Global Cooperation/Competitiveness

Starting with an interesting look back at an interview recorded in Nov2008 at the beginning of the Crisis.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9552

The BIG Picture.

With our attention focused on world events downloaded at kilobytes per second and politics reacting to the daily Polls I believe it wise to think Globally.

“Policy-makers are struggling with ways of managing the present economic challenges while preparing their economies to perform well in a future economic landscape characterized by uncertainty and shifting balances,” said Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum. “In such a global economic environment, it is more important than ever for countries to put into place the fundamentals underpinning economic growth and development.”

United States Falls in Competitiveness Rankings Richard Elliott, Associate Director, Media,Tel.: +41 (0)22 869 1292; E-mail: richard.elliott@weforum.org Arabic I Español I Français I Deutsch I Português I 日本語 I 中文 The United States falls two places to fourth position, overtaken by Sweden and Singapore in the rankings of the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011 The People’s Republic of China continues to move up the rankings, with marked improvements in several other Asian countries Germany moves up two places to fifth place, leading the Eurozone countries Switzerland tops the rankings Watch video interview with Jennifer Blanke, Lead Economist Director, Head of Centre for Global Competitiveness and Performance and download the full report profiling 139 economies, highlights, rankings and more athttp://www.weforum.org/gcr The Global Competitiveness Report 2010–2011 is being released at a time when the global economy continues to be characterized by significant uncertainty. Growth has resumed following important injections, in many countries, of government stimulus spending aimed at counterbalancing the worst global recession in decades. Yet economies are advancing at different speeds and there is still the risk of a “double dip” in a number of countries.While emerging economies have, for the most part, bounced back to healthy growth, advanced economies face continuing difficulties such as persisting unemployment, weak demand, and spiraling debt, while still struggling with reforms in the financial and labor markets, among other challenges.The International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicts growth of 6.25 percent for emerging markets, compared with 2.25 percent for advanced economies in 2010.

Bill Gross' November Commentary - reproduced in whole...weekend reading

Run Turkey, Run

• The Fed’s announcement of a renewed commitment to Quantitative Easing has been well telegraphed and the market’s reaction is likely to be subdued.
• We are in a “liquidity trap,” where interest rates or trillions in asset purchases may not stimulate borrowing or lending because consumer demand is just not there.
• The Fed’s announcement will likely signify the end of a great 30-year bull market in bonds and the necessity for bond managers and, yes, equity managers to adjust to a new environment.

They say a country gets the politicians it deserves or perhaps it deserves the politicians it gets. Whatever the order, America is next in line, and as we go to the polls in a few short days it’s incumbent upon a sleepy and befuddled electorate to at least ask ourselves, “What’s going on here?” Democrat or Republican, Elephant or Donkey, nothing much ever seems to change. Each party has shown it can add hundreds of billions of dollars to the national debt with little to show for it or move our military from one country to the next chasing phantoms instead of focusing on more serious problems back home. This isn’t a choice between chocolate and vanilla folks, it’s all rocky road: a few marshmallows to get you excited before the election, but with a lot of nuts to ruin the aftermath.


Each party’s campaign tactics remind me of airport terminals pre-9/11 when solicitors only yards apart would compete for the attention and dollars of travelers. “Save the Whales,” one would demand, while the other would pose as its evil twin – “Eat Whale Blubber,” the makeshift sign would read. It didn’t matter which slogan grabbedyou, the end of the day’s results always produced a pot of money for them and the whales were neither saved nor eaten. American politics resemble an airline terminal with a huckster’s bowl waiting to be filled every two years.


And the paramount problem is not that we contribute so willingly or even so cluelessly, but that there are only two bowls to choose from. Thomas Friedman, the respected author of The World Is Flat, and a weekly New York Times Op-Ed author, recently suggested “ripping open this two-party duopoly and having it challenged by a serious third party” unencumbered by special interest megabucks. “We basically have two bankrupt parties, bankrupting the country,” was the explicit sentiment of his article, and I couldn’t agree more – whales or no whales. Was it relevant in 2004 that John Kerry was or was not an admirable “swift boat” commander? Will the absence of a mosque within several hundred yards of Ground Zero solve our deficit crisis? Is Christine O’Donnell really a witch? Did Meg Whitman employ an illegal maid? Who cares! We are being conned, folks; Democrats and Republicans alike. What have you really heard from either party that addresses America’s future instead of its prurient overnight fascination with scandal? Shame on them and of course, shame on us. We’re getting what we deserve. Vote NO in November – no to both parties. Vote NO to a two-party system that trades promises for dollars and hope for power, and leaves the American people high and dry.

There’s another important day next week and it rather coincidentally occurs on Wednesday – the day after Election Day – when either the Donkeys or the Elephants will be celebrating a return to power and the continuation of partisan bickering no matter who is in charge. Wednesday is the day when the Fed will announce a renewed commitment to Quantitative Easing – a polite form disguise for “writing checks.” The market will be interested in the amount (perhaps as much as an initial $500 billion) as well as the targeted objective (perhaps a muddied version of “2% inflation or bust!”). The announcement, however, has been well telegraphed and the market’s reaction is likely to be subdued. More important will be the answer to the long-term question of “will it work?” and perhaps its associated twin “will it create a bond market bubble?”


Whatever the conclusion, not only investors, but the American people should recognize that Wednesday, even more than Tuesday, represents a critical inflection point in determining our future prosperity. Of course we’ve tried it before, most recently in the aftermath of the Lehman crisis, during which the Fed wrote $1.5 trillion or so in “checks” to purchase Agency mortgages and a smattering of Treasuries. It might seem a tad dramatic then, to label QEII as “critical,” sort of like those airport hucksters, I suppose, that sold whale blubber for a living. But two years ago, there was the implicit assumption that the U.S. and its associated G-7 economies needed just an espresso or perhaps an Adderall or two to get back to normal. Normal just hasn’t happened yet, and economic historians such as Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart have since alerted us that countries in the throes of delevering can take many, not several, years to return to a steady state.


The Fed’s second round of QE, therefore, more closely resembles an attempted hypodermic straight to the economy’s heart than its mood elevator counterpart of 2009. If QEII cannot reflate capital markets, if it can’t produce 2% inflation and an assumed reduction of unemployment rates back towards historical levels, then it will be a long, painful slog back to prosperity. Perhaps, as a vocal contingent suggests, our paper-based foundation of wealth deserves to be buried, making a fresh start from admittedly lower levels. The Fed, on Wednesday, however, will decide that it is better to keep the patient on life support with an adrenaline injection and a following morphine drip than to risk its demise and ultimate rebirth in another form.


We at PIMCO join with Ben Bernanke in this diagnosis, but we will tell you, as perhaps he cannot, that the outcome is by no means certain. We are, as even some Fed Governors now publically admit, in a “liquidity trap,” where interest rates or trillions in QEII asset purchases may not stimulate borrowing or lending because consumer demand is just not there. Escaping from a liquidity trap may be impossible, much like light trapped in a black hole. Just ask Japan. Ben Bernanke, however, will try – it is, to be honest, all he can do. He can’t raise or lower taxes, he can’t direct a fiscal thrust of infrastructure spending, he can’t change our educational system, he can’t force the Chinese to revalue their currency – it is all he can do, and as he proceeds, the dual questions of “will it work” and “will it create a bond market bubble” will be answered. We at PIMCO are not sure.


Still, while next Wednesday’s announcement will carry our qualified endorsement, I must admit it may be similar to a Turkey looking forward to a Thanksgiving Day celebration. Bondholders, while immediate beneficiaries, will likely eventually be delivered on a platter to more fortunate celebrants, be they financial asset classes more adaptable to inflation such as stocks or commodities, or perhaps the average American on Main Street who might benefit from a hoped-for rise in job growth or simply a boost in nominal wages, however deceptive the illusion.Check writing in the trillions is not a bondholder’s friend; it is in fact inflationary, and, if truth be told, somewhat of a Ponzi scheme. Public debt, actually, has always had a Ponzi-like characteristic. Granted, the U.S. has, at times, paid down its national debt, but there was always the assumption that as long as creditors could be found to roll over existing loans – and buy new ones – the game could keep going forever. Sovereign countries have always implicitly acknowledged that the existing debt would never be paid off because they would “grow” their way out of the apparent predicament, allowing future’s prosperity to continually pay for today’s finance.


Now, however, with growth in doubt, it seems that the Fed has taken Charles Ponzi one step further. Instead of simply paying for maturing debt with receipts from financial sector creditors – banks, insurance companies, surplus reserve nations and investment managers, to name the most significant – the Fed has joined the party itself. Rather than orchestrating the game from on high, it has jumped into the pond with the other swimmers. One and one-half trillion in checks were written in 2009, and trillions more lie ahead. The Fed, in effect, is telling the markets not to worry about our fiscal deficits, it will be the buyer of first and perhaps last resort. There is no need – as with Charles Ponzi – to find an increasing amount of future gullibles, they will just write the check themselves. I ask you: Has there ever been a Ponzi scheme so brazen? There has not. This one is so unique that it requires a new name. I call it a Sammy scheme, in honor of Uncle Sam and the politicians (as well as its citizens) who have brought us to this critical moment in time. It is not a Bernanke scheme, because this is his only alternative and he shares no responsibility for its origin. It is a Sammy scheme – you and I, and the politicians that we elect every two years – deserve all the blame.


Still, as I’ve indicated, a Sammy scheme is temporarily, but not ultimately, a bondholder’s friend. It raises bond prices to create the illusion of high annual returns, but ultimately it reaches a dead-end where those prices can no longer go up. Having arrived at its destination, the market then offers near 0% returns and a picking of the creditor’s pocket via inflation and negative real interest rates. A similar fate, by the way, awaits stockholders, although their ability to adjust somewhat to rising inflation prevents such a startling conclusion. Last month I outlined the case for low asset returns in almost all categories, in part due to the end of the 30-year bull market in interest rates, a trend accentuated by QEII in which 2- and 3-year Treasury yields approach the 0% bound. Anyone for 1.10% 5-year Treasuries? Well, the Fed will buy them, but then what, and how will PIMCO tell the 500 billion investor dollars in the Total Return strategy and our equally valued 750 billion dollars of other assets that the Thanksgiving Day axe has finally arrived?

We will tell them this. Certain Turkeys receive a Thanksgiving pardon or they just run faster than others! We intend PIMCO to be one of the chosen gobblers. We haven’t been around for 35+ years and not figured out a way to avoid the November axe. We are a survivor and our clients are not going to be Turkeys on a platter. You may not be strutting around the barnyard as briskly as you used to – those near 10% annualized yields in stocks and bonds are a thing of the past – but you’re gonna be around next year, and then the next, and the next. Interest rates may be rock bottom, but there are other ways – what we call “safe spread” ways –to beat the axe without taking a lot of risk: developing/emerging market debt with higher yields and non-dollar denominations is one way; high quality global corporate bonds are another. Even U.S. Agency mortgages yielding 200 basis points more than those 1% Treasuries, qualify as “safe spreads.” While our “safe spread” terminology offers no guarantees, it is designed to let you sleep at night with less interest rate volatility. The Fed wants to buy, so come on, Ben Bernanke, show us your best and perhaps last moves on Wednesday next. You are doing what you have to do, and it may or may not work. But either way it will likely signify the end of a great 30-year bull market in bonds and the necessity for bond managers and, yes, equity managers to adjust to a new environment.


If a country gets the politicians it deserves, then the same can be said of an investor – you’re gonna get what you deserve. Vote No to Republican and Democratic turkeys on Tuesday and Yes to PIMCO on Wednesday. We hope to be your global investment authority for a new era of “SAFE spread” with lower interest rate duration and price risk, and still reasonably high potential returns. For us, and hopefully you, Turkey Day may have to be postponed indefinitely.


William H. Gross
Managing Director

http://www.pimco.com/Pages/RunTurkeyRun.aspx

Restoration of SANITY and/or FEAR

I voted this morning. One small voice, one ballot in the noise and insanity of the mid-term elections. Time to restore a bit of Sanity to the national dialogue, perhaps just for a day.“I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!”

Stewart’s event — for people “who think shouting is annoying, counterproductive and terrible for your throat,” according to the rally website — is the comedian’s latest gambit to send up today’s overwrought political discourse. This time, he is keying off the “Restoring Honor” rally hosted by conservative commentator Glenn Beck last month. As of Wednesday afternoon, more than 132,000 people planned to attend, according to the event’s Facebook page, while satellite rallies were being organized in Chicago, Seattle, Austin and other cities.
Rally4Sanity and March4Fear Meetups in 986 cities.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
March to Keep Fear Alive Media Coverage
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes 2010 Election March to Keep Fear Alive

LA - 39 Quotes, 39 yo - from CN

Cyclingnews picks the Texan's best ever quotes

Lance Armstrong recently celebrated his 39th birthday and Cyclingnews has decided to look back through his career with 39 of his most famous quotes, comments, reactions and tweets.

