Can Obama Lead in the Real World on Fox News Strategy Room

One of my favorite media activities is to spend time on FoxNews.com Strategy Room. Eric Bolling hosted my time on and, as usual, we literally covered the entire map of headlines, with a heavy focus on international affairs.

One of the brilliant ideas behind Strategy Room is that its panelists are made up of well informed policy generalists -- a dying breed in media, but one of the most important if the objective is to provide a contextual understanding of what is going on in current events. It provides a well informed discussion that the general viewer can appreciate.

This week's big focus was how Barack Obama was handling international affairs. Of particular interest was Obama's encounter with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Most Americans were shocked by the warm "Kodak moment" between the leader of the free world and a vicious dictator. The panel's assessment was largely negative, but ranged from the more benign "sophomoric," to one of being revealing of Obama's view of the dictator. Some simply stated he "didn't know what he was doing" and he approaches things as an "academic." I believe that he approaches the job with one of the most frightening examples of "on the job training" I have seen and, at least appeared as a man who felt some affection for Chavez. To make matters worse, 24 hours later Obama allowed himself to pose with Chavez giving him a book that decries the US role in Latin America (“The Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent,” by Eduardo Galeano). The old adage "first time, shame on you; second time, shame on me" certainly would have worked for him this week.

Strategy Room also discussed the problem of Iran's development of a nuclear missile program and the fact that the days before Israel takes unilateral action are numbered. Simply put, Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made it clear, he believes Israel is a nation that should not exist. Israel cannot afford to do nothing while Iran becomes more dangerous. In our discussion we reviewed the fact that we do have history of Israel taking a similar action (in 1981 against Iraq for the same reason s as they would attack Iran) and that although the world largely complained, the US grumbled lightly and gave a collective sigh of relief. In 1981, Israel only had to fly through Iraq's air space. To attack Iran, it is believed they will have to fly through Iraq's air space again, which is now under US control. How will Obama respond to unilateral action? Candidate Obama made it clear that the protection of Israel is a US priority, but he has done nothing to remove the pressure on Israel to take action (which would be in the best interest of the entire Middle East). George Bush didn't help in this area either and every request Israel made on both Presidents have fallen on deaf ears. Conclusion? Obama is too much of an unknown, he is clearly inexperienced, and none of the panelists wanted to make a leap and determine what this Administration will do in regards to Iran.

Strategy Room is one of the most diverse and entertaining news programs on any platform: TV radio, or online. It is because of its slate of great hosts and eclectic group of panelists that thousands regularly gather around their computer screens, rather than their televisions.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on CNN 650 (M-F at 11 am), AOL Radio, and CBS Radio. Eric Bolling of Fox News and Fox Business says that Price’s Blog “is very influential and moves the blogosphere.” Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

The US uses Zimbabwe as an Economic Model

Americans are being bombarded on numerous fronts -- AIG executives getting outrageous bonuses with taxpayer dollars, the government is bolstering illegal immigrants, Obama is placing pressures on states to restore the welfare state, etc., etc., etc. However, the biggest issue of concern to all Americans may be happening and getting a complete pass by the mainstream media. That is the paying for massive new government programs through the mass production of worthless money. Money, according to the New York Times, "printed out of thin air."

The United States government is using inflation, which is the most harsh form of taxation of all, to pay for its out of control spending. Inflation isn't merely "high prices," although that is a symptom of such a policy. Instead, inflation is "too much money chasing too few goods" and in this case for the purpose of paying for government. If the number of dollars go up, the value of that currency goes down. This results in higher prices, a decline in investment, and economic instability.

All of us are familiar with the history classes where we have seen Germany's inflation that resulted in a wheel barrell of money being required to pay for a loaf of bread. This inflation created such economic havoc that it created the perfect environment for Adolph Hitler to rise to power. It became so bad that it was easier and cheaper to use money as wallpaper than to go to the store and buy such.

In addition to destroying the value of our money, inflation is a horrible form of taxation. When our prices begin to go through the roof, our largely uneducated public will often blame business over government for the terrible changes we will witness. Inflation is the government's cowardly way to pay for its irresponsible programs.

Very few legitimate countries use inflation as a means to fund their governments. That policy is typically relegated to places like Iran (17 percent), Burma (35 percent), and Zimbabwe (231,000,000 percent). The last country's situation is such a disaster, it has 85 percent unemployment and the people are grateful it is only that high, with a worthless currency fueling that job market.

Just this week the United States took a chapter out of Zimbabwe's playbook by pumping $1.2 trillion into the money supply in an attempt to pay off its bills. Many Americans have (rightly) been alarmed by the more than $1.5 trillion we have seen in bailouts. According to the Washington Post, these inflationary efforts have the potential of being much more far reaching, noting that "combined with the billions already deployed by the Fed, the new money dwarfs even the biggest government bailouts of financial companies."

When the currency is ravaged by an inflationary money supply, the first place to turn to is to precious medals. Jay Hancock of the Baltimore Sun noted that "yesterday the Fed announced it would inject more than $1 trillion in the economy by buying longer-term Treasuries and mortgages. As Yves Smith notes, even the $300 billion the Fed pledged for Treasuries may not have much effect, given the huge supply of bonds the government needs to sell to finance the ballooning deficit. Gold is soaring, presumably on the expectation that the Fed's move will undermine the dollar and stoke long-term inflation. It's up $60 this morning. Has there ever been a bigger intraday or daily increase?" Precious medals should only go higher.

History has shown that "pumping money" into an economy to pay for government programs has always resulted in massive damage to a country. It is typically the last resort of third world governments on the brink of economic ruin. We have entered a very dangerous stage in our nation's history.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on CNN 650 (M-F at 11 am). Eric Bolling of Fox News and Fox Business and says that Price’s Blog “is very influential and moves the blogosphere.” Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com.

Energy, Competition, and a Simple Lesson in Economics

For quite some time many Democrats and virtually everyone in the extreme environmentalist movement have discredited Republican calls to increase domestic drilling. Obama in particular has been very dismissive. Repeatedly he has told voters that we could begin building rigs today and it would have zero effect on gas prices for at least six or seven years. My sophomore economics professor would beg to differ.

When I took my first macroeconomics course in college, I remember the professor saying something that is considered unorthodox by many liberal economists today. He stated that “monopoly is virtually an impossibility today. As long as there is the possibility of competition, preexisting business must behave competitively. About the only way you can have a monopoly,” he argued, “is when the government sanctions such (e.g., utility companies).” The professor went on and noted that as long as businesses can enter the market place, the so-called monopolies have to keep prices down and products at a high enough level to deter competition.

For several years our US government has protected the virtual monopoly that has existed in the Middle East when it comes to oil. The Saudis, Iranians, and other energy powers have known that we will protect our trees before we help our families with lower gas prices. Therefore these competitors have driven prices without consequence. For years, the United States hasn’t even had a serious discussion on the subject of increasing oil supplies. Until now.

Now, what seems out of the blue, is a dramatic drop in oil prices. A few weeks ago it was close to $150 a barrel. Now, it is around $115. Obama is right, oil prices wouldn’t “drop a penny,” instead it has been tens of dollars and more should soon follow. Talk alone is beginning to break the foreign monopoly on oil. Our foreign competitors do not want a single drop of new source oil to be produced in this country. That is why they are increasing supplies in order to lower our prices. It isn’t because they suddenly like us. Our competitors hate the possibility of competition. What the liberals don’t understand is that competition works. Our foreign competitors get it. The Republicans who are occupying the US House and demanding more action on drilling understand it. But the liberals do not.

This only reaffirms my conviction that we need Presidential and Congressional leadership that understands simple economic principles. If our members of Congress don’t understand how competition works, they should do something else for a living. The same expectation should be there for any person who would be our President. We need leadership that understands the power of the market place and will harness that power to make the US energy independent and economically free.

In fact, I am fairly confident that if the Democrats occupy the Congress and the Presidency, I expect an exponential increase in oil prices. If Republicans win both we will see a rapid decline. If we split government, expect a stalemate. I think I know what most Americans desire.

Kevin Price's articles are found daily in national publications such as USA Today, Chicago Sun Times, and Reuters. Subscribe to his newsletter here.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review.

Republicans for Pelosi?

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) (photo) may be the best thing to happen to the Republican Party since Ronald Reagan. Her trip to the terrorist state of Syria has many Jewish voters (a strong Democrat constituency) moving rapidly to the Republican Party. Her focus on witch hunts rather than legislation has the media rightly calling this a "do nothing" Congress. The 100 days of work she promised hasn't produced a single bill that has made it to the President's desk. Her failure to have the Congress renew the tax cuts (required for their continuation) could easily destroy the very low unemployment we currently enjoy (since such cuts stimulate economic growth). Most recently they sent a bill to the President that requires a deadline for the troops in Iraq to return. They are actually implying they won't fund and protect our troops unless there is a deadline that aids our enemies. The list goes on.

Rumor has it, Pelosi is considering a trip to Iran! She's been told "no" by the White House and has been threatened with the Logan Act for the trip she already took to Syria. The Logan Act prohibits any US citizen from going to foreign countries negotiating without the authority of the US government or purporting to represent the country. It certainly appears she may be guilty of such. With her comments about possibly going to Iran, some Republicans in the Senate are offering to buy her a ticket. It seems the more actions she takes, the more helpful she is to the Republican Party.

When Democrats challenged Republicans in the 2006 Congressional races, they claimed they would turn things around once elected. "Turning it around" is beginning to look like a war on the economy, the abandoning of our troops, and an irresponsible approach to foreign policy. The Democrats have been largely a minority party for quite some time. Pelosi's behavior is making me believe they actually prefer that status.

On the International News Front...

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Blinks

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran (see photo) has announced today that he was releasing the 15 British sailors his country has held for over two weeks. British Prime Minister Tony Blair has announced that he is elated by the news, but I am sure he is being cautiously optimistic in his response, since Ahmadinejad announced he was releasing the one female prisoner a week ago, but failed to do so. Both US and British officials have indicated that they will believe it when they fly out of Iranian air space. The President of Iran is calling it a "gift" to the British, but I have a difficult time interpreting it as anything but a blink. I have always seen Ahmadinejad as a crazy, not knowing the limits of his power. His response to this situation is actually a little encouraging. He blinked, something I didn't think he was capable or willing to do.

Nancy Pelosi as a Shadow Secretary of State

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is something of a shadow Secretary of State for the Democratic party, travelling to the tyrannical state of Syria and meeting with the President of that terrorist state, Bashar al-Assad. While President Bush and other western leaders have been trying to isolate this dictator, Pelosi has her own agenda and foreign policy with no regard to what the Executive Branch is pursuing. Diplomacy has always fallen under the Executive Branch, historically. This has become fashionable as of late, with Members of Congress doing their own diplomacy. The trend is dangerous, in my opinion, and creates a situation in which the US is sending confusing messages to the rest of the world.