Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘politics’ Category

It has been abundantly obvious from day one that Ben Bernanke has no understanding of “liquidity” — whatsoever.

Only 2 months (?) after Bernanke helicoptered $122 billion to AIG, AIG has come cap in hand to Uncle Sam with a down face and a confession: “The money’s all gone.” AIG supposedly wants $200 billion in new money.

AIG in talks with Fed over new bail-out

By Francesco Guerrera in New York

Published: November 8 2008 02:00 | Last updated: November 8 2008 02:00

AIG is asking the US government for a new bail-out less than two months after the Federal Reserve came to the rescue of the stricken insurer with an $85bn loan, according to people close to the situation.

AIG’s executives were last night locked in negotiations with the authorities over a plan that could involve a debt-for-equity swap and the government’s purchase of troubled mortgage-backed securities from the insurer.

People close to the talks said the discussions were on-going and might still collapse, but added that AIG was pressing for a decision before it reports third-quarter results on Monday.

AIG’s board is due to meet on Sunday to approve the results and discuss any new government plan, they added.

The moves come amid growing fears AIG might soon use up the $85bn cash infusion it received from the Fed in September, as well as an additional $37.5bn loan aimed at stemming a cash drain from the insurer’s securities lending unit.

AIG has drawn down more than $81bn of the combined $122.5bn facility. The company’s efforts to begin repaying it before the 2010 deadline have been hampered by its difficulties in selling assets amid the global financial turmoil.

AIG executives have complained to government officials that the interest rate on the initial loan – 8.5 per cent over the London Interbank Borrowing Rate – is crippling the company.

They compared the loan’s terms with the 5 per cent interest rate paid by the banks that recently sold preferred shares to the government.

One of AIG’s proposals to the Fed is to swap the loan, which gave the authorities an 80 per cent stake in the company, for preferred shares or a mixture of debt and equity.

Such a structure would reduce the interest rate to be paid by AIG and possibly the overall amount it has to repay. An extension in the term of the loan from the current two years to five years is also possible, according to people close to the situation.

The renegotiation of the loan could be accompanied by the government’s purchase of billions of dollars in mortgage-backed securities whose steep fall in value has been draining AIG cash reserves.

AIG is also proposing the government buy the bonds underlying its troubled portfolio of credit default swaps in exchange for the roughly $30bn in collateral the company holds against the assets.

Losses on the mortgage-backed assets, which were acquired by AIG with the proceeds of its securities lending programme, and the CDSs caused the company’s collapse.

Since the government rescue, they have continued to haunt AIG, which is required to put up extra capital every time the value of these assets falls. AIG and the Fed declined to comment.

Red staters get a lot of sh*t from their coastal cousins for being stupid. I will say one thing in red staters’ defense, though: it truly takes a blue coast, blue-blood stupidity to concoct such dangerous national policy as Bernanke’s.

It’s the kind of stupidity that only an Ivy League education can buy.

What is Bernanke going to do when he issues $2 trillion in Treasuries next year, and nobody buys?

All the people who thought they got a great deal when Pepsi priced its last bond at 7.5% are going to feel pretty damn stupid 12 months from now. Either that, or AAA corporates will have lower yields than Treasuries.

At the primary dealer desks, there is no net Asian sovereign demand for US sovereigns anymore.

Right now, Uncle Sam is printing the money and planning to float Treasuries “soon.” I am not exaggerating. It is the dirty secret that every FX macro desk at every major institution knows: the Treasury is printing now and issuing later.

In the ivory towers at Treasury and the Fed, “printed” money will be converted to Treasuries soon, because the Fed and Treasury (okay, just the Fed) think that there is an “irrational” “liquidity crisis”, which will abate any day now.

It won’t abate. It will get worse: all bond yields are based on Treasury yields. Treasury yields are definitely going up in the next year. All other yields (corporates … munis … ) will go up too.

That will be the real “credit crisis.” We are just mostly through the second act.

Read Full Post »

Criminal

The most criminally ingenious short squeeze in history, engineered by those cunning Germans at Porsche.

Fortunate for them that they’re a “car company.” If a hedge fund had tried to pull that in Germany, the managers, the PMs, the traders, the analysts, the back office IT, and everybody else in the same building would have already been packed off to the gas chambers by now.

Since hedge funds are “bad,” and Hank Paulson is “out to kill the bad HFs and regulate the rest,” David Einhorn can be allowed to squirm in his final moments, instead, as he chokes on a large short position.

All the prime broker intermediaries (GS, MS, Soc Gen, etc) will be repaid the difference in money printed at Treasury, so at the end of the day, what do they care, whether they were caught on the wrong side or not?

GS told us to post 500 percent margin today to keep our VW short position.

(We posted it.)

It was a small position, luckily.

Read Full Post »

Complacency triumphant:

The pollsters for John McCain’s campaign sent out a memo challenging the findings of a poll conducted by the Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg. Hundreds of polls are released during a typical campaign without such a public objection. One finding in particular caught their attention. According to the L.A. Times, 22 percent of those surveyed identified themselves as Republicans, 39 percent as Democrats, and 27 percent as independents. The party identification in this poll, argued McCain’s pollsters, “is greatly out of line with what most other surveys are reporting.”

They’re right. And that fact probably helps explain why the L.A. Times/Bloomberg poll has Barack Obama beating John McCain by 15 points (in a field including Nader and Barr)–a much larger margin than most other respected polls. (The Gallup daily tracking poll, the McCain campaign eagerly points out, has McCain down just 3 points.)

McCain’s pollsters point to the findings of other surveys on party identification. That they would do this suggests just how damaged the Republican party brand is heading into the 2008 general election. Although the L.A. Times/Bloomberg poll shows a larger gap between Democrats and Republicans than all others–+17 for Democrats–the news for Republicans is uniformly bad.

Among the numbers the McCain campaign highlighted: AP/Ipsos’s +14 for Democrats; CBS News/New York Times‘s +14 for Democrats; and Democracy Corps’s +12 for Democrats. The average advantage for Democrats in the ten surveys the McCain campaign cited was 9.3 points. So Republicans are clearly at a significant disadvantage.

The conventional wisdom, adopted and internalized by many on the McCain campaign, is that McCain must move to the center to appeal to independents. So that’s largely what he’s done. Immediately after McCain became the de facto nominee, he toured the country touting his biography. Shortly after that he spent a week on a trip informally dubbed the “Places Republicans Don’t Go” tour. Not long afterwards, he traveled to Washington and Oregon talking about global warming. He has launched radio ads explicitly targeting Hispanics and last month held secret meetings with Hispanic and gay leaders. Twice in recent weeks, McCain has participated in virtual town halls targeting disaffected Democrats and moderates.

[…]

“Where are they going to go?” asks one McCain adviser, expressing a sentiment I’ve heard from several others.

One possibility: nowhere. Unmotivated by a candidate who would rather talk about global warming than gay marriage, conservatives might simply stay home. This lack of enthusiasm for McCain among conservatives was evident in the Washington Post/ABC News poll taken in mid-June. Ninety-one percent of those who identified themselves as Obama supporters say they are “enthusiastic” about their candidate; 54 percent say they are “very enthusiastic.” Seventy-three percent of self-identified McCain supporters say they are “enthusiastic” about his candidacy; but only 17 percent say they are “very enthusiastic.” More ominous, while almost half of the liberals surveyed are enthusiastic about Obama, only 13 percent of conservatives are enthusiastic about McCain.

Republican pollster David Winston believes that McCain can close this enthusiasm gap by campaigning on issues where there are sharp differences between the candidates. “We are still a center-right country,” says Winston. “And voters will still prefer a center-right candidate to a liberal one.” …

All surveys are showing declining Republican affiliation over their time series. Whether it’s Dems +8 or Dems +15, Republican party ID has collapsed over the past 12 months.

At this point in the horse race, the guy arguing against the data trends is the guy who’s losing.

Oil prices aren’t going anywhere until Asian economies stop subsidizing oil consumption, which incidentally would cripple the Asian export advantage by forcing businesses to pay the full cost of energy. Therefore, inflation-driven discontent against the incumbent administration won’t subside in the near term.

Read Full Post »

Limits Put on Some Oil Contracts On ICE Amid Outcry Over Prices
By IAN TALLEY
June 17, 2008

WASHINGTON — The U.S. commodity futures regulator Tuesday said ICE
Futures Europe has agreed to make permanent position and
accountability limits for some of its U.S.-traded crude contracts,
subjecting itself to the same regulatory oversight as its New York
based counterpart.

Following intense scrutiny and censure by Congress over skyrocketing
oil prices, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission also said it
would require daily large trader reports, and similar position and
accountability limits from other foreign exchanges.

Many in Congress have criticized the agency for not doing enough to
rein in what they believe is rampant speculation contributing to
record energy prices and have pointed the finger in particular at
trading on IntercontinentalExchange’s ICE Futures Europe.

ICE and other foreign exchanges have been exempt from the many of the
rules that govern the New York Mercantile Exchange, which critics
charge has attracted a host of financial investors intent on pushing
prices higher. The new agreement, made in consultation with the U.K.’s
Financial Services Authority, will subject ICE to the same oversight
as Nymex.

“This combination of enhanced information data and additional market
controls will help the CFTC in its surveillance of its regulated
domestic exchanges,” while preserving the integrity of its
cross-border cooperation with other regulators, acting CFTC Chairman
Walter Lukken said in prepared testimony.

“We have not found a smoking gun… [but] we’re definitely taking
constructive steps to make sure the markets are working correctly, to
make sure there is not excessive speculation driving the markets,” Mr.
Lukken said.

Specifically, the agreement will require trader reports on positions
in the benchmark U.S. crude contract — the West Texas Intermediate
contract — traded on the ICE Futures exchange. The contract is linked
to the WTI contract on the regulated New York Mercantile Exchange.

ICE has 120 days to implement the new reporting requirements.

On the Nymex, where the majority of oil futures are traded, most
traders face accountability levels and position limits on their
positions in crude oil and other commodities. Accountability levels
are guidelines for trading in all futures contracts, while position
limits are hard-and-fast caps on the number of front-month contracts a
trader may hold in the last three days before the contract expires.

Traditionally, the U.K.’s FSA has had informal accountability levels
of 10,000 contracts in West Texas Intermediate crude, but no position
limits, an ICE spokeswoman said. The new CFTC rules will make ICE oil
trading consistent with practices on Nymex: a 3,000 contract position
limit in the last three days of trading, and a 20,000-contract
accountability level.

Lukken said the same oversight requirements would apply to the Dubai
Mercantile Exchange if it were to also offer the WTI contract.

The Nymex and DME have been mulling offering such a contract and will
decide in the next few months, said Nymex chief executive James
Newsome.

ICE Warns Oversight Won’t Lower Prices

The CFTC will incorporate the ICE data into its commitment of traders
report, a weekly report categorizing positions held by speculators and
companies that use futures contract to hedge against operations in the
physical energy market.

ICE said it would comply with the new regulations but warned tighter
oversight won’t lower oil prices.

“With a mere 15% market share of global WTI, on a futures equivalent
basis, we feel it is highly unlikely that the ICE Futures Europe’s WTI
market is the primary driver of WTI prices,” Charles Vice, ICE
president, told a special Senate committee exploring exploring
oversight and resources for the CFTC.

“Therefore, any expectation that WTI crude oil prices will fall as a
result of increased restrictions on this relatively small portion of
that market are likely to go unmet,” he said.

Jennifer Gordon, an analyst at Deutsche Bank in New York said the
greater regulatory oversight was driving volatility and leading to
less liquidity in the oil markets. “So whatever the CFTC is doing, it
is certainly scaring away the marginal player,” she said. Ms. Gordon
noted that the CFTC move was “adding to the bearish tone on crude,” in
Tuesday trading.

Oil prices climbed within shouting distance of $140 a barrel on Monday
before slipping towards $134.03 on Tuesday, down 58 cents. Prices are
still up about 40% so far this year.

The CFTC action follows rebuke by Congress, which has ratcheted up its
efforts to regulate oil-markets trading. Several of the most powerful
U.S. senators and representatives have introduced proposals that would
give more money and power to the agency.

In the past several weeks, the CFTC has announced a raft of
investigations and new initiatives targeting speculation, the role of
financial participants in current prices and the potential for market
manipulation. Mr. Lukken said the agency couldn’t rule out that market
manipulation was going on in the commodity markets.

The agency disclosed in late May that it is conducting a broad
investigation into practices surrounding the purchase, transportation,
storage and trading of crude oil and related derivative contracts.

Mr. Lukken said the agency was studying the impact of swaps deals and
index trading in the commodity markets and would report back to
Congress by Sept. 15.

The agency said the massive increase in commodity trading, the growing
complexity of the market and an aging CFTC workforce meant that it was
just about able to maintain a business status quo.

“This agency’s lack of funding over the course of many years has had a
negative impact on our staffing situation, rendering it unsustainable
for the long run,” Mr. Lukken said.

“Given our staffing numbers, the agency is working beyond its steady
state capacity and is unable to sustain the current situation for much
longer without being forced to make…choices about which critical
projects should be completed and which ones will be delayed,” the
acting chairman said in his testimony.

The agency is now requesting a 20% rise in its funding for the next
fiscal year to $157 million, from $130 million previously requested.

Read Full Post »

Thomas Palley, Open Society Institute pontificator emeritus cum DC-cocktail laude, mocks himself best when he’s most honest. As do most political people.

Defending the Bernanke Fed

Filed under: U.S. Policy, Uncategorized — Administrator @ 6:37 am

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has recently been on the receiving end of significant criticism for recent monetary policy. One critique can be labeled the American conservative critique, and is associated with the Wall Street Journal. The other can be termed the European critique, and is associated with prominent European Economist and Financial Times contributor, Willem Buiter.

Brought up on the intellectual ideas of Milton Friedman, American conservatives view inflation as the greatest economic threat and believe control of inflation should be the Fed’s primary job. In their eyes the Bernanke Fed has dangerously ignored emerging inflation dangers, and that policy failure risks a return to the disruptive stagflation of the 1970s.

Both argue the Fed has engaged in excessive monetary easing, cutting interest rates too much and ignoring the perils of inflation. Their criticisms raise core questions about the conduct of policy that warrant a response.

At least he didn’t call us “liquidationists.” Generous.

Rather than cutting interest rates as steeply as the Fed has, American conservatives maintain the proper way to address the financial crisis triggered by the deflating house price bubble is to re-capitalize the financial system.

Correct.

This explains the efforts of Treasury Secretary Paulson to reach out to foreign investors in places like Abu Dhabi. The logic is that foreign investors are sitting on mountains of liquidity, and they can therefore re-capitalize the system without recourse to lower interest rates that supposedly risk a return of ‘70’s style inflation.

“Supposedly.

The European critique of the Fed is slightly different, and is that the Fed has gone about responding to the financial crisis in the wrong way. The European view is that the crisis constitutes a massive liquidity crisis, and as such the Fed should have responded by making liquidity available without lowering rates. That is the course European Central Bank has taken, holding the line on its policy interest rate but making massive quantities of liquidity available to Euro zone banks.

In other words, the Buiter critique advocates one set of interest rates for banks, and a very different one for individuals, without regard to respective credit risk. Presumably, there would be no arbitrage between these two bifurcated markets. Presumably, liquidity provisions to other banks–“inflation by other means”–would both 1) save the banks, and 2) not institutionalize higher prices on the tabs of the people who didn’t take the stupid risks.

Never made much sense to me either. [I used to like Buiter because he was the only person who trashed Bernanke way back in the day. Unfortunately his “lender of last resort” bailout loophole was an unforgivable leap of illogic, and while formally very different from the Bank of Japan’s disastrous early-1990’s bailout, was functionally indistinguishable.]

According to the European critique the Fed should have done the same. Thus, the Fed’s new Term Securities Lending Facility that makes liquidity available to investment banks was the right move. However, there was no need for the accompanying sharp interest rate reductions given the inflation outlook. By lowering rates, the European view asserts the Fed has raised the risks of a return of significantly higher persistent inflation. Additionally, lowering rates in the current setting has damaged the Fed’s anti-inflation credibility and aggravated moral hazard in investing practices.

The problem with the American conservative critique is that inflation today is not what it used to be.

It’s different this time.

1970s inflation was rooted in a price – wage spiral in which price increases were matched by nominal wage increases. However, that spiral mechanism no longer exists because workers lack the power to protect themselves. The combination of globalization, the erosion of job security, and the evisceration of unions means that workers are unable to force matching wage increases.

DC establishment liberal: “Inflation is okay now, because workers have to eat all costs themselves.” As if workers will just sit back and take this? As if they can’t read these internet posts, which presume weakness, ignorance and stupidity on the part of American workers?

The problem with the European critique is it over-looks the scale of the demand shock the U.S. economy has received. Moreover, that demand shock is on-going. Falling house prices and the souring of hundreds of billions of dollars of mortgages has caused the financial crisis. However, in addition, falling house prices have wiped out hundreds of billions of household wealth. That in turn is weakening demand as consumer spending slows in response to lower household wealth.

Different. This. Time.

Countering this negative demand shock is the principal rationale for the Fed’s decision to lower interest rates. Whereas Europe has been impacted by the financial crisis, it has not experienced an equivalent demand shock. That explains the difference in policy responses between the Fed and the European Central Bank, and it explains why the European critique is off mark.

The bottom line is that current criticism of the Bernanke Fed is unjustified. Whereas the Fed was slow to respond to the crisis as it began unfolding in the summer of 2007, it has now caught up and the stance of policy seems right. Liquidity has been made available to the financial system. Low interest rates are countering the demand shock. And the Fed has signaled its awareness of inflationary dangers by speaking to the problem of exchange rates and indicating it may hold off from further rate cuts. The only failing is that is that the Fed has not been imaginative or daring enough in its engagement with financial regulatory reform.

Copyright Thomas I. Palley

The bottom line is, DC policy emerati are profoundly ignorant, sycophantic, and irresponsible people.

Read Full Post »

As noted here time and again, Iran has nothing to lose by waiting out the end of George Bush’s term.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said May 29 that Iran thinks U.S. voters want to change the foreign policies of President George W. Bush, and he said that the present U.S. presidential campaigns make that clear, The Associated Press reported. Mottaki, who would not endorse a candidate, said that foreign policy would play an important part in the election of the next U.S. president.

Iran could not have had a better March-May. A rumored Israeli Gaza offensive, against Iran’s proxy Hamas, failed to materialize. Hezbollah, staked by Iran, was forced to go all-in in Lebanon, won, and has returned to a defensive crouch.

Mottaki’s announcement is a signal to Ahmadinejad’s domestic foes that Iraq is worth waiting for for a little while longer. He happens to be right.

US econo-political analysis is divided into two camps. The “mainstream” camp sees US growth figures as credible, and takes at face value the idea that the US, by sheer economic vitality, has avoided a recession. This school views US inflation as temporary. It views 10/90 “right track/wrong track” numbers as merely a dubious poll, a product of stampeding pessimism, spawned by the media’s sensationalizing of US malaise. This group has faith in government and banking institutions, and little faith in consumers’ ability to assess or predict their own behavior. Curiously, this group is also disproportionately Republican and “free-market.” It does not see much potential for an economic- or inflation-driven political upheaval in November 2008.

The “cynics,” e.g., Bill Gross, Mish Shedlock, and John Williams, trust consumers’ perceptions over the government’s. Cynics argue that consumers are telling the truth when they say how pessimistic they are, and trace the dissonance between official and consumer perceptions to vagaries of BLS unemployment and inflation accounting–a story flogged to death here, and much more persuasively on other sites.

The cynics see much higher potential for political upheaval in November 2008.

Apparently, so does Iran.

Bush Administration policy vis-a-vis Iran/Iraq usually means dialing up tensions over Iranian nukes and weapons supplies into Iraq, bringing up aircraft carriers, launching large operations against Iran’s Mehdi Army Iraqi proxy, slapping sanctions on Iranian banks, using its own militias to incinerate strategic people inside Iran, etc.

After Hezbollah routed the US alliance in Lebanon (followed by an abrupt end to the US/Iraqi crackdown on Sadr in Baghdad) one would assume that the Bush Administration policy of “we’d like to talk, but we’re happy to pull the trigger too” attitude has lost credibility. Iran is quietly leveraging its gains by edging the US out of Iraq:

May 29, 2008 1419 GMT
Senior Iraqi official Sa’ad Javad Qandil told Alalam television May 29 that a draft of an agreement to extend U.S. troops in Iraq beyond 2008 was problematic, especially any condition that would allow the U.S. to establish a military base there.

Predictably, Qandil is a member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, Teheran’s “mainstream” Iraq proxy (the Mehdi Army is, most of the time, its militant proxy). Hezbollah’s unanswered victory in Lebanon has ramifications across the entire region, not so much in the eyes of Americans as in the eyes of Arabs who were reminded, once again, that the personal bonds between Ahmadinejad and militia leaders can result in very quick and decisive action when Teheran’s interest are threatened.

Anyway, Iran hasn’t been deterred by US tough talk in the past, and there’s less reason than ever to think that louder tough talk will change Iran’s behavior at all. Lebanon has changed the game.

I would repeat my “sh*t or get off the pot” mantra about the US and Iran, but the US has backed down one too many times. I’m beginning to believe we should throw the Saudis the keys as soon as possible, to hedge against a probably adverse US election outcome while it’s still possible.

Read Full Post »

“With Bold Steps, Fed Chief Quiets Some Criticism”:

[…]

“It has been a really head-spinning range of unprecedented and bold actions,” said Charles W. Calomiris, professor of finance and economics at Columbia Business School, referring to the Fed’s lending activities. “That is exactly as it should be. But I’m not saying that it’s without some cost and without some risk.”

[As yours truly noted back in November, Charles Calomiris wrote a verbose and obtuse article for VoxEU which proclaimed that there was no credit crisis — a restatement of his August claim that there was no credit crisis. I guess that makes him almost as good a forecaster as Bernanke is. ]

Timothy F. Geithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and a close Bernanke ally, defines the Fed chief’s “doctrine” as the overpowering use of monetary policies and lending to avert an economic collapse. “Ben has, in very consequential ways, altered the framework for how central banks operate in crises,” he said. “Some will criticize it and some will praise it, and it will certainly be examined for decades.”

Mr. Bernanke’s actions have transformed his image as a self-effacing former economics professor.

“I am tempted to think of him as somewhat Buddha-like,” said Richard W. Fisher, president of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank. “He’s developed a serenity based on a growing understanding of the hardball ways the system actually works. You can see that it’s no longer an academic or theoretical exercise for him.”

Did he just say “Buddha-like”?

Within the Bush administration, Mr. Bernanke’s willingness to work with Democrats in Congress on measures to prevent mortgage foreclosures has stirred unease. “The fact that he, an appointee of George Bush, has come very close to advocating — though he hasn’t quite advocated it — a piece of legislation that George Bush threatened to veto is an illustration of his willingness to put his head on the chopping block,” said Alan S. Blinder, a professor of economics at Princeton and friend of the Fed chief.

One reason Mr. Bernanke is sticking his neck out is that he believes the broader economy’s recovery depends on the housing sector, which remains in a serious slump. Plenty of new evidence surfaced on Tuesday that this year’s spring home-buying season will be dismal, with one report showing that prices fell 14.1 percent in March from a year earlier and another that new-home sales are down 42 percent over the last year.

Among Democrats, Mr. Bernanke, a Republican, had previously been criticized by such party luminaries as the two former Clinton administration Treasury secretaries, Robert E. Rubin and Lawrence E. Summers, who worried that he was downplaying the dangers of a recession. But that view has changed.

“I think in the last few months they’ve handled themselves very sure-footedly,” Mr. Rubin said of the Fed. Many Democrats in Congress agree.

“They say that crisis makes the man,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee. “He’s made believers out of people who were just not sure about him before.”

To lessen the chances of a financial collapse, Mr. Bernanke engineered the takeover of one investment bank, Bear Stearns, and tossed credit lifelines to others with exotic new lending facilities — the Fed now has seven such lending windows, some of them for investment banks as well as commercial banks.

He also allowed the Fed to accept assets of debatable value — mortgage-backed securities, car loans and credit card debt — as collateral for some Fed loans. For the first time ever, he installed Fed regulators inside investment banks to inspect their books.

Much to the dismay of conservative economists, Mr. Bernanke has also presided over an extraordinarily aggressive series of interest rate cuts, lowering the fed funds rate seven times, to 2 percent from 5.75 percent, since last September, though it has signaled a pause in further rate-cutting barring a further crisis. …

Bernanke and Paulson are the worst thing that’s happened to capitalism since Arthur Burns and Richard Nixon. Carter would have been awful, but conditions were so bad by 1979 that he had to authorize significant deregulation and capital gains tax cuts (from 35% to 28%, from memory) kicking and screaming.

Read Full Post »

During a somewhat heated argument with some Jewish friends over Israel’s recent backstabbing of the US, a national security hobbyist recommended the following article as a defense of recent Israeli policy. Phrases which jumped out at me are highlighted in bold.

Hizbollah’s Increased Strength: Risks and Opportunities for Israel, INSS Insight No. 57, May 26, 2008
Shalom, Zaki

One tangible aftermath of the Second Lebanon War and the agreement that concluded it is an increase in Hizbollah’s strength. [… …]

Since the end of the Second Lebanon War, Hizbollah has succeeded in rehabilitating its forces to a great extent. According to various reports, Hizbollah today has tens of thousands of missiles, some of them long range, and is capable of inflicting very serious damaged deep into Israel. Thus, the risks involved in Hizbollah taking control of Lebanon are quite apparent. Less apparent are the pluses that may emerge from this process.

[Hezbollah didn’t “rehabilitate” anything. Its victory in 2006 did not even require a full Hezbollah mobilization. 10,000 IDF soldiers were defeated by 3,000 Hezbollah fighters. At most 184 Hezbollah fighters were killed in the war — much less than the “at least 450” bandied about by Israeli propaganda.]

[…]

… For many years Lebanon has been ruled by moderate, pro-West leaders. This leadership views Hizbollah as a bitter and hostile rival, and it too is interested in clipping the organization’s wings. At the same time, Lebanese leaders are afraid of a confrontation, and in practice allow Hizbollah to operate against Israel in a “bloodletting” effort, while stressing their inability to restrain the organization. When Israel responds against Lebanon, the Lebanese leadership uses its good relations with Western countries, in particular the United States and the moderate Arab countries, to exert pressure on Israel not to harm it.

This phenomenon was evidenced in prominent fashion on July 12, 2006. In a Cabinet discussion held after the serious consequences of that day’s Hizbollah operation became clear, then-Chief of Staff Dan Halutz proposed attacking infrastructure installations in Lebanon, including electric plants, oil refineries, and water sources. His suggestion was supported by a number of ministers. However, the senior political echelon, and in particular the prime minister, defense minister, and minister of foreign affairs, vetoed the idea. The reason: unequivocal clarifications received by Israel that very same day from senior levels in the American administration and the British government to the effect that Israel must refrain from damaging Lebanese targets [1] because this might undermine the stability of the pro-Western government headed by Fouad Siniora. Consequently, the proposal was shelved.

We lack adequate tools to assess whether that proposal, if implemented, would have generated an essentially different outcome from the events of July-August 2006. Nonetheless, it is clear that an American-British veto of this option stemmed from the fact that the official government in Lebanon was pro-Western and enjoyed the support of the United States. The fact that Israel was not able to exercise the option to attack Lebanon represents a significant constraint on Israel’s freedom to maneuver.

Should Hizbollah in fact take control of Lebanon, Israel’s options of maneuvering vis-à-vis Hizbollah are significantly increased. It will become clear to all sides that no international element will get involved to protect Hizbollah from Israeli attacks. Obviously, this does not mean that Israel would necessarily attack Lebanon’s infrastructure should Hizbollah cast down the gauntlet. Beyond international constraints, the Israeli leadership also has to contend with a set of legal and normative, value-based constraints and restrictions that would make it very difficult indeed for Israel to take steps against civilian infrastructure.[2] This has become clear in Israel’s refraining from damaging the electrical and fuel infrastructures of the Gaza Strip under Hamas control. At the same time, there is no doubt that Hizbollah’s taking control of Lebanon would expand Israel’s ability to maneuver vis-à-vis Lebanon in case of another armed conflict, at least from the international perspective.

From Israel’s own perspective, Hizbollah is first and foremost a body representing a military threat against Israel. However, Hizbollah is also a powerful body with economic and financial assets, and an organization with far-reaching political ambitions. Therefore, in any military confrontation with Israel, if Hizbollah holds the reins of leadership it would conclude that there is nothing stopping Israel from severely damaging its assets. The very awareness of this fact, i.e., that there would not be anyone trying to delimit Israel’s scope of action in terms of damaging Lebanon, may cause it to refrain from a confrontation with Israel.

Beyond this, one may speculate that Hizbollah’s taking control of Lebanon will bring about a new awareness on the part of various international elements of the “Iranian threat.” To date, the concerns of the international community regarding Iran have focused on its intention to develop nuclear capabilities. Hizbollah’s taking control of Lebanon would bring the danger inherent in Iran into sharper relief, not only regarding the nuclear question but also vis-à-vis the stability of other pro-Western regimes in the region, chief among them Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the Gulf states. Such a development might very well match the interests of the State of Israel.

[1] Not only is this immaterial (for reasons which I will soon explain), but it’s also an audacious exaggeration.

Very few people know the exact phrasing of the back-channel US request/ demand/ recommendation/ “directive” on the scope of Israel’s operations. [Since when was Israel a shackled vassal to US/UK politics?] One would think that collateral damage to Lebanon was of secondary importance to winning the war.

More importantly, however, Lebanon 2006 was an Israeli tactical, strategic, intellectual and logistical catastrophe, from top to bottom. Had Hezbollah’s military bandwidth been stretched by the conflict, a Western “veto” of strikes on Hezbollah assets such as power generators, etc., could have borne culpability.

However, Hezbollah’s capabilities were not remotely stretched. Hezbollah didn’t even call up its own reserves!

The US Army has at least one detailed dissection of Israel’s Second Lebanon War, by Matt Matthews of the US Army Combined Arms Center. It could be that politics could have obscured the mention of retrospectively adverse US “directives” in an Army study. That isn’t consistent with Army practice, but I will concede it for the sake of argument.

[2] is long-hand for, “We base our policy on what others think of us, not on what we believe best for our country; and anyway, our culture just doesn’t let us win wars anymore.” “One may speculate” that Israel has completely lost its martial vigor as well as touch with reality. But Nasrallah’s and Ahmadinejad’s vindication is no matter of speculation.

Without further ado, here’s a representative US Army assessment of Lebanon 2006:

[p. 25-26]

… Brigadier General Shimon Naveh’s Systemic Operational Design (SOD) was a tool intended to help IDF commanders plan their campaigns. Naveh founded the IDF’s Operational Theory Research Institute (OTRI) in 1995. After years of work by Naveh and other intellectuals within the OTRI, SOD attempted to provide commanders with the aptitude necessary “to think critically, systemically and methodologically about 25 war fighting.” The design focused “on the concept of the ‘enemy’ and provides operational commanders with tools to conceptualize both their enemies and themselves for the purpose of designing suitable campaigns,” wrote a former OTRI member.38

Canadian Army officer L. Craig Dalton, who interviewed Naveh in 2006, described SOD as an “intellectual exercise that draws on the creative vision, experience, intuition, and judgment of commanders to provide a framework for the development of detailed operational plans.”39 For this new design, Naveh drew heavily on terminology from “post modern French philosophy, literary theory, architecture and psychology.” An IDF general explained SOD in the following way:

This space that you look at, this room that you look at, is nothing but your interpretation of it. Now, you can stretch the boundaries of your interpretation, but not in an unlimited fashion, after all, it must be bound by physics, as it contains buildings and alleys. The question is, how do you interpret the alley? Do you interpret the alley as a place, like every architect and every town planner does, to walk through, or do you interpret the alley as a place forbidden to walk through? This depends only on interpretation. We interpreted the alley as a place forbidden to walk through, and the window as a place forbidden to look through, because a weapon awaits us in the alley, and a booby trap awaits us behind the doors. This is because the enemy interprets space in a traditional, classical manner, and I do not want to obey this interpretation and fall into his trap. Not only do I not want to fall into his traps, I want to surprise him! This is the essence of war. I need to win. I need to emerge from an unexpected place. . . . This is why we opted for the methodology of moving through walls. . . . Like a worm that eats its way forward, emerging at points and then disappearing.40

For the IDF, the major problem with SOD was the new terminology and methodology. Not every officer in the IDF had the time or the inclination to study postmodern French philosophy. It was questionable whether the majority of IDF officers would grasp a design that Naveh proclaimed was “not intended for ordinary mortals.”41 Many IDF officers thought the entire program elitist, while others could not understand why the old system of simple orders and terminology was being replaced by a design that few could understand.42

After several alterations and revisions, the new IDF doctrine was endorsed and signed by the new Chief of the IDF General Staff, Lieutenant-General Dan Halutz, in April 2006. Halutz was the fi rst IAF officer ever appointed Chief of the IDF General Staff. On the first page of the document, Halutz wrote, “Familiarity with and use of the concept of operation are the key to our success in warfare, in which the only option available is victory. Therefore, the commanding offi cers of the IDF must understand, assimilate and implement what is written there when they call their forces into action and prepare them for their goal.”43 It is possible that not even Halutz understood the new doctrine he endorsed and signed. Naveh explained that the “core of this document is the theory of SOD.”

[p. 37]

Halutz convinced Olmert and Peretz that Israel should strike back against Hezbollah and the Lebanese central government with a substantial air campaign. The plan was not designed to directly or fully crush Hezbollah’s capabilities but to produce “effects” that would force Hezbollah out of southern Lebanon and cause them to disarm.14 Halutz proposed an immense air strike against “symbolic” Lebanese targets and Hezbollah’s military resources. The plan also called for targeted strikes against Hezbollah’s military and political leadership. “His idea,” Naveh stated, “was that . . . we hit all these targets [and] Hezbollah will collapse as a military organization. No one really believed that the Lebanese government was in position to really pressure Hezbollah. The idea was that Hezbollah would give up and then everybody would go home happy. Again, the idea was to change something in the equation; to change the conditions by forcing them to become political and abandon the military option.”15 Hezbollah, however, had prepared for an effects-based campaign, and the Lebanese government was too weak and incapable of challenging Hezbollah. There was simply no lever to pull that would cause Hezbollah to crumple.16

While some Israeli politicians and IDF officers were skeptical of Halutz’s campaign plan, he failed to effectively address or present their doubts to Olmert and Peretz. The Winograd Report maintains Halutz did not reveal substantial deficiencies in the ground forces that may well thwart the success of their mission. Furthermore, he did not adequately address the fact that the military’s own assessment indicated ground operations would most likely be warranted.17

The stage was now set to reveal to the world what one Israeli writer described as “a witches brew of high tech fantasies and basic unpreparedness.”18 …

[p. 45]

… A general on Hulutz’s staff told a reporter on 22 July that “The goal is not necessarily to eliminate every Hezbollah rocket. What we must do is disrupt the military logic of Hezbollah. I would say that this is still not a matter of days away.” Many ground commanders were stunned by the remark and questioned the true aims of the war.10

On the same day the IDF reserve forces were called to duty, Israel was forced to request an emergency resupply of precision-guided missiles from the United States. In 10 days, the IAF had used up most of its high-tech munitions, and yet, this huge expenditure of weaponry did little to change Hezbollah’s “military logic” or its fighting capability. Mossad was already gathering information to leak to the press on 28 July, indicating “Hezbollah had not suffered a significant degradation in its military capabilities, and that the organization might be able to carry on the conflict for several months.”11

… Hezbollah Secretary- Undeterred by the failure of the air campaign and stiff Hezbollah resistance, Halutz and his staff continued efforts to secure a “consciousness of victory” and to deliver to Hezbollah a “cognitive perception of defeat.” …General Nasrallah had delivered his well-known victory speech in Bint Jbeil after the 2000 Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon. Halutz asserted that capturing the town would prove symbolic and “create a spectacle of victory.” This “spectacle of victory” was undoubtedly designed to effect the cognitive perception of Hezbollah. In the end, however, the battle for Bint Jbeil would have a great deal more effect on the Israeli public’s perception of the IDF’s professionalism and judgment.13 …

… Halutz ordered Adams to “conquer Bint Jbeil” with just one battalion. Adam was infuriated and quickly reminded his commander that “the casbah [old quarter] of Bint Jbail alone contained more than 5,000 houses. And you want me to send in one battalion?” …

[p. 50]

By 5 August, the IDF had approximately 10,000 soldiers in southern Lebanon. In three weeks of war, the ground forces managed to penetrate no farther than four miles. Remarkably, the border zone remained unsecured, as were the towns of Maroun al Ras and Bint Jbeil.34 Yet, the entire Hezbollah force south of the Litani consisted of only 3,000 fighters. Unlike the IDF, Hezbollah did not call on its sizable reserve forces and chose to fight the entire war south of the Litani with its original force of 3,000 men.35 For Israel and the IDF, there was still no “spectacle of victory” or any sign of Hezbollah’s impending defeat. …

… Knowing full well that the war would be over in days and the old border reestablished, Olmert and Peretz made the decision to expand the 52 war effort by ordering their divisions north to the Litani. It was perhaps one of the most bizarre episodes of the war. While the reasoning for the offensive maneuver remains clouded, the move was clearly not designed to annihilate Hezbollah. Ron Tira was certain that “at no point was an order given to systemically and comprehensively deal with the rockets or Hezbollah.”40 It would appear that the IDF was still following Halutz’s “raid” strategy, albeit this time with divisions instead of battalions and brigades.41 Senior IDF officers would later state that the operation was designed as a “Battle of Awareness against Hizbollah.” Others thought the operation was designed as “a kind of show designed to demonstrate to Hizbollah who is the Boss.”42

I’m guessing that my long-term readers have been driven to nausea from my endless ruminations on Lebanon. However, this will go a long way to explaining future US policy shifts away from Israel.

The INSS is presumably a respected and connected part of the Israeli nonprofit think-tank apparatus. While Dan “Derrida” Halutz may have been thrown on his sword, the intellectual arrogance exemplified by Halutz continues to rule Israeli strategy in Halutz’s stead. Not only that, but Israeli commentators (beyond this one) have the chutzpah to blame the United States for such dereliction!

In other news, Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah today gave his blessing to “all the resistance fighters in Iraq.” Including, presumably, al Qaeda.

Here’s to Israel.

Read Full Post »

via

Sunday night, May 11, the Israeli army was poised to strike Hizballah. The Shiite militia was winding up its takeover of West Beirut and battling pro-government forces in the North. When he opened the regular cabinet meeting Sunday, May 11, prime minister Ehud Olmert had already received the go-ahead from Washington for a military strike to halt the Hizballah advance. The message said that President George W. Bush would not call off his visit to Israel to attend its 60th anniversary celebrations and would arrive as planned Wednesday, May 14 – even if the Israeli army was still fighting in Lebanon and Hizballah struck back against Tel Aviv and Ben-Gurion airport.

American intelligence estimated that Hizballah was capable of retaliating against northern Israel at the rate of 600 missiles a day.

Olmert, defense minister Ehud Barak and foreign minister Tzipi Lvini, the only ministers in the picture, decided not to intervene in Lebanon’s civil conflict. Iran’s surrogate army consequently waltzed unchecked to its second victory in two years over the United States and Israel.

DEBKAfile’s US and military sources disclose the arguments Washington marshaled to persuade Israel to go ahead: Hizballah, after its electronic trackers had learned from the Israel army’s communication and telephone networks that not a single troop or tank was on the move, took the calculated risk of transferring more than 5,000 armed men from the South to secure the capture of West Beirut.

This presented a rare moment to take Hizballah by surprise, Washington maintained. The plan outlined in Washington was for the Israeli Air force to bombard Hizballah’s positions in the South, the West and southern Beirut. This would give the pro-government Christian, Sunni and Druze forces the opening for a counter-attack. Israeli tanks would simultaneously drive into the South and head towards Beirut in two columns.

1. The western column would take the Tyre-Sidon-Damour-Beirut coastal highway.

2. The eastern column would press north through Nabatiya, Jezzine, Ain Zchalta and Alei.

Sunday night, Olmert called Lebanese prime minister Fouad Siniora and his allies, the Sunni majority leader Saad Hariri, head of the mainline Druze party Walid Jumblatt and Christian Phalanges chief Samir Geagea and informed them there would be no Israeli strike against Hizballah. Jerusalem would not come to their aid.

According to American sources, the pro-Western front in Beirut collapsed then and there, leaving Hizballah a free path to victory. The recriminations from Washington sharpened day by day and peaked with President Bush’s arrival in Israel.

Our sources report that, behind the protestations of undying American friendship and camaraderie shown in public by the US president, prime minister and Shimon Peres, Bush and his senior aides bitterly reprimanded Israel for its passivity in taking up the military challenge and crushing an avowed enemy in Lebanon.

While the president was busy with ceremonies and speeches, secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and national security adviser Stephen Hadley took Israeli officials to task. Hadley in particular bluntly blamed Israel for the downfall of the pro-Western government bloc in Beirut and its surrender to the pro-Iranian, Pro-Syrian Hizballah. If Israeli forces had struck Hizballah gunmen wile on the move, he said, Hassan Nasrallah would not have seized Beirut and brought the pro-government militias to their knees.

One US official said straight out to Olmert and Barak: For two years, you didn’t raise a finger when Hizballah took delivery of quantities of weapons, including missiles, from Iran and Syria. You did not interfere with Hizballah’s military buildup in southern Lebanon then or its capture of Beirut now.

IDF generals who were present at these conversations reported they have never seen American officials so angry or outspoken. Israel’s original blunder, they said, was its intelligence misreading of Hizballah’s first belligerent moves on May 4. At that point, Israel’s government military heads decided not to interfere, after judging those moves to be unthreatening.

The Americans similarly criticizes Israel for letting Hamas get away with its daily rocket and missile attacks on Israel civilians year after year. A blow to Hizballah would have deterred Hamas from exercising blackmail tactics for a ceasefire. In Sharm el-Sheikh Sunday, May 18, President Bush called on Middle East countries to confront Hamas and isolate terror-sponsors Iran and Syria.

Familiar fecklessness, indeed. We now know what the “miscalculation” was — the pro-Western Lebanese banked on Israel to back them up. But no: Olmert has an election to win. If Lebanese Sunni and Druze, and American soldiers in Iraq, need to die because because Jewish boys are just too precious… well, that’s the problem of the goyim, not the Jews, right? This will not be forgotten.

At least Rice doesn’t have her head as deep in the sand as I thought.

Either Israel knifed us–big time–or the Israeli government’s corrosive dereliction, entitlement mentality , and serial incompetence have infected the core of their intelligence apparatus.

Oh, yeah–it also shows whom Bush was really referring to in his “appeasement” speech last week. Definitely not Obama, probably not Carter, absolutely Olmert.

I guess the Israeli media is too stupid and/or sycophantic to point out that “inconvenient truth.” A democracy at face value only, indeed.

Read Full Post »

The credit crisis has separated true libertarians from phony libertarians, and separated true liberals from phony liberals.

The phony liberals have inadvertently mocked themselves throughout the entire credit crisis, manning the barricades to defend the greatest act of socialism for the rich in US history. Ditto for supposed “libertarians,” eg Robert Rubin, Bruce Kovner, and the vast majority of institutional Wall Street which found itself drowning in its own quagmire, and changed their tune faster than you can say “WTF.”

Anyway, here’s the link.

The editorial in question is by Robert J. Shiller, who is a professor of economics and finance and famous analyst of speculative bubbles. A specialist in behavioral economics, in the application of psychology to understanding financial markets. A co-founder of Case Shiller Weiss, that house price index we talk about a lot. His editorial, “The Scars of Losing a Home,” speaks not of lofty academic economic concepts but of human sympathy, of things that are “really important.” With references from famous academic psychologists. I haven’t taken this kind of a tiger by the tail since I went after Austan Goolsbee last year.

Yes, it was only a year ago that the distinguished Dr. Goolsbee wrote this on the same editorial page:

And do not forget that the vast majority of even subprime borrowers have been making their payments. Indeed, fewer than 15 percent of borrowers in this most risky group have even been delinquent on a payment, much less defaulted.

When contemplating ways to prevent excessive mortgages for the 13 percent of subprime borrowers whose loans go sour, regulators must be careful that they do not wreck the ability of the other 87 percent to obtain mortgages.

For be it ever so humble, there really is no place like home, even if it does come with a balloon payment mortgage.

I actually think Goolsbee’s piece was the high-water-mark of the “subprime helps the poor” talking point. You certainly don’t hear much about that these days. Less than two months after Dr. Goolsbee’s earnest op-ed, we got an interview in the very same NYT with one Bill Dallas, CEO of the famously defunct Ownit Mortgage, effusively testifying to his own burning desire to help out the unfortunate in a way that finally put paid to the respectability of that line (“‘I am passionate about the normal person owning a home,’ said Mr. Dallas, who is also chairman of the Fox Sports Grill restaurant chain and manages the business interests of the Olsen twins. ‘I think owning a home solves all their problems.'”) Plus by now we’ve got some numbers on the 2007 mortgage vintage, the one that Dr. Goolsbee was afraid wasn’t going to ever materialize if we tightened up lending standards too much. A year ago we were looking at a 13% subprime ARM delinquency rate. Per Moody’s (no link) the Q4 07 subprime ARM delinquencies were running 20.02%. And that is not, you know, “just” another 7%. By now, those delinquent borrowers in Goolsbee’s 13% have probably mostly been foreclosed upon and are off the books. The 20% or so who are now delinquent were either part of the 87% that Goolsbee thought were “successful homeowners” last year, or else they’re those lucky duckies who bought homes after the publication date of Goolsbee’s plea that we not tighten standards too much.

Of course Shiller wasn’t exactly spending his time a year ago defending the subprime mortgage industry on the grounds that it put poor and minority people into ever-so-humble homes with balloons attached. I seem to recall him mostly arguing that homebuyers were engaged in a speculative mania. In a June 2007 interview:

Well, human thinking is built around stories, and the story that has sustained the housing boom is that homes are like stocks. Buy one anywhere and it’ll go up. It’s the easiest way to get rich.

At the time, that kind of statement struck some of us, at least, as not possibly the entire story either, but in any event a useful corrective to the saccharine silliness of the “Ownership Society” and Bill Dallas solving everyone’s problems by letting them put Roots in a Community (for only five points in YSP).

So I hope I can be just a tad startled by the New Shiller:

Homeownership is thus an extension of self; if one owns a part of a country, one tends to feel at one with that country. Policy makers around the world have long known that, and hence have supported the growth of homeownership.

MAYBE that’s why President Bush’s “Ownership Society” theme had such resonance in his 2004 re-election campaign. People instinctively understand that homeownership conveys good feelings about belonging in our society, and that such feelings matter enormously, not only to our economic success but also to the pleasure we can take in it.

So it’s no longer irrational exuberance or plain old speculating; it’s now an instinctive affirmation of some eternal verity of the human psyche? The ultimate patriotism: the definition of self so tied up in ownership of a slice of the motherland that to rent becomes not only psychologically dangerous–these people without selves can’t be up to anything good–but politically dangerous as well? Is it possible that Shiller can mean what he is writing here?

If you just scanned the first few paragraphs of Shiller’s op-ed you might come away with the impression of a sincere but somewhat hackneyed plea for us all to have a bit of sympathy for the foreclosed among us, foreclosure not in anyone’s experience being a walk in the park. Fair enough. It being Sunday in America, I suspect millions of us are being treated to exhortations to take a kinder view of the unfortunate than we often do; we need those exhortations; we are often lacking in sympathy. Hands up all who disagree.

But you keep reading and you find Shiller trying to explain the “trauma” of foreclosure. And that’s where this really gets weird:

Now, let’s take the other perspective — and examine some arguments against the stern view. They have to do with the psychological effects of strict enforcement of a mortgage contract, and economists and people in business may need to be reminded of them. After all, too much attention to abstract economic statistics just might make us overlook what is really important.

First, we have to consider that we cannot squarely place the blame for the current mortgage mess on the homeowner. It seems to be shared among mortgage brokers, mortgage originators, appraisers, regulatory agencies, securities ratings agencies, the chairman of the Federal Reserve and the president of the United States (who did not issue any warnings, but instead has consistently extolled the virtues of homeownership).

Because homeowners facing foreclosure must bear the brunt of the pain, they naturally feel indignation when all of these other parties continue to lead comfortable, even affluent lives. Trying to enforce mortgage contracts may thus have a perverse effect: instead of teaching homeowners that they should respect the contracts they sign, it may incline them to take a cynical view of the whole mess.

We need to modify mortgage contracts to keep homeowners from becoming cynical? That’s somehow more respectable an idea than the one saying we should throw them out on the street to “teach them a lesson”? If Shiller is serious that all those other parties are “to blame,” then why isn’t the obvious solution to throw them out on the street? There seems to be an assumption here that nothing can be done to punish those who are “really” to blame, so we’re left managing the psyches of those who can be punished. And that’s not cynical?

This the point at which Shiller dredges up the most stunningly unfortunate quote from William effing James (1890) to define the “fundamental” psychology of homeownership:

Homeownership is fundamental part of a sense of belonging to a country. The psychologist William James wrote in 1890 that “a man’s Self is the sum total of all that he CAN call his, not only his body and his psychic powers, but his clothes and his house, his wife and children, his ancestors and friends, his reputation and works, his lands and horses, and yacht and bank account.”

Now, that’s breath-taking. Horses. Yachts. His wife and his children. Ancestors. The whole late-Victorian wealthy male WASP defining the “Self” (with a capital!) as the wealthy male WASP surveying his extensive possessions, an oddly-assorted list that ranks the family and friends somewhere after the clothes and the house. (Yes, James did that on purpose.) The kind of sentiment that was a caricature of the late-Victorian male even in 1890. And Shiller drags this out in aid of generating sympathy for homeowners? Really? You couldn’t find some psychological insight about the emotional relationship of people to their homes that doesn’t speak the language of the male ego surveying his domain, sizing himself up against all the other males to see where he ranks?

(James on the psychological effect of losing one’s property: ” . . . although it is true that a part of our depression at the loss of possessions is due to our feeling that we must now go without certain goods that we expected the possessions to bring in their train, yet in every case there remains, over and above this, a sense of the shrinkage of our personality, a partial conversion of ourselves to nothingness, which is a psychological phenomenon by itself. We are all at once assimilated to the tramps and poor devils whom we so despise, and at the same time removed farther than ever away from the happy sons of earth who lord it over land and sea and men in the full-blown lustihood that wealth and power can give, and before whom, stiffen ourselves as we will by appealing to anti-snobbish first principles, we cannot escape an emotion, open or sneaking, of respect and dread.”)

I’m actually, you know, in favor of some sympathy for homeowners, but one thing that does get in the way of that for a lot of us is, well, the rather disgusting shallowness that a lot of them displayed on the way up. There is this whole part of our culture that has sprung into being since 1890 that takes a rather severe view of conspicuous consumption, unbridled materialism, and totally self-defeating use of debt to buy McMansions, if not yachts. We were treated to a fair amount of that kind of thing in the last few years. In fact, we had Dr. Shiller explaining to us last year that a lot of folks just wanted to get rich, quick, in real estate.

It is undeniably true, I assert, that not everyone was a speculatin’ spend-thrift maxing out the HELOCs to buy more toys, and that part of our problem today with public opinion is that we extend our (quite proper) disgust for these latter-day Yuppies to the entire class “homeowner.” But it is surely an odd way to engage our sympathies for the non-speculator class to speak of it in Jamesian terms as the man whose self is defined by his Stuff, and whose psychological pain is felt most acutely when he recognizes that he is now just like the riff-raff.

It’s worse than odd–it’s downright reactionary–to then go on to that evocation of homeownership as good citizenship and good citizenship as “feel[ing] at one with [the] country.” This puts a rather sinister light on Shiller’s earlier insistence that we need to make sure people don’t get too “cynical.”

I see that Yves at naked capitalism was just as disgusted by Shiller as I am:

Now admittedly, this is not a validated instrument, but a widely used stress scoring test puts loss of spouse as 100 and divorce at 73. Foreclosure is 30, below sex difficulties (39), pregnancy (40), or personal injury (53). Change in residence is 20.

Note that if we as a society were worried about psychological damage, being fired (47) is far worse than foreclosure (30), and if it leads to a change in financial status (38) and/or change to a different line of work (36) those are separate, additive stress factors. Yet policy-makers have no qualms about advocating more open trade even though it produces industry restructurings that produce unemployment that does more psychological damage than foreclosures. As a society, we’ll pursue efficiency that first cost blue collar jobs, and now that we’ve gotten inured to that, white collar ones as well (although Alan Blinder draws the line there).

But efficiency arguments don’t apply to housing since we are sentimental about it. And it’s that sentimentality that bears examination, since it engendered policies that helped produce this mess.

I would only add that we are about five years too far into a war that has not made a majority of us “feel at one with that country.” I think of another really important policy change we could be pursuing right now to shore up everyone’s psychological estrangement from their patriotic self-satisfaction. But “efficiency arguments” don’t apply to wars, either.

My fellow bleeding heart liberals like Goolsbee found themselves defending the subprime industry in the name of increasing minority homeownership. Now we’re treated to the spectacle of Shiller arguing for homeowner bailout legislation in the same terms that Bush used to defend the “Ownership Society.” Housing policy, I gather, makes strange bedfellows. It certainly makes strange editorials.

Shiller’s unwitting self-parody embodies the principle at the heart of the TAF and every other tentacle of the Wall Street bailout. Far more than “economist statistics which can cause us to lose sight of what’s really important,” what’s REALLY important is protection of those Selves which include “lands and horses, and yacht and bank account.”

You can *not* make this stuff up.

Pardon my French, but our economy is being run by f*cking idiots.

Read Full Post »

… [W]hen Bush was last in Riyadh in January, his appeals to the Saudi government to increase oil production were quickly, albeit politely, rebuffed, allowing his political opponents at home to criticize him and accuse him of “begging.”

But this time around, a plan appears to have been in store between the Bush administration and the Saudi government. The Saudi announcement allows Bush to return home and claim that his influence worked in getting the Saudis to bend. In reality, however, an additional 300,000 bpd is unlikely to have much of a global impact on crude oil prices. …

Moreover, Saudi Arabia took 300,000 bpd of its crude offline for maintenance back in April. This move was typical for the season, …. By mid-May, that cycle is complete, allowing major energy producers like Saudi Arabia to adjust their maintenance schedules accordingly. In all likelihood, Saudi Arabia has simply completed its own maintenance and was scheduled to bring 300,000 bpd back online anyway to meet the summer demand. …

That would explain the announcement’s complete lack of impact on crude prices (I presume it was decided before close of markets today). Pure PR.

Read Full Post »

Was just reading Drudge’s OBAMA REAX, where Obama interpreted Bush’s “those who talk, appease” comment as a gutshot at Obama.

My initial reaction, having spent way too much time studying that part of the world, was that Bush’s comment was almost certainly aimed at Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni and Shimon Peres — not Obama. General election foreign policy rhetoric, as we have seen, has nothing to do with reality. There’s no way to know whether or not Obama’s an “appeaser” until he actually starts making decisions.

Olmert, on the other hand, has made a slew of appeasing decisions, long after it became screamingly obvious that Israel’s most rational response was a heavy-handed one. The Arabs are furious that the Israelis, given such an obvious opportunity to maul any and every of Iran’s proxies in the region, has repeatedly squandered them.

Considering that Bush’s speech was to the Knesset, in light of mounting Hamas and Hezbollah provocations, it’s fairly clear that Bush was referring to Olmert, not Obama.

Update: here’s the quote in full.

In a speech to Israel’s Knesset, Bush said that “some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along … We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

Responding with a statement, the Obama campaign seized on Bush’s remarks even as it was unclear to whom Bush was referring.

“It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel’s independence to launch a false political attack,” Obama said in the statement. “George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.”

The White House said Bush’s comment wasn’t a reference to Obama.

“It is not,” press secretary Dana Perino told reporters in Israel. “I would think that all of you who cover these issues and have for a long time have known that there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that the president, President Bush, thinks that we should not talk to. I understand when you’re running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you. That is not always true. And it is not true in this case.”

Obama’s definitely not the sole reference here. It gives Olmert some weasel room to help him save face, and probably is a secondary jab at Obama, but I am sure Olmert is the primary reference.

Score a rare point for the White House. Not that I expect the “reality-based community” to bother figuring it out.

Read Full Post »

[edited and tempered a bit–EC]

I’ve wanted to talk about something that’s been simmering for a long time in my mind, namely the obvious institutional dysfunction of the West in the face of Muslim, particularly Shia, tribal fortitude.

There are two kinds of societies: unstructured, tribal societies, and structured, institutional societies. The Bush Administration’s Iraq odyssey has allowed vibrant contrast between tribal and institutional societies.

Charisma is the currency of a tribal society; money is the currency of institutional society.

In a tribe, any person’s leadership ability is contingent upon how well he husbands the lives and resources of his tribe in the face of external threats, up to and including throwing himself on the rails to save his family/ unit/ clan/ tribe. A leader’s credibility is based upon 1) his ability to forecast and surmount future threats, and 2) his perceived willingness to die for the tribe’s sake to surmount such a threat — the fact that, as he gambles with his tribe’s lives, he sees his own life no differently from lesser members of the tribe. So, tribal societies generally produce very astute gamblers as leaders.

Institutional societies produce exactly opposite leaders. People rise through institutions by public competence and private ‘politicking’ (what a tribal society would call ‘treachery’). Winning the leadership lottery of an institution is defined by strategically timed risk avoidance, whereas tribal leaders are defined by strategic risk-taking.

Institutions can attain heights of complexity and ‘sophistication,’ be it in the form of weaponry, markets, technology, art, or social ritual, which tribes can only, rarely, hope to rent. For that conceit, institutions pay a steep price. They are extremely slow to adapt to anything. Institutions can scale up intellect, but unlike tribes they cannot scale up trust. Institutions are hamstrung by internal political jockeying to a much greater extent than are tribes.

Because testosterone and charisma are pretty closely correlated, “demographic change” is never a tribal problem. Children are necessary to perpetuate and augment the tribe, and are totally encouraged. People who have difficulty producing children are accepted, but not treated as well. People obviously incapable of producing children, i.e. homosexuals, are ostracized, unless they show exceptional fighting ability/ stand up for themselves. Institutions, which put a premium on an individual’s “paying dues” of time at the expense of everything else, disproportionately produce leaders with few or no children. Institution-driven government policy overwhelmingly discounts from future investment (of which children are a big part) to the present.

Tribal leaders see much more meaning in death — or, in the case of black US tribes, very long-term imprisonment — than do institutional leaders. They know that even if their lives’ works ‘end’ in death, their sacrifice will reflect well upon their “peoples” ie their children.

Because tribal leaders are judged by their ability to defeat external challenges and encroachments on a continuous basis, and are not protected by legal or institutional formalisms, they react immediately and overwhelmingly to, for example, attempts to steal the property of the tribe.

So, institutional societies produce too many “leaders” eager to take credit for vanquishing small risks over small time horizons, and very large risks over extremely long time horizons (i.e., blame/credit cannot be fully allocated until after the leader in question is dead).

You can see where I’m going with this. The Muslim world is defined by its tribes, and the West is defined by its institutions. It would be over-dramatic to call Iraq a clash of civilizations, but it still is, sort of. Who has been winning? Iran certainly hasn’t been losing. The US seems to be holding firm, except that public support for the war has completely collapsed, and the state of the US government’s balance sheet is much worse than any agency seems to realize.

The US government really reminds me a lot of Citigroup: every agency further amortizing the future, on the assumption that, if its bets don’t pay off, every other agency will take cuts for that agency’s mistakes. In musical chairs, somebody has to lose.

I have been raised by, and have benefited from, a structural society. I would like to believe in it. However, Western institutions’ schizophrenic, ill-informed dysfunction has offered a pathetic contrast to the Iranian model. Every all-in challenge by Hezbollah has been met with pathetic procrastination by Israel, the United States, and proxy tribes seduced by Western institutional promises. Olmert’s Israel, which talks about negotiations as it’s hit by Palestinian Katyushas every day, is a particularly dramatic exposition of this, although the rest of the West suffers the same myopic affliction to lesser degrees.

Tribal elements of the West, i.e., Israeli settlers, lower echelons of the US Army Mormons, US “white trash,” and others who for all their faults are proud enough to put their flesh on the line for their homelands, nonetheless can’t help but feel that the institutions which purport to represent them only waste any lives they offer, on the altar of the Kadima/State Department cult of peace.

The “uncultured” “barbarian” tribes have been bleeding the West dry for the last five years. Western firepower is overwhelming, and could have imposed prohibitive costs on Iranian militia-style maneuvering years ago. Why hasn’t it? As if any negotiation can erase the fact that the Western empire has no clothes, and will not defend itself despite getting its teeth spattered onto Beirut’s pavement. [*]

I think Western governments’ increasingly aggressive discounting of the future is a direct byproduct of the institutionalization of Western society. Today, for example, big agribusiness is stealing $300 billion in plain sight. How is this sustainable — let alone acceptable? Is there a point at which it becomes moral to kill these people? S&P has already stated that a Fannie/Freddie bailout alone would cost $400 billion to $1.1 trillion, and would jeopardize the US’s AAA bond rating. There just isn’t the money for these expenses anymore.

Governments discount youth’s earnings in many ways. Government mandated barriers to entry are overwhelmingly protectionism for existing workers at the expense of future workers, and force youth/future workers to seek poorer alternatives. America’s gigantic intergenerational liabilities are another such tax on youth. I posit that growth of government has directly depressed Western birthrates. US native birthrates are collapsing in line with continental Europe’s, as is its growth of government. [**] There is a yawning gap between deep pessimism of Western youth, especially in the United States, and relative optimism of the 55+ crowd. The two groups are facing very different arrays of future liabilities and future payments, that’s for sure.

Maybe that’s the difference. You hear about all the rent seekers all the time, but you don’t hear as much about the ones that are rising. I don’t know. There is an awful lot of rent-seeking going on, but nobody outside the financial industry seems to have a clue about it, or what it will mean for future generations. This has really, really Never Happened Before, except in Japan, and the results were very bad–especially for birth rates.

Maybe you could say that institutions are a necessary evil for especially big societies. In any case, they are no match for the Mideast’s tribal collectives, epitomized by the extremely high-trust tribal institution Hezbollah. The West’s leaders are no match for Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah at all. Sure, there are those who might be if they had the backing of even a cohesive minority of their society, such as Petraeus, but they don’t, because there is no critical mass willing to risk as Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah are. So we continue fighting this stupid, never-ending war, losing money, face, and men all at the same time.

There’s something about the West that makes it unwilling to win wars, and I don’t know what it is.

Or, maybe I should just rename my blog “a neoconservative, mugged by doomsterism.”

[*] again, the notion of action being important now is premised upon a Republican loss in the 2008 presidential election, something approaching a foregone conclusion, which hasn’t seeped into the conventional wisdom yet.

[**] One should take into account the relatively enormous US local governments, nonprofit sector, and government contractors when arriving at a size of US government. The latter two in particular have exploded over the past eight years.

The sum total will likely surpass 40 percent of GDP this year, and will explode in an Obama Administration as opaque liabilities from the financial bailout make themselves more apparent later.

Read Full Post »

MS-01

The MS-01 runoff was today.

Mississippi’s first congressional district voted 63-37 for Bush in 2004. There are 110 Republican House seats more competitive than MS-01.

Today, despite a desperate ~$2m in spending from the NRCC and Freedom’s Watch (a big neocon 527), a Democrat won the district, 54-46.

Once again the GOP tried to hang Jeremiah Wright around the neck of a Democrat. Once again, common sense would have indicated that nobody gives a sh*t about Jeremiah Wright. Once again, common sense made a fool out of the conventional wisdom.

There are 150 Republican House seats in play in the fall of 2008. About GOP 10 Senate seats are in jeopardy too.

Republicans can psych themselves up with dreams of Obama’s unelectability all they want. The powerbrokers know better. The empirical results don’t lie.

Read Full Post »

12:03  US Senate OKs amendment to halt strategic petroleum reserve fill;
amendment passes by veto-proof margin – DJ [Dow Jones]

This is part of larger choreography. … If the Democrats are attempting to freelance, the CIA could easily bust an attempted Senate veto override given how ‘dirty’ so many senators are.

The end result of this will be either a busted congressional override attempt, which would be a very hawkish signal, or the direct onset of a Mideastern war (i.e. the SPR has been filled up to the extent planned in preparation).

Note that oil has strengthened significantly today, concomitant with dollar strengthening. The oil market is not interpreting this implied reduction in demand very bearishly.

Read Full Post »

When you leave US policy in the hands of the surrender monkeys at State, the result is that a few even more narcissistic clones of Strobe Talbott puff up their images as The Great Peacemakers, The Great Negotiators, the lone doves standing between us and Armageddon … while our few credible allies, be they in the Mideast, Afghanistan, Colombia, or Georgia, are surrounded and pounded.

In the latter two cases, there’s a very good case to be made that the US has no business there, and there would be obvious rationales that American ‘surrender’ would be preferable to any escalation. But in Iraq, we aren’t leaving. Iran’s involvement in anti-American insurgencies in Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, and Afghanistan are obvious to any disinterested observer. Given that the Foreign Policy Establishment has committed US credibility there; given that we won’t leave; and given a massive stock of un-utilized conventional military assets, why the F are we not bombing Iran? And if we are schizophrenic about doing that, why the F are we in the Mideast to begin with?

Walid Jumblatt, admittedly a chameleon historically, but currently an extremely pro-American tribal leader in the Mideast, is now officially “under the gun,” as poker players would say.

May 12, 2008 1904 GMT
A Stratfor source reported May 12 that militant group Hezbollah is planning to assassinate Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt.
After Iranian victory over Israel in Lebanon and Bush’s midterm defeat in 2006, the US pulled a huge check-raise with the surge. Iran called. With the recent operation in Sadr City, which has throttled much of the life out of the Mehdi Army, the US raised again. The ongoing Iranian coup in Lebanon, combined with Ahmadinejad’s telegraphed denunciation of al-Maliki today, indicate that Iran is going all-in.

Iranian hard-line newspapers, Jomhuri-e-Eslami and Hezbollah, said May 12 that Iraqis should oppose a strategic framework pact with the United States. The newspapers accused Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of caving in to U.S. demands over the agreement. Jomhuri-e-Eslami reported that the agreement would allow the United States to set up 14 military bases across Iraq, authorize a long-term U.S. military deployment, give U.S. nationals immunity in the country, and allow the U.S. military to use Iraq to launch military attacks in the Middle East. The newspaper Hezbollah reportedly said that the U.S. presence in Iraq was “captivity” and that the military would turn Iraq into a “permanent base in the Middle East.”

How Stratfor has managed to combine such bad calls with such effective screens of open-source information and official is an interesting question. We noted on many different occasions Stratfor’s systematic bias — despite overwhelming contrary evidence — towards the State Department’s worldview. Granted, geopolitical forecasting is a tough business, and you have to play the, shall we say, “constructive ambiguity” game more aggressively to protect your brand. However, the consistency of error on their part has assumed formidable dimensions.

I also agree with Mike’s suspicion that Stratfor deliberately misrepresented the implications of the NIE on behalf of the State crowd. (Stratfor ludicrously insisted that the NIE represented a “dramatic leap forward” in US-Iranian negotiations.) Regrettably, George Friedman (Stratfor CEO) has taken down his blog, where there were quite a few good morsels of informed contrary commentary, which apparently detracted from Stratfor’s brand too much as they were vindicated.

Here, we took a different view, and predicted throughout March that Iran-instigated violence would escalate due to obvious distrust between the US and Iraq — not dial down, as a result of some imagined “back-channel negotiations” which were a sucker play if anything.

On March 30, we predicted that the US-led alliance would have the initiative in steadily escalating violence with Iran. With Hezbollah’s latest forced raise, the Pentagon et al. have used that time wisely, and forced Ahmadinejad to raise — or fold.

Bush’s shrinking window of opportunity, combined with the predictability and necessity of escalation, mean that overt airstrikes on Iran are a matter of when, not if. It seems that Lebanese resistance to Hezbollah has totally disintegrated, again with the exception of Jumblatt’s besieged Druze; that probably was not expected. In any case he has committed his entire tribe against Hezbollah and he must be reinforced.

Debkafile, a good source for the IDF perspective, notes that Syria has completely withdrawn all peace feelers in light of Hezbollah’s triumph in Lebanon. As we’ve noted on this blog time and time again, Israel’s peace negotiations with Syria were ludicrous to begin with. The Assad family could never have been decoupled from Hezbollah and Teheran, and even if the Assad family were so interested, it would be safer for them to go to war with Israel, and allow Israel to smash Hezbollah, than for them to do anything about Hezbollah themselves.

Anyway, I said only yesterday that Hezbollah wanted to shatter Jumblatt under its Yemeni Druze, Talal Arslan smokescreen to neutralize Jumblatt’s much larger Kaysi Druze, the only credible anti-Hezbollah force still standing. Jumblatt’s Druze have been given the unacceptable choice of disarming or being besieged. They seem to be opting for the latter, which they should, because Walid Jumblatt will have a bullet in his brain 24 hours after “disarming.”

Iran has been badly strained by the last couple of months, and is upping the ante a couple of months two early. Once again, the Israelis are too preoccupied with their own dramas to be of any use. But we knew that ever since Olmert hung on post-August 2006. I presume America’s hawks have been waiting for this opportunity, and hope they leverage it for every overt airstrike it’s worth.

Read Full Post »

It seems like the latest (American-triggered?) Olmert scandal will be fatal to Olmert. Which is fortunate, because the US has some serious Iran escalations to do, if it hopes to retain a meaningful stake in Iraq’s future.

Faster, please.

After another day of rampant rumors concerning the latest criminal investigation into Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, members of the prime minister’s own party openly criticized Kadima’s top man on Tuesday and called for his resignation – in order to save the future of the party.Party members said they were waiting for a dominant figure to stand up and take the reins, and named Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Public Security Minister Avi Dichter and Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz as possible successors, noting that even if they did not serve as prime minister, they could help redirect the party and refocus its energies on critical subjects.

So far, however, Kadima’s top leadership has refrained from making any statements on Olmert’s investigation, and no Kadima ministers have made any moves toward taking the lead inside the party.

Only Absorption Minister Ya’acov Edri has addressed the investigation at all. Speaking Monday during a fiery Knesset discussion in which the opposition challenged Olmert’s diplomatic policy, Edri expressed his confidence in Olmert’s abilities as prime minister and his certainty that Olmert could continue his participation in negotiations even while the investigation was under way.

But within the Kadima rank and file, Olmert’s standing seemed much less certain. Kadima MK Ze’ev Elkin blasted the prime minister for focusing on his “secretive” diplomatic negotiations rather than on the gagged investigation.

“Peace isn’t something you smuggle in under cover of darkness and isn’t carried out through spin doctors. Rather, real peace is carried out in broad daylight and not hidden under gag orders,” Elkin said in an interview with Army Radio. “Kadima must come to its senses and pick a new leader.”

Elkin accused Olmert of bringing the party – and the country – to a dead end, a charge echoed by fellow party member MK Marina Solodkin.

Solodkin added that Olmert, together with Vice Premier Haim Ramon and a handful of others, had hijacked Kadima, originally a “center-right-liberal party” and made it into a “center-left party.” While she emphasized that she did not want to make judgments regarding the current investigation, Solodkin said Olmert had caused significant damage to the government by bringing in people with poor political – and ethical – reputations.

“I don’t want to judge the personal element involved, but the political element is serious enough. To appoint people like Avraham Hirschson and Shula Zaken was a political error,” she explained. “And he hasn’t apologized for these things. There has been no regret, no apology. All the people with whom he has chosen to surround himself, the spins cast around about the final Winograd Report, and the negotiations with Syria are all too much for the people who are really concerned about our existence.”

But Solodkin said it was perhaps this latest investigation that would tip the balance against a politician who had managed to maintain a heavy Teflon coating during earlier scandals.

“This is one investigation too many – public norms in a functional country don’t allow a prime minister whose finance minister is a thief and criminal of the worst proportions, and whose personal assistant is suspected of the worst types of corruption. Either we are a banana republic and we must write that in big letters, or we must expect a change.”

I can’t find any recent public opinion polls on Tzipi Livni. Can someone please tell me that she is not popular anymore? How does a Likud/Yisrael Beteinu centric coalition stack up against Labor, Likud and Meretz?

We need to get Olmert out of the way. There’s a lot of “work” to be done in Lebanon, Iraq and Iran, and not much time left to do it.

Read Full Post »

That’s what happens when you have someone like Fred Thompson run a fraudulent, stalking-horse campaign solely to fracture the southern white/ evangelical vote.

People don’t just “take” a limitation of choices, as Thompson inflicted upon the party. They stay unhappy.

Voters may be dumb. Just not as dumb as GOP strategists think. Black turnout across the South will be through the roof, and white evangelical turnout will be depressed. November will bring nasty surprises for the GOP, not least of which will be a crippling “blue shift” in North Carolina and Virginia.

That said, considering idiotic posts like this, I don’t blame the GOP strategoi for appraising the Republican grasstops as the useful idiots they are:

This morning, Senator John McCain speaks at Wake Forest University. The speech begins at 10:00 a.m. Present with him will be Senator Fred Thompson. That’s important.

We’ve seen already that Thompson has been more visible in recent weeks. Why? Well, he’s decided to come out and support his friend. He is for conservatives what Joe Lieberman is for moderate squishes — a reassurance that John McCain will hear us. And given Thompson’s track record of getting McCain to listen to him, which is very good, we should take comfort in his presence by McCain today and on the campaign trail.

No, I don’t think this signals “Thompson as Veep.” In fact, I’m positive it does not. What I do think this signals is that Thompson is the guy McCain will listen to on conservative issues — Thompson will be the judge sherpa, making sure there are no Harriet Miers moments and plenty of John Roberts moments. …

I can practically hear the DCers laughing from here …

Read Full Post »

I love this guy: A Jewish MK who has self-respect! Surely I am hallucinating?

“The Arab Mks are the representatives of terror organizations in the Knesset,” Lieberman accused. “Today in the Knesset there is a coalition of defeatists and fifth columnists. Those sitting here (the Arab MKs) are representatives of terror organizations.”

“The fact that an Israeli member of Knesset presents himself in Qatar as a Palestinian, preaches against Israel and says that it is racist proves that the 30’s and the period leading up to the Shoah [Holocaust] haven’t taught us a thing,” Lieberman said. “This is a syndrome of the Weimar Republic.”

Lieberman’s speech was interrupted several times by Arab MKs and Meretz MK Zehava Gal-On. The former minister of strategic affairs, however, was unfazed, saying that “After the election, God willing, we will form a government in which we will hold the Defense portfolio, and then you will experience a new Middle East.”

The latest leaks from Israeli prosecutors indicate that the latest investigation against Olmert will probably eliminate him. That’s very fortunate for Israel. We need somebody reliable in charge of Israel who does not experience narcissism-instigated hallucinations of Middle East kumbaya, and who will be willing to destroy Hamas and throttle Hezbollah.

Peace deals between Israel and former enemies have only been effected by credible right-wingers (Menachem Begin; Ariel Sharon would have, but a coma aborted his attempt). Olmert is far left, and has no credibility whatsoever. He will be stopped.

The question is whether he can be stopped before summer, which is the last realistic opportunity for the United States and Israel to improve their bargaining position viz Iran ahead of an Obama presidency.

Read Full Post »

As someone who has spent an enormous amount of time analyzing what does, and what doesn’t, influence opinion polls, I have always maintained that the Obama “gaffes” — from the Pakistani nukes, to his general “lack of presidential stature” as proclaimed by overpaid Beltway bloviators, to Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers [1], and Jeremiah Wright today — will have zero impact upon the 2008 election. I am a big fan of empiricism, and we got a great empirical case study of the salience of Wright, Obama and Pelosi over the weekend in a Republican stronghold district.

LA-06, a Republican district formerly held by Richard Baker which went 55-43 for Bush in 2000, and 59-40 in 2004, had a special election on Saturday. On Charlie Cook’s Partisan Vote Index scale, this district has a +7R PVI. (Generally “swing districts” have PVIs between +5R and +5D.) The GOP has held this district for at least thirty years. Guess what happened?

LA-06: The Sweet Smell of Success

Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:07:49 PM PDT

Congratulations to Congressman-elect Don Cazayoux, new Representative of Louisiana’s 6th District, and to all who had a hand in his election. The Sixth District, which voted for Bush 55-43 in 2000 and 59-40 in 2004, will be represented by a Democrat for the first time since the Dixiecrat era.

This was a terrific win for the party, for a number of reasons. First, it is always exciting and inspiring to win an election in such strongly Republican territory. Only 15 Democratic Representatives out of 235 hail from more GOP-friendly districts than Louisiana’s 6th, and taking another seat on such red turf is yet another indicator that Democrats are in the catbird seat heading into November. This is the second special-election victory in a former Republican stronghold within the span of three months, and it was nearly accompanied by another victory in the crimson First District of Mississippi (and may yet be, come the May 13 runoff).

We had no real business winning this district, but we managed to do so anyway, by running a candidate who was a good fit for the district, by wisely allocating national party resources to help that candidate compete, and by simply being lucky enough to face a genuine nutcase on the Republican side.

Needless to say, this is a major feather in the cap of the DCCC, and a terrific blow to our Republican counterparts. NRCC chairman Tom Cole must be losing his breakfast, especially on the heels of the loss in IL-14, and facing another possible loss in an even redder district (MS-01). On our side, the DCCC did a fine job; they fended off the combined forces of the NRCC, Freedom’s Watch, and the Club for Growth, and came out on top.

The Club for Growth has been backing losing candidates for some time-they’re far more interested, it seems, in having doctrinaire nutters on the Republican ticket than in actually winning a majority-but this is a particularly bad black eye for Freedom’s Watch, a group which has already taken a lot of hits. Having targeted LA-06 as their first big experiment-apparently, backing Woody Jenkins was the first thing their leadership could agree on as a priority for this cycle-Freedom’s Watch looks positively impotent. They were supposed to be the scary new kid on the block, the shadowy Republican hit squad doing all the GOP’s dirty work this election cycle. But if they can’t swing a special election in an R+6.5 district, they’re going to have the devil’s own time swinging the presidential election.

As reported, the GOP’s strategy in this election was to tie Cazayoux to national Democrats like Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi. I should think that the results speak for themselves, and that they indicate that this strategy has failed. …

At the very least, their efforts to demonize Cazayoux by linking him to Obama proved a double-edged sword. Although Woody Jenkins did outperform expectations in several areas of the district, and it’s possible that that was due to the NRCC’s attempts to link Cazayoux to Obama, it was certainly negated by increased black turnout in East Baton Rouge, which appears to have ultimately provided Cazayoux with his margin of victory. In other words, the GOP lost at least as much by alienating black voters as they may or may not have gained with these attacks.

Idiot Republicans.

“The Audacity of Hope” would make a great title for their 2008 national campaign blueprint.

250 Democrats in the House, ~57 Democratic senators, and a confident liberal in the White House. Say hello to 25-30% capital gains, 40% top marginal income tax (45 if Obama lifts the SS cap), and a very large selloff between October 2008 and January 2009.

[1] Speaking of Ayers, remember the Weathermen pardoned by Bill Clinton in 2001? Of course you don’t. Selective outrage is the opiate of the masses’ collective memory . . .

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »