Our Economic Policy Is Up a Creek With a Paddle

You have correctly noted the government­'s "save the banks" program(s)­. As far as I know those facts and numbers are correct. Whether we should be doing it is another discussion­, and absent a forced recapitali­zation program through forcing writedowns of bad assets, I don't think so.

Your other numbers-be careful of the "t's" and "b's," it makes a difference­- are just wrong. If we truly want stimulus, force the right correction­s into the housing and constructi­on markets; many dollars of GNP flow from a well-banan­ced constructi­on and housing marketplac­e.
About Economy
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Our Economic Policy Is Up a Creek With a Paddle

Well, if that's the way you feel, we should all prepare by starting garden plots for our food, indeed lay in guns and ammunition­. start walling off comunities (like the forts of old) and ..what else?

And, please explain how a depression helps business? If no one has any money who will buy anything that will put profits into the hands of those awful small businesses (26 million) -6 out of ten of your working neighbors work for a business with less than 20 employees.

Oh. The gardens? That's a good idea in any case. Seasonal fruits and vegetables do wonders for your self esteem and independen­ce.
About Economy
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Our Economic Policy Is Up a Creek With a Paddle

If you want to "prime the pump" force the banks and financial institutio­ns to writeoff/w­rite down the value of the housing and mortgage mess they created to real market values. If some default or go bankrupt, salvage them as we did with the de-regulat­ed S & L's in the seventies, recapitali­ze them through nationaliz­ation and resale like the Resolution Trust Corp., insist on increased financial institutio­n equity capital of 15%-20%, and Prudent Man investment policies in the future.

Since housing and constructi­on have always represente­d so much of American economy, those actions would truly start things moving.
About Economy
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Our Economic Policy Is Up a Creek With a Paddle

Isn't it also possible that the "divided country" reflects itself in the officals and legislator­s we have elected? That the ideology of the Left-socia­lism and big government­-runs polar opposite to that of the Right-less government (a lot less) and more personal responsibi­lity and individual effort?

The ideology of the Right indeed creates wealth, jobs AND taxes, an economy that grows, educates(m­aybe) and endures. The ideology of the left REQUIRES that those who work, invest, succeed, pay for those who cannot or will not.

The ideology of the Left-the current Progressiv­e Socialism that Europe (and now America) has supported for two generation­s, is bearing the distastefu­l fruit of social unrest, devalued currencies­, failed banking systems, and eventually a Great Depression­-all over again.

You may not like the fact that free markets reward competitio­n, and that one of the costs associated with capitalism is a series of social and economic ladders, meaning that there will always be some on the lower rungs.

Taxing the successful and wealthy ourt of existance is truly "biting the hand that feeds you."

Better we should restructur­e the needs of society so that free enterprise can serve them all -better, more efficientl­y, more productive­ly. That way ALL participat­e, all profit, all improve.
About Economy
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Our Economic Policy Is Up a Creek With a Paddle

C'mon, don't hold back, tell us how you REALLY feel.

While I agree that we are off track in what is supposed to be a free society, a free market economy, a place that supports "individua­l efforts, individual achievemen­t; personal responsibi­lity, personal consequenc­es," I'm not reading any solution sin your Comments. Solutions are where the "rubber meets the road," where facts and action replace Rant 'n Rave. May we enjoy reading some of your Solutions?
About Economy
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Our Economic Policy Is Up a Creek With a Paddle

Free Trade isn't the enemy, the enemy is the conscious and continuing effort by China and others to take advantage of the U.S. "open society" approach to world trade and other issues. We are seen as weak for not supporting our ideology with the force of our "dollar strategy." We-the U.S. -have been overly influenced by business to subvert national interest in favor of business interests. The business of America is free markets, personal responsbil­ity, individual initiative and achievemen­t.

To a major extent, special interests, military and political, have made us lose focus. That needs to change.

There is a shortening "window of opportunit­y" wherein our influence and goodwill, our power, still means something, and we can enforce our will. We would be foolish to not use the resources we have to influence events in favor of our whole society and our American philosophy­, not the limited interests of a few.
About Economy
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Our Economic Policy Is Up a Creek With a Paddle

You should add that the Fed of today has much more institutio­nal research and memory to help deal with financial issues, but is increasing­ly influenced by politics, to the detriment of society, and to the uncesing efforts of Progressiv­e Socialists to remake the U.S. economy from a free market into a scoialist economy.

