Maureen Dowd, "Summers of Our Discontent": Winter Is Coming

Will Larry Summers become the next chairman of the Federal Reserve?

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Summers of Our Discontent" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/opinion/dowd-summers-of-our-discontent.html), Maureen Dowd takes aim at the Summers candidacy:

"This idea is being pushed by the boys’ club around President Obama, and also by the bullying cool kids, some of the Wall Street types like former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin who paved the way for the country’s ruin. Larry’s loyal former protégée Sheryl Sandberg aside, it evokes a sexism of complacency — just a bunch of alpha males who prefer each others’ company and who all flatter themselves that they’re smart enough to know how smart Summers is.

These days, it’s impolite to mention that all those cool bankers that President Cool didn’t punish enough brought the country to the brink of disaster."

Dowd's appears to prefer Janet Yellen for the job:

"Sure, Summers, the son of two economists and nephew of two Nobel laureates in economics, has a high I.Q. and inspired a great cameo bit in 'The Social Network.' But there has to be somebody out there to run the economy who wasn’t a part of the culture that ran the economy into the ground.

Janet Yellen, the Fed’s vice chair, has generally been more publicly aligned with Bernanke than Summers has been in using monetary policy to revive the economy."

Me? I don't care if the next head of the Federal Reserve is a man or a woman. However, I am concerned by placing one of the architects of bank deregulation in the position. You see, I am not convinced by the strength of America's purported economic recovery, and I continue to be troubled by the failure of the Obama administration to rein in gluttonous American financial institutions.

In April, The Washington Post refused to publish my opinion piece submission calling for reinstatement of the Uptick Rule, so I'm going to repeat for the umpteenth time . . . the 2007 cancellation of the Uptick Rule is destroying the US economy:

Micro-cap company "X" has designed and patented a revolutionary widget. Recently, the achievements of "X" have made their way into the news, and its shares have risen. Farmer Joe, who attends night school and reads the financial news, decides to buy 1,000 shares of "X". However, Farmer Joe is unaware that Slick Eddy at Hedge Fund "Z", who couldn't care less about the merits of company "X"'s widgets, has also noticed the rise in the share price of "X". With almost unlimited resources behind him, Eddy borrows "X" shares from various financial institutions and begins to sell vast quantities into the market, causing a precipitous decline in the market price of "X". Eddy then blocks any rally in the share price by activating a computerized program to immediately sell 100 shares at the bid after any purchase. Worried by the huge downswing in the price of "X," and also concerned that at the end of each trading day "X" always goes down (Eddy often sells into the market during the last seconds of trading), Farmer Joe dumps his shares at an enormous loss ("Someone must know that something is wrong at 'X'"). Having succeeded in panicking Farmer Joe and other small investors in "X", Eddy buys back the shares at a significantly lower average price than that at which he sold them, resulting in enormous profits for Hedge Fund "Z". Eddy's bosses note his "fine" work and reward him with bonuses as the shares of "X" tumble.

Of course, there are those who will say that ultimately the stock market is "efficient", and the price of "X" will recover to an appropriate level. However, in the process we have witnessed the flow of wealth from Farmer Joe and other small investors to Hedge Fund "Z" and Slick Eddy.

Also, consider the damage to company "X", which, owing to doubt raised by the run on its shares, is suddenly unable to raise additional funds to finance expanded production of a new line of widgets, declares bankruptcy and fires its staff.

Sure, there are instances when the scientific and/or commercial progress of a company shorted by Hedge Fund "Z" is so great that Hedge Fund "Z" must buy back the shares at a higher price, but these losses are more than covered by its programmed downward manipulation of the shares of many other companies.

Notwithstanding the 2007 cancellation of the Uptick Rule, is there something other than Potemkin Village economic recovery underway in the US? Unemployment in the US has ticked down, but it remains at a disastrously high rate. (If you're over 50, go try to find a job.) Almost 50 million Americans are on food stamps. US stock markets are near all-time highs, but raise interest rates by the tiniest notch, and the air will come flooding out of them.

And small cap companies, which are America's wellspring of economic growth, are being imperilled by government indifference to their well-being.

Summers to the rescue? I don't think so.

Thomas Friedman, "Obama, Snowden and Putin": Putin Can't Do the US Serious Harm?

Truth be told, Obama suffered yet another foreign policy defeat of his own making last week, but you would never know it from Thomas Friedman's mind-numbing "newspeak." In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Obama, Snowden and Putin" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/opinion/friedman-obama-snowden-and-putin.html?_r=0), Friedman begins by telling us:

"You only get one chance to make a second impression. It seems to me that Edward Snowden should use his and that Russian President Vladimir Putin has blown his."

Friedman proceeds to tell us that Snowden should come home to face the music and make the case that "he truly is a whistle-blower, not a traitor."

Putin? Friedman has reached the conclusion that he is beyond redemption:

"Putin’s insistence on blocking any diplomacy on Syria that might move out 'his guy,' President Bashar al-Assad, his abuse of Russian gays and lesbians, and his blatant use of rule-by-law tactics to silence any critics mean that we’re not getting anything from this relationship anymore, nor are many Russians."

Friedman then lectures us on what Obama "could have" told Putin last week, before concluding:

"So there is no sense wasting more time with him. While he will not help us, he can’t do us serious harm. He can and is doing serious harm to Russia, by putting loyalty to him before competence. Any system that does that for long, dies."

Could have, should have, would have. Query: Did Obama also only get one chance to to make a second impression? Did America's president also "blow" his chance last week?

Recall Obama's first opportunity to keep this Cold Warrior in line, when, instead, he promised Putin "flexibility" in his second term.

No, Obama's "reset" of America's relationship with Russia didn't bear fruit. Instead, it has been met with an "in your face" policy from Putin.

So,what did Obama say when asked about Putin last week?:

"I know the press likes to focus on body language, and he's got that kind of slouch, looking like the bored kid in the back of the classroom. But the truth is that when we're in conversations together, oftentimes it's very productive."

A "very productive" relationship? Has Putin stopped shipping arms to Assad, warned Tehran to halt their nuclear weapons development program, or extradited Snowden? In short, Obama missed his second chance to prove to Putin that he is something other than an invertebrate.

But back to Friedman: Putin "can’t do us serious harm"? Last month, as reported by Bill Gertz of The Washington Free Beacon (http://freebeacon.com/asian-jets-intercept-russian-strategic-bombers/):

"Russian strategic nuclear bombers taking part in large-scale military exercises flew practice strike missions in the western Pacific on Monday and were intercepted by Japanese fighters, according to Japanese and Russian officials.

The bomber flights were the latest case of strategic saber rattling by Moscow and followed what U.S. defense officials said earlier this year were practice-bombing runs against U.S. and Japanese military bases in the region."

Let's ignore ongoing Russian armaments shipments to Syria and tacit Kremlin support of Iran's nuclear weapons development program. Practice strike missions against US military bases in ine western Pacific? Nothing worrisome about that?

That's quite an imagination you have, Tom.

New York Times Editorial, "Shortsighted Thinking on Israeli Settlements": How About First Providing All of the Facts

In an editorial entitled "Shortsighted Thinking on Israeli Settlements" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/opinion/shortsighted-thinking-on-israeli-settlements.html?_r=0), The New York Times takes the position:

"Why further complicate these already complicated negotiations three days before they start? And why add to the abundant distrust that already divides the two sides after nearly two decades of failed peace efforts? Mr. Kerry’s timetable may be overoptimistic, but no two-state solution can ever be reached if Israel expands its settlements on territory that will eventually become part of a Palestinian state. True, they can be removed, as they were when Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005. But every increase in the settlement population expands the already politically powerful block of settler voters who will resist removal."

However, the Times editorial does not say where this new housing is planned. As reported by The Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Israel-announces-tenders-for-new-settlement-homes-in-West-Bank-322690):

"According to the ministry, 793 of the new homes will be in Jewish neighborhoods of east Jerusalem. It includes 400 new units in Gilo, 210 in Har Homa and 183 in Pisgat Ze’ev.

In addition it plans to publish tenders for 394 new homes in West Bank settlement blocs that Israeli believes it will retain in any final status agreement with the Palestinians.

This includes 117 new homes in Ariel, 149 in Efrat, 92 in Ma’aleh Adumim and 36 in Betar Illit."

In short, the new housing is planned for areas which will be retained by Israel pursuant to the peace plans, involving land swaps, proposed in the past by Israeli prime ministers Barak and Olmert.

And if settlements will need to be removed as part of an all-encompassing peace with the Palestinians, Israel will do so, as was done in 2005 - as acknowledged by the Times - in Gaza.

You see, the Palestinians refuse to have any Jews living in their new nation, yet it is Israel that is forever being condemned as "apartheid."

Meanwhile, observe the plans of Bishara Shlayan, an Israeli Christian Arab from Nazareth, to build "a new Arab Christian settlement, open to all, in the West Bank" (see: http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/New-pro-Israel-Arab-party-says-EU-boycott-counterproductive-322864).

A new Christian settlement, albeit Arab Christian, in the West Bank? Do you think there is any chance that Fatah and Hamas will be open to such a proposal?

Not a snowball's chance in hell.

Paul Krugman, "Milton Friedman, Unperson": Who's Crazy?

Many years ago, when my brother was well on his way to a Ph.D. in psychology, he invited me visit him one summer at the "funny farm" (probably not politically correct) where he was interning. Curious, I made the drive to this magnificent facility in the hills of New England, and the first challenge he posed to me was to pick out the patients from those treating them. As I soon discovered, this was no simple task. I recall a scene beside a swimming pool where one seemingly "normal" young man pointed at a boy, busy splashing in the water, and informed me that "he's crazy." Moments thereafter, the young man, who had so kindly shared with me his evaluation, was staring into the sky and holding a conversation with the sun.

In short, in a world gone mad, it's not always easy to know who's crazy, and regarding those who are busy labeling others crazy? Be careful!

Of late, Paul Krugman has been busy labeling Republicans crazy (see: "Republicans Against Reality" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/05/opinion/krugman-republicans-against-reality.html?_r=0),  and "Delusions of Populism" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/opinion/krugman-delusions-of-populism.html?_r=0).

Today, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Milton Friedman, Unperson" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/12/opinion/krugman-milton-friedman-unperson.html?_r=0), Krugman again questions the sanity of Republicans. Krugman concludes:

"The point, however, is that modern conservatism has moved so far to the right that it no longer has room for even small concessions to reality. [Milton] Friedman tried to save free-market conservatism from itself — but the ideologues who now dominate the G.O.P. are beyond saving."

Well, notwithstanding the fact that I attended the University of Chicago when Milton Friedman was teaching there, I am no free-market conservative, as apparent from my failed attempts to reinstate the "Uptick Rule" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/search/label/Uptick%20Rule). I also support reinstatement of Glass-Steagall (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/search/label/Glass-Steagall). But dismantle America's financial institutions? Again, consider Krugman's memorable declaration (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/krugman-confronting-the-malefactors.html):

"Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

. . . .

It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details."

You see, I am not "left," "right" or doctrinaire. Rather, I have experienced enough crises in my life, some involving matters of life and death, to come to the realization that flexibility and open-mindedness are requisite qualities of mind and character when seeking solutions.

Crazy in my own special way? With papers to prove it.

Maureen Dowd, "Madam President": Make Way for Hillary and the First Philanderer

Definition of WRITE OFF
1: to eliminate (an asset) from the books : enter as a loss or expense

- Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/write%20off)

Although still in August 2013 - some three and a half years away from the time when the next US president will enter the White House - we only hear about Hillary. The economy is in a shambles, Obamacare is floundering, the Middle East is aflame, and yet the nation is agog over a latter day Lady Macbeth, whose sole passion is power. Should the US write off the next three and a half years of its history and await her triumphant accession?

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Madam President" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/11/opinion/sunday/dowd-madam-president.html), Maureen Dowd observes:

"But we can’t hear ourselves think here this summer over the roar of the Clinton machine — and the buzzing back to life of old Clinton enemies. Meanwhile, Obama’s vaunted campaign machine, which has morphed into a political group called Organizing for Action, has sputtered in its attempt to tear down Republican obstacles and push through his agenda."

Dowd goes on to say that Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill, "who once said she wouldn’t trust Bill Clinton near her daughter, is presciently back in the fold, on board with Ready for Hillary, the super PAC supporting Clinton for 2016." But as observed by Dowd at the conclusion of her opinion piece:

"Some of the excitement about Barack Obama was the prospect of making a clean start, after years of getting dragged into the Clintons’ dubious ethics and personal messes. Yet Obama ushered in the return of Clinton Inc. and gave it his blessing.

What he doesn’t seem to realize yet is that Hillary’s first term will be seen, not as a continuation of Obama, but as Bill Clinton’s third term."

Yup, unless Chris Christie doesn't block the doorway with his substantial girth, the US will be getting another four years of Bill, no longer as president, but instead as First Philanderer. Does it bother McCaskill? Not in the least.

And you can be certain that Hillary will also obtain the backing of America's new ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, who in 2008 was forced to abandon the Obama campaign team after labeling Ms. Clinton a "monster."

Is Hillary indeed a monster? No, she's just another narcissist, who accomplished absolutely nothing as secretary of state.

Dowd writes:

"Many Democrats are hungry to make history again, and they see the first woman president as the natural successor to the first black president."

And maybe in 2024 the first Hispanic president will be elected, followed by the first gay person in 2030. Wouldn't that tickle all of our fancies!

Me? I would be satisfied with anyone showing signs of leadership. But then, given that we are still stuck in 2013 with the current Procrastinator-in-Chief . . . "What difference at this point does it make?"

Gail Collins, "Playing Post Office": Why No One Wants to Play Post Office with Gail

Why doesn't anyone want to play post office with Gail?

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Playing Post Office" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/10/opinion/collins-playing-post-office.html?_r=0), Gail Collins explains how to remedy the US Postal Service's $15 billion annual deficit. She tells us that by eliminating Saturday deliveries, some $2 billion can be saved, and then goes on to say:

"Next stop, retirees. The Postal Service is supposed to deposit $5.5 billion a year in order to fund future retirees’ health benefits 75 years in advance. This was an idea cooked up on a dark day during the Bush administration, possibly by Congressional conferees armed with eyes of newt and toe of frog. Almost everybody now agrees it went way overboard. Also, there is no earthly way the Postal Service can afford to do it. Either Congress is going to have to give up on the idea or allow the entire operation to implode. So the mission is pretty clear. Discontinue the $5.5 billion deposits and get the accountants to work out a new plan.

Wow, you’ve cut that $16 billion deficit in half! Move over, Paul Ryan."

Yeah, right. Postal Service employees are just going to roll over and play dead as all of their retiree health benefits are eliminated, especially after their Saturday pay is nixed.

Tell me, is this idea any dumber than Paul Krugman's proposal to mint a trillion dollar platinum coin (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/01/paul-krugman-dwindling-deficit-unicorn.html)? Probably not.

Maybe Gail should be a awarded a Nobel Prize in economics for this Saturday morning attack of flatulence.

David Brooks, "The Nudge Debate": The Obama Administration Introduces "Newspeak"

"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.

. . . .

The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now."

- George Orwell, "1984"

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Nudge Debate" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/09/opinion/brooks-the-nudge-debate.html?_r=0), David Brooks makes the case for "modest" manipulation of our decision-making processes by the government. Brooks writes:

"We’re entering the age of what’s been called 'libertarian paternalism.' Government doesn’t tell you what to do, but it gently biases the context so that you find it easier to do things you think are in your own self-interest.

. . . .

If government starts manipulating decision-making processes, then individuals won’t learn to think for themselves.

. . . .

But, in practice, it is hard to feel that my decision-making powers have been weakened because when I got my driver’s license enrolling in organ donation was the default option. It’s hard to feel that a cafeteria is insulting my liberty if it puts the healthy fruit in a prominent place and the unhealthy junk food in some faraway corner. It’s hard to feel manipulated if I sign up for a program in which I can make commitments today that automatically increase my charitable giving next year. The concrete benefits of these programs, which are empirically verifiable, should trump abstract theoretical objections.

. . . .

These days, we have more to fear from a tattered social fabric than from a suffocatingly tight one. Some modest paternalism might be just what we need."

But is government intervention all about putting healthy fruit (strawberries grown with toxic fumigants?) in prominent places, or is it already somewhat more sinister? Is the Obama administration seeking to lull the populace into passivity?

Consider Charles Krauthammer's opinion piece entitled "War by wordplay" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-obama-distorts-reality-with-language/2013/08/08/22652cf6-006b-11e3-96a8-d3b921c0924a_story.html?hpid=z2) in today's Washington Post, which provides examples of the Obama administration's "penchant for wordplay, the bending of language to fit a political need." Krauthammer writes:

"Jen Psaki, blameless State Department spokeswoman, explained that the hasty evacuation of our embassy in Yemen was not an evacuation but 'a reduction in staff.'

. . . .

In Janet Napolitano’s famous formulation, terror attacks are now 'man-caused disasters.' And the 'global war on terror' is no more. It’s now an 'overseas contingency operation.'

. . . .

Nidal Hasan proudly tells a military court that he, a soldier of Allah, killed 13 American soldiers in the name of jihad. But the massacre remains officially classified as an act not of terrorism but of 'workplace violence.'

The U.S. ambassador to Libya and three others are killed in an al-Qaeda-affiliated terror attack — and for days it is waved off as nothing more than a spontaneous demonstration gone bad."

Krauthammer concludes that this "wordplay is merely cover for uncertain policy embedded in confusion and ambivalence about the whole enterprise."

Krauthammer, however, is wrong. Welcome to "Newspeak," which eliminates the need for thought by the masses. Orwell may have imagined that it would arrive in 1984, but instead, it appears that it will be firmly entrenched in our communication some 30 years later, in 2014.

Heck, I wouldn't mind taking a break from thinking . . . .