Quotulatiousness

February 23, 2010

More market-rigging to favour Government Motors

Filed under: Economics, Germany, Law, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 07:09

If you’re a fan of German sports cars, this might be a swan song for your preferred makes and models:

In a few years, by 2016 to be exact, P.J. O’Rourke’s “ass-engined Nazi slot car” may be history in the U.S.A. Gone. By that time, Porsche needs to have a Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) of 41.4 mpg — if President Obama gets his wish. Mission impossible, says Porsche. Jack Baruth, stock up. Porsches will be extinct.

On May 19, 2009 President Barack Obama proposed a new national fuel economy program. If signed into law in May this year, as currently planned, the law will throw a nasty punch, beginning in the model year 2012.

Porsche-Lobbyist Stefan Schläfli talked to the German Edition of the Financial Times, before taking off for Washington for a last ditch effort to save the endangered species. Says the FTD: “Hardest hit will be German producers of premium brands which sell big-engined large cars. Critics in the German camp don’t think this is a coincidence. The formulas used to calculate the maximum permissible values are tailor-made for U.S. manufacturers. Basis for the calculation will be wheel base and track width — highly unusual criteria.”

A short and compact Porsche is faced with much stricter limits than a Corvette. Not to mention a pick-up. Large manufacturers turn into a CAFE-society, and can offset their thirsty oinkers with smaller cars. Porsche doesn’t have that option. Neither does Aston Martin, Jaguar, Land Rover and other eclectic brands.

Now that the government has a major financial stake in GM and Chrysler, they don’t even need to pretend to be even-handed in their regulatory fixes.

February 20, 2010

QotD: He talked his way in . . . is he now talking his way out again?

Filed under: Government, Politics, Quotations, USA — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 13:51

Barack Obama has done everything possible to destroy the glowing reputation he brought to the White House after his triumphs in the Democratic primaries and the general election of 2008. The most striking fact about the cloud of failure now surrounding him is that it’s entirely self-generated.

No credible Republican has been harassing him, leaping on his every mistake. Journalists of the liberal persuasion remain admirers. His most vocal detractors are loudmouthed commentators, unlikely to influence the independent voters who made Obama President. He has no one to blame.

[. . .]

He didn’t become President for his accomplishments; he did it mainly on oratory. But in office his tone has changed. He doesn’t seem to care whether he makes an impact or not and rarely suggests that something crucial is at stake. You can listen to him for 20 minutes and realize an hour later that you can’t remember anything he said.

He performs a sort of dance with the cameras, turning first to the right, then to the left, then back again. It seemed spontaneous for a while but it’s now pure ritual. He’s developed a manner that’s so cool it can’t be distinguished from indifference.

He demonstrates the titanic gulf between an election, however daunting, and the biggest job in the world. Given all the hurdles in the path of blacks, his original decision to run was a brave and breathtaking leap of the imagination. His campaign was brilliant. But serving as President requires even more audacity. Perhaps his many stumbles, and his misguided attempt to do all the serious work of the presidency more or less on his own, indicate that he hasn’t yet learned to see himself in the role of leader. Perhaps he’s become the star of a drama for which he has no script.

Robert Fulford, “Why is Obama failing?”, National Post, 2010-02-20

February 11, 2010

Sarah “Barack Hussein” Palin and the Tea Party

Filed under: Liberty, Politics, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:01

Steve Chapman looks at Sarah Palin’s Tea Party performance and finds a certain Obama-ness to it all:

The tea party movement started as a welcome protest against the alarming growth of federal spending and federal control. It had a strong anti-statist flavor, or seemed to. But judging from the applause for Sarah Palin at its convention, the movement’s suspicion of government power is exceeded only by its worship of government power.

[. . .]

When it comes to economic affairs, the tea partiers agree that—as Palin put it—”the government that governs least, governs best.” When it comes to war and national security, however, her audience apparently thinks there is no such thing as too much government.

The conventioneers applauded when Palin denounced Obama for his approach to the war on terrorists. Why? Because he lets himself be too confined by the annoying limits imposed by the Constitution. “To win that war, we need a commander in chief, not a professor of law,” she declares.

[. . .]

The advantage of having a former law professor in the Oval Office is that he doesn’t have to be tutored in such elementary realities. But Palin evinces a bitter resentment of any information that contradicts her blind faith in a benevolent, all-powerful security regime. She’s more than willing to trade liberty for safety.

That went over conspicuously well in Nashville, where tea partiers cheered a leader who places excessive trust in government, disdains constitutional freedoms, and promotes a cult of personality. So remind me: What is it they don’t like about Barack Obama?

February 1, 2010

Modern etiquette

Filed under: Japan, Middle East, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 13:06

I guess I missed the class on American etiquette, because I had this odd notion that Americans weren’t supposed to bow to royalty. There must have been more to than that, however, as apparently you’re supposed to bow to Mayors, too:

So let me get this straight . . . Americans should not bow to Queen Elizabeth (who is head of state of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.), but should bow to the Emperor of Japan, the King of Saudi Arabia, and the Mayor of Tampa? Is that the full list? How about deputy mayors?

January 29, 2010

Short (political and economic) memories

Filed under: Economics, Government, Politics, USA — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 09:20

David Harsanyi looks at the “lost decade” of the last 10 years and finds not so much of a disaster:

Of the many tall tales spun by President Barack Obama during the State of the Union address this week, there is one, and perhaps only one, that most Americans believe to be true.

The old yarn goes something like this: A long time ago, the United States was an economic powerhouse. We built things with our hands and worked in factories and we loved it.

Our recent prosperity, on the other hand, was built on a house of cards — intellectual innovation, risk, free-wheeling markets and international trade — and nothing more than an illusion.

“We can’t afford another so- called economic expansion like the one from the last decade — what some call the ‘lost decade,’ ” Obama explained. The president went on to promise he would do all he could to stop any pesky so-called expansions in the future. And I believe him.

A recent poll shows that Obama is not alone in his aversion to the 2000s. According to a Pew Research Center poll, over 50 percent of American hold a negative view of the decade. Yet, the 2000s, like decades before it, are by nearly any measure — be it health, standard of living, the environment or technology — a success.

The average unemployment rate during this “lost decade” — including one of those unfortunate man-made disasters to the country’s financial center — was at 5.6 percent. One would think that the president — a man who believes a “jobs” bills that only saw unemployment go from nearly 8 percent to over 10 percent was a wild success — would be sort of impressed.

It may be a factor in any given decade, but it’s surprising how deep the short-term memories seem to be coloured by the recession at the end of the decade (the one we’re still struggling out of).

January 26, 2010

QotD: Esquire magazine, tongue-bath attendant to the (political) stars

Filed under: Humour, Politics, Quotations — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 13:09

Anytime Esquire writes extensively about politicians, it’s going to be pretty icky, and this Tom Junod piece which compares Obama’s governing style to “positive discipline” parenting (this makes us a bunch of bratty children) is pretty super-icky. (Esquire can never quite get it through its head that what politicians do, mostly, is order around mass murder, mass theft, and the spinning of resources and power to their buddies. They certainly aren’t alone in missing this point, though. But they really, really, really miss it. Politicians to them are always noble guardians of the best in the American spirit or some such sententious bullshit.)

Brian Doherty, “Jazz and Modern Liberalism: The Eerie Parallels”, Hit and Run, 2010-01-26

January 23, 2010

Slate peeks at Barack Obama’s Facebook feed

Filed under: Humour, Politics, USA — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 17:09

I thought Facebook had fixed the privacy settings, but Slate manages to show President Obama’s Facebook feed:

January 21, 2010

Obama’s move to throttle the big banks

Filed under: Economics, Government, Law, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 13:18

Megan McArdle takes a first look at the Obama administration’s new initiative to control the big banks:

The administration’s new proposal has two core pieces, both of which are at least somewhat novel. First, banks that have access to the discount window will not be able to trade for their own account. That means no prop trading desk. No owning hedge funds or private equity funds. No investments of any kind to make profits for your shareholders. Financial institutions can make profits by servicing clients, or they can make profits by investing for their own book. But they can’t do both.

Senior administration officials I spoke to made it clear that this would not include market making activity, which the administration views as something you do for your clients. But while that may partially reassure banks, that seems to mean that market makers — i.e. Goldman Sachs — are very definitely included. That impression was reinforced by the way Indeed, if they pass this thing, they should probably call it the Hey Goldman Sachs! You’re Not Going to Be So Profitable Any More Act of 2010.

January 2, 2010

This isn’t the way it was supposed to go

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Government, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 13:39

Over at Ace of Spades HQ, “Purple Avenger” tries to decipher the inscrutable Obama administration policy on information classification:

Here’s what I’ve found so far that I’m 100% sure of:

— There’s a 10 year “default” on declassifying classified info unless a longer time frame was specified and justified.

— Unclassified information may BECOME classified upon submission of a FOIA request for it . . . thus allowing for a public veneer of openness while reserving the right to clam up if said openness should prove inconvenient when someone actually learns of a document’s existence and has the nerve to request it.

Its a very lengthy and tortuously worded EO and people will be analyzing its ramifications for quite a while I suspect. I don’t imagine the professional intelligence community is terribly happy about the Byzantine procedures outlined here. Their jobs just got a lot harder.

December 31, 2009

Obama’s popularity continues to slide

Filed under: Media, Politics, USA — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 10:24

It must be a significant drop in approval ratings, as even The Economist is discussing it:

Obama_approval_20091230

Barack Obama’s approval rating at the end of 2009 marks an all-time low for him in the Economist/YouGov poll, and it is the first time more Americans disapprove than approve of the way he is handling his job. Mr Obama began his term with a 61% approval rating, while only 17% of Americans disapproved. As 2009 ends, only 45% approve of the way Mr Obama is handling his job, while 47% now disapprove.

The president has suffered a drop in approval from just about all groups, demographic and political. But perhaps most striking has been his loss of support from independents. In January’s poll, 64% of independents approved of how he handled the start of his presidency (and the days leading up to it). Now just 43% do.

December 29, 2009

Worst. Decade. Ever.

Filed under: Government, Humour, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 18:30

December 15, 2009

“B+ — it’s the new FAIL”

Filed under: Humour, Politics — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 14:10

Frank J. has been having fun with his latest meme:

I started a Twitter meme yesterday and Ace really got it going where we listed other things we would rate a good, solid B+ based on Obama’s grading scale.

BTW, for those who still think Twitter is gay, in what non-gay things do you start a discussion of politics and Firefly and Chuck’s Adam Baldwin sometimes joins in? I think that means you’re gay.

Anyway, here’s what I came up with:

Tiger had rated his marriage so far a B+.
Charles Manson’s efforts on reforming… hmm… I’d say that’s a solid B+.
Landing of the Hindenburg is a good, solid B+. A- if it were on time.
Hitler’s relationship with the Jews: B+.
My avoiding Godwin’s Law: B+.

December 2, 2009

Defining Obamanomics

Filed under: Economics, Liberty, Politics, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 08:57

Timothy P. Carney gathers up the tea leaves and provides a useful definition of Obama’s economic philosophy, Obamanomics:

Although robust corporate-government collusion was hardly invented by the current administration, the U.S. has not seen such a consistent practitioner of corporatism in more than half a century. It’s fitting then to name this Big Business-Big Government practice Obamanomics.

Make no mistake — President Bush’s Wall Street bailout was probably America’s biggest dose of corporate socialism since World War II. But President Obama has seen Bush’s $700 billion and raised him another couple trillion — and counting.

The Laws of Obamanomics

Underlying Obamanomics are some basic economic facts and political realities. These are the Four Laws of Obamanomics, paired below with some of the lobbying strategies that exploit these laws.

1) During a legislative debate, whichever business has the best lobbyists is most likely to win the most favorable small print. Similarly, once a bill has passed, the business with the best lawyers and lobbyists will best be able to craft the regulations and learn how to game them. A big business, counting on this fact while lobbying for more government spending or control, is employing The Inside Game.

2) Regulation adds to overhead, and higher overhead crowds out smaller competitors and prevents startups from entering the industry. When corporations, knowing this, lobby for more regulation of their industry, I call this the Overhead Smash.

3) Bigger companies are often saddled by inertia, meaning robust competition is a threat. Adopting regulations that stultify the economy is the equivalent of raising the basketball hoop to twenty feet at half-time: it protects the lead of whichever team is ahead. When Big Business seeks to stultify the economy to hold back smaller competitors, I call it Gumming the Works.

4) Government regulation grants an air of legitimacy to businesses, boosting consumer confidence, often beyond what is warranted. This is The Confidence Game.

The Bush administration was one of the least libertarian in US history, but Barack Obama’s track record so far almost makes me nostalgic for Bush. Almost.

November 25, 2009

I thought Obama was going to be better than Bush on privacy issues

Filed under: Government, Law, Technology, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 13:04

Perhaps I was misinformed:

The Obama administration is seeking to reverse a federal appeals court decision that dramatically narrows the government’s search-and-seizure powers in the digital age.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Justice Department officials are asking the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its August ruling that federal prosecutors went too far when seizing 104 professional baseball players’ drug results when they had a warrant for just 10.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ 9-2 decision offered Miranda-style guidelines to prosecutors and judges on how to protect Fourth Amendment privacy rights while conducting computer searches.

Kagan, appointed solicitor general by President Barack Obama, joined several U.S. attorneys in telling the San Francisco-based court Monday that the guidelines are complicating federal prosecutions in the West. The circuit, the nation’s largest, covers nine states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

November 11, 2009

Why would he do this?

Filed under: Politics, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 18:05

My best guess is for two reasons: 1) He can. 2) It drives the opposition batshit insane:

The president who campaigned for a more “open government” and “full disclosure” will not unseal his medical records, his school records, his birth records or his passport records. He will not release his Harvard records, his Columbia College records, or his Occidental College records — he will not even release his Columbia College thesis. All his legislative records from the Illinois State Senate are missing and he claims his scheduling records during those State Senate years are lost as well. In addition, no one can find his school records for the elite K-12 college prep school, Punahou School, he attended in Hawaii.

The whacky public image of the “Birthers” continues to do much damage to more rational criticism of Barack Obama’s administration. Whether there is “fire” to go along with all the breathlessly described “smoke”, it’s taking lots of attention away from the actual policies and actions of the current president, and tarring-by-association those who do criticize. That’s enough of a political win that Obama would be very foolish to do anything to calm them down by releasing these documents.

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress