This LA Times report here is encouraging in two aspects. Resistance for more troops is becoming bipartisan, relieving a young president, the first African American from the Freudian need to appear more "American" than American -- assuming that had for a moment entered into his deliberation.
The second piece of news is the best yet -- if Americans are really behind escalation, then they should pay for it by way of a Afghanistan War Surtax. Let's see how that goes down.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Larry Summers - Best & Brightest 2
Larry Summers had to resign the Harvard presidency for his smart-alerk comment re shortage of women scientists due to possible DNA factors. His supporters argued he was merely listing a list of possible reasons the way any serious scientists would in intellectual speculation. Thinking aloud, as it were, without necessarily committing himself to any single position.
Well, if I were to similarly intellectually speculate in a public form that somewhere along Larry's family tree in eons past some of his ancestors might have had excessive arrogance DNA or perhaps some were mentally crippled mongoloids with excessively high IQ while adding the caveat that by the time Larry was born and later was universally lauded by an adoring press with a heavy duty Harvard-envy that any traces of that possible or even probable deformity had clearly become moot, would I have been intellectually speculative, therefore usefully provocative, or was I being just a horse's ass?
Mark, my most helpful friend, sent me this latest piece here on how Larry played fund manager leading the world's richest and mighty Harvard into a financial crisis.
Come to think of it, I wish he had not been drummed out of Harvard so that right now he would have had to face the humiliating task of righting Harvard's tattered balance sheets for which he was responsible.
Well, when Larry was Harvard's president he was paid millions being a part time consultant to D.E. Shaw, a hedge fund. I wonder how often D.E. Shaw acted on his advice or merely listening politely and then ignored his advice.
Anyone who has spent serious time managing money knows the difference between theory and practice. Anyone who has listened to expensive academic consultants at a fund management company also knows how often their advice is dismissed as not credible irrespective of their brilliant credentials.
In money as in so many other aspects in life, it is not a bad rule of thumb to remember that those who can, do; those who can talk well should keep talking.
Well, if I were to similarly intellectually speculate in a public form that somewhere along Larry's family tree in eons past some of his ancestors might have had excessive arrogance DNA or perhaps some were mentally crippled mongoloids with excessively high IQ while adding the caveat that by the time Larry was born and later was universally lauded by an adoring press with a heavy duty Harvard-envy that any traces of that possible or even probable deformity had clearly become moot, would I have been intellectually speculative, therefore usefully provocative, or was I being just a horse's ass?
Mark, my most helpful friend, sent me this latest piece here on how Larry played fund manager leading the world's richest and mighty Harvard into a financial crisis.
Come to think of it, I wish he had not been drummed out of Harvard so that right now he would have had to face the humiliating task of righting Harvard's tattered balance sheets for which he was responsible.
Well, when Larry was Harvard's president he was paid millions being a part time consultant to D.E. Shaw, a hedge fund. I wonder how often D.E. Shaw acted on his advice or merely listening politely and then ignored his advice.
Anyone who has spent serious time managing money knows the difference between theory and practice. Anyone who has listened to expensive academic consultants at a fund management company also knows how often their advice is dismissed as not credible irrespective of their brilliant credentials.
In money as in so many other aspects in life, it is not a bad rule of thumb to remember that those who can, do; those who can talk well should keep talking.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Bin Laden -- Almost Caught
Well, an official US Congressional report hereconfirmed what we long suspected. Bush dropped the ball.
Whither the US Stock Market?
These 2 charts, the stuff "chartists" love, suggest the Dow Jones Industrial Average at this point is neither here nor there -- in the middle of the "channel". They also suggest that if the Dow breaks out from its upper resistance, it will again take off in a major run. But if it breaks down below its support line in the charts, then it is headed back down, way down. This is "technical"-speak. Some people consider technical analysis a form of voodoo. Others swear by it. You choose.
Source: Big Picture Blog
Music to Gold Buyers
Read what China is doing for its economy here. Both the Chinese and the Hong Kong stock markets are among the best performing this year.
This is what makes a "market": Gold vs Bonds?
"This" is a gap in perception between what makes a buyer buy, a seller sell.
Both parties have one thing in "common": they both take a look into their crystal ball. There ends their similarity for they see a different future. A market is born precisely because both parties see the need to act differently.
This is what is going on in the bond market which sees Deflation and stagnation. A recent posting of mine shows the severe drop in consumer spending. You can read numerous stories about "negative equity" in homeownership and increasing personal savings -- for the first time in some years -- as US households fear for the future.
On the other hand, buyers of gold see huge increases in government spending -- all over the developed world, in US, China and Europe -- as well as money printing. So they forecast inflation ahead. Some like Marc Faber even see hyper-inflation.
Read this for a nice summary of what is going on in this gold/bond dilemma here.
Both parties have one thing in "common": they both take a look into their crystal ball. There ends their similarity for they see a different future. A market is born precisely because both parties see the need to act differently.
This is what is going on in the bond market which sees Deflation and stagnation. A recent posting of mine shows the severe drop in consumer spending. You can read numerous stories about "negative equity" in homeownership and increasing personal savings -- for the first time in some years -- as US households fear for the future.
On the other hand, buyers of gold see huge increases in government spending -- all over the developed world, in US, China and Europe -- as well as money printing. So they forecast inflation ahead. Some like Marc Faber even see hyper-inflation.
Read this for a nice summary of what is going on in this gold/bond dilemma here.
JIm Rogers on Gold and Geithner
Jim Rogers, the famous ex hedge fund co founder of Soros Fund, is long gold but is not buying right now even though he thinks it will go to $2000 sometime in the distant future. He also said this in an Businessweek interview:
What's your outlook for commodities in 2010?
I'm not smart enough to know. But I will say that if the world economy gets better, then commodities will be one of the best places to be because of the shortages that are developing. If the world economy does not get better, commodities will still be the place to be because governments are printing all this money.
Tim Geithner has been under attack lately. How's he doing?
Listen, I have been a critic for years. Geithner should never have been appointed to anything. He's been wrong about just about everything for 15 years.
Do you think he'll lose his job?
Of course he's going to lose his job, because as Mr. Obama realizes that Geithner doesn't know what he's doing, he's going to look for somebody else because he doesn't want to take the heat himself. So he's going to look to blame somebody, and the obvious person is Geithner.
The entire interview is here.
What's your outlook for commodities in 2010?
I'm not smart enough to know. But I will say that if the world economy gets better, then commodities will be one of the best places to be because of the shortages that are developing. If the world economy does not get better, commodities will still be the place to be because governments are printing all this money.
Tim Geithner has been under attack lately. How's he doing?
Listen, I have been a critic for years. Geithner should never have been appointed to anything. He's been wrong about just about everything for 15 years.
Do you think he'll lose his job?
Of course he's going to lose his job, because as Mr. Obama realizes that Geithner doesn't know what he's doing, he's going to look for somebody else because he doesn't want to take the heat himself. So he's going to look to blame somebody, and the obvious person is Geithner.
The entire interview is here.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Friday, November 27, 2009
The Dazzling Blonde
The security at White House is a joke, apparently. Read this amazing report here of how a blonde effectively just walked into the White House uninvited.
Indulge for 2 seconds of racial profiling. Do you think a black or an Asian woman could have pulled this off? Just asking.
Indulge for 2 seconds of racial profiling. Do you think a black or an Asian woman could have pulled this off? Just asking.
The Brits Should Know
Gordon Brown, UK Prime Minister, has finally spoken frankly and publicly about what to do with Afghanistan as reported here.
The Brits ought to know a few things about that country. They were kicked out twice by local forces when Britannia was still ruling the waves and the sun never set on their empire. The first time their entire military force was wiped out saved for a couple of individuals deliberately set free by the Afghans to deliver a message to the Court to stay away.
The Brits ought to know a few things about that country. They were kicked out twice by local forces when Britannia was still ruling the waves and the sun never set on their empire. The first time their entire military force was wiped out saved for a couple of individuals deliberately set free by the Afghans to deliver a message to the Court to stay away.
War
"War, we have come to believe, is a spectator sport. The military and the press ... have turned war into a vast video arcade game. Its very essence- death - is hidden from public view.": Chris Hedges, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for New York Times
***
***
The Decline of the Catholic Church
I normally stay away from religious topics -- unless they have a connection to Rises and Falls of Empires, a favorite topic of mine.
This sad and sordid report here on sexual abuse by Irish priests over a very long time is relevant to the Rise and the ongoing Decline of the Roman Catholic Church.
The official government report on child abuses is here.
One normally does not think of the Vatican as an empire. At the height of the Soviet empire which covered all of Eastern Europe, Central Asia and could count China and North Korea as "cousins", Stalin famously asked an advisor dismissively: "How many divisions does the pope have?"
The last laugh is not heard in Kremlin, but in Vatican. The proper answer to Stalin would have been "How many divisions does the Pope need?" No one at Kremlin had the courage to give Stalin that answer, of course.
The Church has outlasted all secular empires. The Church and its doctrines shaped the minds over 2000 years around the world without having had to build its own armies. Well, to be fair, it had others to do its dirty work.
It is, therefore, not inappropriate to think of Vatican as an empire.
All falling empires shares these 2 features: economic and moral decay.
The Church is still rich, very rich. However, the moral decay as evidenced in this report and in other similar reports elsewhere in the world is a stake through its heart.
Has anyone wondered why celibacy is so important to the Church? Protestants long broke away from that medieval and ridiculous restrictions. What, pray tell, has sex got to do with salvation or lack of?
To enforce this ridiculous rule, the Church had to invent Virgin Birth so that the mother of Jesus bore a child without having had sex with Joseph.
Celibacy was enforced only in the 12th century at the Second Lateran Council, an edict held up by the Council of Trent in the 16th century. Prior to 1139 CE, priests could indeed take wives and, yes Virginia, have sex.
Sex was never a taboo subject in the old Testament and became an "issue" only in the New Testament which, we know, was more a book written by committees and revised over the centuries. It was more a political document than one about truth.
The fundamental issue remains: why is celibacy among priests necessary? Celibacy is the root of all sexual abuses by Catholic priests. But you can count on this conservative Pope Benedict XVI to keep on the books the law of celibacy. That can only hasten the decline of this "other" Roman Empire that has outlasted that secular Roman Empire by nearly 1800 years.
This sad and sordid report here on sexual abuse by Irish priests over a very long time is relevant to the Rise and the ongoing Decline of the Roman Catholic Church.
The official government report on child abuses is here.
One normally does not think of the Vatican as an empire. At the height of the Soviet empire which covered all of Eastern Europe, Central Asia and could count China and North Korea as "cousins", Stalin famously asked an advisor dismissively: "How many divisions does the pope have?"
The last laugh is not heard in Kremlin, but in Vatican. The proper answer to Stalin would have been "How many divisions does the Pope need?" No one at Kremlin had the courage to give Stalin that answer, of course.
The Church has outlasted all secular empires. The Church and its doctrines shaped the minds over 2000 years around the world without having had to build its own armies. Well, to be fair, it had others to do its dirty work.
It is, therefore, not inappropriate to think of Vatican as an empire.
All falling empires shares these 2 features: economic and moral decay.
The Church is still rich, very rich. However, the moral decay as evidenced in this report and in other similar reports elsewhere in the world is a stake through its heart.
Has anyone wondered why celibacy is so important to the Church? Protestants long broke away from that medieval and ridiculous restrictions. What, pray tell, has sex got to do with salvation or lack of?
To enforce this ridiculous rule, the Church had to invent Virgin Birth so that the mother of Jesus bore a child without having had sex with Joseph.
Celibacy was enforced only in the 12th century at the Second Lateran Council, an edict held up by the Council of Trent in the 16th century. Prior to 1139 CE, priests could indeed take wives and, yes Virginia, have sex.
Sex was never a taboo subject in the old Testament and became an "issue" only in the New Testament which, we know, was more a book written by committees and revised over the centuries. It was more a political document than one about truth.
The fundamental issue remains: why is celibacy among priests necessary? Celibacy is the root of all sexual abuses by Catholic priests. But you can count on this conservative Pope Benedict XVI to keep on the books the law of celibacy. That can only hasten the decline of this "other" Roman Empire that has outlasted that secular Roman Empire by nearly 1800 years.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
An Obama disaster in the making
The press is getting the unofficial word from nameless White House officials that Obama is likely to add 30,000 troops (roughly) to Afghanistan. Read this report here from the NY Times.
If he were to do this, he will jeopardize his domestic programs that are already strapped for funds, and he will send soldiers to die unnecessarily to fight a war without a firm agenda in a land that is fundamentally alien to global values.
