It is our consistentI've been promoting the idea with our boy James here for months that the Fed has been fighting this recessionary period of devaluation and it has really hurt our economy in the long-term.
Last night, I framed this debate with a friend by saying that the bailout was consistent with our exclusively short-term thinking. CEO's live quarter by quarter, investor's call by investor's call and don't ponder the long-term like they should. I have a job because CEO's are only good at thinking short term. But years and years of short term thought means that the long term is ignored and people eventually ran out of gimmicks to gussy up their 10-K and had to take HUGE risks to please the investors. The moral hazard here is the bizarro disincentive that as a result of the current buyout climate you SHOULD take those risks. If you win, your stockholders win big, if you lose your firm will be swollen enough with acquisitions to warrant a taxpayer bailout because of your importance to the economy. It's bullshit. Take the big risk, no big deal if you lose, you get a $10 MILLION dollar golden parachute.
Anyways, this bailout is also short-term thinking. And its passage has really done little to save the Dow Jones hasn't it? I think it's actually been dropping, just like it did before...
But here's my beef. I think that we are going to have our next top President (elected by text message) succeed in the following two fronts (ironically in the same two fronts our current president failed to succeed in) to be considered great:
1) Stabilize our foreign policy and world standing. Bush found a way to ruin the seemingly bottomless political capital that he had after 9/11 and blundered his way into Iraq in the name of the War on Terror. Our next president will have to figure out how to gracefully withdraw from Iraq while fighting extremism and finding a way to keep from breeding new terrorists to replace the ones we are killing.
-Neither candidate overwhelms me here. Obama has come up with at least 2 (we're winning the war and can pull out, we're losing the war so badly we have to leave) reasons to leave after 16 months so far this campaign. I protested the war in Iraq and was adamantly opposed to it, but we need to be sensible about how we leave - Iraq will not reassimilate and stabilize like Vietnam and will most likely result in genocides if properly handled. That said, McCain's position is the other extreme and I fear he wants to invade Iran. While I acknowledge that Obama will buy us good will with the world, I think this issue is a wash.
2) In the face of a downward trend/bubble burst, find a way to guide America's economy in the right direction by thinking LONG TERM and investing in infrastructure, green technology, and other areas that will create growth for years to come rather than succumb to quarter by quarter thinking. In addition, this will require balancing our governments fiscal spending and paying down the national debt.
-Watching the debates, Obama looked awful and this is what really worries me about him. We had an ideological president with a host of pet programs (nation-building, war, defense) who spent us into the hole and it looks like we'll have one whose programs lie in the opposite direction. Instead we're spending billions in programs that yes, are important, but need to come at the expense of cutting fat elsewhere. This is what worries me about the Obama tax increase - I would wholeheartedly support it if its only role were to pay off the national debt, but I don't want to increase spending. When asked, repeatedly, he refused to pick where he would cut spending at all. He used the brilliant rhetorical devices: "I want to use a scalpel, not a hatchet" and "I'll go through the budget, line by line, and cut unncessary problems," but does anyone believe him here? I don't. Not for a minute.
McCain has became something of a one issue man here, but it's not an issue I mind him having. He constantly talks of earmarks (only $18B, true, but an important ideological starting point) and corrupt Washington politics. When pressed, he actually advocated a SPENDING FREEZE of all programs (with a few exceptions like veteran affairs) and has talked repeatedly about how entitlement programs HAVE TO HAVE TO HAVE TO be cut and future generations cannot enjoy nearly the benefits of the present retirees. These are unpopular and quite frankly amazing political issues I've never heard brought up before. If there is ONE THING I can be confident John McCain will do as president, it is cut spending. This may be my number one voting issue, way more important than taxes. Palin is also a fiscal hawk, the only quality I truly like about her, and I know she fights the same fight.
In the end, on these two issues in isolation - I'm voting for McCain. Here's the issue: McCain has changed considerably on his public positions on social policy. The same man who called Falwell evil has buddied up to him and he has even given lip service to gay marriage and abortion bans. I refuse to believe this is more than a blatant copy of Reagan's electoral policy: court the radical right with rhetoric and refuse to act on it while President. McCain will be fighting bigger issues. This is where Palin bothers me because she has the bandwidth to fuck with this stuff, but I'm still not convinced his administration will be acting on these issues. I don't think we need Obama's social change right now. Although important, we can't expand government the way he wants to in the name of equality and I'd rather have someone cut the shit out of the government to finance these programs in the future. Even better, have them actually spend education effectively, since I think we are throwing plenty at the problem. Take a look at LAUSD, by far the highest per pupil average in the state, it's all just wasted on bureaucracy. We need to work on how we spend our money currently, not expand the government budget with new programs. This takes dedication.
More importantly is his Supreme Court appointments, which will be decisive. This is the best argument against McCain. I'm not sure how to argue against that, but ultimately I'll argue that controlling government spending is more important I guess.
I guess I'm voting for McCain, but I could always vote from the libertarian candidate. My vote doesn't matter in Cali anyway.
Anyways, this bailout is also short-term thinking. And its passage has really done little to save the Dow Jones hasn't it? I think it's actually been dropping, just like it did before...
But here's my beef. I think that we are going to have our next top President (elected by text message) succeed in the following two fronts (ironically in the same two fronts our current president failed to succeed in) to be considered great:
1) Stabilize our foreign policy and world standing. Bush found a way to ruin the seemingly bottomless political capital that he had after 9/11 and blundered his way into Iraq in the name of the War on Terror. Our next president will have to figure out how to gracefully withdraw from Iraq while fighting extremism and finding a way to keep from breeding new terrorists to replace the ones we are killing.
-Neither candidate overwhelms me here. Obama has come up with at least 2 (we're winning the war and can pull out, we're losing the war so badly we have to leave) reasons to leave after 16 months so far this campaign. I protested the war in Iraq and was adamantly opposed to it, but we need to be sensible about how we leave - Iraq will not reassimilate and stabilize like Vietnam and will most likely result in genocides if properly handled. That said, McCain's position is the other extreme and I fear he wants to invade Iran. While I acknowledge that Obama will buy us good will with the world, I think this issue is a wash.
2) In the face of a downward trend/bubble burst, find a way to guide America's economy in the right direction by thinking LONG TERM and investing in infrastructure, green technology, and other areas that will create growth for years to come rather than succumb to quarter by quarter thinking. In addition, this will require balancing our governments fiscal spending and paying down the national debt.
-Watching the debates, Obama looked awful and this is what really worries me about him. We had an ideological president with a host of pet programs (nation-building, war, defense) who spent us into the hole and it looks like we'll have one whose programs lie in the opposite direction. Instead we're spending billions in programs that yes, are important, but need to come at the expense of cutting fat elsewhere. This is what worries me about the Obama tax increase - I would wholeheartedly support it if its only role were to pay off the national debt, but I don't want to increase spending. When asked, repeatedly, he refused to pick where he would cut spending at all. He used the brilliant rhetorical devices: "I want to use a scalpel, not a hatchet" and "I'll go through the budget, line by line, and cut unncessary problems," but does anyone believe him here? I don't. Not for a minute.
McCain has became something of a one issue man here, but it's not an issue I mind him having. He constantly talks of earmarks (only $18B, true, but an important ideological starting point) and corrupt Washington politics. When pressed, he actually advocated a SPENDING FREEZE of all programs (with a few exceptions like veteran affairs) and has talked repeatedly about how entitlement programs HAVE TO HAVE TO HAVE TO be cut and future generations cannot enjoy nearly the benefits of the present retirees. These are unpopular and quite frankly amazing political issues I've never heard brought up before. If there is ONE THING I can be confident John McCain will do as president, it is cut spending. This may be my number one voting issue, way more important than taxes. Palin is also a fiscal hawk, the only quality I truly like about her, and I know she fights the same fight.
In the end, on these two issues in isolation - I'm voting for McCain. Here's the issue: McCain has changed considerably on his public positions on social policy. The same man who called Falwell evil has buddied up to him and he has even given lip service to gay marriage and abortion bans. I refuse to believe this is more than a blatant copy of Reagan's electoral policy: court the radical right with rhetoric and refuse to act on it while President. McCain will be fighting bigger issues. This is where Palin bothers me because she has the bandwidth to fuck with this stuff, but I'm still not convinced his administration will be acting on these issues. I don't think we need Obama's social change right now. Although important, we can't expand government the way he wants to in the name of equality and I'd rather have someone cut the shit out of the government to finance these programs in the future. Even better, have them actually spend education effectively, since I think we are throwing plenty at the problem. Take a look at LAUSD, by far the highest per pupil average in the state, it's all just wasted on bureaucracy. We need to work on how we spend our money currently, not expand the government budget with new programs. This takes dedication.
More importantly is his Supreme Court appointments, which will be decisive. This is the best argument against McCain. I'm not sure how to argue against that, but ultimately I'll argue that controlling government spending is more important I guess.
I guess I'm voting for McCain, but I could always vote from the libertarian candidate. My vote doesn't matter in Cali anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment