Pangloss

(re: multitasking Presidents) I agree, and I think when we look back it will stand out as one of the pivotal moments on the campaign trail. (And you know, after adding the parenthetical above, the word multitasking maybe touches on something -- Americans are said to be multitasking more than ever before. It's something we're sensitive about, ala "if we have to multitask so should he!") You could be right, but to me it feels more like mismanagement and screw-ups. Or possibly a case of McCain laying down the law either against advise or before getting it or listening to it. Which, hey, can sometimes be a positive (deciding against advise), but you really need to at least hear what they have to say, and if you do decide the wrong way you'd better wise up quick when you do. It doesn't feel like he is -- it feels like he's hiring better advisers but then ignoring them half the time. (But then I look at an adviser like Fiorina and think maybe I'm just completely wrong in the above.)

If that's true about them seeming prepared it's interesting, because they were pretty pre-occupied over the previous week. But I read somewhere that Obama had been in 22 debates and McCain 15 prior to Friday night, so that may be part of it as well.

I only caught a few minutes of it but I did see a little of that dodging, which was unfortunate, but I think understandable at this point because we simply don't know yet what the bill will be, exactly. It's something that's always bugged me about politics, how politicians are expected to have firm positions on stuff that hasn't even been decided yet. But that's part of the game, I guess. Yeah I would have liked that question very much, as you say, focusing on the disparity between what legislators apparently want and what the people seem to be radically opposed to. In the very brief glimpse I got I did see Obama try and defend the idea of government intervention, which looked interesting. I'll try and catch up on the debate late this afternoon when I get home; I've got it tivo'd.

I guess you guys have heard about the current scandal revolving around the tainted milk in China. Thousands of babies sick, etc. This of course comes after a couple of rough years for Chinese manufacturers with various tainted product scandals (lead in paint, etc). It's an interesting combination -- an unregulated market + controlled press + very large population + one-child-per-family law + huge corruption problem. Quite the recipe for disaster, eh? It's become to common -- maybe we should bundle it all together, along with post-disaster governmental reaction, and label the phenomenon a "Chinese Fire Drill". One thing I've been wondering is whether they would even know about a lot of these issues if not for the free press outside of their country. Of course in the case of the tainted milk they didn't need any outside help, but look at how far out of hand it got before any action was taken or the problem was even reported -- did late reporting cause European consumers to go un-warned until it was too late? It'll be interesting to see how China reacts to this problem, which seems to be growing rather than shrinking. More regulation on those free trade zones, perhaps? I think so -- it's hard to see how they can ignore it. A crackdown on corruption would also seem to be in their near future. What do you all think?

Rofl. Well, it's an ad, not a news story, but in the same spirit, perhaps.

I still think they'll make a deal, regardless of whether it's a good idea or not. This is politics, not economics. We're 39 days from the election -- they're not going to do nothing. I think the way the major players are looking at it is that the people are opposed to a pure business bailout, but won't be opposed if it includes safety nets for homeowners and their investments. Anyway it looks like McCain will be at the debate tonight. The Obama supporters are saying he caved and the McCain supporters are saying he did the right thing, yadda yadda yadda.

No, that story came out quite a lot earlier (two weeks?) than the campaign announcement, which was actually prompted by the events of the preceding two or three days. Political move, yes. An effort to misdirect people from some sort of shenanigans? No evidence.

Haha. Maybe they're taking their jealousy for the American way just a weeeee bit too far!

Yeah the talks broke down late this afternoon. But I don't think we're at the end of this story yet. It'll be interesting to see how the blame game plays out if they fail to reach a compromise. It may be a bizarre situation where neither side gets full spin control even amongst its own base, because opposition amongst the population was so universal, and because elected officials from both sides were split over whether to do it. Republicans, for example, can't really get away with saying that Democrats blew the deal, because many of their own people were opposed. And they can't really take credit for shooting it down either, because Democrats are the party in power (Paulson literally begging Pelosi on one knee this afternoon not to kill it!). Democrats, for their part, can't really get away with saying that it's Republicans' fault because they're the ones in power. And they can't exactly take credit for nixing the deal either, because they were the ones saying that if it had the support of both candidates they'd authorize it. It's a spin doctor's worst nightmare. Just what a congress with a single-digit approval rating needs.

Nah, I'm just pointing out the obvious. It's what I live for.

The Times ran a comprehensive piece on Obama's latest attack ads on McCain today, basically summarizing some of the more recent transgressions by the Democratic candidate. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/us/politics/26ads.html?ref=us The article goes on to quote some examples, most of which we've already talked about to varying degrees here. And on a somewhat unrelated note that just happens to be in the same article, here's some typical partisan reasoning for you: Oh yeah, people understand that alright. And they show their understanding of that by flocking to the Democratic Party in droves, leaving all states blue and nobody ever voting Republican ever again. Riiiiight.

... they hadn't even launched yet. http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/151564/xinhua_runs_spacewalk_story_before_astronauts_leave_earth.html No matter how things change, they always stay the same! Here's a similar story from the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/3082804/China-fakes-reports-from-space.html Cute how a "technical error" can produce actual quotes from the future. To heck with space walks, these guys are time travelers!

Yeah they're doing that with AIG and it does make sense with future bailouts -- treat them as investments, Warren Buffet-style. That won't work for things like bad mortgages, but it could work for businesses that are basically sound.

It's bad if we think of it in terms of how estimates of the Iraq war went. But these are economists, not war planners. I'm not so sure this is a bad thing. I guess I'm more concerned about what may be overlooked in the mad rush to solve a problem that even they haven't fully wrapped their heads around.

Wouldn't that give me their ideological reasoning? Ideology isn't a term that connotes evil, it's a term that connotes unilateral (but not necessarily closed-minded) reasoning. I think you thought I meant "partisan". I do think that "pure" reasoning is wrong, and I do think society has grown past the unilateral acceptance of extremes like laissez-faire or socialism. We have learned a wiser course -- regulation in moderation. We've proven its value, time and again, and reverting to an extreme at either end would be a mistake. I think that this is one of the things that modern government does right, when in that rare occasion it shrugs off the negative influence of corruption and special interests. But that doesn't mean I think you're wrong with all of your suggestions. I agree that we can't print our way out of the current problem. I don't think that's a complete analysis of what's happening here. There is a vast increase in debt, yes, but it's not wholly unbacked or unbackable. I'm reminded of Douglas Adams' old quote about space being really, really big. So is the economy. The entire national debt is something between half and 2/3rds of what the country produces in a year. We're not completely off the deep end here, it just seems that way when you look at some of the staggeringly huge numbers being tossed about like popcorn at a Saturday matinee.

It wasn't the facts I was challenging, it was your conclusion that Paulson isn't trustworthy because he changed his position on oversight. That's your interpretation, fine, but I assumed you were offering Krugman because he's a partisan hack posing as an objective economist. If that wasn't your intent, you were just sourcing him for the actual events, fine.

People are calling their congresscritters in droves, and the near-universal outcry is "don't do it". It's interesting that we may have a situation developing where the American people are strongly opposed to something but lawmakers may end up universally agreeing that it has to be done anyway. The main objection from constituents seems to be about how the bailout protects the wealthy while their own retirement plans are drying up and their mortgages aren't getting paid. The lack of confidence in government clearly plays a role here as well, with Congress' approval rating being even lower than the President's. And current trends and sentiments about executive compensation can't be helping either. There are the fringe politics of libertarians and other free marketers arguing that this is a bad idea for basic ideological reasons, but outside of internet discussion forums there's not a whole lot of traction there. People are panicky right now, and they're not thinking long-term. Some elected officials are responding to it, already speaking out against the new bailout bill. But I expect that what's going to happen here is that the major players are going to get together, hammer out a deal like the current proposal, ensuring oversight, executive compensation limits (with holes the size of a MacDonald's 24-hour drive-through window), assistance for homeowners in trouble, and so forth. Meaning we're going to have Democrats and Republicans standing side-by-side with the President saying "We need to do this, or else". I tell you what, if there's one thing I thought for sure you would NOT see before election day this year, that is it right there. Wow. What do you all think?

I think the FARK headline earlier tonight captured it best: "Old man runs from African American asking for change."

Ooo, what a substantive thread! So basically we've got people on one extreme saying "assume it's a disease until proven otherwise", and people on the other extreme saying "assume it's not a disease until it's proven to be one". Then, amusingly, we've got one group of people saying "death to all who say that we should assume it's a disease until proven otherwise", and another group of people saying "death to all who say that we should assume it's not a disease until it's proven to be one". I knew there was a reason for the run on pitchforks and torches over in YT's lab! iNow, you wanna run that bit by me again about people who "try to disregard everything as partisan"?

Doesn't the Xbox already have the ability to play movies? I know I've stuck DVDs in a 360 before, but not an original model.

If this hasn't passed yet, they'd better be. It's the last day of the session.

I'm just amazed that you would actually read what Paul Krugman has to say and take it seriously. He's not an economist, he's a spin doctor. Well if that's true then I give McCain a little credit, then, for calling Obama and suggesting the debate call-off before going to the press with it. But at that point when Obama said he wanted to have the debate then McCain should have agreed to go on with it, instead of running to the press. Apparently canceled.

You're right, I declare everything to be partisan when clearly the problem is that not enough people are lining up to do as they're told. What was I thinking, showing two partisan sides offsetting one another? Ludicrous!

Part of the issue here is the fact that McCain is somewhat in the driver's seat here. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress are tying the deal to McCain's approval. Republicans, already in the minority, don't want to support a deal that their own candidate is bashing for popular votes, and Democrats see little gain in fast-tracking something while it's still being contended. Current deal ideas being floated sound promising, though, with the imposition of oversight, taxpayer guarantees and help for homeowners. I don't think they should cancel the debate, but I think there is logic in not having any questions about the proposed deal tomorrow night. They need to work out the details before they stake out territory. They could talk about other aspects of the crisis.

Okay, so we have right-wingers slinging mud about CRA causing the problem, and we have left-wingers slinging mud about how it's all about profit motive. Anybody else see the real problem here?