Let's start with the United States. Yes, their unemployment rate dropped to 7.8%, below an over-hyped and probably already doctored floor of 8%. Of course, it's only cost already an obscene amount of "stimulus", and now the QE3 commitment to print until the employment rate comes down to 5.5%. What a deal! This way a few more (but not nearly enough) people will have jobs to start paying that absurd debt down. It's sort of similar to the way a pimp might give a crack addicted woman (or man) a job for the purpose of paying them back. The federal reserve of course wants everyone working, especially now - there's a debt to pay people so get to work! Wal-Mart greeters are needed at a location near you.
Obama? Well during the debate he considered the multi-generational debt servitude a "small emergency measure" to prevent the collapse of the economy. I personally would have added that it's the economy George W. Bush once referred to as a "house of cards", but I digress.
The presidential election has (from what I've seen in my social feeds) brought back the debate of whether or not Republican vs Democrat are actually any different from each other. Typically the presidential nominees are used as the basis for comparison. It's really not the right question to be asking though. Everybody is different. (mostly) Everybody has their own and different ideas.
The real question to be asking is, "does the president have the ability to act on their ideas?". Do they? Or are they simply carrying out the same high level demands from the same money powers? For those reading this who say yes, there is clearly a difference between the two - I'll try and explain it like this. There are two sorts of issues, important issues and people issues. People issues are important to the people. Politicians and parties will tend to vary widely on these, and this of course aids the illusion that what's occurring represents democracy.
J.F.K. talks about the military industrial complex
When you look at the money and the power circles around these people, you see the same names. The bills they sign are rarely read, and produced by third parties. Politicians at this point are nothing more than the face of implementation, and everyone has their own style of implementation.
What do you think has more weight? Obama, his golf games, and the rare policy change. Fancy titles on motions that move funds around? Or do you think it was the trillions in stimulus measures by the Federal Reserve who makes policy "independent" of the government? The government's job? Make tax collection look fun. In some ways however, this does work in Obama's favor. Those putting high gas prices at his feet, or even the problems in general are not seeing the bigger picture here.
"What does any of this have to do with us up here in Canada?" one might be asking. We're walking a thin red line right in the middle of a brewing conflict. Canada seems to be all over the map in regards to policies friendly towards the U.S. or emerging markets (China). We want them, then we don't, then we do. Intelligence reports are coming out all the time about Chinese espionage at the same time we're doing major business deals with them. Seriously folks, when is the last time you saw intelligence reports headlining mainstream news? I'm not talking about government fear-mongering terrorist alerts I'm talking about specific warnings right from CSIS. We are smack-dab in the middle of the Chinese-U.S.-everyone else currency war and with all of the "tough China talk" you can bet trade wars are not far behind.
Click here to recommend this post on progressivebloggers.ca and help other people find this information.
Richard Fantin is a self-taught software developer who has mostly throughout his career focused on financial applications and high frequency trading. He currently works for eQube gaming systems.
Nazayh Zanidean is a Project Coordinator for a mid-sized construction contractor in Calgary, Alberta. He enjoys writing as a hobby on topics that include foreign policy, international human rights, security and systemic media bias.