Week in Review: January 17-23, 2010
25/January/2010 11:51 Filed in: Week in
Review
Today begins this new column focusing on the events
of the last week, and their potential ramifications
on future developments. Whether this week in review
becomes weekly is probably dependent upon the weeks
themselves, well as outside forces directly related
to enterprise priorities. No matter how you choose
to view the stupendous changes of this week we must
agree there was a lot going on in the United States
and her close neighbors.
Last week began recovery in Haiti, where the shift took place from looking for buried survivors in the quake’s rubble, to attempting to recover the now dead and decaying bodies. The last estimate I heard stated that total deaths may approach 200,000. This week, while the recovery of bodies continues, the true survival situation is reaching critical mass. So far the Haitian people have been very well behaved as aid has been slow getting into the country and out to the people. Perhaps that peace was, and is just the shock of trying to mentally cope with these catastrophic events. For the foreseeable future, the extremely difficult job of just surviving date to day, amongst the destruction, disease, poverty, hunger, and thirst of just plain life will begin to take a physical and emotional toll. That is true both within the country's citizens as well as those trying to minister help.
On Tuesday Massachusetts elected Scott Brown its first Republican Senator to fill the seat of the late Ted Kennedy, which had been in the Kennedy family since 1952. Brown was the first Republican Senator elected in the Commonwealth since the 1970s. Scott Brown is a center right Republican with a constitutional governance philosophy much the same as the recently elected governors in New Jersey and Virginia . While this is hailed as a great Republican victory and the end of the filibuster proof Senate, in a way it further points to the fact that the establishments of both the Republicans and the Democrats represent fringe views of the majority of the American people, which will make for more very interesting times as the Congressional elections approach this fall.
Barack Obama begins his second year in office with his radical change agenda in disarray. In the context of the Brown election, the speculation now centers around whether the President will move more to the center for governing, like Bill Clinton did, or will he continue the Progressive changes he tried to implement in the first year and now are looking pretty much as almost a total failure. As it appears today, betting of the pundits and commentators seems just about equally split, with perhaps a more vocal side saying he will go down staying his course, stating that the people still believe in the change they ask him to accomplish in the country, but they just don’t understand his specifics, requiring more education (speeches etc.) and not so much program changes.
Somewhat in that context, when you look at the recent political history of the United States, George W. Bush pretty much followed the globalist agenda of his father, without much of the verbal rhetoric, but much more energy focused in that direction. The old saying that the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree, describing a son's relationship with his father rings true. Barack Obama did not have a strong father figure in his life, so he invented one, and then sought out dominant men to fulfill that role. The Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, and other intellectual representatives of Chicago politics and the radical Progressive left, became that composite figure of his real father who was truly a failed Marxist in his homeland of Kenya.
The question as the Obama presidency moves forward, is not, does he have the intelligence to change to a direction the American people can believe in, rather does he have the skill set to change. In the ultimate focus of capitalism, Barack Obama is the consummate specialist in what he knows and what he is trying to do. In the ultimate view of his specialization, contrasted with the moderate conservatism of the American people may turn out to be somewhat manifest destiny, in a way that his electorate never could conceive.
With the election of Scott Brown, the Democrat agenda for massive health care reform in the United States and a Cap and Trade energy bill both died rapidly. So this week and beyond, the Democrat Party majority will spend much time and spin trying to determine if they can accomplish anything other than trying to hold on to a majority in both the House and the Senate in the fall elections. What will happen in terms of any real legislation moving forward means not much? They will try to push some type of government sponsored New Deal type of Keynesian stimulus to create jobs, but that rings hollow because any jobs legislation historically has related to special interests bailouts and altering that reality is not on either the Democrat or Republican agendas for other than lip service for the near future.
Somewhere during the week the Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision that free speech, as it concerns all politics, is protected speech, not only for real humans, but also all corporations. The decision was hailed as really great, or catastrophically bad depending upon one’s political perspective. However following the historic court finding that gives corporations the same rights as people, together with the main purpose to make money for their investors, it only logically follows that the profits of that corporation should be also be able to be freely applied in the political process. Whether that will have a dramatic effect on the political landscape again depends on the context of perspective.
On Thursday the President unveiled a plan for significant reform of the nation’s banking system, which as simply proposed will again separate investment banks from commercial banks. If enacted this will essentially repeal legislation passed during the Clinton Administration where the visible hand of deregulating fervor, in which the Wild West seemed to override any and all regulatory practices. These changes come from former Fed Chairman Paul Volker and was reported, or hailed in the press as Obama’s turn toward populism, and then was spun in the light of Scott Brown’s election and Sarah Palin’s popularity in the country.
For once Obama has proposed something that seems like a needed and realistic reform. Whether that can be accomplished in this congress again seems somewhat wishful thinking, but it is said that many Republicans have an open mind. This is just the opposite of the potential bank tax the President had floated earlier now framed as a lame populist attempt of connecting with the people against the Republicans.
This “populist — populism” discussion is just starting — and it already makes me very nauseous. Historically the movement was just the precursor of today’s progressivism and in that light Teddy Roosevelt was probably more of a populist than he was what we today call progressive. It was also about this time where the classical term “liberal” was also highjacked into what it means today.
Closing out the week with over a 400-point drop on Wall Street was the news that the required confirmation of Ben Bernanke by the end of the month was in jeopardy. This too is spun as populism, but not confirming Bernanke will at least lead to a short-term steep drop on Wall Street. All these developments just go to show that we are coming close to repealing the concept of being “Too Big to Fail.”
Bernanke has a long history at the Fed before he became Chairman. As a professed expert on the Great Depression, it should be acknowledged that Bernanke’s actions at the Fed during this crisis probably saved the country and the world from a real Depression. Having said that, the question of why he didn’t see the crisis coming and making interest rate changes before it became zero hour, opens and interesting paradox. If he, as confessed, didn’t see the crisis coming, how can we assume that he can provide the leadership required to adequately strike a tension between interest rates and inflation, as we attempt to adjust to a more normal financial climate.
There is a dark side to this scenario also, perhaps he did see it coming, and wanted the chance to see if his financial theories would work, and he hasn’t gotten to the difficult part yet. However the real problem didn’t begin with Bernanke but stems back to Alan Greenspan, who took control of the Fed under Ronald Reagan and succeeded in moving the United States to continuing prosperity, by shifting the debt burden from government into the consumer markets, especially housing, and then shipping those securities offshore as sound investments in the United States, which anyone who was willing to do due diligence would find fallacious.
Then lest we forget the weather in California has been so bad recently that it would be most of the 24 hour news cycle other than the fact that it has been lost in the stupendous change of all this week’s other momentous events.
This coming Wednesday Barrack Obama will give his first “State of the Union Address” in which we learn that “Change We Can Believe In,” is still alive in the White House, and it is the definition of “We” is that is in question.
So for a thought to contemplate during the week: Let us say that the 70% of the economy, which was associated with consumer spending is gone because of the wealth lost in the last couple of years. What, if anything, can we do to replace that stuff with some sort of tangible or intangible wealth to keep the American Dream alive and well?
Week in Review also appears on Deep Woods Moola, where creating wealth the Old Fashioned way is emphasized.
Last week began recovery in Haiti, where the shift took place from looking for buried survivors in the quake’s rubble, to attempting to recover the now dead and decaying bodies. The last estimate I heard stated that total deaths may approach 200,000. This week, while the recovery of bodies continues, the true survival situation is reaching critical mass. So far the Haitian people have been very well behaved as aid has been slow getting into the country and out to the people. Perhaps that peace was, and is just the shock of trying to mentally cope with these catastrophic events. For the foreseeable future, the extremely difficult job of just surviving date to day, amongst the destruction, disease, poverty, hunger, and thirst of just plain life will begin to take a physical and emotional toll. That is true both within the country's citizens as well as those trying to minister help.
On Tuesday Massachusetts elected Scott Brown its first Republican Senator to fill the seat of the late Ted Kennedy, which had been in the Kennedy family since 1952. Brown was the first Republican Senator elected in the Commonwealth since the 1970s. Scott Brown is a center right Republican with a constitutional governance philosophy much the same as the recently elected governors in New Jersey and Virginia . While this is hailed as a great Republican victory and the end of the filibuster proof Senate, in a way it further points to the fact that the establishments of both the Republicans and the Democrats represent fringe views of the majority of the American people, which will make for more very interesting times as the Congressional elections approach this fall.
Barack Obama begins his second year in office with his radical change agenda in disarray. In the context of the Brown election, the speculation now centers around whether the President will move more to the center for governing, like Bill Clinton did, or will he continue the Progressive changes he tried to implement in the first year and now are looking pretty much as almost a total failure. As it appears today, betting of the pundits and commentators seems just about equally split, with perhaps a more vocal side saying he will go down staying his course, stating that the people still believe in the change they ask him to accomplish in the country, but they just don’t understand his specifics, requiring more education (speeches etc.) and not so much program changes.
Somewhat in that context, when you look at the recent political history of the United States, George W. Bush pretty much followed the globalist agenda of his father, without much of the verbal rhetoric, but much more energy focused in that direction. The old saying that the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree, describing a son's relationship with his father rings true. Barack Obama did not have a strong father figure in his life, so he invented one, and then sought out dominant men to fulfill that role. The Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, and other intellectual representatives of Chicago politics and the radical Progressive left, became that composite figure of his real father who was truly a failed Marxist in his homeland of Kenya.
The question as the Obama presidency moves forward, is not, does he have the intelligence to change to a direction the American people can believe in, rather does he have the skill set to change. In the ultimate focus of capitalism, Barack Obama is the consummate specialist in what he knows and what he is trying to do. In the ultimate view of his specialization, contrasted with the moderate conservatism of the American people may turn out to be somewhat manifest destiny, in a way that his electorate never could conceive.
With the election of Scott Brown, the Democrat agenda for massive health care reform in the United States and a Cap and Trade energy bill both died rapidly. So this week and beyond, the Democrat Party majority will spend much time and spin trying to determine if they can accomplish anything other than trying to hold on to a majority in both the House and the Senate in the fall elections. What will happen in terms of any real legislation moving forward means not much? They will try to push some type of government sponsored New Deal type of Keynesian stimulus to create jobs, but that rings hollow because any jobs legislation historically has related to special interests bailouts and altering that reality is not on either the Democrat or Republican agendas for other than lip service for the near future.
Somewhere during the week the Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision that free speech, as it concerns all politics, is protected speech, not only for real humans, but also all corporations. The decision was hailed as really great, or catastrophically bad depending upon one’s political perspective. However following the historic court finding that gives corporations the same rights as people, together with the main purpose to make money for their investors, it only logically follows that the profits of that corporation should be also be able to be freely applied in the political process. Whether that will have a dramatic effect on the political landscape again depends on the context of perspective.
On Thursday the President unveiled a plan for significant reform of the nation’s banking system, which as simply proposed will again separate investment banks from commercial banks. If enacted this will essentially repeal legislation passed during the Clinton Administration where the visible hand of deregulating fervor, in which the Wild West seemed to override any and all regulatory practices. These changes come from former Fed Chairman Paul Volker and was reported, or hailed in the press as Obama’s turn toward populism, and then was spun in the light of Scott Brown’s election and Sarah Palin’s popularity in the country.
For once Obama has proposed something that seems like a needed and realistic reform. Whether that can be accomplished in this congress again seems somewhat wishful thinking, but it is said that many Republicans have an open mind. This is just the opposite of the potential bank tax the President had floated earlier now framed as a lame populist attempt of connecting with the people against the Republicans.
This “populist — populism” discussion is just starting — and it already makes me very nauseous. Historically the movement was just the precursor of today’s progressivism and in that light Teddy Roosevelt was probably more of a populist than he was what we today call progressive. It was also about this time where the classical term “liberal” was also highjacked into what it means today.
Closing out the week with over a 400-point drop on Wall Street was the news that the required confirmation of Ben Bernanke by the end of the month was in jeopardy. This too is spun as populism, but not confirming Bernanke will at least lead to a short-term steep drop on Wall Street. All these developments just go to show that we are coming close to repealing the concept of being “Too Big to Fail.”
Bernanke has a long history at the Fed before he became Chairman. As a professed expert on the Great Depression, it should be acknowledged that Bernanke’s actions at the Fed during this crisis probably saved the country and the world from a real Depression. Having said that, the question of why he didn’t see the crisis coming and making interest rate changes before it became zero hour, opens and interesting paradox. If he, as confessed, didn’t see the crisis coming, how can we assume that he can provide the leadership required to adequately strike a tension between interest rates and inflation, as we attempt to adjust to a more normal financial climate.
There is a dark side to this scenario also, perhaps he did see it coming, and wanted the chance to see if his financial theories would work, and he hasn’t gotten to the difficult part yet. However the real problem didn’t begin with Bernanke but stems back to Alan Greenspan, who took control of the Fed under Ronald Reagan and succeeded in moving the United States to continuing prosperity, by shifting the debt burden from government into the consumer markets, especially housing, and then shipping those securities offshore as sound investments in the United States, which anyone who was willing to do due diligence would find fallacious.
Then lest we forget the weather in California has been so bad recently that it would be most of the 24 hour news cycle other than the fact that it has been lost in the stupendous change of all this week’s other momentous events.
This coming Wednesday Barrack Obama will give his first “State of the Union Address” in which we learn that “Change We Can Believe In,” is still alive in the White House, and it is the definition of “We” is that is in question.
So for a thought to contemplate during the week: Let us say that the 70% of the economy, which was associated with consumer spending is gone because of the wealth lost in the last couple of years. What, if anything, can we do to replace that stuff with some sort of tangible or intangible wealth to keep the American Dream alive and well?
Week in Review also appears on Deep Woods Moola, where creating wealth the Old Fashioned way is emphasized.