TNR Blames And Credits JK Galbraith For Contemporary Financier Fascism

It would be nice if liberals could make up their mind.

The New Republic's Tim Noah here traces TARP, Dodd-Frank and ultimately the general state of regulatory capture (Stigler) of the government by the banks to John Kenneth Galbraith's vision in his 1967 The New Industrial State:

Galbraith (who died in 2006) argued that big U.S. corporations had become immune to competition. Any effort to break them up into smaller companies would neither succeed nor—given the complex challenges of a modern economy—be especially desirable. Better to keep them in harness through a partnership with government. “Planning,” Galbraith wrote (in a sentence you could probably get arrested for writing today), “must replace the market.”

Galbraith was writing about manufacturing giants like General Motors and U.S. Steel. These seemed indestructible at the time, but of course they would soon prove all too susceptible to competition from abroad. Still, Galbraith’s vision of the regulatory state comes pretty close to describing today’s relationship between the federal government and a different oligopoly: the Big Six megabanks. ...

When the 2008 financial crisis hit, the feds went into Galbraithian planning mode. They bailed out the banks through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), arranged mergers, and, through the Dodd-Frank bill, required big banks to prepare “living wills” showing how they would dismantle themselves in orderly fashion should the need arise. ...

Conservatives were wrong to oppose the government’s bank rescue . . ..

For conservatives who feel queasy advocating the breakup of private enterprises, MIT’s Johnson offers this consolation: Remember George Stigler. Stigler, a conservative economist who died in 1991, won the Nobel for a theory that basically said Galbraith’s partnership approach didn’t work because of “regulatory capture,” i.e., the various ways corporations tame their minders—for example, by maintaining a revolving door between industry and government. Rather than try to control powerful corporations, Stigler thought government should use antitrust law to break them up and let competition rein them in.

What's wrong with this analysis is that banking is not a private enterprise and hasn't been since 1913. The then new partnership of banking with government in 1913 failed in less than 20 years, requiring Glass-Steagall in 1933, which was reactionary liberalism at work. And what we have just witnessed is an instant replay of that debacle, only in faster motion. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 overturning Glass-Steagall took only 9 years to blow up. But unlike Glass-Steagall, the grotesque of interventions in the wake of this latest panic has done nothing to demarcate clearly the public vs. the private in banking, and consequently keeps the public, and the country, at risk while insuring advantage to those closest to the printing presses at the Treasury. Money goes to money, as they say out in the sticks.

It's not much solace that liberalism's fingerprints have been and continue to be all over the inception and development of financier fascism in the United States. There don't seem to be any conservatives smart enough to understand the advantage it presents to them, and to the country. Or maybe it's just that they've been captured, too.

Sarah Palin Remains A Vulgarian

At CPAC, reported here:

Palin also regaled listeners with a look into Christmas at the Palins. (Palin is set to pen a holiday book later this year.) She said her husband, Todd, got her a metal gun rack for the back of a four-wheeler, and she gave him a rifle. “He’s got the rifle, I got the rack,” she said.

NR called the speech "sprawling", as in "she lay sprawled on the bed, legs spread out".

Republicans, Esp. Mitt Romney, Still Don't Understand There Is No "End" In Politics

Here's Mitt Romney at CPAC, saying "in the end" we'll win:

"Each of us in own way is going to have to step up and meet our responsibility. I'm sorry I won't be your President, but it will be [as] your coworker and I [will] work shoulder-to-shoulder along side you. You see in the end we'll win. We will win for the same reasons we have won before . . .." 

Oh really. If we won before then why do we need to win again? We must have lost somewhere along the way if we have to win again. This is the mistaken thinking of politicians and the people who follow them, that political victories are somehow permanent, especially if we get the right people in there, meaning "us" as opposed to "them".

What it betrays, depending on the source, could be any number of things including narcissism and hubris, but perhaps in this case we see an ideological frame of mind as opposed to a conservative one, the kind of mind which imagines, or at least sells, a better future which unfortunately never arrives because it cannot arrive, due to the minor detail that the future like the present will be populated by the same flawed individuals as ourselves.

Marxists like Obama think that way, and so do too many religious people. And too many Republicans to be legitimately called conservatives, which is a main reason Romney did not appeal as a clear alternative.

CPAC clapped anyway.

Inflation In The 1970s, Illustrated

In the 1950s Woody Hayes taught the football offense known as "three yards and a cloud of dust".

By 1973 my line coach, Fritz Goettel, who passed away in July 1993, insisted on five.

The Banks Rule America And Blaspheme Against Capitalism

In "Bankistan Vanquishes America" here Barry Ritholtz rages against the criminal enterprise under which we live, with a rash of supporting links. Under Clinton, Bush and Obama, its grip has only gotten tighter.

From the conclusion:

On the other side lay the bank apologists, corrupted politicians, and crony capitalists. They advocate the Big Lie of the financial crisis. They choose to ignore the facts and data that disprove their narrative. They continue to push the lies that the bailouts were a good investment. (They weren’t). They work against the Bipartisan consensus that the giant banks should be broken up. They ignore the many former bank CEOs who call for the break up of “Too Big to Fail” banks. They mandated that GSEs were banned from Lobbying, but they made sure that the big banks retained their influence peddling and hold on Washington DC.

They no longer represent the voters of their districts, but instead are the elected representatives of Bankistan.

And unless we do something — and soon — they will vanquish America.

Things haven't changed much since 1819 when the revolutionary paper of fictitious capital resulted in fraudulent bankruptcies on the backs of real capital, real property and commerce (think of today's zero interest rates returning nothing to retirees, collapse in the value of housing long purchased honestly, and moribund GDP and zero velocity money punishing millions with unemployment):

The enormous abuses of the banking system are not only prostrating our commerce, but producing revolution of property, which without more wisdom than we possess, will be much greater than were produced by the revolutionary paper. That too had the merit of purchasing our liberties, while the present trash has only furnished aliment to usurers and swindlers. The banks themselves were doing business on capitals, three fourths of which were fictitious: and, to extend their profit they furnished fictitious capital to every man, who having nothing and disliking the labours of the plough, chose rather to call himself a merchant to set up a house of 5000. D. a year expence, to dash into every species of mercantile gambling, and if that ended as gambling generally does, a fraudulent bankruptcy was an ultimate resource of retirement and competence. This fictitious capital probably of 100. millions of Dollars, is now to be lost, & to fall on some body; it must take on those who have property to meet it, & probably on the less cautious part, who, not aware of the impending catastrophe have suffered themselves to contract, or to be in debt, and must now sacrifice their property of a value many times the amount of their debt. We have been truly sowing the wind, and are now reaping the whirlwind. If the present crisis should end in the annihilation of these pennyless & ephemeral interlopers only, and reduce our commerce to the measure of our own wants and surplus productions, it will be a benefit in the end. But how to effect this, and give time to real capital, and the holders of real property, to back out of their entanglements by degrees requires more knolege of Political economy than we possess. I believe it might be done, but I despair of it’s being done. The eyes of our citizens are not yet sufficiently open to the true cause of our distresses. They ascribe them to every thing but their true cause, the banking system; a system, which, if it could do good in any form, is yet so certain of leading to abuse, as to be utterly incompatible with the public safety and prosperity. At present all is confusion, uncertainty and panic.

-- Thomas Jefferson

No President In Post War Has Made More People Suffer Jobless Longer Than Obama

One Stupid Thing That Really Is George Bush's Fault

Daylight saving time starting three weeks early:

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub.L. 109–58) is a bill passed by the United States Congress on July 29, 2005, and signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 8, 2005, at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The act, described by proponents as an attempt to combat growing energy problems, changed US energy policy by providing tax incentives and loan guarantees for energy production of various types. ...

The bill amends the Uniform Time Act of 1966 by changing the start and end dates of daylight saving time, beginning in 2007. Clocks were set ahead one hour on the second Sunday of March (March 11, 2007) instead of on the first Sunday of April (April 1, 2007). Clocks were set back one hour on the first Sunday in November (November 4, 2007), rather than on the last Sunday of October (October 28, 2007).

Republican Sen. Rob Portman Of Ohio Flips On Same Sex Marriage

As reported by The Associated Press, here:

Portman said his views on gay marriage began changing in 2011 when his son, Will, then a freshman at Yale University, told his parents he was gay and that it wasn't a choice but "part of who he was." Portman said he and his wife, Jane, were very surprised but also supportive. ... Portman told reporters Thursday that his previous views on marriage were rooted in his Methodist faith.

Portman voted for DOMA in 1996 as representative from Ohio's 2nd Congressional District, and was elected to the Senate in 2010 with Tea Party support.

Portman's wife, who used to work for Democrat Tom Daschle, flipped to the Republican Party when Portman agreed to flip to the Methodist Church.

There's a whole lotta flippin' goin' on, especially toward the voters. If Sen. Portman had an integrity, he'd resign.

How The Mujahideen Fight Against Drones

How the Mujahideen fight against drones, according to The Associated Press, here:

1 – It is possible to know the intention and the mission of the drone by using the Russian-made “sky grabber” device to infiltrate the drone’s waves and the frequencies. The device is available in the market for $2,595 and the one who operates it should be a computer-know-how.

2 – Using devices that broadcast frequencies or pack of frequencies to disconnect the contacts and confuse the frequencies used to control the drone. The Mujahideen have had successful experiments using the Russian-made “Racal.”

3 – Spreading the reflective pieces of glass on a car or on the roof of the building.

4 – Placing a group of skilled snipers to hunt the drone, especially the reconnaissance ones because they fly low, about six kilometers or less.

5 – Jamming of and confusing of electronic communication using the ordinary water-lifting dynamo fitted with a 30-meter copper pole.

6 – Jamming of and confusing of electronic communication using old equipment and keeping them 24-hour running because of their strong frequencies and it is possible using simple ideas of deception of equipment to attract the electronic waves devices similar to that used by the Yugoslav army when they used the microwave (oven) in attracting and confusing the NATO missiles fitted with electromagnetic searching devices.

7 – Using general confusion methods and not to use permanent headquarters.

8 – Discovering the presence of a drone through well-placed reconnaissance networks and to warn all the formations to halt any movement in the area.

9 – To hide from being directly or indirectly spotted, especially at night.

10 – To hide under thick trees because they are the best cover against the planes.

11 – To stay in places unlit by the sun such as the shadows of the buildings or the trees.

12 – Maintain complete silence of all wireless contacts.

13 – Disembark of vehicles and keep away from them especially when being chased or during combat.

14 – To deceive the drone by entering places of multiple entrances and exits.

15 – Using underground shelters because the missiles fired by these planes are usually of the fragmented anti-personnel and not anti-buildings type.

16 – To avoid gathering in open areas and in urgent cases, use building of multiple doors or exits.

17 – Forming anti-spies groups to look for spies and agents.

18 – Formation of fake gatherings such as using dolls and statutes to be placed outside false ditches to mislead the enemy.

19 – When discovering that a drone is after a car, leave the car immediately and everyone should go in different direction because the planes are unable to get after everyone.

20 – Using natural barricades like forests and caves when there is an urgent need for training or gathering.

21 – In frequently targeted areas, use smoke as cover by burning tires.

22 – As for the leaders or those sought after, they should not use communications equipment because the enemy usually keeps a voice tag through which they can identify the speaking person and then locate him.



When The Drones Come After Us, Here's What We're Facing

The missile is about $70K a pop, and a little shorter than yours truly, and considerably thinner.

Michigan And Tennessee To Fly Armed Reaper Drones, Based Elsewhere

Michigan and Tennessee are not going to get C-130 cargo aircraft missions, but armed Reaper drone missions, according to a widely circulated AP story. The way the story is worded is alarming because it makes it seem that the traditional support functions of the bases are being transformed into offensive operations.

A Cadillac, Michigan, source here reproduces the story and mentions a munitions dump going in at Battle Creek in addition to the command and control facility to operate drones, but an mlive.com story here says the drones themselves will be based overseas. Nevertheless, it appears that the Battle Creek base is preparing for a future when there will be offensive drone launch, recovery and support:

"The base is also working toward ... the Launch and Recovery aspect of the RPA [remotely piloted aircraft], a regional munitions storage area, and a Cyber Command mission. "

It is said that the MQ-9 reaper has an effective range of almost 3,700 miles and can operate at up to 50,000 ft. and for as long as 42 hours straight.

Why has President Obama been reluctant to disavow the use of drones on American soil? Maybe it's because that's what he's been planning for all along.

Rush Limbaugh, Shill For Florida Sugar?

What a joke. Rush Limbaugh just accused the regime of trying to interfere in the "free market" in sugar, to drive up the price. Like we've got a free market now. Obama hates sugar like he hates oil and just wants to make it more expensive to use, you know, because liberals hate fat people, but the fact is sugar would be cheaper than it is today if Florida producers weren't protected with tariffs, quotas and price supports.

Americans pay more for sugar already because it's NOT a free market.

Rush once said Donald Trump wasn't a conservative because Trump advocates tariffs against the Chinese.

Given the choice between Trump who's for tariffs and says so, and Limbaugh who's for them but says he isn't, the choice is clear.

236K New Jobs Last Month, Or 100K?

The government report that 236,000 jobs were added last month comes from a long controversial model. An actual private count, as reported here, has a number nearly 58% lower than that:

For all the optimism of the government's report Friday, there were other weaknesses in the data.

More than 100,000 of the new positions came through the Labor Department's Birth/Death Model, which approximates the number of positions created through new business creation and failure.

The Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, also from the government, showed a net of 145,000 new positions filled, which is at or just below the level associated with bringing down the unemployment rate.

Market research firm TrimTabs said its independent count, which relies on income tax withholdings, showed just 100,000 new jobs.

"The U.S. economy is not as strong as the conventional wisdom believes." said TrimTabs CEO David Santschi.

Think Mish Will Correct This Blooper?

The deeper I dig the smellier it gets

Seen here:

In "real" (CPI-adjusted) terms, 50% of households are no better off than they were in 1988. Let's dig a litter deeper.

The Gas Hydrates Revolution Will Dwarf The One In Shale Oil/Gas

And the desperate Japanese are leading the way to its successful recovery within 5 years.

So says Ambrose Evans-Pritchard for the UK Telegraph, here:

'The immediate discoveries in Japan's Eastern Tankai Trough are thought to hold 40 trillion cubic feet of methane, equal to eleven years gas imports. The company described the gas as "burnable ice", saying the trick is free it from a crystaline cage of water molecules by lowering the pressure. Tokyo hopes to bring the gas to market on a commercial scale within five years.'

The stuff is all over the world, especially along coastlines of continents, deep, deep down, in quantities double the known fossil fuel varieties.

The future is bright!

Follow the link for more charts and discussion.

Depression In Real Retail Sales Finally Ends, Beats Old 2006 High

The old high in Dec. 2006 was $180.016 billion. The depression low was $155.927 billion in March 2009, a decline of 13.4% in inflation adjusted retail sales. The new real gain in monthly retail sales, however, is barely $350 million, with an "m".

It remains to be seen if the new higher level of real retail sales can be sustained with increased payroll taxes factored in, presumably taking money out of retail circulation. Velocity of M2 and MZM were already at historic lows in Q4 2012 in the post-war period at the temporary lower payroll tax rate.

Gasoline prices were last consistently below $3.00 a gallon in 2010 and since then have averaged about $3.50 a gallon. At roughly 10% of total retail, sudden spikes in gasoline prices can produce expenditure on gasoline which represents a phantom increase to sales, and also mask the fact that miles-traveled remain in depression, a more concrete, so to speak, decline in velocity caused chiefly by enduring low employment by historical measures.

Update, 4-15-13: While the above graph shows real retail, that is, retail level adjusted for inflation, I have found a better representation of reality by Doug Short, reproduced and referenced here, which also adjusts for population growth and removes gasoline because it is really a form of taxation which obscures the underlying level of true retail activity. Bottom line: real retail is actually still about 8% off the 2005 high measured the same way.

Commentary Magazine Defends Reagan's Liberalism

Peter Wehner, here:

"[I]magine the Norquist and Shirley standard being applied to Reagan in the 1970s. If Jeb Bush’s comments unleashed heated attacks, even given his sterling anti-tax record, think about what Reagan’s support for unprecedented tax increases–including higher taxes on top rates, sales taxes, bank and corporate taxes, and the inheritance tax–would have elicited. The Gipper would have been accused of being a RINO, a pseudo-conservative, unprincipled, and a member of the loathsome Establishment. Fortunately for Reagan (and for America) the temptation to turn conservatism into a rigid ideology was not as strong then than it is now."

Let's face it.

Reagan was a Democrat in recovery who brought a substantial number of Democrats in recovery to the Republican Party, where they met fellow liberals with whom they could forge an alliance around the liberalism bequeathed to them by Wilson and FDR, without the communist fellow traveling. Conservatives got pushed to the side, or taken for a ride.

Reagan defended the welfare state but on a scaled back basis with emphasis on less reliance on government and lower income taxes. The New Deal was not scaled back, nor was The Great Society. Even the ramped up Cold War to defeat the Soviets was interventionist and therefore arguably anti-conservative in its basic impulse. The resulting glorification of the US military would horrify the founders who feared them as instruments of tyranny in the hands of an American Caesar.

And now here we are with an enlarged welfare state in OBAMACARE, and actually having a public kerfuffle about an administration which resisted abjuring the use of said military on American soil to snuff out people it and it alone decides are a threat. You know, like gun owners. Are we really supposed to be charmed by the likes of the Krauthammers of the world who insist what Obama has been doing is entirely consistent with the model of Abraham Lincoln who put fellow Americans Confederates to death based on a private interpretation of the constitution?

Nothing's changed, except for the worse. His truth keeps marching on.

Another Observer Notices The Broken Link Between The Monetary Base And Markets

Kopin Tan, who otherwise believes the Fed has been juicing markets, for Barron's, here:

"[W]hile the Fed tripled its balance sheet, not all that money gushed through to the real economy—one reason why inflation is just 2%—as banks funneled the money to mend their balance sheets, corporations hoarded cash, and Americans paid off loans and saved more.

"Between 1960 and 1999, ratcheting up the supply of money often directly lifted stock prices. In the 1970s, for instance, stocks' annual returns were 70% correlated to the growth in money supply. But that link has recently broken down: year-over-year growth in money supply slowed in 2009 and 2012, but stocks rallied in both of those years."

John Hussman Warns Correlation Is Not Causation

Here in "Two Myths and a Legend":

'This first myth is embodied in statements like “since 2009, there has been an 85% correlation between the monetary base and the S&P 500” – not recognizing that the correlation of any two data series will be nearly perfect if they are both rising diagonally. As I noted last week, since 2009 there has also been 94% correlation between the price of beer in Iceland and the S&P 500. Alas, the correlation between the monetary base and the S&P 500 has been only 9% since 2000, and ditto for the price of beer in Iceland (though beer prices and the monetary base have been correlated 99% since then). Correlation is only an interesting statistic if two series show an overlap in their cyclical ups and downs. ...

'In the case of quantitative easing, much of what we observe as “causality” actually runs the wrong way. Market declines cause QE in the first place, and the result is a partial recovery of those declines.'

Depression In Oil Consumption Continued In 2012 At 18.56 million Barrels Per Day

US Petroleum Consumption '80-'11, eia.gov

Reuters had the story here on Feb. 27:

Oil demand for the year was at 18.56 million bpd, down 2.08 percent compared with 2011, with petroleum use falling in every month in 2012 except May.

Consumption in 2011 was 18.95 million bpd according to the Energy Information Administration, here.

Peak consumption was in 2005 at 20.8 million bpd, so 2012 is still 10.8% off the high reached eight years ago.

Consumption in 2012 is almost equivalent to consumption in 1997 when it stood at 18.6 million bpd.

The decline in 2008 to 17.06 million bpd represented a decline in petroleum consumption of a whopping 18%.

TSA Feels Up Claire McCaskill, Senator Upset

Story here.

Airports, where even the senators get treated like criminals by the TSA. But in that case the TSA would be right.

Corporations Have Been Considered Persons Since At Least 1775

And not only have corporations been considered persons since at least 1775, the original 13 American Colonies were considered corporations who like individuals subject to their king also owed everything to him.

To wit, one Samuel Johnson, harmless drudge, in "Taxation No Tyranny" (1775) here:

An English colony is a number of persons, to whom the king grants a charter, permitting them to settle in some distant country, and enabling them to constitute a corporation enjoying such powers as the charter grants, to be administered in such forms as the charter prescribes. As a corporation, they make laws for themselves; but as a corporation, subsisting by a grant from higher authority, to the control of that authority they continue subject. ...

To their charters the colonies owe, like other corporations, their political existence. The solemnities of legislation, the administration of justice, the security of property, are all bestowed upon them by the royal grant. Without their charter, there would be no power among them, by which any law could be made, or duties enjoined; any debt recovered, or criminal punished. ...

It is, say the American advocates, the natural distinction of a freeman, and the legal privilege of an Englishman, that he is able to call his possessions his own, that he can sit secure in the enjoyment of inheritance or acquisition, that his house is fortified by the law, and that nothing can be taken from him but by his own consent. This consent is given for every man by his representative in parliament. The Americans, unrepresented, cannot consent to English taxations, as a corporation, and they will not consent, as individuals. ...

A corporation is considered, in law, as an individual, and can no more extend its own immunities, than a man can, by his own choice, assume dignities or titles. ...

That corporations, constituted by favour, and existing by sufferance, should dare to prohibit commerce with their native country, and threaten individuals by infamy, and societies with, at least, suspension of amity, for daring to be more obedient to government than themselves, is a degree of insolence which not only deserves to be punished, but of which the punishment is loudly demanded by the order of life and the peace of nations.

So in one sense the American revolution was a throwing-off of the corporate yoke and the deliberate breaking of a business contract the terms and conditions of which had fallen into dispute, with the added overlay of political philosophy lately inclined to view monarchy as tyranny.

And we thought crony capitalism was a late invention of fascist Italy when America was actually born of it.

New Food Stamp Record Set In December 2012: 47.79 Million Americans

Libertarian Mish Apologizes For Spelling "Dike" "Dyke"

Gee, that's a first. Of all the misspellt wurds on Mike Shedlock's improbably famous blog which he has never apologized for let alone corrected, and they are LEGION, he not only apologizes for this one, but corrects it. As I've pointed out over and over again, people who can't spell are dangerous.

Libertarians would not be caught dead offending dykes, but the rest of us English-spelling-Nazis have to take it, well, like men! 

Here in "Not Enough Fingers to Contain the Leak in the Dike":

"Apologies for originally misspelling dike as dyke. It was not intentional. I rushed a post, heading out the door for a party."

Dykes everywhere agree: there are never enough fingers.

Nancy Pelosi: Let's Make Elections Less Important!

The anti-democratic Democrat Rep. Nancy Pelosi strikes another blow against that sorry thing, the American voter, here:

“All of us come here to get a job done for the American people, and certainly that is the case with the president of the United States,” Pelosi told CNN chief political correspondent Candy Crowley. “I think that these meetings are not something to say, ‘Well, I’ll do this with you now and do that with them later.’ I think it is, ‘Let’s get some things done together to make elections less important.’”

Elections with less importance are elections which are easier to win. You know, as in if the election isn't that important, we don't really need your votes. Which is just voter suppression of the opposition. Damn straight she'll get her side out.

Democrats. Always trying to impose their vision:

"We will go through the gate. If the gate is closed, we will go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we will pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we will parachute in. But we are going to get health care reform passed for the American people for their own personal health and economic security and for the important role that it will play in reducing the deficit." -- Nancy Pelosi, March 2010, here

And Bill Kristol says worrying about tyranny is kooky.

Jeb Bush doth protest too much.

Jeb Bush appears on five or six shows on Sunday and accuses the media of being obsessed with politics.

Uh huh.

Only Kooky People Say America Is Hurtling Toward Tyranny

So says, who else?, Bill Kristol, here:

"On the other hand, Paul’s political genius strikes us as very much of the short-term variety. Will it ultimately serve him well to be the spokesman for the Code Pink faction of the Republican party? How much staying power is there in a political stance that requires waxing semihysterical about the imminent threat of Obama-ordered drone strikes against Americans sitting in cafés? And as for the other Republican senators who rushed to the floor to cheer Paul on, won’t they soon be entertaining second thoughts? Is patting Rand Paul on the back for his fearmongering a plausible path to the presidency for Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz? Is embracing kookiness a winning strategy for the Republican party? We doubt it. ...

"And while Obama’s a bad president, and America’s got many problems, it isn’t, as Paul sometimes seemed to suggest, hurtling towards tyranny."

A substantial part of the English speaking world in 1776, notably in America itself, found the following sentiments from the Declaration of Independence equally hyperbolic:

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. ... In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

It's good to know who's the loyalist, and who the patriot.

Rep. Amash Is A Fake Conservative

Rep. Amash is getting increasingly bold in his use of code words which show that he is a fake conservative. I think he's triangulating in this way in order to get ready for a Senate run.

He stresses "independence" to distance himself from the Republican brand discredited among the young and to find support among people who thus vote Democrat by default.

He stresses "moderation" to distance himself from conservative social issues which are increasingly viewed as extreme, rebranding them as "federal" issues to escape criticism from the Christian right.

The past has nothing to teach us, especially "positions that were popular in the 1990s". Will he soon repudiate the Two State Solution? I'm sure that will please voters in Dearborn.

"Individual liberty" is code for moral license, which includes same sex marriage and legalized drugs, flying under the banner of states rights.

And perhaps most importantly, what better way to get some street cred with Democrats and liberals than to play the race card against Sen. John McCain? A wise man might have let the senator simply self-destruct. But an ambitious, grasping man, on the other hand, sees an opportunity in piling on. Who is the has-been Sen. McCain to the lowly Rep. Amash, anyway? Wouldn't Justin Amash be happier in the Democrat Party where race is at the center of politics? That's where libertarianism comes from, after all. Success to libertarians is defeating Republicans, and taking over the Republican Party and not the Democrat Party from which they came. When's the last time a libertarian defeated a Democrat, anyhow? But in 2012 libertarians gloried in defeating a number of Republicans.

If Republicans were smart they'd wise up and realize they have a little fifth column problem. But they won't. They're the stupid party, after all.

February Unemployment Rate Drops To 7.7%

The full BLS report is here in pdf.

The official number of the unemployed has dropped from 12.8 million a year ago to 12.0 million in February 2013.

Multiple job-holding is up 4.5% year over year. Full-time with an additional part-time job is up 10% year over year. Part-time with another part-time job is up 5.6% year over year.

Total non-farm employment remains 3 million off the January 2008 peak of 138 million even though today the country is larger by 11 million souls.

The depression in employment continues.

Sen. Lindsey Graham Must Be A Prophet: He Is The Wrong Guy

The prophet, Sen. "Illegal Alien" Grahamnesty, speaks, here:

“If I can’t go have dinner with the president of the United States to talk about the problems that face our nation, I shouldn’t be running,” Mr. Graham said. “If you want to elect me and for me to promise you I’ll never talk to any Democrats or to the president about solving our problems, you’re voting for the wrong guy.”

For all his faults, Sen. Rand Paul's filibuster over the drone threat to America was right, and Sen. Graham's and Sen. McCain's opposition to it was wrong.

While Sen. Paul was on the Senate floor doing his job, his Republican colleague squishes were yucking it up with Obama.

FoxBusiness Is Full Of Baloney About The Monetary Base

Throughout 2007, when the stock market reached its previous all time high in October of that year, the adjusted monetary base of the United States was very stable and averaged just $851 billion.

During the financial crisis month of September 2008, however, the base leaped up from that vicinity between September 10th and September 24th to $949 billion, and by Thanksgiving 2008 had skyrocketed all the way to $1.5 trillion, near which level it remained even as late as March 2009, when the stock market plummeted to its historic lows since 2002-2003.

The increase in the monetary base was a whopping $718 billion, most of it in response to bank failures and panic on Wall Street during a narrow window of two months in the fall of 2008, but the stock market tanked 56% from the October 2007 highs anyway by the following spring.

Now FoxBusiness is arguing, here, that the increase in the monetary base from March 2009 to today, $1.3 trillion, is somehow responsible for "juicing" the stock market's remarkable 134% rise since that low.

Nevermind the stable and relatively low monetary base had nothing to do with the 2007 highs, nor did the rapid expansion of the base by $718 billion forestall the dramatic collapse of the market in 2009, but FoxBusiness wants you to believe anyway that piling up the monetary base since March 2009 by $1.3 trillion is the reason the stock market is at its lofty heights today, $11.2 trillion higher in total market cap than in March 2009.

That's embarrassingly wrong. The expansion of the monetary base has been irrelevant to the stock market, but it is an important part of keeping the banking system solvent, which is what this entire episode has been about but no one really wants to discuss anymore even as the velocity of money makes new lows, for the obvious reason that if the banks go under, everything goes under, so ixnay on the anksbay, OK?

This Is Obama's Driver For Jobs

Rush Limbaugh Still Blames The Republican Base, Not The Candidate

Here, yesterday:

"That's why we're losing, 'cause we keep nominating moderates.  You know, Mitt Romney is one of the most decent men ever to run for the presidency in my lifetime, and probably in many people's lifetimes, a totally decent guy.  But four million Republicans didn't vote in 2012.  Four million fewer than did in 2008.  The Republican conservative base stayed home.  Had they voted, we wouldn't be talking about Obama's second term.  There wouldn't be one."

Why blame conservatives for not voting for liberals, Rush?

The margin of victory wasn't 4 million. McCain lost the election in the swing states, by 1.4 million votes. Romney cut that in half, losing by 770,000 votes.

If anyone is to blame, it's the libertarians, the followers of Ron Paul and Sean Hannity, who were not on board, not the conservatives. And we haven't heard one conservative pundit say so yet even though libertarians were responsible for big losses for Republicans in Senate and House races in 2012. 

Have FoxBusiness And EMAC Gone Just A Little Bit Nuts?

Elizabeth MacDonald writes here that FoxBusiness has proof, proof!, that the Fed is juicing the markets.

Am I the only one who thinks this is crazy?

We're supposed to believe that the value of the total stock market is up $11.2 trillion since March 2009 because the Federal Reserve expanded the monetary base by . . . $1.2 trillion during that time?!

Talk about a money multiplier. That's a ratio of 9.3:1. Obviously the Congress should get us on this program right away. They could have taken our nearly $3 trillion in the Social Security Trust Fund and turned it into $28 trillion by now. Pikers.

Between Sequester Cuts And Payroll Tax Hike, Expect 41% Hit To Nominal GDP

Between the sequester spending cuts and the payroll tax rate going back up by 2 percentage points, I'm expecting a decline in nominal GDP of as much as 41%.

The sequester cuts come to $85 billion.

The payroll tax hike will remove conservatively $96 billion from American paychecks. Based on payrolls in 2011 of $6,239 billion, about $1,459 billion was exempt from Social Security taxation. Taking 2% of the remaining $4,780 billion yields a payroll tax hike of $95.6 billion using 2011 payrolls, the last available from SocialSecurity.gov.

Nominal GDP increased between October 2008 and October 2012 by $1,769.5 billion. That's been an average of $442 billion a year, nominal, over the last four years.

Subtracting the sequester cuts and the payroll tax increase (conservatively $181 billion) from that means cutting nominal GDP by about 41%.

Radiation Conditions Near The Fukushima Reactors Almost 2 Years Since The Accident

Tepco (Tokyo Electric Power Company) here provides a useful summary of daily radiation conditions at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant complex.

A series of 8 monitoring posts recently measured an average air radiation level of just over 5 microsieverts per hour along the perimeter from north to west to the south end of the facility.

On March 4, 2013, the level in the air at the west gate was measured at 6 microsieverts per hour.

At the main gate, the level increased to 20 microsieverts per hour.

On the south side of the main building for the power station, the level leaped to 200 microsieverts per hour, varying little throughout the day, between 191-201 microsieverts per hour. Working at that last location outside for 8 hours a day for just under 4 days would give an American a typical ANNUAL dose of radiation.

Radiation In Namie Town, Japan, Almost 2 Years After Fukushima Meltdowns

The pdf of the latest readings of radiation in the areas surrounding the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (marked with an X on the map inset) may be viewed here.

Namie Town remains the hardest hit with one startling sampling point as high as 21.1 microsieverts/hour, which totals to about 185 millisieverts/year. Normal there is 1 millisievert/year.

Americans typically get about 6 millisieverts/year from all sources environmental, travel- and medical-related. In a long lifetime of 80 years one wouldn't accumulate 500 millisieverts, but in Namie you could have theoretically already come close to that if you had stayed there for the two years since the accident because the levels were much higher in the immediate aftermath. 

The Bush/Obama Depression In Electricity Consumption

Between 1990 and 2000, US electricity consumption per capita grew at a rate of almost 17%.

But since then, between 2000 and 2010, electricity consumption actually FELL at a rate of 2% despite growth in population at a rate of nearly 10%.

By 2010, consumption was still 2.3% below the 2005 peak achieved under George W. Bush.

The trend is probably due mostly to the transfer of manufacturing capacity to China, and to some extent to energy efficiency efforts in the US.

Meanwhile in China, the decade of the 1990s witnessed growth in electricity consumption per capita of 94%, and in the decade to 2010 of 196%. Overall, since 1990 Chinese growth in electricity consumption has outstripped the US growth rate by 33 times.

The House Should Pass A CR Of $2.983 Trillion And Drive The Blade Home

Now that Republicans have Democrats off balance with a small spending cut, the up-coming vote on a continuing resolution to fund the government for the remainder of the fiscal year presents an opportunity to drive the blade home.

I propose going back to the status quo ante in 2008 when outlays were at $2.983 trillion, and freezing spending at that level until revenues have in fact caught up. In 2013 revenues are estimated to be just under that level, at $2.902 trillion.

Since it was Democrats who abandoned the statutory budget process after 2009 and funded the government through continuing resolutions at the new much higher level laid down that year, nearly 18% higher in 2009 than in 2008, two can play at that game.

If Democrats in the Senate, and Obama, don't like the new diet of $249 billion a month, they can say no and be responsible for shutting down the government.

Just don't telegraph the plan. Keep Democrats off balance as before, demanding Senate action on a budget. We all know they won't pass one, and when they don't, just pass a continuing resolution to fund the government at the last second and adjourn. The procedure will probably have to be done monthly, and probably indefinitely.

There will be wailing, weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Table of federal receipts and outlays here. 

Barack Obama: Chester The Sequester Taxpayer Molester

According to The Des Moines Register here, Pres. Obama told two of its editors just two weeks before the 2012 election that he was COUNTING ON the sequestration cuts which he now says are going to hurt middle class Americans, and that he was COUNTING ON the expiration of the Bush tax rates, in tandem "to implode the partisan gridlock" referred to by his interlocutor at The Register (full transcript at the link), to which the following was part of the reply by the president:

"In the short term, the good news is that there’s going to be a forcing mechanism to deal with what is the central ideological argument in Washington right now, and that is: How much government do we have and how do we pay for it?

"So when you combine the Bush tax cuts expiring, the sequester in place, the commitment of both myself and my opponent -- at least Governor Romney claims that he wants to reduce the deficit -- but we’re going to be in a position where I believe in the first six months we are going to solve that big piece of business."

In other words, Obama said he was counting on the sequestration gambit and the expiration of the Bush tax rates gambit to accomplish his "balanced approach", which is tax rate increases combined with spending cuts "to reduce the deficit". Notice how he likes "force" especially when he can distance himself from it, and how that force can impose an ideological conclusion for which he otherwise is reticent to take responsibility. The man isn't really up to being the tyrant.

President Obama all along has wanted this sequestration event to occur, and any tax increase he could get along with it. The forced spending cut idea was his idea from the beginning according to Bob Woodward, but Obama could only welcome the forced expiration of the Bush tax rates idea. He's just sorry he was not the author of it. As it turned out, he got some tax increases on the rich in the year end tax deal ($60 billion annually), but more importantly he got the reset of the Social Security payroll tax ON EVERYBODY without so much as a shot being fired by anyone in Washington. The latter comes to about $100 billion annually. Add in a few spending cuts now on the backs of all these people he's been parading as victims, and Obama is as happy as a clam.

Yes, some of the American people are being actually molested by the president's policies, but they just don't know who the perp is because the creep can make himself invisible. Unfortunately for them, because they are mostly denizens of government, private sector Americans who have been living in greatly reduced circumstances for four years now because of Obama's on-going depression just aren't sympathetic to their plight.

The trouble is, neither is Obama.

I Know! Let's Get The Sequestration Cuts From The Banks!

In an editorial on February 20th, here (which has caused quite the hubbub), Bloomberg.com maintained that most big banks are not profitable because their preferred rate to borrow from the government amounts to a gift roughly equal to their stated profits:

The top five banks -- JPMorgan, Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. - - account for $64 billion of the total subsidy, an amount roughly equal to their typical annual profits . . .. In other words, the banks occupying the commanding heights of the U.S. financial industry -- with almost $9 trillion in assets, more than half the size of the U.S. economy -- would just about break even in the absence of corporate welfare. In large part, the profits they report are essentially transfers from taxpayers to their shareholders.

No one seems to be inquiring too deeply, however, why the banks are not profitable without continuing massive taxpayer support ($83 billion annually -- remind you of anything beginning with the letter "s" and starting today?).

Gee, could it be because of all those bad mortgages on and off the books which are not performing and cutting into their capital? Ya think?

And maybe, just maybe, the Fed's policies are trying to repair this one thing only, while telling us it's to help with employment, housing, the stock market even, blah, blah, blah, pissing down our backs and tellin' us it's rainin'?

If this were really a free market economy with a private banking industry, we'd have had the equivalent of $85 billion in sequestration spending cuts for years already by not subsidizing these losers.

And another thing we wouldn't have is these big banks. They would have failed already.

Warren Buffett, Amoral Crony Capitalist, Bought An Indulgence From The Left

So says Daniel Mitchell of The Cato Institute, here:

"If you’re an amoral person with political connections, it’s possible to make a lot of money.

"Warren Buffett lined his pockets by making a government-subsidized investment in Goldman Sachs during the financial crisis.

"The rest of us suffered and he got richer, but the left seems to be okay with that perverse form of redistribution because he supports class-warfare tax hikes. Sort of like buying an indulgence in the Middle Ages."

I really like that analogy with the church because it speaks to the failure of all idealist conceptions to deliver on what they promise. This is as true of socialism as it is of capitalism, of fascism as it is of Christianity. All offer a promised land which never seems to arrive, but you have to ask yourself who thought this stuff up.

Like beer to Homer Simpson, it is we who are the cause of and the solution to all of life's problems.

The Founders Got Many Things Wrong, Especially The Role Of Their Own Rationalism

Here:

"American politicians and those who serve them think that they’re ducks, and although they aren’t, they are likely to continue to quack ideologically. [I]t is doubtful that a non-ideological politics, which emphasizes both the limitations and the necessity of political activity—the need for real consensus, the need to address actual not 'potential' problems, etc.—could succeed in the United States."

Not to mention the rise of political factionalism, the declining influence of religion and morality, and the power of parchment.

Even In September 2009 Obama Showed He Didn't Understand The Size Of The Country

From his speech to Congress, here:

"First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have."

Well, what if you are not among those "hundreds of millions", eh? Then you are out of luck in his mind, evidently. Who could he possibly be referring to?

It is customary to speak of tens of millions when speaking of up to 100 million.

It is customary to speak of a couple hundred million when speaking of up to 200 million.

It is customary to speak of a few hundred million when speaking of up to 300 million.

But "hundreds of millions" refers to far more than 300 million, especially if you are not lucky enough to be among them. By analogy with 100 million, you could be speaking of up to 1,000 million. That's 1 billion for those of you in Rio Linda.

Anyway, all those extra people in the "hundreds of millions" category must be those people you didn't know about from the 57 states Obama says he visited during the campaign "with one left to go", not counting Alaska and Hawaii! Densely populated states, those in excess of the 50 states, they must have been, too, which begs the question why he hadn't visited them yet!

The US population at the time of the speech was about 307 million. So by September of 2009, seven months after having been sworn in, Obama had had plenty of time to figure out the size of the country, but he hadn't.

The guy's a moron, and you know it. He wasn't even "learning on the job". Toking on the job is more like it.

Rep. Maxine Waters Is A Complete Moron, Just Like Rep. Hank Johnson

Rep. Maxine Waters obviously has no idea about the size and scope of the American working population. She states here that 170 million jobs will be lost if tomorrow's spending cuts go through.

If you simply check here, you'll discover that there are fewer than 152 million Americans working at all jobs as far as the Social Security Administration is concerned. Pretty shocking for an elected US representative not to know that, and pretty shocking that she thinks we'll all be without jobs in an instant because of a puny spending cut. By her reckoning, the WHOLE DAMN COUNTRY will become unemployed tomorrow because we cut 2% from federal spending. Even more shocking is it that this gets reported with a straight face. But then you remember that we have a congressman from Atlanta who thinks Guam might tip over if we station too many troops on one side of it, the estimable Rep. Johnson.