It is easier to go down a hill than up,
but the view is from the top.
Arnold Bennett
Sarkozy Comes Close But Hollande Wins As Expected
Nicolas Sarkozy had lost every poll match-up with François Hollande, but supposedly in the past, he's been known for having an uncanny way of pulling out a victory at the last minute. The last figure I saw from the Associated Press, Hollande won 51.6% to 48.4%, a remarkable closing of the gap; perhaps if Sarkozy had another week or two he could have pulled it out.
There was bad news elsewhere in Europe as well, as German Chancellor Merkle's hand has been weakened by coalition losses. Other countries also saw anti-austerity demagogues gain ground. Asian markets are tumbling as I write, off roughly 2.5% on the combination of bad US jobs and European election results.
To a certain extent, it doesn't seem to matter: we know Keynesian economics (i.e., government spending) won't work. The Gray Lady writes:
Mr. Hollande has said that he intends to give “a new direction to Europe,” demanding that a European Union treaty limiting debt be expanded to include measures to produce economic growth. Domestically, he has promised to raise taxes on big corporations and raise the tax rate to 75 percent for those earning more than one million euros a year. Calling his victory “a fresh start,” Mr. Hollande pronounced: “Austerity need not be Europe’s fate.”
Okay, for those who can't translate progressive political spin, what Hollande means by "measures to produce economic growth" is pick-and-choose "investments", i.e., government spending. I have not researched the statistics, but one report I recently saw said despite all talk of austerity, just like the US, we aren't even talking about a simple year-over-year budget cut.
I can't really comment on Hollande, because it's possible that he pandered to get elected and then will find a way to back off his program, "discovering" things are worse than he thought. If Hollande imitates Obama on the job like he did during the election, expect a couple of years of Sarkozy bashing.
But if Hollande is serious, here's what I expect: high bracket tax rate hikes will result in lower-than-expected higher income tax revenue (the more you tax income, the less revenue) and LOWER economic growth. And infrastructure or related spending will add to an unsustainable deficit in a very visible way, long before you see any jobs beyond very expensive make-work.
To French job creators: the US would welcome French entrepreneurs and investors whom find Hollande's economic policies unacceptable.
Former NM Governor Gary Johnson
Libertarian Party Presidential Nominee
A construction company entrepreneur who built his company from scratch into one of New Mexico's largest, employing over 1000, two-term GOP governor Gary Johnson is someone I could support for President. He is the anti-Bush (referencing Bush's refusal to veto spending bills as President); Johnson vetoed 750 bills (a sizable minority of which were GOP-sponsored) and was only overridden twice, item-vetoed thousands more, leaving a $1B surplus; he ran roughshod over state and federal bureaucracies in handling a 2000 fire crisis. He transitioned Medicaid into managed care, cut taxes and laid off nearly 2000 state employees over his term-limited tenure.
In a certain sense, it is a shame that Johnson ran against the overwhelmingly popular, indisputable intellectual leader Ron Paul of likewise libertarian-conservatives in his last hurrah campaign for President. (I also think the fact that Johnson has been out of politics over the past decade and lacks foreign policy or other federal government experience hurt him. You could argue to a certain extent the latter consideration applies to Romney as well.)
Although I'm sympathetic to the issues of drug prohibition (as I've mentioned: I have never smoked tobacco or taken drugs, and I almost never drink), I think it's the issue that Johnson has become most closely identified with; with mega-trillion deficits and health care policies at stake, Johnson should have focused his message better.
Would I vote for Johnson this fall? Probably not if Romney is nominated and in a tight contest with Obama. Romney is the most pragmatic viable candidate against Obama, and I think the future of the country is at stake. I think what Romney did in Massachusetts given a state legislature 85% Democrat is remarkable, led Massachusetts from having lost the most jobs to the country to accelerating job growth, has shown some innovative approaches in dealing with business and government issues, and has a broader exposure to business and economic issues than other candidates, including Johnson. I will say that I think it's unlikely Johnson will poll anywhere near 10%; he barely registered in the GOP polls before he withdrew in December while Paul has regularly registered in that range.
Is Bagram AB Address Obama's St. Crispin's Day Speech?
You Can't Be Serious!
Chris Mathews had yet another fawning "tingle up my leg" moment, comparing Obama's short speech to the famous St. Crispin's Day Speech (see below) from Shakespeare's Henry V (for those whom haven't heard the Mathews clip yet, it's available here).
Now if I wrote a commentary every time that an MSNBC host said something stupid, I wouldn't have any time to write about anything else. It had been interesting seeing Obama emerge as a charismatic politician with impressive oratorical abilities (probably along with Reagan one of the most effective, naturally gifted speakers since JFK), and an inclusive, positive message (let's get beyond partisan bickering, etc.) However, I also picked up on a certain unflattering self-conscious smugness in his speeches, probably based on the crowd's enthusiastic feedback.
Obama made some key mistakes, and I think it's too late to fix them. First, he went from an inclusive message to a more polarizing populist message; he started scapegoating predecessors, finger-pointing. and questioning the motives of other people (in particular, his political opposition); when a speaker goes negative, he probably loses half his intended audience--permanently. Second, "less is more". Obama has been seriously overexposed; he has become repetitive. (I'm a political blogger, and I didn't bother tuning in to listen to his address from Afghanistan.) His praise for the troops has become formulaic: been there, done that. Maybe rituals work at political rallies: people are there more for the experience than to listen to a speech. Third, he continues to deliver these overly abstract, poorly organized, unfocused, forgettable speeches, replete with overly familiar political spin and trite observations. Listening to an Obama speech (or reading its transcript) is sort of like going to a rummage sale or a used book sale: most of the items are someone else's crap, but maybe you'll find an overlooked, unexpected item here or there.
I am not paid at all to serve as Obama's editor, but I'm a good writer, and I'll often reread and revise my posts to improve readability. This kind of convoluted thinking would never make it past a first draft:
"And I know that sometimes, out here, when you’re in theater, it’s not clear whether folks back home fully appreciate what’s going on. And let’s face it, a lot of times it’s easier to get bad news on the news than good news....And so, together, you guys represent what is best in America. And you’re part of a long line of those who have worn this uniform to make sure that we are free and secure, to make sure that those of us at home have the capacity to live our lives...And I’m here to tell you, everybody in America knows that. And everybody in America appreciates it. And everybody in America honors it."Well, yes, I think people appreciate the efforts of the troops; I think they're less convinced about Obama's leadership on Afghanistan, particularly his dithering on Afghanistan and nuanced positions, or the worthiness of sacrificing more American blood and treasure a decade later, longer than any other American war. Is Afghanistan worth over 1900 American lives?
"And when the final chapter of this war is written, historians will look back and say, not only was this the greatest fighting force in the history of the world, but all of you also represented the values of America in an exemplary way."That simply is a stretch. What about the hapless soldiers whom served under Washington during the hard, early years of the Revolutionary War? The carnage of Gettysburg and other bloody battles during the Civil War? What about the first wave of troops hitting the beach on D-Day to an almost certain death? Trench warfare in WWI, the jungles or front lines in Vietnam? No one is doubting the hazardous conditions in Afghanistan, but they have been tough in Iraq and elsewhere as well.
When Henry V rallied the troops, he wasn't simply paying lip service to the generic sacrifice of all troops operating under dangerous conditions. He was personally vested in the outcome as a warrior king (one can hardly envision the Ditherer-in-Chief making the bold decision to engage in the Battle of Agincourt). He is rallying the troops into battle; he is identifying with the historic significance of battle.
In fact, at least some British commentators are not amused: "Barack Obama is no Henry V. America's liberal media has gone overboard in cheerleading for the president." (Yes, I can see a Bentsen/Quayle joke in there somewhere...) Nile Gardiner accurately describes the speech as "dull" and a "poorly written piece of brazen electioneering."
From Henry V: St. Crispin's Day Speech
This day is called the Feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day and comes safe home
Will stand a-tiptoe when this day is named
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall see this day and live t' old age
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours
And say, "Tomorrow is Saint Crispian."
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars
And say, "These wounds I had on Crispin's day."
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words —
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester —
Be in their flowing cups freshly remembered.
This story shall the good man teach his son,
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered,
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers.
For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition.
And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's Day.
The Battle of the Paul's:
Krugman (Keynes) vs. Ron (Austrian School)
Guess who I think won? I just want to focus on a few points here: when the federal budget in the latter part of WWII consumed over 50% of GDP, that's money unavailable to the private economy: Keynesians at the time were worried without all this spending on military personnel, equipment, and supplies, how are these millions of returning veterans going to be able to find jobs? We have to spend, spend, spend. Only it didn't happen. In fact, a minor tax cut was enacted when the GOP briefly regained control of the house at the end of WWII. Other than a couple of minor stutter steps in the second half of the 1940's, GDP numbers steadily climbed up, not retreating to Depression-era numbers. Notice that Krugman is ready to point out with 80% and above high end income tax rates, the economy still expanded. (But I argue that growth would have been even better without tax avoidance behavior, something even JFK realized.) As to whether I think the Fed Reserve, a creature of crony capitalism, and whether its opaqueness serves the public good? Just like the body develops tolerance of various substances and it takes ever growing concentrations to reach a desired effect, I think manipulations of fiat currency similarly become more difficult over time....
Courtesy of Measuringworth.com
| Year | Nominal GDP (million of Dollars) |
| Plot Series Plot Log of Series | |
| 1940 | 101,400 |
| 1941 | 126,700 |
| 1942 | 161,900 |
| 1943 | 198,600 |
| 1944 | 219,800 |
| 1945 | 223,000 |
| 1946 | 222,200 |
| 1947 | 244,100 |
| 1948 | 269,100 |
| 1949 | 267,200 |
| 1950 | 293,700 |
| 1951 | 339,300 |
| 1952 | 358,300 |
| 1953 | 379,300 |
| 1954 | 380,400 |
| 1955 | 414,700 |
| 1956 | 437,400 |
| 1957 | 461,100 |
| 1958 | 467,200 |
| 1959 | 506,600 |
| 1960 | 526,400 |
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
The Rolling Stones, "Sympathy for the Devil"
