What Al Gore said Feb 23 2002...

[Gunhead]

Looking on the bright side, it isn't about the election... But Nagorak, you really crapped on my thread after I almost got it back on the intended track.

Thanks ES for trying to rescue the S/N ratio. -- I'd have to try to check back how much Gore aired his "feeling betrayed" at that time, or whether he's banking on nobody remembering what he actually said back then ;-)

 

[Sxotty]

I voted nader as well, couldn't stomach either canidate. Actually I couldn't really stomach nader either, but hey he wasn't going to win anyway. You know alot of economists basically say that tax cuts do nothing, because the money gets spent and people have jobs either way. Plus the government hires lots of lowly minions and gives everyone a piece of the pie whereas corporate america gives more to a select few.

In any case that theory basically says that nothing done will really make any difference until things get really really bad, i.e. private individuals and coorp. don't invest any more at which point the government spending it is better.

 

[Gunhead]

(Sigh.)

 

[Nathan]

Even those who now agree that Saddam Hussein must go, may divide deeply over the wisdom of presenting the United States as impatient for war.

Speaking as a New Zealander, I am worried about the Bush's eagerness to go to war. There are a lot of little countries in the world that could be squashed by the might of the US military. We want a happy, kind US - not an angry, vengeful one.

I am reminded of the quote: "With great power, comes great responsibility"

Overall, I liked his speech. There were some very good points and it has changed my view of the US to a degree.

 

[fbg1]

Speaking as an American, I've developed a regard and admiration for NZ over the past few years. From the America's Cup to the All Blacks to LOTR (from the technology to the beautiful scenery), your small country has racked up quite a resume.

We want a happy, kind US - not an angry, vengeful one.

There's a time for happiness and kindness, and there's a time for putting your foot down, in all aspects of life, not just international politics. Obviously Bush & co. believe now is time for the latter. Whether they're right or not, time will tell. I can see both sides of the argument.

I am reminded of the quote: "With great power, comes great responsibility"

The argument could be made that the US is being responsible, and the entire world is being irresponsible (or worse). Non-proliferation was failing during the 90s - North Korea has nuke capability, Iraq was 6 months away at the beginning of GW1, Iran is close, India and Pakistan officially went nuclear in 98, and who knows what nuclear material may have escaped the ex-Soviet states over the past decade. Both Iran and Pakistan have been known to supply arms to terrorists, and Saddam Hussein is on record as threatening to nuke Israel. It's a short leap to the conclusion that they would supply nukes to terrorist groups. Bye bye Israel, and whoever else they can successfully target (US most likely).

The choice was obvious - allow non-proliferation to continue failing, or to enforce it more stringently. Iraq is being made an example of, and already the ramifications are being seen. China, which has been arming NK with missile supplies and nuclear capability, is having second thoughts - the US is not a paper tiger any longer.

Etc. etc. I could go on, but you get the picture. Be a happy, nice, naive country while allowing non-proliferation to fail, or be coldly realistic, see the developing situation for what it is, and do something about it. It's unfortunate it came to the point where the realists believe that military action is the best remaining option.

PS - here's the US think tank that developed the Bush admin's current geopolitical strategy. Interesting, unless you prefer to believe the conspiracy theories.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

 

[fbg1]

I wish people would dispense with this notion that the president "creates jobs" and fixes the economy.

[hypothesis]I'd bet that public misperception may be shifting, from the government to the Federal Reserve Bank. With all the notoriety and acclaim Alan Greenspan received for managing the economy during the 90s, the average Joe is sure to have caught the drift. Granted, Clinton skillfully took credit for the economy whenever he could, but the media heaped a lot of that praise on Greenspan as well. It was only 30 years ago that Nixon uttered, "we're all Keynesians now", and even though that philosophy was already on the way out at the time among those who knew better, it's a simple enough concept for John Q. Public to have held onto for all these years. Hopefully recent years have illustrated to everyone that it's not that simple. I for one will not miss the days when Presidents no longer take credit for creating jobs and such similar other bs.[/hypothesis]

 

[epicstruggle]

im no economist, but neither the president or the federal reserve can take major credit for the economy growth or lack thereof. the federal reserve should take more credit, but even they only help a litttle. if your business is only waiting on a percent or two to expand it really shouldnt.

btw, on the subject of al gore, I dont like politicians who dont fight for what they believe and switch on issues just to get votes. with al gore he switched from pro-life to pro-choice to further his career. His views on the current war on Iraq are interesting. He doesnt believe the US can walk and chew gum which is silly. The war on terror continues, and the war in iraq takes center stage. also north korea has not been forgotten and war plannes should be drawn while other solutions are being tried.

later,

 

[fbg1]

The govt. and the Fed can't create a strong economy, that of course is the work of the many smart and motivated innovators, businesspeople, and financiers out there. But what the Fed can do is create conditions that make the emergence of such an economy favorable, or that sustain such an economy already under way. Ever since Paul Volcker became Fed Chairman, the Fed's primary objective has been keeping inflation low and stable. Rampant out-of-control inflation is the single most damaging thing to the economy, as Volcker and Greenspan learned from the 70s. The tradeoff is that while rising interest rates during a hot economy keeps inflation low, it also tends to decrease the amount of money that businesses borrow to finance new products, services, and hiring. So when the economy is hot, and prices tend to rise, the Fed raises interest rates to combat inflation. When the economy enters the bust cycle, the Fed decreases rates which allows more business investment, setting the stage for the next boom cycle. So the Fed doesn't create jobs, but it is able to minimize inflation during booms and shorten the length of the busts.

The Fed can also pump money into the system for short-term economic stimulus, but it doesn't do that on a large scale any more except in dire circumstances. All it's good for is helping incumbent politicians during election season, yet the cost in rising inflation rates is significant. I think the last time it was used in that manner was during Nixon's second campaign, when Nixon had a large amount of influence over the Fed. Now it's more of a tool for last-ditch emergencies, like when the market tanked and lost 1/3 of its value in the late 80s.

As for Al Gore, I agree. Heck, even Clinton was guilty of that as well. Does anyone think he would have balanced the budget and reformed welfare if not for the '94 Republican takeover of Congress based on that platform? He did a great job of taking credit for it, but that certainly wasn't his original agenda.

 

[Gunhead]

Thanks, Nathan. Now I feel like it was worth posting...