[Subjectivist]

This fall the USA has mid term elections, and most of the 'Democracies' can have a vote of no confidance almost any time to force an election. Even without that some of them will have elections this year as I understand it.

I can't seem to find it this morning but in the last week someone posted a link to an IEA report projecting fuel shortages in the second half of this year.

If we get fuel shortages we get rationing, or price spikes, or both. This usually has bad effects for whatever political party is in power at the time. How do you think this will play out where you live later this year?

In the US in my experience the party of the President tends to get the blame for whatever goes wrong on a large scale so if things are bad before the mid term elections in November his party often loses many of the election races on the state and federal levels.

[Pops]

It seems to me there is a feeling here in the US of "throw the bums out" - more than usual that is.

On the one hand most reasonable people believe government has a role but on the other they are more strident than ever that the role should be only the one they want - consult your facebook page or other Un-Sociable media for confirmation of this , LOL

To be honest, I think most folks have adjusted to this oil price range as well as they can, which is why the price has been so stable and the rest of the economy so lackluster. So unless the price spikes up around the level I guessed in the game ($140?) or, the unleaded price goes up to say, $6/gal because of exports, there won't be a big backlash specific to petroleum here.

[Subjectivist]

It seems to me there is a feeling here in the US of "throw the bums out" - more than usual that is.

On the one hand most reasonable people believe government has a role but on the other they are more strident than ever that the role should be only the one they want - consult your facebook page or other Un-Sociable media for confirmation of this , LOL

To be honest, I think most folks have adjusted to this oil price range as well as they can, which is why the price has been so stable and the rest of the economy so lackluster. So unless the price spikes up around the level I guessed in the game ($140?) or, the unleaded price goes up to say, $6/gal because of exports, there won't be a big backlash specific to petroleum here.

Well for purposes of this thread I think those are valid possibilities. The question is, what will those currently in charge do to try and get reelected if those prices arise? The classic answer is drain the US SPR to bring our prices down but given the lack of response from the test they just did I don't know if that would even work.

Wasn't Berlesconi popular in Italy despite all the scandals until petroleum started costing too much?

[Plantagenet]

I think the big new concern is COMPETENCE.

We just saw the world's largest democracy in India chuck out the ruling Congress Party and the Ghandi dynasty because of their incompetence at running India.

We've got the same kind of issues here in the US. The deaths in Benghazi really come down to incompetent leadership. The fiascos in governing, including the extreme partisanship we see in DC also refects failure of leadership.

One of the most interesting things about Obamacare here in the US so far was just the sheer incompetence of the federal government and several states in doing something as simple as setting up a website. The very visible stumbles raised basic questions about the competence of the administration.

Now we've got the new VA Hospital scandal in the US where the administration was so incompetent it actually resulted in the death of VETS. The VA couldn't even manage appointments to get the VETS in for medical care, probably because they were spending their time making up a phony appointment list so they could pretend everything was fine.

SHEEESH!


Change and Hope were nice, but we'd be better off with someone competent

[Subjectivist]

I think the big new concern is COMPETENCE.

We just saw the world's largest democracy in India chuck out the ruling Congress Party and the Ghandi dynasty because of their incompetence at running India.

We've got the same kind of issues here in the US. The deaths in Benghazi really come down to incompetent leadership. The fiascos in governing, including the extreme partisanship we see in DC also refects failure of leadership.

One of the most interesting things about Obamacare here in the US so far was just the sheer incompetence of the federal government and several states in doing something as simple as setting up a website. The very visible stumbles raised basic questions about the competence of the administration.

Now we've got the new VA Hospital scandal in the US where the administration was so incompetent it actually resulted in the death of VETS. The VA couldn't even manage appointments to get the VETS in for medical care, probably because they were spending their time making up a phony appointment list so they could pretend everything was fine.

SHEEESH!
Change and Hope were nice, but we'd be better off with someone competent

The whole purpose of having a large bureacracy is to keep things running smoothly even if an incompetent leader gets to be in charge. The Mongol Empire lasted so long not because of military might, but because the buracracy kept everything going. Louis the XIV was seen as a brilliant King because Cardinal Richeliu kept the buracracy busy building France into a super power, it took a climate disaster for his grandson Louis XVI to lose his head. The same can be said for the Byzantine Empire, they prospered for a thousand years until the crusaders got crazy and attacked them from within, all because the lowly buracracy kept everything running as it needed to for success.

How did the US fail to train a new generation of competant burecrats? Paper pushing isn't a glamor job but it is essential for success.