"I'm GGG and I approve this message."

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Oh yes. But they are never "Big Wigs". I like the poor ones. The poets and the dreamers.

(And, hah, yes, they do exist).

Of course they do. I was one of them before I had all my sould and hope crushed beneath Life's cruel bootheel.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I was one of them before I had all my sould and hope crushed beneath Life's cruel bootheel.

You were poor before you got married?

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I've heard that this move makes Obama slightly less pro Palestinian as it were, so he's got that going for him. Which is nice.

From Jim Gehrety:

"You realize the two advisers who have gotten Obama in trouble are named "Austan" and "Power".

If there's another adviser named "Danger" on the campaign, they might as well let him go, too."

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Spanky --

I happened on this article in the Financial Times by Niall Ferguson last night, and thought you'd be interested, since it bears on a discussion we've had now and again about the march of free markets and democracy. Here's are a few key paragraphs:

• Another appealing economic rule is the Harvard economist Benjamin Friedman's: that sustained growth (rather than the level of income) is conducive to democratisation. At first sight, that proposition appears to fit the long-run historical trend, with the greatest challenge to democracy coming in the era of the Depression.
  
  However, recent economic developments have weakened such arguments. The world economy as a whole has never enjoyed a boom like that of 2001-07. Yet democracy has gained little from all this prosperity. Moreover, the most rapidly growing economies in the world since 2000 have not been the democracies. Take the case of the so-called BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China). While communist-ruled China's share of world gross domestic product has increased by 2.5 percentage points in the past seven years, democratic India's has risen by just 0.6 per cent. Russia has outperformed Brazil by a comparable margin. And this disparity between democracies and autocracies seems set to widen. From now until 2050, according to Goldman Sachs, China's share of global GDP will increase from 4 per cent to 15 per cent, while that of the G7 countries - the world's wealthiest democracies - will decline from 57 per cent to 20 per cent. Other emerging markets expected to achieve rapid growth in the next 40 years include Egypt, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan and Vietnam, none of which seems an obvious candidate for successful democratisation.
  
  Back in the 1980s and 1990s, it seemed as if capitalism and democracy were in some kind of mutually beneficial relationship. Not only was economic progress apparently conducive to political progress; the causation could go the other way, from democratisation to enhanced economic performance. These days it looks different. Rapid state-led growth is enriching China and other Asian manufacturers, regardless of their political systems, while their demand for energy and commodities is enriching democratic and undemocratic primary producers alike.

I think Ferguson tends to agree with you, but he also says that there is room for much doubt. Anyhoo, the whole thing is interesting.

They are talking about economic growth being directly related to Democracy which I have never claimed. I was saying that once a country reaches a certain level of GNP it becomes a stable democracy. But before they reach that level of GNP the democracy is unstable and often chooses poor economic policies that keep it poor and unstable. The perfect example is India. Once it achieved its independence it put in place terrible economic policies, keeping it poor and unstable. It had the same GNP as South Korea after WWII and now South Korea is way ahead. Just recently India has moved more towards better policies but it still has not created as good a business environment as China. So its growth is lower than Chinas, but the liberalizations that they started implementing in the 1990s dramatically increased their growth. But they have a long way to go before their GNP is high enough that its democracy becomes stable. On the other hand, some poor authoritarian governments that impose good economic policies achieve amazing growth. During their high growth spurts, Singapore, South Korea, Chile, Taiwan, Spain etc were all under authoritarian governments. But the prosperity these governments help creates pushed their GNPs to the point where Middle class became strong and they turned into stable democracies. In addition, poorer countries can achieve higher growth rates, than rich countries, especially when they institute good economic policies. Rich countries cannot achieve high growth rates like 8-10 percent no matter how good their economic management.

So a poor authoritarian government like China, when it implements good policies can create really high growth rates. But after the civil war both China and Taiwan were under dictatorships. Taiwan's dictatorship implemented good economic policies creating amazing growth which eventually turned it into a stable democracy. China on the other hand, being communist, implemented terrible economic polices and therefore the country remained poor and the dictatorship continued. At one point, after being at parity in 1949, Taiwan's GNP was twenty times that of China. But China is now doing the same thing Taiwan's dictatorship did. It is still a dictatorship but now it is implementing good economic policies. But those policies are sowing the seeds of the governments own destruction.

If you are a dictatorship and you want to stay in power, don't implement good economic policies. Then you can stay in control. Look at Burma, North Korea and Cuba. The problem with Sub Saharan Africa is that no matter what kind of government you have, Democracy or authoritarian, these countries seem to never implement good economic policies. Therefore their democracies are always unstable, and the dictators stay in power for long periods of time. The recent exception is South Africa, it is a poor democracy (but pretty much with one party rule with the ANC – similar to Japan after the war with the LDP) and it is implementing pretty good economic policies that are creating growth.

The one glaring exception to this rule is the petro-economies. If a country’s growth is dependant on oil, and they have lots of it, they can achieve high growth rates without instituting good economic policies. Like Venezuela and Russia today (more so Venezuela than Russia – Yeltsin and Putin have put in some good policies but there is still a lot wrong with Russia’s economic management). And since the government controls the oil, which means the government controls the wealth and the jobs, these countries tend to stay authoritarian even after reaching high GNPs. Like Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf States.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
get a list of the people who worked in WTC that called in sick the morning of 9/11. See who called them the night before. You'll find 1 number reoccuring over and over.

I had a bunch of fraternity brothers that were working in the WTC. But when the first plane hit, it was so early, none of them were at work yet. Which, if you knew the average member of my Fraternity, that was not surprizing.

In this case fortune favored the lazy.

[Spanky]

NAFTA

An unreliable ally
Mar 6th 2008 | MEXICO CITY AND OTTAWA
From The Economist print edition

The neighbours fear American protectionism


FOR the United States' two immediate neighbours, the Democratic Party's primary campaign has been an unedifying spectacle. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have tried to outdo each other in blaming the woes of middle America on the North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico. Both candidates have called for the agreement to be renegotiated, to insert tougher labour and environmental standards.

To politicians across the borders that looks irresponsible. Since it came into force in 1994, NAFTA has benefited all three economies, raising cross-border trade and investment. That applies especially to Mexico. Not by coincidence, since the signing of NAFTA Mexico has become a democracy and achieved economic stability. This has not halted the flow of migrants to the north. But their numbers would almost certainly have been greater without the agreement—or if its labour clauses were tougher.

Officials in both countries want more economic integration, not less. Mexican ministers worry that the Democrats' rhetoric plays into the hands of the unreconstructed segments of their country's left. Last month these groups organised a protest, attended by tens of thousands of farmers, against NAFTA. Even though commodity prices are at record highs, the farmers worry that the final ending of import tariffs on maize and beans this year will hurt their livelihoods by opening the way to subsidised American imports.

Canada's prime minister, Stephen Harper, had a smart riposte for the Democrats. “Of course, if any American government ever chose to make the mistake of opening it [NAFTA], we would have some things we would want to talk about as well.” Some Canadians particularly dislike a clause that allows companies to sue governments over regulations they dislike. Others argue that including Mexico has made it harder to sort out problems on Canada's border with the United States.

Politicians in both countries say they hope that both Democratic candidates will drop the NAFTA-bashing if they become president. This was seemingly confirmed by Mr Obama's economic adviser in a meeting with a Canadian diplomat, according to a leaked memo. But the leak may have damaged Mr Obama in this week's primaries. Faced with opposition accusations that the government was meddling in the American campaign, the following day Mr Harper promised to investigate the leak, which he said had been “blatantly unfair” to Mr Obama.

All this comes as Canada and Mexico are paying part of the price of the fecklessness of American financiers. The subprime slowdown has had a knock-on effect in both countries, although both are more resilient than in the past. This week the Bank of Canada cut its benchmark interest rate by 50 basis points—the biggest cut since 2001. It cited fears that the American slowdown would hurt the Canadian economy. That came days after Mexico's government, with similar worries, announced a $5.6 billion fiscal stimulus. The plan includes temporary tax breaks and electricity subsidies, undercutting a fiscal reform approved last year.

Cyclical slowdowns are one thing. What depresses politicians in both countries is their biggest trading partner's protectionist mood. A Mexican minister who is a strong supporter of NAFTA and who has been dealing with Washington for the past two decades says that on a recent visit to the United States' Congress he found an “almost xenophobic” mood of a kind that he had never before encountered.

That chimes with the frustrations of Colombia's government, which having negotiated a free-trade agreement with the United States has found it blocked by the Democrats in Congress. The message from the Democratic campaign is that “America is an unreliable ally”, says a veteran Latin American diplomat who spent many years working closely with the United States' government.

Though he is the only candidate who has dropped bombs on foreigners, Mr McCain is also the only one who embraces globalisation. While his Democratic rivals stoke popular fear of free trade, Mr McCain defends it stoutly. “I will leave it to my opponent to argue that we should abrogate trade treaties and pretend [that] Americans can secure our future by trading and investing only among ourselves,” he declared in his victory speech.

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
I had a bunch of fraternity brothers that were working in the WTC. But when the first plane hit, it was so early, none of them were at work yet. Which, if you knew the average member of my Fraternity, that was not surprizing.

In this case fortune favored the lazy.

It was also primary day, so a not so small number of folks who went to vote hadn't arrived yet, either.

[SlaveNoMore]

More questions for Obama, from the IBD:

The March 1 death strike by the Colombian army against FARC warlord Raul Reyes broke open a trove of contacts in his computer. So why did the name of Barack Obama turn up there?

Admittedly, it pales compared with other material from the dead thug's computer — such as FARC efforts to obtain uranium or Hugo Chavez's $300 million support.

But the little Obama reference within the 15 FARC letters released by the Colombian government signals a disturbing pattern of contacts with rogue actors. It's not the first time, and Obama has yet to distance himself.

In a Feb. 28 letter, FARC chieftain Raul Reyes cheerily reported to his inner circle that he met "two gringos" who assured him "the new president of their country will be Obama and that they are interested in your compatriots. Obama will not support 'Plan Colombia' nor will he sign the TLC (Free Trade Agreement)."

Aside from some interesting possibilities about who these "gringos" are — a congressional delegation did visit Ecuador and an international leftist "congress" was held in Quito around this time — the real question is why anyone secretly consorting with FARC would be able to speak for presidential candidate Obama.

Obama hasn't said a whole lot about Colombia other than to criticize President Bush's good relations with President Uribe. With this correspondence suggesting that FARC knows what he thinks, maybe the American voters have a right to know what he thinks, too. Five questions come to mind:

1. Is it true Obama would cut off Plan Colombia military aid to our ally, which would serve the terrorist group FARC's interests?

2. Does Obama still oppose a free trade agreement for Colombia, even though that puts him on the same side as FARC in the debate?

3. Does Obama know or care that one of his staffers or supporters is claiming to disclose his positions in secret meetings with FARC terrorists outside government channels?

4. Can he tell us why his supporters would pass on such information to terrorists, and what he or she could gain from it?

5. Will Obama, as president, treat FARC as the serious terrorists they are, given that they still hold three Americans hostage?

These aren't idle "gotcha" questions, by the way. Based on his campaign so far, Obama favors meeting and negotiating with rogue leaders without preconditions, passing secret messages to foreign countries at odds with his public positions and tolerating Che-flag wielding leftists among his supporters who advance a radical agenda in his name.

Now that FARC seems to have an inside line to Obama's campaign, maybe he ought to come tell voters what he really stands for.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...89786626246641

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
More questions for Obama, from the IBD:



http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...89786626246641

Really, this article should be accompanied by pics of Obama in some bandito costume. I'm disappointed.

[Atticus Grinch]

Anyone else bothered by HRC's rationale for why her foreign policy experience is so much greater than BHO's? That there were late night phone calls to WJC and she obviously had conversations with him but she can't talk about them because it would be "confidential"?

Frankly, I think her answers (which I don't have verbatim because I heard them on NPR) diminished everyone involved. By making this a point of comparison between her and BHO, she's playing into the GOP's hands.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Anyone else bothered by HRC's rationale for why her foreign policy experience is so much greater than BHO's? That there were late night phone calls to WJC and she obviously had conversations with him but she can't talk about them because it would be "confidential"?

Frankly, I think her answers (which I don't have verbatim because I heard them on NPR) diminished everyone involved. By making this a point of comparison between her and BHO, she's playing into the GOP's hands.

if she had worked with the president late nights and giving him what he needed the poor sap would never have been impeached.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
You were poor before you got married?

And became a lawyer.

[Diane_Keaton]

Their hard-on over McCain is almost embarrassing. This article rehashes McCain's bout with melanoma and describes efforts by the Times to contact enough people so they could report how some say the cautionary surgery he had behind his neck for his Stage II melanoma means he's lying and that he really had Stage III. The article's last line, "Mr. McCain is occasionally asked on the campaign trail about his age. But he is almost never asked about his health."

The Times is so transparent these days.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Their hard-on over McCain is almost embarrassing. This article rehashes McCain's bout with melanoma and describes efforts by the Times to contact enough people so they could report how some say the cautionary surgery he had behind his neck for his Stage II melanoma means he's lying and that he really had Stage III. The article's last line, "Mr. McCain is occasionally asked on the campaign trail about his age. But he is almost never asked about his health."

The Times is so transparent these days.

who cares. there are 0 NYT readers that don't know who they're voting for in 2008, or '12 and '16 for that matter.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Their hard-on over McCain is almost embarrassing. This article rehashes McCain's bout with melanoma and describes efforts by the Times to contact enough people so they could report how some say the cautionary surgery he had behind his neck for his Stage II melanoma means he's lying and that he really had Stage III. The article's last line, "Mr. McCain is occasionally asked on the campaign trail about his age. But he is almost never asked about his health."

The Times is so transparent these days.

I also think the article is wrong. It says he had a 2 centimeter lesion. Two centimeters is huge, and I can't imagine any doctor treating a patient with previous skin cancers missing the appearance of a new lesion of that significant size. That'd be like him having a roach on his forehead.

Granted, those cancers are not always colored, so it could be overlooked, but 2 cm? I just can't buy that.