Oh agreed heartily. There's gonna be a Lid Dem and Tory blood bath if the UK keeps struggling.
Germany really is in an interesting position. The more lousy Europe gets the better it is for Germany economically unless they either are asked to support significant bailouts or if the Eurozone collapses. If the former happens they essentially are handed the bill for the massive free market they've been enjoying all this time. If the latter happens then they'll loose their free maket and there's could be a massive wave of unemployment in Germany. So the cold blooded German goal would be to provide the minimum amount of bailouts and allow the minimum amount of inflation necessary to keep the Eurozone intact.
And yes, Greece was a massive outlier and personally I have very little sympathy for them. My heart bleeds for Ireland, on the other hand, they didn't deserve what they got. If I were the Irish polity there'd be bankers and politicians hanging by their toes from every lamp post in Dublin.
Certainly the kind of austerity that, say, Paul Ryan has been espousing is definitely on the run in Europe and especially in Britain and Ireland where they appear to be descending deep deep deep into an austerity sink. Austerity of course impedes economic growth which leads to lower government revenues which in turn leads to bigger budget deficits which leads to more austerity which leads to more economic impairment; a vicious cycle.
But one thing that should be emphasized is that while austerity right now of the kind that Europe has done is suffering considerable discrediting that doesn’t mean that budgetary discipline in general is discredited. The ideal solution of course is a mixed method; deficit spending in the short term coupled with reforms that promise to bring spending down in the long term. Entitlement reform and tax reform in the US, for instance, if done right would be just what the doctor ordered by allowing deficit spending in the near future while reassuring lenders and bond markets that the country isn’t going to descend down the Greek.
Alas the politics end a painful sword of Damocles issue as well. Squirmy politicians being what they are; the near term deficit spending comes easy but the hard decisions on long term reforms are very hard to get done. On top of that incumbent politicians in bad economies are already terrified of being fired (and bad economies do lead to blind anti-incumbent fever) which makes them even more risk averse. Politically of course the Canadian method offers the best means of proceeding: classic Keynes; cut the spending and raise taxes while the economy is on a strong rebound. Unfortunately politicians being the squirmy fellows they are the historical example has been that tax cutters and spending hikers will outbid deficit hawks in good times and the can gets kicked again.
Tom, Harper has done a smaller version of what Obama did for the most part. Martin handed government over to a Harper led minority with the economy on a distinct slow down. Harper has run up government debt and generally managed the recession. If he didn't have a Conservative label before his name right wingers would have little trouble finding things to indict him for. Both Obama and Harper even ran up spending impressively on non-recession related expenses Obama on healthcare (conservaticves assert overpaying on healthcare) and Harper on overpaying for jets that the country doesn't need.
I dare say you can lay much of that at the feet of the filibuster Tom. But also of course because in Canada the politicians still behave like managers of the public fisc first and idealists second (and yes that's a blanket indictment of both sides though of course I do think currently the right wing side is a touch more intransigent).
Don't go trying to use whatever you use to tweak your inlaws to tweak me Jaybird me lad. I give credit where it's due to both liberals and conservatives: the old Mulrooney conservatives (for raising taxes) and also the liberals (for cutting spending). But it's been mostly under Harpers Bush lite administration that the budget has plummetted back into deficits (he picked up the reins during economic slow times mind). But he's been quite a borrow and spender along the lines of the Bush model. Very intent on buying military jets too, Canada does have to worry about the Greenland Menace I suppose. Their seagulls could overwhelm our front at any moment and Canada could lose Labrador!
I think you'd need to read a lot more about Canadian politics to be able to say Harpers Conservative admin has "kept Canada out of the fiscal soup" Tom. Harper was born on second, thought he hit a double and then proceeded to steal first base.
I kindof agree with you Elias regarding BlaiseP. What we have at the moment is your proposal (the Draft) which we know how to implement but we know will be riddled with loopholes for the affluent and even modestly well connected (thus making the draft in essense the epitome of regressive policies); BlaiseP's preference (a war tax) which would likely be more progressive and would actually bite the plump behinds of those in power but which we don't know how to really put into law and of course the status quos which generally sucks.
And I agree with your principal quite emphatically. My question is entirely a matter of execution. We agree the government should be forced to raise taxes to pay for any wars they choose to indulge in. The twenty four hundred dollar question is how would one go about forcing this behavior to occur when history suggests that politicians are strongly inclined (and incented) not to.
