Debate fixes to US domestic and foreign policies. http://www.fixourpolicies.com Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:52:12 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.2 http://www.fixourpolicies.com/images/M_images/joomla_rss.png http://www.fixourpolicies.com Debate fixes to US domestic and foreign policies. http://www.fixourpolicies.com/index.php/Economy/Bank-Stress-Tests-A-Sham.html ZTKZW85MXHPW Bank stocks have seen an enormous market rebound leading up to the release of the stress test results. Ironically, the two stocks that saw among the biggest gains were Bank of America (BAC) and Wells Fargo, each of which the government proclaimed would need substantially more capital. Am I the only one who thinks this is crazy?Anyway, there is a much more worrying angle to this story. First, the metric used to measure the health of the bank balance sheets was Tier 1 common capital . Ever heard of it? Neither has anyone else. That's because it was chosen because it made the banks look a whole lot healthier than they actually are, as reported by the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090507-717298.html) . So the capital the government let the banks take credit for is dubious at best.Secondly, the banks themselves lobbied mercilessly, and by and large, won major concessions from the government. These negotiations dropped the total capital shortfall more or less in half. Finally, the recent rebound in earnings were largely driven not by underlying strength of their operations, but accounting tricks. For example, the FASB under pressure from the government, more or less suspended mark to market accounting. Which means the banks can value all those toxic assets on their balance sheets however they want. Which really makes you wonder about those balance sheets, doesn't it? So what does this... Economy - Economy Mon, 11 May 2009 00:28:14 +0100 http://www.fixourpolicies.com/index.php/Economy/Stimulus-Bill-Fatally-Flawed-Tax-Cuts-And-State-Subsidies-Won-t-Help-Economy.html Virtually all economists agree that a massive economic stimulus (index.php/Economy/Financial-Crisis-Suggestions-for-Obama-Bailout-Plan.html) package is necessary to prevent one of the most severe recessions (and potentially depressions) since the Great Depression of the 1930s. However, the $800 billion stimulus bill working its way through congress is fatally flawed. This battle must be won on two fronts. First, we must fix the root of the problem, which is the housing crisis (index.php/Economy/Thank-God-the-Government-Bailed-out-Freddie-Mac-and-Fannie-Mae.html) . And second, we must stimulate spending which accounts for 2/3 of the US economic output. The challenge with the current bill is that it spreads out the money over too many areas without addressing these two core investments. There is but a small amount pledged to help homeowners (which does help address the root but insufficiently). At the same time, there is a massive amount of spending to bail out the states, but that money isn’t going to into incremental programs that would stimulate the economy. It’ll just help plug the massive state deficits without any incremental spending there. Additionally, there are massive tax breaks spread across broad income brackets. That’s frankly just a massive waste of money. Do you really think someone is going to go out and have the confidence to start spending again because they have an extra $20 in their paycheck every 2 weeks? That’s just absurd. Rather, the stimulus spending should be solely on getting unemployment down... Economy - Economy Sun, 01 Feb 2009 19:04:31 +0100 http://www.fixourpolicies.com/index.php/Economy/Financial-Crisis-Solution-Tell-Henry-Paulson-to-Shut-Up.html The biggest enemy to the end of the financial crisis and the beginning of an economic recovery is Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson himself. Let's forget for a minute that the decision by Paulson and Bernanke to let Lehman Brothers fail was the precipitating event leading to credit markets freezing up and the first round of financial panic. Since then, the two have been working diligently to correct this collosal mistake. But separating actions from words, we see that words are in fact much more potent. Since the end of September, every time Henry Paulson has opened his month, the Dow has dropped on average 196 points. On days when he was silent, the Dow has dropped on average 28 points. September 26, 2008 to December 1, 2008 Paulson Silent (Dow Change) Paulson Speaks (Dow Change) - 28 points-196 points So what's going on here? When the crisis started spiraling out of control after the Lehman failure, Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke swiftly stepped in with bold action, taking over AIG, preventing further failures, and proposing an unprecedented bailout fund of $700 billion. That was all somewhat re-assuring. But when congress waivered, Henry Paulson's second monumental mistake was appealing directly to the public, telling them if he didn't get the package the US would face the next great depression. And the world responded. Great depression? they gasped. Consumer confidence plummeted, as did consumer spending (which accounts... Economy - Economy Tue, 02 Dec 2008 09:26:36 +0100 http://www.fixourpolicies.com/index.php/Economy/Financial-Crisis-Suggestions-for-Obama-Bailout-Plan.html Shhh.... If you listen carefully, you can hear Milton Friedman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman) - the father of neo-conservative economic theory - turning over in his grave. Milton, who believed markets to be rational, perfectly transparent, and generally smart enough to look after their own interests argued vigorously against government regulation