Maybe some day I'll get back to updating this page. Right now the artwork is center stage. So until then, listen to my dog make funny noises. It's not all political commentary. There's some silly stuff in the back there too.

The Historical Records:

I had been writing the political blog at Tamethebear.tv. They've decided to get away from more serious matters and who can blame them?

Here's some of the posts I wrote.

Kill the Zombie
by Michele Kraft, March 27, 2009

With the New York Times editorial staff screaming about Geithner’s regulatory reform ideas, I expected, with my belief in the power of Obama's oversight, that when I read the primary sources I would be relieved to find a silver lining. I encourage you to have a look yourself: Treasury Outlines Framework of Regulatory Reform and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner Written Testimony House Finance Services Committee Hearing.

As outlined in Obama's campaign and in his frequent addresses, I expected his man Gatherer’s main thrust would focus on doing right for American citizens.

Instead, I am alarmed that the NYT editorial critiques don’t scream loud enough, except, perhaps Krugman’s.

Yes, Krugs is right again. The zombies have won, and despair is appropriate.  

Rather than addressing the big, honking root of the problem, that we have financial institutions that are so large that if they fail, they bring the world to its knees, Geithner hopes to create a regulatory body to keep the monster in check.

How do you discipline your master, Mr. Geithner? We are at the mercy, entirely, of these financial giants and Geithner’s plan is more evidence of that fact.

Throwing petty regulations at their feet will be as effective as tossing tacks in the path of the zombie. The financial lobby will write the legislation, as has been the case since at least the Reagan administration. We will have more bubble economies, bailouts of the wealthy, followed by unemployment that widens the gap between the rich and the poor.

I don’t think the multinationals are specifically trying to kill off the regular people, these corporations are just like every other multi-celled organism, they want what they believe is the best for themselves and they are in an excellent position to achieve it.

We don’t need the complex web of regulations Geithner endorses to micromanage the financial industry, we need to restructure how we do business in this country and around the world.

It is my Polly-Anna-Sunshine hope that grassroots groups from all points of the political spectrum can get together and fundamentally change the way we do business. We don’t even have to agree on why.

Complex laws beg to be broken, worked around, and have sneaky bits of legislation tacked on to them. This is what people who are actually conservative, and not just front men for global conglomerate interests get their panties in a bunch over- complexity- government intervention.

Progressives should rally against it because it protects the very object that has brought the citizenry to our current abyss of pain- the power of big money. Financial groups have been granted rights that supercede the needs of the people, and in no way serve the people.

Getting the legislation behind this kind of thinking is an impossible dream, I know. But then again, I thought an African American president was too.

Barrack, I know you’ve got a lot on your plate, and it looks like you’re handing this financial mess off to someone you thought was qualified, who shared your vision or at least would take your direction. I know you meant well. But you have a fox in hen’s clothing on your hands, and you must get rid of him.

Have you read what AIG’s CEO said to Tim Geithner? Talking Points Memo has posted it here.

The air of manifest destiny is remarkable. Unaware that the tide has changed, Liddy is resolute that the bonuses will not be canceled. I say bully for you, Liddy.

Looking at the very long term, his unbending defense of paying people who have been unremorsefully destroying the world economy may work out quite well for us.
 
As we learn in personal relationship building, when in an argument we must decide if the relationship is more valuable to us than winning. Liddy and his minions may end up getting the money, but I see the revival of the Glass Steagal Act waiting in the pitchforks-and-torches wings.

The Glass Steagall Act, in a nutshell, kept banks from repeating the stock market collapse back in 1929 and plunging us into another Great Depression. Over the years, as this Frontline article helpfully outlines, Glass Steagal has been whittled away until it was finally repealed in 1999. Frontline reports:

“After 12 attempts in 25 years, Congress finally repeals Glass-Steagall, rewarding financial companies for more than 20 years and $300 million worth of lobbying efforts. Supporters hail the change as the long-overdue demise of a Depression-era relic.”

Given current events, that last line smacks of the Onion or Andy Borowitz .

You may win this round, Liddy, but it is going to cost all of you your kingdoms.

Money for Nothing
By Michele Kraft March 17, 2009

As outlined on a previous post, AIG is blindly defending distributing bonuses to some of those in the chain of responsibility for ruining the world economy. They didn’t change the rules to make it happen, but they did the deals and grew quite rich themselves. Naturally, they are not giving it up without a fight.  

In reading AIG CEO Edward Liddy’s letter to Geithner explaining how his hands were tied, it occurred to me that the United Auto Workers need to find the lawyers who wrote these air-tight contracts and hire them immediately.

AIG executives don’t even need the power of a union to back them up. Their boss is the one going to the mat for them. Blue-collar workers, for whom the dollars are much smaller, yet more desperately vital, have no resolute backing of compensation packages. It seems auto industry executives, instead of citing the lack of protective tariffs they used to enjoy, have made every attempt to shove the blame for their downturn onto the backs of their workers.

Even so, where does the money end up when it is paid to those already fabulously wealthy? Some of it buys cars and bling, but the rest of it is invested in the next bubble economy, which will burst as all the others have.

UAW pay goes right back out to the economy- to the grocery store, to Farm and Fleet, Walgreens, Sears. When workers are paid, when there is a productive middle class, the economy flourishes. The fabulously wealthy can still be fabulously wealthy, but they need all of us to be doing well so they have a base of real money to make money from.

The wealth of the middle class is the basis for all wealth in our country, not subject to fleeting investments and ponzi schemes. This wealth is goods and services, a gallon of milk, a loaf of bread, and the farmer that produced the materials to make these things.

Making money out of handling money this way is slight-of-hand theft. It doesn’t produce anything as it turns out, not even more cash.

But the Headline is a Lie
By Michele Kraft, March 13, 2009

Having read quite a bit about what auto workers make when corporate jets were launched (with flying monkey escort) a few months ago, I knew right away the NYT headline U.A.W. Deal With Ford Cuts Hourly Rate to $55 was misleading pile at best. Anyone with marginal English language skills would interpret those words to mean Ford’s workers will now earn 55 dollars an hour. And that isn’t even close to true.

Remember hearing that autoworkers make 80 dollars an hour a few months ago? That figure flew for a day before it was downsized to the low 70s, but even that figure was trumpeted almost everywhere. NYT actually reported on how that figure was arrived at, after throwing it out there themselves, and that was helpful.

As shown in the instructive graphic, everyone who gets a paycheck racks up almost twice their hourly wage in costs like those listed.

I once worked in a sign shop and had a similar equation included with my paycheck one week, revealing my $8 an hour was actually $16. Of course, the gratitude that flowed through the shop afterwards was magical. The following week the entire staff was paraded out to the parking lot to admire the boss’s new luxury car. I am not making this up.

What troubles me is how this wage information is reported. I read a lot of headlines and don’t read the articles, and I know I am not alone. By burying the details of the information, sometimes in the last paragraph of an article, people are less likely to get the whole story. People who believe they are keeping up on current events by listening to radio news broadcasts and skimming the headlines are getting a much-filtered picture. We don’t have time to get to the bottom of everything and we rely on news media to give us the scoop.

As a writer, I know it is almost impossible to get the pointed information right out there in the first paragraph, or as is the case with the interwebs, in the first three words of the headline. We have to give a bit of background first, and what is the point of writing 500 words if all of the good stuff is in the first three?

However, like with the NYT article, the headline may be all a reader sees. She’ll go through her day not even consciously aware that she now believes autoworkers make $55 dollars an hour. She may repeat that figure over lunch as she frets about not getting a raise, not realizing she is participating in a very subtle war.

Information is tricky. If I only described the stripes on a zebra, you would think I was talking about a black pony.

If I Weren’t So Broke, I’d Kill Ya
By Michele Kraft, March 6, 2009

The death penalty, hotly contested in some states, illegal in others and vigorously perused in Texas, Georgia and Virginia, has fallen under a new microscope. Some states with an infrequently used death penalty on the books are considering removing it from their list of punishments purely because of the cost.

While the accused (assuming they are guilty) may have felt their victim’s life was cheap, their life, or the ending of it, has a million dollar price tag.

The cost of a murder trial is driven up a million dollars or more by seeking the death sentence. Finding and funding defense attorneys competent and willing to have a life hang in the balance of the work they do is quite expensive. Often the accused must wait months or years for the funding before the trial can go forward. This may give them time to negotiate a book deal, but I am not sure most death row inmates are up for that challenge.

The death sentence has been shown again and again to be ineffective as a deterrent to crime. This means execution is an action of revenge. Indeed, this is exactly what advocates of the death sentence fiercely defend, insisting the families of victims have a right to their revenge, quoting the wrathful-deity ideas of the Old Testament. Now it may be left to the taxpayer to decide at what cost, revenge?

And if we are to execute the guilty, are there not white-collar crimes that deserve such punishment? China is really good at the death penalty, racking up over ten times the number of executions we dole out. Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan out-do us too if you are keeping track. China doesn’t let the social status or race of the accused come into play like we do here in the US, and that seems only fair.

If we are going to have the death penalty, we will have to find a cheaper way to do it. Expanding the number of offences that call for the death penalty to include white-collar crimes would probably bring the price tag down too, as those folks will hire their own defense attorneys. As the trials start to pile up, the public response will become more jaded, further driving down the price of the trials. And in the case of white-collar crimes, death might actually work as a deterrent, since those crimes are carefully plotted, not hotheaded crimes of passion.

So let’s go for it. For the really big names, whose crimes affected millions, a new website could be launched, “Execution.gov” with tie-ins to pay-per-view live broadcasts, which in turn could help cover the cost of the trials. Sweet.

Deficit Bad
By Michele Kraft March 2, 2009

I have been hearing some generalized freaking out about the budget deficit, haven’t you? We should not have a budget deficit. Deficit bad. But how bad, on the scale of “meh” to “OMFG” is this one? Let’s get some historical perspective.

In 1943, we were in the middle of waging World War II. ’43 was the most expensive year of the war for us. In the years leading up to our commitment of troops to the war there were a fairly large number of isolationists and even Nazi supporters who were strongly opposed to jumping into the fray, for financial and ideological reasons. We tend to glorify WWII in hindsight and overlook how many Americans were adamant that we were falling off some horrible cliff by getting involved.

The budget deficit in 1943 was -31% of our gross domestic product. That is pretty huge. Now history is on the side of those who felt we should take action regardless of the expense.

Today, the wars we are embroiled in are a side dish to the economic troubles we, and the rest of the world, face. Our budget deficit is the largest it has been since 1943. That is scary and it should be. Our inner threat level should be on flaming fuchsia because of it, but how does this deficit measure up to the numbers in 1943? Today our deficit, measured against the current gross domestic product, is about a third of what it was back then at -12%.

We have big problems, problems as deep and as likely to reshuffle the social order as much as Nazi and Japanese world domination would have. By 1947, we had a budget surplus. We had survived, after rolling the dice and spending a third of our GDP on a war. We emerged from that war a new vision o f what a country could be- a country that was respected and admired around the world. We became a leader in our own right, stepping out of our isolationist struggle and onto the world stage.

We are in a similar struggle today as we were in the early 1940s. We are taking big risks that will reshuffle the deck. Things may not go our way this time, but I am not prepared for my government to sit around and do nothing.

Obstructionists, like the isolationists of the 1940s, cling to the notion that individual people, without the power of our combined efforts under the umbrella of government, will somehow rise up to solve our economic problems. Louisiana’s governor Rising Star repeatedly stated in his rebuttal to Obama’s speech that individual Americans can do anything. His clear implication: we individuals do not need government help, as if our government was an alien system dropped on our heads from Mars.

We are the government. Believing that we, our government, cannot work, that we, in the form of a government, are somehow an impediment to progress is the ideology that brought us to this state. Getting Government “out of the way” has brought us a ruined economy, for what moved in when government moved out was greed.

No one is happy about the budget deficit. No one is happy about the economy. Many economists believe we are not doing enough. Yet we find conservatives throwing out alarmist propaganda to its shrinking constituency.

The rest of us are listening, watching, ready to take corrective action for ourselves, using the power of our government when the need arises. Yes. Deficit bad. But it is better than the alternative.

The Rules
By Michele Kraft February 12, 2009

You and I have rules in our lives. We don’t even think about them. When we have a little oversight that results in a big overdraft, we expect to be fined. When we get behind on payments, we expect our credit will get dinged up. We know the rules.

Now the people who are so good at making harsh, punitive rules for us to follow, the banking industry, are suddenly jumping to lay down some new rules for themselves. Mark T. Williams, an expert in risk management and former Federal Reserve Bank examiner, had some interesting comments in the Washpo’s article, Banks to Assure Congress About Use of Public Funds :

“Wall Street has recently begun to elevate the importance of risk management as a good business practice”

Later in the article, he’s quoted calling this phenomenon the “return of the nerds”.

The sudden return, of what I would not call nerds but sanity, is in response to recent public outcry over the bank bailouts and the realization that enormous sums of our money have been handed over, without oversight or demands, to an industry full of people who were not even following the same basic rules we are forced by them to live by. Little things like keeping track of one’s money. Making sure it all adds up. Not making stupid choices.

Now scrambling to do the kind of self-regulation it was assumed they were doing all along, bankers, like children who want to set their own bedtimes, are resisting regulations imposed by we, the people who are so kindly bailing out their failed businesses.

Oversight, transparency and regulations need to be in place to protect everyone, even the greedy from themselves.

It is human nature to take as much as we think we can get away with. When did we start believing that people in the banking industry are made of different meat than the rest of us?

Monday, December 1, 2008

Washington Post and NYTimes both posted articles over the weekend about the Bush administration's efforts to *!surprise!* protect the ruling class and step on everyone else's throats, from the blue collar workers who helped elect him to adorable baby bunnies. Well OK maybe not bunnies in particular, but wildlife and the environment in general.

The New York Times article: Bush Aides Rush to Enact a Rule Obama Opposes highlights one of the rules and glosses over a few more:

"The rule, which has strong support from business groups, says that in assessing the risk from a particular substance, federal agencies should gather and analyze “industry-by-industry evidence” of employees’ exposure to it during their working lives. The proposal would, in many cases, add a step to the lengthy process of developing standards to protect workers’ health."

So now we're enacting legislation that reduces workers to the level of lab rats. It's so much more important to these greedy vermin, um, I mean, the ruling class, to make MORE money than it is to have a conscience and save fellow human beings from a premature death. The ruling class see their fellow human beings (you! and me!) as completely dispensable, even though we are the basis for their immense wealth. There's a lot of us, you know. And we always make more, so what's the problem? It's not a new theme for them either, considering how many of us they've shepherded, without a thought, into Slaughterhouse Iraq.

Meanwhile, people go to work, absorb stuff that could be killing them, try to have a nice life, and, in the only remaining developed nation in the world that hasn't demanded it, get by without health insurance. How did human life become so cheap? At what point did the ruling class start to see everyone else in the world as completely disposable? Were they raised that way? Did they have an epiphany? "Oh, I see, if I step on everyone else's head, I get more money! And since I have no heart, no soul, that's really all that matters to me."

The Washington Post article spells out more details of our government's brutality:

At the Last Minute, a Raft of Rules - Bush White House Approves Regulations on Environmental, Security Matters

"In the environmental area, the latest rules indicate that the Bush administration wants to lend a final assist to industries that feel burdened by looming pollution controls or wilderness-protection laws. A rule approved by the White House three days after the presidential election, for example, would ease constraints on environmentally damaging oil shale development throughout the West, despite objections from Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter (D) and a majority of the state's congressional delegation."

Also:

"Not every draft regulation got approved. On Nov. 19, the OMB ordered the Energy Department to kill new regulations that would have forced the federal government to buy more-energy-efficient lights, appliances, and heating and cooling systems. Daniel J. Weiss, climate strategy director at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, called that retreat from a 2005 requirement "unbelievable."

The White House also ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to withdraw a new regulation mandating that truck manufacturers install equipment to monitor vehicle pollution. It blocked the Department of Veterans Affairs from issuing new promised "user-friendly" guidance on burial and survivors benefits.

There's more - a two billion dollar cut in Medicaid, a speeding up of the execution process, and a new rule that allows trucking companies to force drivers to stay on the road for ELEVEN HOURS without a break. HONESTLY. Can't we do something that revokes the ruling class's humanity too? Yeah, I know.

There is a bit of hope:

"Once the new rules take the form of law, Democrats can undo them only by three complicated means: through a new regulatory rulemaking that would probably take years; through congressional amendments to underlying laws; or through special, fast-track resolutions of disapproval approved by the House and Senate within a few months after the start of the new congressional session Jan. 6.

Such a quick congressional rebuke has occurred only once before, in 2001, when a Republican-controlled Congress with President Bush's backing blocked a workplace safety regulation completed in the Clinton administration's final months. But recently, spokesmen for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said Democrats were prepared to use that regulatory reversal power in consultation with Obama."

Well, we'll see. The entire federal government's got a tough row to hoe before they get any trust and resepct from me, Democrats included. We must hold feets to fire.

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Oh, here's s'more cash for ya. You were looking a bit light.
The Washington Post reports:

A Quiet Windfall For U.S. Banks
With Attention on Bailout Debate, Treasury Made Change to Tax Policy
By Amit R. Paley
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 10, 2008; A01

The financial world was fixated on Capitol Hill as Congress battled over the Bush administration's request for a $700 billion bailout of the banking industry. In the midst of this late-September drama, the Treasury Department issued a five-sentence notice that attracted almost no public attention.

 

I think it was Thom Hartmann who said these bailouts are like the Bush Administration grabbing the china and silver on their way out the door. China and silver, sure, and the TV, the sheets off the bed, and the last can of Who Hash.

What the Hell Happened Back There?

Wading through the political spin of those currently holding the reigns of government, I'm not sure many of us really understand what happened in the banking industry meltdown. I'm not sure *the experts* even agree, but here's a line up of what Nobel Prize Winning Economists think, in an article from der Spiegel (Germany's news mag, with the largest weekly magazine circulation in Europe at over a million) (I'm just saying- I didn't get this from Fritz the Cat). I think it's helpful to see how the rest of the world is looking at what's going on here, don't you? We're certainly the turd in the world economic punch bowl right now. Maybe some perspective would help. So here's der Spiegel's five fairly short breakdowns of what went wrong:

Nobel Economists Offer First Aid for Global Economy
"A New Mindset Is Required"

I particularly like what Reinhard Selten says:

In the last 10 years, a revolution has taken place in the banking industry. Banks sold more and more of a new type of security in which hundreds of mortgage receivables with roughly the same risk were combined into a single security. The loan securitizations, known as subprimes, were bundles of especially high-risk loans. It was not expected that borrowers would default on many of these mortgages at the same time. (! at the same time! ) For this reason German banks sold large numbers of the securities, (whew, it wasn't just us) which were highly profitable, as investments. The rating agencies gave these securities AAA ratings.

