Saturday, November 01, 2008
Listening to NPR: Moral hazard in real time
I listened to National Public Radio this morning as I drove home from Starbucks. The segment involved "man on the street" voter interviews. One woman, stopped by the reporter as she emerged from presumably some other Starbucks with her coffee, reported that she was voting for Obama because we need change. Besides, the "voter" added, her home is in foreclosure so she knows what she is talking about.
Goddamn. Your home is in foreclosure but you are nevertheless still buying your coffee at Starbucks? The obvious follow-up question: "Are you a moron, or just a deadbeat?" Suffice it to say that the NPR reporter did not ask the obvious follow-up question.
9 Comments:
By 
Who Struck John, at
Sat Nov 01, 10:31:00 AM:
By Anthony, at
Sat Nov 01, 11:39:00 AM:
By Escort81, at
Sat Nov 01, 11:42:00 AM:
She obviously does not have the same sense of priorities as you do, TH.
It is interesting that Starbucks has done such a good job of branding and merchandising over the past two decades that even people who are about to get tossed still see the necessity of spending $4.00 on a cup of coffee, and do not regard it as a luxury.
I think the most bothersome thing about the impending Obama victory this week is not so much the candidate -- all of whom have warts in any election to any clear-eyed observer and voter -- but the sheer size and ferocity of his base, and how different their way of looking at the world is as compared to the mainstream of the U.S. a generation ago. Your story is a good illustration of that. If the margin on Tuesday is large, the U.S. is no longer a center-right country.
By Kurt, at
Sat Nov 01, 01:25:00 PM:
While that may be true, escort81, about the U.S. no longer being a center-right country, I hope it doesn't mean that. I hope instead it means that a lot of people were deluded by Obama's language that made him sound like a moderate, and they're about to get a rude awakening when they find out he's a lot more like Carter than Clinton.
By 
, at
Sat Nov 01, 02:02:00 PM:
I think it is a mistake to compare Obama to Clinton or Carter. He is really not much like either of them, except with the label of "Democrat" by his name.
It would be more appropriate to compare him to Woodrow Wilson, in my humble opinion. Read up on Wilson and see if there are not valid comparisons to be made.
Perhaps no American president did more long term lasting damage/changes (depending on your point of view) to the Republic in the 20th century than Wilson.
He took TR's activism and 'progressive' constructs and turned them on their heads to support Democrat ideas. He paved the way for the other Roosevelt's New Deal.
-David
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Nov 01, 02:14:00 PM:
I think the Carter comparison is really intended only in the realm of foreign policy. At least, that's the only time I've seen it made.
Carter was weak and naive, and his Presidency is roundly seen as a foreign policy disaster. To have similar expectations for Mr. 'I want to talk with terrorist states' Obama is not unreasonable. Even the *French* apparently think he's weak and naive.
By Kurt, at
Sat Nov 01, 02:59:00 PM:
That's an interesting point about Wilson, David. I should look into that further.
And yes, Dawnfire, that is largely what I meant by the comparison--in terms of foreign policy. However, it's worth remembering that Carter was also the one who gave us the initial version of the Community Reinvestment Act, expanded under Clinton to enable the massive mortgage meltdown. Carter was also the one who lectured us on where to set our thermostats and what sort of clothing to wear. I can imagine Obama, he of the "Americans can't drive their SUVs and run their air-conditioning" remark, doing the same kind of thing. Finally, Carter presided over the second major energy crisis of the 1970s, and a period that saw not only economic stagnation but growing inflation. All three of those things could happen again during an Obama presidency.
By , at
Sat Nov 01, 10:08:00 PM:
Thanks for the comic relief, TH. Yes, most people believe that they should have the $110 pro football jersey, the 50-inch TV screen, the full cable package with all premium channels, Starbucks coffee, iPhones, iPods for everyone, cell phones with unlimited texting for the entire family -- where does it stop?
The combination of an Obama presidency and a Pelosi-Reed led Congress will have the bi-polar center swing back to the Republicans in droves in 2010 and will be begging for Mitt Romney in 2012. And, unfortunately, we'll be enduring the pain until then, saying "I told you so."
And perhaps we'll be able to donate money to the "new" Republicans -- if we have any left after our tax increases. That also assumes, of course, that more than 88% of the workforce is employed.
The Centrist
By Georg Felis, at
Sun Nov 02, 02:20:00 AM:
Obviously somebody who has not been thru Dave Ramsey's Financial Peace University (He refers to it as "Fivebucks"). Perhaps we should give a quiz to people before we loan them money: "You find yourself a hundred bucks short at the end of the month, you then A) Drink coffee from a thermos for a month, B)Ask Mom for a loan, C) skip the house payment, or D) Get a payday loan"
C and D should be an auto-rejection, with B being a blinking red warning light.
