Politics What did Romney and the GOP do wrong?

If you're only considering yourself - be it for greed, defiance, sport, whatever, and do not consider the wider consequences of your actions, you are selfish. Sorry, but that's the deal. You despise the notion of being controlled yet you drink out of the same tainted well that would exploit you in a heartbeat. Your rationalizations are novel, at least.

 

We are not in sync. Here is a brief synopsis of the context from my point of view.

We exist in a hybrid socio-economic system that is neither true free market nor true centrally controlled. Our system has evolved in a manner to control the masses - control is held by those with economic and political power. These people seek to maintain their power. In order to maintain this power they use things like decption to give the masses the illusion of such things as freedom. In our system people have become more or less domesticated.

The thing about domestication, for example a cow has no self-realization of being domesticated. There is the sense of security and well-being, even the perception of a certain freedom. I think we have a system that has managed to strike the balance needed to perpetuate domestication in people. I think some people have a sense that they are domesticated, I think roach fits into this category of knowing but is unwilling to risk doing anything about it. I fit into this category, but I rebel against it - I fight for real freedom, real choice, real control - but I do it within the system. The game is rigged, I know it is. My motivations have nothing to do with being selfish.
--- merged: Jan 4, 2013 at 11:43 AM ---

First, I don't believe there is a one dimensional continuum from true free market principles and communism. I think communism adds a political dimension and that the one dimensional connection would be more in line with centralized market control. Your assumption about my post does not reflect how I see the issue at all.

Second, if there is a continuum linking one one side free market principles and on the other communism on the other, I think there would be a virtual infinite number of points in between the two that could make on neither a true free market supporter or a true communist. No person I know is a true free market supporter, anyone who says they are, are either wrong or are attempting to deceive. This would include Obama. When a politician touts their free market beliefs it is normally under a circumstance where they are promoting a political agenda - Obama does it more frequently and is more blatant about it than most.

Third, it is not possible to be a functioning communist in the American socio-economic system - at best all you can do is say you have communist views. Perhaps you can get a membership or a decoder ring. I have no knowledge of Obama having such a ring.

 

First of all, there is not much an individual can risk or do that will have an impact on the status quo. Whatever it is you think you're risking or doing will not impact anyone but yourself, Ace. Whatever risks you, me, roachboy or others might take is irrelevant. We live by our own principles and either choose to be part of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" crowd or not.

I don't view you as a rebel fighting for anything, Ace. I see you more as an opportunist who, when the farmer has the field plowed and seeded, you are perfectly okay with taking as many seeds off the topsoil as your hands and pockets will hold. You rationalize that they would have blown or washed away anyway. Never mind the fact that the birds might count on them as a food source. Tough luck birds, Ace has worked the system and got his.

Why are you talking communism? Look around. Just as there are no free market economies, there are no communist economies with the exception of Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos who are all moving in the same direction China has. And it is possible to be a socialist in the US economic system. There's a strong vein of socialism in US govt. policy. It expands and contracts in response to social need and the influence of whatever political party is in control but you would have to go back before FDR was in office to find less a less socialized US government. Socialism in America is in the mix. It's relevance and stability is borne out every time some asshole Tea Party type threatens Social Security.

 

I am not going to concede this point. I believe you made wild assumptions.

He (and now you) has never been specific about these alleged failures. Perhaps everything is working exactly the way it is intended - so in addition, from what point of view are you folks defining failure?

 

o bullshit ace.

we've rehearsed again and again the problems created by the deregulation of the financial sector, the relaxation of older rules on mortgage creation, the refusal of greenspan etal to even require that the derivatives trade have a central clearinghouse/market, the result of all this in a balance-sheet recession, a type that is, historically, not responsive to monetarist solutions---which is all the neo-liberalism has to offer. there's been abundant documentation posted over the past couple years about all of it.

there has been post after post about the failure of neo-liberalism not only to live up to its utilitarian justifications.

it was never a coherent approach to thinking about economic activity at all.

 

Not true at all. For example: Education

In life a child is born. the child is socialized. If deemed worthy the child will get the benefit of higher education or specialized training. If the child is born in the power class (economic or political) they automatically qualify. To be deemed worthy the child has to make sure they jump through the right hoops, they have to "play the game" to perfection - or they won't be able to afford the costs or simply won't get the consideration. The myth of any child being able to do or be whatever they want based on educational opportunity is not real. A child attending a Chicago public school does not have that freedom - it is not in their control - they are a victim of circumstance. I fight the system. I fight for real school choice. I fight for real freedom for all children. This fight has no direct benefit to me or my son. You fight for the status-quo in the system further restricting freedom. I think that is selfish, why don't you want children to have real opportunity, real choice, real freedom?
--- merged: Jan 4, 2013 at 2:52 PM ---

I see. You are under the delusion that there was deregulation. The deregulation deception. How can you conclude the financial sector was deregulated. In fact big banks and big government got exactly what the wanted - there was no system failure. there are fewer banks today than yesterday, with more economic and political power - competition has been restricted. Consumers have less choice, less freedom in the market.

 

ace, there are so many problems with this latest, laughable attempt from you to protect your absurd metaphysical system from reality that i would have trouble knowing where to start. you have retreated into a private little world. it has almost no relationship to the empirical world that other people know about.

i do of course see what you'd prefer others to believe: that according to some arbitrary markety-market standard that only you and maybe a couple other sad little metaphysicians like you know about, there was no deregulation of the financial sector, there were no problems of the derivatives trade, and the outcomes were ordained from the beginning.

funny stuff. not even worth discussion.

 

I'm delighted to hear it, and pleasantly surprised. So, to clarify, you would be in favour of raising taxes from those who can afford it to fund further education for those who can't afford it? Me too.

 

I guess you talk in terms of failure but for those who control economic and political power, there was no failure. Making matters worse is the financial markets changed materially and most don't know and don't care - so how can you say the system failed them? I clearly see how it has failed me - I have less choice, I know it and I don't like it and I will work to alter these conditions. I have a goal, you don't.

 

I will never favor waste and inefficiency. I think some school systems, in terms of cost per student, the costs are too high and the results are too poor, worse children/parents have no choice. I prefer lower costs per student with strong results and making sure children/parents have real choice. Not choice simply in terms of school vouchers, but choice in making sure the education received matches the needs of each individual child - in the US more and more schools are about singular methods for everyone. Even in terms of school lunches, it is becoming a joke because teenage boys are close to revolt because the offerings do not satisfy their hunger - all because some skinny bureaucrat somewhere in Washington thinks she knows best, regarding what an active teenage boy needs to eat. Again, freedoms being restricted. Our system is broken in this context.
--- merged: Jan 4, 2013 at 4:21 PM ---

If we say a speed limit is a regulation, and it is currently set at 65 and we increase it to 70 - have we deregulated? I would say no. We changed the regulation. If we increase the limit to 70 and we add that every car must achieve 30 mpg - I say we increased regulation. Regulations in the financial sector have been increasing over time. Many argue the mortgage crisis was the result of regulations that forced banks to lend to high risk individuals - an increase in regulation.