From his Tour-stage-winning ride that paid tribute to Fabio Casartelli in 1995 to his second retirement from the sport after the 2010 Tour de France, this is Lance Armstrong in his own words.


39 “This was for Fabio Casartelli. I was very, very bad in the last bit, but I kept thinking of him. I did it for one person.”  After winning the 1995 Tour stage into Limoges three days after the death of his Motorola team-mate.


38 “I figure the faster I pedal, the faster I can retire.”
Lance Armstrong


37 “I want all of you to know that I intend to beat this disease. And further, I intend to ride again as a professional cyclist.”
During a press conference to reveal that he had been diagnosed with testicular cancer on 8 October 1996


36 “I am happy that I have proven that I am now over my illness. I did not ride the 1998 Tour with all the problems. It is true that cycling is going through problems at present. But it is a problem like those that exist in other areas of life.”
In the press conference after winning the 1999 Tour de France prologue


35 "I hope it sends out a fantastic message to all survivors around the world. We can return to what we were before – and even better.”
In Paris after taking his first Tour title in 1999


34 “Pain is temporary. It may last a minute, or an hour, or a day, or a year, but eventually it will subside and something else will take its place. If I quit, however, it lasts forever.”
It’s Not About the Bike, published May 2000


33 “His accusations aren’t good for cycling, for his team, for me, for anybody. If he thinks cycling works like that, he’s wrong and he would be better off going home.”
Responding to Christophe Bassons’ criticism of the doping culture in cycling during the 2000 Tour


32 “But, umm, Elefantino, it's unfortunate that he is showing his true colors, because I like Marco. And I have a lot of respect for him. I felt like it was a gift (to Pantani) on the Ventoux. And I also feel like it was a mistake to give the gift. He's a great rider, he's a great champion and he's a great climber. But he wasn't the best man on Ventoux. And anybody that watched the race will know it. But in hindsight, over the last few days, his actions and words have been disappointing to me because I thought he had more class than that."
After Marco Pantani had won the Mont Ventoux stage at the 2000 Tour

©AFP Photo


31 “This is my body, and I can do whatever I want to it. I can push it, study it, tweak it; listen to it. Everybody wants to know what I am on. What am I on? I am on my bike busting my ass six hours a day. What are you on?”
Nike commercial, 2001


30 “It was a coup de poker – it was all a bluff to make Telekom work today. It worked perfect for us. We didn't know that Telekom was going to ride hard tempo almost from the beginning of the stage. So the plan [to bluff] was born on the road, since we know that they are all watching on TV anyway, so we decided to bluff.”
Speaking on at Alpe d’Huez in 2001 after pretending he was struggling before launching a winning attack past Telekom’s Jan Ullrich

©AFP Photo


29 “Six years ago was the first time I did it and when I rode by [Fabio Casartelli’s memorial] I told myself I wanted to win for him today.”
After victory in 2002 on the Pla d’Adet stage that crossed the Portet d’Aspet, where his Motorola team-mate Fabio Casartelli died in 1995


28 “A boo is a lot louder than a cheer. If you have 10 people cheering and one person booing, all you hear is the booing. But if I had a dollar for every time somebody yelled, 'dopé, dopé,' I'd be a rich man… But those are the things that I have to live with, and I'm not here to be friends with a bunch of people who stand on the side of the road that have had too much to drink, and want to yell 'dopé!' I don't have to care. Nor will I care in three or four years when I'm sitting on the beach with my kids, having a cold beer. But don't come to the bike race in order to stand around and yell at cyclists. Stay at home.”
After being booed on Mont Ventoux in the 2002 Tour


27 “There’s no doubt that Triki [Beltrán] went too hard at the base of the climb, but he’s new to the team and I guess the system isn’t clear enough yet. A fast tempo is a good thing but that tempo was supersonic and that’s not a good thing. We’ll talk about that tonight and it won’t happen again.”
Talking about the pace set by teammate Manuel Beltrán as the yellow jersey group at the 2003 Tour reached the bottom of Alpe d’Huez and Armstrong subsequently struggled to keep his rivals in check


26 “It was the scare of my life... In a moment like that, it’s only a reflex of survival. When you see something happening like that the first thing you do is ask yourself ‘OK, where do I go?’ I couldn’t go right and I couldn’t go over him, so I could only go left and into the field. Then I just kept going and got back on the road as quickly as I could. When I was riding through the field I felt like a farmer plowing.”
After riding across a field in order to avoid the falling Joseba Beloki on the road into Gap in 2003

25 “Perhaps I didn’t drink enough before the stage or this morning. I ran out of water, which is about as deep as I can explain it.”
After suffering a major defeat to Jan Ullrich in the furnace-like Cap Découverte time trial in the incident-packed 2003 Tour de France


24 “This was my hardest win – we dodged some bullets. It was a rough year at the Tour and I don’t plan to make the same mistakes twice. But my win feels more satisfying, more than the others because of that. The crashes and near-crashes take it out of you.”
In Paris at the end of the 2003 Tour


23 “In retrospect, I’m not so sure that he did wait. In replays, he seems to be riding race tempo. He didn’t attack, but he didn’t wait either.”
Reflecting on Ullrich’s response when Armstrong and Iban Mayo crashed on the ascent to Luz Ardiden in Every Second Counts, published in October 2003


22 “If there was a god, I’d still have both nuts.”
ET magazine, 2004


21 “That motivates me more than anything. It’s very simple. It certainly doesn't work against me. I don’t want to make it worse than it was. This is big-time sport… The people are excited and emotional and they have their guy but that doesn’t take away from my love of the game, with my desire to win. In fact, as I said, I think it puts a little fuel on the fire.”
After winning the Alpe d’Huez mountain time trial in 2004 in front of a frenzied crowd


20 “Run like you stole something, Floyd.”
Urging on team-mate Floyd Landis before the descent into Le Grand Bornand in 2004.

