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.

A Second Bill of Rights

"It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens."

--Franklin D. Roosevelt, from his 1944 State of the Union address

It would appear our longest serving President was on to something before his untimely and unfortunate death. Reading the above quote, it would also be funny to consider that many of the points FDR made are now major concerns for the American public, that is if it wasn't so sad. Imagine our country if we would have adopted, politically (as FDR wanted it), a second credo or Bill of Rights striving towards all of the aforementioned goals. What would our country be like?

Would we still have poverty on the scale we do? Would we be suffering from our current situation on Wall Street and in the housing market? Would proper health care cost so much?

It's hard to say, and it's even more difficult to defend a position against these points if you're one of the lucky ones in this country not suffering from poverty, unplayable medical bills, or any one of societies many ills.

Think about it. It's easy for one to stand up and say governmental policies helping the less fortunate at the expense of the wealthy are bullshit, especially if you're one of the wealthy. Yet one must remember that the current source of their wealth is the governmental system that outlined the laws and rules that in effect allowed one to create their wealth. The wealthy owes as much to the poor and government as they do to their own hard work, in most cases maybe even more.

All around the world people are realizing that if we are going to make this world a great place for our kids we're going to have to do it together, hand-in-hand, no matter what the cost. This isn't about traditional values, explanations for markets, or "having the right to keep what's mine." This is about looking around your surroundings and understanding that we have just as much of a responsibility to our neighbors as we do to our family.

In light of this I everyone who reads this post to please consider what the above quote really means. However I want you to do so not as a Socialist, Republican, Libertarian, Democrat, Anarchist, or any other philosophy. No, instead take the time to consider FDR's points as a human first. When you're done, consider the world around you from that same perspective of humanity. Finally, think about what it would be like if you were not living in your current socio-economic position. If you do this I promise you that when it's all said and done, you will see what we as a nation need to do.

Society, it's time for a new deal. Are you with me?