Hillary is finally dropping the pretense of being any sort of economic moderate. With her call for government-mandated measures concerning housing markets, as noted in the Wall Street Journal's piece on the front page of its December 4 edition this past week, she has unveiled her true socialist colors.
Calling for
"a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures and a five-year freeze on adjustable mortgage rates,"
according to the Journal piece, Hillary leaves no doubt that she's willing to ride roughshod over market dynamics.
Let's consider the existing housing market. No servicer who believes they can keep a homeowner in their home is going to wantonly foreclose. It's simply too expensive to pull that trigger capriciously.
Regarding adjustable rate mortgages, since when has any governmental agency been better at estimating risk than markets? Don't you think, by now, the market is going to exact higher prices on adjustable rate loans anyway?
Not to mention, most lenders are likely to eschew them for marginal buyers.
As with other Democratic legislators, Hillary mistakenly views a small slice of subprime defaults as the same thing as a general mortgage industry crisis. It's not.
Sure, her plan will play well to the lower-income crowd which Hillary wants to elevate to victim status. But, in truth, these are adults who chose to take on mortgage debt. Nobody put a gun to their heads when these people elected to borrow beyond their means to repay debt.
If government, including the Bush administration, and all Democratic Presidential candidates, would simply let the markets do their job, whatever costs should be borne, and lessons learned, will be delivered by markets in the next 6-12 months.
However, the last thing we need is for Presidential candidates to begin architecting rules for capital markets when they don't, as in Hillary's case, even understand the functions of our market economy to begin with.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Friday, December 7, 2007
Observing Pearl Harbor Day
Just a short note to observe the 66th anniversary of the Japanese attack on the US Naval and Army bases at Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941. This attack, coming, as it did, explicitly in advance of the Japanese declaration of war on America, galvanized public commitment to defeating Japan as nothing else probably ever could.
Whether Roosevelt conspired to facilitate so much damage and loss of life among American servicemen has never been clearly determined.
Never the less, on this day, I think it's worthwhile to consider our modern counterpart, September 11, 2001.
That day's terrorist attack on the World Trade Center towers parallels the Pearl Harbor attack. There was no explicit change in relationship status between the United States and another recognized state.
Rather, it marked the first time the shadowy forces which share extremist Islamist beliefs struck Americans on our own soil.
In the midst of the current campaigns for the November, 2008 Presidential election, it is timely to note the different reaction of the American people from that of our predecessors in World War II.
Now, Democratic candidates insist there is no terrorist threat, and that we should simply withdraw from combat in foreign lands. They fuel the public's desire to believe that sacrifice is unnecessary to protect our way of life, liberty and freedom. The mainstream media is complicit in this campaign.
Rather than see Pearl Harbor as an isolated event, I think we should take a lesson from it and rededicate ourselves to eliminating the forces which, without reason, threaten, and have attacked our country, wherever they may be found.
Remember the Arizona. Remember Pearl Harbor.
Whether Roosevelt conspired to facilitate so much damage and loss of life among American servicemen has never been clearly determined.
Never the less, on this day, I think it's worthwhile to consider our modern counterpart, September 11, 2001.
That day's terrorist attack on the World Trade Center towers parallels the Pearl Harbor attack. There was no explicit change in relationship status between the United States and another recognized state.
Rather, it marked the first time the shadowy forces which share extremist Islamist beliefs struck Americans on our own soil.
In the midst of the current campaigns for the November, 2008 Presidential election, it is timely to note the different reaction of the American people from that of our predecessors in World War II.
Now, Democratic candidates insist there is no terrorist threat, and that we should simply withdraw from combat in foreign lands. They fuel the public's desire to believe that sacrifice is unnecessary to protect our way of life, liberty and freedom. The mainstream media is complicit in this campaign.
Rather than see Pearl Harbor as an isolated event, I think we should take a lesson from it and rededicate ourselves to eliminating the forces which, without reason, threaten, and have attacked our country, wherever they may be found.
Remember the Arizona. Remember Pearl Harbor.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
A Liberal's View Of The US Financial System
Due to a continuing interest in outdoor sports and pursuits, I subscribe to Outside Magazine. The monthly's liberal tilt is something I usually ignore, e.g., the fawning pieces on Al Gore, Robert Kennedy or Jimmy Carter.
A few days ago, I read a profile of a young female mountaineer who, in keeping with the magazine's preference for with anyone born with an infirmity, has a bloodflow-restricting condition.
According to Outside's profile, Ms. Levine,
"worked on Wall Street and as a finance director for the Governator."
OK.
She is then quoted as saying, in answer to a question regarding the relative dangers of climbing versus Wall Street,
"In one, you're in extreme environment with no control. You've got to keep your bearings in storm after storm. But in climbing you actually accomplish something."
It's one of those typical liberal generalizations- "Wall Street" means oceans of money for undeserving capitalists who create no value, while a mountaineer is next to Godliness.
Here's another perspective.
"Wall Street," or, more properly, the American financial system, provides capital which fuels the growth of countless business activities, providing jobs for millions of Americans. The provision of inexpensive, secure electronic systems has markedly affected, in a positive manner, the functioning of business activity throughout our country, and the world.
Mountain climbing seems to be among the most selfish, valueless pursuits in the outdoors. What is accomplished that benefits anyone but the climber? I'm sure there are conservatives who climb, too. But they probably don't disparage productive business effort by comparison.
Just another view of how liberal values differ markedly from those of conservatives.
A few days ago, I read a profile of a young female mountaineer who, in keeping with the magazine's preference for with anyone born with an infirmity, has a bloodflow-restricting condition.
According to Outside's profile, Ms. Levine,
"worked on Wall Street and as a finance director for the Governator."
OK.
She is then quoted as saying, in answer to a question regarding the relative dangers of climbing versus Wall Street,
"In one, you're in extreme environment with no control. You've got to keep your bearings in storm after storm. But in climbing you actually accomplish something."
It's one of those typical liberal generalizations- "Wall Street" means oceans of money for undeserving capitalists who create no value, while a mountaineer is next to Godliness.
Here's another perspective.
"Wall Street," or, more properly, the American financial system, provides capital which fuels the growth of countless business activities, providing jobs for millions of Americans. The provision of inexpensive, secure electronic systems has markedly affected, in a positive manner, the functioning of business activity throughout our country, and the world.
Mountain climbing seems to be among the most selfish, valueless pursuits in the outdoors. What is accomplished that benefits anyone but the climber? I'm sure there are conservatives who climb, too. But they probably don't disparage productive business effort by comparison.
Just another view of how liberal values differ markedly from those of conservatives.
Dick Armey On CNBC This Morning
Dick Armey, former Representative (R-TX) and House Majority Leader from 1995-2003, was guest host on CNBC's SquawkBox program this morning. His candor regarding the Presidential nomination races was quite refreshing.
On the Democratic side, Armey called Obama's candidacy "a joke." Noting the junior Illinois Senator's lack of any relevant accomplishments for the office of President of the US, Armey simply dismissed him as unelectable.
Hillary, he felt, actually has plans. Contrary to my own prior comments, Armey distinguished Hillary from her husband, erstwhile Democratic President Bill, in that Armey feels the latter had nothing aside from a simple ambition to be President.
In Armey's opinion, Hillary is different in that she espouses classic liberal Democratic, big-government programs to radically alter US society. In that sense, Armey declared that she is the Democrat's best candidate to represent their views.
On the Republican side, Armey feels that Guiliani will be nominated, and is the party's best candidate. He didn't even bother discussing Huckabee, whom CNBC co-anchor Joe Kernen dismissed as simply a temporary front-runner.
Armey didn't, to my recollection, provide details as to why he expects Guiliani to best Romney, but he did say that facing Hillary would give the former mayor of New York his, and his party's, best chance of retaining the White House.
Realizing how polarizing Hillary is, Armey feels that Giuliani will win the votes of otherwise apathetic Republicans who want to defeat Hillary, no matter which Republican does it.
On reflection, I found myself agreeing with Armey. I regret that this plain-spoken, sensible moderate conservative has left government service. Though active in two non-profit public service organizations, one dealing with national economic issues, and the other with retirement savings solutions for America, watching Armey this morning led me to feel that he is in no way devoid of value to provide for some Republican President's cabinet.
On the Democratic side, Armey called Obama's candidacy "a joke." Noting the junior Illinois Senator's lack of any relevant accomplishments for the office of President of the US, Armey simply dismissed him as unelectable.
Hillary, he felt, actually has plans. Contrary to my own prior comments, Armey distinguished Hillary from her husband, erstwhile Democratic President Bill, in that Armey feels the latter had nothing aside from a simple ambition to be President.
In Armey's opinion, Hillary is different in that she espouses classic liberal Democratic, big-government programs to radically alter US society. In that sense, Armey declared that she is the Democrat's best candidate to represent their views.
On the Republican side, Armey feels that Guiliani will be nominated, and is the party's best candidate. He didn't even bother discussing Huckabee, whom CNBC co-anchor Joe Kernen dismissed as simply a temporary front-runner.
Armey didn't, to my recollection, provide details as to why he expects Guiliani to best Romney, but he did say that facing Hillary would give the former mayor of New York his, and his party's, best chance of retaining the White House.
Realizing how polarizing Hillary is, Armey feels that Giuliani will win the votes of otherwise apathetic Republicans who want to defeat Hillary, no matter which Republican does it.
On reflection, I found myself agreeing with Armey. I regret that this plain-spoken, sensible moderate conservative has left government service. Though active in two non-profit public service organizations, one dealing with national economic issues, and the other with retirement savings solutions for America, watching Armey this morning led me to feel that he is in no way devoid of value to provide for some Republican President's cabinet.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Hillary v. Obama- Judgment vs. Experience?
Two 'management' professors, Warren Bennis and Noel Tichy, wrote an editorial column in last Thursday's Wall Street Journal entitled, "Judgment Trumps Experience."
Citing their own research, they wrote,
"Mr Obama and his handlers are putting their money on his judgment, disdaining the experience card as a stale rerun of earlier campaigns, skewering Mrs. Clinton's twisty judgments about Iraq, and subtly pushing the present over the legacy of the '60s, destiny over dynasty.
After a five-year study of leadership covering virtually all sectors of American life, we came to the inescapable conclusion that judgment regularly trumps experience. Our central finding is that judgment is the core, the nucleus of exemplary leadership. With good judgment, little else matters. Without it, nothing else matters."
There are several aspects of this piece that leave me incredulous.
First, who can point to anything Obama has done that suggests he possesses sound judgment? He hasn't even been in the windbaggy US Senate for a full term yet. Nobody has advanced aspects of his Illinois state political/legislative career to suggest extraordinary judgment on his part.
Are we to believe that simply because Obama possesses no relevant experience for the office of President of the US, he must have judgment, instead?
For that matter, Clinton has little or nor relevant experience, either. We know she lacks values and moral scruples. Why didn't Tichy and Bennis study those qualities?
If I were to cast Hillary v. Obama on qualities, it would be, simply, blind ambition v. naive desire.
But, let's move beyond Bennis' and Tichy's typification of the Democratic front-runners, and focus on the incredible feat they claim to have accomplished.
Just how does one study 'leadership covering virtually all sectors of American life?'
What was their sample size? Their research instrument? How did they test the instrument for content and predictive validity? How does one measure 'judgment,' or 'experience?' How does one measure outcomes of various levels of each quality?
How in the heck do you study qualities like 'judgment,' and believe you know good from bad, for the purposes of projecting the results to America, in its every aspect?
Could there not be some interaction effects? Perhaps some level of judgment, mixed with some level of experience, might be better than either one alone? How would you measure those?
This pieces was, on the whole, completely unconvincing to me. It suggests the sort of 'research' that emanates from the 'management' field in business schools that give the discipline such a bad name. It seems to me that 'management' degrees are to business schools what 'communications' degree is for liberal arts.
And that's not a compliment.
I found this piece to be an embarrassment in terms of calling Tichy's and Bennis' effort 'research.' It would take a far more detailed explanation of this sort of work for me to accept the methodology and conclusions. Qualitative areas such as these invite poor research to be performed and communicated, without readers of the results fully understanding how it was attempted.
If nothing else, though, the article gave me an opportunity to realize how bereft of both experience and judgment the two candidates are. And how difficult it would be to attempt to actually ascribe causality to either quality in the manner apparently done by Tichy and Bennis.
Citing their own research, they wrote,
"Mr Obama and his handlers are putting their money on his judgment, disdaining the experience card as a stale rerun of earlier campaigns, skewering Mrs. Clinton's twisty judgments about Iraq, and subtly pushing the present over the legacy of the '60s, destiny over dynasty.
After a five-year study of leadership covering virtually all sectors of American life, we came to the inescapable conclusion that judgment regularly trumps experience. Our central finding is that judgment is the core, the nucleus of exemplary leadership. With good judgment, little else matters. Without it, nothing else matters."
There are several aspects of this piece that leave me incredulous.
First, who can point to anything Obama has done that suggests he possesses sound judgment? He hasn't even been in the windbaggy US Senate for a full term yet. Nobody has advanced aspects of his Illinois state political/legislative career to suggest extraordinary judgment on his part.
Are we to believe that simply because Obama possesses no relevant experience for the office of President of the US, he must have judgment, instead?
For that matter, Clinton has little or nor relevant experience, either. We know she lacks values and moral scruples. Why didn't Tichy and Bennis study those qualities?
If I were to cast Hillary v. Obama on qualities, it would be, simply, blind ambition v. naive desire.
But, let's move beyond Bennis' and Tichy's typification of the Democratic front-runners, and focus on the incredible feat they claim to have accomplished.
Just how does one study 'leadership covering virtually all sectors of American life?'
What was their sample size? Their research instrument? How did they test the instrument for content and predictive validity? How does one measure 'judgment,' or 'experience?' How does one measure outcomes of various levels of each quality?
How in the heck do you study qualities like 'judgment,' and believe you know good from bad, for the purposes of projecting the results to America, in its every aspect?
Could there not be some interaction effects? Perhaps some level of judgment, mixed with some level of experience, might be better than either one alone? How would you measure those?
This pieces was, on the whole, completely unconvincing to me. It suggests the sort of 'research' that emanates from the 'management' field in business schools that give the discipline such a bad name. It seems to me that 'management' degrees are to business schools what 'communications' degree is for liberal arts.
And that's not a compliment.
I found this piece to be an embarrassment in terms of calling Tichy's and Bennis' effort 'research.' It would take a far more detailed explanation of this sort of work for me to accept the methodology and conclusions. Qualitative areas such as these invite poor research to be performed and communicated, without readers of the results fully understanding how it was attempted.
If nothing else, though, the article gave me an opportunity to realize how bereft of both experience and judgment the two candidates are. And how difficult it would be to attempt to actually ascribe causality to either quality in the manner apparently done by Tichy and Bennis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
