I don't have much to say about this election. It is, however, a HUGE opportunity for the Republicans to regroup and figure out where they have gone astray.
This might help:
http://econmom.blogspot.com/2011/09/what-obama-doesnt-getand-what-he-does.html
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Monday, October 22, 2012
"Philosophizing" With Old Friends
Today I received an email from an old high school friend who I used to love to "philosophize" with.
My friend seems to identify with Romney's economic positions, and sent me a well written reponse to a question from one of his friends:
Why would people, especially conservatives, expect the president to help them get or keep a job? Do they not understand capitalism? i understand, but don't agree with, the liberal view of job creation through federal programs, but I thought that personal responsibility and achievement was a fundamental tenant of conservatism...
My friend had a great response, which I won't publish, because I don't have his consent, but it was an exchange which helped me clarify my thoughts, so I thought I would share my response to him:
My friend seems to identify with Romney's economic positions, and sent me a well written reponse to a question from one of his friends:
Why would people, especially conservatives, expect the president to help them get or keep a job? Do they not understand capitalism? i understand, but don't agree with, the liberal view of job creation through federal programs, but I thought that personal responsibility and achievement was a fundamental tenant of conservatism...
My friend had a great response, which I won't publish, because I don't have his consent, but it was an exchange which helped me clarify my thoughts, so I thought I would share my response to him:
In general, I agree with your logic. I also agree with the moral argument that it is immoral to take another man's wealth by force. Government should not be used to redistribute wealth without the consent of the governed. It is not only immoral, but inefficient. Any job the government "creates" is by definition a transfer payment. Someone else's taxes are footing the bill. (This does not mean those job's are not often valuable and necessary.) The thing is, the government does redistribute wealth and employ people. It has for years, regardless of which party was in power.
My issue is this: we do not have, and have not had a Capitalist economy for a very long time. We have a sort of hybrid economy. It has become a mix of, Socialism (state confiscating capital from individuals and corporations and redistributing it), Fascism (government supported industry), & Capitalism (yes, much free enterprise has survived).
http://econmom.blogspot.com/
When I hear the Republicans speak of how they are for a "free" economy, I can only think of the devastation (via bubbles - tech, housing etc.) that Greenspan's manipulation of interest rates (the price of money, if you will - a form of government price controls) has caused. Democrats are not alone in favoring certain industries over others. (farming & oil) Hank Paulson basically wrote TARP, which was essentially a government guarantee of the investment banking industry. These "Capitalists" were given a blank check by the Treasury to use trading equities in the stock market. This is where their subsequent "profits" have come from. (The ones they used to "repay" TARP.) When the moral underpinnings of Capitalism are sacrificed in order to gain government favor, the Republicans undercut their case for lower taxes. They cannot have their cake and eat it too.
When I hear the Republicans speak of how they are for a "free" economy, I can only think of the devastation (via bubbles - tech, housing etc.) that Greenspan's manipulation of interest rates (the price of money, if you will - a form of government price controls) has caused. Democrats are not alone in favoring certain industries over others. (farming & oil) Hank Paulson basically wrote TARP, which was essentially a government guarantee of the investment banking industry. These "Capitalists" were given a blank check by the Treasury to use trading equities in the stock market. This is where their subsequent "profits" have come from. (The ones they used to "repay" TARP.) When the moral underpinnings of Capitalism are sacrificed in order to gain government favor, the Republicans undercut their case for lower taxes. They cannot have their cake and eat it too.
Think about it: How can we have a free economy if the price of money itself is set by the government? This will remain the same if Obama or Romney wins the election.
I also disagree with the Democrats that "Capitalism" caused the crisis we are still enduring. How could it have when that is not what we had?
Our Government (both parties are responsible) has created an unsustainable system, similar to that in Europe, where an aging population and government payments are making our fiscal situation perilous.
This is where the pragmatist in me kicks in. See, if we cut entitlements as drastically as needs to be done without raising taxes on the very rich at all, the entire system may collapse. The poor, by definition, cannot pay for the gap, they have no money. As many as 47% of Americans pay no income tax. It simply isn't politically feasible to cut entitlements to these people, and raise their taxes at the same time...which is what would need to be done to close the gap if tax rates for the rich don't go up. It sucks, but it is sort of like this: if the very wealthy want to keep the system we have (the one in which they have created their wealth), they are going to have to pay more in taxes, at least temporarily. I cannot imagine what the masses will do to the system if their entitlements are cut without increased taxes on the very wealthy. (I am not saying this is "right", but it is what it is.) The messed up hybrid system we have created over the last 90 years has brought us here.
We witnessed the Socialist victories in France, Spain, and Greece a few months back. I fear if we don't come to some compromise (a balanced approach between entitlement cuts and tax increases for the very wealthy) that the very system that has helped create that wealth will cease to exist. Real Socialists will gain power and you will think Obama looks like Reagan compared to them. Any Capitalism that remains in the system will indeed be eliminated in such an environment, and I don't want to see this happen.
I just think Romney and Obama are not that different. I wouldn't have said that four years ago, but Obama's governance has been much more middle of the road than his rhetoric. (Perhaps because of the Republican congress - some times divided government is the best moderator of all.)
All that said, I am concerned with the Republican party's stance on religious issues. I want the government out of the bedroom as much as I want it out of my wallet. At this point I am not sure which party to be more afraid of.
So what's an independent to do?
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Simple: No
If life was simple, then we all would be. There is something in our world, our culture, that wants us to be simple, understandable, safe.
The truth is; we are not any of those things.
At least I know I am not. I was a Freshman in High School in Advanced English, when I wrote an essay entitled, "I Am Complex". I got an "A". It wasn't due to my writing skills, it was because what I said was true, not only of me, but of all human beings.
We are very complex. All the people I love in this world, and there are many, are very complex. I see them as beautiful, intricate beings that I have been blessed to know. They are not all good, or all bad. They are not always nice, they are not always cruel. They are not always loving, and they are not always mean. They are not always beautiful, and they are not always ugly. They are not always wise, and they are not always ignorant.
They are always perfect. Perfect as they are.
I feel so blessed, that even in the darkest hours, there is something inside which allows me to see the best in not only myself (believe me, I can be dark), but in all those I love.
Life is not simple, it is complex.
For some reason I knew this at 15. It was as true then as it is now.
Let us embrace the weird complexity that is US.
The truth is; we are not any of those things.
At least I know I am not. I was a Freshman in High School in Advanced English, when I wrote an essay entitled, "I Am Complex". I got an "A". It wasn't due to my writing skills, it was because what I said was true, not only of me, but of all human beings.
We are very complex. All the people I love in this world, and there are many, are very complex. I see them as beautiful, intricate beings that I have been blessed to know. They are not all good, or all bad. They are not always nice, they are not always cruel. They are not always loving, and they are not always mean. They are not always beautiful, and they are not always ugly. They are not always wise, and they are not always ignorant.
They are always perfect. Perfect as they are.
I feel so blessed, that even in the darkest hours, there is something inside which allows me to see the best in not only myself (believe me, I can be dark), but in all those I love.
Life is not simple, it is complex.
For some reason I knew this at 15. It was as true then as it is now.
Let us embrace the weird complexity that is US.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Minnesota Marriage Amendment
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Minnesota_Same-Sex_Marriage_Amendment_(2012)
"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God." - Albert Einstein 'The Human Side', 1954
I must speak out against the Minnesota Same-Sex Marriage Amendment. I feel a moral obligation to do so.
It seems as though the Republican party has been co-opted by the religious right, and for this reason I can no longer offer them any support. I never officially considered myself a Republican, but often voted Republican for economic reasons. Their economic ideology supports limiting the role of the government in our economy. In action, they have often failed to apply this ideology.
It is clear our economy is in a horrible state. Neither party is entirely to blame for this; both are responsible. Neither party has been able to fix it. This shifts my focus to different kinds of freedom, since neither party has been successful in ensuring our economic freedoms.
Constitutions are essentially rules governments operate by.
By amending Minnesota's constitution Republicans in the Minnesota legislature are attempting to change the role of the government itself. Our national Constitution was designed to LIMIT the power of government and PROTECT the rights and privileges of its citizens.
The Minnesota Marriage Amendment is designed to do just the opposite: it LIMITS the privileges of certain citizens (while granting them to others) and ENDOWS the State with power to discriminate based on sexual preference.
One could ask the question of whether any state should "support" or "recognize" marriage between either opposite or same-sex partners. I am sure there are many single taxpayers that would argue that married couples should not receive favorable tax treatment simply because of their lifestyle choices.
Whatever your view on this, the fact is that both state and federal governments do recognize marriage between a man and woman, and grant them financial and legal privileges based on their marital status. Therefore, denying those privileges to other married couples (based on gender) is discrimination.
At the core of the issue, we are speaking of the state affording certain privileges to some, and denying them to others, based on whether they have the same genitalia as the person they choose to marry.
The question then becomes, on what is that discrimination based? We all discriminate. Laws discriminate all the time. For example, there are different penalties for different types of crimes. In this case, the discrimination is based on a judgement of perhaps how much pain and suffering an action caused another, or perhaps the intent of the crime.
Marrying a person of the same gender is no crime. The state is discriminating if it denies the rights and privileges of marriage to same-sex couples while granting them to opposite-sex couples. The problem is this type of discrimination is based not on reason, but on prejudice, fear, and hatred.
A constitution is not a law, it establishes the basis for law. It is meant to protect and guarantee rights and privileges of individuals, not take them away. The constitution is supposed to protect people against an overzealous state; especially a state that has been hijacked by religious fanatics.
It is obvious that the Minnesota Marriage Amendment is based on religious beliefs. Our Federal constitution establishes the freedom to practice your religious beliefs, not the right to use the government to force your beliefs upon another.
Question: How does it harm anyone, anywhere, if same-sex married couples are afforded the same privileges by the state as opposite-sex couples?
Answer: IT DOESN'T.
VOTE NO! Minnesotans have a chance to be the first to defeat this type of hateful amendment.
"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God." - Albert Einstein 'The Human Side', 1954
I must speak out against the Minnesota Same-Sex Marriage Amendment. I feel a moral obligation to do so.
It seems as though the Republican party has been co-opted by the religious right, and for this reason I can no longer offer them any support. I never officially considered myself a Republican, but often voted Republican for economic reasons. Their economic ideology supports limiting the role of the government in our economy. In action, they have often failed to apply this ideology.
It is clear our economy is in a horrible state. Neither party is entirely to blame for this; both are responsible. Neither party has been able to fix it. This shifts my focus to different kinds of freedom, since neither party has been successful in ensuring our economic freedoms.
Constitutions are essentially rules governments operate by.
con·sti·tu·tion (k n st -t  sh n, -ty-)
a. The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution.
b. The document in which such a system is recorded.
c. Constitution The fundamental law of the United States, framed in 1787, ratified in 1789, and variously amended since then.
|
By amending Minnesota's constitution Republicans in the Minnesota legislature are attempting to change the role of the government itself. Our national Constitution was designed to LIMIT the power of government and PROTECT the rights and privileges of its citizens.
The Minnesota Marriage Amendment is designed to do just the opposite: it LIMITS the privileges of certain citizens (while granting them to others) and ENDOWS the State with power to discriminate based on sexual preference.
One could ask the question of whether any state should "support" or "recognize" marriage between either opposite or same-sex partners. I am sure there are many single taxpayers that would argue that married couples should not receive favorable tax treatment simply because of their lifestyle choices.
Whatever your view on this, the fact is that both state and federal governments do recognize marriage between a man and woman, and grant them financial and legal privileges based on their marital status. Therefore, denying those privileges to other married couples (based on gender) is discrimination.
At the core of the issue, we are speaking of the state affording certain privileges to some, and denying them to others, based on whether they have the same genitalia as the person they choose to marry.
The question then becomes, on what is that discrimination based? We all discriminate. Laws discriminate all the time. For example, there are different penalties for different types of crimes. In this case, the discrimination is based on a judgement of perhaps how much pain and suffering an action caused another, or perhaps the intent of the crime.
Marrying a person of the same gender is no crime. The state is discriminating if it denies the rights and privileges of marriage to same-sex couples while granting them to opposite-sex couples. The problem is this type of discrimination is based not on reason, but on prejudice, fear, and hatred.
A constitution is not a law, it establishes the basis for law. It is meant to protect and guarantee rights and privileges of individuals, not take them away. The constitution is supposed to protect people against an overzealous state; especially a state that has been hijacked by religious fanatics.
It is obvious that the Minnesota Marriage Amendment is based on religious beliefs. Our Federal constitution establishes the freedom to practice your religious beliefs, not the right to use the government to force your beliefs upon another.
Question: How does it harm anyone, anywhere, if same-sex married couples are afforded the same privileges by the state as opposite-sex couples?
Answer: IT DOESN'T.
VOTE NO! Minnesotans have a chance to be the first to defeat this type of hateful amendment.
Monday, August 20, 2012
The New Depression
I just read "The New Depression" by Richard Duncan. If you want to understand our current economy, it is a must read.
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000110331
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000110331
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Rally To Fall Apart
For the very few readers I have left (I apologize for my lack of posts), I wanted to update you on where I think the market is headed.
You won't be surprised to know I think the stock, bond, and commodity markets are SEVERELY over priced. We are headed for a fall that will decimate almost all asset prices.
Personally, I am outright short markets and individual stocks and in cash.*
As I have said before, we have just experienced a 30-40 yr bull cycle, driven by debt (credit expansion), central banks manipulation of money supply, demographics, and speculation.
The increase in prices of stocks, bonds and commodities we have seen since the 2009 bottom has not been driven by economic growth or value creation of any kind. It has been "created" by central governments around the world printing money. This money was given to the banking sector, and they have been speculating with it in the financial markets. I do not know how long this manipulation of markets can continue, but I can see that it unsustainable.
The suspension of "mark-to-market" accounting rules in March of 2009 was the catalyst for the current rally. Without this suspension, it would be apparent exactly how unhealthy our banks are.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=agfrKseJ94jc
In layman's terms: FAS (Financial Accounting Standard) 157, required banks to value their assets (mainly outstanding loans) quarterly by marking them to market. There is much debate about whether this practice exacerbated the 2008 financial crises. In my opinion, marking assets to market is an ESSENTIAL tool for determining the health of financial institutions, and provides information that is absolutely critical for investors to have if they are to buy stock in a financial institution.
The suspension of FAS 157 by the Financial Accounting Standards Board allowed, and continues to allow, financial institutions to lie about the value of the loans they hold on their books. This makes everybody feel better in the short run, because they can deny the fact that most of our large financial institutions are indeed insolvent.
Imagine if you could go to the bank and get a close to 0% loan, to use in anyway you pleased, with no collateral (or if collateral was required, you could just make up its value)! Now; imagine you could do this indefinitely, and when it became clear that you couldn't make the payments on this loan, the bank would just give you another one to use to pay the first, and there would be no impact on your credit rating. Would this affect your behavior at all?
Of course it would, and this is the current arrangement many large financial institutions have with their bank (The Federal Reserve).
Still think this rally is sustainable? Think again.
If you want to more information, or want to understand more about what caused the economic boom of the last 40 years or so, I recommend reading "The New Depression: The Breakdown of the Paper Money Economy" by Richard Duncan.
*As always, trade at your own risk. I am not advising you in any way. You should seek the advice of a financial professional for investment advice.
You won't be surprised to know I think the stock, bond, and commodity markets are SEVERELY over priced. We are headed for a fall that will decimate almost all asset prices.
Personally, I am outright short markets and individual stocks and in cash.*
As I have said before, we have just experienced a 30-40 yr bull cycle, driven by debt (credit expansion), central banks manipulation of money supply, demographics, and speculation.
The increase in prices of stocks, bonds and commodities we have seen since the 2009 bottom has not been driven by economic growth or value creation of any kind. It has been "created" by central governments around the world printing money. This money was given to the banking sector, and they have been speculating with it in the financial markets. I do not know how long this manipulation of markets can continue, but I can see that it unsustainable.
The suspension of "mark-to-market" accounting rules in March of 2009 was the catalyst for the current rally. Without this suspension, it would be apparent exactly how unhealthy our banks are.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=agfrKseJ94jc
In layman's terms: FAS (Financial Accounting Standard) 157, required banks to value their assets (mainly outstanding loans) quarterly by marking them to market. There is much debate about whether this practice exacerbated the 2008 financial crises. In my opinion, marking assets to market is an ESSENTIAL tool for determining the health of financial institutions, and provides information that is absolutely critical for investors to have if they are to buy stock in a financial institution.
The suspension of FAS 157 by the Financial Accounting Standards Board allowed, and continues to allow, financial institutions to lie about the value of the loans they hold on their books. This makes everybody feel better in the short run, because they can deny the fact that most of our large financial institutions are indeed insolvent.
Imagine if you could go to the bank and get a close to 0% loan, to use in anyway you pleased, with no collateral (or if collateral was required, you could just make up its value)! Now; imagine you could do this indefinitely, and when it became clear that you couldn't make the payments on this loan, the bank would just give you another one to use to pay the first, and there would be no impact on your credit rating. Would this affect your behavior at all?
Of course it would, and this is the current arrangement many large financial institutions have with their bank (The Federal Reserve).
Still think this rally is sustainable? Think again.
If you want to more information, or want to understand more about what caused the economic boom of the last 40 years or so, I recommend reading "The New Depression: The Breakdown of the Paper Money Economy" by Richard Duncan.
*As always, trade at your own risk. I am not advising you in any way. You should seek the advice of a financial professional for investment advice.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Women Hating Religious Fanatics
As anti-American as anything could be:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/15/world/africa/egypt-clinton/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
This article is BEYOND upsetting.
If the headline isn't upsetting enough, the neutral, politically correct tone the rest of the article takes is nothing short of infuriating.
What country do we live in?
Let's speak out against evil when we see it.
I told you the radicals were going to try to take over in Egypt. How do we like the look of their new Democracy?
Hitler was Democratically elected.
Never forget...we do not live in a Democracy, thank God. We live in a Republic, based on balanced rule, not mob rule. Our Republic is based on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These documents gave the North the moral authority to free the slaves even when the majority was against it.
Our Republic has moral authority because it asserts the rights of individual human beings to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, above mob rule, above any religion, and above collective rights.
Without this moral authority, which the new "Democracies" in the Middle East lack, they are nothing more than religious nation states ruled by the whims of the masses.
Do not mistake these movements in the Middle East for progress. The opposite may be true.
Remember Benazir Bhutto? Lara Logan? Google them yourself.
How sad.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/15/world/africa/egypt-clinton/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
This article is BEYOND upsetting.
If the headline isn't upsetting enough, the neutral, politically correct tone the rest of the article takes is nothing short of infuriating.
What country do we live in?
Let's speak out against evil when we see it.
I told you the radicals were going to try to take over in Egypt. How do we like the look of their new Democracy?
Hitler was Democratically elected.
Never forget...we do not live in a Democracy, thank God. We live in a Republic, based on balanced rule, not mob rule. Our Republic is based on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These documents gave the North the moral authority to free the slaves even when the majority was against it.
Our Republic has moral authority because it asserts the rights of individual human beings to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, above mob rule, above any religion, and above collective rights.
Without this moral authority, which the new "Democracies" in the Middle East lack, they are nothing more than religious nation states ruled by the whims of the masses.
Do not mistake these movements in the Middle East for progress. The opposite may be true.
Remember Benazir Bhutto? Lara Logan? Google them yourself.
How sad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
