Enablers and the American Mindset

A fellow president recently asked me, “Which is worse: An man who commits evil acts or a good man who does nothing?”

My initial thought was to remind the gentleman than “evil” is a perception, however I quickly removed such a jackass response from my mind and began to focus on the question (though note I still wrote it in this blog…). I would just like to list a few thoughts since I don’t have much time to write. Hopefully you, the reader, will consider these and use them to examine your own life a bit. Here they are:

1.) A “good man who does nothing” is for all intensive purposes an enabler. By standing by the good man permits “evil” to occur and promotes future acts to be committed. Henceforth the other points assume that the good man stops being an enabler.
2.) Our country is full of these men (myself included).
3.) In order for the good man to combat evil, he must pick and choose is battles wisely.
4.) The most important battle is the one which directly effects the good man, in other words the one which effects him the most “closest to home.”
5.) The second most important battle is the one which effects the masses, i.e.- checking the government and business to prevent manipulation, loss of civil liberties, etc.
6.) That being said, what action needs to be taken to snuff out the evil act? (Violence? [I would hope not], Discussion?, Confrontation?, Slick Behind the Back Maneuvers?)
7.) If the good man attempts to stop an evil act and fails, what should he do?
8.) Once successfully stopping evil, what does the good man do next?

The question itself is very abstract and is highly dependant on who the good man is and what his view on society is and what his role is within that society. Typically Americans adopt the philosophy that the government should stay out of their business, that is until the shit hits the fan, and then the majority of Americans start screaming for help. It many ways the example provided by Mr. Jefferson is a useful microcosm for the American mindset: “I do as little as possible and don’t try to stop me, but if things get bad you [US government] better be there to help.” In other words, the average American is a young child learning to ride a bike without training wheels. Whenever things get bad and they fall, they want the training wheels back on and their father by their side. This simply means that we are a nation of enablers and thus we are facing our current economic woes. Many within the government and business knew that the current practices of risky lending, deregulation, and low oversight was leading to a slippery-slope. However they let the good times roll and those who were concerned felt they could do nothing and by not uniting enabled the condition to worsen. Thus here we are.

There is no easy solution. But to fix the problem we must first reconstruct the American mindset that has been programmed to enable. We must reteach the American public that this is our country. We have given our representatives the power to enact legislation and it is their job to pass legislation that benefits the majority, not the minority (ie- business and the wealthy). If they were doing this we wouldn’t be facing many of the issues we are now such as NAFTA, economic woes, bailouts, a broken social security system, bad health care, and war. Case in point: If we really had power as voters, the first bailout would have failed in Congress and never passed (as it was evident that the majority of Americans were against it).

If you ask me who is worse between an enabler and an evil man, I say the enabler. However if you ask me who is smarter, I say the evil man. For too long we have been enablers, its time to start fighting back, and whether you like him or not the election of Barack Obama was a warning shot to Washington that citizen won’t take their shit for much longer. It is up to Obama to keep the pubic involved; otherwise we will slip further into the abyss of enabling.

Thankful, I am.

What am I thankful for?

America, what are you thankful for?

I'm sure numerous blogs have been posted, speeches given at dinner, and cards exchanged; all of which elude to the idea that we should be thankful for each other and what we have in this world. Yet tonight I'm feeling a bit cynical.

The world is a mess. Poverty is at an all time high. AIDS is running rampant in other countries and growing in our own. Our economy is crumbling. Terrorists, drunk with ignorance and fundamentalism, are plotting to kill people every day. The prisons are crowded. The streets are unsafe. The list goes on and on, who knows what's going to happen tomorrow. Anything is possible in this shitty world...but...maybe I'm thankful for all of that.

We've been presented with a unique opportunity, one which hasn't been an option to the younger demographic since the 60s, and do you know what it is: It's the power to give a damn and do something about it.

I look around every day and I see young people intensely interested in politics. I know kids who stay up at night drinking beer and watching Anderson Cooper, getting hammered while debating issues. I see activists who won't take "no" for an answer. I've read columns proudly proclaiming: "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" I've seen charity. I've seen understanding. I've seen hate, and I've seen hate create immense love.

In the span of a week all these things have presented themselves to me and if it wasn't for the fucked up state of the world, I don't know if I would have seen it.

Our race possesses the unique ability to pull together when the chips are down and I don't have to tell you that the chips are far from down, they already hit the floor. Still I can't help but feel optimistic. Things are going to get worse, but they will also get better. We have an opportunity to make things right for everyone in this country, not just the upper crust or middle class. We have been given the chance to set into motion a long term vision for prosperity, and we have to hold our politicians to it. No more need to point fingers; we know why things got so bad. But it's because they got so bad that we can now take action.

We may live in one hell of a depressing place, but I'm thankful that I'm alive to see a time which is bringing the best out of people. There are a great many evils out there, but there is a lot of good too. Tomorrow is truly a new day if you wish it to be. I'm ready. Are you?

Take a Lesson From Machiavelli

In 1513 Niccolo Machiavelli wrote a treatise for Lorenzo de' Medici offering him advice as to how to rule should he come to unite the city-states of Italy. Il Principe, or The Prince, soon became a classic example of 16th century thought which went on to inspire numerous rulers such as Charles V, Catherine de' Medici, Cardinal Richelieu, and Frederick the Great.

What was special about The Prince was that it used history, not theory, to provide examples as to how a monarch should rule over the people. It also laid no claims to virtue. Asking the famed question whether it is better to be feared or loved, Machiavelli simply stated that to be loved was nice, but to be feared was better; a conclusion which dozens of dictators have also reached since the original publication of The Prince.

All this aside, the United States government would be wise to remember one important lesson from Machiavelli, especially given the recent news regarding the activities of Blackwater USA. Said Machiavelli:

"Mercenaries...are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious, and without discipline, unfaithful...The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you."

Two days ago it came to light that the mercenaries of Blackwater are guilty of ultra-violent misconduct in Iraq. For the last five years they have gotten away with manslaughter, assault, and illegally importing over 900 automatic weapons into Iraq without the proper permits. The United States Justice Department has done everything in their power not to charge Blackwater, even telling Congress they have no legal jurisdiction over the company. However numerous voices in and outside Washington are calling for Blackwater to be held accountable, though there is no guarantee that any actions will be taken against them.

Sadly, I'm of the opinion that no charges will be brought against them. Why? Because the US government needs Blackwater if they are to continue their war in Iraq.

The armed forces of the US have been suffering from dwindling numbers for years and with an increase unlikely in the decade, many inside the Pentagon will be wondering how long they can continue to sustain a volunteer army. Some will say the answer is to reinstitute the draft, however this is unlikely as it would be political suicide for any politician who supports it. The other option would be to continue the employment of mercenary organizations like Blackwater, which have already shown a complete disregard for human life in the name of collecting a paycheck. Still, all is not lost. There is a third option: stop fighting unnecessary wars and bring the boys home.

The Obama government is sure to focus more on infrastructure than flexing muscles on the global stage. As Obama and his aids search for ways to pull out of Iraq, they should consider terminating their contract with Blackwater and any other organization that kills for money. These organizations could care less about the health and well-being of the Iraqi or any nation within which they operate. All they care about is surviving battle so they can collect their paycheck, a very dangerous situation when you think about it. Would you trust a babysitter to watch your child if they knew you were going to pay them no matter what they did? Probably not. Then why would we trust our nation to babysitters toating sub-machine guns?

Eventually Blackwater will ask for more money or they will become a greater liablity than they already are. What will we do when they go to far? What will we do when they ask for money we don't have? The possible answers could range anywhere from leaving Iraq in a state of disarray, to taking control of sections of the country and holding them for ransom; the outcomes are numerous and equally horrible. There is only one option: scale back in Iraq, then get the troops home and end our relationship with Blackwater. Its the only way we can save face, distance ourselves from mercenaries and stop promoting the kind of blood tainted politics that we claim to fight against. If we don't take this course, who knows what could happen or what we will be held responsible for.

As I've said numerous times, the greatest problem with our nation is doubt. We always seem to convince ourselves that certain outcomes will never happen. This needs to change and taking a stance on Blackwater would powerful signal from the new government that we are privy the possibilities of the future and we do not want to be associated with blood-money.

He may have inspired some of the meanest bastards in history, but Machiavelli knew mercenaries were a bad idea. It's about time the US realized that too.

--Mr. FDR

Will MoveOn.org Move On? I Hope So.

I'm hoping Senator Obama wins the presidency tomorrow night. My hopes lie not in the fact that I see Obama leading this country in the right, more humanistic direction. Nor do they lie in the belief that his plan to cut taxes on the middle class will help stimulate the economy. No, I've come to terms with these and other issues weeks ago. Tonight the main reason I want Senator Obama to win tomorrow is so that MoveOn.org stops badgering me with incessant emails and phone calls.

I was once a proud member of the online community, signing petitions and sending them to my friends in emails. I even went so far as to encourage others to join. However once the primaries began I (an Obama supporter since day one and an extremely liberal individual) soon grew increasingly weary of the constant emails and plugs for money. Then as the bid for the White House drew closer to its conclusion, my weariness turned to annoyance as MoveOn members badgered me over the phone, practically forcing me to volunteer (apparently "maybe" in MoveOn's dictionary means "yes"). If this was not enough, I continually receive emails to this day asking for money or my time to ensure that Barack Obama wins the White House. I can't take it anymore!

Still you might be wondering why I'm upset. Shouldn't I enjoy their efforts since they're campaigning for my candidate? The answer: yes, but mostly no. Let me explain.

I love the fact that MoveOn has rallied so much support and grassroots activity for this election. Kudos lads. It's because of efforts by MoveOn members and other organizations that we're going to have a high voter turn-out this election with citizens certainly being more well-informed than they were last time around. Yet from here my enjoyment ceases and falls into a state of contemplation.

Given MoveOn's fervent support for Obama I can't help but wonder what they will do once he goes into office. Keeping in mind that MoveOn has always been a Democratic Party linked organization, its unsurprising that underneath their campaign for more citizen participation in government lies an agenda to usurp Republicans from positions of power. This has probably gone largely unnoticed because we've had a Republican president for the last 8 years, almost the entirety of MoveOn's existence. But once he is sworn into office, will they give Obama the same treatment they gave Bush?

I mean lets be realistic. It's highly unlikely Obama will meet expectations. Anyone who thinks the second he swears in the country will change for the better is either on cocaine or a moron. On top of this, Obama will need time and support to organize his plans and move them forward, after which it will probably take at least a full term before we start to notice the affects. All the while business, citizens, and congressman will surely get disgruntled about a multitude of things and President Obama will come under fire. Which then begs the question: Will MoveOn continue down its former path of citizen participation and critical evaluation of the government, or will it become Obama's core support group?

I'm sorry to say but given their conduct in the last 5 months, I think the answer is puppet. It's quiet clear to me that MoveOn has transformed into nothing but a front for one party/individual, to the point that I don't know if I can stay a member of the organization. The essence of MoveOn was change, change in the way citizens speak out against government policies and reach out to Congress. With Obama in office I can't see MoveOn being so aggressive, largely due to the fact that they put so much time and effort into getting him there. Thus, there is no other option but for them to become a front through which the Obama administration can spread their message. Will there still be petitions? Yes, I'm positive MoveOn will still have some petitions. Yet they certainly won't have any criticizing Obama, and by failing to do so they will help to silence the democracy they've tried to foster.

Some one call Jim Henson. I found him a new puppet.

Media Botches Coverage on US-Taliban Negotiations

"U.S. Mulls Talks With Taliban in Bid to Quell Afgan Unrest"

This was the headline Wednesday morning in one major U.S. newspaper (link). The story, only deemed front-page news by The Wall Street Journal, explains how Gen. Petraeus backs an effort to talk with certain elements of the Taliban in order to quell some of the violence and destabilization in Afghanistan. The classified recommendation advises the Afghan government lead the negotiations with the "active participation of the U.S.," which we know what that means...mainly that the U.S. would have a major roll in the negotiations though we probably would never know to what extent.

Still while we also don't know which direction the Bush Administration will take in the final weeks of its existence, it should be noted that the recommendation is supported by a man (Petraeus) who used a similar tactic to recruit Sunni tribes against al Qaeda, thus lowering the violence in Iraq. This makes the recommendation popular no doubt among many supports both within and outside the party, which in turn makes it a very real possibility. On the other hand however, many have argued that by arming the Sunnis of Iraq we are only leaving the door open for outright civil war once our soldiers do finally leave the country. Which begs the question of whether or not negotiations with the Taliban will lead to a similar result.

Frankly though, I don't care. Why? Because I'm more upset that this story was not covered by any of the other leading papers in the country. The fact that the Bush administration is considering this proposal only serves to highlight how hypocritical, damaging, and irrational their policies have been over the last eight years. The news should have had a field day with this story, and yet they said nothing! Opting instead to report on the world series, stocks, and gas prices.

This tiny nugget of information serves only as a stark reminder that if the government isn't controlling what information you have access to, the media is. I encourage all readers of this blog to read (or at least browse) multiple publications each day to ensure the maximum amount of exposure is obtained. It only takes fifteen minutes a day, which is well worth it considering how much it will improve one's understanding of issues and the world at large. Try it out.

Here are just a handful of publications you can bookmark to get started:

The New York Times
The Wall Street Journal
The Washington Post
USAToday
Time Magazine
Newsweek
The Nation

Obama and Marx

Upon reading my local newspaper I came across an article which said that Obama was a socialistic politician who reads too much Karl Marx. I couldn't help but think to myself, "Are you serious!?" I ask you dear reader, do you agree with his statement?

Whether you do or not let me get something straight: Obama is not Socialist nor is he Marxist.

For starters we must remember that while all marxists are socialists but not all socialists are marxists. Marxists believe in the ideas outlined by German philosopher Karl Marx and his partner Fredrick Engels, mainly the concept of historical materialism and the belief that the working class will overthrow the oppressors of business and society in order to move towards a utopian state of communism. In order to reach communism, which Marx said would take over fifty years, marxists believe society must make the transition from democracy to socialism, then to communism. Hence marxists are socialistic. On the other hand, all socialists are not marxists. The idea of socialism had been around before the time of Marx. In addition while many socialists at the time did agree that society needed to be radically altered, some socialists did not believe in the violence advocated by communist parties while other socialist groups did not feel that their even had to be a radical shift in power, just a shift in policies via democratic voting.

Socialism like many other ideologies has changed over the years and has many different branches, similar to the various forms of conservatism under the Republican banner. However regardless of form, all flavors of socialism support the belief that capitalism has led to the exploitation of millions and the development of an unequal society in which the view possess all the wealth.

The Democratic Socialists of America represent one form of socialism which many individuals across the nation support or would support if they knew anything about the organization. The DSA supports selective nationalization of key industries in a mixed economy (one which has privately and state owned enterprises). This means that the government would only have control over things such as hospitals, roads, schools, banks, and energy sources. In addition DSA believes along with a mixed economy their must be tax-funded welfare programs to ensure society is as healthy as possible. Socialism, as Debbs once eluded to, is a more humane less selfish form of government.

Does any of this sound like Obama's plans for the nation? No. It doesn't. He certainly doesn't advocate revolution for starters. His health plan only wants to drive down costs or/and make care available for lower income families. His economic plan would stimulate growth via taxes, the building of green technologies and infrastructure, and curbing wasteful spending (like the war in Iraq). He wants to get rid of lobbyists in Washington and make sure America talks first and shoots later. I don't see anything socialist, let alone marxist, in his ideas. Unless there is a correlation between taxing the wealthy and armed revoultion by workers that I'm missing...

All this aside and simply put the gentleman who wrote the column, like many ultra conservatives, have simply begun branding the "S word" on Obama as a last ditch effort so steal votes away from him and into the arms of McCain. This may have worked a few decades ago during the Cold War, but the American people are wise enough to realize that just like socialism does not mean marxism, Obama doesn't either.

Go out and vote on November 4th based not on what radical columnists tell you to think, but by what your own objective investigations compel you to do.

--Mr. FDR


More information about DSA can be found here: http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html

The Real Answer to Our Economic Problems: Abandoning Free Market Capitalism

Note: Before you, my beloved reader, continue I just want to preface this short essay with some background information. Many readers will notice the above title is eerily similar to Mr. Jefferson's recent post. This was of course intended. Readers should know that Mr. Jefferson and I have a long history of verbal sparing on economic issues and it is only in that spirit and with a smile on my face that I wrote what you are about to read. So please, do not think any ill-will is meant by this post. It is just another chapter in the battle Mr. Jefferson and I have been gleefully waging against each other since 2006.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This IS a failure of unregulated markets.

I couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, the very notion that our once powerful economy is "failing" is nothing new to the more liberal sort of this country as we've been saying it for as long as The Left as been alive and (barely) kicking. However this is not a time to point fingers and say "I told you so." People are loosing their retirement funds, houses, jobs, and untold amounts of wealth, something needs to be done. But what's to blame? I'll tell you: Credit Default Swaps (CDS) and a partial free market system.

CDS:

Credit Default Swap is a bastard child of JPMorgan, used in the mid-90s to solve a growing problem they were facing which could threaten to hold back their profits.

The problem: JPMorgan had loaned billions of dollars to governments and corporations, but due to federal law had to keep enough capital reserved in case the loan went bad. This meant that there were large sums of money which JPMorgan couldn't give out for loans because the government was "unfairly" forcing them to protect their investments.

The answer: JPMorgan started using the credit default swap. A CDS is when a bank or lending institution finds a third party to take responsibility for a bad debt (paying it if it goes bad) in exchange for small regular payments, just like insurance premiums. By doing this the extra money on their books reserved for covering bad investments can now be used to issue more loans.

Yet, how did this effect the economy?

By 2008 the value of CDS grew to $62 trillion with Lehman Brothers having $700 billion in CDS and AIG possessing $14 billion worth of CDS that they had loaned to banks, insurance companies, and God knows what else. When investments like these went bad the third parties (just like a credit card company) came calling for their money, and when groups like AIG couldn't pay (due to a lack of extra funds in reserve) they defaulted. Causing what happened next, which has been in the paper for the last two-months.

The problem with CDS was that they WERE NOT regulated by the government and no mechanism was in place to help determine their value.

CDS were used to promote investments in dangerous foreign markets, protect against company failure (like Enron), and most importantly to back mortgages. Lenders, like sharks, would let families take out mortgages they knew the family couldn't pay and would then offload the debt onto a third party via CDS. However once people started defaulting on their mortgages, the lenders started to default on their payment to the third party, which like a domino effect cause a crash as it was quickly discovered that no one (not even the third party) could pay or absorb the loss. When no one absorbed the loss AIG crashed and when AIG started to crash investors began to pull money out of every major lender and investment bank, causing the same effect as a snowball rolling down a hill.

Free Market Problem:

Free market capitalism caused this problem. While my colleague is correct in pointing out that the Feds got involved by lowering interests rates, he is wrong by placing blame on the government for labeling Fannie and Freddie as a GSE. The real problem was the unregulated CDS market, which grew and grew until lenders were caught in their own greed and the bubble truly did burst. While this example alone should show many why we don't need full-blown free market capitalism, I will offer another more powerful one to solidify the argument: the Rational Actor (RA).

Free market capitalism such as the version proposed by Mises, and the game theory which studies all brands of free market jargon, relies on the Rational Actor to ensure the system works properly. Let me explain:

"As this malinvestment is discovered markets; left unhampered by government interference; will naturally correct and be able to separate good investments from malinvestments." -- Ludwig von Mises

That sounds all well and good but Mises and his allies are relying on the players within the market to be Rational Actors. To be an RA means to be well informed about the state/aspects of the market and to act accordingly in the best interests of yourself and everyone else. As such the ideal RA would think: "This seems to be a bad investment. I'm going to ignore it so that I may invest in this safer endeavor."

Great, but free market believers make two mistakes:

1.) They assume the actor is well-informed and/or not withholding information.

A common mistake is to assume the actor knows everything about market economics so they can make sound decisions. This is impossible, especially as the market has gotten more bloated with technical jargon and complex schema. In addition, they also assume that other actors within the market (like a bank, stockbroker, or investment firm) are not withholding information from others to gain an upper hand. This means (for a simple example) that even though a stockbroker knows investing in a certain company would be bad for their client, they might recommend it anyways just so they can get a commission, be dammed if it puts their client at risk.

2.) They assume the rational actor is in fact rational.

Imagine two cars driving towards each other playing a game of chicken. One actor knows that he is either going to swerve and save his life or stay the course, make the other guy swerve, and be the hero. Rationality would dictate these thoughts in both actors. But what if one actor rips off his steering-wheel and chucks it over the side giggling to himself? Even though he is being irrational the other actor thinks he is still being rational and undoubtedly the chances of the cars colliding increases. This is what happened with mortgages. Families went in to banks looking for loans to buy a house, but instead of being an RA in seeing that a family couldn't afford certain mortgagees, the banks threw their steering-wheels out the window, irrationality loaning the family large amounts of money they could never pay back.

Now apply this to the whole market. If we had a free market system we would be relying on rational behavior by the actors within the system, something which I have just shown is not always the case. Actors within the economy or not well-informed, they withhold information to gain the advantage, and will irrationally act in order to increase their own gains. These three faults of the RA alone prove that a free market system is not the answer. A regulated one is.

If the market was more regulated the CDS market would never have swelled to the size it did or even took place to being with, actors would be fined for withholding information, and institutions would be more closely watched to ensure they do what's best for both parties, not just themselves.

Regulate It:

My fellow citizens, if you want more of the same economic worries push for a fully free market system that relies on "rational actors," we already saw were a partial system got us. However if you want to level the playing field, support a regulated market. It won't stifle competition or invention (a common claim by Republicans), all it will do is ensure that everyone is forced to play by the rules which in turn will ensure that everyone makes money and those companies that should fail will fail, something I'm sure free market believers will love.