©AFP Photo


19 “No gifts, no gifts this year. I’ve given gifts in the Tour de France and very rarely has it ever come back to help me. And this is the biggest bike race in the world and it means more than any bike race in the world. And I wanna win. No gifts.”
After sprinting to chase down and beat T-Mobile rival Andreas Klöden at Le Grand Bornand in 2004


18 “A guy like Simeoni, all he wants to do is to destroy cycling... and for me, that’s not correct. He’s the kind of rider who attacks the peloton and cycling in general.”
Explaining his pursuit of Filippo Simeoni after the Italian got into a break during the last week of the 2004 Tour




17 “I don’t know what I’ll do next summer. I suspect I’ll be here. It’s too big of a race. My only hesitance is I think the people and the event perhaps need a change, new faces, a new winner. If I’m here at the Tour de France, I race to win. We’ll see..."
After winning his sixth consecutive Tour in 2004


16 “What he did in 1989 and 1990 was phenomenal. But Greg’s not even worth talking about today. And I don’t need to hear from him – he’d only shove his foot farther down his mouth.”
On Greg LeMond, Playboy, June 2005


15 “Through my illness I learned rejection. I was written off. That was the moment I thought, ‘Okay, game on. No prisoners. Everybody's going down.’”
Playboy, June 2005


14 “Two things scare me. The first is getting hurt. But that's not nearly as scary as the second, which is losing.”
Playboy, June 2005


13 “Finally, the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the skeptics: I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. But this is one hell of a race. This is a great sporting event and you should stand around and believe it. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets — this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it. So Vive le Tour forever!”
On the Champs Elysées podium in 2005 having wrapped up a seventh Tour win and confirmed his retirement


12 “The biggest problem with politics or running for the governor is that it would mimic exactly what I've done: a ton of stress and a ton of time away from my kids. Why would I want to go from pro cycling, which is stressful and a lot of time away, straight into politics?"
In 2005 after retiring following his 7th straight Tour win

11 “If you consider my situation: a guy who comes back from arguably, you know, a death sentence, why would I then enter into a sport and dope myself up and risk my life again? That's crazy. I would never do that. No. No way.”
Responding to L’Equipe’s accusations that he used EPO during the 1999 Tour on the Larry King Show in August 2005


10 “I need to run for one office, the presidency of the Cancer Fighters’ Union of the World.”
Sports Illustrated interview in 2006


9 “I am happy to announce that after talking with my children, my family and my closest friends, I have decided to return to professional cycling in order to raise awareness of the global cancer burden.”
In a statement released by the Lance Armstrong Foundation in September 2008


8 “I’m here to fight this disease. You are not worth the chair that you’re sitting on with a statement like that with a disease that touches everybody around the world.”
Blasting Paul Kimmage at a press conference at the Tour of California in 2009 after The Sunday Times reporter had called Armstrong “the cancer in this sport” during a radio interview


7 “Seeing these comments from AC [Alberto Contador]. If I were him I’d drop this drivel and start thanking his team. w/o them, he doesn't win.”
Twitter post 27 July 2009

©Roberto Bettini


6 “Congrats to Contador. He showed that, as most people would agree, he is the best bike rider in the world right now. Hats off to him.”
In a RadioShack team video after Contador’s victory at the Tour of the Algarve in February 2010


5 “It’s our word against his word. I like our word. We like our credibility. Floyd lost his credibility a long time ago.”
In May 2010, responding to Landis’s accusations of systematic doping at the US Postal team


4 “There are 3 guys here in the race that I raced against their dads too....”
Twitter posting while competing at the Tour of Switzerland in June 2010

3 “Sometimes you’re the hammer, sometimes you’re the nail. Today I was the nail.”
After puncturing and losing time during stage 3 of the 2010 Tour over the cobbles to Arenberg


2 “Do the American people feel like this is a good use of their tax dollars? That’s for them to decide. Like I said, as long as we have a legitimate and credible and fair investigation, we’d be happy to co-operate. But I’m not going to participate in any kind of witch hunt. I’ve done too many good things for too many people.”
Speaking to the New York Times on July 14 about the Jeff Novitzky lead investigation sparked by Landis’s accusations.


1 “This race has been good to me but I can’t lie, I'm ready to retire part two. I was just glad that three weeks of suffering is over and I get to go home. I don't have to stress about racing every day. I have a lot of happiness, a lot of good memories, just a lot of good times here.”
Confirming the 2010 Tour de France was after the fin
al stage in Paris.


 

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/lance-armstrong-a-career-in-39-quotes

The Office

Eric King Interviews Chris Whalen

Great audio interview with the Big Dog - Chris Whalen, from King World News



http://www.kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/Broadcast/Entries/2010/10/23_Premier_Release_-_Chris_Whalen.html

Blues Thursday - Buddy Guy

...Sweet Home Chi Town



Good Mornin' Little School Girl...

Buddy clones Jimi

Wednesday Morning Blues...huh?.. what's up with that?

Drinkin' Wine



The Sky is Cryin'



...Have You Ever Loved a Woman?

Creature from Jekyll Island - The Story of the Federal Reserve

...in the end, it is not about money, it is about power...

The Hussman Report

Bernanke Leaps into a Liquidity Trap

John P. Hussman, Ph.D.
All rights reserved and actively enforced.


Reprint Policy

"There is the possibility... that after the rate of interest has fallen to a certain level, liquidity preference is virtually absolute in the sense that almost everyone prefers cash to holding a debt at so low a rate of interest. In this event, the monetary authority would have lost effective control."

John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory

One of the many controversies regarding Keynesian economic theory centers around the idea of a "liquidity trap." Apart from suggesting the potential risk, Keynes himself did not focus much of his analysis on the idea, so much of what passes for debate is based on the ideas of economists other than Keynes, particularly Keynes' contemporary John Hicks. In the Hicksian interpretation of the liquidity trap, monetary policy transmits its effect on the real economy by way of interest rates. In that view, the loss of monetary control occurs because at some point, a further reduction of interest rates fails to stimulate additional demand for capital investment. 

Simply put, monetary policy is far less effective in affecting real (or even nominal) economic activity than investors seem to believe. The main effect of a change in the monetary base is to change monetary velocity and short term interest rates. Once short term interest rates drop to zero, further expansions in base money simply induce a proportional collapse in velocity.

