Fine Point

Clever, brief post over at FEE's blog. What can you do with individual effort? Who should do the things you can't do? Read it.

Comments on tonight's Obama speech

- "We will" translates pretty reliably to "you must." ("we will double this nation’s supply of renewable energy in the next three years...We will soon lay down thousands of miles of power lines...we will invest fifteen billion dollars a year to develop technologies like wind power and solar power...we will expand our commitment to charter schools...we will provide the support necessary for you to complete college...we will forge a new and comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan...")

- Has Obama not seen the commercials? There is no (and can never be?) such a thing as "clean coal," according to them.

- "...the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it." Why not? And how do we know that Tesla and/or some other startups wouldn't create a better future American auto industry? Instead, we tax them to subsidize the Not-So-Big Three.

- "...we must have quality, affordable health care for every American." Saying "we must" have something does not change its affordability. When somebody comes up with a new drug or diagnostic technology, there is no automatic increase in national wealth that pays for every citizen to obtain that new drug or technology. Simple words can't change economic realities. They can persuade people to act in counterproductive and aggressive ways, however.

- The G.I. Bill: After Obama mentioned it I was interested to find that it is not an unquestioned success (which it sometimes seems to be). Here's proof.

- "...we know the countries that out-teach us today will out-compete us tomorrow." I'm not worried about a foreign worker/company out-competing an American worker/company. I'm not worried about a Louisiana worker/company out-competing a Texas worker/company. Etc. I've got bigger fish to fry.

Reuters: Not funding X same as banning X

It's nice that in the third paragraph the writer of this news article finally gets around to stating what actually is at issue after grossly misstating it in the opening paragraph. (The headline is also false, but editors, rather than reporters, are often to blame for these.)

Hey, I'm all for embryonic stem cell research. I feel no compassion for small clumps of cells in petri dishes. But, no matter how many times it is stated this way in articles and editorials, refusing to fund something is not the same as banning it. In fact, government funding for a thing means every taxpayer is forced to pay for that thing, including those who oppose that thing.

If most citizens understood these two truths, we would have ourselves a more peaceful world:

• It is perfectly consistent to oppose a practice and oppose banning that practice.
• It is perfectly consistent to support a cause and oppose government funding of that cause.

What happened to the economy?

the ONION explains.

Accidental Economic Editorializing

Some opinions are so ingrained in a subculture that that subculture is not even aware that they are not facts, but opinions. There are few if any more certain indicators of being out of touch with the intellectual climate than to not be aware that some visible and accomplished members of the population not only do not share this assumption of facthood, but are actually demonstrating superior situational awareness in contradicting it than are proponents of said opinions in espousing it.

That is the best I can do right now to summarize my thoughts a few hours after watching an astonishing episode of ABC's World News Tonight (12/16/08). The lead report, of course, begins with coverage of the Federal Reserve's historic interest rate action. The opinion-as-fact comes when the report segues to consumer credit:

"But, the economy won't improve until interest rates fall for consumers as well."

But, this is an opinion, not an established fact. Evidence here, here, here and heck, even here.

Comparing models

I'm fascinated by Peter Schiff lately. Jim Rogers too. Here is a great compilation of Peter on various business news shows. I wonder if those other guests would still yuk it up if they watched this. I would hope not, but they'd probably have some cya excuse for their uselessness.

There's Always ToBorrow

Plan A: make everyone buy bad loans
Plan A': make everyone forcibly buy part of the banks
Plan A'' [in development]: make everyone buy a new house
Plan B [in reserve]: make everyone buy a Hummer

Wouldn't anti-depressants be cheaper?

Citizens,

If we are to believe the timbre of the informational ether, we are at a crook in the mixed shit creek economy. There is, we are lectured, finally and unfortunately, no choice remaining. We must bail out...Congress. Also the Bush administration, the red and blue Presidential hopefuls, and the respectable media. The epochal legislation under consideration has simply been made to seem too important not to pass. Credit is obviously frozen because members of Congress and the mainstream Presidential candidates are getting nary a trickle. Furthermore, talking news heads and experts (and ex-experts) went balls out for the Wall Street welfare tsunami and, after being flabbergasted by popular opposition (which temporarily increased liquidity in some commentators' collective pants), find themselves in need of a rescue plan. Clearly, this cannot stand. Ladies and Gentlemen, it is impolite to point out that when the wisdom of the entire governing industry and its 24-hour PR wing proves to be of the sub-prime variety, the public personas of the pro-bailout, bi-partisan, bi-cameral Centristocracy must receive from their subjects the approbatory absolution that only a geyser of U.S. Mint ink can deliver. They are, you must understand, too big to fail.

Want to borrow some money?

You may not have to look far:

"Banks throughout the United States carried on with the business of making loans yesterday even as federal officials warned again that their industry is on the verge of collapse, suggesting that the overheated language on Capitol Hill may not reflect the reality on many Main Streets."

more...

btw, herez sum $ 4 ford, etc.

Oh, and, fyi, we're also bailing out some people who make cars. Don't worry, it's just $25 billion.

Con.sens.us

The vocabulary of the bailout is interesting and sad. I'd like to have a list of the words used to describe the supposed consequences of "doing nothing" (for only government action counts). Just tonight on ABC News I heard "abyss," "collapse," "catastrophe," and "we don't even want to think about it." (There's an intellectual approach.) Their reporters go on to say that a) we don't know whether the bailout will work and, strangely, b) there is a consensus that not passing a plan would be "far worse." Than what? Burning $700,000,000,000 in future taxes for nothing? I'm also curious to know how a consensus can exist when 160 or so economists, including three nobel-prize-winning ones signed a letter urging caution--at least with regard to Paulson's original proposal. Excerpt:

If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation. For all their recent troubles, America's dynamic and innovative private capital markets have brought the nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those markets in order to calm short-run disruptions is desperately short-sighted.

Some even question whether it's true that credit is frozen. (Listen to the news and you'll hear that claim repeated unquestioningly and frequently.)

VOCABULARY UPDATE: "...we do not want to live in a world that will exist without this rescue plan." -Art Hogan , Chief Investment Officer, Jefferies & Co., interviewed on ABC World News With Charles Gibson, 9/29/08

The McSky is Falling!

I thought I smelled something Filet-O-Fishy when I heard about this story on ABC News last night...

McDonald's Corp., the world's largest restaurant company, told some U.S. franchisees to seek other ways to finance store improvements after Bank of America Corp. declined to increase lending.

Store owners have exhausted financing used to pay for upgrades and equipment to make lattes and espressos, and Bank of America won't provide more money as it works on the planned purchase of Merrill Lynch & Co., McDonald's said in a memo that was obtained by Bloomberg News.

The boys on MSNBC/CNBC are using it as I type to impress upon the naughty populous that it had better get in line behind the Big Bailout or else!

Now the clarifications appear to be flying:

McDonald's said franchisees still have access to more than 50 national, regional and local lenders to provide financing.

"There are no credit issues at McDonald's," spokesman Walt Riker said in an email. "There continues to be more than sufficient liquidity available to our franchisees to fund capital improvements in their restaurants."

And, of course, since you need a new car to drive through the drive-thru, the same ABC News segment threw in a mention of the apparently increasing difficulty of borrowing (as opposed to saving up) money to buy a new car every couple of years.

But the biggest financing problem financing dealers face right now is one brought on by auto dealers and auto financing companies themselves, said Tawny Arnaud, vice president of sales for Galpin Motors, a chain of nine dealerships in the Los Angeles area.

Many customers who want to trade in vehicles today are still paying off extra-long loans they arranged on their last car purchase, he said. Loans of long as or six years have become commonplace in the industry.

Well, mercy!

Revolution Devolution

Ron Paul endorses Baldwin.

This seems odd as Baldwin seems to endorse allowing terrorist bombings of abortion clinics, prohibition of drugs (abortion pills), using police powers of the state to violently force rape victims to bear rapists' children, etc.:

"I affirm the God-given legal person hood of all unborn human beings, without exception...Under my administration, we could end legal abortion in a matter of days, not decades. And if Congress refuses to pass Dr. Paul's bill, I will use the constitutional power of the Presidency to deny funds to protect abortion clinics. Either way, legalized abortion ends when I take office." (emphasis added)

Solution: another government agency?

And free money for some, it seems. Must be nice...

"Wachovia Corp. soared 59 percent, Citigroup Inc. added 19 percent and Bank of America Corp. jumped 12 percent, sending the KBW Bank Index to its biggest gain since July. Morgan Stanley erased a 46 percent tumble and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. recovered most of a 25 percent slide as Senator Charles Schumer proposed a new agency to pump capital into financial companies..."
[Bloomberg]

Federal Government Taking Control of Apple, Inc.

Next iPhone to include Homeland Security chip

Think I'm kidding? Okay, I am, but don't be a jerk and claim this is as outlandish as it was, oh, two weeks ago. Maybe it would be good if the Feds did nationalize Apple. Maybe more people would pay attention to the consequences of real concentrations of real power (as opposed to the highly contingent power of, say, a Merrill Lynch). And, hey, we'd have a Secretary of Mac. I nominate this guy.