Henk van de Goor's Bloggers@large

Twelve months ago it looked like it was going to affect a few companies and sectors. But now the financial crisis has spread through the 'real economy' and the worst isn't over. You don't have to look that far for proof: last week the stocks of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fell on news that they needed support form the government. Bad news indeed because "Fannie and Freddie" hold or back more than $5 trillion in mortgages. That's about half of the mortgage debt in the United States!
My girlfriend used to have a student loan with Fannie Mae. Some other news: about a week ago, federal regulators seized the assets and shut down IndyMac, California's largest regulated thrift. Another sign that in parts of the USA more and more banks are under stress because of rising numbers of mortgage defaults, stemming from the industry's troubles with subprime mortgages.


More and more experts agree this is a bad crisis:

In no way can this be seen as a normal bear market. This is undoubtedly the worst financial crisis in the developed world since the 1930s. The only period remotely similar was the bear market of 1973-75, which was itself a part of the extended 1966-82 bear market in US shares. That bear market was driven in part by a 13 fold increase in oil prices from 1972 to 1980. This time we have had a 14 fold increase in oil prices from the $10 low of 1999. Last time we had massive inflation of 20 percent per annum. That has not yet arrived but may well be in the pipeline.

However, in my view, the situation is far worse this time since the US financial system is extraordinarily stretched and stressed. Last time we only had the minor bankruptcies of Franklin National Bank and Continental Bank to contend with. Then there were no derivatives. This time they amount to more than 10 times world GDP and a greater multiple of bank capital. Within that total the most toxic ones are those unlisted, opaque, over the counter variety amounting to over $50 trillion, again multiples of US bank capital.

The revolution in market finance that began with the deregulation of the 1980s may be about to eat its young, as we have seen with the putative bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; if nationalization goes ahead the US visible national debt increases by $5 billion and is effectively double. The US would no longer qualify to join the Euro!

The US budget deficit could be on the verge of exploding upwards. Including war costs it is already over 4 percent of GDP. The economic slowdown and President Obama's plans for healthcare, whist noble and justifiable, even after tax increases, could send the deficit north of $1 trillion or 7 percent of GDP by 2010.

So what will this lead to?

I believe we are entering a new phase in the global economy, one with increased government regulation, controls and spending. The old Thatcher-Reagan supply side revolution is likely to take a breather and a return to a modified Keynesian is a possibility. This is driven by the increased scepticism in developed economies about globalization, largely because the rewards have not been adequately distributed. This accords with the likelihood that the 36 year cycle in US Presidential elections will probably make the Democrats the leading party of government in the coming years with all that means for interference in the economy – and inflation.

The extent to which the growing scepticism of globalization in developed economies affects the future growth of emerging markets cannot be determined at this time. At the margins growth may be reduced slightly but the fundamental factors changing the shape of the global economy are too strong to be derailed. Emerging markets remain a field of great opportunity, especially after recent declines in countries like China, India and Vietnam. Others with essential commodities are exciting. Powered by Chinese and Indian investment, Africa could have a renaissance. Those with financial imbalances like those in Eastern Europe should be avoided.

I guess this yet another storm we need to ride out. Good timing for me buying a house right now :-(

I have been very busy lately with work, coming home tired, so I haven't had much time to follow up on current American politics or how the presidential election and campaigns are going. But this incident wasn't easy to miss as the American press (in particular Fox News - off course) had a field day with it.

So what is the fuss about?

This Sunday, retired general Clark, a supporter of Barack Obama, made some dumb remarks - to put it mildly - about republican candidate John Mccain's military experience.

When asked on CBS "Face the Nation" if he really thought McCain was "untested and untried," Clark more or less answered yes, but he also stated that McCain lacked executive military experience because he only commanded a non-wartime squadron, "didn't make real decisions", or order "bombs to fall.''

So when his opponent in this discussion added that Barack Obama didn't exactly have military experience himself, let alone experienced what it is "being shot down" in a fighter plane, Clark made things worse by adding another dumb remark: "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.''

Oops.

Not the smartest thing to say about a certified war hero that - as a result of being shot down - spend several years in a hole in the ground as a POW.

As to be expected the right-wing press with Fox News in the front lines smelled blood and where able to blow things up in a way that only they can. It's funny how I learned a new expression from all this as well: "swiftboating":

In 2004, a political organization called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, initially composed of Vietnam veterans who served on swift boats, formed with the intent of opposing the presidential candidacy of John Kerry, who himself served as a swift boat commander in Vietnam (for which he was decorated with three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star, and a Bronze Star. The group, using statements of swift boat veterans and Kerry's own 1971 anti-war statements (Kerry had become a spokesman for the anti-war group Vietnam Veterans Against the War), produced a series of television ads and a bestselling book that sought to discredit Kerry's military record and patriotism and characterize him as unfit for the presidency. Since then, the term 'swiftboating' has been widely used to describe political tactics that are essentially synonymous with a 'smear campaign'.

Anyway: I don't think that the Democratic campaign benefits from these kind of remarks and as to be expected things just blowup in your face. I really loved how one of the political commentators put it when talking about this problem:

"This (Democratic) campaign is going down faster than a four year old on a water slide in summer."

So, even though I am more of a democrat than a republican I think it's bad tactics to attack McCain in this way.

Let's face it: bottom line in this discussion is that ANY military experience trumps NO military experience. Even a kid can do that kind of math.
Even weekend warrior George W. Bush's spotty National Guard service trumps Obama's ZERO service.

And experience is an argument Obama should avoid altogether anyway, since next to McCain's three decades in public office, Obama's four years in the Senate look pretty lousy. The only time Obama should utter the word "experience" is to point out that experience didn't stop McCain from helping get us into a disastrous war.

And by the way: McCain's heroism came not from being shot down over North Vietnam but refusing an offer to leave his jail cell because he wouldn't abandon his fellow prisoners.

Nuff said, just watch the video of the press smelling blood:

With the 2008 summer Olympics just a few months away, protests against the games taking place in China gain momentum. It's no secret that China doesn't care that much for human rights as has been proved many times by Human Rights watch organizations. The way China handles the problems in Tibet is just disgusting. The Chinese authorities promised the IOC and the international community real improvements in human rights in order to win the 2008 Olympics for Beijing back in 2001. Off course they did not keep their promises.

There are many people that state that you should not mix politics and sports, but I think that is a load of crap. If Iran was hosting the games I am 100% sure that most countries would boycott the games. But as usual it's all about money and power: China is a super-power and an important investor in the US. Heck; if it wasn't for China, the USA would have been bankrupt already!

The Olympic Charter says sport must be “at the service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.” I say that all athletes should look hard and long at what is going on in China and then should decide to at least make a statement in which they speak up in favor of those dissidents and in favor of democracy.

Anyway: if you like to make a statement of your own, you can sign these two cyber-petitions to let the Chinese government know what you think of their politics:

Boycott of opening ceremony of 2008 Beijing Olympic Games
Action on human rights before 2008 Beijing Olympics