Showing posts with label Solyndra. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Solyndra. Show all posts

Monday, June 4, 2012

Obama Economics


What’s New Today

Story #1 shows how Obama’s economic policies have failed.  #2 demonstrates that Romney is not John McCain.  #3 looks at what is at stake in tomorrow’s recall election.  #4 looks at the nanny state as exemplified by Mayor Bloomberg in NYC.  #5 tells another story of a decision Obama wants to put off until after the election.  #6 has a woman who knew Obama at Harvard talking about her impressions of who he is.  #7 looks at the desperation of the environmental lobby.  They were so close with global warming.  How do they cope?

Today’s Thoughts

Some final polling shows the Wisconsin recall tightening, but Walker still leading.  I’m predicting that on Wednesday we will have a plethora of excuses being made as to why the Unions lost and how it has nothing to do with the coming election.  

The crisis in Europe regarding the Euro may afford opportunities for people who want to travel there. Already the Euro is down to $1.25 and if Greece leaves the zone it may spur others as well.  

After Obama’s six fundraisers on Friday I began to wonder if he had put as much work into the economy as he has into raising money, might we finally be out of the recession?  Just a thought. 

If appears black ministers in Massachusetts are calling Elizabeth Warren to the carpet.  They aren’t happy that she portrays herself as a “woman of color.”


1.  Obama’s Economics Failure

As the NRO sage points out, it isn't just his ideology, or philosophy, or even just his policies that have failed; it is Obama's entire view of economic reality that must be called into question:

The Keynesian government-spending model has proven a complete failure. It's the Obama model. And it has produced such an anemic recovery that, frankly, at 2 percent growth, we're back on the front end of a potential recession. If anything goes wrong -- like another blow-up in Europe -- there's no safety margin to stop a new recession.

[...]
Barack Obama doesn't get this, but businesses create jobs. And firms have to be profitable in order to hire. Yet the president is on the campaign trail criticizing Mitt Romney by degrading the importance of profits. Huh?

Without profits, businesses can't expand. And if they don't expand, they can't hire. And if they don't have profitable rates of return, they're not going to attract new capital for investment.

Which brings us to a couple of important reasons for the virtual freeze in hiring.

First, there's the fiscal tax cliff. If all the Bush tax rates go up, incentives will go down and liquidity will leave the system. You can't pick up a newspaper these days and not find a story about how the fiscal cliff is elevating uncertainty and slowing U.S. growth. House Speaker John Boehner asked Obama for help in extending the Bush tax cuts this summer. But Obama said no. Instead, he wants to raise marginal tax rates on successful upper-income earners, capital gains, dividends, estates and many successful corporations.
Where's the corporate tax reform that would lower rates and broaden the base and end the double-taxation of the overseas profits of American companies? A business tax cut would help enormously, but it's nowhere in sight….

Most liberals don’t really understand economics.  They talk about subsidizing firms that take jobs overseas.  The problem is that the USA has the highest tax rates in the world on business.  Money made overseas can’t be brought back to the USA without paying this rate.  But they can keep the money offshore paying the local rate if they keep it overseas.  Hence the incentive to expand there rather than here.  The fix is not to charge taxes on all money no matter where it is made, but to lower the corporate tax rate to eliminate the need to keep the money overseas. 

2.  Obama vs Romney Game On 


At the NATO Summit, President Obama said his opponent's private equity success vs. the administration's failed industrial policy was what this election was all about. Speaking at the bankrupt Solyndra headquarters, his GOP opponent agreed.

It is said a picture is worth a thousand words. The photo of Mitt Romney holding a surprise press conference in front of the headquarters of the bankrupt solar energy firm Solyndra poster may just be worth a good portion of the 270 electoral votes needed for victory in November.
"Two years ago President Obama was here to tout this building and this business as a symbol of the success of his stimulus," said Romney, stepping off a bus and onto the public sidewalk in front of the Solyndra buildings just outside Silicon Valley. "Well you can see that it's a symbol of something very different today."

Indeed, it is a symbol of the failure of the administration's green energy boondoggle, where over a half billion dollars has been spent to reward donors while subsidizing an uncompetitive company with a doomed business model.

Solyndra, where 1,100 employees lost their "green jobs," is only one of many green failures that included companies like Beacon Power, First Solar and Ener1, battery maker for President Obama's fantasy fleet of electric cars.

During a visit to Solyndra Inc.'s Fremont, Calif., facility in spring 2010, President Obama boasted of what the company was going to do with the $535 million in loan guarantees his stimulus package provided.
"We can see the positive impacts right here at Solyndra," he said. "(T)hrough the Recovery Act, this company received a loan to expand its operations. This new factory is the result of those loans." Loans that Romney pointed out, the taxpayers were left on the hook for. The $535 million loan guarantee that was issued despite the warnings of private and federal agencies helped build a plant the size of five football fields outfitted with whistling robots and spa-like showers.

At the NATO Summit, President Obama said he couldn't just think about profits for investors but the good of all the people, at least all the people like George Kaiser, the billionaire behind the Solyndra debacle. Frankly, we prefer the risks and chances for success of firms like Romney's Bain Capital versus the crony socialism involved in President Obama's backing of firms like Solyndra….


It’s pretty simple.  Obama’s crony capitalism vs Romney’s free market. 

3.  Wisconsin:  What’s at Stake

A single election rarely determines a democracy's fate, but some matter more than others. Tuesday's recall election of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is one that matters a great deal because it will test whether taxpayers have any hope of controlling the entitlement state and its dominant special interests.

Specifically, we will learn if a politician can dare to cross government unions and survive. Mr. Walker isn't facing this extraordinary midterm challenge because he and a GOP legislature asked public workers to pay 12.6% of their health insurance premiums and put 5.8% of their paychecks toward their pensions. Those are small sums compared to what private employees typically pay.

His political offense was daring to challenge the monopoly sway that public unions have come to hold over modern state government through collective bargaining. Public unions aren't like private unions that negotiate labor terms with a single company or workplace. Public unions have outsize influence because they can often buy the politicians who are supposed to represent taxpayers. The unions effectively sit on both sides of the bargaining table. 

Thus over time they have been able to extort excessive wages, benefits and pensions, as well as sweetheart contracts like the monopoly provision of health insurance. Their focused special interest trumps the general interest of taxpayers, who are busy making a living and lack the time to focus on politics other than during elections or amid a fiscal crisis….


In addition, many people are saying this election will be a forerunner of the coming Presidential election.  If in a highly unionized and progressive state like Wisconsin, Scott Walker wins, Obama is in big trouble.

4.  Bloomberg’s War on Sugar and the Left Applauds

There’s only one way to say something like this, and it’s loud and proud and without apology: I wholeheartedly support Mike Bloomberg’s war on sugar. It’s unassailable as policy. Refined sugar is without question the worst foodstuff in the world for human health, and high-fructose corn syrup is little better. We are a fat country getting fatter and fatter, and these mountains of refined sugar that people ingest are a big part of the reason. The costs to the health-care system are enormous, so the public interest here is ridiculously obvious. Obesity is a killer. Are we to do nothing, in the name of “liberty” that entitles millions of people to kill themselves however they please, whatever their diabetes treatments costs their insurers? We have this “liberty” business  completely backward in this country, and if Bloomberg can start rebalancing individual freedom and the public good, God bless him, I say…

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/02/michael-tomasky-mayor-bloomberg-is-right-to-declare-a-war-on-sugar.html

Columnist Michael Thomasky shows us where the left is coming from.  They will take over your life and take away your choices “for your own good.”  But this is an old story and we also know the end.  Because eventually they take away things not for your own good, but for someone else own good.  Remember back in the time of Henry VIII they burned people “for the good of their immortal souls” although I think it had more to do with insuring people stayed in the Catholic/Protestant church.  This is the nose of the camel. BTW I remember when it was salt that was the worst foodstuff in the world for human health.

5.  Another Reason Obama needs to Go

Does President Obama care more about jobs for Americans or about his own re-election chances?  A decision last week on natural gas exports provides the answer.

On Monday, the White House announced that it would postpone a decision until after the election on whether to allow natural gas exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries.  While this is just one of a thousand decisions Obama has postponed for political reasons, it is an important one.  It puts hundreds of thousands of good jobs at risk.

For natural gas to be exported to countries in Europe and Asia, it must be liquefied at plants such as Cheniere Energy's plant at Sabine Pass, Texas.  The Sabine Pass liquification project, one of many under development or consideration, would create 50,000 jobs in the natural gas supply chain, in addition to jobs constructing and operating the plant itself.  Overall, a dozen such plants could create as many as 750,000 new jobs, and each of those jobs would spawn others as wages were spent on homes, cars, food, and other purchases.  But the president refuses to approve liquefied natural gas exports to non-FTA nations.  Is there some reason, other than politics, why the exportation of natural gas is acceptable only to nations with which the U.S. has free-trade agreements?

The only reason, it turns out, why the president is blocking LNG exports is his quaking fear of the environmental lobby….

Fossil Fuels are the wave of the future and that wave will help to heal our economy.  Natural gas used to be the most favored of the fossil fuels by the environmental lobby until they found lots of it and it became apparent it was a fuel that limits the need for green energy.  Now it seems to be public enemy number one with environmentalists claiming it’s dirtier than coal. 

6.  Who is Barack Obama

Conservative commentator Carol Platt Liebau,..described her relationship with Obama during her law school years. Despite his liberal slant, she said Obama was respectful of the conservative perspective when he was president of the Harvard Law Review.

“I knew him reasonably well — as well as most people knew him, if not better — because quite in contrast to this image that Barack tries to project, as someone who is warm and all-embracing and all that kind of stuff,” Liebau said.

“I mean, I will tell you I’ve written a piece that has praised Barack for certain things and I stand by that piece: He was color-blind in the way he chose, staffed the law review when he was president. He did give both sides a fair hearing. He always went with the far-left side, but he did give both sides a respectful hearing, which was fairly atypical at Harvard Law School at that time.”

Her longest one-on-one communication with Obama, she said, came when she was managing editor of the Harvard Law Review.

“So I guess it caused a lot of rumbling that I didn’t know about, and so we were all impressed with a return visit by our retired president, the former president, Barack Obama, who took me out on the back steps of Gannett House, which is where the review was housed and wanted to have a little one-on-one with me,” she said.
Liebau said his advice started off sound, but ultimately came off as disappointing.

“He said, ‘Look, what do you care who does the work?’” Liebau recalled Obama saying in reference to her management of the law review. “’It is the same amount of work for you to hand out the work no matter who it goes to, so why fight it? Do what’s easiest for you. Give the work to the people who will do the work, and just don’t worry about the people who don’t want to pull their weight.’”

Liebau wasn’t impressed.

“I guess I was young and naïve: I was like, ‘Ah but that wouldn’t be fair,’” she said….


But he’s obviously grown since then.  If he were the same person, he would have probably come into office and given the Congress the task of writing the Stimulus Plan and ditto on the healthcare plan. 



7.  Environmentalist Turn Desperate

The National Wildlife Federation’s new publication "The Psychological Effects of Global Warming on the United States” gives wildlife a new meaning.  Citing evidence that many in the climate alarmist community are "frustrated and burned out," it quotes one member as trying to keep on persuading mankind that a climate apocalypse is at hand so "I will not be able to feel the angst or despair" of failure.
For nearly three decades, certain U.S., U.K., and U.N. activists, like NASA's James Hanson, have tried to sell governments on draconian centralized economic policies supposedly to save the planet.  Anyone disagreeing -- regardless of credentials and reasoning -- becomes the target of rhetorical terrorism.  But the skeptical resistance is so strong and growing so rapidly -- not just in the public, but also among scientists -- that the alarmists increasingly show signs of both despair and loss of self-control.
In his recent Forbes article, alarmist Steve Zwick, apparently inspired by Hanson's tirades, wants the scientifically unpersuaded to be hunted down and their homes burned.  Daniel Souweine of the Soros-funded Citizen Engagement Lab demands that TV weathercaster who disagree that man is the prime cause of climate change to be persecuted until they repent.

A rational person would think a call for psychological intervention would be directed against such behavior.  Not so.  The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) now calls upon government to bankroll massive intervention by the mental health community to deal with up to 200 million cases of stress from projected "climate related events and incidents."

Then, in language reminiscent of Mao Tse-tung’s education camps for the non-compliant, the NWF eagerly anticipates how government-funded psychological experts will break down denial and bring "rational thinking into decision making."

This is what they used to do in the Soviet Union.  Anyone who didn’t love Communism was obviously mentally unbalanced and was put into mental hospitals. 


Tuesday, December 27, 2011

For or against Newt

What’s new Today
Our #1 story explains why the Republican establishment is against Gingrich.  #2 is a meme on why Gingrich isn’t a strong candidate.  #3 puts Obama’s recovery in perspective.  #4 is another warning regarding China.  Finally in #5 we learn just how much of a scandal Solyndra really was. 


1.  Why the Republican Establishment is Against Gingrich

Bob Woodward had a lengthy article yesterday in The Washington Post, In his debut in Washington’s power struggles, Gingrich three a bomb.

The article CONCERNS NEWT’S REFUSAL AS REPUBLICAN WHIP TO GO ALONG WITH GEORGE H.W. BUSH’S 1990 DEAL WITH DEMOCRATS TO RAISE TAXES.

The deal, which breached Bush’s “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge, was one of the worst political mistakes in memory. NEWT’S PUBLIC OPPOSITION IS ONE OF THE REASONS THE REPUBLICAN OLD-TIME ESTABLISHMENT, LIKE JOHN SUNUNU, HATE NEWT SO INTENSELY.

After a lengthy interview on Dec. 11, 1992, [Newt] sent a reporter a memo trying to explain the budget communications problem. It is a classic of Gingrich paradox.

“I was telling precisely the truth but by Washington standards I was lying,” he wrote. “They were lying but by Washington standards they were telling the truth. I thought I was being very precise in setting standards, they thought I was outlining a negotiating position. I knew I could and would walk. They knew I had to stay.” …

Gingrich had been warned about this moment. HE SAID THAT A GROUP OF SENIOR REPUBLICANS WHO HAD SERVED IN PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS TOLD HIM HE WOULD HAVE TO CAVE IN WHEN A DEAL WAS STRUCK.

“They all said, ‘Well [the White House and the congressional Democrats] will in the end cut a deal and they will in the end call you in a room and they will tell you, you have to agree.’ And I said, ‘Boys, there’s not a chance in hell I’m going to agree . . .’ And they all said, ‘Yes, you will, you just don’t understand, yes, you will.’ ”

He didn’t.

Supporters of the Bush tax deal blamed Newt for initially indicating he would go along and then refusing to do so. But the evidence in the article is not clear, documenting that Newt insisted on time for consideration before making a commitment.

Call this whole story a parable of what is wrong with the Republican Party. PEOPLE WHO CUT DEALS WHICH SELL OUT OUR PRINCIPLES ARE DEEMED REASONABLE, WHILE THOSE REFUSE TO CUT DEALS ARE CALLED BOMB THROWERS. That’s the term Bush used in endorsing Romney in an oblique swipe at Newt….

http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/12/they-were-wrong-in-1990-and-they-are-wrong-now/

People need to read up on Newt.  There are so many stories out about him that simply aren’t true and what is put forth as eliminating him as a serious contender actually helps him with people looking for someone who can help correct what is wrong with this country.





2.  Why Newt Shouldn’t be the Nominee

Ask Republicans to explain the appeal of nominating Newt Gingrich to take on President Obama and it won't be long before you're reminded of the former House speaker's intellectual and rhetorical acumen. Indeed, some Republicans become downright giddy when speaking about the prospect of Gingrich debating Obama.

It's hard to blame them. After a decade of inarticulate and reticent standard bearers, and amid a field of much the same, Republicans see in Gingrich a learned and eloquent debater able and unafraid to take it directly to the supposedly golden-tongued Orator-in-Chief.

Gingrich, many Republicans believe, would make the presidential debates something to look forward to for the first time since Reagan.

Gingrich knows that his ability to talk is his chief asset and has invited Obama to debate him in seven three-hour Lincoln-Douglas-style debates should he secure the Republican nomination. "I will concede in advance that he can use a teleprompter," Gingrich said mockingly of Obama when he proposed the debates in early December.

BUT BEFORE REPUBLICANS CONCLUDE THAT AS THEIR NOMINEE GINGRICH WOULD BE ABLE TO DEBATE HIS WAY TO THE OVAL OFFICE, THEY SHOULD TAKE A MOMENT TO REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED THE LAST TIME OBAMA SQUARED OFF AGAINST A SMART AND ELOQUENT, BUT BOMBASTIC, POMPOUS AND EGOMANIACAL REPUBLICAN

These words describe almost perfectly the intellectual and rhetorical bearing and style of Newt Gingrich. Only they weren't written about Gingrich. THEY ARE BARACK OBAMA'S WORDS -- FROMTHE AUDACITY OF HOPE -- ABOUT FORMER AMBASSADOR ALAN KEYES, OBAMA'S REPUBLICAN OPPONENT IN THE 2004 ELECTION FOR ILLINOIS' OPEN SENATE SEAT.

I was struck by two things as I recently watched old footage of the 2004 Obama-Keyes debates. First, Keyes comes across as a better debater than Obama. He seems more polished, smarter, and more confident than Obama. Keyes' verbal fluency makes Obama's use of verbal fillers and stutters, his repeated words and incomplete and restarted sentences, all the more noticeable…


An interesting look at Gingrich’s primary strength, but it is flawed by a number of things.  The comparison of Gingrich to Keyes is incomplete.  Keyes had never lived in Illinois when he ran against Obama.  He was accused of being a carpetbagger and that in and by itself doomed his candidacy from the beginning.  Second, Obama wasn’t running as an incumbent with a high disapproval rating in that election.  And third, the economy is a lodestone around Obama’s neck in 2012. 







3.  Meanwhile Obama Spins

….The jobs numbers for December are not yet released and the stats for October and November will be revised once or twice. But at the current stage, the economy gained 1,445,000 jobs in 2011; the most since 2006 when a smaller economy gained two million-plus jobs, yet the Republicans still lost both Houses of Congress that year.

THE 1.44 MILLION JOBS GAINED IN 2011 IS AN IMPROVEMENT OVER THE ALMOST ONE MILLION JOBS GAINED IN 2010, and is way better than the millions of jobs lost in the preceding two years. However, the job losses were not destined to continue forever. Moreover, 8.2 (YES, EIGHT POINT TWO) MILLION NET JOBS WERE GAINED IN THE 29 MONTHS FOLLOWING THE STEEP AND LONG 1981-1982 RECESSION, AND 2.58 MILLION JOBS WERE GAINED FOLLOWING THE SHORT AND LIGHT RECESSION THAT ENDED MARCH 1991. These numbers surpass the poor 1.21 million net jobs gained in the 29 months following the last recession. (The picture is worse if placed in the context of population and economic sizes of then versus now.)

Yes, President Obama can argue that he had a steep and long recession, but so did Reagan, yet he produced 285,517 jobs per month in the same period that Obama produced only 41,896 jobs per month. More shocking: President Ford created 171,368 jobs per month in the nineteen months after the long 1974-1975 recession through October of 1976; the month before he lost reelection….


Get ready for a lot of these kinds of figures being repeated for you by the Republicans as the 2012 election gets closer.  Reality for Obama bites.



4.  The Turn of China

The financial and credit crisis can now be considered truly global. China has joined the list of nations whose banks and thus, government are in trouble.

Well, now we learn that as the global insolvency wave finally moves to China, A BANKRUPTCY IS NOW CALLED SOMETHING EVEN LESS SCARY: "DEFERRED LOAN PAYMENTS" (and also explains why suddenly Japan is going to have to bail China out and buy its bonds, because somehow when China fails, it is the turn of the country that started the whole deflationary collapse to step to the plate). After all, who in their right mind would want to scare the public that the entire world is now broke. Certainly not SWIFT.  And certainly not that paragon of 8%+ annual growth, where NO MATTER HOW MANY LAYERS OF LIPSTICK ARE APPLIED, THE PIGGYNESS OF IT ALL IS SHINING THROUGH EVER MORE ACUTELY. Because here are the facts, from China Daily, and they speaks for themselves: "China's biggest provincial borrowers are DEFERRING PAYMENT ON THEIR LOANS just two months after the country's regulator said some local government companies would be allowed to do so....Hunan Provincial Expressway Construction Group is DELAYING PAYMENT ON 3.11 BILLION YUAN IN INTEREST, documents governing the securities show this month. GUANGDONG PROVINCIAL COMMUNICATIONS GROUP CO, THE SECOND-LARGEST DEBTOR, IS FOLLOWING SUIT. So are two others among the biggest 11 debtors, FOR A TOTAL OF 30.16 BILLION YUAN, according to bond prospectuses from 55 local authorities that have raised money in capital markets SINCE THE BEGINNING OF NOVEMBER." So not even two months in and companies are already becoming serial defaulters, pardon, "loan payment deferrers?" And China is supposed to bail out the world? Ironically, in a world in which can kicking is now an art form, China will show everyone just how it is done, by effectively upturning the capital structure and saying that paying interest is, well, optional. In the immortal words of the comrade from Georgia, "no coupon, no problem."

Now it's China's turn to kick the can down the road hoping against hope that a solution will present itself in the future….


China has a lot of problems which generally we don’t hear much about.  But China is not the savior of Europe and the socialistic practices that we and the rest of the West have grown to rely on.



5.  Obama Scandal:  Solyndra Update

The Solyndra scandal continues to fester and haunt the Obama Administration, as even some of the most ardent supporters of the Administration have become harsh critics. The following statement is particularly profound considering that among the multitude of reliably liberal outlets in the mainstream media, few are more dependable champions of the liberal Democrats and their agenda than the Washington Post.

“Meant to create jobs and cut reliance on foreign oil, Obama’s green-technology program was infused with politics at every level, The Washington Post found in an analysis of thousands of memos, company records and internal ­e-mails.”

Politics, in fact, trumped the stated objectives of job creation and the supposedly “greater good” of green energy at every turn.

THE WASHINGTON POST REVIEW OF THE SOLYNDRA SCANDAL CONCLUDED THAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WAS CONTINUALLY CONCERNED ABOUT POLITICAL “OPTICS” AND RE-ELECTION CONSEQUENCES RATHER THAN GOOD GOVERNMENT POLICY….

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/bobbeauprez/2011/12/27/wash_post_solyndra_was_all_about_politics_not_policy

This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.  Obama is a Chicago politician. 


Friday, November 25, 2011

Occupy: What you can expect

What’s new today

Our # 1 story relates how the OWS was targeting Black Friday.  Apparently it didn’t work out for them.  #2 tells about how the bad economy is looking to hit China.  #3 wonders why we are still in receivership with Fannie and Freddie.  #4 takes a look at the Solyndra scandal and tells you what is important and what isn’t.  #5 lays out who and what the movement actually is at the Occupy Movement.  It’s a long article but well worth your time to read it.  



1.   OWS Targets Black Friday

OCCUPY WALL STREET-INSPIRED PROTESTERS ARE EYEING A NEW TARGET -- TARGET. AND DOZENS OF OTHER COMPANIES.

A campaign under the name "Occupy Black Friday" is trying to enlist supporters to boycott just about every major retailer, and quite a few mid-sized ones, the day after Thanksgiving. The protesters are casting a wide net, urging people to demonstrate against the top retail stores -- a list that includes everything from Wal-Mart to Target to Dick's Sporting Goods to Dollar Tree.

"THE IDEA IS SIMPLE, HIT THE CORPORATIONS THAT CORRUPT AND CONTROL AMERICAN POLITICS WHERE IT HURTS, THEIR PROFITS," the group's Facebook page reads, describing Black Friday as the "one day where the mega-corporations blatantly dictate our actions."

But retailers, who are monitoring the mini-movement, warn that a blanket boycott could end up hurting local communities.

"Retailers, regardless of their size, are an important part of the community, and they employ friends and neighbors of that community across the country," said Joseph LaRocca, a senior adviser to the National Retail Federation specializing in loss prevention….

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/24/occupy-inspired-campaign-urges-boycott-black-friday/#ixzz1eibDEgSb

Stupidity is on full display here.  The Occupy movement is now like a small child demanding attention and throwing tantrum after tantrum trying to get it. 


2.Global slowdown triggers China factory strikes

Thousands of workers have downed tools from the factory hotspot in the east of Guangdong province, to sports and electronics plants to the south and west.


The social tension comes as MANUFACTURING ORDERS ARE SLOWING IN CHINA in the wake of slowing external demand from trade partners hit by the eurozone debt crisis.


"WE ARE WILLING TO WORK BUT YOU MUST ALSO PAY US ENOUGH TO SURVIVE, even during the financial crisis we didn't see pressure like this," factory workers told Reuters.


Although factory strikes are relatively frequent in China, the current raft of action comes amid growing tension about the deteriorating global economic backdrop and tighter domestic credit conditions.


The Federation of Hong Kong Industries RECENTLY WARNED THAT UP TO A THIRD OF SOME 50,000 HONG KONG-OWNED FACTORIES IN GUANGDONG AND ELSEWHERE IN CHINA COULD DOWNSIZE OR CLOSE BY THE END OF THE YEAR, potentially putting at risk hundreds of thousands of jobs.




The real problem here for China is that less than 9% growth rate will threaten the regime.  All is not well in the middle kingdom. 
 

3.   Moving beyond Freddie and Fannie


The term “permanent conservatorship” is an oxymoron. By its very construct, the conservatorship of a corporation is meant to be temporary. And yet THREE YEARS AFTER THE BAILOUT OF FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC, WE ARE NO CLOSER TO TRANSITIONING THEM OFF GOVERNMENT LIFE SUPPORT THAN WE WERE THE DAY IN 2008 WHEN THEY CAME UNDER DIRECT GOVERNMENT CONTROL.


This is unacceptable.


A delay in dealing with Fannie and Freddie was partly inevitable, as policymakers worried that any misstep could negatively affect a fragile housing market. But WE HAVE COME TO A POINT WHERE CONTINUED INACTION IMPEDES THE ABILITY OF THE PRIVATE MARKET TO TAKE OVER A FUNCTION THE GOVERNMENT HAS COMPLETELY MISMANAGED. We must move beyond Fannie and Freddie, immediately.


This task will not be politically easy. Many of the institutions that have come to rely on the corporate welfare Fannie and Freddie provide have argued that we cannot have a housing finance system without the support of government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs). This argument not only ignores the risks taxpayers are forced to bear but also fundamentally misrepresents the structure of the housing finance system.


Broadly speaking, THE RISKS INHERENT IN MORTGAGE LENDING CAN BE PLACED IN TWO CATEGORIES, INTEREST RATE RISK AND CREDIT RISK. Interest rate risk stems from the fact that homeowners can prepay their mortgages at any time, and they generally choose to do so when interest rates are low. This leaves the lender with the tricky job of managing an asset-liability mismatch. But THE PRIVATE SECTOR HAS PROVED CAPABLE OF THE TASK. IN FACT, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RISK MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE TO DEAL WITH THIS CHALLENGE REMAINS A GREAT ACCOMPLISHMENT OF MODERN FINANCE.


The second risk in mortgage lending is credit risk, or the risk that a borrower will default on his or her mortgage. TODAY, MORTGAGE CREDIT RISK IS ALMOST COMPLETELY PRICED AND MANAGED BY THE GOVERNMENT. HAVING “CROWDED OUT” PRIVATE INVESTORS BY CHARGING AN INSURANCE PREMIUM THAT WAS TOO CHEAP, THE GSES ARE SADDLED WITH $5 TRILLION WORTH OF BAD CREDIT. This is a tragedy of our own making. During the boom years, the GSEs’ affordable housing goals were coupled with a Congress and an administration that saw only the bright side of rapidly increasing homeownership rates. That meant that as housing prices began to spike, it was impossible to make credit slightly more expensive…..



As you can see where the government has taken over, the results have been catastrophic.  $5 trillion worth of bad credit is why nothing is going forward on Fannie and Freddie. 




4.The Solyndra Scandal


To understand the importance of the Solyndra saga, it’s important to understand what’s not important. Here’s a breakdown of what doesn’t matter—and what does…..


….WHAT DOES MATTER


THE STIMULUS AND THE LOAN-GUARANTEE PROGRAM. THE PRESSURE THE WHITE HOUSE WAS PUTTING ON THE ENERGY DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE SOLYNDRA, ITS FIRST RECIPIENT OF A STIMULUS-BACKED LOAN GUARANTEE, WOULD QUICKLY SUCCEED WAS INTENSE AND UNRELENTING. Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and Chu made public statements about how Solyndra was the prototype for both stimulus jobs and clean-energy innovation in 2010 when the company’s finances were going south. The stimulus-backed program that awarded Solyndra its loan was given just two years to push out billions of dollars’ worth of renewable-energy loan guarantees. That truncated time frame created a series of implementation problems within the program that an internal West Wing memo sent to Obama in 2010 and several independent government reports highlighted. In response to Solyndra’s demise, the White House is reviewing the program and is expected to issue a report in late December.


Global market conditions in 2010 and 2011. The global price of silicon solar panels dropped by more than 70 percent in two and a half years. “That was totally unexpected, not only by us,” Chu told Congress last week. The Energy Department was increasingly aware of these market conditions and Solyndra’s worsening finances throughout 2010 when OBAMA VISITED THE COMPANY’S CALIFORNIA HEADQUARTERS IN MARCH OF THAT YEAR AND TOUTED IT AS THE “TRUE ENGINE OF ECONOMIC GROWTH.” AN INDEPENDENT AUDIT REPORT ISSUED SHORTLY BEFORE OBAMA’S VISIT RAISED RED FLAGS ABOUT SOLYNDRA’S FINANCES, and one clean-energy investor who supports Obama even urged the president not to visit Solyndra because of these concerns. Chu seemed to indicate last week he didn’t know at the time about the audit report: “I’m aware of it now.”


The Energy Department’s decision to restructure the loan. Chu told lawmakers that his department decided to restructure Solyndra’s loan in early 2011 despite its grim finances because the factory the company received the loan for wasn’t finished, and pulling the plug then meant certain bankruptcy and a useless, half-built factory. E-MAILS SHOW THAT EVEN ARGONAUT’S INVESTORS WERE READY TO THROW IN THE TOWEL, AND DOE HAD TO CONVINCE ARGONAUT TO INVEST MORE. CHU SAID THE ONLY WORKABLE DEAL REQUIRED NEW PRIVATE INVESTMENT, AND ARGONAUT’S INVESTORS WERE WILLING TO GO ALONG WITH RESTRUCTURING ONLY IF THEIR NEW INVESTMENT WAS FIRST IN LINE IF SOLYNDRA DEFAULTED. Many legal experts say subordinating the government’s interest violates the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Chu’s testimony last week didn’t answer many questions about DOE’s legal reasoning for doing this.


The FBI investigation. The FBI raided Solyndra’s California headquarters in early September a week after it announced its bankruptcy. The nature of this investigation is not yet public, and it’s not known when it will be—but REPORTS HAVE SAID IT COULD FOCUS ON ACCOUNTING FRAUD AND MISLEADING FEDERAL OFFICIALS ABOUT THE FINANCES OF THE COMPANY. The Energy Department’s inspector general is a partner in that investigation.



This is a sticky situation and not one you want to have with an election coming up.  I can see the attack ads now, Solyndra….Crony Capitalism at its worst. 

5.Utopian Socialism


...When the police officers and sanitation workers reclaimed Zuccotti Park, Occupy Wall Street’s supporters cried, “You can’t evict an idea whose time has come.” Whether the sympathizers or the critics really understand the idea and the method of the movement is a good question. The idea is utopian socialism. The method is revolutionary anarchism.


IT WAS FEBRUARY 25, 1825, AND THE U.S. CAPITOL WAS UNDER OCCUPATION​—​SORT OF. ROBERT OWEN, a successful Welsh businessman and socialist, wasn’t standing in the Rotunda holding up a placard. He was addressing a joint session of Congress from the dais of the House of Representatives. President James Monroe and president-elect John Quincy Adams were present for at least a portion of the speech. AS JOSHUA MURAVCHIK EXPLAINS IN HEAVEN ON EARTH, A HISTORY OF SOCIALISM, THE ELECTED OFFICIALS WERE MESMERIZED BY OWEN’S PLANS.



In the speech, Owen shared HIS DREAM OF COOPERATIVE VILLAGES WHERE WORKERS WOULD SEE THEIR POVERTY ALLEVIATED AND THEIR SPIRITS TRANSFORMED. Inspired by the success of his New Lanark community in Scotland, where employees lived in hospitable conditions and the children of laborers received early childhood and primary education, OWEN HOPED TO BRING TO AMERICA EXQUISITELY PLANNED SPACES WHERE A NEW, IMPROVED MANKIND WOULD COME INTO BEING. Owen thought his scientifically organized village would “lead to that state of virtue, intelligence, enjoyment, and happiness, in practice, which has been foretold by the sages of past times, and would at some distant period become the lot of the human race!” UTOPIA, ACCORDING TO OWEN, WAS NOT CONFINED TO THE PRINTED PAGE. UTOPIA COULD BE REALIZED.



THE SITE OF HIS AMERICAN UTOPIA WOULD BE NEW HARMONY, ON THE WABASH RIVER IN SOUTHWEST INDIANA. Owen welcomed residents to his colony that April. “I am come to this country,” he told them, “to introduce an entire new state of society, to change it from the ignorant, selfish system, to an enlightened social system which shall gradually unite all interests into one, and remove all cause for contests between individuals.” There would be no 1 percent versus the 99 percent in New Harmony.



THINGS DID NOT WORK AS PLANNED, HOWEVER. Structuring a community along rational lines was extremely difficult. THERE WEREN’T ENOUGH SKILLED LABORERS. MANY OF THE RESIDENTS WERE LAZY. SHORTAGES WERE COMMONPLACE. CENTRAL PLANNING HAMPERED THE EFFICIENT ALLOCATION OF MEALS. FACTIONS SPLIT OFF FROM THE MAIN GROUP. The community closely monitored the activities and beliefs of every member. Alcohol was banned. CHILDREN WERE SEPARATED FROM THEIR PARENTS; one later said she saw her “father and mother twice in two years.” OWEN EXPELLED MALCONTENTS. Only his generous subsidies held New Harmony together.



And not for long. OWEN’S “NEW EMPIRE OF PEACE AND GOOD WILL TO MAN” FELL APART WITHIN FOUR YEARS.



Anarchists



...Over the course of the nineteenth century the quest for the ideal society took many directions that can be clustered in two broad categories. THERE WERE THE MARXIAN ATTEMPTS AT “SCIENTIFIC SOCIALISM,” in which the proletarian vanguard sought to overthrow the bourgeoisie to bring about the classless society as ordained by the laws of history. And there was THE REVOLUTIONARY ANARCHIST PROJECT OF ACHIEVING UTOPIA BY LEVELING HIERARCHIES AND ABOLISHING AUTHORITIES.



The two overlapped on certain points. But FOR THE MOST PART THE MARXISTS LOOKED AT THE ANARCHISTS AS BOOBS AND THE ANARCHISTS LOOKED AT THE MARXISTS AS TOTALITARIANS​—​which of course they were. Scientific socialism is more famous than revolutionary anarchism, if only because in the twentieth century it succeeded in taking over much of the world. The incalculable human cost of communism has obscured the destructive activities of the anarchists, but they were considerable.



Anarchism is often dismissed as merely the rationalization of hooligans. But that is a mistake. ANARCHISM HAS A THEORY AND EVEN A CANON: Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, and others. Anarchism’s purpose is to turn the whole world into one big Fourierist phalanx. “AT EVERY STAGE OF HISTORY OUR CONCERN MUST BE TO DISMANTLE THOSE FORMS OF AUTHORITY AND OPPRESSION THAT SURVIVE FROM AN ERA WHEN THEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED IN TERMS OF THE NEED FOR SECURITY OR SURVIVAL OR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, BUT THAT NOW CONTRIBUTE TO​—​RATHER THAN ALLEVIATE​—​MATERIAL AND CULTURAL DEFICIT,” writes Noam Chomsky in an introduction to Daniel Guérin’s classic, Anarchism. Dismantle “the system.” Then we’ll be free

.

THE ANARCHIST SEES NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN FREE ENTERPRISE AND STATE SOCIALISM. He cannot be happy as long as anyone has more property or power than someone else. “Any consistent anarchist must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage-slavery which is a component of this system,” Chomsky writes, “as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer.” What Chomsky is saying is that you can justly grow your own tomato, but you can never hire anyone else to pick it….



...Unsurprisingly, the call to occupy Zuccotti Park went out over Twitter, and the masked spokesmen of Anonymous publicized the movement on YouTube. AN INTELLECTUAL, FINANCIAL, TECHNOLOGICAL, AND SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE TO UNDERMINE GLOBAL CAPITALISM HAS BEEN DEVELOPING FOR MORE THAN TWO DECADES, AND WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF ITS LATEST MANIFESTATION. Occupy Wall Street’s global encampments are exactly the sort of communities David Graeber had in mind when he wrote about the Zapatistas. The occupiers’ tent cities are self-governing, communal, egalitarian, and networked. THEY REJECT EVERYDAY POLITICS. They foster bohemianism and confrontation with the civil authorities. They are the Phalanx and New Harmony, updated for postmodern times and plopped in the middle of our cities.



There may not be that many activists in the camps. They may appear silly, even grotesque. They may resist “agendas” and “policies.” They may not agree on what they want or when they want it. And they may disappear as winter arrives and the liberals whose parks they are occupying lose patience with them. But the utopians and anarchists will reappear​—​next year’s party conventions will no doubt be a flashpoint​—​and it is wrong to coddle, appropriate, or dismiss them. They must be confronted, not only by law but by ideas. The occupation will persist as long as individuals believe that inequalities of property are unjust and that the brotherhood of man can be established on the earth.






The lessons here seem to me to be the Democrats hopes that OWS would be their counterpart to the TEA party seems completely at odds with reality.  In fact, rather than replicating 2009, it appears they may have nurtured a movement that will bring back 1968.