Let me say that I would have voted against the $700 billion bailout. I think it's the wrong move. I think it just fattens the pockets of failed CEOs.

Having said THAT, Barney Frank is AWESOME:

No Bailout Part II

James K. Galbraith, author of The Predator State: How Conservatives Abandoned the Free Market and Why Liberals Should Too and chair of Economists for Peace and Security, says what we’re getting is:

A Bailout We Don't Need

The point of the bailout is to buy assets that are illiquid but not worthless. But regular banks hold assets like that all the time. They're called "loans."

With banks, runs occur only when depositors panic, because they fear the loan book is bad. Deposit insurance takes care of that. So why not eliminate the pointless $100,000 cap on federal deposit insurance and go take inventory? If a bank is solvent, money market funds would flow in, eliminating the need to insure those separately. If it isn't, the FDIC has the bridge bank facility to take care of that.

Next, put half a trillion dollars into the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. fund -- a cosmetic gesture -- and as much money into that agency and the FBI as is needed for examiners, auditors and investigators. Keep $200 billion or more in reserve, so the Treasury can recapitalize banks by buying preferred shares if necessary -- as Warren Buffett did this week with Goldman Sachs. Review the situation in three months, when Congress comes back. Hedge funds should be left on their own. You can't save everyone, and those investors aren't poor.

No Bailout...

Dean Baker, author of The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, says:

No Bailout: Stop Rewarding Incompetence

There is no doubt that the world financial system faces unprecedented strains as a result of the incompetence of our business and economic elites. The collapse of the system of finance that we started to see last week would be a genuine disaster. ...

However, we did get through the crisis last week with quick actions by the Fed and Treasury. There is no reason to believe that with comparable steps in the future, coupled with the raising the $100,000 limit on deposit insurance, as suggested by Jamie Galbraith, that we cannot keep the financial system operating.

Keeping the financial system alive, but in the intensive care unit, is not desirable. However, given the integrity and the competence of the individuals involved, it may be the best option.

Starving children

It's extraordinary to me that the United States can find $700 billion to save Wall Street and the entire G8 can't find $25 billion dollars to saved 25,000 children who die every day from preventable diseases.

- Bono, rock star and anti-poverty activist. (Source: The American Prospect blog)

Bush Sucks

This is the most irresponsible thing Bush could have said: ""Without immediate action by Congress, America could slip into a financial panic."

Economy is 9/10 perception. If America THINKS that Congress must act, then if Congress doesn't act, perceptions change and panic sets in, and THEN the economy tanks.

Bernanke said pretty much the same thing this week, without those words. I can't find the exact quote, but it was basically that SINCE the Administration said that Congress must act, THEN Congress must act OR ELSE the markets will panic. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

There are so many options for dealing with a "credit crunch" besides throwing $700 billion dollars to failing, irresponsible companies hoping to God that they use the money wisely.

DEFCONOMY

There isn't a damn thing about Glenn Beck that I agree with. Until now. Here's his "Defconomy" (think DefCon) scale that he wrote way back in February with the help of a few economists. We're obviously at DEFCON3.

• DEFCONOMY FIVE

How you'll know we're here: The housing downturn turns into a free fall, making it the worst collapse in our country's history. That not only triggers massive numbers of foreclosures and lost household wealth, but it also sets off another large wave of bank write-downs.

Odds we get here: Roubini told me that it's "extremely likely, even unavoidable" that we hit this stage because "the excess supply of new homes in the market is like we've never seen before." Prices, he believes, "need to fall another 10 to 20 percent before that clears."

• DEFCONOMY FOUR

How you'll know we're here: Americans upside-down on their mortgages and unable to pay their home equity loans begin defaulting on other debt, like credit cards, car loans and student loans. In addition, bond insurance companies lose their perfect credit ratings, forcing already troubled banks to write down another $150 billion.

Odds we get here: High. Roubini says that 8 million households are already upside-down on their mortgages and he thinks we could see that number go to between 16 million and 24 million by the end of 2009. A lot of those people, he believes, will simply walk away from their homes and send their keys back to the bank.

• DEFCONOMY THREE

How you'll know we're here: Some banks begin to crack under the pressure of continuing write-downs and mounting defaults by consumers. A national or large regional bank finally collapses, triggering hedge fund failures and general chaos on Wall Street, potentially leading to a 1987-style market crash.

Odds we get here: Very good. Roubini says that we'll likely socialize the losses, "effectively nationalizing the mortgages or the banks." It would be, he told me, "like Northern Rock (the large bank in England that was recently taken over by the British government) times three." He thinks the stock market will head south throughout the year as fears about a severe recession are confirmed.

• DEFCONOMY TWO

How you'll know we're here: Most forms of credit (both to consumers and businesses) become virtually nonexistent. That results in a "vicious circle" of additional write-downs, stock market losses, and bank collapses, which leads to even less credit being available.

Odds we get here: Good. Roubini says that credit conditions are becoming worse everyday across a variety of markets and won't be getting better anytime soon. Without extra credit available, people might have to actually (gasp!) live within their means.

• DEFCONOMY ONE

How you'll know we're here: Welcome back to 1929. A full economic meltdown results in a complete failure of the underlying financial system. What will be known to future generations as "The Greater Depression" has arrived.

Odds we get here: Not likely. Roubini believes that this will be a "very painful and severe recession" that could last for 18 months or more, but it will be more like 1981 than 1929. Families may be eating soup again, but at least it'll be in their own kitchens.

Great lines

This is a great line from a lefty economy blog about what's going on right now with the economy:

"Privatize the profits, socialise the risk."

http://www.angrybear.blogspot.com/

Government Bailouts

Isn't it great how the government will bailout big corporations and their wealthy investors--like Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Stearns, JP Morgan, etc.? Isn't it great that the millionaire investors don't have to worry about keeping their millions and losing everyone else's money?

And isn't it great that the Government will fight tooth and nail for every dime given to the poor? Health care for kids like SCHIP, welfare, food stamps, college grants, etc.?

YES to $80 Billion to fund AIG's bailout. NO to $4.8 Billion to fund SCHIP health care for kids for 5 years.

Corporate welfare--gotta love it!

Perceptive and infruriating

A perceptive, but utterly infuriating article here:

Not one of the people who are voting against Obama in this piece are voting against his issues. They are voting against the myths of a false Obama portrayed by the Republicans, by the media, and by the ghosts of the ancient past.

Utterly infuriating. I want to shake these people.

Channeling Edward R. Murrow

I [HEART] Keith Olbermann:

Technology

Some people are just unteachable when it comes to computers.

It's not that they're stupid. It's not that they're too old or not logical or don't understand the lingo or don't have experience or whatever. It's that their brains are wired differently than most of us. So they end up interpreting every little step in a way that is shockingly different than what one intended.

For example, today I was asked to help someone copy a file (a Word document). Now that's not my job, but it is so ridiculously easy, that I thought it would be no trouble. It took me 20 minutes to help her do it. Seriously. Something that should have taken about 1.5 seconds took 20 minutes.

Now there's at least 8 different ways to copy a file in Windows. And it seemed that every time I walked her through one of the ways, she found a way to do it wrong. And because I wasn't staring over her shoulder, I had a hard time figuring out what she was doing wrong because she SAID she was doing exactly what I told her to do.

Finally I thought of an absolutely fool-proof way of copying a file. I broke it down into these steps:

1. Open your My Documents folder.
2. Single-click on the file you want to copy so that it is highlighted.
3. Go to the Edit menu and select "Copy"
4. Go back to the Edit menu and select "Paste"

That would undoubtedly copy the file and automatically name it "Copy of [filename]."
No sweat right??

Didn't work. She said that her "copy" menu item was greyed-out. In my mind that meant, "well, then you didn't single-click on the file so that it was highlighted." But she insisted that she did.

I refused to give up on this way of copying because I honestly couldn't think of a simpler way to do it. So I persisted. Several times I asked her to re-play back for me every single thing she did and not leave out any steps. After about the third try, I finally figured out what she was really doing.

When I said "single-click on the file so that it is highlighted," she:
double-clicked the file,
which launched Word and opened the file in Word
Then she single-clicked on the "File" menu in Word, which of course highlighted the word "File".

So, naturally when I said "select copy" from the Edit menu, it was greyed out because now she was in Word, and there was no text selected to copy. I did finally get her to copy the file (since she was already in Word, I had her go to "Save As..." on her File menu.)

This isn't the only example, but this is how it goes. I say, "Click A" and they think I mean "Click Ayyyyy". It sounds right. But it's not.

America is Scaring the Hell out of Canadians

Every once in a while I read Cary Tennis, a kind of hip Ann Landers at Salon.com. Today there was the following letter from a Canadian. It expresses pretty much EXACTLY how I felt in 2004 and, more or less, how I feel today. Except that, unlike 2004, I am trying very hard to stay balanced and not let things get to me as badly as it did then.

Sadly, Cary Tennis usually gives good advice, but this time, simply didn't take the letter seriously, or somehow manages to miss the truthfulness of it, or tries to inject humor. I can't imagine a letter decrying, say, genocide in Rwanda, deserves humor as a proper response. That's the situation I think we face.

I'm especially troubled by the Canadian's phrase, "And at what point in time do I have to accept that you're sincere and take you at your "brand promise," as marketing and P.R. types like to put it, that your government is truly representative of your people? ".

This is exactly where I am at. The polls say (today) that McCain has a slight lead. How much longer do I need to wait before believing that, yes, indeed, more than half of this country REALLY DOES want to live this way? And that, more than half of this country has REALLY wanted to live the way we have these past 8 years. It's hard to believe that there's just a small minority manipulating others. Over and over again I encounter people who are intelligent, well-informed, rational people, who think and come to such ASTONISHING conclusions that I really have trouble accepting that we live in the same universe.

But we do. How do I accept that? What do I do about it? Last summer I wrote my congressman every single solitary day. I counted more than 300 letters that I wrote. The impact I had was absolutely nil. Anyway. I'm not really looking for a solution along the lines of "more effective activism." I'm looking for a state of mind that is able to accept reality as it is and decide what to do about it, and I don't think "activism" is it.

I haven't bothered to copy Cary Tennis' reply. You can read it here.

Dear Cary,

I've written to you once in the past, and you gave me great advice, so I'm hoping once again you'll share your valuable gift of a different perspective with me.

I'm a journalist and editor from Canada and I have a real problem that I'm struggling with these days -- my nascent anti-Americanism.

Allow me to explain. Like most Canadians I've always taken a bit of a sideways view of the U.S. Nice enough folks but sometimes a bit weird. Generally a force for good, but a bit much if they get too wound up. Just the usual uncertainty about the "other." Sort of like you guys not "getting" universal healthcare and hockey.

Well, for the past several years I've seen more and more evidence that America is a country to be avoided at all cost. You've all been wound up into a righteous rage. And the results haven't been pretty. You've turned your back on some of the wonderful things that made your country great and embraced some extremely ugly things -- imperialism, resource wars, torture, etc.

Our former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau once observed (I'm paraphrasing somewhat): "Living next to America is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, one is affected by every twitch and grunt."

That's all fine and well when the elephant is generally even-tempered. But when it's in a foul temper there is little to no protecting yourself from being trampled.

As resources become scarcer and I see us sitting on a pile of them and again and again I hear that "the American Way of Life is non-negotiable," I see a higher and higher likelihood that this is all going to play out badly.

There's a 1932 feeling to the whole thing, with the U.S. playing the role of Germany. Unfortunately that would make us Czechoslovakia and the Alberta tar sands the Sudetenland.

Bottom line, my old coping strategy -- which was something along the lines of "love the Americans, not that wild about their government" -- just isn't working anymore. America 2.0 scares the living crap out of me. And at what point in time do I have to accept that you're sincere and take you at your "brand promise," as marketing and P.R. types like to put it, that your government is truly representative of your people?

And if that's so, how can I possibly like and support your country? And make no mistake, if there ever was a natural friend and ally it's me and my ilk. I live right next door and we share many of the same values and a common history. We have coincident interests in many areas. But, increasingly, I see trying to do business with the U.S. is like trying to do business with the mafia. The rules are slanted against you right from the start. And if you don't believe me, do a little reading on the softwood lumber trade deal -- the one where you willfully ignored an established treaty and basically told us to like it or lump it.

You have every right to govern your country as you see fit. But unfortunately you aren't content to busy yourselves with market fundamentalism and spiritual excess at home. You're equally determined to remake the rest of the world in your image -- whether we want it or not. Your evangelicals mess in our domestic politics, our current government is a pale imitation of your neocons with expat U.S. academics as key advisors, and you insist on attempting to export your insane war-on-drugs mentality.

Additionally you're shocked and appalled when my country doesn't immediately toe the line to your every whim. Back in the schoolyard of my youth there was a word for that, of course: "bully." America presents itself as a nation of bullies.

If you don't believe me, ask a good friend of mine who was down in Grand Forks, N.D., on a day trip in 2003 during the run-up to the Iraq war. Our former prime minister had just announced that day that Canada would continue to contribute troops to the war in Afghanistan, but wouldn't be joining the Iraq war. He parked his car. He went into the mall for a bit of shopping. He came out. He found his car with Canadian license plates keyed. He heard later that several Canadian cars got similar treatment.

Help me, Cary (and readers). Tell me how I can put this aside. I fear that the flow of history is preordained. I fear that regardless of who wins (though I suspect McCain will in the end) none of it matters. Until you're able to accept that American exceptionalism is bunk and that Manifest Destiny is nothing more than a polite way to describe empire, the script for this movie promises heartbreak.

There remains a faint glimmer of hope in my heart. Again and again in the past America has reinvented itself when it has needed to. Perhaps, once again, you'll be able to pull it out of the ditch. But I've been hoping for that for many years now. And I'm beginning to get discouraged.

Afraid of Americans

Why Ford Is So Stupid

Ford is doing badly, not because of the AFA boycott, but because they are stupid!

Ford has a new car called the ECOnetic, that gets 65 mpg. But it will ONLY sell in Europe. Why? It's being built in Britain and Ford thinks that Americans just won't buy a diesel car.

IDIOTS. People will buy almost ANY car that gets 65 mpg! Even if Diesel is more expensive (which could be changed if some taxes were lowered on diesel), people would still rather get a high mpg car.

Naturally, Honda and Toyota are all working on new diesel engine cars to sell to the U.S. So Ford is actually ahead of them, but refusing to take advantage of it.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Good article here. Key points:

• The flaw in their business model is that they are owned by private shareholders but backed by the government. As a result, lenders do not care about the risks the companies are taking because they know that the government will eventually step in to protect them against losses on their loans.
• This could all have been prevented if Congress had acted years ago to eliminate the GSE business model. There are three possible models -- privatization, nationalization or liquidation. Congress and the president can decide which it will be, but the worst idea is to reconstitute them as GSEs. Unfortunately, that seems to be the choice Treasury Secretary Paulson made in the plan he announced Sunday

What he neglects to point out though is that there is another flaw that still isn't being addressed: the groups that gives credit ratings to these loans aren't doing their job right.

When Moody's rates a chunk of sub-prime loans as AAA, it isn't so much the LENDER like Freddie Mac who are at fault as it is the RATER and the INVESTOR.

Yes, Freddie Mac's govt backing gave them the ABILITY to buy junk loans for the cheap (and shouldn't have been). But it is the RATER who gave a false rating and enabled Freddie Mac to buy and sell junk loans.

The Rater should have rated the sub-prime loans for what they were--B or C, not AAA because Freddie Mac bought them.

The Investor, looking for a safe investment, will always pick an AAA loan. But they were FOOLS to believe Moody's ratings. And they knew it. People like Warren Buffett knew it--he told everybody that these investments were junk.

The mortgage banks, KNOWING what they were doing, were taking advantage of Freddie Mac to make a quick buck. They knew they can could buy junk loans and hand them off to Freddie Mac. No responsibility, all the profit. And virtually no rules for how bad of a mortgage they can write and still get Freddie Mac to buy it. When anybody can walk off the street and tell a bank that they make $400,000 and the bank just hands them a loan without verifying anything, that's a bank regulatory problem.

The problem is far more systemic than the article suggests. Democrats were always leary of reigning in Freddie Mac because to do so meant that low-income people may not be able to get loans. So that's understandable. Yes, part of the problem is Freddie Mac as a govt-backed entity, but the real problem is how people perceive and take advantage of that and the lack of regulations for how mortgages get written.

Love is What We Are Born With

Love is what we are born with. Fear is what we learn. The spiritual journey is the unlearning of fear and prejudices and the acceptance of love back in our hearts. Love is the essential reality and our purpose on earth. To be consciously aware of it, to experience love in ourselves and others, is the meaning of life. Meaning does not lie in things. Meaning lies in us.

Marianne Williamson

Animator vs Animated

Republicans violate copyright law

First Jackson Browne, then John Cougar Mellencamp, then ABBA, then Van Halen, and now Heart...the first suing, the others only complaining that McCain and the Republican party are using their music without permission and thus violating copyright law. Isn't it interesting how the Republican party can't seem to find music that artists are willing to let them play?

And isn't even more interesting that they are willing to violate the law and play it anyway?

It has always struck me as ironic that the Republican party is known as the "moral" party and the ones that are "tough" on crime. This is just one more example of how loose they play with the law. I guess the law just doesn't apply to them.

Philip Yancey

“No one ever converted to Christianity because they lost the argument.”
-- Philip Yancey

Alaska Independence Party

So the Alaska Independence Party is the one that wants to secede from the U.S. and set up Alaska as a separatist government. And Palin was a member. And McCain's trying to distance Palin from that. They released her voter registration records to show that she's a good ol' Republican.

But, you know, THIS video makes it pretty hard to distance Palin from the party!

Global Distribution of Military Expenditure