The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: “Security” and “Intelligence”

Obama, Congress and Bernanke did not save the world from a Great Depression

Sorry, they simply did not. The baseline IMF forecast before the bailouts and before the stimulus bill tracks almost exactly what happened.

The bailouts were an actual net drag on the economy.  Instead of cleaning up banks balance sheets, they allowed zombie banks to continue to exist, banks which are crippled when it comes to lending.  In order to make sure these banks can pay down their bad debts, the Fed not only had to take on huge amounts of their paper at par when it was worth 20 cents at most, it has had to lend to them at concessionary rates, pay extra interest to them, and let them leverage that to make obscene profits from what lending they are doing (why did your credit card rate go up, that’s why?) and from trading on a captive market.

As best I can figure the stimulus was large enough to counteract the negative effect of the bailout.

The net, is a wash.

Furthermore, there were far, far more intelligent things which could have been done.  The crisis was, as the tired phrase goes, also an opportunity to break the power of monied interests, so that ordinary Americans could prosper again and could reclaim their government.  The stimulus was an opportunity to restructure the US economy to allow real, widespread growth in the future.

Both those opportunities were wasted, and they were wasted by Obama.  TARP would not have passed without him, and once he was in power he could have demanded that Bernanke do as he commanded (break the banks) or step down, if Bernanke wouldn’t, he could have easily impeached him.  The stimulus was his stimulus.

Obama, Congress, Bernanke, Geithner, Paulson—none of them saved anybody except the banks and the rich from apocalypse.  I understand that partisan Democrats want to pretend Dems saved the world, but they did no such thing.

(Addendum. See Rosenbert here (h/t Sean-Paul):

There are classic signs indeed that the recession in the U.S. ended last summer — output, sales, etc. But the depression is ongoing and the reason we say that is because real personal income, excluding handouts from the government, has barely budged. In fact, real organic personal income is nearly $500 billion lower now than it was at the peak 16 months ago and this has never occurred before coming out of any technical recession. It is a depression, as the chart below attests — that is the trendline for real household incomes, until the government comes in to top them off with handouts, subsidies and extended jobless benefits . . .

Real consumer spending is up $200 billion over the past 16 months and everyone believes we have a sustainable recovery even though organic income is down almost $500 billion. Think about that for a second because once the stimulus wears off, and with a 10% deficit-to-GDP ratio and concerns surfacing everywhere about sovereign credit risks, there is little out there to support future growth in consumption.)

The assassination strategy

The debate about the US’s penchant for murdering people in foreign countries has become tiresome. At this point, with no meaningful declaration’s of war, a “war” against a tactic, the assumption the US can kill anyone anywhere, who cares?  The US is just the biggest bully on the block, declaring “we can violate international law and sovereignty, and kill tons of civilians during our assassination attempts, because we’re too strong for you to do anything about it.”

Oh, and so many “leaders” of “al-Qaeda” have been killed over the years that I always put quotation marks around both words in my head.

America is very good at assassinating people.

So’s Israel.

I notice that neither of them are succesful at solving the actual problem they’re supposedly trying to address.

Maybe the US should stop copying tactics and strategies that don’t work.

The Deeply Broken American Police System

I remember, years ago, when the news of torture in Iraq first came out, I wrote an article entitled US Finally Treats Iraqis Just Like Americans. The point was that abuse and rape is so rife in US prisons and jails, that waterboarding and stress positions are really only embellishments. To an outsider it is evident that the US police and prison system is out of control.

So when I read that police in St. Paul pepper sprayed a jailed woman over her entire body, then refused to let her wash it off—I’m not surprised. When I read that a number of prisoners were on a hunger strike to convince guards to get medical care to an anemic women who had passed out, I’m not surprised.

‘Cause here’s the truth. Shoving people around can be a lot of fun. And being a cop or prison guard lets you do it almost as much as you want to. As a practical matter, brutality and abuse of power almost never leads even to a slap on the wrist, let alone being fired or criminal charges. Don’t piss off the really important people (of whom there are fewer and fewer every year) and you can be a petty tyrant to anyone else you please.

A lot of cops are good folks, but a lot of people who join the police or become prison guards do so because they want authority, because they want to be “the man”. Once inside, they join a society which has a strong undercurrent of hostility and contempt for civilians, who are seen, in many cases literally, as either sheep or criminals. In part this is natural, police interact with people when they’re at their worst or weakest—either with people who have committed crimes, or people who have suffered crimes. Neither group comes across well—the first are scum, the second are often shattered and seem weak. That’s the police life, day in, day out. So many police come to see civilians through that lens, because that’s most of what they see of civilians.
Add to this contempt the attitude of those who direct the police in operations like this, such as the Bush Secret Service, who have been corrupted by Bush into his Praetorian guard whose main job is less security than making sure no one can ever show dissent anywhere Bush could possibly see it, and you have a real problem. Most people are very malleable, they do what people in authority tell them to. People who stand up to authority are very rare. Police, by the very nature of the job, don’t actually tend to be mavericks, movie stereotypes aside. They tend towards authoritarian personality types. They like to give orders and they like to take orders. Sure, there are exceptions, but they are definitely not the rule.

Combine the fact that cops see civilians as an out-group (not like us) with official encouragement and fear mongering (terrorist anarchists) along with the personality profile of many folks attracted to the job and you have a group which is primed and ready to be brutal towards people they believe “deserve it”. Add to that the fact that police being disciplined for brutality and for violating people’s rights is actually quite rare, add in dollops of new police powers given by Congress, the executive branch and the Supremes over the last few years, and it’s practically a guarantee of police abuse of power, the destruction of the right to assembly and the end of real free speech. (The joke about free speech zones, of course, is “wasn’t the entire country a free speech zone?”)

Police are probably necessary in society. I do say probably, because large and complex societies often had  far far fewer people performing police functions than modern societies and most modern societies have even fewer than the US does. But as with standing armies, they’re profoundly dangerous not just for all the reasons listed above, but because large paramilitary forces (and US police are paramilitary, they have been systematically militarized, first by the war on drugs then by the war on terror, over the last 30 years) inevitably not only have to justify themselves by doing something (and what they’re best at is violence against civilians), but also provide a temptation to those in power. Why listen to people, why fix problems, when those who complain about the problems can just be intimidated or beaten into silence?

So a society which is really concerned about liberty and freedom has to watch its cops very carefully. They can’t be allowed to get out of control, to forget that they exist to serve civilians, not to shove civilians around. In the US the evidence is that the line has been crossed. This happens so regularly now that it’s just expected. It’s hardly commented on in the press, despite being the exact same behavior that has the press so excited and outraged when it happens in other countries like China. No major politician can be bothered to call it out as inappropriate. It’s just the new normal.

And so it’s hard not to come to the conclusion that if the US isn’t exactly a police state, it’s certainly not a free state. And with more people locked away than any other country in the world, it’s also impossible not to conclude that it’s also a prison state. Violence and the threat of violence is so endemic in the US that most Americans don’t even notice any more that they live in a an incredibly violent society which is kept on track by intimidation, and when necessary, actual violence. They don’t notice that their cops are out of control, ill-disciplined and essentially above the law.

Instead it falls mostly to those of us from outside, or Americans who have lived elsewhere to say “there’s something wrong here. Something deeply pathological.”

More on this in some later pieces. For now, though, look at the US, at the RNC, at your prisons, as if you weren’t American, and see what you see. Because I can tell you now, no other western first world nation is like the US in this regard. And it’s not one of those things Americans should be proud of.

Originally posted at FDL on Sept 3, 2008.

How Crises Play Out

A friend sent this to me, and I think it’s pretty accurate:

I do see something of a pattern here in response to a perceived crisis:

1. Make laws and rules.  It doesn’t matter if you understand the problem, if the rules are relevant, if they will help or if they will do more harm than good.  The public sees this as a security crisis (or financial crisis or…whatever), but you the administration (whichever administration) sees it as a PR crisis.  So you need to be seen to be doing something.  So go and generate red tape.

2. Don’t enforce those rules.  Don’t fund their enforcement agencies.  Don’t treat them seriously.  But by all means make sure they incur great costs that could otherwise be diverted to effective measures. And definitely make sure you cause as much hassle and inconvenience to law-abiding civilians as possible.

3.  Don’t worry about unintended consequences at all.  They’ll never happen!

4. Use this as a great opportunity to divert taxpayer dollars to your friends with close to no government scrutiny.

5. When the next crisis / PR moment happens, don’t waste time trying to understand the problem, performing any kind of risk assessment, assessing the effectiveness of the rules in place, increasing the funding, or increasing the power of oversight agencies. That kind of thinking is for godless communist homosexuals!  No, no, no!  Instead, hold a press conference, create new laws (with fancy patriot names!), and go back to step 1.  Rinse and repeat!

Security Theater

Maureen Dowd nails it:

If we can’t catch a Nigerian with a powerful explosive powder in his oddly feminine-looking underpants and a syringe full of acid, a man whose own father had alerted the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria, a traveler whose ticket was paid for in cash and who didn’t check bags, whose visa renewal had been denied by the British, who had studied Arabic in Al Qaeda sanctuary Yemen, whose name was on a counterterrorism watch list, who can we catch?

The new procedures are all security theater.  What is needed is to actually use the tools we already have and to reform them.  For example, the no-fly list has so many false positives that it is worthless.  The majority of people on it aren’t terrorists and everyone knows it, so they don’t enforce it rigorously.  (It’s also unconstitutional, since it is punishment without a trial, being able to face ones accuses and see the evidence against one.  Of course the parts of the US constitution having to do with making war and civil rights are largely in abeyance, anyway, except when it comes to being able to tote around a personal machine gun.)

The kid had every possible warning flag.  He’s the person they should have been strip searching, as opposed to random strip searches and pat downs which do almost nothing.

As for all the new rules, they won’t make anyone safer, but they will make air travel even more unpleasant than it already is.  And given that air travel is already extraordinarily safe, far more so than driving a car or crossing the street, again, the new rules are just security theater.

Elizabeth Warren: Finally someone with a clue how to handle the financial crisis

Warren’s the chief watchdog for the 700 billion TARP fund.  Unfortunately, she has no real power, but it’s still nice to see a government official say not just some of the right things, but almost all of the right things.  Talk of how the US is following Japan’s path is finally everywhere (myself and a few others have been talking about it for years, and started really beating the drums last year).  Here’s Elizabeth:

Warren, a Harvard law professor and chair of the congressional oversight committee monitoring the government’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (Tarp), is also set to call for shareholders in those institutions to be “wiped out”. “It is crucial for these things to happen,” she said. “Japan tried to avoid them and just offered subsidy with little or no consequences for management or equity investors, and this is why Japan suffered a lost decade.”…

… Warren also believes there are “dangers inherent” in the approach taken by treasury secretary Tim Geithner, who she says has offered “open-ended subsidies” to some of the world’s biggest financial institutions without adequately weighing potential pitfalls. “We want to ensure that the treasury gives the public an alternative approach,” she said, adding that she was worried that banks would not recover while they were being fed subsidies. “When are they going to say, enough?” she said.

She also calls for the resignation of the CEOs of the worst firms.

One thing I’m tired of hearing though is the phrase “lost decade”.  Japan didn’t just lose a decade, it has never really recovered.  The good times have never come back.

I also think that bondholders need to take a haircut as well, not just shareholders, though they may not need to be wiped out in all cases.  However, if the value of a company if it was liquidated is less than zero, then yes, non-secured bondholders (those whose bonds aren’t attached to specific assets with value) should be wiped out.

Homeland “Security” Costs $50 Billion… for what?

Top 10 Countries by Military Spending 2007

Top 10 Countries by Military Spending 2007

Joshua D Foster explains how fear and statistical illiteracy inflate America’s security budgets in Psychology Today:

Consider, for example, that the 2009 budget for homeland security (the folks that protect us from terrorists) will likely be about $50 billion. Don’t get us wrong, we like the fact that people are trying to prevent terrorism, but even at its absolute worst, terrorists killed about 3,000 Americans in a single year. And less than 100 Americans are killed by terrorists in most years. By contrast, the budget for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (the folks who protect us on the road) is about $1 billion, even though more than 40,000 people will die this year on the nation’s roads. In terms of dollars spent per fatality, we fund terrorism prevention at about $17,000,000/fatality (i.e., $50 billion/3,000 fatalities) and accident prevention at about $25,000/fatality (i.e., $1 billion/40,000 fatalities).

People fear things that are highly unlikely to kill them, such as flying on an airplane, much more than things that are much more likely to, such as crossing the street or driving a car. As a result they make irrational decisions about how to spend both time and effort. This is why basic statistics should be taught in every school and no one should be allowed to graduate before they pass.

Disproportionate fear is particularly the case when it comes to security and military spending in the US. The US spends almost half the world’s military spending and too many Americans seem to think that it needs to spend more, not less.  Heck, the US intelligence budget alone is over $43 billion while China spends $70 billion on its entire military.

Delusional is too kind a word for it, and I’m not sure insane even covers it, so lets go for understatement and call it “counterproductive” and “a waste of good money”.  Slash the military budget in half and the US will still spend more money on its military than any possible combination of attackers.  Do the same to homeland “security” spending and the intelligence services, and you’d have all the money you need for refitting the country for energy independence, which would make the country far more secure than lots of jet fighters meant to fight the USSR and airport screeners with rubber gloves.

Page 2 of 2

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén