Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Apres Le (La?) Stimulus, More Americans Would Still Prefer to Be Governed by Random People Pulled From the Phone Book Than Congress
Rasmussen Reports is great reading. Its latest survey asked 1,000 likely voters whether they could do a better job than Congress in righting the economy. Americans are known for over-confidence, but I think what Mencken called The Great Boob Public is right on in this case:
67% Say They Could Do A Better Job On The Economy Than Congress
Forty-four percent (44%) voters also think a group of people selected at random from the phone book would do a better job addressing the nation's problems than the current Congress, but 37% disagree. Twenty percent (20%) are undecided.
The new Congress fares worse on this question that the previous Congress. Last October, just 33% said a randomly selected group of Americans would do a better job than the Congress then in session....
Since they no longer control either the Senate or the House, it's no surprise that a majority of Republicans (51%) say a group of people picked at random from the phone book would do a better job than the current Congress. But even more unaffiliated voters (56%) agree.
Democrats take the opposite view--49% of those in Nancy Pelosi's party say Congress today is better than a random group from the phone book. Just 28% disagree.
I am genuinely curious and concerned about the 33 percent who don't think they could do better than Congress on the economy.
And I think it is a sign of growing sanity that only 49 percent of Democrats "say Congress today is better than a random group from the phone book." That's like running for office and carrying less than of your family's vote.
Now all we need is a representative government and we'd be all set!
Naga Sadow|2.11.09 @ 1:25PM|#
I wish I could claim I could do better but . . . I would probably descend into a cesspool of corruption and sleazy skanks as soon as I was given the office.
Orange Line Special|2.11.09 @ 1:27PM|#
Must be those yellow dog democrats. If you can't do better than the Democrat Congress you have the IQ of a bottle of Ripple.
|2.11.09 @ 1:29PM|#
Yes, but don't forget, the polls do consistently claim that
people want a stimulus bill, just not this one.
So unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that what we'd get out of a
random assortment of people would also not be to libertarians'
liking.
|2.11.09 @ 1:32PM|#
I think there has not been enough emphasis on, or study of, how stupid voters are vs the general public.
|2.11.09 @ 1:34PM|#
The goverment is no longer listing to we the people. be it the idiots we keep electing into office or the fact that the gen pop has no clue what thier rights are/were and that it is thier duty to stand up for themselves, not mine yours or the gov.
|2.11.09 @ 1:37PM|#
we do not need bailouts, we need responsibility, and contraction
of the fed!
First and foremost, we freeze the federal goverment. No new laws
shall be made, no salaries shall be paid, its supposed to be a
voulenteer job anyway, and no meetings shall take place execpt in
the event of a direct attack on the mainland united states or
hawaii/alaska.
2. we dismantle all goverment programs, ALL then a task force of
civilians form all aspects of life will convene to see what we need
and return the goverment back to the people and states. During this
time states continue to run as normal, since they are supposed to
have the most power anyway.
3. we close down and liquidate all forward bases that are not in a
war zone, we do not need bases in england germany france etc etc
etc.
4. we leave iraqi to the iraqi's and we destroy the taliban in
afgan with full force, this should take 2 weeks, i said full force
of the milt. the only way to go!
5. we end the irs and go to a flat 5% tax + usage taxes.. if the
fed can not run from 5% of GDP + usuage, then it must get smarter
and smaller.
6. we end the war on drugs and tax and regulate, since it is the #1
cash crop in AMerica for the past 5 years at least, this will bring
in BILLIONS of tax money, save billions in law enforcement and jail
costs, reduce crime and violence by ending the black market.
7. we enforce the immagration laws, no new ones are needed, we just
need to enforce what we already have. ( a common theme for me, as
we really need no new laws, we can get by with very few if they are
enforced!
Thats just a start, feel free to add :-)
Old Bull Lee|2.11.09 @ 1:37PM|#
Might depend on which phone book, but the general population is clamoring for socialism.
|2.11.09 @ 1:38PM|#
Forty-four percent (44%) voters also think a group of people
selected at random from the phone book would do a better job
addressing the nation's problems than the current
Congress
A LOTTERY!
It would be far more sensible and economically eficient than what
we have now.
robc|2.11.09 @ 1:38PM|#
Naga,
If you were in congress you would rickroll the Anerican people.
Which, okay, might be kinda funny, but it would get you
assassinated too. And rightly so.
robc|2.11.09 @ 1:39PM|#
Might depend on which phone book
Im not sure I would trust anyone that still has a landline. Does
anyone get their cell number listed in the book?
Naga Sadow|2.11.09 @ 1:39PM|#
SpongePaul,
You had me till the immigration laws part. What's wrong with open
borders?
|2.11.09 @ 1:39PM|#
I'm doing my part in the drive to conserve precious resources; I'm cutting back on "f"s.
|2.11.09 @ 1:40PM|#
I would love to campaign using this as my support.
The American people think that a random person out of the phonebook
would govern better than our current Congress. Thought my number is
unlisted, let me, Mo, be that random person.
Naga Sadow|2.11.09 @ 1:41PM|#
robc,
What's the government doing now that can't be classified as a
rickroll?
|2.11.09 @ 1:44PM|#
Naga Sadow | February 11, 2009, 1:39pm | #
SpongePaul,
You had me till the immigration laws part. What's wrong with open
borders?
________________________________________________
In therory, not a damn thing. Practically though, we need to make
sure they are not criminals. i am for open immigration, anyone who
is not a violent crimanal is welcome, you just have to become a
citizen, thats all. the law should not allow illeagle, which it
currently does not. but it should encourage legal, which at this
moment i do not think it does.
Invisible Finger|2.11.09 @ 1:46PM|#
Might depend on which phone book, but the general population
is clamoring for socialism.
And they've been getting it good and hard for the last 50 years.
Junkies ain't ever satisfied.
Naga Sadow|2.11.09 @ 1:46PM|#
Criminals who have completed their sentences don't need a fresh start?
Elemenope|2.11.09 @ 1:48PM|#
In therory, not a damn thing. Practically though, we need to
make sure they are not criminals.
Um, why? If they are here, that means they are not in jail, which
means they are either
a. Never convicted, and thus not criminals in a legal sense
b. Released, which means they have paid their debt to whatever
society they harmed
or unbelievably unlikely
c. escaped from prison in another country
But somehow I don't think you're talking about "c".
Neu Mejican|2.11.09 @ 1:58PM|#
Well conducted studies show that people over-estimate their
abilities.
They also show that those who are less skilled are more likely to
over-estimate their abilities, are less responsive to information
about their relative ability compared to others, and do not
recognize better performance as better when it is shown to
them.
So, the more zealous a person's insistence when saying "I could do
a better job" the better the chance that they are wrong. The person
who says, "this is a complicated problem, I am not sure I could do
any better" is the one that is more likely to actually do
better.
Elemenope|2.11.09 @ 1:59PM|#
Short and concise beats long and thought out.
Hence modern politics and media.
JW Gacy|2.11.09 @ 2:00PM|#
Well, I'm for (mostly) open immigration, too. But there is a
real threat of, say, hostile countries emptying their prisons into
the US.
IIRC, Castro did that when we granted blanket refugee status to
anyone coming from Cuba.
Elemenope|2.11.09 @ 2:08PM|#
But there is a real threat of, say, hostile countries
emptying their prisons into the US.
Uh, says who?
Zeb|2.11.09 @ 2:10PM|#
Here is the questiosn I would have included in the survey: How many monkeys with typewriters would it take to produce better legislation than the current congress?
Naga Sadow|2.11.09 @ 2:11PM|#
JW Gacy,
Well . . . no. Underworld types are fantastic for intelligence
gathering. They no who is corrupt, how to get around checkpoints,
etc.
