When Jim Cramer - JIM CRAMER - comes out for increased regulation of the markets;

http://www.bucknell.edu/x40027.xml

then you know traders are ready to be spanked for being bad boys - as long as they think they are being bailed out by the Fed. But 3% doesn't give the Fed much more room to move.

But regulation is more a matter of epistemology and the human need for certainty than morality. The market motivates individuals because of the uncertainty inherent in competition, as soon as any advantage is achieved then participants seek to decrease or eliminate the uncertainties of competition through corruption of all types. Regulation is needed to insure the integrity of a truly competitive marketplace. I cannot blame anyone for seeking greater certainty in his or her economic condition, which is what we all do on a daily basis. But an understanding of the true nature of markets requires us as citizens to demand that government allow no one to manipulate the markets by leveraging temporary success into permanent advantage.

Posted at January 30, 2008 11:35 AM in response to Three Quick Notes Re Matters Economic

The netroots did not, in the end, deliver in '04. Obama did in Iowa what Deaniacs could not do, perhaps the time was not yet ripe but obviously Obama is a better messenger. (FWIW I think he learned that in downstate Illinois in his senate race and applied it in Iowa)

The netroots were right about Bush, right about the war, are right about the extra-constitutional nature of the Cheney regime. Obama was right about the war. That fact alone shows that he is at least aware of the nature of the beast. I hope the netroots have the maturity to evolve with him and not against him.

Posted at January 4, 2008 7:25 AM in response to Obama Delivers on the Ground

IF Obama wins the nomination the question of realignment may depend on whether his coattails can carry the Senate to a filibuster-proof majority. Then a Democratic Congress may help push him to forge a new, dare I say, liberal realignment. The Reagan coalition is collapsing and Obama won't have to bargain as much with them as his current rhetoric implies.

Well excuse me for taking a trip on the Hope Train.

Posted at January 4, 2008 6:23 AM in response to Obama Delivers on the Ground

After what I saw last night at my caucus I don't take those questions as sarcastic. This is exactly what Dean was hoping for and what Obama delivered. I was skeptical that he could do this after my experience in '04 but obviously he is much better at reaching outside the party regulars. I think it will translate into much bigger margins in a primary context. Clinton was not even viable after the first round at my caucus. I hope Edwards doesn't go negative and continues to run as the next Attorney General.

My media highlight of the night was trying to find someone who would broadcast all of Obama's victory speech. None of the local stations carried it, none of the networks carried it in full like they did Clinton and Edwards speeches. Finally I turned to PBS for their nightly broadcast of the BBC news and within a minute at the top of the BBC World news hour they carried Obama's entire victory speech.

Posted at January 4, 2008 5:26 AM in response to Barack Hussain Obama

I was trying to explain why winners in Iowa often become their party's nominee. It is always up to the electorate to decide if they are just pandering to gain the office for other purposes or are actually responding to the will of the people. They don't get the chance to be the nominee if they don't listen in the first place. Huckabee will drive more people to drink than to the polls, see what percentage he gets of the overall results, democratic and republican. Democratic turnout may approach double that of the republican caucuses.

Posted at January 3, 2008 3:09 PM in response to Pondering Predictions

The presumption is that Iowa is important because it gives the winners momentum in terms of media attention and fundraising. Perhaps the winners of the Iowa caucus have been successful because they actually used the drawn out process in Iowa to listen and respond to the real concerns of actual voters. In Iowa and New Hampshire it is possible for candidates to receive the kind of feedback they need to be responsive to we, the people. The candidates who take advantage of that opportunity learn what works in the rest of the primaries when one-on-one campaigning is no longer possible. Candidates who think we are a bunch of yokels and don’t really listen to our concerns and think we will be impressed with slick advertising and cool music and celebrity endorsements don’t seem to do too well on down the line. It is really not that hard to figure out why.

I do think we may be on the cusp of a new era in terms of increased levels of involvement but I am not sure that will be expressed in a way that candidates like Obama are hoping for.

Posted at January 3, 2008 2:03 PM in response to Pondering Predictions

Actually going to a caucus and standing up in front of your neighbors and declaring a political preference is not comfortable for many Iowans who do not like to wear their politics or religion on their sleeve. That is why so many candidates have failed to significantly expand the base of caucus voters in the past. Responding to polling questions on the phone, responding to canvassers at your door and even going to campaign events and filling out support cards does not consistently translate to actual caucus participation.

Edwards – 30% Obama – 27% Clinton – 23% Dodd – 10%

Posted at January 3, 2008 8:24 AM in response to Happy Caucus Day!

Emotion is the expression of the collective response of the floating set points in the homeostatic systems of the body (like the zen metaphor for consciousness; the surface of water) including our notion of self as it is modified by feedback from our physical and social environment.

Each of us has a meta-level understanding of our ecological status and our prospects for survival as individuals and as a species. For the most part that understanding is unconscious because we cannot function in the moment with that level of awareness. Happiness, or the lack of it, could be seen as the relative congruence between that unconscious awareness and the actions and habits of our daily life. The greater the dissonance the greater the need for distractions, projections, aggression and an anesthetized lifestyle. Eventually it can result in adaptation at the expense of short-term gain and/or a modification of our self-image.

Emotion is the somatic marker of the individual’s ecological health.

Posted at April 25, 2007 7:28 AM in response to How Would You Know if The Economy Was Working?

Conservatives want to conserve their own advantages. Choice, self-reliance, and limited bureaucracy are the code words used to maintain markets that conserve those advantages. Their crucial framing is defining unregulated markets as the only real or efficient market and everything else is a step towards socialism. Variants of this framing include labeling deregulation that is written by industry lobbyists as regulation and trade agreements are said to regulate industries when in fact they regulate government.

The reality is that there are unregulated markets that benefit only the wealthy and there are well-regulated markets that benefit all AND there are portions of the economy where markets do not work to advance the general welfare. Health care, like education and journalism, is a mixed bag in this regard so public debate is particularly susceptible to bamboozlement from the right. And they have a valuable ally, the corporate media, delivering the distorted framing.

Democrats must begin all economic discussions, as you have done here, by clearly reframing the discussion in terms of corrupt markets, well-regulated markets and ineffective markets.

Posted at April 10, 2007 11:56 PM in response to Health Care and The Right's Tactics

I am skeptical that you can have a meaningful conversation without some degree of doubt. Not that absolute certainty isn't desirable. And expressing doubt is probably not advisable in political and religious forums, it is unilateral disarmament. But initiating doubt is the first step in mutual disarmament and real political diologue. Absolute certainty may prevent blind faith from dominating the agenda but then the conversation stops.

Posted at April 9, 2007 12:21 AM in response to Skepticism about Faith