-MemeWatch is spreading! I was seriously considering doing an installment of our favorite feature about the sudden mainstream acceptance of the netspeak "Fail." But Slate beat me to the punch, with this great article.
-Former Bush Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama this morning on NBC's Meet the Press. If nothing else, this should help Obama win the news cycle and allow him to continue to keep his lead.
-McCain spokeswoman Nancy Pfotenhauer stood by remarks this week that McCain is winning in the "real Virginia." Apparently this means the more southern parts of Virginia that aren't suburbs of Washington D.C. I'm sure this will help them win over voters in Falls Church and Arlington.
-This comes after Gov. Sarah Palin, while campaigning in Greensboro, North Carolina this week, saying she enjoyed coming to "pro-american parts of the country." Of course, Barack Obama's campaign immediately began asking "so, which parts of the country are anti-american?" And the Republicans have run into a problem trying to make talking points out of this stuff. Rep. Michele Bachmann caused a stir when she attempted to defend Palin on MSNBC's Hardball and ended up calling for an investigation into which members of Congress were "unamerican." McCarthy, anybody? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/17/gop-rep-channels-mccarthy_n_135735.html
-In more positive(?) Sarah Palin news, she appeared last night on Saturday Night Live and didn't really do much. Most thought this would put the spotlight on Tina Fey's Palin impersonation, but it was Fey's sometime partner-in-crime, the very pregnant Amy Poehler, who stole the show during Gov. Palin's appearance on the "Weekend Update" segment. Check this out: http://www.hulu.com/watch/39808/saturday-night-live-update-palin-rap
-Today's Free TV on the Internet: You read my review of the Crusoe pilot, "Rum and Gunpowder." Now watch it for yourself: http://www.hulu.com/watch/39786/crusoe-rum-and-gunpowder
Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Best... Day... Ever
Yes, the Dow Jones average had its largest single-day point gain yesterday, with news of a “new bailout” that involves the government directly investing in various troubled banks. The Bush administration announced the plan yesterday, which involves $250 billion on top of the $700 billion already funneled to financial firms, as well as additional guarantees of bank transactions from the FDIC. Bush himself argued that the move is “essential so that the free market can continue to function,” though grumbling from some conservative allies suggested that the government might essentially be destroying the free market in order to save it. The markets gained back about a third of what they lost last week.
Of course, the untold story if you read US newspapers and websites is that the markets weren’t necessarily reacting to something the US government did… the markets these days are global, and the huge groundswell was already building through the day around the world. It began because European leaders agreed on their own bank protection plan, which the US plan basically copied. The Europeans had no compunctions on what they were doing, calling this a “re-nationalization.” The big winner appeared to be French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who managed to get the various interested parties to stop yelling at each other long enough to broker a deal.
The European leaders emphasized that “no bank will be allowed to fail,” and vaguely implied criticisms that the expensive US bailout was both late-arriving and ineffective. The French Financial Minister basically said that she would never have let Lehman Brothers fail on her watch. If you take a look at the history of the past couple decades, European nations have a varied history with nationalized banks, ranging from the catastrophe that was France’s governmental involvement with Credit Lyonnais to the unqualified success of the Swedish nationalization of its financial industry. However, this is different from those past experiences because it involves every EU nation rather than individual nations acting on their own. It seems to be what many economists were calling for all along and has certainly had the success in drawing a market reaction that the initial reveal of the so-called “Paulson Plan” did not.
One interesting aspect of this crisis may be the continued emergence of the EU as a modern superpower. Many in the United States still think of ourselves as the world’s only superpower, but that’s certainly not the case in an economic sense, and that may be the most important one. The EU and China have made massive strides in recent years, to the point where the EU economy may be smaller but better managed, and the Chinese economy is large enough for that nation to start running foreign policy based on monetary aide. I asked a week or so ago what the big change that comes out of the current financial crisis will be, and it may end up being American recognition of the EU as a collective power on the world stage.
Of course, the untold story if you read US newspapers and websites is that the markets weren’t necessarily reacting to something the US government did… the markets these days are global, and the huge groundswell was already building through the day around the world. It began because European leaders agreed on their own bank protection plan, which the US plan basically copied. The Europeans had no compunctions on what they were doing, calling this a “re-nationalization.” The big winner appeared to be French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who managed to get the various interested parties to stop yelling at each other long enough to broker a deal.
The European leaders emphasized that “no bank will be allowed to fail,” and vaguely implied criticisms that the expensive US bailout was both late-arriving and ineffective. The French Financial Minister basically said that she would never have let Lehman Brothers fail on her watch. If you take a look at the history of the past couple decades, European nations have a varied history with nationalized banks, ranging from the catastrophe that was France’s governmental involvement with Credit Lyonnais to the unqualified success of the Swedish nationalization of its financial industry. However, this is different from those past experiences because it involves every EU nation rather than individual nations acting on their own. It seems to be what many economists were calling for all along and has certainly had the success in drawing a market reaction that the initial reveal of the so-called “Paulson Plan” did not.
One interesting aspect of this crisis may be the continued emergence of the EU as a modern superpower. Many in the United States still think of ourselves as the world’s only superpower, but that’s certainly not the case in an economic sense, and that may be the most important one. The EU and China have made massive strides in recent years, to the point where the EU economy may be smaller but better managed, and the Chinese economy is large enough for that nation to start running foreign policy based on monetary aide. I asked a week or so ago what the big change that comes out of the current financial crisis will be, and it may end up being American recognition of the EU as a collective power on the world stage.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
MemeWatch: The Second Great Depression
Wherever we are in the world, the economy is obviously in rough shape. In America, polls of likely voters have 60% saying the economy is the most important issue when it comes to deciding who to vote for. In the 1992 election (where the private motto of Bill Clinton's victorious campaign was famously "It's the economy, stupid"), that number never rose above the low forties. With all that attention, the media is sitting up and taking notice. Everyone suddenly wants to hear what previously-boring people like Ben Bernanke and Warren Buffett think of the crisis. And the one question that always seems to be asked is: "Are we on the verge of another Great Depression?"
As I've talked about in previous posts, no matter how bad the current crisis gets, it will be very different from what we call the "Great Depression." Banks failed left and right, and since this was pre-FDIC, the money in those banks effectively ceased to exist. A third of America's wealth disappeared essentially overnight, which led to hardships not just here but across what was at that time a fledgling global economy. It's estimated that about 25% of the country was out of work. And the thing is, though there are specific benchmarks for a "recession," there aren't for a "Depression." It's simply defined as a "very severe recession."
I have very little feel for how it was viewed elsewhere, but the Depression is still seen as an extremely important period of American history. Many of our greatest literary classics date from this time. It changed the face of the country, permanently putting a fork in the rural society in favor of the urban and leading to a sustained phase of western migration. It was the depression, not motion pictures, that really made Los Angeles what it is today. Old institutions collapsed and new ones sprung up. Medicare, Social Security, and the SEC were all direct results of the Depression. The legacy of the Depression was the defining issue in this country, in one way or another, for decades (in my opinion this was followed by the Vietnam-era cultural split, of which this election may serve as the death knell).
So you see that the question of whether that time is back isn't picked out of thin air. Mostly those in power have been reticent to say we're heading towards "another Great Depression." More common is the idea that what we're experiencing is the worst crisis since the Great Depression, which is probably safer. That language has been used (independently, but the whole idea of memes is that it's not really independently) by both President Bush and Sen. Obama, Bush in a prime-time televised address to the nation. But what does that mean?
For the everyday citizen, the best way to look at this (since, as I said, we're not about to lose our savings like they did in 1929) is in terms of unemployment, and how hard it is to get a loan. We're not close to that 25% figure yet, but it's not as far away as we might believe. The official unemployment rate here in Ohio is currently 7.4%. But that doesn't mean that 93% of the population has a job. The unemployment rate only takes into account those who are physically able and currently looking for work. It also doesn't take into account the "underemployed." A year ago, I was making minimum wage working 8 hours a week. I would not have been considered unemployed, though you obviously can't make a living long term doing that. So estimates indicate that the "real" unemployment in this state is much closer to 15%. It's also becoming extremely difficult to get a loan. One example: auto sales (where most customers need loans) are down as much as 75% in the Cleveland area.
So here's the thing: the question isn't out of line, but I'm not sure it's helpful to our understanding of this issue. This is Earth 2.0, and conditions are so different from 1929 that it's comparing apples and oranges. Could you end up reasonably saying this is "as bad as" the Great Depression? Maybe, though it would just be your opinion. But one way I think the two may compare is in their far-reaching effects. What will be the Social Security-like structural change in our country that comes out of this crisis? That will be how its legacy is measured in the end.
As I've talked about in previous posts, no matter how bad the current crisis gets, it will be very different from what we call the "Great Depression." Banks failed left and right, and since this was pre-FDIC, the money in those banks effectively ceased to exist. A third of America's wealth disappeared essentially overnight, which led to hardships not just here but across what was at that time a fledgling global economy. It's estimated that about 25% of the country was out of work. And the thing is, though there are specific benchmarks for a "recession," there aren't for a "Depression." It's simply defined as a "very severe recession."
I have very little feel for how it was viewed elsewhere, but the Depression is still seen as an extremely important period of American history. Many of our greatest literary classics date from this time. It changed the face of the country, permanently putting a fork in the rural society in favor of the urban and leading to a sustained phase of western migration. It was the depression, not motion pictures, that really made Los Angeles what it is today. Old institutions collapsed and new ones sprung up. Medicare, Social Security, and the SEC were all direct results of the Depression. The legacy of the Depression was the defining issue in this country, in one way or another, for decades (in my opinion this was followed by the Vietnam-era cultural split, of which this election may serve as the death knell).
So you see that the question of whether that time is back isn't picked out of thin air. Mostly those in power have been reticent to say we're heading towards "another Great Depression." More common is the idea that what we're experiencing is the worst crisis since the Great Depression, which is probably safer. That language has been used (independently, but the whole idea of memes is that it's not really independently) by both President Bush and Sen. Obama, Bush in a prime-time televised address to the nation. But what does that mean?
For the everyday citizen, the best way to look at this (since, as I said, we're not about to lose our savings like they did in 1929) is in terms of unemployment, and how hard it is to get a loan. We're not close to that 25% figure yet, but it's not as far away as we might believe. The official unemployment rate here in Ohio is currently 7.4%. But that doesn't mean that 93% of the population has a job. The unemployment rate only takes into account those who are physically able and currently looking for work. It also doesn't take into account the "underemployed." A year ago, I was making minimum wage working 8 hours a week. I would not have been considered unemployed, though you obviously can't make a living long term doing that. So estimates indicate that the "real" unemployment in this state is much closer to 15%. It's also becoming extremely difficult to get a loan. One example: auto sales (where most customers need loans) are down as much as 75% in the Cleveland area.
So here's the thing: the question isn't out of line, but I'm not sure it's helpful to our understanding of this issue. This is Earth 2.0, and conditions are so different from 1929 that it's comparing apples and oranges. Could you end up reasonably saying this is "as bad as" the Great Depression? Maybe, though it would just be your opinion. But one way I think the two may compare is in their far-reaching effects. What will be the Social Security-like structural change in our country that comes out of this crisis? That will be how its legacy is measured in the end.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Breaking News: Bailout Passes on Second Try
The US House of Representatives passed the "bailout" of our nation's financial institutions earlier today, by a comfortable margin of 261-171. The bill gained substantial support among both Republicans and Democrats. I guess Republicans weren't as insulted by the package of "sweeteners" as I would have been in their shoes.
The bill was then rushed to the desk of President Bush, who signed it this afternoon. The largest group that switched its votes from no to yes were probably members of the Congressional Black Caucus (all Democrats), who were reassured by recent pledges from Sen. Barack Obama that, if elected, he would support legislation that would assist homeowners who are currently facing foreclosure. Republican Sen. John McCain was also credited with helping to secure votes on his side of the aisle, especially among the delegation from his home state of Arizona.
The vote was far from unanimous, however, and opponents voiced dire concerns. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) told us to "Pray for our Republic," while a better known Ohio Rep., Dennis Kucinich, delivered an impassioned speech highlighting the case of a 90 year old Akron resident who shot herself yesterday after authorities attempted to enforce the foreclosure of her home.
It is too early to tell what the final effect of the legislation will be, but here's hoping our government did the right thing here. It'd sure be more convenient than them being wrong. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said he would move swiftly to begin the distribution of the funds.
The bill was then rushed to the desk of President Bush, who signed it this afternoon. The largest group that switched its votes from no to yes were probably members of the Congressional Black Caucus (all Democrats), who were reassured by recent pledges from Sen. Barack Obama that, if elected, he would support legislation that would assist homeowners who are currently facing foreclosure. Republican Sen. John McCain was also credited with helping to secure votes on his side of the aisle, especially among the delegation from his home state of Arizona.
The vote was far from unanimous, however, and opponents voiced dire concerns. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) told us to "Pray for our Republic," while a better known Ohio Rep., Dennis Kucinich, delivered an impassioned speech highlighting the case of a 90 year old Akron resident who shot herself yesterday after authorities attempted to enforce the foreclosure of her home.
It is too early to tell what the final effect of the legislation will be, but here's hoping our government did the right thing here. It'd sure be more convenient than them being wrong. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said he would move swiftly to begin the distribution of the funds.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Vice Presidential Smackdown: Vice Harder
Some quick thoughts on the Vice Presidential debate that just finished. I personally was bothered by Sarah Palin, but I don't think a lot of Americans will be. This is where I have a fundamental difference with a lot of my countrymen and women. I don't think it's too much to ask the Vice President to put gs on the end of words when they go there, or to use words the way they were actually meant to be used. And yet afterwards on CNN the commentators, on either side, universally praised how "folksy" Palin was. Just because people seem to like it doesn't mean it's actually a good thing. Is she going to be in the room with Putin, as the current cliche goes, saying "I'm hopin' and wishin' we can find some positive impacts for our folks back home"?
Okay, rant over. I'm going to try not to do that too often. In terms of actual analysis, I think that Biden did a fairly good job of calling Palin on any outright lies she made without seeming petty (he didn't call her on calling Gen. McKiernan "General McClellan," for example). Palin tried her darndest to do the same, but I don't think she made many of her points with the same specificity. She also said a few things that may come back to bite her. She said she agreed with Vice President Cheney on the subject of expanding the powers of the Vice Presidency. She said she is not convinced humans are responsible for global warming. These are positions that I'm not sure are in tune with what people are looking for.
I think it was a decent strategy on Palin's part to try to link Obama and Biden to "looking backward" when Biden tried to link McCain to the failed policies of the Bush administration. It worked rhetorically to shape the debate the way she wanted it. Biden, however, did not let that effect his own strategy, which was to do just that. In my opinion, "looking backward" or not, every time McCain/Palin talks about changing something from the status quo, Obama/Biden should come back with "Republicans have had the Presidency 20 of the last 28 years. Republicans have controlled the Congress 10 of the last 12 years. Why hasn't any of this happened before now?"
It was sometimes frustrating how much Biden insisted on sticking to the "3rd Bush term" idea, at the expense of offering more coherent versions of his own ideas. It may come off as overly negative. However, I don't think that will be an issue in the long run in a campaign where Democrats seem to often say good things about John McCain but Republicans resolutely refuse to say anything positive about Barack Obama. The "attack dog" role is a traditional one for a Vice President candidate, so the Presidential candidate doesn't have to get their hands dirty.
The usual question after these things is "well, who won?" That is of course completely subjective. I think Gov. Palin gave Sen. Biden the openings he needed to really ram home any advantage he may have had, and I'm not sure he followed through on those. I think he may have performed better overall, but I recognize that many reasonable people may disagree. Many people thought Palin's performance here would hurt the McCain campaign, and I don't think it really did. However, McCain's been steadily losing ground lately in several key states, and I doubt Palin did anything here that would change that.
In other news... wow, the Cubs are in trouble. You'd think I would have seen that coming, but I definitely didn't.
Okay, rant over. I'm going to try not to do that too often. In terms of actual analysis, I think that Biden did a fairly good job of calling Palin on any outright lies she made without seeming petty (he didn't call her on calling Gen. McKiernan "General McClellan," for example). Palin tried her darndest to do the same, but I don't think she made many of her points with the same specificity. She also said a few things that may come back to bite her. She said she agreed with Vice President Cheney on the subject of expanding the powers of the Vice Presidency. She said she is not convinced humans are responsible for global warming. These are positions that I'm not sure are in tune with what people are looking for.
I think it was a decent strategy on Palin's part to try to link Obama and Biden to "looking backward" when Biden tried to link McCain to the failed policies of the Bush administration. It worked rhetorically to shape the debate the way she wanted it. Biden, however, did not let that effect his own strategy, which was to do just that. In my opinion, "looking backward" or not, every time McCain/Palin talks about changing something from the status quo, Obama/Biden should come back with "Republicans have had the Presidency 20 of the last 28 years. Republicans have controlled the Congress 10 of the last 12 years. Why hasn't any of this happened before now?"
It was sometimes frustrating how much Biden insisted on sticking to the "3rd Bush term" idea, at the expense of offering more coherent versions of his own ideas. It may come off as overly negative. However, I don't think that will be an issue in the long run in a campaign where Democrats seem to often say good things about John McCain but Republicans resolutely refuse to say anything positive about Barack Obama. The "attack dog" role is a traditional one for a Vice President candidate, so the Presidential candidate doesn't have to get their hands dirty.
The usual question after these things is "well, who won?" That is of course completely subjective. I think Gov. Palin gave Sen. Biden the openings he needed to really ram home any advantage he may have had, and I'm not sure he followed through on those. I think he may have performed better overall, but I recognize that many reasonable people may disagree. Many people thought Palin's performance here would hurt the McCain campaign, and I don't think it really did. However, McCain's been steadily losing ground lately in several key states, and I doubt Palin did anything here that would change that.
In other news... wow, the Cubs are in trouble. You'd think I would have seen that coming, but I definitely didn't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
