David Frum Flips the Script on the Euro Crisis

As noted first by Sully, David Frum has an interesting take on the benefits Germany derived from the Euro and how it had a deleterious effect on the rest of the Euro-zone. Essentially, the currency manipulation inherent in the Euro made it so that Germany became the Euro-zone's lender and many countries (Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Spain... sound familiar?) racked up an enormous amount of debt because interest rates were so low. On the other hand, because Germany had changed to the Euro and no longer had the Deutsche Mark, there was no currency appreciation in Germany that would have negatively affected their trade surplus, retention of corporations and unemployment. Basically. Germany was able to continue to grow on fundamentals while the rest of Europe built castles in the air supported by massive amounts of loans from Germany.

Not to take away from the foolish behavior of the other countries (the Irish built like a they were dru... nevermind, Greece's public sector and taxation was/is a bloody mess, etc.), but I think it's an interesting take on how Germany should cop to their complicity and stop playing the victim.

(Image from the Economist)

Surprise, Surprise... The Joint Deficit Reduction Committee Ain't That Super

The (self-proclaimed) non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (it's level of partisanship has been debated), released a study the other day on the proposals presented by the democratic and republican members of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction that was put together in the crisis averting, debt ceiling raising deal this past August. Not all that surprisingly, the republicans on the committee still stick to the formula that it is all about spending cuts, with no additional revenue. Y'know, the Jack and the Beanstalk economic plan... plant the magic beans, wait for growth and then get your golden eggs (and much like Jack and the Beanstalk, it's a goddamn fairy tale). They also go rogue on the baseline for their estimates bu assuming that the Bush tax cuts continue (y'know those tax cuts that have been around for almost a decade but have yet to lead to one iota of economic growth) while every other estimate supposes that they expire. This is in clear contrast to Senator Max Baucus' plan, which proposes some revenue increases but that also requires significant spending cuts; including deep cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Of course, that plan was quickly rejected by the republican members of the "Super Committee."

If the POTUS cannot take advantage of republican intransigence and differentiate between the fairy tales offered by the GOP with the compromise offered by the democrats, I don't know what to say. I guess that would prove, once and for all, that BOTH parties are completely incompetent.

EDITORS NOTE: I use y'know faarrrr too much. Don't worry, I'm working on it. Just so y'know.

The Applicability of the RICO Act to SAMCRO (A Study in Extreme Nerd-dom)

Ya, that's right. I'm doing an analysis on the legal applicability of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act to the Sons of Anarchy Motorcycle Club, Redwood Original (SAMCRO) as shown in the fictional show (I am not completely convinced it is not a documentary) Sons of Anarchy. Wanna make something of it?

Sons of Anarchy, in my humble opinion, is a WAY underrated show. Led by the acting chop filled troika of Ron Perlman (Hellboy), Katey Sagal (Everything, EVER, and Married With Children), and the painfully under-appreciated Charlie Hunnam, who killed it in Green Street Hooligans (drama) and in the Judd Apatow created show Undeclared. Not to mention that it features a motorcycle club, the IRA, Shakespearean overtones in the first season calling MacBeth to mind, the IRA, a season in Ireland, copious amount of fight scenes, and the IRA (sorry to pull a Peter King... I think the spirit of my great-grandfather slipped in there somehow).

Annyyywhhooo, this season features an overzealous Assistant U.S. Attorney who is trying to take down the Sons, as well as some other gangs, a Mexican drug cartel and the Real IRA, by putting together a large and interconnected RICO case (I'm not even gonna get into the pressure put on Juice. Suffice it to say, almost none of the evidence he gives is admissible in court). Using RICO became popular in prosecuting the mob, and thus in pop culture, because racketeering is defined so broadly If you are in an enterprise that is engaged in a pattern of illegal activity, from robbery/murder to neighborhood "protection/loan sharking/neighborhood lotto, you are in violation of the RICO Act. "Pattern" is also broadly defined as two or more acts in violation of the act, at least one after the enactment of RICO and one within 10 years of prosecution. Clearly, SAMCRO would satisfy these two requirements. The Asst US Attorney also nails what they would need for RICO on the show which is, needless to say, pretty impressive for a television show. Further, the broader reasons for pursuing RICO charges on SAMCRO are also valid as both the Galindo drug cartel and the Real IRA would clearly be co-conspirators that could likewise be charged under RICO if evidence of the co-conspiracy was presented. This would be pretty easy in regards to the drug cartel but much more difficult with the Real IRA, which is why the Asst US Attorney is stepping up pressure on Juice for info pertaining to the IRA/SAMCRO meet up.

Basically, Sons of Anarchy did a good job this season of illustrating why the motorcycle club, not to mention their gang/cartel/RIRA cohorts, has something to worry about. I am now through with my over-long geek out. Please don't judge me...

As Per Usual, I Can't Say It Better Than Sully

I'm sure he does not enjoy me calling him Sully, repeatedly (because clearly he reads this blog regularly), as if I was his best friend (I WIISSSHHH) but I have to give him props for his always on point analysis of the American political process. He has been particularly good, lately, at expressing why the POTUS hasn't been getting nearly enough credit, as outlined in this post.

We are very similar in that we have complimentary view points and he is a much, much better blogger than I. So you should probably stop reading this and head over to the Dish now. Seriously, what are you still doing reading this? Ridiculous...

Music Video Mondays

Because this video just plain makes me happy...

And He Pulls Another Brooks!

Ahh, David Brooks... you never cease to amuse me. He went ahead and pulled a Brooks in an opinion piece yesterday by, as he is wont to do, making some very salient and important points but washing it all away with his larger and wrongheaded take-away. CLASSIC Brooks!

Good Point: Inequality between those with and without college degrees in middle America is just as important, if not much more important, than the inequality between the top 1% and the bottom 99% that you see on the coasts. Further, those without college degrees are more likely to live unhealthily, get divorced, have children out of wedlock and not encourage their own children to go to college. This is clearly overlooked in the income inequality debates and is important to recognize and reinforce.

Wrongheaded Take-Away: Just when you think he might be killing it with important and pertinent points, he goes all Brooks on yo ass with this gem:

But the fact is that Red Inequality is much more important. The zooming wealth of the top 1 percent is a problem, but it’s not nearly as big a problem as the tens of millions of Americans who have dropped out of high school or college. It’s not nearly as big a problem as the 40 percent of children who are born out of wedlock. It’s not nearly as big a problem as the nation’s stagnant human capital, its stagnant social mobility and the disorganized social fabric for the bottom 50 percent.

If your ultimate goal is to reduce inequality, then you should be furious at the doctors, bankers and C.E.O.’s. If your goal is to expand opportunity, then you have a much bigger and different agenda.

Good point David! 'Cept when, y'know, you make it an either/or decision. The point that is making so many people angry is that the GOP holds it to be self-evident that there should be no tax increases and that any attempts to balance the budget must come from cutting spending alone. Including, especially, exactly the type of spending that would help with things like those looking for a college education or those who might need some sort of social safety net behind them as they try to raise their kid as a single parent in the middle of the country. How about, instead of this false equivalence, we agree that we need some degree of SMART spending cuts while also increasing taxes on the most fortunate amongst us? Would that not both tackle the red and blue inequality? Some times things make way too much sense to ever be enacted...

When Is Just Showing Up Enough?

In an opinion article comparing India's anti-corruption hunger striker, Anna Hazare, with the Occupy Wall Street protesters, there was the following quote:

“Occupy has been, to my mind, an engaging movement, and it’s driving home the message, to the banks, to the Wall Street circles,” Bedi said. “That’s exactly the way Anna did it. But we had a destination. I’m not aware these people — what is their destination? It’s occupy for what?”

I’m prepared to celebrate when the Occupiers — like the lone hunger artist of India — accomplish something more than organizing their own campsite cleanup, demonstrating their tolerance for tear gas, and distracting the conversation a little from the Tea Party. So far, the main achievement of Occupy Wall Street is showing up.

Though I agree that many (most?) of the OWS protesters are not completely sure of what they are trying to accomplish, at least partially because there are so many voices that want different things, why is a unified goal necessary? What if the main achievement of showing up is just what is necessary? Despite not accomplishing much in the eyes of the media, the conversation for the better part of a month has been OWS, what it means, what they are trying to accomplish and how it stems from dissatisfaction with the banks and political system, and the bailout without proper regulation following, etc. The fact that these issues have been forced into the political debate, and into the wider public eye where the general sentiment behind OWS is widely supported, is an accomplishment in and of itself. As anyone in the Northeast knows, the fact that so many people are still camping out in Zucotti Park, despite NYC not allowing generators or heaters, means that even if there are a multitude of beliefs about what their movement means... they believe in them wholeheartedly. Moreover, it also means that the discussion on OWS in the media and political circles is not going away anytime soon. And maybe that is exactly the accomplishment we need.