Thursday, August 28, 2008
Just a guy in the neighborhood
.. says Obama. Who is Ayers? .. says Pepe. In 1995 Ayers won a $49.2 million grant from the Annenberg Foundation — matched two-to-one by public and private contributions — to promote “reform” in the Chicago school system. He quickly brought in Obama, then all of 33 and bereft of any executive experience, to chair the board. With Ayers directing the project’s operational arm and Obama overseeing its financial affairs until 1999, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge distributed more than $100 million to ideological allies with no discernible improvement in public education. Hmmm... The mad bomber gives zillions in grant money to Barry to play with, and then BHO barely remembers his mentor and benefactor? Any surprise here?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
39 comments:
How about listing 10 reasons why McCain is the better candidate? Let's discuss the issues. This labeling of Obama as a roman emperor and posing him in front of a an ancient greek temple is not very productive discourse.
Let's examine each candidate's position and discuss the relevant points.
Is anyone up to the task?
OK, I'm game. Here's one reason: McCain is not buddy-buddy with pinko mad-bombers. On the other hand, Obama started his political career at Ayers' home, and has been involved with him ever since (eg, that $100+ mill grant mentioned in the story). How's that for a relevant point?
So Obama started his career with pinko mad-bombers? Plural? And how will that effect his presidency?
It's your #1 point, so you have decided.
I'd like to bring up a different point, a very specific issue with the regulation of the stock market.
I was baffled why last year the SEC gave up on the uptick rule.
The uptick rule was one of a handful of charter rules imposed by the SEC when the organization was put in place in 1934. In brief, it stated that a short seller could only sell a stock short1 following an uptick in the stock’s price. In other words, no one could sell a stock short following a downtick in the stock price or even an exchange that happened at the same price as the previous trade (a flat-tick). This rule was logical and practical from every perspective, but cumbersome and inconvenient for short sellers, particularly those who would like to be able to manipulate the price of a stock by banging every bid showing on the book and, yes, thereby create a clearing problem. Short selling helps markets maintain liquidity and, to a certain degree, pricing sanity. Market makers need to occasionally sell a stock short to keep a flow of stock available for buyers when demand temporarily runs ahead of supply. To a certain degree, this short selling tends to weigh on the side of sane pricing (keeping unsustainable rallies in check).
The problem is short selling on a downtick supports neither of these situations. If the price of a stock is going down, market makers don’t need to “borrow shares” (the practice used in a legitimate short sale) to support buyer demand; when the price of a stock is going down it is implicit evidence there is more supply of the stock than there is demand to buy it. Also, if the price of a stock is going down we don’t need short sellers to weigh on the side of sanity (weigh against “irrational exuberance” or mute unsustainable rallies); if prices were in fact above sane valuations by virtue of the fact they are heading down already a correction is already in the works. Therefore, encouraging short selling in these cases, which is what the removal of the uptick rule did, is the economic equivalent of pouring rocket fuel on fire that is perfectly capable of sustaining its own orderly burn.
The story here is there was no rational reason to eliminate the up-tick rule. Complicating this problem of giving rocket fuel to short-sellers by allowing them to sell stocks short that were already in a downward trend, the data suggests very strongly that the SEC was negligent in the enforcement of its own rules governing “naked” short selling.
Why did the Bush administration make this change?
So Obama started his career with pinko mad-bombers? Plural? And how will that effect his presidency?
Yes, he's also buddy-buddy with Bernardine Dohrn. How will that affect his (putative) presidency? Well, I guess he'll bring in all those relics of the 60s with him.
Uptick rule? Never heard of it. Why would I care? I don't play the stock market.
Uptick rule? Removing it caused the Bear Stearns collapse which cost Billions of tax payer money to bail out. I assume that is your money as it is mine.
Also fueled the rest of the financial collapse. Sub-prime mean anything to you?
Charles Black on McCains campaign has been a lobbyist for dictators including:
Ferdinand Marcos
Mobutu Sese Seko
Jona Savimbi
and other dictators and their regimes.
These clients are responsible for many deaths and yet Charles lobbied for them in Washington.
There are other lobbyists on his campaign.
Cindy McCain owns about $100M in Bud shares. The recent buyout offer from InBev of Belgium that is pending approval can make the McCains even richer. Maybe they can afford another home if approved.
So anyone owning shares in a big company and stands to make money from a buyout it is disqualified from the presidency.
Didn't you support Kerry?
I don't think any goddamned uptick rule made Bear Stearns collapse. It only made it collapse more dramatically or something. They got stuck with a bunch of bad paper because the housing boom went bust, no?
Itay Goldstein of Wharton and Alexander Guembel are just two of the many authorities who examined the Bear Stearns case and concluded with evidence that it was the bear raid that caused this.
Check it out:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1067194
A senator serving on a committee can recuse himself or herself from a case that has obvious conflict of interest. However, the president cannot.
How about the lobbyists for dictators that are running McCain's campaign?
I guess they are good for the shoe industry!
Obamatons trying to get Kurtz to shut up.
JJ,
Why do you resort to terms like "goddamned" to spread your ignorance. My attempt at a rational discussion is over.
I lived the uptick rule change and still cannot explain why they did it. At best it was an action of less regulation at worst it was corruption. In any case, there was no reason to change this and it hurt a lot of people. Very few made billions, hmm...
I'm off this blog for good. What a waste of time.
NA
A senator serving on a committee can recuse himself or herself from a case that has obvious conflict of interest. However, the president cannot.
Senators recusing themselves? Huh? They get money from lobbyists so that they won't vote on issues the lobbyists are interested in?
Jesus! That's a complicated system.
So say I am some pro Roe vs Wade guy. What I should do is pay all the senators that disagree with me not to vote their way.
I guess it works, but wouldn't it be easier the other way?
OK, enough mocking. What makes you think Obama doesn't have corresponding filth in his backyard, n_a?
Ayers is an example. No, Ayers is a super-example. Rather than just being bagboy to some far-off murderer as you claim McCain's buddies are, he is the founder of an organization that murdered Americans.
I know, I know, we're all the same in the eyes of the Lord, but to me it is much more important to have my family and friends (you included, of course) protected from lunatics like Ayers than it is to have some strangers (that might just as well like to see your throat cut) protected from the barbarities of some other strangers (that would feel the same way about your and my throat).
Sorry I said 'goddamned'. Henceforth it's goshdarned. OK?
Is Ayers on Obama's campaign?
How about the economy, when a major meltdown occurred under Bush why is it not his policies?
It is entirely his policies and let's have a rational discussion without any goshdarneds.
The economy is the most important issue because without it nothing else matters. I am very concerned about what either candidate and their party will do. I am very much pro-free market and although I don't like it, also globalization. We are in this all together and we have to work it out. The SEC and other regulatory organizations have completely let things go and that is not a good thing.
You say that you do not believe that uptick rule had anything to do with it. Economists have published very good studies that show it has. Also, why did (finally) the SEC put an end to shorts on key financial institutions?
The problem is that we went through a lot of years of no regulation and a relaxation. Greedy people get very crafty and found a way to package up mortgages as CDO's that they then got their buddies to stamp as class AAA investments! On the eve of this bubble burst the SEC removed the uptick rule! This is insanity and either our government was not watching or it acted to pay off supporters.
At best our government was asleep just like in 2001 when we were attacked.
Now in 2008, Bear Sterns had to be bailed out along with a few other multi billion dollar bail outs.
I'm not looking for blame, I believe that some regulation is necessary and good and that W and his party don't share this opinion. That's one part of the economy. There are others.
We also need an energy policy. We have none, at least nothing publicly disclosed.
The French export electricity! They set an energy policy that has really paid off. I'm not advocating that we copy theirs just that we put one in place.
Corruption is a problem and it usually is worse with incumbents. There is no doubt in my mind that in recent years the Republicans have taken the cake in corruption. Abramoff to Wolfowitz and you get most of the alphabet of corruption covered.
As I said, incumbents are more likely to be corrupt. I believe that now Washington is a fully developed culture of corruption and that it is so bad that even decent people can't see the forrest for the trees.
In strong Democratic areas, Democrats are corrupt. In strong Republican areas, Republicans are corrupt because they get away with it.
All the efforts McCain spent in fighting this went nowhere as soon as he needed his party to win the nomination. He is a product of the corrupt culture and cannot escape it and won't change it.
That is evident by all the lobbyists he has in his campaign staff.
I asked for 10 reasons, rational, supportable to support each candidate. The first response I got was about pinko mad-bombers. If that's the level of this blog, count me out, this is the last I'll ever visit here.
How should we call Ayers, then? A commie bomb-thrower? A domestic terrorist? Or, perhaps (in the Jeremiah Wright terminology), a peace-loving idealist, framed by the US of KKK A?
At any rate, this story is hitting a raw nerve with the Obama campaign (link from above): On Wednesday evening, Obama's campaign urged supporters to call the radio station to complain. "Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse. It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves."
Bring on the censor!
You obviously can't make your point without labels.
How about the economy?
You said that you do not play the stock market. Oh, so you have no mortgage? You don't own property? You don't rent? Where do you live?
Mortgages became CDO's that were traded. All in a completely unregulated fashion.
Economists have studied this and have evidence of the causes.
I guess it takes some thinking and research to understand this. Label tossing doesn't.
enjoy life!
Let's move on. Can you not come up with 10 reasons why McCain should be president? That's the first thing I asked and your response was pinko something Obama.
Let's list McCains qualifications and history. It's an invitation to a rational discussion.
Are you interested? It means nothing to me if you are or not but I'd like to get beyond slander and understand issues.
The connection of Obama to pinkos is reason #1. I give you that as the top of your list. Can we stick to McCain and get 10 reasons?
Here are some topics I'm interested in but you don't have to follow of course:
Economy
Infrastructure
Foreign policy
Security
Corruption
Technology
Energy...
If you are interested in serious discourse please address the issue of our economy, that was my #1.
Can you offer some views on the path to recovery from the sub-prime mess and bear market?
Comment #1: How about listing 10 reasons why McCain is the better candidate?
Comment #15: I asked for 10 reasons, rational, supportable to support each candidate.
No. You asked the blog to give ten reasons that McCain is better. Then switched to both. Which is it and why 10?
AI provided one reason for choosing McCain, in his opinion, but you have now dismissed it without rational supportable argument as to its irrelevance.
Then you counter that Obama is better than McCain because Bush (?) allowed this uptick rule to be changed. You have violated your own rules now again, because you don't tie McCain to the uptick and you don't rationally demonstrate that the uptick was the cause of anything. You cite a paper in economics that we cannot read. So (dumb question) why was it only Bear Stearns fell apart if the uptick rule is in force (or rescinded) for everyone? Perhaps it is that Bear Stearns was in the business of buying bad paper more than everyone else.
You end with an appeal to ignorance: Why would the Bush administration...? I suppose you want us to reply with something like "theft, greed, incompetence,..., heck all three" but all we can reply honestly is "don't know."
We are mathematicians, a geophysicist, and a historian by training. You are an engineer that has worked well with stocks. Perhaps you know all about this, but you haven't explained it to us and we would need an explanation before accepting your reason. Otherwise, your argument is no better than AI's (legitimate in my view) problem with Obama's judgment and character as typified by his associations with terrorists, a racist preacher, at least one filthy crook developer (Rezko), and a hideous Stokely Carmichaelist wife.
Tell me who you frequent and I'll tell you who you are.
If you want to pin this Bear Stearns thing on McCain, I can do that for you better than you have. The guy usually blamed for the problems in the banking business now is Phil Gramm. Phil Gramm would likely be at Treasury in a McCain administration.
Still, you haven't demonstrated that Obama would have opposed said rule change or in fact has any position on this.
Rational argument or spread of ignorance?
So are we allowed to talk of something other than the economy or are you trumping all other discussion with The economy is the most important issue because without it nothing else matters.?
I still think McCain would be better. Even Kaus, who supports Obama is saying that the middle class are going to get a new tax burden under a Dem administration. Some may say this is just, but all say it will slow down the economy "further".
BTW, the economy grew at a 3.3% rate in Q2, so let's quit planning on selling apples on street corners for the time being.
I would also take issue with your prohibitions about discussing anything outside the economy. There's a lot more to running a country than that. We are at war whether you like it or not and it is time to win it and end it. Obama would (in my view) weaken our defense, administer the war poorly, and thus lengthen and worsen it.
Your example of the moral guy, Carter, is partly to blame for the problem Iran poses today and yet his national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, though completely discredited, is now advising the Obama camp in national security.
If that weren't enough, Samantha Power would certainly be recalled to an Obama administration (she was the foreign policy hawk that called Hillary a monster---oooh, how does she feel about Putin?). I have looked at a couple of her papers (politics is easier than economics) and she seems a wonderful indictment of Harvard's position in the world as a collection of elite mediocrities. A look at her titles, here would be enough, frankly. What's in there is what's out on the cover. It's a joke.
"Why do you resort to terms like "goddamned" to spread your ignorance. My attempt at a rational discussion is over"
n_a is such a goddamned pussy. Tries to propound that the Key to American Perdition is the Uptick Rule, and deepens the joke by claiming not only that this is his attempt at rational discussion but that the use of the word "goddamned" perforce implies that this magnificent and robust rational discussion is now kaput.
As to the economy, a choice between McCain and his vaguely capitalistic Rethuglicans and Obama and his committed Red Soritic Angels, I'll take the Rethuglicans any time. Capitalism can suck in the wrong hands, and it can be magnificent in abler ones, but Socialism makes even capitalist suck look like economic magnificence by comparison.
If "rational discussion", to n_a, has led him to propose that Uptick is all that stands between us and Armageddon, and that unabashed Socialism is the path to economic well being, then it'd be mighty interesting for him to spell out what be his premisses.
Well, OK, let's consider the famous Uptick Rule, a.k.a., Rule 10a-1. It was established by the SEC in 1938, and abolished in 2007. It had something to do with regulating short-selling, and avoiding "bear raids". Jim Cramer thinks it should be reinstated. OK, OK. So what does this have to do with anything? I still don't understand why this is important to anyone except Wall Street types out to make a quick buck.
I guess one has to use terms like "pussy" and "goddamned" on this blog or else the emotional side of opinion forming that permeates this blog might be missed. My mistake, the emotional fervor is unmistakable.
The uptick is an example of what removing very sensible regulation can do. If you don't care that billions of tax payer money was spent to line the pockets of those who do bear raids and to stop our economy from freezing up then I guess you should not make taxes an election issue, or the economy.
Are you immune to the sub-prime meltdown?
Based on your comments, the economy and taxes are not issues of concerned to you.
No, we a single issue crowd. We worry mostly about whether muslims are plotting to trample our lawns and whether barack obama is secretly planning on assisting them in doing so.
Questioning the seriousness of that threat will win you a dreaded pinko, petainist or versaillian label depending on which corner of the isle it is coming from.
JJ,
Thanks for the invite but I will pass. Not what I thought I might find here and it's not the name calling or label tossing (need an Olympic event, you have a good team for the US here).
All of you on here might find the exercise of listing 10 good things about your candidate a useful one. It just does not seem like something you'll do upon request.
Shame on you, JJ. Nice_Acute 18th Century boy requested you break down everything into 10 little queasy pieces, and you [yer bastard] didn't comply. Fo shame.
No n_a posting for you!
"Questioning the seriousness of that threat will win you a dreaded pinko, petainist or versaillian label depending on which corner of the isle it is coming from."
Doesn't depend on which corner of your tricolor chapeau the dreaded labeling flag is planted on. You wear the chapeau, you carry proudly and kaylaly all three flags.
So you saw the P&T or remembered the feel of fresh creamery butter on your buttocks...
I saw the P&T, and I have no memory of the feel of fresh creamery butter--and you can't prove I do in any court of law.
n_a, I wouldn't take aa's invectives too personally. He just finds it convenient to compensate for his difficulty at building convincing arguments by mixing a liberal use of ad-hominems with endless diatribes that most people wouldn't care to follow to their conclusion.
Two reasons to vote for obama:
end the status quo on healthcare.
pulling out of iraq.
As an added bonus, it would also really piss off fcp-ers who are already having hot flashes over the traction he is getting.
That would make three reasons, PLeP.
"a liberal use of ad-hominems "
Ah, one of those rare occasions where Pepe fesses up the truth.
2=3 on Planet Pepe!
I don't know anything about regulation issues as they relate to short selling - it has a whiff of ideological anti-regulation to it, and ideology is what has been driving much of this administrations policies.
2 + bonus = 3. Showing off your skills at arithmetics, both of you?
Yeah, that's such an obvious mark of the Bush II administration. A manly reduction in regulation.
"Any Arithmetic on Planet Pepe is a bonus".
Bourbaki, 1952
aa
Did you ejaculate or did your hand just get tired!
I checked in here to hear your opinions on current affairs. You all can see here what such a challenge produced.
Ciao limey bastard! I'm off to spend my time being athletic and social. Nous Ygiis en Somati Ygii as the ancient greeks said.
trolls attract attention
That Nous ygiis... stuff means sound mind in a sound body or something like that. I guess ygiis is related to Hygeia, somato is the body of course, and nous must mean the mind. n_a is telling us we're crazy, but rationally and productively, I suppose. He thinks.
Hey I love the way you guys make sure nobody else stirs up your little right wing echo chamber here. This one hung on for what - 24h before aa called him a cunt ? nice...
now, you boys. we have to be polite to each other
Post a Comment