Skip to main content

Obama Onanism

Fiscal stimulus: relief, but no lasting satisfaction.
Its almost organic. No wonder greenies love it so.

But to what should we apply this alluring and organically onomatopoeic label: "Obama Onanism"?

Obama himself and his imitators*, with their simply massive self congratulatory stimuli ? or
The Obamanics, who continuously spill their seed into such an empty vessel?
or
both?


What is it about modern democracies that allows all these ethically challenged moral high ground clambering Dear Leaders: Barack, Brownie* and Kevin* ; to get away with inflicting these massive expiatations of debt funded spending on their electorates, without regard to the long term consequences. Why aren't they called for being the wankers that they are by the fourth estate ?

Why are journalists in the mainstream media not holding these social democratic governments to account for this spectacular irresponsibility? (Ed: It could be because they don't want to. They enabled these populists institutionally in their publications in the first place and then voted for them personally. It would be to admit they were both wrong and unprofessional to now be seen to challenge the newly imposed political orthodoxy they themselves help create).

Veronique de Rugy in Reasononline adds an interesting perspective in her recent article "Stimulating Ourselves to Death". She indicates:

"Take the New Deal. According to the economists Christina Romer—chair of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers—and David Romer, New Deal spending did not pull the economy out of recession. In a 1992 Journal of Economic History paper, the Romers examined the role that aggregate demand stimulus played in ending the Great Depression. They concluded: “A simple calculation indicates that nearly all of the observed recovery of the U.S. economy prior to 1942 was due to monetary expansion. Huge gold inflows in the mid- and late-1930s swelled the U.S. money stock and appear to have stimulated the economy by lowering real interest rates and encouraging investment spending and purchases of durable goods.”

In other words Obama's own economic advisers actually already know about the illusory benefits of fiscal stimulus. How then can they, with this certain knowledge, then indulge the USA in this onanistic orgy of government debt of such a staggeringly large magnitude that I have lost the ability to meaningfully comprehend the numbers anymore (how many noughts are there in a trillion again?).

So this huge descent into debt by western nations, not only looks spectacularly reckless. It is.

And the reason they seem to do this is so that they are seen to be doing something. Anything. It doesn't matter if it is poor policy provided it is electorally plausible. It's a weak version of their much favoured "precautionary principle". They do it "just in case" it will make a difference. It simply wouldn't do for a control freak to be seen to let the business cycle take its inevitable course to recovery. If you tamper with the natural business cycle process you inevitably muddy the causal connections and you cannot be held accountable because you can attribute the inevitable (if delayed) recovery to your interventions even though they did the most to prevent it occurring.

Remember these are the same folk who are even now simultaneously plotting potentially still greater impediments to whatever wealth generation might take place in future to pay off their spectacularly destructive and unnecessary debt. They have in place meticulously crafted vast legislative programmes to impose an even more recklessly improbable version of the "precautionary principle" on their nations: carbon taxes and carbon trading schemes.

I was going to launch into an anti AGW rant at this point, but you are saved. I am now going to do that in the next post. Since these economic illiterates currently running the free world seem not only to think expanding the government payroll is a valid form of economic stimulus, they also seem to have completely bought the ridiculous notion that creating vast regulatory make-work schemes for compliance officers and government officials to measure and tax industries' CO2 emissions, will create wealth, sustainable employment and bring us out of recession.

The lunatics truly are running the asylum. And at nearly the worst time imaginable.
.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Michael Jackson, martyr ?

. Someone has to die for their beliefs to be a martyr . Drudge pointed to headlines last Friday saying that Jackson's was a " Death by Showbusines s". So in the sense that Jackson seems to have died for his belief in celebrity, yes, he might be called a martyr. I never got Michael Jackson. Thriller didn't thrill me at all ( Now Noel Coward, that's another story ). But I did get a bit of a kick from seeing others get him. He was boppy and catchy and slick, as well as monumentally fluffy and hugely impaired. What I struggle with is the apparently massive consequentiality of fluffiness and impairment like Jackson's. What is the fuss about the passing of a semi-talented song and dance weirdo from decades past? Boris Johnson, the London Mayor, has had a stab at explaining it to we mystified souls who struggle to get with the programme. He reckons it's just like Princess Di. And I agree, to the extent that I was almost as unprepared for and dumbfounded by th...

Bullshit detection is our main AI protection

The volume of chatter in recent online musings about the hydra headed peril of AI dominance, is becoming ear piercing. These piercings will likely support even more garish burbles of thought to dangle decoratively in front of both the curious and accidental victims. A brief diversion - it seems one of the more remarked upon "tells" of the presence of AI in a piece of writing at the moment, is what I now know to call the " Em Dash " (_). Thank you NYT of 18 Sept 2025.  I'll keep an eye out for them. And I'll need to, if I'm to live up to the pleas of the balance of this post. The main subject of this post has been prompted by yet another article that Arts & Letters Daily has pointed me to recently. It's entitled " Large Language Muddle "  and is an editors article from an online magazine called "n+1" published in the Fall of 2025. The central proposition of this muddle piece seems to be that we human authors need to fight back...

The list of "tell"words for LLM speak grows, but these Bots are now teaching us to speak like them ..

According to an article in the Washington Post on 20 August 2025 by Adam Aleksic " people are starting to talk like ChatGTP ".  The previous post here on the Realm pointed to some words that have been nominated as indicators that a Large Language Model (LLM) is the likely author of the piece. According to Mr Aleksic's article we can now add to our list of" delve ", " adept ", " realm " and " meticulous ", the words " intricate " and " commendable ".  As he says elsewhere, it is becoming hard to keep up. But his more telling point is that as LLMs become more and more prevalent contributors in our discourse, it's not just the bots that are using these words, we've all started using them more too; in our own speech.  It seems that the feedback loop from the LLMs gulping up so much of their own outputs when scraping content from the web, is intensifying this linguistic shift.   Aleksic says:  ...  In the two...