Marc
Colorado
The "medical" marijuana industry is merely a political bridge to the day when this least harmful of intoxicants is finally de-stigmatized and legalized. All this regulation clap trap is so much distraction from the facts that folks like to smoke weed and it also helps many people with medical conditions.
The "prescription" process is un-constitutional. Why does one , (ahem) "medicine", require a state license for use while really, really dangerous substances such as tobacco, alcohol, narcotics, coca cola and fast food are passed out with little to no oversight? If you think the HPPA privacy laws are going to protect you from a future administration calling "do over" and persecuting us remember the Patriot Act.
We need only two regulations: One is the public health officer checking to be certain that what is sold is 100% natural and free of any additives, business licensing fees will easily cover this expense. The other is simply supply, demand and pricing which the market will settle on it's own just as with every other business on Earth. In short: BUTT OUT!!
I'm watching the dispensary business regulate itself in my little town. We now have 6 dispensaries and I expect that some will flourish and some will fail based on quality and price. It's called the free market, (and as long as no fool ever starts buying derivatives of it), it works just fine.
I'm 51 and have puffed since I was 14. In spite of, or perhaps because of this, I left NYC at 18, went to an excellent college, built a business and was successful enough to take a higher look at things. At 40 I realized that years of hard work had put me in a position where I could A)sit behind a desk and make more money than I'd ever need or B)quit and build a more rewarding life around doing things for others. I chose the latter. Perhaps therein lies the stigma of marijuana...that it might allow people to free themselves from excessive greed and consumerism and work on building a fair and sustainable world.
28.6.10
25.6.10
Obama & BP
UCSBcpa
San Francisco
For those of you who want the Federal government to do more with the Gulf Disaster, really need to read about our recent oil disasters, namely the Exxon Valdez.
Few Facts -
1. 1989 is when the DRUNK, yes he the Captain of the Valdez was DRUNK. - A Recovering alcoholic was allowed to drive this giant vessel with more than 10,000,000 gallons of oil into one of America's most pristine channels. Note the year was June 1989
2. Over 500,000 birds, and nearly an entire eco-system was destroyed
3. 1994 - The REPUBLICAN Judge awarded 20 Billion to be paid by Exxon
4. 2008 - Exxon fought this all the verdict for 15 years where they agreed to pay $510 million, or if you like math, 1 / 1000th of the original amount, or if you like more math the amount that Exxon made in LESS than 2 days in 2008.
5 The most important fact is about Exxon Valdez is this: Their entire defense was essentially that the Coast Guard and Locals told them to do one thing, even though they wanted to handle the spill differently.
Obama and his team understands history, which is why he had to let BP take control of the spill...that is because BP is done.
Obama had already obtained $20 Billion from BP, and from what insiders are saying they are agreeing to $50 Billion. Lets compare that number to what the G Bush the first got....
Do you really think Obama is handling this bad now?
HARDLY.
San Francisco
For those of you who want the Federal government to do more with the Gulf Disaster, really need to read about our recent oil disasters, namely the Exxon Valdez.
Few Facts -
1. 1989 is when the DRUNK, yes he the Captain of the Valdez was DRUNK. - A Recovering alcoholic was allowed to drive this giant vessel with more than 10,000,000 gallons of oil into one of America's most pristine channels. Note the year was June 1989
2. Over 500,000 birds, and nearly an entire eco-system was destroyed
3. 1994 - The REPUBLICAN Judge awarded 20 Billion to be paid by Exxon
4. 2008 - Exxon fought this all the verdict for 15 years where they agreed to pay $510 million, or if you like math, 1 / 1000th of the original amount, or if you like more math the amount that Exxon made in LESS than 2 days in 2008.
5 The most important fact is about Exxon Valdez is this: Their entire defense was essentially that the Coast Guard and Locals told them to do one thing, even though they wanted to handle the spill differently.
Obama and his team understands history, which is why he had to let BP take control of the spill...that is because BP is done.
Obama had already obtained $20 Billion from BP, and from what insiders are saying they are agreeing to $50 Billion. Lets compare that number to what the G Bush the first got....
Do you really think Obama is handling this bad now?
HARDLY.
on stimulus
Tim Kane
Mesa, Az
I wish that these people would take a look at South Korea NOW. The recession is covered in the press like it is ancient history here.
Korea GREW at .02% by some measures in 2009. This year estimates are calling for 7% growth!
Keynesianism doesn't work? My foot, it doesn't work!
South Korea implemented a stimulus of about 12%. The also benefited from a 25% drop in their currency in a "flight to quality" that began around January 2008. (I'm not sure what a 25% drop in currency translates in effect to a stimulus, but it is, in effect the same thing - then again so is a tariff).
For the U.S. to do the same stimulus would have been in excess of $1.5 trillion. Any stimulus south of $1 trillion just wasn't serious. My guess has always been $2.1 trillion was the appropriate stimulus response.
Korea's policy choice is almost exactly the same as Japan's in 1932. By 1933 they were out of the depression. By 1939 their industrial production was double what it had been in 1929.
Only in the 1940s did the U.S. bother implementing similar stimulus, and it had the same effect.
Japan implemented a form of Keynesian economics well before Keynes drafted his paper on it.
The American stimulus was only $700 billion - amazingly equal to the TARP bail out. Hmmm. Half of that was for tax cuts, aka anti-stimulus. The American response to the stimulus has been worse than no response, it has under-taken the appropriate medication, thereby discrediting the medication itself.
Basically, we are being ruled by plutocrats. They need $700 billion, they get it in three days time. The rest of America needs $2 trillion, and they get only what the plutocrats got, and only after three months of debate.
Now that the plutocrats feel they are safe, they want the stimulus drawn in and let the public suffer like the expendable cockroaches the greedy elite think that they are.
To that plutocracy I would say - there is still a communist party, it still rules China, who will protect your property rights after you have destroyed the middle class status of the masses? This country becomes less and less defensible as it loses its moral authority to those who would have to bear the burden to defend it. Wasted words: the plutocrats never think it through when they are feeding at the trough.
Deja vu all over
Madrid
In my view, the most relevant individual psychological mechanism for budget-tightening gaining track with public opinion is the same that is behind the thrift aggregation paradox. The common sense (for the individual) is "When you are short of money, you don't spend more but save more". So the Austerians have it so easy. It is so simple, so logical, it appears to make so much sense. No macro expert should buy that, but of course many do. If only the economic consensus line would be "When everybody stop spending, who's going to sell anything and what happens next to the economy?"... But that is not the case. And yes, "Keynesian" spending is counter-intuitive for most people. (That's precisely the reason why we talk about aggregation "paradoxes": a paradox by definition bears no straight, logical, intuitive common sense). So you have too much factors to fight against: Common Sense/Paradox of Thrift mechanism + guilt/penance-for-all-of-them-but-me-and-my-money + many people fed up with so much public money for banksters + the dubious case of Japan (but how many people read Posen, after all?) + the very real (un-keynesian) case of Greece and the like + ideology and vested interests + the opposite camp has a very easy and intuitive and single argument... You see, Keynes advised to run surpluses in good time, precisely to be able to be the "spender of last resort" in circumstances like these (but how many people read Keynes, after all?). And what you get is: nominally right governments end up running deficits in good times (very un-Keynesian but who cares?) and nominal "Keynesian" """leftist""" huge stimulus (1937, Japan, now) end up falling too short, are too brief, are quited too soon. And the operating mechanism behind public opinion endorsing cutting stimulus is that individuals (even if they are experts) tend to micro-think the macro picture. Many among the public buy it because it meets their micro-reasoning, and because not so many people really love taxes. Et voilá, paradox of thrift all over, again. Ok then. Let's be logical and hoard our money all at once. Let's sit on our hands and wait patiently watching each other to see who's the first to buy the stuff of someone else-who incidentally happens to be also hoarding money like you. And, after the brilliant outcome of this smart strategy manifest itself, let's blame Keynesians (the government, the Yankees, the Germans, the piigs, the Chinese etc) once more. Deja vu all over. Last century... But no, sorry, let's not speculate for the moment about the potential role of wars in reconciling huge public spending with tight savings, because it's different this time.
John
Lansing
Keynes advocated increasing demand by spending money. I have never seen a job created or someone get paid by saving (i.e. not spending) money.
Even if one saves money, it is with the eventual purpose of spending it, even if that is not until either retirement (or death). Saving money for a rainy day is important, but what if it is currently raining?
Money that is saved but not lent out does not earn interest and does not grow.
The Depression happened in the 1930's when banks STOPPED lending money, not during the Roaring '20's when banks (and people) LENT/SPENT money.
Economies are not very active when there is no money being circulated because it is sitting on the sidelines.
Today, like in the 1930's, companies and individuals who have money are not spending it or lending it. We are not experiencing inflation today, rather the exact opposite. Housing prices are declining NOT going up. This is a sign of deflation, not inflation.
Raging about government spending, taxes, or needing to save all sound virtuous, and ARE: when people are actually working and the economy is actually growing.
Somalia is a country with very LOW taxes, where people are forced to save (what they can). Sweden (or France) are countries with HIGH taxes and LOTS of government spending.
The question is where would one rather live, France/Sweden or Somalia?
Personally, even though the weather in Somalia is probably nicer, I'd prefer to live in France or Sweden with HIGH taxes and HIGH government spending, rather than Somalia where I would be forced to need to save because there are no government schools, no government hospitals, no government police/army, but LOTS of pirates.
When I have so much money that I don't need to participate in a society and can instead have my own private army, my own private roads, my own private hospitals, my own private schools, then I will be against the wastefulness of stimulus plans and government spending. Until then I will look at privatization much like a monarchy: when government is all private, and hence personal property, the country may as well belong to a single individual, say, a King (or perhaps a pirate).
Keynes' theories were the product of a democracy where all people can have a voice.
Advocating for austerity when there is unemployment will not create jobs. Advocating for the return to a gold standard or less government/societal spending will not create work or jobs.
Savings (not spending) only creates wealth and prosperity when it is put to work building something. This was the point Keynes was making on a macroeconomic level.
The difference between macroeconomics and personal economics is monetary policy. Printing money is an alternative to borrowing and debt that can stimulate demand.
To China it is preferable that the US borrow money rather than print it. Perhaps this is what Slobnob and Bob Roddis are referring to when they state what is rational.
Mesa, Az
I wish that these people would take a look at South Korea NOW. The recession is covered in the press like it is ancient history here.
Korea GREW at .02% by some measures in 2009. This year estimates are calling for 7% growth!
Keynesianism doesn't work? My foot, it doesn't work!
South Korea implemented a stimulus of about 12%. The also benefited from a 25% drop in their currency in a "flight to quality" that began around January 2008. (I'm not sure what a 25% drop in currency translates in effect to a stimulus, but it is, in effect the same thing - then again so is a tariff).
For the U.S. to do the same stimulus would have been in excess of $1.5 trillion. Any stimulus south of $1 trillion just wasn't serious. My guess has always been $2.1 trillion was the appropriate stimulus response.
Korea's policy choice is almost exactly the same as Japan's in 1932. By 1933 they were out of the depression. By 1939 their industrial production was double what it had been in 1929.
Only in the 1940s did the U.S. bother implementing similar stimulus, and it had the same effect.
Japan implemented a form of Keynesian economics well before Keynes drafted his paper on it.
The American stimulus was only $700 billion - amazingly equal to the TARP bail out. Hmmm. Half of that was for tax cuts, aka anti-stimulus. The American response to the stimulus has been worse than no response, it has under-taken the appropriate medication, thereby discrediting the medication itself.
Basically, we are being ruled by plutocrats. They need $700 billion, they get it in three days time. The rest of America needs $2 trillion, and they get only what the plutocrats got, and only after three months of debate.
Now that the plutocrats feel they are safe, they want the stimulus drawn in and let the public suffer like the expendable cockroaches the greedy elite think that they are.
To that plutocracy I would say - there is still a communist party, it still rules China, who will protect your property rights after you have destroyed the middle class status of the masses? This country becomes less and less defensible as it loses its moral authority to those who would have to bear the burden to defend it. Wasted words: the plutocrats never think it through when they are feeding at the trough.
Deja vu all over
Madrid
In my view, the most relevant individual psychological mechanism for budget-tightening gaining track with public opinion is the same that is behind the thrift aggregation paradox. The common sense (for the individual) is "When you are short of money, you don't spend more but save more". So the Austerians have it so easy. It is so simple, so logical, it appears to make so much sense. No macro expert should buy that, but of course many do. If only the economic consensus line would be "When everybody stop spending, who's going to sell anything and what happens next to the economy?"... But that is not the case. And yes, "Keynesian" spending is counter-intuitive for most people. (That's precisely the reason why we talk about aggregation "paradoxes": a paradox by definition bears no straight, logical, intuitive common sense). So you have too much factors to fight against: Common Sense/Paradox of Thrift mechanism + guilt/penance-for-all-of-them-but-me-and-my-money + many people fed up with so much public money for banksters + the dubious case of Japan (but how many people read Posen, after all?) + the very real (un-keynesian) case of Greece and the like + ideology and vested interests + the opposite camp has a very easy and intuitive and single argument... You see, Keynes advised to run surpluses in good time, precisely to be able to be the "spender of last resort" in circumstances like these (but how many people read Keynes, after all?). And what you get is: nominally right governments end up running deficits in good times (very un-Keynesian but who cares?) and nominal "Keynesian" """leftist""" huge stimulus (1937, Japan, now) end up falling too short, are too brief, are quited too soon. And the operating mechanism behind public opinion endorsing cutting stimulus is that individuals (even if they are experts) tend to micro-think the macro picture. Many among the public buy it because it meets their micro-reasoning, and because not so many people really love taxes. Et voilá, paradox of thrift all over, again. Ok then. Let's be logical and hoard our money all at once. Let's sit on our hands and wait patiently watching each other to see who's the first to buy the stuff of someone else-who incidentally happens to be also hoarding money like you. And, after the brilliant outcome of this smart strategy manifest itself, let's blame Keynesians (the government, the Yankees, the Germans, the piigs, the Chinese etc) once more. Deja vu all over. Last century... But no, sorry, let's not speculate for the moment about the potential role of wars in reconciling huge public spending with tight savings, because it's different this time.
John
Lansing
Keynes advocated increasing demand by spending money. I have never seen a job created or someone get paid by saving (i.e. not spending) money.
Even if one saves money, it is with the eventual purpose of spending it, even if that is not until either retirement (or death). Saving money for a rainy day is important, but what if it is currently raining?
Money that is saved but not lent out does not earn interest and does not grow.
The Depression happened in the 1930's when banks STOPPED lending money, not during the Roaring '20's when banks (and people) LENT/SPENT money.
Economies are not very active when there is no money being circulated because it is sitting on the sidelines.
Today, like in the 1930's, companies and individuals who have money are not spending it or lending it. We are not experiencing inflation today, rather the exact opposite. Housing prices are declining NOT going up. This is a sign of deflation, not inflation.
Raging about government spending, taxes, or needing to save all sound virtuous, and ARE: when people are actually working and the economy is actually growing.
Somalia is a country with very LOW taxes, where people are forced to save (what they can). Sweden (or France) are countries with HIGH taxes and LOTS of government spending.
The question is where would one rather live, France/Sweden or Somalia?
Personally, even though the weather in Somalia is probably nicer, I'd prefer to live in France or Sweden with HIGH taxes and HIGH government spending, rather than Somalia where I would be forced to need to save because there are no government schools, no government hospitals, no government police/army, but LOTS of pirates.
When I have so much money that I don't need to participate in a society and can instead have my own private army, my own private roads, my own private hospitals, my own private schools, then I will be against the wastefulness of stimulus plans and government spending. Until then I will look at privatization much like a monarchy: when government is all private, and hence personal property, the country may as well belong to a single individual, say, a King (or perhaps a pirate).
Keynes' theories were the product of a democracy where all people can have a voice.
Advocating for austerity when there is unemployment will not create jobs. Advocating for the return to a gold standard or less government/societal spending will not create work or jobs.
Savings (not spending) only creates wealth and prosperity when it is put to work building something. This was the point Keynes was making on a macroeconomic level.
The difference between macroeconomics and personal economics is monetary policy. Printing money is an alternative to borrowing and debt that can stimulate demand.
To China it is preferable that the US borrow money rather than print it. Perhaps this is what Slobnob and Bob Roddis are referring to when they state what is rational.
23.6.10
mc-crystal clear, not
Joseph Blady
Washington, DC
The Rolling Stone article presents a picture of a man who has pressed against the envelope of appropriate behavior his entire life. There are those who might find raucous behavior at a service academy laudable. There might be a certain bravado exuded by a staff that behaves like the spoiled entourage of a rock group. These are not the images that mesh appropriately with the faces of the men and women we look at in the news on a daily basis, people risking their lives to carry out the barren strategy of an arrogant war fighter who seems convinced that he immediately becomes the smartest man in any room into which he has entered. If, in fact, General McChrystal is the man he wants us to believe he is, he will present his letter of resignation upon arrival at the White House and insist it be accepted.
The bigger question remains. Counterinsurgency may suitable where there is a nation and government to be salvaged. Afghanistan has never been a nation, and its government is hardly worth saving. The value of the counterinsurgency strategy was supposedly proven in Iraq. Rather than deluding ourselves into thinking that Iraq was a rousing success, let us examine what was really accomplished. General Petraeus and General McChrystal proved only that which was already obvious, that we cannot be beaten militarily if we choose not to be. This is again being proved in Afghanistan, but, like Iraq, it has nothing to do with a successful outcome.
I have read General Petraeus' counterinsurgency manual. It is merely that, a primer on counterinsurgency. I'm sure that it is valuable reading for any young officer, but it is generic, and has nothing to do with either Iraq or Afghanistan, which, at their heart, are socio-political problems that happen to have a military component.
The irony is that General McChrystal, while wrong about the applicability of counterinsurgency doctrine in Afghanistan, is correct to point out that our national security team is broken. So is the ability of Congress to bring any cogent strategic thinking to bear on the problem. The State Department leadership seems to have failed to stand behind Ambassador Eikenberry's prescient analysis of our problems in Afghanistan. General Jones appears absent from public discussion of the way ahead. The political parties are interested only in making hay from each other's mistakes. But no one takes a moment to think about what we're doing in Afghanistan. There are men and women dying. Dying. To what end? Take a look at Somalia, Mali, Ethiopia, Sudan, Lebanon, Gaza, Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea, and tell me that once we secure Afghanistan, our troubles are over.
Yes, General McChrystal deserves to be sacked. But there are a whole lot of people who ought to be going with him.
Don Williams
Philadelphia
1) Most of the derogatory comments were attributed to General McChrystal's aides. But even those comments are MINOR compared to
the continual leaks in Washington designed to undermine and sabotage
General McChrystal's mission.
2) The leaked memo by Karl Eikenberry last year was bad enough. But the recent leak re geological discoveries in Afghanistan was unforgivable. Does anyone think the Taliban are going to negotiate a surrender or compromise after being informed that they are sitting on a gold mine? That if they win, they will possess the "New Saudi Arabia"??
3) That information will motivate the Taliban to fight like furies. And thousands more American soldiers will die as a result.
4)General McChrystal has to write the letters to the families of soldiers killed by President Obama's inability to maintain responsible discipline within the White House.
5) General McChrystal should resign. Not because of the Rolling Stone article --but because obviously he and his mission has not had the support of the White House for some time. Soldiers are dying for a political Kabuki Dance --not to achieve a real and worthwhile objective.
If Obama was serious, these leaks would not be occurring.
Chuck Beria
New York
"Mr. Obama, who summoned General McChrystal to the White House on Wednesday, must either fire his top commander or send him immediately back into the field with a clear mandate to do his job," reads a NYT editorial.
A "clear mandate"? Oh, really? "Clear" by whose standards? And who is to define what such "mandate" is? The New York Times op-ed board?
What, really, would constitute one such "clear mandate" in Afghanistan? Nine years into the never-ending war, the Taliban is stronger than ever, Al-Qaeda is still very much alive, Osama Bin Ladin is nowhere to be found (and once he did get found, the Bush administration deliberately let him slip thru), the totally corrupt regime which does not enjoy even a modicum of legitimacy and popular support is still in power, and the cronyism, massive embezzlement and violent crime exceed anything seen on the face of the earth since the Man first walked out of the cave.
And how would the mandate become "clear". Would we have a public plebiscite? Would the President address the nation and seek its support for McChrystal's return to Afghanistan?
There is ONLY ONE AND ONE ONLY reason why Gen. McChrystal should be returned to Afghanistan in his current role: to prepare Afghanistan as a staging ground for our invasion of Iran. This, and this alone, is the reason why the Obama's administration has been foot-dragging and backpedaling for two years on its commitment to withdraw from Afghanistan. All this nonsense about nation- and democracy- building in Afghanistan, fighting terrorist and etcetera...is something not even the most naive believe anymore.
In short, the only reason why McChrystal should not be sacked is that we need him for the impending invasion on Iran.
Having said this, I comfortably predict that Obama will retain General McChrystal and have him "redeem" himself in the major global conflict to come. Of course, there will be harsh words, public chastisement, possibly even a slight demotion, but that's all Hollywood. The unwashed masses are not as dumb as our rulers would like to believe.
Neil D
Kalamazoo, MI
One wonders why the US military needs these wars so much. Is it because they have been exposed as ineffectual and incompetent by a bunch of low-tech militias over and over again? Lebanon (1982), Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan should have taught them they can't win fights in foreign territory against religious fanatics. And yet they try and try again.
When Americans suffered the trauma of 9/11 we looked to our military to avenge those deaths. We ignored the fact that the military allowed our largest city to be attacked from the air and decided to give them another chance. And now it's clear they've been screw ups for nearly 8 1/2 years.
Let's admit they haven't a clue how to win and bring them home. I've had enough revenge.
Robert
Brattleboro,Vt
Military Generals are some of the most competent people around. The vast majority are promoted due to their ability, not through political maneuvering. By all accounts these remarks were made informally and would not have been printed by a responsible journalist. But the remarks do give one an indication of how our military feels about the "clowns" in the White House. "Bite me", indeed.
Brian Moore
Germany
General McChrystal arguably has one of the most difficult jobs on the planet, leading an international coalition of so-called allies in Afghanistan. Our efforts there may not be successful. If there is failure, he will surely be one of the officers to take the blame.
During my time in Iraq, I have heard soldiers of all ranks from Private to Colonel make off key remarks at one time or another. As an officer, I dismissed most of these as necessary venting. So the General's human in a war zone. He made some remarks among his staff in country. To a General, his staff is like his family, and a good staff officer allows his commander to vent and doesn't go around telling people about it. If I where the war correspondent, I wouldn't have published those remarks. They have nothing to do with covering the war, unless you want to discredit the leadership. Sometimes venting is necessary, then we all get back to doing our jobs, however difficult, thankless and dangerous they may be. I think all veterans know this, but the general public may not.
Ralph Adam Fine
Wisconsin
We need generals who are not afraid to speak--sadly, the history of civilian no-dissent control over the military has been abysmal: viz. Truman and MacArthur (read Wm. Manchester's unbiased account in American Caesar); Johnson and McNamara lying to Congress and to the American people (read Dereliction of Duty by H.R. McMaster, an active-duty army officer); and, of course, Bush2’s “yes men” who allowed him to get us into two horrific wars without end. Sadly, the media is largely complicit because they are so superficial (Martha Raddatz’s “report” on ABC’s Good Morning America this morning (6-22-10) was paradigm). Ugh! As Edward R. Murrow observed, “a nation of sheep begets a government of wolves.” Unfortunately, the so-called “watch dogs” are asleep.
Rick
Louisville
As an old retired infantry officer and West Point grad, I learned long ago that there are "political" generals - those that know how to play the inside the beltway game (Wes Clark, Petreus) and there are "warrior" generals - those that know how to kill and win wars (Schwartzkopf, Franks). Both types are needed for an effective military. McChrystal is the latter when the former is needed. And for that reason he must be replaced. Thanks for your service, now move on to civilian life.
Keith Ensminger
Merced, CA
This is one case where we ought to shoot the messenger. These guys were unwinding in a bar, joking and talking shop in an informal setting where booze helps unwind sarcasm. Obama should call the reporter on the carpet and, like Joseph Welch said to Senator Cohn during the McCarthy witch hunts, tell the reporter, "You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
ERIK
Florida
The General just might want out of this half baked war effort enough that he made his comments knowing full well he would be fired.
Better to go with all the flags flying than as a lap dog.
David
Ohio
I must say that I am stunned at these remarks from General McChrystal and his staff. My previous impressions of the General have been favorable. I thought his strategy in Afghanistan was well-thought out, and he presents himself as very disciplined. In light of these impressions, it is absolutely confounding to read these remarks, and to know that he had an opportunity to challenge the content of the article before it went to press. Clearly, General McChrystal is a man who would understand the concept of chain of command, so it is particularly disturbing to hear of the General and his staff as reportedly seeing "the real enemy" as being "those wimps in the White House". One can only wonder what the General's response would be if his staff viewed him as "the real enemy"?
Secondly, given McChrystal's apparent intelligence and grasp of strategy, one can only wonder about the motives behind all of these comments, and his failure to challenge the content of the article prior to its release. Was this simply a colossal blunder in judgment, or is there some underlying strategy to what he MUST have known would create a firestorm of controversy back home. To blatantly stab the Commander-in-Chief in the back seems to force Mr. Obama to recall the General in order to disprove the McChrystal staff view of White House weakness. If this is the case, then one could reasonably ask what the point of such a challenge would be. If it is to be relieved of command because the General fears his strategy in Afghanistan is likely to fail, then one could reasonably ask who is REALLY the one who is covering his backside for face-saving or political purposes.
Washington, DC
The Rolling Stone article presents a picture of a man who has pressed against the envelope of appropriate behavior his entire life. There are those who might find raucous behavior at a service academy laudable. There might be a certain bravado exuded by a staff that behaves like the spoiled entourage of a rock group. These are not the images that mesh appropriately with the faces of the men and women we look at in the news on a daily basis, people risking their lives to carry out the barren strategy of an arrogant war fighter who seems convinced that he immediately becomes the smartest man in any room into which he has entered. If, in fact, General McChrystal is the man he wants us to believe he is, he will present his letter of resignation upon arrival at the White House and insist it be accepted.
The bigger question remains. Counterinsurgency may suitable where there is a nation and government to be salvaged. Afghanistan has never been a nation, and its government is hardly worth saving. The value of the counterinsurgency strategy was supposedly proven in Iraq. Rather than deluding ourselves into thinking that Iraq was a rousing success, let us examine what was really accomplished. General Petraeus and General McChrystal proved only that which was already obvious, that we cannot be beaten militarily if we choose not to be. This is again being proved in Afghanistan, but, like Iraq, it has nothing to do with a successful outcome.
I have read General Petraeus' counterinsurgency manual. It is merely that, a primer on counterinsurgency. I'm sure that it is valuable reading for any young officer, but it is generic, and has nothing to do with either Iraq or Afghanistan, which, at their heart, are socio-political problems that happen to have a military component.
The irony is that General McChrystal, while wrong about the applicability of counterinsurgency doctrine in Afghanistan, is correct to point out that our national security team is broken. So is the ability of Congress to bring any cogent strategic thinking to bear on the problem. The State Department leadership seems to have failed to stand behind Ambassador Eikenberry's prescient analysis of our problems in Afghanistan. General Jones appears absent from public discussion of the way ahead. The political parties are interested only in making hay from each other's mistakes. But no one takes a moment to think about what we're doing in Afghanistan. There are men and women dying. Dying. To what end? Take a look at Somalia, Mali, Ethiopia, Sudan, Lebanon, Gaza, Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea, and tell me that once we secure Afghanistan, our troubles are over.
Yes, General McChrystal deserves to be sacked. But there are a whole lot of people who ought to be going with him.
Don Williams
Philadelphia
1) Most of the derogatory comments were attributed to General McChrystal's aides. But even those comments are MINOR compared to
the continual leaks in Washington designed to undermine and sabotage
General McChrystal's mission.
2) The leaked memo by Karl Eikenberry last year was bad enough. But the recent leak re geological discoveries in Afghanistan was unforgivable. Does anyone think the Taliban are going to negotiate a surrender or compromise after being informed that they are sitting on a gold mine? That if they win, they will possess the "New Saudi Arabia"??
3) That information will motivate the Taliban to fight like furies. And thousands more American soldiers will die as a result.
4)General McChrystal has to write the letters to the families of soldiers killed by President Obama's inability to maintain responsible discipline within the White House.
5) General McChrystal should resign. Not because of the Rolling Stone article --but because obviously he and his mission has not had the support of the White House for some time. Soldiers are dying for a political Kabuki Dance --not to achieve a real and worthwhile objective.
If Obama was serious, these leaks would not be occurring.
Chuck Beria
New York
"Mr. Obama, who summoned General McChrystal to the White House on Wednesday, must either fire his top commander or send him immediately back into the field with a clear mandate to do his job," reads a NYT editorial.
A "clear mandate"? Oh, really? "Clear" by whose standards? And who is to define what such "mandate" is? The New York Times op-ed board?
What, really, would constitute one such "clear mandate" in Afghanistan? Nine years into the never-ending war, the Taliban is stronger than ever, Al-Qaeda is still very much alive, Osama Bin Ladin is nowhere to be found (and once he did get found, the Bush administration deliberately let him slip thru), the totally corrupt regime which does not enjoy even a modicum of legitimacy and popular support is still in power, and the cronyism, massive embezzlement and violent crime exceed anything seen on the face of the earth since the Man first walked out of the cave.
And how would the mandate become "clear". Would we have a public plebiscite? Would the President address the nation and seek its support for McChrystal's return to Afghanistan?
There is ONLY ONE AND ONE ONLY reason why Gen. McChrystal should be returned to Afghanistan in his current role: to prepare Afghanistan as a staging ground for our invasion of Iran. This, and this alone, is the reason why the Obama's administration has been foot-dragging and backpedaling for two years on its commitment to withdraw from Afghanistan. All this nonsense about nation- and democracy- building in Afghanistan, fighting terrorist and etcetera...is something not even the most naive believe anymore.
In short, the only reason why McChrystal should not be sacked is that we need him for the impending invasion on Iran.
Having said this, I comfortably predict that Obama will retain General McChrystal and have him "redeem" himself in the major global conflict to come. Of course, there will be harsh words, public chastisement, possibly even a slight demotion, but that's all Hollywood. The unwashed masses are not as dumb as our rulers would like to believe.
Neil D
Kalamazoo, MI
One wonders why the US military needs these wars so much. Is it because they have been exposed as ineffectual and incompetent by a bunch of low-tech militias over and over again? Lebanon (1982), Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan should have taught them they can't win fights in foreign territory against religious fanatics. And yet they try and try again.