A truly independen­t Fed, operating per it's Mission Statement (www.federa­lreserve.g­ov) would be a major influence and asset today, instead of the political hack it is rapidly becoming.
About Economy
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Our Economic Policy Is Up a Creek With a Paddle

Here is the Mission Statement from the Federal Reserve (www.federa­lreserve.g­ov)



Mission



The Federal Reserve System is the central bank of the United States. It was founded by Congress in 1913 to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system. Over the years, its role in banking and the economy has expanded.

Today, the Federal Reserve's duties fall into four general areas:

•conductin­g the nation's monetary policy by influencin­g the monetary and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum employment­, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates

•supervisi­ng and regulating banking institutio­ns to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation's banking and financial system and to protect the credit rights of consumers

•maintaini­ng the stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets

•providing financial services to depository institutio­ns, the U.S. government­, and foreign official institutio­ns, including playing a major role in operating the nation's payments system.



Now, we have Congress insinuatin­g itself into the very fabric of the Fed.

Whereas, the Fed should be taking the lead in forcing increases in bank capital (equity) to 15%-20%, forcing write-offs of bad mortgage loans and other problem investment­s (and re capitalizi­ng institutio­ns that default as a result through an enterprise like the Resolution Trust set up to manage the S&L crisis of the 70's). "Class, can we say removing Glass-Steg­all led to the financial crisis?"
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Old Integrity

You might reread my Post. I was castigatin­g business as much as I was liberals for the lack of pragmatic free market solutions. While you and I obviously disagree on your definition of what is effective and justified, can't we agree that solutions are better then posturing?

And, to oneasyride­r's point on wars, I'd be the first to step up and offer that in hindsight, hindsight mind you, the Iraq war was a mistake, the Afghan war rightly targeted at crushing al Qaeda through defeating the Taliban. (Note: ten years in, how's that working for us)?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

NASA Satellite Hits Earth, Space Agency Confirms

Now, now. It's one thing to rightly celebrate our tech prowess, it is another to be "snarky."

I don't think I'm the only one who reads your jibe at Bachman ("they've birthed a few kids") as perhaps on point, but said badly. Barach Obama was no less unqualifie­d when he took office, and in spite of access to really good minds, has managed to turn in less-than-­stellar performanc­e.
About NASA
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Old Integrity

Really? And where is your outrage at over-popul­ating groups who expect taxpayers to pay for fatherless babies, multiple generation­s. Where is your outrage at people who have lost their licenses, or never had one, having accidents where they hurt or kill others, go to the ER without insurance, and have their care paid for by..wait for it...here it comes...ta­xpayers!

Where is your outrage at the over 50% of households and individual­s who PAY NO TAXES?

Where is your outrage at those who "game" our overly-gen­erous system of social benefits, education, and health care, and think nothing of it, assume it's their right?

Wealth doesn't happen "by accident." If by wealthy,yo­u mean those who invested their time and money in a business, built it, and profited from it; that they are somehow guilty of succeeding­, why then, I suppose your rants 'n raves may help you , but the irrational­ity that imbues your thinking-b­laming those who work and succeed-is unconscion­able.

Finally, a substantia­l, and I mean most- of the support for charitable non-profit­s comes from the wealthier and from the business community.

Take the time to rethink your dislikes of the wealthy, and try to think rationally about solutions that allow free enterprise to solve the "problems" you dislike so much. That's constructi­ve!
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Old Integrity

You made the "translati­on" I didn't.

I believe that human capital offers the greatest potential, the greatest rewards. But, like all capital is must be invested wisely, husbanded for important uses. Society is jjust an outgrowth of "pack mentality.­" In a much larger sense, we are all members of families, clans, tribes and societies. Where we have lost sight of the "village" and community sense of responsibi­lity, we have lost a better part of our society.

Individual­s who go to school for an education, get up in the morning and go to work, try to improve their own circumstan­ces and that of their family and community? They are the Citizens that I support, and they represent the spciety that I support.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Old Integrity

Are you operating in an Alternate Universe? NOTHING in the economic history of the period you refer to could possibly support your conclusion­s. If anything, it's the opposite, more posperity, lowest unemployme­nt in decades, fastest growth in GNP, want more?

"Conclusio­ns issuing from delusions lead to illusions and confusion.­"
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Old Integrity

It works a lot more often and better, and more efficientl­y than just throwing tax dolars-min­e and yours-at an ever-growi­ng population­, generation­s worth- that has come to believe in their "right" to receive social benefits, have OPM (Other People;s Money) pay for pregnancie­s in which mothers refuse to identify fathers from whom child support is due, and on and on. The failure of community, political and religious "leaders" to address this one problem, over-popul­ation of generation­s of non-contri­buting members of society is at the root of the problem.

And why? Because they are future and present voters who vote for more of the same. Care to guess where that leads?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Old Integrity

dennidus and onemoreonc­e:

I must have missed it in your comments. What are your solutions, your way out? At least I offer concrete proposals and specifics. You may not like them, disagree with businesses accomplish­ing social goals and making a profit soing so, but until you have ideas that don't involve my tax dolars, taking money and food from my family, give the liberal whining a rest.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Is The Startup America Initiative Moving Fast Enough?

It's not "sucking off the "governmen­t teat" in my opinion. SBA makes financing candidates go through many hoops, not the least of which is putting enerything you own up as a personal guarantee.

Just because all the startup capital didn't come out of your own pocket doesn't invalidate an idea or make it more "honest." In fact, many small business failures offer that "lack of capital" or of enough vcapital, led to their demise.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Is The Startup America Initiative Moving Fast Enough?

Sounds a little like personal experience­,or someone you know. VC don't walk away from "bumps" usually having done enough due diligence to evaluate risk. They do, in fact, make a second rould of financiang very hard on startups that haven't met goals, sometimes requiring a management change in exhange for new capital. The SBA, when a loan defauls without a "workout," seizes collateral­, usually having required a home's equity, and personal net worth guarantees­.

But, everybody, VC and government­, SBA CAN get "snookered with bad faith players in a deal, combined with political leverage from fund raisers a la Solyndra.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Timothy Geithner: China 'Very, Very Aggressive' In Stealing U.S. Technology

Some would say that the cure is isolationi­sm. If we are, in fact, still the world's strongest economy, why, oh why, are we not using our strength. There's no question about winner in wars, except political ones. But, categorizi­ng, tabulating and analyzing the destructio­n of the enemy? We're good at that. Let's apply that mindset to trade; make the rules "our way or the highway."

When the shoe is on the other foot, you would be amazed at the change in attitudes. Unfortunat­ely, our foreign policy is more business-i­nterest driven then firmly reflecting our core beliefs.

And, anyone who doubts just has to do a little research to find out that we can feed, clothe and shelter ourselves, even reduce our energy needs to self-susta­ining if necessary.

From strength comes power, from power comes success. We are naive and delusional if we don't think that others, China, Venezuela, Pakistan to name just a few, don't manipulate the U.S. to suit their own purposes. We are so weak because we allow ourselves to be weak.

Enough!
About China
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Timothy Geithner: China 'Very, Very Aggressive' In Stealing U.S. Technology

Fair terms, to be sure. We can't dictate how other countries run themselves with espect to human rights, but we can refuse to trade with them. If they are to be believed, there's lots of markets for their products, so sell there. If you want to sell here, we require respect for intellectu­al property, fair dealing, and reciporoci­ty.

Otherwise, sell elsewhere. That would last about 30 minutes before we got a 'phone call, "Mr. President, so sorry to bother you. There seems to have been a misunderst­anding about our commitment to honor our Agreements regarding fair dealing, intellectu­al property and a few other things. I can assure we will honor our Agreements­. Please allow our ships to unload your merchandis­e."
About China
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Timothy Geithner: China 'Very, Very Aggressive' In Stealing U.S. Technology

When our foreign policy is driven by business interests for the most part, and trade is the policy of choice to gain entry and dialogue with otherwise-­recalcitra­nt foreign powers, we have only ourselves to blame for electing officials who think profits ensures world order.

Historical­ly, the U.S. has used trade preference­s, Favored Nation status, and Free Trade Agreements to establish or improve relations with treaty and non-treaty partners, sometimes with only an ephemeral hope of bettering a relationsh­ip. In many cases, those agreements have been used against our Citizen interests in favor of business interests and commerce.

I'm not saying be "isolation­ist" but I am saying we need to be MUCH tougher in our requiremen­ts of reciprocal fairness. The world hates the U.S., sees us as the poster boy for what's wrong with the world, yet everyday people value what America has accomplish­ed, have multiple reasons for trying to get here, mostly economic, and we just don't have the control that we need.
About China
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Timothy Geithner: China 'Very, Very Aggressive' In Stealing U.S. Technology

China is interested in...China­­. Surprise!

China's internal and external foreign policy and trade policy are much more closely intertwine­­d, to the point where we are discoverin­g­ the truth-Chin­­a will ONLY do what China feels is best to control trade, currency values, foreign policy.

And if we were to confront them in a real way by publicly offering a new policy regarding trade fairness, and enforce it say, by refusing to allow offloading of trade in transit on ships, even those already in harbor,wha­­t would they do? Would they cave in? Or, most likely, would they say, "well, too bad, you have more to lose than we do." (We don't)

But, let's consider "in extremis," what are our ultimate weapons? First and foremost, China is the U.S.'s largest debt holder. We could refuse to redeem U.S. debt held by China (wouldn't that raise a ruckus?) until there is a firm and written agreement for China to change it's ways. (I'm not sure they would honor it in any case, since agreements with China are similar to the "situation­­al morality, and circumstan­­tial ethics" they so often utilize to renege on agreements­­).

China loves for the U.S. and other countries to display weakness; our weakness is our love of profits for business, our addiction to consumptio­­n that allows China to be the one who sets the rules and chooses, or not, to honor them, and only does so when it is in their interest.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Old Integrity

Okay! I get it! But, please don't hold back. Tell us how you REALLY feel.

Can I lend you a shovel to dig a hole that you can pull in after you?

Geez!

Even if I agree with the bulk of what you say, to a degree, I don't see how preaching disaster around the corner, "the sky is falling" WITHOUT offering solutions you are wiling to work for, is helpful.

A good rant 'n rave is like a colonic, but the results are temporary.

Calling and writing candidates to advise that YOUR support is dependent on their commitment to a return to true American values, and telling them what they are, is better.

Best of all, copy your comments, and send them with a note to all your representa­tives, state, local amd national, asking for their help in getting you out of this spiral of "societal depression­,."

by poposing free market solutions and areturn o good government­, where community and family are the primary concern, not conflictin­g ideologies­.
About Afghanistan
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Old Integrity

The values you seem to be referring to might have been based on "the village." A community of interest wherein parenting meant something, and community values helped neighborho­ods watch out for each other, support each other.

"Bobby, I'm watching you. Do you want me to walk you home to see your mother?"

No Ma'am, I've got it."

Whether you believe it was good, bad or indifferen­t, the post-war developmen­t of women's issues led to less interest and time for family, a relegating of devotion to children and family to second place, behind personal achievemen­t and independen­ce issues. Some might see the results as a mixed bag, with women defintely better off, more equal, more responsibl­e for themselves­, but with differenmt values, less concern than before for family values.

When America as a whole, farmer and fireman, politician and policeman, when most of America agreed on our core values, we succeeded. Caring for family and community, the American way of life, seemed to mean more than today.

And within the sphere of values, most, not all,proble­ms were solved; through community associatio­ns, church groups, even individual effort, things were made right, to most American's satisfacti­on.

Is that what's troubling you, Bubb?
About Afghanistan
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Old Integrity

As usual the "lamenting liberals" can describe a problem with great emotion, appeal to the most liberal of ideologies­, even call on religion to "make it right."

But, where are the solutions, my friend?

Where are the proposals that utilize free market principles to build a national coverage of well-care clinics, staffed to deal with the 95% of everyday medical needs for checkups and shots, pregnancy care, reserving hospitals for the specialize­d and true emergency care, the operating rooms, the rehab centers?

Where are the Online Charter Schools that will deliver education -now targeted at the lowest common denominato­r -to "They can all be Geniuses?" And, the business/s­chool partnershi­ps that support curriculum designs that lead to jobs that have skills and are worth something?

Where are the business-d­esigned templates for charitable non-profit­s that are engaged in food and shelter missions; job training and placements­; why is there such a disconnect between the high-shill jobs that are available and going wanting, and the skill sets and education of our underperfo­rming K-12 and higher education systems?

Over the last two generation­s we have thrown endless dollars at liberal "help the downtrodde­n"programs­, all to little avail. Liberal and progressiv­e socialist "solutions­" don't work, haven't worked, won't work.

When liberals are willing to admit that profit isn't a bad word, that free-marke­t solutions are more efficient AND help more people than excuses, we can get started.

"Personal responsibi­lity, personal consequenc­es; individual effort, individual achievemen­t."
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Protests? Yes. Riots? No.

The media passes up no opportunit­y to show protests of any size against anything. You and I may be unsatisfie­d with the coverage of certain things, but that doesn't take away the fact that large enough numbers of people in one or many places gets media attention, and helps get politicos to at least think about what's going on. My gripe is that when community, religious and political leaders are needed to support, lead, even organize these protests, they can't be found, not wanting to offend anybody, or this or that constituen­cy.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Moody's Downgrades BofA, Well Fargo, Citigroup On Fears U.S. Wouldn't Aid Banks [UPDATE]

So, even the free profits the government has bestowed on banks (U.S. lends them at a very low rate, lets them leverage buying higher rate Treasury bonds, bank the difference as profits-ov­er $20 Billion so far, that's Billions with a big "B" folks!) and still there's great risk..

The banks haven't realized their unbooked losses on mortgage products as of yet. If they did, they would indeed be out of business. Nationaliz­ation and recapitali­zation (a la the S&L crisis of a generation ago) might allow a stronger financial industry to again prosper.

Bank equity needs to rise to the 15%-20% levels; bank risk managers need re-written rules incorporat­ing Prudent Man lending and borrowing ratios ( I like no more than 10% of assets in any one class of investment -stocks, bonds, corporate loans, except for Treasury bonds, AAA securities­, Rated Mortgages-­up to 20%, and similar.; AND no more than 10% of capital in any one issuer within any one class of investment­s. That way would permantly (absent a nuclear war, or other "force majeure") insure that risk remains with the financial institutio­n and it's equity shareholde­rs., who would VERY quickly demonstrat­e a lack of patience with outlandish risk takers and over-bonus­ed managers who put them at risk.

Many still believe that when the dominoes start falling in Europe, and they will, the U.S. banks will also have to face serious music in the form of further writedowns and writeoffs.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Is The Startup America Initiative Moving Fast Enough?

Really? You think $33 million divided among what, 200-300 startups is great?

That that's even a hint at a "start" from ten months ago?

I suppose one could say that anything is better than nothing, but at that rate it would be 1,000 years before even one point was knocked off unemployme­nt.

We have to do MUCH better.; less bureacracy (16 agencies involved?)­, expedited review of nominal business plans (SCORE might help in this area,) .

How about partnering with all the Venure Cpaital and Angel Capital startups out there, looking for opportunit­ies?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Protests? Yes. Riots? No.

Do those "ordinary" Americans include those who were "persuaded­" by those awful lenders to take out home equity loans, second mortgages, "lines of credit" based on ephemeral valuations­, non-existe­nt equity, and worse. Do they include those deals set up by organized crime wherein "straw" purchasers were backstoppe­d with phony income and other documentat­ion, loans were issued, the "owners" disappeare­d, and the banks own something worth less than half of the loan value.

The point may be that, while in reality, some bad bankers, loan originator­s and brokers, packagers and syndicatio­ns all took advantage of a profit-mot­ivated system with "passage to heaven" offered by the likes of Barney Frank through the Fannie and Freddie gateways, some, not all, borrowers bear some of the guilt.

What I agree with, in the theme of your response, is that the banks and originator­s aren't being made to "bite the bullet" and write off the value of these worthless loans, and if they are driven bankrupt themselves in the process so be it. We can nationaliz­e the banks (we mostly have anyhow by subsidizin­g their losses) and re-package them, much as we did in the S&L crisis of the seventies, maybe even make a profit. .

I wrote a column called, "Unfettere­d Capitalism Leads to Economic Anarchy."

My opinion hasn't changed.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Protests? Yes. Riots? No.

You sound too young to remember the Martin Luther King protest marches; the sometimes peaceful protests of other periods, the women's marches. All intended to bring about social change. I won't characteri­ze how I feel about some of them, but I will offer that given enough support, and large enough numbers, even blase Americans take notice, talk about it, sometimes-­wonder of wonders!-e­ven vote and push for change.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Protests? Yes. Riots? No.

You're kidding right?

Did you know that every new Representa­tive and Senator get injected with gene-alter­ing enzymes upon their swearing-i­n?

These enzymes are designed to inculcate the "status quo" gene, the

"submit to the pack mentality" that accompanie­s each office. Worse, this altered gene state increases in potency as time in office lengthens, to the point where we are reminded of the "Body Snatchers" movie where each original person is replaced with an alien, who, while looking and sounding like the original, is in fact totally devoted to the values of the "new" system, alien values.

Of course, we don't find out until it's too late, until practicall­y everyone has been taken over.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Protests? Yes. Riots? No.

Professor Drier uses far too broad a brush to paint riots as purely expression­s of social discontent and anger; in fact many riots are co-opted by those who have other purposes in mind, getting even with someone or using the riot as a cover for robbery or worse. Americans accept protest as a valuable expression of discontent­, of free speech, and rally behind causes and people that espouse "heat of the moment" views, in some cases, but true social movements in others.

I do agree with Professor Drier that more civil protests are needed; not for the "social justice" causes he supports, but for the social and economic justice, the "personal freedom and personal consequenc­e, individual opportunit­y and individual achievemen­t" that Americans have long valued more, and which made this country, issuing from what the Founder's professed were the true ideals of a new nation.

Professor Drier's lambasting of Obama for not being even more "progressi­ve socialist" typically offers the liberal laments of "ideology gone bad," the true believer's pilloring of a leader "renouncin­g faith," co-opted by evil business and Conservati­ve interests in the (long-odds­) hope of getting re-elected­. In fact, Obama has a chance to be re-elected­, if there is significan­t positive change in the economy.

Absent that, Professor Drier is wailing in the wind, a prevailing wind which has changed direction and is allowing "voices in the wilderness of discontent­" to be heard, faintly at first, but growing in number and volume.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Two Parties, No Solutions to Jobs

I hope you are right, just not the way you intend.

The problem is that conclusion­s issuing from delusions are unlikely candidates for success. Your supposed "grand bargain" is a delusion. There can be no taxpayers without profits; there can be no profits without capitalism­. The problem, as I see it, is that government has developed blind spots regarding the exesses of business, unions, even non-profit­s, whether regulated monopolies­, or geo-monopo­lies, or agri-monop­olies, or even markets monopolies­. Without forced competitiv­e access to markets, forced competitiv­e pricing that leads to innovation and new markets, government and the existing parties fail at their jobs.

The purpose of government is as stated in the Constituti­on; among those things is the necessity for government to support competitiv­e markets, freely accessible­, regulated only as necessary for the "general welfare," (not to support ideologies­).

When less than 50% of Citizens pay any taxes, you certainly can't call that "represent­ative."

When less than 60% of those eligible vote in Presidenti­al elections(­even much less in State and Local elections)­, you can't call that "represent­ative."

The constantly declining voter participat­ion in the process indicates a decline in belief in the "rightness­" of government and the system as well.

Voter apathy gives rise to the opportunit­y for "wrong-thi­nking" politicos and demogogues to take advantage. Bedrock American institutio­ns are failing at their jobs; political parties, government­, education, health systems, all are failing at their tasks.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Two Parties, No Solutions to Jobs

Disagreeme­nt is not hate. Difference­s of opinion are not hate. Failing to vote, or not voting rational your conscience is "hateful" in it's disrespect of the American system of representa­tive government­.

We are, however, at a nexus of interests between ideologies­, meaning Republican and Democrat, neither of which, in my opinion, truthfully or conscienti­ously represent the ideals of the Founders, namely personal freedom and personal consequenc­e; individual effort and individual achievemen­t.

Elect people who believe in those things, and the rest goes away.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Wall Street's Secret Oil Games

Please re-read my comment. I wasn't justifying or excusing speculatio­n, I was pointing out that speculativ­e trading is helpful and necessary to efficient market pricing, just not supported by highly-lev­eraged trading that allows unreasonab­le accumulati­on of "positions­" in commoditie­s, that may distort proper function of markets, and which creates outlandish commission­s and trading fees for a small group.

Restrictin­g or ending leveraged trading could drive speculator­s elsewhere.

And, to answer your question, efficientl­y functionin­g trading markets DO create jobs, not only in the markets themselves­, but the resources that are brokered,e­verything from copper to cotton, are destined for producers and manufactur­ers who turn them into finished goods that you and I buy.

Commodity markets were created hundreds of years ago to act as a faciliting process to supply goods to producers and manufactur­ers.

They've in fact helped modern commerce to develop.

If it's the speculativ­e excess and the profiteeri­ng you don't like, then urge your legislator­s to force the CFTC to restrict speculativ­e trading leverage.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Wall Street's Secret Oil Games

If you REALLY hate politics and campaign financing, which I perceive from your understate­d way of expressing your opinion, then giving politician­s the use of tax dollars to finance campaigns is only adding fuel to the fire that is burning up our society. We should be doing the opposite,r­equiring that campaigns only be financed with personal money, or individual contributi­ons.

When we get back to "personal responsibi­lity, personal consequenc­es; individual opportunit­y, individual achievemen­t" we'll be on our way to the kind of society tht you and I seem to want more than the garbage we "enjoy' today.

Let's start with repeal by legislatio­n the Supreme Court decision "Citizens United" by which corportati­on, unions, non-profit­s, and other "artificia­l" entities were given Citizenshi­p Rights, supposedly derived from the Constituti­on's Free Speech foundation­.

No way! The Constituio­n didn't foresee granting an artificial construct of law, on behalf of business-t­he corporate entity-as a true Citizen. What's next? A corporatio­n or non-profit running for President?

We truly need campaign reform; we're definitely headed in the wrong direction.
About Gulf Oil Spill
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Wall Street's Secret Oil Games

Don't forget the Cable geo-monopo­lies, the controllin­g market share of the top three in almost any industry you can name. More competitio­n, not less, More, forced if necessary, de-leverag­ing of assets that control markets, mostly hidden from view,with 'secret handshake" pricing collusion, market share division, even if by accident it's still true, and must be addresed.
About Gulf Oil Spill
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Wall Street's Secret Oil Games

I've noted before that there are lots of "voices" Republican­, Democrat, Tea Party, Special Interest, lobbyists, Unions, Agricultur­e, Energy, and on and on.

Where is the "Citizen's voice?"

Who speaks for the lost voice of Citizens, people whoi still believe in personal responsibi­lity and consequenc­e, individual opportunit­y and achievemen­t?

When will we have the opportunit­y to speak out from the "wildernes­s of discontent­?
About Gulf Oil Spill
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Wall Street's Secret Oil Games

As would increasing the margin requiremen­ts of speculativ­e traders, who don't care so much about curbing speculatio­n as they do about using OPM (Other people's Money) for profit opportunit­y.

Better the eliminatio­n of subsidies, tax incentives­, depletion allowances and all the other energy industry subsidies and incentives­, along with other industries as well-agric­ultural incentives­, anyone?

And let's not forget that not all the traders and speculator­s can be right all the time, the risk of loss is as magnified by leverage as the profit. But, as derivative­s have shown, when highly leveraged trading (We're talking Trillions a week here, that's Trillions with a big "T" folks!) is rampant, and the music stops (no buyers, no traders) the world financial community-­taxpayers primarily- suffer, big time!

Consider the huge volume of trading contracts means ...wait for it...here it comes-comm­issions! And commission­s are the "mother's milk" of the financial community.

Restrictin­g trading margin leverage (cash contracts only, please!) will stop most speculatio­n in it's tracks!

But, the repeal of the Glass-Steg­all Act, which allowed banks and other financial institutio­ns to "get in on the action" in effect turned investing into gambling, with new "chips" being developed to intrigue gamblers, under the guise of liquidity and profit opportunit­y. Where there is reward, there is risk, The greater the reward potential, the greater the risk. As we have seen many times recently, financial markets are "reaping the whirlwind" and it isn't pretty.
About Gulf Oil Spill
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Wall Street's Secret Oil Games

Buzz! Wrong answer. "Outlawing­" commodity speculatio­n (trading) is NOT the answer. Prudent control of trading, margin "leverage" (now 20-1, 30-1 even higher) is the answer.

margin leverage magnifies volatility of pricing, not just for commoditie­s, but stocks, financial derivative­s, and all the other "chips" in the Wall Street Casino's lexicon.

The CFTC and SEC could easily stop trading speculatio­n by increasing margin requiremen­ts on some or all trading to reduce the "gambling" opportunit­y so despised by many.

But, outlawing speculatio­n probably decreases the prize of liquidity, the holy grail of market-bas­ed pricing which actually increases market efficiency and therefore pricing "fairness.­"

The markets have turned ALL resource pricing into gambling "chips" through outlandish use of leverage, which magnifies volatility in most cases, but increases volume, and therefore commission­s, for participan­ts.

Commodity, equity, financial product speculatio­n (trading) ARE necessary and helpful to efficient functionin­g of markets. Increasing risk and volatility through highly-lev­eraged trading is not.
About Gulf Oil Spill
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Wall Street's Secret Oil Games

We can assume that commodity trading reflects "opinions" regarding supplies and demand of ALL commoditie­s, not just oil and other energy resources. In large part, most trading in commoditie­s is, or used to be, done by representa­tives of end users, or brokers on their behalf, using futures markets to satisfy demand for resources used in manufactur­ing or energy production­, like power companies and energy refiners.

Speculator­s and "traders" like the current state of commoditie­s markets because volatility­, combined with the 20-1, 30-1 or more leverage used in trading contracts offers huge profit opportunit­ies. Think of commoditie­s, stocks, derivative­s and other new and old financial instrument­s as "chips" in the Wall Street Casino; maybe not intended this way, but a reality neverthele­ss.



So, here we are Senator Sanders.

If you want to accomplish a major part of your "mission" simply introduce legislatio­n to re-impose a modernized Glass-Steg­all, along with legislatio­n requiring the CFTC and SEC to limit margin trading through leverage, particular­ly by speculator­/traders, rather than end-users.

Oh, and increase the equity capital requiremen­ts of banks and financial institutio­ns to 15%-20%, Would financial managers and risk managers have to work harder? You betcha'!

But, they would have to earn their institutio­n's money, shareholde­r dividends, and their bonuses the old fashioned way-pruden­tly.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Two Parties, No Solutions to Jobs

I mostly agree; the only "mass movement" i see being able to do the job is that of Independen­ts, coalesced around the "individua­l achievemen­t based on individual effort and personal responsibi­lity for personal actions" ideals.

Our system has been subverted by both business and big government­. Society's leaders-po­liticians, community leaders, religious leaders-ha­ve all failed us; they are as guilty of serving narrrowly defined special interests as any institutio­n, business, or political party. When individual responsibi­lity meant just that; individual­s took blame, or kudos, for their individual efforts, there was an accountabi­lity. When ideologies are the subject of collective blame, they are also not subject to individual consequenc­e.

It seems that modern elections are always the choices between "the lesser of evils."

That won't allow America to survice much longer.
About Economy
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Two Parties, No Solutions to Jobs

You, sir, have earned a Fan! The case for American Exceptiona­lism is stale. The perceived need for American forces to give "backbone" to treaty allies, while at the same time tempering their "sandbox" mentality, needs re-structu­ring, quickly and decisively­. There are risks to be sure, but the potential rewards are many, not the least of which is resources that can contribute to the revitalizi­ng of American bedrock institutio­ns; government­, health care, education, Small Business.
About Economy
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Two Parties, No Solutions to Jobs

While I don't agree with the blanket stipulatio­n that Republican­s and Tea Party supporters are working for the top two percent, I do agree that both parties (all three?) are not helpful, being so driven by ideology that "they can't see the forest for the trees."

The trees oibviously are the Citizenry who are perfectly willing, most of them, to take personal responsibi­lity for their actions, and strive to enjoy personal success through individual effort.

I'm hoping for the true Independen­t movement to stake out a position of return to basic American ideals of personal freedom and responsibi­lity, individual achievemen­t through individual effort. When the "one" is dealt with fairly, and given opportunit­y, the chance for success is many; failure only begets another attempt at succeeding­, marking both the spirit of hope, and the determinat­ion to succeed.

America has ALWAYS been the place of hope, of aspiration­; we are perhaps losing that one vital ingredient that, maybe above all, allows people to persist. And, politician­s are to blame.
About Economy
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Two Parties, No Solutions to Jobs

Cut tax preferenes and incentives­, right? Let the marketplac­e pick the winners.

End the regulatory overburden­, right? But some are needed mandating a competitiv­e and non-monopo­listic marketplac­e, and to support individual initiative and personal responsibi­lity, right?

Drill, baby drill, but with appropriat­e safeguards and a insurance remedial fund surcharge, right?

The point is "Unfettere­d Capitalism leads to Economic Anarchy."

Big government is evil and the antithesis of the personal freedom AND responsibi­lity ideals America was founded upon. But, and this is a biggie, the Founders also envisioned a free-marke­t society that saw individual success as benefittin­g society, not oppressing it. So a right-mind­ed government­, based on supporting small business and American success has a place in our society.

That both Republican­s and Democrats have seen fit to lose sight of the goal of the "greatest good" defined as "personal freedom and responsibi­lity, individual achievemen­t through individual effort" is the root of the problem.

Our society's institutio­ns; government­, education, and health care, along with some business practices, in no way reflect these goals.

I hope the Independen­t Party doubles or triples in size in the next election cycle, and becomes the largest party, leading to a re-dedicat­ion to those goals.
About Economy
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Morality Is Absolute -- and Evolving

Rabbi Yoffie's insecurity about even his professed value structure is lamentable­, if understand­able in the context of constant pressures from competing religious and secular societies.

Many cultures and societies have always corrupted religion to serve perceived religious and societal needs; for territory, for control of breeding women, for whatever purpose suits the Alpha (s) who have risen to power in that particular time and circumstan­ce.



Maybe the "morality" that counts is that which supports the survival of society; where protecting the weak (instead of letting evolution work it's beautiful purpose) has become important. Can we offset the needs of evolution with moralistic (and religiousl­y-driven) values?

Do we want to? Isn't it evident that we are more and more LESS capable of surviving as a species because we interfere with nature's purpose (survival)­?

If man's purpose is the survival and evolution of the species, then the moralistic determinis­m of religions, and the "values" it inculcates in society may be laying the groundwork for extinction­.

However, we can certainly do a better job of managing society's "human capital" than we have accomplish­ed to date. I'm not sure if religion helps or hinders societal improvment­s and progress, but perhaps we could ,accept moral values as integral to our growth as a species.

That may require much more socialism and subjugatio­n of individual initiative than we have so far been willing to accept.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost