Events in the last 24 months have economist and finance experts shaking their heads in shock. The spate of bank failures and deep recession have overturned textbook theories on their heads. And now the world of Finances and Economics have serious question regarding existing theories. Limited regulation was supposed to be ideal for the market as it spurred rapid growth and increased productivity. So America and the United Kingdom reduced regulation and witnessed explosive growth in the last couple of decades, as their socialist capitalism counterparts in western Europe saw only marginal growth.
Unfortunately the unbridled, unchecked capitalism has brought forth an economic catastrophe unseen since the great depression. The effect is a global collapse of banks and the real estate market. However socialist capitalist countries like France and Germany were not as harder hit as the United States and the United Kingdom.
All this have sparked a new debate about the wisdom of increased regulation of the market as seen in socialist capitalist countries. The French Banks has strict laws that guard against risky loans. As a result, the French economy has been shielded from the real estate collapse in the U.S., the UK and other countries. Whilst some experts think the time has arrived for all countries to adopt the socialist capitalist approach, others are saying, not so fast. Such pro unbridled capitalist expert belive what we are witnessing is just a temporary blip; more regulation will collapse the world economy.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
THE PARADOX OF PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION
The model citizen of any republic is the most ardently patriotic one. And more importantly, the paragon leader of a republic is supposed to be patriotic all the time, not sometimes. The selfless leader of a republic must set good example to the citizenzry but showing selfless, remarkable patriotism. However, as ideal and proper and necessary as it is for citizens, particularly leaders to be patriotic, unquestioned patriotism is difficult in practice. Given the chance, everybody pay lip service to being patriotic or pledge to be patriotic when the difficult issue comes.
According to my own Machiavellian postulation, it is easier for incumbent politicians to be patriotic that is is for members of the opposition. When you have the power, you want everything to go well for your nation for the good of all and more importantly for the good of your relection propects. And wishing your country well is a mark of patriotism. When you don't have power, you want the incumbent to fail. The only way for the opposition to gain power is for the incumbent to fail. Unfortunately, if the incumbent fails, the country goes down with him. So wishing the incumbent to fail is wishing for your country's fail, and that's unpatriotic. In effect, incumbents are patriotic, opposition leaders are not. This is a cold, calculating, machevellian rule of politics; it is an unspoken truth.
Most Democrats did not wish wish George W. Bush well; they wanted him to fail. Dems could wait for Bush to fail in Iraq, and for a good reason. If the Iraq war had gone well, Republicans could have easily ridden that euphoria to a third straight presidential election victory. And would be talking President John McCain, not President Barack Hussein Obama. So whilst it was unpatriotic for Democrats to wish their country lose a war, it was politically expedient. Patriotism means putting country first but attaining political power requires putting self first before country.
So why did Rush Limbaugh take so much heat for saying he wants Obama to fail. Limbaugh's mistake saying out loud an apostasy everybody in the opposition commits in their heart. Democrats are no different from Rush; they wanted Bush to fail.
According to my own Machiavellian postulation, it is easier for incumbent politicians to be patriotic that is is for members of the opposition. When you have the power, you want everything to go well for your nation for the good of all and more importantly for the good of your relection propects. And wishing your country well is a mark of patriotism. When you don't have power, you want the incumbent to fail. The only way for the opposition to gain power is for the incumbent to fail. Unfortunately, if the incumbent fails, the country goes down with him. So wishing the incumbent to fail is wishing for your country's fail, and that's unpatriotic. In effect, incumbents are patriotic, opposition leaders are not. This is a cold, calculating, machevellian rule of politics; it is an unspoken truth.
Most Democrats did not wish wish George W. Bush well; they wanted him to fail. Dems could wait for Bush to fail in Iraq, and for a good reason. If the Iraq war had gone well, Republicans could have easily ridden that euphoria to a third straight presidential election victory. And would be talking President John McCain, not President Barack Hussein Obama. So whilst it was unpatriotic for Democrats to wish their country lose a war, it was politically expedient. Patriotism means putting country first but attaining political power requires putting self first before country.
So why did Rush Limbaugh take so much heat for saying he wants Obama to fail. Limbaugh's mistake saying out loud an apostasy everybody in the opposition commits in their heart. Democrats are no different from Rush; they wanted Bush to fail.
SONIA SOTOMAYOR FOR SUPREME COURT
Sonia Sotomayor is an accomplished legal mind and her elevation to the supreme court of the United States is historic. From humble beginnings, she has achieved a lot: achieving high academics success at Princeton and Yale Law School, to working for some of the prestigious law firms to working as a prosecutor and judge.
As the nations first Hispanic to join the Supreme Court, Ms. Sotomayor will enhance diversity on the court on both gender and racial grounds. Her experiences growing up poor and minority brings a unique perspective that would help the court reach decisions more compassionate to the disadvantaged in American society.
In choosing Ms. Sotomayor, President Obama has killed a bird with several stones. The Presdient has solidified his outreach to Hispanics an ever-growing important voting bloc. Sonia's gender would also please women as she becomes the second woman on the court. On the whole, selection of Sonia Sotomayor is a political win-win for the president and the democrats. Sonia's elevation on the court puts republicans on the defensive in their outreach to hispanics and women. In the 2008 elections, Republicans fared poorly among Hispanics and women, and are hoping to turn this around. Unfortunately, the addition of a hispanic female with strong liberal credentials puts the GOP in a quandary. On the one hand they would want to prevent the addition of a bonafide liberal to the court. On the other hand, they would not want to offend hispanics and women.
In a nutshell, Sonia's elevation further strengthens President Obama's hand as he continues to dominate the political field to the chagrin of the GOP --which is currently leaderless and is struggling to slow down President Obama's momentum.
As the nations first Hispanic to join the Supreme Court, Ms. Sotomayor will enhance diversity on the court on both gender and racial grounds. Her experiences growing up poor and minority brings a unique perspective that would help the court reach decisions more compassionate to the disadvantaged in American society.
In choosing Ms. Sotomayor, President Obama has killed a bird with several stones. The Presdient has solidified his outreach to Hispanics an ever-growing important voting bloc. Sonia's gender would also please women as she becomes the second woman on the court. On the whole, selection of Sonia Sotomayor is a political win-win for the president and the democrats. Sonia's elevation on the court puts republicans on the defensive in their outreach to hispanics and women. In the 2008 elections, Republicans fared poorly among Hispanics and women, and are hoping to turn this around. Unfortunately, the addition of a hispanic female with strong liberal credentials puts the GOP in a quandary. On the one hand they would want to prevent the addition of a bonafide liberal to the court. On the other hand, they would not want to offend hispanics and women.
In a nutshell, Sonia's elevation further strengthens President Obama's hand as he continues to dominate the political field to the chagrin of the GOP --which is currently leaderless and is struggling to slow down President Obama's momentum.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)