Politics: A new beginning

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Good politicians get different people to hear different messages.

Like the guys with the confederate flags in their pick-ups?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Not Me
Many people live with hardship and tragedy in their lives. It is, unfortunately, not uncommon. Few are as outwardly hostile as Dean is.

I met Howard Dean in 1998, when he came to Texas to give a presentation on the early childhood programs in Vermont at an academic setting. (FWIW, all of the researchers and policy wonks at the School of Public Health very much liked the model in Vermont, but then again Public Health types tend to be touchy feely people.) He didn't seem particuarly hostile. Actually, he seemed very enthusiastic.

I met him again a few weeks ago, and he didn't seem very hostile then, either, and that was the day he found out his brother's remains may have been found.

[Hank Chinaski]

Ty the moderator guyyou're not alone in reading the sneer factor into references to France -- T.S.

bitch please! Ty, i would think you'dbe more concillatory. You didn't win the popular vote for board moderator, I'd win that. What you won was a "vote" in a cigar smoke filled room of admins. you don't have a mandate to call me out this way.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
bitch please! Ty, i would think you'dbe more concillatory. You didn't win the popular vote for board moderator, I'd win that. What you won was a "vote" in a cigar smoke filled room of admins. you don't have a mandate to call me out this way.

Bilmore made a reference to France to me the other day, apparently as a joke, the intent of which sailed past me without registering. Didn't mean to call you out. You know I love you like the French brother I never had.

[Skeks in the city]

SEN. BYRON DORGAN: Did you then developing a new government in Iraq inherit the responsibility for the debt it created by Saddam Hussein?

L. PAUL BREMER: Of course we do inherit the debt, that's international law, until something is done about that debt by a sovereign government, which will come into being after the elections.

Is Bremer saying the Iraqi people or the new Iraqi government could legally repudiate debt Iraq incurred during the Saddam Regime?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...g_bg_9-22.html

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
Is Bremer saying the Iraqi people or the new Iraqi government could legally repudiate debt Iraq incurred during the Saddam Regime?

I don't think it was clear what he was saying.

I would prefer if the new government defaulted on the loans to Saddam, especially from any countries, like France, who refused to support the US liberation of Iraq. All that would mean is that the lending countries would be angry and might not invest in Iraq in the future. Keeping the french out of the New Iraq would be a good thing.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Actually, I looked it up (!!!) and the theory deals more with externalities and letting the market deal with them. However, the theorem seems to depend on perfect information (i.e., zero transaction costs) and Coase himself has written about how really, there are so few situations in which the informational requirement is met that sitting back and letting the markets do their thing, in real life, is rarely justifiable under the theorem.

Sorry for the delay. I've restricted my use of this site at work b/c its too addictive for me.

Anyway, I looked it up too, just to make sure. Is your statement above supposed to be a correction of mine? If so, I'd suggest googling --Coase and "legal certainty"--. The externalities to which you refer would include the costs of hedging a bet based on legal uncertainty. And perfect information is essentially impossible in the face of legal uncertainty. So let the markets do their thing? Uhm, sorry sweety, but not unless there is legal certainty.

I think a popular example he gave had to do with pollution. If it was clear who was responsible for pollution, the parties could all make rational decisions without hedging their bets. The societal efficiency (allocation of resources) would be maximized regardless of who is responsible, just by making clear to the parties who is, in fact, responsible. While I'm sure we would all agree that its *right* to make the polluters responsible for pollution (generally), his theorem is used to support the idea that it doesn't matter who you hold responsible for externalities, just make sure you hold someone or no one responsible, with certainty.

Then nobody wastes money on us lawyers.

So, while you are right about the fact that he addresses externalities, his theorem was not directed towards letting the market settle things without intervention. His theorem was directed towards letting the market settle things once clear responsibilities are allocated, if you want to maximize the efficient allocation of resources by society.

Quibble with it as you might, but its a strong trend in *some* parts of the judiciary to make sure there is certainty in the law.

What were you saying?

Hello

[Atticus Grinch]

The President gets a Googlebomb.

Edited to add: This might not work by the time you get to it. I'm sure the GOP is deploying Googlebomb countermeasures as we speak.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
The President gets a Googlebomb.

Edited to add: This might not work by the time you get to it. I'm sure the GOP is deploying Googlebomb countermeasures as we speak.

The most interesting theory that I've heard so far - which is nothing more than a theory, it can't be proved - is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now, who knows what the real situation is?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
What were you saying?

Hello

Nothing all that related to what you are saying. I think we are kind of agreeing, though.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Not Me

I would prefer if the new government defaulted on the loans to Saddam, especially from any countries, like France, who refused to support the US liberation of Iraq.

You aren't alone.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/09-16-03.html

http://www.ncpa.org/iss/int/2003/pd040903a.html

It's still not clear to me that Iraq can legally repudiate debt of the Saddam regime, but I guess that's to be expected, because there really is no such thing as international law (except in Atticus' imagination).

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
You aren't alone.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/09-16-03.html

http://www.ncpa.org/iss/int/2003/pd040903a.html

It's still not clear to me that Iraq can legally repudiate debt of the Saddam regime, but I guess that's to be expected, because there really is no such thing as international law (except in Atticus' imagination).

Thanks for the links. Sounds like a good idea. The French and the others should not be rewarded for helping to keep the Iraqi people suppressed.

I was thinking more along the lines of just defaulting on the loans. I don't know if it is legal under international law, but what are the consequences if they default on the loans from the French? Then what are the French going to do to them? Refuse to buy their oil?

I say default, repudiate, do whatever but don't pay back the loans to the french and others who lent money to Saddam.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
Originally posted by Not Me



You aren't alone.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/09-16-03.html

http://www.ncpa.org/iss/int/2003/pd040903a.html

It's still not clear to me that Iraq can legally repudiate debt of the Saddam regime, but I guess that's to be expected, because there really is no such thing as international law (except in Atticus' imagination).

This is eerily reminicent of a law school exam I once took, but I think the short, practical answer is "who cares" unless someone is willing to enforce the law and punish the violation.

[sgtclub]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

Can anyone explain this to me?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

Can anyone explain this to me?

I was just looking at this story, and thinking about posting about it here. When we find out that the President's appearances are -- in part -- artifice calculated to look good, his credibility takes a hit. I personally thought that he did the right thing in going to Baghdad on Thanksgiving, and the criticism of the trip was uncharitable, to say the least. Obviously, there are other criticisms I have of his Iraq policy, but this is not one of them. But when you find out that the turkey in the photographs was fake, and that he wasn't serving it to the troops, then you start to wonder about his motivations. Likewise with the new reports about the bogus British Airways story -- it's just too cute. Those of you who don't suspect the Administration's credibility to start with can surely explain all of this away as innocuous salesmanship, but those of us who distrust him find confirmations of our concerns.

How would the President's supporters take this sort of thing if they'd heard it coming from Al Gore?