To change that country turning it into a willing and effective ally is beyond the capability of 100,000 US GI's. No one can change a nation if it is not ready.
And no empire has ever subjugated Afghanistan which is called the country "where empires go to die" for good reasons. Russia, Britain, Persia all tried and failed. USA will be no different.
The logic of escalation will be cast in concrete once the 30,000 troops are sent. Why? Because if they can't "finish the job", more troops will be needed. Just as in Vietnam when the military consistently miscalculated what was needed with the acquiescence of a president too afraid to be the first to "lose a war".
That logic drove LBJ into early retirement and in the process turned the country into two decades of social and economic turmoil that is still reverberating to this day.
If he were to do this, he will jeopardize his domestic programs that are already strapped for funds, and he will send soldiers to die unnecessarily to fight a war without a firm agenda in a land that is fundamentally alien to global values.
To change that country turning it into a willing and effective ally is beyond the capability of 100,000 US GI's. No one can change a nation if it is not ready.
And no empire has ever subjugated Afghanistan which is called the country "where empires go to die" for good reasons. Russia, Britain, Persia all tried and failed. USA will be no different.
The logic of escalation will be cast in concrete once the 30,000 troops are sent. Why? Because if they can't "finish the job", more troops will be needed. Just as in Vietnam when the military consistently miscalculated what was needed with the acquiescence of a president too afraid to be the first to "lose a war".
That logic drove LBJ into early retirement and in the process turned the country into two decades of social and economic turmoil that is still reverberating to this day.
Monday, November 23, 2009
World Economic Map - A Quiz
Thanks to Greg Mankiw's useful blog I am reproducing a chart he himself got it from someone else. We all need a little help from each other.
Quiz. Around the time Jesus was walking around in Palestine changing stones into bread and stuff, which was the largest economy in the world? Second largest?
Hint. Look up Angus Maddison's majestrial opus on World Economy, a Millennial Perspective.
Everybody Hates Goldman Sachs
...And that includes officially the New York Times. Its editorial on that company is here.
While I do agree with the editorial's outrage at Goldman's cynical PR to redress its tattered image, I do strong believe there are other equally guilty culprits: Hank Paulson when he was Treasury Secretary who did not set the right carrot and stick framework to help out his former friends and colleagues at Goldman as well as other "too big to fail" Wall Street firms. His policy was all carrot.
Then there is Team Obama who should have plugged all the loopholes Paulson had bequeathed them. Instead, Geithner and Summers continued to look the other way while the Feds handed out a king's ransom to further help out Wall Street wholesale.
So, NY Times should have asked for a full accounting of what Paulson did or did not do, the resignation of Geithner and Summers as well as all the once-off tax on 2009/2008 bonuses to be credited back to the taxpayers.
While I do agree with the editorial's outrage at Goldman's cynical PR to redress its tattered image, I do strong believe there are other equally guilty culprits: Hank Paulson when he was Treasury Secretary who did not set the right carrot and stick framework to help out his former friends and colleagues at Goldman as well as other "too big to fail" Wall Street firms. His policy was all carrot.
Then there is Team Obama who should have plugged all the loopholes Paulson had bequeathed them. Instead, Geithner and Summers continued to look the other way while the Feds handed out a king's ransom to further help out Wall Street wholesale.
So, NY Times should have asked for a full accounting of what Paulson did or did not do, the resignation of Geithner and Summers as well as all the once-off tax on 2009/2008 bonuses to be credited back to the taxpayers.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Indulge my gloating - 7 Days in May
In today's NY Times (Nov 22, 2009) here columnist Maureen Dowd wrote:
..."McChrystal and Gen. David Petraeus should have been giving their best advice to Obama — and airing their view against scaling down in Afghanistan — in confidence. Instead, McChrystal pushed his opinion in a speech in London, and Petraeus has discussed his feelings in private sessions with reporters. This creates a “Seven Days in May” syndrome, where the two generals are, in effect, lobbying against the president and undercutting him as he’s trying to make a painfully complex, life-and-death decision"...
On October 2, 2009 I referred to that movie "7 Days in May" on my blog here. I thought the general should have been fired for openly pressuring his commander-in-chief showing great disrespect. I am glad Ms Dowd is edging closer to that position.
Ms Dowd, welcome to the "Fire Gen. McChrystal" Fan Club. Better later than never.
..."McChrystal and Gen. David Petraeus should have been giving their best advice to Obama — and airing their view against scaling down in Afghanistan — in confidence. Instead, McChrystal pushed his opinion in a speech in London, and Petraeus has discussed his feelings in private sessions with reporters. This creates a “Seven Days in May” syndrome, where the two generals are, in effect, lobbying against the president and undercutting him as he’s trying to make a painfully complex, life-and-death decision"...
On October 2, 2009 I referred to that movie "7 Days in May" on my blog here. I thought the general should have been fired for openly pressuring his commander-in-chief showing great disrespect. I am glad Ms Dowd is edging closer to that position.
Ms Dowd, welcome to the "Fire Gen. McChrystal" Fan Club. Better later than never.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Xmas came early to Wall Street
..."Earlier this week, the inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, a k a, the bank bailout fund, released his report on the 2008 rescue of the American International Group, the insurer. The gist of the report is that government officials made no serious attempt to extract concessions from bankers, even though these bankers received huge benefits from the rescue. And more than money was lost. By making what was in effect a multibillion-dollar gift to Wall Street, policy makers undermined their own credibility — and put the broader economy at risk.
...So here’s the real tragedy of the botched bailout: Government officials, perhaps influenced by spending too much time with bankers, forgot that if you want to govern effectively you have retain the trust of the people. And by treating the financial industry — which got us into this mess in the first place — with kid gloves, they have squandered that trust".... Paul Krugman
To be fair, the great giveaway started with Hank Paulson, who not only spent "too much with bankers" was one himself at Goldman Sachs. Second, while Geithner was not himself a Wall Street banker, his education, his social background, his world outlook were all shaped by the same "core values" and world outlook of the elite bankers. Effectively the Wall Street titans were shaping the rescue package. And that, of course, would not have a clause to hurt their own self interest, let alone their job security.
Ultimately, let's put the blame where it belongs. It is Obama who listened to and signed off on whatever Summers and Geithner proposed.
The official government report is here.
Money has been spent. I said earlier this year that Wall Street Had Won big, like 7-0 in soccer terms. In American football terms, it would like 70-0.
No wonder Mr Lloyd Blankfein is smiling telling the world he is doing "God's work". If he were representing God, and he had in fact won big, what makes the US Government and through them you and me? We are just shits?
...So here’s the real tragedy of the botched bailout: Government officials, perhaps influenced by spending too much time with bankers, forgot that if you want to govern effectively you have retain the trust of the people. And by treating the financial industry — which got us into this mess in the first place — with kid gloves, they have squandered that trust".... Paul Krugman
To be fair, the great giveaway started with Hank Paulson, who not only spent "too much with bankers" was one himself at Goldman Sachs. Second, while Geithner was not himself a Wall Street banker, his education, his social background, his world outlook were all shaped by the same "core values" and world outlook of the elite bankers. Effectively the Wall Street titans were shaping the rescue package. And that, of course, would not have a clause to hurt their own self interest, let alone their job security.
Ultimately, let's put the blame where it belongs. It is Obama who listened to and signed off on whatever Summers and Geithner proposed.
The official government report is here.
Money has been spent. I said earlier this year that Wall Street Had Won big, like 7-0 in soccer terms. In American football terms, it would like 70-0.
No wonder Mr Lloyd Blankfein is smiling telling the world he is doing "God's work". If he were representing God, and he had in fact won big, what makes the US Government and through them you and me? We are just shits?
Friday, November 20, 2009
Is the Bond Market wrong?
Quiz.
Paul Krugman posted this chart in his NY Times blog to support his conclusion that the paranoia in DC about inflation fears are totally unjustified. The over-riding issue to him is insufficient stimulus a la Keynes. The chart shows net deb/GDP in the US is nowhere close to alarming since there are those countries with higher or equal relative levels of debt.
1) Provide no more than 2 reasons why Krugman could be right.
Hint: investigate into the Fed's balance sheets
2) Provide no more than 2 reasons why Krugman could be wrong.
Hint: Look up Dr. Doom's writings and his comment on Bloomberg TV that US "will become Zimbabwe", to be sure for dramatic effect to make a point!! By implication, Marc Faber and those who are long gold, short the dollar, believe the bond market is wrong while Krugman clearly believes it is right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)