Apparently the market does not value new types of complex securities correctly. For this reason, it is necessary to establish rules for the registration of new types of securities. Securities, not unlike food, should be given risk-related labels.

 

Regulation? Your table is ready.

The recurring theme I'm seeing is this: the banking industry in the US needs to be better regulated. That's good for me to hear, for two reasons: 1) It means another melt-down can be avoided in the future, and 2) that's the conclusion I've come to as well. Make my Nobel Prize a puppy.

The other underlying theme ties lending practices of banks to the housing bubble. What I see is a cycle of banks wanting to lend money so they can make money, and the more a house is valued at, the more money they can lend and make money on. I've also heard reports from appraisers that they were getting pressure from lenders to over value the properties.

On top of that, banks were lending more than the already-inflated-values of the houses. No, I'm serious. My personal experience with this several years ago tells me that banks were more than happy to lend me (and my partner at the time) way more than the property we bought was worth, and way more than we could have comfortably paid back every month. And that was a few years ago. The fryer wasn't even up to temp yet.

here's another good one from Joseph E. Stiglitz:

To too great extent, there has been a race to the bottom in accordance with the myth that deregulation breeds innovation. Instead, the innovation was greatest when it came to getting around the regulations designed to ensure good information and a safe and sound financial system.

WORD.

One last thing. As a former libertarian/conservative (no, really, don't tell anyone, I'm really embarrassed about that. What can I say, I thought Dad Was Always Right) I must throw out this line from 93 year old Paul A. Samuelson regarding the Libertarian deregulation philosophies that led up to our current problems:

Libertarians are not just bad emotional cripples. They are also bad advice givers.

Suh-NAP!

Tuesdaisy November 11, 2008

People are cutting back. For example, a home mortgage owner in this NYTimes article won’t be spending $1150 a month on DVDs anymore. Ouch, that has got to hurt. What will the postal carrier think when she starts seeing those Netflix envelopes arriving? Perhaps a P.O. box would save some dignity.

A Town Drowns in Debt as Home Values Plunge

I’ve heard people celebrities like Rush Limbaugh assert that giving mortgages to TWAWPs (Those Who Aren't White People) was the underlying reason for the current financial crisis. Obviously, white people who spend $1150 a month on DVDs always make wise financial decisions. Or wait, maybe he is one of TWAWP, that completely explains everything. But I digress.

In the worst hit zip codes, houses are now worth far, far less than people signed on for, and some “bought” them with loans that only required payment for the interest. Suckers. Oh, wait, I forgot, they make wise financial decisions. It's TWAWPs, not the deregulation of the banking industry that allow, among other things, intrest-only payments for mortgages and no-proof-of-employment mortgages. Amazing, how TWAWPs got to be so powerful.

I have made some (to me, anyway) pretty major financial gambles in my life. Taking out loans to go to an expensive (and yes, totally worth it) school, and moving half way across the country without savings or a job are just two examples. Maybe I’m from too low of a caste to get it, but I don’t understand how people can sleep at night knowing they’re only paying interest on their mortgage. Not as a stop-gap measure until a spouse gets a job again, but as a lifestyle. Is that just how the Bonfire of the Vanities set rolls?  

Nevertheless, as this Business Week article notes, people have needs beyond housing. And they will be satisfied.

Alcoholic Drink Stocks: On the Rocks?

The economic slowdown and spiking fuel costs are hurting some segments, but liquor proves fairly recession resistant, even as prices go up

Good thing the Trib knows were we can still get a decent drink around here.

Good wines for tough times

 

On the other hand, there’s always my slightly indecent but reliable ol' friend Chuck.
O

Monday
November 10, 2008n the other hand, there’s always my reliable ol friend Chuck.

The Great Depression
(Yours)

All this recent harkening back to The Great Depression brings knee jerk images to mind of Henry Fonda in the Grapes of Wrath and the enduring freaky frugal traits of people who lived through it. For me, as an experiential student of psychology, it also reminds me of my Great Depression.

My personal experience with feeling the deepest blue, which I’ll call “just sadness” in deference to those with a diagnosis, made it clear how debilitating mood and emotions can be. We can’t just snap out of it, shake it off, ignore it or rise above it. It’s related to how we’re seeing ourselves, and how we imagine the world sees us too. Cheer up? I’ll take Cheney Quotes for $500, Alex.
 
With the numbers of layoffs and unemployment claims reaching a new high, I wonder about flipping the equation- what about the economic impact of depression?

The Navy Says, in their Leader’s Guide for Managing Personnel in Distress:

Depression may have a significant impact on overall work performance. Sailors may come to work late and appear tired from lack of sleep. Poor concentration and focus may reduce productivity or accuracy. In addition, depression can lead to irritability that may foster conflict with peers and supervisors. Low morale, lack of cooperation, and unintentional injuries may also be observed on the job.

That doesn’t sound productive, and that’s not good for the economy. But I’m glad the Navy thinks about these things, and even writes about them right-out-in-class these days. The armed services have more than their fair share of depression related problems right now, can’t imagine why.

Back in September, Forbes talked about The Emotional Impact of the Wall Street Crisis -

“With the news going from bad to worse on Wall Street, employees of some of the financial industry's giants are likely experiencing an emotional state that's unusual to them--complete and utter uncertainty about their futures.”

Unusual? Booo hoo.

I could only find a study from 2000 in an article from 2004 by the frighteningly-advertising-driven (but footnoted) OBGYN.net that directly addresses the broad financial impact of the issue:

According to a 10-year follow-up study published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, the annual cost of depression in 2000 was $83 billion, up only 7% in inflation-adjusted terms, despite a more than 50% increase in the treatment rate since 1990. Highlights from the 2000 findings include:

1) $52 billion incurred by employers as a result of absenteeism and reduced productivity of depressed workers. Furthermore, for every two depressed employees treated, an additional three remain untreated.
2) $26 billion spent on direct treatment costs, with dramatic shifts in the era of managed care toward less costly methods of treating depression. Taken together with the increased treatment rate, between 1990 and 2000, there was a 19% reduction in the annual cost per treated case.
3) $5 billion in lost income due to depression-related suicides.

Bummer.

Unfortunately, looking at an issue with so many personal costs in purely economic terms is, well, depressing.

http://www.mydepressionspace.com/

Hitting a bit close to home?

Cheer up.  Talk to someone.

Friday
November 7, 2008

Stocks and bonds, housing crisis, international recession, blah, blah, blah.
I don't know about you, but I hear these terms and I think I know what they mean... sort of... yah, pretty much, I think...

MYSTERIES OF LIFE Part 1.
Bond, Treasury Bond.

So on the surface, bonds are just loans, pretty much. The difference between how you and I are thinking of it and the way things really work is: there may not actually be any money behind that loan. It might just be another bond. But that's OK, right, because, well, all those Coupons (interest) are going to back up all the other loans. No, I'm serious.

Health Insurance for People Who Have a Nice Personality

After eight years of banking deregulation, an unnecessary war, and stacking the deck in favor of The Ruling Class, we've got a new president on line and a fresh crop of reps and congress critters to pull our fat out of the fire. Or that's the plan, anyway. The hope. It's good, the hope.

Healthcare is one of the big issues, and though it's an issue a bit far back on the list, it seems pretty key to solving other problems that are ahead of it in line.

Imagine an economy that runs on businesses that don't have to pay for health care benefits for their employees. Not everyone is aware, but beyond employee contributions to health insurance programs at work, employers make up the difference between what employees pay and what the policy costs. It's not just magically cheaper through your j-o-b. If you've taken on COBRA you know how that goes.

So imagine your wages staying as they are, plus getting back all that you spend on health insurance. For me, a self employed single woman, that would be almost $5,000 a year. Would taxes go up? That's unclear. No, really, it's not clear. There is evidence both ways.

Personally, I want to see universal health care just to piss off my Republican cousins.

Either way, a government health care solution could take the burden off of employers, and that, my friends, would do more to bolster the economy than trickle down economics ever did, especially when it comes to small businesses. And I bet the big guys wouldn't complain too much these days either.

With the money they save, your company could afford to hire some help and you wouldn't have to cram 60 hours of work into your weekly schedule. The price of the one or two things we still make in this country would go down. That would make us more competitive around the world. And maybe I could afford to buy that American Made American Flag I suddenly want to get instead of the cheap one I can afford from China.

More employees means lower unemployment and more people to buy them thar American Made American Flags. Lower unemployment might mean longer lines at Target. But I can work with that.

Retailers Report a Sales Collapse

No, really?

I thought I was the only one considering lifestyle changes like going commando. I don't want to part with ten bucks for three new pairs of underpants. That's three $3.00 bottles of wine. Last time I did a reality check, I am pretty sure my shrinking bank account, along with the scarcity of gigs and unemployment everywhere, indicate that my terror level should be in the Holy Shit Zone.

Still the unbelievable "let them eat cake" analyses abound, such as the one quoted by Stephanie Rosenblum in her article, Retailers Report a Sales Collapse in the New York Times yesterday:

“This is the year the consumer has been given a holiday gift beyond belief,” said Marshal Cohen, chief industry analyst for NPD Group. “You can get anything, anywhere, at any price.”

Gosh by golly Mr. Cohen! A holiday gift beyond belief! I'll have to have a look at all the giveaways I still can't afford the next time I go to the mall to warm up on the free heat.

November 6, 2008

Oh Sarah. Bwah ha ha. From the L.A. Times. Dispatched I Say!

a Republican Party lawyer would be dispatched to Alaska to inventory and retrieve the clothes still in her possession.

As if the whole house-worth-of-(Republican's)money-on-a-wardrobe wasn't delicious enough.

Rrrrrrrrrrepoed!

I imagine Sarah in her palatial bedroom (separate from the one Todd sleeps in). The colors are deep red, pink, white and gold, the fabrics lace and satin. White plush carpet. Ivory lacquered furniture. A dozen stale perfume bottles on a mirrored tray. Prints by Wal-Mart.

The trophy clothes are spread out, still on hangers, around her, as she sobs on the bed, hugging a few choice pieces to her bosom. Her makeup a blur, staining a suit jacket, she gets up and turns away as the Lawyer enters the room. He is calm. She is full of angry words, shrill screaming, eyes flashing, angry fists. Todd arrives. She is oblivious to his presence. The lawyer averts his eyes. Todd grabs her from behind, pinning her arms to her ribs. Her legs flail free of her dressing gown, and as Todd hauls her, screaming, out of the room, a puff-topped acrylic mule hits the ceiling and bounces on the bed canopy. The lawyer sighs heavily and starts shoving Valentino and Louis Vuitton into a plastic trash bag.

Palin is so accustomed to taking The People's Money for her personal use that she didn't think spending over $170,000 of the GOP's money on herself would be a big deal.

>shudder<

Good gods.

November 6, 2008

Obamanomics?

Well it’s over. The breathless waiting, the merry-go-round of anxiety and hope has finally come to a stop. Now we wait in line for the next ride, Obama’s presidency. And while the election hoopla that occupied so much of our attention evaporates into the ether, all eyes turn to the president elect as if he were Moses coming down from the mountain. We are starved for guidance and hope.

No matter what Obama does, it’s going to be impossible for him to solve much right away. And by “right away”, I mean within the first six months to three years. While a lot of us understand that things won’t magically be all better once he is in office, with the mantle of Savior placed on his shoulders already, people will loose faith in him when things don’t turn around right away.

On the other hand, part of what is so engaging about the president elect is his ability to inspire. I do, actually, want to believe. I want to believe he is going to turn the economy around, end the war in Iraq, and do something constructive with Afghanistan. And walk on water, perhaps across the Reflecting Pool with his family and their new puppy. Personally, I vote for a Great Dane puppy, but the smart money is probably on Labradoodle.

In other news, after forecasting a deepening global economic downturn, Reuters reports, in the New York Times article, Lower Wall St. Open Seen on Cisco Warning, Bleak Sales:

“On the bright side, Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, posted October same-store sales that beat Wall Street's forecasts. Its shares were up 0.5 percent to $54.40 before the bell.”

For those of us poor enough to live in the real world, it is hard to see an economy where Wal-Mart is doing well as a good thing on any level. I suddenly feel how vast the distance is between me and that top 1/10th of 1%, AKA the Ruling Class. To me, this news means we regular peoples are either too poor to shop anywhere else or that those of us who work at Wal-Mart are the only ones left with jobs, and those paychecks are being spent at work. The cycle of poo. Now that Wal-Mart has taken small businesses and prosperity away from small towns across the globe, Wally the Robber Baron is the only game in town.

November 4, 2008

It's a beautiful day. With a projected record breaking high of 71°F, on the heels of yesterday's warm, breezy temps, Wisconsin is feeling chipper. Everything is golden and full of sunshine. At my polling place, there was a feeling of relaxed optimism. Poll workers reported long lines until just before I got there at 11, with an expected rush at lunch hour.

My normal round up of liberal talk show hosts all seem exuberant. I'd like to join in but I won't feel good about this until it's Wednesday morning and Obama has the election. I'm really curious to see how things go tonight. Either way, things will never be the same again.

November 4 2008

What were you doing yesterday, the day before the election? It occurred to me at some point that Monday (as is true of all days in the microcosm) was the last day things were going to be the way they have been. Everything is going to change, one way or the other, starting today. Today the ball is in the air, the ref has thrown it up and we begin the long slow motion, forgetting to breathe wait to see what team will possess it.

The basketball analysis provides a nice movie-style visual, but honestly, after growling under the oppression of hearing Hillary's campaign repeatedly being referred to in sports analogy terms, I can't keep that idea in my head too long. Because just like Hillary's campaign, this election is not a sports event. And just like Hillary's campaign, this is not one team against the other. We (of the middle class and down) are all on the same team, we are cheek and jowl in this American Boat, making our way through a frightening, gloomy swamp. We can't see what's ahead. You can cut the tension with a knife. We all need relief, as we giddily go to the poling place, we need the freedom that comes when we can trust the government, the freedom we feel when there is a real leader in charge, the freedom we felt (if we were middle class white people) back in the olden days, when we saw a cop on the beat- here is our friend, our friend of laws who respects our rights.

Like a battered wife, we've lived through our government lying to us about so many things we no longer believe anything they say. When I express my pessimism to fellow voters that this election is probably going to get stolen too, I'm not treated as if I'm a crazy conspiracy theorist. I'm reassured that we have troops on the ground this time. Think about that! Like the Kennedy assassination, we've collectively come to the conclusion that yes, it WAS stolen before, but this time it's going to be different.
Overall, we've gotten numb to it, being lied to by our government, and those who believe they're not being lied to have the defensive, blind fervor of victims of Stockholm's Syndrome. From CouncelingResource.com (whole text a very interesting read)
 

It has been found that four situations or conditions are present that serve as a foundation for the development of Stockholm Syndrome. These four situations can be found in hostage, severe abuse, and abusive relationships:

• The presence of a perceived threat to one’s physical or psychological survival and the belief that the abuser would carry out the threat. (here that threat is a mantle placed on "Terrorists" which do seem to work hand in hand with the current administration like good cop/bad cop)
• The presence of a perceived small kindness from the abuser to the victim
• Isolation from perspectives other than those of the abuser
• The perceived inability to escape the situation

This actually helps me understand, accept and feel sympathy for those who still cling to this administration despite its utter dismissal of conservative values. I've heard this group categorized as "low information voters", and I believe that plays a part here too. But as usual, I digress.

While I have deep hope that an Obama presidency will usher in a new era, one that will bring a true sense of security, and all of the things that will go along with that, I am frankly terrified at what I may have to do if, like the last election and the one before that, this one is stolen. I can't, in good conscience, put up with it. I can't let that happen to me, to you, to the rest of the whole world, from endangered species to innocent babies being born right now in Iraq, Africa, Iran, Europe, and Madison Wisconsin.

I guess I better go vote.

October 30, 2008

Holiday Greetings, Citizens

It's the spooky time of year! My favorite. Have you noticed something really scary lurking around? Not the war in Iraq, though that plays a part of it. Not the presidential campaigns, though they figure into it. Not the financial crisis we keep hearing about, though that's probably the biggest creaking door sign that something's wrong. The freaky-scary thing I've noticed is how nothing is really changing in our day to day lives. Despite the war, despite the stock market going crazy, despite gas prices going through the roof, (and, I might add, mysteriously retreating just before the election) for most of us, our daily lives are chugging right along, albeit more anxiety filled. I keep waiting for some huge shoe to drop, but it doesn't happen. I think Ellen Hodgson Brown knows why.

Brown's new book, Web of Debt: The shocking truth about our money system and how we can break free talks of, among other things, the Plunge Protection Team put in place by Reagan to keep our economy looking better than it is.

Plunge Protection Team? Why, I'm as shocked as you! "Free Market Über Alles!" Republicans regulating the market? Why would they want to do that after all the trouble they've gone through to deregulate it? Why, I thought they were all about hands-off, bare knuckled survival of the fittest! Could it be that their cold blooded "free market" is just for those of us in steerage? Why, we are flattered to have this fancy Free Market arranged exclusively for our benefit, so we who provide the ballast and blood can some day rise among the ranks and join that top 1/10th of 1% of the population. Free Market has the word "Free" in it, and that's what we Americans are all about, isn't it? Gitterdun! Freedom! Thank you Republicans, for protecting us blinky eyed nappers from the truth of the free market while your representatives are in office. But I way digress!

Hodgson Brown's market manipulation article here explains a lot. She quotes:

Nouriel Roubini, Professor of Economics at New York University, wrote on his popular blog Global EconoMonitor:

“Socialism is indeed alive and well in America; but this is socialism for the rich, the well connected and Wall Street. A socialism where profits are privatized and losses are socialized with the US tax-payer being charged the bill . . . .”

Investment guru Jim Rogers told “Squawk Box Europe”:

“America is more communist than China is right now. You can see that this is welfare of the rich, it is socialism for the rich. . . it’s just bailing out financial institutions. . . .

“This is madness, this is insanity, they have more than doubled the American national debt in one weekend for a bunch of crooks and incompetents. I’m not quite sure why I or anybody else should be paying for this.”

 

Hodgson Brown goes on to talk about nationalizing the Federal Reserve (betcha didn't know it was privatized, didja?! "The Fed" sounds pretty Federal, as in, government owned, doesn't it? Tricky, tricky.) and how it may as well just be printing money instead of issuing bonds.

The question is this: is it inflation or gas prices or what? What is making the price of a can of beans go up every stinking time you go to the store?

Read More Posts