Reuters reports that today (Friday, 4/10) Obama is holding a meeting to see whaddup with the recent "stress tests" of the major banks that we've poured our billions into. These tests, I understand, are to determine to what extent the banks are viable commercial entities, worthy of our continued bailout. But look at who's in the meeting: Summers, Geithner, Bernanke--the ususal suspects. My fear about whether Obama is getting the "rest of the story," as Paul Harvey used to say, is buttressed by Obama's admission, during a 60-Minutes interview, that he'd had to forego much outside reading lately, relying chiefly of his staffs' "briefing books."
I think he'd be better served reading Newsweek or Common Dreams, or Truthout--any place that presents a different view: that the traditional banks, having so depleted themselves by immersion in fantasy debt instruments, are valueless and that it's time to admit it and deal with it by tearing them into viable commercial banks, holding depositors' deposits and investing them prudently. In other words, Obama, be a man, take a stand. It's no longer business as usual in the business of money-changing. It's time to throw the money-changers out of the temple and get on with truthful earning and responsible, fair and decent investing.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Long, but to the point
An astute, devastating analysis of the world economic downturn by Simon Johnson in the Atlantic, not for the faint of heart, but for the revolutionary, really good stuff.
Monday, April 06, 2009
Friday, April 03, 2009
Oh ye of little faith
Let's see: Krugman says Obama's plans aren't socialist enough. Stiglitz agrees, and adds that they're not big enough. Two Nobel laureattes in economics. And Sarkozy of France, at the London summit, says the Gang (oops, Group) of 20's plans aren't revolutionary enough.
Who you going to believe, them or your lying eyes?
Who you going to believe, them or your lying eyes?
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Am I missing something?
Why isn't Ralph Nader's solution to the burgeoning federal deficit the "fair and balanced"--and obvious--answer?
Monday, March 23, 2009
Letter to the News-Press editor
Here's a letter I wrote to the Santa Barbara News-Press. I'll update this post if and when it gets published. Update: It was published on March 29, 2009.
I'm a Kool-Aid swigging Obama-devotee and therefore, on balance, I think he's doing his best, given that the Bush administration dealt him the ugliest possible hand. The operative words, however, are "his best,” because, not being a dictator, he still confronts—and so far has well adapted to—political realities, including, among others, the instinctive recalcitrance of blue-dog Democrats to “liberal” ideas, the sniping intolerance of Foxcasters to anything posited by any Democrat, and the fear-based resistance of embedded capitalists to any proposal that constrains their greed.
But two facets of Obama’s leadership nevertheless trouble me. First, his accommodation of the military. To be sure, it's early in his tenure, but I yearn to hear from Obama what President Eisenhower acknowledged in his farewell address, namely, that our nation is in the grips of a military-industrial complex that must be reined in, and that it is as much the cause of, as it is the solution to, our international problems. And second, his assumption that we might spend our way out of our present economic malaise. Rather, I want him to express, fully and frankly, that America’s decades-long materialist madness, fed by its addictive credit-reliance, both of which are promoted by mass media to engorge corporate profit—are over. I want Obama to tell us what we Americans must learn anew—because when America began, we knew it—namely, that in order to prosper we must live within our borders and our means.
I'm a Kool-Aid swigging Obama-devotee and therefore, on balance, I think he's doing his best, given that the Bush administration dealt him the ugliest possible hand. The operative words, however, are "his best,” because, not being a dictator, he still confronts—and so far has well adapted to—political realities, including, among others, the instinctive recalcitrance of blue-dog Democrats to “liberal” ideas, the sniping intolerance of Foxcasters to anything posited by any Democrat, and the fear-based resistance of embedded capitalists to any proposal that constrains their greed.
But two facets of Obama’s leadership nevertheless trouble me. First, his accommodation of the military. To be sure, it's early in his tenure, but I yearn to hear from Obama what President Eisenhower acknowledged in his farewell address, namely, that our nation is in the grips of a military-industrial complex that must be reined in, and that it is as much the cause of, as it is the solution to, our international problems. And second, his assumption that we might spend our way out of our present economic malaise. Rather, I want him to express, fully and frankly, that America’s decades-long materialist madness, fed by its addictive credit-reliance, both of which are promoted by mass media to engorge corporate profit—are over. I want Obama to tell us what we Americans must learn anew—because when America began, we knew it—namely, that in order to prosper we must live within our borders and our means.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
I'm frightened
I'm no economist, that's for sure, but it's possible the Obama people are treating our financial problems as stemming from a "liquidity crisis" as opposed to what some experts, including Paul Krugman, deem an "insolvency crisis." The difference, as explained (and predicted as long ago as the fall of 2007) by Nouriel Roubini is critical. It means, in essence, that all the money we're throwing at the banks to make them "liquid"--with money to lend--isn't going to deal with the fundamental issue: they're broke.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Wait and see
Let's hope the US under Obama treats the new leftist government of El Salvador with civility. A good early test of the administration's posture on South and Central America and their moves to the left.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Saturday, March 07, 2009
The second amendment
When I read a story like this, it makes me certain that until guns are banned altogether, I better get one myself.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
I hate to bring this up, but..
the death of US troops in Iraq is continuing unabated, at about fifteen per month for the last several months, including three soldiers killed yesterday in Diyala Province. And, of course, not a peep about this in the corporate media.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Gee, Officer Krupke
I actually watched this on Your Hit Parade on "live" television (as if there were any other kind). It was a marvel at the time, spellbinding. We'd wait and wonder what song was atop the "hit parade" each week. No wonder I'm fucked up.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
No wonder Bill Clinton's got religion
In his home state, an atheist can't hold public office or testify in court, as explicitly stated in the Arkansas constitution. Omigod!
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
An observation about the Republican "opposition"
Only three out of more than 230 Republican legislators in the US Congress voted in favor of the "stimulus package." Their plain intent was to vote "no" so that should the economy continue its downward spiral they would be in a position to claim "I told you so." And, if it needs to be said, it is likely the downward spiral will continue, possibly to the bottom, because of self-reinforcing effects of the disastrous policies adopted by our lawmakers over the last several years.
Here's an example of such a spiral. We've long known that the production of beef as a foodstuff for humans in a monstrously wasteful use of the planet's resources because of the fuels and materials to feed the cattle, butcher them, transport and market the meat. Indeed, there is no facet of that industry that isn't bloated with excess input, compared to the caloric result in the form of human food. However, Americans' fixation on meat is almost hard-wired, a product of centuries of dominance of the agriculture and cattle industries in our nation.
At the same time, we've found that the worldwide demand for petroleum products to run our transport and industry has driven many to turn to "biofuels" as a source of energy, with, however, the consequence that the increased demand for corn and grain to make biofuels has driven up the price of the very products that for years have been used as fodder for both beef cattle and dairy herds. Indeed, of late, California dairy farmers have been killing their dairy cows because (1) the worldwide recession has driven down the price they get for milk, while (2) the cost to feed the dairy cows has increased beyond the price the milk demands on the open market. Result: Farmers are simply killing their cattle because they can't afford to keep feeding them for either milk production or beef. And of course with the diminished amounts of money in the hands of consumers due to the economic downturn, the prospect of an increased demand for such foodstuffs anytime soon is unlikely at best, so that the cattle-reduction, for both beef and milk, will likely continue for some time, possibly until that industry too becomes a recession liability.
Bottom line: The Republicans may have made the right political choice in opposing the stimulus. They've so wrecked the world economy--they've created so many ruinous loops like the cattle-debacle--that the smart money is indeed riding on failure of the stimulus, and they can regain credibility, if not governing status, by having opposed it.
Here's an example of such a spiral. We've long known that the production of beef as a foodstuff for humans in a monstrously wasteful use of the planet's resources because of the fuels and materials to feed the cattle, butcher them, transport and market the meat. Indeed, there is no facet of that industry that isn't bloated with excess input, compared to the caloric result in the form of human food. However, Americans' fixation on meat is almost hard-wired, a product of centuries of dominance of the agriculture and cattle industries in our nation.
At the same time, we've found that the worldwide demand for petroleum products to run our transport and industry has driven many to turn to "biofuels" as a source of energy, with, however, the consequence that the increased demand for corn and grain to make biofuels has driven up the price of the very products that for years have been used as fodder for both beef cattle and dairy herds. Indeed, of late, California dairy farmers have been killing their dairy cows because (1) the worldwide recession has driven down the price they get for milk, while (2) the cost to feed the dairy cows has increased beyond the price the milk demands on the open market. Result: Farmers are simply killing their cattle because they can't afford to keep feeding them for either milk production or beef. And of course with the diminished amounts of money in the hands of consumers due to the economic downturn, the prospect of an increased demand for such foodstuffs anytime soon is unlikely at best, so that the cattle-reduction, for both beef and milk, will likely continue for some time, possibly until that industry too becomes a recession liability.
Bottom line: The Republicans may have made the right political choice in opposing the stimulus. They've so wrecked the world economy--they've created so many ruinous loops like the cattle-debacle--that the smart money is indeed riding on failure of the stimulus, and they can regain credibility, if not governing status, by having opposed it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
