“It is not because the truth is too difficult to see that we make mistakes… we make mistakes because the easiest and most comfortable course for us is to seek insight where it accords with our emotions – especially selfish ones.”
-Solzhenitsyn
(Thanks to reader, Sean)
The Renegade Economist takes apart Gordon Brown’s inane attempts to pretend he had no hand in the global financial collapse.
The morning mail can always be guaranteed to bring something out of the fever swamps. This one calls itself libertarian. But it shows every sign of a Stalinist disposition, down to the puerile and quasi-racist invective. I’ll parse it after I’ve had breakfast. Just a small sample of the abuse you get for pouring yourself near full time into enlightening people and supporting unpopular positions…when they are unpopular. This one doesn’t even write me a mail under his own name. And so far, his contribution to libertarianism seems to be confined to writing apoplectic email. Hmmm. I am usually less annoyed by such things. I really should go and get some coffee…
“It seems that your beloved barefoot snowbilly from Wasilla has not quite made it through “The Language of Empire” http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2009/09/07/from-the-people-and-sarah-palin-who-brought-us-the-iraq-war/ Do you still defend this vile, statist thug? Will I STILL see more stupid LRC posts in the near future? I have a question. If I asked you to choose a position on the the Socialist-Corporatist TARP Program (I call it the TARD program, for obvious reasons), would your position be closest to… A) “This whole situation is a perfect demonstration of why “doing nothing” and letting failing companies fail would have been much better than sinking valuable money and resources into them.” or B) “inaction is not an option we have got to shore up our economy… ultimately what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy um helping the… oh – its gotta be all about job creation too – shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So healthcare reform and reducing taxes and reigning in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans and trade we’ve got to see trade as opportunity not as competitive um scary thing but one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today we we’ve got to look at that as more opportunity – all those things under the umbrella of job creation – this bailout is a part of that.” I will give you a hint. The first statement was made by a principled Libertarian, and the second statement was made by an idiot. What if that idiot also “managed a 6 percent increase in part of the state’s budget, as well as being responsible for a windfall tax on oil companies—much like that proposed by Democrats” and gave their state “some of the highest resource taxes in the world”? Do you still defend this vile, statist thug?”
My Comment:
First. Nowhere have I written that I support Sarah Palin’s positions. I’ve clearly stated “I am no fan of hers”. I thought she was unqualified…besides having some criticisms of her personal choices that may or may not be relevant to her candidacy as Vice-President. As a long-time (since 1991) antiwar activist, I obviously don’t support her pro-war position. But let’s see, exactly who were the choices? McCain, Biden, Obama…yes , wow, a bunch of peaceniks, all. I supported only one person this time around – that’s Ron Paul. In 2004, I supported any third party candidate, including Nader. Not because of lack of principle, or because I agree with all of Nader’s positions, but on the principle of support for any one opposed to the status quo. I stand by those positions.
I was opposed to the war in Yugoslavia, when many people thought it was a good war. I opposed the First Gulf War and the Second, as well as the sanctions, when hardly anyone talked about them (in 1995). I’ve signed petitions/letters in support of people as different in their politics as Norman Finkelstein and Ward Churchill, on one hand, and Hans Hoppe on the other. I’ve written in support of Jerry Falwell when he was attacked personally. I also defended Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Sonia Gandhi when they were attacked personally. And, I defended Sarah Palin. No candidate for public office (or anyone else) for that matter, deserves to be trashed personally in such a racial, sexual, and classist way.
Demonizing them as though they were each a mini-Attila the Hun is an exercise in silliness. These politicians are run-of-the-mill people, no worse nor better than those around them. I will bet “principled libertarian” above would never dream of criticizing the people pushing the war on terror – the neo-conservative cabal running the government. Oh no. That would never happen.
And I’ll bet he wouldn’t call them the translation of “Wasilly snowbilly” that would apply to neo-conservatives.
I wrote about Goldman Sachs – more than two years ago – “Why It’s Time to Sell Goldman.”And I’ve written dozens of pieces and posts about them since. A piece I wrote last year was the first to tie Goldman to AIG (“Putting Lipstick on an AIG”). And I took TARP apart almost as soon as it came out.
But I guess, actually reading what people wrote would be asking too much from the underworld of internet forums.
Sorry to be so dour. But reading this sort of thing, I wonder why anyone should bother. Why inform people about the malignant lot at the top? The people at the bottom seem pretty malignant too…
On my darker days, I wonder if they don’t deserve each other…
From The Third World Institute’s Choike program, here’s a recent report that World Bank and International Finance Corporation (IFC) head Robert Zoellick has agreed to suspend World Bank/IFC financing of the agrofuel sector (oil palm, in this case) in Indonesia, in response to activists’ concerns about environmental degradation and social troubles:
“In response to an appeal by a global coalition of NGOs, IFC / World Bank President Robert Zoellick has agreed to suspend IFC funding of the oil palm sector pending the development of a revised strategy for dealing with the troubled sector.
The response follows a highly critical audit by the IFC’s independent ‘complaints advisory ombudsman’ which had shown that, as claimed by the NGOs, IFC funding of the Wilmar Group had violated the IFC’s own procedures, and commercial concerns had been allowed to override the IFC’s environmental and social standards.”
My Comment:
The IFC is an arm of the World Bank group and is based in Washington, DC. It differs from the World Bank in being entirely private and for-profit and in not being backed by sovereign (i.e. government) guarantees. It’s focus is on investment in the private sector in emerging markets.
This will be a big blow to top agro-fuels producer Singapore-based Wilmar International, whose business activities in Sumatra and Kalimantan have provoked complaints from some 19 environmental groups, plantation small holders, and indigenous people’s organizations:
“IFC’s ombudsman had conducted an audit following the NGO complaints and found that IFC funding of Wilmar International, listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange, had violated IFC’s procedures and commercial concerns had been allowed to override IFC environmental and social standards.
The ombudsman’s report was released earlier this month and focused on four financing arrangements made by the IFC between 2003 and 2008 in favor of Wilmar International, which runs more than 200,000 hectares of palm oil plantations in Indonesia and Malaysia.
IFC had earlier agreed to provide the company with US$33.3 million in investment guarantees and $17.5 million in loans over five year.” (Jakarta Post, Sept 14, 09)
Wilmar is also the supplier of cheap palm kernel that’s used to feed cows by New Zealand dairy giant Fonterra. Fonterra uses 1/4 of the world’s palm kernel – a trade that has drawn fire from NZ environmental groups, which call it a national scandal that a company in a country known for its environmental quality should be doing business with a corporation they describe as destroying Malaysian and Indonesia rain-forest at unsustainable rates.
From Dissident Voice, a piece by Joseph Grosso on the drug companies’ recreation of the definition of disease:
“This year will see the publication of the new edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V), the field bible for mental health professionals. If earlier editions are any indication the latest one will feature and slew of newly established disorders all to be treated with the latest anti-depressants or anti-psychotics……
Other disorders, both mental and physical, conjured up or legitimized in recent years include Social Anxiety Disorder, Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder, Irritable Bowl Syndrome, Estrogen Deficiency disease, Osteoporosis, not to mention the always stretching boundaries of ADD (see Adult ADD) and ADHD to include more and more drug takers. It can’t be said that the effort of branding new disorders and expanding the very concept of what disease is has been a failure for the drug companies. Prescription drug use has skyrocketed over the past two decades. Americans now spend money on prescription drugs in amounts that equal or surpass the amount spent on higher education and automobiles. Their profits enable to have a death lock over the country’s political process. The predictable flipside being that, according to a 2005 survey by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse the number of Americans who admitted to abusing prescription drugs doubled from 1992-2003.
While American children living in the suburbs get pumped with medication for all sorts of overstated or marketed illnesses, children living in the planet’s rapidly expanding slums perish of preventable digestive-tract diseases rooted in contaminated drinking water and overall polluted conditions. In sub-Saharan Africa alone neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) are the most common conditions affecting the region’s poorest 500 million people. A recent assessment published in the journal PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases estimates that hookworm, an infection that weakens immune systems and causes anemia, occurs in 40-50 million school aged children. Schistosomiasis, the second most prevalent NTD claims 192 million victims and is ‘possibly associated with increased horizontal transmission of HIV/AIDS.’ There are many others (Lymphatic filariasis, onchocerciasis, roundworm) often overlapping in the same individuals. Why put all of them under the banner of ‘Neglected’? The WHO webpage puts it thusly:
The misery caused by neglected tropical diseases is largely hidden. Affected people live almost exclusively in remote rural areas and sprawling shantytowns, where lack of safe drinking water, poor education, poor sanitation, substandard housing and where access to health care may be virtually non-existent… Neglect also occurs at the level of research and development. The incentive to develop new diagnostic tools, drugs, and vaccines is low for diseases with a market that cannot pay…”
From The New York Times blog, a round-up of reasons why American Jews have identified so much with liberalism.
There’s a moment of candid speaking from the arch neo-conservative himself:
“Liberalism, he [Norman Podhoretz] argues, “is not, as has often been said, merely a necessary component of Jewishness: it is the very essence of being a Jew. Nor is it a ‘substitute for religion,’ it is a religion in its own right, complete with its own catechism and its own dogmas and obdurately resistant to facts that undermine its claims and promises.”
Michael Medved, the conservative cultural critic, goes past ‘support for Israel’ as the irreducible core of Jewish political belief:
“Jews, like all Americans, vote not so much in favor of politicians they admire as they vote against causes and factions they loathe and fear. Jews fear the GOP as the “Christian party,” and as the sole basis of Jewish identity involves rejection of Christianity, Jews will continue to reject – Republicans and conservatism.”
This is territory most non-Jewish writers would hesitate to explore for fear of being labeled anti-Semitic. But the more relevant question might be whether it’s completely accurate. A liberal commentator, Ron Rosenbaum diverges. He has another explanation of Jewish liberalism:
“I won’t say that it isn’t difficult, that there aren’t contradictions with being Jewish and liberal, but I’d rather associate my political orientation with those who supported the Civil Rights movement than with those who have yet to repudiate the racism behind the Southern strategy.”
Another writer, Robert McCain, adds the suburban-urban divide to the mix:
“Most American Jews are fundamentally urban in their orientation, while most American conservatives are fundamentally rural.”
My Comment:
It’s an interesting piece to read, but for me it raises a question about definitions. Most Jewish people might identify with liberalism. But is liberalism itself identified with Jewishness? I may be wrong, but surely it’s not. And surely a great deal of the purported venom of liberalism against Christianity arises from Gentiles.... from former Christians….from lapsed Christians…or from cultural or secularized Christians who loathe the religious aspects of their culture.
Now Mike Duvall admits to “inappropriate story-telling” but denies having had an affair with either of the two lobbyists. That denial is seconded by Ms. Barsuglia. The man to whom he told the story now denies hearing it. He wasn’t paying attention, he says. Duvall talks a lot.
We were wondering ourselves…..
If the denials are accurate, it looks like Ms. Barsuglia and her family might have a case for defamation.
We’re all agog.
And we have another question: Just what level of IQ does it take to be a California assemblyman?
We’re all agog about that too.
Many’s the time we’ve seen a female employee slandered for no more than being more personable and competent than the males around her. Her career is then almost sure to be attributed to her sexual wiles.
If Duvall is any indication, there seem to be married men whose rich imaginations don’t come equipped with the ethical compass that tells them that dragging your associates into your adolescent fantasies does irreparable damage to their professional credibility and personal reputation.
If the denials hold water, Ms. Barsuglia should be paid substantially for the damage done to her career and her family’s sensibilities.
Of course, the denials may not hold water.
Portfolio.com has a neat interactive feature, “The Green Miles,” by Jocelyn Hanamirian,that shows you what the government’s debt would look like if it were stretched bill by bill across the solar system.
The Bear Stearns buy-out, at $29 billion, for example, takes us just past the moon.
The 2009 federal budget deficit, at $1.2 trillion, takes us past the sun.
My piece on Team Obama’s propaganda effort on behalf of its economic interventions,
“Green Shoots and White Lies,” is up at Lew Rockwell this morning.
I’m posting the part that sums up a few of the biggest whoppers the administration is pushing to get those old animal spirits juiced up again. Will the PR work? Well, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the public. Tell a lie big enough and tell it often enough and people will buy it.
White Hats Telling White Lies:
Fudge One:
Goldman Sachs had a great quarter, making a profit of $3.5 billion and the government made $1.4 billion on its investment in Goldman Sachs. The government also got a 15% return on its investment in the eight biggest banks.
