Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Was this one terrorism too, and covered up?...
White House Briefing: November 12 Plane Crash in N.Y.
Fleischer says "no unusual communications" before crash
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/01111111.htm
Plane crashes into a Queens residential neighborhood on Veterans Day, 2001, with so many people at home...
Constitution Center brings liberties to life
By: Michael J. Mishak / Staff Writer 07/02/2003
The story of America is brought to life inside the Kimmel Theater, at the new National Constitution Center.
During the summer of 1787, 42 men endured Philadelphia's oppressive heat and humidity as they struggled to translate the ideals of the American Revolution into reality
http://www.newsgleaner.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=9084148&BRD=2340&PAG=461&dept_id=488595&...
What PERFECT timing, for such a reminder. Tho I doubt the people of Phili have forgotten.... :)
Dubya = An example of "whacko & extremist", and hopefully not a reflection of the American mainstream... Hopefully not!...
It is satire, and probably shouldn't even use the word "Christian". The Landover site satires certain whackos, extremists and charlatans who call themselves "Christian". We have a few on this thread. What group doesn't have it's whackos? Some of Landover's stuff is very funny. But it's not supposed to be a satire of the mainstream or overwhelming majority of Christians.... :)
American Christian Heritage Month™
The Lost Treasure of Slavery
Excerpt From Pastor Deacon Fred's Address to Church Members
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0603/heritage.html
One big, enmeshed, dysfunctional family...
All in the Neocon Family
By Jim Lobe, AlterNet
March 27, 2003
What do William Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Elliot Abrams, and Robert Kagan have in common? Yes, they are all die-hard hawks who have gained control of U.S. foreign policy since the 9/11 attacks. But they are also part of one big neoconservative family – an extended clan of spouses, children, and friends who have known each other for generations.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15481
==============================================================
What doesn't Rupert Murdoch own ???...
This morning, neocon news was arguing the need for drilling in Alaska and in other environmentally protected areas, saying the price of natl gas is supposed to double next winter. And without this drilling, we face critical shortages. I couldn't help but wonder if we are facing another California-type energy scam... It's bad when you lose all reasonable faith in gov, and this Admin has given us, and the world, so many reasons to doubt. To say Bush has a credibility problem is an understatement.....
LOL! Poor Dubya aint never been the sharpest tool in the shed...
One can only wonder, if he weren't born to a wealthy, political family,
what would have become of Young George??... :)
XBox is a DVD player too so it was economical. It loses it appeal. Everything in moderation.....
Bush & Co are out of control! So is neocon media.
On the subject of the girl and the Barbie T-shirt...
Last night Kubbe, the girl's attorney, was on Fox. Kasich became very impatient with with Kubbe, and said "don't you understand that most Americans would be very offended" by the Barbie T-shirt?... Personally, I'd laugh... But have we, as a society, become so rigid that we have forgotten what it's like to be 13??.. We forget that kids challenge authority? They seek individuality?.. We grew up in the 70's.. Have we forgotten what that was like?... Or should we return to a more Puritanical Era??...
Now it's OK even PC for adults (conservatives) to call others "diaper heads, & cow lovers" (or whatever that was??) - & to harbour bias toward French, Germans, Arabs, pro-ICC nations, anti-war people, "feminists", gays, "godless liberals", and other non Judeo-Christians etc... But kids can't express themselves with a silly T-shirt??... Silly T-shirts are a problem too?...
What's going on in the world??...
LOL! I wonder about "Square Pants"??? What "message" does "Square Pants" send to our kids??...
Personally, I think we need to return to an era where "children are seen and not heard",
and they all dress like little Amish kids... :)
Actually, the Amish are awesome! My kids can't figure out how they function without XBox and internet access.... :))
Good conservative children shop at Abercrombie & Fitch. "Flatulence" was a 'Blue Light' Special... :)
Dick & Lynne probably don't see eye to eye either...
Lynne is die-hard for woman's rights. How did she ever wind up with Dick??...
GI Joe is a macho guy. Only "liberals" would suggest Joe was gay...
"Real Men" played with GI Joe - but not Barbie's Ken...
Capish??... :)
Agreed!! Pappy was "liberal" in comparison...
Barbara is pro-choice - & therefore probably "hell bound"...
Poor Babs! :)
Falwell & the Moral Majority took on the Barney & the Teletubbies. {{The COLOR PURPLE!..}}. There's been some suspicion about SpongeBob-SquarePants. And everyone knows Bert & Ernie promote the gay lifestyle to America's impressionable toddlers and preschoolers. I am outraged with such perverse and disgusting programming and imagery!
"Ken is gay"... Punishable by "stoning"??...
Do we remember what we wore as kids?.. Seeking individuality, or shocking adults, or whatever??... Kids wear goofy stuff while trying to express their individuality. I think the shirt, worn by a 13yo girl, was supposed to be a goof. My child has a (goof) T-shirt that say "Cheese Cutting Department" - or something like that... A (vulgar??) reference to flatulence.
Is it a "sin" to wear that shirt??...
"Barbie is a lesbian" (Black T-Shirt, pink letters): Neocon media is outraged that this child would wear such an offensive tee shirt... Oh, the moral decay, social decadence, blah blah blah...
Teen sues over "lesbian Barbie" shirt ban
Thu Jun 19, 3:29 PM ET
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A New York teen-ager has alleged teachers violated her civil rights when they suspended her from school for wearing a "Barbie is a Lesbian" T-shirt.
Lawyers who filed a lawsuit on her behalf in Manhattan federal court on Thursday said 14-year-old Natalie Young is openly lesbian and that a teacher laughed at her, calling the garment and its reference to the popular Barbie doll "inappropriate."
Young alleged that the principal held her for three hours in an office at the school in the borough of Queens on April 10, 2002 and refused to allow her to return to class while she wore the T-shirt.
A spokesman for the city education department, a defendant in the lawsuit, declined immediate comment.
Young was suspended for the day and the principal threatened to send her home again if she wore the T-shirt to school in future, the lawsuit alleged.
"Schools cannot legally engage in this type of selective, content-based suppression of speech," lawyer Dan Perez said. "If she had worn a 'Barbie Supports the Troops in the War in Iraq (news - web sites)' T-shirt, she would have been called a patriot."
Perez said that on another school day before the T-shirt incident, teachers made Young remove rainbow coloured beads from her hair, although she was not suspended then.
The lawsuit, which names the education department, school principal and several teachers as defendants, seeks a declaration from the court that Young's constitutional right to free speech was violated. It asks the department to issue guidelines on students' dress and on dealing with students' expression of their sexual orientation.
The lawsuit, which was filed in the name of the student's mother, Kathleen Hodges, because Young is a minor, also seeks unspecified monetary damages.
"That is not the most important issue here but if a jury decides to contribute to Natalie's college fund, all the better," Perez said.
Copyright © 2003 Reuters Limited.
"Bring It On"... With troops in harms way, and losing 1 a day??
Young Dubya is as clueless and insensitive as his Pappy!..
Maine, diaper wearing, cow worshipping indians
An absolutely vulgar statement! But not surprising considering the source...
When did we stop being people FIRST??
Gross!!
Bhopal, The World’s Worst Industrial Disaster
(Excerpted from Corporate Moral Responsibility: the Bhopal Incident by Richard T. de George)
On December 3, 1984, one of the worst industrial disasters of all time occurred in Bhopal, India. During the early hours of the morning a poisonous gas, methyl isocyanate (MIC), used in producing the pesticide, Sevin, leaked from a Union Carbide plant. The gas was borne by the wind and hovered for a while over the desperately poor, very overcrowded shanty town that had grown up around the plant. By the time the gas dissipated it had killed at least 2,000 people and injured over 200,000 others. The incident shocked the world. The Union Carbide plant was clearly causally responsible for the harm done. Under Indian law both a corporation and its officers can be held criminally liable. The Indian Government arrested the plant manager on charges of “culpable homicide through negligence.” When Warren Anderson, Chairman of the Board of Union Carbide arrived in India from the United States, he was charged with “negligence and criminal corporate liability” and “criminal conspiracy.”
The pesticide, Sevin, which Union Carbide made at Bhopal, was distributed in India. It is used on corn, soybeans, cotton, alfalfa, and other crops. Its use in India resulted in crop yields of about 10 percent higher than before the pesticide was used. This meant food for about 70,000,000 Indians who would otherwise have faced starvation or severe malnutrition. Union Carbide did not build the plant in Bhopal to increase profits. It could have supplied India with Sevin made in the United States more cheaply than it was able to produce it in India. In 1984, the Bhopal plant operated at a loss. It was underutilized, producing only one-third of its capacity. It was reducing costs through manpower reductions, and it was up for sale. The plant was entirely run by Indian managers who operated the company as a separate entity.
The case is a dramatic, interesting, and complicated one. In order to answer the question of what the responsibility of Union Carbide was in this incident, we should first get clear what sorts of responsibilities corporations have in general. People often speak of “corporate responsibility” and the “social” responsibility of corporations. They do not usually speak of corporate moral responsibility. There are actually four different types of responsibilities that corporations have. They are related and often overlap. But unless we take the time and trouble to distinguish them we, and corporations, cannot know how to weigh and meet them.
The four kinds of responsibility are corporate, moral, social, and legal. Purely corporate responsibilities stem from the goals of a corporation and the interests of those who own or work for it. Making a profit is a corporate demand of shareholders and the Board of Directors of any corporation. Thus, management has the corporate responsibility to make a profit. Unless it does so, the Board may replace the present managers with others who can do better. However, the responsibility to make a profit is not a moral, social, or legal responsibility. If, in a bad year, Union Carbide fails to make a profit, its shareholders may be unhappy. Failure to make a profit is not immoral, or illegal, in itself, but since Union Carbide, India, was running at a loss, and since it had been laying people off, those running the company understandably felt an obligation to cut other costs to the extent possible. One action lower management took was to shut down the expensive refrigeration equipment cooling the MIC storage tanks so they could use the freon elsewhere in the plant.
Moral responsibilities stem from the moral law. The obligation not to steal, not to cheat, not to lie are all examples. We must treat people as ends in themselves, not harm them, and see to it that the working conditions are safe. Such moral obligations remain, regardless of whether they are enacted into law, or whether they are socially mandated. Moral obligations, and the corresponding moral responsibilities, take precedence over corporate responsibilities. That is part of what it means to call them moral responsibilities. Shareholders have no right to ask that managers act immorally, and they have every right to expect that managers will act morally. If acting morally leads to a loss instead of a profit, shareholders have no right to claim that management should have acted immorally so as to meet their demands for a profit. Adequate protection of worker safety, and the safety of the public, are moral requirements. When companies do not adequately protect the safety of workers and the public, sometimes a social mandate develops in the form of newspaper campaigns or calls for tighter legislation. If firms react to such public demands, they can be said to accept a social responsibility.
In the Union Carbide case, if safety measures were not taken that should morally have been taken, then the desire to cut costs at the expense of safety cannot be justified. As a result of the incident, many people in the United States are discussing what laws to pass to more tightly control hazardous industries. Such laws may demand more than morality demands. In this case, the laws would form legal responsibility that goes beyond moral demands. This does not mean they would be immoral; simply that they would not be morally required. For example, not all OSHA regulations, or U.S. government mandated regulations, are morally required. The government may require more of companies than morality demands. These legal demands need not necessarily be adopted by foreign companies operating in countries other then the U.S. Morally mandatory demands, however, apply across national borders.
return to top
References
Excerpted from Richard T. De George, "Corporate Moral Responsibility: The Bhopal incident", Archives of the Angelo State University Symposium on American Values, edited by Kenneth L. Stewart, Angelo State University, http://www.angelo.edu/events/university_symposium/
We are the world's only super power - far wealthier and mightier than anyone else. Yet this Admin uses it's wealth and power to coerce, intimidate and bully. And we are supposed to cheer our military "victory" against some small, 3rd world (oil rich) country? Do we wonder why they hate us?... We wonder why anti-Americanism has grown since 9/11 and why Bush is so globally despised. It seems only Americans don't "get it".....
Leprich is only 77... They recruited them young, didn't they?
There aren't too many left....
The burst bubble, tech crash and energy fallout really stacked the deck against Davis, tho. Were these obstacles and challenges insurmountable?
I find it interesting that Davis was the first to yell scam over the "energy crisis". And Reps immediately yelled "whacko", "commie" etc... But Davis was right, and now he faces recall!...
I do wonder if big energy money is ultimately behind the recall effort. They certainly screwed alot of people....
Letter to Colin Powell on U.S. Bully Tactics Against International Criminal Court
June 30, 2003
http://hrw.org/press/2003/06/usa063003ltr.htm
They really do think they're above the law, any law.
SCHEER: Blame Bush in State Fiscal Crisis
By Robert Scheer, AlterNet
July 1, 2003
The other day a woman asked me to sign a petition calling for the recall of California Gov. Gray Davis. Why, I asked. Because he bankrupted the state, she said. When I begged to differ that it was the Bush administration and its buddies at companies like Enron that had put the state into an economic tailspin, she said she was being paid according to the number of petitions signed and didn't really care. But voters should care because Davis is being used as a fall guy for problems that are beyond his control.
Remember Enron and those other scandals that cost folks their jobs and their 401(k) savings? They were a result of deregulation, the mantra of the Republicans. Deregulation was most disastrous for California's energy market, in which a crisis cost jobs and threw the world's fifth-largest economy into long-term disruption. This was not the normal workings of the market but the result of market manipulation by officials of Enron and other energy companies, some of whom are on their way to trial.
Still out cruising the boulevards is our president's once close friend, Kenneth "Kenny Boy" Lay. A major contributor to Bush family political campaigns and former Enron chief executive, Lay invented the energy trading game. It was made possible by his successful lobbying for the 1992 Energy Policy Act, signed into law by the elder Bush. That law allowed a minor Texas company to mushroom into the world's largest energy titan before it went poof.
Daddy Bush also tended to Enron's rise by appointing Wendy L. Gramm to head the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which promptly exempted electricity trading from the regulatory oversight covering other commodities. Gramm went on to serve on Enron's board of directors and its so-called auditing committee. Her husband, Phil Gramm, then a GOP senator from Texas, later pushed through legislation further deregulating the industry.
When the younger Bush ran for president, he turned to Lay, who became the single biggest contributor to his campaign. George W. returned the favor big-time by appointing to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission members who looked the other way when Enron and its fellow swindler companies were fleecing California. These appointees insisted that California's problems were of its own making and would have to be solved without the imposition of the wholesale energy price caps that would have saved taxpayers from a crushing burden.
Vice President Dick Cheney emerged from secret meetings with Enron executives and stated that the administration considered wholesale price caps a "mistake" because "there isn't anything that can be done short-term to produce more kilowatts this summer." Either Cheney was lying or his Enron buddies were lying to him because, at the time, Enron was routing electricity from California to sell at a higher price in Oregon. Federal price controls would have prevented Enron and the other companies from playing one state against another.
It is disingenuous for California Republicans to now blame Davis rather than their man Bush for the state's economic problems. Only last week, the Republican-dominated FERC banned Enron from selling electricity as punishment for having severely distorted Western energy markets. Enron and 60 other companies were ordered to show why they should not be forced to return their illegally gained profits.
FERC at the same time said California must honor $12 billion in long-term contracts written under duress with the same companies that were gaming the market. The contradiction was acknowledged by commission Chairman Patrick H. Wood III: "I guess people could go, 'Gosh, these are the same parties that show up in those other [market-gaming] cases.' "
Duh! No kidding. They are being rewarded for scamming the state, which contributed to the budget crisis, and schoolchildren will have to pay the price.
Californians provide much more to the federal government in taxes than they get back in services. The feds should bail out the states, which cannot indulge in the red-ink financing that has become a specialty of the Bush administration.
It is absurd to blame current difficulties on any state's governor, Republican or Democrat. It is the Bush administration that has mismanaged a successful economy inherited from Bill Clinton. It is the Bush administration that should bear responsibility for the difficulties being experienced by state governments – and it should at least help California as much as it is helping our newest state, Iraq.
Support AlterNet
© 2003 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved. Reproduction by Syndication Service only.
Because of revision, most history is never learned...
I thought Allah didn't like us? And put a bounty on our heads - 72 virgins in paradise, or something like that...
Allah likes the barter system??... Mucho psycho stuff!... :)
I once heard him say "that dawg don't hunt" on national TV...
Maybe that's all he knows....
Fed's truly scary idea: tax you into spending
It's positively diabolical. Some Dallas Fed economists suggest perking up the economy by taking a piece of every dollar you have the gall to save.
By Bill Fleckenstein
There's always a loss of pride involved when we own up to our mistakes. It's a moment in time, though. It passes. Then we are enriched for what those mistakes have taught us. But when pride turns into hubris, there's no learning from one's mistakes. In fact, hubris sometimes drives the need to actively cover them up. That is the story of our Fed.
A few weeks ago, I was sent a paper by Evan Koenig and Jim Dolmas of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, titled "Monetary Policy in a Zero-Interest-Rate Economy." I started to write up my thoughts about it, but I was so incensed that I had to set them aside. I returned to the paper recently, only to feel the same sense of outrage. What it proposes is one of the most maniacal, diabolical ideas this group of idiots has come up with so far. I urge everyone to read this paper and consider what its implications are. This will be on the final, guaranteed. To read the text of the paper, click on the link at left.
Fed pens Frankensteinian nonfiction
Koenig and Dolmas start out by not understanding that deflation is a consequence of prior policy actions that create a bubble and have severe economic consequences. They fall into the trap that many people do, thinking that deflation is a disease, rather than the symptom of a previous disease -- wildly excessive monetary policy and the misallocation of capital associated with it. What they do is talk about how our experience in the 1930s and Japan's problems were a function of central banks not acting quickly enough. They fail to recognize that the problem is a function of the fact that the central banks acted like complete drunken fools in the first place. That precipitated the ensuing economic problems -- and today's environment that doesn't have enough inflation to suit the Fed.See the numbers
that lenders see.
Get a free credit report.
They then go on to talk about the challenges of, in essence, diddling the market in a near-zero-interest-rate environment. (In the past, I have likened this to the problems encountered by physicists near a black hole. Things are just different.) The Fed is so panicked about the stagnant economy that it's thinking about resorting to mad experiments to get its own way, i.e., make the economy do as it commands. Now as regular readers know, I don't really expect to see deflation. But the fact that the Fed would contemplate these measures is absolutely frightening.
Capital punishment for savers
There’s a lot of chatter in this paper about the Fed helping the economy by buying real goods and services, or other domestic securities, such as longer-term Treasurys. But here’s the most staggering idea in the paper: It contemplates taxing your savings.
Koenig and Dolmas propose what they admit is a radical idea: a "stamp tax." In this, a currency would have to be stamped periodically, and you would be charged for your currency, "in order to retain its status as legal tender. The stamp fee could be calibrated to generate any negative, nominal interest rate the central bank desired." They toss out a few numbers, say 1% a month, to validate your currency. In other words, it would cost you 12% a year to have the gall to save money.
So basically, these unelected morons are contemplating a new law -- "Thou shalt not save, thou shalt spend." And, if you don't, we're going to confiscate your money, via a tax, after we've already confiscated your money via debasement.
It is truly breathtaking to witness the measure of hubris, arrogance and wanton disrespect of people's money on the part of these idiots. That they would even entertain the idea of such a penalty (not that they will necessarily be able to get away with it) boggles the mind. That's the mindset of this group of lunatics, that it would cast itself as a dictator from ancient times, with the public there to do its bidding.
Meantime on Wall Street, the current mindset can best be described as remarkably bullish. Investors Intelligence recently reported that that its investor sentiment index indicated 60% bulls and just 16% bears -- a reading that has not been more lopsided since the spring of 1987, which I believe is saying something. I myself have not been operating bearishly, as I have been waiting for this rally to play itself out. I have a very dim outlook for the second half. Yet virtually no one seems to share that view, other than my good friend Fred Hickey, editor of the influential High-Tech Strategist newsletter, or Morgan Stanley chief economist Stephen Roach (more about him in a minute). As I continue to reappraise my assessment, I ask myself, what is it that these folks see that I do not see? Why is it that they are so lathered up about this particular moment in time?
A few things come to mind that separate the environment right now from other bear market rallies:
Many people were just tired of being bearish.
The market has been rallying for a time now, and it's currently up on the year.
In February and March, many folks feared terrorism and war. Those fears in particular made me nervous about being short back then (i.e., folks were bearish for the wrong reasons). But these reasons don't tempt me to change my view.
Lip service vs. embracing the bubble
More importantly, it strikes me that many people fail to understand that we had a bubble, and that it has created long-lasting, unavoidable repercussions. They can say the words, "We had a bubble," but they never get beyond that to accept the implications. So, when you put a summation sign in front of all this, it adds up to folks being particularly optimistic (more so than at any time in 16 years) about right here, right now, when in fact, it's just another bear market rally and rate cut.
Perhaps the cumulative effect of the previous 12 cuts will make the 13th magical. Perhaps the cumulative effect of what's gone on from a downsizing standpoint may matter. Perhaps the economy will see a bounce, but I find it unlikely that we will see anything more than that, if we even get that. To summarize, the bulls have yet to come up with a persuasive argument for their case. I still firmly believe that the second half is going to be a disappointment, both in the economy and the stock market.
Sentiment is getting set up for a letdown
Further, since so many people have swung their views around so hard, betting heavily on second-half wonders, I believe that sentiment is now more binary than ever. If disappointment starts to rear its ugly head, we will see a real wipeout in the equity market. That could happen later this year, even if the economy does better for a short period. (As an aside, and to repeat my recent comments, the Fed has now positioned itself so that in the event of an economic recovery, the law of unintended consequences might surface, in terms of a bond market wipeout -- especially if the Japanese bond market starts to decline.) And that's the situation in which we find ourselves, with very few skeptics remaining. Yet, the people making the bullish case, though they could possibly turn out to be right, have nothing new to bolster their prior arguments, which have not worked.
advertisement
The only person who inhabits the Wall Street mainstream and has voiced concern about the bubble and its aftermath these past three to five years is Stephen Roach. In his piece titled "Endless Bubble," he paints the picture of a Fed in the serial bubble-blowing business. First, the Fed created the stock market bubble. Now, to try to solve the problems of the bust, it's creating a bubble in the bond market. "The result," he writes, "is a seemingly endless array of bubbles that only heightens the perils of the post-bubble endgame. . . . The legacy of these bubbles is a sad testament to the excesses of an increasingly wealth-dependent U.S. economy: Consumers have now become addicted to the 'extra' purchasing power they can extract from overvalued assets." This is as succinct and brilliant a discussion as you'll find on the subject.
Time to own up to the bubble
My favorite part, however, was his conclusion: "The biggest difference between my bearish view of the world and the more sanguine views of others can be traced to the bubble. More than three years after America's equity bubble popped, there is an understandable temptation to believe that it's time to move on. A massive dose of fiscal and monetary stimulus, in conjunction with a sharp rebound in the stock market, adds to that conviction.
"As I see it, however, the legacy of this monstrous bubble endures -- not just in financial markets but also in the form of the excesses that it has fostered in the real economy and in its balance-sheet underpinnings. Until those excesses are purged, I maintain my view that America still needs to be seen through the lens of a post-bubble workout. As one bubble morphs into the next one, the moral hazard dilemma only deepens. And the endgame -- including the risks of deflation and a dollar crisis -- appears all the more treacherous."
Editor's note: Last Wednesday, following the Fed's announcement that it would cut rates 25 basis points, Bill Fleckenstein weighed in with his comments. To read them, click here.
Bill Fleckenstein is president of Fleckenstein Capital, which manages a hedge fund based in Seattle. He also writes a daily Market Rap column for TheStreet.com's RealMoney. At the time of publication, he had no positions in any securities mentioned in this article. His investment positions can change at any time. Under no circumstances does the information in this column represent a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any security. The views and opinions expressed in Bill Fleckenstein's columns are his own and not necessarily those of CNBC on MSN Money.
Fed's truly scary idea: tax you into spending
It's positively diabolical. Some Dallas Fed economists suggest perking up the economy by taking a piece of every dollar you have the gall to save.
By Bill Fleckenstein
There's always a loss of pride involved when we own up to our mistakes. It's a moment in time, though. It passes. Then we are enriched for what those mistakes have taught us. But when pride turns into hubris, there's no learning from one's mistakes. In fact, hubris sometimes drives the need to actively cover them up. That is the story of our Fed.
A few weeks ago, I was sent a paper by Evan Koenig and Jim Dolmas of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, titled "Monetary Policy in a Zero-Interest-Rate Economy." I started to write up my thoughts about it, but I was so incensed that I had to set them aside. I returned to the paper recently, only to feel the same sense of outrage. What it proposes is one of the most maniacal, diabolical ideas this group of idiots has come up with so far. I urge everyone to read this paper and consider what its implications are. This will be on the final, guaranteed. To read the text of the paper, click on the link at left.
Fed pens Frankensteinian nonfiction
Koenig and Dolmas start out by not understanding that deflation is a consequence of prior policy actions that create a bubble and have severe economic consequences. They fall into the trap that many people do, thinking that deflation is a disease, rather than the symptom of a previous disease -- wildly excessive monetary policy and the misallocation of capital associated with it. What they do is talk about how our experience in the 1930s and Japan's problems were a function of central banks not acting quickly enough. They fail to recognize that the problem is a function of the fact that the central banks acted like complete drunken fools in the first place. That precipitated the ensuing economic problems -- and today's environment that doesn't have enough inflation to suit the Fed.See the numbers
that lenders see.
Get a free credit report.
They then go on to talk about the challenges of, in essence, diddling the market in a near-zero-interest-rate environment. (In the past, I have likened this to the problems encountered by physicists near a black hole. Things are just different.) The Fed is so panicked about the stagnant economy that it's thinking about resorting to mad experiments to get its own way, i.e., make the economy do as it commands. Now as regular readers know, I don't really expect to see deflation. But the fact that the Fed would contemplate these measures is absolutely frightening.
Capital punishment for savers
There’s a lot of chatter in this paper about the Fed helping the economy by buying real goods and services, or other domestic securities, such as longer-term Treasurys. But here’s the most staggering idea in the paper: It contemplates taxing your savings.
Koenig and Dolmas propose what they admit is a radical idea: a "stamp tax." In this, a currency would have to be stamped periodically, and you would be charged for your currency, "in order to retain its status as legal tender. The stamp fee could be calibrated to generate any negative, nominal interest rate the central bank desired." They toss out a few numbers, say 1% a month, to validate your currency. In other words, it would cost you 12% a year to have the gall to save money.
So basically, these unelected morons are contemplating a new law -- "Thou shalt not save, thou shalt spend." And, if you don't, we're going to confiscate your money, via a tax, after we've already confiscated your money via debasement.
It is truly breathtaking to witness the measure of hubris, arrogance and wanton disrespect of people's money on the part of these idiots. That they would even entertain the idea of such a penalty (not that they will necessarily be able to get away with it) boggles the mind. That's the mindset of this group of lunatics, that it would cast itself as a dictator from ancient times, with the public there to do its bidding.
Meantime on Wall Street, the current mindset can best be described as remarkably bullish. Investors Intelligence recently reported that that its investor sentiment index indicated 60% bulls and just 16% bears -- a reading that has not been more lopsided since the spring of 1987, which I believe is saying something. I myself have not been operating bearishly, as I have been waiting for this rally to play itself out. I have a very dim outlook for the second half. Yet virtually no one seems to share that view, other than my good friend Fred Hickey, editor of the influential High-Tech Strategist newsletter, or Morgan Stanley chief economist Stephen Roach (more about him in a minute). As I continue to reappraise my assessment, I ask myself, what is it that these folks see that I do not see? Why is it that they are so lathered up about this particular moment in time?
A few things come to mind that separate the environment right now from other bear market rallies:
Many people were just tired of being bearish.
The market has been rallying for a time now, and it's currently up on the year.
In February and March, many folks feared terrorism and war. Those fears in particular made me nervous about being short back then (i.e., folks were bearish for the wrong reasons). But these reasons don't tempt me to change my view.
Lip service vs. embracing the bubble
More importantly, it strikes me that many people fail to understand that we had a bubble, and that it has created long-lasting, unavoidable repercussions. They can say the words, "We had a bubble," but they never get beyond that to accept the implications. So, when you put a summation sign in front of all this, it adds up to folks being particularly optimistic (more so than at any time in 16 years) about right here, right now, when in fact, it's just another bear market rally and rate cut.
Perhaps the cumulative effect of the previous 12 cuts will make the 13th magical. Perhaps the cumulative effect of what's gone on from a downsizing standpoint may matter. Perhaps the economy will see a bounce, but I find it unlikely that we will see anything more than that, if we even get that. To summarize, the bulls have yet to come up with a persuasive argument for their case. I still firmly believe that the second half is going to be a disappointment, both in the economy and the stock market.
Sentiment is getting set up for a letdown
Further, since so many people have swung their views around so hard, betting heavily on second-half wonders, I believe that sentiment is now more binary than ever. If disappointment starts to rear its ugly head, we will see a real wipeout in the equity market. That could happen later this year, even if the economy does better for a short period. (As an aside, and to repeat my recent comments, the Fed has now positioned itself so that in the event of an economic recovery, the law of unintended consequences might surface, in terms of a bond market wipeout -- especially if the Japanese bond market starts to decline.) And that's the situation in which we find ourselves, with very few skeptics remaining. Yet, the people making the bullish case, though they could possibly turn out to be right, have nothing new to bolster their prior arguments, which have not worked.
advertisement
The only person who inhabits the Wall Street mainstream and has voiced concern about the bubble and its aftermath these past three to five years is Stephen Roach. In his piece titled "Endless Bubble," he paints the picture of a Fed in the serial bubble-blowing business. First, the Fed created the stock market bubble. Now, to try to solve the problems of the bust, it's creating a bubble in the bond market. "The result," he writes, "is a seemingly endless array of bubbles that only heightens the perils of the post-bubble endgame. . . . The legacy of these bubbles is a sad testament to the excesses of an increasingly wealth-dependent U.S. economy: Consumers have now become addicted to the 'extra' purchasing power they can extract from overvalued assets." This is as succinct and brilliant a discussion as you'll find on the subject.
Time to own up to the bubble
My favorite part, however, was his conclusion: "The biggest difference between my bearish view of the world and the more sanguine views of others can be traced to the bubble. More than three years after America's equity bubble popped, there is an understandable temptation to believe that it's time to move on. A massive dose of fiscal and monetary stimulus, in conjunction with a sharp rebound in the stock market, adds to that conviction.
"As I see it, however, the legacy of this monstrous bubble endures -- not just in financial markets but also in the form of the excesses that it has fostered in the real economy and in its balance-sheet underpinnings. Until those excesses are purged, I maintain my view that America still needs to be seen through the lens of a post-bubble workout. As one bubble morphs into the next one, the moral hazard dilemma only deepens. And the endgame -- including the risks of deflation and a dollar crisis -- appears all the more treacherous."
Editor's note: Last Wednesday, following the Fed's announcement that it would cut rates 25 basis points, Bill Fleckenstein weighed in with his comments. To read them, click here.
Bill Fleckenstein is president of Fleckenstein Capital, which manages a hedge fund based in Seattle. He also writes a daily Market Rap column for TheStreet.com's RealMoney. At the time of publication, he had no positions in any securities mentioned in this article. His investment positions can change at any time. Under no circumstances does the information in this column represent a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any security. The views and opinions expressed in Bill Fleckenstein's columns are his own and not necessarily those of CNBC on MSN Money.
Fed's truly scary idea: tax you into spending
It's positively diabolical. Some Dallas Fed economists suggest perking up the economy by taking a piece of every dollar you have the gall to save.
By Bill Fleckenstein
There's always a loss of pride involved when we own up to our mistakes. It's a moment in time, though. It passes. Then we are enriched for what those mistakes have taught us. But when pride turns into hubris, there's no learning from one's mistakes. In fact, hubris sometimes drives the need to actively cover them up. That is the story of our Fed.
A few weeks ago, I was sent a paper by Evan Koenig and Jim Dolmas of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, titled "Monetary Policy in a Zero-Interest-Rate Economy." I started to write up my thoughts about it, but I was so incensed that I had to set them aside. I returned to the paper recently, only to feel the same sense of outrage. What it proposes is one of the most maniacal, diabolical ideas this group of idiots has come up with so far. I urge everyone to read this paper and consider what its implications are. This will be on the final, guaranteed. To read the text of the paper, click on the link at left.
Fed pens Frankensteinian nonfiction
Koenig and Dolmas start out by not understanding that deflation is a consequence of prior policy actions that create a bubble and have severe economic consequences. They fall into the trap that many people do, thinking that deflation is a disease, rather than the symptom of a previous disease -- wildly excessive monetary policy and the misallocation of capital associated with it. What they do is talk about how our experience in the 1930s and Japan's problems were a function of central banks not acting quickly enough. They fail to recognize that the problem is a function of the fact that the central banks acted like complete drunken fools in the first place. That precipitated the ensuing economic problems -- and today's environment that doesn't have enough inflation to suit the Fed.See the numbers
that lenders see.
Get a free credit report.
They then go on to talk about the challenges of, in essence, diddling the market in a near-zero-interest-rate environment. (In the past, I have likened this to the problems encountered by physicists near a black hole. Things are just different.) The Fed is so panicked about the stagnant economy that it's thinking about resorting to mad experiments to get its own way, i.e., make the economy do as it commands. Now as regular readers know, I don't really expect to see deflation. But the fact that the Fed would contemplate these measures is absolutely frightening.
Capital punishment for savers
There’s a lot of chatter in this paper about the Fed helping the economy by buying real goods and services, or other domestic securities, such as longer-term Treasurys. But here’s the most staggering idea in the paper: It contemplates taxing your savings.
Koenig and Dolmas propose what they admit is a radical idea: a "stamp tax." In this, a currency would have to be stamped periodically, and you would be charged for your currency, "in order to retain its status as legal tender. The stamp fee could be calibrated to generate any negative, nominal interest rate the central bank desired." They toss out a few numbers, say 1% a month, to validate your currency. In other words, it would cost you 12% a year to have the gall to save money.
So basically, these unelected morons are contemplating a new law -- "Thou shalt not save, thou shalt spend." And, if you don't, we're going to confiscate your money, via a tax, after we've already confiscated your money via debasement.
It is truly breathtaking to witness the measure of hubris, arrogance and wanton disrespect of people's money on the part of these idiots. That they would even entertain the idea of such a penalty (not that they will necessarily be able to get away with it) boggles the mind. That's the mindset of this group of lunatics, that it would cast itself as a dictator from ancient times, with the public there to do its bidding.
Meantime on Wall Street, the current mindset can best be described as remarkably bullish. Investors Intelligence recently reported that that its investor sentiment index indicated 60% bulls and just 16% bears -- a reading that has not been more lopsided since the spring of 1987, which I believe is saying something. I myself have not been operating bearishly, as I have been waiting for this rally to play itself out. I have a very dim outlook for the second half. Yet virtually no one seems to share that view, other than my good friend Fred Hickey, editor of the influential High-Tech Strategist newsletter, or Morgan Stanley chief economist Stephen Roach (more about him in a minute). As I continue to reappraise my assessment, I ask myself, what is it that these folks see that I do not see? Why is it that they are so lathered up about this particular moment in time?
A few things come to mind that separate the environment right now from other bear market rallies:
Many people were just tired of being bearish.
The market has been rallying for a time now, and it's currently up on the year.
In February and March, many folks feared terrorism and war. Those fears in particular made me nervous about being short back then (i.e., folks were bearish for the wrong reasons). But these reasons don't tempt me to change my view.
Lip service vs. embracing the bubble
More importantly, it strikes me that many people fail to understand that we had a bubble, and that it has created long-lasting, unavoidable repercussions. They can say the words, "We had a bubble," but they never get beyond that to accept the implications. So, when you put a summation sign in front of all this, it adds up to folks being particularly optimistic (more so than at any time in 16 years) about right here, right now, when in fact, it's just another bear market rally and rate cut.
Perhaps the cumulative effect of the previous 12 cuts will make the 13th magical. Perhaps the cumulative effect of what's gone on from a downsizing standpoint may matter. Perhaps the economy will see a bounce, but I find it unlikely that we will see anything more than that, if we even get that. To summarize, the bulls have yet to come up with a persuasive argument for their case. I still firmly believe that the second half is going to be a disappointment, both in the economy and the stock market.
Sentiment is getting set up for a letdown
Further, since so many people have swung their views around so hard, betting heavily on second-half wonders, I believe that sentiment is now more binary than ever. If disappointment starts to rear its ugly head, we will see a real wipeout in the equity market. That could happen later this year, even if the economy does better for a short period. (As an aside, and to repeat my recent comments, the Fed has now positioned itself so that in the event of an economic recovery, the law of unintended consequences might surface, in terms of a bond market wipeout -- especially if the Japanese bond market starts to decline.) And that's the situation in which we find ourselves, with very few skeptics remaining. Yet, the people making the bullish case, though they could possibly turn out to be right, have nothing new to bolster their prior arguments, which have not worked.
advertisement
The only person who inhabits the Wall Street mainstream and has voiced concern about the bubble and its aftermath these past three to five years is Stephen Roach. In his piece titled "Endless Bubble," he paints the picture of a Fed in the serial bubble-blowing business. First, the Fed created the stock market bubble. Now, to try to solve the problems of the bust, it's creating a bubble in the bond market. "The result," he writes, "is a seemingly endless array of bubbles that only heightens the perils of the post-bubble endgame. . . . The legacy of these bubbles is a sad testament to the excesses of an increasingly wealth-dependent U.S. economy: Consumers have now become addicted to the 'extra' purchasing power they can extract from overvalued assets." This is as succinct and brilliant a discussion as you'll find on the subject.
Time to own up to the bubble
My favorite part, however, was his conclusion: "The biggest difference between my bearish view of the world and the more sanguine views of others can be traced to the bubble. More than three years after America's equity bubble popped, there is an understandable temptation to believe that it's time to move on. A massive dose of fiscal and monetary stimulus, in conjunction with a sharp rebound in the stock market, adds to that conviction.
"As I see it, however, the legacy of this monstrous bubble endures -- not just in financial markets but also in the form of the excesses that it has fostered in the real economy and in its balance-sheet underpinnings. Until those excesses are purged, I maintain my view that America still needs to be seen through the lens of a post-bubble workout. As one bubble morphs into the next one, the moral hazard dilemma only deepens. And the endgame -- including the risks of deflation and a dollar crisis -- appears all the more treacherous."
Editor's note: Last Wednesday, following the Fed's announcement that it would cut rates 25 basis points, Bill Fleckenstein weighed in with his comments. To read them, click here.
Bill Fleckenstein is president of Fleckenstein Capital, which manages a hedge fund based in Seattle. He also writes a daily Market Rap column for TheStreet.com's RealMoney. At the time of publication, he had no positions in any securities mentioned in this article. His investment positions can change at any time. Under no circumstances does the information in this column represent a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any security. The views and opinions expressed in Bill Fleckenstein's columns are his own and not necessarily those of CNBC on MSN Money.
U.S. Lawmakers Want International Forces in Iraq
Updated 1:51 PM ET June 29, 2003
By Lori Santos
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An international force of up to 60,000 troops is needed in Iraq to halt the continuing violence, which will escalate if left unchecked, U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden warned on Sunday.
On the "Fox News Sunday," the ranking Democrat on the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee said, "I think we need somewhere between 30,000 and 60,000 other troops."
"I want to see French, German, I want to see Turkish patches on people's arms sitting on the street corners, standing there in Iraq," Biden said. "...We've got to get over this ideological fixation on the part of Mr. (Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld and (Vice President Dick) Cheney of not letting the Europeans and NATO come in."
Biden returned recently from a trip to Iraq, where steady attacks have targeted Americans since President Bush declared major combat over on May 1. At least 22 Americans have been killed by hostile fire.
Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican who also made the trip, said the continuing attacks would be "the jarring gong" that forces the U.S. administration to seek international assistance, including "more United Nations involvement and more Arab involvement."
"Time is not on our side. Every day that ticks by we are losing ground," Hagel said on CNN's "Late Edition" program. "...All the more reason we need help."
