Here's another man who screwed up a country: Russia's Putin. In power since 2000, insane amount of fraud, perpetuating corruption, no free speech, no rule of law, police state and pretty much any other state-level deficiency you can think of, and at a much bigger scale than you can imagine. As a result Russia's state is much closer to Nigeria than pretty much any EU country (no, I'm not pointing at Nigeria randomly, it's true) and the brightest people are fleeing the country as if it's a sinking ship (and, well, it is).
Let us make a quick comparative analysis of the post-soviet countries. Most of the characteristics of failed state you listed can be said about Ukraine, Belarus, Caucasian or Central Asian countries as well.
This natural experiment shows us that we cannot simplify what is happening in Russia by attributing it to a single person's fault. It must be a systematic phenomenon of complex nature.
The Baltic republics aren't doing bad, but they weren't conquered by the Soviet Union until WWII. I wonder if the parts of the former Soviet Union that it grabbed from Poland in WWII are doing better than the other parts of their respective countries now?
I wouldn't say Putin is an asset to any country, but you can't blame it all on him either. With people like Lenin, Stalin and Jeltsin as your predecessors you don't really start off good.
I agree, but I'm not asking for superhero rulers either. Even Medvedev with his limited powers has done tangible good to the country (I can see it most clearly from small business perspective). If Putin gets back to full power in 2012, Russia is pretty much doomed.
With such high oil prices Russia could survive for a long time, slowly rotting away just like Italy is described in the article. Although, since Russia has already much lower quality of life, and since bringing the president or even a member of parliament to court is completely unthinkable here, we would rot down much faster.
Is Jeltsin the same as Yeltsin? Was he in the same league as the other two? He seemed OK from the news I read, not much worse than, say, Reagan, in terms of leadership and mental stability.
It's amazing that the Economist still touts Anglo-Saxon "panaceas" for growth: deregulate, get rid of red tape, focus the economy on services rather than manufacturing.
When Germany entered a period of stagnation after the Euro-introduction in 2002, the Economist made exactly the same prescriptions. Look what that ideology has done to the US and the UK: countless jobs in manufacturing have been offshored and growth was simulated through financial "innovations".
Personally, I buy lots of organic food products from Italy (e.g. laselva-bio.eu) as well as clothes (e.g. slowear.it), and for a simple reason: They're the best on the market. Therein lies Italy's potential.
Sorry, but your post shows complete ignorance of Germany's economy and economics in general. Germany's services make up 72%+ of its GDP, while manufacturing makes up 27%. Its services sector is growing, while its manufacturing sector is decreasing. That's a fact of every developed economy. A quick scan of Germany's Wikipedia entry and any other developed economy's will show you that.
Deregulation has happened across every economy -- aside from North Korea and Cuba -- since the 1980s (e.g. with telecom, airlines, utilities, etc). The result of deregulation has spawned record growth in emerging economies, as well as massive growth with the newly liberalized sectors in developed economies (e.g., transportation, energy, communications).
HN has a lot of smart people, but sometimes the lack of any economic wisdom combined with a holier-than-thou attitude among some posters can be a little depressing.
>deregulation has spawned record growth in emerging economies, as well as massive growth with the newly liberalized sectors in developed economies (e.g., transportation, energy, communications).
In Energy and Finance deregulation has enabled massive crisies, in the former a crisis that led to shut downs of electricity to the 4th largest and most innovative economy in the world, and in the latter a crisis the size of which hasn't been seen since the Great Depression.
Is it so surprising that less than 10 years after Graham-Leach-Bliley ('99) undid the last regulations put in place after the Great Depression (Glass-Steagal) that we have another GD-level event? We had a historically unprecedented 80-year run without one of those, then some bankers get greedy, captured both political parties, pay them off, and boom, another Great Depression crisis.
In telecom, it's enabling consolidation of the industry into a small cartel that controls the Internet's infrastructure and who are using their massive revenue to lobby against Net Neutrality so they can shape and toll net traffic at will, unleveling the Internet playing field that has laid so many golden eggs.
