Timmy elsewhereMarch 28, 2014 Tim WorstallTimmy Elsewhere12 CommentsAt the ASI. Can politicians be actively stupid? previousUmm, no, I don’t think so reallynextTimmy elsewhere 12 thoughts on “Timmy elsewhere” Bloke In Italy March 28, 2014 at 12:54 pm So no surprises there then. What is by turns amazing and deeply depressing is that there is still a large proportion of the population who either fail to realise that this not only can happen but is the default setting, and/or fail to draw the obvious and correct conclusion viz the less control these people have over our lives the better Mr Ecks March 28, 2014 at 1:47 pm A better question is: can they not be actively stupid?. The answer is no btw. alastair harris March 28, 2014 at 1:49 pm its like Douglas Adams said in Hitchhikers – “anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.” bloke in spain March 28, 2014 at 2:23 pm Is this politicians individually or politicians acting in government? They’re two entirely different things. It’s the same as talking about the “banks” or the “EU”. They’re made up of individual people who are individually, probably quite clever. And being so, they’re individual priority is their own career path. The decisions made may look stupid from an organisational point of view but may be entirely rational from an individual one. You just have to work out who personally benefited. Thomas Gibbon March 28, 2014 at 6:24 pm Winds, whirlwinds. The Obamacare fails were caused by the Democratic majorities in Congress deliberately shutting down the process of congressional and popular criticism that usually debugs legislation, Pelosi saying “…we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.” Bloke In Italy March 28, 2014 at 6:44 pm @Spain – in a narrow sense they may be, but by their deeds shall they be judged. Most of them are not fit to be allowed out by themselves. Bloke no longer in Austria March 28, 2014 at 6:52 pm I suppose often, the problem is that Politicians look stupid, because they have to defend the indefensible or maintain policies that clearly cannot or will not work. One sees it all the time: Ed Davey is the worst of the current bunch, his contortions over energy policy are epic. All the Labour Home Secretaries had the same problem. I mean really, how many of them really believed in some of the authoritarian, indeed fascist, measures that they tried to introduce ? A good example of collective idiocy came in 2008, when the Austrian President had to step in and cancel a new law that had been passed by parliament. The Austrian deputies en masse simply did not bother to read the bill and just passed it on the nod. The President, to his utmost credit, realised that the new law was unconstitutional, refused to sign and referred it to the court, which struck it down. So Much for Subtlety March 28, 2014 at 9:09 pm I think it is more common for politicians to be actively evil. This is just a case of some smartar$es thinking they are smarter than the rest of us. Routine. But let’s take the case of Argentina. Which has politicians who have stolen everything and left the country crippled. They are suing in the US Courts for, basically, their right to steal everything and then stiff their lenders. So far so typical that it would be a racist stereotype that even Jeremy Clarkson would not touch. But who is joining them in their court case? Three countries have filed amicus briefs – they are supporting Argentina’s government’s right to steal everything and, as I said, stiff their creditors. Two of them are no surprise – Brazil and Mexico. Nice to see what they are planning. The third is France: http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2014/3/27/argentina-is-joined-in-the-supreme-court-by-the-coalition-of-weasels Why should the French government be paying good money to support a failing government’s right to default? You see what I mean about evil? They are capable of some forethought and planning. Enough, you would think, to avoid this mess in the first place. bloke in spain March 28, 2014 at 9:36 pm @SMfS You’d have to look at what the French would lose or gain. Are the French still an Argentine weapons supplier? Nuclear? One thing you can say for french governments, They may be lousy at running France but they’re wholehearted when it’s a matter of french interests. Unlike HMG, which seems to be wholehearted in any interests but. K.R. Lohse March 28, 2014 at 10:34 pm Nah. For politicos, stupid is institutionalised. Bloke in Central Illinois March 29, 2014 at 12:14 am Pretty unlikely that there will ever be a successful lawsuit to stop subsidies on policies sold through the Federal exchanges due to a little thing called standing. Of course the law is broken in a million other respects, but that won’t be what brings it down. So Much for Subtlety March 29, 2014 at 10:33 pm bloke in spain – “You’d have to look at what the French would lose or gain. Are the French still an Argentine weapons supplier? Nuclear?” There is no point selling the Argentinians weapons if they don’t pay you for them. The French banks are, I assume, in the end in hock for these debts. They may be owed to Spanish banks, but the Spanish will owe the French. So it seems they will lose out if they encourage Argentina to default. I would still assume they are preparing space for their own default. Or maybe they don’t care if they win or not as long as the evil Anglo-Saxons lose, and they can curry favour with their fellow feckless Latins? “One thing you can say for french governments, They may be lousy at running France but they’re wholehearted when it’s a matter of french interests. Unlike HMG, which seems to be wholehearted in any interests but.” That is true. On both counts. The treasonous surrender monkeys in the FO only care about people who hate us. Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.