San Diego Housing Bubble News and Analysis

I hate to have to say itoldjaso....

Hehe. You said "hard on". Let's at least let Obama take the oath before we condemn his presidency as a corrupt failure.

Redistribution of Wealth

Fair enough. Love the cartoon, Breeze!

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

-The Who

LOL! Love it. This needs to be our new national anthem.

This was the guy who was gonna balance the budget and rein in the Republican spending...

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/i...

I guess Cheney was right, deficits don't matter...ROFL ROFL

Just had a friend over and he brought this topic up. He is black,liberal democrat and happy about Obama's win. Even so, he said... "What change? it's just a rotation of duty status for members of "the club" ".

..

partypup:

Would that be the same Andrea Mitchell who is married to Alan Greenspan (whom I suspect is actually Allan from Fallbrook)?

Dan: Dude! For shame! Now you're just being plain nasty! Alan Greenspan? What's up with that?

Compare the intelligence and thoughtfulness in this one TGO interview vs. the simple-minded BS we've gotten from the Bush administration for the last 8 years:

Mr. Obama: Yeah. Well, let's see how this thing plays itself out. For the auto industry to completely collapse would be a disaster in this kind of environment, not just for individual families but the repercussions across the economy would be dire. So it's my belief that we need to provide assistance to the auto industry. But I think that it can't be a blank check.

So my hope is that over the course of the next week, between the White House and Congress, the discussions are shaped around providing assistance but making sure that that assistance is conditioned on labor, management, suppliers, lenders, all the stakeholders coming together with a plan what does a sustainable U.S. auto industry look like? So that we are creating a bridge loan to somewhere as opposed to a bridge loan to nowhere. And that's, I think, what you haven't yet seen. That's something that I think we're gonna have to come up with.

Kroft: Are there a lot of people that think that the country would probably be better off and General Motors might be better off if it was allowed to go into bankruptcy?

Mr. Obama: Well, you know, under normal circumstances that might be the case in the sense that you'd go to a restructuring like the airlines had to do in some cases. And then they come out and they're still a viable operation. And they're operating even during the course of bankruptcy. In this situation, you could see the spigot completely shut off so that it would not potentially permit GM to get back on its feet. And I think that what we have to do is to recognize that these are extraordinary circumstances. Banks aren't lending as it is. They're not even lending to businesses that are doing well, much less businesses that are doing poorly. And in that circumstance, the usual options may not be available.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/1...

vs.

Bush (or McSame): "The fundamentals of the economy are sound." (WTF does that mean?)

Bush (or McSame): "If we pull out of Iraq the terrorists win."

Bush: "This thaw -- took a while to thaw, it's going to take a while to unthaw." Bush on liquidity in the markets.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/...

It's going to be refreshing to finally have an intelligent, thoughtful person as POTUS again. There's been an 8-year dearth of thoughtfulness in the White House ever since Clinton left.

BTW, you may disagree with Obama's plan for the automakers, but you have to acknowledge that he has put some thought into the situation. As opposed to Bush who has trouble stringing two coherent sentences together.

Breeze: No question that Obama brings considerable intellectual horsepower to the equation, and his academic record speaks for itself.

The unanswered question is the one posed by the article that started this thread: Where is the "change" and the break with the status quo ante we've been promised? His appointments, starting with Rahm Emanuel, look to be more of the same and many of them are intimately tied to the very mess they've been tasked to fix.

Also, most true conservatives loath Bush as much as you do.

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts about Rubin, Emanuel, et al.

But in a year or less you will see that the only *change* Obama is bringing is a cosmetic one: skin color and a catchy slogan. Is that enough to steer us through this crisis? LOL.

This is very indicative of how superficial the US has become. We confuse fancy marketing for substance, catchy phrases for meaning.

Obama is kind of like Chance Gardner from the movie "Being There". Each person projects their own impression of whom they want him to be.

"I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views."
-- Barack Obama, "The Audacity of Hope"

The Rights created Che Guevara persona is equally ridiculous as some of Lefts savior projection. He is a company man, no more, no less.

The *Change* is baked in the cake and Obama's job is to get us to eat it.

allen: Thanks, I thought you would like the Faust reference;)

Obama mentioned several things in the interview that he would do differently:

(1) Bailouts will be directed to homeowners instead of banks. I'd prefer no bailouts, but if we're going to have them, let's help people try to stay in their homes as opposed to paying the banks full price for crappy loans.

(2) Different approach to the automakers as discussed above

(3) Major focus on alternative energy:

(CBS) Kroft: When the price of oil was at $147 a barrel, there were a lot of spirited and profitable discussions that were held on energy independence. Now you've got the price of oil under $60.

Mr. Obama: Right.

Kroft: Does doing something about energy is it less important now than…

Mr. Obama: It's more important. It may be a little harder politically, but it's more important.

Kroft: Why?

Mr. Obama: Well, because this has been our pattern. We go from shock to trance. You know, oil prices go up, gas prices at the pump go up, everybody goes into a flurry of activity. And then the prices go back down and suddenly we act like it's not important, and we start, you know filling up our SUVs again.

And, as a consequence, we never make any progress. It’s part of the addiction, all right. That has to be broken. Now is the time to break it.

(4) Re-regulation of the financial markets

Kroft: How high a priority are you placing on re-regulation of the financial markets?

Mr. Obama: I think it's a top priority. I think that we have to restore a sense of trust, transparency, openness in our financial system. And keep in mind that the deregulation process, it wasn't just one party. I think there's a lot of blame to spread around.

But, hopefully, everybody's learned their lesson. And the answer is not heavy-handed regulations that crush the entrepreneurial spirit and risk taking of American capitalism. That's what's made our economy great. But it is to restore a sense of balance.

(5) Closing Guantanamo/stopping torture

(6) redeploying troops out of Iraq into Afghanistan

(7) Not being an idealogue/being willing to change direction:

Kroft: There's been talk on Capitol Hill and a number of Democratic congressmen have proposed programs that are part of sort of a new New Deal. The possibility of reviving agencies like the Home Ownership Loan Corporation.

Mr. Obama: Two points I'd make on this. Number one, although there are some parallels to the problems that we're seeing now and what we say back in the '30s, no period is exactly the same. For us to simply recreate what existed back in the '30s in the 21st century, I think would be missing the boat. We've gotta come up with solutions that are true to our times and true to this moment. And that's gonna be our job. I think the basic principle that government has a role to play in kick starting an economy that has ground to a halt is sound.

I think our basic principle that this is a free market system and that that has worked for us, that it creates innovation and risk taking, I think that's a principle that we've gotta hold to as well. But what I don't wanna do is get bottled up in a lot of ideology and is this conservative or liberal. My interest is finding something that works.

And whether it's coming from FDR or it's coming from Ronald Reagan, if the idea is right for the times then we're gonna apply it. And things that don't work we're gonna get rid of.

(8) Communicating clearly and honestly with the American people

Kroft: Are you gonna make a lot of speeches? Are you gonna talk a lot to the American people on television and radio?

Mr. Obama: You know, I'm not sure that the American people are looking for a lot of speeches. I think what they're looking for is action. But one of the things that I do think is important is to be able to explain to the American people what you're doing, and why you're doing it. That is something that I think every great president has been able to do. From FDR to Lincoln to John Kennedy to Eisenhower. I mean, I think that they were people who were able to say 'Here's the direction we're going. Here's why I think it's important. Here are the possible dangers or challenges. But ultimately, you know, this is gonna lead us to a better America.' And I want to make sure that I can recreate a bond of trust between the presidency and the public that I think has been lost.

Overall, I like what I'm hearing so far. However, it is just all talk at this point and we'll have to see what happens when Obama is actually sworn in. I'm sure he'll make mistakes, but hopefully he will have the intelligence to recognize those mistakes and change direction when needed.

arraya: You're welcome on the Goethe/Faust reference. My grandma left Germany in 1935 (she was a teacher at a girl's college near Heidelberg), and she used Goethe to illustrate quite a few morality lessons, as well as to show how a country as educated and intelligent as Germany could bring Hitler to power and ecstatically so.

On another note, and referencing another post: Have you read up at all on Smedley Butler and the US/USMC during the Banana Wars? I'd be curious as to your thoughts. I spent three years down there during the mid-1980s and it completely altered my view of the world, to say the least.

You mentioned Butler regarding uncovering a planned coup during the 1930s, but I was interested to see if you knew of his exploits during the Banana Wars. He was like the Zelig of the 1920s and 1930s, and was a driving force behind the Marine Corps' SMW (Small Wars Manual), which has become the bible of counterinsurgency. It was written in 1940, and we were using it in the 1980s. Fascinating read.

Breeze: But you didn't answer the question. Yes, he is extremely intelligent and his responses clearly support that. However, what about his appointments? You know as well as I that actions speak louder than words, and now we're confronted with appointments that would seem to indicate a "business as usual" posture.

What about that? As I said earlier, I'm curious to hear what you think. Which means, don't continue posting snippets of the interview, but weigh in yourself as to what you think his appointments represent in terms of "change" versus the status quo ante.

You mentioned Clinton earlier and that's interesting. Interesting, because for an unabashed policy wonk, Clinton came up with very little in terms of new policy during his tenure. He was someone inarguably prepared to be President, from his Rhodes scholarship to his work as governor of Arkansas, but he produced little in terms of substantive policy. There might be some parallels here worth considering.

I don't know enough about his appointments to have an opinion of them. Plus, I actually am only aware of one appointment Obama has made: Rahm Emanuel? Supposedly the guy is a pit bull. I have no problem with that. Politics isn't Camp Snoopy.

In any event, I likely would know very little about his other appointments even if I knew who they were. I'd prefer to wait and see what Obama actually does rather than speculate about what his appointments might mean.

As for Bill, I'd take him over Chimpy any day.

Breeze: The link above opens the Bloomberg article (by Jonathan Weil) about Obama's appointments and includes bio/historical info about each.

It's quite educational and provides links and background on each. I'd suggest reading it and I'd be curious as to your response following.

You are offering up an interview in clear support of Obama's positions on energy, Detroit/Big 3 and foreign policy, but admit ignorance as to the people he is placing in charge of these various mandates.

Read the article. Then opine. As I said, I would be curious as to what you think after seeing the juxtaposition of his interview responses and the appointments made.

As for taking Bill over Bush, that's another non-answer. What about Clinton's lack of new policy, especially given his wonkiness? He was sold to us as "new" in many of the same ways that Obama was. Any thoughts there?

I've just read a few things online. I know of the "coup" attempt and of his book, "War is a Racket". I'm not so sure of the details of his exploits, just that he left the Military dissalusioned and feeling that he was just an arm of corporations and financial interests. I believe he put it a "gangster for capitalism".

My thoughts are similar to Butlers. War or military intervention usually leads to some kind of profiteering, resource pillaging or regime change that is more "sympathetic" to US business interests. What really threw me with Butler was that this sort of thing went on that far back. I had always assumed it started after WWII because of huge amounts of money that built, as Eisenhower put it, the "Military-Industrial Complex".

You should look into John Perkins, who wrote "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man". He is the other side of the military equation. He would go into third world countries and try and bribe leaders. If he failed they would send in what he called the "Jackals" to assassinate them. If they failed then the military would eventually go in.

arraya: Depending on your perspective (and how you read history), you could argue that the US has always been about the almighty dollar (as were the Romand and the British).

The original draft of the Constitution contained the phrase "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property", which was subsequently changed. You look at the Louisiana Purchase, Lewis & Clark expedition, Manifest Destiny and Gunboat Diplomacy, and it's increasingly hard to argue that the US hasn't been a going concern from the jump.

I did read Perkins and that tied into what I had already seen during my time down there. US corporations (and British, Dutch, French and German as well) exert a huge amount of influence in that part of the world, along with the other parts of the world that are rich in natural resources. The military becomes, in essence, the policing force behind the corporate extraction of resources.

Check out Walter Lefeber's "Inevitable Revolutions: The US in Central America" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393309649). Talk about eye opening. The section regarding the US "support" of the Guatemalan coup of 1954 will drop your jaw.

I read a revisionist history of the Spanish-American War of 1898 that argued it was solely for control of the resources of the Caribbean Basin and the US recognized that Spanish influence was on the wane and we wanted to pre-empt any new comers and thus the war.

I am a fan of Obama but this list is troubling. That said, directors do not have general day-to-day management of financial functions of most corporations. SOX requires only that the CEO and CFO attest to the accuracy of public reporting. That said, directors do have a duty to be awake, vigilant and informed of the affairs of the corporation they are supervising. However, there are probably as many infractions as there are directors out there that most directors were unaware of--they rely on corporate officers and outside experts to alert them to problems. It's not like these directors have their calculators out during the financial presentations at the board meetings...

I think O is looking for some people with some vision to provide economic guidance and solutions to some very tough problems. I would like to see some alternates proposed however to provide the trust needed.

I thought this was funny. Mark Cuban is pissed that BO doesn't have any enterpreneur's on his economic advisory committee. BO ignoring small businesses? This is a shock?

http://blogmaverick.com/2008/11/08/pe-ob...

Allan: This is the question that I keep posing to Obama supporters, and they (without exception) have real difficulty answering it. It seems we are at the point now where intelligence alone is relied upon to guide us through this crisis. Dubya has left this country so starved for a leader who can string two sentences together with proper grammar that we really aren't demanding anything more than intelligence from the POTUS.

However, I think we can all agree that intelligence alone will not suffice in these circumstances. We see where intelligence has gotten us so far. Karl Rove: brilliant. Alan Greenspan: hailed as a genius (at his apex). Henry Paulson: widely-lauded as one of the brightest minds on Wall Street.

And yet, each of these men has managed to screw us every which way from Sunday.

What we desperately need now is someone of intelligence AND worthy intent. For it matters not if we are sold down the river by a brilliant mind. I look at Obama's actions -- not his words, mind you -- and what I see troubles me.

We need a leader who is willing to erase the chalkboard, grab a new piece of chalk and start over. We need a leader who is willing to excise every trace of the cancer in this system, not just a few large tumors. Because unless the cancer is removed, the disease will continue to re-assert itself.

Many of the economic advisers that Obama has appointed are nothing less than cancer cells from a diseased system.

Breeze: please do yourself a favor and familiarize yourself with those individuals cited in the article as Obama's economic stewards during this crisis. It is not sufficient to say that you don't have an opinion on the matter. You did enough research to determine that you enthusiastically support Obama. Now do enough research to ask the hard questions. Because you will be doing a disservice to both yourself and this country if you do not hold a man accountable for his actions and his decisions and simply give him a free pass because he's "intelligent."

And no, I am not waiting until Obama gets into the White House before I raise my criticisms, because his appointments are quite telling and are evidence of judgment (or lack thereof) and intent.

I looked the other way when Obama hauled Biden, the 35-year Congressional dinosaur, onto his team. I even held my tongue when I saw Obama raiding the Clinton personnel files to fill cabinet positions despite this promises to "turn the page".

But this...this is really too egregious to ignore. This is nothing less than a slap in the face to all those who were truly expecting *change* at a time of crisis.

Obama's "Hope and Change" message was an appeal to certain voters who would be manipulated by that. It is similiar to the Republican's pleasing the evnagelicals, who would probably be manipulated by the hope message or some other emotional issue if the evangelical agenda wasn't kept at the forefront for them.

You can't really expect that Obama would not compete for as much or the dumb , easily manipulated, vote as he could. I am not saying a lot of smart people didn't vote for each party, but they were not really expecting some immense change and aren't upset about it. The dumb vote will not realize that they are routinely duped. They will just try harder next time for the candidate who most pushes the right buttons.

You're quite right, Rustico. They aren't upset now.

But give it a year or so. When they are having trouble finding affordable food and gas, and rolling blackouts become a party of their daily life, I think they will get upset -- and worse -- very quickly.

And by the way, what I'm suggesting isn't "immense change". I'm just expecting Obama to "turn the page" as he said he would and bring in some new blood. A few old dinosaurs won't hurt, to be sure. Biden is largely harmless, just an annoying reminder of The Old Guard. But Obama can easily bring new blood onto his economic advisory team. And that is MUCH needed. Heck, to even get the perspective of a Peter Schiff or a Jim Rogers would be immensely helpful. And in the spirit of bi-partisanship, why not enlist the aid of Ron Paul?

Doubtful that any of Obama's supporters, regardless of how little real *change* they actually anticipate, are expecting him to recycle the same tired team of corrupt shysters who drove us into the abyss. I think they are looking to Obama to forge a way out of this mess, not to dig us into a deeper hole. We all know we can't keep the Titanic from sinking at this point. I'm not expecting miracles. But what I am expecting Obama to do is secure as many lifeboats as possible so that we lose as few souls as possible. Don't assume a bad situation can't get much worse. This thing could easily spiral out of control and get apocalyptic if it is mis-handled.

I am really beginning to think that beaten-down, depressed, dispirited Americans, who have nothing else to show for their lives or their country after a drunken, 30-year spending spree and 8 years of Bush oppression, are thrilled to simply say that we have elected a black president. At the dawn of the 21st century, THIS is now our major accomplishment as a people and a nation. I admit, it does feel warm and fuzzy for a few minutes. But after the buzz wears off, you're left wondering, "Okay. Now what?"

Rumour has it that Hillary to be Obama's Secretary of State:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov...

And Gates as SOD.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2...

Nov. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates may be closer to being tapped for extended duty by Barack Obama because of the near certainty a Democrat -- possibly Hillary Clinton -- will be named secretary of state and Gates's willingness to accept a new team around him, according to Democratic and Republican experts.

PP, I agree there is as much of a possibility that as many Democrats could come to regret Obama as Republicans came to regret Bush. I do tend to take a wait and see attitude and not draw conclusions on what might get us there or what might happen if we do.My guess is that four years will pass with the usual level of Political upheaval and wrong doing by important people and he will get the boot , maybe eight?