Friday, March 20, 2009

Taking the Pressure off Tehran

BBC NEWS | Americas | Obama offers Iran 'new beginning'
US President Barack Obama has offered "a new beginning" of engagement with Tehran in an unprecedented direct video message to the Iranian people...

In it, President Obama said he wanted "to speak directly to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran".
So President Obama is now engaged with the Mullahs. When will the marriage take Place? Obama's dowry: more or less telling the Iranian people he will not support a revolution against their newly legitimized government -- about the only thing that government really fears. Bonus item: the always rickety sanctions regime will collapse well before the marriage is consummated. And the Mullahs will abuse their lovely spouse and cheat -- and when he finds out he won't like it!

If his policy is to get the Russians to play the heavy with Tehran while the "O" makes nice, I don't see it working.

This engagement with the Mullahs also announces that a bunch of naive punks are going to engage in Middle East "realpolitik" and make nice-nice to all the local toughs. America, prepare to have your lunch money stolen and your nose bloodied.

Friday, March 13, 2009

Think Sink

Obama: Economic crisis 'not as bad as we think'
"And my long-term projections are highly optimistic, if we take care of some of these long-term structural problems."
What Mr. Obama is saying here is that he has to put the structural problems, such as socialized health care, in place before he can take care of them. But he will also have to hire the bureaucrats to care for the structural problems. Think of "Affordable housing." The Democrats created the structural problem, cared for it, kept it on life support and dialysis and even now won't let it die. They now got it to the point where you can't afford your house, but the people who don't have to pay their mortgages can -- now that it is worth half what you paid for it.

Before the structural problem could get that acute it required a lot of care and feeding by Congressional Democrats. But that structural problem should not be worried. Its "care givers" will still be at work when everyone else is laid off.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Thought Thaw Needed

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Earth warming faster than thought

Easy to believe the headline: their thoughts are frozen in place. "Give us power or give us a better retirement package! In fact give us both."

This from the Danish PM, Foghorn Leghorn Rasmussen: "Business as usual is dead - green growth is the answer to both our climate and economic problems."

Actually, they murdered business in a regulatory killing spree.  Government as usual, however, is bigger and better -- make that bigger and bigger -- than ever.  And ever is mighty big.

Don't worry, once the bureaucrats take over the world economy everything will be hunky-dory. For them.

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Stoner Econ 101

Belmont Club » Eve of Destruction 2
The financial systems reached the limits of its information span last year by walking off a cliff they didn’t see. And the trick is to see the next cliff. What steps will create more information out of the data instead of more walls, more partitions, more black boxes?
Applying the basic tenets of Stoner Economics might help us understand the financial crisis, and our response to it.

a) In stoner economics, lenders owe borrowers.

For instance, you are in a bar and a friend borrows twenty dollars. No sooner does he borrow the bucks than he acts like you owed him the money. Let's say you put in the effort to get the twenty back. Now he’s shown he’s “good for it,” so you owe him forty — the twenty you always owed him and the twenty he just gave you. So later on you “lend” him the forty. Only now you are short on cash, so naturally you borrow twenty from another friend so you can have someone who owes you. But he was a little short so he borrowed twenty from the guy you just lent the forty to. Meanwhile, you’ve opened up a tab at the bar and bought everyone drinks. In the end, only the bar actually gets paid. By you, of course.

In the case of money market funds, you should add seven or eight zeros to the above amounts.

When you are asked to pay your neighbor's mortgage or to help finance the next bailout, remember: Lenders owe borrowers.

b) In stoner economics the sum of all transactions is always less than zero.

Say you have some dope, and you have some money, and you want to get high. So you smoke the dope and you get high. Later, you want to get high, you don’t have any dope but you do have some money. So you buy some dope and you get high. Later, you want to get high but you don’t have any dope and you don’t have any money. So you borrow some money, you buy some dope, and you get high. Later, you want to get high, but you don’t have dope, you don’t have money and you are in debt. So you don’t pay your rent and you buy some dope and you get high. Later, you want to get high. But you don’t have dope, you don’t have money, you owe money, and you haven’t paid your rent. So you hit up your grandmother, who is a little forgetful but can still sign a check.

We have now reached the final stage, but we cannot hit up our grandma for her past thrift (we kinda maybe already spent that) but we can hit up our grandkids — trade on their future labor, you might say.

But why were the sums in the example less than zero? After all, the dope was always bought. But the stoner is not doing what the squares used to call “useful work.” He is hustling to get high. And the money goes into the drug market, where maybe it hires mules and stuff but is generally not productive for the entire economy. So it all adds up to less than Zero. Not only is the money misspent, but so is a lot of the time and effort connected to it.

An economic bubble also encourages a lot of wasted time and effort. When the bubble deflates, it all goes up in smoke.

Basically, an investment should produce a return and in a bubble the returns are imaginary.

c) One of my pet peeves about President Obama is his use of the word “investing” to replace “spending.” So we invest in giving his voters raises and whatnot.

But I now realize he is using basic Stoner Economics. In Stoner Economics:

-Spending that makes you feel good is an investment.
-That in which you invest, you quickly consume.
-The bigger the investment, the quicker the consumption.
-The “Investors” who provide the “Capital to feel good” were often unwilling providers of funds (they was robbed).
-Those involved in the investment can take a hit (share the joy).
-Everyone is responsible for their own bad trip (so don't worry about unintended consequences).

I’m looking for the mathematical model I developed for Stoner Economics. I got it around here somewhere. I hope I find it. I couldn't repeat the intellectual exercise (hell, I might not even survive it).

Someone tell him Bush is no longer President.

Europe Snubs US Calls for Further Spending - Economy * Europe * News * Story - CNBC.com
Jean-Claude Juncker, chairman of a meeting of euro zone finance ministers, rejected the notion that European governments' fiscal policy was not aggressive enough.

"The 16 finance ministers agreed that recent American appeals insisting Europeans make an added budgetary effort were not to our liking, given that we are not prepared to go further in the recovery packages we have put forward," he told reporters in Brussels after ministers held regular talks.


Not to their liking indeed!

Is Syria Involved?

BBC NEWS | Middle East | 'Dozens dead' in Baghdad bombing
At least 33 people, including a local army chief, have died and 46 have been injured in a suicide attack on the western edge of Baghdad, officials say.


Syria sponsors many a car bomb in Lebanon. Keeping Iraq in turmoil could serve them well. Plus, they would want to take out the competition to their own guys.

"Talking" to Syria is like giving them a license to do no good. It wouldn't surprise me if they reverted to form.

Monday, March 9, 2009

What you missed was everything before the election.

FT.com / Columnists / Clive Crook - Why Obama’s left leaning is no tactical feint
If Mr Obama were a centrist he would be positioning himself to the right of the congressional Democrats, with a plan to be walked back in their direction. In fact, his budget has delighted the left of his party. Far from pulling him to the centre, most Democrats will resist that move if he tries. Or am I missing something?


That's how Mr. Cook ended the article. He began it with this:

On this page last week I argued that Barack Obama’s first budget showed him to be more of a left-leaning liberal than I and many others – sceptics and admirers alike – had previously supposed.


Everything we knew about President Obama before the election told us that he was quite liberal and perhaps a Marxist as well. It was his policy to lose the Iraq war, for Pete's sake. Come on Clive, pay attention. Everything he's doing now he said he would do. Oh, there were some obvious lies (see everything about clean coal and oil drilling). But Clive, are you delusional? Well, you say you welcome "cap and trade" so I guess you are.