« Grand New Party and Practical Politics | Main | Generation Kill »

The GOP's Carter Moment

10 Jul 2008 02:04 pm

Very broadly speaking, when you look at people who gravitate toward the two political parties, the GOP tends to be the party of economic optimists - people who are confident about their professional lives, their future prospects, and the country's economic health - and the Democratic Party tends to be the party of people who worry and fret about both their personal fortunes and those of the nation as a whole. This divide has a host of implications, but I think Phil Gramm's instantly-controversial remarks about America being in a "mental recession," in which a "nation of whiners" can't see through all the media hype about bad economic news and recognize that "we've never been more dominant; we've never had more natural advantages than we have today," is a good example of one of them: When economic times are tough, Democratic politicians and pundits tend to go way overboard exaggerating how dire things are, while Republican politicians and pundits tend to go way overboard insisting that everything's fine and the public needs to stop whining, stop listening to the media, and start enjoying the good times. In 1979, the tendency to play to type produced Jimmy Carter's famous malaise speech, in which the American people were informed that the solution to their economic problems was to accept a wartime mentality in which the government would massively regulate the energy sector and everyone would have to make do with much, much less. In the 2000s, it's produced too many Republicans who think and talk like Phil Gramm, whether they're insisting that a sluggish economic recovery with weak wage growth for most middle-income Americans actually represents "the greatest story never told," or claiming that we can just "drill our way out" of the current energy crunch.

Of course there's some truth to Gramm's remarks about America's fundamentals remaining strong (though the claim that "we've never been more dominant" seems like something of a stretch - the post-World War II era says hello), just as there was truth to the late-'70s anxieties about what America's dependence on foreign oil portended for the future. But there are other relevant truths as well, the art of politics involves striking a balance, and a political party that lurches too far toward either Panglossianism or pessimism isn't long for power. Just ask Jimmy Carter.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The GOP's Carter Moment:

» Are We In A Recession? from Ernie Tedeschi | Marginal Social Benefit
Phil Gramm’s comments about America being a “nation of whiners” who are falling for a “mental recession” elicits good points here and here. To springboard off of Marc’s point about the media’s obsession with th... [Read More]

Comments (100)

I think his comments reflect the way many Republicans feel about the economy, but all it does is demonstrate how out of touch they are with 'most' people.

McCain and Gramm will never have to worry about money in their lifetimes, such has been their good fortune. It reminds me of Bush being surprised at the possibility of $4 a gallon gas in that press conference. Clueless.

Phil Gramm can think whatever he likes about the lovely view from inside his filthy-rich colon. Nobody with a brain thinks the "dominant" course we're on is sustainable without some radical structural changes, which complacent rich good ol' boy Republican fucks like Gramm would never dream of lifting a finger to do anything about.

I don't even feel like I need to post here. Bill and TDE wrapped up the salient points very well.

Gramm's always been a rancid little asshole.

Phil Gramm's deregulatory hand is arguably responsible for much of the housing bubble.
Anyway, he's the wrong guy for this message. Reagan could preach optimism. Maybe today Schwarzenegger could do it. But Gramm just comes across like someone complaining that kids today don't know how good they have it.

Plus the fucker looks like Gollum.

The 1990s also say hello. So do the 1980s. Seriously, stupidest comments ever. This is McCain's economic advisor?

What does it say about McCain's campaign (and his own economic philosophy) that he picked Gramm to be his chief economic advisor?

McCain's own statements on tax cuts, deregulation, the health of the economy, and now the "scandal" of Social Security's funding apparatus all show him to be on the extreme side of this scale.

Simplistic much, Ross? As it turns out, Carter was essentially correct in his diagnosis and the last thirty-some years of don't-worry-be-happy conservatism have only served to delay the inevitable American decline. Had we actually listened to Carter and embarked on a conservation program, we'd be in much better shape today than we are. Now, we're in for some radical reshaping of our lifestyles and living standards in the next few years--and it won't be pretty.

And if you think that America's fundamentals remain strong, then you haven't taken a good look at the financial, manufacturing, and retail sectors lately. The Republican party would do well to take off the blinders and look at the realities of most people's lives. Not everyone is as lucky as McCain to marry a wealthy heiress and never have to worry about money.

Its been my experience that it is quite easy for multi-millionaires to preach economic optimism with a straight face.

If we had listened to Jimmy Carter in 1979--reducing our dependence on foreign oil, investing heavily in alternative fuels, implementing mandatory conservation, increasing funding for public transportation--we would not be facing many of the economic issues that we are dealing with now.

Beat me to it, mbtogut.

Well, of course he doesn't want to think that... he helped create the problems.
Ever hear of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, cosponsored by him and Sen. Lugar- in 2000?

The act:
"the legislation contained a provision—lobbied for by Enron, a generous contributor to Gramm—that exempted energy trading from regulatory oversight, allowing Enron to run rampant, wreck the California electricity market, and cost consumers billions before it collapsed. (For Gramm, Enron was a family affair. Eight years earlier, his wife, Wendy Gramm, as cftc chairwoman, had pushed through a rule excluding Enron's energy futures contracts from government oversight. Wendy later joined the Houston-based company's board, and in the following years her Enron salary and stock income brought between $915,000 and $1.8 million into the Gramm household.)


and:

"Because of the swap-related provisions of Gramm's bill—which were supported by Fed chairman Alan Greenspan and Treasury secretary Larry Summers—a $62 trillion market (nearly four times the size of the entire US stock market) remained utterly unregulated, meaning no one made sure the banks and hedge funds had the assets to cover the losses they guaranteed."

Read all about it!

Let's look at this a new way:

Why does Phil Gramm hate America so much?

Actually, I think your division is spectacularly reductionist, not to mention wrong. The flip side of the last 40+ years of the Republicans using social issues as wedge issues has meant that if someone is interested in, say, gay marriage, or equal protection under the law, or legalization of marijuana, or divesting from South Africa, or helping poor folks in Appalachia, or whatever, the Democratic party is the only place they could turn. And more recently, if you are an economic conservative as well as a social liberal, the Republican party has actually been actively hostile.

For the last 8 years--and even arguably before then--the Republicans have been fixed on personality, the personality of The Leader. For the last 8 years, that has been Bush, and no matter what Bush did, his base didn't desert him. Torture? Pre-emptive, nation-building wars? Vast expansion of executive power? Huge new benefits programs? New cabinet-level government department? Massive deficits? None of these are "conservative" stances in any way, yet Republicans supported them because *Bush* did.

So bushwah to this optimist/pessimist nonsense; it's just plain silly.

Carter was right on a macro scheme. Had we adopted his stands we may also have missed out on some of our prosperity. Still, the long term will dictate better conservation and use of our resources. It is a shame that the US is so stupid. This isn't just the politicians but also the people who chose to vote for the persons who promised them them the most painless course or the person that they felt was the more regular guy they'd like to have a beer with. The consumer who tapped out all the paper equity in their house to buy the 56" plamsa, the escalade, or the 2nd house is in part to blaim. We as a country seem to think that 2 cars to a family, cell phone, cable, and a big screen TV are necessities. I grew up lower middle class and we didn't have cable when all my friends did, we had one serviceable car and my dad drove a complete junker of a pick up just good enough to get him to work and back. We took a total of 3 vacations, driving to relatives houses in Kansas City or Denver each time. We rarely ate out, never had soda, and of course no one spent 4.00 on a coffee back then. Brazil was much smarter than us back in the 70's and they are reaping the rewards.
Gramm is an idiot much like Bush. These folks have no idea what it is like to try to make it on an average salary let alone a minimum wage salary. Bush is supposed to be an oil man and had no idea gas was approaching 4.00 a gallon?

Props to Ross -- the first 15 comments prove the very thesis of his post.

America has always been (and hopefully always will be) the land of freedom and opportunity. Whether it is Walter Mondale talking about "voodoo economics", Ross Perot helping Bill Clinton stumble into office with a staggering 43% of the vote while calling the Bush Sr. economy "the worst in modern history" or John Kerry talking about the "jobless recovery" of the early 2000's (despite all factual evidence to the contrary in each case), the Dems never seem to figure out that most Americans (whether rich, middle-class or poor) are optimistic realists who want to succeed. "Woe is me" hand-wringing is bad politics and bad policy -- degrading personal insults of Phil Gramm and John McCain won't change that.

Ross, I wonder what your financial/economic situation is, and whether or not you support a family?

My suggestion is that you go hang out with a family of four that brings in less than seventy thousand a year, has a mortgage that is less than ten years old, a car loan, lives in a part of the country that experiences winter,has medical and dental bills,and at least one adult in the household with a commute of more than twenty miles a day, and then come back and write that the economic difficulties this country is facing are being exaggerated by the left.

Hey Adam Smith - or maybe I should call you Arthur Laffer? - the phrase "voodoo economics" was coined by the Current Occupant's father.

And Adam Smith, I appreciate your sentiment that America is the land of freedom and opportunity and that Americans are optimists, and I agree with you that in general they are realists. And I say, you're not one (a realist, that is. What about the Depression? Was that a time of optimism?

WE may not be in a depression now, but a whole lot of us really are feeling the economic pinch. For most of my life, America has seemed prosperous, and even though I personally am not, I always felt optimistic that as I grew older, I would be if I worked hard and did all the apple pie American things like honor my debts,vote, abide by the law, raise kids with good values,do volunteer work and be kind to strangers and neighbors, that I'd be able to achieve the American dream.

RIght now, I'm not feeling that.

SOmetimes realism and optimism aren't compatible.

Um, Adam? It was a Republican--Bush Sr.--who used the phrase "voodoo economics."

Adam Smith, explain to me how the majority of people can both consider the economy to be the most pressing issue of this election, and still be optimistic about it.

Can someone just drag the carcass that currently is the Republican party behind the shed and kill it so we can start over. Doesn't Phil Gramm have an economics degree? Yes, the fundamentals are great Phil- $500 billion dollar budget deficits, a ten trillion dollar debt, $45 trillion in unfunded mandates, a Federal Reserve that is printing money faster than the Weimar Republic, inflation at 10% (real inflation- not the fake numbers the Feds use). Things are stellar.

At least that's what I think when I go to the grocery store and pay 20% more than I did last year. Must all be in my head, those price tags are lying to me.

At least I'm not one of the ten percent that is unemployed in this country- those who aren't counted in the official statistics because they've given up looking for work.

I hope Gramm's comments receive a good week's worth of commentary and criticism.

Bokonon beat me to it, so I'll add a twist. Why do the Republicans hate the American people so much?

My dad, a West Texas rancher, always said Phil Gramm looked like a dying calf.

Very interesting post. Perhaps oversimplified, but still very thoughtful. The obvious thing to do is to go further back in history and . . .er . . Roosevelt . . . Hoover . . . . Coolidge . . . yeah, maybe Ross is on to something.

The first thing I thought of, however, was Jerry Ford's wonderful "Whip Inflation Now" (WIN) buttons. The one thing that beats Republican Optimism any day of the weak is Republican Optimism plus a button. =)

Regarding the state of our current economy, our energy needs, and blaming it on the Republicans: I seem to remember the Dems had 8 years at bat somewhere in there. Where was the great big alternative energy initiative in those years?

(Anyway, I'm an Obamacon until the GNP takes shape.)

cnnr - Kinda scary, but that fits my situation almost exactly. And I still think the left is certainly exaggerating.

How was Carter vindicated? It might be helpful to factor in the net effect of these various booms and bubbles, where Republicans (and Clintonites in the 90s) may have seen things too bright, but when things dropped, they never dropped to the levels that validate liberal pessimism.

That volatility exists doesn't pardon Carter's ignorance, for which he is rightly ridiculed.

And there's some cause-effect here. Wealthy people can't all be trust fund babies - some are economically literate. Ross has a point that it's a hell of a thing to say to the lower-middle class, but that doesn't mean it's false.

Frankly, some of you commenters must be smoking turds.

Hey Adam Smith --

What does making fun of Phil Gramm's comments and reviewing his deregulatory record have to do with people wringing their hands, and saying "oh, woe is me?"

I seem to think you are mischaracterizing our comments, sir, in an effort to make the comments and commenters the issue, and simultaneously let Gramm and McCain off the hook. Imagine that.

And shouting out slogans like "freedom and opportunity! FREEDOM AND OPPORTUNITY!" is not going to get us anyplace. Of course America is the land of freedom and opportunity. That's why I love it so much. It happens that America also has some really serious economic and financial problems right now ... many of which are the result of deliberate policy choices pushed by the likes of Phil Gramm.

-- Bokonon

A sphincter says what: "Whether it is Walter Mondale talking about "voodoo economics", Ross Perot helping Bill Clinton stumble into office with a staggering 43% of the vote while calling the Bush Sr. economy "the worst in modern history" or John Kerry talking about the "jobless recovery" of the early 2000's (despite all factual evidence to the contrary in each case), the Dems never seem to figure out that most Americans (whether rich, middle-class or poor) are optimistic realists who want to succeed. "Woe is me" hand-wringing is bad politics and bad policy -- degrading personal insults of Phil Gramm and John McCain won't change that."

The "voodoo economics" line was used by Dumbya's daddy against Saint Reagan long before Mondale ever said it, and it was one of the last times Bush I was right about economics - which is why Clinton kicked his pasty white ass in 1992. Bush I got the worst vote of any incumbent president in our history for a reason.

And of course most Americans want to succeed. That doesn't mean they also want to suck the Repiglican crackpipe and pretend things are going well when they quite plainly are not.

I can see this GOP sycophant Adam Smith in 1932 saying "all is well, vote Republican."

McCain will get a well-deserved whipping in November and Gollum Graham can slink back to his lobbyist shithole. I hope I never hear his unctuous voice again.

Very interesting post. Perhaps oversimplified, but still very thoughtful.

It was a standard middlebrow post from Douthat. The only thing missing was a missive about lighting more votive candles and praying for teh gays.

Regarding the state of our current economy, our energy needs, and blaming it on the Republicans: I seem to remember the Dems had 8 years at bat somewhere in there. Where was the great big alternative energy initiative in those years?

The Republicans controlled Congress for six of Clinton's eight years and for six of Bush's eight years.

(Anyway, I'm an Obamacon until the GNP takes shape.)

What does this even mean?

Given the realities of peak oil, climate change, and the fact that we are depleting our fisheries, soils, forests, metal supplies, and other resources like drunken teenager girls on a shopping binge, only a nitwit would be anything less than deeply pessimistic about the future of the American economy. The real question isn't whether another depression is coming, it is whether the modern American social order will survive the crash. (My bets are on "No.")

In other words, Ross, Jimmy Carter was dead on about the need to moderate and restrain ourselves, to realize that wealth, comfort and unlimited freedom are not the highest goods, and to recognize that we must accept a lower and more modest material standard of living. It would seem to me obvious that that would appeal to a real "conservative" and anyone who pines for Catholic Middle Ages. But apparently not. Of course ultimately it doesn't matter whether Carter's ideas appeal to you, me, the American people or anyone else. All that matters is whether they are true. I suspect we will find out very soon.

I guess McCain and Gramm are now part of the Blame America first crowd.

As for American's being optimist have you ever considered that blind optimism can really get you in trouble.

American always think optimistically then when they are wrong, they shrug it off and just pull out the credit card or a home equity loan. Well it seems we have reach the end of line and its time to face the hangover.

We already found out what's going to happen, Hector. We keep finding out. Innovation drives change. And people like you, and Carter, can't see it. That's why you hate globalization, it's why you tax achievement, it's why you do a lot of things that are bad for the economy. Pointing out infrequent recessions doesn't vindicate you.

And yes, anti-consumerist restraint appeals to conservatives, do your homework. It's the Ross Douthats vs. the Larry Kudlows, nothing new.

How many recessions have we had since Carter? Oh, that's right But you go ahead and tax the VC firms that would have funded solutions to natural resource depletion, etc.

Nitwit, you really hit the trifecta in responding to Hector's post.

You accuse Hector of opposing globalization (what?), not doing his homework (eh?) and wanting to tax everyone to death, especially venture capital funds (huh??)

That's great, but where did Hector propose those things? His post says none of this.

Really ... you need to tailor your ad hominem attacks better. That sort of straw man stuff works for Rush Limbaugh, but that's only because nobody gets to rebut him.

-- Bokonon

Ross, Ross --doesn't it bother you when the people who agree with you are mostly really stupid?

"Adam Smith" should try actually reading him.