Truth:
Goldman had a great quarter only because it moved its reporting calendar to cut out December 2008, when it had a loss. And the government only made a profit on the TARP money it gave to Goldman because
* It funneled more money via the bailout of insurance giant AIG to AIGs counterparties, including Goldman (which took in $13 billion of the AIG money).
* Warren Buffett made a pre-TARP financial investment in Goldman.
* Goldman got the benefit of exceptionally low interest rates from the government at the expense of savers and to the benefit of borrowers.
* Goldman was issued FDIC-guaranteed bonds.
Without that extra welfare thrown at it, Goldman would actually be broke, not showing a profit. Ditto for the other banks.
Fudge Two:
The labor market is getting better because jobs are growing. The unemployment rate fell from 9.5% in June to 9.4% in July.
Truth:
That number only shows a slowing in the growth of unemployment. And even that small improvement has been offset by other aspects of the labor market that are worsening quite sharply:
* The duration of unemployment is increasing
* Temporary jobs are declining.
* The percentage of the eligible population receiving unemployment insurance has increased (0.1 percentage point to 4.7%. by September).
* The four-week moving average of initial claims has moved to its highest level in a month.
Even when jobs have been added, they’ve been created by government spending and they’ve been in areas like education, health, and government. In the purely private economy, in manufacturing, construction and retail, job losses have been huge. (“Brown manure not green shoots,” Nouriel Roubini, Forbes, July 9, 2009.)
Note: Recent improvement in the ISM (Institute of Supply Management) Index that signals expansion of production (and thus hiring) also needs to be discounted against the huge price inflation an increasingly pressured dollar will entail. That’s beside the effects of a hike in the Federal Funds rate that’s bound to follow a dollar-crashing scenario.
Note: The ISM is a leading indicator of executive expectations for future productions, orders, inventories, hiring, and deliveries.
Fudge Three:
Increases in real personal income in April and May will increase consumer spending.
Truth:
The increases were caused by tax-rebates and unemployment benefits kicking in, and most of it was saved, not spent (80 cents on the dollars). There was a temporary lift in consumer spending, but it petered out quickly. And as unemployment rises, benefits decline, and credit tightens in the future, consumption will decline even further
Fudge Four:
The bank stress tests came out better than expected.
The bank stress tests led Ben Bernanke to conclude that nearly all of the banks had enough capital to absorb higher losses should the economy worsen, and that the Treasury stood ready to provide more.
(AFP, “Hope is alive for green shoots,” May 11, 2009)
Truth:
The bank stress tests used an unemployment figure of 10.3% (the most adverse case). But unemployment is likely to be 11% and above by next year. If you take into account discouraged and partially employed workers, some economists suggest the figure is more likely to be 16%.
Another point. The stress tests overlooked all the other ways in which the government was paying for the banks, through FDIC guarantees and cheaper loans, for instance.
Fudge Five:
The housing market is improving.
In July, the Pending Home Sales Index was up 3.2%. Another improvement was in the value of U.S. homes. In the second quarter that number fell year-on-year (the 10th consecutive quarterly decline), but it fell by a smaller amount than in the previous quarter, for the first time since 2007.
Truth:
The improvement in home sales has been mostly in the lower end of the market and it largely reflects foreclosure sales and government credit, not real improvement in the market.
The slowdown in price decline has been offset by negatives in other areas:
* 23% of all homeowners owe more on their mortgages than their houses are worth.
* 22% of all home sales nationwide in June were foreclosure resales.
* 29.2 percent of all homes sold in June were sold for less than the owners originally paid.
(Portfolio.com August 11, 2009)
Loan problems aren’t confined to subprime. Prime mortgages are going underwater too.
Meanwhile, the market also has to deal with the decline in commercial real estate, which is undergoing one of the greatest contractions in retail in decades. Rents, even in the best urban shopping districts, have been declining.
(Colliers International Spring 2009 Retail Report, May 14, 2009).
Beyond commercial real estate, there are also all the other plagues about to visit us, when personal loans, auto loans, and student loans tighten over the coming years.
Bottom line?
There is no real basis for sustained optimism about the economy yet.