Obama’s team, thus far

President-elect Obama has selected key members of his cabinet to be nominated.  Here is the list of which I am aware, in order of succession.

  • Secretary of State: Hilary Clinton
  • Secretary of the Treasury: Timothy Geithner
  • Secretary of Defense: Robert Gates
  • Attorney General: Eric Holder
  • Secretary of Commerce: Bill Richardson
  • Secretary of Homeland Security: Janet Nepalitano

Here are some key members of his staff he has named:

  • Director of OMB: Lawrence Summers
  • National Security Advisor: James Jones
  • Press Secretary: Robert Gibbs
  • Ellen Moran

These choices do not reflect a radical shift from the Clinton era but rather a subtle change.  This is probably a good thing, since Clinton seemed to have gotten it mostly right.  The most provocative choices, of course, are Senator Clinton and Ellen Moran.

Ellen Moran, coming from Emily’s List sends a strong message that the issues that group holds dear will be front and center in an Obama administration.  The right will certainly not be pleased with such a choice.

And it’s not clear who should be pleased with Mrs Clinton as a choice for Secretary of State, aside from perhaps President Clinton, as she has very limited foreign policy experience, and clearly does not see eye to eye with the President-elect regarding Iraq.  Worse, she has her hands dirty with her vote to go to war, having perhaps lost a primary over that very issue.

In the meantime, the President-elect is very busily cleaning out southwester governors’ mansions with the choices of Janet Nepolitano and Bill Richardson. Perhaps he will name Arnold Schwarzenegger back to his old job as head of the President’s Council on Health and Fitness.

What the heck is a target price?

You often hear analysts say that they have a particular target price for a stock or a commodity.  That means that in their heads they expect the value of that thing to hit that price over a certain period of time.  But now we have OPEC saying that they have a target price of $75 per barrel of oil.

YEAH RIGHT.

One of two things is the case here.  Either OPEC has no price control, or they are simply lying, and they really just want the price as high as it will go, as it did go in the summer.  I tend to think both.  For one thing, the statement may be a sap to Iran and Venezuela, who have been publicly pushing for a cut in order to get prices back up to stabilize their own oil-based economies.

What seems to have happened with oil is that the speculators had their day both ways.  First they drove the price up, and then they drove it down.  They were helped a little bit by demand having first climbed, and then fallen. Once prices were clearly dropping, they piled on and just drove them down further.

So where is OPEC’s role in setting the price?  How many millions of barrels will they have to cut in order to have a significant impact on prices?  The general economic answer would be that they would have to stop supplying the world with enough oil to meet current demand, a shrinking target, as we speak.

So why have prices stablized at $50 or so?  Who can say?  Perhaps traders believe that demand has leveled off and is now stable.  Perhaps there is simply a consensus view as to what production and the econony will be 90 days from now, and it is reflected in that price.

Two things have happened this weekend that should make Monday trading very interesting.  First, Black Friday has come and gone.  This will give some indication as to the state of U.S. retail, and hence a good portion of the economy.  Second, OPEC has said that they will not cut current production levels.

If Black Friday turns out to have run red, then we may well see yet a larger drop in demand, based on lower production.  Butt his depends on whether or not producers have already anticipated a miserable Christmas season.  Even so, Monday will be very interesting.  When you see reports about this weekend’s retail sales, think of oil.

Vetting Bill Clinton?

Here is the most bizarre story I’ve heard in a while.  Apparently President-elect Obama is considering Senator Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.  While I wonder whether this is a good choice alone on its merits, what really gets me is how people in the press seem to believe that Bill Clinton, a former president who received millions of votes twice, somehow needs to be vetted.  It’s not as if the media has cut him a break.

The reason behind all of this might be best put as the calm before the storm.  Right now there is no news, and so a vacuum must be filled.  With names being bantered about like Clinton and Richardson, who knows who the real nominee will be?

Parting shots from a depraved presidency

As we just discussed, we have plenty of reasons to not like or respect President Bush. With that in mind, let us introduce a new image, the duck representing a lame duck presidency.  And here are two more reasons to dislike and disrespect this guy:

This past week the administration indicated that it was likely to auction leases to oil companies for land abutting national parks and monuments, particularly in Utah.  Normally the Department of Interior gives a fairly long lead time for comments, but in this instance it was done at the last possible moment, so as to limit opposition.

Also this past week, President Bush indicated to Congress that he would not be opposed to another bailout bill, this one for the auto industry, if the Senate ratified a free trade agreement for Columbia.  Although all of these bailout bills leave a bad taste in my mouth, it’s not clear we have a choice.  But what really offends me is that President Bush is willing to anchor his negotiating position in a manner that may well be the wrong policy for the economy.  Furthermore, there are policy matters relating to Colombia that need to be addressed, such as whether the government is sufficiently stable, and whether we would be importing goods that were profiting the FARC.  These matters are both complex, but they are not inter-related, and so they should be dealt with separately.

Two more reasons to say good riddons to this president.

Mr. Bush, you’re no Harry Truman

Some people are really not meant for this earth.  They happen to exist through luck or by the grace of others, or simply because evolution has not provided sufficient stimulus to cause them to bring themselves to an end.

Such was the case with union leaders in early 1980s, and not it seems to be the case with the Wall Street Journal.  In this lovely editorial, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro wonders why President Bush is receiving such a public flogging as hasn’t been seen since Truman, and whines that the attacks on Mr. Bush have been slanderous.  Perhaps some have been, but there have been plenty more that are well deserved.  Let’s review a bit with Mr. Shapiro, who appears to need the lesson.

The Economy

He argues that the current administration has little to do with the current economic mess.  Their appointee to chair the SEC, Christopher Cox led the commission that weakened the firewall within banks between lending and investing so that an investment failure could cause a banking failure, which is what happened.

Taking Deregulation to Its Illogical Conclusion

Over the last eight years we have seen more food scares than in the previous forty.  At one time it’s meat, and then it’s spinach, and then tomatoes.  Today we all worry about products brought in from China.  The regulatory regime of the FDA is so lax its amazing anything is safe to eat.  At the same time we are polluting our air and water while consuming as much oil as ever.  Mr. Bush entered the stage with corporate greed on everyone’s mind.  Enron and Worldcom were household names.  You would think we would keep a closer eye on Corporate America, and the Sarbanes Oxley act was meant to do just that.  And yet we have just shoveled another $700 billion into the banks.

Losing Two Wars

It was perhaps inevitable and likely necessary that we would go to war with the Taliban in order to root Al Qaida out of Afghanistan.  That we haven’t won the war is inexcusable.  President Bush doesn’t understand what winning a war is.  It is not enough to simply have moved troops into a particular piece of real estate, but rather to accomplish a particular political objective.  In Afghanistan that was to install a stable democratic government.  Stability requires lots and lots of time, effort, planning, and money, which Mr. Bush denied the Afghans by devoting his attention elsewhere.  Today we see fighting along the border, a resurgence of the Taliban outside of Kabul, and war lords re-emerging as power centers.  All of this was not inevitable.  It is one thing to try and fail, but we failed to try.

The other war was a war of choice that we entered because we were not told the truth.  President Bush claimed on more than one occasion that he acted on the same intelligence that President Clinton had.  If that was the case (and it seems that it was), then Mr. Bush demonstrated a shocking lack of judgment for the job in which he found himself.

But that wasn’t the worst of it, once in Iraq we failed to stabilize the situation, to provide basic services to the citizens, and to re-establish any semblance of normality in their lives.  Rather than paying attention to the deteriorating situation, Mr. Bush believed his chief lieutenants, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Condoliza Rice, as was well documented by Bob Woodward.

Loss of Moral Authority

Engaging in a war of choice against the wishes of most of the world was one of the many ways in which we lost the respect of the common individual in many countries.  By creating prisons and holding people indefinitely without trial, the administration flouted the law.  Allowing people to be transported to far away countries for the purposes of torture demonstrated to people outside the U.S. that we would do anything that we thought justifiable in the name of national security.  Denying them public trials further demonstrates a level of depravity usually attributed to petty dictators.

Isolation of America

Every foreign visitor has been subject to treatment that is usually reserved for common criminals.  Upon entry their pictures and fingerprints are taken, stored in a system of questionable security, subjecting them to potential identity theft, a problem that this administration has generally ignored.  It has been all but impossible for residents of the middle east to visit, due to extensive consular demands.  The effort required to visit the U.S. has cost us tourism and business as organizations have moved their meetings elsewhere.

Fear

I reserve my strongest ire for Mr. Bush and his sidekick for having led America, not from a position of strength, where he could have told people after 9/11 that the best way to get back at people who do not believe in our way of life is to rebuld and outmarket them; but instead from a position of fear.  Mr. Bush spread fear everywhere he went.  He did it perhaps because he was fearful.  But he also profited from fear, scoring political points off of peoples’ fear.  He imposed onerous rules at airports, treated foreigners like criminals, snooped into people’s private lives, and violated principles many Americans hold dear.

And so perhaps some level of disrespect is deserved.  Mr. Shapiro points out that after a generation people came to value Harry Truman and his presidency, and he argues that the same could happen with President Bush.  Harry Truman stood up to his military by integrating them, ended WWII in the Pacific through what could only have been a terrible choice, stood up against Stalin in Germany, and stood up against his own general in Korea.  He was attacked from the right because of wrongful accusations against his secretary of state by a Republican whacko named Joe McCarthy.  History showed he was right in each of the above cases, and his critics were wrong.  Does anyone seriously believe President Bush is in the same league as President Truman?  If so, please pass me what you’re smoking.