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.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
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)