Most of you are likely familiar with UK/Harvard historian Niall Ferguson. Here is a connection to an interview with him tonight on CBC Radio, and here is the intro:
"The events of the past week reinforce the views of my next guest who believes China may soon be the world's dominant economy. Niall Ferguson is a historian at Harvard University who specializes in financial and economic history . He's the author of many books, most recently, Civilization. We reached Niall Ferguson in Baishan, China."
If you link to the interview you'll also notice a link to an interview with Clyde Prestowitz, a rather conservative American I admire, who speaks to US foreign policy. Happy listening.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Damned if you don't
Even in the mean, scummy world of American presidential campaigns, there are few examples of behavior more scurrilous than the personal attacks on Barack Obama and his wife and children. Central to the defamation were the attacks on his religion, descriptions of which which ranged from radical Christian anti-white crusades to militant, anti-Christian Islam. Of course these attacks are ongoing and virulent even while such a potential candidate as Mitt Romney is feigning shock and dismay at what seems to be a largely non-existent attack against him and his Mormon affiliations.
In a lurid article at Politico, titled Obama Plan: destroy Romney, Ben Smith and Jonathan Martin try to convince us that the Obama campaign staff is planning unconscionable and personal attacks on Romney's religion and character.
Shocking, I know. That sort of thing never happens in America and Republican campaigns never, ever fabricate stories about the war records or terrorist affiliations or high crimes or foreign influences or membership in weird religious cults or even the citizenship of their opponents.
None the less, there was an anonymous source or two we must trust as well as we trust the journalistic integrity of Politico. It's just political reality, says the article. He can't campaign on accomplishments so he has to get dirty and therefore he's already dirty. Seems logical even if it isn't actually the truth, much less fair or balanced reporting.
No, he has little choice so he's already guilty of what we predict he will do: he'll be as bad as we Republicans. Those dirty Democrats want to go after Romney's poor record of getting rich while eliminating jobs as CEO of Bain Capital, for instance. They'd like to portray him as "weird" and personally awkward, and even stiff, perhaps like John Kerry was said to be by his GOP opponents. That's slashing for ya! And what about 'Romneycare' in Massachusetts?
Weird. It's a word used often by Obama campaign headquarters we're told. " there’s not a lot to like about Mitt Romney,” said Pete Giangreco who worked on Obama's 2008 campaign;
Of course the Romneyites are already calling Obama "disgraceful" for doing what he hasn't done but they predict he will do since they've backed him into a corner -- and their outrage is justifiable. What could be worse, from a Republican perspective, than Democrats doing what Republicans did? And not actually having done it is no excuse! What could be worse than interrupting the personal attack on Obama with an attack on Romney, even if the personal attack on Romney as a "weird" Mormon is a fabrication?
But perhaps here's the grounds for impeachment they've been looking for since the day the oath of office was administered (improperly, they say.) Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) told a Tea Party rally that impeachment "needs to happen" but when asked for the grounds, he had to dissemble since bribery, treason and such things are hard to substantiate in the absence of guilt. Hey, use your imagination, Mike. Just predict he will!
In a lurid article at Politico, titled Obama Plan: destroy Romney, Ben Smith and Jonathan Martin try to convince us that the Obama campaign staff is planning unconscionable and personal attacks on Romney's religion and character.
Shocking, I know. That sort of thing never happens in America and Republican campaigns never, ever fabricate stories about the war records or terrorist affiliations or high crimes or foreign influences or membership in weird religious cults or even the citizenship of their opponents.
None the less, there was an anonymous source or two we must trust as well as we trust the journalistic integrity of Politico. It's just political reality, says the article. He can't campaign on accomplishments so he has to get dirty and therefore he's already dirty. Seems logical even if it isn't actually the truth, much less fair or balanced reporting.
"And so the candidate who ran on “hope” in 2008 has little choice four years later but to run a slashing, personal campaign aimed at disqualifying his likeliest opponent."
