Yes in deed

Phil Windley: no battle plan survives contact with the enemy & no campaign survives contact with governing

Good point. In the next two months the Obama transition team needs to separate the campaign chaff from the governance wheat, the pandering from the policy. It’ll be interesting to see how that goes.

This entry was posted in News. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Yes in deed

  1. RBM says:

    I’m NOT HAPPY – The Automatic Earth:

    “When I see who Obama consults on the economy, I realize that he will make the crisis a lot worse, much more than it needs to be. These are all people who have made their names and fortunes in the financial system and climate as it functioned over the past few decades. Because of their success in that system, they will refuse to see that it is dying.”

    About that river in Egypt ????

  2. Doc Searls says:

    Warren Buffet has made the economy worse? How?

  3. Doc, you need to understand that Capitalism is dying, and Socialism is the wave of the future, and it will ALWAYS be that way. At least for some people, anyway.

    No, the problem here is that Obama needs to NOT try to rescue the economy. The more rescuing that goes on, the less restructuring that will go on, and the longer will be the depression. Right now, nobody knows which ones are the bad investments that need to go. Government can only help to get the wrong answer. It can’t help to get the right answer. The sooner we get to the right answer, the sooner those investments can be liquidated, the resources reused, and the creation of value restarted.

  4. Roland Hesz says:

    Thanks Russell, we have been building it (socialism) for about 40 years, and it pretty much sucked.
    It looks good on paper, but it does not survive contact with human beings.

    Total socialism is not the answer, as humans are not working that way. And total capitalism is not the answer either.
    You have to mix the two, but I don’t think complete socialism would ever work.
    Mainly for the saying: It’s the property of everyone, thus it is the property of noone.

  5. Well, Roland, I’ve gotta say that in theory I’m open to government interference in markets. It’s just that whenever it’s tried, it ends up making markets worse. Yes, there are a lot of problems that look like they’re amenable to legislation, but when you count the indirect effects of the legislation, and the delayed effects of the legislation (no law survives contact with the citizenry with its intent intact), you’d be better off with what you get from free markets, warts and all.

    Free markets suck, but government interference makes them suck more.

  6. RBM says:

    Free markets suck, but government interference makes them suck more.

    And just WHAT is the common denominator ?

    Homo Sapiens !

    So there is ONLY 2 choices ?? Yeah, riiight.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *