Environment: The solar wind is slowing, but Al Gore is still spewing hot air. The Oscar winner is promoting civil disobedience to stop energy and economic growth as the first U.S. emissions cap-and-trade program begins.
#1
The good news is that the gore/china/un idea to place the world on one currency - the carbon credit - is impossible since to fit the entire likeness of gore onto a bill the bill would cost more credits to make than its face value (pun intended).
#3
Maybe Owsley was right after all! You ex-hippies will remember him as the chemist who popularized LSD and manufactured some of the classics, including Purple Haze. Some time after parachuting over a rock festival throwing out his latest samples he had a vision: the earth was entering a new ice age! Never hesitant to act on his visions he moved to the Australian outback, where he's lived sheepishly for many years. My admiration for his prescience continues to grow.
#5
I think the Outback's big enough that the Aussies wouldn't notice, Jim.
Of course, the pollution from all that patchouli is another story....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/26/2008 18:43 Comments ||
Top||
#6
That idiot is going to render my carbon credits worthless with his screwing around. Oh, their not worth anything anyway. JohnQC meekly leaves the room.
Political analysts say the interim authority now looks more intent on finding an honourable exit for itself than forcing reform on the top political parties
BANGLADESH'S "Battling Begums", behind bars and suspected to be heading towards the end of their careers just a few months ago, are back with a vengeance at the helm of the country's politics as December elections approach.
That fact has analysts worried that changes needed to rid the country of corruption and put its politics on a more stable and less violent course are not going to come anytime soon. The pair, Sheikh Hasina and Begum Khaleda Zia, were heirs to political dynasties and alternated as prime ministers in the 15 years through 2006.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
09/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10326 views]
Top|| File under:
Iranian "President" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rejects American ideas all of our ideas, that is, but nuclear fusion. When Ahmadinejad told a crowd at Columbia University in 2007 that the United States must investigate "who was truly involved" in 9/11, students may have confused the speech with ethnic studies class. There should be no confusion.
It's bad enough this bird-brained troglodyte was again walking the streets of America's greatest city this week, a place teeming with women, Christians, Jews and gays. Ahmadinejad has something to offend all. Holocaust denier. Misogynist. Religious fanatic. Terrorist enabler. Homophobic inquisitor though, Ahmadinejad does claim, "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals, like in your country." Yes, Ahmadinejad delivered an anti-Semitic lecture at the United Nations that could have been used at a battalion reunion of the Schutzstaffel. But let's not forget he also believes "a world without America . . . is attainable." So why isn't everyone troubled?
Why did CNN's Larry King, who nabbed Ahmadinejad for an interview, shower the Iranian strongman with queries that wouldn't have rattled Elizabeth Taylor? Why does the apologist fringe of the American left continue to assail U.S. policy rather than a belligerent Iran? Why aren't high-minded left-winger politicos as insulted by Ahmadinejad as they are by, I don't know, Sarah Palin? Instead, Ahmadinejad felt welcome. He spent a couple of hours schmoozing at New York's Grand Hyatt with representatives of the American "peace movement."
Jodie Evans, a founder of the anti-war group Code Pink, actually had a sit-down with Ahmadinejad. "It's rare," she explained, "for a head of state to take time during an official U.N. visit to meet with the peace community, especially in a situation where the host government represented by the Bush administration is so hostile." Human Rights Watch reports that Ahmadinejad, when he's not torturing dissidents, "has shown no tolerance for peaceful protests and gatherings." There is no Code Pink in Tehran for Ahmadinejad to sit down with. Then again, Code Pink's mission is to shut down the free expression of those it disagrees with so perhaps the two parties had a congenial discussion. But back to planet Earth ...
Palin, in a speech she could not deliver in New York, accused Ahmadinejad of dreaming "of being an agent in a 'Final Solution' the elimination of the Jewish people." True. Barack Obama condemned the speech in strong language, as well, and pointed out that the "threat from Iran's nuclear program is grave." True, as well. This is a stark reversal from Obama's earlier naïve assertion that he would meet with Ahmadinejad without any preconditions. As he well knows, no matter who wins in November, Iran can't be ignored.
The latest report from the International Atomic Energy Agency reports that Tehran's nuclear activities "present a decidedly bleak picture." Most observers believe Ahmadinejad is stonewalling inspectors while he works on a nuclear bomb and missile warheads. This report, incidentally, wasn't issued by bellicose Rovian Bushites hell-bent on waging war for amusement and oil, but a contingent of twinkle-toed worldly optimists.
How exactly will a new administration stop Iran if they continue to ignore diplomacy and sanctions as they have for the past six years? How will the world sanction Ahmadinejad when the U.N. Security Council includes Russia, a nation that has done its utmost to allow Iran's nuclear program to continue? No candidate has clued us in yet. No wonder Ahmadinejad feels so comfy in New York.
