care that only the management could afford. Wal-Mart is so anti union that they even closed a store where the employees voted to unionize in order to prevent the unions from getting a foot hold in the company. The Wall Street Journal recently ran an article detailing how Wal-Mart warned its employees against voting Democratic this fall while matching that with a renewed parroting of the company line against unions. The funny thing is that these speeches are probably the first thing most of these employees heard about the Free Choice Act. From my experience working at Wal-Mart the people there aren't particularly political and would have to be pretty fed up with working there to even be considering the union option enough to know about the Free Choice Act. I know its the first I have heard of it and extra publicity for the act is probably the last thing Wal-Mart wanted. What can you expect from a company that has such an unrefined propaganda machine?
It is repeated many places on the log cabin so I wont go into much detail here but it is important to recount what is bad about Wal-Mart. The low prices at Wal-Mart aren't from some magic that Sam Walton pulled out of his ass. Lowering prices to out perform your competition is an old tactic. the problem with it is that you cant do that forever unless you have some way of making your cost go down. Two ways Wal-Mart saves cost(lowers overhead) is by getting lower prices from manufacturers and reducing labor costs. They cut prices from manufacturers first by buying in huge volume, Wal-Mart is the largest retailer in the world and has the power to negotiate(dictate) their own prices from their suppliers. The problem with this is that the suppliers and manufacturers have their own costs to cover and in order to lower prices they have to close factories in the U.S. and send them overseas. Master lock is one brand this happened to, Wal-Mart also drove the entire television manufacturing industry overseas. This is one way Wal-Mart destroys American jobs and lowers the wage of the American worker. Wal-Mart keeps its labor costs low by paying a wage that is below the poverty level (a living wage in the U.S. is over $11/hour) and offering few benefits and pricing the benefits they do offer out of the reach of their average employees. Then they force the American taxpayer to subsidize their employees by referring them to state and federal well fare programs. Think that over, you are subsidizing Wal-Marts low prices and their astronomical profits with your taxes, whether or not you shop there. At about 4:30 into the video it gives you numbers on this.
When I first started working at Wal-Mart management at the store I worked at would wait till someone punched out at the end of their shift and then tell them to clean up a department before they left. At least they weren'tlocking us in overnight. There was an audit by the government and that practice stopped only to be followed by a tricky hiring practice. The manager didn't hire any full time employees. That alone saved on lunches since an eight hour employee gets two fifteen minute breaks and a half hour for lunch while a four hour employee gets only one fifteen minute break. It also saved on benefits since only full time employees were eligible for them. These new employees were all hired for the lowest paying job in the store and then trained for the jobs that got paid twenty five cents per hour more. That's a small dick in the ass of each employee but twenty five cents an hour for fifty employees over a an eighteen hour business day seven days a week adds up to over $80,000 in labor cost savings a year.
So Wal-Mart comes to town playing its game of dirty pool, drives local businesses out of business, and forces self sufficient former entrepreneurs to work for poverty wages while taking dollars out of the local economy and sending them to their corporate offices in Arkansas and overseas. That's why when people suggest I shop at Wal-Mart I say, "Sorry, I love America too much."
The headline here is basically the whole story. The most darkly humorous part of the story is the way the cops change their story when pressed and claim that the psychologically traumatized kid with the broken back was threatening them. But really they tazed him for his own good. You know, to keep him from hurting himself. Or is it even more tragically laughable that the effects of the electrocution delayed the boy's surgery by two days?
