Left-leaning economic populists will deride President Bush’s Mortgage-Relief plan as not going far enough to “right” the mortgage crises. Free-market supply-siders will react to the relief plan as a bailout for the financially reckless. How this will play out during the election year is already quite clear, good versus evil. Democrats will undoubtedly say that the plan illustrates republican greed, by being too restrictive on helping those in need. Meanwhile, Republicans will comeback with arguments of fiscal responsibility against poor risk decisions.
However, I feel the real point, the theory and end-result of economic fallout will be ignored. The free-market system (when left alone) will correct itself as it has here and that in-and-of itself is fundamental to the success of free-market economies. The price of risk leads to prudence and calculated investments. If bailouts become the norm (as in socialist-leaning Europe) the economy and investment market becomes unstable as Smith’s Invisible Hand is replaced by State intervention.
Its not an argument of teaching lessons to risk takers, but rather allowing the market to evolve without regulation and intervention by short-term economic policies.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Small Business - Redefined?
The National Venture Capital Association is backing a bill, passed by the House in September, that redefines the parameters of small businesses and thus their eligibility for grants and federal funding. Under the House version, ownership groups such as those associated with the NVCA would have more ability to go after federal funding programs via majority-owned small business affiliates. Currently, businesses owned primarily by VC firms are not classified as "Small" and thus are excluded from these contracts.
There is a Senate version of this legislation which leaves out the language entitling VC firms to "flood" the market for federal funding. Groups like the American Small Business League and the NFIB are opposed to the House version, but it seems the Senate version may pass, leaving it up to conference to decide the difference.
If it does clear the Senate, the conference committee will have to keep in mind that President Bush has voiced his opinion against the House version and would do well to curb the influence of the VC lobbyists in this process or face the veto pen in 2008.
There is a Senate version of this legislation which leaves out the language entitling VC firms to "flood" the market for federal funding. Groups like the American Small Business League and the NFIB are opposed to the House version, but it seems the Senate version may pass, leaving it up to conference to decide the difference.
If it does clear the Senate, the conference committee will have to keep in mind that President Bush has voiced his opinion against the House version and would do well to curb the influence of the VC lobbyists in this process or face the veto pen in 2008.
When should we believe Intelligence Reports?
I don't know about you, but when I hear that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is commending our intelligence reports, I begin to feel a bit queasy.
I hope that the recent reports on the Iranian nuclear program are accurate, but of course we all are a bit skeptical in the wake of the WMD debacle. The report says Iran stopped all signs of its covert nuclear weapons program in 2003.
Two things strike me about this report. First, 2003 is an interesting time. Could there be a Libya-effect going on in Iran? Did the Iraq invasion send the same message to Iran as it did to Muammar al-Gaddafi, that the US is serious under a Bush adminstration about its claims to follow through on promises against nuclear proliferation. And if so, isn't that tantamount to an admission, at least on some level, to effective foreign policy from the Bush White House?
Second, isn't the meaning of "covert" programs that they are ideally hidden from foreign intelligence and subsequently their reports? Could Iran be learning from the Soviets and actually creating a subterfuge to win international support while at the same time still developing those arms, which if discovered would encourage international sanctions?
We as a nation may have our doubts about "intelligence reports," but I certainly have my doubts about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and anything he claims as a victory.
I hope that the recent reports on the Iranian nuclear program are accurate, but of course we all are a bit skeptical in the wake of the WMD debacle. The report says Iran stopped all signs of its covert nuclear weapons program in 2003.
Two things strike me about this report. First, 2003 is an interesting time. Could there be a Libya-effect going on in Iran? Did the Iraq invasion send the same message to Iran as it did to Muammar al-Gaddafi, that the US is serious under a Bush adminstration about its claims to follow through on promises against nuclear proliferation. And if so, isn't that tantamount to an admission, at least on some level, to effective foreign policy from the Bush White House?
Second, isn't the meaning of "covert" programs that they are ideally hidden from foreign intelligence and subsequently their reports? Could Iran be learning from the Soviets and actually creating a subterfuge to win international support while at the same time still developing those arms, which if discovered would encourage international sanctions?
We as a nation may have our doubts about "intelligence reports," but I certainly have my doubts about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and anything he claims as a victory.
Article worth a read
If you're looking for an insightful view into management practices as they relate to business risk and national economic policy with the backdrop of the sub-prime crunch and $100-a-barrel oil, then take a look at this month's issue of Fortune Magazine. Fortune's Nina Easton provides an insightful look into our current administration's economic policy with an exclusive interview with Vice-President Dick Cheney.
The former Haliburton CEO and current Veep provides insight into the government's role on bailouts for risk-taking lenders and consumers, as well as thoughts on national risk-aversion policies for preventing an oil shortage.
The former Haliburton CEO and current Veep provides insight into the government's role on bailouts for risk-taking lenders and consumers, as well as thoughts on national risk-aversion policies for preventing an oil shortage.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
New NSA phone is ultra-chic
Forget about the I-Phone or the Crackberry; I want a SecteraEdge. Of course, you have to be on the NSA speed dial to even be considered for one at this point, but talk about a cool phone. General Dynamics, as part of its Secure Communications Interoperable Protocol (SCIP) family of devices, is ready to launch a "mobile phone for spies." For more information, see the company site.
McCain-Huckabee, McCain-Thompson
Monday David Broder, the unofficial Dean of the Washington press corps, wrote a piece encouraging Republicans to consider a McCain-Huckabee ticket for 2008. While I have talked privately to many about this exact ticket, and believe McCain-Huckabee could go a long way to securing a GOP hold on the Whitehouse for the next 16 years, I think it is probably not as a likely as a McCain-Thompson ticket.
Let me explain my logic and unfurl a scenario for McCain to bring back the sometimes misinformed and misled Republican base. First, Iowa and New Hampshire will likely split the vote and possibly give Huckabee and McCain the first two primaries. Huckabee is currently leading in Iowa polls and McCain just received the endorsement of the largest paper in New Hampshire with committed press every week from here on in. Next up is Michigan and Nevada, which could result in a Romney and Giuliani split before we head to the southern states and the conservative base.
It will be at this point, prior to the South Carolina and Nevada primary on January 19th, that I believe Fred Thompson will officially close his “lazy” campaign and call for his supporters to back John McCain, thus creating a 4-way race with only one conservative candidate.
For all the critics who say McCain is not conservative, you might need to check his record. McCain may be a maverick against the establishment and the neo-cons, but his 24-year voting record has always been consistently conservative on taxes, spending, and the role of government both domestically and abroad. In fact, the only reason he did not back Bush’s initial tax plan was because of its lack of spending controls which ended up costing the GOP the congressional majority in 2006.
As a matter of fact, if you go back and look at the record of when McCain broke from the ranks and criticized the Republican leadership, it was over the handling of the Iraq war in 2003 and the lack of spending restraints in the Bush tax bill (a view also shared by Alan Greenspan). His contentious Campaign Finance bill (McCain-Feingold-Thompson, as in Fred) was, in the end, supported by the Bush administration.
Back to the race at hand, the first thing going in McCain’s favor is the lack of an “establishment candidate.” The money players in the GOP don’t really have a strong option, so Giuliani and Romney have tried to vie for this spot. Both, however, have glaring weaknesses and problems fitting in on a myriad of high-profile issues such as abortion, limited government, and taxes. Not to mention, neither has the experience necessary to be considered a strong candidate to lead on foreign policy. Now, you might say as to that last point, neither did George W. in 1999 and 2000, but you have to remember that his candidacy was as much about his “team” as it was about him. Think back to the rumors circulated early that veteran statesman Dick Cheney and former President George H.W. Bush were calling in old allies to bring together a resurgence of the Ford administration from the late 70s. That’s just not the case with Giuliani or Romney.
Also consider that Thompson is a McCain supporter and always has been. He was heavily involved in McCain ’00 and agrees with the Arizona Senator on most issues including the most contentious issues of Campaign Finance Reform and Comprehensive Immigration. Although Thompson has spoken the rhetoric against so-called amnesty, he too was for the bill's provisions for a border security plan coupled with an identification program for the existing 12 million illegal aliens.
Second, Thompson does not have the desire to be President, or at least does not desire putting in the effort to run a national campaign. That was illustrated clearly in a recent NY Times article which states that the former Senator held only one retail campaign event last week. At this event he had supporters standing in a crowded BBQ restaurant for several hours only to give a 30-minute speech before leaving early.
Thompson is a nice guy and is liked by many Washington insiders, but his lack of (or perceived lack of) the drive and determination to fight for votes puts in play many questions about his ability to work 24/7 for our country while in office. However, a cushy Vice-President role is just the spot for Thompson and his supporters, which would turn the tide for McCain in the south and give conservatives a reason to vote against Rudy or Mitt.
Let me explain my logic and unfurl a scenario for McCain to bring back the sometimes misinformed and misled Republican base. First, Iowa and New Hampshire will likely split the vote and possibly give Huckabee and McCain the first two primaries. Huckabee is currently leading in Iowa polls and McCain just received the endorsement of the largest paper in New Hampshire with committed press every week from here on in. Next up is Michigan and Nevada, which could result in a Romney and Giuliani split before we head to the southern states and the conservative base.
It will be at this point, prior to the South Carolina and Nevada primary on January 19th, that I believe Fred Thompson will officially close his “lazy” campaign and call for his supporters to back John McCain, thus creating a 4-way race with only one conservative candidate.
For all the critics who say McCain is not conservative, you might need to check his record. McCain may be a maverick against the establishment and the neo-cons, but his 24-year voting record has always been consistently conservative on taxes, spending, and the role of government both domestically and abroad. In fact, the only reason he did not back Bush’s initial tax plan was because of its lack of spending controls which ended up costing the GOP the congressional majority in 2006.
As a matter of fact, if you go back and look at the record of when McCain broke from the ranks and criticized the Republican leadership, it was over the handling of the Iraq war in 2003 and the lack of spending restraints in the Bush tax bill (a view also shared by Alan Greenspan). His contentious Campaign Finance bill (McCain-Feingold-Thompson, as in Fred) was, in the end, supported by the Bush administration.
Back to the race at hand, the first thing going in McCain’s favor is the lack of an “establishment candidate.” The money players in the GOP don’t really have a strong option, so Giuliani and Romney have tried to vie for this spot. Both, however, have glaring weaknesses and problems fitting in on a myriad of high-profile issues such as abortion, limited government, and taxes. Not to mention, neither has the experience necessary to be considered a strong candidate to lead on foreign policy. Now, you might say as to that last point, neither did George W. in 1999 and 2000, but you have to remember that his candidacy was as much about his “team” as it was about him. Think back to the rumors circulated early that veteran statesman Dick Cheney and former President George H.W. Bush were calling in old allies to bring together a resurgence of the Ford administration from the late 70s. That’s just not the case with Giuliani or Romney.
Also consider that Thompson is a McCain supporter and always has been. He was heavily involved in McCain ’00 and agrees with the Arizona Senator on most issues including the most contentious issues of Campaign Finance Reform and Comprehensive Immigration. Although Thompson has spoken the rhetoric against so-called amnesty, he too was for the bill's provisions for a border security plan coupled with an identification program for the existing 12 million illegal aliens.
Second, Thompson does not have the desire to be President, or at least does not desire putting in the effort to run a national campaign. That was illustrated clearly in a recent NY Times article which states that the former Senator held only one retail campaign event last week. At this event he had supporters standing in a crowded BBQ restaurant for several hours only to give a 30-minute speech before leaving early.
Thompson is a nice guy and is liked by many Washington insiders, but his lack of (or perceived lack of) the drive and determination to fight for votes puts in play many questions about his ability to work 24/7 for our country while in office. However, a cushy Vice-President role is just the spot for Thompson and his supporters, which would turn the tide for McCain in the south and give conservatives a reason to vote against Rudy or Mitt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
