If Palin was a man...

[Gorn]

> Since all discussion of the presidential election is now of academic interest only

I wouldn't go that far. I just checked the latest betting line on the election, and at the moment it's Obama = -350, McCain = +220. Now, the -/+ is betting notation; what it means is that a $350 bet on Obama that pays off will net the bettor $100 profit, while a $100 bet on McCain that pays off will net the bettor $220 profit. In other words, Obama's 2-7, McCain's 11-5. That's kind of a weird way to gauge public opinion, but it does have one virtue; the people who participated in that "poll" are confident enough in their opinions to put their money where their mouths are -- literally.

That doesn't mean that all those Obama bettors are planning on voting for Obama, though. It just means there's a widespread public perception that Obama's more or less got it locked up. Some of those Obama bettors are probably Republicans who think he's a sure thing at this point and wanna make a buck.

Now, looking at the latest poll numbers and asking the question, "what if the election were held today," it looks bad for McCain. If you tally up the projected electoral votes state by state, tossing out those where the polls are statistically too close to call, Obama's got 259; not the 270 needed for victory, but close. McCain's only got 163, and 116 votes are in states that are toss-ups.

But all of McCain's states are solidly in his camp, with strong poll margins in his favor. OTOH, about 50 of Obama's projected electoral votes by that tally come from states where he's got a statistically reliable but slim lead -- places where it can be predicted that if the election were held today, Obama would win by a whisker. Some of Obama's rise in the projected electoral numbers almost certainly comes from the recent bad economic news, the immediate reaction of many to blame the President's entire party when something goes wrong, and the result that some states have shifted to being slightly in Obama's favor. Whether McCain can reverse that remains to be seen, but I don't think he's out of the race yet.

I'm skeptical of McCain/Palin's chances too, but you wouldn't have to offer me 11-5 or even 2-1 odds to get me to bet on them; I'd be happy with 3-2.

Danny

 

[Usonian]

...religion is private matter here.

That's the real difference between European Christians and conservative American Christians. For some folks here, especially in the South, "Are you saved?" is actually thought to be a polite inquiry upon first meeting someone!

Obviously, in the moment you failed, and you are only one step away from living in the streets, socialism becomes attractive, doesn't it? What else is the 700 billion dollar bail out, as applied socialism. Not even Germans would go so far to disturb the market forces, as the USA did the last days.

You only use socialism as an sticker, an insult, but you obviously fail to recognize it, when it hits you right in the face.

Our rich and influential folks love capitalist free enterprise on the way up, when they stand to make money. They love socialism on the way down when they stand to lose it. (I get to keep all my gains, everyone gets to share all my losses.) Their self-serving greed is so transparent I wonder that they are not ashamed of themselves.

But then, I'm just a puke... so much for civil discourse.

 

[fort]

And about which socialism speaks you one?

I will make horror with some here, but it sometimes happened to me to vote for the Communist Party in France. Never the left extrème. Most of the time for the Socialists and only once for J Chirac (right-wing candidate) when it was opposed for a presidential election to a candidate of extrème right.

A vote for a camp, a label, can refer to an ideology, surely. It can refer as much to a socio historical past , with national events, sometimes quite distant from what such or such, elsewhere, in the world, looks like left, right-hand side, communism, facism, islamism, liberalism.

In this respect, transhumanism with good of work in front of him. And could shoulder well of a branch trans ethno historico socio mentalist.

Many for example died in Resistance in France during the second world war, and what could, for example, to remain in the spirits, it is the massive participation of the communists in these movements. And sometimes even of communists having taken, all risks well before their emergence (the red poster/ l'affiche rouge). I believe that it is something which still attaches a small part of the French population to this Party. Beyond a reference to the Marxism, of which much, I suppose are unaware of the contents of thought. Beyond the disastrous example that the Soviet Union under Stalin in gave.

I would like to add for you GregBurch, which appears a little insulated as for the choices which is yours concerning this election in your country.

After having spent a considerable time between February and May 2007 to defend, where I could, in name, Ségolène Royal, in fact, the program whom it introduced with his "team", and while letting slip by many current businesses relating to my own life, my work, for what I considered being one moment crucial of our political life, not in an attitude basically partisane, but considering that a many French did not have a clear vision of the stakes which the choice to be made carried (but which am I to give me such a quality of analysis?), I saw myself, after his defeat disconcerted enough morally .No, I did not take drugs, nor cried, and more not made projects of exile. But it was necessary me to reestablish in the daily, as I suppose many others. Sad history: the popularity of the current president, elected by 53% of the voices, and votes by plebiscite in the first months of its mandate by, at certain times, 60% of French...his popularity fell into a fork 35-40% these last month.

These figures do not make in any way my happiness.

What I observe primarily, it is which what I looked like important in the election of Mrs Royal, with already, and more still with these recent events, moved.

I was not unaware of that we needed its ideas to help to gather Europe and can be to insufflate more the "social" one to it, more "citizenship". But this dash which had can be caused this election would not have, I believe it, to look at the present, not is enough to introduce all the desired change.

We fought a long time here like elsewhere on these questions of immigration. Was Mrs Royal elected that the laws did not have is enough to advance in the consciences, in the judgements, the complexity of the problem. Ostracism had largely remained, in the practices.

In a certain way, the election of the right-hand side, in May 2007, and the practical application by it of its ideas in this respect, and difficulties that it with met, in the facts, on the ground...Controversies that this policy with caused, like the debates which it gave birth to, had almost plui effectiveness to show the complexity of the problem to the eyes of all that if that had been the left which was elected.In a certain way.

Therefore, maybe, an evil for a good. Even if if meanwhile, those which will have undergone the consequences of them are to be felt sorry for.

But I would like to add this.

I was reached in my childhood - I am 59 years old today - of an acute former polyomyélite which left me out of very disponibility of the use of a leg and constrained to carry a orthese for my daily displacements downtown.

I do not know how during certain moments of my life I had to meet this question of my political choices in simplified terms of right-left, but in particular through this organization which one calls here the Sécurité Sociale, installation around the years 1950, and guaranteeing to each one a minimum of assumption of responsibility financial in the event of disease.

It is probably an intimate history with my parents, my family, and its positions taking into consideration orientation, of the social choices made by governments, the policies which followed one another in these years there and afterwards. Therefore, the question, also, of my identity and what I duty considered - and with which as a citizen, when I was solicited in this respect.

It often sometimes happened to me to have to weigh, in my choices, the behaviors, almost in moral terms, this what what I will call the right-hand side, his report with the right and the religion (mostly Catholic) and the left, rather laic (but also Protestant). That I owed them, as an individual in my evolution, in what had been allowed to me as for building my future.This Sécurité Sociale, which made it possible to deal with this expenditure of health, but primarily this orthèse, very expensive, was born I think of a national consensus.

But, in my eyes, for the analysis that I make of it, it results from the popular movements of 1936 and the strong pressure of the parties of left, if I can think that the General de Gaulle - can be because he had to him even a crippled child - contributed.

In fact, this question of the assistance with - to employ a term rather general -
disinherited, never remained to me indifferent.

In my reports with the religious also, the faith. However, if I have a spirituality, it is atheistic.

Arrived at the age which is mine, with this experiment, I would not judge somebody on the generosity or the narrowness of his gifts, the charity of which it makes proof.

If I greet nevertheless the initiatives in this direction.

The gifts are not nothing.

But appear more invaluable to me, this not excluding that, actions in favour of the réduction of the inequalities and the access to the greatest number at the School, employment, the social life in general.

(What returns in my eyes a little null and void this question consisting in questioning what it would be judgements of one or others if S Palin were a man. That I can find equivalent to: and if S Palin were deaf deep. And if S Palin were a Bonobo monkey. Or: and if S Palin were ArriveMFD in Orbiter).

One cannot advance the History more quickly than the conscience of those which do it.

 

[dougkeenan]

But then, I'm just a puke... so much for civil discourse.

Just because someone says the earth is flat doesn't make it true! :lol:

 

[Ghostrider]

Just because someone says the earth is flat doesn't make it true! :lol:

Depends on who that someone is. If it's Q from ST:TNG, consider the Earth flattened.

 

[Usonian]

Just because someone says the earth is flat doesn't make it true! :lol:

I was being ironic, as I am sure you recognize. In fact, I am fantastic, with a deep and wonderful humility being my greatest asset.

-----

It occurs to me that I never addressed the subject of this thread: Would Palin's reviews have been different (worse) if she was a man. I doubt it. Reviews of these debates are too partisan to take seriously.

I do believe, all other things being absolutely equal, if Sarah Palin was a man, she wouldn't have been nominated. Mike Huckabee would have been equally appealing to the conservative Christian base, he would have brought a better resume, and greater poise and panache to interviews and debates. But the ham-handed guys running the Republican campaign actually thought they could secure the Christian base and siphon off Hillary supporters by nominating a fundementalist women... a pretty dim view of what motivates Liberal women voters.

 

[GregBurch]

What "kind of women" is it that you imagine scaring the East Coast Elite? Strong, smart, strident, successful, ruthless women... like Hillary Clinton? Hillary garnered tens of millions of votes, coming close to earning a nomination, and terrifying Fox News.

I think the things that irritate Liberals, on both coasts, about "women like Palin" is that they too are strong, smart, strident, successful and ruthless, but they insist on casting themselves as apron-wearing, cookie-baking, "hockey moms." The hypocracy is irritating. What scares East Coast Elites about Palin is the same thing that scared them about W. Bush: Marginally experienced, faithed-based, lacking intellectual curiousity and in way over their heads.

Elizabeth Dole is one of many conservative women who don't scare Liberals in the way you imagine. Conservative women like Dole "scare" us (i.e. earn our respect) becuse they are smart, capable, impressive, persuasive and very conservative (talk about scary). The Republicans can't nominate someone like that for President because the party base is made up of faith-based intellectual pretenders just like Palin.

... as for hypocrisy, what of Hillary's hilarious adoption of a southern drawl when she's addressing southerners, or her attempts to portray herself as personally familiar with the lives of middle-Americans?

But beyond that lies a very interesting issue in real-world feminism, which is the whole question of "the mommy wars." I am very, very familiar with this, since more than half of our entering classes of starting lawyers are women, but only a tiny fraction of these lawyers, compared with their male peers, stay the course for a long-term career in the law. As one of the main mentors of young lawyers in our firm, I've been on the front lines of this issue over the last ten years especially. The impact that Palin is already having on the public discourse about the issues connected with this phenomenon is HUGE -- men on all points of the political spectrum ignore this at their peril.

I am becoming aware of a tendancy to seek out your posts, Greg. You always present such an interesting challenge to my way of thinking. I imagine that it keeps me sharp (or less dull). But I worry about a "let's all pile on Greg" phenomenon. I hope you don't take it (too) personally.

I appreciate the concern, but it's the story of my life. My political philosophy is so unusual that I find myself at home almost nowhere. I know I've gotten a little testy here on the forum lately, but I attribute that to the crap I went through with Ike, on top of a bunch of other unrelated work-stress, all coming at the same time, while I see the political process in the US continuing to degenerate further with each election cycle.

You are precisely the sort of deep thinker that could never win a Republican nomination for President. I find curious your steadfast support of the anti-intellects who keep getting the Republican nod. What's up with that?

It's a very long story. First, although one would hardly know it from reading the popular press, there are intellectuals behind the politicians in the Republican party -- even today! (I know that must be surprising) -- as there are behind the politicians in the Democratic party. The actual process of constantly running for office that marks the life of a politician in our age has made the idea of any kind of real intellectual being a politician just about impossible. I'll credit that Obama MIGHT qualify for the label in one area (law), but a figure like DP Moynihan in the Democratic Party or Barry Goldwater in the Republican party just wouldn't be possible today -- the job of being a politician is just too all-consuming and the process has narrowed the kinds of personality that can succeed in the process to a much greater extent than was the case even 20 years ago.

But there are plenty of policy wonks behind the politicians on both sides, basically engaged in outsourced thinking for them. I can't really name names in a public forum, but I know some of these people personally, and there are some very impressive minds involved on the part of the Republicans. Again, I know that might come as a surprise, since the popular image of the Republicans as portrayed in the media is as a party made up entirely of monstrous simpletons, speaking in tongues or greedily counting their blood-soaked profits.

Beynond that, though, I know that I personally am disqualified from direct participation in politics in America, because I've been so vocal in expressing so many opinions that don't fit into the straightforward left-right post-New-Deal spectrum of American political ideologies. I was also a little too passionate about living life to its fullest in my more youthful years to be able to have any kind of involvement in the political process, even in a non-elected, appointed position. Can you imagine the confirmation hearing? That would be no favor to a politician who might be foolhardy enough to try to include me in government!

I was being ironic, as I am sure you recognize. In fact, I am fantastic, with a deep and wonderful humility being my greatest asset.

You know, you are.

It occurs to me that I never addressed the subject of this thread: Would Palin's reviews have been different (worse) if she was a man. I doubt it. Reviews of these debates are too partisan to take seriously.

I do believe, all other things being absolutely equal, if Sarah Palin was a man, she wouldn't have been nominated. Mike Huckabee would have been equally appealing to the conservative Christian base, he would have brought a better resume, and greater poise and panache to interviews and debates. But the ham-handed guys running the Republican campaign actually thought they could secure the Christian base and siphon off Hillary supporters by nominating a fundementalist women... a pretty dim view of what motivates Liberal women voters.

Imagine you know someone who has an occasional inside track to what those ham-handed guys are actually thinking. Imagine that it turns out that they were laughing their asses off at the pundits thinking that the Palin nomination was aimed at siphoning off Hillary voters. Imagine, instead, that their secondary motivation was to put someone on the bottom of the GOP ticket who had no more experience than Obama, who is at the top of the Dem ticket, to lure the latter into making attacks on Palin's experience.

I know -- a wild idea; but just imagine it.

Our rich and influential folks love capitalist free enterprise on the way up, when they stand to make money. They love socialism on the way down when they stand to lose it. (I get to keep all my gains, everyone gets to share all my losses.) Their self-serving greed is so transparent I wonder that they are not ashamed of themselves.

But then, I'm just a puke... so much for civil discourse.

Even for a puke :lol:, you might be surprised at how many of those "rich and influential folks" were dead set against the bailout in the form it passed Congress. Even ones whose oxes were being gored in the confidence crisis.

 

[Usonian]

... as for hypocrisy, what of Hillary's hilarious adoption of a southern drawl when she's addressing southerners, or her attempts to portray herself as personally familiar with the lives of middle-Americans?

Touche! Political hypocracy is ambidextrous - equally comfortable on Left and Right. (And did you see the video of Obama bowling?:rofl

I think you may be right about the impossiblity of ever again having an intellectual President. Obama strikes me as clever, literate and cool-headed - about the best product we can expect to survive the 24/7 news cycle. I would be very interested in seeing the Right produce a similar canidate. Huckabee seems to be the nearest thing currently, but his fundamentalism repells me completely.

 

[GregBurch]

Touche! Political hypocracy is ambidextrous - equally comfortable on Left and Right. (And did you see the video of Obama bowling?:rofl

I think you may be right about the impossiblity of ever again having an intellectual President. Obama strikes me as clever, literate and cool-headed - about the best product we can expect to survive the 24/7 news cycle. I would be very interested in seeing the Right produce a similar canidate. Huckabee seems to be the nearest thing currently, but his fundamentalism repells me completely.

Actually, knowing the subject matter of the cases Giuliani handled as a prosecutor, I'd say he may be the most intelligent of all the GOP's current stable of candidates, but his mercurial personality and centrist social policies disqualify him from the party as it is currently constituted.

There are many who hope that a resounding defeat in a month will shatter the devil's bargain the GOP made with the religious right, but I don't hold that hope, myself. Interestingly, the old Goldwater part of the party loathes Huckabee just as much as you do, since he has no rigor in terms of political philosophy, but I think the RR will be stronger than ever after McCain gets whipped, and therefore that Huckabee will go into the 2012 contest as a front-runner.

 

[Usonian]

Even for a puke :lol:, you might be surprised at how many of those "rich and influential folks" were dead set against the bailout in the form it passed Congress. Even ones whose oxes were being gored in the confidence crisis.

I am willing to admit that some of those real fiscal conservatives were more principled than me. My concern this last week has been for my retirement account. I am much more interested in saving my tiny nest-egg, and slim chances of someday retiring in a measure of comfort, than I am in seeing the Wall Street guys slapped down by Adam Smith's invisible hand. If only that hand was less Darwinian and directed by intelligent design and justice...

I am now seriously considering changing my handle to UsoPuke:lol:


-----Posted Added-----

Actually, knowing the subject matter of the cases Giuliani handled as a prosecutor, I'd say he may be the most intelligent of all the GOP's current stable of candidates, but his mercurial personality and centrist social policies disqualify him from the party as it is currently constituted.

If only there really was such an office as "President of 9/11."

He may be smart, but he sure didn't have a clue how to run a Presidential campaign.

There are many who hope that a resounding defeat in a month will shatter the devil's bargain the GOP made with the religious right, but I don't hold that hope, myself. Interestingly, the old Goldwater part of the party loathes Huckabee just as much as you do, since he has no rigor in terms of political philosophy, but I think the RR will be stronger than ever after McCain gets whipped, and therefore that Huckabee will go into the 2012 contest as a front-runner.

Now you are just scaring me .

 

[Andy44]

Funny you don't mention Ron Paul as a Republican Party intellectual, especially since the way he was treated as a leper by the party mainstream proves your point about how there isno room for such people in today's pop politics. A guy like Paul, much as I love him, probably wouldn't make a "great" president. His manner of speaking is too much like your kindly old great uncle/retired college professor, and I personally doubt his ability as an executive to be a bastard enough to make things happen. But there is a role for guys like Paul in the Republican Party, of course, he is an intellectual leader who has reaquainted many Republicans with classical economic theory and provided a counter to the current foreign policy of the Rep. Party, and the movement he started may have influence in the future, especially when the 700 billion chickens come home to roost.

 

[Saturn V]

The bettors may think Obama's got the election locked up, but Gore (and most of America) thought the same thing in 2000.

And on the subject of "experience" which I keep seeing, NONE of the 2008 candidates have the "experience" to lead this nation.

The only way you'll get someone with the "experience" that keeps being touted is to put Carter, Clinton or "old man" Bush back in the White House.

 

[SpaceNut]

Obviously, in the moment you failed, and you are only one step away from living in the streets, socialism becomes attractive, doesn't it? What else is the 700 billion dollar bail out, as applied socialism. Not even Germans would go so far to disturb the market forces, as the USA did the last days.

You only use socialism as an sticker, an insult, but you obviously fail to recognize it, when it hits you right in the face.

No, I don't fail to recognize it, and you're right, the bail out IS a move to socialize America. The US government now has an 80 percent stake in 50 percent of American mortgages. I was not ever, and am still not for the bail out. Fannie, Ginnie and Freddie are all NOT guaranteed by the government, yet our government is moving to guarantee those (bad) investments anyway. I do not support socialism, I think it's bad under any circumstance, and believe in capitalism and the true American Way. The problem is our government meddling in free markets. The problem is the liberal bleeding hearts that forced the government to lower the standards for giving out mortgages so poor people with no money could buy houses. More than anyone else, it's the liberals who support socialism who caused this mess. I don't know what country you're from, or weather it is a socialist country or not. If you are, and you believe in it, fine, but I don't believe in it, and I don't believe it is good for America. What America needs is to leave the markets alone. What America needs is real politicians who are for the betterment of America, and not it's special interests. Not that McCain is any godsend, but at least he isn't a socialist like Obama.

 

[dougkeenan]

I don't know what country you're from, or weather it is a socialist country or not.

Gee, one might think

Location: Wolfsburg<>Berlin

and the German flag

would be two good clues. World! Please don't put all Americans in the same barrel.

 

[Urwumpe]

Please don't put all Americans in the same barrel.

Even if it is a Jack Daniels barrel?

 

[GregBurch]

No, I don't fail to recognize it, and you're right, the bail out IS a move to socialize America. The US government now has an 80 percent stake in 50 percent of American mortgages. I was not ever, and am still not for the bail out. Fannie, Ginnie and Freddie are all NOT guaranteed by the government, yet our government is moving to guarantee those (bad) investments anyway. I do not support socialism, I think it's bad under any circumstance, and believe in capitalism and the true American Way. The problem is our government meddling in free markets. The problem is the liberal bleeding hearts that forced the government to lower the standards for giving out mortgages so poor people with no money could buy houses. More than anyone else, it's the liberals who support socialism who caused this mess. I don't know what country you're from, or weather it is a socialist country or not. If you are, and you believe in it, fine, but I don't believe in it, and I don't believe it is good for America. What America needs is to leave the markets alone. What America needs is real politicians who are for the betterment of America, and not it's special interests. Not that McCain is any godsend, but at least he isn't a socialist like Obama.

Here's the problem with this position. Imagine the economy is a person (you), and the government is a surgeon. You're saying you didn't need surgery. But the cutting started a looong time ago. You may be right that there shouldn't have been any surgery in the first place, but once it starts, there are times when you simply can't get up from the table without dying. All you can do in that situation is try to make sure that the surgeon will do minimal harm, and try to close you up as well as he can, with as little bleeding as possible.

To continue the metaphor, it doesn't help that you've become addicted to drugs prescribed by the doctor, and that those drugs helped to create the problem for which you're now undergoing surgery. You may have a very bad, sick relationship with this doctor now, and maybe you should tell yourself that, once this surgery is over, you're going to do your best to get off the drugs -- that would be a good thing. But the time to end the relationship is not when you've got your chest cranked open and the your arteries splayed out all over the operating table ...

... back on topic ...

cruising the news this morning, I come across this video of Letterman's interaction with one of his guests, apparently one of the news anchors on one of the old networks:

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=e4kUZuSUnz

Does this make Obama supporters cringe?

 

[Usonian]

What America needs is to leave the markets alone.

This was precisely the situation up until 1929, and it was Hoover's first instinct in responding to the Crash. The cycles of economic euphoria and subsequent crashes grew progressively bigger through the 19th and early 20th centuries as the overall economy grew. By 1929 the growing repercussions of "markets left alone" were intolerable - dangerous to civil order and individual freedom. Government regulation has now stablized the markets for so long that essentially no American alive today has seen a bank run or widespread panic.

To employ Greg's medical anology, unfettered free markets are the equivalent of medicine without any anesthetics, surgery and anitbiotics - just let the body's own healing powers fix itself.

---

Your "blame the poor" analysis of the credit crisis is absurd. There are always two parties to a loan - the borrow and the lender. The lender has the money and therefor has all the power to set the terms of the transaction. In the current situation, lenders knowingly made foolish loans, with the intention of bundling them into security packages for sell to other dupes before the original loans went bad. As long as the real estate market continued to expand, those bundled loans could be resold, at a profit, several times over in what amounts to pyramid scheme.

It is true that lots of people borrowed more money than they should have, or foolishly entered into adjustable rate mortgages as rates were bottoming out. Many of those borrowers were not "poor," but rather quite wealthy speculators ("house flippers") who expected the real estate bubble to keep expanding forever. But whether the borrowers were rich or poor they didn't get those loans simply by asking for them - banks offered them. The banks, unlike naive and fooling individuals, could reasonably be expected to know what they were doing. The lenders must bear the majority of the blame for the current mess.

Then again, the lenders can share some of the blame. In the modern scheme of things, there is a third party to a loan - the law. Through the law, governments are supposed to constrain lenders from predatory practices, ensure bank deposits and stablize the system with the economic equivilents of anesthetics and antibiotics. Starting with the Reagan Revolution, it seems that the government - the economic doctor - has been neglecting his patients, and busying himself playing grab-ass with the nurses.

 

[GregBurch]

This was precisely the situation up until 1929, and it was Hoover's first instinct in responding to the Crash. The cycles of economic euphoria and subsequent crashes grew progressively bigger through the 19th and early 20th centuries as the overall economy grew. By 1929 the growing repercussions of "markets left alone" were intolerable - dangerous to civil order and individual freedom. Government regulation has now stablized the markets for so long that essentially no American alive today has seen a bank run or widespread panic.

To employ Greg's medical anology, unfettered free markets are the equivalent of medicine without any anesthetics, surgery and anitbiotics - just let the body's own healing powers fix itself.

With more time, I'd come down on this like a million-pound sh*thammer. As it is, I'll just say a couple of things. First, you've done a very good job of reciting the history of the Great Depression you've been taught. But it's not true. Both the immediate and deep causes of the 1929 crash were far more rooted in the rising protectionism of the preceding decade and the screwed-up economics of the Treaty of Versailles. Only the very last step in the process was a function of "free markets" -- i.e. the runs on the banks once it was clear that the game was well and truly up. A secondary element of the specific issue of the stock market crash was margin buying, but that would have worked itself out if left alone.

If you want a far, far better analogy than 1929 to the current situation, the "Panic of 1873" is much closer:

http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=477k3d8mh2wmtpc4b6h07p4hy9z83x18

Jumping from "credit crisis" to "unfettered capitalism is bad" is just as simplistic as the caricature of Palin, BTW as a knuckle-dragging moron. Satisfying, but essentially BS.

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, i think the parallel to all economic crashes in the last two centuries, had been trade with non-existing goods. You can make a lot of money, when you can sell things, you don't own and which don't need to exist. And even more money, when you can sell more products from the factory, than really got bought by customers. The problem is, that in a unregulated market, you can't tell, if the product you buy physically exists or not. Or if the buyer really buys it, or intends to sell it immediately further away, until your products are found traveling around the oceans.

Of course, you can claim that a unregulated market would finally heal itself. But the crashes remain. It is better to let the markets crash a little often, as waiting for the final crash. So in this context, it is important to crash the market in a controlled way. Europe currently tries that inside it's own realm of influence, even if that means problems.

 

[joeybigO]

funny thought: No journalist has brought up the use of drugs. I HOPE that the media got this after they went after Bush with his past. For him to come out publicly about his use of ilicit drugs gave hope to those who have a police record and other items in their past. The key for me is honesty. If you honestly own up to the past and you say the right BS then you will garner the vote of the people.

In this day and age we have forgotten the word responsibility. If we own up that we have created landmines for our children then we can overcome the god awful past. If Fannie Mae and the others admit to fault then I would have no problems bailing them out. But OTOH if they take no responsibility for their actions, more importantly their predatory lending practices, then we wont move forward. Take responsibility for this country and they will garner my vote.