The auto industry bailout has been floating around Washington for the past few months and while I understand the grave short-term consequences if the Detroit three fail, I do take some issue with the proposed bailout. Perhaps instead of a bail out the government can assist in a gradual phase out these companies in order to reduce a shock on the economy. But here are some other reasons why the bailout won't get results.
1. Bailing out companies that are not competitive is foolish- Ford, Chrysler, and GM have not been competitive in the United States for quite a few years and have steadily lost marketshare in the domestic market. Although these companies perform slightly better abroad, I think the decline of these once dominant companies in the United States is a tell tale sign that some major business restructuring needs to happen. Besides producing a sub-par product, the Big Three are forced to compete with the likes of Toyota and Honda who do not have major union commitments inhibiting their business model.
2. American cars are Crap. I mean realistically are there any people in their mid 20's who would buy a new Buick or a Chrysler? Such individuals would be very hard to find, and no one is to blame except the car companies themselves. I really believe that the people who created the PT cruiser, Buick Rendezvous, and the Ford Taurus are heading straight for auto designer hell. Poor design and horrible quality has greatly tarnished the American car industry, and the bailout is unlikely to reverse the course.
3. From my understanding the bailout proposal stipulates that in exchange for funds, the Big Three have to commit to manufacturing more hybrid vehicles. Isn't that wonderful and honkey-dorey? What the gov't ignores is the fact that hybrid vehicles have actually hurt the Detroit automakers. It will be very hard for these companies to recover if they are forced to make unprofitable products.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
The true north strong and free, eh?
When most people think of Canada they think of the maple leaf, hockey, freezing cold, and unfortunate accents, and yet most Americans turn a blind eye to Canada's open hatred of America. While on vacation in Mexico (which was overrun by drunken Canadians seeking a to change their skin tone from ghost pale to polar bear white) I found it distasteful how quickly Canadians injected themselves into American politics. Within seconds of any conversation, the Canadians wanted to point out how much they hate America, why they would never move there, why our politicians (except The Chosen One) suck, and that 9/11 was a conspiracy.
It's quite bold for a country that is on the verge of a coup and a secession to preoccupy itself with the politics of its neighbor, insecurity perhaps?
Now I know Canadians have acquired a reputation for politeness, but this is far from polite. It irritates me that Canadians seem to think that they are somehow more enlightened than Americans. Much like Europeans, Canadians glow in the aura of false knowledge. Canadians and Europeans often act as if they know all there is to know about the United States and yet when you dig more than inch deep they reveal their true ignorance. Canadians like to tout the superiority of their universal healthcare system, and yet ignore the fact that their taxes are absurd. Canadians talk about how peaceful their country is, and ignore the fact that America has done their bidding for the last 80 years or so.
It is disgusting how Canadians use every opportunity to put down the United States, which is quite bold for a country that owes its independence and freedom to its proximity to the United States. Let's face it, if the US was not Canada's neighbor, Canadians would be speaking Russian by now.
In the context of global politics Canada should be seen and not heard. Canada don't make us make an Iraq out of you, we'll have the Quebecois fighting the Anglos within 3 weeks of an invasion. If the invasion does not pan out, we'll confiscate your 6 hockey teams and start breaking off pieces of the Stanley Cup until you cry for mercy.
It's quite bold for a country that is on the verge of a coup and a secession to preoccupy itself with the politics of its neighbor, insecurity perhaps?
Now I know Canadians have acquired a reputation for politeness, but this is far from polite. It irritates me that Canadians seem to think that they are somehow more enlightened than Americans. Much like Europeans, Canadians glow in the aura of false knowledge. Canadians and Europeans often act as if they know all there is to know about the United States and yet when you dig more than inch deep they reveal their true ignorance. Canadians like to tout the superiority of their universal healthcare system, and yet ignore the fact that their taxes are absurd. Canadians talk about how peaceful their country is, and ignore the fact that America has done their bidding for the last 80 years or so.
It is disgusting how Canadians use every opportunity to put down the United States, which is quite bold for a country that owes its independence and freedom to its proximity to the United States. Let's face it, if the US was not Canada's neighbor, Canadians would be speaking Russian by now.
In the context of global politics Canada should be seen and not heard. Canada don't make us make an Iraq out of you, we'll have the Quebecois fighting the Anglos within 3 weeks of an invasion. If the invasion does not pan out, we'll confiscate your 6 hockey teams and start breaking off pieces of the Stanley Cup until you cry for mercy.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Facebook Politics
The other day as I was perusing the Facebook status updates of my friends when I came across a political statement that I found rather ironic. This friend who shall remain nameless posted something to the effect that she would like all the angry Republicans to stick to their promise and move to another country in case of an Obama victory.
Ironically, the most famous example of such a threat was made by Alec Baldwin and his ex-wife Kim Bassinger during the 2000 campaign when the couple vowed to move to Canada if George W. Bush was elected president (a promise that unfortunately they did not keep and instead Alec took out a lot of anger on his 12 year old daughter who is a little pig http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8J0-ZatDHug) However, for a conservative or a McCain supporter to make the same promise is entirely illogical. I will admit that I don't know whether the comment in question was addressed to anyone in specific, but I will explain why it makes no sense.
The liberal view of the US is that we are a fixer upper mansion and the rest of the world is made up of either shacks or small but cozy high tech new constructions. In case that the much needed home improvement is not made, liberals would eagerly move into the cool new constructions (i.e., France or Canada). As a result liberals have no issues making such dramatic statements as the one made by Baldwin in 2000.
Conservatives believe through thick and thin that the United States is the greatest country in the world. It may not be perfect, and from time to time they deal with a landscaper that they don't like (Obama), but at the end of the day they would rather live in the United States than anywhere else. Conservatives cannot identify any other country in the world that values the free market economics, social, and foreign policies more than the United States, and hence no alternative can possibly exist.
If indeed this comment was addressed to a specific McCain supporter, I would be curious to know what country did he foresee himself moving to in case of an Obama victory. Yes, Canada has a "Conservative" Prime Minister in Ben Harper now, but Canadian Conservatives are near equivalent of American Liberals (Canadian Liberals = Communists). Same logic can be applied to the European Conservative governments in Germany, Italy, and France. So unless this individuals just likes the sound of the label "Conservatives" and doesn't care about substance, none of these countries are a viable alternative.
On a lighter note: Hilarious video of the consequence of the Obama victory http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3_95F5e-Ac
Ironically, the most famous example of such a threat was made by Alec Baldwin and his ex-wife Kim Bassinger during the 2000 campaign when the couple vowed to move to Canada if George W. Bush was elected president (a promise that unfortunately they did not keep and instead Alec took out a lot of anger on his 12 year old daughter who is a little pig http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8J0-ZatDHug) However, for a conservative or a McCain supporter to make the same promise is entirely illogical. I will admit that I don't know whether the comment in question was addressed to anyone in specific, but I will explain why it makes no sense.
The liberal view of the US is that we are a fixer upper mansion and the rest of the world is made up of either shacks or small but cozy high tech new constructions. In case that the much needed home improvement is not made, liberals would eagerly move into the cool new constructions (i.e., France or Canada). As a result liberals have no issues making such dramatic statements as the one made by Baldwin in 2000.
Conservatives believe through thick and thin that the United States is the greatest country in the world. It may not be perfect, and from time to time they deal with a landscaper that they don't like (Obama), but at the end of the day they would rather live in the United States than anywhere else. Conservatives cannot identify any other country in the world that values the free market economics, social, and foreign policies more than the United States, and hence no alternative can possibly exist.
If indeed this comment was addressed to a specific McCain supporter, I would be curious to know what country did he foresee himself moving to in case of an Obama victory. Yes, Canada has a "Conservative" Prime Minister in Ben Harper now, but Canadian Conservatives are near equivalent of American Liberals (Canadian Liberals = Communists). Same logic can be applied to the European Conservative governments in Germany, Italy, and France. So unless this individuals just likes the sound of the label "Conservatives" and doesn't care about substance, none of these countries are a viable alternative.
On a lighter note: Hilarious video of the consequence of the Obama victory http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3_95F5e-Ac
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
On the bright side
So Obama won, and our country is heading towards a minimum of 4 and a likelihood of 8 years of deeply damaging foreign, economic, and social policy. However there are a few bright spots that accompany the Obama presidency.
1. The embargo on Cuba hopefully will end. This 50 year old economic embargo of a poor country just off the coast of Florida is insane. US does and has done business with regimes much less palatable than Fidel's (or should I say Raul's) Cuba. Does anyone really believe that Cuba is a more hostile nation than China, Vietnam, or Saudi Arabia? We actually entered military conflict against two of those nations on a much larger scale than anything we have experienced with Cuba (Korean War+Vietnam war > Bay of Pigs) and yet we do business with them. The hijackers from Saudi Arabia amongst other terrorist have killed more Americans than Fidel ever has. What threat does Cuba really pose to the United States anymore? Opening up Cuba to American commerce will be the most effective tool to bring liberty and freedom to this island. America needs to realize that its "culture of cool" and "marketing" are the greatest weapons to conquering hostile totalitarian regimes. Open trade with Cuba will benefit both the United States and Cuba, a minor economic stimulus that is all too important in this struggling economy.
2. Chicago will get the 2016 Olympics. The world is in love with Barack Obama, and with the upcoming Olympic bid for 2016 Summer Olympics this is something the Chicago Olympic Organizing Committee will seek to capitalize upon. Barack Obama has already played a key role in Chicago being chosen as the US Finalist, when he fully endorsed the Olympics through a video sent to the USOC lobbying for the Chicago bid. If Barack Obama so much as mentions Chicago and the Olympics in the same sentence again, undoubtedly the IOC will award Chicago the games.
3. Affirmative action is no longer justifiable. If a minority can obtain the most sought job in the world, surely there is no longer a need for a step up for anyone. Acceptance to school, employment search, and other processes that currently condone discrimination based on race, sex, or creed should come to an end. Realistically, I'm not too optimistic that this will happen, but Nebraska just voted down affirmative action, and I think we will begin to move on the right track.
1. The embargo on Cuba hopefully will end. This 50 year old economic embargo of a poor country just off the coast of Florida is insane. US does and has done business with regimes much less palatable than Fidel's (or should I say Raul's) Cuba. Does anyone really believe that Cuba is a more hostile nation than China, Vietnam, or Saudi Arabia? We actually entered military conflict against two of those nations on a much larger scale than anything we have experienced with Cuba (Korean War+Vietnam war > Bay of Pigs) and yet we do business with them. The hijackers from Saudi Arabia amongst other terrorist have killed more Americans than Fidel ever has. What threat does Cuba really pose to the United States anymore? Opening up Cuba to American commerce will be the most effective tool to bring liberty and freedom to this island. America needs to realize that its "culture of cool" and "marketing" are the greatest weapons to conquering hostile totalitarian regimes. Open trade with Cuba will benefit both the United States and Cuba, a minor economic stimulus that is all too important in this struggling economy.
2. Chicago will get the 2016 Olympics. The world is in love with Barack Obama, and with the upcoming Olympic bid for 2016 Summer Olympics this is something the Chicago Olympic Organizing Committee will seek to capitalize upon. Barack Obama has already played a key role in Chicago being chosen as the US Finalist, when he fully endorsed the Olympics through a video sent to the USOC lobbying for the Chicago bid. If Barack Obama so much as mentions Chicago and the Olympics in the same sentence again, undoubtedly the IOC will award Chicago the games.
3. Affirmative action is no longer justifiable. If a minority can obtain the most sought job in the world, surely there is no longer a need for a step up for anyone. Acceptance to school, employment search, and other processes that currently condone discrimination based on race, sex, or creed should come to an end. Realistically, I'm not too optimistic that this will happen, but Nebraska just voted down affirmative action, and I think we will begin to move on the right track.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Obama Supporter's profile
You might be an Obama supporter if...
1. You are a Liberal Arts major (very likely to be a psychology or sociology student)
2. You took a an astronomy class in high school, and think that alone qualifies you to be an astronaut.
3. You have little to no understanding of Economics and don't really feel like that's worth your time, socialism really simplifies economic theory.
4. You don't let facts get in the way of your views.
5. You feel a strong need for social acceptance dating back to kindergarden when you were ostricised for being the fat kid that was always "it" in the game of tag.
6. You have a compulsive need for "change" although you aren't really sure what change is.
7. The mere mention of the name George W Bush causes hysterical deafness and violent seizures that render you temporarily deaf and permanently brain damaged.
8. You enjoy large crowds chanting a leader's name in unison. (Heil optional)
9. Your other home is in Pyonyang, Teheran, or the Gaza Strip.
10. Kumbaya is on your Ipod, and unicorns are in your stable.
1. You are a Liberal Arts major (very likely to be a psychology or sociology student)
2. You took a an astronomy class in high school, and think that alone qualifies you to be an astronaut.
3. You have little to no understanding of Economics and don't really feel like that's worth your time, socialism really simplifies economic theory.
4. You don't let facts get in the way of your views.
5. You feel a strong need for social acceptance dating back to kindergarden when you were ostricised for being the fat kid that was always "it" in the game of tag.
6. You have a compulsive need for "change" although you aren't really sure what change is.
7. The mere mention of the name George W Bush causes hysterical deafness and violent seizures that render you temporarily deaf and permanently brain damaged.
8. You enjoy large crowds chanting a leader's name in unison. (Heil optional)
9. Your other home is in Pyonyang, Teheran, or the Gaza Strip.
10. Kumbaya is on your Ipod, and unicorns are in your stable.
It's the Economy Stupid
It looks like Barack will be the 44th president of the United States. Coupled with Democratic wins in the Congress this presents a very scary scenario. We are in the midst of an economic recession, and I have a hard time believing that a Democratic controlled Washington can in any way alleviate the economic situation. So far the Democrats have talked about raising corporate taxes and taxes for wealthy individuals, increasing the capital gains tax, coupled with a ridiculous amount of new programs. This spells nothing short of disaster. Raising taxes does nothing to improve the economy, especially during a recession, and will hamper investment during a period that needs an economic resurgence as well as increase our record budget deficit.
The policy of sound economics has been ignored by the Bush administration and will be further avoided by the Democrats for the next 8 years. Why do I say 8 years? That's right I believe Obama will be re-elected for a second term.
I'm confident that Barack Obama regardless of his actual abilities will go down as one of the greatest American presidents of all time. Do I agree with this? Absolutely Not. But I have a sense that Barack Obama's ability to BS will allow him to escape any responsibility for anything that goes wrong during his administration. As he has done throughout the campaign he will point back to George Bush as the source of all problems, and of course Obama will be the source of all solutions. With time the economy will recover and go through an upward cycle, just as it did under Clinton, and the uneducated ignorant masses will attribute this prosperity to Mr. Obama, ignoring the fact that the President can't really take much credit for the performance of the economy.
On a lighter note: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
The policy of sound economics has been ignored by the Bush administration and will be further avoided by the Democrats for the next 8 years. Why do I say 8 years? That's right I believe Obama will be re-elected for a second term.
I'm confident that Barack Obama regardless of his actual abilities will go down as one of the greatest American presidents of all time. Do I agree with this? Absolutely Not. But I have a sense that Barack Obama's ability to BS will allow him to escape any responsibility for anything that goes wrong during his administration. As he has done throughout the campaign he will point back to George Bush as the source of all problems, and of course Obama will be the source of all solutions. With time the economy will recover and go through an upward cycle, just as it did under Clinton, and the uneducated ignorant masses will attribute this prosperity to Mr. Obama, ignoring the fact that the President can't really take much credit for the performance of the economy.
On a lighter note: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Why do Russian-Americans hate Obama
Within the Russian community the dislike for Obama is very strong, which is rather counter-intuitive since immigrant communities more often than not lean Democratic. One recent example of such sentiment was Jan Schakowsky, getting booed on a stage at the annual Russian picnic. The Russian community, and specifically Russian Jews have had experiences within their lives that have shaped their strong opposition to the Goldenchild.
First of all, it is my strong belief that the hardships of life in the Soviet Union has created a society of realists rather than idealists. Russian Jews want to hear answers rather than vague promises of hope, change, unicorns, kumbaya, and rainbows. So far (and this is unlikely to change) the Obama campaign has been built around vague policies and the notion of feeling good.
To Americans, perhaps this is a new concept and a change from politics as usual, but anyone who has lived in a socialist society can see these overtures for what they really are, empty promises. The Soviet government also talked about change, in fact they went one step better, they touted a world revolution of the proletariat. You see the working classes would seize power from the greedy rich people, and everyone would start living in a harmonious society. I mean who wouldn't want that? Every step of your life is planned out, you get to share your communal apartment with two or three of your favorite random families, and everyone will be on equal footing, with some being more equal than others. And while we try to get there, lets "Spread the wealth" as Goldenboy insists.
This brings me to the second point. Russian Jews don't like government handouts to the poor. Within only a few years after immigration, many Russian families are able to achieve a level of success not often parried by American families. If a Russian family can become successful after only a few years in a foreign country, why can't all Americans have the same level of success? Undoubtedly, most American have had many more opportunity to succeed yet they fail to do so? Perhaps in that case they don't deserve another opportunity.
Unlike other segments of the population, Russian Jews realize that certain people just leach off of society. In fact given the opportunity to enjoy a lifestyle of their choice at the government's expense, many Russians would probably do just that. This makes Russian uniquely equipped to sniff out slackers and leaches to society, and when they hear groveling to such segments of the population they can't help but be appalled.
First of all, it is my strong belief that the hardships of life in the Soviet Union has created a society of realists rather than idealists. Russian Jews want to hear answers rather than vague promises of hope, change, unicorns, kumbaya, and rainbows. So far (and this is unlikely to change) the Obama campaign has been built around vague policies and the notion of feeling good.
To Americans, perhaps this is a new concept and a change from politics as usual, but anyone who has lived in a socialist society can see these overtures for what they really are, empty promises. The Soviet government also talked about change, in fact they went one step better, they touted a world revolution of the proletariat. You see the working classes would seize power from the greedy rich people, and everyone would start living in a harmonious society. I mean who wouldn't want that? Every step of your life is planned out, you get to share your communal apartment with two or three of your favorite random families, and everyone will be on equal footing, with some being more equal than others. And while we try to get there, lets "Spread the wealth" as Goldenboy insists.
This brings me to the second point. Russian Jews don't like government handouts to the poor. Within only a few years after immigration, many Russian families are able to achieve a level of success not often parried by American families. If a Russian family can become successful after only a few years in a foreign country, why can't all Americans have the same level of success? Undoubtedly, most American have had many more opportunity to succeed yet they fail to do so? Perhaps in that case they don't deserve another opportunity.
Unlike other segments of the population, Russian Jews realize that certain people just leach off of society. In fact given the opportunity to enjoy a lifestyle of their choice at the government's expense, many Russians would probably do just that. This makes Russian uniquely equipped to sniff out slackers and leaches to society, and when they hear groveling to such segments of the population they can't help but be appalled.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Wow Radio sucks
Ok so one of these recent evenings I was driving without any CDs in my car and had the misfortune of turning on the radio. I turned on 96.3 and 103.5 and after about 5 minutes wanted to kill someone. I especially hate Pink. This no-talent artist that miraculously manages to extend a five word lyric into a 5 minute song needs to be deported to an abandoned coal mine in Canada, or if that's not available, perhaps to North Korea, where she can be the muse of the Dear Leader. Maybe the US really should consider this as a legitimate strategy at dealing with DPRK, I mean if Kim Jung Ill is recovering from a stroke, perhaps 5 to 10 minutes of Pink's music can take him out his misery. In a way I guess it is inspiring that in today's society Pink did not let the lack of good looks or talent stand in the path of her success.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
The last 8 years
I think it's funny how many people are so hostile towards Sarah Palin and how sexist the liberals really are. Granted, Palin's performance in the interviews has left something to be desired, but the truth of the matter is that Palin has more experience than Barack Obama. The media, SNL, and others are trying to show Palin to be just some dumb woman, and I don't really see how that's not offensive. Yet Goldenboy, is commended on his sexiness on shows like the View rather than asked about any tough issues.