Sen. Chris Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat and another member of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also said extra troops were urgently needed.
"I don't think we have months. I think we've got weeks to turn this around," Dodd told the CBS "Face the Nation" program. "And the people on the ground know it. Our military people are exhausted.
'SECOND ARMY'
"... We need to get that second army in place over there. We need to invite others around the region as well as the world to help us do that. We're not doing that and the longer we wait, the greater risk is going to be posed by Iraq," Dodd said.
The lawmakers spoke after a week of particularly intense ambushes and hit-and-run attacks. Another explosion in Baghdad on Sunday targeted a U.S. convoy. Biden said the status of U.S. troops there was "in peril. The war is still on."
He said he had been assured NATO was ready to join the U.S. and British troops in Iraq and that "NATO should be in."
The Delaware Democrat said the U.S. troops he spoke with felt shortchanged by Washington's failure "to expand this responsibility internationally. They all understand it."
"One general I spoke with said. 'Look senator, this is a fairly sophisticated group... It's the old Fedayeen, we believe, and it's the old Republican Guard and they are beginning to mobilize and organize."'
While Biden said he did not believe a coordinated central network was in place, the attacks were clearly being organized by "serious military people."
"It is increasingly becoming bolder and increasingly becoming more coordinated," he asserted. "...To the extent that we continue to try to own this all ourselves, I think, this will increase."
Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican and member of the Armed Services Committee, said, "We need help from our friends and allies, India, Pakistan, other friends of ours, including our European friends."
"Whether we need additional (U.S.) troops or not, I don't know," McCain added. "But I do know this, that a lot of our soldiers are getting very tired."
This one is interesting in retrospect or historical context (especially as it relates to the French) -- and being mindful of the fact that presidential speech writers choose their words very, very cautiously and intentionally...
Europe cringes at Bush 'crusade' against terrorists
By Peter Ford / Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the September 19, 2001 edition
PARIS -
As Europeans wait to see how the United States is planning to retaliate for last week's attacks on Washington and New York, there is growing anxiety here about the tone of American war rhetoric.
President Bush's reference to a "crusade" against terrorism, which passed almost unnoticed by Americans, rang alarm bells in Europe. It raised fears that the terrorist attacks could spark a 'clash of civilizations' between Christians and Muslims, sowing fresh winds of hatred and mistrust.
"We have to avoid a clash of civilizations at all costs," French foreign minister Hubert Vedrine said on Sunday. "One has to avoid falling into this huge trap, this monstrous trap" which he said had been "conceived by the instigators of the assault."
On Sunday, Bush warned Americans that "this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile." He and other US officials have said that renegade Islamic fundamentalist Osama bin Laden is the most likely suspect in the attacks.
His use of the word "crusade," said Soheib Bensheikh, Grand Mufti of the mosque in Marseille, France, "was most unfortunate", "It recalled the barbarous and unjust military operations against the Muslim world," by Christian knights, who launched repeated attempts to capture Jerusalem over the course of several hundred years.
Bush sought to calm American Muslims' fears of a backlash against them on Monday by appearing at an Islamic center in Washington. There he assured Americans that "the face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about."
But his earlier comments, declaring a war between good and evil, shocked Europeans. "If this 'war' takes a form that affronts moderate Arab opinion, if it has the air of a clash of civilizations, there is a strong risk that it will contribute to Osama bin Laden's goal: a conflict between the Arab-Muslim world and the West," warned the Paris daily Le Monde on Tuesday in an editorial.
"Bush is walking a fine line," suggested Dominique Moisi, a political analyst with the French Institute for International Relations, the country's top foreign policy think tank. "The same black and white language he uses to rally Americans behind him is just the sort of language that risks splitting the international coalition he is trying to build.
"This confusion between politics and religion...risks encouraging a clash of civilizations in a religious sense, which is very dangerous," he added.
On Monday, Taliban deputy leader Mohammed Hasan Akhund warned his fellow Afghans to prepare for 'Jihad' - holy war - against America, if US forces attack Afghanistan.
While almost every world leader agrees with Washington that the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center were evil, not all of those leaders - especially in the Middle East - identify the United States with good.
British prime minister Tony Blair has gone out of his way this week to make it clear that the battle against terrorists is a battle not between Christians and Muslims, but between civilized values and fanaticism. In that battle, he said Monday "the vast majority of decent law-abiding Muslims" opposed fanaticism.
It is their support for Washington's war that could be undermined by the sort of language on the president's lips, warns Hussein Amin, a former Egyptian ambassador who now lectures on international affairs. "The whole tone is that of one civilization against another," he finds. "It is a superior way of speaking and I fear the consequences - the world being divided into two between those who think themselves superior" and the rest.
Moderate Muslim opinion could also easily be swayed against America, predicted Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, head of the Muslim Parliament in Britain, an umbrella group for Muslim organizations. "If they end up killing innocent civilians it will be very unfair," Dr. Siddiqui said. "The problems will arise if people see that justice has not been done."
French President Jacques Chirac, who arrived in Washington Tuesday, and Mr. Blair, who will see Bush Thursday, are expected to offer Europe's solidarity, but to stop short of offering Washington a blank check. If European help is needed, Europeans want to be in on the planning, officials here say.
www.csmonitor.com / Copyright © 2003 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.
Weapons of Mass Destruction She Wrote
6/12/2003 - Marni Malarkey
http://www.brokennewz.com/usnews/weaponsshewrote.asp
What a "caper"!..... :)
Bush Asks Congress For $30 Billion to Help Fight War on Criticism
http://www.theonion.com/onion3925/bush_asks_congress.html
8^}
Weapons of Mass Destruction She Wrote
6/12/2003 - Marni Malarkey
http://www.brokennewz.com/usnews/weaponsshewrote.asp
What a "caper"!..... :)
Bush Asks Congress For $30 Billion to Help Fight War on Criticism
http://www.theonion.com/onion3925/bush_asks_congress.html
8^}