House Republicans refused to support the Henry Paulson/Chris Dodd compromise bailout plan yesterday afternoon, even after the New York Times reported that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson got down on one knee to beg Nancy Pelosi to compromise. One of the sticking points, as Senator Lindsey Graham explained later, wasnt a lack of begging but a poison pill that would push 20% of all profits from the bailout into the Housing Trust Fund a boondoggle that Democrats in Congress has used to fund political-action groups like ACORN and the National Council of La Raza:
In the Roosevelt Room after the session, the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., literally bent down on one knee as he pleaded with Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, not to blow it up by withdrawing her partys support for the package over what Ms. Pelosi derided as a Republican betrayal.
I didnt know you were Catholic, Ms. Pelosi said, a wry reference to Mr. Paulsons kneeling, according to someone who observed the exchange. She went on: Its not me blowing this up, its the Republicans.
Mr. Paulson sighed. I know. I know.
Graham told Greta van Susteren that Democrats had their own priorities, and it wasnt bailing out the financial sector:
And this deal thats on the table now is not a very good deal. Twenty percent of the money that should go to retire debt that will be created to solve this problem winds up in a housing organization called ACORN that is an absolute ill-run enterprise, and I cant believe we would take money away from debt retirement to put it in a housing program that doesnt work.
Go to the link to read the rest. I'm losing patience with these people.
Filed, reluctantly, under Home Front: Politix instead of Lurid Crime Tales. I think I've reached the point where I oppose any bailout that doesn't include a line item for a couple million dollars for ME to buy canned goods and ammunition with.
The EVIL REPUBLICANS are SLASHING FUNDING TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITIES and COMMUNITY ORGANIZERS! MILLIONS OF DISADVANTAGED, MINORITIES, AND THE POOR ARE EXPECTED TO STARVE!
-- I predict that this will be the headline when this goes south. They did it before with Social Security.
#1
The only candidate advocating mandatory 'voluntary' public service is Obama. It's easy when you lay the unpaid work burden upon the shoulders of those who can't vote. Like a lot of 'ideas' postulated this election, it's just another Orwellian Newspeak to accuse your opponent of contemplating what you are doing.
#2
this article was the biggest bunch of dung I have read in awhile.
Barak's father was African and Barack has zero connection to slavery.
I found this interesting though, "Baraq [Barack] was the name of the winged horse-like creature that took Mohammed to Paradise in the Night Journey. Baraq can also mean God's blessing. Obama is Swahili for Osama, who was one of Mohammed's chief warriors. Osama also means lion. Hussein reminds some Americans of Saddam Hussein, and Obama's supporters get upset if it is used. Hussein was the name of Mohammed's grandson. So Obama's entire name is based upon Islamic mythology and African conquest. Barack Hussein Obama means [Allah's blessing] [Mohammed's grandson] [One of Mohammed's finest warriors].
Since I am beginning to see Obama as a trojan horse, it seems to fit.
#3
It is curious that Blacks flock to a religion that comprised the administration of the slave trade for about 1400 years. African Arabs ran the slave trade, why would any black in America that claims to be the lingering victim of slavery want to hook up with the very religion that ran the slave trade? Very curious.
#4
Black, negro, african American, colored, whatever it is, I don't know what they want to be called this week. So don't think I'm making "nuanced" racial dispersions here.
Every crisis also represents opportunity. Or so an American thinks. Much as I detest Obama's methods and his policies, even he would view all this as being more 'half-full' than the author of the article.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
09/26/2008 5:53 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Yeah, serves us right for having an election every four years come hell or high water. We should just appoint a President for Life like more civilized countries do.
#4
I agree with the author. A severe recession is baked into the economy now, and the deflation of housing and financial assets will strap consumers for the next 5 to 10 years.
There will be opportunities for individuals, but the overall economy has a lot of excess to work out.
#6
I'm in the market for a house in the Bay Area, CA and the prices haven't really come down at all. Not anywhere you'd want to live anyway. They are still 400K-600K for what is >200K here in Cinti.
#8
Previous periods of apparently existential crisis in the US have certainly produced one-term disasters: James Buchanan in 1857, Herbert Hoover in 1929, Jimmy Carter in 1977 spring unpleasantly to mind. But the genius of America is that apocalyptic challenges have also, in time, produced the men to match them: Abraham Lincoln in 1861, Franklin Roosevelt in 1933, Ronald Reagan in 1981.
So much for the Euro view of our history. Would agree with the assertion about Carter. Buchannan reflected the times. The three Presidents that are considered men to match the times; Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan were outstanding communicators with the people. Lincoln, during his term, was not much liked by many within his own party. Hoover had a lot of the ideas that Roosevelt later implemented. Many would disagree with the direction Roosevelt took the country towards socialism. Interestingly, Hoover also tried to deal with immigration from south of our border. In 1929, President Hoover authorized the Mexican Repatriation program. To combat rampant unemployment, the burden on municipal aid services, and remove people seen as usurpers of American jobs, the program was largely a forced migration of an estimated 500,000 Mexicans and Mexican Americans to Mexico. Some of the 500,000 people that were "voluntarily repatriated" were Mexican-Americans. Warren G. Harding ought to be added to the list of one term incompetents. His administration could be characterized by corruption and incompetence. He is listed as dying of a heart attack but it was rumored his wife poisoned him because of his skirt chasing and "affairs of state."
#2
Did Russia have legal authority to attack Georgia?
Since the world has been rather mute on the subject, I think we have an answer. It's an internal question for the US [the only power on the planet with the means and a modicum of will] rather than a linguistics and semantics game.
#7
Did any of you read the article? It's a bunch of blather about whether or not the U.S. should be allowed to use British bases. Hey, Brits: we can let loose one hell of a cruise missile barrage without any landing rights at your bases!
#10
LOW-PROFILE HAPPY IRAN desires to keep things that way, at least vee ISRAEL, IRAQ, + AFGHANISTAN-PAKIS, and is likely doing everything to make sure the MILITANTS-TERRS don't do anything to validate US, ISRAELI, and or UNSC MILACTION AGZ IT.
THE REST OF ASIA, ETC., IS ANOTHER AND SEPARATE MATTER, as the Militant-Terr Gruppes are rampaging and waging Jihad far and wide. Methinks its safe to argue that, at least for the duration of the natural lifetimes of OSAMA BIN LADEN, ZAWI, MULLAH OMAR, NASRALLAH, SADR, and OTHER CONTEMPOR TOP ISLAMIST LEADERS, THE "MUSLIM/ISLAMIC CONQUEST OF MAINLAND ASIA" + ANY PERIPHERALS/LITTORAL ENCLAVES WILL BE THE PRIORITY FOR JIHAD, AS PER IN PARALLEL WID NUCLEARIZATION.
WHILE WASHINGTON was seized with congressional negotiations over the Wall Street bailout, Iraq's parliament on Wednesday took another major step toward political stabilization. By a unanimous vote, the national legislature approved a plan for local elections in 14 of 18 provinces by early next year -- clearing the way for a new, more representative and more secular wave of politicians to take office.
The legislation eliminates the party slate system that allowed religious authorities to dominate Iraq's previous elections, and it provides for women to hold 25 percent of seats. Most important, it will allow Sunni leaders who boycotted the 2005 provincial elections -- and who have since allied themselves with U.S. forces against al-Qaeda in Iraq -- to compete for political power in the provinces that were once the heartland of the insurgency.
As always in Iraq's halting journey toward a new order, the reform was not complete. Elections were put off in the province surrounding the volatile city of Kirkuk, where Kurds, Sunni Arabs and other groups compete for power, and in three Kurd-run provinces.
Staging fair and peaceful elections will be another major challenge: In the south of Iraq, competition among Shiite parties, including those of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Mahdi Army leader Moqtada al-Sadr, could easily spill over into violence.
The importance of securing the elections is one good reason for President Bush's decision to withdraw only 8,000 of the 146,000 remaining U.S. troops in Iraq between now and February. Still, the precipitous drop in violence in Iraq during the past year offers strong reason for hope that a good election can be held -- and that the new Sunni and Shiite leaders who emerge will be well positioned to jump-start reconstruction in the provinces and negotiate with each other.
For some time, U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker has been citing provincial elections as the most important of Iraq's "political benchmarks."
This week's breakthrough follows others in recent months, including the reform of a law that purged former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party from government posts. More steps are needed -- most important, agreement on a law distributing Iraqi oil revenue among provinces and allowing for new investment. But it's now clear that the political progress that the Bush administration hoped would follow the surge of U.S. forces in Iraq has finally begun.
How can the next president preserve that momentum? Democrat Barack Obama continues to argue that only the systematic withdrawal of U.S. combat units will force Iraqi leaders to compromise. Yet the empirical evidence of the past year suggests the opposite: that only the greater security produced and guaranteed by American troops allows a political environment in which legislative deals and free elections are feasible.
Meanwhile, ransom negotiations between the pirates and the Iranians have broken off. After the shipping company was sanctioned by the Treasury Department earlier this month, Iran told the pirates the deal was off, in part because the U.S. Navy patrols off the Somali coast. And, in yet another strange twist, the Iranian press claims that the U.S. has offered $7 million for the vessel. At last report, the Iran Deyanat was still anchored off Eyl, and no one is really sure what's inside its cargo containers.
#1
Within days, pirates who had boarded the ship developed strange health complications, skin burns and loss of hair. Independent sources tell The Long War Journal that a number of pirates have also died.
Should not have opened those lead boxes, Nadif.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke to the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, just a few hours after President Bush. The contrast was palpable. Ahmadinejad expressed continued defiance of the UN Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency, insisting that Iran would continue and even accelerate its nuclear program. Bush, by contrast, has overseen nearly six years of failure trying to stop Iran from doing exactly that. Iran is now closer than ever to achieving its long-held strategic objective of obtaining deliverable nuclear weapons. Why has Iran succeeded and the United States failed in this struggle? What does it tell us about the options available to our next President, in this increasingly dangerous situation? Will Iran be a centerpiece of the first presidential debate?
First, negotiating with Iran will not stop its nuclear weapons program. Sen. Barack Obama has said that he will speak with rogue state leaders like Ahmadinejad "without preconditions," implying this is a new idea. In fact, Britain, France and Germany ("the EU-3") have been doing exactly that for over five years. Throughout, they have been surrogates for America, and yet Iran has shown no inclination to terminate its nuclear program. Negotiation is like all human activity: It has costs as well as benefits. The history of Europe's efforts underscores a significant cost of negotiating with a nuclear aspirant: time. More time is almost always on the proliferator's side, because it allows for the complex work necessary to master the nuclear fuel cycle. The net effect of five years of EU-3 negotiation is that Iran is five years closer to achieving a deliverable nuclear weapon. We cannot afford more of the same.
Second, Europe still does not fully appreciate the risks of a nuclear-armed Iran, nor is it willing to take the steps necessary to prevent it. Europe's lack of real concern stems in part from the controversy over intelligence about Iraq, but also from the deeper EU mindset that its members have passed beyond history, and entered a zone of security that will persist as long as outsiders are not "provoked." This false sense of security saps EU willingness to take steps stronger than mere diplomacy, such as tough economic sanctions, much less contemplating the use of force. Thus, whatever impact on Iran that sanctions might have if imposed swiftly and comprehensively have only wound up giving the appearance of decisive action rather than the reality.
Third, the Security Council will not solve the Iran problem. Russia, and to a lesser extent China, have made it clear that they will block meaningful sanctions in the Council. This was the case in the first three sanctions resolutions, where Russian intransigence wore down the EU-3 to the point where they accepted only what Russia was prepared to allow, so they could "declare victory" even when weak sanctions resolutions were finally adopted. Russia has an enormous interest in protecting Iran from meaningful Security Council sanctions. Moscow hopes to sell nuclear fuel, and construct many nuclear power plants in addition to the one nearly complete at Bushehr, and sees Iran as a substantial market for high-end conventional weapons sales. Similarly, China's large and growing demands for energy make Iran an attractive partner for assured supplies of oil and natural gas, as well as a potential market. All of these interests and more virtually guarantee that the Security Council's role in dealing with Iran will remain minimal at best.
On Jan. 20, either President McCain or Obama will face very unattractive choices if he is serious about disarming this outlaw regime. One is regime change in Tehran, through support of the widespread discontent across Iran with the mullahs. The other is the targeted use of force against Iran's nuclear program. Both of these options are complex, risky and highly difficult. Unfortunately, the only other alternative - Iran with nuclear weapons - is far worse. Ready or not, our new President will have to make decisive and far-reaching choices.
#1
I really don't think anyone's going to do anything until they explode one in their desert. Then our politicians and diplomats will run around pissing their pants, talking about how they did their best, but had their hands tied by the administration. We'll either destroy them or be p*ssies and let them have it. Those are the only two choices, and I dont see much chance of action. So you know what that leaves.
#2
IMO IRAN believes that regardless of which GOP-DEM wins the US 2008 POTUS ELEX, the US will essens stay put in IRAQ-AFGHANISTAN or in the altern reduce its regional milfor presence - IOW, IRAN WILL GET ITS NUKES. TIME FACTORS > Iran ideally must conduct its own overt INDIGENS NUKE BOMB TEST(S) ASAP, NLT 2010 [absolut maxima 2012 = "pushing the envelope"]. THE BURDEN OF WAR + JIHAD DURING THIS PERIOD FALLS PREDOMIN ON THE ISLAMIST MILITANT-TERR AND ALIGNED COMMIE-ANARCHIST GROUPS.
The longer Radical Islam waits after 2010, the higher its risk of LOSING WHAT IT HAD REGAINED AND SUFFERING NEW EXCESSIVE LOSSES VEE US-ALLIES. Iff Iran does indeed already possess COVERT TACNUKE DEVICES, which RUSSIA, etal. itself had proclaimed times again over the years on the MSM-Net, THE IRAN MUST LEARN TO PROFICIENTLY AND INDIGENS MANAGE SUCH WEAPONS LEST IT GROWS OVERLY DEPENDENT ON THE VERY SAME NON-MUSLIM "INFIDELS/BARBARIANS" AND
"UNBELIEVERS" WHICH IT IS WAGING JIHAD AGAINST TO SAVE AND ACCOMPLISH ITS JIHAD IN ISLAM'S NAME.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke have put Congress in a hell of position. They have forecast financial doom unless their $700-billion bailout plan passes, yet their explanation of to how it will work, judging by their answers during congressional hearings this week, is basically trust us.
In any other circumstance, that posture would be unacceptable. But the prospect of an imminent financial meltdown looms. As Paulson and Bernake have repeatedly argued, the reason to stop this meltdown is not to save the irresponsible players who created this mess, but to save the rest of us from the consequences of their mess. So far, the real economy has weathered the financial turmoil amazingly well. But that wont last if no one can get a loan. At the very least, we will likely face a sharp economic downturn on par with 1981-82 or 1974-75, and at worst a Japan-like disruption that will take years to work through. The cost of such an event would be far larger than that of the Paulson plan. . . .
Conservatives have proposed various alternatives to the Paulson plan. These alternatives have fallen into two categories. Some of them consist of excellent long-term reforms that do not address the issue at hand. . . . Other conservative proposals we think particularly of the plan being promoted by Reps. Eric Cantor and Jeb Hensarling are better geared to the problems of the moment, even if they are probably insufficient. Regardless, it seems to us unlikely that enough of a consensus will develop for an alternative to get it passed. If conservatives refuse to support the Paulson plan, whether because they cannot stomach it or prefer an alternative, it may become impossible to enact anything but a left-leaning deal that depends on votes from liberal Democrats. The result of their opposition would thus be to make the Paulson plan simultaneously more intrusive and less effective.
Rightly viewed, Paulsons proposal is a distasteful emergency measure to right the credit markets and should be phased out as soon as possible. Liberals want to make it, instead, an endless warrant for financial socialism. . . .
Right now, conservatives have leverage in this debate. They should use it to stop liberals from hijacking the plan and, indeed, to improve it themselves. Their strategy should be to improve the plan rather than to try to kill it outright.
Republicans should push for every measure possible to lessen the need for the Paulson plan and to limit its scope. Proposals like reforming mark-to-market accounting rules that have worsened the crisis, suspending dividend payments by financial institutions, and allowing the Fed to pay interest on its reserves can help ease the crunch and increase capital in the system. Meanwhile, even if Paulson needs the $700 billion figure next to his bazooka and needs a great deal of discretion in operating the program, Congress should structure it so that it is reviewed every month and the possibility exists to pull the plug quickly if it isnt working. If it is possible, Republicans should also try to include some of their long-term reform ideas in the package as a supplement, rather than an alternative, to a solution to the current crisis.
We understand, and share, the instinctive repulsion many conservatives feel for the plan. But in a true crisis, the financial system needs a government backstop. Panics must be stopped because it is their very nature to damage the economy out of all proportion to reason. So something must be done, and it appears that the Paulson plan is going to have to be the template for that something.
Reasonable conservatives might well disagree with that judgment. We understand our compatriots who consider it too risky and too costly, not just to the U.S. government but to our principles. Would that the governments insistence on promoting bad loans and Wall Streets recklessness had never brought us to this pass.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/26/2008 13:34 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10327 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The handout needs to be shot, fed into a wood chipper, burned to ashes, be doused with holy water and finally thrown out of a plane at 20,000 feet to make sure it doesn't return in some other form.
#2
In case you're wondering, Rich Lowry, who writes the National Review's editorials, is really in the tank for this handout. His pals on Wall Street are counting on it.
The son of an Ohio garage mechanic, Galt left home at age 12 and began college at Patrick Henry University at age 16. There he befriended Francisco d'Anconia and Ragnar Danneskjöld. All three of them double-majored in physics and philosophy. They were the cherished students of the brilliant scientist Robert Stadler and the brilliant philosopher Hugh Akston.
After graduating, Galt becomes an engineer at the Twentieth Century Motor Works where he designs a revolutionary new motor powered by ambient static electricity with the potential to change the world. Like Ellis Wyatt, he creates what many had for years said was impossible. When the company owners decide to run the factory by the collectivist maxim, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", Galt organizes a successful labor strike (but this time getting employers, inventors, businessmen and industrialists to go on strike against statist laws that violate their rights), proclaiming his promise to stop the motor of the world. Galt begins traversing the globe, meeting the world's most successful businessmen, systematically convincing them to follow in his footsteps; one by one, they began abandoning their business empires (which, Galt convinces them, were doomed to failure anyhow, given the increased nationalization of industry by the government). This strike forms the backdrop of the novel as the mystery which protagonist Dagny Taggart seeks to uncover, with Galt as her antagonist (the novel was originally titled The Strike).
Secretly, these captains of industry, led by Galt and banker Midas Mulligan, create their own societya secret enclave of rational individualists living in 'Galt's Gulch', a town secluded high in a wilderness of mountains in Colorado. Taggart accidentally finds the townand a shocked John Galtby crash-landing a light aircraft while pursuing Quentin Daniels.
The Democrats need to get their story straight. On one hand, it is beyond dispute at this point that Congressional Republicans were never on board. It is equally clear that the Democratic majority won't act without the "cover" of a substantial number of Republican votes--that is they demand that this deal not be done, in Chris Dodd's words, "on a three-legged stool."
So several things follow. First, this is precisely why Hank Paulson and Harry Reid summoned John McCain--to get Republican cover for the Democrats who despite the looming crisis can't bring themselves to govern (that is, to vote on and pass a bill which they believe is essential). Second, that is why McCain presented but did not endorse the GOP's wish list of conservative suggestions in the White House meeting. That is how one cajoles and drags along a recalcitrant party--by allowing them to have their say. (From reports it appears that the hyper-empathetic Barack Obama attempted to corner the Republicans, not a comforting sign that he knows how to negotiate with people who are in fundamental disagreement with him.) Third, while it would be nice for the Democrats to drag more Republican votes along, it is highly unlikely that they need as a mathematical matter all 100 Republican votes they have asked for. Whether they get 50 or 100, Democrats almost certainly could pass the Paulson bill in a form acceptable both to the White House and the Senate. But they don't want to--Chris Dodd told us that.
And finally, if there is no deal, if the stock market drops hundreds more points, if there is no abatement in the short term credit crunch, and if more banks and other institutions fold today, we'll see if running off to a debate and lifting whatever pressure exists to make a quick deal seems like such a good idea. Having spent over twenty years as a labor negotiator I can tell you: unless you provide contentious parties with a deadline, no matter how artificial, they will never reach a deal.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/26/2008 08:42 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10324 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They want the power and the image, but they don't want the consequences. One of the precepts of late 20th Century Liberals - all show and talk, but no real viable solutions to major problems.
The Donks have a majority in both Houses. They can pass what ever they want. It's not the Trunks stopping them. They just can't get their act together.
#2
This might be another element in their hesitation (Bloomberg): "Calls to congressional offices are ``running 50 percent `no,' and 50 percent `hell, no,''' Democrat Paul Kanjorski told CNBC today. ``Out of 100 calls, you are lucky if one of them is positive.''"
#3
Procopius,
The polls show that the more worried people are about the economy, the more likely they are to vote for Obama. In that environment, there is absolutely no incentive to solve the economic crisis before the elections.
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
09/26/2008 11:38 Comments ||
Top||
#4
there is absolutely no incentive to solve the economic crisis before the elections. If it can wait until after the election, it's not a crisis, just fakery. But remember, polls show Congressional approval ratings are abysmal, and every Representative is up for re-election, along with 1/3 of the Senate. Perhaps some of the Dem Reps are getting worried about their re-election. Also, too many people seem to think this crisis can be "solved". It can't, and instead must be worked through.
Im of two minds on the bailout reasonable people object, but on the other hand, lets not just wreck everything today because we want to stand on principles, okay? I dont mind people standing on principles except when theyre also standing on my throat, and if its a choice between Liquidity with Troubling Implications and A Firm Stance On Sound Ideas that Incidentally Throws Everyone Into Super-Harsh Bankruptcy A-Go-Go, well, I cave. Id also like to see the Congress manage to pass something without yoking a hundred dead-eyed hobby-horses to the bill, too; when I learned that Sen. Reid wanted to attach an amendment that extended the ban on shale oil exploration and drilling, almost 16% of my brain liquefied and shot out my ears.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/26/2008 06:30 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10324 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They seem hell bent to prevent us from having any kind of domestic energy production at all. And to top it all off, they don't want nuclear or natural gas either. Just solar and wind, and that wond run a damn thing. Wind and solar seem to work fairly good on a house by house basis, as in each house having some solar panels or a windmill, but you arent going to be running any steel mills or baseball stadiums off of solar power.
Its quite obvious that most people don't understand derivatives and derivatives underlie all the current financial problems.
I first refer people to the Wikipedia link that explains them in brief. Click the article heading for the link.
now slide down to this point:
OTC and exchange-traded
Broadly speaking there are two distinct groups of derivative contracts, which are distinguished by the way they are traded in market:
* Over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives are contracts that are traded (and privately negotiated) directly between two parties, without going through an exchange or other intermediary. Products such as swaps, forward rate agreements, and exotic options are almost always traded in this way. The OTC derivative market is the largest market for derivatives, and is unregulated. According to the Bank for International Settlements, the total outstanding notional amount is $596 trillion (as of December 2007)[1]. Yes - that is not a typo - many many times the GNP Of this total notional amount, 66% are interest rate contracts, 10% are credit default swaps (CDS), 9% are foreign exchange contracts, 2% are commodity contracts, 1% are equity contracts, and 12% are other. OTC derivatives are largely subject to counterparty risk, as the validity of a contract depends on the counterparty's solvency and ability to honor its obligations.
* Exchange-traded derivatives (ETD) are those derivatives products that are traded via specialized derivatives exchanges or other exchanges. A derivatives exchange acts as an intermediary to all related transactions, and takes Initial margin from both sides of the trade to act as a guarantee. The world's largest[2] derivatives exchanges (by number of transactions) are the Korea Exchange (which lists KOSPI Index Futures & Options), Eurex (which lists a wide range of European products such as interest rate & index products), and CME Group (made up of the 2007 merger of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the Chicago Board of Trade and the 2008 acquisition of the New York Mercantile Exchange). According to BIS, the combined turnover in the world's derivatives exchanges totaled USD 344 trillion during Q4 2005. 344 trillion in one quater! Some types of derivative instruments also may trade on traditional exchanges. For instance, hybrid instruments such as convertible bonds and/or convertible preferred may be listed on stock or bond exchanges. Also, warrants (or "rights") may be listed on equity exchanges. Performance Rights, Cash xPRTs and various other instruments that essentially consist of a complex set of options bundled into a simple package are routinely listed on equity exchanges. Like other derivatives, these publicly traded derivatives provide investors access to risk/reward and volatility characteristics that, while related to an underlying commodity, nonetheless are distinctive.
Common derivative contract types
There are three major classes of derivatives:
1. Futures/Forwards, which are contracts to buy or sell an asset at a specified future date.
2. Optionals, which are contracts that give a holder the right to buy or sell an asset at a specified future date.
3. Swappings, where the two parties agree to exchange cash flows or returns.
Look at the table of common examples and then at the following:
Other examples of underlying exchangeables are:
* Economic derivatives that pay off according to economic reports ([1]) as measured and reported by national statistical agencies
* Energy derivatives that pay off according to a wide variety of indexed energy prices. Usually classified as either physical or financial, where physical means the contract includes actual delivery of the underlying energy commodity (oil, gas, power, etc.)
* Commodities
* Freight derivatives
* Inflation derivatives
* Insurance derivatives[citation needed]
* Weather derivatives Yes weather derivatives - Gustav and Ike?
* Credit derivatives
* Property derivatives
Even a Global Warming Derivative Global Warming Index
Investment bank UBS is trying to change weather investing by launching the first Global Warming Index (GWI), which provides a simple way to take a view on a wide range of weather variables. While initially linked to the temperature of several US cities, there are plans to add European and Asian ones soon. In fact, as UBS notes, there is no limit in principle to the number of cities to be included as references. In this sense, the UBS index would truly capture global phenomena in one stroke.
Thanks to this pioneering development, it is now possible to bet on whether Global Warming is true or false. If you believe the direst predictions will hold true and a persistent upward trend in global (or, at least for now, US) temperatures will become the norm, you would buy the Index (which goes up with the underlying temperature). If you think Mr Gore an alarmist sensationalist, you would sell the Index.
In common with equity, foreign exchange or interest rate underlyings, it is possible to devise structured products based on the GWI. For instance, rather than park money in a low-yielding savings account, an investor could instead enter into a weather-related guaranteed investment or a weather-related note, where returns would depend on the average quarterly performance of the Index. In essence, the warmer the globe gets (as measured by the GWI) the higher the return.
Most interesting are the opportunities to engineer basket, or diversified, structures around the GWI. In these exotic deals, the investor's return would depend directly on the (most likely, purely coincidental rather than direct) correlation between weather and one, two, or more different asset classes.
GWI-based basket trades could help investors in traditional assets to diversify (hedge) their positions via the addition of a non-correlated new variable. Given how closely correlated markets can be from time to time, it may not be a bad idea to include some weather in an old-fashioned menu. If anything, the GWI could be seen as a cheaper (not to mention more exciting) alternative to protecting returns through the use of same-family derivatives (such as equity options or currency forwards).
Now look further in the link. The Criticisms, the arbitrage-free pricing, the Benefits, the Leverage of an economy's debt.
Now take a look at this scaremongering report that ends up making sense.
the NO to Bailout article ends with this solution:
CLEARING THE DECKS FOR WORLD ECONOMIC RECOVERY
It is time to forget about paper and the price of paper, and to concentrate on production securing the tangible physical commodities and hard commodity production which are necessary for human life and civilization. It is impossible to prop up financial values in a panic, and it is foolish to try. To secure a decent future, we must now enact the following measures. Any of these points, all of which seek to defend the general welfare and the public interest, can and should be used as killer amendments to be attached to the current bailout monstrosity as a means of bringing it down.
Stop all foreclosures on homes, farms, businesses, factories, mines, transport systems, for a period of at least five years or for the duration of the present world economic depression, whichever takes longer. If you throw a family out of their home or shut down a family farm, taxicab company, trucking firm, ferry, airline, railroad, or factory of any kind because of debt, you will be on your way to Leavenworth. All politicians now say that we have to keep families in their homes. Excellent! A uniform federal law with real teeth is the way to do it.
Seize bankrupt banks and financial institutions. Put them through Chapter XI bankruptcy, and cancel the hopelessly unpayable parts of their debts, starting with their derivatives book.
Wipe out all derivatives, whether exchange traded or counterparty, without compensation. They have always been illegal. They are now a threat to all of our lives. Not one penny of public money must go to buy derivatives.
Securities transfer tax or Tobin tax on all financial transactions, including stocks, bonds, foreign exchange, etc. This is a sales tax on finance oligarchs who need to start paying their fair share. This will take the life out of the booze for many speculators.
Stop oil, food and commodity speculation with comprehensive re- regulation including position limits, 50 to 100% margin requirements depending on market conditions, and by distinguishing between legitimate hedgers and predatory speculators.
No tax increases on households. Surtax for foundations like the Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Annenberg, and Gates Foundations, who use their funds not for charity but for subversion and divide and conquer social engineering to divide and weaken the American people in defense of the financier interest.
Restore business confidence and credit with new credit issue through the nationalized Federal Reserve, operating under the legal auspices of the US Treasury. Use credit as a public utility. Provide cheap, long-term credit for productive purposes only, not parasitical speculation or financial services.
Institute an absolute guarantee for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, WIC, food stamps, unemployment insurance, and the other remaining elements of the social safety net. No entitlement reform under any circumstances. Austerity for bankers, not people. Use the proceeds from the Securities Transfer Tax to replenish the Social Security Trust Fund and preserve the other vital programs through the end of the twenty-first century.
Using New Deal methods, it is possible to stop a depression cold in a single day. We did it before, and we can do it again. Only 28% of the American people now support the monstrous derivatives bailout, with 37% opposed and 35% unsure, according to Rasmussen on Sept. 22. This is an issue powerful enough to crystallize the current party re-alignment in the same way that slavery in the territories did in 1860, or the last depression did in 1932. Within a month, the current empty husks of the gutted Democratic and Republican Parties could collapse, and be replaced by the pro-Wall Street Bailout Party led by Obama and his phalanx of rich elitists and Malthusian fanatics from both parties, and the pro-middle class and pro-worker Anti-Bailout Party with support from right-wing Republicans, libertarians, and working class Democrats. Who will have the brains and guts need to assert leadership over the Anti- Bailout Party? Will it be McCain? Or Hillary Clinton? Or someone else? We will soon find out.
I am not advocating or saying anything other than something smells rotten in the US and derivatives are deeply involved. The explanations by Paulson, Bernake and Bush are too simplex and likely complete fabrications to get us to agree to this for some reason likely unrelated to the mortgages. Why? If it was related to them the solution suggested by the Republican House would be jumped on as the obviously cheaper and more rational solution. It is being fought tooth and nail so something else needs the money...
#2
Anyone who thinks a Great Depression was or could be stopped in a single day, or over any period of time, using New Deal methods is an economic ignoramus who has been thoroughly brainwashed by the socialist totalitarians running the public schools.
#4
Nah, it's that messy snake hair. Ever trying getting a knot out of one of those. The bad hair day that bites back. Perseus' styling technique was remarkably similar to Alexander's approach to the problem. Classical.
#11
The explanations by Rummy Paulson, Cheney Bernake and Bush are too simplex and likely complete fabrications to get us to agree to this for some reason likely unrelated to the The War on Terror mortgages.
I read a lot of comments like that when we were going to Iraq.
RDS.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
09/26/2008 15:55 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Giving $700 billion to the same people who got us into this problem is a big mistake.
#14
Counterparty risk assumption was what brought Bear Stearns down and was starting to work in Morgan and Goldman. Basically, it is default risk. One party to a contract (Derivatives are contracts) is assumed to not be able to live up to its risk assumption and so someone else has to come in to take the risk (i.e. the government).
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
09/26/2008 16:48 Comments ||
Top||
#15
3DC, This list is the "Dead Pool"!
1. Morgan Stanley (MPD).
2. Goldman Sachs (MPD).
3. JP Morgan Chase.
4. Deutsche Bank (Life Support Feeding directly from Central bank only).
5. ABN Amro (Suicide + poisoning Fortis).
6. Barclays (Alive).
7. Lehman Brothers (KIA).
8. UBS (Purple Debt Heart).
9. Bear Stearns (KIA).
10. Merryl Lynch (KIA).
11. Credit Suisse.
12. Bank of America (Civic Medal for adopting wayward youth Cuntywide).
13. Dresdner.
14. BNP Paribas (Wounds).
15. Citigroup.
16. Societe Generale (Recovering from trader cancer).
17. Royal Bank of Scotland.
18. Calyon.
19. HVB.
20. AIG (Feeding directly from Central bank only).
#17
The media could do a much better job of describing what is at stake. What follows is an example of what one local company is going through:
10 Sept 2008 --Money market fund Reserve Primary Fund (RPF) has $62.6 billion assets, of which $0.8 million are in Lehman Bros bonds.
15 Sept 2008 -- Lehman Bros files for bankruptcy.
16 Sept 2008 -- RPF marks Lehman bonds down to $0, prompting a flood of withdrawals from RPF. Not everyone can get out in time. The SEC freezes RPF assets.
25 Sept 2008 -- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. announces $360 million of its funds are frozen in RPF. Goodyear said it will draw $600 million from a line of credit for normal business uses while it waits for its share of RPF to be paid out at some unknown time in the future.
--- Shelly Lombard, credit analyst with New York-based investment research firm Gimme Credit, said Goodyear "basically lost access to $300 million. Luckily, Goodyear is not in a liquidity crisis." But smaller companies in a similar situation with cash frozen in an account might not be so lucky if they are unable to tap a line of credit, Lombard said.
"That [money] stands between a company and bankruptcy. You can't pay your bills, you can't meet payroll, you go into bankruptcy," Lombard said.
I know money market funds aren't derivatives, this is simply to show the cascading effect of business failures on other businesses. Note that Goodyear had nothing to do with mortgages.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
By David Harsanyi
WHILE WASHINGTON was seized with congressional negotiations over the Wall Street bailout, Iraq's parliament on Wednesday took another major step toward political stabilization. By a unanimous vote, the national legislature approved a plan for local elections in 14 of 18 provinces by early next year -- clearing the way for a new, more representative and more secular wave of politicians to take office. 
By John Bolton
