Saturday, May 3, 2014

Heart of Darkness


A quick note:  The following piece was publishing nearly three years ago.  Prescient?  Judge for yourself, and then, read J.M.H., regularly, so you can remain three years ahead of current events.  - J.M.H.


Heart of Darkness

By J.M. Hamilton (9-5-11)

“Mistah Kurtz — he dead.”

For thrills and chills, I have never been much into fiction.  The cold hard realities of this world provide all the excitement, drama, and surreal energy I’ll ever need.  Why just open up your New York Times, and be prepared for shock and awe.  However, on occasion I have come across a piece of fiction that hits home.  The story puts the hook into me because of the core truth it exposes about the human condition.  Such a work is Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad, which I believe is the greatest story ever told.  This story has everything: empire, anthropolatry, mass murder, and capitalist excess.  

Oh, did I mention cannibals?

And of course, ultimately, it’s a love story!

Heart of Darkness is a study in what Carl Jung would refer to as the “duality of man,” unchecked power, and the megalomania that often follows.   Having studied power for decades, the story rings true on many levels.   A wunderkind goes into the jungle to seek his fortune so that he can marry above his caste.  Driven by this love and his passions, Mr. Kurtz loses himself, and with his tribe of warriors in deepest dark Africa begins cutting off heads, so as to gather more ivory.  As more ivory accumulates and is sent back to Mr. Kurtz’s corporate masters, his fame and reputation grows, often to his business colleague’s dismay. The more Mr. Kurtz enriches others the greater the license he is given.  Sound familiar?

Heart of Darkness was published in 1899, and the story is set in the colonialism of the period, but examples of Mr. Kurtz and his behavior can be seen everywhere at the genesis of the twenty-first century.  The troubled times we find ourselves in amplify and magnify these figures as they stride across the business and political landscape, indeed across the globe.   Many of these figures exhibit myopia that excludes nearly all social conscience, an all consuming goal, great economic or political power, and in some instances enjoy a cult following.  Often some or all ethical and moral restraint is abandoned so as to achieve “the dream,” even at the expense of the destruction of others, and ultimately, themselves.  That pretty much defines what I like to call Heart of Darkness syndrome or HDS.   Please read on, as the blog offers up examples of HDS here in 2011.

$$$  Mr. Lloyd – Doing God’s Work – Blankfein exhibits many of the characteristics of HDS.  His problems are legendary, but to sum up include selling short the American Dream and the American economy, and of course, client double-dealing.   His singleness of purpose is manifest to all; his ethical bypass complete, as he continues to fight and lobby for the very rules and regulations (or the lack thereof) that brought this nation’s economy to its knees.  Not content to having enriched his company, Goldman Sachs, and his management team many times over, he has insured his and Goldman’s success by purchasing all the politicians Goldman’s money can buy, and placing his employees in the highest chambers of global government.  And he probably believes he is doing “God’s work,” after all Mr. Blankfein does his best to operate within the confines of the rules Goldman’s attorneys lobbied for, created, and helped to legislate.   Mr. Blankfein and his cadres seem oblivious to the human toll and suffering he and his banking peers on Wall Street have created.  And my favorite thought from Goldman, recently released, was the assurance that the hiring of Reid Winegarten, criminal defense attorney, was “routine.”

$$$  Secretary of the Treasury, Tim Geithner -  Mr. Geithner, as the former head of the New York Fed, we are often told helped save this nation from ruin and another great depression, with a little help from his friends Messrs. Henry Paulson, Fed Chairmen Bernanke, and Larry Summers.   But three years into the economic quagmire many Americans and businesses find themselves in, Mr. Geithner and his colleagues appear not to have saved the American economy so much, as have bailed out the banks, repeatedly.    And the trickle down from these banks just hasn’t happened, just ask Shadow Government Statistics, who show true unemployment and underemployment creeping north of 22%.   By not restructuring the Wall Street banks and not writing down home loans, when America had a chance, Mr. Geithner and his colleagues have consigned the U.S. housing market, and indeed the Western economies, to years and years of economic turmoil and malaise.  Trust me, the fun is just beginning. However, the ultimate cost will not even be borne by this generation, but rather, it will fall upon our children and future generations.  It is they, and ourselves, who will have to deal with a devalued currency and debt piling ever higher, as good money is thrown after bad – all for the enrichment and aggrandizement of a few, and at the expense of virtually all.

If President Obama loses his bid for re-election in 2012, he will have to thank Tim Geithner for the outcome.   By the way, the transparent assurances of Mr. Buffet aside, it’s never too late to nationalize and restructure the banks, starting with Bank of America.  Why look at GM, who was nationalized and restructured, and just reported record sales figures, up eighteen percent!

$$$  The Republican Party and the Politics of the Heart of Darkness – The Republican party’s disdain and visceral objection to the President taps right into the Heart of Darkness.   What does it say when the Senate Republican Leader’s primary goal is not the betterment of his home state of Tennessee or the country, the job for which he was presumably elected, but rather unseating the President of the United States.   This party of which I was once a proud member, has completely run off the rails, and now is run by megalomaniacal billionaires, the intolerant, and those who politically exploit the evangelicals and Christian community.   Ironically, the party of Christ, as the Republican Party would have you believe, worships money and is the lap dog of corporate interests, often at the expense of all other considerations.   If the GOP was really adhering to the teachings of Christ they would be providing aid and assistance to the poor and the elderly, not shutting down government assistance or attempting to privatize same.  Governor Rick Perry’s connections to the plutocracy and fund raising capabilities are legendary, and yet, he wants to kill social security.

There’s just one problem, the Republican Party and the Chamber of Commerce are rapidly finding themselves turned inside out, by the alleged extremes within the party tent, many of whom are anti- multinational, anti-Wall Street, and anti-Fed.   Seems that some of the elements within the party can appreciate, greatly, American business and capitalism, but don’t share a similar fondness for cartels and monopolies who exploit government largess, tax loopholes, and the legislative process.   This party claims the mantle of fiscal responsibility while often presiding, from the White House, over the greatest Keynesian raid heretofore known to man, from Reagan through Bush (W).  Hypocrisy defined.

$$$  Steve Jobs and Apple Computer.   Talk about singular focus, look no further than Mr. Jobs.  The man truly is great, and has changed America and the world in so many different ways, often for our betterment.  But could Mr. Jobs be greater?   By hiring U.S. labor, instead of exploiting labor on foreign shores, one economist estimates Apple’s profit margin on the iPhone would drop from 60% to50%.   Not a terrible price to pay for helping out your home country, right?  Or by insisting that Apple’s vendors in China pay a fair living wage, with a normalized work week, Mr. Job’s would set a standard for multi-nationals, and bring the differences between U.S. labor and China’s labor market one more step closer to parity or equilibrium.   Mr. Jobs could also insist that vendors in the Pacific Rim not hire child labor, or pollute.   Mr. Jobs will go down in history as a tremendous talent and inventor, but might he have been greater?  Instead of employing more American’s we have a company that exploits U.S. tax law and is sitting on more cash than the U.S. Treasury presently has on hand.

With great power comes great responsibility; U.S. corporations want to be treated like royalty, but often eschew a great deal of the social responsibility that comes with that privilege.  That is to say, corporations often enjoy greater privilege and deference under the law, than any single citizen would ever be accorded; and yet, often get away with crimes that no citizen could ever escape, individually.  If corporations want to be accorded great privilege should they not be held to a commensurate standard?

The annual drive for the United Way is great, but could Corporate America do more?   Apple computer, and the cult of personality that follows Mr. Jobs, could change the corporate/social responsibility dynamic if they so choose, and with a minimal hit to their bottom line.  In fact, this blog argues that any short term reduction in income – as a result of a renewed commitment to the United States and its citizens – could be made up for, in terms of profits, many times over in the intermediate and longer term.

Speaking of great works of fiction, probably the greatest lie told over the last three years has been that the Obama administration is anti-business.   

Take a look at the productivity gains of the American corporation, the increases in net income, and the mountains of cash many of these entities lay upon, and convince me that this administration is anti- business.  Meanwhile, American labor has not seen a real increase in income over the last two decades.

$$$  Exxon Mobil:   This story is priceless, but first a little history.   On August 23, 1939, Adolph Hitler signed a deal with the devil, Joseph Stalin.  Also known as the Molotov –Ribbentrop Pact, the deal basically carved up Poland and Northern and Eastern Europe between the two ambitious men.  The “deal with the devil” eventually disintegrated with Hitler’s Operation Barbarossa, and the Russian winter.   (Hitler apparently learned nothing from another person exhibiting HDS, Napoleon Bonaparte, who made the same mistake in attacking Russia too late in the summer, and was also fighting wars on too many fronts.  We can all be thankful that Hitler was apparently not a student of history.)

Fast forward to this week, when Rex Tillerson’s Exxon Mobil signed, perhaps, another deal with the devil, Ex- KGB and now Russian Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin.   For a look into what Exxon stockholders can come to expect from a deal with Vlad, examine the tough love dished out to a present Russian partner, British Petroleum, from this week’s N.Y. Times:

MOSCOW — Police officers armed with assault rifles Wednesday raided the Moscow offices of the British oil giant BP, carrying out a type of ritual armed search of white-collar premises that is common enough here to have a nickname, “masky show.”

The timing of the raid, however, highlighted this peculiar type of Russian risk for another company — ExxonMobil, which just a day earlier agreed to take over the very Arctic exploration deal that fell through for BP.
BP is still involved in a dispute with its Russian partners over that oil-exploration deal; the police search was related to a lawsuit pending in a Siberian court.

Russia is as important for BP’s oil production as the United States, so even though the company has had such problems here for years, its share price often nudges up or down in response to police raids or the arrests of employees.

The police raids on Moscow’s glassy high-rises where foreign banks and oil companies have offices unnerve employees and disrupt business. They are called “masky shows” for the balaclavas often worn by the black-clad police.

What makes Tillerson’s deal so unique is not that he is getting into bed with a reformed commie, after all President –“ I can do business with this man” – Bush was snookered by Mr. Putin, too; but Exxon must know that the prospects for any longevity to this partnership cannot be good.   Many multi-nationals have sought to do business in the former Soviet Republic, only to find themselves shaken down by corruption, subjected to police state tactics, and with little recourse in a country where the rule of law often does not exist.

Of course, the allure of drilling in the Arctic Sea has to be a huge draw for Exxon, what with the U.S. still concerned about the Alaskan coast and its environment, why not do an “end around” U.S. energy policy and hook up with the Ruskies?  Selah!  If there’s a catastrophe, who’s likely to know if a few million barrels of the sticky black stuff dumps into the Arctic Ocean during a period of endless polar nights?   (Polar bear au chocolat?  Exxon appears down with that.)  Since this deal will have to be ratified by the congress and involves giving Mr. Putin’s Russia a share of Exxon’s U.S. assets, how much of this “dance” by Exxon is sincere, and how much of it is a way to put pressure on the U.S. government to open up the Alaskan coast to Exxon? 

Only time will tell, however, one thing is clear:  If you thought the banking crisis threw a wrench in the global economy take a look at the economic and foreign policy ramifications of the largest U.S. corporation, and a key energy provider, doing business with the Russian Prime Minister.   Does the U.S. really want a Russian Premier (who often exhibits HDS) holding U.S. foreign policy hostage via his arrangement with Exxon?   Mr. Putin, said of the deal: “The scale of the investment is very large.   It’s scary to utter such huge figures.”   Scary, indeed.

The Heart of Darkness syndrome is everywhere these days, and you don’t even have turn on the news to see it first hand, why look right next door.  One might see HDS exhibited in local judges, politicians, school superintendents, and even teachers, anywhere where near absolute power has the potential to corrupt, absolutely.  Men and women will often make mistakes, and become entranced by a goal, mission or dream.   And it’s this passion that can also, if channeled correctly, drive men and women to achieve great things.  The question is can the person with HDS pull up before it’s too late, or like Kurtz will the situation end in personal destruction and substantial collateral damage?

Mr. Kurtz died before reaching his goal of being reunited with his lover, his “intended.”

She never came to know his final words, which were:  “The horror!  The horror!” 

At the end, Mr. Kurtz came to rest where all the indispensable men and women of the world ultimately come to lay, in a dark grave, and possibly answering to a much higher power.



P.S.  I know the economy sucks, but is President Obama kicking some serious tail or what?  I mean if these were normal times, this guy would be coasting to victory in 2012.   Let’s look at his foreign policy score card, shall we? 

Osama bin Laden:  Check.

Colonel Gaddafi, check.

Wind up Mission in Iraq, check.

Start and conclude a war in Libya with multinational political, economic, and military support to prevent genocide by a ruthless dictator, setting a new benchmark for U.S. foreign policy:  Check again.

Ushering in a new – hopefully less costly – age in the U.S. military, that of covert operations, drones, cyber-ops, and less dependence on standing armies:  CHECK!

Pulling the hell out of Afghanistan… Under Review/Pending.

Foreign Policy grade for the Commander in Chief, and showing the Republican Party how to actually hunt down scum bags and win:   A

Note: If Obama was a Republican, the GOP would be singing his praises right now.

Note, if the U.S. can exit Afghanistan, possibly as the election nears, we predict that the President’s poll numbers will enjoy a boost.  Then America can say, definitively, “mission accomplished.”   Coming soon, the Presidents score card on U.S. domestic policy.   This blog has seen some promise from this administration on domestic matters, like having the Justice Department take on the AT&T monopoly, and combination with Sprint. The government’s law suit against the banks, initiated this week, over the fraud associated with mortgage debacle is another great start.  Potential here is limitless, as an agent of real change.  Obviously, jobs is priority one!

Saturday, April 26, 2014

The Fed and Perverse Incentives and Disincentives


The Fed and Perverse Incentives and Disincentives


By J.M. Hamilton  4-26-2014

An economics professors once told the class I was attending, that economist make terrific historians, but rarely get their forecasts right.  He said economist constrained foresight had something to do with too many endogenous and exogenous variables.  (Which explains why Dr. Nouriel Roubini is so famous, for correctly calling the financial crisis.)  My former prof., it turns out, was exceedingly wise.

The Federal Reserve, largely run by academics and economist, being a case in point.  Starting six years ago, the American public has been told repeatedly, since the financial crisis occurred in 2008, that the Fed's extraordinary measures (interest rate suppression, and quantitative easing) are completely necessary to heal the economy and put Americans back to work.  Another dozen months go by with similar sub-par results and poor employment figures, and the time line or horizon for what others have called inter-generational wealth larceny (interest rate suppression), and yet another back door bank bailout (quantitative easing), gets stretched out by the Fed Chair for another twelve to twenty-four month window.

Some say the definition of "insanity" is repeating the same act of failure over and over again, and expecting a different outcome.  Questionable as the act may seem, there is a method to the Fed’s possible madness.

What the Fed has been exceedingly good at, going back to Mr. Greenspan, is setting up asset bubbles, the most recent of which is great for the wealthy but has done little for the middle-class and the destitute.  As JMH has argued, seems that trickle down economics is not only a failure for the economy when the tax code is rigged for the plutocracy, but it is also appears equally unsuccessful when trickle down is deployed by monetary policy means.  Then again, JMH has also argued traditional Keynesian economics could indeed work its magic, if Fed largess made its way directly into the hands of he American people, via mortgage relief and outright debt forgiveness.  As opposed to the Fed shuttling an ocean of free cash into Wall Street hands.  In sum, per the plutocracy: socialism for the elite is good; socialism for everyone else… is, ahem... Bad!

In terms of employment, the Fed's policies would appear to have fallen short (and that's putting it mildly), especially relative to its size-able balance sheet expansion.

This blog pointed this out in two recent pieces:  Having Failed, The Federal Reserve does Charity;  and the second piece, The Leviathan is Vertically Integrated.  In this latter piece, JMH points out the Fed has created a perverse incentive for corporations and the banking sector not to employ Americans... Namely, so as too keep Fed largess (QE uber alles) flowing for the wealthy.  The Fed has stated that its extraordinary measures will continue until the unemployment rate drops below 6.5 percent, which gives Wall Street every incentive not to hire.  This latter piece also pointed out that the banking sector, including shadow banking and private equity, are now so interconnected throughout the economy, via ownership, interlocking boards, and likely a ruling oligarchy, that they can control employment, and therefore, unemployment and underemployment.  Maximization of shareholder value in recent years often consists of not selling and exporting additional goods and services (i.e. increasing revenue); but rather, in engaging in the elimination of, and the export of, American jobs (i.e. cost cutting).

Is this what the McKinsey Group tells business leaders for a sizable fee: Want to make money, cut your staff and hire a handful back as temps... in short, embrace globalization?

Now before you dismiss my argument as paranoid, that the Wall Street Cartel is colluding to hold national rates of unemployment at artificially high levels, so as to keep the Fed's printing presses set on overdrive, consider what has been going on in Silicon Valley for sometime.  This is the locale where a company, who's motto is "do no evil," has colluded with the beloved Apple, et al., to suppress employee wages and not compete for each others engineering and IT talent.  So if that's happening in Silicon Valley, which has also turned tax avoidance into an art form, can you just imagine the collusion that is going on in other sectors of the economy?  One doesn't have to imagine of course, you can read about Wall Street collusion any day of the week: whether it be the LIBOR scandal, storing commodities to keep prices inflated, insider trading, FOREX manipulation, or private equity firms colluding amongst themselves to price fix LBOs, and now, even high frequency trading points to a rigged outcome.  

The game/economy is rigged, so why would rates of employment or unemployment be any different?  Labor being a key cost for nearly any enterprise.  In forsaking the American worker, the elite have cut themselves off from top line growth; but thanks to the Fed, they can increase revenue and profits through speculation, and increase ROE, through stock buybacks, often times financed via the Fed’s fire hose of liquidity (i.e. historically inexpensive debt).



Perverse incentives not to hire are one thing, there is yet another way in which Fed policies disincent employment opportunities.   But first a quick digression... Many knowledgeable persons will agree that many sectors of the American economy are now dominated by monopolies and cartels.  Ironically, monopolies and cartels are creatures of the state, and protected by the state that fails to enforce anti-trust laws, rules and regs., and creates barriers to entry.  Moreover, some of Wall Street's and Omaha's best and brightest have made billions investing in monopolies and cartels, because monopolies not only "short" the customer, and their employees, but they are magnificent at minting exceptional profits, especially for products and services with relatively inelastic demand.

Now your economics professor will tell you that monopolies should not exist in a free market economy because monopolistic profits will attract new entrants into the market place, which will increase competitiveness, enhance consumer services, aid or increase employment, and bring down the cost of goods and services.

However, arguably, we no longer live in a free market economy but rather, a crony economy (where collusion, regulatory capture, tax avoidance, and purchased politicians are the norm).  And this economy is kept buoyant for the elite, and is financed by, exorbitant amounts of Fed liquidity.

So let's cut to the chase:  Now if you are Mr. or Mrs. R. Barron and you have a lush and deep pool of capital to invest, do you place your equity into: Plan A) the stock market - juiced by the Federal Reserve - at limited costs and overhead to your hedge fund, a stock market which is now dominated by monopolies and cartels (hence minting profits); or, do you go with Plan B) and enter the time consuming process and aggravation of building a business (infrastructure, organization and staff) necessary to compete in a cartel driven market - possibly upsetting your elite friends in the process by eroding the profit making potential of the existing cartel or monopoly?

No mystery here.  Thanks to a stock market on steroids, courtesy of the Fed, Mr. and Mrs. R. Barron goes with Plan A.

In short, The Fed, by juicing the stock market (and by providing cheap debt to sponsor stock buy backs, private equity, and M&A behavior) causes the wealthy to have zero incentive to invest, take risk, and most importantly, hire Americans in establishing start up businesses.  Why would the plutocracy?  When thanks to the Fed, they can all reap significant rewards in a ginned-up stock (and commodities market), dominated by cartel and monopoly driven stocks -at minimal cost or overhead. That's just naked self-interest.

And arguably, it's classic rent seeking behavior, speculation, and a tax on society, and it is sponsored and supported by the Fed's printing presses.

That is to say and just to belabor the point, by inflating asset classes, the Fed creates a powerful disincentive to invest in start up businesses, hire American, and repair the tax base.

(As an aside, I also believe the Fed couldn't give a "flip" about maximum employment because it would increase labor costs, erode marginally, profits for the wealthy, and set off perhaps record cost push and demand pull inflation.  In fact, the Fed's policies are a disincentive for maximum employment for that very reason: The awesome specter of INFLATION.  The Fed has printed trillions to reward idle speculation among the rich, and these monies are nearly “sanitized/sterilized,” as they are – for the most part – kept out of the hands of the American public by the Wall Street cartel's failure to lend, and American enterprise' refusal to hire.)

The bottom line in all this is: If America wants a traditional economy that creates new businesses, produces competitive goods and services, and most importantly, raises aggregate demand by hiring Americans, than the Fed needs to take away the asset bubble and the punch bowl of inexpensive debt, so that the banks and shadow banking resume their traditional role. The role of lending and investing in American new businesses, that actually produce something and compete against existing monopolies and cartels.  Fed behavior may also explain why annual American GDP growth has stalled in recent years.

Who knows, perhaps under such a scenario, maybe some cartels and monopolies will actually face competition again?  Good for the consumer.  Good for the tax base.  Good for American labor.  Good for management and in the long run, good for stockholders.

But don't count on it.  Yet another hallmark of a crony economy is an ocean of Fed liquidity keeping the insiders happy.  To support this insanity, one can argue that the Fed must keep Americans misinformed about the true nature of The Bank's/Fed's work, and keep the charade about wanting maximum employment in the press and news media.

All of which brings us back to my college prof.... Economist often make terrific historians but often fail in real time forecasts.  Both the current and prior Fed Chair appear to be no exception.  As one pundit described her, the current Fed Chair is either the most naive academic the Fed has yet encountered, or the ultimate insider - cynically exploiting the Fed's mandate and the American dollar, for the enrichment of an elite few.  


The Fed's policies play no small part in the Neo-Guilded age we are living through currently.  An age that has renewed calls for even greater socialism and merited calls for a global tax on wealth and capital.  Someone needs save capitalism from the crony system, and the monopolies and cartels, that wrap themselves in the cloak of the free market.  A reconsideration of present Fed policies would be a great start.


P.S.

Please pray with me: 

Please Dear Goddess… Do not present this nation with another Bush/Clinton match up in 2016.  Please provide for us a Warren/Paul presidential match up, instead. 

Amen.

Oh, and Dear Goddess… Please cast-out those evil doers, The FCC and the Federal Judge, who did Comcast’s bidding, and who struck down net neutrality.  The Internet is after all, a utility, and the cartel that makes billions off of it should be regulated and their profits subject to windfall taxes.  The NSA and the Net’s cartel have done so much to destroy internet freedom, U.S. dominion over the world-wide-web, and commerce over same.  In short, these tribes of inequity have collectively, sacrificed a huge cash-cow and a fountain of information and entertainment; please stop them before they do more harm.  

Selah.

Copyright JM Hamilton Publishing 2014

Saturday, April 12, 2014

President Protectionism


President Protectionism

Reagan “ has granted more import relief to U.S. industry than any of his predecessors in more than half a century.” -  Reagan Treasury Secretary, James A. Baker III

By J.M. Hamilton  4-12-14

“You’re a hypocrite.”  Ah, fighting words.

“I guess that’s fair,” I said to my sibling.  

I was in the middle of a rant on taxes, when she let me have it in mid-sentence. 

“Many of us are hypocrites to some degree.”  I said.  Some of us are hypocrites deliberately, some of us selectively, and some through willful ignorance. 

“Interesting times we live in.”

Cold silence on the other end of the phone, from my sister, the CPA.

“It’s not that I resent paying taxes… but I do resent paying at twice the rate of the wealthy. A flat tax is inherently progressive.” 


My sister:  “There’ll never be a flat tax.  You are talking about millions of accountants and tax attorneys losing their jobs.” 

“And I really resent,” I cut in, “that I have to buy $79 worth of software, plus added charges, to file on line.”  Not even Bach and a Cabernet induced-coma, with additional supplements, will smooth out the unmitigated misery of four horrific hours on line, grinding out another annual filing.

What a way to spend a spring weekend.


My sister, by the way, is awesome.  My sister is the living, breathing proof that males are the weaker sex.   Probably not an accolade she’d embrace, but the truth all the same.

One of the fun things about putting out this blog, year after year, is you get to go back and look at what you wrote.  Does it hold up?  Does it stand the test of time?  What did I get right and what did I get wrong?  While my record is mixed, I do occasionally get a few things right.

Take my piece from September of 2010, A Nation of Whiners!

In this piece, J.M.H., among other things, took former Texas Senator Phil Gramm to task for calling the U.S. a nation of “whiners.”  The Senator said Americans were “whiners” for not recognizing that the economic malaise perpetrated and visited upon the nation, by the very financial deregulation U.S. Senator Gramm sponsored and passed in the late ‘90s, was just a fiction or a mental defect created in the collective public’s mind.  Mr. Gramm, also a former economic campaign advisor to presidential candidate McCain, called the Great Recession a “mental recession.” The Great Recession, six years running, is "mental?"

This same piece, A Nation of Whiners, also took on “free trade” dogma.  I wrote: “While Republican orthodoxy demands strict adherence to 'free trade' dogma, most educated Americans know that there is no such thing as ‘free trade,’ just as we all know there is no Santa Claus.  In short, ‘free trade’ is nothing more than some form of arbitrage, whether it be labor, regulatory, or avoidance of tax, which often benefits some multi-nationals at U.S. (citizen) expense.”

Now anyone who took Macro Econ 101 had free trade rammed down their throats as a fundamental law or fact.  Notably, both Fresh and Saltwater schools of economic thought were in agreement on free trade.  The theory went that by nations specializing in a particular good or service, they could sell more of that good or service globally, than just domestically, and so on and so forth around the globe.  Moreover, if a nation wasn’t particularly strong at a particular good or service, it should willing surrender that product or service, and jobs, to another nation that did specialize in that particular good or service.  All in the interest of free trade, global economic harmony, and the consumer. 

The theory held that displaced workers, who had their jobs shipped overseas, would flow into the sectors of the economy that America was strongest at.  For instance, displaced manufacturing workers in Ohio and Pennsylvania would go to work on Wall Street.  Also, American consumers would benefit from cheaply produced goods, exported onto U.S. shores.  However, if you are among the increasing ranks of the “displaced,” or underemployed, it’s hard to gather up the funds for food, let alone an iPad.

As a result of this quaint "free trade" theory, the U.S. exported millions of jobs offshore, and exported its tax base and fiscal health with those jobs.  The ranks of the unemployed grew, and globalization, which is a fancy work for “free trade,” caused more Americans to file for unemployment benefits, further damaging the Federal government’s budget.  Therefore, free trade/globalization is a key contributor to ever mushrooming Federal debt.

It’s by no accident that at the same time laissez faire economics and free trade dogma hit its zenith in America… the disparity between the “wolfs and rabbits, ” the haves and the have-nots, has grown astronomically.  It’s also by no accident that the Obama administration wants congress to fast track free trade agreements, which it would like to negotiate behind closed doors for American and foreign oligarchs, and away from the prying eyes of the congress and U.S. citizens.  Ironically, President Obama, back in the day, campaigned against free trade agreements.  Theoretically, free trade is also politically beneficial to the Democratic Party, since it creates wards of the state.

But I digress, because the main point of this piece is that the belief that I first wrote about in 2010, that free trade is little more than arbitrage, for the enrichment of, well, the rich, and at the expense of a nation of “whiners” (per Senator Gramm) and her workers … appears to be gathering momentum.

None other than renowned economist, Joseph Stiglitz, and a former free trader at that, has now come out against free trade.  In his piece, On the Wrong Side of Globalization, he wrote:

“Trade agreements’ new boosters euphemistically claim that they are simply after regulatory harmonization, a clean-sounding phrase that implies an innocent plan to promote efficiency. One could, of course, get regulatory harmonization by strengthening regulations to the highest standards everywhere. But when corporations call for harmonization, what they really mean is a race to the bottom.”

Now, if you read my blog and curse it, you’ve likely already concluded that I’m some liberal/libertarian flake, who should be dismissed out of hand.


Of course, that’s really the difference between today’s GOP and yester-year’s GOP…. And the primary reason I abandoned the Party.  President Reagan, who had his own severe stagnation and recession to deal with in the early ‘80s, knew that in order for the nation to get back on its feet, he had to deploy protectionist measures to protect jobs, American labor, business, and the economy.  In deploying protectionist policy, surely President Reagan angered the wealthy (like the arch-conservative CATO Institute, then founded and run by the billionaire Koch Bros.) 


Mr. Reagan certainly paid lip service to free trade, but his second term and top line growth for American business depended upon a rational balance of protectionist policy, which protected the American worker, who after all, is the driver of aggregate U.S. consumption.


Today, the laissez faire crowd and the advocates of free trade, that have hi-jacked both political parties, know that they are doing unmitigated damage to the American people, workers, businesses, and the federal budget by backing free trade agreements (a rigged tax code is also endorsed by this same crowd), all in the name of making the rich richer, because they believe that’s a good thing.  Our politicians in catering to the elite with free trade agreements are serving their true master, American and global oligarchs.  Clearly, the interests of the rich and powerful have diverged from the interests of the majority of Americans, but that has always been the case.  Yester-year's GOP often struck the right balance between the republic’s interests and the plutocracy’s interests.  President Reagan's position on free trade and protectionism being a case in point.  




Then again, President Reagan did start out as a Democrat, and once represented the Screen Actors guild... I guess that would make him a parlor-pink, by today's oligarchy standards.

If we compare the two economies, both President Reagan and Obama inherited a really lousy situation.  However, Reagan had higher tax rates than Obama for much of his two terms in office, and Reagan engaged in protectionism (which the Robber Barrons will tell you are both "no- nos"and impediments to growth).  By comparison, President Obama has lower tax rates and has embraced free trade (which should make him a darling of the oligarchs). Both Presidents had monetary doves at the Fed, in the form of Messrs. Greenspan and Bernanke.  And yet, President Reagan's economic recovery was stronger than President Obama's.  Why?  

Thanks to protectionism, President Reagan was able to protect and preserve the middle-class.  The middle-class, thanks to three decades and more of laissez faire economics and free trade, has all been but gutted by the time President Obama entered office.  In brief, during President Obama's time in office, there has been no middle class recovery.  The missing ingredient for President Obama, existed for President Reagan.  Under both recoveries, however, the rich have grown richer, despite higher tax rates under President Reagan.

Unfortunately, some Americans through willful, or benign ignorance, turn a blind eye (I call it the “ostrich syndrome”); and either deliberately eschew politics, or duck their heads in the sand and hope, pray, and pretend things will get better, or have simply resigned themselves to the fact that things will only grow worse. 

“I can’t control these outcomes, so I must accept them,” so goes the familiar refrain.  To which I respond, “Yes, but what about your children and the future your apathy is bequeathing them.” 

The American pubic can control democracy and economic and political outcomes, by staying educated and exercising their enfranchised right.  I know this to be true, because why else would the rich pour hundreds of millions into political campaigns, attempting to overthrow the democratic process?  If I believed democracy didn't work in the long haul, I’d stop writing this blog tomorrow.  Nor is it “cynicism” to write on the problems of the nation, and attempt to point out the often obvious solutions; in fact, for some, it’s a patriotic responsibility.

Democracy comes at a price for its citizens, that means remaining actively engaged, knowledgeable, and insisting that your interests are represented.  It’s a small price to pay, remaining educated and informed, relative to all those men and women who have laid down their lives to fight for and protect this country.  Handing the car keys over to a band of pirates, cutthroats and plutocrats is a recipe for a nation in decline, and we are witnessing that decline.  If you believe staying actively engaged in our democracy is difficult and requires too much thought and time, in short - if you want to abdicate responsibility, than do nothing more and watch the plutocracy take hold and the economy continue to stagnate and grow worse.

And this has already happened.  Have you looked at the Federal budget lately?  It looks like private equity’s Carlyle Group has taken over the Federal government: we are leveraged to the hilt and gone bust.

In a democracy, liberal politicians, like President Reagan, knew that their true master was the republic and its citizens, and their duty and obligations were to same.   However, in a post- Citizen’s United world, in a post- McCutcheon world, money is worshiped, oligarchs are catered to by both political parties, and the people, the republic, and our economy suffer for it.

Continue on this path and we no longer live in a democracy, but rather are ruled and governed by a plutocracy.  The U.S. is in danger of becoming the very thing our founding fathers fled, a corrupt and crony Europe, ruled by monarchs.  We can give SCOTUS, the GOP stacked court, credit for that. 




P.S.

All of which brings up that famous Wall Street maxim:  Bears make money.  Bulls make money, but Pigs… well, they get slaughtered.

Would it really harm Apple’s margins if they manufactured iPhones in the U.S.?  The answer is an unmitigated “no,” but greed and the laissez faire ethos prevents that from happening.  And I would add, stockholders (like CalPERS) have been harmed, not in every instance but frequently and often, by business actions initiated by management and multi-nationals, in the name of “stockholder interests.”  Then again, I suppose in today's high frequency trading world... holding onto a stock for the long term, based upon sound business fundamentals and a management sponsored long term outlook, is considered passe and strange.


Copyright JM Hamilton Publishing 2014

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Happy Birthday Jack!


Hoover, Alexander, and The Surveillance State... 

Those who do not know history's mistakes are doomed to repeat them.  - Santayana

By J. M. Hamilton.     4-2-2014


In light of a torrent of NSA revelations, many Americans forget that we flirted with a police state in this country once before.  How many sitting Presidents did Mr. Hoover, the nation's first FBI Director, blackmail to do his bidding?

We know for a fact that Mr. Hoover had hundreds of dossiers on congressmen, senators, and that his reign spanned several presidencies.  His power was unimpeachable because he controlled the nation's largest domestic police apparatus, with the greatest amount of resources.  Hoover wielded this power to insure that his bureau, his job, and his boy friend remained protected and ensconced.

Don't take my word for it.  President Truman has been quoted as follows in reference to the nation's founding G-Man:  


Even more frightening still was that organized crime was said to have the blackmailed Mr. Hoover.  Think about that for a moment.  Organized crime blackmails the blackmailer, so that in theory  - if not in practice, whatever "dirt" Mr. Hoover had on executive administrations, SCOTUS, or House and Senate leadership and membership, was accessible to organized crime.

Americans today, may wonder why organized crime was said to have walked all over Mr. Hoover... But many historians will tell you that at time when rampant homophobia was the societal norm, some thought it a mental disorder, blackmailing Mr. Hoover and Clyde Tolson was a very real possibility.

So in essence, a democratically elected government was run by the nation's top cop, who was in turn likely controlled by organized crime.   


Sound familiar?

Last week saw the retirement of General Alexander, who ran the NSA and Cyber Command, and his reign too, spanned a couple of Presidencies.  Mr. Alexander's power was nearly unlimited and his spying, surveillance, and police state apparatus would have been marveled at by Hoover and the German Stasi.

What dossiers did Mr. Alexander have in his possession on democratically elected officials?  And who had the "dirt" on Mr. Alexander, so that they had access to his files?

"Paranoid stuff," you argue.

"Not hardly." I respond.  "Just look at Mr. Hoover and history."


Even if Mr. Alexander was Mr. Clean, what was to prevent hackers (foreign or domestic; criminal, commercial, or state sponsored) from hacking into the NSA to obtain NSA information?

Possibly by no coincidence last week, at the same time there was a changing of the guard at the NSA, President Obama announced his plans to end mass surveillance.  Surveillance that has done so much damage to our relationship with allies, harmed American internet companies and hardware and service providers, and damaged U.S. standing in the world, as the beacon of freedom and democracy.

Like Mr. Hoover before him, make no mistake about it, General Alexander's creation, the post-modern NSA, was, and remains, a threat to our democracy and our freedom.  The General stands among many historical figures, who would sacrifice personal freedom, liberty and privacy for specious claims about greater national security.

President Obama is shrewd.... Not only did he do the right thing by proposing to rein in the police state; but, if successful, the President will have also removed a political cudgel from Senator Rand Paul's hand, who has gained traction as a prospective presidential candidate - based upon issues of privacy and freedom.

Of course the NSA isn't the only military branch who is out of line... The CIA has been called on the carpet by Senator Feinstein for hacking into Senate computers.  How bad has it become when the primary defender of the faith, and a huge MIIC advocate, calls out the CIA? 



When did the MIIC decide that they no longer needed civilian oversight?

Article II, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution makes the POTUS commander-in-chief over the nation's armed forces.  This is a good thing.  However, this key tenet to our democracy, a tenet that stands between Americans and military rule, is directly threatened by a police and surveillance state.  The MIICs power and influence only becomes magnified - exponentially, I would argue, when many of the MIICs duties and responsibilities are subcontracted out to commercial interests.  (The profit motive can drive men and women to greater good, and if not monitored by our elected officials, potential national harm.)

President Obama should act unilaterally to rein in MIIC excesses that threaten our democracy, if the Congress fails to act expeditiously to support his efforts.  There appears to be many threats to our democracy today, not the least of which are too much concentrated wealth and power, a Citizen's United decision - et al., and our surveillance state.


P.S.

One of the great things about the majority of Americans finally recognizing that homosexual conduct, and marijuana use, is neither criminal nor aberrant, is that these are two behaviors that politicians, indeed all Americans, can no longer be blackmailed for....  unless of course, one is a Republican politician.


One of the best anti-monopoly/anti-cartel pieces written all year:  Washington Post, Catherine Rampell - Comcast- Time Warner Cable merger is a bad deal.

Copyright JM Hamilton Publishing 2014