No, he has little choice so he's already guilty of what we predict he will do: he'll be as bad as we Republicans. Those dirty Democrats want to go after Romney's poor record of getting rich while eliminating jobs as CEO of Bain Capital, for instance. They'd like to portray him as "weird" and personally awkward, and even stiff, perhaps like John Kerry was said to be by his GOP opponents. That's slashing for ya! And what about 'Romneycare' in Massachusetts?
Weird. It's a word used often by Obama campaign headquarters we're told. " there’s not a lot to like about Mitt Romney,” said Pete Giangreco who worked on Obama's 2008 campaign;
“There’s no way to hide this guy and hide his innate phoniness.”Calling a candidate a phony just for being against what he used to be for? I mean how far below the belt will they punch? An "unidentified" source even suggested that Romney's personal awkwardness might turn off some voters -- outrageous!
"In a move that will make some Democrats shudder, Obama’s high command has even studied former President George W. Bush’s 2004 takedown of Sen. John Kerry."says Politico. I admit - I'm shuddering, but with laughter.
Of course the Romneyites are already calling Obama "disgraceful" for doing what he hasn't done but they predict he will do since they've backed him into a corner -- and their outrage is justifiable. What could be worse, from a Republican perspective, than Democrats doing what Republicans did? And not actually having done it is no excuse! What could be worse than interrupting the personal attack on Obama with an attack on Romney, even if the personal attack on Romney as a "weird" Mormon is a fabrication?
But perhaps here's the grounds for impeachment they've been looking for since the day the oath of office was administered (improperly, they say.) Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) told a Tea Party rally that impeachment "needs to happen" but when asked for the grounds, he had to dissemble since bribery, treason and such things are hard to substantiate in the absence of guilt. Hey, use your imagination, Mike. Just predict he will!
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Right but wrong
You could fault Ron Paul for stating the obvious, but hey, somebody has to do it. Should the country try to save it's triple A rating with Moody's? Why bother when those helium-filled bond ratings proved to be based on politics and greed and by giving investors false confidence, helped precipitate the market collapse of 2008?
said Dr. Paul on Bloomberg TV yesterday. Of course it is, but is he doing the same thing?
But I'm not sure that I agree with the rest of his assessment: that the country is insolvent and bankrupt and got that way by excessive spending on the health and welfare of Americans. It's a bit like telling your spouse that the family could go to Disneyland more often if they weren't saddled with life insurance and a retirement savings plan, but I don't think one can rightly compare the financial problems of an individual or a family with the problems of a country in such a simplistic fashion.
One becomes insolvent and enters bankruptcy because one's income is insufficient to be able to manage one's debt. An individual does not always have control over how much money he makes; can't always find a job, can't always be healthy enough to work, can't always pay medical bills.
That's not so with a government. Our revenue shortfall is in some large part voluntary; an effort to "starve the beast" by thwarting its ability to run programs that the electorate voted for. That attempt is also a bit of political theater with a lot of smokey pyrotechnics and a bit of dramatic hand waving involved so as to obscure the fact that very low taxes on large incomes do not raise revenue, by magic transfer from the people who put much of their incomes into hedge funds and equities to the people who spend most of their incomes on food and shelter.
So yes, Social Security, a government program that did much to create the Middle class and take tens of millions of older people out of abject poverty, is going to run out of funds eventually because they're going to make it run out of funds so that they can do away with it. So yes, it's also political theater designed to create fear and panic, but perhaps the word 'theater' isn't quite strong enough. I'd call it a scam.
“I always wonder about this ratings, the bond ratings before the crash three years ago wasn’t helpful, so sometimes I wonder if it’s political theater to build up the fear.”
said Dr. Paul on Bloomberg TV yesterday. Of course it is, but is he doing the same thing?
But I'm not sure that I agree with the rest of his assessment: that the country is insolvent and bankrupt and got that way by excessive spending on the health and welfare of Americans. It's a bit like telling your spouse that the family could go to Disneyland more often if they weren't saddled with life insurance and a retirement savings plan, but I don't think one can rightly compare the financial problems of an individual or a family with the problems of a country in such a simplistic fashion.
