"I think that Gross is accurately representing the continued disenchantment with our political leaders and ultimately our political systems (which have not been functioning properly). I am concerned about the consequences - so far the 'disenchanted' have worked within the system to reform. This may change to more violent and disruptive action."

Here is the opening from Bill Gross' report:

Quixotic journeys often make for great literature, but by definition are rarely productive. I am, after all, referring to windmills here - not their 21st century creation, but their 17th century chasing. Futility, not productivity, was the ultimate fate of Cervantes' man from La Mancha. So it is with hesitation, although quixotic obsession, that I plunge headlong into a discussion of American politics, healthcare legislation, resultant budget deficits and - finally - their potential effect on financial markets. There will be windmills aplenty in the next few pages and not much good can come of these opinions or my tilting in their direction. Still, I mount my steed, lance in hand, and ride forward.

Question: What has become of the American nation? Conceived with the vision of liberty and justice for all, we have descended in the clutches of corporate and other special interests to a second world state defined by K Street instead of Independence Square. Our government doesn't work anymore, or perhaps more accurately, when it does, it works for special interests and not the American people. Washington consistently stoops to legislate 10,000-page perversions of healthcare, regulatory reform, defense, and budgetary mandates overflowing with earmarks that serve a monied minority as opposed to an all-too-silent majority. You don't have to be Don Quixote to believe that legislators - and Presidents - often do not work for the benefit of their constituents: A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll reported that over 65% of Americans trust their government to do the right thing "only some of the time" and a stunning 19% said "never." What most politicians apparently are working for is to perpetuate their power - first via district gerrymandering, and then second by around-the-clock campaigning financed by special interest groups. If, by chance, they're ever voted out of office, they have a home just down the street - at K Street - with six-figure incomes as a starting wage.

What amazes me most of all is that politicians can be bought so cheaply. Public records show that combined labor, insurance, big pharma and related corporate interests spent just under $500 million last year on healthcare lobbying (not much of which went to politicians) for what is likely to be a $50-100 billion annual return. The fact is that American citizens have never been as divorced from their representatives - and if that description fits the Democratic Congress now in control - then it applies to Republicans as well - past and present. So you watch Fox, or is it MSNBC? O'Reilly or Olbermann? It doesn't matter. You're just being conned into rooting for a team that basically runs the same plays called by lookalike coaches on different sidelines. A "ballot box" pox on all their houses - Senators, Representatives and Presidents alike. There has been no change, there will be no change, until we the American people decide to publicly finance all national and local elections and ban the writing of even a $1 check for our favorite candidates. Undemocratic? Hardly. Get on the internet, use Facebook, YouTube, or Twitter to campaign for your choice. That's the new democracy. When special interests, even singular citizens write a check, it represents a perversion of democracy not the exercise of the First Amendment. Any chance that any of this will happen? Not one ghost of a chance. Forward Don Quixote, the windmills are in sight.

Distressed as I am about the state of American democracy, a rational money manager cannot afford to get mad or "just get even" when it comes to investing clients' money. Still, like pilots politely advertise at the end of most flights, "We know you have a choice of airlines and we thank you for flying 'United'." Global investment managers likewise have a choice of sovereign credits and risk assets where stable inflation and fiscal conservatism are available. If 2008 was the year of financial crisis and 2009 the year of healing via monetary and fiscal stimulus packages, then 2010 appears likely to be the year of "exit strategies," during which investors should consider economic fundamentals and asset markets that will soon be priced in a world less dominated by the government sector. If, in 2009, PIMCO recommended shaking hands with the government, we now ponder "which" government, and caution that the days of carefree check writing leading to debt issuance without limit or interest rate consequences may be numbered for all countries.

Explaining the current state of global fiscal affairs is often confusing - it's much like Robert Palmer's 1980s classic song where he laments that "She's so fine, there's no telling where the money went!" Where government spending has gone is not always clear, but one thing is certain: public debt is soaring and most of it has come from G7 countries intent on stimulating their respective economies. Over the past two years their sovereign debt has climbed by roughly 20% of respective GDPs, yet that is not the full story. Some of governments' mystery money showed up in sovereign budgets funded by debt sold to investors, but more of it showed up on central bank balance sheets as a result of check writing that required no money at all. The latter was 2009's global innovation known as "quantitative easing," where central banks and fiscal agents bought Treasuries, Gilts, and Euroland corporate "covered" bonds approaching two trillion dollars. It was the least understood, most surreptitious government bailout of all, far exceeding the U.S. TARP in magnitude. In the process, as shown in Chart 1, the Fed and the Bank of England (BOE) alone expanded their balance sheets (bought and guaranteed bonds) up to depressionary 1930s levels of nearly 20% of GDP. Theoretically, this could go on for some time, but the check writing is ultimately inflationary and central bankers don't like to get saddled with collateral such as 30-year mortgages that reduce their maneuverability and represent potential maturity mismatches if interest rates go up. So if something can't keep going, it stops - to paraphrase Herbert Stein - and 2010 will likely witness an attempted exit by the Fed at the end of March, and perhaps even the BOE later in the year.

David Fuller's view Over eight years ago, I resolved to resist the temptation to make further political comments in Fullermoney or to post articles that were not primarily market-related. Basically, I had concluded that unsolicited political views on a global strategy website were both a presumption and a distraction. In other words, while I share Bill Gross' concern over the political process, I will mainly address the theme of choice in his opening sentences in the penultimate paragraph above.

The emails that we receive and welcome indicate more widespread concern over political-economic events, especially those from Americans, than I have previously encountered during my long career in the financial industry. Some of this is not surprising after such a frightening meltdown as we experienced in 2008, not least because the consequences of policy decisions taken will linger for many more years, for better or worse.

Nevertheless the divisiveness strikes me as unprecedented - fat-cat banker and corporate types versus the rest of us, widespread resentment towards and mistrust of most politicians, and a view that the thrifty are being penalised to subsidise the irresponsible.

I hope that this painful process will eventually prove to have been more creatively productive than randomly destructive. Meanwhile, one positive is that as individual investors who feel responsible for their own financial security, it does help to concentrate the mind.

At Fullermoney, we have a tradition of encouraging subscribers to view markets from the perspective of judges at a global beauty contest. I find this to be far more reassuring, constructive and profitable than worrying over what I can seldom influence, let alone control.

Tomorrow, I will review my personal top-10 (in terms of weighting) long-term equity investment portfolio.