Undoubtedly, we would have preferred the Fed to have provided that liquidity in recent years through open market operations using Treasury securities, rather than outright purchases of the debt securities of insolvent financial institutions, which the public is now on the hook to make whole. The Fed should not be in the insolvency bailout game. Outside of open market operations using Treasuries, Fed loans during a crisis should be exactly that, loans - and preferably following Bagehot's Rule ("lend freely but at a high rate of interest"). Moreover, those loans must be senior to any obligation to bank bondholders - the public's claim should precede private claims.

At present, however, the governors of the Fed are creating massive distortions in the financial markets with little hope of improving real economic growth or employment. There is no question that the Fed has the ability to affect the supply of base money, and can affect the level of long-term interest rates given a sufficient volume of intervention. The real issue is that neither of these factors are currently imposing a binding constraint on economic growth, so there is no benefit in relaxing them further. The Fed is pushing on a string. 

I've generally been critical of Keynes' willingness to advocate government spending regardless of its quality, which focused too little on the long-term effects of diverting private resources to potentially unproductive uses. His remark that "In the long-run we are all dead" was a reflection of this indifference.

Market Climate

As of last week, the Market Climate for stocks remained characterized by an overvalued, overbought, overbullish condition. This has been historically associated with a poor return-risk profile and "negative skew" - a tendency for the market to establish a string of marginal new highs, and for occasional 2-3 day pullbacks to be followed by sharp recoveries. The pattern is for little overall progress, but repeated slight highs, terminating with a steep, abrupt decline that can wipe out weeks or months of gains in a matter of days. In statistical terms, the mode of the distribution is positive, the mean is negative, and the skew is downright wicked.

The Strategic Growth Fund remains fully hedged, with our put strikes raised close to the current market to tighten our downside protection, at a cost of just over 1% of assets in additional time premium. The Strategic International Equity Fund remains largely but not fully hedged against international equity fluctuations. Currency fluctuations typically account for only a small fraction the variability in international returns, so our primary risk is covered by equity hedges, but the Fund also has nearly one-third of its currency risk hedged as well. The Strategic Total Return Fund moved to a fairly defensive stance last week, with an average duration of less than 1.5 years, and only about 3% of assets in precious metals shares, 1% in foreign currencies, and 2% in utility shares. Though we sharply cut our precious metals exposure over the past few weeks on overbought price conditions and other factors, I expect that we'll continue to vary our exposure opportunistically. The Fed's insistence on bad policy will probably continue to support commodity hoarding behavior, but commodity market conditions threaten to become very tenuous if economic conditions strengthen. Presently, I remain concerned about additional weakness in employment, housing, and the broad economy, but we'll take our evidence as it comes.

http://www.hussman.net/wmc/wmc101025.htm

Arts and Technology

In the Arts series I offer SEEPER, an interactive arts and technology collective. Seeper has been exploring natural user interaction, responsive enviroments, devices and architecture to create multi-sensory experiences.

Suggested FULL Screen Viewing.

The LightLine of Gotham from seeper on Vimeo.

TED 2010 from seeper on Vimeo.

ACDC Vs Iron Man 2 - Architectural Projection Mapping on Rochester Castle from seeper on Vimeo.

The Ice Experience from seeper on Vimeo.

Orwellian "Corporatocracy"

"Orwellian" describes the situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free society. It connotes an attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past, including the "unperson" — a person whose past existence is expunged from the public record and memory, practiced by modern repressive governments. Often, this includes the circumstances depicted in his novels, particularly Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Orwell's ideas about personal freedom and state authority developed when he was a British colonial administrator in Burma. He was fascinated by the effect of colonialism (or Corporatism in Wes world ) on the individual person, requiring acceptance of the idea that the colonialist oppressor exists only for the good of the oppressed person and people.

There has also been a great deal of discourse on the possibility that Orwell galvanized his ideas of oppression during his experience, and his subsequent writings in the English press, in Spain. Orwell was a member of the POUM militia and suffered suppression and escaped arrest by the Comintern faction working within the Republican Government. Following his escape he made a strong case for defending the Spanish revolution from the Communists there, and the mis-information in the press at home. During this period he formed strong ideas about the reportage of events, and their context in his own ideas of imperialism and democracy.

This often brought him into conflict with literary peers such as W.H. Auden and Stephen Spender^[1].

In 1940 he engaged himself in the practise of supporting mis-information for a revolutionary purpose with The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius. A counter-point to his previous work, immediately after his return from Spain, Homage to Catalonia. Homage was elementary in Orwell's definition of the process of truth-power connection and its relevance to ideas of freedom versus authority, whereas Lion & Unicorn was a formative piece of 'propaganda'. The narrative of the two is one that informed Orwell's later works such as Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm.

Buchtrailer "George Orwell - 1984" from Eric Dirschedl on Vimeo.

1984 from abc1230 on Vimeo.

When Giants Fall...

Friday Night Jazz - Oscar Peterson style

...with Nat King Cole



...with Ray Charles



...with Count Basie



...at Ronnie Scott's Club, London 1974...



...with Ray Brown and Niels Pederson, both on bass...Montreux Jazz Fest 1977

QE2 and the Alleged Deflation Threat - Mises Daily

Mises Daily

QE2 and the Alleged Deflation Threat

by Robert P. Murphy on October 21, 2010

The markets and financial pundits are all abuzz over the prospect of another round of quantitative easing — "QE2" — in which the Fed may start buying yet another trillion dollars in assets after the elections. The justification for this massive bout of new inflation is, of course, the threat of deflation.

But if we actually look for ourselves, we see that prices are not falling. The Fed has already fueled another boom in various asset prices, just as it did when trying to provide a "soft landing" after the dot-com crash. The economy will never truly recover until the government and central bank let the market process take its course.

What Deflation?

It is curious that the financial press and many major economists are so convinced that the United States is on the edge of a deflationary cliff, by which they mean that various prices are about to tumble. On his blog, Paul Krugman has been beating this drum for years, and to prove the case he'll cite graphs like this:

Now I have not studied the case of Japan and its "lost decade" (and counting) so I can't responsibly comment on its experience. However, if Krugman's treatment of the "lessons" of Herbert Hoover is any indication, I am skeptical that the Japanese episode really means what Krugman and other Keynesians keep telling us that it means.

There are several problems with the exclusive reliance on "core CPI" as a gauge of the tightness of monetary policy. First and most obvious, it is absurd to focus on the "core," which excludes food and energy prices. It is precisely these prices that are the most important for struggling households — and they are certainly not falling. According to the government's own figures, from September 2009 to September 2010, consumer food prices were up 1.4 percent, while consumer energy prices rose 5.4 percent.
Given that many households are either in financial distress or are terrified that they soon will be, is it really so surprising that consumers aren't spending gobs of money on things besides food and energy?

Another problem is that the Bureau of Labor Statistics can't very well document changes in product quality, which tend to mute price increases. To take an example offered by Silas Barta, the next time you open a cereal box, check out how flimsy the cardboard is; it was sturdier several years ago. I doubt that the government CPI figures take this sort of thing into account when telling us how weakly prices have responded to Bernanke's incredible bouts of money creation.

Looking at Other Prices

Besides nitpicking the construction of CPI data, there is the problem of focusing just on consumer prices in the first place. For example, according to the latest report of the Producer Price Index, in the last year prices for finished goods are up 4.0 percent, the prices for intermediate goods are up 5.6 percent, and prices for crude goods are up a whopping 20.3 percent.

But wait — there's more! According to economic theory, there's actually a very sensible reason to include asset prices when trying to determine the "cost of living." This is because most people don't want to live for a single day on milk and bread that they just bought at the grocery store. In principle an ideal price index would include prices for both present and future goods. As a convenient proxy, it makes sense to include asset prices when wondering whether monetary policy is causing the dollar to strengthen or weaken.
On that score, it certainly seems as if Bernanke's policies have been a "success," and that the United States is not heading into a "deflationary trap" as the pundits keep warning us. Gold keeps hitting new highs, and look at what happened to the stock market as Bernanke first bailed out the banks in late 2008, and then embarked on the first round of quantitative easing in early 2009:

The above chart should be frightening to anyone who believes that Greenspan's easy-money stance after the dot-com crash merely fueled the housing and stock bubbles. Bernanke is simply setting us up for another collapse.

Before closing, let's look at just one more graph. This time, it shows the strength of the US dollar compared to a basket of other currencies:

As the chart shows, the dollar briefly surged after the global financial panic in the fall of 2008. But since early 2009, the dollar has resumed its nearly decade-long slump. From its peak in 2002 to the present, according to this measure, the dollar has depreciated by more than 20 percent against other currencies.
Are we still so sure that our problem is a dollar that's too strong? Are we still so sure that more inflation is the answer to our economic woes?

Conclusion

It's true that some Austrian economists — including me — were warning that consumer prices would begin rising more quickly than they have so far. Even so, it is still hardly the case that the economy is on the verge of a "deflationary trap."

$25 $22

In any event, a free people have nothing to fear from falling prices. The market economy is quite resilient, if only the politicians and central bankers would let it operate. Nobody would be so foolish as to claim that the computer industry is stagnant because of constantly falling prices, and nobody breathes a sigh of relief that medical care keeps getting more expensive.

It was a futile attempt to evade a bad recession that led Alan Greenspan to blow up the housing bubble. Now Ben Bernanke is doing the same thing, only with far more intensity. If he really wanted to help the economy, Bernanke would stop debasing the dollar and would allow market prices to tell the truth.

Robert Murphy is an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute

Positivism and Behaviorism

Mises Daily: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 by Ludwig von Mises

[Excerpted from chapter 11 of Theory and History. An audio version of this article, excerpted from the forthcoming audiobook version, read by John Pruden, is available as a free MP3 download.]

What differentiates the realm of the natural sciences from that of the sciences of human action is the categorial system resorted to in each in interpreting phenomena and constructing theories. The natural sciences do not know anything about final causes; inquiry and theorizing are entirely guided by the category of causality. The field of the sciences of human action is the orbit of purpose and of conscious aiming at ends; it is teleological.

Both categories were resorted to by primitive man and are resorted to today by everybody in daily thinking and acting. The most simple skills and techniques imply knowledge gathered by rudimentary research into causality. Where people did not know how to seek the relation of cause and effect, they looked for a teleological interpretation. They invented deities and devils to whose purposeful action certain phenomena were ascribed. A god emitted lightning and thunder. Another god, angry about some acts of men, killed the offenders by shooting arrows. A witch's evil eye made women barren and cows dry.

Such beliefs generated definite methods of action. Conduct pleasing to the deity, offering of sacrifices and prayer were considered suitable means to appease the deity's anger and to avert its revenge; magic rites were employed to neutralize witchcraft. Slowly people came to learn that meteorological events, disease, and the spread of plagues are natural phenomena and that lightning rods and antiseptic agents provide effective protection while magic rites are useless. It was only in the modern era that the natural sciences in all their fields substituted causal research for finalism.

The marvelous achievements of the experimental natural sciences prompted the emergence of a materialistic metaphysical doctrine, positivism. Positivism flatly denies that any field of inquiry is open for teleological research. The experimental methods of the natural sciences are the only appropriate methods for any kind of investigation. They alone are scientific, while the traditional methods of the sciences of human action are metaphysical, that is, in the terminology of positivism, superstitious and spurious. Positivism teaches that the task of science is exclusively the description and interpretation of sensory experience. It rejects the introspection of psychology as well as all historical disciplines. It is especially fanatical in its condemnation of economics.

Auguste Comte, by no means the founder of positivism but merely the inventor of its name, suggested as a substitute for the traditional methods of dealing with human action a new branch of science, sociology. Sociology should be social physics, shaped according to the epistemological pattern of Newtonian mechanics.
The plan was so shallow and impractical that no serious attempt was ever made to realize it. The first generation of Comte's followers turned instead toward what they believed to be biological and organic interpretation of social phenomena. They indulged freely in metaphorical language and quite seriously discussed such problems as what in the social "body" should be classed as "intercellular substance." When the absurdity of this biologism and organicism became obvious, the sociologists completely abandoned the ambitious pretensions of Comte. There was no longer any question of discovering a posteriori laws of social change. Various historical, ethnographical, and psychological studies were put out under the label sociology. Many of these publications were dilettantish and confused; some are acceptable contributions to various fields of historical research.

Without any value, on the other hand, were the writings of those who termed sociology their arbitrary metaphysical effusions about the recondite meaning and end of the historical process which had been previously styled philosophy of history. Thus, Émile Durkheim and his school revived under the appellation group mind the old specter of romanticism and the German school of historical jurisprudence, the Volksgeist.
In spite of this manifest failure of the positivist program, a neopositivist movement has arisen. It stubbornly repeats all the fallacies of Comte. The same motive inspires these writers that inspired Comte. They are driven by an idiosyncratic abhorrence of the market economy and its political corollary: representative government, freedom of thought, speech, and the press. They long for totalitarianism, dictatorship, and the ruthless oppression of all dissenters, taking, of course, for granted that they themselves or their intimate friends will be vested with the supreme office and the power to silence all opponents.

Comte without shame advocated suppression of all doctrines he disliked. The most obtrusive champion of the neopositivist program concerning the sciences of human action was Otto Neurath, who, in 1919, was one of the outstanding leaders of the short-lived Soviet regime of Munich and later cooperated briefly in Moscow with the bureaucracy of the Bolsheviks.[1] Knowing they cannot advance any tenable argument against the economists' critique of their plans, these passionate communists try to discredit economics wholesale on epistemological grounds.

for the rest of the story...http://mises.org/daily/4607

A Conversation with Steve

Steve says -


I thought you might want to see this picture of my dog Smash on my hike today.   Ok, I know that's a long shot!

How is everything?   How's the riding?

Steve

-------------------------------------------------

Wes says-

…you don’t need an entrée to write…what a beautiful scene…and dog.

…weather has been incredible in H-Town…we are going on our fourth week of perfect weather…not the usual 2 or 3…absolutely beautiful…mid-50’s in the AM, high in the upper 80’s…blue sky, relatively low humidity…gorgeous, but without your mountain view…

…we are preparing for Matt (1^st born son) and Laura’s engagement party that we are hosting next Saturday, the 23^rd…it is an exciting time in that respect…wedding next March…she is in UT Dental School…Matt is working for a small advertising firm…they are living in mid-town…

…getting ready for the morning ride…knee had been acting up, so went to see the orthopedic guy…prescribed meds…see this x-ray for a good laugh…as long as it is not your knees…

You Don't Want these Knees

Late, 

Wes

-------------------------------------------

Steve says-

My left knee looks worse than this x-ray, it’s a wreck.   My right knee is pretty good.    I will get a knee replacement in the next 2-3 years.  I’m waiting on Medicare, which starts for me next March.   Not sure where I’ll have it done, but probably in Houston.

Great news about Matt!   That’s very exciting.

Our weather has been wonderful too, Fall is great.   It’s just a little cooler than Houston, around 35-40 when I get up and highs around 70.    All the aspens and cottonwoods and scrub oaks are bright yellow and orange, it’s our favorite time out here.

Tough times politically.    So much of the discourse these days is, as David Ignatius says, willfully stupid.

Steve

--------------------------------------------------

Wes says-

We are in the GIB (Global Idiot Bubble)…and politics and religion are at the center…

Greetings from Idiot America

Click post title to link to the full article…if I recall correctly it is circa 2005…

----------------------------------------------------------------

Steve says-


Yes, but the religion part is nothing new.   Religious belief is no more crazy today than it has always been.   The difference is that we used to have a secular government.    Maybe you are too young to remember when Kennedy had to come to Houston to guarantee a bunch of protestant ministers that his religious faith would not influence his decision-making.    Now, a politician can’t get elected without guaranteeing the public that his decisions will be informed by his religious belief.   It is a monumental change and a scary one.    And, I don’t trust the Roberts Court to protect us.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Wes says-

…well, you know me, I am not into politics…but, I have a few comments, questions, thoughts…not too deep…

…when was JFK assassinated? 1961-2…aha, Friday, November 23^rd 1963…I was in 6^th grade and was 10 yo…so, I don’t remember the meeting with the Houston preachers, but I have read that he had to do this type of thing, not the specific, or how many times or when and where…

So, wrt the Robert’s Court and Obama’s choices, are you saying the court is biased toward faith-based thinking (or should I say faith-based non-thinking) and that influences their deliberations?  Will the net change lead to more rational decisions?  I’ve always thought that more women should be judges since they have a (sorry if this sounds sexists) compassionate view…but, these crazy bitchez like Palin and O’Donnell makes me wonder if my over generalization is totally off the wall, however, I am not trying to equate the two, just questioning my prejudices…

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Steve says-


The nature of the Roberts Court is a long conversation, but it is a source of great concern, at least to progressives.   There is a solid 4-member extreme right wing (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito).   These people are young, and are substantially more conservative than the American people as a whole.   And, they are perfectly willing to overturn decades of Supreme Court opinions, as we have seen recently in the Heller (handguns) and Citizens United (campaign contributions) cases.  

In regard to religion, a case several years ago is instructive.   Two Kentucky counties had posted the King James version of the 10 Commandments in their courthouses; the ACLU immediately sued.   The Court ruled 5-4 that this was impermissible in violation of the Establishment Clause of the 1^st Amendment to the Constitution.   A member of that majority was Sandra Day O’Connor.   She has now been replaced by Samuel Alito, who presumably will switch sides; he is a very reliable right-wing vote.   As an aside, all of the members of the right-wing voting block on the Court are Catholic:  Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and Kennedy.   Is this important?    I don’t know.

The Kentucky 10 Commandments case is now headed back up to the Supreme Court and will be heard this term.   The likelihood is that the decision will change.    In his dissent in the original case, Scalia complained bitterly about the Court’s “hostility to religion.”    Presumably, with Alito having replaced O’Connor, this “hostility” will have changed to “sympathy” and we will start seeing the 10 Commandments posted in all our courthouses.   Here is a good piece about the Kentucky case:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/nine-justices-and-ten-commandments/

The upshot of all this is that the Roberts Court seems much more inclined to allow religion, at least the Christian religion, to play a role in government.

In regard to the women, Sotomayor and Kagan replaced Souter and Stevens, who were both members of the “liberal” group on the Court.    Their appointments don’t change the conservative/liberal balance on the Court, nor did Robert’s appointment to replace Rehnquist.   However, Alito replacing O’Connor moved the Court significantly to the right.   I guess we should be thankful for Palin and O’Donnell; they prove that women can be just as stupid and crazy and dangerous as men.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Wes says-

…i understand the “conservative – liberal”  distribution of the justices, but have we gone so far in extremis that there will be no crossover voting possible?…recently I heard justice Stevens in an interview say that he is now called a liberal, but when he was first on the court he was a moderate and that he had not changed, but the court (and perhaps the country) has moved so far to the right that he is now viewed as a liberal…he was nominated by Gerald Ford…in any case, Scalia is the scary one to me, very smart, to be sure, but, based on his 60 minutes interview of a few years back, he is in total denial of his biases and believes he can interpret the original meaning of the constitution in an intellectually unbiased manner, regardless of his personal belief system – pretty good mind trick that would be, if it were possible…just look at his voting record…

…in any case, I am gravitating to a place in politics where it is not Left v Right, it is You v The Corporation, and You are loosing…all this divisive political rhetoric at the center of the GIB is just a distraction…we have, and perhaps always have been, not so much a democracy with a capitalistic economic system, but I would say America is a Corporatocracy…if that is even a word…all this political wrangling is just a smoke screen – the earth turns in another dimension…just follow the money…but, in the end it is not really about money, the flow of money is just the telltale, it is about power…and it does not reside with “we the people”…

…you mentioned the Citizens United case, which seemed absolutely incredible to me that the Supreme Court could decide in this manner opening up, essentially unlimited financial support to congress critters from the coffers of the corporations…but, then, more recently I discover that corporations have the same rights as people!...and that has been the case since the beginning of US laws pertaining to incorporation…the problem to me with this is that if you treat a corporation effectively as a person, while limiting the liability of the owners and directors of the corporation, it becomes a creature that has no moral compass…you have an entity that does not give a shit…about anything other than maximizing value…so, to me it is incredulous to really consider a corporation as a person…is this really the way the law views corporations?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steve says-

A lot to talk about, this discussion really should be over beer sometime.

There is no question that the Court has moved hard to the right and has become very politicized.    Stevens was nominated by Ford and Souter was nominated by the first President Bush, and both ended up on the “liberal” wing of the Court, because the Court has moved so far to the right.    Nominations to the Court have become very political, and Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito are political figures, they spent their lives in the Republican Party and the Federalist Society.

Thomas is the worst in some ways; he is not very smart and is virulently right-wing.   His wife is a national leader in the Tea Party movement.    He does not speak in oral arguments, never asks questions, hasn’t spoken a word in years.   He is an embarrassment to the Court.    Scalia, amazingly, may be the least dangerous of the bunch.   He actually has some principles, and although I (and many others much smarter than I of course) think his “originalist” approach is utter bullshit, he will occasionally surprise you with a ruling that is based on principle rather than partisanship.   Overall, however, you are right that he is extremely right wing and smart and dangerous.

Roberts and Alito are in another category unfortunately.   They are deeply, aggressively partisan, and routinely will favor the corporation over the individual.   I think you are absolutely right that money and corporate power are ascendant, and unfortunately those forces have 4 very reliable votes on the Court.   Kennedy is the swing vote.   The hardcore right-wing members of the Court are hostile to civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights, and most individual rights except for gun ownership.    They are pro-corporate, pro-religion and anti-government regulation.    They are the Republican Party’s dream team.

It is too simple to say that Corporations are always treated like people.   A corporation is a fictional entity created under state law, and how it is treated is usually a function of state law and can vary from state to state.   For some legal purposes a corporation is treated like a person, for others it would be otherwise.    But what the Court did in Citizen’s United was shocking; to say that a corporation is entitled to the free speech protections of the First Amendment.    To say that a Corporation is treated like a “person” for purposes of service of process or personal jurisdiction is one thing, but to accord a basic civil right to a fictional business entity is just weird and depressing.   We are seeing the results of Citizen’s United in this campaign cycle; corporations are spending unprecedented amounts of money, and they are doing so anonymously, and at a rate of 9-1 in favor of Republican candidates.   That decision was just a straightforward gift to the corporate world and the Republican Party and I think the majority intended exactly this result.   Campaign finance is not a very sexy issue but is so important, and we are getting our ass kicked badly by the moneyed interests.

You ask about crossover voting.    We are at a point now where, on a case that has political (or corporate) importance, there is a 4-member right wing whose votes are reliably pro-right and pro-corporate.    There is a 4 member left wing (Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan).    And Anthony Kennedy seems to be in the middle.   There is some movement; Breyer switched sides in two 10 Commandments cases, but generally each side has 4 reliable votes.    And, the conservative wing is younger.    In every Presidential election, the media is all focused on the hot button issues, but it is Supreme Court appointments that scare me the most.   Bush was a frightful President, but we will live with Roberts and Alito for a long time.    If Obama should lose in 2012, I fear that Ruth Bader Ginsburg will not last another 4 years, and the consequences of another extreme right-wing corporate appointment would be terrible and would be with us for decades.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wes says-

OK, thanks for that…

The treatment of a corporation as a person is governed by State law, not Federal…

…the big point on Citizens United is that the Supremes attached 1^st Amendment Individual (human being) rights to an artificial construct, a business entity…

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steve says-


Yes, that is my big complaint about Citizen’s.   That’s the crux of the opinion, that the right of corporations to spend unlimited money on campaigns can’t be limited because they have a constitutional right of free speech under the First Amendment.   Sounds insane, but there it is.

I need to clarify the other point; it is more complicated than I indicated I guess.   Corporations are all creatures of state law.   Each corporation is incorporated under the laws of a particular state (often Delaware).    For jurisdictional purposes, corporations are considered citizens of two states:  the state of incorporation, and the state where its principal place of business is located.  

On the question of whether a corporation is treated like a person, you have to ask, for what purpose?   Every law, state or federal, will state how it is applied and who is subject to it.   If it applies to all “persons,” then persons will be defined in the statute and may or may not include corporations, partnerships, etc.    For some purposes we want laws to apply equally to corporations just as though they were persons, so living assholes can’t just incorporate to avoid a particular statute.   For other purposes, we want to treat corporations differently.    So, it depends on the legal situation.   Can a corporation commit fraud?   Yes.    Can a corporation commit rape?    Probably not.    So, it depends. 

Even considering the Bill of Rights, context matters.    For example, a corporation is clearly protected by the 4^th amendment search and seizure protections; the police need a warrant to go seizing corporate files and poking through records.    But, free speech?     The point of the 1^st Amendment protection of speech was to give the powerless the right to speak out, not to allow powerful fictitious business entities to overwhelm our political system with their money.

Now see what you’ve done, you’ve gotten me to start ranting.   Sorry.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wes says-

…good, now we are in the same place…rant mode…