One becomes insolvent and enters bankruptcy because one's income is insufficient to be able to manage one's debt. An individual does not always have control over how much money he makes; can't always find a job, can't always be healthy enough to work, can't always pay medical bills.
That's not so with a government. Our revenue shortfall is in some large part voluntary; an effort to "starve the beast" by thwarting its ability to run programs that the electorate voted for. That attempt is also a bit of political theater with a lot of smokey pyrotechnics and a bit of dramatic hand waving involved so as to obscure the fact that very low taxes on large incomes do not raise revenue, by magic transfer from the people who put much of their incomes into hedge funds and equities to the people who spend most of their incomes on food and shelter.
So yes, Social Security, a government program that did much to create the Middle class and take tens of millions of older people out of abject poverty, is going to run out of funds eventually because they're going to make it run out of funds so that they can do away with it. So yes, it's also political theater designed to create fear and panic, but perhaps the word 'theater' isn't quite strong enough. I'd call it a scam.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
QE3 comin'. Just spitballin' here
So we can clearly see how resistant the Rethuglicans are to raising taxes on the wealthy—which is the only actual source of untapped revenue for the over-extended government that won't collapse the country's economy.
We can also see how much the global markets have disliked this US cost-cutting and top tax-adverse approach to debt and job creation. So what are the actual macro answers?
Realizing that raising taxes on the wealthy is a political non-starter, I predict that the Wall Street geniuses who helped get us here will begin pressuring the Fed to trigger QE3 to print up a new batch of cash to stimulate job creation.
There are some hidden benefits to the Wall Street kleptocrats in that approach, of course. QE3 will add to inflation (and avoid the frightening prospect of deflation) that will trigger a rise in interest rates. That's pretty good for the wealthy who have lots of spare cash and may either be inclined to shove into a stock market galloping to stay ahead of inflation or into SAFE inflation-indexed, interest-bearing instruments. Even better, inflation will hit the middle class and drive even more cash up the line to the kleptocrats.
This also plays well extremely well to the energy sector (think Exxon, Shell and BP), which needs to keep charging ever higher prices for dwindling reserves of oil. The easing and the inflation will put a bit more money into everyone's pockets for 5 minutes so we can pump it all—and more—back into our gas tanks. The only down-market winners will be anyone working in the food sector, which will also see rising prices. And those who have cost-of-living clauses in their employment contracts.
As for the rest of us inflation will kill our savings, and make more money for the elite. And, read my lips: no new taxes! Wow. A perfect system.
This bodes very badly for the mid-term future, say the next 10 years. For those fans of Kondratieff, winter is here. The only question is, will the inflationary kleptocrats win or will it be Kondratieff's deflationary end-cycle dynamic?
And it seems I'm not alone in this thinking.
We can also see how much the global markets have disliked this US cost-cutting and top tax-adverse approach to debt and job creation. So what are the actual macro answers?
Realizing that raising taxes on the wealthy is a political non-starter, I predict that the Wall Street geniuses who helped get us here will begin pressuring the Fed to trigger QE3 to print up a new batch of cash to stimulate job creation.
There are some hidden benefits to the Wall Street kleptocrats in that approach, of course. QE3 will add to inflation (and avoid the frightening prospect of deflation) that will trigger a rise in interest rates. That's pretty good for the wealthy who have lots of spare cash and may either be inclined to shove into a stock market galloping to stay ahead of inflation or into SAFE inflation-indexed, interest-bearing instruments. Even better, inflation will hit the middle class and drive even more cash up the line to the kleptocrats.
This also plays well extremely well to the energy sector (think Exxon, Shell and BP), which needs to keep charging ever higher prices for dwindling reserves of oil. The easing and the inflation will put a bit more money into everyone's pockets for 5 minutes so we can pump it all—and more—back into our gas tanks. The only down-market winners will be anyone working in the food sector, which will also see rising prices. And those who have cost-of-living clauses in their employment contracts.
As for the rest of us inflation will kill our savings, and make more money for the elite. And, read my lips: no new taxes! Wow. A perfect system.
This bodes very badly for the mid-term future, say the next 10 years. For those fans of Kondratieff, winter is here. The only question is, will the inflationary kleptocrats win or will it be Kondratieff's deflationary end-cycle dynamic?
And it seems I'm not alone in this thinking.
Time for an investigation
It's unfortunate that the GOP has enough power that they've neutered most consumer protection agencies in their attempts to allow rich people to continue stealing from the poor.The question of the moment, though, is whether they can cover up fraud.
What you might have missed last week, during the debate over the debt ceiling being raised, was the trigger for a huge dip in the bond market. Someone placed a single buy of one billion dollars on the bond futures market. One of the largest single purchases in recent history, betting on the US economy getting worse and our credit rating getting downgraded.
The question that needs to be asked is, was it insider trading?
I believe what happened is a debt-ceiling deal was done in Washington and leaked to a major proprietary trader. Everyone knows the debt negotiations in Washington have been an extreme game of brinksmanship between political parties, but now someone knows how that game played out.So, who was willing to bet that, two weeks later, the US credit rating would be downgraded from AAA to AA+?
This had the hallmarks of one of the largest bond shops in the world knowing something the rest of the market didn't.
The number of shops or even central banks that can take on this level of market risk is extremely small.
For that matter, was it somebody in Congress? Somebody who had a hand in the idiotic behavior of the GOP these past few months, which directly caused the downgrade?
For example, Eric Cantor was one of the key reasons that the budget ceiling negotiations didn't reach an agreement for so long, and when the economy took a hit like it just did, Cantor made a bundle.
(Here's a new phrase for you: "Conflict of interest." Look it up.)
After all, if insider trading is illegal on Wall Street, it seems to me that it should be illegal in Congress, too. It isn't, but it should be.
It's never going to happen. Why would a Congresscritter vote to stop making money based on the laws he's passing? Which leads to a similar question: why would Congress vote to raise taxes on the richest Americans, when the majority of them - including most of the new Teabaggers - are millionaires?
Friday, August 5, 2011
Justified?
I'm constantly deleting political diatribes from my in-box that begin with wild claims about something the "liberal press" isn't telling us for nefarious reasons. Nearly always, it's already been in the headlines or never happened in the first place, but here's a story that doesn't seem to be getting enough exposure, considering the rants and tirades coming from Rush and Fox and other people trying to twist the Oslo massacre into something that shows persecution of Christians, whom we all know are never, ever violent -- not like those amoral Mao-loving Stalinist Atheists and devil worshiping Kalashnikov-carrying Muslims.
According to a new Gallup poll, when asked whether they're against violence that kills civilians, Muslims are most likely to answer in the affirmative at 78%. Atheists and agnostics are second at 56%, while only 38% of Protestants and 39% of Catholics would agree with such an affirmation of the value of human life.
Let me repeat it for the benefit of the many-headed beast: over 60% of those who identify as Christians, the overwhelming majority of Americans, will tolerate the slaughter of innocents versus only 22% of Muslims. Would I define all of these people as Christians - or Muslims for that matter? No I wouldn't, but that's hardly the point. It's wrong to absolve people with such a hypocritical ploy. Neither the Torah, the Bible nor the Quir'an ever killed anyone, but there is enough in them to provide a template, an excuse, a justification for nearly any abomination.
My long standing opinion that there are hardly any Christians around still stands and among that few, many would tell you the others weren't Christian either - as history proves, but applied to the question with us today: "is this a Christian Nation, based on Christian principles?" I can insist it's not. To the question of "are those alleged principles the best and only way" I would try not to laugh and offer the suggestion that we could use a large dose of Muslim and Humanist principles if we'd like Jesus to smile upon our arrogance, hypocrisy and pretension.
When asked whether it was justifiable for "an individual person or a small group of persons to target and kill civilians," Muslims still were far more likely to be 'Christian' about it with 89% answering in the negative and Christians again coming in last, behind the godless infidel. Can we begin to understand that the ancient religious wars between Christian, Jew, Muslim, pagan and infidel have little to do with anything good.
Of course, to attempt discussion using terms like justice is like juggling water, but in my opinion, the enormous industry that scripts our opinions for us is showing it's hand here -- or bloody claw, if you prefer. If you want to know why we are the way we are regarding placing blame for violence and hatred, I might speculate that Muslims and Atheists and free thinkers aren't likely to be watching Fox or to follow Beck or Limbaugh or their hate filled and dishonest rants, while those who call themselves part of the Religious Right often do.
A year ago, a Pew Poll found that only 30 percent of Americans in general have a favorable view of Muslims. I think we know why and I think we know who is behind the unrelenting defamation: burning books, carrying signs in the street and opposing basic freedoms for Muslims in America.
After all, who has the most to gain from vilifying infidels or anyone else trying to oppose replacing secular law with Gospel Law? What are the goals of people who condemn humanism and those who assert their reverence for human life?
I have no doubt that the Religious Right will have no choice but to ignore these numbers or attack them with some neo-Ernulphian malediction and a chorus of Liberaiberaliberal and there is less than no doubt that they'll never give up on the notion of their special privileges and special, God-given right to dictate to all of us, lashing out at enemies they create for the purpose of distraction and ignoring the casualties.
According to a new Gallup poll, when asked whether they're against violence that kills civilians, Muslims are most likely to answer in the affirmative at 78%. Atheists and agnostics are second at 56%, while only 38% of Protestants and 39% of Catholics would agree with such an affirmation of the value of human life.
Let me repeat it for the benefit of the many-headed beast: over 60% of those who identify as Christians, the overwhelming majority of Americans, will tolerate the slaughter of innocents versus only 22% of Muslims. Would I define all of these people as Christians - or Muslims for that matter? No I wouldn't, but that's hardly the point. It's wrong to absolve people with such a hypocritical ploy. Neither the Torah, the Bible nor the Quir'an ever killed anyone, but there is enough in them to provide a template, an excuse, a justification for nearly any abomination.
My long standing opinion that there are hardly any Christians around still stands and among that few, many would tell you the others weren't Christian either - as history proves, but applied to the question with us today: "is this a Christian Nation, based on Christian principles?" I can insist it's not. To the question of "are those alleged principles the best and only way" I would try not to laugh and offer the suggestion that we could use a large dose of Muslim and Humanist principles if we'd like Jesus to smile upon our arrogance, hypocrisy and pretension.
When asked whether it was justifiable for "an individual person or a small group of persons to target and kill civilians," Muslims still were far more likely to be 'Christian' about it with 89% answering in the negative and Christians again coming in last, behind the godless infidel. Can we begin to understand that the ancient religious wars between Christian, Jew, Muslim, pagan and infidel have little to do with anything good.
Of course, to attempt discussion using terms like justice is like juggling water, but in my opinion, the enormous industry that scripts our opinions for us is showing it's hand here -- or bloody claw, if you prefer. If you want to know why we are the way we are regarding placing blame for violence and hatred, I might speculate that Muslims and Atheists and free thinkers aren't likely to be watching Fox or to follow Beck or Limbaugh or their hate filled and dishonest rants, while those who call themselves part of the Religious Right often do.
A year ago, a Pew Poll found that only 30 percent of Americans in general have a favorable view of Muslims. I think we know why and I think we know who is behind the unrelenting defamation: burning books, carrying signs in the street and opposing basic freedoms for Muslims in America.
After all, who has the most to gain from vilifying infidels or anyone else trying to oppose replacing secular law with Gospel Law? What are the goals of people who condemn humanism and those who assert their reverence for human life?
I have no doubt that the Religious Right will have no choice but to ignore these numbers or attack them with some neo-Ernulphian malediction and a chorus of Liberaiberaliberal and there is less than no doubt that they'll never give up on the notion of their special privileges and special, God-given right to dictate to all of us, lashing out at enemies they create for the purpose of distraction and ignoring the casualties.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
You want some santorum on your toast?
