Robinson is a hack who attributes all criticism of President Obama to racism. No wonder he says the GOP is to blame for the downgrade, that's the narrative the White House is pushing. Robinson always reads the memo.

The Left is in desperate spin mode regarding the downgrade. But the truth of the matter is that the S&P had outlined their conditions long before their action and even negotiated with the administration, allowing them to make their case for why the debt situation isn't as dire as it seems. The failure of that argument is what the S&P is reacting to, not a handful of 'tea party' candidates who may or may not even be in government in a few years. Their downgrade reflects a forward looking estimate of solvency risks. It's risible to claim that they downgraded US debt because the government is attempting to reduce it's debt load.

Boudreaux makes lots of sense, provided you disregard the explicit wording of S&P regarding the role of our political institutions in the downgrade, the fact that only an eleventh-hour deal prevented default on some of our obligations, and the promises of some actors to continue using threats of defaults to enact their preferred policies.

He is correct, however, that the deal failing to control long-term spending was part of S&P's calculus.

S&P's downgrade was an attempt to save face for their dreadful and very corrupt record the last two decades.

We are getting Japanned.

Yes, absolutely the United States can inflate. Sheesh, if we ran five percent inflation for five years, the value of the national debt outstanding would be reduced in value by a little more than 25 percent, while our economy expanded.

Oh shocking, you mean the rates of inflation we had when Reagan was president? Oh, horrors!

BTW, check out the CPI. From July of 2008 to June of 2011, the CPI-U rose from 219.964 to 225.722, or a 2.62 percent increase in three years.

And this July is likely deflation, due to oil prices. Please bloggers, this August 20 (?) when July CPI figs come out, compare them to July 2008. I suspect we will be at about 2.5 percent inflation for the entire three-year period (annual about 0.8 percent). BTW, Boudreaux penned an editorial in 2006 that the CPI actually overstates inflation.

We are getting Japanned and hard!

Why all the hysteria about minute rates of inflation in the right-wing? It speaks to a type of dementia. The Chicken Inflation Littles are running the right-wing roost.

Ironically (and sadly) it was Milton Friedman who advocated aggressive and sustained use of QE in situations like we face today. He flat out told Japan to inflate. As did Bernanke!

There are times when inflation is good, and now is one of those times.

Okay, call it NGDP targeting--the fact is, inflation would help a lot of property owners and small business borrowers and the US taxpayer too.

All the whimpering and pettifogging about debasing the currency comes from people with an unhealthy attachment to the symbols of money (gold or cash), as opposed to an appreciation of true wealth-building.

BTW, Milton Friedman thought the gold standard was for idiots.

We're getting Japanned? I think not.

Yen, 1960s = 360 to the dollar
Yen, 1970s = 300 to the dollar
Yen, 1976 = 250 to the dollar
Yen, 2000 = 100 to the dollar
Yen, 2011

We should be so lucky. Put it another way, if our currency were worth what it was in the 1960s, oil would be $20 a barrel.

Yen, 2011 is around 78 to the dollar. This comment box doesn't like the "less than" symbol.

MarkD, you need to HTML encode < and > symbols. Text like &lt; for "less than" and &gt; for "greater than" works.

Christopher, just for practice, please try to answer the following questions as if they weren't rhetorical, OK?... Even if you keep your answers to yourself. 'Cause I think you're not up to it.

> provided you disregard the explicit
> wording of S&P

Do you care what S&P says about our operations? Are you saying you'd trust them to tell us how it's done? If they'd ("explicitly") said we should shutter Education, HUD, Interior, the FTC and the Bureau of Weights & Measures in order to get our finances in order, would you feel shame that we hadn't done so?

> regarding the role of our political
> institutions in the downgrade

Of course "our political institutions" had a role in these events... These were POLITICAL conflicts! Where else could you imagine the dispute being hosted? What other venue? An annual banquet for the National Council of Churches? The Quad Cities Girls Softball League's Summer Classic Shootout? Coffee klatch at Denny's?

> only an eleventh-hour deal prevented
> default on some of our obligations

Does the timing betoken a failure of principle? When one side has seen that they can start arguing as early as they like but never get their needs considered, why are you pretending that close observance of a legal boundary is a problem? Did anything go wrong?

The moneyspenders were never going to concede, were they? (And they didn't: Last week we borrowed more money than ever before— from your granddaughters. Right?)

> the promises of some actors to continue
> using threats of defaults to enact
> their preferred policies.

What's your point? Yes; there are people who say it's time to stop spending money.

Yet the threat of default would have no teeth were it not for reckless profligacy of their adversaries, the spenders. The tax & spend people know that they alone are responsible for the hazard. They're terrified of what their own extravagent appetites have wrought, and they ought to be.

> He is correct, however, that the deal
> failing to control long-term spending
> was part of S&P's calculus

Golly, Chris, how can we ever know that for certain? After all, S&P is a sinister, secretive cabal that meets in shadow... Like every other private enterprise in America. WHO KNOWS WHAT THEY'RE UP TO, CHRISTOPHER????!?! It's like they're pursuing their own interests or something.

________________________

Thing is, after a few decades of perverse language like Christopher's, and like that of the foreign goofball cited by repeatedly by commenter Lisa, the fundamentally authoritarian intentions become clear, just as when reading grubby religious texts.

And government is a very religion-y new religion. Wanna know why? Because it promises to deliver the best goods... Things better, even, than eternal life or forgiveness. The Religion of Government, especially in the United States, is prepared to make you happy right *now*!

Peek around the world a little bit, and you start to notice that the United States government works in ways that other governments don't. It isn't a family business, despite our prattle about Kennedy and Bush "dynasties". Corruption is horrific, but it happens much less than other places. And still people's needs get met.

The absolute bedrock of this tower is our Internal Revenue Service.

The IRS approaches the richest, most productive people in the world, with guns if necessary, and takes their money. There is essentially no appeal. The buck, for a shimmering millisecond, stops.

Now, Americans are (almost by definition) the best, most spirited people on the planet. But our lesser players –the ones without courage, enthusiasm, articulation, humble attachment or other virtues– are absolutely blinded by that shimmer. Their genitals pulse as they dream of taking command of other people's resources without challenge or retribution.

And certainly, it's not just less admirable Americans who dream of that power. People in Canada (like the idiot lefty blog commenters), Europe and every other American Protectorate imagine wielding that power as well... Isn't that interesting? We coddle them and pay their bills; they dream of writing checks on our account, rather than building wealth of their own. Nutty, right?

The first duty of religion is to console.

But human nature isn't nice, and doesn't deserve reckless flattery. Until you demonstrate comprehension of this, whether in the pew or the voting booth, I don't want to hear about the magnificence of your elaborate liturgy. Your dreams are of power, not virtue.

________________

Well, 11am PST Wednesday, the market's way down again.

And still, I AM PROFOUNDLY GRATEFUL to the Tea Party.

(Amy fixed my typo! The woman is a sister to the addled.)

Wow, Crid, all fired up today!

Do you care what S&P says about our operations?

It doesn't matter what I think. It matters that S&P is one of several NRSROs that investors rely upon for regulatory purposes.

Of course "our political institutions" had a role in these events... These were POLITICAL conflicts! Where else could you imagine the dispute being hosted?

My wording was apparently too vague for you. I was referring to their statement about the failure of our political institutions:

More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned

Does the timing betoken a failure of principle?

A failure of our government, of the sort that unsurprisingly, might spook creditors.

Golly, Chris, how can we ever know that for certain?

We can't know for certain. But if we take them at their word:

...the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics.

> all fired up today!

The frequent witlessness of the left is the wind beneath my wings, mister!

> My wording was apparently too vague

In all respects, and not by accident.

> I was referring to their statement about
> the failure of our political institutions:

More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned

Right. OK. Got it... I grok. Comprenday-mundo, Señor. Same page, on the trail, in the bus. Sympatico, you & me, right here, right now. We're channeling, honey.

They think something's wrong. Or perhaps they think it's in their interest to encourage you to go out and say that something's wrong. But what they actually said was "American policymaking and political institutions have weakened". For sensible people, that might be like a ray of dawn after a really dark and stormy night. Especially if it were true.

> A failure of our government, of
> the sort that unsurprisingly,
> might spook creditors.

How come when government acts like you want it to act, then everything's ducky, and when it acts like I want it to act, it's a "failure"?.

More importantly... Do you suppose I haven't been calling for modest government for the last twenty years or so, before this boundary had been approached?

> if we take them at their word

Why on Earth would you do so?

Presumably, if some other commenter held your head back and we poured whiskey down your throat and you got all sloppy sentimental, you'd eventually confess that S&P isn't to be trusted, as recent years have proven them too eager to certify shabby debt as triple-A. Does this recommend more government borrowing to you? Really? It does? You wanna listen to S&P? OK, then:

...the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics.

Let's cut government spending drastically, and see what happens. Let's have all those petty little bitchfights that you think others are afraid to face... Line-by-line. Let's get serous about saying what government means to us.

Ready?

I think your being terribly resistant, but one more time: A failure of the government is not the same thing as a failure of Americans.

The Teapers understand this.

Hey Amy couldja....

Nevermind.

And still, I AM PROFOUNDLY GRATEFUL to the Tea Party.

I'm actually grateful to them as well. They've helped make our politics more (small-d) democratic, legislators more responsive, and put fiscal balance on the table.

How come when government acts like you want it to act, then everything's ducky, and when it acts like I want it to act, it's a "failure"?.

The inability to make a decision when faced with a critical deadline approaching is the failure.

Presumably, if some other commenter held your head back and we poured whiskey down your throat and you got all sloppy sentimental, you'd eventually confess that S&P isn't to be trusted

I could nitpick about their sovereign debt division to be less prone to manipulation than the commercial division that blessed the MBSs and CDOs, but it's irrelevant either way. I don't have to think them particularly trustworthy to understand that their opinion has special weight in our financial system.

Let's cut government spending drastically, and see what happens.

I'm in favor of cutting spending, but I don't think a cuts-only approach is sustainable politically (sort of like Obamacare, which Republicans will happily repeal if they win the White House and Senate in 2012). Getting at the real heart of the deficit problem requires that we make significant changes to Medicare. Fixing that requires a bipartisan measure; otherwise, the other party can campaign on "saving Medicare" and the old people will promptly vote them in. A bipartisan measure requires revenues.

CPI isn't worth looking at. First, it excludes the price of food and energy from its measurement of the cost of living, like every last one of us never has to buy food or energy. And it has the nerve to include falling real estate values, like that's going to make anyone's mortgage payment go down. CPI is simply a government-manipulated number that is used to keep the Social Security checks from going up due to cost of living increases.

The rating agencies, S&P included, are a all a bunch of mooks who rated all those garbage mortgage-backed securities as AAA.

But S&P was right to downgrade our debt, and they were really making things easy on us. All they wanted were $4 trillion in cuts over ten years, which is paltry considering we borrow $1.5 trillion every year. Why didn't they insist on at least $10 trillion in cuts over ten years? Keep in mind that this would STILL have our debt growing by a good $5 trillion over that timeframe. If I was running the country, I would slash spending by about 50% and actually start paying off the debt. And no one would starve to death.

> The inability to make a decision when faced
> with a critical deadline approaching is
> the failure.

No failure, each side was looking for votes. There was a choice to be made; eventually a result was recorded.

> their opinion has special weight
> in our financial system.

It would be great if the people who are only now so eager speak of S&P's importance and credibilty could also be encouraged to express some judgment about Moody's and Fitch as well. What will you say if they downgrade? What will you say if they don't?

> A bipartisan measure requires revenues.

It's starting to seem like the solutions here, or at least the outcomes, are going to be propelled by forces greater than policy and "measures" and degrees of partisanship.

A bipartisan measure requires revenues.

Then forget bipartisan.

The problem is the Democrats propose collecting additional revenue by arbitrarily taking it. And that means taking it out of the economy and putting it into the hands of politicians who will not use it to reduce debt, but to buy votes with more entitlement programs.

And it means the people from whom it is being taken will change their behavior to reduce their tax burden, thus lessening the taxable base and reducing tax revenues.

In the '70s, executives got spending accounts and company cars. Why? They were not taxed. In the '80s, exeutives got stock options. Why? Spending accounts and company cars were now taxed, but stock options were not.

My coworker (not an executive) believes that people should be taxed by their ability to pay. He buys his toiletries from an online pharmacy to avoid paying sales tax.

People change their behavior to avoid costs, including taxation costs. Even non-executives. How many people go across state lines to shop? How many shop online to avoid sales taxes?

Even politicians avoid taxes (sometimes legally). John Kerry parked his yacht in nearby Rhode Island to avoid Massachusetts taxes. Chuck Schumer, Timothy Geithner, and Chris Dodd simply declined to report income to avoid paying taxes on it.

When capital gains are taxed, people invest elsewhere (or delay realizing investment income). Venture capital dries up. People put off selling their house or purchasing rental property. Economic activity slows.

When corporations are taxed at what they consider too high rate, they move operations to places with lower taxes, reducing employment in high-cost areas. They expand the use of expensive tax-avoidance strategies and consultants. GE paid no US taxes last year. Whatever they paid their tax strategy consultants was well worth it ... to them.

The Laffer Curve is designed to take advantage of the trade. Lower rates mean more open [taxable] economic activity and more taxes. By taking a smaller percent of a bigger pie, the government can realize more revenue. And this principle has worked in various ways under presidents Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush.

It would be great if the people who are only now so eager speak of S&P's importance and credibilty could also be encouraged to express some judgment about Moody's and Fitch as well. What will you say if they downgrade? What will you say if they don't?

It is so nice to have you back, Crid. Now don't go off and stay out all night again, okay?

What will you say if they downgrade? What will you say if they don't?

If they downgrade, we're even deeper shit, as our bond prices collapse when institutional investors shed them. For regulatory purposes, most investors that have to hold AAA paper only require 2 of the 3 agencies to give a AAA rating, so we're not feeling this pain right now. It's really difficult to predict what this would do to our economy, but it's certain to be ugly.

If they don't, I'll say we dodged a bullet. And still have a lot of work to do.

It's starting to seem like the solutions here, or at least the outcomes, are going to be propelled by forces greater than policy and "measures" and degrees of partisanship.

Perhaps. It's certainly looking more and more like our government can't handle the basics. But the current system has tremendous inertia, and has proven resilient over the years.

Then forget bipartisan.

Then watch your political opponents get voted in at the next opportunity and undo your legislation.

As I wrote, any deal that addresses our structural deficit must make significant cuts in Medicare, and some in Social Security. These are really popular entitlements, the recipients of which vote in extremely high numbers and are a ballooning demographic. Certainly you must agree that this is correct.

I suspect you'd also agree that big cuts in these entitlements will be really unpopular, and that those who feel the pain of those cuts will be inclined to punish the politicians who imposed them. If the politicians who did this are of one party, then that party is likely to get clobbered in the next election, as older people vote in their opponents to undo the cuts.

This is why addressing these issues is going to take a bipartisan approach.

The Laffer Curve is designed to take advantage of the trade. Lower rates mean more open [taxable] economic activity and more taxes.

But the Laffer Curve is a curve, no? If you're on the right side of the curve, lowering marginal rates can increase revenues; if you're on the left side of the curve, lowering marginal rates reduces revenues. There is some evidence that the Laffer curve did apply to the increased revenues after Reagan lowered tax rates from the truly confiscatory levels that preceded his presidency (though this is conflated with Volker's easing of monetary policy at the Fed after getting interest rates under controls). But Clinton raised rates in 1993, not lowered them, and revenues increased.

I'm not arguing that tax increases always raise revenues; but neither does cutting them. The stimulative effect of tax cuts is not a given. Otherwise, we could cut rates to near zero, and revenues would go through the roof. There are limits.

"The rating agencies, S&P included, are a all a bunch of mooks who rated all those garbage mortgage-backed securities as AAA."

