Paul Ryan: Hedging is un-American

So why Paul Ryan, and why now? 

The republican zeitgeist is about ideals and Ryan wears his on his lapel, front and center. He describes himself "as pro-life as a person gets." He is "very, very pro-gun", does not believe in same-sex marriage or their right to adopt. The list of his beliefs reads like a cheat-sheet for conservative policy-makers. He often refers to Ayn Rand as a major influence in his youth and makes his congressional staff read her novels.

People like him for the stand he makes on ideals. After all, what could be more American. Transformational leaders of the past stood their ground based on ideals. It is not one's own responsibility to question oneself. That responsibility is left to the other guy. This mirrors our federal system of checks-and-balances and guarantees that the strongest cases (or politicians) be presented. Then conflict arises and compromise is made at the end, the final, the product. This is the best possible result we can hope for in the dealings of men. The age of middle road politics needs to end with a return to honest, stand behind something ideals.

If a case or politician is presented with reservations as to popularity or utility, then it itself is already a compromise. A compromise built on a compromise is nothing, nowhere, zero progress. Our laws are  pragmatic rules based upon moral absolutes, so why then are politics so much about consequences?

Believe, In Something

Focusing on consequences is what causes inconsistency in politics. We need to realize the inherent limitations of our political and legislation power structure, and not expect mountains from men. When the financial system was teetering over a cliff in 2008 drastic measures were taken by the Fed for stability. We have come to rely on outstanding ad-hoc solutions to problems such as this. Such may be a sign of strength in the will and effectiveness of the individuals involved, but represents a dangerous comfort of being in control. We as a country think we can simultaneously know everything and control everything.

All we know is that we can't know it all

The crutch of 21st century man is knowing too much. We are bombarded with information constantly, and ignorance of political hot points is simply unacceptable, just ask Sarah Palin. Transformational individuals of the past would be stumped by the sheer breadth of knowledge required by today's politicians and leaders. What exactly do we want from our leaders? And is it prudent to try to please the majority, or even moral?

Lines from the famous poem "The Rock" by T.S. Eliot follow,

Where is the life we lost in living?
Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?

Great Americans, that is individuals, who have been responsible for great progress in the United States have always stood strong in the light of opposition. After all, what could be bolder than standing up to the superpower that was Great Britain of the late 18th century. No doubt it took steel resolve for our founding fathers to declare independence from Britain, with full knowledge of the hardships of impending war. Despite what Americans have been taught in civics class, the "atrocities" persecuted by the British in the 1700's range from mild to medium. If the founding fathers had to constantly field questions and worry about how their responses would be perceived by every family in the colonies they never would have accomplished the American revolution.

They instead relied on what they knew, what the believed to be right, and how to persuade others to follow them to the tune of these beliefs. As much as I personally disagree with everything Paul Ryan stands for, I oddly like him. At least he has spirit and belief.

The recent Clint Eastwood movie "J. Edgar" features Leonardo DiCaprio as J. Edgar Hoover the transformational Director of the FBI from 1932 to 1972. Hoover was responsible for empowering the FBI to investigate and effectively convict criminals who previously evaded locally organized law enforcement. Hoover was also particularly zealous about investigating radicals and those who aimed to subvert the Federal Government. This often meant that his agents were investigating people on the premise they might commit a crime. Still a hot topic today, Hoover was conducting intelligence operations against American citizens.

Whether right or wrong, Hoover believed radicals and subversives to be a greatest domestic threat to America. This belief is what motivated him to push for laws and reforms that enabled his FBI to carry out his goals. He was in power for 40 years and no president, attorney general, or federal judge would sway him in his goal. I am not saying what he did was right or moral, but his drive, his motivation is something that has been lacking in American politics for some time.


Erik Hughes is an equity analyst for Halvorson Research Associates, LLC
Market commentary available every 15 days on their website:

HRA Market Commentary

Standard Chartered: Iranian Banking For Dummies

 SCB has gotten themselves into some serious hot water recently with U.S. regulators. A basic overview of the situation goes thusly. SCB America is a subsidiary of SCB Group based in London. SCB Group (London) wants to take advantage of the lack of competition in wholesale banking for Iranian Clients. SCB America is in position to execute U-Turn transactions that benefit Iranian clients.

SCB America cannot execute the U-Turn trades in their original form because they are illegal under U.S. law. So SCB London decides the best course of action is to alter the SWIFT entries before they reach the U.S. in order to remove any reference to Iranian clients. Swift is the international communication standard for identifying businesses and financial institutions.

The more interesting question here is about who is at fault and if they can be reached by U.S. regulators. Because the impetus of the fraud is coming from SCB Group based in London to what extent can U.S. regulators address the problem. The obvious answer is to shut down the SCB America division for executing the trades.

Does this truly solve the problem? SCB America is simply acting as a transactional function. To what extent does SCB America deplore this practice? What we have seen from conflicting reports is that SCB America is at least concerned for its own reputation and skin. SCB America has been working with regulators as best it could while working under a script dictated by SCB Group in London. Not so much CAN U.S. regulators punish for these offenses but SHOULD they and what will the international community think of their actions.

I just wanted to present the situation in a condensed, easily understood, quick read so that more people can be aware of the underlying questions presented by this unique situation. In a increasingly interconnected world lines of jurisdiction begin to be blurred across space, communications, and conflicting interests.

I will leave you with the conclusion paragraph given by NY DFS in their report on the offenses:

"Motivated by greed, SCB acted for at least ten years without any regard for the legal, reputational, and national security consequences of its flagrantly deceptive actions. Led by its most senior management, SCB designed and implemented an elaborate scheme by which to use its New York branch as a front for prohibited dealings with Iran – dealings that indisputably helped sustain a global threat to peace and stability. By definition, any banking institution that engages in such conduct is unsafe and unsound."


Erik Hughes is an equity analyst for Halvorson Research Associates, LLC
market commentary available every 15 days on their website:

HRA Market Commentary