It is not that the leftists does not understand economics, but rather, as Krushchev said, it is a subject that does not greatly respect one’s wishes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornel_West

Obama is living the dream.

Unfortunately it is alinsky/xerxes vs the adam smith/Lincoln.

He dissed our friends the UK during Brown’s visit and flitted in and out of Canada unceremoniously. Will be interesting to observe who he does eventually accord full state honors.

Wot a coincidence, such high jinx, well, tut tut, someone simply *must* ‘splain it to him.

Due, this time not, as in the previous presidential-aspirant-led yahoo-whooping yankee yeehaw trade embargo against your fine former nation, but rather to a blinding success at cornering the market in a sadly proprietary wetware product commonly –and with no small jab lately of criticism –called “dumbass”, for which the demand has disconcertedly rapidly recently evaporated, just as (wouldn’t you know it) the supply has careened to 100% of storage capacity and levelled out in a state of being known colloquially as “stuck on stupid”.

Well, just as every dark cloud should walk a mile in another silver shoe, our missionary-zealous enthusists (securely “stuck on stupid” and “dumbass” to the proud invincible core), having run out of other parts of the world to languidly envelop in vapidity just when flights, squadrons, wings of pandoran troubles began rocketing like Saturn III moths out of all the cupboards money had moments ago thought to have been piled like buttered continents, are now the new chickens of old aphorism, come home to roost and to peck around, down-coop now, for pocketchange perhaps yet still afloat in the tranches of poop.

Must be cold comfort to regions out there, somewhere, at the unboxed ends of the compass, but i won’t ask. Anyway, best to you, and in hopes of better tomorrows, i remain.

Of course, we’re still all going to economic Hell in a hand basket, but I’m still holding out hope for that bus.

Worse:
When it turns out that people like Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, who took home $68 million in 1997, was the only Wall Streeter in a meeting last September at the New York Federal Reserve to discuss the initial AIG bailout with Tim Geithner, then New York Fed chair, among others, at the very time Goldman was AIG’s largest trading partner, a distinct scent of self-dealing begins to emanate.

When it turns out that Citigroup got a bailout deal last October far more generous than that given to any other distressed bank, when a top Citi executive was advising the Treasury and Fed, the scent increases. Goldman’s past CEO was treasury secretary at that time, by the way, and another former Goldman CEO was a top Citi official and also a former treasury secretary.

I am not suggesting anything so crude as corruption. But could it be, given these tangled webs, that — innocently, unintentionally, perhaps even subconsciously — the entire bailout effort was premised on saving these companies rather than protecting the public? Or that the distinction between the two was lost, and still is?