Gyroscopic Investing

This article gives a good idea who Mitt Romney really is...behind the ridiculous facade that he has had to erect to make him electible to the modern Republican Party. Overall, he seems like a decent fellow.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-2 ... chool.html

There was one comment in the article that worried me with regards to maybe his MO or "weltanshauung" and how this applies to the type of leader I believe America needs right now.

At a time when many questioned authority, Romney embraced it. To Harvard Law Professor Detlev Vagts, who headed the joint program from 1969 to 2005, that trait prevented Romney from ranking as a truly exceptional student, such as the late investment banker Bruce Wasserstein, who graduated in 1971. Romney, Vagts says, lacked “a certain sense that the way things are are not the way they have to be -- that you could do things differently.”?

Granted, this is one mans opinion, but I really believe that America is at a time in its history when we need someone who is capable of questioning the status quo and isn't afraid to think differently. I feel that if we look too strongly to the past in this country for answers instead of striving to envision a new future, that this country is going to continue to fall further behind the curve.

I don't think we're really supposed to get too deeply into politics on this board.  But to answer your opinion, creativity and vision on the part of the presidency are overrated.  I don't want a guy who recognizes no limits on his own power over me to be "creative".  I just want him to do his really very limited job and keep out of my life.

Who is Barack Obama??

Who is Reub?

Xan,

I think as long as people remain respectful, politics is perfectly fine here. This isn't bogleheads where even the mere mention of a politicians name gets a thread locked.

I see your side of things, but as I see it there are generally two types of leaders...executors and visionaries. Sometimes, particular periods of history call for unconventional solutions, or outside of the box thinking. One of my fears with the United States is that we have an overdeveloped veneration for a group of leaders (who were actually visionaries of their time) that created a system to address issues particular to 18th and 19th century America.

The world has changed a great deal from that time, and the general conservative notion that we need to preserve the status quo might not be the right answer to address the dynamic world that we live in today.

It is an interesting debate, nonetheless.

Who is John Galt?

Apparently Romney will have an elevator in his new home that can park his car for him...here is a tweet from Stephan Colbert on it:

Romney built an elevator in his home for his car. I hope it's tall enough to fit the dog on top.

Gosso,

Hilarious... God I love fake news that's more relevant than real news and 10x funnier to boot.

Reub,

I find Barack Obama (regardless of ones political feelings) to be a fascinating example of the evolution of America over the last 50 years.

When one thinks that only 50 years ago blacks and whites couldn't even eat at the same lunch counter, drink from the same fountain, or attend school together in this country, to imagine that only two generations later a man from a mixed racial background, from a broken marriage, born in the youngest state, son of a Kenyan Muslim, raised partially in Indonesia and then by his grandparents,  with the middle name Hussein is elected to lead the country is truly incredible.  

Doodle, the problem is that you, like many others, are more concerned with his ethnicity, skin color and heritage than you are with his views, actions and integrity.

The latest example of this is his recent "caught by mic" with Medvedev:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ij268dIRkcQ

Reub,

Frankly, all I see in that comment is sausage being made....nothing more, nothing less.

Obama is a pragmatic centrist if anything. As someone who has travelled a great deal, I can tell you that the Republican style of foreign policy and politics is bad for our country's interests. Like it our not, America is going to have to find a way to cooperate and get along in this complex world we live in. Take it or leave it style negotiation is going to get us nowhere.

Just out of curiosity though, what views, actions and integrity do you find so outrageous about Obama?

And by the way, I don't have strong feelings about the job Obama is doing one way or the other....

Doodle, this still does not change the fact that all you originally cited were ethnic and statistical "qualifications" when you were kvelling over Obama. These types of "qualifications" should not qualify or disqualify any person for the office. In my opinion, there is much too much emphasis placed on race and ethnicity and not enough on character and actual views.

Another recent example of race-baiting and inflaming tensions is when he recently stated that if he had a son, he would look just like Trayvon Martin. Why would Obama say that?

Reub,

I was merely drawing attention to the fact that Obama's election to the highest office in the land is a considerable event if looked at in the context of our countries history on race. I think the election of a woman to the office would also be a similar transcendental shift in our country's history.

But putting this aside, and focusing merely on the job and policies that Obama has implemented, what is so objectionable? I for one don't see any policies that would be considered "radical" by any stretch of the imagination. Even his biggest piece of legislation with the Affordable Care Act was modeled on many ideas being proposed by the right earlier this decade as potential strategies to deal with rising health care costs.

Craig,

By all means there is no reason for this thread to dip into the realm of name calling and insults. I will maintain proper decorum...

Another recent example of race-baiting and inflaming tensions is when he recently stated that if he had a son, he would look just like Trayvon Martin. Why would Obama say that?

I don't know why he would say that. Maybe, it was something that just came to him and he wishes he hadn't said.

That being the case, I have many educated black friends that still cannot walk through a neighborhood at night without a police car stopping them and asking what they are doing. Racial profiling is a fact in this country. I have seen it happen. I think coming from the perspective of a white male it is often difficult to understand the deep emotions that a member of a class of people who has experienced horrible injustices for over 400 years in this country feels. These emotions just don't disappear overnight. It is a work in progress and I think it is positive to bring these issues to light and discuss them.

Reub wrote: Another recent example of race-baiting and inflaming tensions is when he recently stated that if he had a son, he would look just like Trayvon Martin. Why would Obama say that?

I really think that Obama was like a lot of people who assumed that the story the media was telling at that point was mostly true.

I don't know how he could be so naive as to think that way, but I think it was more an ill-considered response than a deliberate attempt at race baiting.

Another way of looking at it would be to say that Obama really did just look at the pictures of the 12 year old Trayvon and think to himself that he looked a little like Obama did when has a kid and didn't realize that saying this would be perceived as race baiting.  If someone showed me a picture of a 12 year old who looked like I did when I was 12 and then told me the kid had been gunned down for carrying a bag of skittles and iced tea, I might say something like Obama said without having any intention to race bait or otherwise stir the pot, especially if I had looked like this when I was a kid:



If Obama had been shown a picture of 17 year old Trayvon and told that the kid had been involved in a scuffle with a neighbor in which Trayvon had punched the neighbor in the face and slammed his head into the pavement and at some point in the scuffle the neighbor's firearm that he was carrying legally went off and the 17 year old was killed, I have to think that Obama would not have said "if I had a son he would look like Trayvon".

Back to Mitt Romney, I read a piece about his dad and it looks like his dad would have been a much better President than Mitt.  Mitt seems like a pleasant and intelligent guy, but he does seem to have few deep political convictions other than his belief that Mitt Romney ought to be President.  

One thing that I think people should be deeply skeptical about is the whole "I'm a good businessman so I'll be a good President" narrative.  The last time a candidate made that argument and was elected it was Herbert Hoover, and that didn't turn out the way people were expecting.

TennPaGa,

Over time, the US seems to be more and more invested in the concept of a god-like President, and seem all-too-willing to give the office greater and greater power.  I think this is a dangerous thing.

In general I agree, but when any entity (family, company, country) is mired and looking for a way forward, I feel that leadership is necessary. The leadership that I am talking about is not necessarily stretching the boundaries of the constitution, but rather the ability to rise above all the squabbling and unite.

What I find so frustrating is that everything has become so political. I am trying to understand where the great objection to Obama comes from. What is it about the man that incites so much hatred among some? In many regards, (other than his speaking ability) I can't tell much difference between him and our former president.

doodle wrote: That being the case, I have many educated black friends that still cannot walk through a neighborhood at night without a police car stopping them and asking what they are doing. Racial profiling is a fact in this country. I have seen it happen. I think coming from the perspective of a white male it is often difficult to understand the deep emotions that a member of a class of people who has experienced horrible injustices for over 400 years in this country feels. These emotions just don't disappear overnight. It is a work in progress and I think it is positive to bring these issues to light and discuss them.

I read an article touching on this topic written by a black man and he said he had dropped his car off at a neighborhood repair shop once and was walking back to his house.  To get back to his house he had to walk down a hill and as he was walking down the hill he saw his wife in front of his house and she looked his way.  When he got closer to his house his wife looked surprised and when he reached the house she told him something to the effect of "When I saw you coming down that hill I didn't recognize you and I thought to myself 'what's that guy doing in our neighborhood?'"

