Current Events

Another round of news:

The Good

Obama makes his picks. (Though not for Geithner's top help.)http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/ncaatourney09/columns/story?columnist=katz_andy&id=3991859

I'll say it again. Barack Obama knows how to say and do the right superficial things. I refuse to let any biases I have allow me to fault him for "being cool," though. I'm a firm believer in giving credit where credit is due.

Publicly displaying your March Madness selections as President is downright ballsy. I'm incredibly impressed. I'll enjoy beating Obama in the challenge, but I give him credit for being there to beat.

Take a look at his picks, though. His Elite Eight includes all four 1 seeds, three 2 seeds, and one 3 seed. That is not gutsy at all. Take a risk, Mr. President.

Some people may deride the Commander-in-Chief for sticking his nose in the BCS stuff and taking time for March Madness. I like it, though.

As a side note, I have 3 teams from the middle coast in my final four. You can't call me biased, either. All 3 teams are rivals of my favorite 3 teams. (Texas, Wisconsin, and Marquette.) I won't tell you who they are, though. Michigan State or Purdue? Lousiville or Syracuse? Oklahoma or Missouri?

The Better

Monetary policy in action!http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090318/ap_on_bi_ge/fed_interest_rates

Good to see some moves that actually make sense. This is a key concept a lot of people should work to understand. Monetary policy is a whole lot more effective than fiscal policy. Here's a quick macroeconomics lesson indirectly courtesy of Ken Dobbs, MSOE Professor. If I'm correct, he'll be pleased. If not, they can't take my degree back.

Monetary policy is the set of tools that lawmakers use to govern the supply of money. Fiscal policy is government spending. While both have substantial effects on the economy, there are two main differences between them.

First and foremost, fiscal policy is political. At the core, conservatives tend to shy away from spending money while liberals want to spend it. We're conservative, and I think it makes sense. Whether you're making a lot of money or a little money, spending less money means good things. The point remains; changing the economy through government spending is a heated proposition. What programs do you spend on or cut? Who gets the final say? Fiscal policy is what sold newspapers before they got all biased.

Monetary policy is not political. Most people don't care. Those is charge of our federal reserve system can focus on results instead of feelings. There's little political bias tied up in what the reserve ratio should be. Put it this way; the fact that you're bored reading this shows how little anyone cares.

So the economy can be molded, shaped, and winnowed with little fear of making the electorate angry. (Unless the media has decided you're George W. Lucifer.) That's a good thing, too. I'm going to step away from textbook reading and add my own view here. (There goes ethos.)
Monetary policy is more effective than fiscal policy. Let's say the government spends 10% of the nation's GDP. One out of every ten dollars comes from the government. That one dollar can then be spent on more things. Next, let's say 25% of that money is invested further. After two "rounds," that one dollar turns into $1.37. This is inexact, but go with me.

Monetary policy effects the whole money supply. Every dollar saved can turn into more money. Every loan made goes further. Credit is easier to get. Rather than affecting 13.7% of the money supply, monetary policy effects the majority of it! And everyone can gain access to that money. It's not limited to those with government contracts. (A sketchy group in Madison, WI.)

So, to wrap up a long explanation succinctly, it's nice to see the right things being done in one sector.

The Best

AIG Execs prove they're not all murderous.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090318/ap_on_go_co/aig_outrage

I'm not even gonna comment a lot, except to say two things. One, which liberal wackos are going to admit that not all AIG execs are Lucifer's minions? (or Bush's, if you're in the media) Two, proof that the government does not have to be the ethical jury of the business community. This isn't all played out, yet, but I imagine the government's self-righteous stance will look pretty done in a few weeks or months.