I would really like to see a tough interview of Obama, I'd like to see him asked about Wright, Ayers, Rezko. I'd like him asked about the 57 states in the Union, his Muslim faith (his words not mine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIXRt57tM3Q) and being endorsed by Hamas. I would like him to name a single legislative accomplishment that he has achieved over the last 4 years, two of which were spent campaigning. I would like him to describe a single one of his programs in any detail, and I would like to know where he will find the money to fund it after the behemoth bailout that he has endorsed.
I'm tired that eloquence or rather ability to read off the teleprompter is somehow seen as a great qualification for our president. Of course, President Bush has done little to quench the thirst for fine oratory or wit, but ask yourself is your life really that much worse now than 8 years ago? Don't listen to the news, don't read any commentary, just think of your personal life, is your family better or worse than it was 8 years ago?
I remember when Bush was first elected, apocalypse was being predicted by the Democratic party. Celebrities threatened to move to Canada, and abortion right activists claimed the era of Roe vs. Wade was over. Yet nothing really changed. My family, and I would imagine most peoples' families are as prosperous as ever. Yes we are in Iraq, but really what percent of the population is actually effected by this? I would venture to say that out of families with active duty soldiers, most lean Republican anyway. Yes the economy is supposedly in bad shape, but how many people have felt the effects of it so far, I'm not seeing troves of newly homeless warming up by the fire in downtown Chicago, but maybe the four horseman of the apocalypse have been rendered invisible by the global warming related smog.
I'm not a fan of Bush, and I don't agree with everything on the Republican agenda, and I'm not a Republican.
I am for a strong America, I am for more individual freedom, and I am for reaping rewards for responsible behavior and suffering consequences for the lack thereof.
I would really like to see a tough interview of Obama, I'd like to see him asked about Wright, Ayers, Rezko. I'd like him asked about the 57 states in the Union, his Muslim faith (his words not mine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIXRt57tM3Q) and being endorsed by Hamas. I would like him to name a single legislative accomplishment that he has achieved over the last 4 years, two of which were spent campaigning. I would like him to describe a single one of his programs in any detail, and I would like to know where he will find the money to fund it after the behemoth bailout that he has endorsed.
I'm tired that eloquence or rather ability to read off the teleprompter is somehow seen as a great qualification for our president. Of course, President Bush has done little to quench the thirst for fine oratory or wit, but ask yourself is your life really that much worse now than 8 years ago? Don't listen to the news, don't read any commentary, just think of your personal life, is your family better or worse than it was 8 years ago?
I remember when Bush was first elected, apocalypse was being predicted by the Democratic party. Celebrities threatened to move to Canada, and abortion right activists claimed the era of Roe vs. Wade was over. Yet nothing really changed. My family, and I would imagine most peoples' families are as prosperous as ever. Yes we are in Iraq, but really what percent of the population is actually effected by this? I would venture to say that out of families with active duty soldiers, most lean Republican anyway. Yes the economy is supposedly in bad shape, but how many people have felt the effects of it so far, I'm not seeing troves of newly homeless warming up by the fire in downtown Chicago, but maybe the four horseman of the apocalypse have been rendered invisible by the global warming related smog.
I'm not a fan of Bush, and I don't agree with everything on the Republican agenda, and I'm not a Republican.
I am for a strong America, I am for more individual freedom, and I am for reaping rewards for responsible behavior and suffering consequences for the lack thereof.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Day after the Debate
Debate observations:
-I thought Obama came off as rude throughout the evening. On many occasions he tried to interrupt McCain or inserted some comment like "it's not true" while McCain was speaking. I also found it incredibly rude when he said "Are you done?" while McCain was trying to make his point.
-I didn't think either candidate made a real solid point on economics. McCain presented the conservative view that gov't regulation only creates more problems down the line, while Obama was only to eager to trumpet gov't involvement in the financial market. I thought the key point came when Obama could not come up with a single program that he would consider cutting despite the $700 billion bailout. After being asked several time, he kept only talking about the need for fluff programs.
-I thought McCain made two solid points on foreign policy, one involving sitting down with Ahmadinwackjob and the other about Obama insisting the surge didn't work. I though it was a great exchange when McCain asked Obama what he would talk about with Ahmadinajad. Obama's attempt to use Kissinger's statements against McCain also reeked of desperation and lack of knowledge/understanding.
-Throughout the debate it seemed rather obvious that Obama was doing his best George W Bush impression in trying to avoid any specific mention of foreign leader names, countries, or important events. He seemed like a person who is clueless yet tries to project an image of a knowledgeable person. In contrast McCain was able to draw a connection between 25 years of successful engagement in foreign policy and his bid for the presidency.
On a Separate note: My commentary on the bailout didn't mention that help to irresponsible borrowers was part of the $700B package. My point centered on the politicking by the Democrats who are holding the nation's economy hostage by demanding concessions to help such individuals as part of any bailout programs. I honestly don't know what the right course of action is at this point, but focusing on helping the thousands of people who took out loans far exceeding their payment abilities is wrong. I think the whole experience just shows the issues that arise out of government regulation of financial markets. The prospect of the gov't safetynet is what promoted a lot of this irresponsible behavior. Now we are stuck between a rock and a hard place, and no option is particularly attractive.
-I thought Obama came off as rude throughout the evening. On many occasions he tried to interrupt McCain or inserted some comment like "it's not true" while McCain was speaking. I also found it incredibly rude when he said "Are you done?" while McCain was trying to make his point.
-I didn't think either candidate made a real solid point on economics. McCain presented the conservative view that gov't regulation only creates more problems down the line, while Obama was only to eager to trumpet gov't involvement in the financial market. I thought the key point came when Obama could not come up with a single program that he would consider cutting despite the $700 billion bailout. After being asked several time, he kept only talking about the need for fluff programs.
-I thought McCain made two solid points on foreign policy, one involving sitting down with Ahmadinwackjob and the other about Obama insisting the surge didn't work. I though it was a great exchange when McCain asked Obama what he would talk about with Ahmadinajad. Obama's attempt to use Kissinger's statements against McCain also reeked of desperation and lack of knowledge/understanding.
-Throughout the debate it seemed rather obvious that Obama was doing his best George W Bush impression in trying to avoid any specific mention of foreign leader names, countries, or important events. He seemed like a person who is clueless yet tries to project an image of a knowledgeable person. In contrast McCain was able to draw a connection between 25 years of successful engagement in foreign policy and his bid for the presidency.
On a Separate note: My commentary on the bailout didn't mention that help to irresponsible borrowers was part of the $700B package. My point centered on the politicking by the Democrats who are holding the nation's economy hostage by demanding concessions to help such individuals as part of any bailout programs. I honestly don't know what the right course of action is at this point, but focusing on helping the thousands of people who took out loans far exceeding their payment abilities is wrong. I think the whole experience just shows the issues that arise out of government regulation of financial markets. The prospect of the gov't safetynet is what promoted a lot of this irresponsible behavior. Now we are stuck between a rock and a hard place, and no option is particularly attractive.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Can I get a bail out?
I'm a little upset with this whole mortgage crisis. Why is the gov't so concerned about helping people who decided to live beyond their means, while punishing those who had common sense?
Is this really going to help anyone in the long run? All this is doing is sending a message, "go ahead screw up, and let Uncle Sam (or any uncle who pays taxes in the US) foot the bill." This moronic obsession with its origins in wealth redistribution is absurd. If the gov't just lets those folks lose their homes, I think it would send quite a message, "Think twice before you buy something you can't afford." I dare even say that it would be a long-lasting message, that these folks would pass down to their children.
Realistically how are these people any worse off than someone who is a responsible borrower. These slackers are living in a better home than the responsible individual of the same income level, and have the gov't fight to keep it that way. That doesn't sound just. Sam Zell was right there needs to be a cleansing.
Is this really going to help anyone in the long run? All this is doing is sending a message, "go ahead screw up, and let Uncle Sam (or any uncle who pays taxes in the US) foot the bill." This moronic obsession with its origins in wealth redistribution is absurd. If the gov't just lets those folks lose their homes, I think it would send quite a message, "Think twice before you buy something you can't afford." I dare even say that it would be a long-lasting message, that these folks would pass down to their children.
Realistically how are these people any worse off than someone who is a responsible borrower. These slackers are living in a better home than the responsible individual of the same income level, and have the gov't fight to keep it that way. That doesn't sound just. Sam Zell was right there needs to be a cleansing.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Life without Israel or Jews
Oftentimes, I hear many gentiles (especially Europeans) or extremely liberal Jews say that if the state of Israel did not exist the world would have been a better place. Muslim terrorism wouldn't exist, the Arab world wouldn't hate America, and that everyone would just get along.
Unfortunately, this is quite a simplistic answer without much emphasis on fact. Let us pretend that Israel no longer exists, let us pretend that Jews (the much reviled source of hatred of the Muslim world) do not exist. What would happen then?
Would Russians continue to fight the Dagestanis and Chechens?
Would Serbs continue to fights the Kosovars and Bosnians?
Would the Pakistanis and Indians get along?
Would the Thai Muslims continue to try to succeed in the south of that country?
Would Muslim terrorists disappear from the Phillipines and China?
Would Darfur be averted?
Would Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq and Iran stop fighting?
Of course I can go on and on, but the simple fact is that none of these conflicts involve Israel or Jews in the remotest way, and yet they all have one thing in common, Muslim religious zeal. Now of course there are extremists in many religions including Judaism and Christianity, but somehow the main populace has been able to contain the numbers of such ideologues to a significant minority.
The point of making Israel and Jews into the world's villain is simply unfounded. If Israel didn't exist who is to say that Muslim extremist wouldn't find some other cause to rally around. They would most certainly find some "fourth" or "fifth" most holy city to expel the infidels from. For instance Al-Qaida's founding mission was not attacking Israel, it was expelling the infidels from Saudi Arabia, during the first Gulf War era.
Without Israel life would be much worse for the United States. If the US allows Israel to cease to exist, they will find themselves one step closer to confronting radical Muslim terrorist here at home. I view Israel as the important outlook station, without which America will be blind to its threats.
On a Separate note: Speaking of Jews, it would be kind of interesting to ponder what would have happened if Kievan Rus adopted Judaism rather than Christianity. Few people realize how close this was to reality. Judaism made it to the top three, along with Islam and Christianity, but lost out at the end. I hear it might have won the Congeniality prize but that's just pure speculation. Anyway here is an article about the discovery of an ancient Jewish city in Russia....http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080920/ap_on_re_eu/russia_lost_capital
Unfortunately, this is quite a simplistic answer without much emphasis on fact. Let us pretend that Israel no longer exists, let us pretend that Jews (the much reviled source of hatred of the Muslim world) do not exist. What would happen then?
Would Russians continue to fight the Dagestanis and Chechens?
Would Serbs continue to fights the Kosovars and Bosnians?
Would the Pakistanis and Indians get along?
Would the Thai Muslims continue to try to succeed in the south of that country?
Would Muslim terrorists disappear from the Phillipines and China?
Would Darfur be averted?
Would Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq and Iran stop fighting?
Of course I can go on and on, but the simple fact is that none of these conflicts involve Israel or Jews in the remotest way, and yet they all have one thing in common, Muslim religious zeal. Now of course there are extremists in many religions including Judaism and Christianity, but somehow the main populace has been able to contain the numbers of such ideologues to a significant minority.
The point of making Israel and Jews into the world's villain is simply unfounded. If Israel didn't exist who is to say that Muslim extremist wouldn't find some other cause to rally around. They would most certainly find some "fourth" or "fifth" most holy city to expel the infidels from. For instance Al-Qaida's founding mission was not attacking Israel, it was expelling the infidels from Saudi Arabia, during the first Gulf War era.
Without Israel life would be much worse for the United States. If the US allows Israel to cease to exist, they will find themselves one step closer to confronting radical Muslim terrorist here at home. I view Israel as the important outlook station, without which America will be blind to its threats.
On a Separate note: Speaking of Jews, it would be kind of interesting to ponder what would have happened if Kievan Rus adopted Judaism rather than Christianity. Few people realize how close this was to reality. Judaism made it to the top three, along with Islam and Christianity, but lost out at the end. I hear it might have won the Congeniality prize but that's just pure speculation. Anyway here is an article about the discovery of an ancient Jewish city in Russia....http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080920/ap_on_re_eu/russia_lost_capital
Thursday, September 18, 2008
What's up with Russia?
As many of you have probably heard the Russian market has experienced quite a decline recently. The decline in the Russian market is only outdone by the Chinese stock markets. The decline stems from the fall in oil and commodity prices, drop in the demand from China, and the fall of the ruble.
But what is lost in all of this is the effect of a certain Mr. Putin and his politics. It seems to me that Putin believes that he can bring back the old Soviet Union, but what he doesn't understand is that the current Russia is much more intertwined into the world economy than the Soviet Union ever was. This is precisely why his authoritarian tendencies are really hurting the Russian economy.
For instance, what investor will feel comfortable when even large companies such as BP cannot escape the grasps of the government. The track record of Yukos, Mechel, already painted a dim picture of the Russian rule of law, but the past Georgian war has really hurt.
Now I'm not defending Russia or Georgia, but the fact that this war drove a sharp decline in foreign investment is evidence of irresponsible leadership. Somehow I highly doubt that China with all of its authoritarianism would be willing to start a war with a foreign country or Taiwan. That is because when a regime is already viewed as shaky and potentially unfriendly to foreign business, something as dubious as a war with a tiny neighbor isn't going to do much for investor confidence.
In the end it appears that Russia might come to realization that the economy and not Georgia should be its primary focus. I don't exactly see how adding two tiny and impoverished republics to its territory, should be the government's priority. If Russia remains ignorant of such realities, it risks economic collapse which is likely to bring about a regime change that even Mr. Putin won't be able to avoid. Russia must make a choice capitalism and rule of law or authoritarianism and murky economics.
But what is lost in all of this is the effect of a certain Mr. Putin and his politics. It seems to me that Putin believes that he can bring back the old Soviet Union, but what he doesn't understand is that the current Russia is much more intertwined into the world economy than the Soviet Union ever was. This is precisely why his authoritarian tendencies are really hurting the Russian economy.
For instance, what investor will feel comfortable when even large companies such as BP cannot escape the grasps of the government. The track record of Yukos, Mechel, already painted a dim picture of the Russian rule of law, but the past Georgian war has really hurt.
Now I'm not defending Russia or Georgia, but the fact that this war drove a sharp decline in foreign investment is evidence of irresponsible leadership. Somehow I highly doubt that China with all of its authoritarianism would be willing to start a war with a foreign country or Taiwan. That is because when a regime is already viewed as shaky and potentially unfriendly to foreign business, something as dubious as a war with a tiny neighbor isn't going to do much for investor confidence.
In the end it appears that Russia might come to realization that the economy and not Georgia should be its primary focus. I don't exactly see how adding two tiny and impoverished republics to its territory, should be the government's priority. If Russia remains ignorant of such realities, it risks economic collapse which is likely to bring about a regime change that even Mr. Putin won't be able to avoid. Russia must make a choice capitalism and rule of law or authoritarianism and murky economics.
World is coming to an end
Today in the WSJ I read that the current financial crisis is the worst since the great depression? Really? Great Depression was pretty bad, and really didn't end from the time the Market crashed till WW2, it created long lines for welfare checks, double digit unemployment, and "hoovervilles" as well as an "alphabet soup" of new gov't agencies under Roosevelt.
Today unemployment is at around 6%, not too bad all things considered. I'm not seeing double digit interest rates and mile long lines at the gas station a la Carter years. The rise in foreclosure is limited to certain states (Florida and California), and is heavily impacted by foreclosures on secondary residences. Somehow I have a feeling that the market gurus are making this out to be much more than it really is, perhaps it is because sensational news is what sells, perhaps it is because this "crisis" is one of the biggest things to happen to the markets for a while. But not so long ago we experienced 9/11, fall of Worldcom, Enron, and the burst of the tech bubble and that had a lot of potential to really mess things up, granted it has caused difficulties but they have passed for the large part, and this too shall pass.
On a lighter note, some sort of genius combined my interest in politics, humor, and love of hockey. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URIypadX3n0
Today unemployment is at around 6%, not too bad all things considered. I'm not seeing double digit interest rates and mile long lines at the gas station a la Carter years. The rise in foreclosure is limited to certain states (Florida and California), and is heavily impacted by foreclosures on secondary residences. Somehow I have a feeling that the market gurus are making this out to be much more than it really is, perhaps it is because sensational news is what sells, perhaps it is because this "crisis" is one of the biggest things to happen to the markets for a while. But not so long ago we experienced 9/11, fall of Worldcom, Enron, and the burst of the tech bubble and that had a lot of potential to really mess things up, granted it has caused difficulties but they have passed for the large part, and this too shall pass.
On a lighter note, some sort of genius combined my interest in politics, humor, and love of hockey. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URIypadX3n0
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Hello world
This is my first blog so I figure its proper to introduce myself. My name is Peter, I'm a Russian-American Jew. Meaning people have 3 separate and distinct reasons to hate me.
I've never really thought about blogging until my friend suggested that I have some views and insights that can be interesting for others. World affairs, politics, history, sports (hockey and soccer especially) are my passions, and I will try to bring my view of these topics to your attention.
Today I bring you the news of Tzipi Livni stepping one step closer to the Prime Minister's post of Israel. Although I respect this woman in the male dominated world (she's a former Mossad agent), she is the last thing Israel needs. It is very likely that she will continue on the path of negotiations with a Palestinian regime that is as fragile as ever. Any negotiations with the so-called "Palestinians"(a term applied exclusively to Arabs only in the 20th century) can take place when there is a general will for good faith negotiations on both sides.
As it stands now Israel can negotiate, make concessions, and etc., only to find a new regime in Palestine that revokes any prior concessions made by the Palestinians. This isn't such a hard to conceive notion given the wide spread support for Hamas and other terrorist groups within the Gaza and West Bank. At this point the Palestinians cannot negotiate amongst themselves without killing each other as evidenced by the recent developments in Gaza, how can they negotiate with Israel? Israel needs to stop any negotiations with Palestinians, it must develop a clear cause and effect relationship that rewards desirable behavior and punishes deviance from a desired course.
On a Separte note: Today at work I received one of those emails with a signature "Please consider the environment and trees before printing this message." I've received these messages before but I never really bothered saying anything to the sender, but this was too easy since this person sits very close to me. I asked what is the point of this message and received a response that it is meant to "chop down fewer trees and for paper companies to make less money". But where is the logic in that? Do these people understand that if the demand for paper declines, the paper companies or their supplier's will plant fewer trees? I would argue that printing less would do more harm to the environment, since fewer trees would need to be planted.
Quote of the day: "Vladimir Lenin did not destroy as much capital as this SEC."
I've never really thought about blogging until my friend suggested that I have some views and insights that can be interesting for others. World affairs, politics, history, sports (hockey and soccer especially) are my passions, and I will try to bring my view of these topics to your attention.
Today I bring you the news of Tzipi Livni stepping one step closer to the Prime Minister's post of Israel. Although I respect this woman in the male dominated world (she's a former Mossad agent), she is the last thing Israel needs. It is very likely that she will continue on the path of negotiations with a Palestinian regime that is as fragile as ever. Any negotiations with the so-called "Palestinians"(a term applied exclusively to Arabs only in the 20th century) can take place when there is a general will for good faith negotiations on both sides.
As it stands now Israel can negotiate, make concessions, and etc., only to find a new regime in Palestine that revokes any prior concessions made by the Palestinians. This isn't such a hard to conceive notion given the wide spread support for Hamas and other terrorist groups within the Gaza and West Bank. At this point the Palestinians cannot negotiate amongst themselves without killing each other as evidenced by the recent developments in Gaza, how can they negotiate with Israel? Israel needs to stop any negotiations with Palestinians, it must develop a clear cause and effect relationship that rewards desirable behavior and punishes deviance from a desired course.
On a Separte note: Today at work I received one of those emails with a signature "Please consider the environment and trees before printing this message." I've received these messages before but I never really bothered saying anything to the sender, but this was too easy since this person sits very close to me. I asked what is the point of this message and received a response that it is meant to "chop down fewer trees and for paper companies to make less money". But where is the logic in that? Do these people understand that if the demand for paper declines, the paper companies or their supplier's will plant fewer trees? I would argue that printing less would do more harm to the environment, since fewer trees would need to be planted.
Quote of the day: "Vladimir Lenin did not destroy as much capital as this SEC."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)