Citizen Nothing|2.11.09 @ 2:12PM|#
"The person who says, "this is a complicated problem, I am not
sure I could do any better" is the one that is more likely to
actually do better."
Which means that everyone in Congress should be disqualified for
the job.
Naga Sadow|2.11.09 @ 2:18PM|#
Citizen Nothing,
My flagrum and I say differently. Go ahead. Make my flagrum's
day!
|2.11.09 @ 2:21PM|#
But Congress is composed of people who are good at winning
elections; therefor, they are qualified to "fix" our economy.
Q E D
Neu Mejican|2.11.09 @ 2:21PM|#
Citizen Nothing,
1) Which means that everyone in Congress should be disqualified
for the job.
I am sure a solid majority of politicians fall into the "too
certain to be competent" category.
It also means that the randomly selected pool of people would
probably in reality perform better. That would require, of course,
forcing people to serve. I don't like the draft-like implications
of that.
2) NOBODY can do a good job of running the economy.
Although this hints at an over-zealous argument along the lines of
"my understanding of the situation is better than average and
therefore my ideas about a solution are correct," I will point out
that no one is being asked to "run the economy."
The government is a large player in the economy. The job before the
congress is not "running the economy" but "setting government
policy in a way that has the best economic effects that can be
expected." (to use a clunky construction).
|2.11.09 @ 2:22PM|#
NOBODY can do a good job of running the economy.
True.
But as for the other functions of government, I'm starting to think
that random phonebook idea is pretty good.
It would be kind of like Jury duty. Get randomly selected and serve
a term in congress. Not undemocratic either. Just a different kind
of democracy.
There would be no career politicians, for one thing. Probably a
broader array of knowledge of different parts of the economy and
society. Plus, a congress not dominated by lawyers would tend to
write simpler laws, methinks.
We already have elected politicians who started out as comedians,
body builders, doctors, and engineers. So you can't exactly
complain that random selections would not be properly trained.
Warty|2.11.09 @ 2:23PM|#
NOBODY can do a good job of running the economy.
A few billion people together can do an OK job.
Citizen Nothing|2.11.09 @ 2:25PM|#
"I will point out that no one is being asked to "run the
economy." "
And yet they continue to try.
Xeones|2.11.09 @ 2:26PM|#
How many monkeys with typewriters would it take to produce
better legislation than the current congress?
Three monkeys, six minutes.
Citizen Nothing|2.11.09 @ 2:27PM|#
"this hints at an over-zealous argument along the lines of "my
understanding of the situation is better than average...""
As does your entire schtick, Neu.
Zeb|2.11.09 @ 2:28PM|#
How much time would they be given?
I was going to say as much time as congress takes to come up with a
final version. But it occurs to me that a lot of this stuff was
probably already written and ready to go, waiting for an
appropriate crisis.
Paul|2.11.09 @ 2:28PM|#
This doesn't require a poll. Millions of americans, acting individually in their own self interest will manage the economy better than congress. But I get it. That's "old" thinking. We need new, fresh thinking. The kind of thinking that believes that central, top-down management of all matters economic (I foresee price and wage controls when this stimulus really turns the economy tits-up) will create an economic recovery.
|2.11.09 @ 2:29PM|#
So sorry, "managing" the economy is one of those rights we
retain in the people. The Constitution is rather clear on the lack
of government control of the economy, too.
Congress! Mr. President! Please resign for violating your oaths.
Thank you.
Elemenope|2.11.09 @ 2:31PM|#
But Congress is composed of people who are good at winning
elections; therefor, they are qualified to "fix" our economy.
Q E D
All that democracy really produces is more effective liars.
Citizen Nothing|2.11.09 @ 2:33PM|#
"The person who says, "this is a complicated problem, I am not
sure I could do any better" is the one that is more likely to
actually do better."
I hope this doesn't apply to building bridges or brain surgery.
Paul|2.11.09 @ 2:41PM|#
2) NOBODY can do a good job of running the economy.
Although this hints at an over-zealous argument along the lines of
"my understanding of the situation is better than average and
therefore my ideas about a solution are correct," I will point out
that no one is being asked to "run the economy."
Actually, no, I don't see that at all. What it means is that nobody
can do a good job of running the economy. Further translated: I
don't know how to run the economy either-- because economies are
too complex to be managed.
I will point out that no one is being asked to "run the
economy."
Define "no one" and define "run the economy". Obama said "Only
government can get us out of this crisis". So at minimum Obama
believes that only persons within the public sector can drive,
steer, manage, what have you, the economy out of this "crisis".
Further, we know that Obama isn't asking the undersecretary of of
the Centers for Disease Control to get us out of this crisis. He's
placed a few departments, and ultimately, a couple of department
heads in charge of "managing this crisis". So I think that one can
conclude that Obama believes that a select team of managers can in
fact, manage the economy.
Other Matt|2.11.09 @ 2:45PM|#
I hope this doesn't apply to building bridges or brain
surgery.
Building bridges isn't so hard. You want the brains on the design
end. Gusset plates, there is a good example.
|2.11.09 @ 2:57PM|#
The 1 out of 5 people that are undecided fascinate me. Either
they don't know much about Congress or they are untrustworthy of
being raped by their neighbors. I know quite a bit about Congress,
I think, but I also know that my neighbors were dumb enough to
elect those turds.
But, since a random selection from the phone book means I might be
selected, I'll take my chances in that group. If anyone's
asking.
|2.11.09 @ 3:01PM|#
Other Matt-
I noticed on another thread that you wrote that Obama is a good
orator. Do you want a do over on that comment? Did you listen to
his press conference the other night? How many ums and you knows
did you count?
Obama is not a good orator. In fact, he is not very good at
all-even with a prepared text and teleprompter.
OTOH, his former pastor is a an outstanding orator.
Charlton Heston|2.11.09 @ 3:06PM|#
How many monkeys with typewriters would it take to produce
better legislation than the current congress?
What part of "All apes are created jK*090R+22;]\\jfP" don't you
understand?
|2.11.09 @ 3:10PM|#
Apes can't type. This myth was put to rest after the Simianspeare research center closed its doors.
Other Matt|2.11.09 @ 3:10PM|#
I noticed on another thread that you wrote that Obama is a
good orator. Do you want a do over on that comment? Did you listen
to his press conference the other night? How many ums and you knows
did you count?
I did not listen to his press conference the other night. I did see
that bit with the one kid, "Thank god!" and all that. That was so
over the top I thought it was a joke. Seriously.
So, without witnessing that particular performance, I will have to
disagree. He has a remarkable ability to connect with people and
lead them to a conclusion without actually committing to that
conclusion. That is talent, and deserves recognition. The fact that
he uses it to manipulate people is shameful in regards to my
measure of personal honor.
|2.11.09 @ 3:11PM|#
As long as we could have competent people with no hope of
personal/professional/financial gains I would be happy.
Shit! Drifted off into dream world again.
Other Matt|2.11.09 @ 3:12PM|#
But Congress is composed of people who are good at winning
elections; therefor, they are qualified to "fix" our economy.
Q E D
By the same logic, a successful actor is quite qualified to lecture
us all on political and social issues.
|2.11.09 @ 3:16PM|#
What good is it if Paulson/Geitner is shoving the money down your throat, and Barney Frank is pulling it out of your ass?
ATL|2.11.09 @ 3:16PM|#
"It would be kind of like Jury duty. Get randomly selected and
serve a term in congress. Not undemocratic either. Just a different
kind of democracy."
That's insane. Using that method you could end up with someone like
Cynthia McKinney. Oh wait...
Naga Sadow|2.11.09 @ 3:21PM|#
I originally viewed this video at Urkobold(props to Pro Lib) and it is still relevant. No. It's not a rick roll video.
Chad|2.11.09 @ 3:21PM|#
"What good is it if Paulson/Geitner is shoving the money down
your throat, and Barney Frank is pulling it out of your ass?"
I wouldn't let that Frank fucker anywhere near my ass.
|2.11.09 @ 3:29PM|#
"I wouldn't let that Frank fucker anywhere near my ass."
I know, bad analogy. Should have used Pelosi.
ยข|2.11.09 @ 3:32PM|#
Using that method you could end up with someone like Cynthia
McKinney.
But think how much less often you would.
If you confined your selection to residents of tent cities and
sleeping bags under freeways, you'd only come up with someone that
crazy about once every thousand years.
ev|2.11.09 @ 3:36PM|#
Awesome Orbach-era law and order episode on involving the
pitfalls of criminal informants and overzealous cops.
So that's out there.
|2.11.09 @ 3:42PM|#
I am convinced we should pick congress randomly like we do
juries. Maybe still elect Senators. But in the House, just randomly
pick one registered voter from every District to serve a one time
two year term. They would get a good salary and be gaurenteed by
law to be able to return to their old job. It would be like being
called up to active duty in the National Guard.
Yeah you would get some nuts and crooks and some idiots. But the
current sytem has given us John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, and Charlie
Rangle. Could my random system really do any worse? You would also
get lots of smart dedicated people who would do their best to do
the right thing, which is a lot better than what we have now.
Xeones|2.11.09 @ 3:44PM|#
Naga, nobody trusts you for links anymore. You burnt the hell out of that bridge.
|2.11.09 @ 3:50PM|#
"Could my random system really do any worse?"
I'm thinking more along the lines of Selective Service - guns and
all.
|2.11.09 @ 3:54PM|#
If we can't have random appointments, what about a certification process? A private-sector one, like UL. Call it Candidate Laboratories, if you like. CL will evaluate potential candidates and certify them as Safe, Unsafe, or Terminate with Extreme Prejudice.
|2.11.09 @ 3:57PM|#
"If we can't have random appointments, what about a
certification process? A private-sector one, like UL. Call it
Candidate Laboratories, if you like. CL will evaluate potential
candidates and certify them as Safe, Unsafe, or Terminate with
Extreme Prejudice."
That is a good idea accept that who is going to run the labs? In
reality, the liberals would run the labs and people would get on
the unsafe or terminate list for things like "owning a gun", "once
listened to Rush Limbaugh", "once read an Ayn Rand book", and
"attended a non state approved church" and of course "once used
illegeal drugs".
TallDave|2.11.09 @ 4:05PM|#
I am genuinely curious and concerned about the 33 percent
who don't think they could do better than Congress on the
economy.
They obviously didn't hear Maxine Waters today, berating bank
officials who have nothing to do with credit cards over credit card
policies.
TallDave|2.11.09 @ 4:07PM|#
Pro L,
Your new firm will be made illegal under the 2009 Equality of
Competence Act which will state no one may discriminate on the
basis of whether someone knows what the fuck they're doing.
|2.11.09 @ 4:09PM|#
"I wouldn't let that Frank fucker anywhere near my
ass."
I know, bad analogy. Should have used Pelosi.
Nope - I hear that bitch is into pegging.
|2.11.09 @ 4:13PM|#
TallDave,
You're right, of course. CL would be banned the moment it started
getting listened to by voters. Probably would violate
McCain-Feingold or something.
|2.11.09 @ 4:39PM|#
Who are these secretly brilliant but seemingly average people
who were polled? Seriously, we really think there's absolutely no
skill involved in reading and writing the law? No special talent
that prevents people from enacting laws with some really screwed-up
unintended consequences? No experience with math, economics or
budgeting necessary?
I have never, ever understood this pervasive attitude - no matter
what the state of our economy - that government doesn't work.
I can name off dozens of ways that good governance has impacted my
day. I get to work on a subway on a system that is clean, reliable,
and very safe. I had a glass of water - I know that it was safe
from contamination because of various regulations and monitoring
systems. It was a nice day, so I went outside during lunch to eat
in a park maintained by government employees. The paper I read is
possible because of the First Amendment and FOIA. Almost all of my
very intelligent co-workers were educated at public schools, and
attended college thanks to federal loans.
Yes, I believe that a good politician and a good legislator are not
necessarily one of the same, and it's always a shame when a
candidate who is good on the issues can't win because of lack of
charisma, inability to fundraise, etc. But I don't believe the
American public is stupid - I think they re-elect people who've
done good for their district. Plus, you can't be stupid if you
think you can run the country better than the people you elected,
right? Or can you?
|2.11.09 @ 4:44PM|#
First, most politicians--and I mean like virtually all of
them--do not "read and understand" legislation. They have staffers
who sort of do. The "understand" part is a big problem, because
these bills often have larger effects that just within their four
walls.
Second, intelligence is not even campaigned on, let alone the
reason someone is elected.
Finally, just because government does something today doesn't mean
that it necessarily has to or that the same function couldn't be
done better, cheaper, and faster by a private alternative. For
example, if the government stopped worrying about water quality,
then we wouldn't all start drinking sludge, now would we?
|2.11.09 @ 4:49PM|#
"But there is a real threat of, say, hostile countries emptying
their prisons into the US."
The USSR did this when we said we'd accept Jewish refugees who
wanted to escape persecution. Most of them moved to Israel, but the
USSR sent their organized crime mobs here. I think this was under
Carter if I'm not mistaken (from the book Red Mafiya). Of course
this stuff happens when we say "send your people here we won't look
up their backgrounds" as with Cuba.
Of course if we were to end the war on drugs, I imagine quite a bit
of our importation of crime from Mexico would end.
"Seriously, we really think there's absolutely no skill involved in
reading and writing the law?"
No there is not. The senators and represenatives don't read or
write the law. They have lobbyists do it for them, or staff
sometimes, and lobbyists prepare summaries of the laws for them to
read, and sometimes staff does.
Hell any of us can do that much. Maybe some of us might actually
bother to read the laws before voting on them, that alone would be
more than our current representatives do.
jennifer|2.11.09 @ 4:56PM|#
I agree that staffers are an essential part of modern government, but "I mean like virtually all of them do not 'read and understand' legislation" is an inaccurate exaggeration. Lawyers have always constituted upwards of 40% of the seats in Congress. I'm not saying that I wouldn't like to see that percentage lowered, but I'm pretty certain that the lawyers understand what's going on.
Curious George|2.11.09 @ 5:02PM|#
Pro:
First off the majority of the Congress cannot read a bill that is
over 6,000 pages, much less understand it because it is written by
and for lawyers. The purpose is to obscure rather than enlighten
and allow subsequent politicians to twist the law into whatever
shape they wish.
Term limits would eliminate the problems we have. It would be
tougher to buy politicians and much riskier for once you have
donated to a politician he can do whatever he pleases without need
of another contribution. By random selection by lottery would be
even better.
Who was the last clerk, shoemaker, policeman, nurse, teacher,
soldier who served in the Congress? We have a Congress that is
composed of millionaires, staffers, lobbyists and lawyers. No
wonder it sucks so bqad and is so crooked.
Anyone who said their life long ambition was to be a Congressman is
one step beneath someone admitting they always wished to be a child
molester.
|2.11.09 @ 5:04PM|#
Lawyers in Congress aren't legislative specialists. They aren't
elected for their skills. I worked in DC and had roommates who were
staffers, and the idiocy of many Congresspersons was the main theme
of our discussions. And even for the ones that are capable of
understanding even a poorly written bill, they can't understand
what they don't read. Also, when you're voting on a bill based on
the six bullets you read about it, you aren't doing your job.
I also read legislation for a living, and it's obvious that very
little real reading or understanding is going on in Congress.
Usually, a well-drafted bill is the product of an outside
organization--one that has spent six months drafting and
proof-reading the document. The single-issue bills are better than
these catch-call bills, too. Notoriously bad are the freaked-out
Congress bills--USA PATRIOT, Sarbanes-Oxley, etc.
Curious George,
Indeed. One cannot discount the extent to which some bills are
intentionally confusing.
I'm all for term limits.
|2.11.09 @ 5:04PM|#
Seriously, we really think there's absolutely no skill
involved in reading and writing the law?
Apparently not, given the low quality of much of the work product
of our legislatures.
No special talent that prevents people from enacting laws with
some really screwed-up unintended consequences?
If there is such a talent, it isn't notably apparent in our
legislators, who pass laws that almost without exception have
really screwed-up unintended consequences.
No experience with math, economics or budgeting
necessary?
I would say that such skills would be very useful, but you are
unlikely to find them possessed in any great degree by most
legislators.
Neu Mejican|2.11.09 @ 5:07PM|#
Citizen Nothing,
As does your entire schtick, Neu.
No doubt about it, I am more smug than you are.
I hope this doesn't apply to building bridges or brain
surgery.
It does, in spades. Do you really want some guy who is cock-sure he
won't fuck up cutting around inside your skull?
Paul
Actually, no, I don't see that at all. What it means is that
nobody can do a good job of running the economy. Further
translated: I don't know how to run the economy either-- because
economies are too complex to be managed.
I guess you could read it like that, but the implication I got from
the statement was more along the lines of "only fools would pretend
that they could have a positive impact on the economy using public
sector resources and top-down mechanisms."
If the point was to say that no individual can manage all aspects
of the economy in a real time fashion, the point is too obvious to
be worth mentioning.
Define "no one" and define "run the economy".
"No one" would mean there is no individual or group who could do
it.
"run the economy" see my comment above.
Obama said "Only government can get us out of this crisis". So
at minimum Obama believes that only persons within the public
sector can drive, steer, manage, what have you, the economy out of
this "crisis".
I think he has also been very clear that government is only one
(very large) player in the economy and that government alone can
not solve the crisis. He has said as much very explicitly. The
gloss I would give his message is that we can't get out of the
crisis without some involvement from the government. This does not
mean that the way out of the crisis is to have the government
"running the economy."
Further, we know that Obama isn't asking the undersecretary of
of the Centers for Disease Control to get us out of this crisis.
He's placed a few departments, and ultimately, a couple of
department heads in charge of "managing this crisis". So I think
that one can conclude that Obama believes that a select team of
managers can in fact, manage the economy.
No, I believe he has selected a team of managers to manage the
government's response to the crisis. Very different from "running
the economy."
|2.11.09 @ 5:09PM|#
It's interesting how much worse technology-related bills got
after Congress abolished the Office of Technology Assessment. While
I'm usually for any and all government shrinkage, getting rid of
OTA may have been a bad idea, because Congress (both parties) is
legally retarded when it comes to science and technology. Any kind
of science and technology.
On the other hand, its abolishment was part of the Contract with
America for some reason, so maybe I give the OTA too much
credit.
Xanthippas|2.11.09 @ 5:48PM|#
And yet, despite all the bitching, people keep voting for
them.
We get exactly the government we deserve.
Also, as you guys seem to endorse the idea of random Joe Blow on
the street running for Congress, how exactly do you reconcile that
with the pork-laden system of campaign finance as it presently
exists, and that you for the most part defend? I challenge you to
find the percentage of people randomly pulled from a phonebook who
can actually afford to run for Congress. I suspect it will be
low.
economist|2.11.09 @ 5:55PM|#
"We get exactly the government we deserve."
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!
|2.11.09 @ 6:46PM|#
The existance of lawyers is in part a function of the complexity
of the law, so it's no surprise that in a system where we have
career legislators that most of them are lawyers.
But let's be serious. The vast majority of congressmen aren't even
decent lawyers. They are good at two things: getting into office
and staying in office. Which means they devote most of their brain
power to raising money and reading polls.
The virtue of the random selection thing would be that most of the
people chosen would also be a lot less corrupt and more willing to
put a good faith effort into getting it right.
Time spent in congress probably would involve a couple dozen crash
courses in various aspects of the law.
Besides, we could always come up with some jury selection like
process to disqualify people that are not competent. Presided over
by the supreme court, say, with political parties questioning each
person the same way prosecutors and defense lawyers do.
|2.11.09 @ 7:24PM|#
raising money and reading polls.
Not too sure about the latter. They have staffers to do that.
-jcr
Vines & Cattle|2.11.09 @ 7:58PM|#
It's like those cellphone commercials, "What if delivery people
ran the world?" or "What if roadies ran the world?"
Can anyone honestly tell me those professions, hell any profession
wouldn't do better?
BDB|2.11.09 @ 8:07PM|#
"Vines & Cattle | February 11, 2009, 7:58pm | #
It's like those cellphone commercials, "What if delivery people ran
the world?" or "What if roadies ran the world?""
Congress is what happens when lawyers run the world.
BDB|2.11.09 @ 8:10PM|#
BTW didn't ancient Athens do a kind of random selection for their representatives?
Neu Mejican|2.11.09 @ 8:15PM|#
BDB,
I seem to remember that...but, iirc, it was a random selection
among clans or sects or something. The leadership within that clan
that took charge wasn't a random selection from among all the
citizens.
Pueblos in NM often use a similar non-random system. Each year a
different clan gets to be in charge. Since there is usually only 2
or 3, they just rotate.
BDB|2.11.09 @ 8:19PM|#
"Pueblos in NM often use a similar non-random system. Each year
a different clan gets to be in charge. Since there is usually only
2 or 3, they just rotate."
Switzerland does something like that among their Cantons, too. I
think its a nice federal system.
|2.11.09 @ 8:24PM|#
Yet, the majority of them support, or fail to oppose those in
office.
Collectively, the American people are largely responsible for their
own fate, whatever it is.
|2.11.09 @ 9:07PM|#
The sad part is all these folks think they are smart, but they are actually a bunch of typical ignorant Americans, the vast majority of whom have never cracked a book about economics, or anything else for that matter.
economist|2.11.09 @ 9:19PM|#
"Which means they devote most of their brain power to raising
money and reading polls. "
Are you saying that they now have brains? You mean they've adapted,
copied our DNA.
MJ|2.11.09 @ 10:21PM|#
"They also show that those who are less skilled are more likely
to over-estimate their abilities, are less responsive to
information about their relative ability compared to others, and do
not recognize better performance as better when it is shown to
them."
These people are known as "progressives".
DADIODADDY|2.12.09 @ 8:26AM|#
I think we'd do just as well with a nice bag of hammers. Cetainly the bag of hammers would be smarter, if not quite as articulate.
|2.12.09 @ 9:14AM|#
On reading versus understanding:
Otto: Don't call me stupid.
Wanda: Oh, right, to call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. I've known sheep that could outwit you, but you think you're an intellectual don't you, ape?
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes, they do Otto, they just don't understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things here. Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not 'every man for himself,' and the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up. Now, you have just assaulted the one man who can keep you out of jail and make you rich. What are you going to do about it huh? What would an intellectual do? What would Plato do?
Druidblue|2.12.09 @ 10:59PM|#
That just shows how dumb many people are in this country. It's
insanely easy to be an armchair quarterback, but trust me- your
"brilliant" ideas would do no better... if they didn't cause more
harm.
People whine and bitch about this- ever heard of elections? Get
involved and make sure the person you want elected gets in office.
If they win- you're set. If they lose? That means the majority of
the country DOES NOT AGREE with how you think things should be
working, and you should sit down and complain until the next
election.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245