In the event you haven’t heard, the Obama administration, meaning Obama, is sticking to his promised plan to withdraw troops from Iraq, in a kind of sorta’ way that makes you wonder if he’s pulling everybody’s leg, laughing inside as he waits for us to all get the joke. The New York Times reporters assigned to a recent column on the subject pitch in the question that, with the violence in Iraq ramping up with the election cycle and all, will this "delay the planned American withdrawal?"
It might, if there was a withdrawal planned.
When is a withdrawal not a withdrawal? When you will leave behind "no more than 50,000 American forces", according to someone named "Senior Obama administration officials" who, judging by the number of quotes he plants across the daily papers is a regular Gabby Gus. And, lest the eternally fearful war-hawks shit their feathers in fright at the word "withdrawal" Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. let’s out that, not to worry, regular Rambos will be left in Iraq as "we’re not leaving behind cooks and quartermasters". So Max Boot & Pals can come out from under the covers.
Click To Read The Rest
By I will be taking a short business trip in a few days, and some time ago I made reservations with a Sheraton Hotel at my destination. Today I received via e-mail a confirmation notice from the hotel, along with a weather forecast and some boilerplate about the hotel’s facilities. Quickly scanning this message, I was struck by something in a section labeled “Your Privacy” that reads as follows:
Please note: For security purposes, you will be asked to provide a valid government or state-issued photo ID at check-in.
I cannot recall ever having been required to show official identification papers merely to register at a hotel — a credit card, yes, but not a government-issued photo ID. Though offended, I cannot say that I am surprised by this turn of events. I wonder whether some law or regulation now requires the hotels to check their guests’ official papers.
Anyone who has paid the least attention over the years has noticed that more and more businesses and government agencies have required that one show his official — that is, government-issued — identity papers in order to be served or admitted. Airlines, of course, have required such identification for many years, although I can remember a time when they did not do so — indeed, a time when one simply walked, with freinds and relatives if one wished, to the departure gate and boarded the airplane without any interception for security screening at all. Auto rental companies demanded an official driver’s license. Now, even hotels treat their customers as suspected terrorists.
Who’ll do so next — the dry cleaners, the grocery store, the bank, the gas station? Will the gestapo lurk outside my front gate to make sure that I identify myself properly before driving my automobile onto the highway? Will the church demand my papers before administering the Holy Communion?
Most Americans, of course, will take such new impositions in stride, just as they have accepted the outrageous treatment they must suffer at the airports. If you have nothing to hide . . . la, la, la. One who protests or complains will be viewed as paranoid or as a troublemaker.
The slope toward totalitariansim is slippery, indeed, but sometimes the slope is so gradual that one scarcely notices that one is sliding downward. Ask the ordinary Germans who slid down that slope after 1933; heed the voice of those who can still recall, with a chill, the horrible sound of those dreaded words, “Papiere Bitte!”
A popular slogan of the Italian Fascists under Mussolini was, “Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato” (everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state). I recall this expression frequently as I observe the state’s far-reaching penetration of my own society.
What of any consequence remains beyond the state’s reach in the United States today? Not wages, working conditions, or labor-management relations; not health care; not money, banking, or financial services; not personal privacy; not transportation or communication; not education or scientific research; not farming or food supply; not nutrition or food quality; not marriage or divorce; not child care; not provision for retirement; not recreation; not insurance of any kind; not smoking or drinking; not gambling; not political campaign funding or publicity; not real estate development, house construction, or housing finance; not international travel, trade, or finance; not a thousand other areas and aspects of social life.
Drudge linked to news that C-SPAN is making their entire archives available online (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/arts/television/16cspan.html) -- this is good stuff, and kudos to Brian Lamb for his outstanding vision. On the other hand, Drudge is not linking or reporting articles about Michael Furlong, the Senior Executive Service guy who has been hiring contractors to go and "do" intelligence outside of regulation and policy. One report of the situation is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/15/pentagon-spy-network-taliban-bourne. Furlong's official Air Force biography fails to mention he was fired for the utter incompetence of his Voice of America work in Iraq in the summer of 2003. Furlong did receive a Pentagon award for his work in "strategic influence" as an SAIC contractor -- possibly working in the ill-fated fifth floor Office of Strategic Influence. In any case, Furlong is clearly an overpaid hack, and a model case study in how the government does "information." Old-boy networks, staffed by dummies, with no accountability and unlimited taxpayer budgets -- that is the trademark of the state. C-Span may not be a completely market-based enterprise, but I'll take Brian Lamb's honest approach anytime.
It says much about the immaturity of American discourse that before one can say anything at all that might somehow, in some way, be construed as anti-Israel, you need to assure the readers of your pure heart, that you do not have a secret stash of Nazi paraphernalia hidden in the attic and get up to some goosestep late at night when the world is asleep. So here it goes: Fear not, I have nothing at all against Israel, harbor no ill will towards her, and the collection of totalitarian paraphernalia in my home has a decidedly communist bent. (My Chairman Mao collection grows daily.)
