info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Commiserations, George
42 views
Skip to first unread message
Stan R
Nov 7, 2012, 4:06:29 AM11/7/12
to
While Romney was far from an inspiring candidate, I still thought the
"ABO" (anyone but Obama) principle may get him over the line.
Sadly, I was wrong. Commiserations. We will no doubt suffer with you.
Perhaps this is a harbinger of what may yet happen here in Australia
next year with the most incompetent and corrupt government in living memory.
It brings to mind that famous statement of Albert Einstein: "Only two
things are infinite: The universe and human stupidity. And I am not sure
about the former."
Daniel Hannan, the British MEP made famous by his YouTube video attack
of Gordon Brown, has summed it up well in this article:
http://tinyurl.com/aqvc5j6
I quote:
The United States owes $16 trillion, and is adding more than a trillion
dollars to that sum every year. As Adam Smith observed, ‘when national
debts have once been accumulated to a certain degree, there is scarce, I
believe, a single instance of their having been fairly and completely
paid.’ Mitt Romney might slow his country’s decline into penury and
impotence. Barack Obama has already shown that he will accelerate it.
But the decline will continue either way.
Decline, not fall. For, to quote the sage of Kirkcaldy again, ‘there is
a great deal of ruin in a nation’.
We may be witnessing the sunset of the West, but it is a glorious, slow,
purple-streaked sunset. As we watch it, we ponder on the passing day.
Only now, perhaps, do we realise what we achieved, we Anglosphere
peoples. The owl of Minerva, as Hegel wrote, spreads its wings at the
gathering of the dusk.
The decline of the US is our decline, too. A straight line runs from
Runnymede to Philadelphia. For three hundred years, the preponderant
civilisation of the world has been English-speaking, libertarian,
democratic, contract-based. Ours has been a glorious day and, even now,
it is not done. In the sunset, too, there is beauty.
"ABO" (anyone but Obama) principle may get him over the line.
Sadly, I was wrong. Commiserations. We will no doubt suffer with you.
Perhaps this is a harbinger of what may yet happen here in Australia
next year with the most incompetent and corrupt government in living memory.
It brings to mind that famous statement of Albert Einstein: "Only two
things are infinite: The universe and human stupidity. And I am not sure
about the former."
Daniel Hannan, the British MEP made famous by his YouTube video attack
of Gordon Brown, has summed it up well in this article:
http://tinyurl.com/aqvc5j6
I quote:
The United States owes $16 trillion, and is adding more than a trillion
dollars to that sum every year. As Adam Smith observed, ‘when national
debts have once been accumulated to a certain degree, there is scarce, I
believe, a single instance of their having been fairly and completely
paid.’ Mitt Romney might slow his country’s decline into penury and
impotence. Barack Obama has already shown that he will accelerate it.
But the decline will continue either way.
Decline, not fall. For, to quote the sage of Kirkcaldy again, ‘there is
a great deal of ruin in a nation’.
We may be witnessing the sunset of the West, but it is a glorious, slow,
purple-streaked sunset. As we watch it, we ponder on the passing day.
Only now, perhaps, do we realise what we achieved, we Anglosphere
peoples. The owl of Minerva, as Hegel wrote, spreads its wings at the
gathering of the dusk.
The decline of the US is our decline, too. A straight line runs from
Runnymede to Philadelphia. For three hundred years, the preponderant
civilisation of the world has been English-speaking, libertarian,
democratic, contract-based. Ours has been a glorious day and, even now,
it is not done. In the sunset, too, there is beauty.
kujebak
Nov 7, 2012, 5:28:54 PM11/7/12
to
What this means is simply that the US economy will have
to get even worse than it is, before it can begin to get
better. The House is still controlled by the Republicans,
so there isn’t going to be any new borrowing, at least for
the next two years. Everyone in the media here predicts
an upheaval in the Republican Party as a result of this
election, but I disagree. The Republicans need to do nothing
to guarantee further economic decline, as even more capital
is sure to leave the economy and turn into nonproductive
inflation hedge type investments. They can’t do anything
to improve things either, since the Senate and the White
House is still in the hands of the most radical political
left wing in the last 40 years. Some say Obama will now
actually begin to care about the economy, and woo the Repu-
blicans with entitlement reform, or possibly even some sort
of compromise on his health care law, as Bill Clinton did
in his second term, but I don’t think he has the intellectual
capacity to do that. I am convinced he really believes in
what he thinks he stands for to 53 million Americans who
voted for him this time. Bill Clinton had an innate desire
for love and adulation, even in the absence of political
consequences. Obama is an ideologue concerned only with his
place in history books. That he will certainly be assured of,
as the first socialist president of the United States of
America. The good news is that money will start running out
soon. As soon as January 1st. Without new Congressional(Repu-
blican) appropriations, spending cuts, and across-the-
board tax hikes will be automatic, falling squarely on the
Democrats, and their intransigence to entitlement reform. What
this means to me personally is that I should probably accelerate
my retirement, instead of working another 5 years as I planned,
so I can enjoy the last decade of physical independence like
Yukon did. Traveling around this once so great a country :-)
to get even worse than it is, before it can begin to get
better. The House is still controlled by the Republicans,
so there isn’t going to be any new borrowing, at least for
the next two years. Everyone in the media here predicts
an upheaval in the Republican Party as a result of this
election, but I disagree. The Republicans need to do nothing
to guarantee further economic decline, as even more capital
is sure to leave the economy and turn into nonproductive
inflation hedge type investments. They can’t do anything
to improve things either, since the Senate and the White
House is still in the hands of the most radical political
left wing in the last 40 years. Some say Obama will now
actually begin to care about the economy, and woo the Repu-
blicans with entitlement reform, or possibly even some sort
of compromise on his health care law, as Bill Clinton did
in his second term, but I don’t think he has the intellectual
capacity to do that. I am convinced he really believes in
what he thinks he stands for to 53 million Americans who
voted for him this time. Bill Clinton had an innate desire
for love and adulation, even in the absence of political
consequences. Obama is an ideologue concerned only with his
place in history books. That he will certainly be assured of,
as the first socialist president of the United States of
America. The good news is that money will start running out
soon. As soon as January 1st. Without new Congressional(Repu-
blican) appropriations, spending cuts, and across-the-
board tax hikes will be automatic, falling squarely on the
Democrats, and their intransigence to entitlement reform. What
this means to me personally is that I should probably accelerate
my retirement, instead of working another 5 years as I planned,
so I can enjoy the last decade of physical independence like
Yukon did. Traveling around this once so great a country :-)
Frank Bures
Nov 8, 2012, 11:38:34 AM11/8/12
to
kujebak wrote:
> What this means is simply that the US economy will have
> to get even worse than it is, before it can begin to get
> better. The House is still controlled by the Republicans,
> so there isn’t going to be any new borrowing, at least for
> the next two years.
Well, the current level of borrowing is scary enough. Just look at the
> What this means is simply that the US economy will have
> to get even worse than it is, before it can begin to get
> better. The House is still controlled by the Republicans,
> so there isn’t going to be any new borrowing, at least for
> the next two years.
fiscal situation of Spain and Italy and compare it per capita with the
States. All joking would become impossible...
Everyone in the media here predicts
> an upheaval in the Republican Party as a result of this
> election, but I disagree. The Republicans need to do nothing
> to guarantee further economic decline, as even more capital
> is sure to leave the economy and turn into nonproductive
> inflation hedge type investments.
I'd say to each what he deserves, unfortunately Obama is going to bury us
all here north of 49-th as well.
BTW, speaking about voters' schizophrenia, polls in Canada revealed that
up to 80% of respondents would vote for Obama if they could. Even in
Alberta, where Obama's canceling of Kingston XL meant huge financial loses,
the percentage was something like 57% in support of him.
I am of an opinion that an average voter is an idiot.
Cheers
Frank
--
<fe...@chem.toronto.edu>
Message has been deleted
Stan R
Nov 8, 2012, 7:59:04 PM11/8/12
to
On Thursday, November 8, 2012 8:28:54 AM UTC+10, kujebak wrote:
> What this means is simply that the US economy will have
>
> to get even worse than it is, before it can begin to get
>
> better.
But will it do that even then? Just look at Europe, in particular France. Some the policies being implemented by the Socialist government there would make Lenin proud. The result is a guaranteed further decline. Yet "the people" continue supporting these types of measures.
> What this means is simply that the US economy will have
>
> to get even worse than it is, before it can begin to get
>
> better.
The US, in my opinion, has lost the "rugged individualist" outlook it used to be known for in the past and is now fair and square in the same socialist camp as the rest of the developed world.
> The House is still controlled by the Republicans,
>
> so there isn’t going to be any new borrowing, at least for
>
> the next two years.
> Everyone in the media here predicts
>
> an upheaval in the Republican Party as a result of this
>
> election, but I disagree. The Republicans need to do nothing
>
> to guarantee further economic decline, as even more capital
>
> is sure to leave the economy and turn into nonproductive
>
> inflation hedge type investments. They can’t do anything
>
> to improve things either, since the Senate and the White
>
> House is still in the hands of the most radical political
>
> left wing in the last 40 years.
> Some say Obama will now
>
> actually begin to care about the economy,
> and woo the Repu-
>
> blicans with entitlement reform, or possibly even some sort
>
> of compromise on his health care law, as Bill Clinton did
>
> in his second term, but I don’t think he has the intellectual
>
> capacity to do that. I am convinced he really believes in
>
> what he thinks he stands for to 53 million Americans who
>
> voted for him this time. Bill Clinton had an innate desire
>
> for love and adulation, even in the absence of political
>
> consequences. Obama is an ideologue concerned only with his
>
> place in history books. That he will certainly be assured of,
>
> as the first socialist president of the United States of
>
> America. The good news is that money will start running out
>
> soon. As soon as January 1st. Without new Congressional(Repu-
>
> blican) appropriations, spending cuts, and across-the-
>
> board tax hikes will be automatic, falling squarely on the
>
> Democrats, and their intransigence to entitlement reform. What
>
> this means to me personally is that I should probably accelerate
>
> my retirement, instead of working another 5 years as I planned,
>
> so I can enjoy the last decade of physical independence like
>
> Yukon did. Traveling around this once so great a country :-)
Stan R
Nov 8, 2012, 8:25:58 PM11/8/12
to
On Friday, November 9, 2012 2:40:14 AM UTC+10, Frank Bures wrote:
> kujebak wrote:
>
> > What this means is simply that the US economy will have
>
> > to get even worse than it is, before it can begin to get
>
> > better. The House is still controlled by the Republicans,
>
> > so there isn’t going to be any new borrowing, at least for
>
> > the next two years.
>
>
>
> Well, the current level of borrowing is scary enough. Just look at the
>
> fiscal situation of Spain and Italy and compare it per capita with the
>
> States. All joking would become impossible...
>
Don't worry, none of those debts will even be paid - because they can't. A multitude of sovereign defaults, either outright or via a currency collapse, is baked in at some not too distant stage.
> kujebak wrote:
>
> > What this means is simply that the US economy will have
>
> > to get even worse than it is, before it can begin to get
>
> > better. The House is still controlled by the Republicans,
>
> > so there isn’t going to be any new borrowing, at least for
>
> > the next two years.
>
>
>
> Well, the current level of borrowing is scary enough. Just look at the
>
> fiscal situation of Spain and Italy and compare it per capita with the
>
> States. All joking would become impossible...
>
>
> Everyone in the media here predicts
>
> > an upheaval in the Republican Party as a result of this
>
> > election, but I disagree. The Republicans need to do nothing
>
> > to guarantee further economic decline, as even more capital
>
> > is sure to leave the economy and turn into nonproductive
>
> > inflation hedge type investments.
>
>
>
> See the NYSE indexes for proof of your words :-(
>
That would have happened regardless who won. The Dow has been a massive bubble fuelled by the monetary insanity of QEnfinity and ZIRP4EVA, and by accounting standards which allow companies to value toxic assets at pink unicorn price levels.
> Everyone in the media here predicts
>
> > an upheaval in the Republican Party as a result of this
>
> > election, but I disagree. The Republicans need to do nothing
>
> > to guarantee further economic decline, as even more capital
>
> > is sure to leave the economy and turn into nonproductive
>
> > inflation hedge type investments.
>
>
>
> See the NYSE indexes for proof of your words :-(
>
All signs now point to a synchronised global recession leading into 2013, which means that anyone still holding long position in that algo-driven casino that is the stock market needs to have his/her head read.
>
> I'd say to each what he deserves, unfortunately Obama is going to bury us
>
> all here north of 49-th as well.
>
That will happen regardless of Obama, unfortunately. Canada is in a similar position to Australia - an economy largely dependent on the unsustainable Chinese-driven commodities boom, a huge private debt pile and a massively overvalued housing market.
> I'd say to each what he deserves, unfortunately Obama is going to bury us
>
> all here north of 49-th as well.
>
Once China pops - and it will, you can bet on that - the much vaunted Canadian/Australian "economic miracle" will be shown for the sham it is.
>
> BTW, speaking about voters' schizophrenia, polls in Canada revealed that
>
> up to 80% of respondents would vote for Obama if they could. Even in
>
> Alberta, where Obama's canceling of Kingston XL meant huge financial loses,
>
> the percentage was something like 57% in support of him.
>
Same here; I believe France topped the list, with about 95% of the Frogs infatuated by "The Chosen One", and Australia ending up with a "medal spot", with about 87% of the locals thinking he's that bright thing that comes up in the eastern sky every morning.
> BTW, speaking about voters' schizophrenia, polls in Canada revealed that
>
> up to 80% of respondents would vote for Obama if they could. Even in
>
> Alberta, where Obama's canceling of Kingston XL meant huge financial loses,
>
> the percentage was something like 57% in support of him.
>
>
> I am of an opinion that an average voter is an idiot.
That one is a given. It's been known for a long time, too:
> I am of an opinion that an average voter is an idiot.
Alexis de Tocqueville knew what he was talking about:
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
And:
“When the taste for physical gratifications among them has grown more rapidly than their education . . . the time will come when men are carried away and lose all self-restraint . . . . It is not necessary to do violence to such a people in order to strip them of the rights they enjoy; they themselves willingly loosen their hold. . . . they neglect their chief business which is to remain their own masters.”
- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America Volume 2
Cheers.
pauljk
Nov 9, 2012, 3:11:26 AM11/9/12
to
"pauljk" <paul....@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:...
> "Stan R" <aus...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:528b3e89-52f5-4212...@googlegroups.com...
>> On Thursday, November 8, 2012 8:28:54 AM UTC+10, kujebak wrote:
> [...]
>>> Democrats, and their intransigence to entitlement reform. What
>>>
>>> this means to me personally is that I should probably accelerate
>>>
>>> my retirement, instead of working another 5 years as I planned,
>>>
>>> so I can enjoy the last decade of physical independence like
>>>
>>> Yukon did. Traveling around this once so great a country :-)
>>
>> Alas, there is nowhere to hide. :-(
>
> I bet you know of a good place, but if you tell us you'll
>>>
>>> this means to me personally is that I should probably accelerate
>>>
>>> my retirement, instead of working another 5 years as I planned,
>>>
>>> so I can enjoy the last decade of physical independence like
>>>
>>> Yukon did. Traveling around this once so great a country :-)
>>
>> Alas, there is nowhere to hide. :-(
>
> have to kill us. Right?
>
> pjk
>
>
0 new messages