And a good point on Hillary by the way. I've always thought she triangulated herself out of the job with that move. But Dems over-learning lessons of the past has sortof been the theme of our current crop.
Okay I have heard of Appropriations... but my meager historical understanding is that when the war drums started beating the doves grabbed their ankles and prayed that if they let the hawks have their war that at least a few of the doves could keep their elected positions.
I like the article Blaise and generally agree. I'm a little vague on the actual nuts and bolts of what a mechanism to enforce war funding through taxation would look like. It's too sweeping for a law (a future congress could just repeal or ignore it), but it's too complicated for a constitutional ammendment.
The only way I see it happening is if it became a sortof ingrained ethos in the electorate and in the political culture. But an electorate and political culture that did that would likely be disinclined to indulge in pointless wars in the first place.
It's somewhat moot since the odds of approval are somewhere between Godzilla invading New York and Betty White flapping her arms and flying to the moon.
Frankly is there a bigger waste of political time in this country than trying to get a constitutional ammendment enacted?
I think it's a criticism of Sully using the "first they came for me" line with regards to the subject of gay marriage. Considering that the Sullivan post in question was penend in 2006 I'm confused why it'd be brought up now?
Morat20, you're leaving out Obama's side of this. The shine is off the Hope&Change schtick. He will never be able to campaign on sparkles and rainbows again. He has a record and it's the record of a (exceptionally) cautious moderate center lefty. There're serious questions as to whether he'll be able to turn out the youth vote like he did in 2008 and also whether the Dem base in general will muster like they did in 2008 with the rancid taste of W on their collective tongues.
Personally it's so fluid right now that I really just watch gas prices and unemployment and leave it at that. Everything else isn't going to gel until later in the year.
We will work something out. Hmm perhaps something in early August. Most of the blood sucking black clouds are cleared out by August except on exceptionally wet years.
My own personal saying: "God consigned Lucifer to Hell because not even Lucifers' crimes were bad enough to warrant being consigned to Nova Scotia in June."
The basic gist of libertarianism is that by emphasizing property rights and government restraint people are helped more than they are by untrammeled regulation and government intervention done in the name of "helping people".
In my opinion while this is not exactly provable (at least until the advent of a libertopia) as a governing philosophy it does function extremely well as a powerful criticism of any given liberal project and one that should be applied with as much clear eyed serious consideration as possible when appraising such propositions.
Personally I think that if liberals in America could cultivate a vibrant liberaltarian wing it would do both liberals and the country as a whole an enormous amount of good.
My mother in Nova Scotia owns a modest little yacht. If the opportunity presents itself you can be certain I shall be extending an invitation (but only in the autumn or late summer in Nova Scotia mind: I like you too much to bring you to the wretched place in any other season). Or maybe we'll both find some spare time and go work on the Mon Tiki.
I'm blushing James, thank you. You mustn't have read me much when I'm talking about conservative behavior. I'm hyperbolic and uncharitable to the extreme.
On another note I'm sorry but I can't accept your very kind off for a boundary waters trip. My husband not only has some plans for us during the end of that month but also looked at me like I'd sprouted an extra head and started drinking lager when I suggested canooing and camping.
But sometime when I have ample free time I hope to return the favor. I hope your trip is a blast!
I've always thought that, in America in particular, there's an amusing contrast in that liberals (especially mainstream or party liberals) generally either agree with libertarians or have conceded to the libertarian positions (and just won't admit it, see most of economics) but use libertarian unfriendly language. Meanwhile conservatives use (and frankly have co-opted) libertarian language and coat themselves in libertarian speak very heavily but are fundamentally fundamentally much less in agreement with libertarian positions. Wierd.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Austerity On The Run”
Oh agreed heartily. There's gonna be a Lid Dem and Tory blood bath if the UK keeps struggling.
Germany really is in an interesting position. The more lousy Europe gets the better it is for Germany economically unless they either are asked to support significant bailouts or if the Eurozone collapses. If the former happens they essentially are handed the bill for the massive free market they've been enjoying all this time. If the latter happens then they'll loose their free maket and there's could be a massive wave of unemployment in Germany. So the cold blooded German goal would be to provide the minimum amount of bailouts and allow the minimum amount of inflation necessary to keep the Eurozone intact.
And yes, Greece was a massive outlier and personally I have very little sympathy for them. My heart bleeds for Ireland, on the other hand, they didn't deserve what they got. If I were the Irish polity there'd be bankers and politicians hanging by their toes from every lamp post in Dublin.
"
Certainly the kind of austerity that, say, Paul Ryan has been espousing is definitely on the run in Europe and especially in Britain and Ireland where they appear to be descending deep deep deep into an austerity sink. Austerity of course impedes economic growth which leads to lower government revenues which in turn leads to bigger budget deficits which leads to more austerity which leads to more economic impairment; a vicious cycle.
But one thing that should be emphasized is that while austerity right now of the kind that Europe has done is suffering considerable discrediting that doesn’t mean that budgetary discipline in general is discredited. The ideal solution of course is a mixed method; deficit spending in the short term coupled with reforms that promise to bring spending down in the long term. Entitlement reform and tax reform in the US, for instance, if done right would be just what the doctor ordered by allowing deficit spending in the near future while reassuring lenders and bond markets that the country isn’t going to descend down the Greek.
Alas the politics end a painful sword of Damocles issue as well. Squirmy politicians being what they are; the near term deficit spending comes easy but the hard decisions on long term reforms are very hard to get done. On top of that incumbent politicians in bad economies are already terrified of being fired (and bad economies do lead to blind anti-incumbent fever) which makes them even more risk averse. Politically of course the Canadian method offers the best means of proceeding: classic Keynes; cut the spending and raise taxes while the economy is on a strong rebound. Unfortunately politicians being the squirmy fellows they are the historical example has been that tax cutters and spending hikers will outbid deficit hawks in good times and the can gets kicked again.
On “Testing ideology”
Tom, Harper has done a smaller version of what Obama did for the most part. Martin handed government over to a Harper led minority with the economy on a distinct slow down. Harper has run up government debt and generally managed the recession. If he didn't have a Conservative label before his name right wingers would have little trouble finding things to indict him for. Both Obama and Harper even ran up spending impressively on non-recession related expenses Obama on healthcare (conservaticves assert overpaying on healthcare) and Harper on overpaying for jets that the country doesn't need.
"
I dare say you can lay much of that at the feet of the filibuster Tom. But also of course because in Canada the politicians still behave like managers of the public fisc first and idealists second (and yes that's a blanket indictment of both sides though of course I do think currently the right wing side is a touch more intransigent).
"
They'd probably drag you in front of one of Canada's human rights gestapo comittees.
"
Don't go trying to use whatever you use to tweak your inlaws to tweak me Jaybird me lad. I give credit where it's due to both liberals and conservatives: the old Mulrooney conservatives (for raising taxes) and also the liberals (for cutting spending). But it's been mostly under Harpers Bush lite administration that the budget has plummetted back into deficits (he picked up the reins during economic slow times mind). But he's been quite a borrow and spender along the lines of the Bush model. Very intent on buying military jets too, Canada does have to worry about the Greenland Menace I suppose. Their seagulls could overwhelm our front at any moment and Canada could lose Labrador!
"
I think you'd need to read a lot more about Canadian politics to be able to say Harpers Conservative admin has "kept Canada out of the fiscal soup" Tom. Harper was born on second, thought he hit a double and then proceeded to steal first base.
On “Should The US Bring Back The Draft?”
I kindof agree with you Elias regarding BlaiseP. What we have at the moment is your proposal (the Draft) which we know how to implement but we know will be riddled with loopholes for the affluent and even modestly well connected (thus making the draft in essense the epitome of regressive policies); BlaiseP's preference (a war tax) which would likely be more progressive and would actually bite the plump behinds of those in power but which we don't know how to really put into law and of course the status quos which generally sucks.
On “Does America Need a Draft? Hell No.”
And I agree with your principal quite emphatically. My question is entirely a matter of execution. We agree the government should be forced to raise taxes to pay for any wars they choose to indulge in. The twenty four hundred dollar question is how would one go about forcing this behavior to occur when history suggests that politicians are strongly inclined (and incented) not to.
And a good point on Hillary by the way. I've always thought she triangulated herself out of the job with that move. But Dems over-learning lessons of the past has sortof been the theme of our current crop.
"
Okay I have heard of Appropriations... but my meager historical understanding is that when the war drums started beating the doves grabbed their ankles and prayed that if they let the hawks have their war that at least a few of the doves could keep their elected positions.
"
I like the article Blaise and generally agree. I'm a little vague on the actual nuts and bolts of what a mechanism to enforce war funding through taxation would look like. It's too sweeping for a law (a future congress could just repeal or ignore it), but it's too complicated for a constitutional ammendment.
The only way I see it happening is if it became a sortof ingrained ethos in the electorate and in the political culture. But an electorate and political culture that did that would likely be disinclined to indulge in pointless wars in the first place.
On “Leaguefest 2012: Rooms Going Fast”
Goddamn it, I was pained enough missing seeing Jaybird but now I'm missing you too? The agony, it burns! The goggles do nothing!
On “Wardsmith’s WTO Blanket Party”
Yeowtch.
On “It Seems Appropriate…”
It's somewhat moot since the odds of approval are somewhere between Godzilla invading New York and Betty White flapping her arms and flying to the moon.
Frankly is there a bigger waste of political time in this country than trying to get a constitutional ammendment enacted?
On “The Henchman’s Diary”
Hysterical!
On “It’s not a war, and I am not a warrior.”
Well outsiders aren't free to ignore it if it's used as a basis on which to set secular government policy Tom.
"
Ah okay thanks Rufus!
"
I think it's a criticism of Sully using the "first they came for me" line with regards to the subject of gay marriage. Considering that the Sullivan post in question was penend in 2006 I'm confused why it'd be brought up now?
On “It’s The Base, Stupid”
Morat20, you're leaving out Obama's side of this. The shine is off the Hope&Change schtick. He will never be able to campaign on sparkles and rainbows again. He has a record and it's the record of a (exceptionally) cautious moderate center lefty. There're serious questions as to whether he'll be able to turn out the youth vote like he did in 2008 and also whether the Dem base in general will muster like they did in 2008 with the rancid taste of W on their collective tongues.
Personally it's so fluid right now that I really just watch gas prices and unemployment and leave it at that. Everything else isn't going to gel until later in the year.
On “Tax Credits and Subsidies”
We will work something out. Hmm perhaps something in early August. Most of the blood sucking black clouds are cleared out by August except on exceptionally wet years.
My own personal saying: "God consigned Lucifer to Hell because not even Lucifers' crimes were bad enough to warrant being consigned to Nova Scotia in June."
"
The basic gist of libertarianism is that by emphasizing property rights and government restraint people are helped more than they are by untrammeled regulation and government intervention done in the name of "helping people".
In my opinion while this is not exactly provable (at least until the advent of a libertopia) as a governing philosophy it does function extremely well as a powerful criticism of any given liberal project and one that should be applied with as much clear eyed serious consideration as possible when appraising such propositions.
Personally I think that if liberals in America could cultivate a vibrant liberaltarian wing it would do both liberals and the country as a whole an enormous amount of good.
.
"
My mother in Nova Scotia owns a modest little yacht. If the opportunity presents itself you can be certain I shall be extending an invitation (but only in the autumn or late summer in Nova Scotia mind: I like you too much to bring you to the wretched place in any other season). Or maybe we'll both find some spare time and go work on the Mon Tiki.
On “It’s not a war, and I am not a warrior.”
I ... don't think I get the gist of this at all?
On “Tax Credits and Subsidies”
I'm blushing James, thank you. You mustn't have read me much when I'm talking about conservative behavior. I'm hyperbolic and uncharitable to the extreme.
On another note I'm sorry but I can't accept your very kind off for a boundary waters trip. My husband not only has some plans for us during the end of that month but also looked at me like I'd sprouted an extra head and started drinking lager when I suggested canooing and camping.
But sometime when I have ample free time I hope to return the favor. I hope your trip is a blast!
"
I've always thought that, in America in particular, there's an amusing contrast in that liberals (especially mainstream or party liberals) generally either agree with libertarians or have conceded to the libertarian positions (and just won't admit it, see most of economics) but use libertarian unfriendly language. Meanwhile conservatives use (and frankly have co-opted) libertarian language and coat themselves in libertarian speak very heavily but are fundamentally fundamentally much less in agreement with libertarian positions. Wierd.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.