This country has come a long way on the race issue, but black men do still have a tough time in some situations.

Simon,

Simonjester wrote: my biggest concern about who mitt is, is the same one i have for obama and all the others... that they are all more of the same... differences in color, upbringing wealth, past job history, are all trivial compared to the increasingly strong suspicion that i have that we have had the same political policy's for more than a few presidents, regardless of who the man in office is or what party he belongs to....

Your concern above was the basis of my original post:

At a time when many questioned authority, Romney embraced it. To Harvard Law Professor Detlev Vagts, who headed the joint program from 1969 to 2005, that trait prevented Romney from ranking as a truly exceptional student, such as the late investment banker Bruce Wasserstein, who graduated in 1971. Romney, Vagts says, lacked “a certain sense that the way things are are not the way they have to be -- that you could do things differently.”?

The questions I am really driving at are:

1. Does America need to reinvent itself in certain ways?
2. Do we need visionary leadership or are we to look to the past for answers to todays questions?

In other words, is conservatism the right direction for the country overall, or do we need more progressive action?

Simon
,

Simonjester wrote: garbage in garbage out... our constitutional republic, much like a computer that has had to much junk programing tacked on over the years needs a reset, that takes both leadership and a solid understanding of how the system was intended to work, leadership without the understanding gets us more junk tacked on, understanding without leadership cant make the reboot happen...

When "rebooting" this constitutional republic are you envisioning recreating that which our founding father's devised 200 years ago? Or, is it better to talk about maybe redesigning things along slightly different lines...maybe a parliamentary system with more than two parties? Office term limits...etc. etc.

doodle wrote: The questions I am really driving at are:

1. Does America need to reinvent itself in certain ways?

Certainly.

2. Do we need visionary leadership or are we to look to the past for answers to todays questions?

Neither.  I do think that we do need visionary leadership, but not visionary political leadership.  We need more politicians who understand that what society needs may be less state control and direction of individual lives, not more.

What few politicians seem to fully grasp is that through all of history expansions of state power have virtually never led to better lives for the people living under such systems, primarily because the state doesn't produce wealth, it only redistributes it.  When, however, the state's coercive redistribution apparatus reaches a certain threshold, it begins to seriously reduce the private sector's capacity to produce new wealth.  This process has unfolded in virtually every society throughout history.

The basic problem is that there are few peaceful means for a government to get smaller, and thus it is always in the process of expanding the scope of its power and influence over its subjects' lives.  People who run for office rarely want to reverse this process; rather, they usually want to direct it in some other way based upon their own beliefs about what would be good for other people.  Ronald Reagan is a great example--he campaigned on the idea of making the government smaller, but the government got much larger while he was President, it just got larger in different areas than it had previously.

TennPaGa,

But, in reality, it gets more an more difficult to effectively lead the more people one is leading, mainly because it is really difficult to get people to agree on the goal.

I sometimes wonder if Americans wouldn't be happier divided into two countries. The main problem is that it would have to look like Palestine. The West Bank and Gaza (East and West Coasts) with Israel (the Midwest) sitting right in the middle.

MT,

expansions of state power have virtually never led to better lives for the people living under such systems

I would disagree with this statement. Child labor laws, health and environmental regulations, race and equality laws. There are plenty of examples of how unbridled freedom throughout history and during the industrial revolution produced horrible consequences until the state stepped in. 

doodle wrote: TennPaGa,

But, in reality, it gets more an more difficult to effectively lead the more people one is leading, mainly because it is really difficult to get people to agree on the goal.

I sometimes wonder if Americans wouldn't be happier divided into two countries. The main problem is that it would have to look like Palestine. The West Bank and Gaza (East and West Coasts) with Israel (the Midwest) sitting right in the middle.

If we simply followed our Constitution, we could have 50 country-like places to live, and each one of them could put together the kind of political structure they wanted.

If people found one state distasteful to them, they could emigrate with no restrictions to another state that more closely matched their political preferences.

The federal government would exist to provide for national defense and establish rules for trade among the states.

This was the original idea behind the Constitution.