The Average Joe

Over the last week we have been hearing that Larry Summers might be President Obama’s pick for the next chair of the Federal Reserve after Ben Bernanke retires.  Just from looking at his history, as well as the economic history of the United States over the last 15 years, he is the wrong man for the job. President Obama has demonstrated that he is loyal to those that have supported and aided him, but picking Larry Summers would be a terrible mistake, as we are still recovering from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.  It is best to put somebody at the Federal Reserve that will respond quickly and effectively.  In looking back to the late 1990’s, it is clear to see that Larry Summers is not that guy. Back in the late 1990’s, Brooksley Born, the former head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), vigorously pushed to regulate the risky over-the-counter derivatives market, which are off-balance sheet agreements whose prices are dependent upon or derived

The other day, I had a long conversation with a good friend of mine on the topic of deregulation, the doing away with government regulations on industries, and whether or not it is a good thing.  The general consensus seemed to be that some industries require serious regulations, while in other industries; not so much is needed. From looking at our own history, deregulation will lead to companies having monopolies in certain industries, while in other industries; there is innovation and competition that seems to be long lasting.  So now the question is which industries benefit and which suffer from deregulation? First we should discuss trusts and monopolies in the United States for those that may be unaware.  A  trust  was an agreement by which stockholders in several companies transferred their shares to a single set of trustees. In return, the stockholders received a certificate allowing them to a specified share of the consolidated earnings of the jointly managed companies

After reading an article in the New York Times by Michael R. Gordon, titled “ 1991 Victory Over Iraq Was Swift, but Hardly Flawless ”, I thought it was a well written article, but I disagreed with a few points the author makes that I would like to address. Mr. Gordon suggests that the Persian Gulf War was not flawless, as the end result left Saddam Hussein in power, as well as the Iraqi war machine, otherwise known as the Iraqi military, intact, which paved the way for the 2003 Iraq War. Also, he quotes Walter E. Boomer, the retired general who led the Marine attack into Kuwait, by referencing his belief as whether or not the 1991 Persian Gulf War ended too soon, " I continue to be asked if we stopped too soon,” he said. “The answer in retrospect is ‘yes.’ ” . Granted, military actions in combat do not always go as they are planned, but in the case of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, I believe the best way to examine it is to look at the bigger picture. Taking Saddam Hussei