I happen to be a huge soccer fan and the World Cup starts Friday, June 11 and lasts a month. I may not do any posts during that time. And although no one may care, here are some predictions.
Mexico will defeat South Africa in the opening game and will finish first or second in its group and advance to the Round of 16. It may win one game after that, but probably no more because of its deficiencies in defending set plays. When it runs into a physical European team it will probably lose.
The US will lose to England 2-1, but will put a scare into the English. The US will have trouble with Slovenia, but win a close game, beat Algeria and go on to the next round. Like Mexico it may win one more game, but probably no more than that because of some defensive weaknesses which will be exposed by a more skillful team. If, however, the US meets Mexico (a possibility in the quarterfinals), the US should prevail.
I believe that Brazil will win it all because I like their defense and their coach. Spain looks scary good, but I don't think their defense is as good as Brazil's and they will probably come in second or third, depending on when and if they play Brazil. My dark horse is Holland, if they get Arjen Robben back from injury. Argentina has a wealth of talent, but Maradonna seems a terrible coach so I suspect they will be disorganized and under perform. England may get as far as the semifinals, but more likely will fall in the quarters because their best defender is out injured and their goal keeping is not first rate. Italy looks too old and Germany seems to be lacking attacking talent this time. Of those two, Italy may get farther because they always seem to manage to put together a tight defense.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
RATING OBAMA--FOREIGN POLICY
I forgot to include Obama's foreign policy in my previous post on critiquing his performance. I would rate his foreign policy as A- or A. After the Bush presidency, Obama is a true breath of fresh air. He chose just the right tack on the upheaval in Iran and policy vis-a-vis Iran since then. I think he should be removing troops out of Iraq quicker, but that is a minor quibble. He is probably doing the best that can be done in the Israel/Palestine problem. The Netanyahu government seems unmovable and domestic support for Israel is mostly irrational and unyielding. His latest approach on the Israeli blockade of Gaza is probably the best and only approach. It will take some time to revise US foreign policy in this area and bring about any real change. We may not see anything concrete until, hopefully, a second Obama term. We may need a change in Israel's government before any progress can be made.
As I mentioned in my earlier post on rating, too many people voice opinions without knowing what they are talking about. Thus, I have refrained from forming any conclusions about Afghanistan and Pakistan for several reasons. First, the situations may be intractable. As long as Karzai is in charge in Afghanistan, real progress may be very difficult or impossible, yet we cannot force him out; that would be worse. Pakistan is also difficult because of political instability and the fragility of the current government. Second, it is so hard to know what the facts on the ground truly are. I don't know if anyone really knows with precision where the various parties stand in relative strength. Last year I saw a couple of discussions about Pakistan with two different panels on separate occasions. Both panels had three commentators with extensive background and knowledge of Pakistan. The two panels reached pretty much opposite conclusions. One said that Pakistan is so westernized that it will be securely in the western camp for the future and will develop both economically and politically.. The other panel saw a nation in danger of disintegration and adoption of radical Islam. We have a Pakistani friend who recently visited Pakistan and I asked him his opinion. He was kind of in the middle. I still am not sure what to think.
The good news is that General McChrystal, in charge of counter-insurgency in Afghanistan, seems to really understand the problem. Whether that and 60,000 more troops will be enough to overcome the Taliban and mis-government by Karzai is an open question. I think that Obama is right to put a timetable on the operation. We can't afford these foreign misadventures any more. Whatever the situation in Pakistan, Obama has gotten more cooperation from Pakistan and the Pakistani military than Bush ever did. This has resulted in real progress against al-Qaida. Obama has also correctly recognized the importance of resolving the Kashmir question between India and Pakistan. Until there is peace between India and Pakistan, the Pakistan military's effort towards its militants will be somewhat half-hearted. Although he may not be able to solve the problem, at least he recognizes it and is working on it, something that escaped the Bush administration. Also, unlike the Bush administration, Obama recognizes that terrorism is a political problem requiring a political solution, it is not a strictly military problem.
Finally, let me add something that seems to escape the Obama critics. Obama has restored diplomacy to its rightful place in American foreign policy. Diplomacy does not bring results over night, or even within a year, especially after 8 years of alienating both friends and neutrals. And yet we already have seen positive signs. As Churchill once said, it is better to jaw, jaw, jaw than to war, war, war. Military force rarely goes smoothly and almost always brings about unanticipated adverse consequences. Whatever diplomacy's failings, it should be the first resort and force the last resort.
As I mentioned in my earlier post on rating, too many people voice opinions without knowing what they are talking about. Thus, I have refrained from forming any conclusions about Afghanistan and Pakistan for several reasons. First, the situations may be intractable. As long as Karzai is in charge in Afghanistan, real progress may be very difficult or impossible, yet we cannot force him out; that would be worse. Pakistan is also difficult because of political instability and the fragility of the current government. Second, it is so hard to know what the facts on the ground truly are. I don't know if anyone really knows with precision where the various parties stand in relative strength. Last year I saw a couple of discussions about Pakistan with two different panels on separate occasions. Both panels had three commentators with extensive background and knowledge of Pakistan. The two panels reached pretty much opposite conclusions. One said that Pakistan is so westernized that it will be securely in the western camp for the future and will develop both economically and politically.. The other panel saw a nation in danger of disintegration and adoption of radical Islam. We have a Pakistani friend who recently visited Pakistan and I asked him his opinion. He was kind of in the middle. I still am not sure what to think.
The good news is that General McChrystal, in charge of counter-insurgency in Afghanistan, seems to really understand the problem. Whether that and 60,000 more troops will be enough to overcome the Taliban and mis-government by Karzai is an open question. I think that Obama is right to put a timetable on the operation. We can't afford these foreign misadventures any more. Whatever the situation in Pakistan, Obama has gotten more cooperation from Pakistan and the Pakistani military than Bush ever did. This has resulted in real progress against al-Qaida. Obama has also correctly recognized the importance of resolving the Kashmir question between India and Pakistan. Until there is peace between India and Pakistan, the Pakistan military's effort towards its militants will be somewhat half-hearted. Although he may not be able to solve the problem, at least he recognizes it and is working on it, something that escaped the Bush administration. Also, unlike the Bush administration, Obama recognizes that terrorism is a political problem requiring a political solution, it is not a strictly military problem.
Finally, let me add something that seems to escape the Obama critics. Obama has restored diplomacy to its rightful place in American foreign policy. Diplomacy does not bring results over night, or even within a year, especially after 8 years of alienating both friends and neutrals. And yet we already have seen positive signs. As Churchill once said, it is better to jaw, jaw, jaw than to war, war, war. Military force rarely goes smoothly and almost always brings about unanticipated adverse consequences. Whatever diplomacy's failings, it should be the first resort and force the last resort.
2009 AWARDS
Jeanne Kirkpatrick Award
Last year I began giving out two awards that I have long had in mind and almost forgot this year, so I'm a little late with these. As a reminder, the Jeanne Kirkpatrick award is given to someone who says something so stupid that he or she should immediately lose all credibility. I also give this award to those who should know better, but don't. Jeanne Kirkpatrick had a Phd. in Political Science and was US Ambassador to the UN, among other things. She thought the US should support Argentina, not England, in the Falklands War, gaining immediate infamy.
This year I give the award not to any individual, but a group of individuals--the Chicago School of economists. These well educated dunderheads continue to maintain that markets will self-regulate and need no government regulation. The support a completely libertarian philosphy and, as part of that philosophy, believe that people make rational economic decisions, on the basis of what is best for them economically. Thus, with their philosophy, bubbles are impossible because they are irrational. A recent special on PBS showed social science experiments where people behaved very irrationally, paying more than $20 for a $20 bill, for example, at an auction. When faced with the results of these experiments, the economists simply refused to believe them and just kept repeating this philosophical tenants like some religious chant. Of course there are hundreds of years of economic history which also invalidates their beliefs, starting with the Dutch tulip bubble of about 400+ years ago. But, let's not have facts get in the way of our beliefs.
The Bull Connor Award
This award is named after the sheriff in Alabama who so mistreated civil rights marchers in the early 1960's, that he probably did more to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than anyone. In other words, he screwed up so badly that he got the exact opposite outcome from what he intended.
I am giving this year's award to The Tea Party. This group of neanderthals is both extreme and extremely ignorant. Although we have not yet seen the fruits of their labors, I predict that they will succeed in driving the Republican Party so far to the right that they will alienate the vast majority of independents, greatly reducing Democratic losses in the 2010 mid-term elections. The winner of the Republican Party primary in Nevada for US Senate to oppose Harry Reid is so ridiculous that Reid now has gone from being in real trouble to most likely victorious. This woman is against social security, fluoridation, thinks we should reduce regulations on oil drilling (what oil spill?), and so on. You have to be out of your mind to support these kind of policies.
Last year I began giving out two awards that I have long had in mind and almost forgot this year, so I'm a little late with these. As a reminder, the Jeanne Kirkpatrick award is given to someone who says something so stupid that he or she should immediately lose all credibility. I also give this award to those who should know better, but don't. Jeanne Kirkpatrick had a Phd. in Political Science and was US Ambassador to the UN, among other things. She thought the US should support Argentina, not England, in the Falklands War, gaining immediate infamy.
This year I give the award not to any individual, but a group of individuals--the Chicago School of economists. These well educated dunderheads continue to maintain that markets will self-regulate and need no government regulation. The support a completely libertarian philosphy and, as part of that philosophy, believe that people make rational economic decisions, on the basis of what is best for them economically. Thus, with their philosophy, bubbles are impossible because they are irrational. A recent special on PBS showed social science experiments where people behaved very irrationally, paying more than $20 for a $20 bill, for example, at an auction. When faced with the results of these experiments, the economists simply refused to believe them and just kept repeating this philosophical tenants like some religious chant. Of course there are hundreds of years of economic history which also invalidates their beliefs, starting with the Dutch tulip bubble of about 400+ years ago. But, let's not have facts get in the way of our beliefs.
The Bull Connor Award
This award is named after the sheriff in Alabama who so mistreated civil rights marchers in the early 1960's, that he probably did more to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than anyone. In other words, he screwed up so badly that he got the exact opposite outcome from what he intended.
I am giving this year's award to The Tea Party. This group of neanderthals is both extreme and extremely ignorant. Although we have not yet seen the fruits of their labors, I predict that they will succeed in driving the Republican Party so far to the right that they will alienate the vast majority of independents, greatly reducing Democratic losses in the 2010 mid-term elections. The winner of the Republican Party primary in Nevada for US Senate to oppose Harry Reid is so ridiculous that Reid now has gone from being in real trouble to most likely victorious. This woman is against social security, fluoridation, thinks we should reduce regulations on oil drilling (what oil spill?), and so on. You have to be out of your mind to support these kind of policies.
ECONOMIC DANGERS
I suppose to protect myself I should say that I am not a financial adviser and the following is not financial advice. I have become concerned with recent economic developments. So-called deficit hawks, which seem to include most blue dog Democrats, seem to be in the ascendancy. An attempt to fund unemployment benefit payments and COBRA subsidies is floundering in the House, as is an attempt to provide states with $23 billion so that hundreds of thousands of teachers will not be laid off. The jobs /unemployment report for May included the information that 22,000 jobs were lost in that month in state and local government. In fact, because state and local governments have to have balanced budgets, they have cut back their spending by $150 to $200 billion over the last year or so. In addition, in Europe we see the same sort of attitude expressing itself in some countries, especially Germany and England. The result may very well to strangle the economic recovery, or at least slow it way down. You might be as well off putting your money under the mattress right now as investing it somewhere.
Don't be misled by those who gravely warn of the dangers of the deficit and looming inflation. The Great Depression provides the perfect social science laboratory for what government policies to follow and what not to do. Under Hoover, before the Crash, the unemployment rate was estimated at 3%. After the crash Hoover insisted on balanced budgets, was strongly opposed to any government relief efforts (there was no unemployment insurance then, or food stamps, or anything on the Federal level, a few states tried to do something, but they quickly ran out of money). The result was that by March, 1933, when FDR assumed the presidency, the unemployment rate was an estimated 25% and the GDP had fallen about 40%. Under FDR unemployment fell and GDP rose every year, except one. That year was 1937, the only year that FDR ran a balanced budget. As soon as he balanced the budget the unemployment rate went up and the GDP fell. When he resumed deficit spending, the economy rose again.
I remember reading that a wag once said that if you teach a parrot how to say "supply and demand", you have created another economist. However, modern day conservative economists seem to believe that the key phrase should be supply and investment. They pretty much ignore the demand side of the equation. In a severe recession the demand side needs to be pumped up by government spending. The historical record is clear on this.
The famous economist John Maynard Keynes was once accused of flip flopping. He replied something like this. "When I get new information that calls into question my previous theories and/or conclusions, I re-evaluate those theories and conclusions and revise them on the basis of the new information when called for. What do you do?" What conservatives do is close their eyes and pretend the new information doesn't exist. So we get conservatives saying the stimulus bill didn't work, despite the fact that before the bill we were losing about 700,000 jobs per month. After the bill was passed job losses declined every month until January, 2010 when we had the first job gains in about two years. We have had job gains every month since then. Yet this is somehow "not working."
We need to keep deficit spending until there has been a major improvement in unemployment. Please write your congress person, your newspaper, internet news site, etc. to support continued government spending. The best way to balance the budget is to put people back to work, reduce defense spending, and re-institute a truly progressive income tax.
Don't be misled by those who gravely warn of the dangers of the deficit and looming inflation. The Great Depression provides the perfect social science laboratory for what government policies to follow and what not to do. Under Hoover, before the Crash, the unemployment rate was estimated at 3%. After the crash Hoover insisted on balanced budgets, was strongly opposed to any government relief efforts (there was no unemployment insurance then, or food stamps, or anything on the Federal level, a few states tried to do something, but they quickly ran out of money). The result was that by March, 1933, when FDR assumed the presidency, the unemployment rate was an estimated 25% and the GDP had fallen about 40%. Under FDR unemployment fell and GDP rose every year, except one. That year was 1937, the only year that FDR ran a balanced budget. As soon as he balanced the budget the unemployment rate went up and the GDP fell. When he resumed deficit spending, the economy rose again.
I remember reading that a wag once said that if you teach a parrot how to say "supply and demand", you have created another economist. However, modern day conservative economists seem to believe that the key phrase should be supply and investment. They pretty much ignore the demand side of the equation. In a severe recession the demand side needs to be pumped up by government spending. The historical record is clear on this.
The famous economist John Maynard Keynes was once accused of flip flopping. He replied something like this. "When I get new information that calls into question my previous theories and/or conclusions, I re-evaluate those theories and conclusions and revise them on the basis of the new information when called for. What do you do?" What conservatives do is close their eyes and pretend the new information doesn't exist. So we get conservatives saying the stimulus bill didn't work, despite the fact that before the bill we were losing about 700,000 jobs per month. After the bill was passed job losses declined every month until January, 2010 when we had the first job gains in about two years. We have had job gains every month since then. Yet this is somehow "not working."
We need to keep deficit spending until there has been a major improvement in unemployment. Please write your congress person, your newspaper, internet news site, etc. to support continued government spending. The best way to balance the budget is to put people back to work, reduce defense spending, and re-institute a truly progressive income tax.
CRITICISM AND DISCOURSE--RATING OBAMA
As I have mentioned before, the Republicans have been seemingly taken over by the loony fringe.One of the problems with the internet today is that anyone with a computer can pollute the blogosphere with his or her opinions, whether founded in reality or not. I find this makes the job of the reasoned critic more difficult. If you criticize some particular action the wingnuts can seize on that as proof that you agree that Obama is illegitimate. Point out errors, even egregious ones, by the fringe and you get accused of "drinking the kool-ade." While many claim Obama is a socialist/communist/fascist/Kenyan/pro terrorist, or whatever, others claim he is no better than Bush. Nuance is not in style.
Nevertheless, I will try to navigate the shoals between the Scylla and Charybdis of right and left. One thing which I have maintained for some time has been clearly illustrated in Obama's first year. Democrats get in trouble when they try to be Republican lite. The embrace of increased oil drilling, including offshore drilling is a perfect example. Pulling punches on financial reform and health care reform have the same problem. By trying to compromise and draw in "moderate" Republicans, the result has been convoluted bills that are seriously flawed. For health care reform, as I pointed out earlier, a Medicare for all option is much simpler and avoids a lot of complications found in the current legislation. For financial reform the answer could have been much simpler and more effective: re-instate Glass-Steagall, limit the size of banks, prohibit banks from using depositor money for investing, put limits on and require transparency for derivatives and credit default swaps, put limits on credit card interest for responsible users (say prime plus 6 percent.), set specific high reserve requirements, require banks to hold at least some of the mortgages they issue, and make payment to rating agencies independent of the company/security they are rating. The financial reform being worked on now in conference committee is only a decent first step toward really meaningful reform. If it is not improved, you can bet that problems will happen again in the future.
The problem, as I see it, is that Obama is not really a progressive and his community organizer background colors his leadership style. He seeks compromise and agreement and puts it above necessary reform. I remember a city councilman who, when faced with a choice, would choose no loaf to half of one. I never understood why someone would do that. I guess he felt good about standing for principle. With Obama, if given the choice between half a loaf with some support from opponents and three quarters of a loaf and pissed off opponents, Obama chooses the former, but ends up with opponents who try to sabotage him anyway.
One thing is sure. At the beginning of Obama's term I felt that he faced even more problems than did FDR in 1933. With the Gulf Oil Spill now becoming the worst environmental disaster in US history, there can be no doubt that Obama faces even more difficulties than FDR did his first year and a half.Thus, although I have been disheartened by the administration's approach on many different issues, when you consider all the problems, the implacable opposition, and the legislative record, he still rates a B+ so far.
Nevertheless, I will try to navigate the shoals between the Scylla and Charybdis of right and left. One thing which I have maintained for some time has been clearly illustrated in Obama's first year. Democrats get in trouble when they try to be Republican lite. The embrace of increased oil drilling, including offshore drilling is a perfect example. Pulling punches on financial reform and health care reform have the same problem. By trying to compromise and draw in "moderate" Republicans, the result has been convoluted bills that are seriously flawed. For health care reform, as I pointed out earlier, a Medicare for all option is much simpler and avoids a lot of complications found in the current legislation. For financial reform the answer could have been much simpler and more effective: re-instate Glass-Steagall, limit the size of banks, prohibit banks from using depositor money for investing, put limits on and require transparency for derivatives and credit default swaps, put limits on credit card interest for responsible users (say prime plus 6 percent.), set specific high reserve requirements, require banks to hold at least some of the mortgages they issue, and make payment to rating agencies independent of the company/security they are rating. The financial reform being worked on now in conference committee is only a decent first step toward really meaningful reform. If it is not improved, you can bet that problems will happen again in the future.
The problem, as I see it, is that Obama is not really a progressive and his community organizer background colors his leadership style. He seeks compromise and agreement and puts it above necessary reform. I remember a city councilman who, when faced with a choice, would choose no loaf to half of one. I never understood why someone would do that. I guess he felt good about standing for principle. With Obama, if given the choice between half a loaf with some support from opponents and three quarters of a loaf and pissed off opponents, Obama chooses the former, but ends up with opponents who try to sabotage him anyway.
One thing is sure. At the beginning of Obama's term I felt that he faced even more problems than did FDR in 1933. With the Gulf Oil Spill now becoming the worst environmental disaster in US history, there can be no doubt that Obama faces even more difficulties than FDR did his first year and a half.Thus, although I have been disheartened by the administration's approach on many different issues, when you consider all the problems, the implacable opposition, and the legislative record, he still rates a B+ so far.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)