November 6, 2018 will be a very interesting day. I don't know how it will turn out, but I'm sure of one thing. If the democrats gain any significant number of congressional seats, it will be touted as a widespread repudiation of Donald Trump and republican values. What will be overlooked by these media outlets is the fact that it is very far from unusual for the midterm elections during an administration's first term to result in seat losses. Normally it is just a matter of degree.
In the 2010 midterm elections during Barack Obama's first term, the democrats lost 63 seats in the House of Representatives returning the majority to the republicans. The republicans gained six Senate seats, but the democrats retained their majority.
The vast number of seat changes in the House of Represntatives was the largest since 1948. Also the largest midterm election change since 1938. Only one-third of Senators were up for re-election so a 6 seat loss is not completely insubstantial.
The point is, one should remember these figures when digesting the news coverage of the forthcoming results. The Obama administration's 2010 seat losses were truly monumental and historical. Maybe next Tuesday's results will be comparable, maybe not. But we should make sure that the results are properly compared with the 2010 midterms, and with previous first term midterms in general. Because it would be far from shocking to see the mainstream media portray the results in a manner which vigorously advances their transparent agenda. While at the same time failing to utilize appropriate perspective based on the past. The balanced perspective which is vital in the presenting of accurate news to voters and all Americans.
Hey, if the results do match Obama's losses or sets a new standard, then by all means vigorously report what did take place and get the discourse going because it's gonna greatly elevate the importance of the 2020 general election.
- Birney K. Brown
Wednesday, October 31, 2018
Tuesday, September 25, 2018
MAPS DON'T LIE, BUT GOVERNMENTS DO
Sometimes you have to wonder if typical Americans ever look at maps. Because so often when we are told something by our government or read about it in the mainstream press, we simply conclude that the information was factually presented to us. But familiarity with a map of the Middle East, for example, might get a person questioning things a little bit. It could trigger the utilization of a little common sense based on geography and the precise location of certain countries relative to others. Common sense is one of the great weapons of the citizenry. It harkens back to the classic: "who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes".
Use of maps gives a background from which we can formulate our own, singular reasoned judgment concerning events in far away countries. The location of nations in the Middle East and North Africa reveal much about our policies and actions regarding Israel, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and others. A truly reflective examination also reveals the very close proximity of some of them to Russia and should spur some thoughts about American activities and how they are explained. To include, quite obviously, how Russia is portrayed.
Try a neat little experiment and see what you come up with. First, take a few minutes to gather your thoughts about events in the last few years in the Middle East and North Africa. Then recall Gen. Wesley Clark's 2007 remarks about our country's plans for Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Then study a map of the full region. Then employ some common sense. I bet what you come up with might well not jibe all that well with what we've been told by our government and mainstream press.
- Birney K. Brown
Sometimes you have to wonder if typical Americans ever look at maps. Because so often when we are told something by our government or read about it in the mainstream press, we simply conclude that the information was factually presented to us. But familiarity with a map of the Middle East, for example, might get a person questioning things a little bit. It could trigger the utilization of a little common sense based on geography and the precise location of certain countries relative to others. Common sense is one of the great weapons of the citizenry. It harkens back to the classic: "who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes".
Use of maps gives a background from which we can formulate our own, singular reasoned judgment concerning events in far away countries. The location of nations in the Middle East and North Africa reveal much about our policies and actions regarding Israel, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and others. A truly reflective examination also reveals the very close proximity of some of them to Russia and should spur some thoughts about American activities and how they are explained. To include, quite obviously, how Russia is portrayed.
Try a neat little experiment and see what you come up with. First, take a few minutes to gather your thoughts about events in the last few years in the Middle East and North Africa. Then recall Gen. Wesley Clark's 2007 remarks about our country's plans for Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Then study a map of the full region. Then employ some common sense. I bet what you come up with might well not jibe all that well with what we've been told by our government and mainstream press.
- Birney K. Brown
Tuesday, September 18, 2018
RUMINATIONS ON THE FINANCIAL CRISIS TEN YEARS LATER
In one of the greatest examples of the financial industry's control over governmental functions, I remain awestruck by the scheme Wall Street was able to pull off during the beginning of the Obama administration (and actually throughout his eight years).
The Democrats had control of both the House and Senate from January of 2009 until the mid term results in November of 2010 when they lost the House. This was the time when the Obama administration Department of Justice under Eric Holder should have begun aggressively pursuing criminal charges against Wall Street executives. Everyone in Washington, D.C. knew there was pervasive fraud throughout the financial industry. They knew that unquenchable greed driven by Wall Street's engine had infiltrated just about every entity whose goals had anything to do with money. They knew that Main Street was getting unmercifully crushed and who was responsible for it.
So what did Wall Street do in such an environment to protect itself? Well, they somehow cajoled the Obama administration into focusing all its attention on the Affordable Healthcare Act. When they realized how important the passing of Obamacare was to the administration, Wall Street unleashed all its power handlers and other minions to make sure that Obamacare became issue #1 garnering all the media attention and legislative coverage possible. And to keep it in the headlines above all else to include dutifully covering all its endless controversies. ( No wonder the Occupy Wall Street movement was so short lived - ensuring that the ACA remained the foremost issue on everyone's minds efficiently killed off any impetus for financial change).
The Obama administration was played like a fiddle until the mid terms of 2010 when House democrats were unseated everywhere you looked. And so much of the reason for this legislative conversion was the complete and utter failure of Obama to hold Wall Street accountable for its actions. It gave birth to the Tea Party and ultimately the Trump phenomenon. It also coincides with when the democratic party subtly began to lose touch with many of the issues truly important to the typical voter.
I find it ironic and naive that so many defend Mr. Obama by saying stuff like "Congress and the Republicans blocked so much that he tried to do". Well - why the heck did he not do anything whatsoever about the financial criminals when he was in control of Congress for two full years? As earlier stated, it's because he was completely "gamed" by Wall Street who recognized and took full advantage of his obsession with healthcare. They seized upon this myopic obsession in ways only they could to ensure that Obama left the handling and resolution of the financial crisis in the hands of those who had actually created it. Namely Ben Bernanke, the NY Fed, and federal agencies like the Treasury filled to the brim with Wall Street veterans. Such people are not prone to implementing any substantive changes not protective of Wall Street or that would not serve the long term interests of the financial industry.
For those like myself who believe that Wall Street does have a vice-like grip on government, the pathetic response to out-and-out obvious fraud, deceit, theft, dishonesty, and wholesale criminality on the part of white collar banking executives at the highest levels is mind bending. But I also believe it was orchestrated. Politicians tend to turn over financial or heady economic matters to others as they are believed to be very complicated and therefore in need of great expertise. The type of expertise which might lead a healthcare agenda-driven president to perhaps be convinced to pick an Attorney General who has made a career out of litigation in the financial arena. (actually by defending white collar financial criminals as a partner in Wall Street's "first call" firm). This outfit, Covington and Burling - even held his corner office open for his impending return after he apparently felt he had accomplished his "goals" in public service. Mr. Holder was then able to just settle back in. Leaving behind a legacy of puny administrative fines relative to the humongous bank gains through the conduct involved, the cementing of a realization that the continuation of the behavior is therefore profitable, and the standard use of the estimable "without admitting or denying guilt" settlement language.
To top this infuriating rumination off, these same above parties were able to successfully direct the media and our leaders to pronounce that returning the banking system to health was vital for the health of Main Street. Now there's some true "healthcare" concern for you.
- Birney K. Brown
In one of the greatest examples of the financial industry's control over governmental functions, I remain awestruck by the scheme Wall Street was able to pull off during the beginning of the Obama administration (and actually throughout his eight years).
The Democrats had control of both the House and Senate from January of 2009 until the mid term results in November of 2010 when they lost the House. This was the time when the Obama administration Department of Justice under Eric Holder should have begun aggressively pursuing criminal charges against Wall Street executives. Everyone in Washington, D.C. knew there was pervasive fraud throughout the financial industry. They knew that unquenchable greed driven by Wall Street's engine had infiltrated just about every entity whose goals had anything to do with money. They knew that Main Street was getting unmercifully crushed and who was responsible for it.
So what did Wall Street do in such an environment to protect itself? Well, they somehow cajoled the Obama administration into focusing all its attention on the Affordable Healthcare Act. When they realized how important the passing of Obamacare was to the administration, Wall Street unleashed all its power handlers and other minions to make sure that Obamacare became issue #1 garnering all the media attention and legislative coverage possible. And to keep it in the headlines above all else to include dutifully covering all its endless controversies. ( No wonder the Occupy Wall Street movement was so short lived - ensuring that the ACA remained the foremost issue on everyone's minds efficiently killed off any impetus for financial change).
The Obama administration was played like a fiddle until the mid terms of 2010 when House democrats were unseated everywhere you looked. And so much of the reason for this legislative conversion was the complete and utter failure of Obama to hold Wall Street accountable for its actions. It gave birth to the Tea Party and ultimately the Trump phenomenon. It also coincides with when the democratic party subtly began to lose touch with many of the issues truly important to the typical voter.
I find it ironic and naive that so many defend Mr. Obama by saying stuff like "Congress and the Republicans blocked so much that he tried to do". Well - why the heck did he not do anything whatsoever about the financial criminals when he was in control of Congress for two full years? As earlier stated, it's because he was completely "gamed" by Wall Street who recognized and took full advantage of his obsession with healthcare. They seized upon this myopic obsession in ways only they could to ensure that Obama left the handling and resolution of the financial crisis in the hands of those who had actually created it. Namely Ben Bernanke, the NY Fed, and federal agencies like the Treasury filled to the brim with Wall Street veterans. Such people are not prone to implementing any substantive changes not protective of Wall Street or that would not serve the long term interests of the financial industry.
For those like myself who believe that Wall Street does have a vice-like grip on government, the pathetic response to out-and-out obvious fraud, deceit, theft, dishonesty, and wholesale criminality on the part of white collar banking executives at the highest levels is mind bending. But I also believe it was orchestrated. Politicians tend to turn over financial or heady economic matters to others as they are believed to be very complicated and therefore in need of great expertise. The type of expertise which might lead a healthcare agenda-driven president to perhaps be convinced to pick an Attorney General who has made a career out of litigation in the financial arena. (actually by defending white collar financial criminals as a partner in Wall Street's "first call" firm). This outfit, Covington and Burling - even held his corner office open for his impending return after he apparently felt he had accomplished his "goals" in public service. Mr. Holder was then able to just settle back in. Leaving behind a legacy of puny administrative fines relative to the humongous bank gains through the conduct involved, the cementing of a realization that the continuation of the behavior is therefore profitable, and the standard use of the estimable "without admitting or denying guilt" settlement language.
To top this infuriating rumination off, these same above parties were able to successfully direct the media and our leaders to pronounce that returning the banking system to health was vital for the health of Main Street. Now there's some true "healthcare" concern for you.
- Birney K. Brown
Tuesday, March 20, 2018
Are We Getting Ready to (PARTY) Again Like it's 2008?
The year 2018 is the tenth anniversary of the Financial Crisis. The "celebration" of the collapse of Bear Stearns occurred last week. Many more such landmarks will coming up throughout the year.
One of the most disheartening things about the Great Recession is that the typical American did so little to try to understand the causes. This lack of interest or exploration is mystifying and severely disappointing. Particularly when so many of the factors leading to the crisis still exist today. More and more provisions of the Dodd-Frank legislation are being dismantled amidst regenerated efforts at deregulation. Just as nothing was learned from the excessive leverage of exotic trading strategies that caused the Long Term Capital Management implosion in 1998, we are now in the process of repeating the same grave errors that occurred in the early part of the century. All of this in the unnaturally low interest rate environment that persists despite the profound damage this disastrous Federal Reserve policy brought about in the first place.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So I'm gonna clear off my blogger cobwebs and try my best to do something about all this. While always trying to keep things as basic and readily understood as possible. Because the typical American's lack of knowledge about basic economics and its interaction with the world of finance does not stand alone. Congress, the Trump administration, financial regulators, and of course - the Federal Reserve - are all in the process of forgetting recent lessons while being fitted for their brand new dunce caps.
p.s. - Note that the LTCM implosion happened ten years before the Financial Crisis, which happened ten years ago. Recognize any pattern?
One of the most disheartening things about the Great Recession is that the typical American did so little to try to understand the causes. This lack of interest or exploration is mystifying and severely disappointing. Particularly when so many of the factors leading to the crisis still exist today. More and more provisions of the Dodd-Frank legislation are being dismantled amidst regenerated efforts at deregulation. Just as nothing was learned from the excessive leverage of exotic trading strategies that caused the Long Term Capital Management implosion in 1998, we are now in the process of repeating the same grave errors that occurred in the early part of the century. All of this in the unnaturally low interest rate environment that persists despite the profound damage this disastrous Federal Reserve policy brought about in the first place.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So I'm gonna clear off my blogger cobwebs and try my best to do something about all this. While always trying to keep things as basic and readily understood as possible. Because the typical American's lack of knowledge about basic economics and its interaction with the world of finance does not stand alone. Congress, the Trump administration, financial regulators, and of course - the Federal Reserve - are all in the process of forgetting recent lessons while being fitted for their brand new dunce caps.
p.s. - Note that the LTCM implosion happened ten years before the Financial Crisis, which happened ten years ago. Recognize any pattern?
Tuesday, May 2, 2017
Cockroaches vs Governance
Anyone who possesses even a modicum of the ability to reason should feel very troubled and greatly betrayed by the news of Barack Obama's recent $400k private speech to selected members of the financial industry. He can defend himself however he wishes to, but this was contrary to so many of the reasons why he was elected and re-elected. The disturbing entanglement between government and Wall Street provided much of the impetus behind Mr. Trump. Even average junior high school students now recognize the sway that lobbyists and campaign contributors hold over elected officials.
Who knows? Maybe the reason Obama did this is just reflective of the existing dysfunction of the Democratic party - if not our supposed democracy as a whole. Democrats have become completely out of touch with their roots. They have no clue about the average American and don't even seem to be particularly concerned about getting one. The contemptible and thoroughly corrupt manner in which Hillary Clinton became their candidate is symbolic of this. Many would say that she was not electable anyway and therefore was not an appropriate candidate. But then to sabotage Bernie Sanders is inexcusable (the latest polls show Bernie Sanders as the most popular politician).
I believe that if there was any honor in our political system, the choice would not have been Clinton vs. Trump. Clinton is an utter disgrace and Trump has made a series of bank-friendly appointments while seeming to be in the process of back tracking on just about every promise that got him elected. ( Actually, Obama's $400k private speech is Hillary's kind of gig ).
So what's to be done? (other than spreading our wonderful democratic ideals all over the Middle East through regime change with all the associated deaths and mutilations in addition to costs borne by taxpayers).
Maybe the answer is the one that has been staring us in the face for decades. The establishment of a third party. In the past, this has been limited to presidential third party candidates. What we need is a third party for both the Legislative branch and the Executive branch. One that is truly legitimate, viable, and well organized with a readily understandable, meaningful platform. And it should not be delayed. Start with the House as an experiment since it's quicker to implement with their two year terms. Then fine tune it and expand it to the Senate with their six year terms. As far as the presidency goes, consider it to be a half way build up between the two.
Everyone has read about the 1%, the 5%, or whatever figure you want to use as to who is prospering while the middle class is being demolished. Instead of complaining or giving up, maybe it is time to do something about it. You know, maybe come up with an idea or something like that. Heck - anyone can put aside a half hour or so to try to hit on something novel.
- Birney K. Brown
Who knows? Maybe the reason Obama did this is just reflective of the existing dysfunction of the Democratic party - if not our supposed democracy as a whole. Democrats have become completely out of touch with their roots. They have no clue about the average American and don't even seem to be particularly concerned about getting one. The contemptible and thoroughly corrupt manner in which Hillary Clinton became their candidate is symbolic of this. Many would say that she was not electable anyway and therefore was not an appropriate candidate. But then to sabotage Bernie Sanders is inexcusable (the latest polls show Bernie Sanders as the most popular politician).
I believe that if there was any honor in our political system, the choice would not have been Clinton vs. Trump. Clinton is an utter disgrace and Trump has made a series of bank-friendly appointments while seeming to be in the process of back tracking on just about every promise that got him elected. ( Actually, Obama's $400k private speech is Hillary's kind of gig ).
So what's to be done? (
Maybe the answer is the one that has been staring us in the face for decades. The establishment of a third party. In the past, this has been limited to presidential third party candidates. What we need is a third party for both the Legislative branch and the Executive branch. One that is truly legitimate, viable, and well organized with a readily understandable, meaningful platform. And it should not be delayed. Start with the House as an experiment since it's quicker to implement with their two year terms. Then fine tune it and expand it to the Senate with their six year terms. As far as the presidency goes, consider it to be a half way build up between the two.
Everyone has read about the 1%, the 5%, or whatever figure you want to use as to who is prospering while the middle class is being demolished. Instead of complaining or giving up, maybe it is time to do something about it. You know, maybe come up with an idea or something like that. Heck - anyone can put aside a half hour or so to try to hit on something novel.
- Birney K. Brown
Thursday, April 13, 2017
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
WHY THE -2.9% FIRST QTR GDP IS EVEN WORSE THAN IT LOOKS
On 6/25/14 the first Qtr GDP was revised downward to -2.9%. Of course, this is catastrophic after all the unnatural interventions to invigorate the economy. But there is a crucial and overlooked reason why this report is even worse than it seems. A reason which will leave little chance that the second quarter will not be another negative print - triggering the definition of a new recession right on the heels of the "Great Recession".
It involves one of America's favorite institutions. Yes, our beloved IRS. They don't like to talk about it much, but the fact is that by far the most Americans with an income tax refund file their returns prior to March 31st. With today's age of computer generated returns this means that these people get their hands on their money for spending purposes prior to the beginning of the 2nd quarter.
With our economy being 70% consumption-driven, that means that the segment most prone to actually immediately spend the tax return "shot their wad" before March 31st. (The delayers either owe or are less inclined to rely on a tax refund to spend - hence the delay in filing in the first place).
Anyone who expects a better (or above zero) GDP revised print for the second quarter has surely not contemplated this simple fact. It's so simple that I'm flabbergasted I've not read it before.
- Birney K. Brown
On 6/25/14 the first Qtr GDP was revised downward to -2.9%. Of course, this is catastrophic after all the unnatural interventions to invigorate the economy. But there is a crucial and overlooked reason why this report is even worse than it seems. A reason which will leave little chance that the second quarter will not be another negative print - triggering the definition of a new recession right on the heels of the "Great Recession".
It involves one of America's favorite institutions. Yes, our beloved IRS. They don't like to talk about it much, but the fact is that by far the most Americans with an income tax refund file their returns prior to March 31st. With today's age of computer generated returns this means that these people get their hands on their money for spending purposes prior to the beginning of the 2nd quarter.
With our economy being 70% consumption-driven, that means that the segment most prone to actually immediately spend the tax return "shot their wad" before March 31st. (The delayers either owe or are less inclined to rely on a tax refund to spend - hence the delay in filing in the first place).
Anyone who expects a better (or above zero) GDP revised print for the second quarter has surely not contemplated this simple fact. It's so simple that I'm flabbergasted I've not read it before.
- Birney K. Brown
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Econorama: Supreme Court, McCutcheon, FEC, McConnell, and "St...
Econorama: Supreme Court, McCutcheon, FEC, McConnell, and "St...: One hopes the Supreme Court realizes the consequences of their "Citizens United" ruling and doesn't potentially blow a whole ...
Supreme Court, McCutcheon, FEC, McConnell, and "Straw Men" - A potential Catastrophe.
One hopes the Supreme Court realizes the consequences of their "Citizens United" ruling and doesn't potentially blow a hole in our democratic election process with another mistake. As it stands now with some restrictions in place, there exists an increasing many who believe elected politicians and those maneuvering for election already place the agendas of campaign donors above the wishes of their constituents.
The forthcoming Supreme Court decision on McCutcheon vs. FEC could be very narrow or profoundly wide ranging. If the latter, there is potential disaster ahead.
Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky and Senate Minority Leader) was allowed to present a "friend of the court" argument. Mr. McConnell is "famous" for leading the pack in campaign contributions from the financial, insurance and real estate industries. Also for his utterance that the most important thing was making Mr. Obama a one term president - seemingly more vital to him than any other existing matter of importance facing our nation.
Through his counsel, McConnell argued that all limits to campaign contributions - aggregate and individual - should be ended. If the Supremes address this stance in a favorable light and incorporate it in their decision, the impact on our election process would be ruinous. It would open the door for massive potential bribery and corruption.
...........................................................................................................................
Consider the following potential "straw man" scenario as it theoretically could happen:
- The Koch brothers or similar individuals could target certain elections to put "their people" in place. Here is where the much-discussed $3.5 million restriction would come into play.
- These "Koch parties" realize they can only shovel $3.5 million to their candidate.
- So they set up "straw men" to whom they direct $3.5 million so each "straw man" can also contribute up to $3.5 million to the same candidate. If you get ten such "straw men" to do this, suddenly your talking $35 million. And if caught - just think of all the legal arguments that would tangle up any investigations or criminal charges for years.
- This is merely one example regarding targeted elections. Obviously, swaying results through actions like this can change the dynamic of the entire congressional body impacted - either the House or Senate. There are many other scenarios.
...............................................................................................................................
Quite obviously the wealthy elite campaign donor crowd is preparing their strategy based on the exact nature and reach of the McCutcheon vs. FEC decision.
Given the current makeup and dismal record of our sitting Supreme Court, I suspect that these parties are thinking much deeper about their own opportunities and strategies than the myopic Judges who repeatedly show tunnel vision based on precedent and their interpretation of what the founding fathers meant in the Constitution.
If the Supreme Court really screws this one up - Watch out below because the election process will have been transferred to the least patriotic creatures in existence. The super wealthy elite as symbolized by the Koch brothers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)