The Establishment Want Them Out, Which Is Why Johnson and Weld Should Be In

Obama is leaving with our country more racially divided, more economically divided, more politically divided. He is leaving with labor force participation (the truer measure of unemployment) at generational lows - near the lowest it's been in 40 years, even after today's 1/10 percent uptick. Also, the broader measure of unemployment (U6), which includes underemployment, increased to 9.7% from 9.6% in June. With business capital investment at recession lows, and income inequality at historic highs. Regulation is stymying growth with GDP failing to improve enough in 8 years. Home ownership rates are at recession lows. Food stamps are at record highs. And our national debt has increased more than all the presidents before him combined. This are just some of the reasons over 70% in national polls do not like the direction the USA is heading.  

But other than all of that, Obama is a great guy!! I seriously enjoy his personality and sense of humor! Truly love the way he respects and treats his wife & children, and women in general. There are definitely aspects about Obama that are very likable. 

With all said, I am NOT saying I support Trump. Nor have I ever. But I have long said we need to listen to the issues he has identified! So that leaves me with a difficult decision. I want our nation to change direction, and Senator Clinton offers more of the same. Trump is too scary. That is why I believe we need to bring Johnson/Weld into the National DEBATE.

BOTH parties are seeking to shut Johnson/Weld OUT of the discussion. BOTH parties would have you believe that a vote for J/W is a vote for the candidate "you don't want." WHY? Because BOTH candidates represent the establishment - the lobbyist, the super PACs, government workers with an interest in maintaining the status quo, the military that would have to operate more efficiently, existing congressmen/woman who would lose their "pork." For all the reasons the establishment does NOT want Johnson/Weld in the debate, we should WANT THEM IN THE DEBATE!

Money from the Sky

I think so called "helicopter money," whereby monetary stimulus is directed into the economy, bypassing T-bills and expanding the debt is a superior approach. First of all, it gets more immediate stimulus traction. Up till now, much of the stimulus has not reached the segment of the money supply which circulates in the economy, creating jobs, and spurring jobs and expansion. Second, instead of that stimulus being on the balance sheet of the treasury and an obligation of the treasury, thus tax payers (our children and grandchildren), it goes on to the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve, off the budget. Thirdly, it is less likely to be used for governmental operations, thereby discouraging growth of our government. The Federal Reserve has a greater opportunity to direct those funds to where they will do the most good. Most previous Fed's stimulus has primarily driven down interest rates and forced investors to chase yield in riskier assets. This has resulted in greater income inequality.

Some friends know I've been hoping for this approach for a long time! If BoE and follows the BoJ lead we may find out if I was right. I have trouble imagining our Fed will get on board. But maybe in some ways they way. At this point our economy is moving forward, but one has to wonder if "helicopter stimulus" could have introduced earlier in the Great Recession for the better.

We Can Be Strong For A Lot Less

While I happen to agree with Trump on many issues including reducing and leveling out corporate taxes, reducing regulation, negotiating better trade agreements which protect American intellectual property, better border control, and other items, I also disagree with him on many things too including his plans to “strengthen our military.”

One area that I find appealing about the Libertarian positions of Gary Johnson, is their plans to reduce the excessive cost of supporting foreign military bases and personnel -- Money that could go to great use in America.  I seriously question whether America would be any less safe.

I believe it is high time for our allies to foot the bill financially and with troops.  There is massive youth unemployment in Europe and those young men & women could learn valuable lessons defending their country and supporting the NATO alliance!

Consider these facts and figures …

The United States has more foreign military bases than any other people, nation, or empire in history.  We have a presence in over 156 countries with approximately 730 bases and over 300K personnel. In Europe, for example, there are some 110K plus US military personnel including 75K in Germany alone.  We don’t just support the people – there are nearly 850K buildings and equipment covering a land area of nearly 30 million acres.

According to one expert calculation, we spend at least $85 billion a year to support this, which is more than discretionary budget of every government agency except for the Defense Department.

Scholar and former CIA consultant Chalmers Johnson described the situation this way in 2004, “As distinct from other peoples, most Americans do not recognize—or do not want to recognize—that the United States dominates the world through its military power. Due to government secrecy, our citizens are often ignorant of the fact that our garrisons encircle the planet.”

Interestingly, while we consider the situation normal and accept that US military installations exist in staggering numbers in other countries, on other peoples’ land, the idea that there would be foreign bases on US soil is unthinkable.

But it’s not just the direct costs.  There is a human toll that comes along with all this expense. According to Chalmers Johnson, “The families of military personnel are among those who suffer from the spread of overseas bases given the strain of distant deployments, family separations, and frequent moves. Overseas bases also contribute to the shocking rates of sexual assault in the military: an estimated 30% of servicewomen are victimized during their time in the military and a disproportionate number of these crimes happen at bases abroad. Outside the base gates, in places like South Korea, one often finds exploitative prostitution industries geared to US military personnel.

And, worldwide, bases have caused widespread environmental damage because of toxic leaks, accidents, and in some cases the deliberate dumping of hazardous materials. GI crime has long angered locals. In Okinawa and elsewhere, US troops have repeatedly committed horrific acts of rape against local women. From Greenland to the tropical island of Diego Garcia, the military has displaced local peoples from their lands to build its bases.

In contrast to frequently invoked rhetoric about spreading democracy, the military has shown a preference for establishing bases in undemocratic and often despotic states like Qatar and Bahrain. In Iraq, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia, US bases have created fertile breeding grounds for radicalism and anti-Americanism. The presence of bases near Muslim holy sites in Saudi Arabia was a major recruiting tool for al-Qaeda and part of Osama bin Laden’s professed motivation for the September 11, 2001, attacks.

Although this kind of perpetual turmoil is little noticed at home, bases abroad have all too often generate grievances, protest, and antagonistic relationships. Although few here recognize it, our bases are a major part of the image the United States presents to the world—and they often show us in an extremely unflattering light.”

Another area of savings is to reduce cost overruns and simply scale back on new projects.  As the first new carrier design in 40 years, the USS Gerald R. Ford incorporates new technology and operational systems that will allow it to have a higher aircraft launch and recovery rate, reduced manning, and improved survivability against projected threats. The problem is that those things don't work and delivery is years behind schedule and tens of billions over budget!! So, which Presidential candidate do you think would have better handled the situation? So let's see who got the most lobbying money from defense contractors.

First of all, Northrup Grumman, lead contractor on the project, was the # 2 contributor. But how did the 2015-16 money breakouts?

Sanders, Bernie (D) Senate $379,135
Cruz, Ted (R-TX) Senate $360,262
Thornberry, Mac (R-TX) House $354,500
Clinton, Hillary (D) $317,257
Frelinghuysen, Rodney (R-NJ) House $288,000

Lockheed Martin, contractor for the new F35 Joint Strike Fighter Jet, is the #1 Contributor in 2015-16. And, the F35 Project is is $163 billion over budget, seven years behind schedule, and will cost taxpayers about twice as much as sending a man to the moon. The $400 billion dollar project for approx. 2500 planes is the most expensive weapon ever built. It is hard to imagine that we couldn't manage with 1500 plane. But it's easy to imagine the incredible good amount of infrastructure we could do with that money! To give you an idea, the TOTAL Federal Transportation budget for 2016 was $17.2 billion - and that's for roads, rail, air, transit, maritime, safety, and grants!

Read more: http://www.politico.com/…/…/f-35-fighter-plane-costs-103579…

NOBODY OWNS TRUMP OR GARY JOHNSON! We know the establishment in Washington has been wasting tax dollars for generations. Why would anyone believe that the establishment is going to change? They are called the "establishment" for a reason! We need to reduce the size of our Federal government and give more choice and resources back to the states and local leadership. And that includes rethinking and restructuring our defense! We need USA infrastructure more we need the excessive military projects.

Step Back From Politics of Violence for a Deeper Understanding

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36822618

The unthinkable is now a pattern. Killing cops has become the thing to do -- the way one who feels suppressed and victimized by the system expresses their rage at the system.

How did we get here? It is NOT new for cops to shoot black guys in the course of police work, whether rightly or wrongly so. And they are NOT doing it more than the past. And there certainly is NOT more police brutality than there has been historically. Access to rifles is NOT new! So why the rise is people shooting cops?

We've seen what is already happening with radical Islamist terror attacks. What is happening with the police shootings is born of the same phenomenon. I think the more recent rise is linked to the increased prevalence of smart-phones with the ability to watch and capture video images. Video is a far more compelling form of media that print. And it is streaming to one's phone from an endless barrage of sources. Watching a video is also easier to do than reading a long article.

Shooters are being radicalized to hate cops and the system and act in vigilant ways by a combination of self-reinforcing beliefs made possible by cell phone videos posted to the internet in conjunction with hate speech, that is also available online. This is forming a narrative in the minds of the shooters which becomes the imbalanced focus of their attention and scapegoat for the cause of the misery and perceived injustice in their own life. Individuals who go down this path tend to compound their bias by choosing sources that support their views. Once this cycle of brainwashing begins it builds on itself and spirals to the point where the person is consumed by hate and resentment. Needing an outlet for their aggression, without a constructive one, such as sports or psychotherapy or art, they take their inspiration from seeing others like commit acts of terror. Eventually, they may release their pent up hostility on the society and individuals who are the subject and cause in their warped mental narrative.

As authorities have been finding in each case of violence, there is very often a trail of social media on the assailants computer or phone. Case in point is the Baton Rouge copy shootings the weekend of 7/17.

Adding fuel to the fires, is the media coverage of such events which illustrate to any would be shooters hot the world will come to know them. Since the outcome is often that the shooter is killed too, rapidly in a hail of bullets, the shooter has the sense that they will be relieved of their emotion pain. Believing that they may be a martyr only contributes to their motivation, which is why the radical Islamist is a much more dangerous trend. These people are incentivised with promises for a fabulous afterlife experience.

Contributing to the radicalization process are charismatic leaders and spokespeople who reinforce beliefs of injustice and a system designed against the population that they empathize or sympathize with - the tribe they belong to. Watching and or participating in protests, the energy of the crowd of like minds validates their belief and may fuel their desire to demonstrate their support. This has long been the case with some Muslim Imams who preach hate. But much more recently we have BLM and other groups, and opportunistic spokespeople like Reverend Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

Access to weapons is the convenient scapegoat for liberal politicians. Rather than offending their political base with notions of taking responsibility within their own communities, it is far more acceptable to point the blame at guns. But as Nice and the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995 should have proved to all of us is that the options for destruction exist regardless of whether the assailant has access to assault weapons or not. Recent police shooters have used ordinary rifles.

Lessons From The Last State

As more and more states, and the Federal government as well, take steps like Rhode Island, our economy is going to shift into a higher gear!  Government listening to business and cooperating with a focus on infrastructure, regulatory reform, tax relief, and a business friendly attitude is the formula for robust growth.  Not the practices of the last 8 years which represented the exact opposite!  Is Hillary about the last 8 years?  Or does she represent more of the same?

And if businesses see things turning around and the attitude of uncertainty shifts to one of optimism, they will rush to put their cash to work through acquisition, capital investment, and market expansion.  Then we are really off to the races as wages, labor force participation, and consumer spending kick in!

Keep in mind another huge positive dynamic. We are supplying more and more of our own energy, rather than importing from the middle east and elsewhere.  So growth in the economy and demand for energy will be an enormous stimulus to our energy sector!  That will equal nearly a trillion dollars that was leaving our economy and going overseas and is now being spent here.  Huuggggee!!

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/12/americas-worst-state-for-business-in-2016-takes-aim-at-talent-drain.html

Post Brexit Perspective

It happened.  After over four decades, which have had plenty of rough moments and more than enough contentious feelings, the UK has voted to split from the European Union.  Everyone is freaking out.  Some people are crying real tears of sadness and others are rejoicing.  Uncertainty is the net emotion.  So after the shock, what's next.  I've been trying to form a narrative in my mind.  To do that, I have turned to my trusty typewriter.  Writing brings clarity, creativity, and confidence.  So here it goes.

There are many aspects to the shift that just began. Here is my list of observations and assumptions in no particular order.  Hopefully by the end a theme emerges.

To begin with it must be said that nothing has changed, yet.  The vote is an expression of the will of the people. BUT the actual process and terms of exiting the EU still need to be negotiated and will take years.  Everyone needs to relax.

A major defining feature of the EU is the common currency of the Euro. However, the UK never gave up their currency - the pound.  So they don't go back to the pound, since they never left it.  What's more, they have a central bank with the independence to support their economy's need for liquidity and stimulus.  An advantage several other UK countries wish they had.  (Bet Germany is enjoying the competitive boost they just got from the decline in the Euro!)

The UK may have left the European Union, but they didn't leave Europe.  A flight from London to Frankfurt is still approximately 1 hour and 25 minutes.

The UK declared independence not war.  Just because the UK voted to withdraw from its treaty with 27 other European nations, doesnt mean the UK is not still an ally with every single one them.  The USA was the first to stand up and reinforce that in or out, our relationship is solid.

The UK is still a member of the Permanent 5, G20, the G7, and NATO.  So it still has a seat a some very important tables.

The people of the UK are still citizens of the same counties they were before the vote.  Someone who was British, Irish, or Scottish, still is.  Furthermore, the governments in the's countries which make up the UK still exist intact.  The UK didn't vote to give up their national identity and sovereignty, they voted to increase it.

No business was dissolved or economic need eliminated.  Life goes on with all the same essentials.  Soldiers report to the same commanders at the same posts. People will get up and go to the same place of work, buy their eggs at the same market and their children will have the same school teachers, even though a new chapter will have to be added to the history books.

There are the same media, actors, tourist attractions, churches, and all the things which add color to life.  More has stayed the same than has changed. That said, this was a referendum for change. So what about that?

Starting sometime in the next two years, and probably sooner than later, the UK will have to reach new agreements on trade.  I wonder if the UK will just have to negotiate one agreement with the EU commission, or whether it is in a position to reach separate agreements with each of the European nations individually.  I believe it is the former, but surely this will be a pain in the ass either way. Heaven knows this is a windfall for some of those in professions like law and accounting.  But the question is not whether to trade!  Surely, Germany still wants to sell Mercedes in England.  The question is how freely the EU and the UK will trade.  It is on this issue more than any other that uncertainty remains. One of the greatest privileges of being in the EU was the freedom to trade freely. Weakening the UK's economy in order to grow the EU economy ought to be viewed as a zero sum game.  But politics and people have a way of complicating otherwise simpler decisions.  Still, Ocams Razor suggests that the last thing any of the parties want is to spoil the party by bringing on a recession!  So it is in the mutual interests of most everyone to move negotiations along and promote growth.

Going forward, a UK domicile won't count for an EU domicile.  This has major ramifications for international organizations.  But here is the thing.  It doesn't mean those same firms do not want a presence in the UK.  It does however mean that they may want to open another office in the UK.  Some may move from the UK to the EU.  By the same token, some UK organizations may see the need to establish a presence in the UK.  The "Remain" camp created a lot of fear that the sky was falling.  Now that sky has fallen the economists will push the numbers again and no doubt they will be different.  Because now real business planning will require that the political agenda be put aside. It remains to be seen what the real net effect will be.

Borders don't change but crossing them will.  If anyone thinks that an Italian won't be able travel to England or an Irishman to Paris, they are irrational. They may have to add a few minutes to clear customs. The ones who we will have a harder time for sure are the migrants and refugees.  That's at the crux of one of the biggest changes.

In declaring a sovereignty they never lost, the UK took back from the EU the right to determine immigration policies.  Now, instead of group of unelected EU beauocrats creating a quota for how many refugees the UK must accept and deciding who can live in England, the English people can control their population. Gone is the right for anyone in Europe to choose to live in London. Or anyone from Dublin to live in Brussels.  Is that such bad thing?  After all, isn't this the ultimate concept of national sovereignty?  How would Americans like it if the EU mandated we take 500,000 refugees who have no means of support? The biggest threat to the EU is that a majority of people in France or Italy will get the same idea as the UK.  Many already have!

By giving up EU membership they also will not be subject to all the other various rules and regulations handed down in Brussels.  This is at the heart of the sentiment marketed simply by the Brexit supporters as "taking their country back."

Right now there is a lot of uncertainty, which is hardly ever good for business and markets.  BUT there are some things that are highly logical.  One of them is that a deep European recession would be bad for the status quo.  Nobody wants that, least of all the EU beauocrats!  If anything threatens to spoil their meal ticket it is a failing economy which would only elevate the burdens of the refugee crisis and fuel more the demand from citizens from other member nations for the same path the UK took.  It is in the interests of the EU, the UK, and for that matter the USA, and all central banks, to come up with a strong positive growth policy response fast!   And, to send comforting signals to business and markets about a smooth and workable transition for the UK out of the EU.

What's more, is the likelihood that the EU will be pressured to implement reforms to its policies which drove the UK out.  The beauocrats can be absolutely counted on to act in the interest of their own self preservation.  Now that they see that their EU jobs are in jeopardy watch how fast they are less generous with taxpayers money to support refugees!  It's easy to be alturist with somebody else's money.

So as bad as the Brexit is, there may be some good that can come from it.  It is interesting to test the counter factual.  And possibly the world will find better solutions to the refugee crisis.  For example, dealing with the causes.  After all, what good comes to nations like Syria if all their peaceful citizens and the families and people who are the future of their society leave?  How do they regrow a country which has lost its population and all that's left are jihadist and religious radicals?  Has the question ever occurred to you whether Germany is really trying to do Syria a favor by taking those people, or are they motivated by the need for labor to deal with demographic problems in their own economy? Like the Broadway show "Wicked," the back story often reveals a different perspective.

Long live the Queen!

What Does the World Do - When Monetary Policy Does NOT Work?

Central banks around the world have driven interest rates to historical lows, and even negative in some cases.

"Imagine a bank that pays negative interest. Depositors are actually charged to keep their money in an account. Crazy as it sounds, several of Europe’s central banks have cut key interest rates below zero."

The problem is that low interest rates are NOT having the stimulative impact we need.  Demand for capital is not triggering lending and consumers seem are uncharacteristically withdrawn.  Corporations are holding their cash, acquiring their competitors, buying back their stock, and only becoming more efficient with technology and improved business processes.  None of this behavior is promoting the spending and demand that the world's economy needs to counter deflation. 

More money has been printed over the last 5 years than all of history.  All in a futile attempt to increase inflation and stimulate demand.  But it's not good enough.  Fears of a rise in anti-competitive behaviors (tariffs, currency manipulation, governments using laws to hurt multinationals, etc.), political upheaval over reforms, and nationalism/imperialism are present, all because monetary policy is not having the desired effects.  What's the answer?

Some believe it's time for the USA to raise rates.  That's makes no sense with our dollar already rising more rapidly than ever and tons of corporations warning about exchange rate headwinds damaging earnings.  Besides, since when do you fight Deflation by raising rates?!  

By the same token, super low and negative interest rates are distorting investor and saver behaviors who are forced to chase yields from more risky investments.   The potential for very negative consequences can not be underestimated.  We need a better way.  And we have it.  

A better way was presented by British economist John Maynard Keynes wrote about in his book, The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money published in 1936 during the Great Depression, in contrast to his a previous works on aggregate supply-focused 'classical' economics.  Unfortunately, back then, Keynesian stimulus came in the form of WWII.  

A massive military expansion has its appeal for some.  And given the threats around the world, we are already seeing it in countries like China, Russia, India, Saudia Arabia, and other areas.  Fortunately, thanks to the "Sequester" that went into place here in the USA as a result of unresolved national debt ceiling negotiations, the USA is not going down the same military build up path.  Surely the hungry arms industry, congressional hawks, and warmongers would if they could. 

What we need is some Keynesian stimulus in the form of infrastructure spending.  Heaven knows we have enough need for it!  Time has come for a new approach to monetary stimulus.  Let's stop paying banks interest on reserves and start investing in the USA!