Stop Me Before I Vote Again

I may have mentioned before that my inbox has been getting pounded recently with a steady rain of artillery fire from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, in the form of begging letters over the names of such Big Berthas as Madeleine Albright, Nancy Pelosi, James Carville, and John Kerry. I think my favorite purported to come from the mad bomber above, General Wesley Clark. It was chockablock full of muscular squirrel military rhetoric:

Dear Michael,

In politics, when your opponent attacks your only option is to respond with overwhelming force.

My friends at that DCCC have set a goal of raising one million dollars before the June 30th FEC Deadline to make a show of overwhelming force in response to these unpatriotic attacks on President Obama. Fight back with a matching gift* today.

Will you help stand strong against the right-wing's attacks?

House Democrats are willing to match your dollars with their own money because that's how important it is to show the world how strongly we support our Commander in Chief. The DCCC asked me to review their battle plan for responding to these attacks on President Obama.

They showed me the maps of every targeted Republican district that they plan to hit back hard in.

Yesterday brought a barbaric yawp of triumph:

Dear Michael,

Thanks to you, we didn't just meet our June 30th grassroots fundraising goal - we shattered it by raising an astounding $1.2 million.

So naturally I dropped in to Daily Kos -- that haven for prematurely middle-aged political hobbyists -- to see how this famous victory was being toasted there. To my surprise, I found very little about it. There were a few tepid exhortations to contribute, following the talking points from the DCCC's emails in a half-hearted way. Here's a sample:

The other objection, on the other hand, is entirely an individual decision, and not one that is easily countered.

That is the "the Democrats won't get another dollar from me until they (fill in blank of desperately needed action)" crowd. A crowd that proved pretty irresistable late last year when Joe Lieberman was welcomed back into the Senate fold with a big hug and a cookie.

The sentiment is hard not to understand and appreciate. This would probably be a pretty good spot to remind you that the Republican Party probably cares less about said issue than the Democrats do, but that might be little, if any comfort. So, those of you seeking a campaign finance Conscientious Objector status, consider it granted.

Non-donors, whether by reason of disillusionment or poverty, formed an absolute majority at 57%, which is excellent news. But among the choices given, "individual candidates only" got a plurality of 37%. This suggests that Kosniks still have a thing or two to learn about the relationship of individuals to institutions.

Posted by Michael J. Smith on Friday July 3 01:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Despite the moans and wails that abound today in pwog circles, talk about plans vs. markets doesn't always have to be melodramatic, though Stigelasaurus Rex might not agree. Here's a postively positive note, and it's on the planning side -- hot stuff, and right out of the academy.

By now you all know the great fox of emerging world progressive productivism, Doctor Dani Rodrik. Here he spends about 30 pages showing us well-intended one-world lugs how an aggressive but shrewd global-south country might substitute a neighborly, balanced-trade, parity-forex regime for the east Asian nasty fiddle gimmick -- and still grow with Han-like speed toward the white man's living standard.

And to think -- it's positively Hamiltonian! (Couldn't resist the bust -- never could resist a bust -- but keep reading after the photo):

According to Dani boy, what the Southern states need now is a set of comprehensive national subsidy plans for rapid local industrial transformation.

The idea is simple enough, really: just contrive a relative price shift between domestic and foreign trade goods, and also between domestic trade and non-trade goods; then let the local markets and entrepreneurs do the rest.

This can be pushed to any desired level; you only need to "show me the money" -- "me" being that local entrepreneur, of course -- and watch "me" -- Mister Mister of Bongoville -- work the work and jerk the jerk errr umhh -- for the benefit of the whole nation.

Just where will these lovely catalytic public subsidy funds come from? In Dani's model they come from -- where else -- the policy economist's universal non-distorting can opener, "lump sum taxes".

However, since this is the People's Republic of Southeast Utopia we're talkin' here, why not go for broke? I recommend a universal ground rent tax as the nicest base for the subsidy. As the local currency rises, it touches off a lot boom, and the cycle turns virtuous, eh?

But trust Dani here -- he has a toy general equilibrium model, nicely illustrated toward the end of the piece, to soundly prove it's a lead-pipe cinch.

The acid test in these matters of high economic policy is of course how one answers this one straightforward question: can you fit this gubmint-type "plan" comfortably within the Limited liability Incs' world wide optimal design?

Whaddya think, rangers?

Posted by Owen Paine on Thursday July 2 09:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Vanity Fair features Cousin It Stiglitz -- the thinking econ-con 's choice for prince of lightness. His brilliant punchthrough:

"There used to be a sense of shared values between America and the American-educated elites around the world. The economic crisis has now undermined the credibility of those elites. We have given critics who opposed America’s licentious form of capitalism ample ammunition to preach a broader anti-market philosophy. --. Many countries may conclude not simply that unfettered capitalism, American-style, has failed but that the very concept of a market economy has failed, and is indeed unworkable under any circumstances. Old-style Communism won’t be back, but a variety of forms of excessive market intervention will return."

" -- And these will fail. The poor suffered under market fundamentalism—we had trickle-up economics, not trickle-down economics. But the poor will suffer again under these new regimes, which will not deliver growth. Without growth there cannot be sustainable poverty reduction. There has been no successful economy that has not relied heavily on markets. Poverty feeds disaffection. The inevitable downturns, hard to manage in any case, but especially so by governments brought to power on the basis of rage against American-style capitalism, will lead to more poverty. The consequences for global stability and American security are obvious."

Posted by Owen Paine on Wednesday July 1 11:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)

Juan Cole's blog recently carried an extraordinary carpet-chewing piece by one Mansoor Moaddel, who I presume from his name is a member of the Iranian diaspora:

Iran’s Crisis and the U.S. Option:
Support Mousavi now or fight Ahmadinejad tomorrow

The current civil uprising in Iran reflects not just a protest against a rigged election. Nor is it primarily a symptom of contentions for power or clashes between opposing perspectives on the nature of the Islamic regime. It is, rather, resistance against a political coup, whose engineers plan to impose a Taliban-style Islamic government on Iran....

Ahmadinejad’s deeds are Islamic extremism in action. He has already restricted the freedom of Iranian citizens, expanded men’s authority over women, increased political persecution, undermined the rights of religious and ethnic minorities, and supported terrorism and political adventurism abroad....

At this point, the regime cannot secure its rule without unleashing a reign of terror. And if this coup succeeds, the regime will forge ahead with its expressed plans for nuclear development and support for religious extremism abroad....

The option that is left for the United States is either to effectively support Mousavi’s camp today or risk a military confrontation with Ahmadinejad tomorrow.

Posted by Michael J. Smith on Tuesday June 30 12:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (15)

From The Washington Post:

White House Weighs Order on Detention
Officials: Move Would Reassert Power To Hold Terror Suspects Indefinitely

Obama administration officials, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, are crafting language for an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely....

Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war....

After months of internal debate over how to close the military facility in Cuba, White House officials are increasingly worried that reaching quick agreement with Congress on a new detention system may be impossible....

"Civil liberties groups have encouraged the administration, that if a prolonged detention system were to be sought, to do it through executive order," the official said. Such an order could be rescinded and would not block later efforts to write legislation....

[S]everal officials involved said they have found themselves agreeing with conclusions reached years earlier by the Bush administration: As many as 90 detainees cannot be charged or released....

"These issues haven't morphed simply because the administration changed," said Juan Zarate, who served as Bush's deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism and is now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Posted by Michael J. Smith on Monday June 29 01:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

NEW YORK – General Motors Corp. has agreed to take on responsibility for future product liability claims, removing what could have been a sizable roadblock on the automaker's path to a quick sale of its assets and emergence from Chapter 11 bankruptcy as a new company.

As part of its government-backed restructuring plan, GM wants to sell the bulk of its assets to a new company and leave behind unprofitable assets and other liabilities such as product-related lawsuits. A hearing on the proposed sale is scheduled for Tuesday.

The previous business model was the best effort of well-meaning managers, but somehow or other the dead weight of "unprofitable assets and other liabilities" grew and grew until, sadly, poor GM went bankrupt. Unprofitable assets and other liabilities occur without agency, needless to say. They just happen! All we can do is bob along on the tides that generate them. And anyway, the golden lunch pail crowd and the sinister Asians made them do the things that occurred without agency.

GM's founder, Abner Snopes, was a humble man who didn't take shit from no one. He worked hard, but couldn't get a break. Beset from all sides, he did what any man might do in his circumstances and handed the torch, er, managerial ethos on to his successors.

They did their best too, as their legacy demanded, and I think we can all agree that recriminations are unhelpful, with the exception of recriminations for the golden lunch pail crowd and any other undeserving wretches that need a sharp lesson in economic realities.

Posted by Al Schumann on Sunday June 28 07:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (8)