Jerry Pournelle: in 1940 – 1945, with a population of 140 million, half the work force conscripted into the armed services thus requiring building a new work force from women, apprentices, new graduates, and people called out of retirement, we produces a Liberty ship a day, thousands of B-17’s and other heavy bombers, clouds of fighters, and enough tanks to give numeric superiority over the best the Germans could produce. Once, told that the German Panther was ten times better than the US Sherman, we said that the solution to that was simple. We would build 11 Shermans for every Panther. We pretty well did that.
We built the Empire State Building during the Depression in one year. We built Hoover Dam during the depression in 3 years. We built the P-51 from drawing board design to actual combat deployment in 105 days. We built clouds of P-47 close support aircraft. We build a mechanized army and the ships to take it to Europe. All that without computers, without robots, without Interstate highways, with a population of 140 million, beginning with an economy enthralled in the Great Depression.
And we educated a work force fully capable of doing that. We turned out a generation that could read.
If we could do all that then, can we not do it now? What man has done, cannot man aspire to? Suppose we were given the chance? You have the power, what will you do?
... Do we live in a true Dark Age in which we have forgotten what we can do? Many think so. When I mention Jaime Escalante and what he did, most scratch their heads unable to remember who he was. Yet what man has done man can aspire to.
Here's the conventional wisdom: President Obama's reelection is vulnerable to the weak economy and high joblessness. Here's what might happen: The economy gradually improves, and although unemployment stays high (exceeding 8 percent), what counts politically is the palpable sense that things are moving in the right direction. This allows Obama to argue, as he already does, that his policies are slowly repairing the economic calamity he inherited from Republicans.
To which they respond: Obama's anti-business rhetoric and policies have impeded recovery; the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") and new regulations create uncertainties that deter hiring; and Obama hasn't dealt with the explosion of federal debt. Dealt with? He just added jet fuel to a raging fire of debt. He still just wants to raise taxes so the spending can keep climbing.
Though the debate matters, the economy's actual performance -- for better or worse -- will decide how many Americans feel. And this will depend on forces and events over which the candidates have little or no control. But Axelrod has control...
For Obama, the economy holds two large potential pluses.
First, there's huge pent-up demand for homes and vehicles, because both sectors collapsed in the recession.
Who is going to buy homes and vehicles? People lack money. People who do have money aren't spending it, because they can't tell what's going to happen next. Uncertainty about the future, about the government, and about simple things like the rule of law are undermining the economy in ways that Obama simply doesn't understand.
Second, the consumer debt burden is dropping rapidly. Households have repaid some debts. Others have been written off; interest rates on many remaining loans have declined.
That doesn't mean people are going to take on new debt -- as I said, people are uncertain. People are paying down debt because they realize that they were over-extended. They had borrowed too much in the oughts to buy that MacMansion or that Lexus SUV. If they managed to avoid foreclosure and bankruptcy then they focused on paying down enough debts so as to feel as though they avoided the tsunami that took a fair number of their friends, co-workers and neighbors. The Post thinks that people will take on new debts, just because they paid off old debts. I don't believe that's true. No one is going to take on new debt unless they're very sure of their financial situation, and there aren't enough people in that group to re-start the economy.
The upshot: More Americans may be in a position to borrow to buy a home or vehicle, relieving some pent-up demand.
'May be in a position' does not mean, 'will do so.'
By contrast, Europe and China pose big risks.
Which is why a lot of people in this country are waiting -- they may not know the details, and their understanding may not be as finely-grained as Zero Hedge, but they understand the basics: Europe is going down and China is in the beginning stages of popping their real estate bubble.
In Europe, Italy and Spain have nearly 500 billion euros worth of maturing debt in 2012. If they can't refinance at acceptable interest rates they would default or need to be rescued. Either way, Europe would face greater austerity and a deep recession. This would hurt U.S. exports and the profits of American multinational firms.
And who does the rescue if not Uncle Sugar? Assuming that we could even entertain such an idea, the very thought causes people of any means at all in this country to hold onto their dollars and not spend them.
The danger from China is a collapsing real estate "bubble" that, if it occurred, would result in bankruptcies of developers, loan losses to banks and slower economic growth. The effects would spread beyond China, because construction fuels its demand for cement, steel, copper and other raw materials traded on world markets. Again, U.S. exports could suffer.
Given all the possibilities, handicapping the election based on the economy is nearly futile. It's 2012's political wild card that -- when played -- may prove decisive, if accidental.
Posted by: Bobby ||
01/02/2012 12:11 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Unfortunately, economies are long term things and we have not even begun to embrace the suck yet. The long term effects from this fool in the White House will take years to show.
#2
In other words, the only hope for the Democrats is that Americans really are that stupid, basing voting decisions on appearance-based feelings -- ie. on the storyline pushed by the MSM -- rather than blatant reality.
#3
Putting it a bit differently, the Democratic advantage is that they can consistently with their current party philosophy promise to keep the checks coming and even to increase the size of the checks.
And they'll find the money for the checks by taxing a few really, really rich guys who deserve to get taxed more.
Posted by: Matt ||
01/02/2012 13:52 Comments ||
Top||
#4
While I agree about the economy and the issues here, I think a bigger opportunity for Bambi is if the Iran and Hormuz thing blow up; he gets a big plus for taking on the Iranians ( assuming he really wins) and if there is any truth to the numerous and repeated rumors about dumping Biden and having Hillary as his VP. She would bring over a whole host of voters that have been disenfranchished (in thier view) by the actions of Bambi.
#5
kinda weird - besides my day job I do engineering side jobs (my day job OKs it). I had NO side work last year to speak of, but in the last week - 3 proposals (1 residential addition, 1 apartment bldg and 1 new home) came in plus a new Taco Bell (I do most of their engineering locally) proposal. Is someone getting economy info I'm missing? I'm with Dr. Steve. The uncertainty of this group of grasping proto-communist 'tards is unsettling
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/02/2012 16:02 Comments ||
Top||
#6
FDR got re-elected TWICE before the economy started to improve.
#7
I've a feeling what one will see are 'maintenance' purchases and buying while prices are low. New vehicle and equipment purchases fall into the former, while new building is in the latter.
Via RCP, behold the second-most enjoyable Perry clip of the campaign. Only the Thinly Veiled Putdown Heard ‘Round the World was funnier. Had this gone on for a few more seconds, in fact, I think RP would have resorted to shushing him Dr.-Evil-style. A missed opportunity, my friends.
Four years ago this week, a young and inspirational senator who promised to turn history's page swept the Iowa caucuses and began his irresistible rise to the White House. Barack Obama was unlike any candidate the country had seen before. Except for many who saw him for the empty suit he was, of course.
He was the object of near adoration among the young and the media twits, launching what often felt like a religious revival. As long as Bush was the Anti-Christ.
Electoral contests rarely hold out the possibility of making all things new, but Obama's supporters in large numbers fervently believed that 2008 was exactly such a campaign.
Let us ponder what the coming year will bring for someone who must now seek reelection as a mere mortal. Obama's largest problem is not the daunting list of difficulties that have left the country understandably dispirited: the continuing sluggishness of the economy, the broken political culture of Washington, the anxiety over America's future power and prosperity. His 'largest problem' is the length of the list of problems!
On each of these matters, Obama has plausible answers and, judging by improvements in his poll ratings since September, he has made headway in getting the country to accept them. The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 23% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -17. Negative numbers are up since June.
Not to mention that the poll ratings fell again. So much for that point.
Democrats are far more bullish on the president's reelection chances than they were even a few months ago. Yet the threat that should most concern Obama may not be any of the particulars that usually decide elections but the inevitable clash between the extravagant hopes of 2008 and the messy reality of 2012. Hoist on his own petard.
In traveling around Iowa and New Hampshire over the last few weeks, I have been struck by the number of Democrats and independents who still more or less want Obama to win and deeply fear the consequences of a government dominated by Republicans. But having made this clear, they then bring up the ways in which they cannot summon the emotions on Obama's behalf this year that they felt the first time around. No tingle on the leg anymore? The thrill is gone?
Aren't there fewer registered Democrats than there were in 2008? Why d'you suppose that might be?
Some point to disappointment over his failure to confront the Republicans early enough and hard enough. How, they ask, could Obama possibly have expected cooperation from conservatives? He ain't that dumb, just clueless. He didn't expect cooperation from conservatives. Doesn't anyone remember before the first month he was attacking conservatives reminding them not to listen to Rush Limbaugh. Not expecting cooperation from conservatives? He was attacking them from the outset!
Other saps are frustrated that he couldn't bring Washington together, as he said he would. But O! You promised!
Still others point to real Obama achievements, including the stimulus and especially the health-care law, and ask why he was unable to sell their merits to a majority of the electorate. That's easy. They were more empty promises.
Easier still, the things he achieved are things most America voters actually do not want, an opinion loudly and repeatedly stated by many of them.
And then there are those who wonder why the malefactors of finance have faced so little accountability. Campaign contributions, perhaps?
Few of these voters would ever support a Republican, and most will turn out dutifully for Obama again. Anything but a Republican! Rove and Cheney would come back!
But a president who won election with 52.9 percent of the vote does not have a lot of margin. How much of the popular vote did McGovern get? 60.7% for Nixon to 37.5% for George.
He needs to worry not just about issues but also about the spirit and morale of his supporters. In their jaunty song on Obama's behalf four years ago, the alternative reggae band Michael Franti & Spearhead promised a country that would "soar through the sky like an eagle" and saw Obama as "seeking finds of a new light." And none of the morons ever dreamed of being disappointed. They were too f*cking stoned on ganja to be disappointed.
Are they a popular group? I don't remember them...
These are not the standards of normal politics. Can voters who supported someone as a transcendent figure reelect him as a normal, if resilient, political leader? This is Obama's challenge. And it's entirely his own making.
Posted by: Bobby ||
01/02/2012 12:20 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Are you better off now than you were four years ago?
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/02/2012 17:50 Comments ||
Top||
Ross Douthat at the New York Times (seconded by Rod Dreher at the American Conservative) thinks that Ron Paul plays a salubrious role as truth-teller and gadfly:
#1
With all the volume raised against him... you know he touching a few guilty nerves....
It's starting to remind me of the character assassination of Palin.
This is not pro-nor-con for Ron Paul rather a comment on the shrillness and seeming desperateness of the attacks that are appearing everywhere and suggest a well funded mass FUDD campaign.
Posted by: Water Modem ||
01/02/2012 7:45 Comments ||
Top||
#2
What concerns me deeply and urgently is that Paul is, as Goldman notes, explicitly urging people to feel powerless and to scapegoat. There's a long history of such things leading to overt tyranny.
I don't think what's going on here is guilty nerves. It's people seeing the stage set for the collapse of the republic as voters are urged to conclude they have no power (or responsibility) within the political system.
#3
FUDD: Fear Uncertainty Doubt and Disinformation - something perfected into an art by Redmond in its desire to kill Linux and OpenSource - However, it is something used since the beginning of time by politicians to gain unearned advantage.
Posted by: Water Modem ||
01/02/2012 7:57 Comments ||
Top||
#4
FUDD being pulled out at the last min. to skew an election is rude. Either win the argument earlier or attack him after the polls close and before New Hampshire with argument instead of FUDD.
Posted by: Water Modem ||
01/02/2012 8:01 Comments ||
Top||
#5
It's people seeing the stage set for the collapse of the republic as voters are urged to conclude they have no power (or responsibility) within the political system.
Do you really think the people are so foolish that they could be3 fooled into thinking they have no power, when they actually do, by some doddering old man? One fruitcake alone can set the stage for the collapse of the republic?
The stage has been being set for the collapse of the republic for the last 80 years. That it lasted so long is a testament to the foundations that preceded it. It is time for radical change. Paul is the only one calling for it. That is why his ideas resonate. Everyone else is an echo.
#6
There is a certain element of hard core Libertarians in the Democratic and Republican parties (mostly Republicans). Libertarians have been so ignored for so long by both parties that many are jumping to Ron Paul and ignoring his madness. Sad really. Hopefully some of the fiscally sane suggestions will be taken up before Ron Paul sinks into obscurity again.
#7
The Iowa caucus is scheduled for tomorrow, and the last poll I saw was that Paul was a close second to Romney. If Romney's victory margin is too slim, or if somehow Paul wins, it is going to be a very influential protest vote against the Republican leadership who unabashedly support Romney.
They support him half because he is a liberal, with the other half because he is anti-conservative. A win for him is a slap down to both conservatism and the Tea Party, that they are as marginalized in the Republican party as are blacks in the Democrat party. Neither group having any influence or choice as who to support.
#8
Moose, there may be a part of the establishment Pubs that value Romney for those reasons, but understand there's a part that value Romney because they think he can win, and that's what matters. They Obama out, and more importantly, they want to divide the pie themselves.
If they thought Paul could win the whole thing they would support him. It's politics.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/02/2012 11:06 Comments ||
Top||
#9
The amount of support for this mad man is frightening. I dislike his followers the most.
#10
Romney has ties to wall street that nullify any attacks he might make on Obama over his ties to wall street. That's unfortunate.
I think a lot of folks like Romney because he looks Presidential and hes the economy guy and because they all realize he would have been a better choice than McCain and somehow wish to purge themselves.
#11
A lot of us can't see ever voting for Romney under any conditions. He's a definition of slimy. I would rather not vote than vote for him.
Posted by: Water Modem ||
01/02/2012 18:34 Comments ||
Top||
#12
that's what Obama is counting on - don't do it
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/02/2012 18:37 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Romney has ties to wall street that nullify any attacks he might make on Obama over his ties to wall street. That's unfortunate.
That's what OWS is for. The Democrats have been gearing up a mass movement aimed at running against Romney in particular for the last six months, and Romney is showing no signs whatsoever of being prepared to combat this (as opposed to letting proxies like Bachmann run down fellow republicans).
#14
After 2010 the Tea Party people were talking about dealing with all the establishment types, and the establishment types were talking about cleaning out the Tea Party people.
The fight goes on.
A Romney win would be remarkable in that 75% of the party openly despise him. If the "establishment" can overcome that kind of visceral hatred, then they truly are running the show.
#15
The Tea Party are not 75% of the party by any measure I've seen. I wish. They are the vanguard, and the future of a better opposition to the Socialists. Take your gains and solidify.
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/02/2012 21:10 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Frank:
You are right. The Tea Party is much less than 75% of the party. But fully 75% of the party can't stand Romney. Sorry that wasn't clear from my post.
If enough Pakistani money were to help get Obama re-elected ("Whoops! We forgot to check where the contributions were coming from."), does anyone doubt he would apologize?
Perhaps Bambi just wants to make sure that our contributions to Pakistain are recycled to the 'Committee to Reelect the President' properly...
#1
Perhaps it has something to do with reports that Pakistani folks gave the green light before the attack, so that the mistake was Pakistani. Or more likely it has something to do with Pakistani military intelligence hiding Bin Laden for years. Perhaps the Pakistani response afterwards of cutting off supplies and such was responsible.
Maybe Pakistan should worry less about apologies and more about the Jihadi and Madrases in their midst that are putting them on a collision course.
#2
Because the Pakistanis fired first and kept on firing even after the air support showed up? Oh, and that little thing about a jihadi supply base right under their noses.
#3
Ever work around an ex-con?
Everything is about 'respect'. They wear you out with it, respect this, respect that, "I'm not getting my respect".
A man who has never done anything in his life to warrant respect pissing and crying all day long about how he don't get his respect.
That is Pakistain.
Posted by: Barbara ||
01/02/2012 10:48 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Jim, so you are saying that Pakistan is the Rodney Dangerfield of countries?
Except that Rodney was funny.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
01/02/2012 11:02 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I've got yer apology rat-cheer, Pakistain:
We're sorry you're such backstabbing, worthless bastards.
Your opportunity to pretend you can be an actual nation has failed miserably - for all the world to point and laugh see. Give it up and fade back into the oblivion you so richly deserve.
Posted by: Barbara ||
01/02/2012 12:44 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Well, Pakistan is funny, too ... but not in the funny 'ha-ha-ha' way. It's funny in a cynical and sick-joke sort of way.
Aaron David Miller is a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, and has served as a Middle East negotiator in Republican and Democratic administrations.
#1
No, he is neither analytical nor emotional, but egotistical, hypocritical, superficial, corruptible, dysfunctional, culpable, and at least in the future, we can hope, unelectable.
#2
Someone who actually looked at the the Israeli/Arab issues from an analytical view would side with Israel. Those that look at it from an emotional point of view side with the Arabs.
Haven't read the article, but the title seems to have things totally backwards.
#6
BO's original reasons for rejecting Israel, whatever they were, have been eclipsed by the butt-kicking Bibi gave him on national TV. A petty tyrant like BO never forgives a slight like that.
Posted by: Matt ||
01/02/2012 12:48 Comments ||
Top||
#7
He's neither. He's an empty suit. He rejects Israel because Israel is good for the US. The only common thread in his foreign policy is that if it is bad for the US, Bammo is for it.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Four years ago this week, a young and inspirational senator who promised to turn history's page swept the Iowa caucuses and began his irresistible rise to the White House. Barack Obama was unlike any candidate the country had seen before. 
By Aaron David Miller