That being said, I find it strange how American politicians have such a mindless bent towards supporting the Israelis regardless of their actions, support of a fervor usually seen only in sports fanatics or Ayn Rand acolytes. Such unconditional love was put on display during the recent little hiccup in our relations with Israel. It started when the Obama Administration suggested that, to help along the eternally elusive goal of peace between the people of Israel and Palestine, perhaps the Israelis should stop building settlements on Palestinian land. Or at least land that the Palestinians claim.
So then, to add a chuckle to the entire farce of "peace" talks, during a visit to Israel by Vice President Joseph Biden (who spent much time during his latest campaign assuring anyone who would listen that he cherishes all that is Israel) the Israeli government announced that, peace talks or no, they are going to build more settlement housing in the face of Palestinian opposition. This makes sense as after all, how many F-16 fighter jets do the Palestinians possess? The Obama Administration issued a squeak of protest, said squeak instantly answered by a disapproving roar from Congress.
Over the last two months, China's government has been gradually reducing its exposure to U.S. debt.
Terrific symposium on this is up at Cato Unbound, featuring Dave Schmidtz and Tom Palmer among others. Fascinating. Go read it.
The American government has accomplished many things in Iraq; however, improving the conditions of the people living there is not among them. This is especially true when it comes to the lives of women.
In an email exchange, a friend expressed his belief that America would soon have a second revolution that was brought about by political and economic instability. My immediate thought was "if that happens, I expect it will more closely resemble the French Revolution than the one in 1776." Then I sat back and tried to figure out why I had arrived at that instant conclusion, and whether it had any merit. As a proximate cause, I think the conclusion popped up as a result of some reading I did last night and from listening to CNN this morning as I did the ifeminists newsfeeds. CNN had two stories that clashed together in my mind: 1) there had been a sharp increase in the number of millionaires in the U.S.; and, 2) unemployment benefits now run for 99 weeks in order to alleviate the severe and widespread suffering of the jobless. To me that means the gulf between the haves and have-nots is widening and quickly so.
I wasn't too happy with Ron Paul's immigration stand during the presidential campaign, but he almost makes up for it here in this wonderfully effective warning about the dangers of a national I.D card.
Over one hundred years later, are we finally witnessing the formation of a new Anti-Imperialist League? The first signs are proming.
A diverse group of progressives, conservatives, and libertarians, including David Henderson of the Independent Institute, lawyer-activist Kevin Zeese, Jesse Walker of Reason, and historian Paul Buhle, have met with the goal of "bringing together conservatives, progressives, liberals and libertarians who oppose American militarism and Empire."
The website of the group, tentatively named Come Home, America Citizens Opposed to U.S. Militarism and Empire, is here and suggestions, and volunteers, are welcome.
Check out Russ Roberts's recent interview with Michael Belongia (University of Mississippi), in which they discuss the operations of the Fed. Although I do not agree with all of Belongia's proposed reforms, he has many insightful observations that complement some of the arguments that David Henderson and I have made. For instance:
1. An early draft of our article on Greenspan exposed the Vockler myth, arguing that Vockler's monetary policy was not as tight as many believe and that his role in bringing down inflation in the early 1980s is grossly exaggerated. That section was edited out of all the published versions as too much of a digression, but Belongia offers some surprising (and even chilling) confirmation of our claim.
2. Belongia not only wholeheartedly agrees that interest rates are a poor way of gauging monetary policy, but he goes so far as to argue that, over the period when everyone claims that Greenspan's policy was expansionary, it was in fact too tight.
3. Belongia manages to score some significant points against the Taylor Rule, pointing out that if it had been subjected to the same standards that led to the rejection in the mid-1980s of money stock measures as a target for monetary policy, the rule would have been abandoned long ago. (For more on the ambiguity of the Taylor Rule, see this post by Brad DeLong.)
Recent statements that the United States has "turned the corner" and embarked on sustainable recovery strike one a tantamount to faith-healing. Somehow, politicians and opinion-makers are able to reassure the public that its belief in American exceptionalism remains well-founded and true. Apparently they believe it themselves.
And, indeed, they believe it in the same way Dr. Pangloss believed that this is the best of all possible worlds. Even getting his left buttock cut off did not suggest to Candide's companion that he modify his outlook. Americans and their economy, too, are being systematically dismembered, but the wonderful tautological perfection of our belief system keep us from recognizing the threat to our integrity. Dr. Pangloss would have surely approved
What is most interesting is that, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, Americans do not see the correlation between a growth-oriented economy and rising fuel prices. Notice the jump to $81/barrel on Friday? That was because of number of job losses was not as high as expected. Imagine what might happen if the number actually turned positive. Triple-digit oil prices would arrive again instantaneously.
On second thoght, Voltaire is probably too removed for most Americans. "Spongebob," the cartoon characters, resonates better, and he projects the same unchallengeable optimism in the face of reality. So, let us make Spongebob the partron saint of America! I have no doubt that if I search the web diligently, I will find that he has already been made into an object of religious devotion.
Iceland rejects Icesave bill in referendum.
Good for them, why should they bail out Landsbanki?
For more on the heroic resistance of the Icelandic people to the state, in this case, membership of NATO, go here and here.
Gary Gorton is a monetary and financial historian who wrote a widely cited and well respected paper a couple of years ago on "The Panic of 2007," in which he explained more clearly and in greater detail than anyone else how such recent innovations as CDOs and SIVs worked and then interacted during the financial crisis. He has now written a shorter "Questions and Answers about the Financial Crisis," which I think is one of the most important contributions to explaining what happened. It ranks right along side the EconTalk interview with Charles Calomiris. Basically Gorton argues that there was a sudden, partly unrecognized panic in the market for repurchase agreements (also known as RPs or Repos) at the end of 2007.
RPs are close money substitutes. Bank-issued overnight RPs were an important way banks got around regulations so they could pay high interest to large depositors in the 70s and early 80s, and were counted in M2 until 1997, when the Fed moved them into M3, where it already counted term RPs issued by banks. Gorton's analysis implies that I was seriously mistaken about the insignificance of the Fed's ceasing to report M3 in February 2006. M3 was discontinued just at the moment it was diverging from M2 and providing important information not otherwise available about certain monetary instruments.
Gorton's paper also clears up some other things that puzzled or intrigued me. Among them:
The legendary comedian, Mort Sahl, had this to say: "If you maintain a consistent political position long enough, you will eventually be accused of treason."
Many commentators would have us believe that the economy hit bottom in the second quarter of 2009, and afterward commenced a recovery, albeit a “jobless” one, as employment continued to decline. The main reason for believing in this recovery seems to be that real gross domestic product (GDP) reached a trough in the second quarter of 2009 and increased somewhat in the following two quarters.
Although macroeconomists, especially in theoretical work, tend to equate the economy’s aggregate output and its aggregate income, this equation does not hold when output is measured by GDP. To arrive at the concept known as national income (or net national product at factor cost), one must deduct several items, the most important of which is the capital consumption (or depreciation) allowance on the fixed capital stock. In 2008, for example, GDP was $14,441 billion, and national income was $12,635 billion. Even then, one has not arrived at personal income, and getting there requires several additional deductions. In 2008, personal income was estimated to be $12,239 billion.
I have never read a more bizarre commentary on Ayn Rand than Mark Ames piece on AlterNet. In tracking the rising influence of Rand, my focus has been on libertarian, conservative or fairly neutral commentaries -- e.g. reviews of the two recent biographies. I had not credited the depth of panic, rage and insanity that her sudden popularity has caused in the Left...at least, if this fellow is any indication. He froths at the mouth so badly that my computer screen got wet. Is this the new left slant on A.R. -- Rand, the mother of serial killers?
Excerpt: One reason why most countries don't find the time to embrace her thinking is that Ayn Rand is a textbook sociopath. Literally a sociopath: Ayn Rand, in her notebooks, worshiped a notorious serial murderer-dismemberer, and used this killer as an early model for the type of "ideal man" that Rand promoted in her more famous books... Too many critics of Ayn Rand-- until I was one of them -- would rather dismiss her books and ideas as laughable, childish, hackneyed. But it can't be dismissed because Rand is the name that keeps bubbling up from the Teabagger crowd and the elite conservative circuit in Washington as The Big Inspiration. The only way to protect ourselves from this thinking is the way you protect yourself from serial killers: smoke the Rand followers out, make them answer for following the crazed ideology of a serial-killer-groupie, and run them the hell out of town and out of our hemisphere.
For more commentary, please visit wendymcelroy.com.
Complicit, by Mark Gilbert, the London bureau chief for Bloomberg financial news, is unusual — a book concerning our recently demised speculative boom that you can still take along to the beach. Using that peculiar British talent of evoking laughter by the use of sneering disdain (he refers to the last suckers to buy into the mania as "the hindmost"), Mr. Gilbert takes the reader on a tour of almost-impossible-to-believe tales of greed, stupidity, and woe across eleven short, engaging chapters.
Click To Read The Rest
Why is history being squeezed out of the curriculum in North Carolina’s K-12 schools? (A North Carolina State University professor has slowed down the process with a triumphant victory, but this is just a skirmish in a long war.) One reason, Jenna Ashley Robinson suggests, is that the curriculum is planned by education school Ph.D.’s, none of whom has a degree (even a bachelor’s degree) in history, political science, economics, or philosophy.