Surrender, Again

Here’s Great Britain’s Prime Minister, David Cameron, on the EU’s “response” to the Russian invasion and partition of Ukraine:

It’s important to send a very clear message that if there is further destabilization in Ukraine then there should be further wide ranging measures taken, and we’ve agreed tonight that we will task the European Commission to draw up those possible measures.

That’s it?  What about holding out for Russian withdrawal from Ukraine, Mr Prime Minister?

This is abject surrender.  It’s an insult to the courageous and strong British Prime Ministers of the past—Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher come to mind.  You, Mr Cameron, are unworthy of your nation.

Rookie Gaffe?

That’s what Paul Edelstein of IHS Global Insight thinks, according to The Wall Street Journal.  In the Fed’s post-FOMC presser last Wednesday, Fed President Janet Yellen suggested that interest-rate increases might start beginning roughly six months after the Fed’s QEx (which is in the process of being…tapered) ends or as soon as this fall.  Edelstein had this to say as the stock market reacted negatively to Yellen’s remarks:

This could have been a rookie gaffe on Yellen’s part.  This was, after all, her first press conference.

Or, it’s possible that Yellen knew what she was doing, and she said what she said with carefully chosen words.

It’s also possible that Yellen knew another thing that Edelstein and his ilk seem to have conveniently forgotten: the Fed exists to stabilize the economy’s price behavior and to work toward full employment, however that’s defined.  In particular, the Fed does not at all exist to prop up stock prices for the benefit of investors like Edelstein, or me.  Our performance—work with me on this, it seems to be a lost concept for many—is on us; it’s a part of our personal responsibility.

And we had to know that QEx would end, we do know that is ending, and we should know that it’s on us to deal with the inflation that will result on OEx’s completion.  The Fed has no obligation—it cannot have this obligation in a free market economy—to inure us from the outcomes of our decisions.

Knowledge of Obamacare

Seventy percent of uninsured Americans said they do not know about Obamacare tax credits, and 45% are unaware of the enrollment deadline.  So says a poll taken by Bankrate.com.

What might this mean, really, especially in the face of a Democratic Party that’s already demonstrated an impressive skill at getting its message out to all Americans?  Some thoughts come to mind.

  • We aren’t as plugged in to the Internet as we like to think we are.  While that might be true for rural America, the number of rural Americans cannot account for these numbers.
  • Nobody reads the newspapers or watches network news on television anymore.  Declining circulation and Nielson ratings do tend to support this.
  • It might also be strongly influenced by what we actually do when we’re online or reading the papers or watching TV.  Folks no longer read the “news” or watch it on TV—they’re reading the funny pages and sports sections, and they’re watching entertainment programming on TV.  And they’re doing largely the same thing as they surf the Internet.  The “news” items, no longer being unbiased reporting of the day’s events, are being increasingly disregarded altogether.
  • And it might be a simple case of whatever the Democratic, or Republican, Party says is becoming increasingly disregarded: from the fatigue induced by the constant bombardment by both parties (but by the Democrats especially) with political pronouncement, and duns for money which add to the general fatigue, as well as an irritation aspect.  And from a growing disdain for the routine and blatant mendacity of each party.