My apologies for the commercialish lack of answers here, but I thought this was interesting from the perspective of explaining our monetary system and future of oil and energy. Chris Martenson has a book out called The Crash Course that explains how the next 20 years will look like nothing we've seen before. The first 10 to 15 minutes are real good. His talk ends before the question and answer period and unfortunately he doesn't provide how we fix this. I guess that's why you have to buy the book.
(Think exponential growth of population, oil demand, debt based money, etc.)
Two of my favorite economic theories are the Austrian School and the modern money theory (MMT). To me, the MMTers have a near perfect explanation as to how our current system works, especially when they leave off the Keynesian talk. On the other hand, the Austrians describe how money should work when left up to the free market and there are reasons why that is a good thing even though MMTers may not agree.
In any case, I like it when I see people from what appear to be opposing schools of thought agree on something. (There's some kind of validation of my thoughts and ideas in it for me when I see these connections.)
As you probably heard this is what was announced today by the Federal Reserve (Washington Post):
The new interest rate (charged to European banks) is the dollar overnight index swap rate plus 50 basis points, a half percentage-point cut, and the program was extended by six months to Feb. 1, 2013, the Fed said today in a statement in Washington. The Fed coordinated the move with the European Central Bank as well as the Bank of Canada, Bank of England, Bank of Japan, and Swiss National Bank.
Here is Ron Paul writing about today's coordinated central bank action:
"These dollar swaps are purely inflationary and will harm American consumers as much as any form of quantitative easing."
And here is Warren Mosler blogging about the same thing:
"Lending unsecured on an unlimited basis has the potential to be highly inflationary."
Read both statements. Mosler adds even more by saying this:
"No big deal, apart from the fact the Fed shouldn’t be allowed to lend on an unsecured basis like this without explicit approval of congress."
Giovanni Battista Draghi, namesake of the ECB's new head, Pergolesi (the man form Pergola; Marche, who settled in Lesi) produced in his short life far more pleasant and harmonious fruits than the money printer, who engineered at Goldman Sachs Greek's fraudulent appearance of fiscal-monetary soundness that ensured the country's entry into the European Monetary Union:
Price inflation is rising in Venezuela while price controls are ensuring that products disappear from the shelves. What's a socialist leader to do but blame the consumer. Yep, people suddenly started hoarding stuff for no apparent reason.
“I’m at the front of this operation, and we’re going to occupy factories and companies. We’re going to nationalize what needs to be nationalized. The bourgeoisie hoard milk, sugar and cooking oil and then [they] blame me. But it’s their fault, the hoarders.”
The ingrates! And after all Hugo has done for them, too. Karlin Granadillo, who heads up the price control agency there, said,
“The law of supply and demand is a lie. These are not arbitrary measures. They are necessary.”
Ah, necessity. "It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William Pitt) ... Some things never change.
*The line is taken from the old Martin Short portrayal of Nathan Thurm, who was notorious for turning things around to his benefit.
Today, I gave a speech at a venue within eye-shot of the European Central Bank. When I passed by the ECB building, I saw a camp of tents - apparently a mini emulation of OWS - frequented by protesters, who, however, do not actually stay overnight in the tents, preferring more comfortable dwellings. At the camp, I noticed a big sign reading "Die Schweine von heute sind der Schinken von morgen." Today's pigs (i.e. evil people) are tomorrow's ham (i.e. to be slaughtered).
I do not know which is the worse outcome of ignorance, to blindly follow the system or to go for violence against human beings most visibly associated with it
In a number of posts, like War for Oil - An Unfounded Cliché, I argue that war for oil does not make sense, and that what seem to be systematic efforts to go to war for oil are simply a result of the irrationality of foreign policies and the systemic need to be at war constantly, rather than the outcome of a level-headed strategy of robbery or (illicit imperial) protection of resources.
It is only rational in terms of the self-serving needs and strategies of certain groups that the present political system invites.
Make sure to read this article at The Beacon, from which I extract the following propositions:
The United States devotes more resources to the defense of oil in the Persian Gulf than most people realize—a total of more than $334 billion per year (in 2009 dollars).
“Cheap” foreign oil comes with huge hidden costs that American leaders and the public need to keep in mind when thinking about U.S. foreign policy.
U.S. military protection of the Persian Gulf is unnecessary to ensure access to oil from that region.
Because only 10 percent of the oil consumed by the United States comes from the Persian Gulf, U.S. military protection of that region is even more irrational than nineteenth century European imperialism.
Several popular myths about oil undermine clear thinking about America’s energy needs and U.S. foreign policy.
Becoming “energy independent”—a goal promoted by many Democratic and Republican politicians—is not in America’s best interest.
The website “Polls and Votes” has an interesting (and somewhat discouraging) analysis of Gallup polling data.
You should be able to click on the photo to enlarge, but here’s an overview: gray lines represent name recognition amongst voters, over time; red lines represent favorability of the candidate over time. Note that neither Gary Johnson nor Buddy Roemer are included. The vertical axis represents height (as a percentage) of name recognition; the horizontal axis represents time (beginning in January of this year). One would expect minor variations in name recognition just as a function of different polling samples.
So, what do we see?
Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, when polled at the beginning of the year, had a high degree of name recognition. Amongst this year’s candidates, Ron Paul has consistently been just barely behind them in terms of recognition. That’s the good news—Ron Paul no longer elicits “Who’s Ron Paul?” reactions. Around 90 percent of those polled know who he is—within a couple of points of the former Speaker of the House and former Governor of Massachusetts.
That suggests that favorability has little to do (for those candidates) with increased visibility/recognition (like, for instance, Cain and Bachmann’s numbers, which—at least for a time—paralleled each other, with favorability growing as recognition grew).
The goal, then, for highly recognized politicians, would be to have a growing level of favorability (or in the case of already highly favorable views, a maintenance).
Now, with the caveat that these numbers are still likely to be pretty volatile for a month or two—at least until the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary are out of the way—the trend at the moment doesn’t look good for either Paul or Romney (although Paul has a higher gap to bridge between recognition and favorability than does Romney), and is (right now) looking pretty good for Gingrich. Of course we all know that Gingrich has plenty of baggage—and a mouth—which could backfire on him.
Gingrich and Romney have to be careful with each other, I think—both have high recognition, and both of their favorability numbers are probably somewhat brittle at this point—Gingrich going negative on Romney, and Romney retaliating, could end up in the favorables for both of them plummeting (although my personal opinion is that Gingrich is even more likely to harm himself with an exchange that is perceived as negative). But what about Ron Paul?
Paul’s favorability numbers have trended downward since his announcement in March. They’re currently at about 20%—very close to Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann numbers, and still below (by about 10 points) Herman Cain’s numbers, even post-sexual harassment accusations. Dr. Paul’s supporters are probably the most enthusiastic and confirmed in the whole field—but it appears that they are still relatively small in number.
Ron Paul’s highest favorability numbers came in the first month or so of his candidacy this year (as did Mitt Romney’s). But the danger to both of them at this point (as opposed to Gingrich), is that the trend is down instead of up. Gingrich dropped through the summer, but has since been trending upward (although Romney’s favorables have been more steady, and his low point is still higher than Ron Paul’s high point was).
With only a little over 5 weeks until we get into the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire straw poll, these favorable numbers are critical to these three candidates (and to an extent, the other highly recognized candidates: Bachmann, Cain, and Perry).
Every campaign has these two elements: name recognition, and buying what the candidate is selling. Five months ago, almost everyone knew who Newt Gingrich was, but very were buying. That seems to be changing. Ron Paul started out with high recognition numbers, which have continued to trend upward—his problem is that the favorability for him hasn’t increased. How he changes that in the next two months, I don’t know. I’m pretty sure that sign-waving and brow-beating by his supporters aren’t going to do the trick…
Recent Comments