For all the theatrical outrage over the last several weeks about President Obama’s massively expensive budget, one might have thought its passage would have been more vehemently contested than turned out to be the case. But no. In “one of the least tough budget days” according to the the Republican minority leader, it glided with ease through both houses of Congress…
Thankfully for the Democrats, the howling loons of Wingnuttia were quite easily distracted by other matters of great importance.
41 Comments
April 3, 2009 at 2:58 am
thanks for helpful post
April 3, 2009 at 6:12 am
And once again, only Ron Paul is the voice of reason.
Mike
April 3, 2009 at 6:12 am
Damn you RT! You’re link to Malkin had me linking through to their paranoia and general hysteria over “Hussen” Obama.
From what I gather; Obama should’ve been over there giving the Saudi Prince the finger and England was ready to declare war over Obama’s gift of an iPod.
I blame the incestuous nature of 26%ers that result in such genetic inadequacies as to produce such a high level of dementia.
April 3, 2009 at 6:19 am
Please stop with the singing of Ron Paul “reasonableness”. The guy is a Libertarian in the constitutional literalist vein and a general crank. If he ever were elected president — a scenario only envisioned with an airline loaded with most Dem and Repub candidates crashing in to a train with the remaining candidates — he would accomplish absolutely zero once the general populous saw what he would propose.
April 3, 2009 at 6:24 am
C-C: “dementia” is the perfect word for it.
I watched that “deep bow” video the wingnuts are freaking out over and was amazed at how trivial it was.
April 3, 2009 at 6:40 am
The guy is a Libertarian in the constitutional literalist vein and a general crank.
He’s a least internally consistent though. Incoherence is what bothers me most about ideologues, since you have their innumerable contradictions in mind whenever you are forced to listen to them. It’s like catching cognitive dissonance.
April 3, 2009 at 6:58 am
Man. The world must be coming to an end, because I sort of agree with counter-coulter..
While Ron Paul makes some very valid points.. and there are aspects of libertarianism that I think we would do well to emulate – as a broad basis for a government, it is completely inadequate.
There are reasons for government intervention in our lives that even this conservative supports – witness the Canadian banking situation relative to our U.S. counterparts.. universal health care is, in my opinion, absolutely necessary for a modern, functioning country..
But.. that being said – the massive spending spree undertaken by the U.S., imho, is only going to deepen their financial problems.
April 3, 2009 at 7:15 am
But.. that being said – the massive spending spree undertaken by the U.S., imho, is only going to deepen their financial problems.
Not if you have an unlimited line of credit.
It’s too early to tell whether any of this will make a difference. I suspect it won’t, so long as the establishment refuses to examine critically the assumptions around economic growth.
April 3, 2009 at 7:27 am
Well, we’d better hope that it doesn’t “deepen their financial problems” as you fear, because their problems are our problems…
April 3, 2009 at 7:45 am
because their problems are our problems…
Well, maybe we need a crisis to resolve the problem that should have been resolved decades ago.
Why should their problems ever be our problems? It’s not like we didn’t warn them.
April 3, 2009 at 8:03 am
Maybe this answers your question.
April 3, 2009 at 8:13 am
It’s not a complaint with trade that I’m having…the US is our natural market and it makes eminent sense for us to have a strong trading relationship with the US. It’s everything else that has come with it that is the problem.
I just can’t be optimistic about a return to economic growth when it’s not just meaningless, but self-destructive.
April 3, 2009 at 8:21 am
Well C-C and Rob have merely proved my point – as crazy as you might think Ron Paul is, his economic points that he made before the House are still more intelligent than anyone else.
That’s less of a slight on Paul as it is on the rest of Congress – that HE is the voice of economic reason.
I will respectfully disagree on the rest of you on libertarianism and politically I’m not a Ron Paul fan or supporter, but economically he makes the most sense.
April 3, 2009 at 9:09 am
Mike — Has the “Austrian School” of economic thinking ever be put into practice or is it more just an academic theory? Ditto with Libertarianism. Has it ever been implemented as a form of government in the modern era (20th century to present as a rough timeframe)? I’m having a hard time trying to think of any examples of either…
April 3, 2009 at 9:14 am
Ti-Guy — Why do you think economic growth (I’m assuming you’re using the conventional interpretation of that expression here; i.e., output measured as GDP, etc.) is “self-destructive”?
April 3, 2009 at 10:27 am
Why do you think economic growth (I’m assuming you’re using the conventional interpretation of that expression here; i.e., output measured as GDP, etc.) is “self-destructive”?
Well, to make a long story short, why is obesity bad for you?
I don’t even want to talk about GDP; I don’t even trust that it’s even being reported truthfully anymore, never mind the argument I have with it being meaningful measure of anything to do with prosperity, which is what we’re to assume it does. Economics regularly talk about GDP per capita and “standard of living” as if they mean the same thing.
But to stay focused, it’s the reluctance to examine growth (as opposed to increased sophistication or evolution) in preference to just talking about “growth” all the time.
As a an aside, economic growth means something very different to people and societies with very little than it does to people and societies whose needs, wants and most desires have been largely met since the 1950’s, barring pockets of entrenched poverty.
April 3, 2009 at 10:59 am
I think some definition of terms is probably needed to have a reasonable discussion about the matter, but I’m not quite sure how modest growth of GDP (say 1-3%) can be equated with obesity.
In fact, the two things are actually quite contradictory. GDP is a statistical representation (albeit a generalized and somewhat arbitrary one) of productive output and economic activity, whereas obesity is the accumulation of useless fat that results from gratuitous overindulgence and prolonged exertion of minimal effort.
That may be a reasonable criticism of the more egregious aspects of Western culture but surely can’t be applied across the board to reject it out of hand…
Regarding your aside (which is actually the most salient point, imho) about the different ways “growth” is perceived and appreciated around the world, doesn’t this run into a fundamental Chicken v. Egg conundrum at some point?
April 3, 2009 at 11:35 am
That may be a reasonable criticism of the more egregious aspects of Western culture but surely can’t be applied across the board to reject it out of hand…
I’m not rejecting anything out of hand. I’m criticising the conflation of “growth” with other meaningful concepts that our economic activities are probably fundamentally more pre-occupied with, besides the basic necessities of life without which, one dies: enhanced quality of life, better consumer products (and not just more choice), manageable debt, healthier lifestyles, better-educated people, safer communities etc. which a simple statistic like GDP doesn’t capture.
April 3, 2009 at 11:51 am
Granted. And thanks for articulating it so clearly.
GDP is indeed a rough marker that fails to capture those “meaningful concepts” you pointed to.
It seems however that you’re highly critical of the beneficiary outcomes and cultural manifestations of the economy while being contemptuously dismissive of the productive inputs and industrial efforts involved in the process.
April 3, 2009 at 12:13 pm
It seems however that you’re highly critical of the beneficiary outcomes and cultural manifestations of the economy…
Yes.
…while being contemptuously dismissive of the productive inputs and industrial efforts involved in the process.
I don’t think that’s entirely true. I just don’t spend a lot of time talking about what works because I’m a natural critic.
But mostly, I think modern life is a joke which requires a high degree of credulousness among most people to be remotely bearable. Good thing I’m motivated and energised more by skepticism and doubt than by exuberance and hype.
April 3, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Mike, I suppose you’ve read Ron Paul’s old newsletters warning about the coming “Race Wars”, yet also believe his entirely unbelievable claim that he had no idea what was in the newsletters once he became something resembling a popular figure?
Do I have that about right?
April 3, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Ti-Guy — So, you don’t think my observation about you being critical of the various “self-destructive” outcomes of Capitalism while ignoring its essential means of production is valid because you’re a “natural critic”… Um, okay. Not really an altogether edifying response I have to say from someone “energised more by skepticism and doubt than by exuberance and hype.” Rhetorically pleasing as it sounds, the actual meaning escapes me…
April 3, 2009 at 2:06 pm
So, you don’t think my observation about you being critical of the various “self-destructive” outcomes of Capitalism while ignoring its essential means of production is valid because you’re a “natural critic”
I don’t even know what this topic is about anymore. I don’t even know even know why my ignoring all the wonderful things about capitalism has become an issue at all. The only thing I was talking about was the received wisdom surrounding growth, which you seem to be having some problem with.
Not really an altogether edifying response I have to say from someone “energised more by skepticism and doubt than by exuberance and hype.” Rhetorically pleasing as it sounds, the actual meaning escapes me…
Well, I don’t do credulousness and exuberance. I just don’t find it very interesting. If that weren’t the case, I’d find modern life unbearable, which I don’t. Just mostly silly.
April 3, 2009 at 2:45 pm
I was just attempting to respond to your original comment and more specifically, better understand why you consider conventional assumptions about economic “growth” to be “self destructive” as that’s quite an intriguing concept…
Having stated that you are “energised more by skepticism and doubt than by exuberance and hype”, that you “don’t spend a lot of time talking about what works” , that you evidently “don’t find [modern life] very interesting” and clearly “don’t do credulousness and exuberance”… would it now be possible to formulate something that addresses the original question as to why you think the conventional concept of economic growth is “self destructive”?
I’m genuinely curious to know what the rationale is behind that statement.
April 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Ahhh…limits to growth…sustainability…carrying capacity…closed system…Malthus…2nd Law…critical mass…
April 3, 2009 at 2:59 pm
…exponential…positive feedback…tipping point…
April 3, 2009 at 2:59 pm
…fucked
April 3, 2009 at 3:09 pm
SR — Those are all fine expressions, but just rattled off with an eye-rolling “been-there-done-that” sense of withering contempt, they make a poor substitute for anything remotely informative. How for example do you reconcile “sustainability” with thermodynamic decadence? Or are you suggesting that these concepts are incompatible and mutually exclusive?
And by the way, if the “doomer” vision simply entails the miserly hording gold, silver and other “hard assets” to protect oneself from harm and weather the economic storm without damage, how is that any less selfish and morally vacant than the excess of Wall Street bankers and corporate executives grabbing whatever they can and tucking it away in offshore investment accounts and tax-safe havens…?
April 3, 2009 at 3:44 pm
would it now be possible to formulate something that addresses the original question as to why you think the conventional concept of economic growth is “self destructive”?
A system that simply grows (as opposed to evolving into greater sophistication) exhausts the resources required to sustain it and collapses.
I’m not the one who came up with the theory of zero-growth economics.
April 3, 2009 at 3:44 pm
I think there is a balance – and if Ti-Guy is suggesting that the obsession to greater and greater wealth is a recipe for societal disaster – I think I would agree with him.
Certainly – communism and pure socialism fails because, well, man is by nature lazy and if given the option of working for something or getting it for free – he will always choose “free”.
However – the glorification of wealth and materialism as a new religion, is truly misguided – and, no doubt, has contributed greatly not only to the current economic mess – but perhaps, more importantly to much of the social malaise and unhappiness in modern times.
April 3, 2009 at 4:19 pm
I think there is a balance – and if Ti-Guy is suggesting that the obsession to greater and greater wealth is a recipe for societal disaster
I’ve purposely avoided the term “wealth” because it doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone.
I’m just complaining about the lack of dissent against certain notions we have about growth.
I’m not a socialist. I’m not a libertarian. I don’t actually believe anyone has any solutions except to improve the information a complex system requires to function properly. Which is why I critisise marketing and advertising so much (which I believe is the scourge of the free market, along with the advertiser-provided news media), but Red really doesn’t like that.
April 3, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Ti-Guy — I can appreciate the obvious fact that there are certain limitations preventing infinite growth (as Mr. Ronin will be all too happy to point out… in graphic detail if necessary, with charts, graphs and what not…), and I understand how we might conceivably outstrip our resource base at some remotely distant point in the future, but I fail to see how a modest annual gain in GDP in the meantime is fundamentally unsustainable or necessarily “self-destructive” in principle…
April 3, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Ti-Guy — Which is why I critisise marketing and advertising so much (which I believe is the scourge of the free market, along with the advertiser-provided news media), but Red really doesn’t like that.
Heh. Yeah, I really dislike it to such an extent that my blog features no advertising.
April 4, 2009 at 1:49 am
Red, back now, we missed by ten minutes last night, was off to bed.
Thank you for speaking on behalf of my emotions, i.e. “an eye-rolling ‘been-there-done-that’ sense of withering contempt,” but that was hardly the case. A few, short form bullets will usually cover as much ground as lengthy and wasted verbiage, or not…if the recipient is tapped into those notions. In this day and age, they had better be. If not, there’s not much that anyone can do. We all have the freedom and responsibility to make our own beds. And afterwards, ergo, we get to sleep in them, i.e. the proverbial “banquet of consequences.”
Firstly, progress and growth are ideological threads. Until such time as that is copped to, then any effort to deal with, analyze, etc. those notions leads to dead ends. If one wishes to make the effort to step away from (preferably “out of” would be even better) the ideology, then alternative interpretations of “stuff” become optional. If not, for example, one is left reading/watching/listening to corporate media (economists included) which happen to be the gatekeepers of that very ideology.
Secondly, very few, if any, of the parameters of our social fabric are “incompatible and mutually exclusive.” Interdependency is a notion easily mouthed, especially by Greens, but much more difficult to be grasped, than owned. A realistic and workable union of theory and praxis is a very thorny and time-tested conundrum. As example, you bring to the fore the two seemingly disparate notions of sustainability and thermodynamics. As stated, the isolation is “seeming” i.e. illusory. If a responsible understanding of thermodynamics were employed, i.e. capping/restraining energy flow through, then it stands to reason that the principles, and life styles, of sustainability would be met as a consequence. However, as long as human conduct is conditioned through the ideological spectacles of “growth and prosperity” then the latter options are taken out at the knee-caps, so to speak.
Thirdly, I repeat what I have stated previously, that “doomer” is a label that has been created by the corporate media. Relative motives and agenda are in play. If you wish, you can loop this development into the greater discussion of ideology and who creates it, to what end, and to whose benefit.
Lastly, re “the miserly hording” etc. of your last statement. We make our choices, assume risks, etc. based on our interpretations of what is going on out there in this world. If you wish to denigrate my choices to protect myself and survive as being “miserly” then you make evident that you are barely scratching the surface. Enjoy your bowl of Frito-Lays while blogging from the dumpster next to the local CAP sight, as we have discussed before. Of course it is selfish; I make my bed, not yours. With each passing day this world departs more and more from the comfort of your liberal prognostications and words, words, words minus action, in equal measure, more and more towards my “doomer”, fight or flight survival tactics. There you have it. However, seeing as you asked, here’s a very kewl vid as closing commentary…for now. (As per the vid, “Go back to sleep.”)
April 4, 2009 at 6:56 am
Cool video and great tune.
I know you’re bullish on the hard metals but in my experience they always seem to come up way short of expectations. What’s silver trading at these days? About $16 an oz. isn’t it? Do you seriously expect it to reach $500 an oz.?
Sorry for using the word “doomer” — I employed it kind of facetiously. Maybe “survivalist” would be a better term. But that’s another label that carries with it a lot of baggage.
April 4, 2009 at 7:03 am
What’s the word to describe people whose analysis of a particular situation may be accurate or at least sufficiently researched but whose solutions are impracticable?
April 4, 2009 at 7:08 am
Re “Cool video and great tune.”
Ain’t it though!
Re “Do you seriously expect it to reach $500 an oz.?”
When I went in, with the little that I knew, I was falling back on projections of $150-$200. That ain’t bad in itself. Re the $500 target, this is a whole new area of “silver anarchy” that I’m still learning about. (The left half of my brain tends not to be very active. If I can do my own books I’m doing well.)
Labels are just that. For me, the thing about being a so-called “Doomer” is that I actually see it as a very positive position to take, i.e. “Look at what is, figure it out, and prepare, prepare, prepare.” And anyway, I am honoured to be the Resident Doomer.
…picking up on that tangent. Just look at how drastically things have changed in just the last 1-2 years. At that time, these types of discussions wouldn’t have been happening. I would say there are several million people now who are aware that the Federal Reserve is about as federal as is American Express (to use a tired cliche), and who may be beginning to understand that money is debt. So the meltdown is an educator…all via the Internet. Several posts ago you were giving “soft” strokes to Alex Jones. Things shift. On an historical plane, they shift purty damn fast.
April 4, 2009 at 7:21 am
To go back on topic a bit, I came across this article in The Atlantic which captures some of the reservations a lot of people are having about the solutions being proposed by the American administration to address the financial crisis.
And, remember…this is written some lefty, economically-illiterate hippe, but from the perspective of that bastion of neoliberalism, the IMF.
It’s worth reading to get an understanding of just where political power currently resides and what the consequences are. We don’t tend to hear American authorities described as “oligarchs” but really, is that so outrageous?
April 4, 2009 at 7:22 am
“And, remember…this is written some lefty…” s.b. “this isn’t written…”
April 4, 2009 at 7:36 am
SR — I have to admit that this recession has been something of an educational experience and we’ve all had our eyes opened to various extents about the workings of the economy and the convoluted machinations of our financial systems.
Here’s a tangential question: have you ever seen the film Blast From the Past?
April 4, 2009 at 7:52 am
Red, re “Blast From the Past,” nope. But if Christopher Walken is in it, then it is definitely worth tracking down.