« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The Chaos and Old Night Friday Noon Open Thread.

This screenshot from the front page of Real Clear Politics pretty much sums up the GOP nomination process as we enter December:

To wit: every pundit and commentator in America is pretty much making it up as they go along at this point.  Personally, I think that it’s good: electing a President is a serious business, so we should take seriously.  Besides, look on the bright side.  We could be Democrats, and thus pretty much stuck with pretending that Obama/Biden is a good ticket; or even an adequate one.

Open thread.

COMMENTS

  • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

    The MSM and the Dems are running their own version of “Operation Chaos” and accomplishing quite a bit with it. The longer they can create uncertainty in the GOP field the more the candidates have to spend to stay competitive. They spend more on their primaries and have less money to spend on the general election. Erick pointed out the lack of convergence around a front runner a few weeks ago.

    This will be a “hold your nose and vote” election. We might as well come to terms with it and decide on the least smelly pile…I mean…candidate now.

  • acat

    is that oppo research also costs money .. and right now, the Obama camp have investigated at least Romney, Perry, and Cain – and are likely digging into Newt as we speak.

    Further, the longer we can keep the Dem-aligned MSM guessing, the longer the SNL writers spend taking shots at everyone instead of drilling in on one specific candidate (as they did with the Palin “I can see Alaska” sketch) the better off we are.

    Think of the also-rans as an extra layer of ablative meat.

    Mew

  • juumanistra

    There are quite a few candidates on-stage at the moment I wouldn’t need to hold my nose for. Your mileage, of course, may vary.

    A primary is supposed to be a chaotic and messy affair. The only reason why the original Operation Chaos existed was to exploit the simmering clash between the cultural blocs within the Democratic coalition. The equivalent in the GOP primary would have been the media going all-in for Bachmann at the start, to exploit the fault line running between the Tea Party and establishment wings of the party.

  • earlgrey

    us that a second Obama term will take America to a place from which we will never return. That is scary.

    I was kind of hoping that even if we lost we’d gain enough down ticker to put some breaks on what he is trying to do.

  • Scope

    Some polling outfits are now including Democrats that say they plan on voting in the GOP primaries. The latest Rassmussen poll is of Likely Voters who will be voting in the GOP primaries. Scott Rassmussen was on Fox the day the poll came out and said that they included Independents in their latest poll as they will be voting in the GOP primaries. Absolutely right that the D’s are having there own operation chaos.

  • origami

    I don’t believe in some sort of “Operation Chaos” organized by the MSM and the Democratic party. The MSM likes making money and a primary process that doesn’t come up with a nominee is more exciting to watch (and thus makes more money). As for the Democrats, I have yet to hear of any sizable number of democrats planning on voting in a Republican primary.It’s annoying enough being a primary voter in an early state getting robocalls from one set of candidates. It would take a REALLY dedicated and sly democrat to register with both parties and get calls from BOTH sides. I know in Washington if you want to caucus you have to put your name and info down at the site. No Anonymity allowed.

  • ss396

    “The top nine Republican candidates spent $53 million through September, compared with $132 million spent at the same time four years ago”

    http://webfarm.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-01/cheapest-primary-in-a-decade-defies-campaign-spending-prediction.html

    The candidates are using a lot more internet word-of-mouth (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube), which gets picked up on CNN, Fox and even MSNBC (if only to denounce it), and that becomes free TV. Think of that ad with Cain’s campaign manager. Nothing for production costs, yet how many millions of people saw it?

    The debates have also given a great deal of free exposure.

    I don’t see this as an Operation Chaos: I see this as an opportunity to have a convention that isn’t a coronation.

  • Scope

    being held by Huckabee and some state atty’s general tomorrow night. I just read that at the DesMoines Register. Don’t know when Cain decided to not participate. Uh Oh!

  • Scope

    that trying to beat an incumbent president would be difficult, no matter who they are. They have many advantages, and Obama is taking all those advantages and then some. That being said, Krauthammer has been a Romney supporter for a long time. I believe he even said at one time that Romney is the only one of the candidates that is electable and can beat Obama. Unfortunately Krauthammer is a moderate, and wines and dines at the most sought after Washington cocktail parties.

  • galileopaine

    The WH has already settled that Romney has the best chance to unseat Obama so they have aligned with the anybody-but-Romney GOPers in going after him. (Who would have ever thought that their interests were aligned on an issue?) The DEMs have already made their guess and they too would rather have anyone but Romney.

    MSM would love to see the GOP nomination drama dragged out as long as possible…more stories for them to print, and more mud for the GOP to sludge through and perhaps bring them down in the eyes of the independents that Obama has lost. That’s a win-win for them.

  • galileopaine

    Would you rather have a moderate or Obama? Pick someone too conservative (which is the preference) and Obama unfortunately probably wins. Unless we truly feel that there are far more conservatives, and enough conservative to actually make the independent/moderate vote irrelevant in swing states. If you do, then by all means, get the most potent conservative possible. However, if not then you need someone to appeal to independents and moderates.

    The key isn’t so much the Presidential nominee as it is taking control of the Senate and maintaining control of the House. No GOP president, however moderate, would veto legislation brought before him by a GOP controlled congress. The greater focus should be on ensuring control of congress with conservatives…a moderate GOP president will have to follow. Get enough conservative members of congress and a moderate president will not be able to impose his moderate views either.

    Unfortunately, there is just not a “Reagan Conservative” with a chance to win right now.

  • omegamale

    It was at least comforting in 2008 to know that at least if MY guy didn’t get the nomination, a strong GOP nominee would eventually emerge.

    Candidates like Giuliani, McCain, Fred Thompson, Huckabee, Mitt Romney, etc. were all nominees that no one could write off as unelectable, fatally flawed, or not ready for Prime Time.

    Bu this batch is pathetic, I see MAYBE two candidates that have a shot, and only one of them is in contention at this point. If Gingrich is the nominee, it’s over, and he will likely take the House down with him and numerous Governorships. Don’t for a minute think that the voters that decide elections only vote on ideas, they mainly vote on the individual.

    The base has created a Frankenstein monster that it might not be able to stop. I just hope sanity comes to the GOP in time, because we can’t afford a second Obama term.

  • streiff

    Romney, Giuliani, and Huckabee were unelectable to the GOP.

    McCain was unelectable nationally.

    I don’t know how anyone who lived through 2008 thought we had a strong field. No one at the website labored under that delusion.

  • Whacker77

    The guys in 2008 were at least plausible. The circus clowns running in 2012 are anything but plausible.

  • omegamale

    I really hated McCain, but he was not “unelectable” he was leading in the polls until the financial meltdown happened. He also would have easily beat Gore in 2000.

    Had any other candidate been nominated in 2008, the same result would have likely happened. 8 years of Bush fatigue, an unpopular war, and financial armageddon means the incumbent party gets defeated. But the base wants to trot out this narrative that it was all because McCain was insufficiently conservative. Please, if Fred Thompson had gotten the nomination it would have been the same result.

    The other candidates all had their strong points and had real executive experience, they certainly were no where near as unelectable as someone like Gingrich.

    I’d take the 2008 batch over this sorry bunch any day.

  • Common_Cents

    .

  • streiff

    I think we started with a much stronger field for 2012.

    I can vote for two of the bunch without holding my nose, three if I use a clothespin.

  • septembergurl

    tomorrow in Atlanta (according to NBC). Subject not stated.

    So, the talk with Gloria didn’t go too well?

  • supergirl2911

    That McCain was unelectable.

  • Tbone

    Would carry just about the same surprise factor as Cain’s withdrawal statement.

  • earlgrey

    is the first time I have heard this.

  • Scope

    and how did that work out for us? The only one too far to the right in the race is Ron Paul. Ron Paul will not be the nominee. As has been stated here many times, if Romney is the nominee, then Obama wins. If Romney squeaked by, conservatism is gone. I personally put Newt in that same category because of his more recent support for Global Warming, his tour of the US with Al Sharpton and Arne Duncan in favor of Race to the Top, his support as late as this year for the individual mandate, and saying that Ryan’s Entitlement reform plan was “right wing social engineering .” He is not a reliable conservative.

    As to the House and Senate, it doesn’t matter who the next president is, we should be trying to get good conservatives elected regardless.

  • Whacker77

    At this point, I’m backing Huntsman. I really like his tax plan as it’s realistic and doable. I also like that he’s taken on “too big to fail”. As Erick has noted, he’s more pro-life than Romney too, but he does have his warts. In this group though, who doesn’t.

    I’m a Calvin Coolidge style conservative. I wish we could clone him, but we can’t. I wish more qualified choices had run, but they didn’t. I can hold my nose and vote for Romney, but I just can’t do that with Newt. The consequences on the down ballot races would be awful.

    I don’t like that Huntsman has Weaver advising him, but I’ve got to take the good with the bad. I understand people are looking for the anti-Romney, but I think Newt is not the right person to hold that position.

    I still hold out hope a miracle will happen and a white knight gets in now or at a borkered convention. Since that’s not going to happen, I’m going with who I feel is the least bad choice.

  • Whacker77

    Obviously, I meant “brokered” convention.

  • Scope

    and lost both times, one in the primary, and one in the general. That would make him unelectable, just as Ralph Nader is unelectable.

  • Wubbies World

    … personally, as unpalatable as Newt is, Mitt is even worse. I suppose the question boils down to who would be worse. I will vote for Mitt in the General, but only after drinking heavily, but I will vote for Newt sober and just hold my nose.

    How terrible is that for our choices?

  • uselogic

    n/t

  • Scope

    according to Blitzer. He isn’t participating in the debate tomorrow night though.

    Cain has little chance of winning the nomination now. There still can be more long term “friends of the opposition sex” coming forward as long as he stays in. If I were the Mrs., and Herm, I wouldn’t put myself and my family through possible further messes when you know you have little chance at the ultimate prize. Then again, it has been speculated that he is really trying out for the VP or a cabinet slot.

  • omegamale

    yet came back and was a two term President that went on to win 49 states, one of the largest landslides of all time.

    Reagan also lost several primaries, in 1968 and 1976, yet went on to win the largest electoral landslide ever when he finally got the nod in 1980.

    Much of politics is simply timing, but you have to have a quality candidate to take advantage of it.

  • tyman

    It’s very puzzling to me because, according to an Atlanta radio station, they’re still going ahead with the opening of their Georgia office.

    I’ve read on the Huffington Post that they’ve had marital problems for years, and that Herman has been gone a lot of the time, and Gloria and the kids have been fine with that.

    Boortz said just this week that Herman wanted to do his radio show at his office because it was so much closer to home so he could get home quicker to check on Gloria, who he said has a heart condition.

    I really wonder if all of this is true, what made Herman run for President? Was it really about selling more books? Same with Newt (case in point, not filing for the NH delegates)? Same with Bachmann?

    I’m not trying to be sarcastic, I’m honestly puzzled. Our country is in such pitiful shape we need someone who is in it because they want to make the country better.

  • acat

    From Howard Tayler’s Schlock Mercenary ..

    I forget where in the archives the phrase comes up, but I agree that it’s priceless, so I pocketed it for future use.

    Mew

  • Change Jar Conservative

    (Hey it’s an open thread)

    In the old days, we cared about making America a strong place for jobs.

    The EPA and Endangered Species act changed that.

    The Democrats added layers of burocracy to stifle American jobs.

    The Republicans sold out to big business to allow off shoring and near shoring of American jobs.

    And here we are.

  • donald_24

    To date, every jobs plan put out by the GOP canddiates, Romney included, has promised to DESTROY jobs by increasing the number of H1-B Visas. They have ZERO plan to create jobs. None at all. Nothing to stop outsourcing. Nothing to stabalize the housing market. Notihing to stop illegal immigration.

  • Change Jar Conservative

    until unemployment is under 6%.

  • septembergurl

    to do a Lincoln-Douglas type debate (as Newt did with Cain) — no moderator, just a timekeeper.

    This could be very interesting. These two are the smartest and most substantive of the candidates. Both very good at extemporaneous speaking. If the topic were foreign policy it could be very enlightening as they are both well versed and experienced in the topic.

    What a fool Romney was to turn this down. But I suppose it was a no-win for him – accept and face the possibility that Newt could seriously ding him, or refuse and look like a wimp.

  • aesthete

    Um, if someone with an H1-B is being hired, that is a job that is not being “destroyed”. Nice to see that the glaziers’ argument is still strong more than 100 years after Bastiat debunked it, though…

  • donald_24

    Yes, a job is being destroyed because that job could have gone to an unemplyed American.

    Also, Indian outsourcers like Infoys and Tata send workers here on H1-B Visas to get them acquainted with jobs done by Americans. Do you know why they want them to be acquaineted with American jobs? Because those jobs will ultimately be outsourced to India.

    But don’t take my word for it. Kamal Nath, the commerce Minister of India, said that the H1-B Visa “has become the outsourcing visa.”

    Let em repeat what the Commerce Minister said: ?It has become the outsourcing visa?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/business/yourmoney/15view.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1322864145-pQ79GhcFm2GdaddNqllDjQ

  • JSobieski

    I hope they stick primatily to economic issues. This could be a great event to contrast with Obama.

  • aesthete

    for what is clearly a problem that was the result of a pathetic GOP from 98 onwards? The Tea Party has elected some great Governors, Senators, and Congressmen. Is it our fault that Mitt Romney (not elected by the Tea Party), Rick Perry (not elected by the Tea Party), Ron Paul (not elected by the Tea Party), Herman Cain (not elected by the Tea Party), Newt Gingrich (not elected by the Tea Party), Jon Huntsman (not elected by the Tea Party), Gary Johnson (not elected by the Tea Party), Rick Santorum (not elected by the Tea Party), and Bachmann (eh… I’ll give you that one) are lousy candidates? I think not.

  • Xasteius

    Are they qualified with the dumbing down of US education; teaching hordes of ‘women’s studies’ majors when we need engineering majors? What about the unpicked fruit when all the illegals have moved on? Can’t Americans fill those jobs?

  • donald_24

    According to Professor Ron Hira of the Rochester Inst. of Technology, an expert on H1-B Visas, there are currently 300,000 unemployed engineers and computer scientists in America. The number is significantly higher if you include under-employed workers.

    http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2011_09_02/caredit.a1100089

  • aesthete

    Economics, trade and employment are not zero-sum games. Do you think that this would this help unemployment in the long-term, when shifts to capital over labor, *actual* outsourcing, and the loss of US jobs created by foreign worker demand in the US take their toll? Will the marginal increase in short-term employment (and dubious effects on long-term employment) be worth paying through the nose for food and technology, which would undoubtedly cause second-order effects for the cost of other goods in the US? (Especially in businesses which are tech-dependent.) Further, is your goal to keep strategic partners in South Asia impoverished and without industry or human capital? Is it a good idea to keep large swathes of the American labor force uncompetitive and/or artificially large — the result of insulating it from market pressures abroad?

    Zero-sum thinking is not helpful, and hardly ever resolves economic questions — not in matters of trade or employment. Unfortunately, reducing unemployment (especially long-term) will take a bit more than insulating our labor force from market pressures.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    are the barriers our government has to employment. Regulations and taxes to be precise.

    There have been several studies on outsourcing and they show that it is just like free trade in any other commodity. In the bigger picture we are all made better off by the increased volume of trade and increased wealth creation.

    Or I suppose we could just cut ourselves off from the world and become like those beacons of progress Myanmar and North Korea.

  • Tbone

    unless he is just as delusional as the fools who bought into his BS.

    The first time I heard him speak I thought he was full of crap and that has only been repeatedly confirmed.

  • donald_24

    The main driver of outsourcing is the ability to get insanely cheap labor. Even if you do pay less taxes overseas, you have to factor in the additional costs that eliminate many of the savings, like shipping and tariffs.

  • septembergurl

    as I recall the Newt-Cain debate was in the evening and it was sponsored by a tea party or group of tea parties. I would imagine this one would get more coverage and be carried by C Span or livestreamed, given Newt’s new prominence.

    I think it lasted about two hours.

    One thing you won’t hear from Huntsman: I’ll let Newt take that one.

  • aesthete

    associated with bringing foreigners over here, training them, ESL classes, sponsorship, having lawyers on hand to deal with problems with the host country and immigration services, or with the higher wages earned by foreign labor in the US as opposed to foreign labor abroad, on account of increased cost of living.

    There are also apparently no benefits that accrue from having foreigners who pay rent, buy food, and generate economic activity in the US in other ways.

    Actual, non-sarcastic question: why do you think it is that the cheap labor tends to congregate only in certain fields, industries, and patterns, rather than being a generalized feature in all US labor markets? Clearly, not every industry is swamped by said cheap labor, nor every sub-category within certain industries such as tech, so there’s more going on than mere corporate greed and cheap labor, which are pretty much constants in this equation and have been for many years.

  • donald_24

    At FoxConn in China, workers make $290 a month (see: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Media/foxconn-china-assembly-workers-receive-pay-raise/story?id=10846341 )

    Let’s say you cut the corporate tax rate in the U.S. to 20%, do you really think that is going to make US workers more cost efficient than FoxConn workers?

  • donald_24

    “There are also apparently no benefits that accrue from having foreigners who pay rent, buy food, and generate economic activity in the US in other ways.”

    But we would get those exact same benefits if Americans had those jobs, would we not? The American worker would most certainly buy food, pay rent, and generate economic activity, would they not?

    Also, compnaies do not always have to pay higher wages to workers from overseas. The L-1 Visa allows compnaies to pay workers what they would be paid in their home country. Unlike the H1-B, there is no prevailing wage requirement for the L-1.

    And to answer your question about why cheap labor is concentrated in certain fields, it is simple. Most other fields have strict licensing requirements. Someone who went to law school in India cannot ome here and immediately sit for the Bar exam. A doctor from China can’t come here and immediately sit for the boards. Engineering and science, for the most part, lack licensing requirements. Software engineers and electircal engineers do not need a license.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    This is a party matter.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    it is an argument for less government involvement in licensing and otherwise restricting the freedom to work.

  • septembergurl

    This debate will be in New Hampshire. Here you see Newt thinking ahead a bit. NH is still a steep climb vs Romney, and Newt would obviously like to build up another candidate to prevent Romney from winning a plurality. The only candidates who are in double digits there are Huntsman and Paul. Assume paul has a ceiling of 12 or so, Newt goes with Huntsman.

    Huntsman will be focusing on romney in the debate, but he will also try to draw a distinction with Newt, because he will need votes from both Romney and Newt to win (or even place). Should be an interesting debate.

  • donald_24

    So no professions should have licensing?

  • donald_24

    I’m already a registered Republican and as a NY voter have voted for Rudy, Pataki, and Bush 43. And as a NJ voter, I have voted for Christie.

    I’m also guilty of voting for Michael Bloomberg. But it was 2001 and hardly anyone knew anything about him, other than the fact he was super rich. Plus he was endorsed by Rudy. That is a vote I regret.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    If you can meet the criteria of your own professional associations then you should have a shot. If you prove to be incompetent you can be sued.

  • unapologetic_american

    …so we can get to the REALLY important matters. Mainly, taking the Senate and building a bigger majority in the House.

  • macwell

    Bingo galileopaine.
    The real problem we face is that bastion of corruption we call congress. The career politicians have set up the club almost like a perpetual motion machine, with a never ending supply of fuel.
    Congress was never meant to be a career. The model the founders and millions of our citizens fought and died for was carefully thought out. These great men knew that those sent to speak in our stead should come from every walk of life, not just our law schools. Citizen government. What a quant idea. I’m sure many of you will get a laugh from the words alone. But Rush, but Rush, government is complicated, regular people can’t really grasp what it takes to run government, ( sorry Rush for using some of your shtick, but, it fits here). While that may be true, it isn’t an accident. Think about it, which profession is the majority in all branches of government? If you said lawyers, you’d be right. More about them later.
    We the people have been lied to, stolen from, and been made fools of, by the very people WE vouched for, to get into the club. These, (representatives) trade votes like so many baseball cards, on legislation that effects everyone of us… but not them! Ask yourself this, why would someone spend upwards of 10 times the pay rate for a job. That would be like a person spending $1,000.00 to land a job paying $10.00 an hour. Now that may happen in hard times, but, it isn’t the norm.
    The sad part is that the shape America is in is not the fault of progressives, or communists, or Muslims, wherever they work. No folks, if you’re looking for someone to blame for the shape America’s in, look in the mirror. We the people are to blame. We’ve been the silent majority for too long, we no longer have that luxury. America is at war with itself. We the people only have one more chance to save this great country.
    Back to the lawyers. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t hate lawyers, I don’t think all lawyers should be killed, (sorry Mr. Shakespeare). I do think we have way too many lawyers in government. What does one learn in law school? It would appear that the primary task of a lawyer is to use the language to answer a question without taking responsibility for the answer. In other words, answering it without really answering it.
    Back to congress. We the people MUST reclaim America next year. 2012 will be the most important election in our nation’s history. We the people MUST decide if we will allow America to be “fundamentally transformed” into yet another socialist nightmare, or do you believe America, with all her faults, is still the greatest country in the world?
    Next November, we ALL must answer that question.

  • tngal

    Great snag there Romney. Da*m, now ALL the good conservative endorsements are taken. (snark).

  • aesthete

    Chinese people to starve so that robots can do their work at higher cost in the US? Because the option is not between bringing back American jobs and outsourcing, when it comes to such jobs; the option is between outsourcing and using much more capital as opposed to labor. The glory days of a majority of Americans getting paid 20/hr + benefits for manufacturing jobs is a historical artifact made possible by the fact that our country was the only one with industrial capacity not bombed to rubble, and by the fact that capital was not as cheap as it is today.

    I look forward to the day that you call for a ban on technology and capital to “bring back jobs”, though.

  • wonkish1

    Depending on the particular industry and how much % of the cost of doing business is low skill payroll your going to get wildly different answers.

    Taxes is a large part of the cost of doing business. Labor is a large part of the cost of doing business. Regulations are a large part of the cost of doing business. ***Access to capital markets and a cost of capital can be a huge part of the cost of doing business***. Capital equipment can be a big part of cost of doing business***. Cost of delivery can be a big part of cost of doing business.

    China may have cheap low skill labor, but
    -There access to low cost of capital is horrible relative to the United States
    -There cost of delivery is higher because the products the produce are consumed in other countries(like the US).
    -**Their capital equipment and high skilled labor is extremely expensive relative to other countries a consequence of their past artificial pegging
    -Their economy and money supply are less stable than the United States.

    So basically China has developed a competitive advantage in low skill, low cost of doing business operations like cheap trinket manufacturing. But these same advantages for that type of work completely preclude them from getting into high R&D industries(like Health, tech, etc.), high fixed cost industries(like plane and auto manufacturing) etc. That artificially low currency makes it way to expensive for them to import expensive talent and import expensive machinery, software, etc. to build things like planes, cars, etc.

    Plus they are pretty much screwed right now. They are on the edge of a huge crash that will make our sub-prime crash look small in relative terms.

  • snowshooze

    Japan?
    Or Taiwan, China.
    I still remember the cheap Japanese tin toys with the stamped tongue through slot and bent over construction… then the cheap motorcycles…
    And these days… our Defense department puts their circuits in missiles?
    Ahhh but the Chinese are Communists.
    This is an intriguing subject which I need to study.
    China cannot foreclose on us all… they have a few little problems of their own too.
    When the money crashes.. will it all come down to who can ship the most lead out of a barrel? They have enough people to scare anyone.
    We have worldwide irresponsible governments and artificially supported currencies.
    Worldwide debt levels that are from dangerous to insane.
    Governments demanding more and more of their citizens.
    An internet on the verge of Nationalization or complete censorship. ( We shouldn’t be allowed to speak to each other… especially to other countries )
    China is so full of people and resources, they will make out no matter what. They are Communist, and they can force their people to work or shoot them, and they do.
    Access to cheap cash? They don’t even need the stuff.

  • wonkish1

    Communist any more. They are actually more like the socialist technocratic states of Europe in the 40s and 50s without the welfare state.

    They have state owned enterprise and they utilize capitalism to marshal their resources for the benefit of sovereign power(Japan is a perfect example of that).

    Essentially the determination of whether or not a government investment or economic policy is made in China is to the degree that it would boost the GDP calculator not on what maximizes profit. So they drive massive amounts of fixed investment into certain markets so they can hit their GDP target and boost employment levels.

    The problem with this approach is that your economy sits on quicksand because if it is directed for sovereign power instead of the highest return vs. risk on capital then its guaranteed that the Chinese will invest in overcapacity(like we have been seeing in their property markets).

    And once all these assets get written down one way or another to their real value a lot of the “growth” they’ve built up over the last few years will disappear with it.

  • snowshooze

    But in the bottom line, they are still Communists.
    They are dinking around with controlled capitalism, and I have yet to be able to figure out the mechanics.
    But you upset them.. they mow you down. In case you forgot the Tenimen square. It is controlled with sheer brute force.
    I was trying to obtain some product from China for resale… it is really complicated. You can find the product from several brokers… but you can never get through the middlemen to the factory.
    You know they all come from the same place.
    But I was trying to do some wholesale stuff…
    None will let you through. This one buys from that one, who sell to the other one, and he sells to me. They all get their piece of the action.
    It seems to be an honored tradition.
    None will violate it. I tried to break them. Zip.
    I believe that even if I did make contact with the factory, the price would be the same as they would pay all the middles anyway.
    It is really strange.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    They cannot devalue their currency forever, and they cannot sustain their high employment growth for very much longer. After a while the public will demand higher wages and more choices in what to purchase.

    And it is a myth that they do not pay attention to the demands of the people. They certainly will not grant them any rights, so they try to placate them with jobs and growth. The leadership is frightened as hell of their own people.

    They also have a growing problem with Muslim extremists in their western provinces. And a crashing demographic problem due to the one child policy.

  • wonkish1

    Economically more like European and Japanese socialists these days. There is no way they would have ever made the progress they’ve made in the last couple decades if they stuck with anything close to the famine producing communist policies of someone like Mao.

    Yeah I’ve seen that before and that isn’t purely a Chinese issue that is quite common among the developing world in general. In the developing world they are heavily reliant on salesman to make the market. So you see these long strings of resale, commissions, etc.

  • wonkish1

    Actually if anything they may be artificially holding it up for the last few weeks. Apparently capital wants out of that economy very, very, very badly right now.

    If the Chinese don’t allow the currency to appreciate after their upcoming crash they’ll go through a Japan like stagnation for a while. Their exporters are peaking right now and any continued devaluation after the turmoil is just going to come with inflation and essentially a slow moving cap on production because the world wont buy their overcapacity(that is why they need to switch to starting to consume more of their own production).

  • aesthete

    Thank you! I was trying to lead him to that conclusion (or something similar), but I guess coming out and saying it works great, as well :)

  • JSobieski

    Even in industries such as the auto industry, China is not winning the intra-company sourcing debates as they once did. Some production is coming back to the US Other production is going to places like Vietnam or Singapore.

    China is a popular boogey-man just as Japan was in the 1980s. China has its own problems, and like everything about China, those problems are complex, misunderstood, and large.

  • snowshooze

    They can wait us out.
    It is an entirely different set of rules when you can kill your citizens at will. How long can you hold your breath?
    Well… that’s great. Look, these guys can hold their breath forever,,,
    they are dead.

  • wonkish1

    The factory closings in China are speeding up right now.

    The more expensive the cost of doing business is in China the worse it is(so there is your cheap auto parts/components).

    The cheap trinkets for example should be holding up fine for now because the fixed costs are so low that they can scale back pretty easily.

    But margins across the board are just getting razor thin in China.

  • wonkish1

    Paradigm. They wont be able to contain the damage.

    So we’ll see whether or not they want to go the route of Japan(by not printing) or Argentina(by printing) and trying to prop what is coming to an end or if they are willing to take their very painful lumps, let the market price clear on all this overpriced real estate and toxic debt and let their economy grow based more on consumer consumption.

    Its really harder to predict on the Chinese will take this crash than you think it is. Especially since new leadership is taking over next year.

  • center77

    the thing the I need to know is can I trust what they are saying. I know the answer when it comes to Newt, but I believe I can trust Huntsman, I just done think he can win. Newt I think is going to take the party down when he goes if it does not happen soon.

  • snowshooze

    But the Chinese have the means to stand alone.
    They need import nothing.
    They have the resources, the population, and the power over them.
    It is a hard nut to crack.

  • JSobieski

    The one child policy is a demographic time bomb. No developing country (which is what China still is) has such an inverted demographic distribution.

    Even developed countries get crippled by such things—and the wheels are coming off the economy even as we speak.

    Corruption. Real estate bubbles. Lack of transparency.

    One reason why both China and the US are doing better than they/we really should be doing is that the EU is in the toilet, and the rest of the world looks pretty darn shaky.

  • snowshooze

    So long as the elite are rich, which they are… all else are details…details.
    Watch the bouncing ball..
    Who gives a flip about the slaves, anyway.
    All else, we are 100%

  • JSobieski

    and China is no exception to that rule. Not to mention the fact that wealth and power are linked. The national government in China has until recently, been viewed by many as the competent people responsible for prosperity. That bubble is also popping. Whose to say where it will lead.

    China is not a free economy, but nor is it locked down in the way that North Korea is or that Egypt is. You can’t fake economics. If that were possible, the USSR would still be around and North Korea would be a trourist hot spot.

  • snowshooze

    And they can.

  • acat

    Actually, there’s several questions wrapped up in it.

    Can the China of 30 years in the future, when the results of the one-child policy really start to bite, survive? Will they find a way to deal with a surplus elder population needing care? What cost will their solution entail?

    How long can the Chinese government maintain control of an increasingly educated (often in the ‘states) population, and what happens when the leash slips?

    What happens to all the “broken branches”, the hundreds of thousands of young men, now coming of age, for whom there are no and cannot be any Chinese brides? The traditional way to deal with a surplus population of young men has been to use them as cannon fodder. Mexico has found a different path, sending their young able-bodies here. What will China do?

    It appears that we are all doomed to live in “Interesting Times”.

    Mew

  • acat

    History is quite liberally appointed with people who put their money or their lives on that bet.

    Mew

  • wonkish1

    The 2 real questions are: What are the chances of their government being toppled…within the next couple years? And will the Chinese government try to take the easy way out in the near future and usher in an era of stagnation and decay in China.

    China could profoundly change in the next couple years not just 30 years from now.

    That said every country “survives” they just may not do so great,

  • JSobieski

    they want China to be a preminent power, which requires a prosperous economy and technological innocation.

    I actually think the leadership (at least some of them) are smart enough to know their predicament in many respects. I think a lof of Chinese have only recently gotten past an inferiority complex with the west, even if their public statements seem far more confident.

    Remember how badly they wanted to have a formal state dinner at the WH? That should tell you a little something of how they truly view their situation in the world.

    I don’t doubt however that in all of this financial crisis, they are getting increasingly arrogant—-no different than the Japanese in the early 80s. and we saw how well that worked out.

  • snowshooze

    There ain’t no rules there.
    It isn’t like it is Wyoming.
    Hey, if they need more bodies, they can up it to 2.3.
    Look, they shut down information at will.
    It is so far off what we do.. ( Less every day though )
    Most cannot comprehend.
    Gunpoint is a strong teacher.
    And it is still the norm, rather than the exception.
    And political crimes… they calls them s they sees them.
    ” I don’t like this guy… go get him or kill him. I don’t care. ”
    This is real.
    We cannot dictate the ground rules to China.
    Of all the crazy stuff this country has tried.. not even the lunatics have the balls to try to take it to China.
    They do not play the game.

  • JSobieski

    You think companies would be like, hey, if you clean up the dead bodies over there—we want to open a new plant?

    China is already losing projects that it used to win—and that is happening without the heavy hand that you describe.

    Reality can dictate rules to China just as it did the USSR.

    Ultimately, the Communist Party will need to slowly loosen its grip on power or choose to rule a country that descends in economic power.

    There is no viable option for a long term continued growth of prosperity and the grip of the Party over China. There is a choice, and they can’t avoid it.

  • acat

    I posted a note about the Chinese rail ministry stopping *all* construction a week or three ago.. seems that they don’t have money to keep building *anything*. Not just new lines, but new stations on existing lines. This is on top of some of their failures with “high speed rail” where maximum safe speed is around 30mph.

    Command economies cannot, by definition, adapt nearly as fast as the U.S. with our hundreds of thousands of entrepreneurs ready to bolt off in millions of directions simultaneously in search of a profit.

    Mew

  • snowshooze

    Loan them all they want. Then use them as you own them.

  • acat

    They’re not in the laws, they’re in the culture.

    Caring for elders is important. There is a cost to writing that out of the culture….

    Mew

  • JSobieski

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2011/06/05/chinese-entrepreneurs-are-leaving-china/

    This is the evidence of the issues China is dealing with. China can’t be “Rich China” without capital and capitalists. Both are leaving, or considering leaving.

  • wonkish1

    Only goal is to please the masses with jobs and GDP.

    I mean investment is made in China based purely on what will drive the highest addition to the GDP calculator. It is investment that in the name of sovereign power. Sovereign power in the way of jobs, growth, and economic might.

    That is a completely different way of doing things than in pure free markets like in the United States. Because United States fixed investment is driven into what lends the most risk adjusted profit.

    The difference that creates is that in the United States to the degree they don’t engage a little in what China does practically all of investment is on a stable footing and so sustainable wealth grows.

    In China it puts their economy on quicksand(like in Japan) and since fixed investment is directed at what will produce the most to the GDP calculator and employment the answer is always to invest in the same things over and over again and book GDP growth when there is overcapactiy. And eventually you just can’t keep it up anymore and that massive overcapacity like this:

    Has to come back to a market clearing price which given how bad it is in China it will a tiny fraction of what it is right now.

  • acat

    (Cheshire grin)

  • wonkish1

    The only issue is how long it will take before either the government tries to prop it back up(or it doesn’t), how long until their is social unrest(or it doesn’t happen that much), or maybe if we’re lucky China will do the smart thing which is as close to nothing as possible and let it correct without the gov. being toppled. But we’ll see.

  • JSobieski

    nt

  • snowshooze

    It is demonstrated by reality rather than ideals.
    Tell me about Tenimein square.
    Americans cannot wrap their minds around the concept that life has zero value.
    We are not exposed to the concept in our faith or our history.
    So I am not surprised when I am challenged.
    It is outside our reality.
    But it is there.
    The US does not have the wherewithall to challenge communist China.
    Sacrilege you say?
    No, fact.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    ..

  • JSobieski

    My argument is soley on the basis of economic and political reality.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPILhiTJv7E

    Tenimen Square happened because most Chinese sided with the government over the students.

    China is a huge bubble. They have entire cities that are essentially empty. That is the reality. Without changing/reforming, the cannot continue on their current economic course.

    I sould also add the China is a huge importer of resources, so they can’t “stand alone”.

    They import, people, expertise, money, and resources.

    China is not the economic superpower that people think it is.

  • snowshooze

    I can’t sell it. It is just too long winded for folks to understand.

  • snowshooze

    You are thinking though.
    There is just meat. They got more.

  • JSobieski

    There is however a balancing act between power in the world at large and power at home.

    Put another way, the Chinese Communist Party does not want to become a North Korea. Thus they face tradoffs between power (external) and power (internal). Those tradeoffs will fundamentally alter the desired goals of the Chinese Communist Party one way or another. China does not want to fall back into the realm of “lessor nations”. That desire will either result in a glasnost type of mistake by which they ultimately lose domestic power or a loss of prosperity in which their standing in the world goes back to what it was.

    Either way, China will change … one way or another.

  • JSobieski

    I don’t think you are getting my point at all. Let me encapsulate it better for you:

    China can and very well might just mow down everyone of their citizens who proves to be a problem. However, they can’t really do that and be a rich growing international economic player at the same time.

    Respect for “human rights” has nothing to with that inherent limitation. Reality makes the rules.

    Communists have absolute power, but they can’t repeal the law of gravity or of supply and demand. Ultimately, reality takes its course.

  • wonkish1

    Just beautifully put!

  • snowshooze

    I am with you guys, but life is worthless to them.

  • JSobieski

    If you mean the very short term, maybe . . . but if you mean the medium term 4-8 years, I absolutely disagree.

    Their housing/construction bubble is going to burst. The fact that insiders are moving their money out of the country says everything that you need to no.

    No disagreement on how Communists view human rights.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    “Power flows from the barrel of a gun” – Mao

  • snowshooze

    Again…
    They do not care. They don’t give a damn what you or I think.
    They would just as soo feed us to the pigs, and sell us as bacon on the US market.

  • JSobieski

    and they don’t take 100 years to bring a high flying object crashing into the ground.

    None of my arguments are based on what anything thinks, I am arguing purely from an economic standpoint.

    Chinese capital and entrepreneurs are leaving China (see previously provided Forbes link)

    China has the mother of real estate bubbles–entire cities that are empty.

    The Communist Party of China has a choice—and that choice is not something that will wait for 8 years much less 80 years—prosperity or control. They can’t have both.

  • snowshooze

    In our tamed society, our populace is divorced from reality.
    There are people in this world that eat people, to this day.
    Edi Amin. Meatlockers full of hanging dead people.
    Talk human rights to him.
    I have the right to MSG free people, therefore… MSG must be outlawed!!!
    And ya know, I am certain there are sub categories who prefer the Veal… as in children. And further…sub-sub categories who prefer certain cuts.
    It is sick, but it is real.
    If you don’t like it… whaddya gonna do?
    Now quit trying to BS me about human rights. Neil excepted.

  • snowshooze

    If you can’t swing that, you don’t get to sit in on this game.
    They are playing CENTURY hands right now.

  • JSobieski

    The economic laws of supply and demand will only give them a far shorter period of time.

    Fact #1:The real estate bubble in China is so large that it is literally visible from satellite photos.
    Fact #2: The wealthy enterpreneur class are secretly moving substantial volumes of money off shore.
    Fact #3: A lot of business that would have been source in China 5 years ago is no being sourced elsewhere.
    Fact #4: China’s 1 child policy means that in upcoming decades, the ratio of retired people to workers will be very “challenging” for their system

    I don’t seen any facts or analysis that you have presented that contradicts these facts. Nor do you provide any basis to explain how China is somehow immune to economic laws in way that the USSR wasn’t.

    The USSR was driven to a choice between some glasnost (which ultimately brought down their system) or blatant second tier status in the world. China will be no different, and the signs are there for anyone to see who is not overwhelmed with what is known as “recency bias”.

  • acat

    The question was what methods the communist party bosses will use to ensure they remain on the trigger end and not the muzzle end.

    They have a choice. They cannot vote “present”. This isn’t about “human rights” at all, it’s about economic reality.

    Mew

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    Please take a moment and send up a prayer for my dad. He’s having open heart surgery at St. Thomas in Nashville – 5 to 6 bypasses after major chest pains yesterday. Two thirds of the way through and going well. 83 year old heart is strong and no damage, just blockages. More importantly, a Christian heart. Thanks redstate family.

  • znjs

    Keep us updated.

  • westcoastpatriette

    And a speedy recovery.

  • acat

    Because we gloss over a lot of the ancient history of China, it’s easy to fall into the trap of assuming that they’re still playing the kind of long ball that the emperors played .. but even that isn’t the case… there were all kinds of problems and civil wars and external influences.

    Like our constitution, the imperial structure was able to survive the waves of history for a very long time, but that doesn’t make China, nor the Chinese people, invulnerable.

    Since WWI, as the world has grown more connected, China has become more and more vulnerable – and historically, a top-down approach is actually the worst at riding the waves – like a surfer trying to think consciously about every movement of the hips, knees, ankles, and toes instead of just letting each part ride the waves as the more bottom-up U.S. does…

    They’re not playing a century hand any more than we are.

    Mew

  • acat

    How to avoid “being the first ones against the wall when the revolution came”.

    Mew

  • snowshooze

    How could anyone plan for that?
    America has to scare the world about half to death… we can be like a loose cannon.. and so we were in this case.

  • snowshooze

    And so they are. It is a balancing act.. how can they do best.
    So, they are playing around with modified capitalism, they are dabbling in finance, they are exploring levels of personal freedom.
    And when the people start to rise… they squash them flat.
    Only so much slack.. and if it appears to be a threat… ok… send in a few troops.
    So it is an experiment… but they hold all the cards.
    They are doing whatever they can to win on a world wide scale, but they will not bet the farm. They retain the power in the government.
    AKA Communism.

  • JSobieski

    What government doublespeak policy manual did that come out of?

  • JSobieski

    If a handful of government bureaucrats are better at making economic decissions than the marketplace over time, I would think that you would become a socialist yourself.

    Have the confident of your convictions. Only liberals at the NYT think that China has a better model than the US.

    China cannot beat free market economics any more than the USSR could. Any more than Obama could.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    My dad had 7 by passes but holding his own. Lots of good folks sending prayers up. Will be sedated for 2 or more days to let his heart rest and heal but doc expects good recovery..

  • snowshooze

    Well, I can only speculate. It is recreation for the Peasants.
    Or maybe they will use them for bomb tests.
    I don’t know. It is nickles and dimes to them.
    No, I hate their stinking guts and we have absolutely no interest in even trading with them. It is a philosophical conflict of interest.
    It is a National conflict of interest.. and it pisses me off.
    Now I have to apologize for that very frank language, it is on the profanity side of decency. But it is the best representation of my perspective with my limited command of the language.
    All the people in this country screaming Human Rights, Minimum Wage, Organized Labor.. Freedom of self determination… Freedom of speech. Go to Wal-Mart…and you will meet every one of those Fatherless cowards there filling their carts.

  • wonkish1

    We are talking about hundreds of billions in an economy that is several trillion dollars in size.

    We’re looking at sharp and severe destruction of wealth in China.

  • snowshooze

    If it cost you 98% of all your money, time and effort to control the country…
    So what?
    2% of trillions… I could get by.
    What matters is they remain in control. It isn’t like they are greedy…

  • JSobieski

    Dictatorships can kill their own people, but they can’t defy the economic laws of gravity.

    If you think stimulus spending is bad for the US where we have the freedom to criticize and oppose it, why do you presume that the isolated rules of China are somehow economically omniscient?

    The reason why socialism is inefficient is because no matter what kind of “long ball” the dictators play, they can’t possibly make decisions from on high that are better than the individual decisions that people make in a free economy.

    You sound a lot like the leftists who pine for the Chinese ability to make big high level decisions. From your perspective, I can’t see that you have any pro-capitalism convictions at all.

    You sound a lot like people who thought the USSR would pass the US economically because unlike the US, the USSR made intelligent and planned decisions at the top.

  • wonkish1

    This is much, much bigger.

  • JSobieski

    http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:CHN&dl=en&hl=en&q=chinese+gdp

    and that is self-reported.

  • acat

    Of course, “short-term” is relative, the Chinese emperors ruled for quite a long short term .. but they also faced significantly different pressures than the current leadership….

    Mew

  • snowshooze

    Ya just aren’t thinking big enough.
    Some tell me to think outside the box.
    There’s a box?
    I ain’t sure.. maybe I should tell them to get back into the box because it seems like sheer common sense to me.

  • snowshooze

    Hey, it is the absolute last word in perfect lubrication.

  • JSobieski

    What about the Forbes article I cited yesterday showing that the Chinese elite were moving their money OUT of China?

    You respond to each specific fact with some generalized statement grounded in the premise that top-down economics works better than the chaos of a market.

    Instead of talking in general allegories aka boxes, why not discuss the merits?

    If by thinking “big” you mean thinking without any basis of fact, I prefer to stay grounded in reality.

    You seem to think that China is ruled by people who are smarter than any other people who have ever lived on the earth.

  • wonkish1

    And this political realities and economic realities.

    Its much harder to predict the political realities of the Politburo Standing Committee still ruling China over any specific length of time. We can venture some guesses as to when that may end, but its really tough to tell how much this 2nd factor will force an issue.

    In terms of economic realities the Chinese economy is pretty screwed in the very short term. And no matter how much power the PSC has they as JSob pointed out “can’t repeal economic gravity” and so this crash is coming one way or another.

  • JSobieski

    That free market capitalism is total loss oil, and the Chinese innovation (which is really nothing new), is the superior recirculating system? LOL

    Laughable.

    People said the same thing about . . .

    NAZI Germany.

    USSR

    Japan in the 1980s

    In each case, there were people around asserting that they could see the big picture (no box), and explained how the US system was doomed to fail.

    Smart money is my side of the argument.

    10 years from now, people like you will say “of course China was a bubble, they built entire cities that weren’t used”.

  • wonkish1

    “10 years from now, people like you will say ?of course China was a bubble, they built entire cities that weren?t used?.”

    ^^^Its always funny to watch people who downplayed the warning signs of others and then act like it was “obvious” after the fact. LOL.

  • westcoastpatriette

    I pray for you to get a good night’s sleep and that your father will wake up refreshed with little discomfort. Thank you, Lord.

  • acat

    My lawnmower uses that kind of system. So what?

    Mew

  • snowshooze

    I’m saying they don’t care how many are crushed so long as they are on top of the pile.

  • snowshooze

    But no, not quite.
    Fresh oil in, brand new.
    Through bearings..
    Then dumped into intake… where it is burnt off.
    Bearings never see nothing but brand new oil.
    No filter, no recirculation.
    Brand new virgin oil at all times. Perfect from the standpoint of ..
    ” I am a bearing. I want to live forever. This is how I do it. ”
    Absolutely unbeatable.
    Not the most efficient… but the most effective. If you are a bearing.

  • snowshooze

    As it is also comprised of a continuous flow of fresh lubrication, brand new and never to be seen again.
    The most obvious difference is that in the 2 stroke engine, the lubrication is diluted with fuel, degrading it by comparison to a pure lubricant on the bearings.
    Not bad for a cat though..
    And of course, the efficiency of a 4 stroke engine is still……to this day… unmatched.
    My, you look especially nice this evening, have you done something with your fur???
    xox
    Mark

  • acat

    I’d certainly argue that the U.S. system is more complicated….

    Comparing the Chinese economy to the U.S. economy is rather like comparing a two-cycle lawnmower engine to a high-speed V-6.

    Mew

  • acat

    Power may come from the barrel of a gun .. the tricky part is remaining on the other end.

    Piss off enough of the peasants, and the human waves will bring the most powerful dictator down.

    Mew

  • JSobieski

    because that is the only way they can stay in power?

  • snowshooze

    Technically, the two are even or nearly so.
    I actually think it is more difficult to squeeze fuel efficiency out of a two stroke… but the flip side being you can develop a heck of a lot more horsepower per pound by virtue of less mechanics’s, both function and physical.
    That war rages on.
    Do you want to burn a hundred gallons of gas and go a hundred miles in ten minutes, or do you want to burn ten gallons of gas and get there next week?
    I was Hand Trolling for Salmon out of Sitka with my Uncle… his little 26′ cabin cruiser would do nearly 40 knots.
    It was great. The rest of the fleet would leave at 4 AM.. We’d split around 7
    We’d just get there ahead of them… caught better then average, and were back home hours before them .
    We burned gas. That is what we bought it for…lol…
    Spent more, made more. Partied more.
    That was the tie breaker. We wound up enjoying life more than the rest of them. Had more free time. Slept later, ate better.

  • snowshooze

    That is it. You hit the point.
    I am glad you clarified that for my sake as everyone else seemed to miss that point.

  • snowshooze

    Especially those I spar with!
    So… Hat’s off to RedState.
    It is great to be a member.

  • JSobieski

    Because they will maximize for the ball bearings, and not overall efficiency.

    You say they will choose to be North Korea over time. If that is correct, worrying about what China does is kind of irrelevant, as this their peak and they will only good down from here.

  • snowshooze

    I just loved that line.
    If ya got unlimited assets, unlimited labor.. you can pretty much run your ball game any way you please.
    have you noticed that USA has kept their mouth off China for the best part?
    Ya wanna know why?
    China doesn’t care.

  • JSobieski

    China is very much dependent upon foreign investments—capital, people, technology.

    China imports a lot of oil, copper, etc.

    China doesn’t care what we SAY, but they do care what we DO.

  • tngal

    hope things turn out real well for your father, and you. Take care burning up and down I-65. Truckers get a little zippy on that stretch from Nashville down to south ‘bama.

  • JSobieski

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2011/06/05/chinese-entrepreneurs-are-leaving-china/

    Ask yourself why its happening? What it says about insiders in China? Ask yourself why the money is leaving in secret (i.e. China doesn’t want the money to leave).

    You paint a picture of omniscient and omnipotent government, and that is simply not possible. China (just as the USSR before it) was just as inefficient as other bureaucracies.

  • snowshooze

    Gross loss…net win… who cares? You still win.

  • acat

    Wouldn’t two-stroke be an option for more Ford or GM products? Last auto maker I recall that had a two-stroke option was the Trabant… and I’m not trading my Camry for one! (for one thing, I like heat that works without setting the body on fire)

    Regarding your uncle, he was willing to burn gas to get back time. Nothing wrong with that at all, but .. it is a a trade, and there is both a higher up-front cost and a higher fuel cost involved, and if the price of fuel ever really spiked, those higher efficiency boats would put him out of business. Glad y’all had fun, though.

    Mew

  • snowshooze

    Lousy foundation for an argument.

  • JSobieski

    More facts that any you have referenced on this topic.

    You totally ignore national hubris as a motivator.

    The Chinese will not choose North Korea.

    What inspired the USSR to risk glasnost? They could have played net as well, but they didn’t.

    Only small countries play net, the large “we are a great nation” types can’t play small ball as you suggest.

  • snowshooze

    But there are only so may hours in a day.
    I can’t fix everything.

  • galileopaine

    I don’t really think that the McCain analogy applies. In 2008 there was a huge anti-GOP sentiment and great dissolusionment with Bush, the economy has just fallen apart, and there was a historic opportunity to vote for the first black President. Add to that, a complicit media that refused to fully vet him publicly and it would have taken a truly extraordinary GOP candidate to have a chance. It was a perfect storm in favor of the Dems.

    So the question goes back to, who has a better chance of picking up votes from Independents, Moderates, and crossover Dems in those crucial swing states? Newt or Mitt? Reality suggests a brutal political calculus that is not interested in anyone’s ideology. Or do you really think that there are enough truly conservative votes in those swing states do make that question irrelevant?

    If Mitt were to become president, it would not end conservatism, especially if we do our job and elect more conservative congressman and senators. Mitt has shown that he will go along with the majority. On the other hand, Newt is far more renegade and willing to cross the majority.