or government intervention in economic policy. In Milton's world, corporations would be smart enough to avoid an economic crisis, and if one should occur, they would be able to pull themselves out of it. Alas, the 2008 economic crisis seems to have successfully unsettled his basic premises and derailed a half century neo-conservative economic policy and dogma. Friedman's onetime idol and conceptual opposite was John Maynard Keynes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes) . Keynes was the most influential economist of the 30s and argued that in cases of catastrophic economic crises, corporations and markets may not be capable of pulling themselves out of the death spiral , resulting in a recession or even depression much deeper with more severe societal dislocation than would otherwise be necessary. In the most dire cases, strong government intervention was the only solution to ending economic collapse. In fact, massive government spending and employment did successfully end the great depression.So who is ultimately right? They both were in a sense. The challenge with Keynes was that he argued for consistent and regular government meddling in short-term economic swings, which ultimately led to the stagflation of the 70s.... Economy - Economy Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:38:41 +0100 http://www.fixourpolicies.com/index.php/Economy/GM-Bailout-Do-GM-Ford-and-Chrysler-deserve-bankruptcy.html As much as GM, Ford and Chrysler claim the recent crisis is the result of nothing more than the short term credit crunch, that claim is pure spin. The truth is much colder and harder than that. Fact: GM market share peaked 40 years ago (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-119069615.html) when they controlled over half of all vehicles sold in the US. They have lost market share nearly every single year since then, to the low 20s today (http://articles.latimes.com/2007/apr/25/business/fi-toyota25) . Fact: Despite near unanimous agreement that fossil fuels are causing global warming, and the fact that the US was sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year to repressive middle eastern governments, some of which covertly funneled funds to terrorists, the “big three” automakers steadfastly opposed tighter fuel efficiency standards (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/14/AR2007031400823.html). Fact: If GM, Ford and Chrysler had adopted stricter fuel efficiency standards, they would have a fleet of more competitive cars instead of huge gass-guzzling cars that nobody wants to drive, and they wouldn’t need this bailout.Fact: Executives from the big three showed up to congressional hearings on their own private jets (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/19/AR2008111903669.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) . When asked to raise their hands if they would give up their private for the benefit of their company, not a one of them raised their hands. This is more symbolic than anything, but it shows how out of touch with public opinion they are. So while... Economy - Economy Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:30:58 +0100 http://www.fixourpolicies.com/index.php/Environment/Green-The-Next-Space-Race.html On May 25, 1961 - nearly 50 years ago - John F Kennedy uttered a few words that transformed a nation, inspiring its citizens to undertake an unthinkable, unachievable task: “I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him back safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish.” It was a preposterous challenge, and the costs would be enormous. But Kennedy insisted, and the nation responded. On July 20, 1969, the dream was fulfilled when Apollo 11 landed on the moon. The ancillary benefits were huge and far reaching. Here’s a list of 79 of them (http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/benefits_of_space_program.html). Fifty years later, no president has come close to harnessing the energy, determination, and spirit of the American people to achieve a great and unobtainable goal like the race to the moon. But now is the time. The fact of the matter is, this nation, this continent, this planet is facing serious environmental change (index.php?option=com_content task=view id=33 Itemid=42) , that will have major economic, political, and human wellbeing consequences. Of that there is no longer any serious doubt or debate. I can think of no single issue with greater importance to human welfare... Environment - Environment Sun, 02 Dec 2007 22:57:05 +0100 http://www.fixourpolicies.com/index.php/Foreign-Policy/In-support-of-dictators-and-tyrants.html Machiavelli would be proud. Despite recurrently using the spread of democracy across the middle east as a justification for the Iraq war, the US continues to support dictators, tyrants, and coup-leaders worldwide. Let's have a brief history lesson. And I'm not talking about Eisenhower era support of Batista. I'm talking about much more recent history. Remember the failed coup attempt to overthrow the leftist, though legitimately elected, president of Venezuela Hugo Chavez in 2002? The United States quickly came out in support of the coup leaders, but quickly back peddled when Chavez regained control after less than two days. Or how about Pakistan today. Purvez Musharraf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pervez_Musharraf) took power in a military coup in 1999, ousting democratically elected Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, and suspending the constitution twice to maintain power, most recently in November 2007. He has jailed dissidents, jailed a supreme court justice, and generally behaved as a military dictator. As for the argument he is a strong ally in the war on terror, he only reluctantly agreed to oppose the Taliban under direct threat from the United States. Additionally, scientists in his country provided materials and training for building a nuclear weapon to Libya. The United States supported the Shah of Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi) (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi), the last Shah of 2500 years of continuous monarchy rule. According to Madeleine Albright, “In 1953 the United States played a significant... Foreign Policy - Foreign Policy Sun, 11 Nov 2007 16:36:22 +0100 http://www.fixourpolicies.com/index.php/Other-Category/Reducing-abortions.html It is important to consider factual abortion statistics for the pro abortion and pro life arguments. Abortion fact: there are a startling 42 million abortions worldwide (http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html) every year. Over a lifetime, that totals about 1 abortion for every woman on the planet, and in fact, nearly 1 in 2 women worldwide will have an abortion in their lifetime. I don't care if you're pro-life or pro-choice, these numbers are sobering. And let's get real for a minute. Whether there are laws prohibiting abortion or not, there are going to be abortions. Abortion fact: about 20 million women each year obtain abortions in countries where the practice is either illegal or restricted (http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html). Abortion is our reality. I can't really debate whether abortions should be legal under the do the right thing lens. That there are strong pro choice and pro life arguments in the abortion debate is not the point. The problem with the abortion debate is that it is about beliefs. Pro lifers believe life begins at inception, while pro choicers believe life begins at some later point - often defined as the point of viability of the fetus. And beliefs, by definition, are not provable. Depending on where you come out on this belief, you will argue that abortions are ethical or not. Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, what is generally not debated is that having an abortion is an undesirable, difficult,... Other Issues - Other Category Sat, 01 Sep 2007 22:30:11 +0100 http://www.fixourpolicies.com/index.php/Foreign-Policy/Invade-Iran-Pay-$10-Per-Gallon-for-Gas.html Let’s say it like it is. Iran’s president – Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (try saying that three times quickly) - is a radical. He believes that the Jewish holocaust never occurred and that Israel as a country should be dissolved. He is a strong supporter of Iran building nuclear enrichment facilities, despite the fact that his country has some of the richest oil reserves in the world and is in no need of an alternative source of energy. While Iran has repeatedly stated that this program is for “peaceful” purposes only, that claim is improbable at best. While ultimate power in Iran has rested with the religious fundamentalist Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the fact that a radical like Ahmadinejad was popularly elected by the Iranian people is disheartening. Though perhaps not as disheartening to re-electing George Bush (index.php/Healthcare-Category/Bush-is-going-to-hell.html). So the knee-jerk conclusion is that Iran is a population of radical Islamists which poses a serious threat to the western way of life. But dig a bit deeper, and you see that this is not the case, and worse, the United States has contributed significantly to the rise of Mr Ahmadinejad. Failed US Policies in IranIn fact, the radicalism in Iran has to a significant extent been exacerbated by misguided US policies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States-Iran_relations) and meddling. As I wrote in my article “in support of dictators and tyrants (index.php/Foreign-Policy/In-support-of-dictators-and-tyrants.html) ”, The United States supported the Shah of Iran (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi), the last Shah of 2500... Foreign Policy - Foreign Policy Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:45:20 +0100 http://www.fixourpolicies.com/index.php/Healthcare-Category/Why-Healthcare-is-Broken.html Health care in the United States is broken. Every individual deserves access to health care both preventative and emergency. This is a wealthy country, and the idea of letting people die for lack of medical access is unthinkable. Let's start with a few premises on healthcare: Health care is a human rightIt is in the interest of society to satisfy this right in the most cost effective and efficient mannerLet's get past the rhetoric and look at the facts:Over the past 15 years, health care costs have increased on average at double digit rates, far out-pacing inflation. This rate of increase is unsustainable, and is quickly becoming one of the largest single costs for individuals and corporations alike. An uninsured person visiting a doctor pays a rate that is nearly double that of an insured person FOR THE SAME DOCTOR. This is the person that can least afford to pay such outrageous rates.Uninsured people, unable to visit a physician for preventative care, must resort to emergency room care which is orders of magnitude more expensive that preventative care and results in uninsured people not catching major diseases like cancer that are treatable early in an illness.One major reason that insurance is so expensive is that the insured subsidize emergency care visits from the uninsured, who typically have no means to pay for such a visit.So what can be done about it? There are two angles to attack this: Universal healthcare coverageCost... Healthcare - Healthcare Category Sun, 22 Jul 2007 22:46:02 +0100