Here's a quote: "'This is an interesting experience, for those of you who haven't run for president,' he said. 'You stand up on the stage in the debate like we did the other night and look around and say, Whoa, where'd these folks come from? What an interesting assortment of characters!'"
What would a blogger do if he or she found him or herself on stage with the ragtag group of bozos and blowhards at the last Republican debate? Well, he'd explain exactly how what they were saying was complete self-serving nonsense. He'd react as if he were a person, not a candidate. And not a pundit which is a person who occupies the same crazy intellectual space as the candidates, whose job is to evaluate everything within the context of that space as if it were actually the way the world works.
However, most of the rest of us aren't in that space. If someone asks me a gotcha question I say that's a gotcha question, thanks but I prefer not to answer it. In that sense Newt Gingrich was playing the role of blogger in the previous debate. While saying the same crazy shit as the rest of them.
Look, I seriously doubt if Michelle Bachman really thinks she can deliver $2 a gallon gas. But she does say she can do it. So someone should say straight out that she's lost her mind. All evidence points in that direction.
Not that Huntsman is such a great guy. He says he likes a flat tax. Of course it would push millions of people into poverty and would give more money to the rich and super-rich, which puts off their wakeup call that life for them would be miserable if we don't do something to alleviate the misery of the former middle class. Huntsman isn't that stupid, no one could be.
Then of course you could, like Peter Thiel, build a private island on an oil rig off the shore of Calif near San Francisco. As if that means anything. Hey do you think Thiel would actually live there himself? Where would he go out to dinner? How much longer would it take to get to SFO? Who would pick up the garbage? And here's the real closer. If you so much want to cut yourself off from the lunacy of the world, why put it anywhere near a big city? Why not put it as far away from cities as possible? There are certainly much more pleasant oceans than the Pacific off the coast of Northern Calif.
Problem is that money is only useful up to a certain point. It can buy food, pay rent on a place to sleep, eat etc. After that, all money really does is buy you distance. I once lived at the end of a 1/4 mi driveway. After a couple of years of that I yearned for one thing -- to be in the middle of everything. I didn't like isolation. I don't think we're built that way, even the super-rich.
That's what Warren Buffet, who lives in a middle-class house in Omaha, should write about in the NY Times. The secret of money is the diminishing returns. Thiel can own all the islands he wants, but he's got to pick a place to sleep every night, just like the rest of us. And if he's near normal, he's going to want to sleep in San Francisco, not an oil rig in the middle of nowhere.
That's the class warfare that's actually happening here, now, in the US. A bunch of really immature people who read an Ayn Rand novel and thought that had anything to do with the world they were born into. Once things get bad enough, I think they're going to figure it out. At least I hope so.
Mark Cuban in a blog post asked what he can do. What he can do is explain how becoming a super-rich guy changed his life, and how it didn't. And get with the other super-rich people and tell them their shit stinks too, and they need to pony up and pay more than they are now. Even if their hearts aren't in it.
Also the President took some heat from Krugman and Iglesias for talking with the CEO of Ford and Warren Buffett for advice about the economy. True, they aren't economists. But the political fight is between the super-rich and everyone else. Obama should go over the head of the Republican leadership and talk to the people they take their orders from. Yes, of course he should talk to economists too.