I am disappointed at Howard Kurtz for moving to Fox without maintaining his journalistic integrity. On Fox's "MediaBuzz" he slants his reporting to the Fox line, and just in case he doesn't, he has his pretty, blond minder along side to keep him in line, just like the North Koreans and old Soviets assigned a minder to watch visitors and make sure they didn't see or say anything that the government didn't want them to say. Pravda's editorial policies are alive and well at Fox, and Howie is towing the line. He was better at CNN's "Reliable Sources" than the new guy at CNN, but the new CNN guy, Brian Stelter, has more journalistic integrity now than Kurtz has at Fox; so, his show is better than Kurtz's. I hope that Kurtz is getting paid lots of Fox money to disgrace himself.
Now it looks like Maria Bartiromo is going to follow Kurtz down the Fox media hole for money.
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Monday, February 24, 2014
Russian Empire
Yesterday on Fox, George Will said that Russia had to learn to accept its loss of empire -- Ukraine -- as the British did. But I think it he looking at the wrong countries that left the empire. Ukraine is not like India or the Burma, but to Russia it is more like Scotland or Ireland. Scotland is still part of the UK despite a long-running effort to separate, and there was a bitter terrorist war in Northern Ireland over the empire's control which might not be entirely extinguished today.
Not only is Kiev in many ways the first capital and heart of Russia, but the Crimea on the Black Sea is one of Russia's most important naval bases. It is unlikely that Russia and Putin will quietly walk away from these ties, although they may eventually have to give them up. I doubt they will go quietly, whether it means actual fighting or not.
However, I thought during the breakup of the old Soviet Union that the independence of the Baltic countries -- Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia -- was a step too far that would be resisted by Russia. I was wrong; they have been some of the most successful of the old Soviet satellites. But I am guessing that Putin regrets what happened with the Soviet Union disintegrated, and will not let Ukraine go quietly into the night.
We'll see.
One issue that seems to cut both ways for me is the Russian economy. It's not in good shape, and is unlikely to get better as fracking reduces natural gas prices and oil prices along with them. Oil is Russia's main source of foreign exchange. This Russia will be weakened in whatever it does to retain Ukraine, but on the other hand, because of economic pressures, it will be loath to lose an important partner and ally.
Not only is Kiev in many ways the first capital and heart of Russia, but the Crimea on the Black Sea is one of Russia's most important naval bases. It is unlikely that Russia and Putin will quietly walk away from these ties, although they may eventually have to give them up. I doubt they will go quietly, whether it means actual fighting or not.
However, I thought during the breakup of the old Soviet Union that the independence of the Baltic countries -- Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia -- was a step too far that would be resisted by Russia. I was wrong; they have been some of the most successful of the old Soviet satellites. But I am guessing that Putin regrets what happened with the Soviet Union disintegrated, and will not let Ukraine go quietly into the night.
We'll see.
One issue that seems to cut both ways for me is the Russian economy. It's not in good shape, and is unlikely to get better as fracking reduces natural gas prices and oil prices along with them. Oil is Russia's main source of foreign exchange. This Russia will be weakened in whatever it does to retain Ukraine, but on the other hand, because of economic pressures, it will be loath to lose an important partner and ally.
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Comcast To Buy Time Warner Cable
This Comcast-Time Warner deal is clearly an agreement in restraint of trade that should be blocked by antitrust laws, but probably will not be. These huge deals creating a few dominant companies in almost all sectors of the economy are bad for America in the long run. Google-Yahoo, JP Morgan-Goldman Sachs, Comcast-DirecTV, GM-Ford, United-Delta Airlines, all of these, and more, oligarchies dominate their markets. They can largely ignore their customers, because their customers have little or no choice. If you want this service, you have to work with two or three companies; that's it.
Obama is a Democratic President who should be concerned about this, but he and his attorney general, Eric Holder, are too concerned about gay marriage and killing American citizens with drones to worry about antitrust issues. We might as well have George W. Bush as President.
Obama is a Democratic President who should be concerned about this, but he and his attorney general, Eric Holder, are too concerned about gay marriage and killing American citizens with drones to worry about antitrust issues. We might as well have George W. Bush as President.
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Bernanke's Scorecard
The WSJ had fairly balanced editorial on Bernanke's tenure at the Fed. He probably saved us from a second depression, but the long term effects of the rest of his term remain to be seen. I have been a fan of Bernanke, but as the years pass, I have more doubts.
I think he has aided a stock market bubble, which has been good for many, but not for all. His main justification for Quantitative Easing, the main force behind the bubble, is the Fed's legislated mission to reduce unemployment. I don't think the Fed can do this anymore. It's main basis in a trickle down theory that if business booms, then it will hire more people and unemployment will go down. But today, businesses don't need to hire people to expand. Between outsourcing and automation businesses need fewer and cheaper employees to produce more and more products or services. This is one reason that many businesses have huge piles of money sitting in banks (mostly overseas so they don't pay taxes) that they are not investing. The Fed continues to throw free money at them; they take it, but they don't hire new employees; so, it has little or no effect on employment. It turns out mainly to benefit the capitalists who use it to buy machines that are much cheaper and more efficient than people.
The zero interests rates have also been hard on honest people. Some people on Wall Street are honest, but many are not. Even the ones that are honest have been using the free money to gamble with, trading stocks rather than investing in businesses, with a few exceptions like Warren Buffett. The bulk of honest people tend to live in cities and towns outside of New York. People that have jobs would usually like to save money in a simple, safe way. This used to be by putting money in bonds or savings accounts, but today these pay nothing. So everyone is forced to make riskier investments, often through 401(k)s invested in the stock market. This has been great off and on -- great last year, not so great in 2008.
So Bernanke has been great for his questionably honest, slick Jew buddies on Wall Street, and not so good the the average working people around the country who would like a decent return on their savings without huge risk. This used to be case twenty or thirty years ago. But the current situation is probably better than the high inflation we had at times back then, which ate up the savings of those same, honest risk-averse people who are losing again today.
It's not comforting that as Bernanke leaves and QE begins to taper off in 2014, the stock market is heading down. The Fed says QE is ending because the economy can now support itself, but it appears that Wall Street does not believe that. Wall Street appears to believe that America is failing, that its best days are behind it. Unless the Fed is giving away free money, America is a losing proposition. Right now, America is somewhat better off than some of its main competitors, Europe and Japan, for example. China is probably in better shape, but people keep noticing signs of trouble there, too. But there are signs of trouble in America, starting with its labor force, but including its biggest financial institutions, which have not really changed that much since 2008. Nobody has gone to jail, and many of the changes are cosmetic. Too big to fail is still a problem, and banks continue to produce exotic financial instruments that are probably too complicated for anybody to understand, especially what their long term impact may be.
I am generally pleased with Bernanke, but now I would only give him a "B", whereas a few years ago I would have given him an "A". But a "B" is better than a "D", which is probably what Greenspan ended up with.
I think he has aided a stock market bubble, which has been good for many, but not for all. His main justification for Quantitative Easing, the main force behind the bubble, is the Fed's legislated mission to reduce unemployment. I don't think the Fed can do this anymore. It's main basis in a trickle down theory that if business booms, then it will hire more people and unemployment will go down. But today, businesses don't need to hire people to expand. Between outsourcing and automation businesses need fewer and cheaper employees to produce more and more products or services. This is one reason that many businesses have huge piles of money sitting in banks (mostly overseas so they don't pay taxes) that they are not investing. The Fed continues to throw free money at them; they take it, but they don't hire new employees; so, it has little or no effect on employment. It turns out mainly to benefit the capitalists who use it to buy machines that are much cheaper and more efficient than people.
The zero interests rates have also been hard on honest people. Some people on Wall Street are honest, but many are not. Even the ones that are honest have been using the free money to gamble with, trading stocks rather than investing in businesses, with a few exceptions like Warren Buffett. The bulk of honest people tend to live in cities and towns outside of New York. People that have jobs would usually like to save money in a simple, safe way. This used to be by putting money in bonds or savings accounts, but today these pay nothing. So everyone is forced to make riskier investments, often through 401(k)s invested in the stock market. This has been great off and on -- great last year, not so great in 2008.
So Bernanke has been great for his questionably honest, slick Jew buddies on Wall Street, and not so good the the average working people around the country who would like a decent return on their savings without huge risk. This used to be case twenty or thirty years ago. But the current situation is probably better than the high inflation we had at times back then, which ate up the savings of those same, honest risk-averse people who are losing again today.
It's not comforting that as Bernanke leaves and QE begins to taper off in 2014, the stock market is heading down. The Fed says QE is ending because the economy can now support itself, but it appears that Wall Street does not believe that. Wall Street appears to believe that America is failing, that its best days are behind it. Unless the Fed is giving away free money, America is a losing proposition. Right now, America is somewhat better off than some of its main competitors, Europe and Japan, for example. China is probably in better shape, but people keep noticing signs of trouble there, too. But there are signs of trouble in America, starting with its labor force, but including its biggest financial institutions, which have not really changed that much since 2008. Nobody has gone to jail, and many of the changes are cosmetic. Too big to fail is still a problem, and banks continue to produce exotic financial instruments that are probably too complicated for anybody to understand, especially what their long term impact may be.
I am generally pleased with Bernanke, but now I would only give him a "B", whereas a few years ago I would have given him an "A". But a "B" is better than a "D", which is probably what Greenspan ended up with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)