Would you buy a stranger’s lottery ticket if he claimed he couldn’t cash it because he was an illegal immigrant without the necessary documents? Of course you wouldn’t. Or would you?
The Press Enterprise described how a woman in Southern California lost $20,000 under exactly these circumstances. Why did the obvious swindle work?
The victim told deputies she turned $20,000 over to a man she met on a Corona street corner Tuesday morning after he told her he had a winning lottery ticket but could not cash it because he had no papers and could not find the Mexican consulate. Another woman approached and suggested they each give the man $20,000 for the ticket. The woman then drove the man to the Target store at the corner of Hamner and Limonite avenues in the Eastvale area to pick up medication. That is where he fled with the second woman in a silver SUV.
It worked because of social proof. “Social proof, also known as informational social influence, is a psychological phenomenon that occurs in ambiguous social situations when people are unable to determine the appropriate mode of behavior. Making the assumption that surrounding people possess more knowledge about the situation, they will deem the behavior of others as appropriate or better informed.” The key psychological moment in the scam came when the woman accomplice appeared on the scene offering the man money for his ticket. That somehow stampeded the victim into thinking that the smart thing to do was follow suit.
But as scammers go, the man with the lottery ticket is in the minor leagues. Marketers and political operatives have long been aware that many people have no intrinsic reasons for choosing one thing over another. But they sell products and candidates anyway by getting a critical mass of people to do something, thereby convincing the crowd to follow in the belief that others know what they don’t. Actually nobody may know anything, but it still works. This is sometimes called the “bandwagon” effect, and it’s really a way of exploiting uncertainty and ignorance. People are more likely to do something simply because others are doing it. Starting fads is a good way to sell pet rocks and Presidents.
When John McCain calls Barack Obama a “celebrity” he’s implying that many of Obama’s supporters are driven by social proof; willing to hand a stranger from Chicago the keys to the Oval Office simply because several others have expressed the willingness to do so. Not everyone is driven by fads. There are probably many individuals who support BHO for carefully considered, even ideological reasons, but how many on reflection will admit they are voting for him for about the same reason that the Southern California woman parted with her $20,000? Maybe McCain himself is playing the same game. By capitalizing on the recent trend among media pundits to criticize BHO for his messianic style, McCain may be trying to create his own counter-fad. You too can be the first liberal on the block to sneer at Barack Obama and prove that you are cooler than your friends. That may not be a good reason, but hey, it works.
In a 1992 journal article titled A Theory of Fads, Fashion, Custom and Cultural Change as Informational Cascades, Bikchandani, Hirshleifer and Welch asked whether there were any circumstances in which it was rational to follow the herd; that is, to rely on social proof as a basis for action. They concluded that whenever people were “very close to the borderline between alternatives” a sudden, almost trivial event can make things break one way or the other. Intuitively this makes sense. When people have either very little information on which to make judgments or when alternatives are very evenly matched, then decision-makers have very little else to go on except the behavior of the herd. When the candidates are not evenly matched, the media could still theoretically set up a stampede by starving the campaign of real information.
Thus, the more dumbed down, content-free and sound-bite driven a campaign is, and the less information is actually available to voters and the more readily the political situation can be manipulated by fads. When nobody knows or cares diddly about the policy alternatives then voters can choose a President on the basis of appearance, haircut or color of tie. Would anyone actually choose the leader of the most powerful nation on earth on the same basis as American Idol? Hmm. Maybe the lady in Southern California who gave the scammer $20,000 wasn’t so different from some of us, some of the time.
Tip Jar.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
45 Comments
1. elijah:Sorry off topic
Interesting that Sullivan’s “How Shitty Was McCain?” article keeps appearing under Google news sections.
It was the 2nd headline under the Google news election section today for a while.
It was the lead under the Google News U.S. section yesterday for a while.
Interesting choice of headlines. Don’t recall similar headlines for politicians on Google News before
Aug 3, 2008 - 8:28 am 2. Teresita:W:When John McCain calls Barack Obama a “celebrity” he’s implying that many of Obama’s supporters are driven by social proof; willing to hand a stranger from Chicago the keys to the Oval Office simply because several others have expressed the willingness to do so.
Presidential politics in America doesn’t hinge on the intelligence or wisdom of the man seeking the office. There’s a Republican brand and there’s a Democratic brand. After nearly eight years of Bush, the Republican brand has become indistinguishable from the Democratic brand. Bush has grown the federal government far larger and faster than Clinton ever dared. He has engaged in the same sort of nation-building he derided in the Clinton administration when he ran in 2000. Both Obama and McCain refuse to consider drilling in ANWR. McCain even says raising social security withholding is not “off the table”. Obama wants a Surge in Afghanistan and says he opposes gay marriage. The two brands are all jumbled up, so we’re down to silly comments about McCain being too old or Obama having an Middle-Eastern middle name. And all it really boils down to is a kind of contentless team rivalry like you have in professional sports. Hooray for the Seattle Seahawks, boo for the Miami Dolphins.
Aug 3, 2008 - 8:48 am 3. cjm:how would a campaign use the “contact with the opposing force” to collect information? seems like these ads by mccain are doing just that.
has obama spent any time on “offense” since these ads have been run? which campaign is most likely to have read and lived by Boyd’s OODA strategy? which campaign is likely to be blinded by the false information produced (like so much chaff) by the msm? which candidate is likely to have unrevealed scandals waiting like so many time bombs?
obama’s wax wings are melting and the sea below is patient.
Aug 3, 2008 - 9:09 am 4. programmer:Teresita,
Aug 3, 2008 - 9:17 am 5. Elroy Jetson:After much thought and discussion, I tend to agree with you, to make it short, that the two apparent candidates appear pretty lame in the same way. The difference is in how they arrived at their current situation. Their history and experience are vastly different. How they dealt (and deal with) adversity and challenges is important. One risked (and almost lost) all for honor and country because of the person he is. The other has had the country provide a pretty cushy ride so far, because of the person he appears to be. I could go on in this vein, but you probably get my drift, even if you choose not to agree with it. In the end, “there can be only one.” and I have pretty well decided who is the strongest in the face of adversity.
When Obama starts moving towards the McCain position on abortion, all bets are off.
Aug 3, 2008 - 9:22 am 6. Alexis:So, will the backlash against Obama will be anything like the backlash against disco?
Aug 3, 2008 - 9:22 am 7. dla:I’m not sure that the “bandwagon” effect is such a bad thing. In some ways I think it is the basis for a democratic republic.
In America with 300million people, 100million voters aren’t going to make an informed decision. Why? Lazy, apathetic, stupid, and our press is a poor source of information. So folks stampede (wildebeast stick together, gazelles run with gazelles) based on biases and vote. Maybe this is why we still use the electoral college.
Once a candidate is in office they are shaped more by the issues at hand than any campaign position. I’ll venture a guess that 80% of their actions are reactionary and 20% is proactive. Given that they operate with information unavailable to the general public, and that our media is like a clock with only a second hand, the “here and now” activity is what drives our polls. High poll numbers often are the exact opposite of how history judges an administration.
I’ve concluded that GWB has done the heavy lifting. He has gained our security. Therefore I believe America can weather a very liberal, inexperienced President. So if Barack pulls it off and gets the stampede going his way, it won’t be a Jimmy Carter redux and it won’t be continuous Clinton scandal, it may not be much of anything – just one of those presidencies that doesn’t stand out.
So if the situation shapes the president much more than the president’s lofty ideas, maybe most of the time the “stampede” is correct. We don’t get Hilters very often do we?
Aug 3, 2008 - 9:31 am 8. Derek:Two points:
For a scam, or a sale, to close, the buyer/victim needs to see something in it for them. Both play on the self interest of the victim/buyer. What has Barack offered to entice people to leave their doubts and buy into? If I need to ask…
In both a sale close, and a scam, there is an emotional high that the seller depends on and nurtures. It’s very easy to bring the whole thing back to earth; a negative word or comment, voicing a doubt that is in the back of the mind. I used to do this in sales, because what I sold depended on long term commitment; an emotional buy would by the time the job was done end up with me not getting paid. McCain’s ad and subsequent reaction was the plop of everyone getting back to earth.
Derek
Aug 3, 2008 - 9:38 am 9. slade:It’s critical thinking skill set. The *Grifter’s Dilemma* depends on it. The Free Drinks in Las Vegas that are never Free.
It always surprises me that some of the seemingly most intelligent people are the most vulnerable – can’t think their way out of a paper bag. Not to even mention that line in the sand where we find ourselves For Sale because this is my Lucky Day; Karma paid up in full; and gosh-darn-it-all, I deserve it because righteous is not its own reward. It’s My Turn.
I never used to make much of it – judging wasn’t my deal back in the day. But I now see that it is rule more than exception. That’s not good for ole USA.
I gotta go Save the Planet now.
Nationalize a few oil companies.
Tilt at a few windmills.
Plant Sunflowers.
And my personal favorite, share nuclear technology with those Prince of Princes in the open-air desert solarium of Saudi Arabia.
Gift or Grift? It’s just a Line in the Sand.
Aug 3, 2008 - 9:41 am 10. Brian:I’ve long been interested in the tools of persuasion — of which social proof is one element. What causes people to be persuaded to believe absolutely absurd things?
If you’re interested in a primer on how persuasion happens, you’ll not do better than this article by Anthony Pratkanis, entitled “How to Sell a Pseudoscience.” http://tinyurl.com/2v5jw
Pratkanis elaborates on 10 or 12 simple principles. His first four are:
1. Create a phantom (an unavailable goal that looks achievable).
2. Set a rationalization trap.
3. Manufacture Source Credibility and Sincerity.
4. Establish a Granfalloon.
Aug 3, 2008 - 10:02 am 11. cjm:the problem with running a con, is that you only have a finite amount of time to close the deal. then doubt creeps in as evidence accumulates. that’s why obama loses support steadily, the longer a given group has to evaluate him.
Aug 3, 2008 - 10:34 am 12. sf:I’ll second cjm’s point: I would guess that the more time the undecided voter has to scrutinize Obama, the more skeptical he/she will become.
I suspect this is why Obama declined McCain’s offer to have more debates before the election. It would seem very much in Obie’s interest to delay opportunities for revelation as long as possible.
Aug 3, 2008 - 10:58 am 13. ek:Don’t insult American Idol. It gives you a lot more information about the qualifications of the contestants than press coverage of the presidential campaigns does. See http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/08/so-you-think-yo.html
Aug 3, 2008 - 11:23 am 14. WSL:Teresita: There’s a Republican brand and there’s a Democratic brand. After nearly eight years of Bush, the Republican brand has become indistinguishable from the Democratic brand.
Although I supported GWB both in 2000 and 2004, I have to concede the truth in Teresita’s remark. I’m not happy about that, but I am even more troubled why, given the low approval ratings of both parties now, choosing an equally bad brand is a rational thing to do. But then, political choices do not always derive from rational thinking.
Aug 3, 2008 - 11:39 am 15. exhelodrvr:“After nearly eight years of Bush, the Republican brand has become indistinguishable from the Democratic brand”
Hardly. What has happened is that both parties have shifted left from where they used to be. That still leaves the Republicans noticeably right of the Democrats.
Indistinguishable? Not at all.
Aug 3, 2008 - 12:13 pm 16. Lowell:Two points:
1. McCain IS different from Obama. McCain has NEVER voted for a tax increase. (Yes, he voted against a tax decrease.) McCain criticized Bush for not cutting spending. Obama has proposed nearly 1 Trillion in new spending on top of 3 Trillion in current spending in a 14-15 Trillion economy. Their differences on the war are in their priorities. McCain’s priority is to win–if he can also get the troops out quickly it’s a bonus. Obama’s priority is to get the troops out–if he can win, that’s a bonus.
2. In terms of much of what Obama claims to want to do, like work in a bipartisan fashion with Congress or negotiate with our enemies, Obama has NO record. Obama’s record is as the LEAST bipartisan member of Congress while McCain’s is as one of the most. (Ask, any disgruntled conservative about “maverick McCain” and you’ll probably get a full list.) Then, when you look at Rev. Wright or William Ayers, you have to ask why Obama couldn’t get them to change their mind on America or at least get them to be less outspoken about their dislike of America. The question comes up: was Obama unsuccessful with these “friends” of his because he was unconvincing or because he agreed with them? Either way bodes ill for putting him in charge of US diplomacy. Meanwhile McCain has 5 years of ultimate experience “negotiating” with America’s enemies.
Aug 3, 2008 - 12:21 pm 17. hdgreene:This one sounds like the classic scam run at the beginning of “The Sting.” In that case a poor choice of marks resulted in the rest of the movie.
Elijah: One moment we hear John McCain is a Maverick and a “New kind of Republican” and the next we hear he is the same old, same old — and from the same old people. Back when I used to read Andrew Sullivan he was dizzy for the now “shitty” McCain. Sen Obama is the current apple of his eye. Changeable weather there on the Cape: The winds can blow one this way and that.
Obama is such an unknown quantity (with an iffy past to boot) that the Mainstream Media and the Democratic Party are in effect vouching for him. They are playing the role of the Gray Lady who tells the mark to pony up the 20 grand because the Grey Lady has such faith in the man pulling the scam she will likewise, and confidently, take the risk. The mark, in this case, are the People of the United States of America. It could prove a poor choice.
Now, if the lotto ticket we buy turns out to be good, the MSM and the Democratic Party will benefit. But if it turns out bad, the downside risk for them is huge. There is a reason why grifters are also drifters: you hang around, you get tarred and feathered like The King and The Duke in The Adventures of Hukleberry Finn.
Now, you can compare the choice here to George Bush in 2000 or even Jimmy Carter in ‘76. But they were both former governors and their former dicey associations were not wished away by the Media (in the case of Mr. Bush they were highlighted). The Media gave us Dubya as middle aged drunk, not a youthful experimenter and why are you even bringing it up? Are you profiling? Playing the race card? Sen. Obama’s rationalizations for past associations where accepted with an enthusiasm that is at times almost unseemly (that Obama glow does not come from sweat).
The Media has placed an especially heavy bet. If Sen. Obama loses, they lose because they could not swing the voters. If he wins and then bombs as President, they lose even more. How would the Gray Lady look in suit of tar and feathers?
If Obama loses their confidence, expect them to pull the plug on him quick. Right now they seem “all in” and he sometimes acts like he owns them: but not yet and not by a long shot. He still needs their vouch.
Aug 3, 2008 - 12:42 pm 18. Teresita:Exhelodrvr: What has happened is that both parties have shifted left from where they used to be. That still leaves the Republicans noticeably right of the Democrats.
Are they to the right on limited government? Ronald Reagan vetoed the 1987 highway bill because it included 121 earmarks and was $10 billion over the line he had drawn in the sand. In 2005 Bush signed a $286.4 billion dollar highway bill passed by a GOP-controlled Congress, earmarking $24 billion for 6,376 pet projects. Last year the President pushed McCain’s bill granting a path to citizenship for 20 million illegal immigrants, and it was only a grassroots effort by abandoned conservatives, who demanded the border be locked down and illegals NOT be rewarded for breaking the law, which dialed back the GOP drive for amnesty. They know it will be suicide for the conservative cause. As soon as the 20 million illegals become citizens they will petition their (traditionally large) families to come over under reunification laws, and you will have 70 to 100 million brand new registered Democrats.
Aug 3, 2008 - 12:58 pm 19. Derek:The Obama campaign screwed up badly this last week, so badly that I think we will see some changes in personnel.
Who thought that Obama could go to Germany and not visit the hospital? Was there no one in the campaign that stood up and said you must go? Obviously not, and a sign of a major disconnect from the electorate.
The explanations afterwards were even worse. Anyone with kids recognized the pattern. Ok, a bad decision. Either apologize profusely, or say something like “I intend to make such facilities irrelevant by bringing the troops home” or something. But there was confusion, mostly from the lack of foresight.
The McCain ad was another lack of foresight. Didn’t anyone in his campaign see that acting like a rock star was going to elicit some comment on same? The response was flatfooted, and very counterproductive.
It is obvious that the Obama campaign has no idea how they are seen by a substantial portion of the US population. They obviously have no one at a high level with a feeling for the common folk. I get the feeling that they are responding on all these issues like they are in a flamewar.
It’s going to be an interesting fall.
Derek
Aug 3, 2008 - 1:05 pm 20. Mike Sylwester:I think that both candidates — and both parties — are paralyzed by the bleak economic prospects for the foreseeable future. It will be fiscally impossible to cut taxes or to develop major new programs. We will have to continue muddling our way forward on our current course for probably at least the next eight years. If either candidate really promises to do anything different, he will not be able to sustain his argument with realistic budget estimates.
I think that maybe the public has been developing a lot of sales resistence to political promises to make major improvements. There is stronger resistence to either cutting or raising taxes or to either cutting or developing current programs or to either decreasing or increasing regulation — and so on.
That might be bad news for Obama, because I expect a lot of people will split their votes — voting Democrats into the Congress and voting McCain into the Presidency — with the calculated intention of continuing the current deadlock, which seems like the wisest course forward.
Overall, the public is not being conned. On the contrary, the public is becoming more resistant to political promises than it ever has been before.
Aug 3, 2008 - 1:49 pm 21. exhelodrvr:Teresita,
“Are they to the right on limited government?”
Relative to the Democrats, yes.
Aug 3, 2008 - 2:14 pm 22. dla:This isn’t con job – it’s an election. The last “con” job was Kerry pretending to be a war hero – and was swiftly sunk.
Obama, to his credit, hasn’t tried to sell himself as being anything except “change”. That makes him harder to swift-boat. McCain is McCain. Same guy, same story. Either you like McCain or you don’t but you’ll have a hard time catching him misrepresenting himself.
So this isn’t a con. This might be a stampede, or a bandwagon, but it’s not a con at all.
Aug 3, 2008 - 2:28 pm 23. Charles:I think that both candidates — and both parties — are paralyzed by the bleak economic prospects for the foreseeable future. It will be fiscally impossible to cut taxes or to develop major new programs. We will have to continue muddling our way forward on our current course for probably at least the next eight years. If either candidate really promises to do anything different, he will not be able to sustain his argument with realistic budget estimates.
/////////////////
Aug 3, 2008 - 3:03 pm 24. wretchard:the most important thing that the USA could do economically is to wean the USA off foreign oil. 750 billion goes overseas every year to pay for foreign oil. this is unsustainable. but it could be stopped entirely with the right set of policies in 5-10 years. and likely dependence on foreign oil could be shut down entirely in 5 years with some serious US government interventions.
Someone remarked that this election was supposed to be about GWB. Instead it turned out to be an election about Obama. Still another pundit said the election was going to be a “referendum” on Obama. McCain was simply “the other candidate”. Still others have argued that Obama has “hijacked” the Democratic Party from its old base and shifted it on to the new one. Arguments that McCain has done the same to the conservative faithful can also be heard.
Teresita’s argument that that this is a contest between two brands is an insightful one. The problem, which she also brings up, is that if there is a diminishing distinction between the brands then how much of the election will then be made on the basis of fads? If the steak and the oatmeal increasingly begin to taste like each other, then we begin to enter the area where people are “very close to the borderline between alternatives” and might as well choose steak instead of oatmeal or vice versa. Close the gap enough and people will toss a coin or choose depending on how they are feeling today, not because they want “steak” or “oatmeal”, the two having become nearly the same. When information contrast is very low a fad is as good a reason to do one thing as another.
So if both candidates equal big government, high taxes we are left with little to choose between except the quality of their haircuts. On the other hand, information contrast can also be decreased by smudging it, and I think we are seeing some of that in Obama. ‘I am a screen on which people can project their political aspirations’ he said of himself. That means he could be like McCain, if you imagine him to be. And he has a better haircut.
Aug 3, 2008 - 3:03 pm 25. weSwinger:I’m almost finished reading “The Forgotten Man” by Amity Shlaes (A New History of the Great Depression) and among the lessons learned is “beware the charismatic politician”. BHO shares the softly packaged hard leftism of FDR. One more like that and the USA may never recover. FDR whispered in the electorate’s ears that the Depression was all the rich people’s fault, starting both the class warfare theme the Demo’s still love, and the denial of personal responsibility that has largely unmade much of the nation.
So, no. The prospect of a BHO presidency cannot be taken with equanimity in this quarter. God help us all.
Aug 3, 2008 - 3:42 pm 26. hdgreene:The two parties are actually and amalgam of groups and beliefs. Just as there are “Country Club Republicans” there are what I will call “Junior Chamber of Commerce” Democrats. They came up through the ranks doing business with business and are not hostile to business. They helped put together real estate deals and regulatory wavers at the state and local level. Their tendencies may be interventionist but they are not intrinsically hostile to the Market Economy.
I think Bill Clinton is such a Democrat. The “Nationalize Health Care” fiasco may seem to disprove that assertion. However, he put Hillary and the Left wing of the party in charge and let them fail spectacularly. In the process he more or less humbled the left wing and neutralized Hillary (until, of course, he needed them both). Probably the biggest problem he caused our economy is the subprime mortgage mess — regulatory changes that amounted to a huge national vote buying (and money raising) real estate scam. But he also did much that was good for the economy.
There are many Democrats who do not want Market Capitalism to function well because they want to institute sweeping change. They actually believe that Capitalism is causing the oceans to rise. So if you argue for policy choices because it will improve the operation of the Market Economy they may feign interest but really, they’re not impressed. To them you are trying to alleviate a bit of the pain rather than cure the disease (of course they are quacks — a relevant point, by the way). They think if the economy is flourishing and people are confident in the future, the message of “change you can believe in” will not be believed in.
Every association in Obama’s past says he comes from the second group. Many of his proposals display an astounding ignorance of how the economy functions. Recently he suggested a rebate “gift” of $1,000, paid for by raising taxes on American oil companies. Where does the money come from for the oil companies to pay those taxes? The same consumers who would get the rebate. It would be better to have those taxpayers write themselves out a check for one thousand dollars and cash it on their own account (cut out the middlemen, so to speak). If DC sends it to them, they will pay $3,000 in higher energy cost (seizing the profits of energy companies will greatly increase the moral hazards of investing in that sector, thus raising the cost of capital in a capital intensive industry and hence the cost of energy — and may well sour investors on investing in the US in general).
When Sen. Obama is president we will have 8.7 percent unemployment and the media will say “Americans now have more time to spend with their families.” If the economy should really tank and three generations are sharing a comforter in the cold, dank dark, they will say “Families are coming closer together.”
Oh, and they will say that the oceans have stopped rising for a time.
Aug 3, 2008 - 4:51 pm 27. Panday:Teresita: Are they to the right on limited government? Ronald Reagan vetoed the 1987 highway bill because it included 121 earmarks and was $10 billion over the line he had drawn in the sand. In 2005 Bush signed a $286.4 billion dollar highway bill passed by a GOP-controlled Congress, earmarking $24 billion for 6,376 pet projects. Last year the President pushed McCain’s bill granting a path to citizenship for 20 million illegal immigrants, and it was only a grassroots effort by abandoned conservatives, who demanded the border be locked down and illegals NOT be rewarded for breaking the law, which dialed back the GOP drive for amnesty. They know it will be suicide for the conservative cause. As soon as the 20 million illegals become citizens they will petition their (traditionally large) families to come over under reunification laws, and you will have 70 to 100 million brand new registered Democrats.
Size of government isn’t the only difference between right and left. True, it’s a core issue, but not the only one.
Aug 3, 2008 - 4:58 pm 28. Paul:Some people don’t need social proof, they’re blind to reality and just con themselves. Here’s a brilliant example in today’s Boston Globe. Former Gov. Mike Dukakis teamed up with a Globe reporter to describe what a Dukakis presidency would have been like.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2008/08/03/president_duke/
I especially liked the UN resolutions that kept Saddam Hussein from invading Kuwait in 1991. An air war and a dozen UN resolutions in 2002 couldn’t get him to open up to weapons inspectors but President Mikey’s scowls would have.
Aug 3, 2008 - 5:12 pm 29. RWE:The thing that I see that is unique about this election is that both the candidates’ positions on certain issues are so far out of whack with those of most people. Something like 70% of the American people say they want illegal immigration stopped, preferably yesterday. In contrast, Obama wants to treat the illegals as U.S Citizens who have simply lost their driver’s licenses or something like that and McCain wants us to consider them as our guests or something like that. A similar percentage of people want to drill everywhere and anywhere for oil. McCain has moved some on that issue – but not all the way – and at last report Obama is thinking about the same move.
It is not clear if this disconnect with the electorate is due to Courage of Convictions or Courage of Cluelessness.
When Jimmy Carter was running I asked my friends and relatives who they were voting for. They all said Carter. I then enumerated each of Carter’s positions on certain issues and asked I they agreed. They all said “No!” I then asked why they were voting for him and they replied that they thought he was lying about all those positions and would instead do what they wanted. Six months after Carter took office all of them were furious. “That dirty SOB! He did exactly what he said he was going to do! How were we to know he was the ONE politician we ever saw who was telling the truth?”
Aug 3, 2008 - 5:20 pm 30. slade:the most important thing that the USA could do economically is to wean the USA off foreign oil. 750 billion goes overseas every year to pay for foreign oil. this is unsustainable. but it could be stopped entirely with the right set of policies in 5-10 years. and likely dependence on foreign oil could be shut down entirely in 5 years with some serious US government interventions. – Charles
Just to cast a formal public vote, agree completely with the objective, the timetable, and the ballpark numbers. If, however, the selected plan is “none of the above“, rather than any of half a dozen different approaches that would work roughly the same, then the game reduces to nothing more than a con – not politics or policy, neither brand nor ideology; distracted by the academics of Iraq vs. Afghanistan, terrorist vs. tribalist.
Just a simple scam.
Don’t kid yourselves. This one isn’t that complicated.
There might be over 300 tribes in the region but the sovereign funds are deposited in two to four accounts.
Aug 3, 2008 - 5:40 pm 31. Tony:Prof W, sir, if I may cite you. If you are a liberal like the liberals I know, you won’t do what you suggest in a million years. “You too can be the first liberal on the block to sneer at Barack Obama and prove that you are cooler than your friends.”
Being liberal means you were never wrong, not matter what you thought or said or did, because the past doesn’t exist as fact, only as myth, the good, old-fashioned “Change you can Believe in.”
Aug 3, 2008 - 5:46 pm 32. slade:bleak economic prospects
I encourage people not to board this bandwagon. I will not mention the “w” word, but get a grip. The bad (sub-prime) paper hasn’t worked through the system yet. It will within about 12 months after which we should see slower but steady growth cycle. The problem is that growth of 6% to 8% is less than the 15% of last decade. [insert “w” word here.]
I am not *buying* all the hype. The things I read don’t square. I have read that one of the (many) reasons contributing to the sub-prime paper was too much global liquidity looking for investments – in all the wrong places if I can add a country western twang.
Why is this liquidity not investing in energy technology? The renewables cannot be the complete energy answer but they will play a larger role – up from 1% to possibly 20%. Total energy consumption in USA is 3.8TW which is 3800 GW. Just 1% of total USA usage is therefore 38GW or 38,000 MW. Remember this when you read about the renewables coming online. The rated capacities are 10 to 1000 MW.
Aug 3, 2008 - 5:52 pm 33. hdgreene:If you take a big risk investing in alternative energy hoping for a large reward, the large reward will be taxed away. That’s because you have become “Big Alternative Energy” and a suitable object for demonization and confiscatory taxation. It is unfortunate that the best predictor of our future predicaments are our self inflicted past ones.
But be confident that the loses you sustain will be all yours.
Aug 3, 2008 - 6:19 pm 34. slade:There was no shortage of venture capital to sustain the high tech bubble based on business models that derived future revenue from something as arcane as “content.” Charlie Rose interviewed Ester Dyson and Jerry Yang and suddenly “content” was all the rage. Now Boone Pickens says the Yahoo management is “pathetic.”
Times change.
I still don’t understand where the venture capital is or the fixation with government subsidies? Economists claim that the ethanol subsidy in this country cannot be easily phased out without severe disruption to Midwest financial institutions. I can see the headlines now. Crisis in the Heartland.
I have my suspicions but so far they are all conspiratorial. If that is the best answer out there, then this is indeed one big con and nothing else.
The one “outlier” explanation is that the process of decentralizing electricity supply is flying under the public radar because the projects are, by definition, small. Not big trillion dollar investments. Except for the Pickens Plan – the only one of its kind. But the other pieces are coming together in smaller venues – electric cars in CA, improvements in battery technology, research in fuel cells and the search for hydrogen, putting the finishing touches on oil shale extraction technology.
In my view, government must play a role, particularly to focus the ramp-up of long-term nuclear and interim “bridge” supplies that remove foreign obligations, but I am at the same time disappointed in the lack of vibrancy in the market economy. Especially disappointing because the forward-looking initiative of management seems anemic when contrasted to the productivity improvements of labor that have sustained economic performance since about 2000, and more recently have sustained growth at just above recession levels.
There’s a lot going on and a lot of things noticeable for their absence.
Aug 3, 2008 - 7:30 pm 35. Mike Sylwester:Economic prospects are bleak because the baby boom is moving into retirement, and the US Government will have to pay Social Security and Medicare benefits in quickly growing amounts. In these circumstances, I don’t see how we can either 1) cut taxes any farther or even retain taxes at their current level or 2) commit ourselves to huge new programs such as subsidized medical care for other age groups.
No such changes are possible fiscally or politically, because the baby-boom voters will oppose any rocking of the boat that might endanger their own not-so-distant benefits. The voters aged 50 and older comprise a huge group that exerts decisive influence because of its numbers, money, political energy and actual voting.
We can’t cut taxes any further, and we might have to raise them. We enjoyed much economic growth during the past quarter century because of the development of the electronics industry, but that development now has matured.
During the past quarter century, we also have reduced much of our production costs by relocating much or our business abroad, where costs are cheaper. The easiest such moves have been accomplished; now it is becoming more and more difficult.
The US economy will continue to innovate and prosper, but the growth rate will be steady and slow. The aging voters will insist on stability and security. In this situation, neither political party can promise significant changes, because there isn’t a voting majority that really wants any changes that might significantly affect the budget.
Aug 3, 2008 - 7:55 pm 36. wm. tyroler:FWIW, the lottery scam is also a variant of what’s known as a Pigeon drop
Pigeon drop is the name of a confidence trick in which a mark or “pigeon” is convinced to give up a sum of money in order to secure the rights to a larger sum of money, or more valuable object. In reality the scammers make off with the money and the mark is left with nothing.
Aug 3, 2008 - 9:28 pm 37. slade:In my mid-fifties, I am at the Bust end of the Boom Generation and I hope it is correct to assume that that the electorate will demand stability and fiduciary responsibility.
It is an issue of concern that a very young, very liberal, very political machine like Obama can advance so far so fast with an agenda that cannot be integrated into current financial accounts. And yet the race is a dead heat.
It is one thing to be confident of what the Boomer Generation will allow. It is another to give credence to polling that suggests otherwise.
At this point I have little clue how the American people will vote.
I’ve seen a lot of dead pigeons on the road lately but I’m guessing it’s just the time of year.
Or else the earth’s core is melting.
Aug 3, 2008 - 10:42 pm 38. Eggplant:There are some silver linings to the B. Hussein phenomena:
The MSM has almost completely committed itself to B. Hussein’s victory in November.
Likewise, almost every famous moonbat and member of the liberal elite have made their public endorsement of the Chosen One’s run for President.
If McCain succeeds in beating the Messiah in November, it will be equivalent to the nation giving the MSM and all those fine moonbats the middle finger.
To witness that would be a very beautiful thing.
Aug 3, 2008 - 10:56 pm 39. wretchard:Enthusiams can betray. There’s a thin line between believing you are the future and thinking that tomorrow belongs to me.
Aug 3, 2008 - 10:59 pm 40. Alexis:slade:
One of the problems in the energy industry is that the oil bust in the late 1980’s drove out the wildcatters. The energy industry is actually dependent upon government subsidies. There was a time when the majors hired oil prospectors to survey new places for oil. Nowadays, the majors watch for governments and universities to literally beg them to invest in this, that, or yonder patch, telling them exactly where the oil is so a major oil company can then invest in the local economy.
Nationalization, taxation, and fluctuations in the energy markets have taken their toll with the effect of making most energy corporations amazingly cautious. They will only invest their cash if they know for certain they will make a profit. Despite present market conditions, the energy industry is profoundly pessimistic about its long term prospects.
As for nuclear power, nuclear power plants may fill in the gap for the next thirty years, but nuclear energy is problematic because it guarantees nuclear proliferation. Somewhere down the road, the United States will probably need to promote an international treaty to ban nuclear energy precisely in order to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. For the time being, though, nuclear energy is better established and better organized than wind, solar, and geothermal energy. And in the energy industry, political clout is important.
Aug 3, 2008 - 11:58 pm 41. ed in texas:Returning to the obstensible subject of the post, a similar set of events was noted here in Texas a couple of years back, but played out differently. Known points: a $20M lotto win went almost the full 6 months before being claimed. The ticket was sold at a store southwest of San Antonio, on the road to Laredo. When claimed, the winner was a local building contractor, who stated that the ticket was bought on company funds, so was the property of his company. After some discussion, this point was accepted. On checking, this business owner had, about 5 months previous, taken a day laborer (illegal) that worked for him and, (1) made him a partner in the business, and (2) sponsored him for legal residence.
Aug 4, 2008 - 5:07 am 42. slade:Draw your own conclusion. It will probably be the same one everyone else came to…
Alexis-
All roads lead to the oil patch, but briefly just for the record.
Too bad that we’re leaving Risk Management in the hands of the politicians. The oil shales in Colorado have an estimated yield of 3 to 5 times the size of the largest oil reserves in the world which are of course in Saudi Arabia. Based on government-subsidized research, it is complicated to extract – have to heat the deposits for several years and construct an ice wall to isolate groundwater from contamination.
The equivalent yield of the (low sulfur) coal deposits in Montana is similar order of magnitude. Coal has the advantage of not just being plentiful, but cheap, efficient, and capable of yielding electricity, liquid fuel, and hydrogen for future fuel cells. The latter requiring the expensive conversion machinery.
And I see that wildcatters came back when price reached $120.
So our government will vote on (1) known coal deposits with some attendant capital cost for infrastructure, versus (2) known oil shale deposits with similar cost of heating and containing miles of subsurface formations versus (3) the unknown deposits of domestic drilling – onshore or offshore, leased or unleased land, ANWR or closeby.
And that doesn’t even introduce the green elephant of carbon emissions and allegations of environmental deterioration.
The Internet began in this country as DARPA with government funding. The private equity derived from applications and “content providers.” Although I think the former is still outpacing the latter.
My point is that one can discern (1) the elements of a classic con game in the oil industry and (2) an industry that has lost the requisite appetite for even marginal risk – a dead appetite that cannot be rekindled even under threat of Islamic-inspired terrorism and tribal feudalism. I am not as a rabid an opponent as others, but I do support the move away from oil – not coal or natural gas – as much as I support dilution of the Saudi connection.
I am not shocked that there is drinking in this bar, but in my judgment it is time to get out of Dodge.
Aug 4, 2008 - 8:43 am 43. NahnCee:ed – fascinating. and then what happened?
Aug 4, 2008 - 11:03 am 44. slade:Echo that Ed.
Thinking out loud, some more, it doesn’t really make any difference.
Because nothing changes.
Turtles all the way.
Que sera sera.
Be happy mon.
Aug 4, 2008 - 11:50 am 45. cthulhu:As slade notes, considerable energy is needed to extract the oil in oil shale. Energy that will substantially reduce the net gain to hydrocarbon fuels unless provided from another source….such as nuclear.
If nuclear plants are sited near oil shale deposits, however, the spigot is open!
Aug 4, 2008 - 11:35 pmSorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.