The GOP is grasping at straws. They have nothing substantive against Obama, but boy are they good at making up lies. This has been a leading Rove tactic for years, and if America falls for this again we should be ashamed of ourselves. Not to mention the fact that this is all a smokescreen to keep the focus off of the fact that Palin and her Alaska associates are in contempt of court for refusing to testify in the Troopergate hearings. After Nixon and Clinton, Americans are to some extent jaded, but really, would you want a VP who refuses to attend hearings in her own defense, and instructs her employees not to testify? That smells like guilt. It surely doesn't give the impression that she has done no wrong and has nothing to hide.
This year, the GOP offers you an angry old man and a woman who, while personable, is desperately uniformed about national and international issues. Both of them are far right politically. McCain used to be a maverick, but since 2004 he has voted 90% with Bush. McCain's policies are not original or reformist, despite how he has tried to co-opt Obama's popular message of change. Please go to the websites of both of the candidates and read their platforms. Obama's Blueprint for Change has more good ideas than McCain's plan. Compare them yourself. Obama's basic premise is that tax dollars should be spent to make America stronger and to improve the lives and well being of our people. For example, he uses education programs to train a technology workforce, contributing to energy independence, creating jobs and improving the economy. When you read McCain's plan you will find no over-arching design to get America back on track. Instead you'll find more tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation of the health care industry.
I'm a Republican. Although I embrace some forward-thinking social values, in the past I've rarely voted Democrat. My thinking was that since Republicans grow robust economies, by voting Republican I'd be endorsing a plan that would grow wealth for our nation, and then we would be able to afford social programs. It was a good strategy for a couple decades, but I have to say that the tenure of W. Bush has changed my mind. Not only is there nothing fiscally responsible about today's GOP, the insidious alignment of the party with religious intolerance has really turned me off.
On the other hand, the intelligent luminous thought of Barack Obama has ignited my patriotism. I want a President who puts America first and can get the economy back on track. In my mind, values voting takes a back burner when we are faced with a meltdown of the economy. It's time for a change, a real change. The Republicans have controlled the Presidency for 28 of the past 40 years, but they have fallen down on the job. The Democrats have a stellar candidate this year, and I am voting for Obama.
A Venti-Sized Recession?
The more Starbucks a country has, the bigger its financial problems.
PHOTOS
The Bailout Felt 'Round the World
A look at how an American made crisis has shaken economies the world over.
- Share:
-
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
Remember Thomas Friedman's McDonald's theory of international relations? The thinking was that if two countries had evolved into prosperous, mass-consumer societies, with middle classes able to afford Big Macs, they would generally find peaceful means of adjudicating disputes. They'd sit down over a Happy Meal to resolve issues rather than use mortars. The recent unpleasantries between Israel and Lebanon, which both have McDonald's operations (here and here, respectively) put an end to that reasoning. But the Golden Arches theory of realpolitick was good while it lasted.
In the same spirit, I propose the Starbucks Theory of International Economics. The higher the concentration of expensive, nautical-themed faux-Italian branded frappuccino joints in a country's financial capital, the more likely the country is to have suffered catastrophic financial losses.
It may sound doppio, but work with me. This recent crisis has its roots in the unhappy coupling of a frenzied nationwide real-estate market, centered in California, Las Vegas and Florida, and a nationwide credit mania, centered in New York. If you could pick one brand name that personified these twin bubbles, it was Starbucks. The Seattle-based coffee chain followed new housing developments into the suburbs and exurbs, where its outlets became pitstops for real-estate brokers and their clients. It also carpet-bombed the business districts of large cities, especially the financial centers, with nearly 200 in Manhattan alone. Starbucks's frothy treats provided the fuel for the boom, the caffeine that enabled deal jockeys to stay up all hours putting together offering papers for CDOs, and helped mortgage brokers work overtime processing dubious loan documents. Starbucks strategically located many of its outlets on the ground floors of big investment banks. (The one around the corner from the former Bear Stearns headquarters has already closed).
Like American financial capitalism, Starbucks, fueled by the capital markets, took a great idea too far (quality coffee for Starbucks, securitization for Wall Street) and diluted the experience unnecessarily (subprime food such as egg-and-sausage sandwiches for Starbucks, subprime loans for Wall Street). Like so many sadder-but-wiser Miami condo developers, Starbucks operated on a "build it and they will come" philosophy. Like many of the humiliated Wall Street firms, the coffee company let algorithms and number-crunching get the better of sound judgment: if the waiting time at one Starbucks was over a certain number of minutes, Starbucks reasoned that an opposite corner could sustain a new outlet. Like the housing market, Starbucks peaked in the spring of 2006 and has since fallen precipitously.
America's financial crisis has gone global in the past month. European and Asian governments, which until recently were rejoicing over America's financial downfall, have had to nationalize banks and expand depositors' insurance. Why? Many of their banks feasted on American subprime debt and took shoddy risk-management cues from their American cousins. Indeed, the countries whose financial sectors were most connected to the U.S.-dominated global financial system, the ones whose financial institutions plunged into CDOs, credit default swaps, and the whole catalog of horribles, have suffered the most.
What does this have to do with the price of coffee? Well, when you start poking around Starbucks's international store locator, some interesting patterns emerge. At first blush, there's a pretty close correlation between a country having a significant Starbucks presence, especially in its financial capital, and major financial cock-ups, from Australia (big blow ups in finance, hedge funds and asset-management companies; 23 stores) to the United Kingdom (nationalization of the nation's largest banks). In many ways, London in recent years has been a more concentrated version of New York—the wellspring of many toxic innovations, a hedge-fund haven. It sports 256 Starbucks. In Spain, which is now grappling with the bursting of a speculative coastal real-estate bubble (sound familiar?), the financial capital, Madrid, has 48 outlets. In crazy Dubai, 48 Starbucks outlets serve a population of 1.4 million. And so on: South Korea, which is bailing outs its banks big time, has 253; Paris, the locus of several embarrassing debacles, has 35.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
- Share:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
