Archive for October, 2008
Okay, I’m sure some of you are sick of the political angle this blog has taken in the last month. But believe me, thinking about all of these political issues hasn’t been easy!
I think this post will be worth your while though. CBS News’ Katie Couric of Sarah Palin-stumping fame, not exactly a die-hard conservative, did some investigative journalism regarding Obama’s fundraising. Obama isn’t taking any public money and hasn’t disclosed a significant number of donors. CBS has found that many fake and suspicious names plague the list of his donors. If you live in a ‘battle ground’ state, then I’m sure you’ve experienced the Obama ads that this money is buying:
The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.
It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002.
To make the story more interesting, McCain has disclosed all of his donors and made the information available online:
“We and seven other watchdog groups asked both campaigns for more information on small donors,” he said. “The Obama campaign never responded,” whereas the McCain campaign “makes all its donor information, including the small donors, available online.”
The worst part of this story are the donations given under fake names over the donation limits:
In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as “Will, Good” from Austin, Texas.
Mr. Good Will listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.”
A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25.
In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375.
Following this and subsequent FEC requests, campaign records show that 330 contributions from Mr. Good Will were credited back to a credit card. But the most recent report, filed on Sept. 20, showed a net cumulative balance of $8,950 — still well over the $4,600 limit.
The article goes on to explain potential illegal fundraising from abroad. What does all of this really mean? It means Obama’s record fundraising is also break records for suspicion and potential illegal activity. It means that factors about Obama’s campaign and his history continue to trickle out to voters. I think most of all the question of experience and judgment arise again. In other words, what was he thinking? This is an American election, not a game. The results of the election are serious and money matters, it moves candidates around the country and puts them in advertisements in places they can’t be. I think the effect of the ads will be a wash, convince some people and tire out others. But what it reveals about character won’t be resolved as easily.
“The fact that the obama camp has not provided more info about who these small donors are really runs counter to his transparency message,” says Krumholz.
What about the big money donors? Both campaigns boast of many, but when it comes to the interests of those Wall Street firms caught up in the economic crisis, Obama often bests McCain.
Goldman Sachs interests:
Obama $743,371
McCain $220,045Lehman Brothers interests:
Obama $391,624
McCain $115,707Citigroup interests:
Obama $499,598
McCain $290,101Morgan Stanley interests:
Obama $344,130
McCain $249,377JPMorgan & Chase Co. interests:
Obama $478,462
McCain $210,992
Watch the coverage:
I quotes this article in my last post, but there is another great point that it makes:
When markets are free, asset values are supposed to go up and down, and competition opens up opportunities for profits and losses. Profits and stock appreciation are not rights, but rewards for insight mixed with a willingness to take risk. People who buy homes and the banks who give them mortgages are no different, in principle, than investors in the stock market, commodity speculators or shop owners. Good decisions should be rewarded and bad decisions should be punished. The market does just that with its profits and losses.
As I write this entry, the DJIA is inching up on news of housing sales. The market has not been doing so well for the better part of a year. The government has reacted dramatically bailing out several companies and enacting the wider reaching bailout plan. Moreover, the Fed is now offering loans to numerous private corporations. The Democrats and the Fed want Congress to pass another stimulus plan.
I think that the above quote is extremely interesting. There is no fundamental right to a positive return on investments. That is the nature of risk. The government response to economic indicators reveals that people feel entitled to profit on their investments. Interesting in an atmosphere where greed is seen as a vice.
Economic indicators represent value and expectations. Prices go up and down. Rising prices create value for current stockholders. Falling prices create value for short-sellers and represent an opportunity for future stockholders. In fact, as I’ve said before, a substantial decline in the market causes a transfer of wealth from our parents’ generation to our own. The market is valuing companies that our parents have invested in significantly less, but their money has already gone to purchasing capital and investing in the company. Some of the money may be lost arbitrarily, but the companies are now much cheaper for us to buy stakes in.
There is a social benefit to a growing economy, but the discretion of individual decision-makers in the economy means that growth is not guaranteed. The only thing we have to guide our daily decision-making is prices. Government intervention distorts prices in an effort to create value for current shareholders. This distortion also mires future decision-making. Not only that, but more often than not it lowers value. We’ve seen this for the past few weeks. The government has done a lot, but the market is not responding.
So what should we do?
If there is a social benefit to growth, there is certainly a social cost to recession and depression? There are cases of incomplete information where the market fails. Market failure is different than a down day for the Dow. Market failure is the inability of prices to account for the social cost of pollution that harm a diffuse group (also known as an externality).
We should make sure that institutions are set up that facilitate the transmission and clarity of information. This way people can make their down decisions. In this world, we have to accept that their is no right to profit, but over time assets will correctly value themselves in a way that facilitates firms to make decisions that maximize their profits and minimize their costs.
Looking for growth in new markets where it is increasingly being bypassed, Microsoft said Monday that it would begin offering a new “cloud” operating system that would manage the relationship between software inside the computer and on the Web, where data and services are increasingly centralized. The software is expected to go on sale late next year.
Microsoft Unveils ‘Cloud’ Operating System – NYTimes.com.
Fascinating. I can’t wait to see this come out! I’m always proud to see Microsoft pushing the envelope. Even though a lot of people prefer to ‘hate’ on Microsoft (ala Apple-fanboyism), I think they’ve consistently propelled us to new levels of technology.
Check it out here.
These issues aren’t Republican or Democrat, left or right, liberal or conservative. They are simply economics, and wish as you might, bad economics will sink any economy no matter how much they believe this time things are different. They aren’t.
The Age of Prosperity Is Over – WSJ.com.
Wow. It is extremely gratifying to read your feelings in an internationally circulated newspaper.
Now, we just need our politicians to do this. Maybe, I’ll just have to run for something someday.
I just found this on Tony’s old blog via Google.
“Spencer just called me. He had an amazing story worthy or replication on this blog. Here it goes.
Dan and Spencer are on their way to a bike trail somewhere near Mankato. They got to the trail when Dan realized his wallet was gone. A couple had asked Dan and Spencer for directions and they were acting weird about it, so Dan was afraid they might have somehow stolen his wallet. Spencer and Dan proceeded to dig through Spencer’s car in an attempt to find the billfold in question, with no luck.
As these stories about lost items always go, the unfortunate victim generally recalls various ambiguous details about what they were doing earlier that could be clues, but are never conclusive. Dan realized that he had some change on his BK Lounge tray that he threw away, so he decided his wallet may have been on the tray as well. Spencer unloaded the bikes and Dan took his vehicle back to the BK. He got there as a young employee was taking the trash out. Stop! our hero yelled, desperately wanting to investigate the contents of the garbage. The manager comes out of the BK, probably after he made some chicks go home because they didn’t have coups to get in (Not without coups baby, not without coups…). They start going through the trash together (awwww, so sweet). The manager informs Dan that he is lucky because he told the young employee to take the trash out 15 minutes ago! Damns, laziness trumps responsibility in this case (isn’t that always the case?)! The manager retreats into his domain, leaving Dan and the employee alone (oooooohhhh). Dan finds his wallet amongst the waste products! Success!
And then… he gazes upward, noticing the majestic nametag of the young employee. His name… Jesus. Salvation for those who believe! Damnation for the unbelievers! Repent! Repent!
Jesus is so damn cool…”
TSchwab: 3:27 – Dan Schoppe, His Wallet, Jesus, And A Band Called Hinder.
“I’ve been on the phone the last couple of days with some of my friends … and we’re getting ready for the biggest culture war battles ever,” Donohue said.
If McCain loses, what next for conservatives? | Reuters.
Interesting rhetoric in a time where politicians claim they will move us past partisan politics.
Something has been bothering me lately. It has been plaguing my conscience and running rampant throughout this blog.
Things go wrong. It happens. We depend on the leaders we elect to use a philosophy consistent with our own to avoid mistakes. They happen none the less. As citizens in America’s polity, the officials we elect are accountable to us in a unique way.
Currently, it is clear that political actions have had ramifications in the economy. It is also clear that foreign policy decisions by our political leaders have resulted in a war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Where does the buck stop?
Harry S. Truman promised that the buck stopped at the President’s desk. I don’t think we have the same level of responsibility among our political leaders today. I think that President Bush has taken responsibility for the wars:
“The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people, and it is unacceptable to me,” Bush said. “Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.”
Bush’s approval ratings show that the American people are not completely satisfied with this. In other words, it is too little too late.
Recently, Alan Greenspan took some responsibility for his part in our current economic woes:
The 82-year-old Mr. Greenspan said he made “a mistake” in his hands-off regulatory philosophy, which many now blame in part for sparking the global economic troubles. He quoted something he had written in March: “Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder’s equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief.”
My question is where will the buck stop in 2008? Will it keep going back to Bush? If the Democrats are elected, I think Bush will be blamed for the next 8 years. I think McCain got it right when he said Obama isn’t running against Bush. I think the entire DNC needs to realize this:
“Senator Obama, I am not President Bush,” said McCain in the third and last presidential debate Wednesday night after Obama pointed out that he had voted for Bush’s budget proposals. “If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago.”
The problem is that Americans are not happy with the buck stopping with a Republican in the White House. The party needs to convince people that the buck will stop with John McCain and he’ll take responsibility for the future of America.
If Bush keeps getting blamed, when will we move on? Bush did not have a great presidency, only history will show how it is really viewed, but we need to move on. Every candidate is campaigning on change, but if we don’t change our mindset to the future and to ownership of our actions, there will not be real change.
I’d like to see Congress take responsibility for subsidizing mortgages, Democrats take responsibility for Congress post-2006, and the next president take responsibility for the future. The past affects our future, but we cannot keep blaming the past or we will never move on.
U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick on Friday night rejected the suit by attorney Philip J. Berg, who alleged that Obama was not a U.S. citizen and therefore ineligible for the presidency. Berg claimed that Obama is either a citizen of his father’s native Kenya or became a citizen of Indonesia after he moved there as a boy.
The Associated Press: Judge tosses lawsuit challenging Obama citizenship.
I have been thinking about what I would expect our leaders to do if America was attacked again. I think how you answer this question reflects a lot on how you view policy decisions today.
Think about the state of America after 9/11. We all learned a lot about ourselves. I know that I personally felt angry afterward. A lot of Americans did. We expected the President and Congress to respond swiftly.
If we were attacked again would that sentiment reappear? I think it would. I think the United States’ decision to retaliate would be guided by our current wars. The amount of evidence demanded by the American people would certainly be higher. We would want to know for certain who was responsible and we would fight back again.
Maybe you agree, maybe you don’t, but ask yourself this question: How would you expect the U.S. to react to another attack?
What actions should we take now that our consistent with that future possibility?
Recent Comments