Democracy Alert

Truth & Transparency = A Stronger Democracy

by Leave a Comment

Foreign Policy of John F Kennedy and George W Bush

In this essay I’m to explain about foreign policy of two American presidents; the similarities and differences .For some reasons I’ve chosen John F. Kennedy and George W. Bush, although every president has his own foreign policy, but I think in one spot the foreign policy of John F Kennedy and George W Bush becomes similar, this spot is war. Also both of them are idealist, their idealism in their speech, before the beginning of the wars is definite.

Therefore in this essay I try to clarify how American presidents claim something as good and peaceful for both the occupied country and the rest of the world, but ideologically think and practically act contrary to their claims. In fact how they do other than they say about their foreign policy; how these presidents claim that they are idealist but they began the wars and how similar they propagandize public opinions in order to their goal which is imperialism and accordingly capitalism.

George W Bush & Iraq War

Remember President Bush’ speeches and declaration of Iraq war. According to his speeches, what was the main reason of war?

” … for more than a decade the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war […] peaceful efforts to disarm Iraqi regime have failed again and again .[…]this regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq ‘s neighbors and against Iraq` s people.

[…] it (Iraq) has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it (Iraq) has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of Al Qaeda. The danger is clear ; using chemical ,biological or, one day, nuclear weapons ,the terrorists […] could kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country ,or any other.[…] before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act ,this danger will be removed.[…] if we must begin a military campaign , it will be against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. We will deliver the food and medicine you need. […] we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free […] the day of your liberation is near. […] we are a peaceful people […] if our enemies dare to strike us, they and all who have aided them ,will face fearful consequences […] when the dictator has departed they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation. […] America and our allies accept that responsibility.”(4)

If we want to examine the “rhetoric of Iraq conquest” (Callinicos, 2003:9) in speeches of Bush and his administration to compare his foreign policy in word and in practice, we can divide his claims to several categories as Callinicos divides:

1-“Fight against terrorism “

As Chomsky has pointed out ,”the problem is the selectivity with which the terrorism is applied”.(Barsamian ,2004:22 cited in Bellamy Foster&W.Mcchesney) Who are terrorists ? Those who are n` t with US and her allies .So the main narration is struggling between good and evil .This strategy of Bush and his administration is the thing that Eleanor Stein calls it the ” construction of an enemy”. (Stein ,2004:151 cited in Bellamy Foster & W. Mcchesney) He admonishes to remember Nazi propaganda technique :

“Pit race against race, religion against religion, prejudice against prejudice .Divide and conquer!”

2-“Destroying weapons of mass destruction”

What does it mean when some countries like Israel has weapons of mass destruction but it is n ‘t dangerous ?It ‘s clear ,Israel is the close alliance of the US.

3-“Democracy”

“This will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome except victory”, Bush said(4) .But what is really victory? Is it democracy?

Bush and his administration justify their military operation to make Iraqi people free and to survive the world from danger. But does ‘externally imposed democratic revolution’ and ‘killing half million people’ justify ‘external intervention to other regimes’?

4-“Liberalism”

That’ s right ,Iraqis are free but after war .As Robert Cooper expressed: “Among ourselves we operate on the basis of laws […] but when dealing with old-fashioned kinds of states outside the post-modern continent of Europe, we need to revert to the rougher methods of an earlier era […] when we are operating in the jungle , we must also use the laws of the jungle”. (Foster, 2004:161 cited in Bellamy Foster & W. Mcchesney)

After all ,As Noam Chomsky (Barsamian,2004:22 cited in Bellamy Foster & W. Machesney )said if Iraq was somewhere in central Africa it would n` t be chosen for this test case. But as Middle East and the Gulf region has a huge source of material wealth and oil, it ‘s chosen .All these show that reality is the other side of the coin. The foreign policy of George W Bush differs from word to practice.

John F Kennedy& Vietnam War

In late 1961, President John F. Kennedy requested more help for the South Vietnamese government in its war against the Vietcong guerrillas. (6)

Although there are multiple starting dates for the war, I choose president’s message to congress, august 5, 1964, to show how president Kennedy in this war used words to show that he is idealist but in fact he wasn’t: ” […]I further announced a decision to ask the Congress for a resolution expressing the unity and determination of the United States in supporting freedom and in protecting peace in southeast Asia.[…]these latest actions of the North Vietnamese regime have given a new and grave turn to the already serious situation in southeast Asia […] Our policy in southeast Asia has been consistent and unchanged since 1954. I summarized it on June 2 in four simple propositions:

1. America keeps her word. Here as elsewhere, we must and shall honor our commitments.

2. The issue is the future of Southeast Asia as a whole. A threat to any nation in that region is a threat to all, and a threat to us.

3. Our purpose is peace.. We have no military, political, or territorial ambitions in the area.

4. This is not just a jungle war, but a struggle for freedom on every front of human activity. Our military and economic assistance to South Vietnam and Laos in particular has the purpose of helping these countries to repel aggression and strengthen. The United States will continue in its basic policy of assisting the free nations of the area to defend their freedom […] we must make it clear to all that the United States is united in its determination to bring about the end of Communist subversion and aggression in the area . “(7)

At that time, Kennedy and his administration believed in a modernization model; all nations followed the same general road of economic and social development ,so this model is a way to protect south Vietnam while help it throughout the stages of economic growth.

