Talking Economics

 Sometimes I write what amounts to a blog in somebody else's blog. This time, when I did that, I decided to bring my thinking here as I had been writing on this also in a personal series of conversations with someone else who follows the economist Paul Krugman and believes in his economic theories.

Now I don't know if Krugman is right or wrong about a capital D Depression coming without all the governments in the developed world increasing their spending, but what Krugman wants to do is increase our own debt massively as a way to stave off that capital D Depression. He is putting out a lot of fear talk for if it doesn't happen. Well whether a Depression would be coming anyway, one of the ways to bring it on is with fear talk. He is doing his part to instill that. If people are already hoarding, will that decrease that happening?

Then too a lot don't realize how debt can impact small/little/ordinary/______ people (I swear these days no matter what you say, you offend somebody). If the US accrues more debt, does it also increase the money supply so that those savings someone is hoarding goes down in value? With SS locked in with the claim there is no inflation, those people, along with those on fixed incomes are just plain stuck when dollars decrease in value, and we all know that has already happened. Remember a dollar loaf of bread. Try finding one today!

Some blame Obama already for the debt the US has even though most of it was accrued in the eight years before he took the reins of power. In this political climate where he is accused with hateful drawings on signs of being a communist, a socialist and basically anything bad the sign holder can come up with, in that kind of atmosphere, what would happen if he followed Krugman's advice and started a CCC type program? The crazies would erupt with calling those work camps.

Not that I have anything against CCC type programs. During the Depression, they created a lot of structures that we still enjoy today but is this the same kind of era? Do the people out of work today have those skills?  If we did something like that instead of Unemployment checks, how would that go over in this political atmosphere? What would Fox say?

Right now Krugman wants the states bailed out but what had those states done to get into their problem? What if what they did was going to just come right back? Krugman claims debt means nothing but he is basing that on the assumption that the economy will bounce back and when it does, the money can then be paid down.

Krugman is an idealist, which is fine for a writer, but not so great in a politician in my opinion. Listen to him at a seminar but don't let him take our country down an unproven path (and despite his trying to equate it with the Great Depression, that was a different time and only definitely taken out of it by a worldwide war). To me to accept idealism as political truth is to ignore the practical. He expects a perfect scenario to play out. Life doesn't act so tidily. If we had had a perfect scenario, we'd not be where we are now.

In my opinion, he is stirring up enough fear that maybe he guarantees his prophecy will come true and he ends up being considered a great guru. He is doing us no favors right now though and before I would also support hugely increasing our debt, I'd have to hear a lot more opinions. I think as it stands, it would send us into even worse political turmoil and isn't it bad enough. Worse, it might not work and where would we be in two or three years with that debt and still not those jobs?

Farm Boss works with start up companies and hears the talk from those who invest in such. A LOT of money is out there but it's being held waiting for something, I guess. That money could be out getting new ideas developed, working with entrepreneurs, but if it isn't, if it waits for a government bail out or guarantee, what does that say about the innovative spirit of Americans? They wait on their government for everything? It is beginning to look that way.


If you want to read more of what I said and the question that inspired it, it's at: ]Economic Minefield].

Supreme Court Dilemma

The US Supreme Court has taken on the issue of Arizona's 2007 law on state enforcement of right to work legally in this country. [from Reuters].

Here is their dilemma. They just ruled 5-4 with the usual suspects on each side that a state had no right to ban guns saying the federal Constitution superseded local rights.  So there is a stand in favor of overturning Arizona's law. But who wants the law overturned? Business. And this is a very pro-corporation Court...  or at least the 5 of them are.

So what will they do come October with this law which forces businesses to use the federal system for checking worker documentation and punishes with loss of licenses, those companies which ignore the rules? Business on the one hand wanting lower wages. And State's Rights on the other... Which will weigh the most?

Religiosity and Politics

The link below is something worth reading and thinking about. You who are Christians and feel persecuted if someone even says a critical thing about what Christianity has done, do you really believe someone should be voted for just because you think they are a 'saint'.

Sarah Palin is setting herself up to be an [Aimee Semple McPherson] with one difference-- she's running for political offices based on that and her personal charisma. It's not based on her successfully showing how she can govern, nor is it on practical plans for what she'd do if she got power. She is seeking (and has already come very close to having it) the kind of power that McPherson could only dream about.

Sarah Palin shows the danger of mixing religion and politics

This isn't the fault of Palin. She'll ride this horse as far as she can take it. There is always someone like her around. Who can blame her for making a fortune from it and frankly I bet she believes her own propaganda. Big egos tend to do that. That she is this close to real power is happening as the fault of the American voters, who always want something for nothing, and those easily duped by a form of religion. It happens time after time. And incidentally, the more someone spouts off that kind of talk, the more chance there are some secrets buried somewhere.

Extending Unemployment

Once in awhile I agree with Republicans and extending unemployment insurance benefits is one of those times. Here is the thing. Businesses pay part of that cost. Businesses, especially small businesses are already hard hit by this recession. Now the government wants to basically make unemployment benefits into welfare paid for by the businesses.

My feeling is businesses don't fire or lay someone off unless they must. That doesn't benefit them. Now the left wants them to permanently pay a monthly check to cover that person until who knows what date.

This is all based on sympathy and I am fine with sympathy. Help those out of work, who cannot find jobs, to figure out how to qualify for welfare benefits. Reduce the difficulty in getting welfare but permanently calling it unemployment is simply not fair-- nor is it smart! Unemployment was intended to be an emergency fund to tide someone over during a job search. It was not meant to last forever. Doing this unending extension will make a lot of businesses hesitant to even hire new employees knowing what might await them if they run into a hard spell.

I do feel sorry for people out of work but there is no reason we cannot allow them to qualify for welfare if that is the need during these hard times. Permanently putting part of the cost on business is simply not fair.

The Politics of Exposure

This was an interesting take on McChrystal with which I agree; so naturally I think it's good and worth reading.

The Politics of Exposure 

or we could say the politics of gotcha. It is a superficial world where people are distracted by the shallow and don't want to be bothered learning the deep.

sexual peccadillos in politicians

I am not a prude nor am I one of those who cares much if a politician has an affair or two or three. Now the spouse and family might feel otherwise, but to me the politician I vote for owes me doing his job. If his sex life gets in the way of the job, now that I care about.

What does bother me though is hypocrisy. It's not like I expect them to go out there saying yeah I am doing it with this woman/man or that one; but when they present an image of holier than thou, they better be holier than thou.

When we heard the Gores were divorcing, I actually thought it probably was just the result of a long term marriage, two people growing apart, and I more or less dismissed the possibility of it being an affair, not that I'd have cared if she was getting it on with the gardener or him some woman he met in his travels. Divorce was just how life goes-- rich and famous or not.

But then along comes this: Portland woman says Al Gore groped her in hotel room

I am generally not surprised by politicians but this time I am. You have to be kidding. This is the guy who presented himself as so morally superior to Bill Clinton that he wouldn't even campaign with him when he himself ran for president. It's beginning to look like what he really was was jealous.

If this proves to be what is being claimed, this is not a peccadillo-- not in my eyes. I suppose a case could be made that it's none of our business to read about it as Gore is no longer running for office and was not when this incident allegedly took place. This though wasn't about consensual sex between two adults. This was a man of power taking advantage or trying to take advantage of a working woman.

It seems in the political realm, they are all pretty much doing this and it's just a question of who gets caught. Well they might not all be trying to force someone. Most settle for the ones they can lure in with their powerful positions.

In my opinion, this should not be in the realm of gossip. It should be prosecuted unless the police disbelieve her story. It should not have been shunted aside just because of who Gore is. I understand to go to court whether he is found innocent or guilty enhances his embarrassment, damages any future career he has, but if he did this,it was way beyond embarrassing. And if it's true, she's likely not the only woman he tried it on.

It is kind of ironic, isn't it? I mean here we are again with stained clothing for proof (which again if it's so means whether she agreed or not, something went on). You'd think he'd have learned something, wouldn't you? I guess he did but it was the wrong lesson!

Wow a rant about the Bushites who just don't give up

Wow, I can already see how much I am going to like using this blog for politics as when something comes up that I read, instead of trying to fit it into a logical sequence in the main blog or even perfect it, instead of worrying whether my regular readers would like it, I can just write it out like I was talking to a friend over a cup of coffee and put it here knowing that it will only go to those already looking for political thinking.

Do you take your coffee black or with cream and sugar?

The latest reason for me to be glad about that was reading someone saying how they missed GW Bush. Feeling like the top of my head was exploding, I managed to leave there without saying all I was thinking. That's saved for here.

Bushites like the idea of a leader who acts sure of himself, I guess, and whether he does all the wrong things, that's irrelevant. All that matters is that he acts cocky. Symbolism over substance and GW had that in spades. Oh he knew how to pose and posture and then do what the richest Americans liked. While he cut their taxes to a level they hadn't seen since who knows when, he got the average American excited about it too... for the pennies he gave them. Bush was good at knowing his constituency and satisfying them while he convinced ordinary Americans he was one of them (yeah sure). He was a godly man, you betcha.

So while he managed to deregulate oil to the point that the corporations didn't have to worry about a system looking over their shoulder for their process, investors in oil were thrilled. The American public didn't mind if it kept their oil prices down. Never mind what that might be doing to the climate. And never mind what has happened in the Gulf because that will be on somebody else's watch when it happens.

What that oil is going to do to the Gulf may well be what it also does to the Atlantic and that can follow to the Pacific. For those of you who think you can live on land and not be impacted by the sea, you are so clueless about cause and effect, that it's no wonder you have supported Bush and his ilk.

Even for 9/11, which was on Bush's watch, he got a pass because it wasn't like he planned it to happen. No, but he did ignore all the warnings he got and somehow he was never held accountable for that with those that prefer symbolism and posturing to results. It works for those who ignore cause and effect and that's pretty much all Republicans from what I can tell. Conservatives? What are those? I don't think there are any to be found in that party today.

Under Bush, we started two wars which he, a man who loved war when someone else was fighting it, didn't pay for but put on the cuff. He sent our troops to war not fully armored but that was okay because he paraded around on an aircraft carrier like he was a pilot and the hero president in Independence Day.

With the mentality of those on the right who buy into symbolisms, their next presidential candidate will be equally disastrous, equally disconnected from results but that will be okay because they are equally divorced from reality and only care about feel good. It will be okay with those who have no ability to figure out why something happens or to look back far enough to find it.

I wrote about idealism versus pragmatism for how I felt a president who I would want should operate-- not in the realm of idealism but rather in that of pragmatism. No fancy symbols, no flag pins, just more realistically doing things step by step.

Right now Obama isn't doing all I want. He is doing a lot more  than Bush ever would or John McCain or Sarah Palin, and overall I am not unhappy with the directions. It's a start on a lot of major problems like getting everyone basic health care. A start is more than we had for the eight previous years when the talk was of individual freedom... freedom to die from a curable and preventable illness, I guess. Wahoo!

Do I miss GW? Like a hole in my head! And for those who do, you get the presidents you deserve. I just hope there aren't enough of you to give me another president I don't deserve. I had eight years of that with the consequences to be paid for for generations to come. And all the way, you will be clueless as to why it's happening. While you didn't blame Bush for 9/11 or for going to war without paying for it, you do blame Obama for everything that happened 8 years before he took office.

Should Obama still be blaming Bush for what he's facing? You damned well better believe he should!

Yes, I am going to like this blog a lot! I'm feeling better already!

War and Generals

My first thought regarding the McChrystal article in Rolling Stone, was it sounded like his venting his dislike of not being respected enough. McChyrstal is and has always apparently been a loose cannon; so no surprise. My second was this may not be as casual an event as it seems. My third made me reassess the first two. That's the problem with politics.

What it seems on the surface is that a general just said too much around a reporter. They were words that were disrespectful of the president and most of the team for whom McChrystal works. He was quickly apologizing, but it won't be unexpected if the decision is made that he has to go. Some will find fault with Obama whatever he ends up deciding on that.

My second thought is a little more suspicious. You know, what McChrystal said was exactly what tea party types want to hear. That kind of interview confirms to them that he is one of them. *conspiracy music please* It suits their thinking of the president and anybody connected with him. Perhaps McChrystal is actually lining himself (or being lined) up for a different position.

Pundit McChrystal Reax

I guess only time will tell what the real purpose was behind this interview, why he let out what he did, why the reporter covered it as he did, whether someone else is involved, but there are those who want a revolution in this country and I don't mean at the ballot box. In other countries it's not uncommon for generals to stage coups. Are we immune to that? *more conspiracy music*

My thinking became more complicated after actually reading the article, 

The Runaway General, 

which led to third thought about the whole thing (likewise surprisingly leading to more respect for McChrystal). McChrystal is clearly caught in the problem of doing something that likely has no win written at the end. I gotta say though this guy definitely would make for an interesting hero in a book. I can see Bruce Willis playing him in the screen version already. They can call it Loose Cannon.

The problem with war today (or maybe anytime) is it's more political than logical and it doesn't lend itself well to heroes-- anti or otherwise. I don't see that our goals in Afghanistan are clearly laid out. Obama said it was about taking out al Qaeda but most of them are in Pakistan or around the world. You can't fight al Qaeda like a war against a nation. There is no there there to fight.

Some want us to turn Afghanistan into a different kind of country than it always has been.
It isn't likely to change its ways after all these years and especially not at the point of a gun. I am not sure what the Rolling Stone author hoped to achieve but he sure stirred up a lot. The general intended to have said exactly what appeared in the article as he was asked to read it before publication for fact checking. We can ask what his motive was and I can think of several possibilities but have no way of knowing which might be true.

The consequences from this might not be ended whatever Obama decides about the general and Afghanistan.

[Update: From what I hear, Obama did relieve McChrystal of his command. Some say it was inevitable. I do not know but just seems unfortunate all the way around to me. I hope whatever it means for Afghanistan, that somehow this works out for those people in a way that ends what they have been going through. I also feel full sympathy for our soldiers who have been fighting endless wars with little or no relief in sight.

The thing is I do not believe we can make Afghanistan into what we might wish. There is just so much going on there on many levels. The people will have to decide they want something different and I don't think we can prove what they want at this point. Some actually support the Taliban and the more they see us as an invader, not a liberator, the more they will turn that way.

Petraeus is a good choice, maybe the only choice to take it over. We are sure asking a lot of our military though...]

Oil Politics

What is scaring me right now is our ability, with oil, to destroy our entire ecosystem. We have been ignorant of the possible true cost of the cheap oil that we have argued over any increase in taxes, any controls on how it's gotten, while we may be destroying not just birds but ourselves. Ironic, isn't it?

Bob Herbert-- Disaster in the Amazon

How many things like there are out there that we have ignored? For the people who think there is a big daddy in the sky who can fix it all, maybe they don't care. They might think about though whether we have been creating our own Armageddon without needing any god to do it!