Ben comes clean . . .

. . . and admits the obvious - kudos to him, for this admission means the Fed, too, needs to take a long look in the mirror. But, those who want to drown government in the bathtub won't like this kind of talk one bit: like all self-improvement plans, the first step - recognition - leads inexorably to other steps. This is because recognition, while important, does not solve the problem. In order to solve the problem, you gotta actually do something. If regulation is poor, better regulation is the only cure - and this costs money.

Oh, Copenhagen . . .

Yes, China has not acquitted itself well . . . but at times like these, the historian in me speculates what might have been had Bush not been handed the White House by Scalia. One cannot help but lament the undeniable impact of eight precious years and so much credibility going down the drain. Such reveries provide for interesting thought experiments, but it's a depressing way to start the day and profits us little - other than to hope that the species will finally grow to appreciate that it really matters who is put in positions of power.

Sometimes, I think the realisation of such a hope entails another evolutionary step - and we don't have time for that. We as a species are capable of reacting quickly to immediate threats, such as an outbreak of disease or an attack of an animal or enemy. This explains the necessity of Bush and Blair creating a casus belli for the Iraq war which was premised - however mendaciously - on just such an "imminent" threat: portraying Saddam Hussein as a long-term threat was just not going to do it. This is proof that neither Blair nor Bush were stupid people: they understood well what it takes in order to succeed at exhorting human beings to action (in this case, mass violence) when the truth is less compelling.

It is the rest of us who are stupid: an existential threat to the species looms, and we seem powerless to stop it. Happy Christmas, kids!

Tony finally just says it . . .

. . . next stop: The Hague.

In my dreams.

Christmas comes early for the insurance companies

Soooo . . . no public option, and no medicare buy-in. Funny how a little competition from the supposedly bloated, inefficient government became so totally unacceptable. I guess we owe it to those insurance companies who nurture and protect us so lovingly . . .

On the bright side - if you had told me in 2004 that in this decade we'd have a $900 billion bill that would provide subsidies to most of the uninsured, ban discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, place a cap on premium costs for low-income workers, cap out-of-pocket expenses, cover more preventive services, expand Medicaid, and end gender discrimination in premium charges, all while shrinking the federal deficit... I'd have said you were tripping on mescaline.

I think Martin's got it right . . .

. . . Goldmans should fork over a pile of cash now. A big pile. It would be a mistake to impose punative tax on bonuses over a long period of time: the banks would just dance around that one - most easily by raising salaries.

But going after the bonus pools on a one-off basis? Why not try it? Martin's logic is sound.

For you geeks out there, this article from the BofE's Andrew Haldane puts it all in context:

" . . . the scale of intervention to support the banks in the UK, US and the euro-area during the current crisis . . . totals over $14 trillion or almost a quarter of global GDP. It dwarfs any previous state support of the banking system."

I'm lovin' the 'baggers . . .

. . . so entertaining.

Belated post . . .

. . . linking to a great article written by a Brit trying to explain what the hell is going on with the Right in America.

Respect your children . . .

. . . but that may be too much to ask in Texas.

Paul explains . . .

. . . how they got it so, so wrong.

I guess I really don't like being lectured to by rich kids about the genius of the free market

Here in what the locals like to call “Little Britain”, a nasty spat among the media elite has messily intruded on the public consciousness. The occasion giving rise to the current palaver was a recent speech darkly titled “The Absence of Trust” by none other than James Murdoch at the MacTaggart Series of lectures in Edinburgh on 28^th August. The speech was delivered on the twentieth anniversary of a memorable shot-across-the bow delivered by James’ dad, Rupert, at the same venue in which Murdoch-the-elder portrayed (probably accurately) a calcified British television media slumbering, contented and oblivious, on state subsidies as the digital media age beckoned - with Rupert Murdoch chomping at the bit in its vanguard. It was obvious that a speech on such an occasion by Rupert’s son-and-heir called for something special.

And Murdoch-the-younger delivered. In one sense, his was a tired reprise about the size and scope of the ‘beeb, whom competitors love to loathe as a state-sponsored behemoth stifling competition and distorting markets. But, by invoking Orwell, Mr. Murdoch cranked the debate up a notch. “As Orwell foretold,” he reminded us grimly, “to let the state enjoy a near-monopoly of information is to guarantee manipulation and distortion.” This certainly got people’s attention in a nation that takes its Orwell seriously indeed, as was no doubt intended.

It is important to keep in mind that the framework for this discussion – when stripped of all the accompanying sound and fury -- has been utterly upended since dear-old-Dad’s speech of twenty years ago: the debate now must be conducted against a backdrop which recognises the ascendancy of new formats, new media and the “New Media”. The last of these is dominated coincidentally by the Murdoch empire, which today wields enormous power in its own right, seizing market share in Britain, the U.S. and elsewhere, and dominating certain markets (such as television sports). It is for this reason that James Murdoch’s plaintive exhortations to throttle the BBC in order to save democracy ring a wee bit hollow.

Meanwhile, we Americans living in the UK can only shake our heads in admiration or disbelief at the chutzpah of the son of Rupert Murdoch lambasting the BBC as a “state-sponsored” Orwellian threat to the “plurality and independence of news provision, which is so important for our democracy”.

In calling for “genuine independence” in the news media, Mr. Murdoch is to be applauded, but his prescription for ensuring such noble aims errs in one crucial respect: it fails to take account a little thing called irony. When the premise of one’s thesis also happens to be utterly self-serving, irony may have an unfortunate cancelling effect. We can only take Mr. Murdoch’s earnestness at face value, which make the passages from Mr. Murdoch’s speech priceless examples of apparent complete lack of self-awareness, among them: “. . . people value honest, fearless, and above all independent news coverage that challenges the consensus,” which is an “inescapable conclusion that we must reach if we are to have a better society.”

“A better society”? Is this what the Fox Networks aspire to?

Even strident detractors grudgingly admire the discipline with which Fox News eradicates the very plurality and independence that James Murdoch now claims to champion. The reason Fox does this inevitably results from the very profit motive Mr. Murdoch claims ensures the opposite for example, there was money to be made in beating the drums of the Iraq war. When considering the alternative - providing thoughtful reporting and nuanced analysis – it was no contest. War sells, nuance doesn’t – especially in an America where attention spans grow ever more diminished. Slick graphics consisting of gauzy American flags ceaselessly waiving and jet fighters zooming across the screen between segments always help.

Can any serious observer say Fox News has elevated the level of debate over the past fifteen years? Fox News and the rest of the right-wing scream-machine have all but ensured the impossibility of any meaningful or productive debate in the United States about anything important. Fox’s fingerprints have been all over the “astro-turfed” “Tea-Baggers” masquerading as genuine “grass roots” citizen uprisings and the farcical town hall meetings that were supposed to be about health care reform, but which instead will be remembered for raising the prospect of having a president in the White House who is a Nazi.

If only we in the U.S. during the lead-up to the Iraq war had the equivalent of a BBC, which, of course, did not transcribe for public consumption White House or Downing Street diktat quite as dutifully as Fox News did. In fact, as Alistair Campbell memorably discovered, and amply demonstrated, the BBC turned out to be quite a thorn in the side of the British government. One can only wonder if Murdochs’ SkyNews in the UK has thus far stopped short of the outrageous excesses of Fox News in the U.S. as a result of being held in check by a rival state-sponsored news organization less motivated by profit. This contrasts alarmingly with the situation in the United States, where rival privately-owned news organizations fell quickly into line for fear of losing more market-share and even PBS, the once-independently minded Public Broadcast System, ran scared as Republicans cut off meaningful public funding. One can only wonder if changing this dynamic is what James Murdoch really wants to achieve. After all, as he so bombastically concluded at the end of his speech in Edinburgh (“[t]he only reliable, durable, and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit”), its all about profit.

James Murdoch’s earnest invocation of Orwell is ironic on levels too many to count: one might say it’s Orwellian.

This guy . . .

. . . is such a tool. You gotta wonder if this person's brain is capable of grasping the enormity of the irony bound up in the concept of an idiot child of a scion of yellow journalism preaching the virtues of unfettered free markets. Probably not . . . oh well, the rich are not like you and me. Sigh.

I'm lovin' Glen Beck . . .

. . . he's just the best.

Sometimes . . .

. . . I really don't miss living in that country . . . and, for the record, the NHS in the UK is far from perfect, but less not-perfect than the insane healthcare system (if one can call it that) in the U.S.

Been travellin' . . .

. . . and I admit to succumbing to temptation. Lo, to my shame I have bought The Economist. Twice. And I enjoyed it.

On economics, I've never had a problem with The Economist, but their commentary on American politics and culture seemed appallingly ignorant. In the past I attributed this to a craven desire to appeal to a certain readership who coincidentally believe everything they are subjected to on Fox News and the Wall Street Journal editorial pages . . .

In my defence, The Economist have had a new editor for some time now. Perhaps this explains why they have injected a bit more of a measured approach which I find bordering on readable. As I have waxed at length in the past, the previous editor is not on my list of best friends.

Advice and consultation would be welcome: should I feel dirty and foreswear further transgressions, or give in to tempatation and renew my subscription?

I'd like to say he's thinking what I'm thinking . . .

. . . but, as usual, he's ahead of me. Living in the UK as a dual national, the irony of the Labour Party's unfortunate predicament certainly has not escaped me. Brits look at me funny when I say the current crisis, really, can be laid at the now buried feet of Ronald Reagan (and those of Thatcher, I suppose). Unfettered dergulation and subsequent unceasing degradation of government capacity to regulate effectively inevitably led to massive consolidated financial services firms maximising profit and senior executive pay at the expense of meaningful risk management. The fact that New Labour and Clintonites bought into the charade hook, line and sinker only testifies to the power of the cultural shift that took place in the early '80s . . . as well as to the power of cynical political calculation, delusion and the willing collaboration of a sycophantic, incompetent and conflicted newsmedia.

As we and our children pony up to pay for this mess, don't ever forget these simple facts.

Clash of the Titans?

Krugman versus Ferguson: the Battle Royale.   My money is with the Nobel laureate, not just because he's more qualified as a proper economist, but because I feel obligated to him since I am the source of his inspiration, his muse, if you will.

Economists have sucked lately

 . . . a plausible explanation . . . 

What Matt says . . .

. . . so simple, so true:

You know, Newt Gingrich knows a lot about saying stupid things and being forced out of the job as Speaker. … But one way or the other — I mean, I wasn’t in the room, you weren’t in the room, Newt Gingrich wasn’t in the room. None of us know exactly what happened there. But whatever it is Nancy Pelosi knew about, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Yoo, Jay Bybee, they knew more. And ultimately, when we have a thorough investigation of what happened, the bulk of the blame has to lie with the architects of the policy, not with a member of the opposition party.

The GOP playbook hasn't changed a bit: destract, deny, project.  And their demographic keeps on shrinking.

Getting silly now

I really wish Dick and daughter would just let us put this whole torture thing behind us . . . 

Really gotta wonder what they are on about . . . the more they jabber the more ridiculous they look.  And the more ridiculous they look, the idea we can keep looking away-nothing-to-see-here ever less and less tenable.  I want the lawyers' heads on pikes - for starters.  I don't care what Pres. Obama says.  It's a matter of professionalism and standards . . .   

And he, too, shall be judged . . .

. . . not sure why the rats are scurrying now - the ship sank a long time ago.