Tag Archives: political parties

Mixed View

Posted on by
Reply

European oil companies are engaged in a fierce competition for the best oil and gas fields in Iran when Western sanctions are lifted, while American energy firms watch from the sidelines.

Much of what’s holding American energy firms back are the still in place American sanctions that block US companies from such business. Nevertheless, American firms of any industry shouldn’t be doing business with Iran, even if it might become strictly legal. We shouldn’t be helping a terrorist nation-state that has as its sworn goal the extermination of Israel. Neither should anybody in the West, including those European oil companies.

On the other hand, such business by the Europeans can go a long way, if done right, toward reducing or eliminating European dependency on Russian oil and gas—and so to eliminating Russia’s ability to extort Europe.

That’s not all bad.

We Welcome Every Drop of Blood Spilled in Jerusalem

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what President Barack Obama’s and Secretary of State John Kerry’s favorite peacemaker is saying about the Palestinian knife and gun attacks against Jewish citizens currently going on in Jerusalem.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was talking about Palestinian blood spilled as Israeli police and soldiers defended those citizens; he had not a word about the Jewish blood shed—that’s beneath his notice. Jews, after all, in Abbas’ terrorist mind, are but “barbaric monkeys” and “wretched pigs.” Abbas went on:

This is pure blood, clean blood, blood on its way to Allah. With the help of Allah, every martyr will be in heaven, and every wounded will get his reward.

This is what those two American administration persons say must be balanced by Israeli efforts to tamp down their own “violence.”

This is what President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry say is the moral equivalent of Israel defending itself against such terrorists.

The Victim Should Tamp it Down

Posted on by
1

President Obama on Friday stood by his administration’s approach to the unrest in Israel, again urging both sides to “tamp down rhetoric” fueling the violence[.]

Because when the victim demurs from being attacked, he’s feeding the violence. Sure.

Because there’s an essential moral equivalence between the terrorist and his victim when the two are on a national or quasi-national level. That’s the Progressive position.

Unintended Consequence?

Posted on by
Reply

Or was it intended? Big banks, banks the Warren/Obama regulations deem systemic risks—too big to fail—are driving away cash deposits. Never mind that those deposits are loanable funds (oh—regulations, again, discouraging lending while Progressives contradictorily jawbone and pressure financial institutions to make risky loans to poor credit rating borrowers, because—regulations again—those credit ratings are somehow racist).

For instance,

State Street Corp, the Boston bank that manages assets for institutional investors, for the first time has begun charging some customers for large dollar deposits, people familiar with the matter said. JP Morgan Chase & Co, the nation’s largest bank by assets, has cut unwanted deposits by more than $150 billion this year, in part by charging fees.

Because:

The banks’ actions are driven by profit-crunching low interest rates and regulations adopted since the financial crisis to gird banks against funding disruptions.

The latest fees center on large sums deemed risky by regulators, sometimes dubbed hot-money* deposits thought likely to flee during times of crises.

Because honest Americans wanting to earn money off their cash mustn’t be allowed to do that. And banks can’t be trusted to know what they’re doing with hot deposits; Progressive Know Betters are the only ones equipped to dispose of OPM.

Or: this is a tacit recognition that Progressive policies over the last seven years have been utter failures, and all that stored cash has to be flushed back into the economy, and the latest regulations have nothing to do with risk, systemic or otherwise, regardless of the surrounding Obamatalk.

It harkens back to FDR’s assault on business by demanding they disgorge themselves of cash—retained earnings—because they were “hoarding” or on a “capital strike.” Hoarding, “striking” because business had no viable place to invest its cash, due to FDR’s economic policies.

 

*Note: Banks usually attract “hot money” by offering relatively short-term certificates of deposit that have above-average interest rates. As soon as the institution reduces interest rates or another institution offers higher rates, investors with “hot money” withdraw their funds and move them to another institution with higher rates.

A Bipartisan Misunderstanding

Posted on by
Reply

Congressmen Kyrsten Sinema (D, AZ) and Randy Neugebauer (R, TX) rightly decry the partisan nature of the Elizabeth Warren/Dodd-Frank Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but their solution is wholly wrong. They want the existing single-director power structure replaced by a multi-person bipartisan commission, one that wouldn’t be so prone to the party in White House…influence.

As an example of how well a bipartisan commission would work, the Congressmen cite the SEC, the fair and balanced commission that uses in house judges to act on and punish those the SEC accuses of illegal investing practices.

It’s interesting that they didn’t cite the FCC, of Internet interference notoriety, or the NLRB, the commission that’s an arm of Big Union.

No, the proper correction to the partisan nature of the CFPB is to get rid of this wholly unaccountable even to Congress, with budgeting on demand from the Federal Reserve Bank, monstrosity altogether.

Replace with what, then? Nothing. The function is not needed. American citizens aren’t as slack-jawed, droolingly stupid as the Know Betters in government—of either party—make us out to be.