Don't be afraid your life will end;
be afraid that it will never begin.
Grace Hansen
America's Got Talent 2012: Finale
My Vote: William Close
William Close makes his own instruments (what do you think of his amazing Earth Harp?) This performance seems to be an intriguing, innovative fusion of Pachelbel Canon in D (one of my favorite pieces) with "America the Beautiful"--I love every bit of the musical arrangement, the choreography,
I have to pay tribute here to Tim Hockenberry whom gave one of the best performances I've ever heard of Lennon's "Imagine" (I've always dreamed of performing my take on this song...) This performance sounds like the best of Joe Cocker backed by the innovative use of the cello--awesome! The fact that Hockenberry didn't make the finale makes me want to --do we have the 8-year-old crybaby from the Untouchables on cue?
Obama and Apology Diplomacy
I titled yesterday's US Embassy commentary: "Obama, How's That Egypt Policy Working For You?" So I'm somewhat amused to see that Sarah Palin on Facebook posted a similar question to Obama: "How's that Arab Spring working out for us now?" (To the unfamiliar reader, "how's that working for you?" is syndicated talk show host Dr. Phil McGraw's famous tagline. It's rhetorical, of course. )
I did not expound on my criticism of Obama in the commentary, but I've been a frequent critic of his meddling in northern Africa and elsewhere (e.g., Syria) in the Middle East and Gulf Region. I am against international meddling, but I was also highly opposed to his provocative, pushing-on-a-string international apology tour. I saw zero value to the United States of having this so-called leader's validation of anti-American criticisms, and the anti-Americans will only argue that he's barely touched the surface. Any "real leader" would have said, "Look, the past is behind us: it's spilled milk. There's a new Administration, and here is the current policy." No, I've always seen that as his political hedge: if his foreign policy failed, he would scapegoat other parties (i.e., George W. Bush), insisting that he did his best to mend relations his first year.
Keep in mind that in his first year, Obama delivered a Cairo address to the Muslim world; I intended at the time to write a post about it, but I found it very odd and troubling that a Democrat allied with the "separation of church and state" ACLU would be addressing Muslims: why not Jews, Christians, Buddhists, whatever?
To many people, the US and other Western democratic republics have applied a double standard when it came to religious sensitivities. Take, for instance, past instances of shock artists displaying a crucifix in a vial of urine, a painting of the Blessed Virgin Mary made from feces, a play depicting Jesus and His Apostles as gay lovers. There were Christian protests, of course, but you didn't have riots or death squads. Now personally, I don't like intentionally provocative things being said about anyone's religious founders, saints or leaders; it's part of civility. But we Christians have been taught to love our enemies; we recall how Jesus rebuked Simon for using his sword during the Passion.
Our system allows for peaceful assembly of protest, but not crimes against people for expressing their thoughts, no matter how uncivil. It's not just our system but international agreements. Whether it's an unflattering depiction of someone's faith or disagreement with a country's policies, international rules and regulations must be respected.
Now if yesterday's briefing from the US Embassy from Egypt (which the Obama Administration eventually distanced itself) seems familiar, it's because we've heard it before, especially with Pastor Terry Jones and relevant Afghan protests. So the Embassy issued this condemnation of "the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions." Late yesterday US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and a few others were killed in an attack on the US consulate compound in Benghazi. There is little doubt that 9/11 is symbolic to radical Muslims for reasons other than Terry Jones' provocative behavior (e.g., Gitmo prisoners, revenge for UBL's death, drone attacks, etc.) And there's no doubt that America's intervention in Libya no doubt created some enemies as well.
The problem is the Romney campaign responded shortly thereafter with this statement:
I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.
Paul Nathan, The Fed and Support of Romney
Recently in a column I've been discussing how I've alternately looked at the monetarist (Friedman) and the Austrian School (Von Mises and Hayek) versus the Keynesian approach to economics; I have not immersed myself into a detailed study of banking and money. Taking myself to be a layman, there are certain puzzling anomalies: with all this printing going on, why isn't inflation taking off like it did in the 1970's? Why are small companies having trouble getting loans with interest rates to bank so low? The short answer, I believe, is that the money is being used for liquidity purposes as banks continue write bad loans off their books. And so far creditors seem to believe that the US can finance its debt out of current operations. There are a couple of problems, though: if and when growth picks up, velocity of money will pick up, and the Fed will need to take money out of the system by selling bonds (or otherwise clamp down on lending by raising the reserve ratio); if the Treasury is also continuing to churn out bonds, it becomes a buyer's market, and they'll demand lower prices (i.e., higher interest rates).
I originally intended to write about Taylor and Gramm's recent WSJ column, when I came across a post by Paul Nathan on monetizing the debt. Taylor and Gramm argue that the Fed has been in a sense monetizing the debt (up to three-quarters of new debt issued in 2011): this has been artificially lowering the Obama deficits because the Federal Reserve has turned over the interest payments on the Treasury bonds it's holding--roughly in the neighborhood of $100B-plus. Right now the velocity of money is low. Taylor and Gramm argue that the Fed is contributing to economic uncertainty as the market tries to anticipate its moves; moreover, commitments to keep interest rates low constrain future Fed policy actions. They argue that the Fed is achieving lower impact with its subsequent intervention and one could argue that Bernanke has been postponing the day of reckoning, hoping the madness of trillion-a-year deficits will be politically resolved before the Fed has to compete with the Treasury for selling bonds. (I don't see this happening especially if the Pied Piper of Failed Liberalism is reelected.)
Nathan has another post where he explains this paradox of the Fed printing money but inflation remains roughly within a 2% target: Von Mises' Subjective Theory of Value. Recall Friedman's layman's definition of inflation and deflation: Inflation is too much money/credit chasing a limited supply of goods; deflation is too little money/credit applied to an abundance of goods. In short, I hold dollars only insofar as I see benefit to holding those dollars (e.g., in a weak economy). If I think that the goods will cost more tomorrow than today, I want to get rid of those dollars sooner than later. Companies seeing 23 million unemployed/underemployed people and millions of others may be reluctant to invest--or believe, with the Fed maintaining low rates through 2014, that they have time to put off an expansion decision until they see stronger growth in the economy.
Nathan ends his essay with these comments:
Inflation has been held in check by the knowledge that money can be pulled out of the system as fast as need be under a fiat standard. The real threat is the viability of the entire world fiat system. If trust is to be regained it needs to start with fiscal responsibility. Monetary policy is far "easier" to control by an independent authority than is government spending by a world of spendthrift politicians. The debt that has been created by most nations today is a far greater threat to the economy than the threat of inflation. Monetary reform is required, I agree, but not today. It is fiscal reform that is required.I would temper Nathan's comments by the observation that the Federal Reserve has been given a dual mandate, the second to maximize employment. I definitely don't like lending beneath the target rate of inflation, which I see as a transfer of wealth from savers and investors. But I do agree with the point about treating the disease versus the syptoms (the Fed isn't responsible for Obama superspending, but I would caution Nathan: when the Fed buys a lot of government bonds, to what extent is the Fed really independent?), although I would put a significant portion of the blame on voters: voters like benefits like Medicare (a forthfoming commmrntary) but aren't willing to pay more in taxes or user fees or accept benefit cuts.
No monetary system, not the fiat standard nor the gold standard can survive reckless tax and spending policies by government. Our first task is not fighting inflation. Our first task is reigning in deficit spending and addressing unfunded liabilities. Without addressing those problems a mere increase in prices -or decrease - is dwarfed by the potential of a prolonged recession such as has occurred in Japan over the last two decades and the toll that would take on this country. Or worse a chain reaction of debt defaults that could bring the entire international monetary system tumbling down.
I have had an unpublished one-off post on why a pro-liberty conservative would support Romney, and so when I read Nathan was supporting Romney in a similar titled post, I was curious: familiar readers will be struck by his excerpt below, because I've been repeatedly saying the same thing through the blog. It has nothing to do with policies; there is a sense of validation when I read someone else (including someone influenced by the Austrian school) independently saying the same thing:
It's up to the next President to restructure government. What we need is a technocrat, a practical person to take on the bureaucracy of Washington and reduce it. We need to reverse spending, reverse the deficit, and put the government back on a path toward a balanced budget. We need to restructure not only the unnecessary areas of government but even the most important and necessary areas of government. We need to end duplication and we need to reduce government wages and benefits to levels closer to that of the private sector. America needs a tax system that is fairer and a regulatory system that is simpler.Nathan has hit the nail on the head. I wouldn't change a thing. I have been saying the exact same thing. The Romney campaign needs to push this message. Why they haven't, I don't know. If somehow the nation doesn't elect the right man (Romney) for the right position at the right time, and reelects the worst President in American history, then what Jeremiah Wright said eill have finally come true: God will indeed have damned America.
That’s why we need someone who can take a failing, dysfunctional institution, and set it on a path of solvency and efficiency, while at the same time instituting time tested principles that will lead to success and prosperity within the economy. Someone who knows how to take a failing situation and turn it profitable? This is what Mitt Romney does! This is who he is.
We also no longer need a President to tell us how to turn the economy around. We know how. We need a President that can do it. Romney is a “nuts and bolts” guy who has been preparing all of his life for this. Those that criticize Romney for his years at Bain Capital totally miss the point. Bain is a company that specializes in turning failing companies into successful ones. And that is exactly what needs to be done to our government today.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Roxette, "It Must Have Been Love"
