Jedno sasvim novo i drugačije Presidency..

[WTF]

Ovaj Gohmert mi sad ladno vazi najogavnijeg US politicara. Kako bih tog coveka voleo da bijem stanglom, baseball stapom, ili tako necim.

[Prospero]

mića nastupa jako abroad, pun je strasti za izraelski koz, pun džoja zbog nove evrope i pun nade za spešl rilejšn.a krauthamer udara tercu:

Romney Abroad: He needs to show appreciation for close allies By Charles KrauthammerA generation ago, it was the three I’s. A presidential challenger’s obligatory foreign trip meant Ireland, Italy, and Israel. Mitt Romney’s itinerary is slightly different: Britain, Poland, and Israel.Not quite the naked ethnic appeal of yore. Each destination suggests a somewhat more subtle affinity: Britain, playing to our cultural connectedness with the Downton Abbey folks who’ve been at our side in practically every fight for the last hundred years; Poland, representing the “new Europe,” the Central Europeans so unashamedly pro-American; Israel, appealing to most American Jews but also to an infinitely greater number of passionately sympathetic Evangelical Christians.Unlike Barack Obama, Romney abroad will not be admonishing his country, criticizing his president, or declaring himself a citizen of the world. Indeed, Romney should say nothing of substance, just offer effusive expressions of affection for his hosts — and avoid needless contretemps, like his inexplicably dumb and gratuitous critique of Britain’s handling of the Olympic Games. The whole point is to show appreciation for close allies, something the current president has conspicuously failed to do.On the contrary. Obama started his presidency by returning to the British Embassy the bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office. Then came the State Department official who denied the very existence of a U.S.-British special relationship, saying: “There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world.”To be topped off by the slap they received over the Falkland Islands, an issue the Brits had considered closed since they repelled the Argentine invasion there 30 years ago. They were not amused by the Obama administration’s studied neutrality between Britain and Argentina, with both a State Department spokesman and the president ostentatiously employing “Malvinas,” the politically charged Argentine name, interchangeably with “Falklands.” (Although the president flubbed it, calling them the “Maldives,” an Indian Ocean island chain 8,000 miles away.)As for Poland, it was stunned by Obama’s unilateral cancellation of a missile-defense agreement signed with the Bush 43 administration. Having defied vociferous Russian threats, the Poles expected better treatment than to wake up one morning — the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland, no less — to find themselves the victim of Obama’s “reset” policy of accommodation with Russia. So much for protection from Russian bullying, something they thought they had finally gained with the end of the Cold War. And then there is Israel, the most egregious example of Obama’s disregard for traditional allies. Obama came into office explicitly intent on creating “daylight” between himself and Israel, believing that by tilting toward the Arabs, they would be more accommodating.The opposite happened. (Surprise!) When Obama insisted on a building freeze in Jerusalem that no U.S. government had ever demanded and no Israeli government would ever accept, the Palestinian Authority saw clear to become utterly recalcitrant. Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas openly told the Washington Post that he would just sit on his hands and wait for America to deliver Israel.Result? Abbas refused to negotiate. Worse, he tried to undermine the fundamental principle of U.S. Middle East diplomacy — a negotiated two-state solution — by seeking unilateral U.N. recognition of Palestinian statehood, without talks or bilateral agreements.In Israel, Romney will undoubtedly say nothing new. He’ll just reiterate his tough talk on Iran’s nuclear program. But I suspect he’ll let the Israelis know privately that contrary to the conventional wisdom that his hawkishness signals his readiness to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, his real intent is to signal that, unlike Obama, he is truly committed to permitting Israel to do what it needs to defend itself. This will be welcome news to a nation that has never asked anyone to fight on its behalf, just a green light to defend itself without impediments or veiled threats from its friends.Most important, however, is to just show up. That’s 80 percent of life, Woody Allen once noted. No need to say much. Romney’s very presence will make the statement. :0.6: To the Israelis: “We understand your unique plight. If and when you do as you must, we will stand by you.” To the Poles: “You can count on the American umbrella. I will never leave you out in the cold.” And to the British: “We are grateful for your steadfast solidarity in awful places like Iraq and Afghanistan. The relationship truly is special.”“And one more thing. Still have that bust of Churchill?”Righting his ship late Thursday in London, Romney did say he wants Winnie back in the Oval Office.

[Gandalf]

Mitt Romney don't know much about economic history.BY DARON ACEMOGLU, JAMES A. ROBINSON | AUGUST 1, 2012

[MayDay]

daron objasnio.

We also show that cultural differences simply cannot account for the differences in economic prosperity we see today. They are either irrelevant, as in the case of the Israelis and the Palestinians, or they are themselves the product of institutional differences.

i još nekih drugih faktora. ali kultura ne može biti principal driving force ni za šta jer je sama ishod. Edited August 2, 2012 by MayDay

[Prospero]

Naš very own Svetozar Pejovich se ne bi složio s tim.

ConclusionsThe paper started with a simple proposition that observed differences in the results of transition among C&EE countries are not accidental. It argues that transition is a cultural problem. The interaction thesis explains differences in the results of transition as arising from the conflict between formal institutions of capitalism and not-so-pro-free market cultures in C&EE. Transaction costs are the vehicle through which this conflict determines the results of transition process.Positive transaction costs of transition mean that the same expenditure of resources should be expected to produce different outcomes in different cultures. However, the actual results of transition depend on the way new leaders choose to deal with the consequences oftransaction costs. Analysis and empirical evidence suggest that the transition by voluntary contracts lead to greater economic freedoms, which, as the opening paragraph in this paper shows, correlates with better economic performance.Post Script: In 1990, a respected colleague argued that all East Europeans need in order to choose capitalism is five minutes of freedom. Like too many other scholars, he confused the technological utopia of neoclassical instantaneous equilibrium with real life.

[Gandalf]

^redefinisao je "kulturu" na nacin kako mu odgovara, a zbogradi ideoloskog proseravanja. recimo, poverenje se kod institucionalista (Acemoglu je u toj grupi) posmatra kao jedna od drustvenih institucija - a poverenje u medjuljudskim & trzisnim ne zavisi od kulture, vec od vere u mogucnost da osobu sa kojom vrsim razmenu kaznim ukoliko pokusa da vara. koliko to zavisi od kulture, a koliko od jasno definisanih pravila i funkcionalnih sudova?

ali kultura ne može biti principal driving force ni za šta jer je sama ishod.

da.pridruzio se i Dajmond...It is not true that my book “Guns, Germs and Steel,” as Mr. Romney described it in a speech in Jerusalem, “basically says the physical characteristics of the land account for the differences in the success of the people that live there. There is iron ore on the land and so forth.”That is so different from what my book actually says that I have to doubt whether Mr. Romney read it. Edited August 2, 2012 by Gandalf

[Аврам Гојић]

Auh kakav pwn :D

[MayDay]

^redefinisao je "kulturu" na nacin kako mu odgovara, a zbogradi ideoloskog proseravanja. recimo, poverenje se kod institucionalista (Acemoglu je u toj grupi) posmatra kao jedna od drustvenih institucija - a poverenje u medjuljudskim & trzisnim ne zavisi od kulture, vec od vere u mogucnost da osobu sa kojom vrsim razmenu kaznim ukoliko pokusa da vara. koliko to zavisi od kulture, a koliko od jasno definisanih pravila i funkcionalnih sudova?

katastrofa. još kad sam videla kako motiviše priču primerom sa nikšićkom pivarom koji je potpuno neprikladan.pet godina pod staljinom ili 10 godina pod tačerkom obesmišljavaju pojam kulture u ovom kontekstu. mislim, možda može tako da se priča u kafani, kako su nemci radnici, a južnjaci neradnici, ali računam da ni journal of austrian economics ne bi trebalo da dozvoljava ovakve propuste u analizi.

[Budja]

daron objasnio.i još nekih drugih faktora.ali kultura ne može biti principal driving force ni za šta jer je sama ishod.

To je ipak donekle kokoska i jaje pitanje, tj. nerazmrsivo su povezani.Edit:I, jos vise, ne volim termine koji nemaju jasnu definiciju tako da se svi slazu sta oni znace. Takav je slucaj sa kulturom i institucijama, kako je to Gandalf objasnio. Izem ti svaku analizu kod koje je trecina teksta posvecena definisanju glavnog pojma. Bolje je baratati sa sastvinim delovima nego agregiranim pojmovima. Edited August 3, 2012 by Budja

[Prospero]

I ja sam Pejovicev text shvatio kao kokoska i jaje odnos. Institucionalni okvir odredjuje nacine interakcije. Sta se desava kada se taj okvir naglo promeni, dekretarno top-down? Pa nacini interakcije ce delovati povratno i inertno.

[Кристофер Лумумбо]

jenna podrzala romnija, sanse da barak husein obama ostane u beloj kuci su minimalne.

[mandingo]

Jamison?

[Кристофер Лумумбо]

Jamison?

[Frank Pembleton]

:naughty:

[Takeshi]

Clint Eastwood Endorsing Romney's Presidential Bidplanovi za reality, sada romney ... 1 kvalitetno raspadanje.