Today I heard Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) speaking to the issue of violence and bi-partisan legislating. He said this session of Congress had been one of the most bi-partisan ever and the media simply weren't telling the public about it.
Of course, we aren't seeing bi-partisan legislation authored by Democrats and ready to go to the floor for a vote because a Democratic Speaker of the House enables it. The reason we aren't seeing that is the political strategy the Republicans have been using has been very effective at getting Republican majorities in the House and Senate, so they (and only they) can control the agenda. If there is bi-partisanship it's because the Republicans think it will favor them. As far as I know, they still follow the "Hastert Rule" which says that a majority of Republicans must favor legislation before it gets sent up for a vote. That makes bi-partisanship mere icing on the cake for them. They don't really care if Democrats support their legislation in most cases.
How did the Republicans get majorities in the House and Senate? By using the most divisive disgusting attack tactics available.
They've been dog whistling to the racists, white supremacists, Klan members, neo-Nazis, and other deplorables and they've been doing that for a long long time. For example, in 1980 Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party nominee for president, went to Philadelphia to kick off his campaign. That sounds patriotic and all red, white, and blue, until you know it was Philadelphia, Mississippi and the purpose was to speak directly to the racists in America to let them know the Republican Party and Ronald Reagan were in their corner, fighting for their white supremacy. Disgusting.
Since then all their Right-Wing pundits have amped up the talk and incited more violence and fear than you can shake a stick at. Their constant attacks on the Clintons is historic. Their use of conspiracy theories is monumental. Their attempt to lead the crazies to power is legend.
Then, with Donald Trump they realized they had to have a higher percentage than ever of that voting bloc to stay in power. Trump began to directly incite violence. At first it was against the media and blacks who had come to his rallies. Later his constant harangue against the media and the continued attacks on Hillary Clinton (after the election) showed he had no shame and never intended to lead Americans to "come together". Trump IS a divider.
This plan to gain power, to control the legislative process, to control the media, to discredit any and all opponents, and to instill actual fear into people, is a first in recent history (perhaps in all American history). Then came the actual violence.
When a Right-Wing conspiracy theory about the Clintons, pedophilia, and a pizza parlor in Washington was promoted, a gunman appeared to try to end that horrible thing. But, there was no pedophilia at the pizza parlor. It was just a pizza parlor and the Clintons were in no way involved. The Right Wing is guilty.
This past week a madman mailed over a dozen pipe bombs to high-level Democrats, including two former presidents and a former attorney general. And, yesterday another madman went into a Pennsylvania synagogue and killed eleven people because he hated Jews.
Donald Trump and the Republican party and their supporters at FOX news and other outlets are guilty of enabling and promoting this.
Talk about a bi-partisan Congress is hardly to the point when Republicans are murdering people.
Sunday, October 28, 2018
Friday, October 26, 2018
National Security -- A Quick Overview
Recently Vladimir Putin said America is no longer a super power and implied we were "the past" and even that he had been able to push us to adopting a foreign policy more to his liking. I think a quick review of our recent history is in order to understand why we are on the particular path we are on is not of Putin's doing, but is a natural result.
The Fall
The Soviet Union dissolved 12/26/1991.
Federal Debt: $3.665 Trillion, 59% of our GDP that year
Time for a Peace Dividend
Since that time many people in America began to call for a "peace dividend". Without a giant nemesis we had a lot less reason to spend ourselves into debt to buy and build a huge military. Some people said that even prior to the dissolution of the Soviet Union we didn't need to, but to simplify this discussion I begin after its dissolution.
Thus, in the 1990s the American economy took off and did great stuff. There were some domestic fights like the Gingrich-led "Reagan Revolution" which was the next generation Republicans trying to find a reason to exist. They attacked Pres. Clinton and he only became more popular. The 2000 presidential election was very close.
Federal Debt: $ 5.674 Trillion (increase from $3.665 T), 55% of GDP for that year (a drop from 59%)
The Global War on Terror -- Another Nemesis
In 2001 when we were attacked by al Qaeda we had a new global foe. For reasons beyond comprehension the Bush administration turned its attention to Saddam Hussein and Iraq (again) and attacked. This cost countless lives and treasure. The Republicans also passed tax reform which ended the austerity of the Clinton years, thus driving up the debt. In the years 2007-2010 we had a horrendous financial recession which cost us many trillions of dollars, pushing us further into debt. This was entirely of our own doing and it was avoidable.
Federal Debt: $10.025 Trillion (up from $5.674 T), 68% of GDP for that year (up from 55%)
Cleaning Up Messes
In 2008, candidate Barack Obama began to lead the nation and with the Bush Treasurer and the Federal Reserve Chairman they began to solve the financial problems. It cost a tremendous amount of money. Much of Obama's administration was cleaning up the foreign policy mess and domestic recession he had been handed. The "Global War on Terror" is ending as I write this, 2018, with the end of the Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL, Daesch).
Federal Debt: $19.573 (up from $10.025), 104% of GDP for that year (first time over 100%)
More Republican Silliness
At the end of Pres. Obama's term we elected another Republican, Donald Trump. He and the Republican-led Congress passed a massive tax cut which is pushing us about $2 Trillion further into debt.
Federal Debt (projected): $21.516 (up from $19.573 T), 107% of GDP (up from 104%)
Where We Stand Today
In a sense, we're back to where we were on 9/10/2001 or 12/27/1991, we have resolved a lot of our foreign security issues. A key difference is that we're more heavily in debt.
1991 $ 3.665 Trillion and 59% of GDP
2018 $21.516 Trillion and 107% of GDP Note: some of 2018 is estimated.
That's a huge increase in debt over 27 years.
Where This Leads Us
That leads us to seek a less expensive foreign policy and a military which is either smaller or at least not growing rapidly. It leads us to turning inward to secure the PPACA/ACA/Obamacare which was created in 2010 and to consider improvements to our economy and financial system. It also gives us a moment to stop spending so much beyond our means. Just as the Clinton administration showed you can shrink the deficit and get to a surplus, today we can do that.
One problem: Republicans, the source of most of our debt problems, still control the presidency, the Supreme Court, and possibly the Congress. The mid-term elections are soon and when we see the outcomes of that event we can better judge how to proceed. If Democrats take the House, they can urge passage of some legislation, but it's doubtful Republicans in the Senate of White House will allow anything dramatically useful to become law. If Democrats sweep Congress, then it will become a question of whether they have a simple majority or a super-majority which can override presidential vetoes. Each of these different states of our government has massive import for legislation that can become law and for policies to be effectuated.
As For Vladimir Putin's Comments
I don't see them as terribly relevant unless he wants to step up and announce that he has been controlling Republicans and forcing them to push America further and further into debt. He could also announce that he is encouraging Iran to continue aggression against Israel, specifically to force America into another foreign war. If he has real ideas of destroying America through asymmetrical warfare techniques, then this could be his approach.
Putin recently made it clear he intends to keep his intermediate range nuclear weapons (believed to be packaged as a cruise missile) to deter China (what?), Pakistan (what?), or Iran (what?). I thought those were either allies of Russia or neutral toward Russia. Putin makes no sense a lot of the time since he doesn't depend much on public pronouncements for his policies. He is a KGB agent through and through and prefers to act indirectly through other people/nations.
The Fall
The Soviet Union dissolved 12/26/1991.
Federal Debt: $3.665 Trillion, 59% of our GDP that year
Time for a Peace Dividend
Since that time many people in America began to call for a "peace dividend". Without a giant nemesis we had a lot less reason to spend ourselves into debt to buy and build a huge military. Some people said that even prior to the dissolution of the Soviet Union we didn't need to, but to simplify this discussion I begin after its dissolution.
Thus, in the 1990s the American economy took off and did great stuff. There were some domestic fights like the Gingrich-led "Reagan Revolution" which was the next generation Republicans trying to find a reason to exist. They attacked Pres. Clinton and he only became more popular. The 2000 presidential election was very close.
Federal Debt: $ 5.674 Trillion (increase from $3.665 T), 55% of GDP for that year (a drop from 59%)
The Global War on Terror -- Another Nemesis
In 2001 when we were attacked by al Qaeda we had a new global foe. For reasons beyond comprehension the Bush administration turned its attention to Saddam Hussein and Iraq (again) and attacked. This cost countless lives and treasure. The Republicans also passed tax reform which ended the austerity of the Clinton years, thus driving up the debt. In the years 2007-2010 we had a horrendous financial recession which cost us many trillions of dollars, pushing us further into debt. This was entirely of our own doing and it was avoidable.
Federal Debt: $10.025 Trillion (up from $5.674 T), 68% of GDP for that year (up from 55%)
Cleaning Up Messes
In 2008, candidate Barack Obama began to lead the nation and with the Bush Treasurer and the Federal Reserve Chairman they began to solve the financial problems. It cost a tremendous amount of money. Much of Obama's administration was cleaning up the foreign policy mess and domestic recession he had been handed. The "Global War on Terror" is ending as I write this, 2018, with the end of the Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL, Daesch).
Federal Debt: $19.573 (up from $10.025), 104% of GDP for that year (first time over 100%)
More Republican Silliness
At the end of Pres. Obama's term we elected another Republican, Donald Trump. He and the Republican-led Congress passed a massive tax cut which is pushing us about $2 Trillion further into debt.
Federal Debt (projected): $21.516 (up from $19.573 T), 107% of GDP (up from 104%)
Where We Stand Today
In a sense, we're back to where we were on 9/10/2001 or 12/27/1991, we have resolved a lot of our foreign security issues. A key difference is that we're more heavily in debt.
1991 $ 3.665 Trillion and 59% of GDP
2018 $21.516 Trillion and 107% of GDP Note: some of 2018 is estimated.
That's a huge increase in debt over 27 years.
Where This Leads Us
That leads us to seek a less expensive foreign policy and a military which is either smaller or at least not growing rapidly. It leads us to turning inward to secure the PPACA/ACA/Obamacare which was created in 2010 and to consider improvements to our economy and financial system. It also gives us a moment to stop spending so much beyond our means. Just as the Clinton administration showed you can shrink the deficit and get to a surplus, today we can do that.
One problem: Republicans, the source of most of our debt problems, still control the presidency, the Supreme Court, and possibly the Congress. The mid-term elections are soon and when we see the outcomes of that event we can better judge how to proceed. If Democrats take the House, they can urge passage of some legislation, but it's doubtful Republicans in the Senate of White House will allow anything dramatically useful to become law. If Democrats sweep Congress, then it will become a question of whether they have a simple majority or a super-majority which can override presidential vetoes. Each of these different states of our government has massive import for legislation that can become law and for policies to be effectuated.
As For Vladimir Putin's Comments
I don't see them as terribly relevant unless he wants to step up and announce that he has been controlling Republicans and forcing them to push America further and further into debt. He could also announce that he is encouraging Iran to continue aggression against Israel, specifically to force America into another foreign war. If he has real ideas of destroying America through asymmetrical warfare techniques, then this could be his approach.
Putin recently made it clear he intends to keep his intermediate range nuclear weapons (believed to be packaged as a cruise missile) to deter China (what?), Pakistan (what?), or Iran (what?). I thought those were either allies of Russia or neutral toward Russia. Putin makes no sense a lot of the time since he doesn't depend much on public pronouncements for his policies. He is a KGB agent through and through and prefers to act indirectly through other people/nations.
China Sucking Up US and Canadian Internet Traffic for Spying
Apparently we must deny them local Point-Of-Presences (PoPs) to match their own practices.
Wednesday, October 24, 2018
BOMB THREATS - Political Tactic?
If the Right feels it is losing the mid-terms and probably control of the House of Representatives then we have to also wonder how they are going to hang on. Pres. Trump has been giving speeches about immigrants. Immigrants? Why is that so relevant? Democrats have been speaking more often about health care insurance, greater education & job opportunities, and sounder government finances. But, if that comparison isn't working for the Right, is it possible they would try to shift attention to their issues -- to bring out their voters and to sway undecided voters?
So, Democrats should stay the course on their campaign issues, avoid the shift in focus to violence except to praise our security systems and to condemn Republican leaders who have pointedly called for violence against individual Democratic leaders.
Tuesday, October 16, 2018
Economics Today
I've written about the lack of an American Dream for a lot of Americans and I've written about potential solutions and I've written about short-sellers on Wall St. However, Robert Kuttner beat me to the punch by writing about Wall St. Vultures. They gain control of large, but vulnerable companies like Tesla or Sears, and they strip them to the bones to stuff money in their own pockets. It's the antipathy of how the Free Market is supposed to support commerce in America.
Read his article: Sears bankruptcy and hedge funds
It's another area which needs to be studied and possibly regulated much more than today. However, ending a lot of the CEO-driven stock buy-backs would help to end the Vulture's means of destroying companies.
Security of the U.S. Government E-mail
Read this and weep. Why are our government organizations so slow to take up known useful technologies while they waste billions on weapons systems we will possibly never use?
Wednesday, October 10, 2018
Tesla Shoots, They Score, Down goes Mercedes-Benz
The short-sellers have argued for some time that Tesla is mismanaged and failing badly like this. I've seen several articles recently and they all refute that.
Model-3 has the lowest probability for injury of any vehicle ever tested by NHTSA
Tesla just out-sold Mercedes-Benz in the US for the first time (October 2018)
There are also other stories of Elon Musk's successes with other companies or from his own pocket.
Tesla's battery in South Australia breaks stranglehold of natural gas industry
SpaceX aces 1st ever rocket landing in California after satellite launch
Tesla is revving-up to build the world's largest battery farm in California
Tesla to achieve leading $100/kWh battery cell cost this year, says investor after Gigafactory tour
Hyperloop unveils full-scale 750-mph passenger capsule
Elon Musk has tried to help fix these 7 humanitarian crises — here's how he's doing so far
Elon Musk makes good on pledge with $480,000 to Flint schools for clean drinking water for kids
I haven't heard of any short-sellers doing things like this and I haven't heard of ANY CEOs doing this many amazing things.
I'd say Tesla smokes the competition the same way their cars beat others in drag racing.
Teslas Go Drag Racing and Smoke the Combustion Faithful - Bloomberg
I'm not a stock adviser or investor or short-seller. I'm just a fan of the "green energy revolution".
However, one must wonder who is betting against the "green energy revolution" and why. Who suffers from Elon Musk's success? Could it be the oil & gas industry? Could it be foreign oil & gas interests? Could it be OPEC countries like Saudi Arabia or others like Russia?
We have too many opaque business entities in America and it's possible the public needs to know who is investing in these short-sellers and whether their activities are running contrary to the best interests of Americans, investors, and even the US government's foreign policy.
Model-3 has the lowest probability for injury of any vehicle ever tested by NHTSA
Tesla just out-sold Mercedes-Benz in the US for the first time (October 2018)
There are also other stories of Elon Musk's successes with other companies or from his own pocket.
Tesla's battery in South Australia breaks stranglehold of natural gas industry
SpaceX aces 1st ever rocket landing in California after satellite launch
Tesla is revving-up to build the world's largest battery farm in California
Tesla to achieve leading $100/kWh battery cell cost this year, says investor after Gigafactory tour
Hyperloop unveils full-scale 750-mph passenger capsule
Elon Musk has tried to help fix these 7 humanitarian crises — here's how he's doing so far
Elon Musk makes good on pledge with $480,000 to Flint schools for clean drinking water for kids
I haven't heard of any short-sellers doing things like this and I haven't heard of ANY CEOs doing this many amazing things.
I'd say Tesla smokes the competition the same way their cars beat others in drag racing.
Teslas Go Drag Racing and Smoke the Combustion Faithful - Bloomberg
I'm not a stock adviser or investor or short-seller. I'm just a fan of the "green energy revolution".
However, one must wonder who is betting against the "green energy revolution" and why. Who suffers from Elon Musk's success? Could it be the oil & gas industry? Could it be foreign oil & gas interests? Could it be OPEC countries like Saudi Arabia or others like Russia?
We have too many opaque business entities in America and it's possible the public needs to know who is investing in these short-sellers and whether their activities are running contrary to the best interests of Americans, investors, and even the US government's foreign policy.
Friday, October 5, 2018
The Virtue of Short-Sellers
Tesla owner Elon Musk and several of the major stock short-sellers have been debating the value of Tesla and his management practices on one hand and the propriety and value of short-selling on the other. I think a terrific debate could be produced around that topic. Musk isn't an economist or Wall St. guy, so he would probably need help from someone else to understand and properly debate the issue.
This article about David Einhorn (of Greenlight Capital) provides a nice introduction to their running argument. The recent SEC settlement made with Musk which stripped him of his company's Board of Directors chairmanship and $41 million dollars is also on the line. If Musk is correct, then the SEC was just punishing him for talking -- the same thing Einhorn and other short-sellers are doing.
In the article Einhorn said, "Greenlight’s efforts helped move Apple to aggressively repurchase stock, driving up earnings-per-share." One has to wonder what Greenlight's "efforts" were and whether it's better for Apple (or any important corporation) to do stock buybacks rather than reinvesting in the company and its employees. Does he see "talking up a stock" as helping or manipulating the market. I suppose it depends on whether he gain or loses. Is he "helping" someone by talking down Tesla? Isn't influencing the market by talking too much considered to be manipulation and improper?
That's the way Wall St. players win. It isn't about the success of the company, it's about knowing the direction a company is likely to go or talking loudly to convince everyone else in the market that the company is going up or down, then making their profits. Talk talk talk. It used to be called "pump & dump" to push up a stock's price. In the world of short-selling it's about convincing stockholders the company is about to fail, so they will sell it, thereby allowing the short-seller to buy those same shares at a much lower price.
This debate has been had before, but now, after the recession of 2007-10, it has more resonance for me. In the period before 2007 the banks were holding mortgages which were valued highly, but which eventually were recognized as nearly worthless. Had there been short-sellers who could recognize their true value and convince the market to re-evaluate them, it might have headed off a major recession. But, people who are invested heavily in something like billions of dollars in mortgages aren't so interested in reevaluating it.
It's easier for Wall St. firms to assault one company, such as Tesla, which is still growing and perfecting its business. They don't have so many supporters as the mortgage industry had.
It's a worthy debate!
That's the way Wall St. players win. It isn't about the success of the company, it's about knowing the direction a company is likely to go or talking loudly to convince everyone else in the market that the company is going up or down, then making their profits. Talk talk talk. It used to be called "pump & dump" to push up a stock's price. In the world of short-selling it's about convincing stockholders the company is about to fail, so they will sell it, thereby allowing the short-seller to buy those same shares at a much lower price.
This debate has been had before, but now, after the recession of 2007-10, it has more resonance for me. In the period before 2007 the banks were holding mortgages which were valued highly, but which eventually were recognized as nearly worthless. Had there been short-sellers who could recognize their true value and convince the market to re-evaluate them, it might have headed off a major recession. But, people who are invested heavily in something like billions of dollars in mortgages aren't so interested in reevaluating it.
It's easier for Wall St. firms to assault one company, such as Tesla, which is still growing and perfecting its business. They don't have so many supporters as the mortgage industry had.
It's a worthy debate!
New Battery Technology Idea
If they can capture the CO2 and not expend a tremendous amount of energy doing so that would be great. Even better, if they can use the CO2 productively, that would be a terrific achievement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)