The Oil Drum | DrumBeat: September 23, 2008

314 comments on DrumBeat: September 23, 2008

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

Leanan on September 23, 2008 - 10:55am

No, the problem with my Republican split is "imperial overreach." They screwed up. Newt got his chance for small government, and it was a disaster. That basically killed the small government faction in the GOP, aside from lip service.

Two political parties really isn't enough to reflect the entire spectrum of US politics, but that's what we're stuck with, because of the structure of our government. It's not changing unless the constitution changes.

I am plecked off about this bailout, but not at all surprised. I think Tainter is right. We can expect ever bigger and more intrusive government as resources get scarcer.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Odysseus on September 23, 2008 - 12:29pm

"imperial overreach" is exactly right. Republicans give lip service only to smaller government. Both Reagan and Bush are spend! Spend! Spend! leaders who try to appease the masses with more bread and circuses. I really wish we could give the Libertarian approach a try - but I think it's too late now. Sadly I agree it looks like more intrusive and bigger government.

Does anyone actually think that government will do a better job of running Freddie and Fannie or the rest of our growing portfolio of zombie companies?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

robert2734 on September 23, 2008 - 12:49pm

Better job running Fannie and Freddie than who? The guys who turned those companies into zombies?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

black_gold on September 23, 2008 - 10:35pm

I don't think they could of done worse, at least they wouldn't have split the mortgages into tranches and sold them as bonds after bribing an underwriter to rate them all "AAA". Even the crooks in the government aren't that creative, it takes Wall St. to turn high finance into felonies.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

slinky on September 24, 2008 - 9:43am

Screw the libertarian approach. That's the approach that has been used with the financial market. That's why we are where we are now. Libertarian? C'mon. That means doing away with plant managers, ceos, oversight, auditing, traffic rules. Jeezus, you gotta have rules, and you gotta have enforcement of those rules, which require people to occupy a position of responsibility to ensure proper order in society are upheld. BUT, those folks must be held to account, and that's our problem, WE are not holding these people on wall street to account. Email you congress critters and tell them that you will do everything in your power to vote them out next term. Don't bother with telling them you're pissed. They could care less. At least I have Marcy Kaptur. She's the only one standing up to this FUBAR. Libertarianism is an excuse to screw yer neighbor.

Jeff

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Prodigal Son on September 23, 2008 - 12:51pm

Yup - militarism and imperialism is an attempt by those at the top to keep the circus going as long as possible. As the news article up above points out - the US military is seeing its future as a 'resource acquisition and protection' business.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jokuhl on September 23, 2008 - 12:52pm

"Two political parties really isn't enough to reflect the entire spectrum of US politics.."

You didn't happen to catch the NPR interview with Amedinejad this morning did you? He was being grilled about restrictiveness in their democratic process, and he replied 'Well we have more freedom than you.. at least we have Eight Candidates to your Two!' At which point the NPR Interviewer sidelined it by saying we'd talk about American politics some other time..

Snap!

Bob

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

GregTX on September 23, 2008 - 1:56pm

Question, if 7 of the candidates have a Ralph Naderesque chance of winning the presidency vs. the other candidate, does it matter how many candidates you have? Also, Mr. Amedinejad is incorrect in any case. There are atleast 5 candidates for president (Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, Chuck Baldwin, Barack Obama, and John McCain). Just because nobody pays attention to them doesn't mean they aren't running.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jokuhl on September 24, 2008 - 6:37am

Yes, it matters. The two main parties control the entire discourse, which would be challenged with uncomfortable ideas by the 'upstarts' if inclusive debates were part of the program. Then there would be both exposure for the Ignored candidates, and either turnovers or changes in policy-position by the front runners. As it stands the system is stuck because there is no information flow, no active debate of important issues.. just Blah, Blah.

I don't doubt that Ahmedinejad made or makes some factual errors, but his point was clear enough, especially when it's the pot calling the kettle black, as our particular kettle (USA) paints itself as whiter than white at every opportunity.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

slinky on September 24, 2008 - 9:49am

Total agreement Bob.

Jeff

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

xeroid on September 23, 2008 - 12:54pm

Please can somebody tell me why raising the price at the pump is illegal 'gouging', while raising the spot price of West Texas Intermediate isn't? Free markets? I don't think so!

Viewed from outside the USA it isn't clear to me why anybody would want to continue to invest in a country where the rules change adversely for investors without warning or consultation.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Apuleius on September 23, 2008 - 10:37pm

Because our elected officials decided to cater to the gibbering idiot community.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

musashi on September 23, 2008 - 2:54pm

Imperial overreach is driven by AIPAC and they own both parties, except the most conservative parts of one party and the most liberal of the other.

That's why Paul and Kucinich get marginalized by the media.

While I would never vote for Kucinich, if he were voted in one would get on with life. It wouldn't be utterly unacceptable like the current character.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Aniya on September 23, 2008 - 8:36pm

Hi Mus,

re: "While I would never vote for Kucinich..."

Could you possibly expand upon this?

i.e., how come?

Just curious.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

musashi on September 23, 2008 - 9:23pm

Because I'm what many would call a paleo conservative, opposite end of the spectrum.

There is always some respect for an opponent that states his position clearly and honestly. Sometimes one can negotiate a deal with them.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

ccpo on September 23, 2008 - 11:24pm

Can you name any other candidate that was:

- a strong Constitutionalist

- willing to hold the scumbags in Washington accountable

- wants to end the occupation

- is PO aware

- is AGW aware

- has a true history of standing against the crowd and being right

- speaks openly about what we face

Kucinich not getting elected president now is one of the top five stupidest choices the US electorate has ever made. The other four are anything having to do with BuCheney.

Cheers

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

710 on September 23, 2008 - 7:19pm

"Imperial overreach". What ever happened to the good old days when it was just a "lust for power"? As the late, great George Carlin might note, we moved from four syllables to seven, and have buried the human behavior behind jargon.

But, oh, to be in the halcyon days when we could refer to it in a single syllable, "greed". Simpler, happier times.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.