On a more subjective level, it's also made tons of cheap stuff we don't really need much cheaper, but at the expense of eviscerating the middle class, grossly increasing the wealth (and hence political power) gaps between rich and poor, and making developed economies more dependent and fragile rather than robust and self-sufficient.
Sometimes I think the deregulation/outsourcing mantra is the Emporer's New Clothes, and I wonder when the consensus will change to recognize that economic optimization may not be so good after all, that economic robustness is a better policy for any self-interested nation.
Telco deregulation correlates with the birth of the entire commercial Internet. The Internet of Ma Bell-era telephony was a toy for wealthy universities and government research labs.
In fact, speaking as someone who helped build an ISP in the '90s, the adoption of the Internet --- as provided by indie IP-as-dialtone ISPs --- was owed entirely to the CLECs and their willingness to route numbers in hundreds of telephone prefixes down a PRI to a single server cage. The CLECs were almost literally the manifestation of telco deregulation; deregulation was practically a synonym for "let there be CLECs".
I call this out this simply as an illustration of the bogosity of the logic of your entire comment.
There are domains where, if left unregulated, the expected payoff is asymmetrically positive. The Silicon Valley tech ecosystem is one of those. Investors bleed money spreading relatively small investments across a pool of companies, but every now and then, boom you get a Microsoft, Google, Facebook, etc, and it makes orders of magnitude more money than was lost.
There are other domains where if left unregulated the expected payoff is asymmetrically negative. Banking appears to be the primary example here. You can make your ~5% yearly return relatively safely, but making significantly more than that can only be done with exposure to a much higher risk of a major collapse.
If you start at the Great Depression and work backwards in time, there's a financial crisis every 20 or 30 years for over a century. It wasn't until we figured out how and gained the political will to regulate the industry that that was mitigated.
Utilities may be another example. I grew up in the Southeast where electric is heavily regulated and boring, but always stable and predictable. It was interesting to witness the California energy debacle with Enron a decade ago, and compare the two.
Stable, predictable, and boring is the ideal state for systems like electricity generation/distribution and the monetary system. Underlie much of the rest of the economy and infrastructure? Check. Expected payoff is negative? Check. Then regulate for stability and robustness. Such states don't tend to naturally emerge from deregulation, except in the form of monopoly or trust, and then you've got innovation-crushing rent-seeking and anti-competitive behavior to deal with.
Now I'm not certain which domain the telcom system falls under, it doesn't seem vulnerable to the kind of major collapse enabled by deregulation in electricy and banking. However, it does have a history of monopoly and rent-seeking behavior that I think behooves us not to discount or ignore.
The government broke up the Ma Bell monopoly due to uncompetitive practices. Not until state regulation & later the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which was a regulation, not a deregulation, stipulating ILECs had to open up & allow CLECs on their networks did we see the flourishing(and eventual crash) you're talking about. The dot com bubble probably helped as anything Internet related was hot.
Do you really think the Baby Bells would have wanted to share their infrastructure with competitors? Judging by how they're trying to get back in bed with each other, my guess would be no.
It is a non sequitur argument to suggest that had telco's not been deregulated in the '80s, we would still have had CLECs building out the dialin and ISDN Internet of the '90s; that argument leaves out the fact that the RBOCs the CLECs piggybacked on were themselves the product of deregulation.
I am not sure you understand what "deregulation" is. Certainly an antitrust & monopoly busting lawsuit from the US government is not deregulation. When a regulated monopoly is broken up into smaller, regulated regional monopolies, that is not deregulation. It is also not deregulation when state & federal law has to mandate that line sharing be allowed.
Deregulation is the removal or simplification of government rules and regulations that constrain the operation of market forces.
The break-up of AT&T & the 1996 Telecommunications Act were nowhere near deregulations.
Also I certainly do not believe that AT&T would have broken itself up or the regional operators would have opened their lines up, had it not been for government regulatory actions.
Most of the problems with energy liberalization can be attributed to politicians bungling the process and ending up with something that is very far from a properly functioning market. That the messy result ends up performing worse than a government controlled market does not prove that a deregulated energy market is much better for the economy.
Exactly. "Deregulation" without the ability of actors within the system to set their own prices is pretty much a recipe for disaster. In a normal market you make more money by selling more product. In California the energy producers discovered that given their regulatory environment they could make more money by selling less product. The rest is history.
California's problems do show, however, that people shouldn't uncritically think that any sort of deregulation is good. Its always important to to think carefully about what sorts of incentive are being created in any deregulation.
You've responded to an objective assessment of Italy's economy --- it's hugely in debt and lags the EU in job creation and GDP growth --- with subjective claims about organic food and clothes. Everyone seems to realize that Italy's economy is dominated by exports, including those organic foods and designer clothes. They're still getting their credit rating downgraded. Now what?
Which country doesn't have a downgraded credit rating? Also who is doing this "credit rating"? Standard & Poor's? The same crooks who fluffed up the ratings of fraudulent MBS & CDOs a few years ago helping to setup the housing crisis in the first place?
But no, let's further deregulate & offshore jobs to countries that have poor humane rights records so our corporate overlords can get ever richer.
A mystifying comment. Because today's banks are loaded up with sleazy bad actors, there's no such thing as compounding interest? Because S&P sold its reputation for a few deals, there's no such thing as creditworthiness?
S&P, Fitch & Moodys didn't just sell their reputation for a "few deals". Pretty much every MBS or CDO was rated highly by these companies. Trillions of dollars worth. A large part of this is due to the fact that they are paid by the "bad actors" inside the investment firms & banks that they're suppose to be "independently" rating. If we banned that form of relationship that would be "regulation" which is "bad".
So, here we are with these same companies in charge of sovereign credit ratings. The same companies that played a large part in creating a credit crisis are the companies that get to set creditworthiness. Magnificent system we have.
So in order to make these credit rating agencies happy, we must deregulate further, lower taxes further, turn into a service level economy & freeze or depress wages so we can hope for short-term gains in our economy. Which makes corporations happy, banks happy & market makers happy thus our creditworthiness goes higher. It seems rather biased for those who are on top & those who caused the calamity in the first place. Once the economy stabilizes those smart rich people on top can start making imaginary investments with their friends until they create another crisis. Rinse & repeat. Look where prosperity has come from over the last 15 years. Bubbles & scams.
Does this look sustainable? Who really benefits from this?
Do you believe that an international banking conspiracy is deceiving us about Italy's debt standing at over 120% of GDP?
Do you believe that Italy's debt is that high because Italy overleveraged itself on mortgage-backed securities?
Did you read the other comments on this thread, where Italy's central bank director complained about Italian wage stagnation and its two-tiered employment system, and its poor tax revenues?
No they are not necessarily deceiving us on the outstanding debt in Italy. But they certainly weren't sounding the sovereign credit alarm or MBS/CDOs alarm when the money was rolling in, even though they had direct access to data & probably knew what was coming down the line. 120% of GDP is concerning but not end of the world. The USA has a higher ratio. Italy's credit rating has actually been lower before. If we were extremely concerned about GDP/debt ratio & credit ratings then perhaps we should all adopt a model like China.
Italy didn't get to where it's at entirely because of MBSs but the crisis certainly didn't help any country's financial situation & many countries had to shore up banks & took a credit hit.
There are definitely some issues with how Italy operates. Having a philandering-media-monopoly-owning-billionaire tyrant in charge certainly doesn't help.
While changes probably need to be made, the fact is that changes always need to be made. Radically switching to a pro-corporate/anti-worker strategy because shady rating agencies might downgrade you a point is silly.
I think it's fair to say that "Objective assessments" don't have a high level of confidence either. Economies have their ups and downs, and Italy still has some very profitable sectors and a diversified economy. Hopefully Silvio will be out before disaster comes, and indeed the Italians have to correct course before they become the new Greece.
Actually I've responded to the advice the Economist is giving in that article, which isn't objective at all. Italy needs to boost the sectors it's great in, instead of applying generic Anglo-Saxon recipes.
This "generic Anglo-Saxon" epithet sounds like an emotional appeal. The facts are straightforward, aren't they?
Italy has an immense public debt. It is getting more and more difficult for Eurozone countries to finance sovereign debt. Its population is aging. Pension costs are rising. Productivity, according to Mario Draghi, is stagnant, in part because employment in Italy is structured weirdly, with large numbers of closely-held firms with a two-tiered system of full-time full-benefit workers hired through nepotism and armies of temp workers†. Civil cases in Italy average more than 1,000 days. The country has wild gaps in educational outcomes between different regions.
I don't think you can write all this off as an "Anglo-Saxon conspiracy". These are ideas that can be described with simple numbers, aren't they?
† Articles about Italy have long attributed this to Italy's family culture, in which people cohabitate with their extended families long into adulthood, but it seems just as likely that this is a result of laws making it hard to fire people.
"Anglophobia. Within the intelligentsia, a derisive and mildly hostile attitude towards Britain is more or less compulsory, but it is an unfaked emotion in many cases. During the war it was manifested in the defeatism of the intelligentsia, which persisted long after it had become clear that the Axis powers could not win. Many people were undisguisedly pleased when Singapore fell ore when the British were driven out of Greece, and there was a remarkable unwillingness to believe in good news, e.g. el Alamein, or the number of German planes shot down in the Battle of Britain. English left-wing intellectuals did not, of course, actually want the Germans or Japanese to win the war, but many of them could not help getting a certain kick out of seeing their own country humiliated, and wanted to feel that the final victory would be due to Russia, or perhaps America, and not to Britain. In foreign politics many intellectuals follow the principle that any faction backed by Britain must be in the wrong. As a result, ‘enlightened’ opinion is quite largely a mirror-image of Conservative policy. Anglophobia is always liable to reversal, hence that fairly common spectacle, the pacifist of one war who is a bellicist in the next."
Substitute "Britain" for "Britain and America" in the above passage and the mentality of critiquing "generic Anglo-Saxon" economic neoliberalism is plain to see.
In France there are similar laws which make it hard to fire workers, yet I don't see the same phenomena of young people staying with their family until their late 30s.
A "young" Italian, by living with her parents, doesn't have to worry about rent, food or other basic expenses and can use her modest salary to pay for recreational activities.
Personally, I buy lots of organic food products from Italy (e.g. laselva-bio.eu) as well as clothes (e.g. slowear.it), and for a simple reason: They're the best on the market.
You have endorsed the quality of Italian products made by private business enterprises. To keep this discussion on topic for Hacker News (ahem), I wonder what you think about how well the current Italian governmental administration is allowing business owners like that to succeed. The overall economic growth figures for Italy reported in the submitted article suggest that the preferences of consumers like you are not sustaining steady economic growth in Italy. Could that be the result of government mismanagement?
It seems like exports of lucrative sectors are still strong in Italy. Of course, as in most europe, taxation is heavy. The main factor hindering growth seems to be high wages.
I think that non-wage labour costs can be an important factor. I think they are quite high across Europe. Could anyone tell the numbers for Italy? (for example: in Poland a net wage of 2700 PLN (~ $1000) is a gross wage of 4500 PLN (~ $1650)).
Having never heard of slowear.it before, I decided to check out their website. If anyone else also does this, be forewarned that the UI assaults the eyes. It is extremely "busy", has poor (none?) navigational structure, and everything moves slightly and unexpectedly if you hover over it.
Jobs moved offshore because of trillions of dollars borrowed, both by government and individuals.
You can't consume more than you produce without importing more than you export.
Deregulation and opening of markets did not create the US trade deficit. Nobody did anything to focus the US economy on services, other than borrow massively. Which caused wages to go up, workers to move to the US and imports to soar.
All of the long term economic imbalances we're facing are interrelated.
After a paragraph of how terribly Italy is doing in the world rankings, the governor of the Bank of Italy is leaving ... to take the reins at the European Central Bank?
Is this a case of being awful therefore promoted, or was he spectacularly good at stopping Italy from getting worse?
Central Bank governors are strangely resilient and separate from day to day politics. I'm Romanian and we've had a string of our own Berlusconis here, but since '99 we've had just one Bank Governor, and a very capable one. He even left his position to work as a Prime Minister for a about a year, and then returned to the Central Bank. He's completely uncharacteristic of everything else in Romanian politics.
You can only do as much good as your environment allows you to do. Expecting Medvedev or Draghi to singlehandedly solve the problems of their countries is unrealistic. I expect Draghi to be capable at his new job, because old methods of covering incompetence up -- methods that work in Italy -- won't work at the ECB.
I am Italian and I dislike Berlusconi. That said it must be recognized that all of Italy's issues were already there before him. We can't really say that Italy has worsened with him but we can surely say that it hasn't got any better. There were a lot of expectations in 1994 that he was going to change Italy and bring the liberal revolution it sorely needs. Alas, none of them were met.
Italy's economy is a hard economy to judge because of an out-sized black market (to the tune of 30% - 40% gdp), any article of Italian economic statistics needs to a least mention this.
The title implies that Italy would have done better with a different prime minister, but I have no reason to believe this would be the case. Lots of European economies have done worse and Italians are, well, Italians.
"Racism" is a somewhat vague term for which I believe the current usage is primarily born out of the American civil rights movement. Europeans on the other hand have been comfortable with labeling various national characteristics for centuries -- various national characteristics that are undoubtedly true. These come in negative, positive, and contested categories. For instance, the British are known for their "stiff upper lip," Germans (traditionally, not contemporarily) for their warlike sentiment, etc.
In America we have the sense that these things are mutable, and this is partially true, but it is unreasonable to expect people to change overnight, and it is especially unreasonable to expect that some external force (e.g. purely economic forces) will produce the massive changes that might be perceived as necessary for a society to adapt to modernity as the Economist writers perceive as necessary and laudable.
In any case, I think it is unacceptable to focus only on the negative aspects of a people. "Blacks are, well, blacks" would generally be racist since virtually no one would use that in a positive sense. Italians often self-perceive that their resistance to the way things are done in a capitalist world is based on some inner nobility -- and although I generally disagree, I think there is still a grain of truth there. Besides, Italians are among the most openly racist peoples in Europe -- people from Northern Italy are even comfortable calling Southern Italy part of Africa (not meant in a positive sense!).
I've been living in Italy for two years now and I have to say I don't see this resistance to the capitalist world you assert they have. In the North, where I live, the economy is large and lively, people are rich, and they work hard. There is, of course, a palpable difference between the way of life here and in Northern Europe, but it isn't as big as I think most people expect (the food and coffee are better). It feels very similar to a typical European capitalist economy.
Of course, that's only half of the story. Southern Italy, despite it's idyllic landscapes and hedonism, has some serious economic, demographic, and social problems and they don't deny it. I have never felt they wore it as a badge of honor to signify some inner nobility, as you posit. Most Italians I've talked to want to solve these problems and believe they're actively working to do it. They don't feel the fact that they enjoy a good quality of life impedes their ability to develop a strong economy - they think the best of both worlds is possible.
Granted, I am conflating Northern and Southern Italy and most of my knowledge of both is from Italian expatriates who have deliberately left Italy to work in other countries due to dissatisfaction with the conditions there.
As for "They don't feel the fact that they enjoy a good quality of life impedes their ability to develop a strong economy," they could simply be wrong. Certain aspects of traditional cultures (e.g. long meal times and afternoon nap times) may simply be incompatible with increased productivity. You may want to have both, but this may be impossible.
"Nobility" may not be the best word to use, but certainly there is something laudable about valuing the family highly, etc. I would, however, posit that aspects of what this means in the present world indicate that you can't have all of the aspects of a traditional world (e.g long meal times, living with your grandparents) and expect economic improvement.
From what I've seen the long meals and afternoon naps are a myth (even in Spain people don't do that anymore). In fact, I'm willing to assert Italians work harder than the French. They have a 40 hour work week (the French have 35) and three weeks vacation (5 in France, by law). The French are exactly as hedonistic as the Italians, so whatever incompatibilities the Italian way of life has with a strong economy, they would be a factor in France as well. However, I have yet to read the article or comment on HN supporting the urgent need to completely restructure the French economy.
When I came to work in th US I was actually totally surprised that americans work so many hours less. In northern Italy it's unthinkable to go he at 5PM.
Not exactly. See, for example, Tacitus (c. 98 CE):
Repose is unwelcome to their race, and toils and perils afford them a better opportunity of distinguishing themselves; they are unable, without war and violence, to maintain a large train of followers. The companion requires from the liberality of his chief, the warlike steed, the bloody and conquering spear: and in place of pay, he expects to be supplied with a table, homely indeed, but plentiful. The funds for this munificence must be found in war and rapine; nor are they so easily persuaded to cultivate the earth, and await the produce of the seasons, as to challenge the foe, and expose themselves to wounds; nay, they even think it base and spiritless to earn by sweat what they might purchase with blood.
Yes, and the Wirtschaftswunder [1], the huge industralisation and production of West-Germany after WWII. Whether that's a legacy of the traditional Meister-Geselle (master-student) and Zünfte (guilds), or modern capitalism, remains to be seen.
Just because you're comfortable with it doesn't make it right. I am sure a lot of slaveholders were comfortable owning slaves, it's just the way things were.
I've noticed more and more over the last decade a confusion between race and culture. Race != culture. Perhaps youngsters are being taught that criticising a culture is racism. It is not.
I'm perfectly comfortable with criticising a culture.
I see a lot of people are comfortable drawing arbitrary lines grouping people together into categories and calling it something else. Whether you want to get into whether Italians are a race or a culture is a semantic issue, and it completely skips the point. You're lumping a group of people together and making broad (negative) stereotypes about them without nuance or understanding.
I think the context is important -- and the OP is not talking about Italians as a race but Italians as a nation with certain characteristics. Read this way, it's more akin to saying, "Americans are, well, American."
And probably be just as wrong. Trying to group people is always fraught with peril, but doing it in a dismissive way ("are, well,") is really not going to help the point. Italy isn't a mono-culture, neither is America.
I think the article already addresses that. It stresses that "Italy’s economic illness is not the acute sort, but a chronic disease that slowly gnaws away at vitality". Spain, Ireland and Portugal might be in worse shape but they might be coming to understand that they need a tough treatment; Italy doesn't. The PIGS are at shock; Italy is just dazed at stupor.
Yet the notion that change is impossible is not just defeatist but also wrong. In the mid-1990s successive Italian governments, desperate not to be left out of the euro, pushed through some impressive reforms. Even Mr Berlusconi has occasionally managed to pass some liberalising measures in between battling the courts: back in 2003 the Biagi labour-market law cut red tape at the bottom, boosting employment, and many economists have praised Italy’s pension reforms. He might have done much more had he used his vast power and popularity to do something other than protect his own interests. Entrepreneurial Italy will pay dearly for his pleasures.
(but appears not to be mandatory to read for anyone) says, "Essentially there are two rules here: don't post or upvote crap links, and don't be rude or dumb in comment threads."
By the way, the rest of the welcome message is a good reminder to everyone here about how to make Hacker News a better community.
I thought it was (barely) interesting to discuss why Italy, which is evidently full of smart industrialists, is not thriving better as a national economy. If a politics story doesn't have an angle like that related to the environment for forming new companies for hackers, I usually just ignore it, and I try to silently downvote purely partisan political comments in threads wherever I find them.
It's the scale, man. The sheer scale of it.
Average corrupt politicians have a mistress, or two, or three; he has a harem of a couple dozen, several of which minors. The average corrupt politician casts his shadow on the media; he owns the media. He has brought the concept of "conflict of interest" to a whole new level.
The sheer scale of it. Average corrupt politicians have a mistress, or two, or three; he has a harem of a couple dozen, several of which minors.
The allegation that some are minors is distasteful, but the fact that he sleeps with more women than you feel comfortable with is neither here nor there when talking about how he "ruined a country".
It's depressing to see The Economist's article open by talking about his sex life. It's utterly immaterial.
His grip on the media, his lack of reforms, his policies on this that and the other, his changing the law to avoid prosecution for fraud allegation - those things matter to the story of how he "ruined Italy"; how many people he sleeps with and how righteously outraged Americans are by it? Doesn't matter.
Multiple sexual partners aren't the issue. When one uses the term "harem" it paints a different picture - the casual disregard for half the human race. Perhaps that contributes to "The female-participation rate in the workforce is 46%, the lowest in western Europe."
I'm loathe to use "litmus test" type analogies, but I believe this behavior is telling.
As you say, the real problems are the grip on the media and his deep rooted dishonesty; but the harem thing does help to paint the picture.
I mean, we're not just talking multiple sexual partners here, we're talking about renting a whole housing complex to lodge dozens of sexual partners, alongside financing a fully blown recruiting organisation, on a national scale, in order to sustain a healthy flow of fresh partners coming in; again it might not be the main problem, but it gives you an idea of the scale... plus, one wonders what share of mind might be left in the man towards actually administering the country.
For example, when charged with tax fraud and false accounting, he changed the law to reduce the statute of limitations. The changes made the cases too old so he effectively acquitted himself. Also, tried to pass another law to give himself complete immunity from any prosecution while in office.
Individuals are easy targets for finger pointing when it comes to "who screwed up X". In the case of something as large as a country ... what were the rest of the gazillion folks doing? Supporting the screwups?
Seriously, in the last decade we have seen more direct, deliberate corruption and out right political douchebaggery than I would have thought possible. And in all of these scandals, not a single politician has paid.
Just like I said when Inside Job came out, if there was any doubt that we are living in a oligarchy, let all doubts now be cast aside.
Whenever you give more control to outsiders (whether its government control over private industry or guard control over prisoners) there is greater opportunity for corruption. The reason you're seeing more outright corruption is because there's more at stake now. Government now has a finger in every business pie we make. In many industries you can't sneeze without getting approval first. When, with the addition of a provision, Congress can make or break a quarter, or hell, even an industry, there's massive incentive to cheat.
And, to be fair, they did string up Duke Cunningham. They've got to make an example out of somebody every decade or so.
Lastly, we're not really an oligarchy: we're turning into a Euro-style corporate state, which have seen this kind of corruption and entrenched powers for decades now.
Sorry, it isn't George Bush's fault. He is a nice scape goat. Congress has the purse strings. It's their fault and it is still their fault. They could have stopped him at any time they wanted. No balls on either side.
So who was that on TV constantly boosting the idea and bringing it into the State of the Union address, etc?
Are you making the case that the Bush admin doesn't 1,000,000% own the Iraq war? Really?
(FWIW, they were pushing tax cuts simultaneously). Just cause Congress got bullied into approving these things doesn't mean they weren't Bush initiatives.
> So who was that on TV constantly boosting the idea and bringing it into the State of the Union address, etc?
Huh? The claim was that congress didn't approve the Iraq war. It did, several times. The above has nothing to do with that fact.
> Are you making the case that the Bush admin doesn't 1,000,000% own the Iraq war? Really?
Do you really think that Congress bears no responsibility for the votes that it takes?
> Just cause Congress got bullied into approving these things doesn't mean they weren't Bush initiatives.
Poor little congresscritters, can't stand up to that mean old moron Bush.
Obama hasn't varied from Bush's Iraq timetable at all. Is he also "bullied"? (As candidate Obama pointed out, President Obama could start withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan with 10 minutes after taking office. PO didn't.)
The real question is: will Cheney get a new apprentice, or will Bush kill him and get an apprentice of his own? Or was Rove the apprentice? And was Mitt Romney's true parentage concealed, and was he secretly raised in the Utah desert by trustworthy moisture farmers?
That's actually true, the Economist has always been very critical of Italy. I have a couple Italian friends who cut their subscriptions a while back because of one article or another. I wouldn't go so far as to say they have no credibility, but they do have a sizable history of negative articles about Italy. Their criticisms may have been justified, but I think that's still a useful piece of knowledge.
Quite the opposite: their hate of him has been consistent and their predictions have proved quite accurate. It would be much less credible if they only started hating him now, after everybody else realized he's a crook too.
