Bill Moyers interview with Benjamin Barber, author of CONSUMED: HOW MARKETS CORRUPT CHILDREN, INFANTILIZE ADULTS, AND SWALLOW CITIZENS WHOLE.
Highly Recommended.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Watch This
Bill Moyers interview with Benjamin Barber, author of CONSUMED: HOW MARKETS CORRUPT CHILDREN, INFANTILIZE ADULTS, AND SWALLOW CITIZENS WHOLE.
Highly Recommended.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
World currency status or Immigration?
Why are our issues of national debate so far removed from anything crucial for the future of America? We should be debating the future of America's world currency status domestically. These types of decisions should not be made behind closed boardroom doors.
Economist warns of new bubbles
The dollar’s dominance is ‘pretty much over,’ but the euro will replace it, not the yuan, Chang said.
"Middle Eastern countries are planning to require oil buyers to pay in the euro instead of the dollar."
It that were true it would be an earth-shattering move.
Economist warns of new bubbles
The dollar’s dominance is ‘pretty much over,’ but the euro will replace it, not the yuan, Chang said.
"Middle Eastern countries are planning to require oil buyers to pay in the euro instead of the dollar."
It that were true it would be an earth-shattering move.
Gaming the carbon market
Hope most predictions ofn the impacts of global warming are not conservative. Emission levels aren't likely to change anytime soon.
Evidence of serious flaws in the multi-billion dollar global market for carbon credits has been uncovered by a BBC World Service investigation.
Evidence of serious flaws in the multi-billion dollar global market for carbon credits has been uncovered by a BBC World Service investigation.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Financial Statecraft-Government of the market, by the market, for the market
The bailout of Wall Street has been called socialism for the rich, but the reason finance has maintained it’s chosen status throughout this recession is not about propping up Capitalism. It is an indication of how the role of the financial sector today differs from the 1920’s. The financial sector has become a major sector of the economy and a major instrument for executing American foreign policy around the world.
In 1970 90% of international transactions were accounted for by trade, today 90% is from the purchase and sale of financial assets. More than $2 trillion in currency moves across borders every day, 90% of that is money not related to trade in goods or services.(Litan and Steil, pg. 3)
Since the 70's the financial sector has risen to account for 21% of the GDP.
The effectiveness of trade privelages, tariffs and trade sanctions has declined as instruments of foreign policy. Since the 1980’s increasingly we have relied on using capital flows, and underwriting debt to achieve our foreign policy objectives. It may be a reason the trade towers were a target in the attacks of September 11th. It is the reason we are not allowed to challenge free market notions in any real way in the marketplace of ideas, our democracy.
In 1970 90% of international transactions were accounted for by trade, today 90% is from the purchase and sale of financial assets. More than $2 trillion in currency moves across borders every day, 90% of that is money not related to trade in goods or services.(Litan and Steil, pg. 3)
Since the 70's the financial sector has risen to account for 21% of the GDP.
The effectiveness of trade privelages, tariffs and trade sanctions has declined as instruments of foreign policy. Since the 1980’s increasingly we have relied on using capital flows, and underwriting debt to achieve our foreign policy objectives. It may be a reason the trade towers were a target in the attacks of September 11th. It is the reason we are not allowed to challenge free market notions in any real way in the marketplace of ideas, our democracy.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
The Clean War and Friendly Economic Fire
Clean Energy, Clean Jobs was the slogan of the Obama campaign, but having inherited a recession and two wars, dissolution of the auto industry, and a raging national healthcare debate it’s understandable clean energy hasn’t been a major issue at the national level.
The race to develop clean energy producing technologies to capture future profits in industries like photovoltaic cells, has been underway since their introduction.
The research and development of solar panels is now a major recipient of government investment in wealthy nations all over the world.
Recently Akeena Solar (AKNS) has broken a barrier with the production of a solar panel that can almost be simply plugged in and used out of the box, the Andalay AC Solar PV panel.
The company that manufactures components of the Andalay AC Solar PV Panel is Suntech America of San Francicso California which is actually a subsidiary of Suntech Power Holdings Co. of Wuxi, China.
Suntech Power Holdings Co. is planning to build plants in the US to bypass “protectionist legislation”. Currently, the top 3 suppliers of photovoltaic cells are First Solar of Tempe Arizona, Suntech Power Holdings Co. of China, and Q cells of Germany, and whatever nation gains a majority of the market as it develops ties their future to the worldwide growth of the solar panel industry.
Suntech Power Holdings Co. of Wuxi, China was actually the first privately-owned company from China to list on the NYSE.
They were also the first Chinese company to ring the remote
opening bell for the NYSE from China and also plan to operate several 10 megawatt or larger projects in the US, in addition to distributing residential units, through a company named Gemini Solar Development.
Here is an excerpt from a recent article about Suntech headquarters in China, pictured above.
Their newly finished headquarters building features the world largest
solar façade, in Wuxi, China. Some 2,552 pieces of Light Thru solar modules
(poly silicon cells laminated in double-layer of tempered glass) cover an area
of 6,900sqm along two adjacent building fronts. With an additional 300kW rooftop
system to be installed on the building, the total solar energy installed will be
over 1MW, generating more than one million kWh of electricity per year. In
combination with other energy-saving technologies such as energy efficient
building materials and a water recycling system, 80% of power demand of the
building will be covered, reducing CO2 emission by 600 tons and eliminating the
use of 367 tons of standard coal per year.
The 18,000 square meter building features not only solar energy and energy
efficiency measures, the unique architectural design using the LightThru panels
also provides extensive natural lighting, creating a harmonious connection
between the people inside and the outside environment. Fish ponds, rocks, trees
and a balcony are incorporated into the interior of the building. The façade was
installed by Suntech`s engineering team.
For more information, please visit www.suntech-power.com.
This is the kind of project we can get behind as a nation even during a recession.
The Andalay AC Solar PV Panel was one of MSN’s most brilliant products of 2009. The distributor of the Andalay AC Solar PV Panel, Akeena Solar has been hit hard by the recession. We have bailed out banks to prop up the financial sector of the economy and given cash for clunkers like GM. All while proposing a cap and trade system to keep emitting the same CO2 levels as long as possible as “carbon offsets” can be bought for years with no actual reductions ever made. We are shooting our selves in the foot twice, by not being the leader in seriously altering our emission levels to facilitate the domestic development of clean energy technologies.
Will China take the lead as the world economic powerhouse because of the flaws of our democracy? As the authoritarian Chinese government quickly decides policy we scream at each other about healthcare.
China Racing Ahead of U.S. in the Drive to Go Solar
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Corporate Sponsored Environmentalism-Cap and Trade and the Green Police
President Obama is likely to make cap and trade a reality. The impacts will be felt not just in corporate boardrooms, it is not just a regulation system designed to hold corporations accountable for greenhouse emissions. It will also commodify carbon sinks, the earth’s natural resources containing carbon. Carbon in forests, or bogs and other greenhouse gases, like methane from cows, become “carbon credits” to be traded by industry to offset their emissions. In the debate so far not much has been said about what will be traded as carbon credits or why only the US is considering a cap and trade system to reduce greenhouse emissions.
The appeal of cap and trade is the government gives the right to emit certain levels of CO2 and corporations can choose to reduce emissions or to purchase “credits”, the right to trade the carbon in forests, etc to offset their emissions that are above the cap. This aspect of the carbon cap and trade system sets it apart from other cap and trade systems in the US like the Acid Rain Program run by the EPA to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions. In that system corporations have no option to buy sulfur dioxide sinks to offset emissions, they don’t exist, only from several methods to actually reduce emissions or use a larger portion of energy from renewable sources. Carbon is an exception as it is the building block of life as well as the CO2 in the atmosphere.
What this cap and trade system will do is create value in natural resources as carbon sinks, currently around $10 a ton. If cap and trade becomes reality you could sell the right to trade that $10 in carbon in the trees in your backyard just for letting them sit there. The real value comes not from the monetary value of the carbon sinks, but their inclusion on supranational conglomerates’ balance sheets in order to continue business as usual.
In anticipation of the arrival of cap and trade, companies like Chevron have bought up huge areas of Brazilian rainforest as “banks” of carbon credits. Actually the Nature Conservancy, America’s largest conservancy group, brokered the deal and had the SVPS, a Brazilian conservation group purchase and manage the land on their behalf. The only thing Chevron owns is the right to trade the carbon.
In the process the SVPS has created the Forca Verde, the Green Police, to patrol and protect the areas under its control. Rare species are returning and encroaching ranches and farms are being kept at bay. US corporations are funding an armed police force in the Brazilian countryside to protect a Brazilian rainforest from the poorest Brazilians so that Americans can gradually reduce the burning of coal to power our giant energystar refrigerators full of over processed food of which 30% will end up in the trash anyway. Not that it had much nutritional value to begin with.
If there is going to be a Green Police it should be here in America. Maybe it’s our destiny; maybe America’s future economic prosperity lies in becoming China or Brazil’s "carbon credits" with Chinese or Brazilian funded Green Police to help facilitate our efficiency.
Unless the global warming apocalypse comes first. Even in the face of global warming, freedom and environmental conservation need to be balanced, like freedom and security, or you end up with neither.
Our collective actions are equally as important environmentally as the means of production of supranational conglomerates, which we have no say in. Much of the impact of our collective actions could be mitigated if a Green Police rigorously monitored the latter. Information should be enough to alter the people’s behavior. An issue with urgency like global warming will be used by many people for gain and the the actual urgency of the problem should be considered carefully in proportion to the solutions proposed.
The appeal of cap and trade is the government gives the right to emit certain levels of CO2 and corporations can choose to reduce emissions or to purchase “credits”, the right to trade the carbon in forests, etc to offset their emissions that are above the cap. This aspect of the carbon cap and trade system sets it apart from other cap and trade systems in the US like the Acid Rain Program run by the EPA to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions. In that system corporations have no option to buy sulfur dioxide sinks to offset emissions, they don’t exist, only from several methods to actually reduce emissions or use a larger portion of energy from renewable sources. Carbon is an exception as it is the building block of life as well as the CO2 in the atmosphere.
What this cap and trade system will do is create value in natural resources as carbon sinks, currently around $10 a ton. If cap and trade becomes reality you could sell the right to trade that $10 in carbon in the trees in your backyard just for letting them sit there. The real value comes not from the monetary value of the carbon sinks, but their inclusion on supranational conglomerates’ balance sheets in order to continue business as usual.
In anticipation of the arrival of cap and trade, companies like Chevron have bought up huge areas of Brazilian rainforest as “banks” of carbon credits. Actually the Nature Conservancy, America’s largest conservancy group, brokered the deal and had the SVPS, a Brazilian conservation group purchase and manage the land on their behalf. The only thing Chevron owns is the right to trade the carbon.
In the process the SVPS has created the Forca Verde, the Green Police, to patrol and protect the areas under its control. Rare species are returning and encroaching ranches and farms are being kept at bay. US corporations are funding an armed police force in the Brazilian countryside to protect a Brazilian rainforest from the poorest Brazilians so that Americans can gradually reduce the burning of coal to power our giant energystar refrigerators full of over processed food of which 30% will end up in the trash anyway. Not that it had much nutritional value to begin with.
If there is going to be a Green Police it should be here in America. Maybe it’s our destiny; maybe America’s future economic prosperity lies in becoming China or Brazil’s "carbon credits" with Chinese or Brazilian funded Green Police to help facilitate our efficiency.
Unless the global warming apocalypse comes first. Even in the face of global warming, freedom and environmental conservation need to be balanced, like freedom and security, or you end up with neither.
Our collective actions are equally as important environmentally as the means of production of supranational conglomerates, which we have no say in. Much of the impact of our collective actions could be mitigated if a Green Police rigorously monitored the latter. Information should be enough to alter the people’s behavior. An issue with urgency like global warming will be used by many people for gain and the the actual urgency of the problem should be considered carefully in proportion to the solutions proposed.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Hatoyama-Obama Update
The Hatoyama administration has said they don't have time to meet with Secretary of State Hilary Clinton this week.
It looks like the Japanese government feels it's not worthwhile to meet with the Obama administration if they haven't made a decision about whether to oppose a realignment of troops in Okinawa.
But they do have time to meet with several Southeast Asian nations, all neighbors of China.
And today, city officials from Dongguan China were in Tokyo courting direct foreign investment from executives at Japanese firms.
It looks like the Japanese government feels it's not worthwhile to meet with the Obama administration if they haven't made a decision about whether to oppose a realignment of troops in Okinawa.
But they do have time to meet with several Southeast Asian nations, all neighbors of China.
And today, city officials from Dongguan China were in Tokyo courting direct foreign investment from executives at Japanese firms.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Obama and Hatoyama- How will two historic elections change US-Japan-China relations?
For the past 50 years the Japanese government has been a solid ally of the United States, hosting a large portion of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and supporting American foreign policy. Since the fall of the Soviet Union they have been part of an American policy to integrate and balance the power of a rising China. For virtually the entire 50 years the conservative Liberal Democratic Party has run Japan.
In the post war period the US had a dual interest in rebuilding Japan, to prevent the resurgence of a hostile military and to cultivate an alliance with a major East Asian nation to counter Russian influence. The postwar Japanese constitution prohibited Japan from having a military and LDP leaders embraced the policy of reliance on US military protection and a focus on economic growth, which led Japan to become the 2nd largest economy in the world in less than 50 years.
This year the opposition Democratic Party of Japan won control, signaling a possibility for substantial change in the US Japan and the Japan China sides of the balanced triangle of power in East Asian. In the late 80’s and into the early 90’s Japan was considered to be a real threat to US economic dominance, but soon after entered a prolonged recession dubbed the “lost decade”, as China’s growth boomed. By the mid 90’s the rise of China was a main foreign policy concern for the US. In 1996 the Clinton administration considered a policy of containment toward China but decided on an “integrate and balance” strategy instead, where China’s growth would be tied to the continued balance of power in the region between the US, Japan and China.
Japan’s centrality to the United States’ security policy in East Asia makes it one of our most important allies. This month President Obama is scheduled to meet with Prime minister Hatoyama and an item causing friction between the administrations is the relocation of a US base in Futenma Okinawa. At issue is the shifting of 8000 troops to Guam and relocation of the base to a remote area of Okinawa. Hatoyama has said he wants the based moved from Okinawa altogether.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has called on Japan to move forward with the planned realignment and for the Hatoyama administration to make a decision before the President’s scheduled visit despite the original deal having been made with the LDP.
Clearly, after two decades of economic stagnation following 50 years of fast-paced growth, while watching China’s economy boom and US companies increasingly investing in the Chinese market, the Japanese government is re-evaluating the value of their alliance with the US. Although it doesn’t make front-page headlines here in the US, it might be good for the Obama administration to do the same.
In the post war period the US had a dual interest in rebuilding Japan, to prevent the resurgence of a hostile military and to cultivate an alliance with a major East Asian nation to counter Russian influence. The postwar Japanese constitution prohibited Japan from having a military and LDP leaders embraced the policy of reliance on US military protection and a focus on economic growth, which led Japan to become the 2nd largest economy in the world in less than 50 years.
This year the opposition Democratic Party of Japan won control, signaling a possibility for substantial change in the US Japan and the Japan China sides of the balanced triangle of power in East Asian. In the late 80’s and into the early 90’s Japan was considered to be a real threat to US economic dominance, but soon after entered a prolonged recession dubbed the “lost decade”, as China’s growth boomed. By the mid 90’s the rise of China was a main foreign policy concern for the US. In 1996 the Clinton administration considered a policy of containment toward China but decided on an “integrate and balance” strategy instead, where China’s growth would be tied to the continued balance of power in the region between the US, Japan and China.
Japan’s centrality to the United States’ security policy in East Asia makes it one of our most important allies. This month President Obama is scheduled to meet with Prime minister Hatoyama and an item causing friction between the administrations is the relocation of a US base in Futenma Okinawa. At issue is the shifting of 8000 troops to Guam and relocation of the base to a remote area of Okinawa. Hatoyama has said he wants the based moved from Okinawa altogether.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has called on Japan to move forward with the planned realignment and for the Hatoyama administration to make a decision before the President’s scheduled visit despite the original deal having been made with the LDP.
Clearly, after two decades of economic stagnation following 50 years of fast-paced growth, while watching China’s economy boom and US companies increasingly investing in the Chinese market, the Japanese government is re-evaluating the value of their alliance with the US. Although it doesn’t make front-page headlines here in the US, it might be good for the Obama administration to do the same.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Obama OK's California's Self-Medicating Marijuana Law
Another bubble is being blown in California, one that could have more euphoric aftereffects. How much money will get pumped into states with legal self-characterized medical marijuana and how far the legislation will spread into other states before the government reverses its decades long stance on the dangers of marijuana and allows the necessary federal research to occur is anyone’s guess.
And on Sunday the Obama Justice Department announced that the federal government would not intervene in the 14 state medical marijuana social experiment, effectively giving support to the measures in contradiction to federal laws that outlaws cannabis and hemp, classifying them as having no medicinal value and similar in addictive qualities to heroin.
Marijuana has been big business on the West Coast from Vancouver to California for decades, booming prior to 1996 with Canadian marijuana coming across the border from Canada as well as legalization activist Marc Emery’s business clandestinely sending high quality marijuana seeds into the U.S. from Canada where possession of seeds is a legal grey area.
With a similar loophole included, California voters approved proposition 215 by popular referendum to legalize marijuana for medical use in 1996. The ambiguous federal status of marijuana as a schedule 1 controlled substance, defined as having no medicinal value, and also having a federal medical distribution program and the wording of California’s law has de facto legalized marijuana in California. There are no FDA approved uses of marijuana as a result of prohibition and strict limitations on research. Physicians are unable to actually prescribe marijuana and rely on patients for validation that it effectively treats a specific condition. Voters’ original intent was to allow cannabis to be used to treat terminally ill AIDs and cancer patients yet what has been allowed to develop is something entirely different. Since 1996 an estimated 2100 dispensaries have been opened across California, more than Starbucks and Mcdonalds combined, and featured in many cable news reports showing Amsterdam-like café’s.
This month in California 34 people were arrested in a ring that turned 50 $400-600,000 suburban homes into growing operations with several suspects fleeing to China raising questions about their immigration status. No one believes in the war on drugs anymore. In a recent PBS news piece when asked what the dangers of marijuana are, the marijuana enforcement officer cited decreased productivity and its danger to kids’ “mentality.” The interviewer simply looked at him like there was no need for further questions.
If in a recession tax revenue from marijuana isn’t tempting, at least taxing hemp should be. And with 5 times more arrests than whites for drug offenses, while representing a small minority of the population, hundreds of thousands of African Americans are jailed and lose the right to vote each year for non-violent crimes, many related to marijuana. With Obama’s latest move a nail has been put in the coffin of our racist drug war in California, and hopefully soon to be New Jersey.
And on Sunday the Obama Justice Department announced that the federal government would not intervene in the 14 state medical marijuana social experiment, effectively giving support to the measures in contradiction to federal laws that outlaws cannabis and hemp, classifying them as having no medicinal value and similar in addictive qualities to heroin.
Marijuana has been big business on the West Coast from Vancouver to California for decades, booming prior to 1996 with Canadian marijuana coming across the border from Canada as well as legalization activist Marc Emery’s business clandestinely sending high quality marijuana seeds into the U.S. from Canada where possession of seeds is a legal grey area.
With a similar loophole included, California voters approved proposition 215 by popular referendum to legalize marijuana for medical use in 1996. The ambiguous federal status of marijuana as a schedule 1 controlled substance, defined as having no medicinal value, and also having a federal medical distribution program and the wording of California’s law has de facto legalized marijuana in California. There are no FDA approved uses of marijuana as a result of prohibition and strict limitations on research. Physicians are unable to actually prescribe marijuana and rely on patients for validation that it effectively treats a specific condition. Voters’ original intent was to allow cannabis to be used to treat terminally ill AIDs and cancer patients yet what has been allowed to develop is something entirely different. Since 1996 an estimated 2100 dispensaries have been opened across California, more than Starbucks and Mcdonalds combined, and featured in many cable news reports showing Amsterdam-like café’s.
This month in California 34 people were arrested in a ring that turned 50 $400-600,000 suburban homes into growing operations with several suspects fleeing to China raising questions about their immigration status. No one believes in the war on drugs anymore. In a recent PBS news piece when asked what the dangers of marijuana are, the marijuana enforcement officer cited decreased productivity and its danger to kids’ “mentality.” The interviewer simply looked at him like there was no need for further questions.
If in a recession tax revenue from marijuana isn’t tempting, at least taxing hemp should be. And with 5 times more arrests than whites for drug offenses, while representing a small minority of the population, hundreds of thousands of African Americans are jailed and lose the right to vote each year for non-violent crimes, many related to marijuana. With Obama’s latest move a nail has been put in the coffin of our racist drug war in California, and hopefully soon to be New Jersey.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Why Won’t Obama Publicly Say The Word Racist?
On Letterman, when President Obama was asked if he thought racism played a role in a profusion of wildly fearful and frantic anti-Obama public sentiment, his response was to joke that “I was actually black before the election.” It’s possible he meant that those same people were also opposed to him before his election because of his race, but the issue began to fade from the headlines afterward so it looks like it was interpreted to mean he did not think it was racist because they weren’t so vocal and agitated before he got elected…when he was also African American .
The idea that how other people, the public and the media, should think about the role race is playing is dependent on President Obama’s own opinion is as anachronistic as what the president actually said.
In order to accept Obama’s statement you would have to ignore the possibility that racial fears could have been stoked after he was elected, for example by calling his policies reparations for slavery or saying he has a deep seated hatred of white people . His statement also uses a definition of racism that cannot separate a racist action from a person who hates another race. While a bully is rubbing a child’s face in the mud, if you ask the child whether the bully is being cruel and they say no, it should have no bearing in whether it’s deemed cruel or not by the rest of society. Similarly if in the cafeteria a bully starts a hilarious rumor about a child’s mom, claiming that he only wanted to be funny and because he doesn’t hate or dislike the child it’s not cruel, this argument also should have no standing in determining if it the action is considered cruel or not by others. Substitute race for cruelty and you have arguments that are uncritically put forth to protect the racist rhetoric behind the movement. This definition is used by people like Arlen Specter defending Trent Lott’s comment that the country would be better off if Strom Thurmond, a segregationist, was elected president and by Rush Limbaugh to defend his playing the “Barrack the magic negro” song on air .
Condoning a culture of not speaking out against things that are racist and embracing the tactics used to cover racist actions by the president, I believe, hurts the nations progress toward racial equality. A strategy to avoid public debate on issues of race so that policy can be worked on behind the scenes, preventing messy public dialogue, would fit in the same category. Progress does not come from policy alone. There’s only so many policies that people haven’t morally progressed to you can pass before they notice and all those policies are on the table at once. Our racial policy should not be crafted by power but by moral determination. A strong moral argument is the only thing that can counter a fervent, irrational protection of privilege. Obama’s hands have been tied in responding to these attacks, for example calling him racist, when he actually had a prime opportunity to make the strong moral arguments for why we should to stop racial profiling, why we should have healthcare for the poorest citizens including African Americans, etc. Maybe Obama can’t be (and maybe shouldn’t even try and be) a MLK from inside the white house, but he can at least say the word racist when it needs to be said.
The idea that how other people, the public and the media, should think about the role race is playing is dependent on President Obama’s own opinion is as anachronistic as what the president actually said.
In order to accept Obama’s statement you would have to ignore the possibility that racial fears could have been stoked after he was elected, for example by calling his policies reparations for slavery or saying he has a deep seated hatred of white people . His statement also uses a definition of racism that cannot separate a racist action from a person who hates another race. While a bully is rubbing a child’s face in the mud, if you ask the child whether the bully is being cruel and they say no, it should have no bearing in whether it’s deemed cruel or not by the rest of society. Similarly if in the cafeteria a bully starts a hilarious rumor about a child’s mom, claiming that he only wanted to be funny and because he doesn’t hate or dislike the child it’s not cruel, this argument also should have no standing in determining if it the action is considered cruel or not by others. Substitute race for cruelty and you have arguments that are uncritically put forth to protect the racist rhetoric behind the movement. This definition is used by people like Arlen Specter defending Trent Lott’s comment that the country would be better off if Strom Thurmond, a segregationist, was elected president and by Rush Limbaugh to defend his playing the “Barrack the magic negro” song on air .
Condoning a culture of not speaking out against things that are racist and embracing the tactics used to cover racist actions by the president, I believe, hurts the nations progress toward racial equality. A strategy to avoid public debate on issues of race so that policy can be worked on behind the scenes, preventing messy public dialogue, would fit in the same category. Progress does not come from policy alone. There’s only so many policies that people haven’t morally progressed to you can pass before they notice and all those policies are on the table at once. Our racial policy should not be crafted by power but by moral determination. A strong moral argument is the only thing that can counter a fervent, irrational protection of privilege. Obama’s hands have been tied in responding to these attacks, for example calling him racist, when he actually had a prime opportunity to make the strong moral arguments for why we should to stop racial profiling, why we should have healthcare for the poorest citizens including African Americans, etc. Maybe Obama can’t be (and maybe shouldn’t even try and be) a MLK from inside the white house, but he can at least say the word racist when it needs to be said.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Consumer Financial Protection Agency, Obama’s First Major victory?
Just because some stocks are going up again and the stock market is making gains doesn’t necessarily mean a recession is over. A common occurrence in prolonged recessions is what is known as the “W”. Where after the initial crash in the market a small rebounding starts only to see the market take another nose-dive. With unemployment rising to 9.8 percent in the most recent data and congress still not having passed new regulations for the financial sector, to some it might seem that we are on the cusp of a dreaded “W” in the recession.
One of the most pressing issues for Obama and the financial sector in the near future is the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. There’s skepticism about how hard Obama can really push for this agency or how much authority it will be granted given the current situation. The president’s biggest campaign donor was the financial sector (Goldman Sachs one of the biggest), which now stands at 21% of our GDP. So far he has left the CEO’s of the banks in place to oversee the distribution of taxpayer money and make regulatory recommendations since the time of the crash.
The seeming reluctance of Obama to hold the banks accountable could be based on real fears about our apparently very weak economy, but creating a Consumer Financial Protection Agency would create an opportunity for sweeping oversight and regulatory change in the financial sector, including non-bank entities like mortgage lenders and credit card companies.
Agencies like this focus on industry practices from consumer’s point of view and make regulatory rulings based on potential for harm to consumers, not based on deceitful actions of sellers. It is free to require industry to change practices that are harmful to consumers. This means that the agency won’t have the burden of proving intent or fraud by the offending companies, but also will not seek damages. Here, legalese in credit card contracts that could confuse consumers along with practices that could result a large number of consumers being deceived could be ruled on without proving intent to deceive by the sellers. Anyone interested in the role the creation of the Federal Trade Commission has had on falsity in advertising should check out "The Great American Blow-Up" by Ivan L. Preston.
This agency would wield a great and important power. It will not punish financial firms but regulate their practices. This needs to happen. But I find it troubling that agencies like this need to be formed in the first place. Why is the idea that our branches of government should work correctly to pass legislation acceptable to the Supreme Court that would protect consumers from industry practices like this thought of as impossible? Why is it that the idea that permanently codifying new and improved ways to reduce the influence of vested interests is UNDESIRABLE so pervasive in our judicial system and history of legal precedent that we just create another government body to gain huge power in the name of protecting the citizens, only to eventually be corrupted and bought back by the vested interests? Take the FDA. Looks like we can’t look to brand new life long politicians, even Obama, to sweep in and clean up the system, we need to start valuing education and civil engagement in this country again.
One of the most pressing issues for Obama and the financial sector in the near future is the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. There’s skepticism about how hard Obama can really push for this agency or how much authority it will be granted given the current situation. The president’s biggest campaign donor was the financial sector (Goldman Sachs one of the biggest), which now stands at 21% of our GDP. So far he has left the CEO’s of the banks in place to oversee the distribution of taxpayer money and make regulatory recommendations since the time of the crash.
The seeming reluctance of Obama to hold the banks accountable could be based on real fears about our apparently very weak economy, but creating a Consumer Financial Protection Agency would create an opportunity for sweeping oversight and regulatory change in the financial sector, including non-bank entities like mortgage lenders and credit card companies.
Agencies like this focus on industry practices from consumer’s point of view and make regulatory rulings based on potential for harm to consumers, not based on deceitful actions of sellers. It is free to require industry to change practices that are harmful to consumers. This means that the agency won’t have the burden of proving intent or fraud by the offending companies, but also will not seek damages. Here, legalese in credit card contracts that could confuse consumers along with practices that could result a large number of consumers being deceived could be ruled on without proving intent to deceive by the sellers. Anyone interested in the role the creation of the Federal Trade Commission has had on falsity in advertising should check out "The Great American Blow-Up" by Ivan L. Preston.
This agency would wield a great and important power. It will not punish financial firms but regulate their practices. This needs to happen. But I find it troubling that agencies like this need to be formed in the first place. Why is the idea that our branches of government should work correctly to pass legislation acceptable to the Supreme Court that would protect consumers from industry practices like this thought of as impossible? Why is it that the idea that permanently codifying new and improved ways to reduce the influence of vested interests is UNDESIRABLE so pervasive in our judicial system and history of legal precedent that we just create another government body to gain huge power in the name of protecting the citizens, only to eventually be corrupted and bought back by the vested interests? Take the FDA. Looks like we can’t look to brand new life long politicians, even Obama, to sweep in and clean up the system, we need to start valuing education and civil engagement in this country again.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Economy Still Toxic?
Watch the Video!
This isn't about Obama directly but because the financial crisis and its aftershocks are still major issues slowing the advancement of his agenda: with the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, and managing the federal money loaned to the banks(and I hope to some small extent managing/monitoring the banks operations, say enough to prevent further fraud), I thought I should put it up. This is an interview by Bill Moyers of Bill Black. Even though we're being told the recession is over and everything is fine, after this interview I get the sense that everything is not fine.
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-QL0BCb1tk&feature=related
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOA1RpK7ttg&feature=related
Part3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ4JXW_ErXQ
This isn't about Obama directly but because the financial crisis and its aftershocks are still major issues slowing the advancement of his agenda: with the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, and managing the federal money loaned to the banks(and I hope to some small extent managing/monitoring the banks operations, say enough to prevent further fraud), I thought I should put it up. This is an interview by Bill Moyers of Bill Black. Even though we're being told the recession is over and everything is fine, after this interview I get the sense that everything is not fine.
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-QL0BCb1tk&feature=related
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOA1RpK7ttg&feature=related
Part3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ4JXW_ErXQ
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Not Too Big to Fail, Economy Too Weak To Oppose Them
Let’s do a little exercise for the imagination. If you were to tune into the first speech President Obama was going to give to Wall Street after the sub-prime loan/credit default swap crisis, what would you expect to hear?
Would you expect to hear him describe what we found out about the massive fraud in the lending and financial firms, and failure of regulation by Washington? Maybe even vows to never have it happen again? I might even have expected a harsh indictment of our reliance on the financial sector, it being it’s own bubble, near an unsustainable 21% of our GDP and a path toward a more sound economy, say by investing in new energy? “Banking is not the creator of our prosperity but is the creation of it. It is not the cause of our wealth, but it is the consequence of our wealth." A quote in Kevin Phillips, “Bad Money.” A world power’s heavy reliance on finance at this stage of development is not historically a reliable formula.
Obama still seems to be making his speeches about the financial crisis and regulation from a position of vulnerability. Although this speech marks the one-year anniversary of the crisis he is still talking in the present tense about closing the loopholes and passing reform legislation. You almost wouldn’t know the rhetoric in this speech is aimed at those who caused the worst economic downturn since the great depression.
The crisis revealed a weakness of the American economy, if the financial sector was not 21% of our economy they wouldn’t have been able to influence congress and the regulators to look the other way while they robbed the American people, which is exactly what they knew they were doing. They knew lenders were getting people into bad loans, or financially speaking, “high-risk” loans, that risk is what gave the assets (those loans) used in the derivatives and credit default swaps value. If Obama isn’t fighting for his plan to strengthen the structure of our economy by developing other industries like renewable energy, he is at the mercy of the financial firms. Without financial sector reform being part of a larger plan to reform the structure of our economy any changes that threaten the position of favor of the financial sector will threaten the overall economy, and his opponents and the financial sector and their supporters will not hesitate to make that call and use it to squash reform allowing our economy to safely recover, let alone be reconfigured in a stronger way. Without fighting for a plan to strengthening the economy through reform and his campaign promise to reform corporate tax loopholes any real change is a foregone conclusion.
Would you expect to hear him describe what we found out about the massive fraud in the lending and financial firms, and failure of regulation by Washington? Maybe even vows to never have it happen again? I might even have expected a harsh indictment of our reliance on the financial sector, it being it’s own bubble, near an unsustainable 21% of our GDP and a path toward a more sound economy, say by investing in new energy? “Banking is not the creator of our prosperity but is the creation of it. It is not the cause of our wealth, but it is the consequence of our wealth." A quote in Kevin Phillips, “Bad Money.” A world power’s heavy reliance on finance at this stage of development is not historically a reliable formula.
Obama still seems to be making his speeches about the financial crisis and regulation from a position of vulnerability. Although this speech marks the one-year anniversary of the crisis he is still talking in the present tense about closing the loopholes and passing reform legislation. You almost wouldn’t know the rhetoric in this speech is aimed at those who caused the worst economic downturn since the great depression.
The crisis revealed a weakness of the American economy, if the financial sector was not 21% of our economy they wouldn’t have been able to influence congress and the regulators to look the other way while they robbed the American people, which is exactly what they knew they were doing. They knew lenders were getting people into bad loans, or financially speaking, “high-risk” loans, that risk is what gave the assets (those loans) used in the derivatives and credit default swaps value. If Obama isn’t fighting for his plan to strengthen the structure of our economy by developing other industries like renewable energy, he is at the mercy of the financial firms. Without financial sector reform being part of a larger plan to reform the structure of our economy any changes that threaten the position of favor of the financial sector will threaten the overall economy, and his opponents and the financial sector and their supporters will not hesitate to make that call and use it to squash reform allowing our economy to safely recover, let alone be reconfigured in a stronger way. Without fighting for a plan to strengthening the economy through reform and his campaign promise to reform corporate tax loopholes any real change is a foregone conclusion.
Youtube-Obama Speech to Wall Street
Each part is about 7 minutes
Come on you know you want to listen to it, the first speech to wall street after the crash.
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQkcWjUNtBU&feature=related
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSkqNtx3iJs&feature=related
Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwiv1FKv1Jc&feature=related
Come on you know you want to listen to it, the first speech to wall street after the crash.
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQkcWjUNtBU&feature=related
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSkqNtx3iJs&feature=related
Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwiv1FKv1Jc&feature=related
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Cracker, the New Gay
If you’re in your twenties you know the utility which the term “gay” is or has been used, from lame to nonsensical to selfish, it can cover so many meanings, it can substitute for almost any adjective desired that has a negative implication. A friend’s whiny complaining, or their argument that makes no sense is “gay”. Whether you think using “gay” like this is right or wrong, it has the effect of making people hyper aware of society’s idea of masculinity and I would also argue, makes you more aware of your heterosexuality and on the flip side, more aware of homosexuality. I find it interesting that as the generation that used this term, we are also probably the most accepting of homosexuals in our history.
As racial anxieties are being stoked for political gain in this country, and pressure mounts on Obama to fulfill the expectations we have about the kind of civil rights figure the first President of African American heritage should be, we are all staring a real chance, maybe the best chance in my lifetime, for real progress in the civil rights movement in the face.
That’s why I’m going to start calling people on being “cracker”.
That’s why I am going to start using and advocating the use of a perjorative term against white people. We can make each other think as a culture about what makes us white(or what makes us good white people?), what do we not like about other white people, we will also start to think as a culture about what is our heritage, what will be our legacy. I believe if we feel we have more control and responsibility over what the values of mainstream white american culture are, and have a tool to label the destructive elements, those that wear down our resolve to fight for others civil rights and fight for our own freedom in a world of historical inequality, maybe we can get to where we can pick up the banner of equality Martin Luther King left 50 years ago.
Watching as Glen Beck and other public figures use coded language (meaning words which carry certain associations and emotional reponses) and misrepresent issues, and people’s statements or positions to create and drum up threats to white or upper class wealth and power in America and direct that energy toward opposition of policies, and people associated with Barack Obama.
If the white people who were protesting Obama’s speech to school kids were to think about how their actions would impact the perception of their race I think they would have acted differently. They missed a real opportunity to discuss, first of all, any issues raised by Obama in the speech AND the fact that this is the first African American president, because they were too afraid he would somehow magically make a hidden case for communism so strong that the kids would …I don’t know where the paranoid delusion goes from there but, they pulled their children out of school and scolded the first African American president for wanting to direct a speech at the nation’s children. Now if they had thought about how that will go down in the history books and makes whites today look racist, whether overt ideas or rhetoric of racism played a part or not, I don’t think it would have happened. Therefore, that is sooo cracker. Or my other favorite phrasing, how f*ckin honkey.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
My Differences
I found this great interview with a Fox News pundit, or partisan, on a hiphop and politics blog. In the interview the pundit, Marc Lamont hill, incorporates a great analysis of current healthcare debate and the Obama presidency in general. He also touches on other issues and I’m going to take advantage of the clarity and insight of Mr. Hill's arguments to lay out my disagreements with a few common positions of the "left". If you don't listen to the interview it may be hard to follow my comments, so...(the first four minutes are music, and it is about 30 min long. Just start and you will get hooked.)
First I think asking President Obama to just start focusing on some minority specific issues is something he can't really do. At this point he can either become a major civil rights leader or……not. I hadn’t thought about the pressure on Obama to become a civil rights leader before…that’s kind of serious I think.
I disagree about the Van Jones thing. I agree Mr. Hill and the other leftist activists should probably have been more active about it, but I think I understand why they haven’t. The things he said, and some of the things coming out of left during the Bush Administration, not just criticisms that were exaggerated or polemic, but some arguments, the war was about corporate profits(as opposed to oil geopolitcs) etc, etc. were irresponsible, incorrect, etc. and now, they see that and the consequences that come it. The things Van Jones said were politically suicidal in Washington. Look realistically at where mainstream America is and why. Especially if you want to start winning elections.
The issue of American policy in Latin America and its influence on immigration here can’t be purely about U.S. agricultural policies if it was I’m sure there would be protests in Mexico. I’m not read up on our trade policies in Mexico but if that was the main driver of why people are risking their lives crossing the desert to come in, I would think there would be protests in Mexico. I’m sure they contribute and play a role but let’s be responsible about the arguments we make. As far as I know there are a lot of industries moving into Mexico with globalization. But you can still make the argument that coming for a better life(from grinding poverty) is a legitimate to risk entering a country illegally and worthy of considering in relation to similar migrations into America in the past.
People should think about what they say publicly and how the other people in the country will feel about it, and as far as being labeled a communist, the best defense against that is to understand how you disagree with communism and be able to articulate that. I feel on the left in this country, as in every country, there are communists and socialists on the left that actually do conceal what they really believe to get more people to go along with the arguments and positions they put forth, just to get things going in their direction. Citizens need to be weary of the underlying beliefs or warrants of all arguments they hear, even ones from people in their own party, or faction, or whatever. People should be wary of political extremists in their own in-group, and be able to disagree with them and/or dispel accusations of being lumped with them. If you aren’t capable of doing that, then your ideology and possibly that of your party is unfortunately, tied up in their ideology a little too much, on certain arguments or issues, take the ones that are being used to force out President Obamas appointees, for example animal rights with the animals will have lawyers arguments being made, or extremist arguments in environmental racism that have been used or constructed from quotes being taken out of context and used. This is a politically, or in an argument, a difficult tactic to work against I think but...
Everything else I agree with. Marc Lamont Hill has my vote in any election.
Marc Lamont Hill Interview on Davey D's Blog
http://odeo.com/episodes/25106705-Fox-News-Pundit-Talks-About-Van-Jones-Progressives-Why-the-Left-Keeps-getting-Smashed-On
Healthcare PR Campaign by the Insurance Industries
I started this blog as part of a class project to take advantage of an opportunity to follow, write about and continue to educate myself about the issues from Obama’s platform that I felt were the most important and also about Obama himself as a politician and leader. I will most closely watch developments and write about healthcare, new energy, and closing corporate tax loopholes, which were the main issues of the platform Obama ran on.
My first thought is how can people be missing the real issues involved in the current “debate(debacle)”, namely the influence of special interests, health insurance firms, and drug companies on the basic functioning of our democracy.
The insurance industry is funding the FreedomWorks organization with Dick Armey as it’s former chair(I think chair) who has publicly stated his opposition to having any government health safety net program for the public. I won’t get into blaming the media, investigative journalism has been dead for way too long, I will stay focused on my disappointment with the lack of the people as well, to recognize the hijacking of our democractic process that took place with this campaign waged by the health insurance industry to kill reform. And I will add another point, babyboomers look like complete idiots right now in my eyes, being manipulated to leave the health insurance industry the way it is(by opposing reform, hell it might even make the insurance companies more brazen in denying people coverage) right before they all retire.
I will pass that message on to my Mom and Dad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)