Covert Operations
by ilene - August 31st, 2010 1:33 am
Covert Operations
The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama.
Excerpts:
DiZerega, who has lost touch with Charles [Koch], eventually abandoned right-wing views, and became a political-science professor. He credits Charles with opening his mind to political philosophy, which set him on the path to academia; Charles is one of three people to whom he dedicated his first book. But diZerega believes that the Koch brothers have followed a wayward intellectual trajectory, transferring their father’s paranoia about Soviet Communism to a distrust of the U.S. government, and seeing its expansion, beginning with the New Deal, as a tyrannical threat to freedom. In an essay, posted on Beliefnet, diZerega writes, “As state socialism failed . . . the target for many within these organizations shifted to any kind of regulation at all. ‘Socialism’ kept being defined downwards.”
Members of the John Birch Society developed an interest in a school of Austrian economists who promoted free-market ideals. Charles and David Koch were particularly influenced by the work of Friedrich von Hayek, the author of “The Road to Serfdom” (1944), which argued that centralized government planning led, inexorably, to totalitarianism. Hayek’s belief in unfettered capitalism has proved inspirational to many conservatives, and to anti-Soviet dissidents; lately, Tea Party supporters have championed his work. In June, the talk-radio host Glenn Beck, who has supported the Tea Party rebellion, promoted “The Road to Serfdom” on his show; the paperback soon became a No. 1 best-seller on Amazon. (Beck appears to be a fan of the Kochs; in the midst of a recent on-air parody of Al Gore, Beck said, without explanation, “I want to thank Charles Koch for this information.” Beck declined to elaborate on the relationship.)
[...]
As their fortunes grew, Charles and David Koch became the primary underwriters of hard-line libertarian politics in America. Charles’s goal, as Doherty described it, was to tear the government “out at the root.” The brothers’ first major public step came in 1979, when Charles persuaded David, then thirty-nine, to run for public office. They had become supporters of the Libertarian Party, and were backing its Presidential candidate, Ed Clark, who was running against Ronald Reagan from the right. Frustrated by the legal limits on campaign donations, they contrived to place David on the ticket, in the Vice-Presidential slot; upon becoming a candidate, he could lavish…
 Twitter
|
LinkedIn
|
 del.icio.us
|
|
Krugman Finds His Nut(s)?
by ilene - February 10th, 2010 7:25 pm
Krugman Finds His Nut(s)?
Courtesy of Karl Denninger at The Market Ticker
As in "a blind squirrel finds one – once in a while."
(With apologies to the person who posted it on TF under that title before I got to Tickering this – heh, I had to go get my teeth cleaned, so give me a break already! 
)
But in fact Krugman hasn’t found his nut(s), although he should check. He’s groping around down there…. perhaps he could come up with something if he’d just take the next logical step from here:
The point is that these bank executives are not free agents who are earning big bucks in fair competition; they run companies that are essentially wards of the state. There’s good reason to feel outraged at the growing appearance that we’re running a system of lemon socialism, in which losses are public but gains are private.
No Paul, that’s not reality either. Your liberal mind just can’t get its tiny little wings around what really happened, so let me help you.
You can start with my Ticker entitled "The Audacity of Synthetics", in which I explain to the proletariat what any self-respecting "economist" (or "economic reporter") should already know about, but which I’ve yet to hear you opine upon:
But this leaves open the question of whether it is fair, just, or even legal to create a synthetic security that at it’s core comes into existence because someone believes that the reference is going to detonate, and then sell off pieces of that security to investors without prominently disclosing the source of the funding of the cash flow, that they proffered the criteria for inclusion in the reference and that the INTENT of their funding was to profit from an EXPECTED detonation of the reference securities.
It also leaves open the question of laying off that risk on an insurance company (whether in a regulated subsidiary or not) without similarly disclosing the above to them up front! That is, is it fair, just (or even legal) to buy fire insurance on a property when you have been told that someone expects a fire in that structure based on what they believe is credible analysis (e.g. a look at the
…
|
Twitter
|
LinkedIn
|
del.icio.us
|
|
THE NANNY STATE
by ilene - November 1st, 2009 7:05 pm
THE NANNY STATE
Courtesy of James Quinn at The Burning Platform
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
Declaration of Independence
.gif)
“The reason this country continues its drift toward socialism and big nanny government is because too many people vote in the expectation of getting something for nothing, not because they have a concern for what is good for the country.”
Lyn Nofziger
When I decided to tackle the national healthcare issue, I thought a good start would be examining the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to see what they had to say about the right to healthcare. I hunted and searched the various documents which created our country. I found that according to the Declaration of Independence, we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Fourteenth Amendment states, No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
.jpg)
I did not find the right to healthcare in the Bill of Rights. I also did not find the right to an Ivy League education, the right to a well paying job, the right to a fully paid for pension, the right to drive a BMW X5, the right to a beautiful wife, the right to reside in a 6,000 sq ft McMansion, or the right to get into Heaven.
I did discover that government derives their JUST powers from the consent of the people. I also found that if those who govern use their powers in a destructive manner, the governed have the…
|
Twitter
|
LinkedIn
|
del.icio.us
|
|
Capitalism, Socialism or Fascism?
by ilene - October 25th, 2009 4:43 pm
Washington argues that when metastatic cancer takes over the body, identifying the type of cancer is more of an interesting dinner party conversation than a cure (metaphorically) – Ilene
Capitalism, Socialism or Fascism?
Courtesy of Washington’s Blog
What is the current American economy: capitalism, socialism or fascism?
Socialism
Initially, it is important to note that it is not just people on the streets who are calling the Bush and Obama administration’s approach to the economic crisis "socialism". Economists and financial experts say the same thing.
For example, Nouriel Roubini writes in a recent essay:
This is a crisis of solvency, not just liquidity, but true deleveraging has not begun yet because the losses of financial institutions have been socialised and put on government balance sheets. This limits the ability of banks to lend, households to spend and companies to invest…
The releveraging of the public sector through its build-up of large fiscal deficits risks crowding out a recovery in private sector spending.
Roubini has previously written:
We’re essentially continuing a system where profits are privatized and…losses socialized.
Nassim Nicholas Taleb says the same thing:
After finishing The Black Swan, I realized there was a cancer. The cancer was a huge buildup of risk-taking based on the lack of understanding of reality. The second problem is the hidden risk with new financial products. And the third is the interdependence among financial institutions.
[Interviewer]: But aren’t those the very problems we’re supposed to be fixing?
NT: They’re all still here. Today we still have the same amount of debt, but it belongs to governments. Normally debt would get destroyed and turn to air. Debt is a mistake between lender and borrower, and both should suffer. But the government is socializing all these losses by transforming them into liabilities for your children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren. What is the effect? The doctor has shown up and relieved the patient’s symptoms – and transformed the tumour into a metastatic tumour. We still have the same disease. We still have too much debt, too many big banks, too much state sponsorship of risk-taking. And now we have six million more Americans who are unemployed – a lot more than that if you count hidden unemployment.
[Interviewer]: Are you saying the U.S. shouldn’t have done all those
…
|
Twitter
|
LinkedIn
|
del.icio.us
|
|
In Defense of Capitalism: a True Love Story
by ilene - October 6th, 2009 4:58 pm
Vitaliy writes a heartfelt essay on Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story. I didn’t see the movie but trust his impressions are accurate. Even so, I disagree with part of his argument. Vitaliy states that: "the fact that corruption and bribery are the rare exception in the US, not the rule (as in Russia), is never mentioned." I think we have a sort of capitalism laced with crime, and a system that cannot rid itself of corruption, to me, does not make for a true love story. – Ilene
Now that I’ve tossed in my two cents, here’s Vitaliy N. Katsenelson introduction.
My writing is a byproduct of my investment process, I think through writing. I don’t do movie reviews and don’t watch Michael Moore’s movies. But when a Denver Post reporter invited me to a private showing of Moore’s latest flick last Monday Capitalism: A Love Story, I decided to check it out since it had to do with Capitalism. It stirred up a lot of memories and I recently finished reading Atlas Shrugged which had a great impact on me. A combination of all those things motivated me to write this. I hope you enjoy it.
In Defense of Capitalism: a True Love Story
Courtesy of Vitaliy N. Katsenelson at Contrarian Edge
In the 1980s, in Soviet Russia, a few times a year, my class walked to a movie theater, where we were shown a documentary. Attendance was mandatory. The documentaries were different but the themes were the same: to the accompaniment of patriotic music, we learned about the righteousness of socialism, the greatness of Mother Russia, and the intelligence and foresight of our great leaders. To demonstrate how good we had it, we were shown images of “decaying” American capitalism. Of course, capitalism did not get the benefit of patriotic music as we were shown the poverty-stricken homeless, the KKK burning crosses and lynching blacks, and Russia-hating capitalists being poisoned by hamburgers (of course, later I learned this part about hamburgers was not a complete lie).
Past weekend Americans voluntarily spent a few million dollars to see a documentary by Michael Moore – Capitalism: the Love Story. But don’t kid yourself, this piece of work is not a documentary, it lacks objectivity and has no intention of seeking the truth. It is anti-American and anti-capitalist propaganda. Mr. Moore is a talented propagandist; in…
|
Twitter
|
LinkedIn
|
del.icio.us
|
|
Why the Dow is Hitting 10,000 Even When Consumers Can’t Buy And Business Cries “Socialism”
by ilene - September 22nd, 2009 11:54 am
Many may be asking this question, as the market surges higher and the news (looking out past gov’t influenced near term numbers) looks so bleak…
Why the Dow is Hitting 10,000 Even When Consumers Can’t Buy And Business Cries "Socialism"
Courtesy of Robert Reich at Robert Reich’s Blog
![[IMG_0516.JPG]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_r3bP1mw8CJE/SOtptPlKxEI/AAAAAAAAAAs/qPwWlVCoJcw/S220/IMG_0516.JPG)
So how can the Dow be flirting with 10,000 when consumers, who make up 70 percent of the economy, have had to cut way back on buying because they have no money? Jobs continue to disappear. One out of six Americans is either unemployed or underemployed. Homes can no longer function as piggy banks because they’re worth almost a third less than they were two years ago. And for the first time in more than a decade, Americans are now having to pay down their debts and start to save.
Even more curious, how can the Dow be so far up when every business and Wall Street executive I come across tells me government is crushing the economy with its huge deficits, and its supposed “takeover” of health care, autos, housing, energy, and finance? Their anguished cries of “socialism” are almost drowning out all their cheering over the surging Dow.
The explanation is simple. The great consumer retreat from the market is being offset by government’s advance into the market. Consumer debt is way down from its peak in 2006; government debt is way up. Consumer spending is down, government spending is up. Why have new housing starts begun? Because the Fed is buying up Fannie and Freddie’s paper, and government-owned Fannie and Freddie are now just about the only mortgage games remaining in play.
Why are health care stocks booming? Because the government is about to expand coverage to tens of millions more Americans, and the White House has assured Big Pharma and health insurers that their profits will soar. Why are auto sales up? Because the cash-for-clunkers program has been subsidizing new car sales. Why is the financial sector surging? Because the Fed is keeping interest rates near zero, and the rest of the government is still guaranteeing any bank too big to fail will be bailed out. Why are federal contractors doing so well? Because the stimulus has kicked in.
In other words, the Dow is up despite the biggest consumer retreat from the market since the Great Depression because of the very thing so…
|
Twitter
|
LinkedIn
|
del.icio.us
|
|
Roubini and Taleb: Government’s Socialization of Losses Is Destroying the Real Economy
by ilene - September 18th, 2009 1:49 am
Roubini and Taleb: Government’s Socialization of Losses Is Destroying the Real Economy
Courtesy of Washington’s Blog
In an essay last month, Nouriel Roubini wrote:
This is a crisis of solvency, not just liquidity, but true deleveraging has not begun yet because the losses of financial institutions have been socialised and put on government balance sheets. This limits the ability of banks to lend, households to spend and companies to invest…
The releveraging of the public sector through its build-up of large fiscal deficits risks crowding out a recovery in private sector spending.
Roubini has previously written:
We’re essentially continuing a system where profits are privatized and…losses socialized.
Now Nassim Nicholas Taleb is saying the same thing:
After finishing The Black Swan, I realized there was a cancer. The cancer was a huge buildup of risk-taking based on the lack of understanding of reality. The second problem is the hidden risk with new financial products. And the third is the interdependence among financial institutions.
[Interviewer]: But aren’t those the very problems we’re supposed to be fixing?
NT: They’re all still here. Today we still have the same amount of debt, but it belongs to governments. Normally debt would get destroyed and turn to air. Debt is a mistake between lender and borrower, and both should suffer. But the government is socializing all these losses by transforming them into liabilities for your children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren. What is the effect? The doctor has shown up and relieved the patient’s symptoms – and transformed the tumour into a metastatic tumour. We still have the same disease. We still have too much debt, too many big banks, too much state sponsorship of risk-taking. And now we have six million more Americans who are unemployed – a lot more than that if you count hidden unemployment.
[Interviewer]: Are you saying the U.S. shouldn’t have done all those bailouts? What was the alternative?
NT: Blood, sweat and tears. A lot of the growth of the past few years was fake growth from debt. So swallow the losses, be dignified and move on. Suck it up. I gather you’re not too impressed with the folks in Washington who are handling this crisis.
Ben Bernanke saved nothing! He shouldn’t be allowed in Washington. He’s like a doctor who misses the metastatic tumour and
…
|
Twitter
|
LinkedIn
|
del.icio.us
|
|
German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
Chinese
Philip R. Davis is a founder Phil's Stock World, a stock and options trading site that teaches the art of options trading to newcomers and devises advanced strategies for expert traders...
Ilene is editor and affiliate program
coordinator for PSW.
