But the credit rating is dropping because the federal government does not have a signed plan for reducing the long term debt of the United States Government. As the Republicans have passed the only plan to do this out of the House, a plan that was killed in the Senate by Harry Reid and which Obama would have vetoed anyway, there is no real way that Republicans could possibly be at fault. This debt ceiling crisis was manufactured by Democrats, based on Democrat failure to pass realistic budgets for years, and the truth is that Democrats deserve all of the blame for it. Republicans have not been perfect in past years, but this year they finally stepped up to the plate. Only to have beanballs thrown at them by Obama and his fanboy media.
Now the GOP know what to do. Why do less than the Democrats did in 2006?
If you aren’t a liberal democrat who lives in one of the DC-Boston Metroplex states or in some other huge, and hugely corrupt, city then you are a slope-browed neanderthal idiot. Nice to know where you stand on Americans, Carr. Why don’t you just emigrate from the US. We hear that French people are nearly as nasty and xenophobic as you, so why not move to France and spew your bile from there?
New York Times columnist David Carr responds to Bill Maher implying Alabama and Kansas are not the “smart states.”
David Carr: “If it’s Kansas, Missouri, no big deal. You know, that’s the dance of the low-sloping foreheads. The middle places, right? [pause] Did I just say that aloud?”
Relax, Weiner. And get ready for the pseudonymous “David Kahane’s” take on the Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) political comedy revue.
Read the whole thing…
“Fasten your seatbelts. It’s going to be a bumpy night.”
“That good, huh?”
“At least I didn’t get snippy or anything.”
“Sure you didn’t call anybody a jackass? Didn’t bash Dana?”
“Best behavior, I swear. I apologized to the planet. I even apologized to Huma, just like you told me to.”
“Glad we didn’t have a failure to communicate. Was she there?”
“Are you kidding?”
“Must have been tough,” I mused. “But always look on the bright side of life. Like I said the last time, I’m going to make you a bright, shining star.”
“I think I want to be alone,” he said.
This was bad: I couldn’t lose my star in a green-lit project. “Listen, Dorothy, you’re not in Kansas anymore. Or even Kew Gardens. What’s the matter?”
“Somebody shouted, ‘Bye-bye, pervert.’”
“You say that like it’s a bad thing. Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.”
“Somebody asked if I was more than seven inches.”
I had to calm him down. “I know you. You used to be big.”
“I am big,” he retorted. “It’s the pictures that got small.” He was still fuming. “Listen, Dave, I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take this any more.”
Catalan gets it. He most definitely gets it. The Austrian school of economics is the one branch of economics that has one theory of practice that applies from the very smallest examples at the micro end of the scale to the largest examples at the macro scale. It successfully predicted the collapse of the USSR. It predicted the failure of the stimulus in the US in 2009. And it has predicted the continuing failure of Keynesian spending and quantitative easing to do anything good for the US economy. When you switch your frame from the absurdist Samuelson version of economics, with its sharp dividing line between micro and macro and a dependence on econometric models that don’t work, to the Austrian version that uses thought experiments and derived universal truths, then the real shape of things becomes apparent.
I recently came across “Putting Economics in Its Place,” an article penned by Richard L. Heilbroner, an avowedly Schumpeter-influenced socialist. Heilbroner’s main purpose is to argue that the explanatory scope of economics has been greatly exaggerated. He contends that economics does not provide a universal, underlying science of society. He exemplifies this theme by pointing to the — alleged — failure of the economics profession to predict and explain the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union.
Not only does the Austrian School not suffer from the weaknesses Heilbroner charges economics with having, but it was the Austrians who settled many of the issues Heilbroner suggests still mar the science. No less important, in reading his article through an Austrian lens, one realizes just how complete the Austrian framework is. Heilbroner, for instance, rehashes discussion on the scope and nature of the science — this discussion should have been settled with the contributions of the likes of Lionel Robbins and Ludwig von Mises. Finally, an analytical union between Heilbroner’s criticisms and his own flawed conclusions buries non-Austrian economic frameworks, and as a result elevates Austrian theory above its opposition. Had Heilbroner possessed a better grasp of the many Austrian contributions to the debate, the conclusions he drew would have been considerably different.
Heilbroner’s central assertion is that economics can only describe the capitalist system, and thus has nothing to offer in regards to describing noncapitalist orders, such as prehistoric and command societies. This thesis is a corollary of his belief that what defines economics is a specific technique by which man accomplishes sought ends, namely the mixture of labor and “the materials and forces of nature.” From this, one can infer that Heilbroner believes that the techniques that man may employ in seeking ends in a precapitalist society, a command society, and a capitalist society are different.
But the Austrians show us just how utterly absurd Heilbroner’s position is. Society is not shaped by the techniques employed by humanity; rather, the techniques are fashioned by the underlying nature of society. Indeed, the entire purpose of economization is to organize means and ends as a method of dealing with the fundamental scarcity that characterizes society — if it were not for this scarcity, there would be no purpose for economization. The nature of this scarcity is no different whether a society is a precapitalist, capitalist, or command one; the economization technique employed is the same across the board. Indeed, economization is the technique! There is no alternative, and attempts to plan an alternative can only end in failure.
The campaigner in chief was in North Carolina at a confab supposedly on Jobs and Competitiveness, two things his administration has been attacking at every turn, when he made the quip that will live forever in infamy.
The Republican National Committee could not have scripted a more damning sound bite. President Obama on Monday attended his administration’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness at an enviro-friendly lighting firm in North Carolina. Considering the dismal state of the economy, it should have been a subdued event.
But when it was explained to the president that the federal permit process for construction and infrastructure projects can cause delays ranging from “months to years,” and “in many cases even cause projects to be abandoned,” a gaffe ensued.
It was remarked to the president, “I’m sure that when you implemented the Recovery Act, your staff briefed you on many of these challenges.” A smiling Obama responded, “shovel-ready was not as . .. uh … shovel-ready as we expected.”