Whatsthatsmell?

Why does this seem so current?

I've been going through my MP3 collection making playlists for syncing to my brand new MP3 player...Came across this old gem from Camper Van Beethoven which kind of seemed to strike a chord about the current politico-economical scene, it reminded me of  Barack Obama for some reason:

The Ambiguity Song

Everything seems to be up in the air at this time
Everything seems to be up in the air at this time
One day soon, it'll all settle down
Everything seems to be up in the air at this time
All across the nation, people are gettin' together
From many ideas they form a single goal
Some people are gonna benefit
And others gotta sacrifice
But everything seems to seems to be up in the air at this time

Sorry it's been quiet...

Not felt like blogging of late.  Lots of stuff to observe and comment on, but no will...

I think it may have a lot to do with the fact that we are watching the end of the world as we know it, and I'm just getting my head around it (and building up my grab-and-go box, just in case.)

I think there are a few things that will affect me directly, and perhaps get exacerbated by the potential nationalisation of everything and the potential presidency of Obama.  Kind of scary.

For one, my anticipated return to the US may be put off for a while, as this whole mess sorts itself out.  It may take longer to get sorted if the wrong policies are pursued (such as a tax hike on "rich" people.)  This is a very real possibility; as one commentator pointed out, there are far-left Democrats in Congress who have been waiting decades for a like-minded POTUS to help them re-engineer America.  Even if Obama is a "moderate", which seems unlikely given his past associations and self-admitted dabblings in Marxism, he is not strong enough to stand up to the apparatchiks in his party.

I really hope I'm wrong, because this could potentially be very problematic, because they are not going to be Fabian in their approach, like almost all good idealogues who finally get their way, they are going to overplay their hand.  And I don't think the American people are the sorts to take things sitting down.  A recent survey, for instance, put American opposition to the redistribution of wealth at about 85%.  85% of the US population is to the right of the Democrat Party platform.  And a lot of them are armed.

And, outside of the government, there isn't going to be a lot of job creation in the US with a Reid-Pelosi-Obama leadership.

The Republicans were dip-sh**s when they were running Congress.  And now we are all going to pay.

 

 

And this economic thing...A lot of Europeans are patting themselves on the back because they avoided this nasty subprime business that's happened in the US.  But as we are seeing the beginning of the end to the problems in the US, we are seeing the end of the beginning for Europe.  Where do you think all that bad debt ended up?  European institutional investors have always preferred debt over equity as investment vehicles.  Those lovely subprime loans looked really tasty a couple of years ago.

Plus the European banks have their own sub-prime messes to muddle through in the Baltics and the Balkans.  The European banking system is teetering completely on the edge.

Why do you think they are dictating to Bush that the US has to come along?  So that when their own systems go tits-up, the US's will too.  Unlike Britain and the US, the European systems have already been nationalized or at least collectivized (as in Germany) to the extent that the banks and private industry are so intertwined that they cannot be considered separate sectors.

So I haven't been of cheery mien of late.  But as with everything, this too, shall soon pass.  But what will take its place?

What a butthead...Delayed reaction...

I watched the Daily Show last Friday on More4.  They usually show it here in the UK a couple of days after showing it in the States. 

Most of the time, I completely disagree with the editorial slant taken by the Daily Show, but I still find it extremely funny.  Jon Stewart, the host, is a funny guy, and his delivery is tops, and most of the stuff he pokes fun at is fair game, and can often have me laughing hysterically, despite his mostly ripping into "my side".

Since the announcement of Sarah Palin as Vice Presidential candidate, however, it just hasn't been funny.  I am open-minded enough to appreciate good comedy even when it "offends" one's beliefs and sensibilities.  But most of the shows since the day after the Democratic Convention have been nothing but angry, ugly, sneering, elitist ranting.  The Manhattan bien pensants ripping into someone from Middle America because she isn't like one of them, is the impression I get.  The underlying implication being that as she is from outside their rarefied world then she must be ignorant and not as worldly as the clever clogs that are writing the material on the show.

Well, Friday night's interview with Tony Blair showed just how knowledgeable and worldly Jon Stewart is when no one is writing his lines.  Within the space of five minutes, he made, in my eyes, two of the stupidest "ignorant" American mistakes about geography and history.

First, when Tony Blair explained that he was now teaching at Yale, Stewart asks, "So, do you prefer getting paid in Dollars or Euros?"  Blair politely informed him he prefers British Pounds.

Later, when Blair explained that no two democracies had ever gone to war, Stewart, with a clever smarmy tone, asked "Aren't Britain and Argentina democracies?"

Blair pretended not to hear it, yet Stewart pressed on.  Blair had to inform Stewart that at the time of the Falklands War, Argentina was a dictatorship.

You know, I don't mind people being slightly ignorant of these things, in the grand scheme of American life and culture, these things don't matter.  What I do take issue with is people like Stewart pretending they are more clever than they actually are and making unfounded assumptions about other people's levels of ignorance on the basis of ideology and calling it comedy.

What a tosser.

Actually, that is the problem with many on the Left (I should know, too, I used to be one).  They assume that they are smarter than EVERYONE on the other side of the aisle.  They use smarmy tones to talk down to people they don't agree with, and then they can't figure out why they lose elections.  We're in store for another four years of liberal bleating about stolen elections.

The economy's tanking, George Bush is low in approval ratings, the Republicans are on the backfoot in Congress, the Iraq War is not particularly popular as a political issue, and 80% of the population think the country is going in the wrong direction.

And Obama is only leading by a few percentage points in the polls?  At this point, he should be 15-20 points ahead of McCain.  Who's clever now?

Just thinking out loud...

I'm wondering how instructive it would be for some regulatory body to look into recent stock market transactions by employees of a particular bank that's about to get taken over...

Just saying...

Paris Hilton Responds to the Presidential Race

I might begin to reconsider who I'm voting for in November (just kiddin...) (h/t to the uncle)

See more Paris Hilton videos at Funny or Die

I Should Avoid "Thought for the Day"

on the Today programme on Radio 4.  Some C of E clergyman today began with the idea of how biofuels are an easy target as the scapegoat for the world's food problems, but that it is difficult to balance hunger against our need to tackle "climate change" and our energy needs.

It's not bloody difficult, matey...

You and your ilk made us take on these "climate change" policies on the basis that people could find themselves starving and there will be world anarchy in fifty years if we don't do something, anything!

Well, guess what, bucko?  It's happening now...

Because of your climate change policies.

Heck, even our lefty Chancellor sees there's a problem with biofuels...But no, because the EU will not give way, we must go with them.  (Did someone hear the word sovereignty in there?)

Who cares, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, can you?

Okay, I'm supporting McCain Now

Despite my previously enumerated issues with McCain, his speech this past week on economic issues and his economic platform has won me over. 

Especially after hearing how Obama and Clinton would automatically seek to raise taxes all around, in the interest of "Fairness", in the debate immediately following McCain's speech.

I think, when it comes to taxation and fiscal policy, McCain knows what's good for America and, subsequently, the rest of the world.

Thank God there is an America, where people who call themselves "conservatives" really are conservatives.  At least the Right in America has not ceded the argument to the Left like they have here in the UK.

I have pretty much given up on Conservative politics here in the UK.  The debate has been framed by the socialists, and I don't see any return from the brink unless there is a coup within the Conservative Party by a charismatic leader.  It strikes me that any "conservative" policies the Conservatives adopt tend to be out of potential vote-winning instead of conviction.  They aren't very convincing, the wets that are in charge right now.

Which is why I am glad that there are countries in the world where the socialists are losing the argument.  Like France, Germany, and the US.

So in front of my meager audience, I am announcing my support for McCain.  I may not agree with him 100%, but 80% is good enough for me.

(For those of you who wonder, I am both a British subject and a US citizen.)

Feeling slightly smug of late...

Reading articles like this one...

Families face a £1,300 annual increase in their mortgage payments after the country's biggest building society announced a rise in its lending rates.

Here's why I'm feeling smug...

Four years ago, when we began formulating how much money we could afford to borrow to purchase a house, I calculated how much we could afford to pay, at the time, as a monthly payment even if interest rates went up to 10%.

Based upon that number, that's what we had in mind as the cap to the size of our mortgage.

We also made the unorthodox decision to buy a larger house and share it (live in it) with my wife's parents.

When it came time to apply for the mortgage, we locked into a ten-year fixed rate at 4.89% on the amount of money we thought we could afford to borrow even if we had to pay as high as 10% at some future date.  Which was half the value of the house we purchased with the in-laws.

And more than a few acquaintances thought we were completely nuts on both counts - living with the in-laws and locking into a 10-year fixed rate.

Although it took some adjustment, living with the in-laws has turned out to be one of the best decisions we could have made, especially for our daughter.

And locking into a 10-year fixed rate was another prudent thing to do; and a few people thought we were even nuttier for doing this.

For some of these people, their lifestyle and spending decisions were predicated upon eternal rising house prices and low interest rates with the ability to remortgage cheaply every two years or so.  I imagine this is fairly representative of a large part of the population.  People bought houses on the basis of how much they were allowed to borrow and not on the basis of how much they could actually afford.  And many of them also bought with self-certifying mortgages, so they could stretch the truth a bit about their actual incomes.

Okay, so now house prices are going to take a temporary dip while the market sorts itself out.  But unless something's done about wholesale immigration to the UK or major land use reform, housing prices, at least here in the South East of England, are going to remain rather buoyant.  (If I had known the full extent of immigration to this country, I would have bought back in 1999 or 2000, when I could have afforded it even better, on a contractor's income.)

I have a real problem with the moral hazard being created by the various plans for bailing people out that politicians keep alluding to.  This may sound smug and "uncaring" but I say let the chips fall where they may.

Borrowing money for a house far into the six digits is the most important financial decision any one is going to make in their lives.  There are plenty of free places to find all the information you're ever going to need, to look at it from all angles.

If an increase to the interest rates adds a little over £100 to your monthly mortgage bill, and this is unaffordable, it was you that borrowed too much money.  It's not the fault of the "greedy" banks and mortgage companies, as many of the news stories of late would have you believe.

Too clever by half...

Just read David "Bloody" Cameron's speech on the economy...

He criticised the Labour Party tax regime without actually saying he would lower taxes.  Oh, he said he would "simplify" Corporation Tax.  Whatever that means.

He managed to say a lot of nothing in that speech, actually.  One was reminded of so many other "third way" speeches by another politician who was not much on substance...

The only reason I will vote Conservative now will be on the merit of the candidates and not because of the party; Cameron is just as useless as Blair and it is really easy to see that there is no other principle at work other than the will to be Prime Minister.

The Economic elephant in the room

It is funny listening to commentators on the BBC whistling in the dark regarding the economy.

I saw that chick on Newsnight who worked in the Clinton Administration talk about how it would be impossible for Brown to lower taxes because he's borrowed so much.  I don't know what it is, but is there some sort of magic curtain that sits in British TV economists brains that keeps them from comprehending the Laffer Curve?  Can't they see that perhaps lower taxes (in the heaviest taxed European economy) might just increase revenues because people and corporations will be spending less time avoiding paying high taxes?

Last year, the US government had three or four quarters of revenues greater than expenditure (in "war" time and with no concomitant spending cuts) thanks to Bush's tax cuts.  I wonder what something like that would do for the British economy.  I don't think we will ever know, because every proposed tax cut seems to mean less nurses and policemen, rather than less management consultants and outreach officers, in this country.

But anyway, back to the elephant in the room...I was listening to Bill Bennett yesterday and a woman who works on the Street called in and named it...The markets are spooked by a potential Hillary or Obama presidency.  As the so-called front runner McCain has already pleaded ignorance to economics, and it is obvious what Hillary or Obama would do as president with regard to the economy, the markets are spooked.

I think the only thing that will stop the spooking is for Romney to position himself as the "businessman", take advantage of people's economic fears to reassure everyone how much of a  steady economic hand he would be, and emerge as the front runner after Florida.  It just might reverse  a bit of the  correction we are experiencing right now.  The only other candidate who might be able to allay economic fears is Giuliani.  I don't think any of the other Republicans in the running can approach economics with gravitas.  And this year may see a re-run of "It's the economy, stupid."