But the reality was another thing, fearing the spread of communism President Kennedy believed that America could and should shape the destiny of the world’s developing countries .Following this way ,President Lyndon Johnson sustained missions in North Vietnam , Nixon followed the way of previous presidents too.

According to “the propaganda tools” term (Amin ,2004:104. cited in Bellamy Foster & W. Mcchesney) ,the term that Gobbels gave, America manipulated the intelligence of people before entrancing to the war .This manipulation of intelligence was such a strong propaganda that the Vietnam war was explained as the result of “poor political intelligence”. It was the consequence of this manipulation that most Americans believed that America were intervening to help a country that has been a victim of foreign aggression and also believed that if they lose Indochina and specially Vietnam they world will end up communism.

But this war was the consequence of American interest to extend US capitalism and control over the world.

This propaganda even continues after the war ,after all this times ,US Defence Secretary ,William Cohen said that “he didn `t intend to apologize for the attitude of the us forces during the Vietnam war.”(5)

Conclusion

Does America really have right to intervene to internal problems of other countries?
According to the definition of right by Mill that “to have a right is to have a justifiable claim against others that some interests be protected or promoted.” (Knowles,2002:165), it had .
But isn`t it right that ‘ this right ‘is contrary to freedom?

As Rousseau tells us “our freedom derives from our free will ,or capacity to resist the desires which press us together with our status as independent creatures, neither subject to the demands of others nor dependent on them to get what we want.” (Knowles,2002:105)

If we compare two presidents’s foreign policy and strategy in these two wars ,with this definition ,we can conclude that these presidents can’t bestow freedom to other countries. As Samir Amin expressed ,the US program is imperialist but it’ s not exactly the same imperialist that Antonio Negri explained that, since it does n ‘t “aim to change the societies into a capitalist system but to loot their sources.” (Amin,2004:105 cited in Bellamy Foster & W. Mcchesney )

These two presidents are idealist when they talk about their foreign policy .But there is a gap between their words and reality. Behind such words lay “dreams of absolute global domination, of imposing a planetary Pox Americana by force of arms”.(8)

We should be aware how an idealist language can be used to shape foreign policy of American presidents to reach imperialism and capitalism; their real goal.

REFRENCES

1-Bellamy Foster,John &W.Mcchesney ,Robert:editors,2004,Pox Americana, London :Pluto press.

2-Calliniocos,Alex,2003,The New Mandarins of American Power,UK:polity press

3- Knowles,Dudley,2002,Political Philosophy,London:routledge

MA student of North American Studies-Tehran University

by Leave a Comment

Hedge Fund Regulation Trends

Hedge funds are pools of money invested by individuals or groups of qualified investors who met federal requirements, which are determined by the US Securities and Exchange Commission(SEC) in the United States. Today, there is much talk about regulations in the hedge fund market. The two leading financial market regulators, the SEC, and Financial Services Authority (FSA) seem to be slowly but steadily moving in direction of controlled regulation.

As hedge funds popularity grows year after year, the major concern is how such growth would impact broader markets in unforeseen ways. According to Richard Herring, finance professor at Wharton and co-director of the Wharton Financial Institutions Center, “The important issue that has not been much discussed publicly is the potential implications for the industryif hedge funds do reach a broader market.”Herring argues that regulation of hedge funds would be an irrevocable mistake, explaining further that “[r]egulation is in some sense is not compatible with the fundamental role and character of hedge funds”, adding that “hedge funds are designed by law with maximum flexibility.”

Recent trends in the hedge fund industry indicate continual improvements in their ability to cope up with systemic risk and reflect a much larger movement towards stability throughout global financial markets. Policymakers must keep in mind the fact such trends because the history of financial markets regulation reveals that financial and technological innovations often render regulations obsolete, requiring them to be restructured or either repealed. The hedge fund industry’s constantly and rapidly changing structure and practices almost guarantee that new regulation would at best be redundant and might even obliterate further developments.

The hedge fund industry has done a commendable job for the most part regulating itself. Hedge fund current regulations have served its purpose well, hedge funds are moving forward: current hedge fund assets are in excess of US$ 800 billion. In the first half of 2010, the United States witnessed a fundamental shift in the global hedge fund industry as it enters a period of significant growth set against financial recovery and increasing scrutiny from regulators and institutional investors. The recent pace has carried industry assets across the 1.5 trillion USD mark, with sentiment aimed for continued growth. The “renaissance”can be attributed majorly to strong performance in end of 2009, but net inflows have also steadily risen. Further testimony to the industry’s dramatic resurrection can be seen in the increasing number of hedge fund managers who are now closing their funds to new investors. Anticipated regulation, driven by external factors, is predicted to be injurious to the hedge fund industry on a global
level. But, if there is not a globally coordinated and managed regulatory effort, it is likely that some funds may choose exploit potential loop holes.

Investors are now focusing more than ever on liquidity and transparency. With these principles in place, investors have more control and are able to dictate terms of the fund to a greater scale. Additionally, the level and quality of investor due diligence has been continually rising. Also, an increase in managed accounts, single investor funds, distressed asset funds and funds investing in emerging markets has been noticed in the later months of 2010.

Learn more about commodity hedge funds and certification in finance at CAIA.Org.

by Leave a Comment

Understanding Hedge Funds

All investors are looking for the most time efficient ways to make the most money. For those individuals who have a bit of extra money to spend, hedge funds may be just the way to make money fast.

The establishment of hedge funds date back to the late 1940s and were developed by Alfred Jones who was the father of unorthodox investment techniques.

One of his most successful techniques was selling short stocks while buying long stocks. This is the basis for how a hedge fund operates. Due to the number of guidelines associated with Hedge Funds it requires much more money then normal stock vehicles.

Hedge Funds guide investors in making a profit in high risk investments. Hedge Funds use technique called leverage. This is when the capital from a company’s investors is combined with borrowed money from a bank.

The fee associated with Hedge Funds is called a incentive fee. This is a fee based on a portion, instead of a percentage, of the clients profits. The fee is actually re-invested in hopes of making the company even more money.

For the most part companies own Hedge Funds. Most people do not have enough money to meet the minimum initial investment to have their own Hedge Fund. In 2004 alone Hedge Fund investments passed one trillion dollars. By the middle of 2004, 39 companies held 1.1 trillion dollars in their Hedge Fund.

Making a profit from a Hedge Fund is all about the timing. The best time to invest in a Hedge Fund is when a company that owns one is merging with another company.

If you know a merger is going to take place, buy a large amount of shares in the company that is going to merge. Once the merge takes place the values in these stocks increase dramatically.

This is an extremely high risk investment because mergers that are often rumored to happen never do. The activities of companies are often unpredictable.

Selling short is another great way to turn a profit on merging companies. This takes advantage of the difference between present market price and the high purchase price in the event that mergers does take place.

Hedge Funds are extremely beneficial because of their level of security. Hedge Funds that belong to companies are kept private. This type of investment takes place between a company and individual – the government and other companies are not involved.

Hedge Funds do not need to file with the SEC and are usually based in place that have less regulations like the Cayman or Virgin Islands. Due to the secrecy Hedge Funds are often believed to be illegal and unethical.

However, this is simply not true. Hedge Funds are a legal way to make a great profit. Remember investing in Hedge Funds takes a great deal of money and it is an extremely risky investments. However, the immense pay off can change your life forever, and certainly it is a risk that many people are willing to take to be financial secure.

by Leave a Comment

Jesse Livermore – Wall Street’s Greatest Bear

Jesse Livermore has almost been forgotten today except by the stock market community. However, in his heyday, the 1920s he was the most feared speculator on Wall Street. Jesse Livermore is still regarded today by many market historians as the greatest speculator of all time.

He was born in 1877 and started his career by making a killing on every type of stock and commodity that traded. He made his first fortune in 1906 by shorting the Union Pacific railroad, which had been severely damaged by the San Francisco earthquake. He became famous as the boy plunger of Wall Street. Despite his great talent he declared bankruptcy four times in his long career. After each bankruptcy, fellow investors would grub stake him for his new assaults on the market.

His greatest triumph was in 1929 when his bear market raids, in the minds of many, broke the stock market and made him a fortune of $ 100 million, a staggering sum in those days. But, after that it was all down hill. In 1940 his once great fortune gone and facing a fifth bankruptcy, he blew his brains out in an exclusive New York nightclub.

In his suicide letter he stated that he no longer knew what worked. Since his death no momentum player or trend chaser has arrived to pick up his mantle because the momentum thesis in the long run takes back from you all that it has given you and more.

In a strange way I have a close personal relationship with Jesse. You see I compete with him every day on Amazon.com. My book competes with Jesse’s book which is called ” Reminiscences Of A Stock Market Operator.” It was ghost written by Edwin Lefevre in 1923. Since that date it has sold and sold and sold. I don’t think it has ever been out of print. It is among the top three investment books of all time.

The other two top sellers are “How I Made Two Million Dollars In The Stock Market” and “The Intelligent Investor.” It currently ranks 1,762 on Amazon.com and has 212 customer reviews. Now unless you are an author that is not going to sound very impressive to you. Trust me it is very impressive. Amazon.com tracks about six million books. As hard as this is to believe it is a triumph to rank in the top 100,000. If you rank 100,000 you are selling about 35-45 books a month. IF your royalty is say $ 4.00 you are making about $ 1,800-$ 2,000 a year. If you rank 5,000 you are selling about 450 to 600 books a month or say about $ 24,000-$ 28,000 a year. At 2,000 and below you can easily afford an around the world cruise every year.

My goal is to beat Jesse Livermore. Up to now I haven’t come close.

Fred Carch is the author of Forty Years A Speculator. His blog is http://www.fortyyearsaspeculator.blogspot.com

Find More Wall Street Corruption Articles