The two basic shortcomings of Obamanomics are that Obama is planning for 2009 with ends that are very 2007 (compact fluorescent lightbulbs! carbon! inequality! health insurance for everybody! spiff up inner city schools!) and means that are very 2008 (Carnival in Rio spending!).
Obama's thinking is still stuck in the 2007 mindtrap, the assumption that the fundamental problem of scarcity has been solved so now all we have to do is redistribute wealth and reorganize society in a more Stuff White People Like fashion. Instead, it turns out the Bush Boom was really a Bush Bubble and we actually have much bigger problems than the conventional wisdom of 2007 assumed.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Since when has Obama had to worry about anything? The guy has been having an AA free-ride since being discovered in Columbia by Brzezinski. His whole demeanour says it. The MSM tell us it's cool and a sign of his inner calm, but to me its a sign that higher powers have cleared the deck for him, and he has been informed.
ReplyDeleteObviously his masters have other priorities than balancing budgets or worrying about deficits. That's iSteve crap. Obama can please the SWPL morons and his racial brothers with non-existent money he will never have to account for, whilst taking care of the vested geopolitical interests of his puppet masters.
If only it were just a "Bush bubble". Unfortunately it is an LBJ/Nixon/Carter/Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush catastrophe.
ReplyDelete"dearieme said...If only it were just a "Bush bubble". Unfortunately it is an LBJ/Nixon/Carter/Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush catastrophe."
ReplyDeleteYou can take it back further and say it was a Roosevelt catastrophe! Social Security usurped, but only in the minds of the populace, one of the foundational roles of children: taking care of their parents in old age. Very few people thought far ahead and asked themselves, "Who is going to take care of me when I'm old and infirmed?" It was just kind of there that the government had them mostly taken care of, they just needed to save a little. As a result, the baby boomers whose cultural folk memory of one of the important roles of children was dimmed, had less reason to bear them. As a Generation X'er, I've *never* heard such a question asked. Only very recently, have I heard observations made about the mess coming and how nobody planned ahead. We didn't just suddenly grow up, but are witnessing disturbing things among our parents generation: sudden divorce at age 58 and childless; divorced parent who has three kids... and her two childless sisters want those three kids to help shoulder the burden. And a very personal one from my cousins: two SWPL childless aunts who have traveled the world and not only never contributed a red penny to their welfare, but spewed disgust at their (very high IQ) mother for having over 10 children (extremely successful children one of whom has impacted each of your lives)... well now those aunts are starting to worry as they are now in their early '60s.
When Social Security was created, nobody thought of incentives for people to have children because it was completely taken for granted that people will always procreate. By 1972, the metaphysics had changed so much that the tax burden had shifted dramatically to *parents with children at home* and abortion had been legalized. The cultural revolutionaries of the time said we had to worry about a population explosion and, coupled with feminism and the individualist self-esteem movement, our do-gooders traipsed the globe with the gospel that children were, or should be, verboten. We even forgot that cities, which Charles Murray reminded us, were essential to human achievement and progress.
I know nothing!
ReplyDeleteAs a way to save money, replacing incandescent bulbs with flourescent lighting in government buildings is quite bizarre. There are virtually no government buildoings today lit by incandescents.
ReplyDeleteAmericans already spend more time under flourescents than they do under incandescents. There are almost no incandescents in commercial buildings and haven't been for decades. The whole green issue about compact flourescents is getting them into private domestic dwellings.
Goverment buildings, I hasten to point out, are not private domestic homes.
Obama and his policy teams don't seem to be very familiar with government office buildings.
"LBJ/Nixon/Carter/Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush catastrophe."
ReplyDeleteAnd wait until the oil peak kicks in!
One good thing about Obamanomics is the word, "Obamanomics." It's just fun to say.
ReplyDeleteAs part of my administrative responsibilities, I managed a government office building during the Carter administration. Most of the "changes" that Obama is now proposing were implimented then.
ReplyDeleteThe so-called Carter Rules decreed that you couldn't keep your office space too cool in the summer or too warm in the winter.
My building was in the Diablo Valley in California. It gets up to about 105 there in the summer. It had been farm land. Before air conditioning it wasn't considered a very good spot for office buildings.
The winters were mild of course, by eastern and mid western standards but still central heating was needed for much of the year.
When the Carter Rules were enacted I took control of the thermostats. Imounted plastic cages over them. A collegue who ran a building across the street didn't do this and he claimed the menopausal women were always dropping the thermostat when they had hot flashes.
By putting those plastic cages over the office thermostats I made everyone come to me to request a temperature change. At first I explained the Carter administration environmental policy. That didn't work for very long. Ideological passions soon cool when there is a cold snap outside.
Then I developed a little drama where I would unlock the thermostat and pretend to adjust it. That didn't fool them for long either.
Finally most of the workers brought in electric space heaters for under their desks. In the summer they had fans.
I always complied with the Carter thermostat rules, but by switching from central heating to individual heating we almost certainly used more electricity.
The point is that there is very little more that can be tried to reduce energy usage in government office buildings that hasn't been tried before. You can only make your bureaucrats so uncomfortable. Remember all those shivering office workers are members of public employee unions that contributed mightily to the Democratic party.
Steve, with all due respect, the problem with Obama is his mediocrity. This dope is our president--why?
ReplyDelete"Finally most of the workers brought in electric space heaters for under their desks. In the summer they had fans."
ReplyDeleteWhen I used to do desktop support I would constantly get calls from women whose machines were crashing because of the space heaters they put under their desks. Machine gets too hot, it reboots.
I'm a conservative. I want a government that works like Southwest Airlines. Southwest does a few essential things well. It keeps its commitments, to passengers, employees and shareholders. It's cheap. It flies you where you want to go, instead of telling you where to fly.
ReplyDeleteHow about Herb Kelleher for president? He's almost old enough. And he hates lawyers.
Regarding the "childless" comment, I'm currently watching "House Hunters" on HGTV and they are now showing a late 30s, high-IQ, childless couple in Fort Collins, Colorado. Who do they supplement for their children? Why, two small dogs of course! I don't understand. Fort Collins is such a cheap place to live. The wife is a software engineer and the husband is a pilot. Why don't they want to have children? I don't understand. Don't they believe in their future? It just doesn't make sense to me. I guess it's just another lifestyle choice....
ReplyDeleteI suspect the brainiacs have low sex drives to begin with. High-IQ nerds who can't get laid are one thing, but if you have a nerd couple...I guess they don't like having stupid people around, and kids have low mental ages...
ReplyDelete"the assumption that the fundamental problem of scarcity has been solved"
ReplyDeleteThe problem of scarcity HAS been solved -- capitalism is brilliant at that. For instance, in many countries (like the USA) the government pays farmers to produce LESS food in order to keep food prices artificially high. Machines have displaced much human labor and radically increased volume and efficiency, thus the rise of unemployment and the massive excess of consumer goods.
America currently suffers from OVERPRODUCTION. Many people can't buy any more because (1) they are too deep in debt; (2) their wages are stagnant and they only buy the basics; (3) they already have everything they need.
Look around: America has too many houses, too many cars, too much food, too much clothing...there are too many stores for everything and not enough consumers to buy it all up because of the aforementioned reasons. What is really criminal in a way is that, despite this excess which should drive down prices, the prices of these basic goods are kept too high because it is the only way the producers/businesses can make a decent profit.
The best thing that could happen is deflation (the price of everything drops) because so many companies must overcharge for goods and services because there are too many producers/businesses chasing the money of too few consumers.
If one wants to continue to prop up the hyperconsumerist society America has become, the price of basic goods and necessities (like food, housing, transportation, utilities, clothing, etc) needs to drop by about 25-33% -- this will free up more income for people to spend at the mall and on plastic widgets and electronics from Asia.
Re women and temperature -
ReplyDeleteMy dad was a grade school principal for 23 years, and for most of those he was the only amle on the staff. Having spent his working life at a constant 75 degree temperature, he's the only person I know who can wear a T-shirt in a Scottish December.
The Fundamental Flaws of Obamanomics
ReplyDelete1. Marxism
2. Socialism
3. Black Liberation Theology
SFG:
ReplyDeleteI suspect the brainiacs have low sex drives to begin with. High-IQ nerds who can't get laid are one thing, but if you have a nerd couple...I guess they don't like having stupid people around, and kids have low mental ages...
More likely nerd couples enjoy each other's company so much, that they can't let anyone else (kids) get in their way. It makes sense for nerds to feel that way, having been forced to spend so much time with teeming hordes of meantards. And that's yet another reason for nerds not to have kids: they don't want their children to go through the same hell they did for their first 18 years or so!