Tonight, more than 200 years after a former colony won the right to determine its own destiny, the task of perfecting our union moves forward.I'm reading Obama's victory speech this morning, and, though I voted against him, I feel uplifted. I get a chill. Just as the writer of those words intended. Rereading them, my critical mind clicks in. A former colony won the right to determine its own destiny...? A colony? There were 13 colonies! Won the right? I read the Declaration of Independence to say that we had the right already, and we were entitled to throw off the power that oppressed us. The next phrase "perfecting our union" evokes the first sentence of the Constitution — "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...."— and ties it to his campaign slogan "forward" and to "you," who voted for him, propelling him forward. I've got to wonder if the idea is to move forward past the lesser perfection of the Constitution, into a system in which individuals merge into one nation, one people, one family. But you can still pursue your own individual dreams. Go ahead! Pursue them! If you can
It moves forward because of you. It moves forward because you reaffirmed the spirit that has triumphed over war and depression, the spirit that has lifted this country from the depths of despair to the great heights of hope, the belief that while each of us will pursue our own individual dreams, we are an American family and we rise or fall together as one nation and as one people.
I know some of you are thinking: If we can in this supposedly more perfect but actually terrifying system of socialism The One will move us forward into. Here are 2 expressions of that fear that went up last night on Instapundit and that struck me as excessive and over-scared. At 10:41, Sarah Hoyt wrote:
I HAVE QUESTIONS: We’re not a country of land or blood. We’re a country of beliefs. If we’ve lost that, who are we? Who am I? And where do I go?And at 11:00, Glenn Reynolds put up the text of an email from a reader named Zach White:
If Obama is reelected, good hardworking people should give up and go Galt. The tipping point is the 2012 election. Will the makers finally succumb to the takers? It’s pointless to think that if America reelects the most unqualified disastrous president in recent memory, we should stand our ground and continue fighting. it’s a signal that marxist free-lunchism and free birth control for everyone trump economic well-being and prosperity in the minds of the masses. Give up. Go Galt. Protect what few assets you have left, and start to hunker down for the coming storm. America is beyond screwed, well past the fiscal insanity of a number of EU countries. Think of it this way – we sit and watch California destroy itself and wonder who could be so foolish as to remain there and dedicate himself to indentured servitude in a state headed for disaster. Why don’t those fools just leave!! Same for Venezuela. as they descend into chaos and totalitarianism, do they reject Chavez more? The answer is plainly no. The spiral down the drain is irreversible and obvious. The more the government creates misery, the more they create programs to help people cope with the misery they’ve created, and we achieve a perpetual negative feedback loop. My advice is simple – if Obama is reelected, get a lawyer and a financial advisor, cash out as much of your assets as you can, and prepare yourself for a nosedive off a cliff. anything else would be imprudent and irresponsible to yourself and your dependents. Who wants to be a Dagny Taggart dedicating themselves to a life of indentured servitude trying to correct the wrongs of a heavy handed government? i will not be volunteering. I didn’t give up on America, America gave up on me.I read that this morning and pictured the young man in his 30s or early 40s, a man with a wife and children, reading that anything else would be imprudent and irresponsible to yourself and your dependents and actually spending money on a lawyer and a financial advisor, extracting all his cash from his retirement accounts, quickly selling the home they live in, and heading for the hinterlands to hunker down for the nose dive. The wife is distraught, the kids freak out. Dad's gone nuts. No, I'm not nuts, children. I am Galt! And I'm doing the only thing that is not imprudent!
Talk about nosedives. Get a grip, those of you who didn't get what you wanted for Electionmas. It's Obama's Second Term America, and you'll need to make the best of it. I think you've got some better ideas than cashing out and hunkering down. I know I do.
Posts
306 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 306 of 306It was a rough night, but I got through all five stages of grief. Younger people and women clearly want more collectivism, so that's what they're going to get. I'm not going to worry about America's future anymore (I hope), just my own.
EMD said...
What's FOX's ratings vs. CNN?
O'Reilly gets 3.0m viewers. The top-rated show on CNN nets about 540k.
What's Limbaugh's circulation vs. the NYT?
Limbaugh averages 2m listeners per day. The New York Times circulation is 1.6m daily.
You're full of shit.
No. You are living a small pond and think it is the ocean.
Don't the results of the election tell you something?The NYT's predicted the election outcome almost exactly. FOX news had Rove and Dick Morris. Who is living a bubble? Even sadder were the predictions by George Will and Michael Barone. Once upon a time they were respected pundits, now just hacks.
gerry said...
And, there have been no greater economic illiterates than the Bush/Cheney (deficits don't matter)/Greenspan axis. Fools blinded even further by rigid ideologies.
You support Obama? Have you no self-awareness?
What does it take to acknowledge that Republican economic policies have been a disaster?
The worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression was not enough for you?
By the way, did you know that The Economist doesn't even report the official Argentine inflation rate, because they've determined that it's willfully understating the inflation there? Hyperinflation can take other forms than money in wheelbarrows.
Yes, Shanna, in a superficial world such as yours, maybe it does.
Don’t be a dick. When I got out of college I got a job with health insurance on purpose, because that’s what grownups do. Living off your parents into your mid 20’s is not an adult thing to do.
Changing that rule doesn't fix anything in health care for people over 26, or who don't have parents who will help them in that way.
AReasonableMan said...
The worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression was not enough for you?
People who make this accusation are economically illiterate political activists. No response is necessary because it isn't a serious discussion.
Maybe someday you'll be honest enough to recognize the results of your preferences. I doubt it though, the empirical evidence shows most leftists blame policy failures on being insufficiently left. Since every statement you make repeats that error there's no particular reason to believe you'll ever overcome your illiteracy.
What does it take to acknowledge that Republican economic policies have been a disaster?
The worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression was not enough for you?
You seem to assume I think that any economic policies put in place by any president have anything to do with the financial solvency or lack thereof of this country.
I want to see me as some sort of Bush apologist when I have never made any claim to be so.
You have misread me completely because you are so full of assumptions about those you disagree with.
My point was only that Fox News reaches more viewers than other media outlets, so it is not a fringe media source.
It never ceases to amaze me how the Lefties can lie to everybody, including themselves, with such straight faces.
PS Market's down 355.
"At this point we are too far gone...The only answer will be "another government program", punitive regulations, and high punitive tax rates on a shrinking percentage, etc."
And in that scenario people will move to avoid paying taxes, by means legal and, if you push it far enough, illegal. Then we'll be one step closer to Italy and Greece because the logical choice for self-preservation is to avoid being a sucker. It's another form of going Galt.
The Italians are famous for it. And it has consequences:
More than a quarter of the Italian economy eludes taxation, due to underground and criminal economic activities that push up borrowing costs and discourage investment in the country's most vulnerable regions, a senior Bank of Italy official said Wednesday.
Tax Evasion Eating Into Italian GDP
Again, the poor and vulnerable are hardest hit when you "punish" the rich. Or is that "revenge" -- I can't remember.
You can only squeeze the golden goose so hard before it stops laying eggs. And in the meantime, you'll turn a nation of taxpayers into tax avoiders and tax cheaters. That can't be good for anyone or the moral fiber of the country. I know I'd be much more open to doing jobs for cash under a high tax plan. Right now I'm meticulous about taxes but I can't say I'll feel the same in the future.
"We are greater than the sum of our individual ambitions"...
Classic collectivist drivel. It was individual ambitions that made this country the greatest in history. Now we are on the path of the type of economic policies that have been proven failures.
What does it take to acknowledge that Republican economic policies have been a disaster?
The worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression was not enough for you?
What were those specific economic policies because I've never had a liberal explain what they were.
What were those specific economic policies
It was those damn Bush tax cuts that Obama ... extended?
I want to see me as some sort of Bush apologist when I have never made any claim to be so.
You want ... not I want. Sorry.
Democrats will never understand how this will destroy our nation.
On the contrary, I think they understand it all to well and are led by an individual who I believe thinks it is his life's goal.
Goddamn America indeed.
EMD said...
My point was only that Fox News reaches more viewers than other media outlets, so it is not a fringe media source.
FOX is very definitely a fringe media operation. Only someone living in a bubble cannot recognize this. Look at their election predictions, pandering to a small minority.
Multiple posters want, desperately, to believe the Bush/Cheney/Greenspan were not responsible for the financial meltdown.
So, who was responsible? The economy has been dominated by Republican ideas since Reagan. And, what do we have to show for it? A collapsing manufacturing base, declining real wages and a financial meltdown.
"The Republicans must realize they need to stay the hell out of Americans' personal lives and concentrate on the most important issues facing our nation."
This is a truly fascinating comment because Democrats don't have any problem getting into our personal lives, of course its because its about giving away free stuff at the expense of others.
Bush, Greenspan and the Republican's deserve to be blamed for the economy.
Is that the same Greenspan who was Fed chair under that great Clinton economy you guys pine for?
I don't think there was much difference between Clintons economic policies and Bush. Perhaps you can elaborate since you seem to think so.
Takers vs. Makers is certainly a long-term concern, but I don't see how it explains why Romney got fewer votes than McCain. Obama got 10% fewer votes than in '08. All that had to happen to win was for Romney to improve on McCain's total b 5%. Yet it didn't happen.
I see lots of righties blaming Romney for being too moderate, to which I can only say...huh?
I see a party in thrall to Grover Norquist and fundies. Here's what I think would've been a winning platform: 1) serious entitlement reform, 2) tax rates somewhere b/w Bush and Clinton, 3) repeal and replace Obamacare, and 4) shut up about abortion. We absolutely need 1), we'd have gotten budget cred from 2), 3) would have had broad appeal, and 4) would've helped w/ single women.
IMO, single women are the voters who are killing the GOP. They clearly want to have abortion as a fallback, and they're pretty clearly single-issue voters on it. And they turn out. A primary season where Repubs try to out-Akin each other is disastrous, and it isn't helping to roll back abortion either.
I haven't seen the state-by-state numbers on Rep turnout, but my guess is that this election was lost b/c too many fundies stayed home rather than vote for a Mormon. Just a guess at this point, but how else do you explain such a low vote total in an election of such importance?
" Blogger Jay Retread said...
Things will probably look pretty good for the Dems four years from now given that we our coming out of the recession full speed ahead now. This will also help to bring down the deficit. President Obama will get full credit for this."
Here is the basic economic illiteracy of Democrats. They think that you can remove parts of the machine and it will continue to run. Remove the pillars and the roof will continue to hover in the air.
Obama's EPA will shut down fracking and the XL pipeline is dead. The oil will go to China which does not have the crazy enviro movement that tells Obama what to do about energy.
One of the few good things about California is that it's warm here.
Chip S. said...
I see a party in thrall to Grover Norquist and fundies. Here's what I think would've been a winning platform: 1) serious entitlement reform, 2) tax rates somewhere b/w Bush and Clinton, 3) repeal and replace Obamacare, and 4) shut up about abortion. We absolutely need 1), we'd have gotten budget cred from 2), 3) would have had broad appeal, and 4) would've helped w/ single women.
1, 2 and 4 are correct and I would add, 5. no more dumb wars.
3 is not correct. Policies like no exceptions for pre-existing conditions and the insistence that everyone have insurance will ultimately be popular.
Multiple posters want, desperately, to believe the Bush/Cheney/Greenspan were not responsible for the financial meltdown.
So, who was responsible?
Typically, in a mature debate, when one states a position, it is incumbant on them to support their hypothesis with credible evidence. If you are subscribing to correlation is causation, I will conclude your hypothesis is simply supported by partisan talking points and not worth further consideration.
AReasonableMan said...
Multiple posters want, desperately, to believe the Bush/Cheney/Greenspan were not responsible for the financial meltdown.
So, who was responsible? The economy has been dominated by Republican ideas since Reagan. And, what do we have to show for it? A collapsing manufacturing base, declining real wages and a financial meltdown.
No individual or idea was responsible, the primary drivers were globalization and human nature.
Chip S. said...
I haven't seen the state-by-state numbers on Rep turnout, but my guess is that this election was lost b/c too many fundies stayed home rather than vote for a Mormon. Just a guess at this point, but how else do you explain such a low vote total in an election of such importance?
This seem likely to me also. Ironic that religious prejudice would end up hurting the Republicans rather than the Democrats. This being said, 2-3% of Obama's vote is lost because he is black. Just so I don't have to engage in endless 'we are not racist' discussions, I am talking about 'Democrat' racists.
Policies like no exceptions for pre-existing conditions and the insistence that everyone have insurance will ultimately be popular.
I think that there are ways to deal w/ pre-existing conditions that don't require a mess like Obamacare. It's one of the issues I'd like to have seen debated rationally instead of emotionally from 2008-2010.
Marshal said...
No individual or idea was responsible, the primary drivers were globalization and human nature.
Reaganomics has dominated the US for thirty years. In that time the economic fortunes of the middle and working class have collapsed.
Comparable countries like Canada, Australia, Germany and the Netherlands have done great in the same global economy. The problem is the ideas not the world. Reality speaks, you should listen.
AReasonableMan said...
Marshal said...
No individual or idea was responsible, the primary drivers were globalization and human nature.
Reaganomics has dominated the US for thirty years. In that time the economic fortunes of the middle and working class have collapsed.
Economic realities are largely beyond the control of any government policy. That you believe the evidence you mention demonstrates an empirical tie to reality in fact shows you're grasping at political talking points to explain something completely beyond your understanding.
Reaganomics has dominated the US for thirty years.
Did that include the eight years of the Clinton administration? Because I'm pretty sure Clinton wasn't crediting Reagan for that stupendous growth during the 1990s.
Again, do you actually have any specific economic policy that contributed to the meltdown?
Reaganomics has dominated the US for thirty years
I bet that's news to Bill Clinton.
Comparable countries like Canada, Australia, Germany and the Netherlands have done great in the same global economy.
Australia was ranked third in the 2011 Economic Freedom Index behind Hong Kong and Singapore and continues to provide an ideal environment for business and environment.
Ha ha.
We are 10th on the current Economic Freedom Index. Canada and Australia outrank us.
Both Canada and Australia passed the U.S. in Economic Freedom in 2009.
US gdp per capita is 20% higher than Canada's.
And if you're among the many who think that real incomes of workers have been stagnant since 1980 or whenever, you're completely wrong. Look at every demographic group's income growth and it's positive over that period. The appearance of stagnation is due to the changes in the composition of the labor force.
The denial is deep here. Cutting tax rates for the rich, attacking unions, offshoring manufacturing, bloating the financial sector and increasing wealth inequality have worked so wonderfully for this country. Your false beliefs have undermined the economic basis for working and middle class families throughout this country and the country has voted, they aren't going to take anymore.
"
Don't the results of the election tell you something?The NYT's predicted the election outcome almost exactly. FOX news had Rove and Dick Morris. Who is living a bubble? Even sadder were the predictions by George Will and Michael Barone. Once upon a time they were respected pundits, now just hacks."
No, they just learned something last night, like I did. You can no longer assume collective wisdom in the American electorate.
I just feel so sorry for the young, including my five kids, three of whom voted for Obama. I sent them a congratulations e-mail last night and one called me crying. All I said was I was glad I wouldn't have to live through what is coming. My life has been pretty good and I had good times. Even Carter saw the errors at last and began to build up the military and appointed Volker to tame inflation.
I don't see Obama doing that.
Somebody upthread wrote "no more wars" as a reason to celebrate. The most certain way to get a war is to be unprepared.
Chip S. said...
And if you're among the many who think that real incomes of workers have been stagnant since 1980 or whenever, you're completely wrong. Look at every demographic group's income growth and it's positive over that period. The appearance of stagnation is due to the changes in the composition of the labor force
This is complete BS. See here.
"What does it take to acknowledge that Republican economic policies have been a disaster?
The worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression was not enough for you?"
I'll grant you this. Bush should have kept pushing to rein in Fannie/Freddie in spite of Barney Frank, et al. Greenspan made the same error the Fed made in 1928 after Strong died. He left money too loose.
Otherwise, history will record the coming depression as created and owned by Democrats; assuming of course that history is still written then.
"You seem to assume I think that any economic policies put in place by any president have anything to do with the financial solvency or lack thereof of this country."
Marshall, you were right up until 1912. After that, government expanded and became a huge force. Presidents then could affect economic behavior. Roosevelt probably prolonged the Depression but he had the excuse that nobody knew better. Carter recognized his mistakes and tried to correct, appointing Volker. Reagan was responsible for the boom from 1982 to 2000. Obama has kept unemployment high with his policies, especially with regulation and Obamacare. He will wreck the economy like Weimar Germany unless he is a convert to reality, which I doubt.
Chip S. said...
US gdp per capita is 20% higher than Canada's.
Look at median wealth.. The performance of the US economy under Reagan/Greenspan/Bush has been pathetic for the average person. No wonder they vote against Republicans. Deal with reality for a change.
The denial is deep here.
Rank of Countries by GDP per capita
Six Myths about Income Inequality in America
I personally feel fine. Great in fact. Nice long run this morning, the election over and gone and back to square one. We are in a terrible economic mess and have the wrong guy to lead us out of it but the truth is I am in good shape even if my children and theirs will not enjoy what I have enjoyed. Because:
* U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
* Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
* New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
* National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000
Let's now remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget:
* Annual family income: $21,700
* Money the family spent: $38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* Total budget cuts so far: $3.85
Even a math challenged progressive should understand this example and what it implies.
This is complete BS. See here.
You don't seem to understand what "changes in the composition of the labor force" means, so here it is in simple terms:
The people in the bottom 20% (or any other quintile you want to look at) are not the same people over time. For example, if there's a big influx of low-skill immigrants, their lower earnings will pull down the average income of the bottom 20%. And yet, through the miracle of arithmetic, it's still possible for every single person who was in the bottom 20% to see his or her income rise.
Contrary to the title of the article at your link, there is no common "pie" being divided up. There is output being produced and distributed to those who produce it.
Chip S. said...
You don't seem to understand what "changes in the composition of the labor force" means,
Understand perfectly. Doesn't change the fact that wages are stagnant for each of these economic groups.
Can you seriously look at this data and defend the performance of the US economy over the last 30 years? Look at median wealth. The US is not even close to the richest countries in the world for most US citizens.
Michael K said...
Marshal, you were right up until 1912. After that, government expanded and became a huge force. Presidents then could affect economic behavior
Governmental Policy's ability to effect the economy is predominatly negative, meaning there's very little you can do to improve. They have great ability to screw things up, and routinely do so.
But larger economic trends are caused by uncontrolled events: the business cyle, long-term productivity, and international trade fluxuate based on events no government - even a single worldwide government - could control. Long-term we can't push normalized growth (adjusted for the business cycle) beyond what these other factors produce no matter what policies we have in place.
There are two ways government can improve the economy. (1) Remove the retardents to growth allowing us to reach the highest natural level, and (2) artificially accelerate growth from the future to now. Anything under item two will cause a greater reduction at some point in the future due to distortive effects and uncertainty. The vast majority of what our politicians claim they can accomplish falls into category 2.
I think that there are ways to deal w/ pre-existing conditions that don't require a mess like Obamacare. It's one of the issues I'd like to have seen debated rationally instead of emotionally from 2008-2010.
Given the present realities, I'd say let's try to fix Obamacare in a bipartisan way to the extent we can. That could be something that we could find common ground on.
Chip S. said...
Rank of Countries by GDP per capita
Inflated by the rapid increase in incomes of the top 1-2%.
Average people have never had it so bad relative to the rest of the world. Reagonomics have been a disaster for the average working stiff.
Understand perfectly.
That's odd, b/c your comments don't indicate that.
So I'll show you some data that are actually relevant to the question, from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 1979
First, what are these data? The NLSY consists of men and women who were born in the years 1957-64 and were ages 14 to 22 when first interviewed in 1979. These individuals were ages 45 to 53 in the 2010-11 survey.
So it actually follows the same people through their working lives.
What do the data show? To focus on the people who were age 18-24 in 1979:
Average annual percent growth in inflation-adjusted hourly earnings from 1978-2010:
Total... 6.3%
Less than a high school diploma...3.2%
High school graduates, no college...4.9%
Less than a bachelor's degree...6.3%
Bachelor's degree or more...9.2%
________________________________________
That ain't stagnation, ARM.
What Lauren said at 9:35 a.m.
Plus: The tally thus far shows that Romney got 57.4 million votes to Obama’s 60.1 million. Fifty-seven million is chopped liver?
The whole country is not a lost cause!
Average people have never had it so bad relative to the rest of the world.
Which is clearly evidenced by the mass emigration of Americans to the rest of the world.
OK, I now realize that in my haste to grab some data I cherry-picked inadvertently by grabbing the first column. Those early years are the peak years of wage growth for everyone. The "age-earnings profile" always shows rapid early growth that tapers off with age, so that earnings reach a peak at around age 50 or so.
I didn't find lifetime averages on a quick search, and have to get to work now, but looking at the table it's clear that every group experienced significant real earnings growth over the period when they're alleged to have stagnated.
Chip S. said...
OK, I now realize that in my haste to grab some data I cherry-picked inadvertently by grabbing the first column. Those early years are the peak years of wage growth for everyone. The "age-earnings profile" always shows rapid early growth that tapers off with age, so that earnings reach a peak at around age 50 or so.
I didn't find lifetime averages on a quick search, and have to get to work now, but looking at the table it's clear that every group experienced significant real earnings growth over the period when they're alleged to have stagnated.
Here is reality. This is real average wages. This is bad by itself but this is the comparison to productivity. This is a disgrace. Your Reaganomics at work. Working people getting screwed by a small elite of financiers.
AReasonableMan said...
Average people have never had it so bad relative to the rest of the world. Reagonomics have been a disaster for the average working stiff.
Let's all note our mis-monikered co-commenter has yet to post a single economic argument. Every single argument has been a political talking point. And this is what we should expect from the left, politics instead of economics, because (1) they aren't serious about our economic issues, and (2) they just reinforced that it works, so why change?
The greater the scale of the crisis the more leverage they have to foist the cost where they want it. And ultimately they care more about ensuring the costs land on politically convenient people than they do about reducing those costs.
Marshal said...
AReasonableMan said...
Average people have never had it so bad relative to the rest of the world. Reagonomics have been a disaster for the average working stiff.
Let's all note our mis-monikered co-commenter has yet to post a single economic argument. Every single argument has been a political talking point. And this is what we should expect from the left, politics instead of economics, because (1) they aren't serious about our economic issues, and (2) they just reinforced that it works, so why change?
The greater the scale of the crisis the more leverage they have to foist the cost where they want it. And ultimately they care more about ensuring the costs land on politically convenient people than they do about reducing those costs.
To the extent that you have any argument it seems to be "No one is to blame". Makes a catchy song but otherwise it is nonsense.
Obviously different ideologies and economic beliefs affect economic outcomes over time. Reaganomics is a disaster as is shown by all the existing empirical evidence.
AReasonableMan said...
Reaganomics is a disaster as is shown by all the existing empirical evidence.
Please show us this alleged empirical evidence. Do you think your cherry picked stats and the word "Reganomics" consitute this evidence? Demonstrate your complete ignorance of economics for us.
Well, what can you say? Obama got just enough votes to push him over the top in the key states. His GOTV machine (and possibly quite a bit of fraud -- a lot of people got to the polls and learned that they had already "voted" by absentee ballot; who needs Voter ID, anyway?) got the job done.
The American people have doubled down on stupid. The Honey Boo Boos have won. The worst president of my lifetime, with the economic competence of Carter and the honesty of Nixon, has been re-elected. He can thank the media, who managed to keep the lid on the scandals (Fast & Furious, Benghazi) and drag him over the finish line. And we can also thank all of the young single women who voted with their ladyparts instead of their ladysmarts. Thanks, girls. Thanks a lot. That's going to be some really expensive free birth control when you tally up what it really cost you, down the road.
And of course, we learned that there really are more "takers" than "makers," and they all voted to keep their free stuff coming in. Look for a lot more job-creators to "go Galt" in the next couple of years. Obamacare will be the law of the land; this was the last chance to derail it, and it will make health care both more expensive and of poorer quality, it will raise taxes and curb job creation. Obama will get to nominate probably at least two more hard-left Supreme Court Justices, tilting the balance of the Supreme Court for a generation to come. The "rich" will be taxed, and that will curb job creation. The EPA will be implementing all of those new regulations that they were hiding until after the election, which will put coal-generated electricity out of business; I don't doubt that they will go after natural gas fracking as well. There won't be a Keystone pipeline. And Americans will wonder, "Hey, why the hell did my electric bill skyrocket and why is gasoline $6 a gallon?"
But hey, we'll still have all of those glittering celebrities partying at the White House, our own Versailles on the Potomac, and Obama will continue to hone his golf game. Michelle and the girls will be jetting to all of the finest vacation spots in the world. What a country!
I think that this election was an inflection point. People are going to look back at this time, in the future, and wonder just what we were thinking. A lot of bad things are going to happen, and this election will be viewed as the last time they could have been avoided or at least mitigated. I have "I told you so!" rights for the next four years, and I will be making extensive use of them.
I had no idea that Bill Clinton adopted Reganomics because I distinctly recall Democrats and liberals heaping laurels on him the wonderful 90s.
Marshal said...
AReasonableMan said...
Reaganomics is a disaster as is shown by all the existing empirical evidence.
Please show us this alleged empirical evidence. Do you think your cherry picked stats and the word "Reganomics" consitute this evidence?
Real wages constitute cherry picked data in your world? What a fucking dumbass. You are just wasting my time, you have nothing sensible to say.
A reasonable man: Why, they are going to take more actually. Lots more.
You know what the problem with average workers is?
They're average.
I wonder if there's been an influx of low-wage earners into our economy in the past 30 years. Hmm.
Real wages constitute cherry picked data in your world? What a fucking dumbass. You are just wasting my time, you have nothing sensible to say.
Actually you haven't been able to ascribe how your data correlates to Reganomics. Bush 41 certainly didn't continue it and neither did Clinton.
I wonder if there's been an influx of low-wage earners into our economy in the past 30 years. Hmm.
Well that and the reality that many of the average skill jobs have been replaced by higher skilled jobs. Ideally a nation should export low skilled work and. Strive for higher skilled labor force. Naturally allowing 10-15 million low skilled illegal immigrants into the work force will certainly keep wages depressed, for that skill set.
AReasonableMan said...
Real wages constitute cherry picked data in your world? What a fucking dumbass. You are just wasting my time, you have nothing sensible to say.
All data not linked to the policy enactment is cherry picked, as any economist would agree. But no worry, you keep believing your "I say Reaganomics is solely responsible for our current economic status and therefore it is" theory alive. It helps the rest of us spot the idiots.
Marshal said...
All data not linked to the policy enactment is cherry picked, as any economist would agree.
Do you actually read the twaddle that you write?
AReasonableMan said...
Marshal said...
All data not linked to the policy enactment is cherry picked, as any economist would agree.
Do you actually read the twaddle that you write?
I do. Are you so scientifically unaware you fail to realize you have to establish cause and effect, that mere co-existence is insufficient? I sort of took for granted you could understand that much. Wrong I guess, my fault.
What's under the Electionmas Tree? Pretty speeches from a teleprompter. Other than that, mostly lumps of coal.
11/7/12 8:30 AM
Don't worry, the upcoming Carbon Tax will clear that problem right up.
The prudent thing to do is join the parasites. Find a government job where you can best shelter your family from the slow but inexorable economic slide, and where you can make the government contacts to ensure your family is in the elitist line when it comes to things like medical rationing. Try to be an administrator though, not a service provider. Service providers are expenses, administrators are heroes. Compensation will recognize this.
Yes, it will hasten the slide, but there's nothing you can do to stop it anyway. The alternative is working until you die so public employees can live better than you during your careers and then retire two decades before you on a pension you pay.
11/7/12 8:42 AM
I see a lot of people posing this as a binary choice between being (in effect) either Dagny Taggart or John Galt.
Even if you stay within the confines of Rand's story, there's certainly additional alternatives which don't land "on the side of the looters".
D'Anconia and Danneskjöld seem like the most vivid alternatives that leap to mind.
Instead of "going Galt", why not "go D'Anconia"?
I see a lot of people posing this as a binary choice between being (in effect) either Dagny Taggart or John Galt.
Even if you stay within the confines of Rand's story, there's certainly additional alternatives which don't land "on the side of the looters".
D'Anconia and Danneskjöld seem like the most vivid alternatives that leap to mind.
Instead of "going Galt", why not "go D'Anconia"?
I've never read the book so I only know the Galt role from conversation. Care to explain?
I doubt that any summary of reasonable length I could provide would do either role justice... there is inevitably a great deal lost and misinterpreted in that kind of exercise.
That being said, here's a step down that road. The archetype of Dagny Taggart is one where she struggles to use all of her efforts to prop up the existing corner of "the system" where she holds sway: keeping the lifeblood of the crucial Taggart Transcontinental railroad running in the midst of a downward spiral of that society, in no small part due to the (to her) unbearable notion of seeing it all collapse.
Galt, on the other hand, has not only withdrawn his support and effort from that society, but has encouraged others of like mind to "go on strike", and withdraw the benefits of their productive effort... which he sees as being punished / looted by the power brokers of that society, and even the workaday members of the society itself.
Their contrast is between participation in the "system" (implicitly accepting the premises in the process), and a passive withdrawal from participation, in order to allow the system to reach its inevitable conclusion.
D'Anconia, on the other hand, does not withdraw. He takes a much more active role in bringing about the conclusions which he sees arising from the premises used in that society. He takes the notion that others believed they could count on the notion that any action he might take would necessarily be in his own self-interest, and would be a near-guarantee of a success, and therefore they could ride his coattails by simply following along in his wake. D'Anconia instead engages in a form of meta-gaming, if you will... he knows that the leeches and looters will expect him to try to make money, and will try to garner success off of that effort. He sets about living a life that is more fully consonant with the sort of excuse-making that has become so popular in the novel's society, and wastes his money and deliberately sets out to destroy the accumulated capital that his family has put together, knowing full well that in the process he will drag down those who sought to exploit and leverage his decision-making process. Knowing all along that the Mexican government would seek to nationalize his new mine after it was developed, he sets about creating a sham and a worthless investment, and when they seize it, they discover they have "won" nothing at all.
Danneskjöld goes much, much further, but either serve to illustrate that it's a false dichotomy to assume that the only two roles a non-looter could possibly play would be as a willing dupe or a passive bystander.
One need not go nearly so far as D'Anconia, of course. One can "participate" while engaging in a "d'Anconia-lite" style of resistance, giving the system its logical outcomes while technically or legalistically complying with the expectations placed upon you... all the more so when the expectations have become so very much lower.
It's one thing to work to build the machine that will be used to destroy you. It's another to hire on to that job, knowing full well that there will be times when a spanner might 'accidentally' fall into the works.
It's far easier for the competent to fake incompetence than the other way 'round, after all.
A spanner in the works, sand in the Vaseline... who knows what might happen?
Professor,
Please realize that the position you occupy in the economy is likely far more insulated from the storms of daily life engendered by the actions of various levels of government. You may have a virtual guarantee of employment and thus income, healthcare (we all have that now!)and a secure retirement. Many of us in the private sector, sometimes known as the makers, have been dealing with less than full employment, no retirement (except whatever we can keep the tax collector away from). It good that you can go back to thinking of other things. To many of us, the loss is a bad omen. Success is difficult enough without the yoke of government weighting you down.
Obama's win would have been easier to take if the voters had been fully informed about Obama and his presidency and then still chosen him. The MSM's protection of Obama creates a feeling of unfairness that just won't go away.
I read today that at 79 I will not be eligible for many life saving procedures. Death panels. I guess there isI only so much health you are entitled to. Is no one outraged about this? Why would I be optimistic faced with Obamacare and socialism for likely the rest of my life? ( I am in 60's)
An ant and an elephant met in a bar, fell instantly in love, and spent the rest of the night making love.
In the morning, the ant woke up to find that the elephant was dead.
"Oh great. Just my luck. One night of passion, I get to spend the rest of my life digging a grave!"
There. A joke.
At 79 I will be denied many life saving procedures according to Obamacare. Is NO one outraged by these death panels? I am in my 60's so I will be dealing with socialism in my healthcare for rest of my life! I am sorry but I don't feel like fawning over Obama's acceptance speech!
Sorry, comrade.
The state appreciates your many fine contributions during the useful years of your life.
Rejoice in the glory of making way for the next generation of contributors!
"Some of you are going to be here all day doing nothing but listing reasons why America is doomed, aren't you?
Don't you have anything better to do?"
Reminds me of the old saying "Every generation thinks the next generation is going to hell"
Unfortunately,some actually do.
"Some of you are going to be here all day doing nothing but listing reasons why America is doomed, aren't you?
Don't you have anything better to do?"
Reminds me of the old saying "Every generation thinks the next generation is going to hell"
Unfortunately,some actually do.
If Bush had been in office, the Benghazi debacle would have gotten him ejected: inadequate security, inaction during the attack, lies afterward. If Benghazi was not enough, and Bush had a photo-op and quick departure after Sandy, with subsequent FEMA ineptitude, that would have been decisive.
When the media supply the filter, the public will be fooled frequently. Republicans must confront the media, deny their legitimacy even during interviews.
If you didn't get what you wanted for Electionmas, how are you dealing with your disappointment? Me, I'm an optimist, and I instinctively look for the positives.
OMG, are you serious? We are $16 trillion in debt. Not including unfunded liabilities. And growing every day. No plans to change our spending ways. Not enough rich people to "confiscate" our way of this. We cannot PAY for all of this. We are insolvent. These are NOT TRIVIAL problems. Obama has no good plan to help. His whole raison d'etre is to GROW GOVERNMENT. He doesn't really care how it will truly affect us. He just cares about his ideas.
Go study up on economics. What happens when you print money like crazy? What happens when you default on your debt? What happens to the poor people and the elderly when the economy fails? Hell, what happens to the rest of us when the economy fails? There are examples in history. Yes, people survive. But it is hard. Unnecessarily hard. We didn't have to go there.
Too many Americans have become undisciplined and unserious. And we will all share in their ruination.
Are you an optimist? Or an ostrich?
“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”
- Samuel Adams
May all the JEF's voters get exactly what they voted for.
Living in USSR in 1988 I was sure that USSR will continue forever, and the recent changes (Gorbachev) will only make it stronger and "better". Nobody thought that in 1990 USSR will cease to exist.
The idea that millions will drop out of the economy is, obviously, extremely unlikely, though plenty of people drop out of the rat race and take up substantially non-monetary economies... it's called being a farmer and selling or trading what you grow.
Will people respond rationally to incentives that penalize working and encourage inactivity and adjust their output accordingly? Do you doubt it?
Going Galt. I do not think that going Galt is necessarily a Doomsday Preppers admonition. Ayn Rand may have presented an extreme case in which the 'movers and shakers' in the ranks of the elite go on strike.
But going Galt, for me, may not mean contextually the same as in the Ayn Rand book. For me, its not doing that little bit more. Going the extra mile. For me it may be the marginal increase of fishing time over work time. For me, it may less involvement in political endeavors or even involvement in community work. Going Galt for the rest of us may necessarily make the nation a poorer place just due to Going Galt in our own little way. In China post 1950's or in the Soviet Union, people did not work as hard after the seizure of private property since they were unable to benefit from the extra work or productivity. They did not have a problem with the mover and shakers Going Galt was the marginal effect of the everyday farmers and laborers.
Personally, I think that this is superb strategy. It is one that happens naturally anyway. It kind of like a workers strike that we see in Europe these days but more difficult to counter. We do not have to be violent or cause a ruckus but they cannot do anything unless they get the consent of the governed.
I would just point out that, for many people, "going Galt" can simply be working enough to be comfortable--perhaps even retire early, if you can--but keep your income to a minimum, so your production isn't drained by excessive taxes. If you run a business, keep your activities to a minimum, so you aren't overrun by regulation. And so forth.
A lot of people can "go Galt" without even realizing it! They're just tired of shouldering the burden of society, and so they ease that burden somewhat...
HT,
"Health care and no more wars"
You're not really that ignorant, are you? Health care destruction, and the drones are still flying.
Comanche,
"What's under the Electionmas Tree? ... mostly lumps of coal."
If only! Coal, after all, is actually useful.
r/v,
" the stock market will not drop" @ 8:40am
It dropped while you wrote that.
"The wife is distraught, the kids freak out. Dad's gone nuts. No, I'm not nuts, children. I am Galt!"
I've gone Galt, Ann, and at least for me at it is nothing like you've envisioned.
Last evening, as the rain turned to snow outside my window, I built a fire in the fireplace and poured a glass of wine. I sat down and watched my kids laugh and play, blissfully unaware of the slowly unfolding catastrophe consuming our country. Right on cue, they start lobbying me for roasted marshmallows which I assured them they can enjoy as soon as they finish their dinner of home made lasagna and bread.
So life is good, here in my own little Gulch. When you've prepared for the worst in advance, there's no need to panic the children. In time I will explain to them what has happened. But for now, there is no need for them to know.
Frank Sinatra jokes are always good.
Shouting Thomas-got one for you. This is supposedly true. Don Rickles is sitting in a restaurant with his gilfriend. He sees Frank come in and walks up to him. Rickles says, "Frank, it would mean alot if you came over to the table and acted like we were great friends" Frank say he will do that. Rickle goes back to his table. A few minutes later Frank arrives and does the whole, "nice to see you...long time no see..what a great guy." Rickles turns to Frank and states, "Come on Frank were eating here."
Frank Sinatra jokes are always good.
Shouting Thomas-got one for you. This is supposedly true. Don Rickles is sitting in a restaurant with his gilfriend. He sees Frank come in and walks up to him. Rickles says, "Frank, it would mean alot if you came over to the table and acted like we were great friends" Frank say he will do that. Rickle goes back to his table. A few minutes later Frank arrives and does the whole, "nice to see you...long time no see..what a great guy." Rickles turns to Frank and states, "Come on Frank were eating here."
Reaganomics is a disaster as is shown by all the existing empirical evidence.
No it's not and you don't have the evidence to prove it.
See what I did there.
"It's Obama's Second Term America, and you'll need to make the best of it. I think you've got some better ideas than cashing out and hunkering down. I know I do."
Hope you don't mind if I don't take your advice on this one. I enjoy your blog, and you always look at things from interesting points of view, but I trust my instinct over yours on the situation we are in and what I need to do to protect myself and my family.
Not to be too direct, but frankly I doubt you have any better ideas.
I sincerely hope the president changes and starts trying to help America instead of destroy her, but I'll be damned if I am going to bet my family's future on it.
I too constitutionally resist pessimism, but it gets tougher all the time. I've been laid off five times in the last ten years. I'm now in a temporary job (which I'm glad to have--don't get me wrong) that I had to move to accept, abandoning my house. I had to give away about half of my stuff just to clean the house out. The job may or may not work out.
And I'm 60 years old. There are millions of people like me who were wiped out in late middle age. With Obama at the tiller, there is no chance at all for us to recover. After a lifetime of hard work, I'm looking at living on government cheese until they pull the plug, which, on the current trajectory, will be sooner rather than later because there will be less cheese.
I think the country will survive, in some manifestation. But a lot of its components (us) are going to be left for scrap.
I too constitutionally resist pessimism, but it gets tougher all the time. I've been laid off five times in the last ten years. I'm now in a temporary job (which I'm glad to have--don't get me wrong) that I had to move to accept, abandoning my house. I had to give away about half of my stuff just to clean the house out. The job may or may not work out.
And I'm 60 years old. There are millions of people like me who were wiped out in late middle age. With Obama at the tiller, there is no chance at all for us to recover. After a lifetime of hard work, I'm looking at living on government cheese until they pull the plug, which, on the current trajectory, will be sooner rather than later because there will be less cheese.
I think the country will survive, in some manifestation. But a lot of its components (us) are going to be left for scrap.
Well, I'm hoping for maximum obstructionism of any plan Obama tries to foist on the country UNLESS it is a good one.
"A good one" will typically mean: One which increases liberty, which remains within the constraints on government power granted in the Constitution.
In other words "a good one" will typically mean: Something that (legislatively speaking) falls in the spectrum between Jim DeMint and Ron Paul.
No sense obstructing THAT!
But anything else -- and I certainly don't expect "a good one" to be offered by these ascendant statists -- should be obstructed with full-throated disapproval. I'll cheer for obstruction.
In the meantime, I've already begun the process of going Galt, of throwing sand in the works, of doing unto them as they did unto me.
I'm going to shut down one business -- not that it was doing well anyway -- and limit the other. And I went to "Benefits.gov" and started filing for anything I've been long "entitled" to, but previously avoided out of a morally-superior rejection of bloodsucking my fellow citizen.
But why play that sucker's game? My fellow citizens care nothing for my dignity and think my productive output, and that of my subcontractors, is theirs to plunder for their own benefit. Very well, I'll reduce that output to subsistence and, sorry to say, I'll have no more work for subcontractors or suppliers. And as for the leftists, I'll plunder their output, such as it is, and see how they like it.
Why, after all, should my efforts be wasted on elevating the economic numbers for which the reelected Obama will claim credit, after four years of suppressing any hope of recovery? I'd rather the world saw the foolishness and counter-productivity of his intellectually-inbred ideas sooner than later.
So: Let's hear it for obstructionism, and for multiplying the deadweight! Time to turn my energies to non-taxable pursuits.
And, hey, you other productive and generous types? You who are feeling a little bit tired of having your liberty constrained by fools who have no respect for the rules or for basic honesty? Who're tired of seeing the goodness of the good used as a weapon against them?
I suggest you do likewise.
After all, can you think of a single good reason to help Obama and his supporters escape the consequences of their ignorance and ill-will? Is their social end-goal one you wish to subsidize?
F*** 'em, and the horse they rode in on.
EPA's Insanely Ambitious Agenda If Obama Is Reelected
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/11/04/epas-insanely-ambitious-agenda-if-obama-is-reelected/
Socialism kills, free markets feed.
America won't be any different. Look to the 20th century.
--Policies like no exceptions for pre-existing conditions and the insistence that everyone have insurance will ultimately be popular.---
Just becuase one has insurance doesn't mean one will get the care one needs.
Canada learned that a long time ago.
There was even a movie in the 80s about it. From the Quebeccers, believe it or not.
There won't be as many doctors.
Benign neglect. Except the rich & the government will always have better care.
Median wealth? LOLOLOL AR, really - didn't you ever watch HouseHunters International? They went to Italy.
Kids - married kids live with their parents for about 10 years to get enough money to afford to buy a home.
Greece is going down, Italy's tipping, where's that median wealth?
They should be doing better, shouldn't they?
I got a chill at Obama's speech too, but I bet it wasn't the same kind of chill as yours.
How I am feeling... I'm feeling that the young people should get the America that they so desperately want. They want chronic malaise, they want to turn their lives over to federal bureaucracy. So be it. They think it will be like all the good things a dynamic economy gives them only with more free stuff. They've never seen what chronic malaise looks like up close. My German friends routinely live with their parents into their late 20s, stay close to home and go to vocational schools rather than college, and have long periods of under-employment if not unemployment. My German co-worker sends money home to her family, all of whom have jobs and federal goodies but it's just not enough. When I had public insurance while living in Germany and got a torn ACL, a doctor gave me an ace bandage and some painkiller and sent me home. Back in the US, I had an MRI and surgery.
People adjust to the realities and aren't unhappy with their lot, but Americans don't know yet that this is what it looks like. I'll be curious to see if they think it's as good as they imagine it to be. I don't really care, because I've never felt less connected to other Americans.
People can argue about Romney's conservative purity, but there is no denying the fact he was a better human being than Obama. Romney was a man of achievement, accomplishment, and charity, both privately and publicly (all things that Obama lacked). For me, however, the greatest rage is aimed at the Ministry of Truth (Wash Post, NY Times, ABC/NBC/CBS), which protected and covered for Obama at every turn. Had he been an Evil Republican (tm), they would have hammered him daily for (pick one) FastnFurious, Gas Prices, Unemployment, Debt, Deficit, or Libya. Their naked propaganda on his behalf was sickening, and a complete abrogation of their alleged responsibility to inform the public. For this, I hope they die choking on their lies.
I always thought the Constitution made it a more perfect union. I like it the way it is. Obama's idea of "perfecting the union" gives me the willies. Would any of you sleep good at night dreaming of HIS idea of what a more perfect union would be?
If I had to had to give career advice to a young adult to help her achieve economic success, I would advise them to take a job supported either (directly or indirectly) by the government (such as Prof. Althouse's job is) instead of entering private industry. Similarly, I would advice a potential industrious immigrant that he would be better off in many countries other than the US. I live an economically frugal life style and wish other citizens and my government did the same and hence find that I am culturally consciously treated with scorn (e.g. supporting entitlement reform is racist, media presents conservative as boobs). Why should stay where the majority insults me and takes my property? This is not an emotionally statement; merely an economic analysis. To me, this election does not indicate a major change but does shows me that the US has willfully embraced policies guaranteed sharp decline. I do not have a solution for myself or the person you described in your post, I think going Galt is foolish, but do believe he has correctly assessed the situation; the economic takers (and I do not mean welfare recipients) have taken long-term control.
Isn't this what lawyers do? When any case goes to trial, half of the lawyers involved lose. They have to move on - someone else needs legal representation, and usually it really isn't the end of the world - the losing client pays the judgement or serves the time, but life, and hope, goes on.
Meanwhile the lawyers can go home and play in the garden.
It seems to me you are applying the standard legal mechanism for coping-with-a-loss to this years election results, in effect advising the hypothetical client that this judgement is not worth despairing over, and building some mental distance with the lost argument so you can move on. Fair enough.
This time, however, you get to serve the sentence with us. All we can do is hope our four-years-with-partial-rehearing-in-two-years is more like a stay in one of the minimum security convicted-congressman-type facilities than a sojourn on Devil's Island, or worse.
The only concern I have is with what seems to be bit of a mocking tone - Look at these people! They can't be serious! While there are plenty of over the top comments being made by both sides on the internet (I'm shocked, shocked) that clearly deserve mocking, there are also people expressing deeply felt despair who have seen first hand the bloody end point of a path that looks so very much like the one We The People have started down over the last three or five elections.
I don't know what the future will bring, but I believe Mark Twain was right when he said "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme", and I think dismissing the honest and deeply held concerns from folks who've heard this rhyme before is very mistaken.
Remember when GM made lousy cars in the 70s and it was unpatriotic to buy Japanese? Never understood why it was patriotic to buy crap.
So now we have those evil one percenters and those who make over $250K. Is it patriotic to keep working, having your store looted and burned down, to keep having your taxes raised? Maybe patriotism is shutting down and letting the OWS protesters show us how it's really done. Time to retire and collect social security and unemployment and whatever else the govt is giving away.
Post a Comment