Saturday, September 27, 2008

What don’t I like about my guy?

I am an Obama supporter. I think his election would go far to disrupt the sclerotic system of international relations that the U.S. has come to symbolize in the minds of much of the third world. It would give us a chance to undo the huge damage that the current administration has caused to our standing, both in the world and, for many of us, in our own minds.

I also believe that, where McCain and his party have come to view military action and the “might is right” world view that accompanies it as the most important lever when confronting a potential threat, Obama might have the moral authority to pull his party away from the Madeline “what good’s a fancy military if you can’t use it once in a while?” Albright wing of muscular foreign policy Democrats. [Note, concerning Albright, Bill Safire once wrote, while discussing Presidential succession, that she “was born in Europe, she thinks.” A classic, funny dig.]

More importantly, I think Obama’s domestic policies are much more likely than those of McCain to advance the project most dear to me: achieving a more just and more equal society here in the U.S. I really believe that our economy is in the hands of a plutocracy; that our health care system is a disgrace, that the benefits of citizenship are improperly distributed, and that the result has been the degradation of the U.S. to the point that we now have a lower standard of living, by many measures, than we did a generation ago, and that we are falling farther behind the rest of the industrialized world in the quality of life we can provide to the majority of our citizens.

Oddly, many of our citizens who enjoy a living standard well above the average seem to be among the angriest, out of all proportion to their lot in life, because they perceive themselves to be the victims of wrongs that often come to little more than not being adequately appreciated or respected. Many of those who have the most seem truly aggrieved at the prospect of giving some of it (via taxes) to those who have little, in spite of the demonstrable fact that our social welfare system provides much, much less than those of the countries with whom we otherwise compare ourselves.

I think Obama’s election would provide much greater opportunity than any alternative to fix these problems that I perceive. But reasonable people really can disagree; and in any case the arguments for my guy are almost always, in our current political discourse, ignored in favor of arguments (and slanders) against the other guy. So I thought I owe it to myself to think about what I don’t like about Obama’s policies. After all, no candidate is perfect, and in choosing one over another I am merely acknowledging the truth of a college roommate’s assertion (during the Humphrey/Nixon/Wallace election of a certain year) that presidential campaigns are not exercises in moral absolutes. I have to choose the best available alternative; and although I have voted the Socialist ticket before, I think I have probably grown out of that particular self-deception (I mean that voting Socialist will have an impact, not that Socialism itself is a worthy cause, which I still believe).

So here is one policy of Obama with which I disagree.

Afghanistan. We do not need more soldiers there. We need fewer, that is, no, soldiers there. Anyone who has read the histories of “the great game” or the Soviet experience there knows that the prize (assuming you can define it) is not possibly worth the expenditure. What are we trying to accomplish, anyway? I have a separate plan for that benighted country, and here it is (obviously it needs nuance and elaboration):

  • Convene a meeting of all the tribal leaders, warlords, provincial governors, etc. Be generous in who you include. And if they won’t all come, no matter; the meeting is just to reassure them all that they are all getting the same deal. You can do it one or two at a time, if you have to.
  • Determine who represents whom, at the meeting. This can be only approximate: the goal is to figure out very roughly what percentage of the population is represented by each person or group.
  • Announce that the US government will provide (say) a total of $10 billion or $20 billion or some such amount, per year, every year for the indefinite future. Payments will be made to the people in the room, in rough proportion to the percentage of the population they are going to assume responsibility for –but the payments will be made to the individuals themselves.
  • They can do anything they want with the money (exceptions below). But future payments will depend on:
    i. Our assessment of whether there has been progress in the condition of the people in their area (or for whom they are responsible). We can define this in lots of ways: literacy, health, paved roads, potable water, electricity, etc, or we can get cute and worry about whether women are bought & sold, and so forth (although I wouldn’t bother with these kinds of things). We don't care how they govern themselves: they can have a President, a Grand Mufti, a King, a Generalissimo, or whatever they want;
    ii. The extent to which inter-tribal violence, civil war, and so forth are controlled and suppressed, and foreign wars are avoided (they get to appeal to the U.N if they are victims of aggression, etc);
    iii. The degree to which the kind of unpleasantness we experienced in 2001 from their corner ceases –any problems here and they would lose a lot more than their dole.

Every January 1, if we are happy, they get the next installment.
Anyone who takes any of the money and buys a villa in Switzerland, etc. will be killed. You can certainly go to Switzerland, etc if you have the money and you want to retire; but you better inform us first, and let us know who your successor recipient is. And you better not do it for any reason during, say, the first 5 years.


This will be cheaper, in dollars and in lives, than the current policy or Obama’s plan. It is unlikely to yield worse results. We will still have the Strategic Air Command if we need it; but it is notoriously impervious to roadside bombs. Best of all, we stop doing things we are bad at (trying to manage little wars in far away places, deciding the merits of all sorts of arcane claims by opposing forces in cultures we have no clue about, etc) and start doing the thing we are best at: writing checks.

The Plan: Unnecessary or Not Large Enough?

In a previous post, I asked the question: " Why have we put up any public funds whatever to financial firms?" In another post, I linked to Galbraith's op-ed, noting that there is not the investment banking industry left that the bailout plan was originally meant to rescue in the first place. Alas, many things have changed since then as described in this post on Naked Capitalism. The short and mid-term funding market has remained locked despite massive central bank liquidity injections. In fact, it has been well-argued that the massive injections may be having an opposite, or at least insufficient, effect.

Depository institutions are now experiencing serious problems and either failing, such as WaMu, or approaching a potentially deadly crisis, such as Wachovia. There are now concerns that with or without a bailout plan, especially the bailout plan being described, that the US auto manufacturers and other large corporations are being faced worldwide with a potentially lethal corporate funding market. In fact, the Financial Times, a journalistic source not generally prone to inflammatory language, is publishing an op-ed using the word 'Armageddon:'
Credit is the lubricant of a modern economy. A seizure now would probably lead to the bankruptcy of General Motors and Ford in short order, but it would not stop with the US car industry. Waves of job losses would set off a self-feeding spiral. Yet more people would default on their mortgages (and car loans), driving house prices down even further. That, in turn, would threaten the solvency of the best banks. That is the way to Armageddon.
Now, the question being faced may be a very different one than whether or not the bailout plan is necessary. The new question very well may be, is the bailout plan large enough? Or, are the proposed bailout plans aiming their guns at the right targets?

Roubini goes so far as to state:
Thus, the Treasury plan is a disgrace: a bailout of reckless bankers, lenders and investors that provides little direct debt relief to borrowers and financially stressed households and that will come at a very high cost to the US taxpayer. And the plan does nothing to resolve the severe stress in money markets and interbank markets that are now close to a systemic meltdown.
Is it possible that a coordinated international rescue plan to secure the world's 'reserve currency' will be necessary? The fact of the matter may be that the US will not actually be able to inflate its way out of an economic crisis of the size being described on its own. A massive multi-national effort may be necessary to avert a severe and prolonged world-wide economic failure that goes far beyond the credit markets.

The German finance minister has already claimed the death of the US as a financial superpower. Personally, I believe this claim to be wildly overstated, but it's not like it's coming from the Iraqi Minister of Information.

What would such an effort look like? Are the IMF or G7 capable of arranging such an effort? What concessions or demands would be required by the lenders? The largest IMF bailout yet so far has been the 1997 $78 billion bailout of South Korea. Such a sum is all but laughable in terms of what is being described. There were $85 put towards AIG alone. In fact, there are at least two well-noted and independent experts claiming $5 trillion will be necessary and HSBC, while not putting a number forward, definitely does not believe that $700 billion will be enough.

So, where now? What's next?

What are the outcome pathways with or without a bailout plan? How does a future with a bailout plan of any format, the international $5 trillion type or the $700 billion US Congress / Treasury type, or no plan at all look?

I'm back

With some SCIENCE!

Acid Tongue


Embrace your inner rolling cowgirl, light up a cigarette and listen to the beautiful, hollow thwap that is the sound of Jenny Lewis hitting your heartbreak and wretchedness on the head.

Superb Article Examining Sarah Palin in the Lense of Clarence Thomas

Dahlia Lithwick wrote a surprising and well composed piece for Slate. Through the two fine examples of Clarence Thomas and Sarah Palin, Lithwick utilizes Thomas's language of "beneficiaries" to re-examine affirmative action and its results. She nearly brings herself to excoriating 'liberals' (of which she is in many ways a self-identified member) away from a knee-jerk acceptance. The piece is provocative, thoughtful and careful:
Critics have scoffed at Thomas' tendency to view affirmative action exclusively through the narrow lens of his own life, but it's clear the "badge of inferiority" has tainted a lifetime of enormous achievement. He will never forgive America for the chances he was given, or for how small it has made him feel.

Like Thomas, Palin has been blasted for inexperience, and she has fought back with claims that she is not being judged on her merits, but on her gender, just as he felt he was inevitably judged on his race. While it's possible to assert that Sarah Palin is the most qualified person in America for the vice presidency, only approximately nine people have done so with a straight face.

Liberals inclined to blindly support affirmative action would do well to contemplate the lessons of Sarah Palin and Clarence Thomas. Although the former exudes unflagging self-confidence and the latter may always be crippled by self-doubt, both have become nearly frozen in a defensive crouch, casualties of an effort to create an America in which diversity is measured solely in terms of appearance.

Building a List of Questions for the VP Debate

Gender Issues:
Gov. Palin, while you were mayor of Wasilla from 1996-2002, your police staff was charging for rape kits. This threatened Alaska's federal grants as per a provision in Mr. Biden's 1994 Violence Against Women Act. In order to maintain their grant money, the state of Alaska's legislature passed Alaska's HB270, a bill in 2000 to stop this practice that threatened the state's financial well-being. Why did you charge for the kits, and why did this have to get to the state-level for you to stop the practice?
Credit / Economic Issues:
Sen. Biden, at a time of increasing hardships and an excess of consumer credit, why were you one of the few Democrats to side with credit card companies when they were (successfully, with your help) trying to make it more difficult for ordinary Americans but not businesses to declare bankruptcy in the Bankruptcy Abuse Act of 2005? Do you continue to support your 2005 position on this matter? Why or why not?
Foreign Affairs:
Both Sen. Biden and Gov. Palin:

According to a September 2006 CRS, "The extension of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into the Lebanese arena created a multifaceted crisis that cut across a number of U.S. policy issues in the Middle East." As President, what is your plan for contending with the Hamas-Hezbollah-Israel triangle of conflict?

Both Sen. Biden and Gov. Palin:

While seeking the presidential nomination, Sen. Biden suggested the best way to bring Iraq to peace was via a partitioning of that nation. Today, what are your respective plans for the best ways to end the war in Iraq, how long will those plans take, how much do you expect them to cost, and why are they the best plans available?

Disney's Head of Skate

Disney is making people laugh in fear everywhere: