Conspiracy Guy Notes and Errata

Regardless of topic, Rigorous Intuition is never dull, and the same is true of its chat fora, this one discussing an interesting, appropriately ominous article in the Financial Times:

John Lipsky, the IMF's first deputy managing director, said: "We must keep all options on the table, including the potential use of public funds to safeguard the financial system."

The statement by the senior IMF official marks the second radical policy intervention from the IMF this year. It had previously called on governments to consider using fiscal policy to offset the impact of the credit crisis on growth.

Mr Lipsky said: "I fully recognise an appropriate role for public sector intervention after market solutions have been exhausted."

He urged policymakers to "think the unthinkable" and prepare now for what they would do if the worst case scenarios materialised and "low probability but high impact events" threatened to jeopardise global financial stability.

He warned of the risk that a "global financial decelerator" could take hold, in which rising defaults and margin calls from lenders triggered forced asset sales, driving down the value of collateral and forcing further forced sales.

The speculation as to what such a catalyzing event could be is reasonable enough, I suppose. It would not take much to kick over a war with Iran; an Iranian-backed Sadrist strapped with a dirty bomb penetrating the Green Zone would be pretext enough. And Poor Ol' Straight Talk has already begun establishing rhetorical turf in the brief border incursions between Venezuela, Ecuador, and Colombia recently. Venezuela being the third-largest oil exporter to the U.S., if Chàvez suddenly gets any bright ideas about turning off the tap, or even just screwing up production with his nationalization programs, his Bolivarian dream may be brought unceremoniously to heel.

But whatever. We can all nurse our pet theories till the cows come home. What I find interesting is the notion that, in the face of such a catalyzing event, Le Dauphin and his éminence grise would have an excuse to suspend elections and retain power, which presumes that they are looking for such an excuse. Folks, I think this is making rhetorical toothpicks out of logs, as it were; you can be quite certain that, should a Democrat happen to accede to the figurehead position come November, he or she will assiduously continue most of the operational prerogatives currently in play. Obama (and perhaps Clinton) is surely less predisposed to mindlessly attack another country, but with the required pretext, he would have little choice.

There is no need whatsoever to suspend or postpone elections. Indeed, maintaining their due course is critical to continuing the notion that they matter in any substantial way, other than elites sending signals amongst themselves. Plus, without the election industry, consultants would have to return to their former occupations, and there's only so many hobos to blow.

Why on earth would Bush want a third term anyway? He's done his bit; he'll spend a couple years scooping up money on the rubber-chicken circuit with Benito Giuliani and then amble off to Crawford -- or perhaps Paraguay.