It seems to me, anyway, that if somebody had the "Google problem" that Santorum does, he might just back off a little. You know, stop being the most outspoken gay basher outside of the Westboro Baptist Church, maybe. (Especially now that Dan Savage is threatening to make it worse.)
Especially as we approach the 2012 election season, the frothy mixture would love to change the results you get when you google his name, but he really doesn't have that option (short of hiring a mob of hackers to roam the internet, chopping out all references to his name anywhere near any mention of anal sex, anyway).
But, considering the nature of his problem, don't you think it would be smart to avoid certain actions? For example, wouldn't it be smart for him not to offer to hand out free samples of Santorum Jelly at the Ames Straw Poll?
It's just a thought.
__________
Update: (8/14/11) Oh, for Christ's sake!
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
With patriots like these, who needs Osama?
by Capt. Fogg
You may agree with Florida Governor and former Medicare pirate Rick Scott's oft stated opinion that regulations kill jobs. You might also be an idiot. But at least, our skinhead governor, AKA Fourteen Felony Rick, energized by getting away with no punishment after his company scammed the taxpayers out of the better part of a billion dollars and lost 2 billion for his stockholders, doesn't make national policy based on dangerous and hollow credos and thinly veiled criminal enterprises.
We have to leave that to the Congressional Giggle Gallery and Anarchist Marching Band. In their haste to slash anything worthwhile the government does in order to prove that the Government does nothing worthwhile, they forgot to fund the FAA.
Maybe Ronald Reagan would smile at this second assault on air travel safety, but maybe even the Gipper would gasp at the notion that regulation of air traffic and air carriers is inherently bad. Firing air traffic controllers because they were understaffed, ill equipped and overworked seems questionable, but at least Reagan had the decency to fire them outright rather than just deciding not to pay FAA employees. Airport inspectors (who needs airport inspectors?) are now being told to charge their own expenses to themselves if they insist on being such parasites and after all, that mysterious bony hand will assure that the airlines will do a better job of tightening the wing bolts when nobody is watching over their shoulders.
So far this idiocy has claimed nearly a hundred thousand jobs in the last couple of weeks. Let's not even think about the threat to public safety and call it Personal Responsibility instead. After all, you really don't have to fly.
Speaking of idiocy, is there yet anyone so despicably demented, deluded and just plain dumb to insist that firing people creates jobs? They hope there are that many Teaheads of course, since they'd like to shift responsibility to the air carriers on the theory that foxes do the best job of watching hen houses and do it cheaper ( and maybe pass the savings on to Congress.)
What the hell, let's just forget to pay Congress, cancel those benefits and pensions and privatize the whole snake pit. I mean, it's essentially privatized already and the HMO's and the oil companies and the Telecoms can pay their damn benefits.
But let me make this clear to those who inevitably try to avoid blame by saying "both sides are guilty." The Republicans did this. The Democrats tried to stop it.
Let me explain why. For each week the FAA isn't on full duty, airlines pocket about $200 million from bogus ticket fees — because, thinking you don't know what's going on, which if you're a Fox Following Tea smoker is a safe bet, the airlines hiked up prices and are pocketing the difference. If the Corporate Aristocracy is happy, the lackeys are happy and if the public is broke, so much the better - they'll work for less. Such is the Genius of idiots.
You may agree with Florida Governor and former Medicare pirate Rick Scott's oft stated opinion that regulations kill jobs. You might also be an idiot. But at least, our skinhead governor, AKA Fourteen Felony Rick, energized by getting away with no punishment after his company scammed the taxpayers out of the better part of a billion dollars and lost 2 billion for his stockholders, doesn't make national policy based on dangerous and hollow credos and thinly veiled criminal enterprises.
We have to leave that to the Congressional Giggle Gallery and Anarchist Marching Band. In their haste to slash anything worthwhile the government does in order to prove that the Government does nothing worthwhile, they forgot to fund the FAA.
