Politics

Why Ocasio-Cortez is the most powerful weapon in the Dem’s arsenal

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s 5 minute “if I was a bad guy” routine in the House Oversight & Reform Committee went viral. 19m views. Such is the love of selective editing by the media that the video seemed to completely absolve her of the ridiculous Green New Deal plan which incidentally was pulled from her own website. She looked totally on message. However…

…Sadly, the unedited follow up saw the IFS Chairman Bradley A. Smith correct the record of the misleading questioning of AOC. She’s only 29 and on the fast track of learning the ugly world of politics.

The Democrats, as CM has said before, are missing a huge opportunity. She is a media darling. Instead of dragging her inside the tent and weaponizing her huge and growing following (especially millennials) with the pre-rehearsed party platform, Pelosi snubbed her from the Climate Change Panel and dismissed AOC’s manifesto as a “Green Dream.” Talk about eating your own kind. Better to have AOC on the panel to keep a leash on her media circle.

The longer they allow AOC to go off uncocked without the safety on, there will become a point where she passes the point of no return. The Democrats will lose probably their best asset. The longer she stays isolated, the more damage she will end up doing to the core of the party.

The Democrats need to show a united face in 2020. When lead candidate Kamala Harris endorses AOC’s plan without reading it, it only looks like a case of friendly fire. Is that what voters want to see? Expediency?

AOC is causing ructions. If the 70yo+ old guard party elites within the Democratic Party continue to treat her like a dotty 29yo, they’ll turn the weapon of their own making on themselves. That’s great news if you’re Republican.

If the Green New Deal bans air travel…

…CM looks forward to catching a train to Hawaii.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also intends to get every fossil fueled powered car off the road in a decade. The US has 270 million registered vehicles, the overwhelming majority being petrol powered. The US sells 16-17mn cars a year (sadly slowing). Therefore in the US, 16 years would be required to achieve that target. That’s before taking into account auto maker EV capacity.

Global EV sales were 2.1mn last year. So her plan would take 128 years. That’s unfair as capacity would grow. Let’s assume auto makers could conceivably increase capacity by 2m every 2 years (plants take 2 years to build and those poor Congolese child slave laborers will be run off their feet digging for cobalt to go in the batteries) then conceivably 30mn.cumulative EV units could be built over 10 years. That’s 11% of her goal. Let’s not forget the fossil fuels required to power auto factories to satiate this plan not to mention the steel that goes into the bodies.

Global auto production is c.80mn units. That assumes that the world’s auto makers will snub the ROW to meet her demands.

Socialist mathematics is never quite up to the task. Is Ocasio-Cortez was a true patriot she’d demand GM, Ford & Tesla be the sole products that consumers are allowed to buy to support domestic jobs. They’ll need them because she’ll be causing the lay offs of a shed load of Boeing line workers if planes are banned.

When she finally gets into the Oval Office we should look forward to her catching Ground Force One from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Station to travel the country and tell Americans how much better things have become.

A special place in hell

Ah, the EU. With comments like this from EU Co-President Donald Tusk it sure feels like a warm and embracing place to return to. Supposedly the 17.4 million Brits that voted to leave the EU are equally deserved of a reservation in hell too. His comments perfectly sum up the manner in which the EU thinks of sovereign democracy. It doesn’t. It proves yet again to the British as to why there is absolutely no need to be part of this unelected federation by the back door.

Leaving without a deal is the best outcome because it is the one which the EU least desires. It is the one which outwardly shows other sovereign nations within the EU that the grass is greener outside. Such a scenario puts massive pressure on Brussels to reform, which is what it should already be doing.

Project Fear continues to make the case for the dangers of No Deal. Even the Bank of England has brazenly promoted the idea that GDP would fall 8% in such a scenario. It is concerning that the central bank could credibly put its name to such shonky projections. Ironic that former BoE Governor Mervyn King believes the opposite.

Do we not question as to why PM Theresa May – who should have already resigned – heads back for the umpteenth time to the renegotiation table, the EU has flatly rejected within 5 seconds of an amendment proposal being floated? So much for open dialogue and discussion. Recall the first version of Brexit was signed off by the EU inside of 45 minutes.

Why would the Brits want to be part of a body that flatly refuses to yield any ground on anything? Anyone with common sense can see that locking the UK inside the customs union is not only a betrayal of democracy but a sure fire way to trade itself into a worse position than it began with. It’s like requesting the EU to lock them in prison, hand the keys over to the Brussels guards and believe they will be let out when they’re ready to go.

Not what you think

In the age of identity politics this hiring advert from McDonalds Sweden is on the money.

The fine print says “We hire individuals. We don’t care what your surname is. Because ambition and determination have nothing to do with your nationality.”

Good on McDonalds for bucking the insidious virtue signaling that pervades so many corporates today.

”We see the good in men”

The Egard watch company took the opposite view of the Gillette campaign. So much for equality!

Before we rush to bash the bankers!

Bankers have worked hard to stay one rung above lawyers. Yet is anyone surprised? Before we embark on a “bash the banker” tirade, at what point do we cast aspersions on the regulators? If you leave a child unattended with a box of matches don’t be surprised if the house burns down.

None of this is new. Before the housing crisis engulfed America, a group of certified home appraisers raised the alarm in 2003 by signing a petition to present to Congress. They claimed many unqualified assessors were in cahoots with mortgage brokers to jack up property appraisals because of the higher fees that were attracted. What was done by the authorities? The square root of jack. So the $750,000 mortgage taken out was actually against a $500,000 property. $250,000 in negative equity before the new home owner moved in. Regulators could have clamped down but didn’t.

Charging dead people fees is of course a bit much and gouging advisory fees without actually offering service is poor form. However at what point does the customer bear some responsibility to accepting the status quo? Getting access to lower cost providers is/was always there but the opportunity costs were such that many just sucked it up. It wasn’t enough to devote time to when the half yearly check up came around.

CM was one of the ones that questioned the big bank superannuation advisor’s usury fees. So poor was the explanation that after minimal effort, a new advisor was found with fees cut in half and investment flexibility rising exponentially. We shouldn’t have been hanging out for a Royal Commission to whump the banks.

Indeed, should any laws have been broken then the perpetrators deserve to have the book thrown at them. If boards willingly accepted that certain divisions were deliberately acting in unethical ways then they deserve to be accountable.

Corporate governance is not helped by hiring a majority of independent directors. The US experience has shown that to be a failure. It is all about corporate culture. If boards have not been setting the highest standards why should we be surprised if the underlings follow suit. We only need look at the debacle that was Cricket Australia or the recent shenanigans at the ABC to see examples of a poorly run board leading to a culture beneath that ends up seeing staff “cheat” or making decisions that flagrantly contravene the charter.

Do we jail bankers for 25 years? Depending on the extent of actually “breaking the law” that maybe a deterrent. WorldCom CEO Bernie Ebbers was sentenced to 25 years based on nine counts of conspiracy, securities fraud and false regulatory filings to the tune of $11bn. Enron’s former CEO Jeffrey Skilling was convicted on 35 counts of fraud, insider trading and other crimes related to Enron and sentenced to 24 years prison and fined $45 million. Madoff 150 years, Stanford 110 years jail. This has not necessarily stopped corporate crime but it should throw a flag in the minds of those considering it. If the consequences are too soft then clearly the risks profile diminishes for the perpetrator.

Look at the advent of whistleblower laws in America. The SEC now encourages whistle-blowing by offering sizable monetary awards (10 to 30% of the monetary sanctions collected). Successful enforcement actions as a result of whistle- blowing has led to awards as high as US$30,000,000. As a result the SEC has seen a 10 fold increase in claims over the last few years. Would boards be more inclined to act ethically if whistleblowers were granted protections?

Plenty of ways to improve what has transpired but what the Royal Commission should make painfully clear is that consumers need to wise up and become more savvy about how they make choices. We can’t forever complain and wait for governments to rescue us when it is them in the first place not acting responsibly to ensure good behaviour.

The free market should be the first to benefit from filling this clear void. Tying up banks in more red tape and onerous regulation isn’t the way forward. All it will do is drive costs for compliance higher which will ultimately hit the consumer. The larger the institution, the easier such regulations will benefit their ability to squeeze the little guy!

Making the punishments for bad behaviour enforceable and putting the onus on boards to act ethically will make all winners.

ABC protects one of its own

Good to see the ABC true to form in allocating our tax dollars to look after its own. So if money is so tight, why would it allocate those precious dollars on Clementine Ford who has ‘left’ Nine? What value could she add to convince us to crank up funding? CM wrote a piece on ABC funding and its inefficiency. It’s diabolical.

Ford’s only claim to fame is radical feminist profanity. She has an uncanny ability to call fellow journalists and politicians ‘c*nts’, tweeted “All (non compliant) men must die” among other balanced rhetoric worthy of taxpayer funding.

The ABC has proved that it was already shockingly run under the recent leadership. Now without anyone at the helm it’s open season. To the ABC’s credit, these decisions are made in good faith that the incoming government will grant more funds and any mishaps will he quickly forgotten. Impartiality and ABC are mutually exclusive terms.