Newt is not really (or at least exclusively) a fear monger. He is a coward. Because freedom is so sweet and dear, it is worth dying for. All these so-called conservatives praise the military to the skies without understanding at all why the military has some nobility--it is because those men and women are prepared to die to defend our freedom. And the key point is to defend our freedom, not our money or our lives. The last line of the Declaration of Independence says it well, when the Founders pledge "their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor" to the pursuit of liberty. Stick that in your pipe, Newt, and smoke it!

It is sad for me to say it, but I do not believe that we can do anything right now, except lodge our complaints, wait, vote, and see what happens. If those here who believe that the Dems are in on this, that they fundamentally agree with Bush that the need to stop terrorists at any price trumps the "blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity", then it becomes a question of emmigration or armed resistance. I hope like hell it doesn't come to that. But the next year will tell us. If Obama wins, and he takes no clear steps to dismantle the Imperial Presidency, close Guantanamo and Bagram, and repeal the Patriot Act, then we will be faced with the choice of flight, resistence, or collaboration. That we could be this close to such desperate times is frightening enough for me to deal with. I'll face the choices I've outlined only when I have to--not today.

Keynes argued for counter-cyclical fiscal policy. You were supposed to inflate the economy when the business cycle took a downturn, then as growth increased (ditto price inflation) you had to increase taxes to soak up the money you distributed in the downturn and pay off the debt you engendered distributing it. This is harldy a stupid policy. What is stupid is a government hell-bent on the fiscal stimulous side (can anybody say Republicans!) while they are loathe to tax and pay down the debt. If you want to attack dumb fiscal policy, fine, but invoking Keynes as the bad guy here is simply wrong.

When I was writing a book about British policy in the late 1930s, I came across much speachifying by the participants. The interesting thing is, once war was declared in September 1939 Chamberlain hammered away at the same theme of "blood, toil, sweat, and tears" that Churchill would in the months after he became PM. The difference was almost exclusively one of tone, not of content. Chamberlain beleived that Britian would win the war, but that it would be a hard slog and nothing good would come of it except national survival. Churchill stressed the hurculean task ahead, but somehow made it sound glorious and exciting. This is, I suppose, what people mean by leadership, a phenomenon I seem impervious to (the thought of being swept away by rhetoric, of surrendering my will to someone who will "take me to the promised land", is abhorrent and ridiculous to me). I have always found Chamberlain to be a man of a much more serious bent of mind than Churchill, more aware of Britian's real position in the world and her long-term national interests. Chamberlain's mind I can appreciate; alas, Churchill's leadership I cannot comprehend.

I am coming to feel that the economic downturn is real but lacks for drama. No brokers jumping from windows, no massive stock value crash, just the steady drip of increasingly bad news about the long-term viablility of our speculate, borrow, and build economy. Therefore, people in general, and the wizz-bang media in particular, are having trouble focussing on it.

On a related note, I read an article the other day about the renewed flow of massive wealth to the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia. These petrodollars, however, are not flowing back to the US the way they did in the 1970s. The Sheiks are diversifying, and investing more at home in preparation for the day when the money ceases to pour in. This outflow of wealth may make it harder for the US to restart its economy via a new round of investment and speculation. Is the current Administration the last which can go to the well and not hear a clunk when they lower the bucket? Our entire future now rests on the dollar remaining the global reserve currency. If that goes, expect the economy to shrink by twenty percent--permanently.

You may be correct, but the United States was always able to either innovate or catch up because after about 1840 it had 1) vast wealth from agriculture and extractive industries (gold and silver, then coal and oil), 2) a huge population that statistically meant a concommitantly large number of smart people (the North alone had a greater population than Britain did in 1860 although much lower levels of per capita industiralization), and 3) a highly literate population with levels of secondary and university educational attainment only approached by Germany and matched by nobody. So we had money to invest, people to make and buy stuff, and the trained cadres to design, build, distribute, and market things. I would argue that America's advantage in 1 and 3 have collapsed compared to our economic competitors. We still have alot of people, many of them smart, but the system is so skewed towards having them invent finacial insturments, find legal and tax loopholes for corporations (or perform liposuction or nose jobs) that I doubt we will return to any Golden Age of US economic vitallity. I just hope that we can muddle through.