To the aptly named Nitwit,

Yeah, innovation worked really well for Rome, and Babylon, and Easter Island. Whoops, right up until it didn't. All your 'globalization' has managed to do is infect the rest of the world with the consumerist, materialist virus that infects the West. Which means that this time when we fall the rest of the world falls with us. Real smart of you there.

You seem to be under the illusion that if we want something badly enough, then the market will invent a solution. One could call it the Wizard of Oz fallacy. Unfortunately, nature doesn't care what we want. There are basic physical and biochemical limits to the world that we can never figure out a way around. All the scientific brilliance in the world will never (I think) invent a process to fix nitrogen or to fix carbon that are more efficient than what plants already do. Plants do it very inefficiently, truth be told, but if there was a better way then evolution would have already found it.


(And by the way your venture capitalists, and other types as well, are parasites who don't "create" a damn thing. We owe our technical solutions to the scientists, engineers, technicians and manual laborers who actually invent, design and put the things together. Your venture capitalists provide roughly the same input to the process as a trained monkey, literally so since there was a study a few years back in which a chimpanzee selected a stock portfolio by throwing darts at stock titles, and managed to outdo the average investment banker. The government could fund the necessary research, and the government will once your precious VCs have f--d things up sufficiently.

tim connor writes: "Ross, Ross --doesn't it bother you when the people who agree with you are mostly really stupid?"

tim, Ross is a Republican.

My boy Bryan Caplan has written extensively about the Pessimism Bias of American voters; some of the people commenting in this thread are a case in point.

Whether they're being overly pessimistic now is still up for debate, but I tend to think the answer is yes.

My boy Bryan Caplan has written extensively about the Pessimism Bias of American voters; some of the people commenting in this thread are a case in point.

Whether they're being overly pessimistic now is still up for debate, but I tend to think the answer is yes.

Neoclassically trained economists like Phil Gramm are taught about "bounded rationality." 2X4 McArdle unknowingly writes about it all the time (when it's consistent with her worldview).

I will give you a small clue: Phil Gramm's missives are inconsistent with the idea unless the bounds are so narrow as to invalid the axioms of modern economics. At which point, Phil Gramm is a charlatin with middling training in math and statistics (and given when he got his PhD, not even that).

And Douthat is just a charlatin with well-to-do parents.

Hey SavageGarden, Ross is disagreeing with Gramm. See that new book on the right side of the blog? Not exactly an ode to the WSJ op-ed page. Why all the hate towards Ross?

And what is a chicka-cherry cola?

BTW SavageGarden, don't mock the physical appearance of a woman just because she's smarter than you.

Ross has more brainpower than all of the commenters here put together.

Moelarryandjesus alone handicaps you back into about the fourth grade as far as the collective intellectual capacity goes.

Its funny how the left thinks that ad hominem insults somehow constitute policy arguments.

Pessimism is utterly justified at present, regardless of party affiliation. We've been through one of the weakest economic expansions since World War II, with subpar growth in employment and income (see chart at http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/bush-boom-bah-2/ ), and now even those meager gains are fading. For many families, higher health-care and energy costs have left them worse off than they were when Bush came into office. For the U.S., it's shocking that "Are you better off than you were EIGHT years ago?" is even a question that can be asked.

As for Ross's thesis, is there any evidence to back it up? One contrary piece of data is that as Colorado and Virginia become more affluent, they are trending Democratic.

I and probably many other Dems see the party division more as between the I-got-mine crowd and those who think we still have a great deal of work to do to achieve equality of opportunity.

mbtogut - Had we actually listened to Carter and embarked on a conservation program, we'd be in much better shape today than we are.

The actual conservation was kicked into high gear years before when the 1973 Energy Crisis hit with the Arab Oil Embargo. The Nixon Administration and a bipartisan Congress made rapid, significant gains in conservation, as did an industry then largely free to act and innovate without everything being battled in court by lawyers for special interest groups.
30% lowering in per capita oil use, phase out of oil-fired electricity plants for nuclear and then-abundent natural gas. 55 mph speed limit, tough CAFE and efficiency standands.

If Carter is to be remembered for what he did with energy, like most of the Idiot's actions, he did far more harm than good.

1. ANWR and most coastal drilling and drilling on Fed land was locked up from ever being used.
2. Stupid recycling was introduced though economists found it minimally useful and paper recycling actually used more oil and caused more water pollution than using new farmed trees to start the process. As is now, paper not recycled is just biofuel at trash to energy plants or is "carbon sequestered" at dumps.
3. The Idiot started to kill the nuclear industry with excessive construction regulation, exploding costs. He also banned recycling and reprocessing nuclear fuel, leaving tens of billions of dollars in unused uranium and plutonium locked into spent fuel now considered "waste that cannot be disposed of as all the other major nuclear users do", choking storage pools at 100 nuke power plants rather than go to a repository the people paid for with their electric bills.
4. The Idiot bought into other energy alternatives like oil shale and coal liquification being evil and blocking development efforts started by Nixon and Congress to use that instead of Saudi Oil. He also considered energy from dams evil, and thought all rivers should be returned to a wild state if possible, so people like him could have enjoyable canoe, raft, kayak rides. As much as possible, Carter blocked new dam construction.
5. Worse, Carter was negating whatever conservation value his cardigans and thermostat preaching accomplished by declaring the US had a moral obligation to accept millions of refugees and Mexican economic migrants who "all come to work, then go home". The Carter Years were the years of the Boat people, Haitians, Mariel Boatlift as well as the 1st great wave of border-crashers.
Three years in Carter's office, all the Nixon-1970-75 Congressional conservation and efficiency gains were wiped out as immigrants and their later spawn raised American energy net use and oil use to new high levels, while per capita use stayed lowered.

And Carter had largely wiped out nuclear's future, and the only 3 practical solutions to foreign oil dependency:

1. Areas where America could go to find new oil supply was closed off to them.
2. Oil shale was rejected because "the environment would weep".
3. Coal liquification involved similar unacceptable "evironmental degradation".

Carter, like Dubya likely will also be remembered, is a piece of shit best remembered for the damage started on his watch continuing to harm Americans decades later.

Re: Yeah, innovation worked really well for Rome, and Babylon, and Easter Island.

Easter Island's culture was destroyed by slavers. Jared Diamond's account is a made-up mess (made up not by Diamond but by an earlier fabulist). As for Rome, Latin-based languages and the Romans' religion are found over vast areas of the world, so I think Rome did OK for itself.

Re: All your 'globalization' has managed to do is infect the rest of the world with the consumerist, materialist virus that infects the West

The West did not invent avarice, hubris or short-sighted stupidity. They have been in vogue everywhere since history began.

Re: You seem to be under the illusion that if we want something badly enough, then the market will invent a solution. One could call it the Wizard of Oz fallacy.

As long as what we want does not violate the laws of nature (i.e., no perpetual motion machines), we've done a fairly good job of inventing things that satisfy our desires.

Re: Plants do it very inefficiently, truth be told, but if there was a better way then evolution would have already found it.

I think this is a bit of a fallcy too. Evolution does not perfect organisms, it merely makes sure they are good enough to survive and propagate.

I am not amazed by much nowadays. However, the ability of these dinasoar politicians that actually lived through era and events to not remember them correctly does indeed amaze me. Its impossible to believe we are in a better economic position at this moment in time than anytime in Mr. Gramms lifetime.

The best part of his interview, though, is that he credits continued economic growth (although pawltry lately) to export growth -- which I imagine has something to do with the weak dollar -- which I imagine has something to do with huge debt, involvement in Iraq and a lackluster economy.

Ok Mr. Gramm, lets just keep creating crisis from lax oversight and innappropriate government intervention and keep raising the debt with bad projects and unnecessary overinvolvement in foreign affairs. While were at it, lets keep our economy running on a restrictive source of energy that we must rely on others to provide. Then we can remain economically dominant forever.

JonF,

Re: Easter Island's culture was destroyed by slavers. Jared Diamond's account is a made-up mess (made up not by Diamond but by an earlier fabulist.

That's possible but then how do you explain that Easter Islanders were no longer able to fish or voyage away from their island and that their material standard of living (e.g. nutritional variety) was lower than it had been in the past. It seems to be that Easter Island's culture was decaying well before the slavers got there.

Re: As for Rome, Latin-based languages and the Romans' religion are found over vast areas of the world, so I think Rome did OK for itself.

It wasn't the Romans' religion, it was a Semitic religion that took over after the old Roman religion (like many other features of pagan Rome) had collapsed of its own contradictions. As for the larger question, the collapse of Rome was viewed at the time as a great calamity and as the collapse of civilization itself. Recall St. Augustine's description in the "City of God". Obviously _he_ took a more sanguine view but he was responding to his contemporaries who thought that Rome was in a very, very dire state indeed.

Both Rome and the empires of the ancient Fertile Crescent did collapse (at least relative to what they had once been), the fact that there are still groups who call themselves the descendents of Assyria or Phoenicia or whatever doesn't change that fact. In both cases the collapse was at least in part due to natural resource depletion. The same might be true of the Indus Valley civilization. It's no accident that those regions of India and Pakistan where Indian civilization originated are now basically a desert (and rapidly becoming even worse, a salinized desert).

Re: The West did not invent avarice, hubris or short-sighted stupidity. They have been in vogue everywhere since history began.

No, that's true. The traditional cultures that globalization replaced had many evils of their own, of course, generally worse than the West. Western licentiousness is bad but it's better than the alternative of child marriages in India and so forth. But my point is that in the old days, when Rome collapsed Persia was healthy, and when China collapsed Japan was healthy, and so forth. In a globalized world when the world civilization collapses everyone is affected at once.

Re: As long as what we want does not violate the laws of nature (i.e., no perpetual motion machines), we've done a fairly good job of inventing things that satisfy our desires.

Well, maybe. We still haven't been able to create a society where everyone can walk home at night without the fear of being robbed or raped, which I think is a pretty basic human desire. But onto the larger point. I would think that the availability (or not) of cheap energy sources, like the impossibility of perpetual motion machines, is determined much more by physical and biochemical limits rather than the limits of human ingenuity. By living off fossil fuels we have been consuming concentrated energy sources at a rate disproportionate to the rate at which they were formed. When we deplete the oil it's not like there is new oil being formed every year. It's an open question whether there will happen to be another energy source as good as oil, but so far we haven't found one.

Re: I think this is a bit of a fallcy too. Evolution does not perfect organisms, it merely makes sure they are good enough to survive and propagate.

Good point. But on to some specific example. I don't think that human engineers will ever invent a process to exchange water for organic carbon that's more efficient than what the most efficient desret plants already do (that's a rate of about 50 to 1). The reason is that there is a huge evolutionary pressure to maximize carbon-for-water exchange, if there was a better pathway plants would already be doing it. Likewise, I don't think we will find a way to fix nitrogen that's more efficient than what nitrogen-fixing bacteria are already doing.

""we've never been more dominant; we've never had more natural advantages than we have today," is a good example of one of them"

What is "natural advantages" even supposed to mean here? Did we all of a sudden start growing diamond mines in Upstate NY?

Why is it that Republicans can't just admit when the economy isn't in great shape and just attack the common man in response (think the Governator's line about not being "economic girlie men")?

If the GOP was really the party of optimists, they wouldn't have to pander to hate against Muslims, Mexicans, African-Americans, Arabs, gays, lesbians and women. The GOP is the party of the rich, nouveau riche and middle class voters who just want someone else to look down on for not being rich, white, straight, Christian and scared of brown people.

I think that's generally true. Conservatives tend to be economically optimistic and culturally pessimistic. Why that is, I couldn't tell you.

When things are bad, people are looking for the people in power to change them. When Carter told people to tighten their belt, most voter interperterated that as him saying that he wasn't going to do anything to fight stagflation. That pessisim cost him.

When HW Bush told people to don't worry, be happy in 92, voters interperated it as a message that no help would be on the way anytime soon.

When things are going well or ok, voters won't listen to economic naysayers. When they do feel insecure, mental or otherwise, fake feel good comments like Gramm's are deadly for a candidate.

I am definitely high right now. Want an SDS pamphlet?

McCracken says: "Moelarryandjesus alone handicaps you back into about the fourth grade as far as the collective intellectual capacity goes.

Its funny how the left thinks that ad hominem insults somehow constitute policy arguments. "

It's funny how the fucking idiot engages in an ad hominem attack and then condemns them. Conservatives are so hopelessly stupid that they can't recognize their own hypocrisy.

This thread isn't about "policy arguments," McCracken, you pathetic moron. It's about McCain having a delusional fool like Gollum as his chief economic advisor.

Go Cheney yourself.

Why, you riffraff quit complaining and get back to work. Look at all the "freedoms" you have. Coke or Pepsi, McDonald's or Burger King. The market delivers you the bounty of $8/hr and you have the nerve to complain! Now I've got a hedge fund to bust around here somewhere.

In the "Irony is Dead" department, today also happens to be the day Fannie Mae and Sallie Mae go belly up. But, hey, it's all good.

BTW SavageGarden, don't mock the physical appearance of a woman just because she's smarter than you.

The 2X4 refers to McArdle's stated desire to take 2X4's to the heads of antiwar protesters.

Thanks, Malthus Redux. I was reading this post and the comments earlier, and considering the media coverage of the remarks in conjunction with the current state of stockmarket including the LARGEST LENDERS IN THE US GOING UNDER and or being involvent. Sorry for screaming, but, in the words of the great Will Ferrell, "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" This has been going on for a week now.
Pardon my whining. Could I have some cheese now? At least I have four decades for my IRA and 401 K to increase back to where I think it will be. It's probably not a great time for a boomer about to retire. My lord--really, is this pessimism, or realism. So much for the conservatives having the market cornered on clear-eyed, rational thinking.

Its funny how the left thinks that ad hominem insults somehow constitute policy arguments.

It's funny how the right thinks that this constitutes policy arguments. What policies are being argued here?

most Americans (whether rich, middle-class or poor) are optimistic realists who want to succeed.

I keep coming back to this, because I think it's the crux of many of the GOP's problems in this vein. This commenter doesn't seem to have the considered the possibility that being optimistic and being realistic might at times be contrary to one another, and that sometimes people who want to succeed can't, and need government assistance to help them.

Thank God for irrational people. The clear-eyed, rational thinking is what helps people who think long-term -- not necessarily optimists, mind you -- exploit the hysterics on this board, be it in the stock market or life in general.

And I can understand why that would make pessimists angry, but it's kinda funny, and it is certainly justice. As Ross pointed out ages ago up top, some people only look at the good, some at the bad, and both groups are wrong. But let's engage in class warfare and ignore the point anyway.

I'm sorry that you think that a possible loss of trillions of dollars in investment capital is hysteria. Is critiquing a system when that system doesn't create net wealth for the majority of the people and decreases the aggregate consumers buying power of a county, whining? Class warfare, maybe. And that is very much on the table.

Hope that last sentence doesn't mean you're going to firebomb a country club.

I think that the loss of trillions of dollars includes a loss of a lot of funny money. Many of the dead and wounded are idiot bankers, idiot real estate developers, flippers, and well meaning but ignorant people who bought too much house. A lot of the booms we've had have been just that - temporary stock market wealth with no real intrinsic value.

Your complaints are valid, but in the long-term this is not the first or last bust, and we've not seen the last boom. We'll see if I'm full of it, but we've had worse busts before.

Thank God for irrational people. The clear-eyed, rational thinking is what helps people who think long-term -- not necessarily optimists, mind you -- exploit the hysterics on this board, be it in the stock market or life in general.

Having reread this entire content-free thread, I don't see any hysteria, other than the salty language by MLJ.

I could, of course, contrast this with the right-wing stance during the Terry Schiavo battle. Now, that was hysteria.

Tell us, sage, did you go long or short on that? How about out-of-the money puts?

I think that the loss of trillions of dollars includes a loss of a lot of funny money.

Ah, you must have done your dissertation work under Phil Gramm.

Your complaints are valid, but in the long-term this is not the first or last bust, and we've not seen the last boom. We'll see if I'm full of it, but we've had worse busts before.

Um, no comment.

SavageView says: "Having reread this entire content-free thread, I don't see any hysteria, other than the salty language by MLJ."

"Salty language" (are you a fucking octogenarian or what?) is no sure sign of hysteria. Using it when referring to pigshit like Phil Gramm is just one of life's little pleasures.

"Salty language" (are you a fucking octogenarian or what?) is no sure sign of hysteria. Using it when referring to pigshit like Phil Gramm is just one of life's little pleasures.

Not in my eighties, though the last eight years have aged me badly.

Besides which, Ferrell, you missed the point entirely. It's the mindset of--we'll survive, everything will be eventually be okay, so STFU--that we are arguing about. Yes, the current "challenges" probably will not end western civilization as we know it, but a reckoning must come in order for that survival to take place. And it's painful. I'm not a doomsday cryer, but if you a call a spade a spade and try to correct problems in the market, you lose less money.
Which, make no mistake, includes real investment and pensions. How do you think the stock market works, anyway?

SavageView replies: "Not in my eighties, though the last eight years have aged me badly."

We're under 200 days until the Bushpig Era is over. It'll be like V-J Day and Armistice Day all over again and you'll be rejuvenated. Just hold on.

Colleen - that's my point, too. There are two separate issues - 1) the entire economy, and 2) how an individual in that economy feels based on their situation. The issue is that Gramm is caught up on #1 and not thinking of #2, which is stupid because individuals are hurting. But he's ultimately got a point. These aren't mutually exclusive ideas.

SavageGarden - get back to work. The kefir won't sell ifself, especially in this economy.

Ferret weasels: "There are two separate issues - 1) the entire economy, and 2) how an individual in that economy feels based on their situation. The issue is that Gramm is caught up on #1 and not thinking of #2, which is stupid because individuals are hurting. But he's ultimately got a point."

Bullshit. He's trying to provide cover for his Dumbya-loving candidate. If he genuinely believes that the economy is fine he's an oblivious idiot. It's not just "individuals" who are hurting - there are serious systematic problems here - things are certainly worse than in the mild 2000 downturn that Repiglicans made such a big deal out of.

It was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that in 1999 repealed the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act and allowed banks, securities companies, and insurance companies to directly compete with one another and led to the creation of financial conglomerates like Citigroup. Thus the current financial crises can be traced directly to fat-ass Phil.

The kefir won't sell ifself, especially in this economy.

If Dr. Gramm has a point, then this statement is clearly meaningless.

Personally I would say that a lot of what ross says has to do with america's specific conception of itself. We tend to think of ourselves in this country as outside of history. I tend to believe that we as americans believe that when times are good it is nothing more than our due because we have worked hard. However when times are hard we tend to blame our problems on other people or issues and also to see ourselves as unable to fulfill our destiny (that of ecconomic prosperity). Unfortunately both reactions tend to cancel each other out in the grand scheme of things. Ultimately this leaves people reacting to problems at hand rather than acting with proper planning and forethought.

Re: That's possible but then how do you explain that Easter Islanders were no longer able to fish or voyage away from their island and that their material standard of living (e.g. nutritional variety) was lower than it had been in the past.

First off, we would need to establish that these things were in fact true. I really wish I had a link to give you as I read online a very thorough debunking of Dimaond''s Collapse hypothesis (which he apparently got from Thor Heyerdahl) by someone who made his career studying the place. Most of what Diamond writes is simply not true. For example, only one species of tree actually went extinct on Easter Island previous to the 20th century; the island still had forests in the early 1800s. Also the archaeological evidence of ferocious warfare Diamond cites has been carbon dated to the era of the Island's founding when apparently two rival tribes did fight to the death over ruling the place. Meanwhile the aftermath of the slavers' visits, when most of the able-bodied population was transported to South America, the survivors were wracked by epidemics and settlers from other islanders were brought in willy-nilly, Easter Island really did go to hell in the proverbial hand-basket, handily accounting for much the ruin one finds there today.

Re: It wasn't the Romans' religion, it was a Semitic religion that took over after the old Roman religion

By the 4th century it was the religion of the Greeks and Romans and its Semitic elements had been interred under Greco-Roman cultural artifacts (note: not saying that's a bad thing). Witness the fact that the New Testament, with the possible exception of Matthew, was written in Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew. Also, the fact that the Bishop of Rome ended up as head honcho in the Western half of the church.

Re: the collapse of Rome was viewed at the time as a great calamity and as the collapse of civilization itself.

The collapse of Rome was a calamity (but remember, it only collapsed in the West). Historians will argue about why it collapsed until Kingdom Come. I don't have much to add, except to note that the causes were multiple, and that neither Roman decadence nor Christianity were impotant factors (too hypotheses beloved of moralists religious and secular, respectively). I rather feel about Rome that something would have done it in sooner or later no matter what, just as something will get each of us in the end. Nothing lasts forever, in this human sphere at least.

Re: But my point is that in the old days, when Rome collapsed Persia was healthy

Actually most civilizational collapses have been coordinated, since they have tended to involve climatic factors, or other major global disasters. What makes the difference is that some cultures recover quicker than others, and expanding into a relative void, become even greater than they might have otherwise.

Re: We still haven't been able to create a society where everyone can walk home at night without the fear of being robbed or raped

I suspect that changing human nature is one of those things that violates the laws of nature as much as a perpetual motion machine.

Re: It's an open question whether there will happen to be another energy source as good as oil, but

Technologies already exist. What doesn't exist are favorable economic circumstances (though that is changing due to 140/bbl oil)

Re: Likewise, I don't think we will find a way to fix nitrogen that's more efficient than what nitrogen-fixing bacteria are already doing.

Maybe nor. But there's a high likelihood we may be tweaking bacteria to do the work for us.

It's funny how the fucking idiot engages in an ad hominem attack and then condemns them. Conservatives are so hopelessly stupid that they can't recognize their own hypocrisy.

Well Moe I am not surprised that you are incapable of understanding the point I was making.

Considering how intellectually stunted you are and all.

I, unlike you, understand that ad hominem attacks and policy arguments are two seperate things. You, being a special ed class dropout, do not get this.

Go Cheney yourself.

Liberal debate technique at its very finest. Worthy of a sputtering dunce like Obama.

A sucker of Cheney's taint replies: "Well Moe I am not surprised that you are incapable of understanding the point I was making.

Considering how intellectually stunted you are and all.

I, unlike you, understand that ad hominem attacks and policy arguments are two seperate things. You, being a special ed class dropout, do not get this. "

Oh, I get it. It's just that this isn't a policy discussion, it's a discussion about an ad hominem attack made by Gollum himself. It's too bad that fuckstains like you can't grasp such things.

I just looked at your artwork. I assume all of your customers (well, both of them) are necrophiliac pedophiles. Who else would want such derivative faerie bullshit?

"Liberal debate technique at its very finest. Worthy of a sputtering dunce like Obama."

In fact it's a tribute to the rhetorical mastery of your beloved bald master Dickless, but again you're too fucking stupid to get that.

This is a link to my artwork.

I will leave it to everyone else to decide if you are a retarded philistine or not.

"while Republican politicians and pundits tend to go way overboard insisting that everything's fine and the public needs to stop whining, stop listening to the media, and start enjoying the good times."

Douthat no doubt is talking about the economic boom of the 1990s, when Republicans were telling everyone to lean back and enjoy the lowest unemployment rate and biggest real wage gains in 40 years . . . oh no, wait, they were telling everyone the Clinton tax hikes were gonna crush the economy like a beer can and warning everyone about the catastrophic consequences of runaway budget surpluses (well, they sure took care of THAT problem anyway.)

And this bit about Democrats being pessimists and Republicans optimists is also pure BS -- as shown in the recent Gallup USA Today poll that has upbeat upscale voters flocking to Obama, while downscale, pissed off voters lean heavily to McCain (if they're pissed off now, wait until they see what happens if the old fool wins.)

Douthat may be a smart, East Coast conservative who's house trained enough to write for The Atlantic, but he's still just a freaking GOP tool when it comes right down to it.

Cheney's towel boy posts: "This is a link to my artwork.

I will leave it to everyone else to decide if you are a retarded philistine or not."

That would be "not," chuckles. You're no Barry Smith or Jim Steranko, that's for sure. You're more of a Don Heck. Do you remember Don Heck?

It really IS funny to have a paleocon pretending to be a Great Artiste, though. Aren't you afraid of being considered an "elitist" by your torture-loving incest-practicing hillbilly ideological brethren?

Here's my informed critique of your craft. Your shit would make good biker tattoos. That's your niche. All of the faerie bullshit was done earlier and better by people far more talented than you are. You could also customize vans for retired hippies, though, so not all hope is lost.

Peter Principle says: "Douthat may be a smart, East Coast conservative who's house trained enough to write for The Atlantic, but he's still just a freaking GOP tool when it comes right down to it."

It's hard to imagine that he would have voted non-GOP this time around - or even abstained from voting - no matter which member of the Field Of Dwarves had gained the GOP nomination. He is exactly what you said he is - a committed lickspittle for the party of Dumbya Bush. Is there any doubt that if Dumbya were able to run for a 3rd term that Douthat would vote for him? Of course not.

Imagine the degree of sycophancy required to be able to support another term for a megafuckup like Dumbya, and you're picturing Mr. Douthat's Neighborhood. It's a scary place.

I actually kind of like Mr. McCracken's art. Then again I have a thing for Pre-Raphealite, medieval imagery, which is a niche market to say the least. I'm not surprised that Moe would not like it. Mr. McCracken's political views are something else entirely.

Moe - I don't believe the economy's fine either, but ... oh, nevermind, I like the art debate better.

Peter Principle, here's an analogy that you won't see on your SATs, but ought to take to heart:

1990s economic expansion is to the tech bubble/bust as mid-2000s economic expansion is to - _____.

Answer: The housing bubble everyone's talking about. Stop fallating Slick Willie (or is it Willy, LMJ? Let me know).

It really IS funny to have a paleocon pretending to be a Great Artiste, though. Aren't you afraid of being considered an "elitist" by your torture-loving incest-practicing hillbilly ideological brethren?

Here's my informed critique of your craft. Your shit would make good biker tattoos.

I started in fantasy art by drawing tattoo flash. Not surprised that a lib such as yourself, and your buddy Barack Obama too probably, would look down your elitist noses as such art.

You are both a snob and a philistine at the same time. That is a rare talent Moe.

I am still a bit shocked that you went out and Googled my name, and then decided to try and insult my artwork just because you don't like my politics.

Good god, how incredibly lame you are.

Cheney's little fish (see Suetonius) says: "I started in fantasy art by drawing tattoo flash. Not surprised that a lib such as yourself, and your buddy Barack Obama too probably, would look down your elitist noses as such art.

You are both a snob and a philistine at the same time. That is a rare talent Moe.

I am still a bit shocked that you went out and Googled my name, and then decided to try and insult my artwork just because you don't like my politics.

Good god, how incredibly lame you are. "

I didn't have to Google your name, you silly shit. You left a link to some of your artwork yourself as the signature to one of your dumbass posts.

I don't dislike your art because it's lowbrow. I dislike it because it's derivative garbage. Your politics have nothing to do with that.

I enjoy a wide range of art and literature and music that isn't part of any official "pantheon." I named Barry Smith and Jim Steranko up above. I could name dozens more.

It's significant that you think no one could dislike your bilge honestly, but I certainly do. I spotted that tattooing influence immediately. Your art belongs on the hairy asses of drunken bikers. Have you inked up your mom yet?