When Americans suffered the trauma of 9/11 we looked to our military to avenge those deaths. We ignored the fact that the military allowed our largest city to be attacked from the air and decided to give them another chance. And now it's clear they've been screw ups for nearly 8 1/2 years.
Let's admit they haven't a clue how to win and bring them home. I've had enough revenge.
Robert
Brattleboro,Vt
Military Generals are some of the most competent people around. The vast majority are promoted due to their ability, not through political maneuvering. By all accounts these remarks were made informally and would not have been printed by a responsible journalist. But the remarks do give one an indication of how our military feels about the "clowns" in the White House. "Bite me", indeed.
Brian Moore
Germany
General McChrystal arguably has one of the most difficult jobs on the planet, leading an international coalition of so-called allies in Afghanistan. Our efforts there may not be successful. If there is failure, he will surely be one of the officers to take the blame.
During my time in Iraq, I have heard soldiers of all ranks from Private to Colonel make off key remarks at one time or another. As an officer, I dismissed most of these as necessary venting. So the General's human in a war zone. He made some remarks among his staff in country. To a General, his staff is like his family, and a good staff officer allows his commander to vent and doesn't go around telling people about it. If I where the war correspondent, I wouldn't have published those remarks. They have nothing to do with covering the war, unless you want to discredit the leadership. Sometimes venting is necessary, then we all get back to doing our jobs, however difficult, thankless and dangerous they may be. I think all veterans know this, but the general public may not.
Ralph Adam Fine
Wisconsin
We need generals who are not afraid to speak--sadly, the history of civilian no-dissent control over the military has been abysmal: viz. Truman and MacArthur (read Wm. Manchester's unbiased account in American Caesar); Johnson and McNamara lying to Congress and to the American people (read Dereliction of Duty by H.R. McMaster, an active-duty army officer); and, of course, Bush2’s “yes men” who allowed him to get us into two horrific wars without end. Sadly, the media is largely complicit because they are so superficial (Martha Raddatz’s “report” on ABC’s Good Morning America this morning (6-22-10) was paradigm). Ugh! As Edward R. Murrow observed, “a nation of sheep begets a government of wolves.” Unfortunately, the so-called “watch dogs” are asleep.
Rick
Louisville
As an old retired infantry officer and West Point grad, I learned long ago that there are "political" generals - those that know how to play the inside the beltway game (Wes Clark, Petreus) and there are "warrior" generals - those that know how to kill and win wars (Schwartzkopf, Franks). Both types are needed for an effective military. McChrystal is the latter when the former is needed. And for that reason he must be replaced. Thanks for your service, now move on to civilian life.
Keith Ensminger
Merced, CA
This is one case where we ought to shoot the messenger. These guys were unwinding in a bar, joking and talking shop in an informal setting where booze helps unwind sarcasm. Obama should call the reporter on the carpet and, like Joseph Welch said to Senator Cohn during the McCarthy witch hunts, tell the reporter, "You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
ERIK
Florida
The General just might want out of this half baked war effort enough that he made his comments knowing full well he would be fired.
Better to go with all the flags flying than as a lap dog.
David
Ohio
I must say that I am stunned at these remarks from General McChrystal and his staff. My previous impressions of the General have been favorable. I thought his strategy in Afghanistan was well-thought out, and he presents himself as very disciplined. In light of these impressions, it is absolutely confounding to read these remarks, and to know that he had an opportunity to challenge the content of the article before it went to press. Clearly, General McChrystal is a man who would understand the concept of chain of command, so it is particularly disturbing to hear of the General and his staff as reportedly seeing "the real enemy" as being "those wimps in the White House". One can only wonder what the General's response would be if his staff viewed him as "the real enemy"?
Secondly, given McChrystal's apparent intelligence and grasp of strategy, one can only wonder about the motives behind all of these comments, and his failure to challenge the content of the article prior to its release. Was this simply a colossal blunder in judgment, or is there some underlying strategy to what he MUST have known would create a firestorm of controversy back home. To blatantly stab the Commander-in-Chief in the back seems to force Mr. Obama to recall the General in order to disprove the McChrystal staff view of White House weakness. If this is the case, then one could reasonably ask what the point of such a challenge would be. If it is to be relieved of command because the General fears his strategy in Afghanistan is likely to fail, then one could reasonably ask who is REALLY the one who is covering his backside for face-saving or political purposes.
20.6.10
on the mechanics of failure
TJ in Boulder Utah
Boulder, UT
A major reason that The United States of America was catapulted to the top of the heap in terms of military and economic power was that profiteers of all kinds have historically, been given free rein to rape the natural resources of North America and then the World. This, along with overwhelming military and economic dominance over the shattered economies of Europe and Asia after WWII.
The rise of Corporate power is only another manifestation of the "ruling classes" asserting their will on a relatively ignorant and powerless populus. Just as the robber barons of the 1800s bought off government, corporations today buy our representatives with bribes that are thinly disguised as "campaign contributions". The media, for the most part is also controlled by these monied interests. And, now with a Supreme Court that is controlled by so called conservatives we have Corporations being given the right to funnel even more money to their favored Lobbists (oops! I mean elected representitives).
I like President Obama and wish we lived in the world that he envisioned, of "Hope & Change" though understanding and bipartisanship. But, unfortunately he has yet to really get his own message. Our only Hope is for him to take a radical approach to changing our current form of govenment and give up on the moderation of a fantastical bipartisanship. He should give up any plan for a second term and just start naming names and truely "kicking a$$" rather than using such statements as a rhetorical device. We also can't just count on the POTUS to do what has to be done. I understand the Tea Party movement functioning out of an overwheming sense that the People no longer control what happens in America. Unfortunately, this frustration has been coopted by the same forces that want to block meaningful reform and control of those that are creating our problems. We The People actually have to demand change; perhaps starting with real campaign finance reform. (Oh, where are you John McCain? - Oops! another political sell out.)
I am NOT hopeful. It seems we will only change in a crisis. And, since one seems to appear every 3 - 4 months, people seem to be exhausted and appathetic. If what has been happening during the last year can't spur us to action, what will?
We need leadership. That's why we voted for Obama. Time is short.
The hour is late.
Boulder, UT
A major reason that The United States of America was catapulted to the top of the heap in terms of military and economic power was that profiteers of all kinds have historically, been given free rein to rape the natural resources of North America and then the World. This, along with overwhelming military and economic dominance over the shattered economies of Europe and Asia after WWII.
The rise of Corporate power is only another manifestation of the "ruling classes" asserting their will on a relatively ignorant and powerless populus. Just as the robber barons of the 1800s bought off government, corporations today buy our representatives with bribes that are thinly disguised as "campaign contributions". The media, for the most part is also controlled by these monied interests. And, now with a Supreme Court that is controlled by so called conservatives we have Corporations being given the right to funnel even more money to their favored Lobbists (oops! I mean elected representitives).
I like President Obama and wish we lived in the world that he envisioned, of "Hope & Change" though understanding and bipartisanship. But, unfortunately he has yet to really get his own message. Our only Hope is for him to take a radical approach to changing our current form of govenment and give up on the moderation of a fantastical bipartisanship. He should give up any plan for a second term and just start naming names and truely "kicking a$$" rather than using such statements as a rhetorical device. We also can't just count on the POTUS to do what has to be done. I understand the Tea Party movement functioning out of an overwheming sense that the People no longer control what happens in America. Unfortunately, this frustration has been coopted by the same forces that want to block meaningful reform and control of those that are creating our problems. We The People actually have to demand change; perhaps starting with real campaign finance reform. (Oh, where are you John McCain? - Oops! another political sell out.)
I am NOT hopeful. It seems we will only change in a crisis. And, since one seems to appear every 3 - 4 months, people seem to be exhausted and appathetic. If what has been happening during the last year can't spur us to action, what will?
We need leadership. That's why we voted for Obama. Time is short.
The hour is late.
The enemy within viewed from aside
Paolo Martini
Milan, Italy
So I can feel the squirming discomfort from all the way over here in the Mediterranean: none of the convenient enemies (the commies, Colombian narcos, the Arabs) are available to take the fall for this one. It comes straight from the heart of the capitalist system, big oil. There's no conspiracy, no subtext except oops, we goofed! And there's no solution in sight except to hope it stops gushing on its own. At least it provides a graphic illustration of what happens when corporations are allowed to pursue profit without regulatory bodies protecting the public interest, though I doubt the Tea Partiers will change their tune. Small government means government by multinational corporations and groups like Goldman Sachs.
I feel terrible for the people of the Gulf Coast, who face a disgusting decade (at least) and perhaps the end of a way of life (bye-bye fishing, shrimping and oysters for the foreseeable future). And let's hope the rest of the Caribbean doesn't follow suit. Obama can't be blamed for this, any more than the Arabs or the commies. Twenty years after glasnost, the West is proving that it needed the Soviets to strike a balance. The unfettered global financial system and multinationals are wreaking more havoc than the Bolshies ever did.
Milan, Italy
So I can feel the squirming discomfort from all the way over here in the Mediterranean: none of the convenient enemies (the commies, Colombian narcos, the Arabs) are available to take the fall for this one. It comes straight from the heart of the capitalist system, big oil. There's no conspiracy, no subtext except oops, we goofed! And there's no solution in sight except to hope it stops gushing on its own. At least it provides a graphic illustration of what happens when corporations are allowed to pursue profit without regulatory bodies protecting the public interest, though I doubt the Tea Partiers will change their tune. Small government means government by multinational corporations and groups like Goldman Sachs.
I feel terrible for the people of the Gulf Coast, who face a disgusting decade (at least) and perhaps the end of a way of life (bye-bye fishing, shrimping and oysters for the foreseeable future). And let's hope the rest of the Caribbean doesn't follow suit. Obama can't be blamed for this, any more than the Arabs or the commies. Twenty years after glasnost, the West is proving that it needed the Soviets to strike a balance. The unfettered global financial system and multinationals are wreaking more havoc than the Bolshies ever did.
A little history can harm only the ignorant
Jumper
South Carolina
Perhaps because of the history we're taught, and because of the dire scenario created by the media, we expected President Obama's first term to be similar to that of FDR's first term. There was cooperation because that situation was so dire. FDR had promised that if various quarters resisted fixing the emergency, he'd use his powers of commander in chief to get the job done.
President Obama inherited an obstructionist Congress more like that of FDR's second term, a Congress that kept him from accomplishing much. The Republicans and conservative Democrats have plagiarized most of that playbook to block President Obama.
Al Smith loudly decried FDR's policies as those of Marx and Lenin. Most of the nation's wealthy industrialists, banks and food processing companies formed and supported the American Liberty League. The League's stated its purposes were to,"...defend and uphold the Constitution" and to "foster the right to work, earn, save and acquire property." (Anti-union language.)
When the Congress passed an agricultural administration the League didn't like, they called it, "a trend toward Fascist control of agriculture." During the development of Social Security, they said it was "...the end of democracy." Sound familiar?
The new wrinkle is that they have toadies such as Joe Wilson and Joe Barton, who have accomplished little but are willing to sacrifice themselves to distract the media talk from major Obama accomplishments.
The main reason FDR weathered the storm was that the Republicans and his other critics, by their own actions, tied themselves to the hated bankers. They overplayed their hands and self-destructed. We see that happening again - but shouldn't totally count on it.
A telling difference, however, between FDR and President Obama is that FDR was willing to use devastating metaphors such as, "I'd rather be an eagle flying high rather than a turtle or ostrich with its head in the ground," (referring to some early war time critics.) Nothing like some commonsense ridicule.
In that you're correct. However, Obama should do this sparingly and leave most of the work to those speaking for him. The President has better uses for his time than trading barbs with intellectual lightweights who've demonstrated they're only in it for their money, not the interests of the American people.
To some extent, President Obama has already fired the first shot of this round. Before the speech, pundits behaved as though they were the master of his comments. By post speech time, they'd sliced and diced him and high-fived each other. The next morning the President delivered the complete BP pledge for financial restitution. He showed the babbling heads of all political stripes, along with the print pundits, to be clueless.
Yes, they need some house cleaning. However, I've got a feeling his administration has a few more accomplishments to present before going into campaign mode and ripping the curtains back to reveal the anti-democracy corporatists and their toadies working to manipulate the American people out of their own best interests.
South Carolina
Perhaps because of the history we're taught, and because of the dire scenario created by the media, we expected President Obama's first term to be similar to that of FDR's first term. There was cooperation because that situation was so dire. FDR had promised that if various quarters resisted fixing the emergency, he'd use his powers of commander in chief to get the job done.
President Obama inherited an obstructionist Congress more like that of FDR's second term, a Congress that kept him from accomplishing much. The Republicans and conservative Democrats have plagiarized most of that playbook to block President Obama.
Al Smith loudly decried FDR's policies as those of Marx and Lenin. Most of the nation's wealthy industrialists, banks and food processing companies formed and supported the American Liberty League. The League's stated its purposes were to,"...defend and uphold the Constitution" and to "foster the right to work, earn, save and acquire property." (Anti-union language.)
When the Congress passed an agricultural administration the League didn't like, they called it, "a trend toward Fascist control of agriculture." During the development of Social Security, they said it was "...the end of democracy." Sound familiar?
The new wrinkle is that they have toadies such as Joe Wilson and Joe Barton, who have accomplished little but are willing to sacrifice themselves to distract the media talk from major Obama accomplishments.
The main reason FDR weathered the storm was that the Republicans and his other critics, by their own actions, tied themselves to the hated bankers. They overplayed their hands and self-destructed. We see that happening again - but shouldn't totally count on it.
A telling difference, however, between FDR and President Obama is that FDR was willing to use devastating metaphors such as, "I'd rather be an eagle flying high rather than a turtle or ostrich with its head in the ground," (referring to some early war time critics.) Nothing like some commonsense ridicule.
In that you're correct. However, Obama should do this sparingly and leave most of the work to those speaking for him. The President has better uses for his time than trading barbs with intellectual lightweights who've demonstrated they're only in it for their money, not the interests of the American people.
To some extent, President Obama has already fired the first shot of this round. Before the speech, pundits behaved as though they were the master of his comments. By post speech time, they'd sliced and diced him and high-fived each other. The next morning the President delivered the complete BP pledge for financial restitution. He showed the babbling heads of all political stripes, along with the print pundits, to be clueless.
Yes, they need some house cleaning. However, I've got a feeling his administration has a few more accomplishments to present before going into campaign mode and ripping the curtains back to reveal the anti-democracy corporatists and their toadies working to manipulate the American people out of their own best interests.
15.6.10
To Afghan Twist, The US Turn
NYTimes:
NY
What is this? Is the Times being played by the Pentagon? First, there is an article about a new Pentagon-supported survey which shows Afghanistan has up to a trillion dollars in mineral wealth, and that the Chinese are after it, or, even worse, that the Taliban might get it. By mid-day, everyone is pointing out that the presence of mineral wealth in that country is old news. So, why the breaking story?
By the end of the SAME DAY, here is an article in which military officials express serious doubts about the timetable for withdrawal. You think that's a coincidence? This is propaganda. The military-industrial complex does not want to leave that country until it has appropriated those resources. That's what this war has become about, just like the war in Iraq. It's not about democracy, human rights, women's rights or even national security. It's not even about defeating Islamic extremists. The military knows that force only creates more terrorists. It's not about 'victory'. They know there is no winning an all-out war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. What they want is endless war. War that lasts long enough to allow them to strong-arm the future political leadership in Afghanistan, which may not include Karzai, into allowing U.S. companies to develop the country's resources. The same thing Russia wanted. The same thing Halliburton wanted in Iraq.
FromwhereIsit
Manhattan
I'm shocked, SHOCKED, by this discovery.
Call me cynical, but I think few Americans believed the Bush Administration would launch a long-term campaign in the desert wasteland of Central Asia for purely altruistic reasons like liberating Afghan women.
art brennan
weare, nh
The term "halting progress" really doesn't fit. Where's the evidence of progress? Halting the war would be progress.
Paul Moore
Miami, FL
They don't call Afghanistan the burial ground of empires for nothing. McChrystal is the quintessential US military leader now, a Madison Avenue type who gets bunches of people killed including his own people. Lied in the Tillman case. Kept forward inadequately guarded bases open in Afghanistan against the advice of genuine leaders and got people killed when they were overrun. The man is a pathetic impotent symbol of the whole futile US effort in Afghanistan. He'll probably be President soon.
Marcel Duchamp
Maine
A trillion dollars worth of minerals will make this a war worth winning!
Our imperial net has settled around our throats.
Meyrav Levine
Boston
Hence the reason why we spend a trillion dollars a year on our military-industrial complex to steal resources from other people. Alan Greenspan, in a rare moment of honesty among the ruling elites, declared the following motive for our war of aggression in Iraq:
“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil”...
Nick Lento
Cliffside Park, NJ
This is one more reason to radically change our foreign policy on a *global* scale so that human rights and real democracy is what we are about rather than just propping up monstrous undemocratic dictatorships masquerading as democracies so our "private enterprise" can hook up with artificially cheap natural resources.
We've wasted hundreds of billions of dollars in Afghanistan killing people and engendering more hatred of the USA...and all that's done is make the Taliban (who were hated!) more attractive to many ordinary Afghans.
In our pursuit of "terrorists" we have created more terrorism....which in turn, is good for the commercial interests which enjoy the profits that accrue from our massive expenditures.
We should take a page out of Greg Mortenson's book (Three Cups of Tea) and learn how to spend lots less money more intelligently and in a humane and human manner. The ordinary working people at the bottom of the world's political food chain should be looking toward the USA with respect, love and admiration....and would be if our policies were to materially and unambiguously advance their interests.
If we stay on the utterly ineffective and wasteful course we are now on.....the Taliban will wind up in charge of Afghanistan and they will cut deals with the Chinese to rape their own countryside and exploit their own countrymen. We can/must do better.
Jacque Bauer
Los Angeles
Like the Iraqis, the Afghans will show their appreciation to America for its blood and treasure spent to free the Afghanis, to rebuild their country and in discovering these riches by giving the mineral licenses to these deposits to the Chinese. Don't doubt this for one second...
Michael R
Pittsford, New York
For all of the implications of such a discovery, let's not get carried away with this storyline just yet. It didn't take too much effort for me to notice that these unnamed U.S. Pentagon officials, and the New York Times, are peddling at least somewhat of a puff piece. At this stage, a phrase like "the Saudi Arabia of lithium"--uttered before the independent verification of these vast mineral deposits, and before mining operations and 'mining culture' have even sprouted in Afghanistan--strikes me more as campaign-style rhetoric, pushing a hawkish foreign policy goal, than an objective accounting of the potential of this find.
I am all for vast riches being discovered in Afghanistan--but vast questions remain. Again, no objective, on-the-record sources or independent scientists have verified the account. Assuming the truth of these vast riches (and what, exactly, is the basis for the $1 trillion estimate beyond the mere expectation and yes, Hope, of the Pentagon?), don't underestimate the acknowledged timeline for extracting most of these riches: long-term.
It's hard to escape the reality that the same Pentagon officials who are notifying the world of this seemingly hugely significant story also have a strong interest in staying put in Afghanistan. We ought to be on guard for stories like this, number one, but here demand more information and verification before we allow this information to affect our attitude towards Afghanistan.
dad
nj
I'm old-fashioned. I believe that when it's time to fight a war, you need to do it with a clear conscience, because you're going to expose yourself to some regrettable things--things that will haunt you for the rest of your days. The use of military force needs to be just, because you're asking sons and daughters of loving mothers, who raised them until they were old enough to kill in the name of country, to do just that, or be killed. Sending them off to do that in the name of a fabrication is to commit them to hell. Good luck welcoming them back.
War is best expressed as a total commitment, punctuated by the clear achievement of negotiated terms, which the victors find acceptable. This means a broad-based conscription (in the event you have a popularity issue), and an appropriate and properly targeted raising of taxes to cover the "unusual" expense of armed conflict. No credit cards accepted. No shadow mercenary contractors that you can pay off the books and use to keep your "volunteer army" troop numbers artificially low.
Anything less than this is a police action and has no rightful purpose going on for five or ten years.
The Bush-launched incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan are unjust wars. They are corporate-political incursions of opportunity and they have debased the United Sates of America and its proud military.
The US Government, one might dream, needs to "straighten up and fly right," so that we can breath honor into our national endeavors. What we are doing in the meantime is unleashing a global security force on a less than thankful planet to provide cover to the designs of a small group of planners--take your pick if you think you know who they are. But they do not represent the will of the nation, nor do they portray their mission in a manner or language that can stand the light of day.
They dishonor our citizenry, our flag, and fighting forces. They will, if their modus operandi is allowed to continue, hand the motivational advantage to our adversaries. A strong Nation can handle the truth. Why then, must we be so deceived?
Some people regard war as a sacred duty. Others, an opportunity for plunder. I hope to god that war can retain its nobler aims, because there's no truer aim for a citizen soldier than securing the peace. If global cops are what the world needs, then let the nations of the world pony up and go where they're required.
War is being redefined as an endless struggle against asymmetrical usurpers who can inspire fear out of all proportion to their actual capability. It is becoming enormously profitable for a segment of its supporters and providers. It requires unmerciful destruction and the relentless tearing of flesh. It will leave indelible marks on the ones who do not die. It may or may not encourage a peaceful society.
How is this a noble mission? Or was it always thus?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/14/is_afghanistan_really_the_next_el_dorado
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/14/getting_outside_the_box_on_national_defense
U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan&
By JAMES RISEN
The nearly $1 trillion in untapped deposits are enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, officials said.
Setbacks Cloud U.S. Plans to Get Out of Afghanistanjoe
By PETER BAKER and MARK LANDLER
Halting progress has crystallized tensions over President Obama’s plan to begin pulling out troops by July 2011.
NY
What is this? Is the Times being played by the Pentagon? First, there is an article about a new Pentagon-supported survey which shows Afghanistan has up to a trillion dollars in mineral wealth, and that the Chinese are after it, or, even worse, that the Taliban might get it. By mid-day, everyone is pointing out that the presence of mineral wealth in that country is old news. So, why the breaking story?
By the end of the SAME DAY, here is an article in which military officials express serious doubts about the timetable for withdrawal. You think that's a coincidence? This is propaganda. The military-industrial complex does not want to leave that country until it has appropriated those resources. That's what this war has become about, just like the war in Iraq. It's not about democracy, human rights, women's rights or even national security. It's not even about defeating Islamic extremists. The military knows that force only creates more terrorists. It's not about 'victory'. They know there is no winning an all-out war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. What they want is endless war. War that lasts long enough to allow them to strong-arm the future political leadership in Afghanistan, which may not include Karzai, into allowing U.S. companies to develop the country's resources. The same thing Russia wanted. The same thing Halliburton wanted in Iraq.
FromwhereIsit
Manhattan
I'm shocked, SHOCKED, by this discovery.
Call me cynical, but I think few Americans believed the Bush Administration would launch a long-term campaign in the desert wasteland of Central Asia for purely altruistic reasons like liberating Afghan women.
art brennan
weare, nh
The term "halting progress" really doesn't fit. Where's the evidence of progress? Halting the war would be progress.
Paul Moore
Miami, FL
They don't call Afghanistan the burial ground of empires for nothing. McChrystal is the quintessential US military leader now, a Madison Avenue type who gets bunches of people killed including his own people. Lied in the Tillman case. Kept forward inadequately guarded bases open in Afghanistan against the advice of genuine leaders and got people killed when they were overrun. The man is a pathetic impotent symbol of the whole futile US effort in Afghanistan. He'll probably be President soon.
Marcel Duchamp
Maine
A trillion dollars worth of minerals will make this a war worth winning!
Our imperial net has settled around our throats.
Meyrav Levine
Boston
Hence the reason why we spend a trillion dollars a year on our military-industrial complex to steal resources from other people. Alan Greenspan, in a rare moment of honesty among the ruling elites, declared the following motive for our war of aggression in Iraq:
“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil”...
Nick Lento
Cliffside Park, NJ
This is one more reason to radically change our foreign policy on a *global* scale so that human rights and real democracy is what we are about rather than just propping up monstrous undemocratic dictatorships masquerading as democracies so our "private enterprise" can hook up with artificially cheap natural resources.
We've wasted hundreds of billions of dollars in Afghanistan killing people and engendering more hatred of the USA...and all that's done is make the Taliban (who were hated!) more attractive to many ordinary Afghans.
In our pursuit of "terrorists" we have created more terrorism....which in turn, is good for the commercial interests which enjoy the profits that accrue from our massive expenditures.
We should take a page out of Greg Mortenson's book (Three Cups of Tea) and learn how to spend lots less money more intelligently and in a humane and human manner. The ordinary working people at the bottom of the world's political food chain should be looking toward the USA with respect, love and admiration....and would be if our policies were to materially and unambiguously advance their interests.
If we stay on the utterly ineffective and wasteful course we are now on.....the Taliban will wind up in charge of Afghanistan and they will cut deals with the Chinese to rape their own countryside and exploit their own countrymen. We can/must do better.
Jacque Bauer
Los Angeles
Like the Iraqis, the Afghans will show their appreciation to America for its blood and treasure spent to free the Afghanis, to rebuild their country and in discovering these riches by giving the mineral licenses to these deposits to the Chinese. Don't doubt this for one second...
Michael R
Pittsford, New York
For all of the implications of such a discovery, let's not get carried away with this storyline just yet. It didn't take too much effort for me to notice that these unnamed U.S. Pentagon officials, and the New York Times, are peddling at least somewhat of a puff piece. At this stage, a phrase like "the Saudi Arabia of lithium"--uttered before the independent verification of these vast mineral deposits, and before mining operations and 'mining culture' have even sprouted in Afghanistan--strikes me more as campaign-style rhetoric, pushing a hawkish foreign policy goal, than an objective accounting of the potential of this find.
I am all for vast riches being discovered in Afghanistan--but vast questions remain. Again, no objective, on-the-record sources or independent scientists have verified the account. Assuming the truth of these vast riches (and what, exactly, is the basis for the $1 trillion estimate beyond the mere expectation and yes, Hope, of the Pentagon?), don't underestimate the acknowledged timeline for extracting most of these riches: long-term.
It's hard to escape the reality that the same Pentagon officials who are notifying the world of this seemingly hugely significant story also have a strong interest in staying put in Afghanistan. We ought to be on guard for stories like this, number one, but here demand more information and verification before we allow this information to affect our attitude towards Afghanistan.
dad
nj
I'm old-fashioned. I believe that when it's time to fight a war, you need to do it with a clear conscience, because you're going to expose yourself to some regrettable things--things that will haunt you for the rest of your days. The use of military force needs to be just, because you're asking sons and daughters of loving mothers, who raised them until they were old enough to kill in the name of country, to do just that, or be killed. Sending them off to do that in the name of a fabrication is to commit them to hell. Good luck welcoming them back.
War is best expressed as a total commitment, punctuated by the clear achievement of negotiated terms, which the victors find acceptable. This means a broad-based conscription (in the event you have a popularity issue), and an appropriate and properly targeted raising of taxes to cover the "unusual" expense of armed conflict. No credit cards accepted. No shadow mercenary contractors that you can pay off the books and use to keep your "volunteer army" troop numbers artificially low.
Anything less than this is a police action and has no rightful purpose going on for five or ten years.
The Bush-launched incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan are unjust wars. They are corporate-political incursions of opportunity and they have debased the United Sates of America and its proud military.
The US Government, one might dream, needs to "straighten up and fly right," so that we can breath honor into our national endeavors. What we are doing in the meantime is unleashing a global security force on a less than thankful planet to provide cover to the designs of a small group of planners--take your pick if you think you know who they are. But they do not represent the will of the nation, nor do they portray their mission in a manner or language that can stand the light of day.
They dishonor our citizenry, our flag, and fighting forces. They will, if their modus operandi is allowed to continue, hand the motivational advantage to our adversaries. A strong Nation can handle the truth. Why then, must we be so deceived?
Some people regard war as a sacred duty. Others, an opportunity for plunder. I hope to god that war can retain its nobler aims, because there's no truer aim for a citizen soldier than securing the peace. If global cops are what the world needs, then let the nations of the world pony up and go where they're required.
War is being redefined as an endless struggle against asymmetrical usurpers who can inspire fear out of all proportion to their actual capability. It is becoming enormously profitable for a segment of its supporters and providers. It requires unmerciful destruction and the relentless tearing of flesh. It will leave indelible marks on the ones who do not die. It may or may not encourage a peaceful society.
How is this a noble mission? Or was it always thus?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/14/is_afghanistan_really_the_next_el_dorado
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/14/getting_outside_the_box_on_national_defense
1.6.10
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his livelihood depends on not understanding it
pdxtran
Minneapolis
As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his livelihood depends on not understanding it."
About thirty years ago, I witnessed the transition from an academic system in which most students majored in liberal arts, with the expectation that their eventual employers would train them in the job skills they needed, to a system in major companies literally stopped hiring liberal arts majors for anything but commissioned sales jobs. Within a couple of years, anyone who didn't major in business or computer science (or pre-med or pre-law) was considered a sentimental fool. Meanwhile, all forms of financial aid except loans and ROTC scholarships failed to keep up with rising tuition costs (caused largely by administrative bloat--but that's another story).
The result was a generation of college graduates who knew how to manipulate numbers and were indoctrinated into Milton Friedman's version of economics and possibly, if they were ROTC cadets, into the most paranoid versions of Cold War foreign policy.
They firmly believed that making money for the shareholders was the ONLY purpose of a company, and they acted accordingly, blithely laying off workers to make their companies "lean and mean," telling themselves that hiring slave labor in the Third World was "raising living standards in impoverished countries," cutting back on the quality of their products and services, eliminating corporate charitable contributions, and then telling federal and local legislators that they could add Stateside jobs, produce better products, and contribute to charity only if they received tax cuts.
Never mind that employee wages and benefits, investment in facilities, R&D expenses, and charitable contributions were already tax deductible. Business lobbyists played on the typical American's ignorance of how companies are taxed (if you ask, you'll find that they imagine that companies are taxed on their gross receipts, not on their profits) and cynically asked for tax cuts, citing altruistic reasons but actually aiming to improve returns for the shareholders.
Unfortunately, the federal government, the states, and municipalities were stupid enough to grant these tax cuts, only to see their own budgets suffer.
The Left (the real Left, not the former liberal Republicans who now control the Democratic Party) called the corporate world on its greed and cynicism and single-minded pursuit of returns for the shareholders. It decried foreign outsourcing as destructive to America's middle class. It pointed out the sheer waste of spending hundreds of billions of dollars per year on the military when our civilian infrastructure was falling behind the rest of the Western world. It warned against so many articles of conventional faith that the mainstream media treated it as "fringe," a bunch of outdated cranks who couldn't get with the laissez-faire program.
The oil industry didn't want to hear about alternative energy. The finance industry didn't want to hear that it was pumping up a series of bubbles. The manufacturing industries kept sending production abroad in search of cheaper and cheaper labor, oblivious to the way they were destroying the purchasing power of their own customers. The military-industrial complex didn't want to hear about foreign policy scenarios in which the U.S. wasn't at war with anyone. The law enforcement-prison-industrial complex didn't want to hear that the drug war was criminalizing entire communities. The land developer-real estate-industrial complex didn't want to hear that their houses were bigger than what most people needed and too expensive for the average person to afford. The pundit-industrial complex made sure that no one deviated from the official line that America was the greatest country in the world and had nothing to learn from anyone else. Everyone was making too much money to stop bilking and exploiting fellow Americans, who, true to American culture, "didn't hold by book larnin" and just believed everything they heard on the radio and on TV.
Well, all these bubbles are bursting in quick succession. Online comments indicate that some people are waking up and realizing that they've been had. However, you still see the brazen apologists for the oil companies, the banks, the builders, the retailers of shoddy goods, the outsourcers, and everyone else who has helped destroy America's middle class, acting as if nothing bad has happened.
They epitomize Upton Sinclair's statement.
Minneapolis
As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his livelihood depends on not understanding it."
About thirty years ago, I witnessed the transition from an academic system in which most students majored in liberal arts, with the expectation that their eventual employers would train them in the job skills they needed, to a system in major companies literally stopped hiring liberal arts majors for anything but commissioned sales jobs. Within a couple of years, anyone who didn't major in business or computer science (or pre-med or pre-law) was considered a sentimental fool. Meanwhile, all forms of financial aid except loans and ROTC scholarships failed to keep up with rising tuition costs (caused largely by administrative bloat--but that's another story).
The result was a generation of college graduates who knew how to manipulate numbers and were indoctrinated into Milton Friedman's version of economics and possibly, if they were ROTC cadets, into the most paranoid versions of Cold War foreign policy.
They firmly believed that making money for the shareholders was the ONLY purpose of a company, and they acted accordingly, blithely laying off workers to make their companies "lean and mean," telling themselves that hiring slave labor in the Third World was "raising living standards in impoverished countries," cutting back on the quality of their products and services, eliminating corporate charitable contributions, and then telling federal and local legislators that they could add Stateside jobs, produce better products, and contribute to charity only if they received tax cuts.
Never mind that employee wages and benefits, investment in facilities, R&D expenses, and charitable contributions were already tax deductible. Business lobbyists played on the typical American's ignorance of how companies are taxed (if you ask, you'll find that they imagine that companies are taxed on their gross receipts, not on their profits) and cynically asked for tax cuts, citing altruistic reasons but actually aiming to improve returns for the shareholders.
Unfortunately, the federal government, the states, and municipalities were stupid enough to grant these tax cuts, only to see their own budgets suffer.
The Left (the real Left, not the former liberal Republicans who now control the Democratic Party) called the corporate world on its greed and cynicism and single-minded pursuit of returns for the shareholders. It decried foreign outsourcing as destructive to America's middle class. It pointed out the sheer waste of spending hundreds of billions of dollars per year on the military when our civilian infrastructure was falling behind the rest of the Western world. It warned against so many articles of conventional faith that the mainstream media treated it as "fringe," a bunch of outdated cranks who couldn't get with the laissez-faire program.
The oil industry didn't want to hear about alternative energy. The finance industry didn't want to hear that it was pumping up a series of bubbles. The manufacturing industries kept sending production abroad in search of cheaper and cheaper labor, oblivious to the way they were destroying the purchasing power of their own customers. The military-industrial complex didn't want to hear about foreign policy scenarios in which the U.S. wasn't at war with anyone. The law enforcement-prison-industrial complex didn't want to hear that the drug war was criminalizing entire communities. The land developer-real estate-industrial complex didn't want to hear that their houses were bigger than what most people needed and too expensive for the average person to afford. The pundit-industrial complex made sure that no one deviated from the official line that America was the greatest country in the world and had nothing to learn from anyone else. Everyone was making too much money to stop bilking and exploiting fellow Americans, who, true to American culture, "didn't hold by book larnin" and just believed everything they heard on the radio and on TV.
Well, all these bubbles are bursting in quick succession. Online comments indicate that some people are waking up and realizing that they've been had. However, you still see the brazen apologists for the oil companies, the banks, the builders, the retailers of shoddy goods, the outsourcers, and everyone else who has helped destroy America's middle class, acting as if nothing bad has happened.
They epitomize Upton Sinclair's statement.
31.5.10
german key to our military engagements?
President Horst Köhler of Germany resigned on Monday for remarks he recently made during a visit to Afghanistan.
Köhler said:
Köhler said:
“A country of our size, with its focus on exports and thus reliance on foreign trade, must be aware that military deployments are necessary in an emergency to protect our interests, for example, when it comes to trade routes, for example, when it comes to preventing regional instabilities that could negatively influence our trade, jobs and incomes”
22.5.10
Goldman Sachs vs. Its clients
beaconps
PA
"It is all very well to say that the customers were foolish. But when a system prevails which caters to the folly of too large a proportion of a population, a proportion so large that the destruction of its purchasing power is of concern to every business in the land, then it deserves serious attention."
E. L. Smith 1930 "The Break in the Credit Chain"
This article written for The Atlantic discusses responsibility with respect to our money supply. It compares our formerly responsible bankers with our always irresponsible traders. There was no difference between 1929 and 2007, simply different assets. Goldman was not managing risk, they were managing fraud. They were well aware of the fraud that was behind the lending and they acted irresponsibly. They poisoned the well of all MBS when they created securities designed to fail, and fail they did. At the time, we were told it was a black swan liquidity crisis that needed helicopter money, TARP, to unfreeze. We now know it was not a black swan, it was a confidence game played by a privileged few, and so successful it ruined the economy.
It is impossible to regulate or legislate responsibility. We need to take away the tools, derivatives, that enable the confidence tricks and games, otherwise our money stability, our chain of credit, will always be in jeopardy of manipulation or collapse. This is especially unnerving for those working fools attempting to save over the long term, when money was not intended to be saved. The system for saving needs better a better model and safe guards to protect it from the parasites and confidence men of Wall Street. This is difficult to accomplish when half the population wants to become one minute millionaires by simply pushing a button or conning a client.
It is our inability to save or lend safely that is the root of our problems and opens all to become victims of confidence scams. Money has transient value and was designed to facilitate exchange of value; transactions that take place in the present. Lending and saving are eternal problems that rely on ethics and responsibility, neither of which can be found on the Wall Street.
Smith makes a point of noting that although bankers earn their money lending, they serve a higher purpose when they decline a loan. They are protecting the chain of credit within the community. The economic activity of the financial sector should be no more than 5% of GDP and probably much lower. The current abuse of the stock market can be cured by eliminating stocks as a form of capital generation, which is basically money printing by companies. Once sold, stocks become the chips of gamblers in a rigged casino.
Nelson Alexander
New York City
Goldman Sachs Traders Are True Americans!
The mistake for the public and its elected representatives is to focus on the wrong unit of analysis. This is not so much about greed and conflict of interests as about the aggregation of data. Given the scale of data and computing power, how could Goldman have done otherwise? It must continually identify and offload falling values in millions of exchanges. The more exchanges it aggregates the better it can estimate potential losses. Can it ignore such information?
We neglect the most fundamental fact of a capitalist system: someone must lose. Just don't tell us who. Keep it abstract. Show us in numbers not in faces. Indeed, in relative terms most people must lose. Somewhere, those losses must accumulate to a destabilizing level. At some fundamental level, exchanges remain a zero-sum game. It is only capitalist ideology that obscures this fact with idiotic tales of the rare win-win trades. Few exchanges are win-win. The vast majority are calculably win-lose, lose, lose, with the losses displaced, deferred, off-shored, abstracted, and disguised as they mount up. What else is Goldman supposed to do? Goldman and the hedge funds (the real problem, still to be addressed since LTC) are behaving rationally, but what is rational for Goldman is not rational for all of its customers and certainly not for the nation or humanity.
Who creates wealth? Real productivity grows at about 2 percent a year, so they say. Way lower than the expectations of the exchanges. Any returns of profit above that are someone else's loss. Goldman is no more greedy and internally conflicted than American itself, which is similarly using exchange rates to export the losses, struggling to lower wages offshore and elevate pension funds at home. We must rid ourselves of childish, magical stories about market productivity. Real productivity marches on slowly on the backs of everyone who works. The vast, global financial exchanges use rules of complexity and probability to transfer 90 percent of that growing wealth to the top 1 percent, while the risks and losses cascade downward.
David
Rhinebeck
The good news is that if Goldman Sachs is cut down to size due to client wariness, the market forces held in such high regard by free market capitalists, will have proven to work.
The bad news is that it took too long for the market to correct Goldman Sachs. In the meantime, too many good people who had nothing to do with the market and Goldman Sachs have lost jobs, houses and now live in broken families. So much for family values.
Read Kevin Phillips' "Wealth & Democracy". Corporations ("combinations" as Teddy Roosevelt called them) have been playing fast and loose with our democracy and national economy ever since they came into existence. Republicans ran Washington DC from presidents Lincoln to Herbert Hoover, 72 years through several serious recessions, leading to the Great Depression. Their fiscal management favored accumulation of wealth to a handful of wealthy who bought and paid for Washington, leaving most Americans economically backward. The American families who lost most during the Depression never owned a stock in their lives when the stock market crashed. The regulations, taxes, work programs, work hours and social security measures passed during Franklin Roosevelt's administration combined with WWII production and conservation did more to stabilize our economy and build wealth for American citizens than in any previous period of American history. In spite of Roosevelt's high taxes on the wealthy to pay for the war and the cost to corporations for higher wages and social programs, the wealthiest Americans still became more wealthy. Yet Republicans denigrate this period of profound upward mobility of Americans. And, too many Americans who benefitted from this period deny it, depriving their children and grandchildren a similarly good future.
The Goldman Sachs' story is a clear example of how Republicans and Conservatives took our nation back to the pre-Depression Corporate largess days of greed and predatory practices. As conservatives convinced voters of their false promises, Democrats jumped on board to play in the game. Let's hope Americans who are trying to dump incumbents get smart and realize that the Goldman Sachs corporations of the US have been behind most of our national political and economic crises as “they” buy, sell and tramp on our democracy for their obscenely excessive pay, bonuses and profits. We need more than a market revolution to cut Goldman Sachs down to size. We need a populist revolution that recognizes better government is what we need, not turning government over to the corporations as Republicans have been doing.
PA
"It is all very well to say that the customers were foolish. But when a system prevails which caters to the folly of too large a proportion of a population, a proportion so large that the destruction of its purchasing power is of concern to every business in the land, then it deserves serious attention."
E. L. Smith 1930 "The Break in the Credit Chain"
This article written for The Atlantic discusses responsibility with respect to our money supply. It compares our formerly responsible bankers with our always irresponsible traders. There was no difference between 1929 and 2007, simply different assets. Goldman was not managing risk, they were managing fraud. They were well aware of the fraud that was behind the lending and they acted irresponsibly. They poisoned the well of all MBS when they created securities designed to fail, and fail they did. At the time, we were told it was a black swan liquidity crisis that needed helicopter money, TARP, to unfreeze. We now know it was not a black swan, it was a confidence game played by a privileged few, and so successful it ruined the economy.
It is impossible to regulate or legislate responsibility. We need to take away the tools, derivatives, that enable the confidence tricks and games, otherwise our money stability, our chain of credit, will always be in jeopardy of manipulation or collapse. This is especially unnerving for those working fools attempting to save over the long term, when money was not intended to be saved. The system for saving needs better a better model and safe guards to protect it from the parasites and confidence men of Wall Street. This is difficult to accomplish when half the population wants to become one minute millionaires by simply pushing a button or conning a client.
It is our inability to save or lend safely that is the root of our problems and opens all to become victims of confidence scams. Money has transient value and was designed to facilitate exchange of value; transactions that take place in the present. Lending and saving are eternal problems that rely on ethics and responsibility, neither of which can be found on the Wall Street.
Smith makes a point of noting that although bankers earn their money lending, they serve a higher purpose when they decline a loan. They are protecting the chain of credit within the community. The economic activity of the financial sector should be no more than 5% of GDP and probably much lower. The current abuse of the stock market can be cured by eliminating stocks as a form of capital generation, which is basically money printing by companies. Once sold, stocks become the chips of gamblers in a rigged casino.
Nelson Alexander
New York City
Goldman Sachs Traders Are True Americans!
The mistake for the public and its elected representatives is to focus on the wrong unit of analysis. This is not so much about greed and conflict of interests as about the aggregation of data. Given the scale of data and computing power, how could Goldman have done otherwise? It must continually identify and offload falling values in millions of exchanges. The more exchanges it aggregates the better it can estimate potential losses. Can it ignore such information?
We neglect the most fundamental fact of a capitalist system: someone must lose. Just don't tell us who. Keep it abstract. Show us in numbers not in faces. Indeed, in relative terms most people must lose. Somewhere, those losses must accumulate to a destabilizing level. At some fundamental level, exchanges remain a zero-sum game. It is only capitalist ideology that obscures this fact with idiotic tales of the rare win-win trades. Few exchanges are win-win. The vast majority are calculably win-lose, lose, lose, with the losses displaced, deferred, off-shored, abstracted, and disguised as they mount up. What else is Goldman supposed to do? Goldman and the hedge funds (the real problem, still to be addressed since LTC) are behaving rationally, but what is rational for Goldman is not rational for all of its customers and certainly not for the nation or humanity.
Who creates wealth? Real productivity grows at about 2 percent a year, so they say. Way lower than the expectations of the exchanges. Any returns of profit above that are someone else's loss. Goldman is no more greedy and internally conflicted than American itself, which is similarly using exchange rates to export the losses, struggling to lower wages offshore and elevate pension funds at home. We must rid ourselves of childish, magical stories about market productivity. Real productivity marches on slowly on the backs of everyone who works. The vast, global financial exchanges use rules of complexity and probability to transfer 90 percent of that growing wealth to the top 1 percent, while the risks and losses cascade downward.
David
Rhinebeck
The good news is that if Goldman Sachs is cut down to size due to client wariness, the market forces held in such high regard by free market capitalists, will have proven to work.
The bad news is that it took too long for the market to correct Goldman Sachs. In the meantime, too many good people who had nothing to do with the market and Goldman Sachs have lost jobs, houses and now live in broken families. So much for family values.
Read Kevin Phillips' "Wealth & Democracy". Corporations ("combinations" as Teddy Roosevelt called them) have been playing fast and loose with our democracy and national economy ever since they came into existence. Republicans ran Washington DC from presidents Lincoln to Herbert Hoover, 72 years through several serious recessions, leading to the Great Depression. Their fiscal management favored accumulation of wealth to a handful of wealthy who bought and paid for Washington, leaving most Americans economically backward. The American families who lost most during the Depression never owned a stock in their lives when the stock market crashed. The regulations, taxes, work programs, work hours and social security measures passed during Franklin Roosevelt's administration combined with WWII production and conservation did more to stabilize our economy and build wealth for American citizens than in any previous period of American history. In spite of Roosevelt's high taxes on the wealthy to pay for the war and the cost to corporations for higher wages and social programs, the wealthiest Americans still became more wealthy. Yet Republicans denigrate this period of profound upward mobility of Americans. And, too many Americans who benefitted from this period deny it, depriving their children and grandchildren a similarly good future.
The Goldman Sachs' story is a clear example of how Republicans and Conservatives took our nation back to the pre-Depression Corporate largess days of greed and predatory practices. As conservatives convinced voters of their false promises, Democrats jumped on board to play in the game. Let's hope Americans who are trying to dump incumbents get smart and realize that the Goldman Sachs corporations of the US have been behind most of our national political and economic crises as “they” buy, sell and tramp on our democracy for their obscenely excessive pay, bonuses and profits. We need more than a market revolution to cut Goldman Sachs down to size. We need a populist revolution that recognizes better government is what we need, not turning government over to the corporations as Republicans have been doing.
23.4.10
U.S. Develops New Weapons for Fast Strikes
kunosoura
Oklahoma
Well, this goes back to the Fractional Orbit System where nuclear bombs were carried in low orbit & could strike within as little as 30 minutes. It is the old Teller (& Reagan) "Star Wars" hoax of intercept of ICBMs (we at Los Alamos "fell out of our chairs laughing" about that). And all the minuteman missiles they shout out of Vandemberg, they never hit even one at Kwajalein Isl. And then Russia was going to accept nuclear weapons in stationary orbit above them ? Are you crazy ! Even their old obsolete rockets could take them out on direct assent. As a fact, we in Intelligence had plenty of warning if we were heading into a situation of strategic nuclear war. We monitored everything about Russia, movements of key personnel, radio transmissions, launch sites. There could be no surprises. Now, the concept of near immediate attack without warning has returned. This can create extreme danger, i.e., you can't "wait" to be sure you aren't under attack- so you have no choice but to immediately launch counter attack. For those of us that lived thru that era it is life "on the razor's edge". The continual production of ever more destructive & hugely costly weapon system is what Pres. Eisenhower warned about - the Military-Industrial Complex. No empire, country, society, much less democracy in all world history ever survived militarism. Not Rome, not us, spelled "U.S." . The American people had better get their wits together, stop listening to all this controlled-media TV , newspaper, radio hate mongering, war mongering. Hello America, if you want to survive, if that yet be possible, you'd better step back and take a close look at what's going on. I'm retired engineer, mathematician - went to Los Alamos from Grad School. There's little significant I do not know about nuclear weapons or reactors. Little you hear/seen in U.S. "news" is true.
Prentizzo
Portland ME
It is both dangerous and worrisome that the US is developing technologies to increase strike speed. With the shorter time gap between strikes, down goes the time that leaders have to consider their options of confrontation (armed or not). Our military leaders have more reason to tempt themselves with the foolish idea that a fast, preemptive strike can effectively defuse a (potential) war, when it is not even clear that armed confrontation is inevitable.
In 1914, Germany preemptively bombed Belgium and declared war on France with the assumption that a fast and effective strike would make for a short war. Because of this, they didn't even wait to see if France would side with their ally Russia and declare war (and Russia hadn't even declared war yet, but only mobilized their troops, fearing Germany would give military support Austria, as it went to war with their ally, Serbia ... ). This fatal assumption started WWI, which was not a short war at all, but a stalemate turned battle of attrition -- one of the bloodiest and baseless ones in history. What's more, it's unclear whether it needed to happen at all, because it arose out of misunderstandings and assumptions which prompted preemptive strikes. And that was when it took a few days to mobilize a strike -- soon it will only take an hour!
Furthermore, the fact that these are non-nuclear weapons is likely to make it more appealing to use them, and the military could argue that these weapons are more acceptable to use than nukes, and this makes it less likely for the US to think twice about it. Yet, if they have the same destructive power -- at least on initial impact -- what's the difference?
Great. So now we have a weapon just as destructive as a nuke, but with more ease of use and speed of attack. Oh, and just wait until other emerging military nations catch on -- and they will, it can be assured. Then the whole world might as well be as war-ready and close-proximity as the DMZ. Only the slightest misunderstanding and -- boom! World War III? I hope I'm being hyperbolic.
Maximus
The United States
Here, let me offer a general piece of advice:
Russia and China are our military strategic competitors. We can pretend that they are not if we like; we can cloak the fact that they are in good words and bilateral cultural exchanges; we can even just ignore it. But, at the end of the day, the are our military strategic competitors.
Okay, next point: any time we develop a powerful or effective weapons system, our military strategic competitors are going to be unhappy. If they think they can use public opinion to decrease the likelihood that that weapon system will be deployed, then they will use public opinion. If they think otherwise, then they'll just go quietly on their way and begin plans to develop a means to counter the given weapon system.
In short, welcome to the world of realpolitik. This is not going away folks. If anything, with the relative rise of China, this sort of news will increase. We have a national security responsibility to continue to develop these systems, at least until the blissful day when we are all part of a one world regime of peace and love and flowers. And our strategic competitors will respond by complaining. Do not be surprised by this.
Oklahoma
Well, this goes back to the Fractional Orbit System where nuclear bombs were carried in low orbit & could strike within as little as 30 minutes. It is the old Teller (& Reagan) "Star Wars" hoax of intercept of ICBMs (we at Los Alamos "fell out of our chairs laughing" about that). And all the minuteman missiles they shout out of Vandemberg, they never hit even one at Kwajalein Isl. And then Russia was going to accept nuclear weapons in stationary orbit above them ? Are you crazy ! Even their old obsolete rockets could take them out on direct assent. As a fact, we in Intelligence had plenty of warning if we were heading into a situation of strategic nuclear war. We monitored everything about Russia, movements of key personnel, radio transmissions, launch sites. There could be no surprises. Now, the concept of near immediate attack without warning has returned. This can create extreme danger, i.e., you can't "wait" to be sure you aren't under attack- so you have no choice but to immediately launch counter attack. For those of us that lived thru that era it is life "on the razor's edge". The continual production of ever more destructive & hugely costly weapon system is what Pres. Eisenhower warned about - the Military-Industrial Complex. No empire, country, society, much less democracy in all world history ever survived militarism. Not Rome, not us, spelled "U.S." . The American people had better get their wits together, stop listening to all this controlled-media TV , newspaper, radio hate mongering, war mongering. Hello America, if you want to survive, if that yet be possible, you'd better step back and take a close look at what's going on. I'm retired engineer, mathematician - went to Los Alamos from Grad School. There's little significant I do not know about nuclear weapons or reactors. Little you hear/seen in U.S. "news" is true.
Prentizzo
Portland ME
It is both dangerous and worrisome that the US is developing technologies to increase strike speed. With the shorter time gap between strikes, down goes the time that leaders have to consider their options of confrontation (armed or not). Our military leaders have more reason to tempt themselves with the foolish idea that a fast, preemptive strike can effectively defuse a (potential) war, when it is not even clear that armed confrontation is inevitable.
In 1914, Germany preemptively bombed Belgium and declared war on France with the assumption that a fast and effective strike would make for a short war. Because of this, they didn't even wait to see if France would side with their ally Russia and declare war (and Russia hadn't even declared war yet, but only mobilized their troops, fearing Germany would give military support Austria, as it went to war with their ally, Serbia ... ). This fatal assumption started WWI, which was not a short war at all, but a stalemate turned battle of attrition -- one of the bloodiest and baseless ones in history. What's more, it's unclear whether it needed to happen at all, because it arose out of misunderstandings and assumptions which prompted preemptive strikes. And that was when it took a few days to mobilize a strike -- soon it will only take an hour!
Furthermore, the fact that these are non-nuclear weapons is likely to make it more appealing to use them, and the military could argue that these weapons are more acceptable to use than nukes, and this makes it less likely for the US to think twice about it. Yet, if they have the same destructive power -- at least on initial impact -- what's the difference?
Great. So now we have a weapon just as destructive as a nuke, but with more ease of use and speed of attack. Oh, and just wait until other emerging military nations catch on -- and they will, it can be assured. Then the whole world might as well be as war-ready and close-proximity as the DMZ. Only the slightest misunderstanding and -- boom! World War III? I hope I'm being hyperbolic.
Maximus
The United States
Here, let me offer a general piece of advice:
Russia and China are our military strategic competitors. We can pretend that they are not if we like; we can cloak the fact that they are in good words and bilateral cultural exchanges; we can even just ignore it. But, at the end of the day, the are our military strategic competitors.
Okay, next point: any time we develop a powerful or effective weapons system, our military strategic competitors are going to be unhappy. If they think they can use public opinion to decrease the likelihood that that weapon system will be deployed, then they will use public opinion. If they think otherwise, then they'll just go quietly on their way and begin plans to develop a means to counter the given weapon system.
In short, welcome to the world of realpolitik. This is not going away folks. If anything, with the relative rise of China, this sort of news will increase. We have a national security responsibility to continue to develop these systems, at least until the blissful day when we are all part of a one world regime of peace and love and flowers. And our strategic competitors will respond by complaining. Do not be surprised by this.
14.4.10
the EU has blown past us in every way
Rob
Tucson AZ formerly of NYC
The Americans who comment negatively are ill informed, too young to have the clout that their "degrees" would allow them to have, and are probably not well traveled. I did a year in France, my junior year in high school, in 1972. At that time, the bulk of Europeans did not use tissues for nose blowing, nor have a clue about toilet paper. Yet, in the past 35+ years, the EU has blown past us in every way: from their quality of life, the quality of their appliances, the efficiency of power generation and usage, to the little things like health care, cell phone rules, free broadband provided by municipalities, food pricing and minimum wage issues.
What ever gives us the idea that we're so exceptional??? Is it the incredible corp spending on elections and advertising; is it the fact that the bulk of our national "legislators" wouldn't know a true piece of legislation if it bit them? After all, they are so busy raising cash and promising things to donors, that they have barely post-college kids, with zero experience at life, but lots of experience with churches and doctrine, who read the bills for them and comment. Consequently, we have laws created by true believers [for whom obedience to something is mandatory for life satisfaction; because it's the next life that counts, not this one], a clear minority, regulating the rest of us. Often against our collective self interest.
Trash to energy isn't hitting it big here, because the enviro group, of which I consider myself a "member" is controlled by a small vocal monied few. They get tiny concessions from the dominant industry, oil & coal, call it success and rail like lunatics against the better technologies to maintain a slightly "cleaner" status quo. The day we either expand the number of legislators, redraw districts correctly, or simply mature a bit will be the day that things will actually change.
Needless to say, I don't see it happening in my lifetime in this country. Therefore, I am moving to Europe to spend my last 15 or so years w/o strife and turmoil that exists in the states.
Travel is broadening; more US citizens should try it before making pronouncements that are so absurd as to make the bulk of us sound like blithering idiots.
Tucson AZ formerly of NYC
The Americans who comment negatively are ill informed, too young to have the clout that their "degrees" would allow them to have, and are probably not well traveled. I did a year in France, my junior year in high school, in 1972. At that time, the bulk of Europeans did not use tissues for nose blowing, nor have a clue about toilet paper. Yet, in the past 35+ years, the EU has blown past us in every way: from their quality of life, the quality of their appliances, the efficiency of power generation and usage, to the little things like health care, cell phone rules, free broadband provided by municipalities, food pricing and minimum wage issues.
What ever gives us the idea that we're so exceptional??? Is it the incredible corp spending on elections and advertising; is it the fact that the bulk of our national "legislators" wouldn't know a true piece of legislation if it bit them? After all, they are so busy raising cash and promising things to donors, that they have barely post-college kids, with zero experience at life, but lots of experience with churches and doctrine, who read the bills for them and comment. Consequently, we have laws created by true believers [for whom obedience to something is mandatory for life satisfaction; because it's the next life that counts, not this one], a clear minority, regulating the rest of us. Often against our collective self interest.
Trash to energy isn't hitting it big here, because the enviro group, of which I consider myself a "member" is controlled by a small vocal monied few. They get tiny concessions from the dominant industry, oil & coal, call it success and rail like lunatics against the better technologies to maintain a slightly "cleaner" status quo. The day we either expand the number of legislators, redraw districts correctly, or simply mature a bit will be the day that things will actually change.
Needless to say, I don't see it happening in my lifetime in this country. Therefore, I am moving to Europe to spend my last 15 or so years w/o strife and turmoil that exists in the states.
Travel is broadening; more US citizens should try it before making pronouncements that are so absurd as to make the bulk of us sound like blithering idiots.
Rob
Tucson AZ formerly of NYC
The Americans who comment negatively are ill informed, too young to have the clout that their "degrees" would allow them to have, and are probably not well traveled. I did a year in France, my junior year in high school, in 1972. At that time, the bulk of Europeans did not use tissues for nose blowing, nor have a clue about toilet paper. Yet, in the past 35+ years, the EU has blown past us in every way: from their quality of life, the quality of their appliances, the efficiency of power generation and usage, to the little things like health care, cell phone rules, free broadband provided by municipalities, food pricing and minimum wage issues.
What ever gives us the idea that we're so exceptional??? Is it the incredible corp spending on elections and advertising; is it the fact that the bulk of our national "legislators" wouldn't know a true piece of legislation if it bit them? After all, they are so busy raising cash and promising things to donors, that they have barely post-college kids, with zero experience at life, but lots of experience with churches and doctrine, who read the bills for them and comment. Consequently, we have laws created by true believers [for whom obedience to something is mandatory for life satisfaction; because it's the next life that counts, not this one], a clear minority, regulating the rest of us. Often against our collective self interest.
Trash to energy isn't hitting it big here, because the enviro group, of which I consider myself a "member" is controlled by a small vocal monied few. They get tiny concessions from the dominant industry, oil & coal, call it success and rail like lunatics against the better technologies to maintain a slightly "cleaner" status quo. The day we either expand the number of legislators, redraw districts correctly, or simply mature a bit will be the day that things will actually change.
Needless to say, I don't see it happening in my lifetime in this country. Therefore, I am moving to Europe to spend my last 15 or so years w/o strife and turmoil that exists in the states.
Travel is broadening; more US citizens should try it before making pronouncements that are so absurd as to make the bulk of us sound like blithering idiots.
Tucson AZ formerly of NYC
The Americans who comment negatively are ill informed, too young to have the clout that their "degrees" would allow them to have, and are probably not well traveled. I did a year in France, my junior year in high school, in 1972. At that time, the bulk of Europeans did not use tissues for nose blowing, nor have a clue about toilet paper. Yet, in the past 35+ years, the EU has blown past us in every way: from their quality of life, the quality of their appliances, the efficiency of power generation and usage, to the little things like health care, cell phone rules, free broadband provided by municipalities, food pricing and minimum wage issues.
What ever gives us the idea that we're so exceptional??? Is it the incredible corp spending on elections and advertising; is it the fact that the bulk of our national "legislators" wouldn't know a true piece of legislation if it bit them? After all, they are so busy raising cash and promising things to donors, that they have barely post-college kids, with zero experience at life, but lots of experience with churches and doctrine, who read the bills for them and comment. Consequently, we have laws created by true believers [for whom obedience to something is mandatory for life satisfaction; because it's the next life that counts, not this one], a clear minority, regulating the rest of us. Often against our collective self interest.
Trash to energy isn't hitting it big here, because the enviro group, of which I consider myself a "member" is controlled by a small vocal monied few. They get tiny concessions from the dominant industry, oil & coal, call it success and rail like lunatics against the better technologies to maintain a slightly "cleaner" status quo. The day we either expand the number of legislators, redraw districts correctly, or simply mature a bit will be the day that things will actually change.
Needless to say, I don't see it happening in my lifetime in this country. Therefore, I am moving to Europe to spend my last 15 or so years w/o strife and turmoil that exists in the states.
Travel is broadening; more US citizens should try it before making pronouncements that are so absurd as to make the bulk of us sound like blithering idiots.
10.4.10
On the dumbing-down of our public discourse
JimF
Los Altos, CA
Eisenhower was the first Presidential candidate to hire a Madison Avenue advertising agency. It's great idea was to paint Adlai Stevenson as "an egghead" because he wasted far too many sentences discussing issues. Wonderful contribution to Democracy.
Used to be voters couldn't understand anything that didn't fit on a bumper-sticker. Now, with Twitter, we're up to 140 characters ! Things are improving by leaps and bounds.
Los Altos, CA
Eisenhower was the first Presidential candidate to hire a Madison Avenue advertising agency. It's great idea was to paint Adlai Stevenson as "an egghead" because he wasted far too many sentences discussing issues. Wonderful contribution to Democracy.
Used to be voters couldn't understand anything that didn't fit on a bumper-sticker. Now, with Twitter, we're up to 140 characters ! Things are improving by leaps and bounds.
9.4.10
On national level bailouts
Brian Moore
Germany
I live in Germany. The question is if Germany bails out Greece, then they will soon be bailing out other troubled economies such as Italy, Spain, etc. A Greek rescue is about as popular among Germans as the AIG, CitiBank, etc. rescues are in the US. What would be the US position if the the US had to raise taxes and go deeper into debt in order to bail out Mexico after a spending binge? It's easy for Americans to tell Germany to pay up. Maybe the US tax payers should rescue Greece instead?
Mrs. Merkel and her party need to win elections in here Germany, not Greece or in Brussels in order to remain in power. Telling German voters that their tax monies are going south so Greeks can continue to retire with full benefits at age 52 while the retirement age is being raised in Germany to 67 doesn't sit well here. Furthermore wages in Germany have declined over the last 10 years while prices have increased, so most workers are very skeptical of the benefits of the Euro.
Greece got themselves into this mess, bhe powerful money men will find a way to rescue the Greek elite at the expense of German workers and on the backs of the Greek people. At the same time, they will make a tidy profit in the transaction. The question I ask is if Germany bails out Greece, Italy, Spain, etc. who will bail out Germany when the bill comes due? Certainly not Greece.
Brian Moore
Steve
Vancouver
It was Mark Twain who said famously, "History doesn't repeat itself but it sure does rhyme a lot!"
Right now we're right about 1930-31, when a false economic dawn led governments to relax and clamp down. We're about to make the same mistake again. We forget that it was the collapse of a bank in Austria that caused the second vicious stage of the Great Depression.
Similarly, Greece seems also not to be a tipping point in terms of how it will affect the center in the US and Western Europe. Yet, every week this drags on reminds global bondholders that the US and all other westerm countries are far more indebted than they were in the 1930s. And, as Krugman points out in his post-World War II example, the US used inflation to bail its way out of heavy indebtedness. People, that's not something lenders really want to hear, especially from a country that's running trillion dollar deficits.
Ominously, the differences from the 30s are not good. Consumers, always expected to bail out the economy when interest rates are dropped, are far more indebted than back then. Businesses are far more leveraged as well. Who's left? The Chinese?
Governments are basically stalling for time in the hopes that a miracle will somehow bail us all out.
But all miracles have already been tapped and Greece is the miner's canary telling us what lies ahead. If 2008 was the hurricane, then right now we're in the calm of the storm before it hits again, this time closer to home. To paraphrase another great American writer, Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for you.
Germany
I live in Germany. The question is if Germany bails out Greece, then they will soon be bailing out other troubled economies such as Italy, Spain, etc. A Greek rescue is about as popular among Germans as the AIG, CitiBank, etc. rescues are in the US. What would be the US position if the the US had to raise taxes and go deeper into debt in order to bail out Mexico after a spending binge? It's easy for Americans to tell Germany to pay up. Maybe the US tax payers should rescue Greece instead?
Mrs. Merkel and her party need to win elections in here Germany, not Greece or in Brussels in order to remain in power. Telling German voters that their tax monies are going south so Greeks can continue to retire with full benefits at age 52 while the retirement age is being raised in Germany to 67 doesn't sit well here. Furthermore wages in Germany have declined over the last 10 years while prices have increased, so most workers are very skeptical of the benefits of the Euro.
Greece got themselves into this mess, bhe powerful money men will find a way to rescue the Greek elite at the expense of German workers and on the backs of the Greek people. At the same time, they will make a tidy profit in the transaction. The question I ask is if Germany bails out Greece, Italy, Spain, etc. who will bail out Germany when the bill comes due? Certainly not Greece.
Brian Moore
Steve
Vancouver
It was Mark Twain who said famously, "History doesn't repeat itself but it sure does rhyme a lot!"
Right now we're right about 1930-31, when a false economic dawn led governments to relax and clamp down. We're about to make the same mistake again. We forget that it was the collapse of a bank in Austria that caused the second vicious stage of the Great Depression.
Similarly, Greece seems also not to be a tipping point in terms of how it will affect the center in the US and Western Europe. Yet, every week this drags on reminds global bondholders that the US and all other westerm countries are far more indebted than they were in the 1930s. And, as Krugman points out in his post-World War II example, the US used inflation to bail its way out of heavy indebtedness. People, that's not something lenders really want to hear, especially from a country that's running trillion dollar deficits.
Ominously, the differences from the 30s are not good. Consumers, always expected to bail out the economy when interest rates are dropped, are far more indebted than back then. Businesses are far more leveraged as well. Who's left? The Chinese?
Governments are basically stalling for time in the hopes that a miracle will somehow bail us all out.
But all miracles have already been tapped and Greece is the miner's canary telling us what lies ahead. If 2008 was the hurricane, then right now we're in the calm of the storm before it hits again, this time closer to home. To paraphrase another great American writer, Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for you.
8.4.10
NYTimes' Optimism
According to FLOYD NORRIS, "Why So Glum? Numbers Point To a Recovery." He goes on to write in NYTimes, "The signs are that the U.S. economic recovery is growing stronger. So why do so many seem not to believe it?"
AnnS, from Michigan, replies:
You must stop. You really must stop comparing coconuts to rocks as if you are comparing apples to apples. The reasoning - & assertion that 'history' supports your argument - are both incorrect & false. You insist upon ONLY looking at things that have occurred within your adult lifetime & then assuming since the symptoms are the same, the illness is the same. If you took sudafed, asprin & fluids for aches, pains, a stuffy head & a fever, it worked if what you had was a cold. If the same symptoms are caused by ebola, your diagnosis based upon having had a cold before a& the same treatment will not work.
(1) This is NOT a recession caused by
(a) Production which exceeded demand - 1958 & 1991 recessions
(b) Interest rates being high AND external shocks to the economy (gas prices) - 1973 recession
(c) Interest rates jacked to astronomical levels - 1982 recession
(d) Speculative bubble that had limited impact on the real economy (dot.com crash) - 2001 recession
(2) This is a GLOBAL financial crash. This time it IS different.
In the past 200 years, there have now been 5 GLOBAL financial crashes. 3 were triggered by the outbreak of wars (Napoleonic, WWI & WWII) & ended when the wars ended. The 4th crash took 10 years to end - & was ended by WWII for the US by the vast amount of money poured into war production by the government. 2007 is the 5th.
(3) Financial crashes since WWII have been either national or regional - never global. It took an average of 4.8 years for the affected countries or regions to get back to where they had been before the crash. They did it by EXPORTING their way back to a functioning economy. One country (Japan) had a national crash but couldn't export its way out of it because now it was competing with China for the same customers.
The US has been a negative net exporter for decades. SO we are going to export what? And how are we going to export more than we import? We did export some stuff in the '00s called SIVs and CDOs and credit default swaps --- and blew up the world. Can't do that again as no one is stupid enough to buy that stuff.
Oh & the stock market is a useless indicator. Historically the equities markets (stocks) recover in 3 years from the crash.
(4) Recover based upon WHAT? Can't get by selling each other houses or junk from China anymore. Tilly & Jake out there on Main St are broke - flat tapped out & busted. There is NO MONEY to spend. Mortgage debt increased 216% from 1995. Household consumer debt (credit cards, cars etc) increased 75%. Household incomes barely increased 40%. They are DROWNING in debt they have to pay off -- and no one but no one will lend them money either with credit cards or the house ATM to go shopping.
There are 4 major drivers for an economic recovery.
(a) Consumer spending. Forget it. They are up to their eyeballs in debt & their earned incomes are falling.
(b) Residential construction. Sorry but have an excess supply of houses as it is & the prices are STILL too HIGH for the typical household with its median income of $54000.
(c) Commercial construction. Nope. We don't need more hotels, shopping centers etc. Vacancies in strip malls are the highest ever. Hotels are closing. Purchasers are walking away from underwater office buildings with 20-30% vacancies. Businesses do not need space when they don't have enough customers & the customers are history.
(d) Exporting. Export WHAT which will be more than imports?
(5) And since you haven't deigned to notice, check out the BEA income data.
(a) 2009 was only the 2nd time since WWII that total personal income FELL. Last time it happened was 1948 & it bounced back in 1949. It is not bouncing this time. The only thing keeping total personal income from falling further are the 'transfer payments' - Social Security, unemployment etc.
(b) The Wages and Salaries data is very very grim. Total wages/salaries have fallen back in total dollars to late '06/early '07 and are still falling.
(c) Proprietor's Income (what business owner's make) is worse. Total PI is back to the same amount as in 2004.
So you are shocked that people aren't all happy and giddy about Wall St? ROFLOL!! Not only are the real $$ in wages & incomes back to '04 or '06, but in the meantime there has been inflation of 15% ('04 to now) to 8% (06 to now) & the population has increased by 4-6%. They have little or no savings, incomes/wages are less and the amount of credit they are using is less.
OF COURSE they are pessimistic. They are broke. They owe mind-boggling amounts of money on their debts. They aren't making anymore than they did 4-6 years ago & in the meantime inflation has driven price up 8 -15%.
(6) Record number of long-term (6 months ++) unemployed whose profiles are educated professionals over 40.
DO have the NYT spring for a copy of "This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Follies." You will learn something.
AnnS, from Michigan, replies:
You must stop. You really must stop comparing coconuts to rocks as if you are comparing apples to apples. The reasoning - & assertion that 'history' supports your argument - are both incorrect & false. You insist upon ONLY looking at things that have occurred within your adult lifetime & then assuming since the symptoms are the same, the illness is the same. If you took sudafed, asprin & fluids for aches, pains, a stuffy head & a fever, it worked if what you had was a cold. If the same symptoms are caused by ebola, your diagnosis based upon having had a cold before a& the same treatment will not work.
(1) This is NOT a recession caused by
(a) Production which exceeded demand - 1958 & 1991 recessions
(b) Interest rates being high AND external shocks to the economy (gas prices) - 1973 recession
(c) Interest rates jacked to astronomical levels - 1982 recession
(d) Speculative bubble that had limited impact on the real economy (dot.com crash) - 2001 recession
(2) This is a GLOBAL financial crash. This time it IS different.
In the past 200 years, there have now been 5 GLOBAL financial crashes. 3 were triggered by the outbreak of wars (Napoleonic, WWI & WWII) & ended when the wars ended. The 4th crash took 10 years to end - & was ended by WWII for the US by the vast amount of money poured into war production by the government. 2007 is the 5th.
(3) Financial crashes since WWII have been either national or regional - never global. It took an average of 4.8 years for the affected countries or regions to get back to where they had been before the crash. They did it by EXPORTING their way back to a functioning economy. One country (Japan) had a national crash but couldn't export its way out of it because now it was competing with China for the same customers.
The US has been a negative net exporter for decades. SO we are going to export what? And how are we going to export more than we import? We did export some stuff in the '00s called SIVs and CDOs and credit default swaps --- and blew up the world. Can't do that again as no one is stupid enough to buy that stuff.
Oh & the stock market is a useless indicator. Historically the equities markets (stocks) recover in 3 years from the crash.
(4) Recover based upon WHAT? Can't get by selling each other houses or junk from China anymore. Tilly & Jake out there on Main St are broke - flat tapped out & busted. There is NO MONEY to spend. Mortgage debt increased 216% from 1995. Household consumer debt (credit cards, cars etc) increased 75%. Household incomes barely increased 40%. They are DROWNING in debt they have to pay off -- and no one but no one will lend them money either with credit cards or the house ATM to go shopping.
There are 4 major drivers for an economic recovery.
(a) Consumer spending. Forget it. They are up to their eyeballs in debt & their earned incomes are falling.
(b) Residential construction. Sorry but have an excess supply of houses as it is & the prices are STILL too HIGH for the typical household with its median income of $54000.
(c) Commercial construction. Nope. We don't need more hotels, shopping centers etc. Vacancies in strip malls are the highest ever. Hotels are closing. Purchasers are walking away from underwater office buildings with 20-30% vacancies. Businesses do not need space when they don't have enough customers & the customers are history.
(d) Exporting. Export WHAT which will be more than imports?
(5) And since you haven't deigned to notice, check out the BEA income data.
(a) 2009 was only the 2nd time since WWII that total personal income FELL. Last time it happened was 1948 & it bounced back in 1949. It is not bouncing this time. The only thing keeping total personal income from falling further are the 'transfer payments' - Social Security, unemployment etc.
(b) The Wages and Salaries data is very very grim. Total wages/salaries have fallen back in total dollars to late '06/early '07 and are still falling.
(c) Proprietor's Income (what business owner's make) is worse. Total PI is back to the same amount as in 2004.
So you are shocked that people aren't all happy and giddy about Wall St? ROFLOL!! Not only are the real $$ in wages & incomes back to '04 or '06, but in the meantime there has been inflation of 15% ('04 to now) to 8% (06 to now) & the population has increased by 4-6%. They have little or no savings, incomes/wages are less and the amount of credit they are using is less.
OF COURSE they are pessimistic. They are broke. They owe mind-boggling amounts of money on their debts. They aren't making anymore than they did 4-6 years ago & in the meantime inflation has driven price up 8 -15%.
(6) Record number of long-term (6 months ++) unemployed whose profiles are educated professionals over 40.
DO have the NYT spring for a copy of "This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Follies." You will learn something.
6.4.10
Geithner visits India, here's what China tells him
Dekoff
Shanghai
A brief look at Trade Surpluses and Deficits
INDIA
The indian rupee is one of most undervalued currencies in the world. According to the IMF, the fair value for rupee/usd would be 16:1, but it is trading at 48:1.
This means the Indian currency is 300% undervalued, but yet India has one of the worst current accounts of all major economies. India still has consistent trade deficits with the world. The cheap currency doesn't help India to produce a trade surplus.
CANADA
Since 1971 the Canadian dollar has fluctuated between US$0.66 and US$1.21, moving through that range more than once. In the past 10 years, the Canadian dollar has appreciated about 50% against the US dollar. Yet the US has had consistent trade deficits with Canada for the past 30 years, regardless of the exchange rate.
Canada's economy is largely natural-resource and export-oriented - metals, minerals, lumber, oil and gas, wheat. Canada produces many things the US needs, while the US produces few things that Canada wants.
JAPAN
Since 1960, the Japanese Yen has consistently strengthened against the US dollar, rising from 360:1. In 1985, the year of the Plaza Accord, the Yen was at 240:1. In the 3 years following, the Yen doubled in value to 120:1, and now sits at about 90:1 - and is now 30% or 40% over-valued.
But through all those years, the US consistently had increasing trade deficits with Japan, in spite of the Yen rising more than 300% in value.
Japan, like Canada, produces many things the US needs, but wants little of US production.
CHINA
For many years the RMB was firmly pegged only to the US dollar at about 8.25:1, but was released from that peg in 2005 and has since appreciated about 25%. But the US has persistent trade deficits with China - and these have markedly increased in spite of the recent 25% upward movement of the RMB.
China produces many things Americans want and need, while the US produces less of what China wants.
EUROPE
After the signing of the Plaza Accord in 1984, the major European currencies doubled against the US dollar almost immediately. But the US trade deficits persisted with most of its trading partners.
There are politicians in the US, and even in the White House, who blame China for the recent US subprime financial crisis. In their view, the crisis was caused by the Chinese 'saving too much'.
The US must stop blaming everybody else for their economic problems. The US government insistently claims that their trade deficit and economic problems are caused by China's RMB being undervalued.
In fact the US problems are entirely home-grown. America has serious structural imbalances in its economy, and no amount of messing with the exchange rates of other countries will be a cure.
China is doing all the right things by looking after its own best interests and not derailing or destroying its efforts to modernise and join the first world. It cannot let the US bully it into capitulating.
The RMB was steadily appreciating against the US$ until the meltdown, when it was forced to stop. That is not China's fault. If the US had its own house in order, the world's financial and trade systems would be orderly as well. It really is time to call a spade a spade, and stop letting the US dictate every country's economic policies.
Shanghai
A brief look at Trade Surpluses and Deficits
INDIA
The indian rupee is one of most undervalued currencies in the world. According to the IMF, the fair value for rupee/usd would be 16:1, but it is trading at 48:1.
This means the Indian currency is 300% undervalued, but yet India has one of the worst current accounts of all major economies. India still has consistent trade deficits with the world. The cheap currency doesn't help India to produce a trade surplus.
CANADA
Since 1971 the Canadian dollar has fluctuated between US$0.66 and US$1.21, moving through that range more than once. In the past 10 years, the Canadian dollar has appreciated about 50% against the US dollar. Yet the US has had consistent trade deficits with Canada for the past 30 years, regardless of the exchange rate.
Canada's economy is largely natural-resource and export-oriented - metals, minerals, lumber, oil and gas, wheat. Canada produces many things the US needs, while the US produces few things that Canada wants.
JAPAN
Since 1960, the Japanese Yen has consistently strengthened against the US dollar, rising from 360:1. In 1985, the year of the Plaza Accord, the Yen was at 240:1. In the 3 years following, the Yen doubled in value to 120:1, and now sits at about 90:1 - and is now 30% or 40% over-valued.
But through all those years, the US consistently had increasing trade deficits with Japan, in spite of the Yen rising more than 300% in value.
Japan, like Canada, produces many things the US needs, but wants little of US production.
CHINA
For many years the RMB was firmly pegged only to the US dollar at about 8.25:1, but was released from that peg in 2005 and has since appreciated about 25%. But the US has persistent trade deficits with China - and these have markedly increased in spite of the recent 25% upward movement of the RMB.
China produces many things Americans want and need, while the US produces less of what China wants.
EUROPE
After the signing of the Plaza Accord in 1984, the major European currencies doubled against the US dollar almost immediately. But the US trade deficits persisted with most of its trading partners.
There are politicians in the US, and even in the White House, who blame China for the recent US subprime financial crisis. In their view, the crisis was caused by the Chinese 'saving too much'.
The US must stop blaming everybody else for their economic problems. The US government insistently claims that their trade deficit and economic problems are caused by China's RMB being undervalued.
In fact the US problems are entirely home-grown. America has serious structural imbalances in its economy, and no amount of messing with the exchange rates of other countries will be a cure.
China is doing all the right things by looking after its own best interests and not derailing or destroying its efforts to modernise and join the first world. It cannot let the US bully it into capitulating.
The RMB was steadily appreciating against the US$ until the meltdown, when it was forced to stop. That is not China's fault. If the US had its own house in order, the world's financial and trade systems would be orderly as well. It really is time to call a spade a spade, and stop letting the US dictate every country's economic policies.
How it looks from China
chinalaowai
Shenzhen, Guangdong, China
Your editorial's jingoistic, hegemonic, unrepentant economic narcissism is typical of America's attitude to the world.
Richard Nixon could have written this editorial, prior to his unilateral abolition of the Bretton Woods system of international financial exchange, commonly known in the US as cancellation of the gold standard, and internationally as "Nixon Shock". In 1971, the cost of the Vietnam War and increased domestic spending from Johnson's Great Society programs forced America to print more money. European nations that held American paper asked for gold instead, depleting reserves, and decreasing the dollar's value. Without consulting international trading partners, Nixon removed America from the gold standard. And the world suffered: with no international standard for currencies, oil-producing nations were able to doubled their prices, causing global hyperinflation, recession, and the petrodollar.
America has once again overextended itself. And once again, America will try to convince the rest of the world to follow a policy that will lead to international economic and social disaster. America's alliances with many nations, including the two countries mentioned, Mexico and India, are strictly a political ploy to put pressure on China. If America succeeds, and China complies with America's demands, Mexico and India with find their agreements with America to be worthless - remember the failed promises of NAFTA. Ultimately they will receive nothing. Only America will benefit.
What America does not say is that China's currency policies are in line with the country's GDP and domestic growth. More importantly, the policy is an accurate reflection of China's per capita income: between US$3200-3600 in 2009, depending on the source. This is a statistic rarely cited in America's strenuous effort to force China's compliance.
Historically, America has cherry-picked policy positions based on self-interest, and manipulated other countries for national gain. The world sees this. China knows this. America's loss of influence and credibility are based on broken promises and inability to maintain a clear economic policy, both internally and externally. That China is in the ascendancy is a reality America refuses to accept.
What the world should really be concerned about is what unilateral action America may decide on this time. Will there be an "Obama Shock", similar to the Nixon Shock of 1971? Will America lead Taiwan into war with China? Will Japan be forced into a position of choosing between America and China? These are the types of policies America has historically chosen to enact, either overtly or covertly, when its power base has been threatened.
This is not the time for America to make an economic last stand. America cannot win without causing greater pain to the rest of the world.
Get out of the way and let China lead.
Shenzhen, Guangdong, China
Your editorial's jingoistic, hegemonic, unrepentant economic narcissism is typical of America's attitude to the world.
Richard Nixon could have written this editorial, prior to his unilateral abolition of the Bretton Woods system of international financial exchange, commonly known in the US as cancellation of the gold standard, and internationally as "Nixon Shock". In 1971, the cost of the Vietnam War and increased domestic spending from Johnson's Great Society programs forced America to print more money. European nations that held American paper asked for gold instead, depleting reserves, and decreasing the dollar's value. Without consulting international trading partners, Nixon removed America from the gold standard. And the world suffered: with no international standard for currencies, oil-producing nations were able to doubled their prices, causing global hyperinflation, recession, and the petrodollar.
America has once again overextended itself. And once again, America will try to convince the rest of the world to follow a policy that will lead to international economic and social disaster. America's alliances with many nations, including the two countries mentioned, Mexico and India, are strictly a political ploy to put pressure on China. If America succeeds, and China complies with America's demands, Mexico and India with find their agreements with America to be worthless - remember the failed promises of NAFTA. Ultimately they will receive nothing. Only America will benefit.
What America does not say is that China's currency policies are in line with the country's GDP and domestic growth. More importantly, the policy is an accurate reflection of China's per capita income: between US$3200-3600 in 2009, depending on the source. This is a statistic rarely cited in America's strenuous effort to force China's compliance.
Historically, America has cherry-picked policy positions based on self-interest, and manipulated other countries for national gain. The world sees this. China knows this. America's loss of influence and credibility are based on broken promises and inability to maintain a clear economic policy, both internally and externally. That China is in the ascendancy is a reality America refuses to accept.
What the world should really be concerned about is what unilateral action America may decide on this time. Will there be an "Obama Shock", similar to the Nixon Shock of 1971? Will America lead Taiwan into war with China? Will Japan be forced into a position of choosing between America and China? These are the types of policies America has historically chosen to enact, either overtly or covertly, when its power base has been threatened.
This is not the time for America to make an economic last stand. America cannot win without causing greater pain to the rest of the world.
Get out of the way and let China lead.
Do we need to look at ourselves from Belgium?
Anonymous BE
Belgium
Every time I go back to the U.S., I sense a nation in decline. It's a vague, but strong feeling. However, let's look at some facts:
1. Median income for the entire population has declined in past 10 years.
2. Median income for those without a college education (about 70% of the adult population) has declined for the past 30 years.
3. Birth rates among the white middle class are below replacement - similar to those in Europe. Nothing wrong per se with Blacks, Latinos, and the poor becoming a larger percentage of the population, except that an even larger percentage of the population will be poorer and less educated.
4. The percentage of the adult population with a university education is in decline in terms of generations - the "Baby Boomer" generation has more college graduates than the generation "X" that succeeded it. This is very negative trend for the country.
5. In a country with rapid demographic change in terms of ethnicity, there may be problems with one generation's taxes supporting an older generation's retirement, if there deep political and ethnic hostility between the dominant groups within each generation.
6. America has the highest Gini coefficient in the OECD, with the exception of Mexico, and it is getting higher. Countries with high Gini coefficients have a great deal of inequality by definition, but that inequality tends to create crime and a less-cohesive society - in short, a lower quality for everyone who cannot afford and/or does not prefer to live behind massive gates.
7. America has allowed many of its great cities to decline in a way that is unparalleled in advanced economies. The kind of decay, crime, poverty, racial segregation, gutting of manufacturing, and demographic decline seen in cities like Baltimore, Detroit, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Hartford, and so on is tragic. Why would a rich society - one with a GDP per capita in the top 10 highest in the world - allow this to happen unless there is some deep dysfunction? Go to Canada, Australia, Japan, Western Europe: you will never see cities with anything similar to the decline in many American cities. A couple that I know from Sydney, Australia, recently visited Los Angeles for the first time, and they were shocked at the level of poverty and dinginess of certain areas, and that they were not free to go to any part of the city in safety.
8. Contrary to the myth of the American dream, social mobility in the United States is actually much lower than in many advanced economies, as recent OECD studies have shown.
9. America is the only advanced economy where its citizens right to access health care is not guaranteed. Yes, this may change in 2014, but the system designed seems to still have some loopholes for companies and cracks for people to fall through. And, why is the state of health of Americans at the low end of advanced economies if America spends twice as much or more per capita compared to any other country?
10. The murder rate in the United States is about five times as high (per capita) as that of countries with similar incomes. Even more worrying: why is this not a cause for consternation in the society?
11. America has the largest prison population in the world, and it is very high in terms of per capita figures. What does this say about a society that it must lock up huge numbers of its citizens in order to function? What does it say about America if one out of nine Black men is in prison, jail, or on parole? Again, deep dysfunction that is not being addressed.
12. Tertiary education is often financially difficult to access in America, and for those not from wealth families, it means huge student loans that will mean wage slavery for most holders for the next 30 years of their lives.
13. Americans have no legal right to vacation time, sick leave, or maternity leave, unlike nearly every other country on earth (even poor ones). This makes for a family-unfriendly society, a less healthy society, and a stressed society. Only the rich and powerful would want such a society. America is no beacon of hope on this account, but rather, tragically retrograde.
And so on - these are just items that come to mind now as to why America is not such a great country in terms of quality of life, which is, in the final analysis, the only statistic that counts. Do you see evidence for a great turnaround on these negative characteristics? I don't, except perhaps for somewhat on health care. I can tell you that as long as the things above are ignored and silly cheerleading for laughable books about how great life will be 40 years into the future, I am not optimistic.
Belgium
Every time I go back to the U.S., I sense a nation in decline. It's a vague, but strong feeling. However, let's look at some facts:
1. Median income for the entire population has declined in past 10 years.
2. Median income for those without a college education (about 70% of the adult population) has declined for the past 30 years.
3. Birth rates among the white middle class are below replacement - similar to those in Europe. Nothing wrong per se with Blacks, Latinos, and the poor becoming a larger percentage of the population, except that an even larger percentage of the population will be poorer and less educated.
4. The percentage of the adult population with a university education is in decline in terms of generations - the "Baby Boomer" generation has more college graduates than the generation "X" that succeeded it. This is very negative trend for the country.
5. In a country with rapid demographic change in terms of ethnicity, there may be problems with one generation's taxes supporting an older generation's retirement, if there deep political and ethnic hostility between the dominant groups within each generation.
6. America has the highest Gini coefficient in the OECD, with the exception of Mexico, and it is getting higher. Countries with high Gini coefficients have a great deal of inequality by definition, but that inequality tends to create crime and a less-cohesive society - in short, a lower quality for everyone who cannot afford and/or does not prefer to live behind massive gates.
7. America has allowed many of its great cities to decline in a way that is unparalleled in advanced economies. The kind of decay, crime, poverty, racial segregation, gutting of manufacturing, and demographic decline seen in cities like Baltimore, Detroit, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Hartford, and so on is tragic. Why would a rich society - one with a GDP per capita in the top 10 highest in the world - allow this to happen unless there is some deep dysfunction? Go to Canada, Australia, Japan, Western Europe: you will never see cities with anything similar to the decline in many American cities. A couple that I know from Sydney, Australia, recently visited Los Angeles for the first time, and they were shocked at the level of poverty and dinginess of certain areas, and that they were not free to go to any part of the city in safety.
8. Contrary to the myth of the American dream, social mobility in the United States is actually much lower than in many advanced economies, as recent OECD studies have shown.
9. America is the only advanced economy where its citizens right to access health care is not guaranteed. Yes, this may change in 2014, but the system designed seems to still have some loopholes for companies and cracks for people to fall through. And, why is the state of health of Americans at the low end of advanced economies if America spends twice as much or more per capita compared to any other country?
10. The murder rate in the United States is about five times as high (per capita) as that of countries with similar incomes. Even more worrying: why is this not a cause for consternation in the society?
11. America has the largest prison population in the world, and it is very high in terms of per capita figures. What does this say about a society that it must lock up huge numbers of its citizens in order to function? What does it say about America if one out of nine Black men is in prison, jail, or on parole? Again, deep dysfunction that is not being addressed.
12. Tertiary education is often financially difficult to access in America, and for those not from wealth families, it means huge student loans that will mean wage slavery for most holders for the next 30 years of their lives.
13. Americans have no legal right to vacation time, sick leave, or maternity leave, unlike nearly every other country on earth (even poor ones). This makes for a family-unfriendly society, a less healthy society, and a stressed society. Only the rich and powerful would want such a society. America is no beacon of hope on this account, but rather, tragically retrograde.
And so on - these are just items that come to mind now as to why America is not such a great country in terms of quality of life, which is, in the final analysis, the only statistic that counts. Do you see evidence for a great turnaround on these negative characteristics? I don't, except perhaps for somewhat on health care. I can tell you that as long as the things above are ignored and silly cheerleading for laughable books about how great life will be 40 years into the future, I am not optimistic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
