I just posted a clip from my conversation with Daniel Bessner, where I make the case that Barack Obama was the only person who could have prevented the crisis of order and legitimacy our country finds itself in today, and point to two specific major mistakes that he made.
I would like to know what more you would have wanted law enforcement in Ferguson MO to do besides come in significant numbers with their military style equipment and gear and attempt to control the crowd and clear the streets? It is reported that 61 people were arrested and charged with various crimes.
Also, in principle, I'm sure you would agree that although their protests were rooted in a false understanding of the facts, that it is perfectly OK to come together and shout at the courthouse steps. Do you use the word "mob" simply because you disagree, or because you are envisioning "violence" and "lawlessness" when creating the scene in your mind?
What would you say is your oratorical reason for using Barrack Obama's middle name during this segment? What's your middle name?
Excellent conversation. I am not an American nor an expert in American politics. However, I had thought that there were events, not usually considered, that led to the current situation, including Trump's presidency. Thanks for the insight. I believe Obama could still do something to overcome the crisis of order and legitimacy. It seems, however, he is not interested in long term solutions. He seems more interested in maintaining influence in his political party. On the other side, Michelle is playing the victim card. This is absurd since she may be anything except a victim. Let's be optimistic and think that Obama would meditate about your words and that he will assume his responsibility with the United States and with the whole continent. Thanks again for your clarity.
That is a *great* excerpt. (As I have had similar thoughts! 😉)
Some further thoughts on the lack of consequences for the financial crisis. I agree that we should have be much more willing to let both equity and debt holders take greater losses. A bankruptcy of even a financial institution doesn't mean that the knowhow of the organization is lost. More than ever it means just that the organization gets a new capital structure and new owners. Russ Roberts traces the affinity for bailouts to the "voluntary" rescue of Long Term Capital Management in the 1990's. Bailouts have been a means to avoid pain in the short term at the expense of long term dysfunction-- creating (i) excessive risk taking and (ii) an elite that does not suffer the consequences of their misfeasance. For a technical solution I recommend the always insightful John Cochrane (https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/across-the-great-divide-ch10.pdf)
It is interesting that both the examples you cite (Obama's actions during the financial crisis and with respect to Ferguson) were examples of letting short term considerations outweigh long terms ones. In the case or Ferguson, Obama kept intraparty peace in the short term at the expense of normalizing violence and misbehavior in the long term (expenses we are feeling now).
I should add that this short term thinking is not unique to Obama. The existence of unfunded state pension and SS/Medicare obligations suggests that it pervades the political realm. (It is present in other areas, but is uniquely bad in the political ream.) Why that is is a subject worthy of consideration.
Not to be a linguistic nit picker but I believe it should be “hew” to the center rather than “hue”
I would like to know what more you would have wanted law enforcement in Ferguson MO to do besides come in significant numbers with their military style equipment and gear and attempt to control the crowd and clear the streets? It is reported that 61 people were arrested and charged with various crimes.
Also, in principle, I'm sure you would agree that although their protests were rooted in a false understanding of the facts, that it is perfectly OK to come together and shout at the courthouse steps. Do you use the word "mob" simply because you disagree, or because you are envisioning "violence" and "lawlessness" when creating the scene in your mind?
What would you say is your oratorical reason for using Barrack Obama's middle name during this segment? What's your middle name?
Excellent conversation. I am not an American nor an expert in American politics. However, I had thought that there were events, not usually considered, that led to the current situation, including Trump's presidency. Thanks for the insight. I believe Obama could still do something to overcome the crisis of order and legitimacy. It seems, however, he is not interested in long term solutions. He seems more interested in maintaining influence in his political party. On the other side, Michelle is playing the victim card. This is absurd since she may be anything except a victim. Let's be optimistic and think that Obama would meditate about your words and that he will assume his responsibility with the United States and with the whole continent. Thanks again for your clarity.
That is a *great* excerpt. (As I have had similar thoughts! 😉)
Some further thoughts on the lack of consequences for the financial crisis. I agree that we should have be much more willing to let both equity and debt holders take greater losses. A bankruptcy of even a financial institution doesn't mean that the knowhow of the organization is lost. More than ever it means just that the organization gets a new capital structure and new owners. Russ Roberts traces the affinity for bailouts to the "voluntary" rescue of Long Term Capital Management in the 1990's. Bailouts have been a means to avoid pain in the short term at the expense of long term dysfunction-- creating (i) excessive risk taking and (ii) an elite that does not suffer the consequences of their misfeasance. For a technical solution I recommend the always insightful John Cochrane (https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/across-the-great-divide-ch10.pdf)
It is interesting that both the examples you cite (Obama's actions during the financial crisis and with respect to Ferguson) were examples of letting short term considerations outweigh long terms ones. In the case or Ferguson, Obama kept intraparty peace in the short term at the expense of normalizing violence and misbehavior in the long term (expenses we are feeling now).
I should add that this short term thinking is not unique to Obama. The existence of unfunded state pension and SS/Medicare obligations suggests that it pervades the political realm. (It is present in other areas, but is uniquely bad in the political ream.) Why that is is a subject worthy of consideration.