Gary Earl Johnson (born January 1, 1953) is the former Governor of New Mexico, having served 2 terms from 1995 to 2003. He is well-known for his low-tax libertarian views and as the founder of one of New Mexico's largest construction companies.
Johnson first entrance into politics was his bid for Governor of New Mexico in 1994. He defeated incumbent governor Bruce King by a substantial margin. He sought re-election in 1998, winning by a 10 point margin. In his second term, he focused on educational spending reform, in particular the use of school vouchers. He is also the first high-profile political figure to support decriminalization of marijuana.
As the result of New Mexico's 2 term limit, Johnson retired from politics at the end of his second term. In 2009, he founded the Our America Initiative (http://ouramericainitiative.com/), a 501(c)(4) political advocacy organization. Johnson has also been the subject of media speculation as a possible candidate for President of the United States in the 2012 election.
For his 8 years in office, Johnson was the nation's most frugal governor, by vetoing over 1,000 spending items and cut taxes 14 times. The number of vetoes exceeded the amount in the other 49 states, COMBINED! As a result, when Johnson left office in 2002, New Mexico was only one of 4 states with a balanced budget.
So how is Johnson's track record as Governor?
According to http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/:
In the 8 years during Johnson's tenure, Real New Mexican Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew from approximately $41.7 billion to nearly $53.7 billion, an increase of 28%. By comparison, in the 8 subsequent years under Bill Richardson, GDP has grown by only 17%.
New Mexican Gross Public Debt rose from $12 billion to $14 billion (16% increase) during Johnson's reign, but has since exploded to $21 billion today (50% more!)
.
Government spending, as a percentage of GDP, rose from 20% to 23% during the Johnson years. It is currently, at 25%.
According to unemployment statistics as provided by (http://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/new-mexico/), Johnson inherited an unemployment rate of approximately 6.5% which fell to about 5.0% at the end of his second term. The jobless rate is 8.5% today. The increase is greater than the national average.
There are certainly ways that one could pick apart the economic statistics by claiming that he presided over the prosperous Clinton years, or through other ways of parsing the data. Needless to say, this could be debated to death and reasonable people could disagree. Marko's Take? The objectives facts are unequivocally supportive of his expertise as a Chief Executive.
Oh, and one more eensie weensie thing. Johnson has a reputation for being exceedingly honest. Critic Roger Ebert, no friend of the Republican party by any means, said "I can quite honestly say that at this point there is not a single other Republican candidate I can imagine voting for in 2012. And I may not vote for Johnson either if he runs – but I do think he’s one of those rarest of creatures: an honest politician. And that counts for quite a lot."
Tomorrow, I will give my "Take" on his positions.
Marko's Take
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Sunday, October 10, 2010
World War III Continues...
A treatise on military strategy, called "The Art Of War" was written by Sun Tzu in the 6th century B.C. and is still studied today. The book was so timeless that General Douglas McArthur was believed to have taken inspiration from it. That classic playbook needs to be updated to cover means of waging war that never possibly could have been contemplated.
In "World War III Has Begun", we posited a matrix of varieties of war and how they might be employed in whole, or in part, by any country against any other country. Traditional military war is only a small and shrinking component of warfare in the 21st Century. The video of that piece can be accessed by clicking here: http://www.youtube.com/markostaketv#p/u/1/0fPfJNERJSQ.
But that was just the beginning of what we, as a world, have in store for us. Using some imagination, and a reasonable knowledge of science, physics, economics and finance, one can concoct a variety of ways in which one country can damage another without ever firing a shot.
How about climatological war? By that, I'm not referring to the absurd notion that our globe is warming from cow flatulence and SUVs. To refresh yourself on how preposterous that entire thought process is, click here: http://markostake.blogspot.com/2010/08/very-inconvenient-truth.html.
Rather, imagine what one country could do if it could affect weather in a relatively small area of an enemy. Like what, you ask? Maybe seeding an oncoming storm system with something toxic. Clouds are sometimes seeded by farmers to produce rain in areas of drought. While the efficacy of this practice in affecting local rain patterns is questionable, if clouds were seeded with poison, it could destroy vast areas of crops, and thus disrupt a country's food supply. Because weather systems follow the jet stream, the poisoning could be done in international airspace without triggering a preventative response.
Another high tech plan could be to create what could oxy-moronically be called a "man-made natural disaster". Underground nuclear detonations register as earthquakes. What if an atomic power could set up a nuke near a major fault zone that was overdue for a major earthquake? Afraid you'd be detected? Well, then one could be set off below the surface of the ocean floor to create a tsumani. Indonesia, 2004 anyone?
Ecological war is waged when one country sabotages another's eco-system. One means of accomplishing this might be to, say blow up a deep-sea drilling rig which might create a massive oil spill. And, of course, have the extra benefit of disrupting oil supply. BP, anyone?
What if a country is not an atomic power? For those, there's the "Flash Crash" attack. According to a 5 month Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) investigation, the May 6th Flash Crash was set in motion by a huge sale of S&P 500 futures contracts by a single firm’s computer trading program, which dumped $4.1 billion of the contracts on the market in just 20 minutes, according to “Lone $4.1 Billion Sale Leads to ‘Flash Crash’ in May,” by Graham Bowley of The New York Times; and “How a Trading Algorithm Went Awry,” by Tom Lauricella, Kara Scannel, and Jenny Strassburg of The Wall Street Journal.
This particular computer mistake, however, was unintentional. What if a large financial power, with trading resources in excess of the $4.1 Billion, were to sell futures in all the global stock and bond markets in a giant, systematic securities dump? Even if the damage, as was the case on May 6th, was temporarily limited to a financial "bungee jump", such an occurrence would completely undermine confidence in the integrity of the entire financial system. Another occurrence would only demonstrate the weak link in the inter-connected fabric of the markets. Thus ,the damage would NOT be temporary. Even cash wouldn't be safe. The same approach could be done to various currencies.
If none of the above suffice, a country could create a laboratory-grade pandemic, release it in a country and then quarantine the nation to insulate itself from having it spread back domestically. Concurrently with the creation of the toxin, it could also have a anti-dote prepared to innoculate its own population. H1N1 virus or the Severe Accute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), anyone?.
Still not enough? How about using massive orbiting military lasers to blind a country's population?
Or, the use of sound to affect emotions? A March 23, 1991 news brief titled "High-Tech Psychological Warfare Arrives in the Middle East", describes a PsyOps tactic directed against Iraqi troops in Kuwait during Desert Storm. The maneuver consisted of a system in which subliminal mind-altering technology was carried on standard radiofrequency broadcasts.
Subliminally, a much more powerful technology was at work: a sophisticated electronic system to ‘speak’ directly to the mind of the listener, to alter and entrain his brainwaves, to manipulate his brain’s electroencephalograph i.e. (EEG) patterns and artificially implant negative emotional states-feelings of fear, anxiety, despair and hopelessness.
The possibilities are endless and MUCH harder to defend against. In fact, they return "first strike" capability to a variety of warring nations.
The reality of this is so frightening, that even I wouldn't dare them to "Take Me On".
Marko's Take
Come meet Gary E. Johnson, former governor of New Mexico in a private, intimate setting. For details on the reception, click here: http://www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=167442413269476.
In "World War III Has Begun", we posited a matrix of varieties of war and how they might be employed in whole, or in part, by any country against any other country. Traditional military war is only a small and shrinking component of warfare in the 21st Century. The video of that piece can be accessed by clicking here: http://www.youtube.com/markostaketv#p/u/1/0fPfJNERJSQ.
But that was just the beginning of what we, as a world, have in store for us. Using some imagination, and a reasonable knowledge of science, physics, economics and finance, one can concoct a variety of ways in which one country can damage another without ever firing a shot.
How about climatological war? By that, I'm not referring to the absurd notion that our globe is warming from cow flatulence and SUVs. To refresh yourself on how preposterous that entire thought process is, click here: http://markostake.blogspot.com/2010/08/very-inconvenient-truth.html.
Rather, imagine what one country could do if it could affect weather in a relatively small area of an enemy. Like what, you ask? Maybe seeding an oncoming storm system with something toxic. Clouds are sometimes seeded by farmers to produce rain in areas of drought. While the efficacy of this practice in affecting local rain patterns is questionable, if clouds were seeded with poison, it could destroy vast areas of crops, and thus disrupt a country's food supply. Because weather systems follow the jet stream, the poisoning could be done in international airspace without triggering a preventative response.
Another high tech plan could be to create what could oxy-moronically be called a "man-made natural disaster". Underground nuclear detonations register as earthquakes. What if an atomic power could set up a nuke near a major fault zone that was overdue for a major earthquake? Afraid you'd be detected? Well, then one could be set off below the surface of the ocean floor to create a tsumani. Indonesia, 2004 anyone?
Ecological war is waged when one country sabotages another's eco-system. One means of accomplishing this might be to, say blow up a deep-sea drilling rig which might create a massive oil spill. And, of course, have the extra benefit of disrupting oil supply. BP, anyone?
What if a country is not an atomic power? For those, there's the "Flash Crash" attack. According to a 5 month Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) investigation, the May 6th Flash Crash was set in motion by a huge sale of S&P 500 futures contracts by a single firm’s computer trading program, which dumped $4.1 billion of the contracts on the market in just 20 minutes, according to “Lone $4.1 Billion Sale Leads to ‘Flash Crash’ in May,” by Graham Bowley of The New York Times; and “How a Trading Algorithm Went Awry,” by Tom Lauricella, Kara Scannel, and Jenny Strassburg of The Wall Street Journal.
This particular computer mistake, however, was unintentional. What if a large financial power, with trading resources in excess of the $4.1 Billion, were to sell futures in all the global stock and bond markets in a giant, systematic securities dump? Even if the damage, as was the case on May 6th, was temporarily limited to a financial "bungee jump", such an occurrence would completely undermine confidence in the integrity of the entire financial system. Another occurrence would only demonstrate the weak link in the inter-connected fabric of the markets. Thus ,the damage would NOT be temporary. Even cash wouldn't be safe. The same approach could be done to various currencies.
If none of the above suffice, a country could create a laboratory-grade pandemic, release it in a country and then quarantine the nation to insulate itself from having it spread back domestically. Concurrently with the creation of the toxin, it could also have a anti-dote prepared to innoculate its own population. H1N1 virus or the Severe Accute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), anyone?.
Still not enough? How about using massive orbiting military lasers to blind a country's population?
Or, the use of sound to affect emotions? A March 23, 1991 news brief titled "High-Tech Psychological Warfare Arrives in the Middle East", describes a PsyOps tactic directed against Iraqi troops in Kuwait during Desert Storm. The maneuver consisted of a system in which subliminal mind-altering technology was carried on standard radiofrequency broadcasts.
Subliminally, a much more powerful technology was at work: a sophisticated electronic system to ‘speak’ directly to the mind of the listener, to alter and entrain his brainwaves, to manipulate his brain’s electroencephalograph i.e. (EEG) patterns and artificially implant negative emotional states-feelings of fear, anxiety, despair and hopelessness.
The possibilities are endless and MUCH harder to defend against. In fact, they return "first strike" capability to a variety of warring nations.
The reality of this is so frightening, that even I wouldn't dare them to "Take Me On".
Marko's Take
Come meet Gary E. Johnson, former governor of New Mexico in a private, intimate setting. For details on the reception, click here: http://www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=167442413269476.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Reforming Gerrymandering (Part 2)
Unless you're one of the several thousand incumbent politicians who support job retention without actually having to accomplish anything, you realize that the system is broken. If you don't yet understand the patently unethical political practice known as gerrymandering, click here: http://markostake.blogspot.com/2010/10/what-is-gerrymandering-part-1.html.
So, for the rest of us, the system is in desperate need of change. But how best to accomplish that?
In California, 2 ballot measures up for vote in less than a month, deal with this directly, Propositions 20 and 27.
Propostion 20 does 2 important things: (1) Adds the mandate of re-drawing congressional district boundaries to the commission created by Proposition 11 in 2008 and (2) would define a "community of interest" as "a contiguous population which shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation." These shared interests could be such things as urban areas, industrial areas or agricultural areas.
Proposition 27, if approved, would repeal California Proposition 11, which authorized the creation of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. It would also modify the provision in California law that says that proposed congressional districts can't be subjected to a veto referendum.
Thus, supporters of reform would be advised to vote YES on 20 and NO on 27. If you're one of the 5000 or so incumbents, well then vote the opposite way.
The most commonly advocated electoral reform proposal targeted at gerrymandering is to change the redistricting process. Under these proposals, an independent and presumably objective commission is created specifically for redistricting, rather than having the legislature do it. This is the system used in the United Kingdom, where the independent Boundary Commissions determine the boundaries for constituencies in the House of Commons and regional legislatures, subject to ratification by the body in question (almost always granted without debate). A similar situation exists in Australia where the independant Australian Electoral Commission, and its state based counterparts, determines electoral boundaries for federal, state and local durisdictions.
The problem with a commission is that it is dependent on the individuals selected. Many "independent" commission are about as objective as the O.J. Simpson jury. The appointments are politically based to engineer a certain outcome. Thus, unless the selection process is achieved without bias, an independent commission can lead to the exact same result.
Another approach, and one that appeals to a numbers junkie like me, would be to employ some sort of mathematical formula or other pre-determined methodology. An approach advocated by a group called RangeVoting.org uses a mathematical algorithm. It is described here: http://rangevoting.org/GerryExamples.html. The site also contains maps of current districts to demostrate the incredible shapes that the current system creates. Check out the one that looks like a Halloween mask for a real horror show.
There are a myriad of other objective and unbiased means to drawing districts. In all likelihood, they all have certain benefits and drawbacks, but the differences are, in the grand scale of things, immaterial. The most important thing is consistency. Any approach that is unbiased and consistency applied, will, by definition, end the impact of gerrymandering.
The definitive documentary on Gerrymandering, produced by Bill Mundell, is newly released for theatrical showing. The website for this film can be accessed by clicking here: http://www.gerrymanderingmovie.com/. The commercial can be accessed by clicking here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kX50l9G_QZU.
If you want any of your votes to EVER count, perhaps the most important vote will be the ones you cast on Propositions 20 and 27. If you want to see the bums get thrown out, here's the way to do it.
Marko's Take
So, for the rest of us, the system is in desperate need of change. But how best to accomplish that?
In California, 2 ballot measures up for vote in less than a month, deal with this directly, Propositions 20 and 27.
Propostion 20 does 2 important things: (1) Adds the mandate of re-drawing congressional district boundaries to the commission created by Proposition 11 in 2008 and (2) would define a "community of interest" as "a contiguous population which shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation." These shared interests could be such things as urban areas, industrial areas or agricultural areas.
Proposition 27, if approved, would repeal California Proposition 11, which authorized the creation of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. It would also modify the provision in California law that says that proposed congressional districts can't be subjected to a veto referendum.
Thus, supporters of reform would be advised to vote YES on 20 and NO on 27. If you're one of the 5000 or so incumbents, well then vote the opposite way.
The most commonly advocated electoral reform proposal targeted at gerrymandering is to change the redistricting process. Under these proposals, an independent and presumably objective commission is created specifically for redistricting, rather than having the legislature do it. This is the system used in the United Kingdom, where the independent Boundary Commissions determine the boundaries for constituencies in the House of Commons and regional legislatures, subject to ratification by the body in question (almost always granted without debate). A similar situation exists in Australia where the independant Australian Electoral Commission, and its state based counterparts, determines electoral boundaries for federal, state and local durisdictions.
The problem with a commission is that it is dependent on the individuals selected. Many "independent" commission are about as objective as the O.J. Simpson jury. The appointments are politically based to engineer a certain outcome. Thus, unless the selection process is achieved without bias, an independent commission can lead to the exact same result.
Another approach, and one that appeals to a numbers junkie like me, would be to employ some sort of mathematical formula or other pre-determined methodology. An approach advocated by a group called RangeVoting.org uses a mathematical algorithm. It is described here: http://rangevoting.org/GerryExamples.html. The site also contains maps of current districts to demostrate the incredible shapes that the current system creates. Check out the one that looks like a Halloween mask for a real horror show.
There are a myriad of other objective and unbiased means to drawing districts. In all likelihood, they all have certain benefits and drawbacks, but the differences are, in the grand scale of things, immaterial. The most important thing is consistency. Any approach that is unbiased and consistency applied, will, by definition, end the impact of gerrymandering.
The definitive documentary on Gerrymandering, produced by Bill Mundell, is newly released for theatrical showing. The website for this film can be accessed by clicking here: http://www.gerrymanderingmovie.com/. The commercial can be accessed by clicking here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kX50l9G_QZU.
If you want any of your votes to EVER count, perhaps the most important vote will be the ones you cast on Propositions 20 and 27. If you want to see the bums get thrown out, here's the way to do it.
Marko's Take
Gold And Precious Metals Miners Set To Explode
There are at least a dozen reasons why both Gold and the precious metals mining companies ought to correct, as outlined in this recent blog: http://markostake.blogspot.com/2010/10/die-hard-markets.html. But, at the end of the day, only market action itself matters, not "Marko's Take". (Gulp!)
In this morning's trading, the Gold Bugs Index (HUI) appears to have decisively broken the 525 zone that we outlined as the trigger point to begin its long awaited parabolic rise. The situation reminds me of late 1999 when the Nasdaq was severely overbought and overvalued and yet doubled in a period of just a couple of months. The difference, in this case, is that the mining sector is NOT OVERVALUED!
The kind of technical indicators discussed only handicap the race. None of them is flawless. It's important, therefore, to issue a mea culpa, accept reality as it is, not as we think it should be.
Given the increasing likelihood of an imminent upside explosion, what should investors do? Fortunately, a whole slew of junior miners are still at incredibly attractive levels. Among them are some favorites that we've written about in the past, such as ECU Silver Mining (ECUXF), Explor Resources (EXS.V), Seabridge Gold (SA), Hecla Mining Company (HL) and Avalon Rare Earth Metals (AVARF). We will update research on these firms, however, their merits can be reviewed by clicking the links, below:
http://markostake.blogspot.com/2010/06/avalon-rare-metals-inc-rare-opportunity.html.
http://markostake.blogspot.com/2010/05/ecu-silver-mining-update-it-keeps.html.
http://markostake.blogspot.com/2010/04/exploring-explor-resources.html.
http://markostake.blogspot.com/2010/03/hecla-mining-at-119-years-old-producing.html.
http://markostake.blogspot.com/2010/03/seabridge-gold-how-to-buy-gold-for.html.
If you wish to do your own research, you may wish to review this piece, which outlines some of the key risk factors to consider in selecting any mining company: http://markostake.blogspot.com/2010/06/some-considerations-for-selecting.html.
In terms of resources, you may wish to review this piece, which outlines all the places that are available to access http://markostake.blogspot.com/2010/09/information-is-more-than-power-its-gold.html.
Honestly, there are times when one prefers to be wrong, and this is one of them.
Time to make a ton of money!
Marko's Take
In this morning's trading, the Gold Bugs Index (HUI) appears to have decisively broken the 525 zone that we outlined as the trigger point to begin its long awaited parabolic rise. The situation reminds me of late 1999 when the Nasdaq was severely overbought and overvalued and yet doubled in a period of just a couple of months. The difference, in this case, is that the mining sector is NOT OVERVALUED!
The kind of technical indicators discussed only handicap the race. None of them is flawless. It's important, therefore, to issue a mea culpa, accept reality as it is, not as we think it should be.
Given the increasing likelihood of an imminent upside explosion, what should investors do? Fortunately, a whole slew of junior miners are still at incredibly attractive levels. Among them are some favorites that we've written about in the past, such as ECU Silver Mining (ECUXF), Explor Resources (EXS.V), Seabridge Gold (SA), Hecla Mining Company (HL) and Avalon Rare Earth Metals (AVARF). We will update research on these firms, however, their merits can be reviewed by clicking the links, below:
http://markostake.blogspot.com/2010/06/avalon-rare-metals-inc-rare-opportunity.html.
http://markostake.blogspot.com/2010/05/ecu-silver-mining-update-it-keeps.html.
http://markostake.blogspot.com/2010/04/exploring-explor-resources.html.
http://markostake.blogspot.com/2010/03/hecla-mining-at-119-years-old-producing.html.
http://markostake.blogspot.com/2010/03/seabridge-gold-how-to-buy-gold-for.html.
If you wish to do your own research, you may wish to review this piece, which outlines some of the key risk factors to consider in selecting any mining company: http://markostake.blogspot.com/2010/06/some-considerations-for-selecting.html.
In terms of resources, you may wish to review this piece, which outlines all the places that are available to access http://markostake.blogspot.com/2010/09/information-is-more-than-power-its-gold.html.
Honestly, there are times when one prefers to be wrong, and this is one of them.
Time to make a ton of money!
Marko's Take
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
What Is Gerrymandering? (Part 1)
Politicians are good at very little that is of use to the American people, but they excel at providing themselves with job security. It's quite amazing if you think about it for a moment. They routinely have approval ratings below Hitler and Mussolini, yet somehow they get themselves re-elected by wide margins.
Where do I sign up for that? Do a job so poor that any employer in the private sector would fire you without severance, yet, not only do you manage to keep your job, vote yourself a pay raise and even provide lavish benefits that no one in the private sector enjoys.
I'll tell you how they get that treatment. They CREATE it! It's an unethical practice known as "gerrymandering", which is the re-drawing of congressional districts in such a fashion as to virtually ensure you'll get re-elected. With advanced polling and census data, they can literally pinpoint friendly voters block by block and even house by house. The demographic data they have includes key factors such as gender, age, race, party and socio-economic status. Each of these groups have tendencies to lean either heavily or slightly to certain parties or candidates.
Knowing that information, politicians can literally go house by house to include as high a proportion of voters likely to side with them. As a result, a gerrymandered district can look like modern art, a chain saw, a hammer, a wrench or even a bowl of chocolate souffle!
What they virtually NEVER look like are grids, or any other symmetrical and logical shape for dividing an area into parts. Imagine if city streets were gerrymandered, instead of being rectangular. And, if the city planners who designed them kept their jobs! Of course, with a gerrymandered street grids, no one could ever find a polling place, but that's another story.
What if you're in a district with lots of alien voters, and your adjacent representatives need to encroach on your territory? Easy! Gerrymandering is effective because of the "wasted vote" effect. The strategy here is to stuff opposition voters into 1 district and give the other party 1 seat and 1 big win. Let's say you have 10 districts in which the voting is all close. Put as many of your other party's voters into 1 district, thereby tipping the odds more in your favor for the other 9!
As a result of this weighting, voter turnout is lowered because of the perceived certainty of incumbent re-election, thereby disenfranchising everyone!
The effect of gerrymandering for incumbents is particularly advantageous, as incumbents are far more likely to be re-elected under conditions of gerrymandering. For example, in 2002, according to political scientists Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann, only 4 challengers were able to defeat incumbent members of the US Congress, the lowest number in modern American history. Incumbents are likely to be of the majority party orchestrating a gerrymander, and incumbents are usually easily renominated in subsequent elections, including incumbents among the minority.
Gerrymandering also has significant effects on the quality of constituent representation. Because gerrymandering is designed to increase the number of wasted votes among the electorate, the relative representation of particular groups, especially minorities, can be drastically altered from their actual share of the voting population. This effect can significantly prevent a gerrymandered system from achieving proportional and descriptive representation, as the winners of elections are increasingly determined by who is drawing the districts rather than the preferences of the voters.
On the other side of the coin, gerrymandering may be advocated to improve representation within the legislature among groups which make up a relatively small portion of the voter base. By promoting the representation of groups which support the party in power, the incumbent party is able to gain an even stronger death grip on the rule-making bodies.
Reaching for your "barf bag", yet? Gerrymandering has even come to prisons! This occurs when inmates are counted as residents of a particular district. This can be particulary effective in rural areas with a large prison population.
California has two propositions that deal with Gerrymandering, Props 20 and 27. These are key ballots measures for restoring our democracy.
In tomorrow's blog, we will attack the Gerrymandering issue by examing why one should care and the types of reforms being proposed to end this very un-democratic practice.
If you're interested in learning more about this issue, a definitive documentary called "Gerrymandering", produced by Bill Mundell is preparing for theatrical release. The website for the film can be accessed by clicking here: http://www.gerrymanderingmovie.com/. A new trailer for the movie can be accessed by clicking here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kurAB5ridko.
Marko's Take
Where do I sign up for that? Do a job so poor that any employer in the private sector would fire you without severance, yet, not only do you manage to keep your job, vote yourself a pay raise and even provide lavish benefits that no one in the private sector enjoys.
I'll tell you how they get that treatment. They CREATE it! It's an unethical practice known as "gerrymandering", which is the re-drawing of congressional districts in such a fashion as to virtually ensure you'll get re-elected. With advanced polling and census data, they can literally pinpoint friendly voters block by block and even house by house. The demographic data they have includes key factors such as gender, age, race, party and socio-economic status. Each of these groups have tendencies to lean either heavily or slightly to certain parties or candidates.
Knowing that information, politicians can literally go house by house to include as high a proportion of voters likely to side with them. As a result, a gerrymandered district can look like modern art, a chain saw, a hammer, a wrench or even a bowl of chocolate souffle!
What they virtually NEVER look like are grids, or any other symmetrical and logical shape for dividing an area into parts. Imagine if city streets were gerrymandered, instead of being rectangular. And, if the city planners who designed them kept their jobs! Of course, with a gerrymandered street grids, no one could ever find a polling place, but that's another story.
What if you're in a district with lots of alien voters, and your adjacent representatives need to encroach on your territory? Easy! Gerrymandering is effective because of the "wasted vote" effect. The strategy here is to stuff opposition voters into 1 district and give the other party 1 seat and 1 big win. Let's say you have 10 districts in which the voting is all close. Put as many of your other party's voters into 1 district, thereby tipping the odds more in your favor for the other 9!
As a result of this weighting, voter turnout is lowered because of the perceived certainty of incumbent re-election, thereby disenfranchising everyone!
The effect of gerrymandering for incumbents is particularly advantageous, as incumbents are far more likely to be re-elected under conditions of gerrymandering. For example, in 2002, according to political scientists Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann, only 4 challengers were able to defeat incumbent members of the US Congress, the lowest number in modern American history. Incumbents are likely to be of the majority party orchestrating a gerrymander, and incumbents are usually easily renominated in subsequent elections, including incumbents among the minority.
Gerrymandering also has significant effects on the quality of constituent representation. Because gerrymandering is designed to increase the number of wasted votes among the electorate, the relative representation of particular groups, especially minorities, can be drastically altered from their actual share of the voting population. This effect can significantly prevent a gerrymandered system from achieving proportional and descriptive representation, as the winners of elections are increasingly determined by who is drawing the districts rather than the preferences of the voters.
On the other side of the coin, gerrymandering may be advocated to improve representation within the legislature among groups which make up a relatively small portion of the voter base. By promoting the representation of groups which support the party in power, the incumbent party is able to gain an even stronger death grip on the rule-making bodies.
Reaching for your "barf bag", yet? Gerrymandering has even come to prisons! This occurs when inmates are counted as residents of a particular district. This can be particulary effective in rural areas with a large prison population.
California has two propositions that deal with Gerrymandering, Props 20 and 27. These are key ballots measures for restoring our democracy.
In tomorrow's blog, we will attack the Gerrymandering issue by examing why one should care and the types of reforms being proposed to end this very un-democratic practice.
If you're interested in learning more about this issue, a definitive documentary called "Gerrymandering", produced by Bill Mundell is preparing for theatrical release. The website for the film can be accessed by clicking here: http://www.gerrymanderingmovie.com/. A new trailer for the movie can be accessed by clicking here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kurAB5ridko.
Marko's Take
Monday, October 4, 2010
Die Hard: The Markets
Like Officer John McClane, they continue to expend all of their nine lives. Is this life number 9?
Without a doubt, my assessment of the state of the markets has got to be called into question. Two relevant issues to address are: (1) Has the Hindeburg Omen, become, as Dee Dee Myers used to say, non-operational?; and, (2) Is the Precious Metals arena about to explode? For more on the Hindenburg Omen, click here http://markostake.blogspot.com/2010/08/hindenburg-omen-all-over-financial.html.
If we do not begin to see a forceful decline commence by the end of this week, it is unlikely to build the kind of downside momentum that would be required to precipitate a crash. That said, as of this writing, I have not budged from the crash prediction one bit. The technical reasons were recently outlined in this piece http://markostake.blogspot.com/2010/09/lets-get-technical-part-2.html.
As far as the Gold and mining stocks sector go, I have some further technical thoughts. For the record, my position is that Gold is forming an intermediate top, before returning to the proximity of its 200 Day Moving Average (DMA), which currently stands at $1175. That makes downside exposure in the vicinity of 10%.
One thing that troubles me about Gold is that it has underperformed the weakness of the U.S. Dollar over the past several months. Since June, the Dollar Index is down 11%, while Gold has risen about 9%. Ideally, we'd like to see the reverse.
More troubling is just how extremely overbought Gold has become. It now has a Relative Strength Index of 83.46. The piece referred to above explains the use of the RSI and how it's derived.
An examination of the relative strength of precious metals mining companies, as represented by the Gold Bugs Index (HUI) to Gold itself is quite revealing. Ideally, we would desire the stocks to substantially outperform the metal. Since May, the companies have underperformed, although not substantially. The HUI continues to be unable to materially break out above the 500-525 zone despite daily new highs in Gold. Should the HUI return to its 200 DMA at 446, it would get smacked for 11%. Downside risk is very limited.
Ideally, the HUI ought to also do better than the broad stock market. We can measure this by comparing the performance of the HUI to the Standard & Poors 500 (SPX). The HUI has gained no ground since November, 2009. This isn't cause to worry long term, but it does tend to suggest that a modest correction is imminent.
Investors should remain cautious but ready to jump in!
Marko's Take
Without a doubt, my assessment of the state of the markets has got to be called into question. Two relevant issues to address are: (1) Has the Hindeburg Omen, become, as Dee Dee Myers used to say, non-operational?; and, (2) Is the Precious Metals arena about to explode? For more on the Hindenburg Omen, click here http://markostake.blogspot.com/2010/08/hindenburg-omen-all-over-financial.html.
If we do not begin to see a forceful decline commence by the end of this week, it is unlikely to build the kind of downside momentum that would be required to precipitate a crash. That said, as of this writing, I have not budged from the crash prediction one bit. The technical reasons were recently outlined in this piece http://markostake.blogspot.com/2010/09/lets-get-technical-part-2.html.
As far as the Gold and mining stocks sector go, I have some further technical thoughts. For the record, my position is that Gold is forming an intermediate top, before returning to the proximity of its 200 Day Moving Average (DMA), which currently stands at $1175. That makes downside exposure in the vicinity of 10%.
One thing that troubles me about Gold is that it has underperformed the weakness of the U.S. Dollar over the past several months. Since June, the Dollar Index is down 11%, while Gold has risen about 9%. Ideally, we'd like to see the reverse.
More troubling is just how extremely overbought Gold has become. It now has a Relative Strength Index of 83.46. The piece referred to above explains the use of the RSI and how it's derived.
An examination of the relative strength of precious metals mining companies, as represented by the Gold Bugs Index (HUI) to Gold itself is quite revealing. Ideally, we would desire the stocks to substantially outperform the metal. Since May, the companies have underperformed, although not substantially. The HUI continues to be unable to materially break out above the 500-525 zone despite daily new highs in Gold. Should the HUI return to its 200 DMA at 446, it would get smacked for 11%. Downside risk is very limited.
Ideally, the HUI ought to also do better than the broad stock market. We can measure this by comparing the performance of the HUI to the Standard & Poors 500 (SPX). The HUI has gained no ground since November, 2009. This isn't cause to worry long term, but it does tend to suggest that a modest correction is imminent.
Investors should remain cautious but ready to jump in!
Marko's Take
Let's Get Frank About Barney
And, no, I don't mean the purple dinosaur. I mean Barney Frank (D-MA), the political dinosaur.
According to Wikipedia: "Barney Frank (born March 31, 1940) is the United States House Representative for Massachusetts's 4th congressional district since 1981. He is a member of the Democratic Party. In 1982, he won his first full term, and he has been re-elected ever since by wide margins. In 1987, he became the second openly gay member of the House of Representatives (the first being Gerry Studds) and is one of the most prominent gay politicians in the United States".
But more important is Frank's central involvement with the unraveling of our financial system. Frank became the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee in 2007 after the Democratic Party won a majority in the House. The committee oversees the entire financial services industry, which includes the securities, insurance, banking, and housing industries.
In 2003, the Bush administration recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis in response to growing concerns about Fannie Mae's role in the real estate bubble.
Under the plan, a new agency was to be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The plan was an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which together had issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt, was broken. A report by outside investigators concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics said Fannie Mae did not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
At the time of the proposal, Barney the dinosaur said: “These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” Don't you just HATE it when people exaggerate?
Frank, and accomplice Christopher Dodd (D-CT), used their influence over these two financial giants for their own purposes.
In 2008, Freddie gave $20,000 to a Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) event; Fannie Mae gave nearly $19,000 to the same event. Freddie has donated $125,000 and Fannie donated $80,000 to homosexual groups since 2005.) Dodd, welcomed himself to the trough as well, getting preferential treatment from Countrywide on two mortgages totally $7 million. Countrywide was one of the biggest subprime providers.
Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd also received thousands of dollars in contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the years. Dodd has received $133,900 since 1989; Frank received $40,100. (While in the Senate, Barack Obama received $105,849). Here, piggy piggy! Soooeeee!
ACORN, the socialist group that routinely engages in voter fraud, was involved in pushing for risky loans to people with bad credit histories, no jobs and no money for down payments. ACORN pressured banks in Chicago and elsewhere to give risky loans. Obama actually trained ACORN workers when he was a community organizer in Chicago.
After winning overwhelming victories in the last 3 decades, Frank is facing his toughest challenge ever. Some polls show him to be leading by less than 10%. Frank's own polls reveal no threat. Let's hope his ability to forecast the future of the housing and mortgage sector is as finely tuned as his own internal polling data.
Marko's Take
According to Wikipedia: "Barney Frank (born March 31, 1940) is the United States House Representative for Massachusetts's 4th congressional district since 1981. He is a member of the Democratic Party. In 1982, he won his first full term, and he has been re-elected ever since by wide margins. In 1987, he became the second openly gay member of the House of Representatives (the first being Gerry Studds) and is one of the most prominent gay politicians in the United States".
But more important is Frank's central involvement with the unraveling of our financial system. Frank became the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee in 2007 after the Democratic Party won a majority in the House. The committee oversees the entire financial services industry, which includes the securities, insurance, banking, and housing industries.
In 2003, the Bush administration recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis in response to growing concerns about Fannie Mae's role in the real estate bubble.
Under the plan, a new agency was to be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The plan was an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which together had issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt, was broken. A report by outside investigators concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics said Fannie Mae did not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
At the time of the proposal, Barney the dinosaur said: “These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” Don't you just HATE it when people exaggerate?
Frank, and accomplice Christopher Dodd (D-CT), used their influence over these two financial giants for their own purposes.
In 2008, Freddie gave $20,000 to a Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) event; Fannie Mae gave nearly $19,000 to the same event. Freddie has donated $125,000 and Fannie donated $80,000 to homosexual groups since 2005.) Dodd, welcomed himself to the trough as well, getting preferential treatment from Countrywide on two mortgages totally $7 million. Countrywide was one of the biggest subprime providers.
Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd also received thousands of dollars in contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the years. Dodd has received $133,900 since 1989; Frank received $40,100. (While in the Senate, Barack Obama received $105,849). Here, piggy piggy! Soooeeee!
ACORN, the socialist group that routinely engages in voter fraud, was involved in pushing for risky loans to people with bad credit histories, no jobs and no money for down payments. ACORN pressured banks in Chicago and elsewhere to give risky loans. Obama actually trained ACORN workers when he was a community organizer in Chicago.
After winning overwhelming victories in the last 3 decades, Frank is facing his toughest challenge ever. Some polls show him to be leading by less than 10%. Frank's own polls reveal no threat. Let's hope his ability to forecast the future of the housing and mortgage sector is as finely tuned as his own internal polling data.
Marko's Take
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)