Maybe Ronald Reagan would smile at this second assault on air travel safety, but maybe even the Gipper would gasp at the notion that regulation of air traffic and air carriers is inherently bad. Firing air traffic controllers because they were understaffed, ill equipped and overworked seems questionable, but at least Reagan had the decency to fire them outright rather than just deciding not to pay FAA employees. Airport inspectors (who needs airport inspectors?) are now being told to charge their own expenses to themselves if they insist on being such parasites and after all, that mysterious bony hand will assure that the airlines will do a better job of tightening the wing bolts when nobody is watching over their shoulders.
So far this idiocy has claimed nearly a hundred thousand jobs in the last couple of weeks. Let's not even think about the threat to public safety and call it Personal Responsibility instead. After all, you really don't have to fly.
Speaking of idiocy, is there yet anyone so despicably demented, deluded and just plain dumb to insist that firing people creates jobs? They hope there are that many Teaheads of course, since they'd like to shift responsibility to the air carriers on the theory that foxes do the best job of watching hen houses and do it cheaper ( and maybe pass the savings on to Congress.)
What the hell, let's just forget to pay Congress, cancel those benefits and pensions and privatize the whole snake pit. I mean, it's essentially privatized already and the HMO's and the oil companies and the Telecoms can pay their damn benefits.
But let me make this clear to those who inevitably try to avoid blame by saying "both sides are guilty." The Republicans did this. The Democrats tried to stop it.
Let me explain why. For each week the FAA isn't on full duty, airlines pocket about $200 million from bogus ticket fees — because, thinking you don't know what's going on, which if you're a Fox Following Tea smoker is a safe bet, the airlines hiked up prices and are pocketing the difference. If the Corporate Aristocracy is happy, the lackeys are happy and if the public is broke, so much the better - they'll work for less. Such is the Genius of idiots.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
The price of propaganda
OK, let's be real.
What is the effect of years of anti-Muslim bigotry being spewed, screaming about "sharia law is taking over!" and "they won't stop until every Christian is dead!" and every other ignorant statement puked up by Pam Geller and her ilk?
A blond Norwegian Christian kills other Norwegian non-Muslims on the theory that he was fighting a war against the encroachment of Islam.
But that was an easy one, right?
OK, then. What is the effect of years of people shouting "baby killer!" and "abortion is murder!" and trying to defund or destroy Planned Parenthood at every opportunity?
Some toothless inbreeder tries to firebomb a Planned Parenthood clinic, apparently not aware that diesel fuel is a terrible accelerant, as it does not explode and has a flashpoint of 143°F. Which is why he caused minimal damage.
Oh, and diesel is currently more expensive than gasoline.
Oh, and one more thing: that particular Planned Parenthood clinic didn't perform abortions!
One wonders how humanity manages to survive, when they seem to be racing headlong back toward the feces-flinging stage.
What is the effect of years of anti-Muslim bigotry being spewed, screaming about "sharia law is taking over!" and "they won't stop until every Christian is dead!" and every other ignorant statement puked up by Pam Geller and her ilk?
A blond Norwegian Christian kills other Norwegian non-Muslims on the theory that he was fighting a war against the encroachment of Islam.
But that was an easy one, right?
OK, then. What is the effect of years of people shouting "baby killer!" and "abortion is murder!" and trying to defund or destroy Planned Parenthood at every opportunity?
Some toothless inbreeder tries to firebomb a Planned Parenthood clinic, apparently not aware that diesel fuel is a terrible accelerant, as it does not explode and has a flashpoint of 143°F. Which is why he caused minimal damage.
Oh, and diesel is currently more expensive than gasoline.
Oh, and one more thing: that particular Planned Parenthood clinic didn't perform abortions!
One wonders how humanity manages to survive, when they seem to be racing headlong back toward the feces-flinging stage.
Thanks America
Well, there goes the old portfolio, at least for today... Market's only down 265 points and an hour left to go in trading. Don't hold out much hope for tomorrow either, but do hope there's not a bear run. Here's an interesting blog piece in today's Globe and Mail (Toronto):
Stocks breach technical level
DAVID BERMAN
Globe and Mail Update
Posted on Tuesday, August 2, 2011 11:39AM EDT
Well, so long 200-day moving average. With the S&P 500 down sharply in late morning trading on Tuesday and on track to post its seventh consecutive decline, stocks have crashed through a relatively important and straightforward technical indicator – suggesting to some technical analysts that equities could be in trouble.
Of course, some would scoff at such an observation, seeing technical indicators as nonsense. Still, the S&P 500 kissed the 200-day moving average in mid-June, only to bounce higher. It did the same on June 24, then gained 6.7 per cent in a strong rebound – making the moving average look like a line in the sand that investors weren’t willing to cross.
Now, though, the S&P 500 has fallen to 1,272, which is about 13 points below the moving average. Should the index end there, it will mark the first breach in a year. Recall that last August, stock markets were in a tizzy over the European debt crisis and a soft patch in U.S. economic data, before the Federal Reserve stepped in with another round of stimulus in the form of quantitative easing.
A year later, things look much the same, except that the U.S. government has taken big steps toward cutting back on spending. Paul Krugman, who is a big believer in the benefits of government spending at a time of economic weakness, has some very clear and interesting things to say about Washington’s debt deal on his blog in the New York Times.
His latest: “What we’ve witnessed pretty much throughout the western world is a kind of inverse miracle of intellectual failure. Given a crisis that should have been relatively easy to solve – and, more than that, a crisis that anyone who knew macroeconomics 101 should have been well-prepared to deal with – what we actually got was an obsession with problems we didn’t have.”
Meanwhile, Barry Ritholtz at The Big Picture is growing concerned by the stock market’s grinding and sees no solution to the economic sluggishness from policy makers in Washington: “I keep saying I am not a Democrat because I have no idea what their economic policy is, and I am not a Republican because I know EXACTLY what their economic policy is. That is our policy choices: Inept cluelessness on one side, and hapless fantasy-based lunacy on the other.”
Stocks breach technical level
DAVID BERMAN
Globe and Mail Update
Posted on Tuesday, August 2, 2011 11:39AM EDT
Well, so long 200-day moving average. With the S&P 500 down sharply in late morning trading on Tuesday and on track to post its seventh consecutive decline, stocks have crashed through a relatively important and straightforward technical indicator – suggesting to some technical analysts that equities could be in trouble.
Of course, some would scoff at such an observation, seeing technical indicators as nonsense. Still, the S&P 500 kissed the 200-day moving average in mid-June, only to bounce higher. It did the same on June 24, then gained 6.7 per cent in a strong rebound – making the moving average look like a line in the sand that investors weren’t willing to cross.
Now, though, the S&P 500 has fallen to 1,272, which is about 13 points below the moving average. Should the index end there, it will mark the first breach in a year. Recall that last August, stock markets were in a tizzy over the European debt crisis and a soft patch in U.S. economic data, before the Federal Reserve stepped in with another round of stimulus in the form of quantitative easing.
A year later, things look much the same, except that the U.S. government has taken big steps toward cutting back on spending. Paul Krugman, who is a big believer in the benefits of government spending at a time of economic weakness, has some very clear and interesting things to say about Washington’s debt deal on his blog in the New York Times.
His latest: “What we’ve witnessed pretty much throughout the western world is a kind of inverse miracle of intellectual failure. Given a crisis that should have been relatively easy to solve – and, more than that, a crisis that anyone who knew macroeconomics 101 should have been well-prepared to deal with – what we actually got was an obsession with problems we didn’t have.”
Meanwhile, Barry Ritholtz at The Big Picture is growing concerned by the stock market’s grinding and sees no solution to the economic sluggishness from policy makers in Washington: “I keep saying I am not a Democrat because I have no idea what their economic policy is, and I am not a Republican because I know EXACTLY what their economic policy is. That is our policy choices: Inept cluelessness on one side, and hapless fantasy-based lunacy on the other.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)