Wednesday + Thursday Open Thread
What did you think of the speech last night? After watching the GOP response I realized that I dislike Jindal.
Submitted by Ender on Wed, 2009-02-25 09:33
Tags:
What did you think of the speech last night? After watching the GOP response I realized that I dislike Jindal.
Comments :
That makes two of us
"I realized that I dislike Jindal"
So who do you like on the GOP side?
----
This forum on Monday shows how the Presidents fresh approach to solving our economic problems! Forgive my partisanship here, but check ( mate ) to Republican obstructionism.
Click the link to watch the video.
I'm only half stupid
Romney
He is the only one who I have some affection for and believe is competent. And of course Newt Gingrich.
That's pretty much it right now. I am not a big fan of the GOP these days.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I'd be depressed too
Don't worry, there are plenty of jerks and crooks on our side who'll end up screwing things up eventually. And ironically the absence of strong GOP leadership will probably corrupt the Democrats a lot faster. Riding in corporate jets, ditching town hall meetings and not reading legislation is more tempting when you're not worried about being called out for it.
What about Huckabee? He's at least likeable and seemingly consistent by being both pro-life and pro-child welfare. I guess his kooky religious side is too much for you?
I don't believe I'm completely impervious to theoretical conservative values like personal responsibility and self-reliance. But I haven't trusted Republicans for a long time. I'd need to see them accept some way of measuring the effectiveness of their ideas, instead of conning the country into horrible boondoggles and then throwing up any smokescreen to evade responsibility.
Any Republican want to admit that the 2001 and 2003 may have been too large or poorly targeted in light of their current deficit angst? I'll start believing them once they own up to their failures.
Ugh!
To each their own, but Romney was a disaster as governor of the Bay State. He'd make an equally disastrous POTUS, imho.
Newt Gingrich is even worse!
Jindal was an unmitigated disaster
...and that's just the opinion of the conservative pundits like David Brooks and George Will.
The liberal pundits haven't stopped laughing long enough in order to voice their opinions.
It was Mister Rogers explaining in 3rd-grade-level English, incredibly, that the Katrina response was a shining example of small government working wonders. Of all the examples to choose, he chose the worst possible one from the conservative point of view.
9 out of 10 viewers immediately had their jaws drop to the floor.
The happiest person in America last night was Sarah Palin, as one of her chief rivals in 2012 completely took himself out of serious contention.
I survived the Bush Administration
Like ohers you make
Like ohers you make the mistake of thinking anybody actually cares about this speech. Nobody, but us political junkies will carry a memory of this speech into next week. Its the classic example of thinking that everybody pays as much attention to politics as we do. Oh and Katrina wasn't an indictment against small government as it wasn't small government that responded, it was a Republican government, but it most certainly was not a small government.
But at the same time
it is political junkies who will decide the republican nominee short list by choosing who to talk up, who to volunteer for, etc. If Jindal flops badly, in the eyes of political junkies, between now and 2011 he's going to have no shot at the nomination.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
That could be ( although,
That could be ( although, I tend to think its more the wealthy, and well connected that are king makers, than political activists), but political junkies are not apt to make a complete judgment of him based on his appearance in one speech, they listen to other speeches, interviews...
It's the non-political junkies who would tend to be more effected by one stumble, but they're not paying enough attention at this point for it to matter.
All that said, personally I don't think he's ever had that good of a shot at 2012. Republicans tend to nominate familiar faces, people who were runner ups in previous primaries. I expect it to mostly be a struggle between Huckabee, Palin, and Romney.
I agree that one bad performance
is not going to sink him. I'm saying he needs to improve substantially, because if he maintains this level of charisma he's toast.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
He's been brilliant up until this talk....
...It's like saying Saddleback affected Obama's political flow. And last night Jindal looked like a silver tounged genius compared to Obama at Saddleback.
Jindal is usually confident, articulate and makes a great impression, so he had a off night, so what? His message was right on though.
He's rock solid, no one will even remember this talk the moment the first syllable of his next talk rolls out of his mouth.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I'd seen him in some TV interviews
he was very quick and articulate. I think people make the mistake of grouping all forms of public speaking into one. Prepared speeches are about delivery and emphasis. Interviews are about coming up with an interested coherent response with in a moment's notice. Debates are about zingers, composure and rhetorical pivots.
Obama's a brillant speaker, solid interviewee and so-so debater. McCain was great at interviews, solid at debates and mediocre at speaking. Bush was mediocre at speaking, lousy at interviews and horrible in debates. Kerry was superb at debating, solid in interviews and mediocre in speeches. And so on. Jindal just got caught in a mismatch, I'm sure he'd be fine debating Obama.
I agree that Jindal has plenty of time to: 1. fire his speechwriters 2. Improve his delivery and 3. pick friendlier formats than following a popular superb orator. I'm going to put some intrade money on him when I get home, given that I hear his stock has declined somewhat.
In a way Jindal achieved his purpose
His speech was so shockingly horrible that in a way I think it's taken attention from Obama's excellent speech. Watching it, I was thinking to myself: "Have we been invaded by aliens? Is this a pod person?" The big story today has become the implosion of Jindal's political ambitions, not Obama's address.
Romney must be rubbing his hands together with glee.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
He'll Be Back..
Conventional Wisdom is pretty bad about picking the Next Big Thing. Remember George Allen was supposed to be the Republican savior, then Fred! Thompson. Jindal will probably hang around--after last night's speech he'll have nowhere to go but up. He seemed a little..happy last night, but that sunny optimism may come in handy one day.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
Well it's a small sample size...
but he turned off Ender ;-) Once you make that strong negative impression and people get it in their minds that you just don't have it, it's going to be hard to turn that around I think.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
While I didn't watch either
Obama's or Jindal's speeches, the description I've been seeing of Jindal reminds me of where the Dems were a few years ago when Tim Kaine gave the rebuttal speech to one of Bush's addresses. It was empty, incredibly staged and awkward. He was just looking for something to say and came off terribly.
I think what happens is that the political climate in real time makes rousing speeches difficult for one party.
The way I see it, both parties robotically say the same basic nonsense all the time and real time climate and circumstances either make it easy or difficult for that nonsense to sound good.
Right now, the Dems have the wind at their back and it's been easy to sound somewhat stellar and knowledgeable. It's kinda like a football team that likes to pass. And playing on turf, in a dome against bad passing defense makes them look good. Put that team in a windy stadium on a muddy field against a good D and that passing ability looks awful. That latter case is the GOP.
Of course, the bottom line is that neither party really has what it takes to say and then DO the right things. However, circumstances are defintiely on the Dems side right in the politics department. And such favorable circumstances make passing policies....good or bad...easy.
If Jindal were so smart, he'd wait for the tide to turn before reciting his talking points. That way, he can sound better.
Well, all I can say is, if you had watched the speeches...
...you'd recognie that Jindal could have Katrina-force political winds at his back with those same winds blowing in Obama's face, and Obama still would kick Jindal's butt in every measure of what makes a politician effective in the real world. You could put Jindal on the most pristine astroturf in the coziest dome, and put Obama in a mudpit during a monsoon, and Obama still would have the better shot of passing the metaphorical political football down the field.
Obama has the political chops to be able to build up the political capital he needs in order to effectively herd the cats in Congress, and perhaps more importantly, give confidence to the American people. I know that the speeches don't impress you personally, but don't underestimate the impact of his political skill on others.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
The only memorable SOTU response
since 2000 was Webb's, and he reportedly threw out the standard Democratic laundry list that was drafted for him.
Some pundit made a good point about modern speeches being too much of a patchwork of disparate lines of thinking and that's why they lack Churchillian punch. Rearranged themed paragraphs don't build up to anything.
It would have been awesome if Obama, as well has he did, could have come up with something like "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat".
You're making way too much of the speech
I agree it was bad. But I bet you there's not that many people that watched it. A lot of people will have forgotten it by today, even more by next week, and in two - three years when it might matter nobody's going to remember. Now, if this this wasn't just a bad night, and it really is how he speaks, than he's got a problem.
The opinion-makers all saw it
They won't let it be forgotten. When they smell blood, they go in for the kill. Amont other things, Jindal committed the unpardonable political sin of coming off as a dork. These are the folks (the press) that gleefully killed Al Gore for being too dorky and stiff, and he never had a moment like this... so I think Jindal will be annihilated on that aspect of his speech alone.
This being said, this is the party that managed to get Dan Quayle elected as Vice President... so if your point is to never say never, you're probably right.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
But, Al Gore was a high -
But, Al Gore was a high - profile politician, already in the spotlight. Jindal was in the spotlight for like literally 15 minutes, the media's not going to be able to drag that out, after today no one is going to talk about him, and still its only going to be us political junkies who remember his speech.
All that said I don't think he's going to be the nominee. Republicans have a time honored tradition of nominating the front runners from the last primary. I think this put this puts Romney, Huck, and Palin at the top.
It was also what he said...
even if poorly delivered.
I have to say that works for me.
It is ludicrous to think that making the government even less effective and competent will provide any kind of solution. To think that replacing bad government with god as the reliable stand in is equally insane.
I'm only half stupid
Missed watching it
But I just read the text courtesy of the BBC's site.
I liked it. My only significant quibble with the policy outline he provided is that he still fails to draw the (IMHO) necessary distinctions with regard to higher education and did not place enough emphasis on the expectations of the student versus the role of the school system. And, although he did mention vocational and technical training, he did not grant it the same level of "acceptance" as a four-year degree. I'd like to see us break down those educational castes and realize that blue-collar skill development deserves as much educational support as white collar prep courses. Not all students are cut out for traditional college, yet our system and mores insist they attend. A skilled plumber, linesman, or other blue-collar type can bring in a very acceptable salary, yet we don't emphasize those types of choices enough IMHO.
Regarding the finanical crisis statements: I have expressed my concerns and doubts and there's nothing more to do now than to cross my fingers and wait with the rest of America. I appreciated the emphasis on monitoring and oversight, but I know that that's much easier said than done.
Healthcare and the elimination of wasteful spending: hard nuts to crack. Can they pull it off? Time will tell. I'd need to see more substance, but I liked the tone and rhetoric.
I tend to think that oratory is a key part of any President's role. And it's very nice to have a skilled one again :-)
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Agree
Maybe even more than white-collar prep. Tech schools tend to attract students who put less value in education to begin with and therefore need more encouragement.
Obama's Vision
Russ Roberts' take on it
.
His conclusion is most surly correct:
What am I missing?
I'm struggling with a couple of concepts here, but something seems "wrong" with the Cafe Hayek post.
I get that Roberts is complaining that the three areas (healthcare, education, and energy) are not key to future growth. I can even see his point; perhaps it's not absolutely correct to label these as growth strategies. But does that make them bad policy goals as defined in that speech?
I get the sense that the economist-types on that blog are criticizing the government for not interfering or legislating in a economically effective way....as if government should always support the "right" rent seekers, instead of trying to formulate the right overall policy. (That's badly phrased, but I hope it's clear). And I'm having trouble squaring that with the libertarian desire to have the least effect on the marketplace, and with the overall purpose of government; legislation is not only about economics, right?
And, his assessment seems to be made under the assumption that the total effects of some of the policies are quantifiable at this time. In the energy component certainly, and perhaps healthcare less so, I think the potential offshoots of research are not knowable at this time, and therefore their effects are not fully quantifiable in economic terms.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Well, badly phrased or not, PF
This...
...doesn't strike me as what he was trying to say. I doubt Roberts would even find the term "right rent-seekers" desirable. But that's just my impression.
I think he's simply criticizing the the idea that long term growth as anything to do with or can have anything do with improvement in these areas...let alone that he seems very skeptical that Obama or anyone could could offer such improvements via the solutions he has in mind.
Careful.
That kind of logic leads to dangerously wasteful spending. Throwing money at something because a gut check seems right is about as dangerous a use of tax money I can imagine. Research is great. But research with very specific goals are better. Universities might be a somewhat appropriate area (but it would take a lot of convincing to get me to go along with it) but pumping money into things like a "clean coal" plant in Illinois is not an uncommon result.
That view
would have us stuck perpetually in the stone age.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Only if you believe things
Only if you believe things are invented, developed, and discovered because of the government and couldn't be developed any other way or in any other circumstance. Something like that is going to take a lot of work on your part. I await the diary!
No
It's true because virtually all the big discoveries happen by accident, not by intent. Your premise is simply false.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
That's a belief. Not a fact.
You even added the qualifier yourself. Instant red flag on the validity. Please elaborate or I'll take this at another attempt as a snide conversation killer on your part. You want to talk about a false premise? You've just built one to criticize what you claim to be mine!
It's history
Einstein did not sit down to discover realtivity. He sat down to look at at what he believed to be two fundamental axioms based on empirical observation and what that meant and out sprang special relativity.
Galileo wasn't looking to blow holes in the geocentric concept of the universe. He was looking for stars when he noticed what turned out to be the largest moons of Jupiter.
Mendel wasn't trying to study DNA, since he had no idea such a thing existed. he was just working with plants to see how they varied, and from his careful observation came the whole basis of inherited characteristics.
Tycho Brahe did his meticulous observations of the heavens because he was an astrologer, believing that events on earth were influenced by the stars. But nevertheless his work greatly advanced astronomy, by providing the raw accurate data that Kepler would use to create the first real understanding of orbital mechanics.
Do you know how the best evidence of the big bang we have was discovered? Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson measured it completely by accident. They were working on an antenna to detect radio waves bounced off of balloons when to test the aparatus they pointed it straight up (where they expected the signal to be 0. Only it wasn't. They were detecting the left over background radiation from the big bang. Complete fluke.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
What does that have to do
What does that have to do with justification for our government throwing money into it's "money hole"? Go back and look into how many of those people were funded by a government. And I'd suggest you branch out of the physics world a bit. There are a lot of product inventions that have greatly helped society that had nothing to do with government funding or accident. As I said, you assertion has nothing to do with fact and everything to do with your personal bias.
It directly bears
on your mistaken idea that developments come from directed focused research. Had you had the purse strings none of those discoveries would have occured when they did. AS far as inventions- yes engineering generally comes from attempts to make the thing you end up with (not always but usually), but then again there is no engineering without the basic science it draws upon.
My assertion had everything to do with fact and your (now deliberate) ignorance of the facts doesn't change things.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Well this is going nowhere.
Um. It does. You made the claim that most discoveries are accidental. That's fine. But they take place during focused research.
It doesn't really matter, though. You and I will never agree on this. You can call it deliberate ignorance in an attempt to end the conversation if it makes you feel good about yourself.
A bit inaccurate about Einstein...
His paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" was specifically motivated to outline a coordinate frame invariant formulation(for uniform motion) for mechanics and electrodynamics consistent with observations of speed of light invariance and the Fitzgerald contraction.
He spent 10 years working on General Relativity, motivated by his idea that all the laws of physics, respect to any frame of reference, including noninertial frames, should be covariant.
That doesn't match with what I've read about it.
From what I read he sat down with what he believed to be axioms shown by empirical observation and then built off of them to see where they went. Along the way he was able to derive a bunch of the work of his contemporaries as well as comeing across the startling conclusions of special relativity.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
This is insane
The premise is that government is the big bad evil and the private sector is like angels floating down from heaven.
The extremes of the anti-govt crowd is out of sync.
Many good things have been done, invented, by both the private sector and the government working in tandem and separately.
PIck a side. You are either with the govt or for free markets.
NO middle ground. Moral hazards are an impediment to free market progress.
The extremism of this view should be obvious for all to see.
I'm only half stupid
Speaking of extremes...
Where do you come away with this extreme interpretation?
I really like to know.
Your Cartel diary
is a prime example, John...
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
No it isn't.
And for several reasons.
First of all, private enterprise is clearly not a bunch of angels since they are trying to block a competitor from entering. The fact that the private sector isn't a bunch of angels is actually why we get bad laws.
But beyond that, there is endless material by me and others expressing many, many problems with the private sector in matters of rent-seeking, corporatism, lobbying, fraud and so on.
There's just a level of nuance there that undermines simplstic caricatures and is ignored...willfully.
Except your solution
is always less government, giving businesses a totally free hand. Perhaps the correct formulation is not that you think of business as angels but that you find their sins imminently acceptable, and any attempt to restrain those sins to be an affront.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Not really.
Again, there's that nuance thing being ignored.
Moreover, such generalizations are unhelpful in trying to truly understand the logic of solutions.
maybe you misunderstood the cartel issue
The "cartel" story is not an attack on licensing, in itself; It is an attack on favoritism in licensing. It is an attack on how some businessmen want to buy the government and use it as another component of their business model.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
The idea of licensing
in and of itself doesn't generate much strong reaction. However, when it is a veil for minimizing market entry and opportunity beyond some reasonable stipulations, it's disgusting.
Limiting the amount of transportation services falls into the "disgusting" category.
There's simply no justification for government to make such quotas. None...beyond making the few lucky license holders artificially rich. And that doesn't hold up as a good reason...quite frankly...and quite obviously.
That may be
but what do you want to bet the "solution" to the problem is to remove government from business?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
The means is not the issue.
The ends are.
Have you actually
actually given any serious thought to the implications of that statement?
"The means is not the issue, the ends are." (!!!!!!!)
I'm only half stupid
Yes. I have.
.
Why does government interject itself on business...
...it should only be there to ensure laws are abided by, and cause as little interference in the markets as possible, so more government is almost every time, redundant.
I would submit that in most cases there is talk of expanding government to further regulate this, or protect that, it is actually a matter of the failure of government itself in the first place of not properly enforcing already existing laws, as opposed to any need for yet more bureaucracy.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Because business without regulation
...is better known as genocide.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Come on, you're sounding like a real anarchist now...
What does that have to do with my post?
I said properly enforce laws that exist.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Because you've indicated
that you are not happy with the laws that exist. That you would prefer in fact to remove some number of them.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
More federal agencies than laws...
...but yes laws too, if they are repetitive, or layered on original legislation, sure.
But I am not against laws for the sake of being against laws.
I believe we need strong constitutional goverment and laws to enforce them.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
What school of anarchism do you subscribe to?
If you believe that the voluntary exchange of goods and services is akin to genocide, what would be your opinion of the free and voluntary exchange of ideas? Why wouldn't the latter be akin to genocide without regulation?
You obviously are not an indvidualist anarchist, but the communitarian anarchists typically view capitalism as inherently unstable and would collapse without the intervention of the State. Accordingly, the State is seen as an <b>enabler</b> of capitalism, not as a protector.
You seem to be a "Big Government Anarchist." Talk about incoherent...
Barter
is the exchange of goods and services. Business has nothing to do with that. Business is merely formulized, and lamentably celebrated, greed.
What I am is someone who would prefer to have neither business nor government. But if we have to have one then we absolutely have to have the other. Consequently I am an individualist anarchist, simply one who realizes that anarchism is not possible in any near future and not likely at all. That being the case you have to look at what you can do to make the system that is more livable.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Nobody is giving business a free hand...
...especially John. He has said over and over that prudent regulation that achieves its intent is needed, but we are all leery of the all to ubiquitous layering on of bureaucracy that becomes a problem for everyone.
Bobby Jindal. in his boring speech made reference to that very concern, when during Katrine hundreds of boats and volunteers were on site ready to go help people, and a bureaucrat stopped them because they didn't have some paperwork or what have you!
And as for restrained federal government as a precept, well hell, that's because that is the constitutional role of government in America! Those are the principles this nation is built on.
Why do you have difficulty with such elementary reasoning?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
It for me is as easy as breathing...
oxygen.
I flatly reject any system that does not see the value of the greater good of the commons while rationalizing liberty only as defined by capitalist contracts.
I want the liberty as an individual to create writings and rationalizations so I can use blackmail and own slaves.
You put all the weight on capitalist liberty and ignore justice.
Liberty and Justice for All. Where did I read that.
I'm only half stupid
Not at all.
Yikes. I think your filters need some unclogging. Seriously.
Not true. And that statement doesn't deserve more than those two words.
Merit based ideology
Not true yet does not merit explanation. Got it.
That's certainly crystal clear!
I'm only half stupid
Two things, MissL
1. I am not "of the school".
2. If you are trying to tell me that I "ignore justice" in favor of "captialist liberty", then you're the one who needs to do the explaining for asserting such an outrageous charge.
No need to explain
I won't pound the table, I promise.
I'm only half stupid
You say that because you can't explain.
There's a problem with your assertion on several levels.
The biggest one being that idea of promoting capitalist liberty and promoting justice are mutually exclusive. They are not.
Also, you aren't really clarifying what you mean by "justice".
And finally...and this related to the first point above..."capitalist liberty" necessarily implies accordance with the law and the rights of others. No sense of the word "liberty" that I hold ignores obvious considerations of responsibility and respect for the rights of others. And it is definitely not a synonym for a lawless free for all.
Well, that's good to know.
I have a huge problem with the assertion that some advocate that at this present moment the government should do nothing, because it interferes with the first principles of free market liberty.
Whatever created our current circumstance these are not normal times and in my view doing nothing is not an option. Whether the government makes mistakes or not, I believe they must step in.
I'm only half stupid
Like I've said before,
Specific discussions with you are difficult to have and dissect to finer points because for you every discussion is always about everything.
Perhaps you don't realize that you do this but you do.
You don't seem to have an interest in or the patience for a steady consideration of the finer, deeper points for their own sake and on their own merit.
If that's the case then fine. Do whatever makes you happy. But do realize that some people are perfectly willing and able to delve into these kinds of notions for their own sake without it being a precursor to some big headline in the new cycle.
Slavery
Libertarianism doesn't lead to slavery, MissL. Implying that will be as much of (actually, probably more of) an insult to libertarians as what you feel when someone equates taxation with Socialism. The property rights that form the core of libertarianism include self-ownership of one's own body. So slavery is competely antithetical to libertarianism. The only possible conflict I can see is if a person chooses to sell himself or herself into slavery. Do they have the right to do that? I'm not really sure what libertarianism has to say about that. I'm not really sure what I have to say about that, other than it's a weird concept. But rest assured that a belief in libertarianism absolutely does not equate to an acceptance of slavery.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Bless you, SL
It's nice to see some Lefties that pay attention.
SL is living and beathing example that you can be honest about different POVs without needing to hold such POVs yourself....in part or totally.
:)
Thanks. I try. There are some points of view that are far more difficult for me to empathize with. Libertarianism is pretty easy! :)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
BTW,
I can say that in all seriousness:
Taxation doesn't equal Socialism. Of course, I personally have never said that it did but I just want to point that out. Saying such things is lazy and unserious. I see people do it and I can't help but roll my eyes. Unhelpful and like I said: unserious.
Like it or not
that is the new populist cause of the right. Taxes equals socialism does not serve public discourse well.
This ridiculous assertion has caught on like wildfire and is detrimental to serious solutions to the serious problems our country faces.
I'm only half stupid
There's nothing ridiculus about the view ...
that "spreading the wealth" as implemented by taxing the rich and sending "tax cut checks" to the poor amounts to socialism. That's pretty much the definition of it.
Look, if you want to be a socialist then at least be PROUD to be a socialist rather than pretending you are something else.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Joe the Plumber Fan
are ya.
I'm only half stupid
Nuance. Careful
Taxation by itself is not socialism.
To be honest, wealth redistribution in the most general sense isn't even socialism. It's simply what it says: wealth redistribution.
That, by itself, is not socialism.It may seem socialistic but it's not socialism.
Well....John...?
While wealth redistribution is not "technically" socialism, it is a visceral element of the doctrine, and in stark antithesis to capitalism.
Taxation, if done by constitutional means, can in no way be construed as socialism.
However, when taxation begins meeting the old standard, as it is today ie., entitlement spending, of taking the property of one who has more, and redistributing it to another who has less as a means of social equanimity, we are on socialist ground.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Technically
Communism is the antithesis to capitalism....and communism is basically textbook socialism...ie, the state owns the means of production and distribution....contrast with capitalism where those means are privately owned.
But like capitalism, socialism has come to mean a lot of different things with a lot of grey area.
A favorite example country like France is capitalist. Yet, many here in the US call it socialist.
Technically, France is capitalist and not socialist. That said, it has many socialist elements. But that is not the same thing.
Wealth redistribution by itself, by that defintion, is not socialist because the means of production and distribution of that wealth are mainly private. And the income earned in private property. We do not work, in truth, for the state and hand over all our income to state as state property so it can be divided as the state sees fit. Sure, it feels that way for many gainfully earning people but it doesn't reach that extreme.
Even with wealth redistribution, we still live in a mainly capitalist country with a welfare state that follows...very loosely...a general free market model as a starting point. I say "model as a starting point" because it deviates from that model an awful lot....more in some sectors than others.
Oh of course, but that balance of Capitalism vs. Socialism...
...is a precarious one at best.
With all the social engineering we are being presented with, banks being essentially nationalized, management of private corporations being told what they can earn, federal revenues being distributed to non tax payers under the guise of a tax credit, universal health care, etc, we are definitely entering a slippery slope of culture changing federal bureaucracy intended to "level the playing field" as Obama has said.
Pretty scary if you ask me.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I agree.
100%
If you get to change the definition of socialism
... then we get to change the definition of marriage. Deal? :)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Shallow reasoning.
See? superficial and simplistic hyperbole that melts under a bit of scrutiny is not exclusive to one of the debate.
Of course, that fact that the word "populist" figures in the idea is hardly surprising.
Duh.....
More often than not my war is with the talking points. Once they take root they are almost impossible to get rid of.
Nothing changes without populist support, which is why it is important to stop the lies or make the liars look like fools or perhaps obstructionists.
I do hope that you give me a little more credit than your post implies. Really I am not that stupid. =)
I'm only half stupid
I wasn't referring to you
I bascially saying that I acknowledge that this kind of simplistic nonsense and shallow talking points exists in the populist bases of both parties.
of course
how shallow of me.
I'm only half stupid
"Shallow" was referring to
the idea of taxation equating to socialism.
sheesh.
Feel bad, yet?
Yes I feel
really really bad.
Thank god I have you to clarify my feelings and thoughts for me.
Maybe some day I will be assimilated.
I'm only half stupid
that's now 3 posts in row
where you misunderstood and misconstrued my intent as malicious (in spite of my explanations to the contrary) as a springboard to being rude and aggressive.
terribly sorry
my deepest apologies.
I shall move on.
Please do not respond to this post. Polite request.
I'm only half stupid
Submit into the people's evidence: Example # 01
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Yes I understand that
and thank you for keeping my hyperbole in check.
(Yet...... there are instances of...., oh well nevermind.)
I'm only half stupid
Slavery may be antithetical to the philosophy of libertarianism
but that doesn't mean it isn't an unintended byproduct of the practice of libertarianism. Remove the power of govenment to check corporations and you will see a return of "company towns" where workers are held in virtual or literal bondage by their employers. Libertarians see two rabid dogs fighting and their solution is to pull one's teeth. They don't intend to get bit but they will if they have their way, because, no matter how much they pretend, that other bitch is not their friend and doesn't give a damn about their ideals.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
As the income gap widens
Using the word slavery is perhaps a little over the top, but the implication is stuck in a job at low wages with no hope of mobility or ever getting a raise.
I can't believe what has happened to our economy. It's just crazy. Again today I heard some idiot say who could have predicted.......!
p.s. hope the job front is looking bright, or at least that there is a sliver of light on the horizon.
I'm only half stupid
Get another job, go to school, learn a trade...
...get off your rear end and do something for yourself!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Curing polio.....?
HOw did that happen. Private business came in and said I see a lot of profit in curing this disease.
No. It was a government initiative. The full weight and force of the government with all the resources availabe set out to find a cure for polio, and I believe they accomplished their goal in a very short time. The govt can do good things.
To suggest that govt by it's very existence is bad, a form of central command, is akin in my mind to a kind of neo-MacCarthyism. If you think the goverment should serve the public good, dude you are either a socilaist or a communist.
Meanwhile let's give a thousand rationalizations as to why the word greed needs to erased from the lexicon of normal discourse in the English language.
Ack!
I'm only half stupid
polio vaccine and March of Dimes
From what I remember, and what I could find on the web, it seems that funding for polio vaccine development was largely supported by the March of Dimes -- an institution that raised its funds from voluntary contributions.
The Feds may have had a role in the mass-immunization program within the US.
The WHO has done a lot for polio eradication around the world -- this institution doesn't really fit in the "government or non-governmental" paradigm. On the one hand, the UN has no soverignty, so it is more like a fraternal association than a state. On the other hand, its members are states.
With all that, it is still worth stating that federal research institutions are pretty effective.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Weird
There was a special on PBS that detailed the whole effort, and that it was instigated at the behest of Roosevelt. It was quite a remarkable story. The day researchers deemed the cure a success was a very happy day for America.
Roosevelt founded the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis and put Basil O'Conner in charge. It was Basil who had the idea to raise dimes to help fund research for the cure and recruited Dr. Salk to work on it.
What is portrayed on the web vs the details of the show seem very different. INfo on the web seems lacking.
Interestingly opponents of 'big government' complained about the March of Dimes. Sounds familiar doesn't it.
I'm only half stupid
not everything Roosevelt did was anti-libertarian
The main issue for libertarians is whether the effort was fundes with tax money or voluntary contributions. Few (if any) libertarians object to government chartering of a non-profit corporation, as long as that corporation gets no special privileges (tax support or police powers). Likewise, libertarians do not object to the President using his bully pulpit (and personal wealth) to rally the people to a good cause. After all, that's what real leaders do.
So while the March of Dimes may have involved some government actions, it's success is not relevant to libertarian critiques of government.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Understood
I just think it is humorous and ironic that the actual history of the March of Dimes, has been twisted and used as rhetoric against 'big government' intervention into research or health care. The success of the March of Dimes was quite dramatic. Yet after the fact there was a strong propaganda drive, if you will, to paint a different picture of the organization itself by those who despised Roosevelt.
As anecdotal evidence, I asked a friend what he remembered about the March of Dimes, and his first comment was "Spend a dollar to invest a dime.". He did not mention the success of eliminating polio, which at the time was a true victory against a frighteningly contagious infectious disease.
While I understand your point and think it is reasonable, my point was more along the lines of how history gets rewritten with false narratives for purely ideologically and politically driven motives which we see are still alive and well today.
I'm only half stupid
who complained about March of Dimes? not small gov't activists
That quote from Wikipedia makes reference to a book by Howard Greenwald
, who is a professor in organization theory, not a libertarian activist.
The "rebuttal" of that "criticism" (if it is actually a criticism, and not just an emprical description), actually does come from a small government conservative
,
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
another option : voluntary philanthropy
YOu seem to see a very limited range of human motivation: either,
1) State action in the public interest
2) Private action for narrow personal interest.
This ignores that there is plenty of private action undertaken in the public interest (and plenty of state action undertaken for narrow personal interest).
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
I don't think
I am ignoring other options.
Just focusing on the tension and attention that has been playing out of what role the republic plays in our lives as brought to light by current events. It has been put forth by some as an either or option; either you or for the government or for the individual which I feel is a false dichotomy.
I'm only half stupid
Jonas Salk cured polio I thought...
...and March of Dimes was the organization that funded it, at least that was how I remembered it.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I was speaking of research in a more generic sense
Researching "for" something is tricky....most of the best and most useful eureka! moments and discoveries were serendipitous sidetracks and unexpected outcomes of the pursuit of other things. Whether or not funding was governmentally or privately provided was secondary to that general observation.
Of course your observation about the potential for unlimited spending does apply to both private and public funding, but limits on government funding amounts are much more effective in controlling government spending, in the long run, than limits on the "what" that that funding researches. The process of discovery is generally not as linear as the bean counters would like it to be.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Not really.
You can't honestly compare public and private funding when one can print money and the other cannot.
And I can understand what I think you are driving at when saying controlling funding controls silly projects. But I would argue the forces that dictate private research funding are much more realistic than those of government where pet projects go unchecked by anything more than the congressperson's ability to make a gentleperson's agreement and slip it into a bill.
There just not the same at all, really.
Let me use an example
Private funding I will leave out of this, as it's subject to the desires of the funders, which can run the range of totally practical to seemingly whimsical.
For government funding, what I mean is that the government can have two approaches
1) We will go to the Moon.
2) We will spend X to go to the Moon.
Option 1 is goal focused and assumes a commitment to spend whatever is necessary to achieve the objective. Spending can easily outstrip expectations and forecasts. (This type of statement can also sound very silly when made without a sound understanding of what is involved in that project; when George made his "we will go to Mars" speech, I couldn't stop laughing, it was such obvious, er, wag-the-dog style BS.)
Option 2 imposes a limit, one that is financially sound (assuming one believes that governments should budget) but accepts that we may not actually achieve the goal. However, that is not to say that Option 2 is useless: new knowledge, technology, and serendipitous discoveries could still happen in the course of the project. And, if enough "progress" is made, private capital might be encouraged to participate in either the main goal or by further research of auxilliary findings.
In both options, useful but unexpected discoveries can and will occur.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Still not really.
How is that any different than public funding? And it's also extremely ignorant of the way private companies work with a limited money supply. If anything that is a much better representation of public funding where actually having money is irrelevant when you can simply create it!
That's a fair view of the options, but the rhetoric of politicians more often leads to option 1 in the form of renewals. If you thought going to Mars was laughable, surely you must nearly fall over when hearing a politician put a dollar figure limit on something!
At this point I think we're really arguing semantics. But my root point is that assuming our government throwing money at a problem, especially when we don't actually have the money, does not justify the expenditure simply because "more knowledge is better". Useful knowledge is far more important. And while useful is relative, it's far more concrete when done outside of the guise of "public good".
One can print money
and the other can just cook the books and use crazy credit schemes to create money out of thin air.
At least we have some constraints on government that they are operating for the public good by printing money.
Private enterprise cooks the books to create money that can oppose the public good.
That is exactly why we face such a financial mess.
I'd would say that in light of the economic turmoil we all face today, that the private sector has done far far far more damage than the public sector.
Do you seriously think that private research funding hasn't greased a few palms?
Govt funds can open doors that allow private research to walk through.
I'm only half stupid
lol.
Actually, the government does both constantly. I'd encourage you to read about the Fed a bit more. I think leading by example comes to mind.
I'd agree we have a constraint. But politicians stopped worrying about constitutionality decades ago. Costraint of our government is a quaint misnomer at this point.
While most of that is nonsense, the last part I'd agree with. It can do that. No doubt.
What you think you think, is not what you think at all...
How do you like those sheets you slept on last night, or the bed itself, how about the carpet you walked on to go brush your teeth, and that toothpaste and brush were nice huh. I bet the coffee tasted nice, and the cup that reminds you of that trip you took, and when you come home tonight it will be nice and clean in that dishwasher. The TV that you rely on for your political ideology had a great picture this morning, and the couch you sit on everyday is as comfy as when you first bought it. How about the computer you're reading this on this very second, pretty fast now days huh, and the internet provider is pretty stable isn't it.
Gee, it's only 9am and you have proved yourself to be a big lover of private enterprise!
Despite your abject claims otherwise.
Hey ML, take a walk over to the housing projects in your town and see what a great job your esteemed government has done in trying to recreate your experience of this morning, where you got to make the choices and the free market provided the goods and services.
LOL!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
How did the sheets,
bed, and carpet get transported to your home? How is it they weren't stolen from the warehouse? How do you know they're telling the truth about that 400 thread count? How do you know Wal-mart didn't let a few crates of poisonous toothpaste slip through so as to shave a few pennies off each tube? And all that free-marked purchased safe water you bought to run your dishwaser... and that TV that doesn't show Girls Gone Wild (now with extra profanity!) 24/7... Gee, I wonder what made private enterprise behave so responsibly when they had no financial incentive to do so...
Oh and no you didn't just laud the advent of broadband. There was this Senator from Tennessee back in the nineties who'se visionary federal funding of ARPANET grew into the backbone of the world wid web... oh yeah but he wore earth tones and sighed a lot.
People get rich in large part by making effective use of GOVERNMENT provided infrastructure, utilities and protections. How rich Bill Gates be without enforced copyright law, or T. Boone Pickens without a highway system? They will suffer terribly when the 33% marginal rate reverts to 39%...
....
...
I'm only half stupid
Irritating
double double post.
I'm only half stupid
..
...
I'm only half stupid
Whew!
It's nice to see a fellow traveler.
It gets scary here sometimes when you feel like you are the only liberal.
I'm only half stupid
Well I'm just glad
I have four of them!
There is no there here - just a crock of liberal chimera...
By delivery truck of course...
Because the warehouse contracts with a private alarm company...
Because if the textile company does not stand behind their product, and provide what they claim, vendors will not carry it, customers are not stupid and will not buy it, and very quickly they will find their own water level in the marketplace.
Well, because, as I've said dozens of times, prudent constitutional laws are reasonable, of course Wall Mart is not stupid, and they would not want to break the trust of their consumers.
Same answers...
What are you talking about, like all the charitable things businesses do, all the wonderful things that you have no interest in acknowledging? What a cynical attitude!
LOL! You're delusional now! LOL!!!!!
Good constitutional laws are ...well good. How many times must we say it!
You are a pretty funny guy though! ;-)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Skipped the water, didn't you?
Laws (consitution or statute) require enforcement, which requires funding paid for by taxes, Mr. LOL delusional LOL! Please save the infantile netspeak for youtube comment threads. Don't agree that it took federal funding to provide the original internet infrastructure? Who do you think did? Hin't: it wasn't AT&T.
The whole idea of absolute business self-policing has systemically failed so many times that's it's amazing anyone tries to defend it any more. Lazy managers and purchasing agents will abuse the public for exactly what they can get away with, even if it means bringing down the entire company sooner or later. Where do you think the impetus for business regulation came from in the first place? The fact that some regulations are bad, overly burdensome and even counterproductive does NOT mean that you can do without them. You have to make them better.
This unthinking deregulatory philosophy cannot explain lead paint on toys, or Enron, or coal mining deaths, or the banking crisis, to name a few. But I know, I'm LOL delusional LOL amusing LOL. Gaah, why bother.
What part of prudent enforcable constitutional laws are...
...rightly supported by federal revenues do you not comprehend?
So stop with your all to common lowbrow vociferation already.
My point is; overwhelmingly business and free commerce does an amazingly good job of doing what it does. For you to point out a couple dings out of the billions of transactions that happen everyday is LOL, laughable, and to suggest otherwise is, well delusional.
What is your point anyway Corph, what are you trying to say, because with the exception of vehemently stating how business is evil, and you need Obama to save you from capitalism, you make very little headway.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I didn't see it, just a few sound bites this morning...
...I don't see what makes you think he was so awful. He was following the POTUS in a chamber filled with applause, the respondent in these situations almost always is at a huge disadvantage.
I will say, on paper, that speech was good, very good. He covered the ground the GOP needs to cover to begin this journey of reminding people what our country is all about, liberty, freedom, and independence.
Obama was his usual articulate self, spinning his real agenda into vague enough terms as to make it sound just palatable enough to Americans.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
It was bad, because he
It was bad, because he sounded fake. It was like he was reading some kids book or something. It just sounded like he was forcing himself to talk a certain way.
it sounded like he was talking
to a kindergarten... Trying to make "difficult" thingies sound as simple as possible.
I couldn't stomach it.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Yeah, I'm thinking he was
Yeah, I'm thinking he was trying way too hard, to the point where it came out fake, when if we would have spoken naturally, while it might have been boring it would not have been the train-wreck speech he gave.
Well on the measure of content it was excellent!
...But as Obama himself has proven once again, style seems to be a bigger persuader than sunstance.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Style over substance??
LOOOOOOOOL!
Where was the substance in Jindal's speech? Please point it out to me. I didn't exactly hear any 9-point plans to fix the energy crisis form Jindal or anything like that.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Did you read it?
...or sit back and hating every second of it?
How do we really fix problems...
Energy...
Health care...
Education...
Ethical Government....
Security...
Why Republican...
Ya substance.
If we worked on doing things the way we were directed in the constitution, and quit trying to turn this already clumsy, inefficient monster into a bureaucratic nightmare, we wouldn't need to talk so much and deal with 16 inch thick trillion dollar bills no one has really read.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Obama's speech was fine.....
He's impressive. I don't know if any politician is equal to the tasks he's got facing him... I guess we'll see. Overall, I'd give him a B, maybe a B+
Jindal's response wasn't effective. He's better than that, and smarter. And I don't even really care that his delivery was weird... for me, the problems were with the substance. How is it that the 'party of ideas' seems to only have one response to any economic problem? 'Small Government & Tax Cuts' isn't a global panacea, particularly in the face of a huge market meltdown -- just as 'Grow the Bureacracy & Trust in Gov't' isn't a global panacea. Trotting out the same mantra time after time isn't going to win any converts at this stage..... and this strategy of harping on spending for volcano monitoring and salt marsh mice is just stupid -- the GOP needs a some new spinmeisters.
Then again, maybe the marsh mice will be the only ones who survive the great Yellowstone eruption.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
You (Ender) and everyone else
538 has a good post on the topic:
The Intrade cratering has to hurt. When the perception of you as a potential leader plummets, not due to scandal, but due to you giving a pretty major speech- that's bad.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Please No Intrade!
The site is a complete waste as a measure of anything. I remember the election and people constantly touting the latest intrade numbers, before each primary. At this point even polls aren't worth rotten tomatoes.
I disagree
Intrade is not an accurate measure of whether Jindal will become the presidential nominee in 2012 but it is a decent way tio gauge perception of Jindal from at least one segment of the population. In other words the absolute value doesn't matter, what matters is the trend.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
A tiny segment of the
A tiny segment of the population that gambles on political races three years out, yeah it guages the perceptions of that community real well, I wouldn't extrapolate anything from that, though.
Buy, Buy, Buy
It's not like he claimed some random Democrat broke into his house, then beat up his wife.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Oops! It appears Bobby Jindal's Katrina story was a lie
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/jindal_admits_katrina_story_was_false.php?ref=fp1
Shades of Hillary's Bosnia story....
I survived the Bush Administration
Ok, I do have a question for you Obama supporters...
...What was he possibly thinking when he nominated Janet napolitano for the Secratary of Homeland Security?
Her state is being devestated by drug cartels, illegal immigration, and gang warfare, and she has been downright ineffectual in combating it!
It's almost a joke..
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Geography
I assume if the link was posted, there would be more than just "Arizona has the most illegal immigrants per capita"
4 States border Mexico.
Even before looking at any data, I'd bet the farm that one of them will have the highest "per capita" illegal immigrants
2 of the states happen to sit across major population centers in Mexico, but those happen to be the 2 most populace state.
California 36,756,666
Texas 24,326,974
A large number of immigrants would need to come in to give them the most illegal immigrants per capita
New Mexico is close to one major population center, but New Mexico is sparsely populated, not a place one would expect to find an undocumented job easily.
New Mexico 1,984,356
Arizona 6,500,180
Has major urban areas close to Mexico but relatively few people.
As for the Drug Cartels and Gang Warfare, the War on Drugs funds that operation. There's no Valentine's Day Massacre without prohibition, there's no rampant Drug Cartels without the War on Drugs.
Any critiques of her actual actions would be nice. Otherwise it's almost like saying Palin's state is being devastated by near perpetual darkness during much of the year.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Okay__? Comparing planetary phenomenon to crime?
It's original, I'll give you that one?
But no, the reasons Napolitano is quite possibly the last person on earth we would want as the head of Homeland Security has little to do the northern lights, astrology, or lame statistical rationalizations.
No, she has racked herself up a long laundry list dubious resume talking points for the job;
Just to name a few. I don't think we need to call in a statistical analyst, or cosmologist to come in and settle this one for us, do we Brutus?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Hayek could have had Red-Wing in mind in composing his famous
essay on why he is NOT A CONSERVATIVE
hem.passagen.se/nicb/cons.htm
Red-Wing's tripe above is perfect illustration of Hayek's observation:
Shame on you, turning classic Hayek into some lame allegory...
I am very fond of FA Hayek, and am always up for learning more.
I am more fond of common sense and the us constitution.
However, my intention, unlike the fictitious conservative in the passage of Hayek's you posted, is not emanating from any fondness for authority, in fact that quality and my personal beliefs couldn't be farther from one another.
I would like as little government intervention in our lives as is possible. The only caveat being the words "as little government as possible' means we maintain the restrained constitutional government we are prescribed.
I can look you in the eye and assure you of one thing brother, I am 100% more willing to entrust my security to the constitutional defense of our border withMexico by our military and a secure barrier, than your obscenely incompetent open border rigmarole.
Given the chaotic, and volatile nature of what is happening along our border.
Given the devastation it is reaping on American families and towns.
How can you rationalize it away in the name of libertarianism?
In my view, if you are claiming that as a libertarian you are so agog over the idea of open borders that you are literally unable to enforce the most basic of civil laws, or secure our nations property in order to protect US citizens, maybe I am not as impressed with the libertarian movement as I thought I was.
You certainly give libertarianism a black eye with that sort of posturing.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Well to be fair...
...the violence on both sides of the Mexican-American border is mostly tied to the illegal drug trade, and libertarians are for legalization of drugs, which would change the playing field quite a bit in that regard.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Vicious Cycle of Interventionism
You espouse more interventionism to "solve" the problems created by the interventionism of drug prohibition. It's a viscious cycle that follows along the lines of mandatory minimum sentences, violations of the 4th amendment, violations of financial privacy, asset-forfeiture laws, expanded police agencies and powers, to finally, militarization.
An appeal to the threat of the consequences arising from the interventionism in the first place as justification for further interventionism is logical fatuity. In the name of "restrained constitutional government" you advocate the US overturn the long historical precedents of The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act of 1807 in circumscribing the use of the military for domestic law enforcement. In the name of "limited government" you advocate a military police State. That's a real howler(cue the laugh track).
Frankly, given your incoherent views(concerning liberty), it's a relief on my part that you find mine objectionable. The philosophy of liberty is simple. The individual exists for his own sake, not for the sake of the King, the Pope, the God, the State, etc. The right to engage in voluntary exchange of ideas and trade with others according to the No Harm principle is a natural consequence of self-ownership and forms the basis of cooperation between free individuals necessary to coexist and interact in civil society. To the extent a State violates these principles, it loses legitimacy. A State that grossly violates these principles is illegitimate. A State that militarizes domestic law enforcement is in gross violation.
In terms of Hayek, his resistance to "conservatism" is rooted in his evolutionary, "Spontaneous Order" model of social order; his point more or less is that conservatism is only as good as what it is trying to conserve. You are specifically trying to conserve a more recent, failed, illiberal drug prohibition on the back of overturning a successful, much older liberal tradition of avoiding using the military in domestic law enforcement. You are exactly who Hayek is criticizing in that article.
It's not the liberal tradition of open borders that's the problem, it's the illiberal drug war. The kidnapping stats you cite may be true, but you fail to mention that the victims are almost entirely "players" in the game.
Fine then, on this we disagree...
But that hardly makes my views any less worthy, or "incoherent".
Libertarians like you with this superiority complex of "I'm somehow better than you" sort of approach just alienates so many from the movement.
Keep up the good work.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Nice ad hominem response...
very original too...
What has crawled up your posterior and expired...
...Do you really want to do this?
Cause I'm not shy, but I am trying to be a good steward of SC as some of those who came before me have suggested.
I'll tell ya something though brother, it is becoming abundantly evident to me that you may be in need of a major proctotomy.
...Scalpel.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
It happened
a magic moment where we agree!
Playing well with others is not a requirement. Each individual is a sovereign nation unto himself.
Maximizing the theories of the invisible hand, by minimizing others with the invisible foot.
I'm only half stupid
Ignoring society is not the
Ignoring society is not the only consistent view of liberty.
I have a question for you...
For someone who quotes Milton Friedman in his tagline, why are you engaging in rhetorical sophistry about why a politican cannot solve the "problem" of drug cartels and free flow of labor across borders? You should know damn well why they can't, and you should be damn glad they don't have the totalitarian power, at least not yet, to do so.
If you subscribe to a State powerful enough to eradicate black markets in drugs and labor, then you are subscribing to a Maoist type totalitarian State. Since you I presume you have a natural aversion to Maoist Statism, you would do well to drop the BS about ineffectual leadership at the helm of the Dept. of Fatherland Security.
Btw, it is the US black market in guns that is supplying the arms to the Mexican Drug Cartels. So, in case you haven't noticed, this will be an area that Fatherland Security will likely soon be addressing. So, if you are a supporter of Fatherland Security, you are a supporter of gun control and gun grabbing. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't bitch about Dem weakness in cracking down on black market activity and then scream bloody murder when/if they go after the gun trade.
The "illegal immigration" argument is equally baffling. It's a sore point with me with respect to those who advocate instantaneous, borderless flow of capital but want a Checkpoint Charlie Police State when it comes to the free flow of labor. It's an utterly incoherent view...
If you haven't learned by now that...
....Red Wing is not interested in intellectual consistency, then I don't know when you will.
He's for small government... except when he's not.
I survived the Bush Administration
There's other foundations for
There's other foundations for political philosophy besides how big or small government should be. Libertarians seem fond of thinking that a call for small government here and bigger government here, is inconsistent, but that's only if you think the only basis for any political philosophy is how to enlarge or shrink government.
Libertarians think it's
Libertarians think it's inconsistant because it ignore the right of the individual inconsistantly. And that's a very generic point. Libertarian philosophy defaults, always, to the right of the individual. A smaller government is the logical result. Criticisms such as yours see the problem in reverse and so I can understand the confusion. Libertarians are input driven, not output driven as are the two main political parties of our day.
Negative externality
be damned, eh?
Society must always bow to the greater good of the individual.
Erin Brokovich trespassed on your input. What a nightmare!
I'm only half stupid
When am I ever for big government?
Knock off the animosity, Im trying to not be a dick, and with you around it's not easy, but perhaps if you could do the same?
Give me an example of where I have advocated for big government?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
All your equivocal hyperpole aside...
Free flow of trade passes beautifully through secure borders. Legitimate commerce has no difficulty with crossing where the actual road meets the border. lol.
And yes I advocate for a rock solid federally secured border, for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is it is the constitutional role of the federal government, and we should eliminate the border patrol and let the military oversee it's enforcement.
Pretty simple really.
Let me assure you of something friend, if we do not secure that border now, something really terrible could happen one day soon, if you think the LA riots were hard to watch...stay tuned!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
What a surprise: Conservative commentators lied
Link:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=1011
I survived the Bush Administration
Interesting non-revelation.
Interesting non-revelation. But that article is a tough read.
Yes. That's right. Walmart has become succesful for taking money from the lower and middle class in exchange for goods and services.
Leaving out those little details make this article about as genuine as the assertion that illegal immigrants caused our problem. But it does a decent job of illustrating that the CRA didn't induce poor lending practices. They fail to mention that while banks heavily monitored for CRA compliance didn't write the bad loans, they sure did buy a lot of them!
But that's just a quote
And in fact, it is meant to be a relatively pro-Wal-Mart quote, believe it or not. - see full context here
if you care.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
That's a fair point. While
That's a fair point. While I am not pro Wal-Mart, I get instantly mad when they are constantly indicted as the fleecers of lower income people.
but.. they are.
Walmart is notorious for moving into an area, killing off local business, offering crap wages and coercively suppressing atempts to unionize. They drain small communities of cash and send that cash back to their corporate headquarters.
As a libertarian how can you support a company that's entire business plan is founded on creating local monopolies?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
reading > you.
You can put words in my mouth all you want but it just won't make what you say amount to any more than projection. I do not favor the favoratism and lobbying that Wal-Mart or any other company participates in. That does not automatically mean that anything involving Wal-Mart must be wrong or make me upset as a Libertarian.
The idea that Wal-Mart kills a local economy is silly rhetoric. If people have no money to spend then Wal-Mart couldn't make it anyway.
Sorry
but when you leap to defend a company, immediately and contrary to fact, your actions give lie to your words.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
The defense of X itself is generic and irrelevant
What exactly X is being defended against is the real matter.
Meanwhile in Iraq
we're still losing a soldier every other day. The ISF is still losing 1-2 guys a day. Iraqi civilians are still losing 100-200 a month. At least in the last case those are all deaths due to violence, not accidents, suicides, or natural causes.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
CBO projections
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=9957
there's a nice big spreadsheet called "budget projections
".
It helps if you're having trouble keeping track of the relative magnitude of various items.
I think this is from 8 Jan, so it doesn't include the stimulus package, still, it shows a lot of state debt in the near future. They project a big dip in 2009 (deficit at ~%9 of GDP, which may be the most since WWII). After 2009, they predict that the deficit will return to a more typical 2-3%, even as interest payments double by 2015, presumably as interest rates increase to a more normal level and the new debt starts to cost us.
The big items (one time concerns) seem to be:
1) A $170 billion decrease in tax receipts, matched with a slight increase in all spending (inflation, I presume), and an absence of GDP growth. (I think the stimulus added a ~$250 billion additional decrease in tax revenues...over a few years)
2) $35 billion increase in unemployment insurance (which has been expanded by the stimulus package), and a $11 billion increase in food stamps.
3) $238 billion to bail out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. $134 billion to bail out banks (TARP).
4) $30 billion increase in defense spending
5) $20 billion increase in non-defense, discretionary spending. (this has probably been expanded by ~400 billion by the stimulus...spread out over a few years)
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
the new budget is here
the White House's proposed budget,
Summary tables on page 114
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
The budget
I just added a diary
, in case anyone wants to spout off about the budget.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Please pardon my absence
I've been busy lately with stuff at home.
Today I and about 45 other people at my employer
learned that we will be laid off as of May 1.
I'm pretty upset since I moved to the Columbus area specifically for this job and will have had it taken away from me only 5 months after I started. Looks like I'm back to joining Tlaloc with having a lot of unwanted free time.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I'm sorry to hear that.
Don't move back without fight.
I'd get crackin' with the want ads while you're still there.
Good Luck. Be strong. Keep up posted.
Funny you bring that up
Even the managers are fired (except for the data conversions manager), so they don't really care anymore. We're actually encouraged to look for other employment on the clock.
Everyone there is going to be "stealing time" as much as possible in the next few months. And a lot of us are going to be trying to cheat our FSAs as well.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
More power to you.
So long as they're paying you, why not?
Crap....
Sorry man. Everybody in my office is on pins and needles, expecting this to happen any day...
Hope you find something comparable soon.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Peeks his head out.
Dis somebody say free time?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Bummer
That totally sucks. I wish there was something I could do, besides just offer words.
;-(
My newphew has been hired back for the third time at Adam's aircraft. They laid him off. He got a job out of state, then they offered him his job in Denver again, he worked for a week and they laid him off again. They just hired him back as part of a skeleton crew. Funding issues.
I'm only half stupid
Thats a drag bro!
There should be some cool prospects in Columbus though huh?
One of my best friends is from there, he said it was a really cool town.
Enjoy the city for a few days, keep your head up, and get out there and discover what's next soon, right.
Best of luck!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Argh
There's a lot of that going around...
Well, at least you've gotten quite a bit of warning, and you've worked long enough (20 weeks
) to be eligible for unemployment, right?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Unemployment
I'll be very close based on my math. It'll be 22 weeks, but I'm not sure if my average wage will be enough because the base period goes back to when I was unemployed previously.
My severance and PTO buyout may be enough to put me over the $210 I need.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Sorry, Stiner.
At least being layed off you can get unemployment while you look. I should have waited to get laid off, although to be fair at the begining of september when we were deciding to move it wasn't clear that we were heading into a recession/depression.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
good luck finding a job
I noticed that some people are trying to leverage Facebook's social network in their job search
Friends who have lost jobs or will help those who have find jobs
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=49854628793
Goodluck.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Are you facebook?
I looked for you once and didn't find you.
I am
Nathan A. Stine and I live in Columbus, Ohio. You'll find me there.
I have no qualms about people knowing who I am IRL.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Did you see Barry when he was in town?
;-)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Are you kidding?
I work for a living. I don't have time to see politicians give speeches.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Oh...I thought you a...had the day...sort of off... ;-)
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Funny.
I looked for you under Nathan Stine a while back and it didn't come up. I'll try again. I think I even looked under the Columbus Network.
Nope.
Nothing still.
Are you sure your profile is visible to non-friends?
You might want to check your settings.
It mightn't be
I'll have to check.
Yes; I fixed it. You should be able to find me: Nathan A. Stine
I'm the only Nathan A. Stine and one of 10 Nathan Stines
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Thanks.
I sent you a friend request...
Stinerman and I are now BFF on Facebook.
hehehe
I've requested stinerman to add me as a friend...
I've been told that my facebook page is "sad" :-) Not much of a facebooker, but I can see where it is kinda handy to keep track of people who move around a lot...
I looked thru stinerman's friends and couldn't pick you out, John, or I would have added you too. EDIT--never mind, I found you John... I sent you a friend request so that we can be BFFs too :-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
It's done.
I hope Stine won't be jealous.
BTW, skymutt
ATQB is on my friend list.
(I assume you remember his name. You guys met with GR, right?)
Are there any Italian
Are there any Italian surnames that don't end in a vowel?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
sure
di cavour
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_Camillo_Benso_di_Cavour
That's the first one that came to mind.
Buffon is another. One of my heroes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianluigi_Buffon
which friend are you?
I assume you're on stinerman's list, no?
Ya, but I haven't updated or
Ya, but I haven't updated or really done all that much on there is years.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
job ideas
If I recall correctly from previous discussions, you do software design and would be willing to move within the ohio area, right?
I assume that you've got your bearings with regard to the traditional job hunt.
Do you think you could find small programming jobs, that could put a little money in your pocket and help you make a few contacts? Are there other opportunities to sell your expertise (such as answering questions for Experts Exchange or writing for About.com).
Since you seem to have a bit of a cushion, you could try starting up something of your own (a publication or software shop). The trick is finding something that people want to buy, even in a recession...if you can convince people that you can save money for them (or help them find jobs) then you might have something.
I'm just brainstorming. Good luck.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Interesting thought
From Russ Roberts
:
Yippie! More equality! Not quite what the egalitarians had I in mind I suppose.
BTW, how much you wanna wager that when this happens, it gets used as a way to credit the current administration for lowering income inequality?
hehehe. It'll happen.
No, not really
We'll take it all the same, though. :-)
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
It would be cheaper to fight WW2 again
says the venerable Robert Higgs
.
Interesting. Read the rest. It's short.
Gun control
Redstaters are freaking out that Obama is going to grab their guns. Normally I'd chock this up to the usual paranoia but then I come across this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/opinion/27fri3.html
This strongly suggests an attempt to create a narrative allowing for some changes in gun control laws. Personally I think its insane that we flood this country with millions of guns a year (about 5 million a year in case you wondered) so I;d be only too happy to see a change that reduced the number of weapons floating about out there just waiting for someone to snap.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
That's nice
It depends on how deep the restrictions go though.
The US governments War on Drugs funds the Cartels.
Then the government tries to restrict fundamental rights, in the "least intrusive way [hopefully]," in order to slow the bleeding from wounds created by previous government actions.
Until Morale Improves, the Beatings Will Continue.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
drug prohibition => gun prohibition
Conservatives should have learned this a long time ago -- drug prohibition provides the main rationale for gun prohibition.
Conservative gun advocates talk about how guns allow us to resist a tyrannical government, but they don't seem to consider the consequences of trying to force one's own preferred lifestyle upon an unwilling and armed minority.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Has Peggy Noonan been taken over by body snatchers?
Can't believe she wrote this opinion piece:
That's just the start. Read the whole thing here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123568516377286823.html
You'd think it was EJ Dionne or something.
Peggy Freaking Noonan.... who would've thunk it...
I survived the Bush Administration
She's a bit fed
up with a lot of the conservative dogma.
The language of the speech was masterful.
I'm only half stupid
She's been whack for a long time!
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Surprise, surprise. Conservatives are biggest consumers of porn
And this shocker:
I guess the old theory holds true. If you want something to be popular, make it "forbidden". It's the same thing at play with 19-yr-old college kids who binge drink while their 23-yr-old counterparts are "over that phase".
Full article here:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16680-porn-in-the-usa-conservatives-are-biggest-consumers.html
I survived the Bush Administration
At the risk of becoming a Utah defender on a full-time basis
If you're in a state where you've got a porn czar
assigned to closing up adult bookstores etc., it's probably just a matter of simple availability that people would resort to their computers for their porn needs. It needn't be a matter of the "forbidden" necessarily becoming more popular, and this doesn't mean that Utahans are bigger porn consumers overall than residents of neighboring states; it might just mean that they get more thru their computers and less from bookstores or other brick & mortar outlets because the B&M outlets just aren't conveniently located for them.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
10 years ago I'd probably agree with you
but today the vast majority of porn comes over teh intertubes. In other words the discrepency in availability of adult shops just won't make much difference at this point.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Here's some 2007 stats on the US porn industry
Internet porn: $2.84 billion
X-rated video sales and rentals: $2.4 billion
Pay-per-view and subscription porn: $1.7 billion
Adult magazines: $1 billion
link
Of course this is just the pay porn, and doesn't count all the free porn that comes over the internet. However, just in terms of dollar per dollar expenditures, the majority of porn did not come over the internet as of 2007.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Interesting stats
I guess it's merely a plurality of paid porn that comes online. Like you said this does leave out the free online porn (which I, uh, hear from other people is voluminous), but the original study we're commenting on probably didn;t quanitfy free porn either.
I do wonder about their methodology though. The rise of small, even personal, porn sites using low tech webcam equipment would seem difficult to measure (as compared to the larger studios).
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Animated video that explains the credit crisis very clearly
http://vimeo.com/3261363?pg=embed&sec=&hd=1
This is really a well-thought out animated video that explains the credit crisis as clearly as anything I've ever seen.
Nothing political in it... just facts. It's about 5 or 10 minutes long. But well worth it.
I survived the Bush Administration
The latest in the Stanford Investment Bank Ponzi Scheme
The SEC is out with an amended complaint in the Stanford Investment Bank case that more directly implicates Allen Stanford. Among details in the complaint that were not in the prior complaint:
Although Stanford is not criminally charged, the SEC is now officially calling this a Ponzi Scheme.
Stanford Investment Bank's largest "asset" is in the form of a coool $1.6 billion in bogus "loans" to Allen Stanford. Its other major assets include real estate marked at several times the actual value, and a private equity portfolio of holdings in unprofitable ventures. Given the fact that Stanford claimed to be an $8 billion bank even after inflating its performance, it's not hard to imagine that this represents just about all that exists of the investors' deposits.
Stanford Investment Bank's cash position had fallen from $779 million as of last June to less than $28 million by earlier this month. Given the state of Stanford's other investments, it is not looking good for Stanford investors.
See the complaint here
.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
How embarrassing....
for the regulators more than anyone else.
Took'em long enough....not to mention of the mountains of regulations on the books.
What went wrong?
They should be beyond embarrassment, and into the realm of fear
Fear for their jobs... because they haven't been doin em :-(
They had plenty of laws on the books under which to get this guy, plenty of warning that he wasn't on the level, and plenty of opportunity to nab this guy on numerous occasions. He'd still be running his operation today if a blogger didn't blow the operation... after all, they had a whistleblower who brought them this case on a silver platter last year, and they still were dragging their feet until earlier this month. How long does it take??? It seems like if you're a white collar criminal, you get to enjoy the fruits of your crooked enterprise for years and decades, and the SEC will only bring a case against you after your crimes are discovered because the money runs out.
It's beyond an outrage. I believe Harry Markopolos when he said that they need to fire all 3500 SEC employees and start over. There is so much crooked stuff still going on in the financial world that it's not even funny, and the regulators can't find their rear ends with both hands. The problem is, where are you going to find the kind of honest, dogged people with industry experience that can replace this dysfunctional group we've got now? Good, ethical people seem to be at a premium in this country. It's an ethical crisis that is not talked about.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
It is an ethical crises
I don't think Adam Smith would be very happy.
What is bizarre is the progressive corruption under the iron fist of Republican rule. First there was Enron, then WorldCom then the sickening Abramoff K-Street Scandal, then the collapse of the financial system.
I'm only half stupid
I also don't think Smith would be surprised
if you get to the whole body of what he said and not the one-liners and zingers.
Why do you do this?
The irony of your contradictions.
You have asserted that my focus on issues needs to be narrow and specific when it suits your fancy yet at here you state the focus of the issues must be broad.
The common theme is what suits your fancy. Not to say that is bad necessarily just that it is glaring and obvious.
I'm only half stupid
Huh?
Where did I contradict myself?
where? I don't follow.
I said Adam Smith would not be surprised. If you take the one-liners and zingers, you can come away with that impression. If you take the view of his entire body of work, you plenty of evidence that those zingers are misleading or incomplete without context. So actually, in a way, the broad (and incomplete and vague) view would be to say that Smith would surprised because it ignores a lot of what he said. The more detailed view is one that accounts for his misgivings about the integrity of businessmen because it appeciates context and different chapters...not to mention different books.
I'm not getting general. I pointing the fact that Smith has written plenty that shows he wouldn't be surprised. That's not contradiction here or anywhere else.
You know, if you only watch Star Wars: Episode 4, it seems accurate to say that Darth Vader is irredeemable. If you watch the whole story, you see that that isn't necessarily true. Same thing.
Well,
Sounds to me that you want this matter to be so simple as to apply a one-size-fits-all observation that simply doesn't work.
It's one thing to retreat from specifics in broad talking points because the detail doesn't lend itself to talking points and broad-brushed partisan zingers. That's what I often see you do.
It's quite another to point out that the work of a writer like Adam Smith is too nuanced to say he would surprised at the deceit and corrutpion in business.
They are not the same thing...as much as you might like them to be.
I will keep
that in mind for future reference.
I'm only half stupid
You do that.
It'll be interesting to see how you contort its meaning to fit a future scenario where it doesn't belong...like you just did above.
Hey John - Quick little Q thread jack... :-)
Hey J,
I had a quick dissappointing chat with Kaligulia, or whatever his name is, about the border, and immigration, anyway, did you happen to see it?
If so what are your thoughts?
-RW
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I tend to side more with him
in terms of the spirit of what he means in the circumspect, multi-policy sense of it.
I'm just more congenial about it.
But don't get me wrong. Kal's a good guy. A very knowledgeable and deep thinker....a little more avant-gard than me.
Explain this to me...
how do you see it working there?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I'll explain a bit more why, RW:
I see the problems at the border and border areas as the results of unneeded prohibitions elsewhere that manifest themselves in many unsavory ways.
Drug are a big one. Why is it such a lucrative, high stakes, violent and dangerous business?
Because they're illegal. The ripple effects go far and wide: crime at the border, crime in our cities and towns, more demand for black market guns to fight wars over black market turf and distribution.
Is there a down side to legalizing the distribution and sale of illicit drugs? Yes. Is the downside worth keeping them illegal? No.
So, now we got drugs and guns in a totally unneeded symbiotic relationship. Intervention and prohibition create more of it.
On the economic side, the free flow of labor across the border would be good for the economic well-being back in Mexico and beyond. The stark inequality between both sides the border would go down....which in the longer run will change the dynamic of immigration.
Once we let them in to work freely, a lot of the other problems with welfare begin to take care of themselves.
So what does that look like in practical terms?
I mean explain how it would operate...open borders, crack is legal...do you think there will be meth and crack disributers like a miller disributorship, with offices in Jarez and NYC?
Do you really think we should allow people to just walk in and out of our country unchecked?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
There's not much to explain
Yes. Crack would be legal. Are YOU gonna start using it if it's legal? I'm not.
It's always the other guy. I got news for you: A lot people use crack and it's illegal. So, we either make it legal and they still use it while we remove the crime of it and related to its illegality...as well as freeing up a lot of antidrug enforcement resources....or....we ramp up the loser efforts we already have with all the colleteral damage that comes with it.
The key is to make it easier to have through legal channels than through illegal ones. Make it like cigarrettes where a tax is put on them to pay for anti-drug aducation and ads...just like cigarettes.
And yes: Open Borders.
I have no problem with a check point. But "Carlos and Juan" should be able to walk up the border with proper ID and just keep on going. A work permit office would just a few steps away....kinda like Ellis Island.
I know that simplicity might irk you a bit but that's my stance.
Your thoughts?
I doubt that's irksome at all
In fact, I think the idea of
is fine with most folks. The rub comes in in enforcement of this. What if the process is easy, legal, etc...but Carlos doesn't follow it and comes in anyway? What do we do about Carlos and about the employer who hires him "illegally"?
Until your proposition and those questions can be examined as reasonable, without the automatic assumptions that the person asking them is racist and hates brown people, we will get nowhere on this issue.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
It doesn't irk me, it kinda confuses me though...
I mean I understand we will never agree on the open border idea, and I agree drugs should be made legal.
So you see it as anyone can get a work visa, and stroll over the border, and do you see us being vigilant in enforcing the terms of that visa? With the onslaught of humanity won't that pose some pretty serious problems in and of themselves.
Do you see the statistics of what illegal immigration costs taxpayers? Surely many of those workers will take a simular toll, how will we cope?
What about legality, holding those workers to the standards we have here, auto ins, etc?
I think it is a crazy idea, I think legitimate seasonal workers should be given permits, as are people from the rest of the world, instead of having to sneak over the border, but there could not be an come and get it mentality of those around the planet, we are not that country any longer.
And what about security, how do we keep from being blown to smithereens?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
SOme thoughts, RW
I am not quite sure what the problem is. There are no terms to enforce. They just get a work permit. No strings. No stiplulations. The idea is to make it easy and avoid any need to circumvent the system. Matriculation shouldn't be something to avoid.
No. I am not totally familiar with them. However, it would interesting to see what the costs are and how legal status to live and work and partake openly in the economy and the services available would reduce those costs....and that includes things like auto insurance.
That;s why there's checkpoint.
This topic deserves a separate diary
So I started one.
I don't know why it's got formatting issues.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Well, skymutt
That's the key. The talent usually either flows the other way or joins the regulators with certain biases toward the paisans in the ol' stomping grounds.
Of course, regulators are often chasing their own tail with new rules for the last problem....usually with its roots in some naive regulation that closed one door and opened 2 others.
Then again, the incentive to be dogged and diligent is much weaker than the incentive to find loopholes and tricks.
Couple things
1. I think it's obvious we need one financial regulator. Stanford was under investigation by the SEC for four years apparently, but that considerations over turf slowed their progress:
Four years to decide turf battles? Obscene. In a world where banks deal in all kinds of securities, we obviously need a regulator authorized to pursue investigations whereever they lead and not be limited by what kind of financial instruments are involved. Recall that there was also no regulator that took charge of overseeing the credit default swap market either... were they insurance? were they a security? Nobody wanted to make the call and take charge it seems. In a financial world where all kinds of complex instruments blur the lines, a regulator has to have wide authority.
2. When these multi-million-dollar fraudsters are caught and convicted, the penalties need to be severe. This guy Stanford lived like royalty for over a decade on stolen money. The rest of his life needs to be the polar opposite of his existence to this point... he needs to spend the rest of his life with the worst of the worst in the dingiest, most miserable prison in the system. And these prosecutions can't drag out years just because the guy has a wad of stolen money he can spend on high-priced lawyers. This guy was not framed and he is not innocent. His extravagant lifestyle is his motive, and if he doesn't have even a fraction of the $8 billion he says he did, there's your fraud. And these guys should not be able to walk free while awaiting trial! They are flight risks and they are risks to spend or hide whatever is left of their ill-gotten gains.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I don't really disagree
I often wonder if the regulators job would be made easier with better groupings of regulations that make incentives work in ways that make such activity harder to partake in....before the oversight even becomes an issue.
The whole petty bureaucracy turf thing is nothing new. It's pointed to in some of the breakdowns that let 9/11 happen. Like I said, incentives are weaker in that realm. And I'll go a step further and say that they are simply different.
One regulator? Hmmm. Maybe. But that might also cause new problems that we haven't yet accounted for.
I am reminded of a childhood game...
It's that game where you get a big mallet and you have to hit the gophers as they pop out of the hole. It feels like we just keep trying to hit the gophers with differing strategies rather than walk over to the wall to pull the plug.
(I just shivered a bit. I didn't want to use an analogy, but I just keep seeing that image in my head...)
...Just remembered. Wack-a-Mole.
In your analogy
...what does pulling the plug represent? Abolishing the SEC and not replacing it with anything? Do you think that's realistic, considering the rampant fraud and abuse that is already taking place in our financial markets?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
lol. You guys crack me up.
The analogy doesn't matter. It's just what I keep envisioning. Feel free to ignore it. There's no convincing you the FTC or SEC will never have anything close to the level of "control" it will take to prevent future fraud. And there's no convincing me that "the journey" is what's important.
ha ha ha
so true.
<snark on>
Just like the police will never have anything close to the level of 'control' it will take to prevent future murders. Those coppers are such a corrupt bunch they always let the murderers get away. And to think they we have to transfer our hard earned wealth to pay their wages.
<snark off>
I'm only half stupid
Not even close to the same thing.
n/t
How so
it sounds like exactly the same thing. You have a group who have an incentive to break the law and another group charged with stopping them.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
There's an easy solution
if it impossible to keep certain types of actors from committing fraud when engaged in high finance then they no longer are alklowed to engage in high finance. Problem solved. If it turns out that we find the circle of people who engage in fruad is bigger than we thought then the prohibition is expanded to match.
If we eventually end up abolishing high finance altogether, so be it. Either people are grown up enough to play nice or they aren't. If they aren't they have their toys taken away. They can cry and fuss and whine but it remains their own damn fault.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I think you are confusing my
I think you are confusing my lack of faith in regulation to keep bad things from happening with a defense of people like Madoff. Madoff should go to jail for a long, long time. And he should never be able to engage in financial matters other than his own ever again. I just think the latter will be true because we all now know who Madoff is and what he did and so that little problem takes care of itself. And if it doesn't, the people who give him their money deserve what they get.
Or you can have multiple regulators...
...but if an investigation is started by regulator A, and the subject of investigation crosses over into regulator B's turf, regulator A should be able to borrow expertise from regulator B and continue their investigation. There has to be some flexibility and some ability to cut thru red tape. Everybody has to recgonize that they are all on the same team, and the agencies have to be set up tp allow interagency cooperation. Maybe there needs to be a turf czar that can be reached on a hotline and can resolve turf disputes on the spot :-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
But then who gets the kudos? ;)
Who gets the promotion?
Don't get me wrong. I hear ya. It should work that way. It's just that bureaucrats can be self-interested, petty drama queens just like everyone else.
That scene in Charlie Wilson War where the two are arguing and then the guy smashes the glass is a common thing in real life, methinks.
I'll tell you who gets a promotion...
Nobody gets a promotion. We'll pay you a good salary and top notch benefits. If you do a good job (and that includes cooperating with other agencies when necessary) you get to keep your job and we might give you a plaque at the annual agency potluck dinner. If you don't do a good job, see ya later, good luck in the private sector. I think a steady government job is going to look a lot better going forward as the easy money on Wall Street dries up by the way. Markopolos seemed to think that you needed to pay regulators all kind of bonuses to get them to pursue the tough cases but I'm not sold that it's a good idea to put in place those kind of incentives because I think they would serve to reinforce turf boundaries and stifle interagency cooperation. Instead, the prestige of the job has to be built on something other than compensation, like the old FBI or the Marines, and that has to be the incentive that attracts good people. I don't think government should try to compete with the private sector on the grounds of compensation because if that's how the battle for "talent' is fought, it cannot win that battle.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Bingo.
bingo, bingo, bingo.
This is so absolutely key I only hope I can explain it clearly. The incetive structure of the private industry is exactly why the government, with regard to regulation, will simply never, ever, ever be able to "control" the private sector to the degree that will satisfy even the most mild of anti-capitalists. While the incentive structure you speak of may not have worked, just as many, many in the private sector do not work, you cannot simply ignore the need to motivate by hanging that carrot just in front of their noses.
Again easy solution
put caps on compensation such that the private industry can't outbid the government.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
LOL.
rubs temples
Such myopic solutions sound simple when you ignore everything else.
whoops.
wrong spot...
Anti-capitalists?
It's not just the "anti-capitalists" that want to effectively regulate the financial industry. For starters, I'd guess that nearly all honest investors want a referee on the field. I don't think it's anticapitalist to want to have confidence in the numbers that publicly traded companies report, or to want to have confidence that the exchanges aren't rigged, or to want to have a fraudster like Madoff found out and prosecuted before he squanders virtually every dime entrusted to him. And it doesn't take a financial whiz earning a seven figure salary to figure out frauds like Madoff... especially considering that third parties blew the whistle on Madoff numerous times and told the SEC what to look for! What does it really take, then, to send someone to his offices, demand to see the accounts, and determine that the money isn't there? It just takes a qualified accountant with the authority to be able to demand the right to see the books and a little muscle alongside in case there's no cooperation. There are people out there who would like to perpetuate the myth that this stuff is more complicated than it is.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I don't think that's quite what he meant
But I'll let him explain if he's so inclined (and if I'm right).
I dunno...
...just a while ago he wanted to "unplug" the whack-a-mole machine...
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
ha.
Let's just remember that analogies capture the essence of a certain idea from the POV of the person using the analogy. It's never perfect.
I told you the whack-a-mole
I told you the whack-a-mole image wasn't important. And I really don't like to use analogies because people like you seem to take the opportunity to destruct the analogy rather than concentrate on the point. So conentrate on the point.
The point has seemd to be that regulation is futile
If that's not what you mean, that's what has been coming across to me.
And I reject that, particularly in the financial sphere. The vast sums of money that financial institutions accumulate from investors creates powerful temptations to steal. We've already seen that if there's nobody looking over these institution's shoulders, the frauds will grow to monumental size and last for decades and will only be discovered when they run out of cash, which is of course far too late for the investors. We've already seen numerous institutions fail because of an inevitable chain reaction of defaults on what amounts to a wholly unregulated and thoroughly undercapitalized insurance product that was really just a form of gambling since one didn't even need to own the item that was "insured".
I may have missed your point, but I have also missed your proposed solution to the rampant fraud and abuse in the financial sector, because you haven't given one.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Sure I have. It just hasn't
Sure I have. It just hasn't been in the last few posts. You have to stick with me to pull that kind of information.
I'll accept a link, if this is ground you've already covered...
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Here's a start.
One of the problems you describe is created by the fractional reserve system
(spefically consider the criticisms). If you are interested in discussing it's role in making artificially low interest rates even worse, I'd be happy to have that discussion. The continued reference to regulation as the root of our problem is overly simplistic to the point that it's doomed to repeat itself as people settle into their new found "safe" financial system.
Skymutt, you missed the
Skymutt, you missed the point. You talked about a desire for altruism in the regulatory workplace. If it were something realistic we wouldn't have the need for regulation to being with. There is this perpetuated myth among modern liberals that somehow the best, brightest, and most honest people end up in government in contrast to the private sector. I'm not sure that's your point, but given what you said I'm not suer it isn't, either. Disincentizing the workplace is not a reasonable request; that was my point.
But the biggest point you missed, was that as I said, the incentive structure available to the government cannot be as strong as that of the private sector. And because of that you will never end up with the kind of safety net that even the most of mild of anti-capitalists feel comfortable with. This was not an afront to those on Wall Street who got burned and want regulation (a childish reaction, in my opinion. And pointing to it as proof that everyone wants it is therefore a bit like tearing out the electricity in your house after the first time your kid gets a good shock... another analogy!) This was not an affront to your defention of who is capitalist and who is not. So please move past that minor part to the real guts of what I'm saying.
If the only thing that motivates is money
...how do you explain that Marines rush into the jaws of death for peanuts? How do you explain firemen entering a burning building for a modest salary? How do you explain why a policemen enters a dark alley in pursuit of an armed suspect?
All I'm saying that if you have an organization with a strong mission and you foster the proper culture and build up morale, you don't have to compete strictly on pay with the private sector to be effective as a regulatory body over the financial sector. Their internal motivation to do what's right, brought out of them by the culture of their organization rather than their pay, is will be what drives them to go after these criminals like Madoff like pit bulls. I don't think you need to start out with a bunch of geniuses either.
By the way, I don't think the desire for better regulation by financial types is merely to be dismissed as a short-sighted overreaction, considering that the financial system has literally destroyed itself with its excesses. Responsible players within the system simply do not want to be taken out by the reckless and blind greed of others.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I never said the incentive
I never said the incentive structure had to be based on money. I just think incentives play an vital role. Your original assertion was the removal of incentives in an effort to some form of altruism. But what you just said leads me to believe you do like incentives, but don't see them as such unless they involve money. That's a bit different than no incentives at all.
The ones crying for regulation now said nothing of regulation before they lost money. That's a short-sighted overreaction if I've ever heard one. "Responsible players with the system" simply do not want to loose a lot of money because they lacked the information necessary to understand the risks they took were larger than the were really willing to take. They could care less about the reckless and blind greed of others so long as they were making money, too. But I'm a pretty cynical person, so maybe your rose colored glasses are of a slightly different shade than mine...
Gross distortion of what I said
I've been entierely consistent on incentives. I never talked about "removal of incentives", despite what you claim here, and I have consistently talked about incentives other than compensation. Here's what I said originally:
So if you're now saying that you don't think that regulatory incentive structures necessarily need to be based on money, you're just now coming around to agreement with my original thesis I proposed several comments ago.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Fair enough.
Looks like we both read too far into each other's points. But that's just in regard to incentives, not my original point that the incentives available to the private sector cannot match those of private and that is one of the big reason, I feel, that will prevent something like the FTC or SEC from ever doing anything but playing catch-up. You just side tracked the point by worrying about how I defined anti-capitalists. And then you missed it again by worrying about my defenition of incentives.
All that aside, how do you feel with regard to my original point? How do you think that could be addressed? If a mixed economy is our lot in life, then I am open to suggestions on how to control the beast that it is.
There's always going to be an element of catch up...
...to the extent that the regulatory agency is there to investigate crimes-- well, obviously the crime has to be committed before the investigation occurs. But when there's gaps of three years, or five years, or ten years from when the agency is tipped off to a fraud and when it even lifts a finger to investigate, as happened in the Madoff case, there is little choice but to conclude that the agency dropped the ball and should have done much better.
I don't think the regulatory agency has to play catch-up in all instances; in lots of cases, I think the agency can be more proactive. For instance, certain volume signatures before company news releases indicate strong possibility of illegal insider trading. Unusual volume and price action before company news releases should be red-flagged and should trigger automatic investigation.
Another area ripe for pro-active regulation is the exchange-traded funds. Many of these funds are deviating substantially from the underlying index or commodity they purport to mimic. Standards should be put in place to regulate the allowed limit of these deviations; non-compliers should be delisted. Short ETFs are blatant circumvention of margin requirements for shorting and represent systemic risk just begging to cause a catastrophe. They are poorly understood by investors and should probably be outlawed.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
But then the turf czar will
But then the turf czar will require an oversite commitee. And then we'll need an oversite comittee czar.
Wouldn't it just be simpler to position a czar, hand chosen by his excellency Obama, at the head of each company? That would ensure compliance!
hehehehe
...
At least you used the appropriate
adjective in front of Obama, excellency.
I'm only half stupid
go push rope.
You provide absolutely nothing to this site or any of it's conversations. At this point, you are simply annoying. And the protection you receive here is disgusting. Period.
whahahaha
I thought you believed in liberty. Unless it applies to free speech.
Strange.
An authoritarian libertarian. What you say goes dude. You are the boss.
G'Night. Sweet dreams.
I'm only half stupid
I don't see him ordering you to do anything
he's just giving his opinion.
Where do you get "authoritarian" from that? Or is it even worth asking??
actually
I did order her to go push rope...
Slaps forehead
OMG!
My bad.
Nice going, Hitler.
Magilson: Fair and Balanced.
;)
hehehe
...
You can say whever you want.
You can say whever you want. It would just be better if it wasn't here. That has nothing to do with your freedom of speech or whatever branch of libertarianism you'd like me to belong to.
Nope... my turf czar will have no oversight committee.
Just a turf czar...
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Maybe of Czar of Financial Regulations....
;-)
I'm only half stupid
Markopolos was
certainly dogged. It took him many long years of vexed frustration before he got to tell his story and I don't think he did it for the money.
The incentive is having a clean conscience and being able to sleep at night. IF given the opportunity there are plenty of good people out there willing to step up to the plate.
All motives are not related to money.
I'm only half stupid
Just because
some referees are corrupt doesn't mean we don't need referees.
Basically they were taken out of the game, thanks to W and friends, and a free for all ensued.
I don't think the folks that lost money would call it embarrassing. I think they would call it stealing.
I'm only half stupid
OK, MissL
OK? Are you implying I'm stating otherwise?
Whatever. Not only is that statement too partisanly satisfying and simplistic to make sense...it also doesn't apply here. A whistleblower got the ball moving according to skymutt. It wasn't some magical change in agenda among the regulators.
Agree. I would call it stealing as well. We have laws against that somewhere. It's not like this became illegal on 1/21/09. And I said the it's embarrassing for the regulators not the people that lost money.
Regulators don't work well
when you have an anit-regulation president. That goes especially for those departments that report to the president but also for nominally independent groups like the SEC where the president appoints their leaders.
Might as well ask why MSHA did such a piss poor job the last 8 years...
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Exactly
....
I'm only half stupid
Translation:
That made me feel good.
Interesting.
If all it takes is the wrong president for a few years, why do you put so much faith in something so fragile? And yes, faith is the most appropriate word.
Faith?
It isn't a matter of faith, it is a matter of necessity. There simply is no other choice.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
There is always more than one choice. Always.
n/t
Sure, suicide is a choice
and that's what deregulation equates to, but it's not a choice that we're willing to make.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
lol.
good one.
Here's the thing I always find odd
Most libertarians I meet are pretty intelligent for the most part. But to a man they have the most god awful knowledge of history that it's just frightening.
Regulation has been put in place because of the egregious abuse of human beings by business. It had to be put in place because there are businesses that are literally willing to kill you where you stand if it raises their stock a quarter of a point. An exaggeration? Tell that to the people that W R Grace intentionally and knowingly poisoned with asbestos because it saved them money. Tell it to the Indians in Bhopal poisoned by Union Carbide because they just dodn't care enough to put in place safety measures. Tell it to the literally millions that have been maimed or killed on the job until we finally realized that if we didn't force business to be accountable it never would be. Tell it to the kids with lead poisoning from Chinese toys. Tell it to the hundreds of millions dying or dead from cancer-sticks.
So yeah, deregulation is akin to putting the gun in your own mouth, because one way or another you're worth more dead than alive. And in the wonderous world of capitalism if there is a dollar to be made somebody is enough of a scumbag to go after it.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Nonsense.
You take an awful lot for granted when you say such nonsense. Regulators working in those cubicles across the country from the IRS to the SEC and everywhere in between instantly work differently depending on who the president is? Unfounded and silly. Sorry.
BTW, what deregulation did Bush push through? The regulation web actually got thicker and wider over his 8 years.
Calling him an anti-regulation president is both untrue and would be a non-sequitir even if it were true or mattered.
It's not that unfounded, really.
I've worked for a company while transitioning from one CEO to the next. While the rules didn't change, the attitude and perspective did.
HOWEVER, I do think it derves a bit of evidence from Tlaloc that Bush was the deregulator claimed.
One company
compared to a government?
So many differences from aim to scope to function, it's mind-boggling.
But yes, the whole deregulator platitude is where the real meat lies...or lack thereof.
aim and scope, sure.
But that doesn't change the fact that one can see "rigid" rules (laws) from a different perspective. The role of the president to the SEC is not unlike a CEO to a division of the company. Just sayin'.
Bush wasn't anti-regulation?
How do you back that up? Bush is pretty famous for stacking the various regulatory enforcement agencies with either a) political cronies just there for a paycheck or b) industry insiders there specifically to sabotage regulation so as to line the pockets of the companies they were connected to.
Representative George Miller has a nice report detailing a bunch of examples here:
http://georgemiller.house.gov/bushinsiders.pdf
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
The report doesn't say what you think it does
and most certainly has zero information relating to the topic at hand:
financial markets and economics.
As to the report, I'm not going to argue about Cronyism. Of course it exists. But simply naming who heads what department and their past in whatever line of work doesn't speak to the issue in question on the topic at hand:
anti-regulation/deregulation by Bush...in financial markets.
If you recall, we were talking about the Ponzi Scheme and the failure of regulators, remember?
How do I back up my assertion?
There is no deregulation that I know of in this sector.There's actually more than there was before he came in.
What act or bill did he push and/or sign into law in area they can explain any of these problems of Ponzi schemes or financial mishap?
I'm no defender of Bush. Not by a long shot. But he was what he was. No less and no more.
I missed the multi-author novel
My 2 cents, you cannot effectively stop collusion of experienced personnel, if people want to spend their skills and an inordinate amount of time hiding fraud, then they will be able to hide fraud for a long time.
Auditors of public companies only provide reasonable assurance that there are no material misstatements of the financial records and the auditors neither assume fraud has taken place or that fraud hasn't taken place. If people collude to hide information from the auditors, people can find a way.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
The SEC had all they needed to get this guy
...nearly 10 years ago. They just never did the work.
The guy repeatedly flouted SEC rules and received slaps on the wrist. During any of these investigations, red flags would have had to have been apparent: the consistent sky high returns, the small-time auditor, the board of incompetent old cronies and relatives, including one guy who was incapacitated by a stroke for seven years, the outlandishly ostentatious lifestyle of the chief exec.
They started an investigation over four yars ago.
Whistleblowers came forward several months ago.
When do they finally bring a case against him? Only now that his empire is falling apart because he has run out of cash.
This guy was hiding in plain sight. The SEC just averted their eyes.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!