-
Thursday link roundup
- Church Sign Wars – very good
- What Russia Wants – written by my old Boss at Cato
- The path to citizenship – it makes illegal immigration much more understandable
- Making money twice – a very good read
- Julian Sanchez put it very well with
we’re perpetually told the fundamental cause of the ongoing meltdown is Wall Street “greed,” as though that somehow counted as an explanation. How, pray, would we describe it if mortgage lenders had rejected many more applications from lower-income folks, on the grounds that they were poor risks? Well, greed, of course. Pretty much whatever they did, they’d be doing because they expected it to maximize their profit; the issue is their judgement, not their motives. Or put another way: The problem isn’t that people were greedy, it’s that they weren’t very good at being greedy.
- Ron Paul fades into further irrelevance
- More Bailout – Yglesias posits what is hopefully a liberal dilemma
Simply put, if congressional Democrats manage to acquiesce in a plan that spends $700 billion on a bailout while doing nothing for average working people and giving the taxpayer virtually no upside in a way that guarantees that even electoral victory would give an Obama administration no resources with which to implement a progressive domestic agenda in 2009 then everyone’s going to have to give serious consideration to becoming a pretty hard-core libertarian.
- A nice article on Obama’s community organizing days – notices the lack of anything measurable.
-
Triumph interviews Ralph Nader
-
Profiles in lameness
As Congress seems to be willing to give the Treasury secretary a check for 700 billion with no strings attached, where are our two main nominees? As far as I can tell they’re not in the Senate doing the job they were actually elected to do. And we’re expected to respect their “experience” and “judgment”?!?!
-
Marginal Revolution gets it right
One would think that it’s obvious that the government doesn’t get Big Looming Threats pegged too accurately, but apparently not. The fact that people still push for national health care in light of all recent evidence of government capabilities is amazing.
-
The IPhone ad that never aired
I could do funnier, but not bad.
-
A bad sign for the Democrats
The Democrats’ desire to put the vice presidential candidates behind podiums grew out of the 2000 and 2004 vice presidential debates, when the candidates sat close to each other behind the same table. Cheney had the upper hand in both debates, said several Democrats involved in the debate process, in part because the setting made it difficult if not impossible for Lieberman and Edwards to go after Cheney aggressively. Whether that was because of the setting or because the two Democrats wanted to avoid confrontation is a matter still disputed by participants.
If they’re already grinding their excuses to that fine level of detail then they’re already expecting bad things.
Random Thoughts:
The real question is – will McCain have the nerve to run a commercial saying “isn’t it awesome when we have divided government? Do you really want Nancy Pelosi to have total control over everything?Will the 527 groups have the nerve to run an ad like that? Come to think of it, where are the 527 groups this year?
-
Another from MR
From Marginal Revolution comes this adage
It is through exchange that difference becomes a blessing, not a curse.
-
The post of the day
Thanks goodness we bailed out Bear Stearns back in March if we hadn’t we might have lost Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and who knows what else. Oh wait…
-
Thursday link roundup
- This Agitator post illustrates in perfect detail why it’s not even worth trying anymore. Short version, a noble citizen does soemthing that would save the fovernment 2.2 million dollars and deliver a higher quality. The feds refuse, and take years in doing so. Your tax dollars at sloth.
- Putin’s Rise to Power
- MaoPost.com – really cool
- Oil Econ 101 – and oldie but a goodie
- This little nugget from Marginal Revolution
In Brazil, they segregate their prisons according to gang membership. No exceptions. Not even for individuals who in fact are not members of any gang.
How does that work? Easy. Upon being admitted to the prison system, unaffiliated prisoners are required to join a gang.
-
Obama equals Bush III
Check out this clip of Obama (accurately) decrying the false umbrage over some “lipstick on a pig” comment, and longing for a return to “issues”. Think of the implications. The McCain campaign is fighting the war they’re in, while Obama campaign fighting the war they wish they were fighting. It’s quite similar to most of the Bush presidency, and by extension saying that your enemies hate you for your “virtues”.
Just imagine what the debate would be like if the candidates had clear, consistent ideologies (a la Wilson, Reagan (sort of clear) or Polk) or clear records of achievement, like Bill Gates, David Petraeus, or Andrew Carnegie. Instead it’s a desperate attempt to convince the electorate that if elected they’ll pull off five consecutive miracles when they can’t even do simple card tricks.
In reading over this, I realize that the above paragraphs aren’t particularly clear, but I’m in a rush.