Well, don't forget that the biggest packager of those "securities" was Freddy's Fanny, and the rating agencies didn't dare question them lest the wrath of Barney Frank come down on them. Yes, the rating agencies should have been paying more attention, but ultimately when Freddy's Fanny told them "you will rate these AAA", their choices were to comply or go out of business. Don't think for a moment that there wasn't government coercion involved.

"But Clinton raised rates in 1993, not lowered them, and revenues increased. "

Christopher and I have had this discussion about the Laffer Curve in previous threads. He thinks we are on the left side of the curve; I think we're on the right, but I'm not enough of an economist to be able to prove him wrong. The only thing I will note here: I'm pretty sure the maximum of the curve is not static; it moves with economic conditions. Even if I allow, for the purpose of argument, that we were on the left side in 1993, that doesn't necessarily mean we are now. Possibly (rather likely) the maximum has moved to the left since then.

In 1993, we were emerging from a recession and private sector growth was really cranking up. Now, the private sector is contracting. Raising taxes in a shrinking economy sounds like a prescription for disaster.

Now, the private sector is contracting. Raising taxes in a shrinking economy sounds like a prescription for disaster.

Agree, I would not want to see this while the economy is limping along.

Yes, the rating agencies should have been paying more attention, but ultimately when Freddy's Fanny told them "you will rate these AAA", their choices were to comply or go out of business. Don't think for a moment that there wasn't government coercion involved.

It's like the public accounting firms who looked the other way during the Enron scandal, since they were being paid by Enron. But back in those nice old days, nobody got a bailout funded by the U.S. taxpayer.

Buyers beware: Look for a conflict of interest.

I'm actually grateful to them as well. They've helped make our politics more (small-d) democratic, legislators more responsive, and put fiscal balance on the table. -- Christopher at August 10, 2011 2:30 PM

That would be great -- if we were a democracy.

Big hint: The U.S. is established as a republican government.

Once you get the difference, pleas come back and be an adult.

No need to be snotty. (sniff)

Besides, I agree with him.

About that passage, I mean...

I heard some snippets from S&P and it sounded to me that they are being really political. The other difficulty I have with the situation is S&P has big role in determining out comes. If S&P lowers the rating, then interests rate go up and the US has a harder time making payments making them less credit worthy.

> If S&P lowers the rating, then interests
> rate go up

Where were you a banker? What kind of banking did you do?

_______


>> What will you say if they downgrade?
>> What will you say if they don't?

> If they downgrade, we're even deeper shit,
> as our bond prices collapse when...

No no no. Not asking what will happen... I'm asking what will you say about THEM, Moody's & Fitch, if they too decide that our debt isn't so darling. Are they preferred agencies for you now just because they're against the current? Or do you have other sources of information about precisely how much America's debt should be worth to people?

> If they don't, I'll say we dodged a
> bullet. And still have a lot of
> work to do.

It would be fun to agree. But these men are not sane. They don't think these things are real. With loons like that in government authority, how is wealth ever going to be created in this country?

No, look, Obama was a powerfully dominant candidate. Many Americans have lost sight of what money means... Government has struggled long and successfully to hide prices for things like medicine, real estate, and education. There will be another pretty person to sell the fantasy in the next election. The illusion that our problem was Bush and Rove, and that stronger, more compassionate government will help you be the person you want to be, is like tempting toddlers with candy.

Until these idiot mentalities are convincingly overwhelmed, we're screwed. I can imagine this conflict taking decades, with a terrible, literally bloody toll on people here and around the world (as well as upon the natural environment and other blessings). I think the horrors of the Depression could seem trivial given our new fragility in communications, transportation, and concentrated urban populations. Like, ouch.

I think we got one thing going for us... It's essentially inevitable.

I'm asking what will you say about THEM, Moody's & Fitch, if they too decide that our debt isn't so darling. Are they preferred agencies for you now just because they're against the current?

It's not really a matter of preferences. I'm not angry at S&P and pleased with Moody's and Fitch. In light of what just happened, S&P had some justification in the rating reduction.

With loons like that in government authority, how is wealth ever going to be created in this country?

Not arguing with the looniness. But wealth is created every day in this country irrespective of what the government does. These fools are still in office, and yet I think I've just solved a problem that was making one of my company's biggest endeavors far less efficient than it should be going forward. Resources to deploy more productively! Wealth! And others probably did a lot of things far more consequential.

This is not to say that the people in our government are helping.

I think we got one thing going for us... It's essentially inevitable.

Some sort of reckoning is certainly inevitable. You might like this piece:

http://www.indexuniverse.com/sections/features/9680-inevitabilities-one-down-more-to-come.html

Once you get the difference, pleas come back and be an adult.

I know the difference between a democracy and a republic. You might need to do some remedial reading in political science, however, if you are challenged by the concept that a republic can be more or less democratic (but I will give you a hint: it has do with the responsiveness of elected officials to the will of voters).

But these men are not sane. They don't think these things are real. With loons like that in government authority, how is wealth ever going to be created in this country?

Scary.

The advocates of "social justice" never seem to understand that the end result of their efforts will be poverty for all but a few.

Or worse, they do understand and think they will be among the "deserving" few.

"We are kept by the state in the style that the state wants to keep us, i.e., in poverty." - The Growing Pains of Adrian Mole

> wealth is created every day in this
> country irrespective of what the
> government does.

That's a crazyshit thing to say out loud. What government does is take that wealth.

I think it's dangerous to assume that America is so cute and fabulous that it will work out no matter what. That's precisely Obama's belief, too... Oh, the money's there. I KNOW the money's there. I just need to make the right phone calls, or pass the necessary laws, to take it.

That's a crazyshit thing to say out loud.

No. You asked "With loons like that in government authority, how is wealth ever going to be created in this country?" I responded that wealth is created here every day, even though we have those loons in authority. And also that I didn't think they were helping.

I think it's dangerous to assume that America is so cute and fabulous that it will work out no matter what.

I agree.

> I responded that wealth is created
> here every day

Dude, wealth is created in North Korea every day, too.

Guess what happens.

And...

> It's not really a matter of preferences.

You keep saying that. As if all these colliding forces were inanimate, like continental drift, with no commanding interests. As if there were no personalities or beliefs in play.

So why do you care? Why do you comment here? What insight are you trying to share besides nothing matters and in the end we're all dead, Man... ?


_________________________


A couple years ago, in my late forties, I started watching Formula One racing again... It was a kinda unexpected squirt of lesser masculinity: Time to watch sports on teevee! I'd given up on F1 as a teenager when a bunch of favorite guys died. But I came across some footage one day, and was reminded of the beauty of Monte Carlo and the colorful paint jobs and the exotic new materials and expensive technology, and thought what the Hell, I'll watch some more races. (It's been almost 16 years since any drivers died in the sport.)

Part of the attraction is to the fabulous TV coverage. (I've been working in TV for 35 years.) They say sports is what television does best, and F1 is the world's best sports league in that respect. The guy who's built it into the global enterprise that it is today has always known that television was the important element... The cars aren't so just race vehicles, they're extremely agile camera mounts.

Yet the tech and the kinetics and the glamour isn't enough to maintain interest over a season: You need to care about the personalities. Sure, the drivers train from age six nowadays: The refinement of their technique is incredible. But what makes it all go is the pitlane politics. These incredibly macho guys, when pushed into a corner, will often start squealing crying like prom queens who've had fruit punch spilled on their dresses. It's always fascinating to see how this sense of entitlement factors into success... And how it plays out in the slower parts of the starting grid.


_________________________


But the world Christopher describes has no politics, only weather. What can I do? It's all out of my hands....

Why do you comment here?

Mostly because it's fun. As a moderate, I'm in the minority here, and the other people here push me to think about things differently, or express myself better. I hope that occasionally I persuade others to do the same.

I enjoy the back and forth with other posters, who by and large seem reasonably smart, well-informed, and don't generally act like dicks. There are enough people to keep it interesting, but not so many that it's chaos. It goes well with coffee or a glass of wine.

A couple years ago, in my late forties, I started watching Formula One racing again.

I've never been able to get into motorsports as a spectator (driving fast on a curvy road is fun though); they seem boring to me. But I'm certain there's all kinds of things going on that I don't see, even on the big oval tracks where NASCAR races are held.

"I'd given up on F1 as a teenager when a bunch of favorite guys died. "

Gonna age-check Crid... Are you talking about Senna, or Jochen Rindt, or Jim Clark?

I know the difference between a democracy and a republic. You might need to do some remedial reading in political science, however, if you are challenged by the concept that a republic can be more or less democratic (but I will give you a hint: it has do with the responsiveness of elected officials to the will of voters). -- Christopher at August 11, 2011 7:48 AM

The difference:
In a democracy is that the mob rules regardless of what an individual desires to do on his own. An example is the TSA -- the democratic view is that you that your individual rights do not apply for the greater good -- regardless of how ineffective the TSA actually is.

In a republic you are responsible for your own individual safety and the government is there to apply the law only when the individuals conflict with one another or the limitations as applied by laws. Again the example that the TSA would not be created. The airlines would be required to provide better security and leave it up to the individual airline how to enforce it. That could be anything from a full strip search and travel in paper coveralls to a different airline suggesting the traveler's accessories on a flight include a gun and nice long knife.

The biggest difference is that in a republic -- you are given equal opportunity to start with and succeeding is left up to you. In a democracy (and other government systems) they are demanding equality of outcome regardless of how much effort you put in.

Here's a small treatise on the subject. I think it is down at the sixth grade level.

Jim, you really should spend some time understanding the general definition of the terms as they are commonly understood in political discourse.

> I hope that occasionally I persuade others
> to do the same.

I can't say for sure, but maybe –just thinking out loud here– you'd touch people more deeply if you expressed a guiding principle, rather than pretend it's all out of our hands. It ain't.

> I've never been able to get into
> motorsports as a spectator

No one can argue with you. You're right. This is the shame of being so entranced by these guys. A few years ago the NYT asked out loud: What's the appeal of watching . . . traffic? These men burn fossil fuels while going in circuits within essentially mundane machinery. All I can tell you is that the NFL is even worse: A bunch of really big guys, illiterates who could never have gone to college on merit, assemble shoulder-to-shoulder in a line, and then they run into each other as hard as they can. Finding character lessons in football is even harder.

> Gonna age-check

That would be Mr. Donahue, class of '75, so to speak. Good-lookin', engineering-minded, plain-spoken but intellectual, competitively dominant, and fucking doomed.

Having decided to ignore racing, I got seriously into rock stars... who were more likely to survive, no matter how many drugs they did. This was the 70's, before cars were made of carbon fiber; these handsome young racers weren't expected to walk away from horrible accidents as they do today. I'd grown tired of losing them (like Rindt). But losing Donahue, the powerhouse in so many different kinds of racing (and with the magical first name), was the last straw. His casual intimidation of contenders in both France and the American South had made him seem like an immortal power... But no.

Several years ago, I went to The Google and found one of his last interviews. He described his early retirement, and the forces which had returned him to the sport which would claim his life. It was gawdawful pathetic:

At first the decision wasn't all that hard; it only hit later, when I started to find out what the real world is like. Then I got depressed, and that's when I really went through something. The pay scale in racing is obviously unrealistic, especially if you're winning, and after I stopped driving my income plummeted. I'd recently been divorced and when I had to sit down and calculate what everything was costing me, all the odds and ends, it was staggering. I didn't know what to do.

Get the picture?


_________

Jim Clark was the guy my 12th-grade English teacher's assistant –intern from the University, the slender one, with the hazel eyes and smallish breasts, like ripened plums– had had a crush on in childhood. I tried to feign understanding as she (softly, with unyielding eye contact) explained this to me during a (surprisingly) private review of my classroom performance, a confab I now regard as a tragically squandered opportunity.

Actually, they were more like chestnuts. Sturdy; immobile.

OK, not immobile.

Steadfast!

Insistent!

Stubborn... Almost argumentative. They were opinionated, there in those knit sweaters of hers.