PDX Dad

RSS

Posts tagged with "barack obama"

Jan 18

Thoughts on the Keystone Pipeline, John Boehner’s responses on Twitter, and Bernie Sander’s response on Google+

Speaker Boehner has been all over Twitter today, saying Obama is destroying American jobs and shipping them overseas. Well, excuse me, but it’s the multinational energy corporations that are shipping jobs overseas. I’m sure Obama would prefer the jobs to stay here at home.

And Senator Sanders is correct, we need to help lead the world in generating green technologies and green energy. Yes, it’ll help with global warming, but at the same time it’s plain to see fossil-fuels are a dying breed. If we have to extract from tar sands and resort to fracking mountain sides, then clearly we’ve reached the point where costs are marginally rising. There’s no real escape from that unless there’s drastic change in technology.

So we either have to drastically change our technology to increase fossil-fuel extraction and refinement efficiency. Or, we have to drastically change our technology to make alternative, renewable fuels more cost efficient. Either way, it’s a question of cost efficiency.

Sure, there’s already infrastructure in place for fossil-fuel production, refinement, and distribution. But we already know these fuels are not-renewable and will eventually run out. At that point, all the infrastructure that we continued to fix and “update” becomes pointless. Roman aqueducts.

So much of the energy industry’s cost is in research, exploration, and development. Why not have a concerted effort by these already established corporations to really make a push to change their product mixture? Who else would be in a better position — money and intellectual capital — that the large energy corporations. They could be leading America (and the world) to a much better place employment wise, climate wise, and cost wise. 

If they choose.

Sanders Statement on Keystone XL Pipeline:

The United States must help lead the world in combating global warming and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It would be incomprehensible to give approval to a tar sands oil project when producing tar sands oil creates 82 percent more carbon emissions than conventional oil, and when it poses the risk of extremely damaging oil spills. I agree with NASA scientist James Hansen who has stated that fully exploiting the tar sands would mean ‘game over’ for our efforts to reverse global warming.

Posted 1 month ago

Comments

1 note

bernie sanders, john boehner, barack obama, keystone pipeline, keystone xl, tar sands, fracking, energy, oil,

Aug 3

Asia Markets React Negatively to US Debt Deal

Or, The Government Picked the Wrong Fight.

After President Obama gave his debtceiling agreement speech on Sunday, only 15 minutes before the Asian markets opened on their Monday, the various Asian stock markets opened strong and the price of gold dropped 1% over his historic high. As I thought earlier in the week the Obama speech appeared to be for show specifically for the Asian markets.

Now that various business and government leaders have seen more details on the debt ceiling deal worked out by Vice-President Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, it seems the Asian markets are not too impressed with its long-term viability. From the NY Times, “Asian Markets Tumble on Jitters Over Debt Woes”:

Stock markets tumbled across the Asia-Pacific region on Wednesday and the price of gold shot up as investors around the globe remained nervous about the debt problems in the United States and Europe.

Several leading markets in Asia dropped 2 percent or more, showing that the region’s largely positive economic outlook is doing little to insulate its stocks from the jitters that have battered global markets this year.

….

By contrast, gold, traditionally seen as a safer investment in times of uncertainty, briefly spiked to yet another nominal record high of more than $1,661 per ounce.

To be sure, this isn’t all about uncertainty in the US; the EU is having problems stabilizing its debt obligations as well. However, with such drastic cuts in spending expected over the period of the next decade, one has to wonder about the level of consumption Americans will be able to take in. A lack of government spending, coupled with an already low interest rate that has not generated any new capital investment, and a constant uptick in inflation will lead to lower growth expectations. 

What was needed more than slashing government spending (and I’ll include defense, even though the U.S. has grossly overspent the rest of the world in the regards) during a deep recession were specific job-creating proposals. Job growth has been a chimera of tax cuts for 30 years, and I cannot think of a serious economist who would equate the two. Investment due to positive business expectations and low interest rates, and low price rise expectations leads to increases in employment. Tax cuts do not factor into either of those.

If the U.S. government is serious about stabilizing the economy, both domestic and global, then it needs to concentrate on real job growth. Without job growth all of these Asian factories will have significantly less customer base. Without job growth workers will be unable to save disposable income, which is the foundation for bank loans and business development. Without job growth the United States will continue to be an indebted nation with no strong exports and a shrinking middle class.

Or, to put it into GOP talking points: Without job growth, the rich will continue to be the ones asked to foot our bills, because the middle-class will be gone.

Posted 6 months ago

Comments

3 notes

asia, debt, jobs, growth, government, taxes, GOP, Barack Obama, Joe Biden,

Jul 31

Thoughts on Obama’s Statement Regarding the Biden-McConnell Debt Agreement:

So Biden and McConnell came to an agreement that appears to be bipartisan in nature. Reid and Pelosi have tentatively signed onto it, if the rest of the Dem caucus also signs on. Boehner is trying to push this through his own groups. Obama sits back and watches.

Here’s the deal: I don’t believe there’s any way this will pass. Too many House Dems have argued against the lack of revenue; saying this is just an extension of Simpson-Bowles. Rep Emanuel Cleaver - someone who’s never been known to mince words - called it a “sugar-coated Satan sandwich.” I think there wouldn’t be enough Senate votes, either, with Levin, Schumer, and Sanders flat out saying, “No.”

Even Boehner is trying to use GOP marketing to get his factions to agree to it. The Tea Party wants the Balanced Budget Amendment included in any debt deal. The hardcore conservatives are balking at the Pentagon cuts. 

No, this agreement is only to appease the Asian markets. Chinese media has been scathing this weekend on the debt ceiling debates, and Japan has publicly voiced concerns on dollar supremacy. 

More than likely, the White House got wind of the possibility of major market downturn in Asia, and 30 minutes before the markets opened Biden, et al had a rush session. Fifteen minutes before the markets opened President Obama made his televised remarks on the deal being struck. Asia markets opened up strong, and gold has dropped over 1%. 

And we still have no deal until Monday.

Plenty of time for both houses of Congress to vote down the Biden-McConnell agreement, and plenty of time for a clean single page/single sentence debt ceiling bill to be passed, but without all the worry of a Monday morning market crash.

Posted 6 months ago

Comments

barack obama, job biden, mitch mcconnell, debt, debt, japan, china,

Jul 25
Why Barack Obama May Lose the Presidency in 2012: President Obama’s approval ratings have hovered around 45% for the past week on average, although it’s seemed to have been around that range over the past year. His highest approval rating was over 68% in mid-January 2009 (right before inauguration). George Bush, on the other hand, didn’t see his poll numbers drop to the mid-40’s until about a month before the 2004 elections. Bush had a significant jumps in poll numbers after 9/11 (95%), start of the Iraq war (70%), and the capture of Saddam Hussein (55%). Obama only had slight bump in the death of our greatest enemy, Osama Bin Laden (2% increase to 48%). As the debt crisis looms, liberals are starting to jump ship and blame President Obama of not leading enough, of hanging gays out to dry, of not approaching Latino voters enough, etc. And yet, Obama continues to out perform all presidential challengers in Ohio and Iowa polling by 5-20%. Plus, Obama seems to be playing the debt crisis card like a master as he continues to offer concessions and bipartisan offerings to bridge the gap between extreme slashes in government spending versus Bush tax cut expiration. The GOP continues to be painted as extremists who have no control over their caucus. What independent voters (45% of the electorate) and business leaders do not like are extremism and uncertainty in the interest rates.  Considering there does not appear to be a Democratic Party primary challenger, and the GOP field polls weak, President Obama should easily win re-election. George H.W. Bush probably felt the same way during his re-election bid in 1992. His challenger was a little known governor from Arkansas, he had just removed Iraq from Kuwait in the first real televised war, and social media had not been created yet to start grassroots movements which would later catapult Barrack Obama to victory 16 years later. Afterall, it was a rare occurrence indeed that an incumbent would not win re-election, especially one with such a long-lived career as the former head of the CIA and two-time Vice-President. I’m sure President George H.W. Bush would tell you the same thing Bill Clinton told him during the 1992 presidential election, “It’s the economy, stupid.” The chart that I’ve attached, courtesy of Stanford, is the real tell. The chart attached show the job losses, in millions, since the start of various recessions and how long in months it took to recover. As you can see, our current 2007-2009 recession is the worst in terms of job loss and nowhere near recovery. The standard guideline for ensuring those just entering the job market (graduates and those re-entering after a long unemployed spell) is 200,000 per month. At that rate, it would take until 2020 to recoup all of the jobs lost during the recession. Job growth in June was a whopping 18,000. Reduced taxes are not the solution to starting job growth in the country. If that were the case, where are all the jobs since the Bush tax cuts were first introduced in 2001 and 2003 (and subsequently reinstated by President Obama)? If it were about taxes, why are companies holding onto billions of dollars while the capital gains tax (the tax on investments) sits at a measly 15%? Bill Clinton raised the capital gains tax right before the longest stretch of job and wealth growth in U.S. History. The U.S. Corporate tax rate is only 35%, although as I’ve mentioned before most large companies get substantial tax breaks of 10%-25% off. The corporate payroll tax is only 3%-15% in the United States. Germany, one of those “socialist” countries in “socialist” Western Europe has the same corporate tax rate of 35% with no deductions and 40% payroll tax. Yet, Germany has outpaced the US in jobs creation and GDP growth since the financial crisis in 2007. US corporations are; however, sitting on billions of dollars in cash. What matters to job growth are expectations; something totally outside the realm of taxes. The first major expectation that affects job creation is how the interest rate is expected to move. Interest rates determine the level of investment that business expend on growth. If interest rates are down, then businesses invest more, build more, and employ more. If interest rates are expected to climb, companies hold onto their cash for better profit opportunities. The 5-year short term interest rate has been below 1% since September 2009, and actually negative since March 2011. Yet there have been no real increases in job growth during that time. Why? Because investors and business owners are skeptical that the low interest rates will last. What company wants to invest billions of dollars in new plants and other capital expenditures just to have interest rates rise and they lose all their profits on return to capital (meaning they pay back more in interest rates than they earn from the new machinery)? Any debt ceiling plan, fiscal policy, or monetary policy that would raise the interest rates would possibly bring about a double-dip recession. The second expectation that affects job growth is increases in the change of the rate of inflation. Traditionally, inflation is created when the Treasury prints more money (or, in our electronic age, increases the money supply to banks and bond investors) than the economy can keep up with. Money figuratively is worth less and prices rise to compensate. If a widget is worth $5.00, and the value of money drops 10%, then a retailer will start charging $5.50 to cover the loss in money value. In our current economic situation no new jobs are being created by the extra money that the Federal Reserve has pumped out. The economy has not kept up with the cheapening of the money supply. Interestingly, inflation dropped from an average of 5% right before President Obama won the election in November 2008 and remained below 2% up until the Republicans won the House back in November 2010. Since then, it has crept up steadily to 3.6% in June. As less people are put back to work, unemployment benefits run out for those out of work since 2008, and unemployment benefits for those recently out of work have been slashed, people are producing and buying less. The expectation is that inflation will continue to rise since we have this wide sea of available cash (sat on by banks and corporations alike) while productivity (which is tied to consumption) continues to decline. This leads to an increase in unemployment, mainly because workers will demand higher wages to cover the increase in inflation. At the very least, which we have seen coupled with expected interest rates rising, is that companies are not growing.  Unfortunately, I don’t have any good solutions, although I do support some of the ideas by former Labor Secretary Robert Reich. I recommend people read his webpage and watch his videos on http://www.robertreich.org.  But, unless President Obama can manage to lead the nation into massive job growth, and pin any slowdown on the GOP, then there’s a very real chance that a GOP-styled Bill Clinton could provide an upset next November.

Why Barack Obama May Lose the Presidency in 2012:

President Obama’s approval ratings have hovered around 45% for the past week on average, although it’s seemed to have been around that range over the past year. His highest approval rating was over 68% in mid-January 2009 (right before inauguration). George Bush, on the other hand, didn’t see his poll numbers drop to the mid-40’s until about a month before the 2004 elections. Bush had a significant jumps in poll numbers after 9/11 (95%), start of the Iraq war (70%), and the capture of Saddam Hussein (55%). Obama only had slight bump in the death of our greatest enemy, Osama Bin Laden (2% increase to 48%). As the debt crisis looms, liberals are starting to jump ship and blame President Obama of not leading enough, of hanging gays out to dry, of not approaching Latino voters enough, etc.

And yet, Obama continues to out perform all presidential challengers in Ohio and Iowa polling by 5-20%. Plus, Obama seems to be playing the debt crisis card like a master as he continues to offer concessions and bipartisan offerings to bridge the gap between extreme slashes in government spending versus Bush tax cut expiration. The GOP continues to be painted as extremists who have no control over their caucus. What independent voters (45% of the electorate) and business leaders do not like are extremism and uncertainty in the interest rates. 

Considering there does not appear to be a Democratic Party primary challenger, and the GOP field polls weak, President Obama should easily win re-election.

George H.W. Bush probably felt the same way during his re-election bid in 1992. His challenger was a little known governor from Arkansas, he had just removed Iraq from Kuwait in the first real televised war, and social media had not been created yet to start grassroots movements which would later catapult Barrack Obama to victory 16 years later. Afterall, it was a rare occurrence indeed that an incumbent would not win re-election, especially one with such a long-lived career as the former head of the CIA and two-time Vice-President.

I’m sure President George H.W. Bush would tell you the same thing Bill Clinton told him during the 1992 presidential election, “It’s the economy, stupid.”

The chart that I’ve attached, courtesy of Stanford, is the real tell. The chart attached show the job losses, in millions, since the start of various recessions and how long in months it took to recover. As you can see, our current 2007-2009 recession is the worst in terms of job loss and nowhere near recovery. The standard guideline for ensuring those just entering the job market (graduates and those re-entering after a long unemployed spell) is 200,000 per month. At that rate, it would take until 2020 to recoup all of the jobs lost during the recession. Job growth in June was a whopping 18,000.

Reduced taxes are not the solution to starting job growth in the country. If that were the case, where are all the jobs since the Bush tax cuts were first introduced in 2001 and 2003 (and subsequently reinstated by President Obama)? If it were about taxes, why are companies holding onto billions of dollars while the capital gains tax (the tax on investments) sits at a measly 15%? Bill Clinton raised the capital gains tax right before the longest stretch of job and wealth growth in U.S. History. The U.S. Corporate tax rate is only 35%, although as I’ve mentioned before most large companies get substantial tax breaks of 10%-25% off. The corporate payroll tax is only 3%-15% in the United States. Germany, one of those “socialist” countries in “socialist” Western Europe has the same corporate tax rate of 35% with no deductions and 40% payroll tax. Yet, Germany has outpaced the US in jobs creation and GDP growth since the financial crisis in 2007. US corporations are; however, sitting on billions of dollars in cash.

What matters to job growth are expectations; something totally outside the realm of taxes. The first major expectation that affects job creation is how the interest rate is expected to move. Interest rates determine the level of investment that business expend on growth. If interest rates are down, then businesses invest more, build more, and employ more. If interest rates are expected to climb, companies hold onto their cash for better profit opportunities. The 5-year short term interest rate has been below 1% since September 2009, and actually negative since March 2011. Yet there have been no real increases in job growth during that time. Why? Because investors and business owners are skeptical that the low interest rates will last. What company wants to invest billions of dollars in new plants and other capital expenditures just to have interest rates rise and they lose all their profits on return to capital (meaning they pay back more in interest rates than they earn from the new machinery)?

Any debt ceiling plan, fiscal policy, or monetary policy that would raise the interest rates would possibly bring about a double-dip recession.

The second expectation that affects job growth is increases in the change of the rate of inflation. Traditionally, inflation is created when the Treasury prints more money (or, in our electronic age, increases the money supply to banks and bond investors) than the economy can keep up with. Money figuratively is worth less and prices rise to compensate. If a widget is worth $5.00, and the value of money drops 10%, then a retailer will start charging $5.50 to cover the loss in money value. In our current economic situation no new jobs are being created by the extra money that the Federal Reserve has pumped out. The economy has not kept up with the cheapening of the money supply.

Interestingly, inflation dropped from an average of 5% right before President Obama won the election in November 2008 and remained below 2% up until the Republicans won the House back in November 2010. Since then, it has crept up steadily to 3.6% in June. As less people are put back to work, unemployment benefits run out for those out of work since 2008, and unemployment benefits for those recently out of work have been slashed, people are producing and buying less. The expectation is that inflation will continue to rise since we have this wide sea of available cash (sat on by banks and corporations alike) while productivity (which is tied to consumption) continues to decline.

This leads to an increase in unemployment, mainly because workers will demand higher wages to cover the increase in inflation. At the very least, which we have seen coupled with expected interest rates rising, is that companies are not growing. 

Unfortunately, I don’t have any good solutions, although I do support some of the ideas by former Labor Secretary Robert Reich. I recommend people read his webpage and watch his videos on http://www.robertreich.org. 

But, unless President Obama can manage to lead the nation into massive job growth, and pin any slowdown on the GOP, then there’s a very real chance that a GOP-styled Bill Clinton could provide an upset next November.

Posted 7 months ago

Comments

4 notes

barack obama, bill clinton, debt, economics, gop, recession, unemployment,