Maggie's Farm

If you look at methods alone, there isn't a huge difference between the Wall Street protests and the Tea Party protests.  They have very different values, different demands, and different bases of support.  But both utilize the First Amendment as a means of making their point.

The Wall Streeters are more rowdy, and as a result have seen quite a bit of police involvement.  There have been far fewer arrests at individual Tea Party events.  Some of the Wall Street arrests and the overly physical nature of the police are unnecessary.  But there is little doubt the Wall Streeters are far more provocative and looking to antagonize the police, given the nature of the agitators involved.  We've seen them before.  They know the best way to get on TV is to create a scene, and they are good at doing it.  Is it a surprise so much of the 'police violence' is being caught on video?  They are planning to get this on video by initiating events which will lead to the use of violence, even at moments when the police probably should show more restraint.

So why does Obama view one set of protestors an "expression of frustration", while the other is "misidentifying sort of who the culprits are"?  Both are viable protests, seeking to make points and be heard.  From that standpoint, both are worthy of having Obama's full attention.  But no, one has been formally rejected by the "vast majority" of Americans.

To be clear, there is no reason to prevent either group from gathering, protesting, or speaking.  It's unfair to say one is more legitimate than the other.  But for our country's leader to recognize one as more valid than the other is absurd.  Particularly when the group which he considers more valid has not made its agenda clear, is only advocating a never ending list of grievances without valid solutions, and is provoking violent activity (some of it, but not all, unwarranted) on the part of the police.  Tea Partiers, whether you support or oppose them, have tended to gather peacefully and have made their agenda clear.  They support smaller government, lower taxes and they oppose crony capitalism.  What's interesting is the two groups share that final point.  Where they differ is on solutions. 

The Tea Party solves crony capitalism by shrinking government and getting it out of the way.  The Wall Street protestors don't have a clear solution, but it's clear increasing the role of government is part of their  solution.  Increasing that role with politicians 'who care'.  In other words, people like them.

The Wall Streeters' world is like Orwell's "Animal Farm", where some people are more equal than others.  Their solution, unfortunately, is to keep it that way, but change the people who are more equal.

Few economists, and even fewer politicians, have dared utter the word 'Depression'.  It's making a comeback, though.  Are we in one?  My guess is, no not yet.  We've been close, and the economy isn't exactly moving in a direction that makes one think there's tremendous upside.

But we haven't been in anything more than a prolonged, deep recession.

Given the state of affairs surrounding debt, political inertia, crony capitalism, manufacturing, foreign exchange and unstable currency, it won't take much to force the U.S. into a much deeper downturn which would be labeled a Depression. 

"They may have stopped another 'Great' depression but not a depression and what for many was the most profound lesson of economic history may turn out to be wrong," he said, adding the fact that government debts and obligations were already so high before the crisis pump priming meant they now risked backfiring.

Obama's 'solution' for what ails us is to utilize two common political treatments for recessions.  First, the standard Monetarist 'Easy Money' solution by lowering interest rates.  Second, the Keynesian 'Stimulus'.  The unfortunate situation we face is really only getting worse because he cannot do the second without the first — there simply isn't enough money interested in supporting more debt.  The solution?  Print more money, a concept I discussed in an earlier post.

The printing of money allows banks to purchase Treasury Debt, which funds the deficit, which they then sell back to the Fed in order to keep their reserves intact.

Europe has taken a remarkably different approach.  The Eurozone wants to emerge from its difficulties in economically healthy fashion, rather than saddled with massive debt.  Some European nations have such huge debt that the only sensible track to follow for other Euro nations that are growing modestly is to manage with restraint.  They've been backed into a corner, but it's a good corner to be backed into.

Some are not shy about telling Obama why he's wrong.

If Obama was the head of a sports league having economic struggles, BALCO would still be in business.  His steroid policy would put individual players at risk in order to keep interest in the league high based on new records.  Like Barry Bonds' records, people will soon wonder how things got to this point.  Will Congress review Obama's steroid policy and chart a new course?

Several nights ago, I watched Catching Hell on ESPN.  I enjoy documentaries and was pleased my wife and boys joined me.  My boys have little interest in baseball, and I'm certain my wife got sucked in by the Bill Buckner opening, since she is a longtime Mets fan.  Each of them found aspects of the documentary to be interesting and meaningful.

The story centers on Steve Bartman, a young fellow who may have cost the Chicago Cubs a shot at the World Series.  It was an unlikely error on his part, one in which fault is questionable.  As the documentary points out, many other fans were also reaching for that foul ball.  He was unlucky enough to touch it.  More importantly, an easy double play ball was booted by the shortstop just a few moments later.  Certainly, the lost double play did more to cost the Cubs than a fan preventing a single out.