ace dear, it's a little baffling that you persist in attempting to erase the obvious racism that animates the birthers. it's less baffling that you do so using false equivalences and weak logic. the motivation, though...that's mysterious.

i would wager that you support the birthers because you see them damaging obama. to that end anything goes. but maybe in this case even someone as utterly partisan as you is discomfited by who this anything-goes approach can get you into bed with.

i would be too were i you. racism is an ugly thing.


as for the equation of the birthers with political opposition to george w bush---that's laughable. not even worth mockery. not worth anything at all.


on the other hand, it's refreshing sort of to read you acknowledging the centrality of pandering to stupid people in the activities of gingrich et al. you'd think that would pose a problem for your own conservatism, cause you to question its appeal and examine how you use it.

That is something his wife said, although not her exact words or mine. Again, I try to explain why some people question who Obama is - when I provide an explanation it is not necessarily my view. If I don't make that clear, I will need to do better.

However, even from my point of view there have been many moments when I have wondered -what the hell did that mean??? - or why in the hell did he do that??? When I ask those questions, not necessarily here, but just based on my asking the question I get labeled in various negative ways - as if name calling will address the concern or make the issue go away.

To give an example, to this day I wonder what the hell does -"...they bitterly cling to their guns and religion..." mean. Who is "they"? Why do I have to be "bitter"? I am not very religious and I don't actually "cling" to my guns. So, was he saying that he is different than me? Is he saying he is superior to me? Is he saying that I am a silly little irrational person? Why doesn't he say it in the light of day? Can you explain it?

---------- Post added at 11:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:20 PM ----------

I am not sure you understand what this "fence" does. A progressive income tax code help rich people stay rich and poor people stay poor. Rich people do not need income, they have and control wealth. Poor people need income to accumulate assets or wealth. Your progressive income tax systm hurts people trying to improve their lives.

Again, I don't think you understand my point. If an employee is worth $100,000 per year in a free labor market and the employer can get away with paying them $50,000 (including salary and benefits), that is exploitation as I define it. How does an employer get away with that? In the health insurance example - a 50 year-old with medical issues on their employers group plan, is locked into that employer. In some cases even changing to another employer with a group plan, there may be a gap in coverage. So the person can not take the risk and stays. The employer knows it and pays below market.

Another example with pension plans. As an employer I devise a plan that vests in 7 years, so you get close and you have to stay or risk the loss of thousands of dollars in accumulated benefits. Then I have a 15 year milestone, a 25 year mile stone. As an employer I get you locked in to hitting these milestones and I can pay you below market. I can be like your local drug dealer or pimp. I get you locked in and then I own you, figuratively speaking. The sad part is that millions don't even know that they are "owned". It is a mean, dog eat dog world and the false belief that government is or can make it better is a joke

---------- Post added at 11:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 PM ----------

I agree some "birthers" are racists.

Some liberals are racist also.

In my life experience it is always better to speak openly and directly address questions and concerns. Although some will always have hateful views, many who have fears and concerns will not have or maintain hateful views. We should never call a person a racist as the initial reaction to questions or concerns regarding cultural differences. What motivates people is often the fear of differences, if the goal is to label people that may be your response, mine is to fix the problem.

I do not support "birthers".

At one point I tried to explain to you how the concept of "shuck'n and jive'n" is racially offensive. You indicated that what I was sharing was not true. I question your credibility on this topic.

No, a REGRESSIVE tax code hurts the poor.

Thanks for the set-up.

That is why I support a flat tax code, one based on consumption. If people spend like a billionaire they should be taxed accordingly. Under a flat tax consumption model if a person spends their money on food, housing, medical and basic necessities we could exclude those items from being taxed.

Tax the underground economy through consumption taxes.
Tax rich people who spend based on their assets rather than income through consumption taxes.
Tax big corporations who spend lavishly in order to lower their real taxable income through consumption taxes.

Are you ready to join the cause? What is the downside to flat consumption taxation?

The downside of a flat consumption tax?

1) it lowers the tax obligation of the top bracket at the expense of the middle class
2) they take away incentives to middle class taxpayers, re: home ownership, retirement planning, etc.
3) revenue projections rely on unsubstantiated ideological (overly optimistic) economic assumptions that they cant support.

The "fair" tax proposal floating around today is similar to a proposal from 5-6 years ago.

Relying on data from Bush's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform, here is what FactCheck.org found on the earlier bill:

There is a reason that every president and every Congress, both D and R, since Teddy Roosevelt have support a progressive tax system, differing only on the rates.

It is fair and it works.

Depends on how the system is structured.

People don't need incentives to own homes. Why should renters (often working poor who can't save enough for a down payment) subsidize middle class home-ownership? Wasn't it government in-part created the real-estate bubble through policy that encouraged high risk mortgages, mortgages often used by everyone but the poor?
Isn't the problem with our current system, the thousands and thousand of loop-holes, special subsidies and favorable treatment of a few at the expense of many?

I know, I know, you can not answer these kinds of questions - just tell me how much of a bad poster I am - been there done that.

Again, depends on how the system is structured. There are always trade-offs, no system is perfect. but, no matter how you look at it our current system is unfair and broken.

I can understand why Washington insiders want to protect special interests, protect the loop-holes. Some of us see the deception. If my interests don't not have a strong lobbying effort compared to others, I get screwed. Poor people are getting screwed. The middle class is getting screwed. This system favors the rich, big corporate interests, and the interests of the powerful in government.

I could give thousands of examples, would you ever acknowledge unfairness? Or, do you want to pretend that Washington is going to end oil and gas subsidies in the tax code - they will just end some and give others and then claim they did something.

Or, how about those sugar subsides in the tax code? Ever calculate how those are unfair to the poor? Didn't think so. Oh, sorry I am changing the subject again - silly me, never mind.

People need incentives to own homes when renting is another option. If the middle class is all renting, ownership moves to the top, with banks and the rich. What do you suppose happens to renters' rights when the majority of home owners are rich or super rich?

What?!?

You are suggesting that if not for the mortgage tax deduction people would not desire to own their homes???

First, did people desire to own their homes before the tax deduction? Before there was even a income tax in this country?

Second, the incentive of home-ownership is intrinsic in being in control of living expenses. You buy a home to own it. Get to a point where you either have fixed and known costs with no mortgage or no rent.

Third, home-ownership is a hedge against inflation. Rents will always go up over time.

Fourth, home-ownership is an investment. People can make money through owning a home. It serves some as a built in nest egg. A home serves as a legacy for your children.

Fifth, home-ownership represents stability and status in a community.

People rarely do things simply because of the tax implications, it is very possible that home-ownership rates would not be measurably different without the special deduction - but I bet homes would be less expensive and thus more affordable to poor and average people. I argue that the mortgage deduction causes people to buy bigger homes and it inflates prices, perhaps to the point of actually off-setting the tax benefit.

Here is something to think about regarding government and unintended consequences that is related to the home ownership issue related to government and unintended consequences.

Making College More Expensive: The Unintended Consequences of Federal Tuition Aid | Intellectual Takeout (ITO)

The game is clear, if you qualify for special treatment from government or you are rich, college is not an issue. If a person is middle class and don't quality for special treatment their options are severely and unfairly limited. It is crazy to the point of, in some cases a family would be better off not saving, not preparing for the expenses and not earning a high income when it is time to apply for aid.

Is this the kind of system you favor? I certainly do not.

My son is 14 and entering HS next fall I am facing this issue now, how do you suggest I "play the game" to minimize out of pocket costs? And be honest, it is a game. I have talked to some other parents and my wife and I are relatively ignorant. I thought we just needed to save money and he needed to get good grades. That is certainly naive.

It's been very interesting to see which GOP types have given praise to Obama and which have given all the credit to GWB.

for reasons that now escape me i am watching sort of the flyers-bruins playoff game. it began with some vile self-congratulatory statement that involved the meme "those who hate our way of life."

there was something similar in the fragment of a baseball game i had on momentarily earlier before i came to my senses and flipped it off.

is this some kind of officially sanctioned moment of meathead jingoism at sporting events?

really foul.

No. I wasn't sure you were reading posts, so I said something that didn't make any sense (that people renting would lead to an attack on renters' rights), curious at your response.

I'm curious as to how the GOP is going to respond in the coming months to the death of Bin Laden. Sure, they'll try to blame Obama for doing something wrong, but as it's been pointed out, a lot of independents and undecideds are going to like that a Democrat did militarily what a Republican couldn't. That strange American id, that's obsessed with being protected by a strong leader, appreciates that kind of thing and the GOP just lost its corner on that market.

If you have a model of a "fair" tax proposal that does not lower the tax obligation of the top taxpayers at the expense of the middle class or that does is really revenue neutral w/o relying on voodoo economics, please share it with us.

I don't speak for anyone but myself, and I give Obama credit for making sure the the job got done. There were some risks but he did not seem to waiver or hesitate. I like that in leadership.

---------- Post added at 03:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:13 PM ----------

If you or your firm wants to hire me, I'd be more than happy to talk to you and share my more detailed thoughts on the subject. Until then, generally speaking a system can be structured in many ways to exempt taxation on poor people spending money on basic necessities. Can you acknowledge that it is possible to do that? A system can be developed that does not require excessive sales taxes. If given a blank slate as a starting point, the possibilities are endless and in many ways we can improve on our current system. Perhaps, as in the world cliches, it requires thinking outside of the box.

So, for discussion purposes, you cant produce a flat tax proposal that would not lower the tax obligation of the top tax payers at the expense of the middle and at the same time is revenue neutral at the rate proposed.

Ideologues such as yourself say it can be done and we should take in on faith that it will work and be fair.

Pragmatists like me say show me the money.

There is a difference between "can't" and "won't".

I work in steps. You seem to want to go from A to Z without what comes in between. For me, there are some basics we need to acknowledge before moving on. You won't even acknowledge the unfairness in our current tax code. You won't acknowledge that a flat consumption based tax system can be structured in different ways to accomplish different objectives. Again, generally speaking such a system could exempt people under whatever cut-off you want. For example you could cut it at $100,000 in income or consumption. The fundamental principle in my mind when thinking of fairness to poor or middle-class is to tax wealth, wealth based life-styles, exorbitance. What is the fundamental principle in your mind? Do you have one? Have you given it any thought?

Again, you cant or wont produce a "fair" tax proposal that works. I'm not surprised. I have never seen one that works, yet you want me to acknowledge that some unknown variation not yet proposed by an advocate of such a tax can be structured in a fair manner and be revenue neutral. Its not like its a new concept that just sprung to mind last week.

So I ask again...

http://theshot.coffeeratings.com/wp-...commercial.jpg

No, I dont acknowledge the unfairness in a progressive tax system and neither has any US president, D or R. Neither does any industrialized country in the world.

I acknowledge that the current system needs to be reformed and simplified, but in a manner where those with more disposal income continue to pay a higher marginal rate than those living from paycheck to paycheck or the majority in-between, middle class families with two working spouses who enjoy some of life's amenities and hope to save for an emergency or their children's the future at the same time.

---------- Post added at 11:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 PM ----------

As to the fundamental principle in my mind, this is one area where I agree with that iconic free marketeer, Adam Smith:

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

and that iconic Republican Teddy Roosevelt, who would probably be vilified as a socialist today:

"I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective-a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate."

The point you choose not to address regarding fairness remains.

Wealthy people do not rely on income, they have wealth - progressive income taxation does not address this.

Poor people trying to improve their economic status are faced with marginal income tax rates that are unfair when they reach the cut-off points. For example, using round numbers, if at $20,000 the rate is 0%, but at $25,000 they enter a bracket where they end up with a rate of 5% on the whole amount or a tax of $1,250 - the marginal rate on the additional $5,000 in income is 25%, do you call that fair?

The only people who pay inheritance (or death taxes) taxes, are people who don't plan under our current system. Or in some cases they are people who can not afford the costs to avoid the tax, as in the example of farmers who may hold wealth in land assets but have very little cash flow. Yet another example of unfairness in our tax code.

If you folks can fix the unfairness, why not get it done rather than talking about it constantly. In my view, people in government and the most vocal about taxing the rich probably have not real desire to fix the unfairness.

You're insisting that I should first agree with you that a flat tax is fairer than a progressive tax in order to have a discussion. WTF?

I think a progressive tax is fair.

But I've ask you three times now to show me a flat tax proposal that works -- that does not benefit the top taxpayers at the expense of the middle class and is also revenue neutral -- and we can discuss it.

You cant or you wont, and that is my shortcoming?

ace, that's not how our tax system works. If the rate for 0-$20,000 is 0% and from $20,001-whatever is 5%, then you only get taxed 5% on anything ABOVE $20,000.

This is why it's bullshit when people claim that getting a raise that puts them into a higher tax bracket will result in less take home pay

Regardless of your views on a flat consumption based tax system, I first ask you to simply acknowledge the obvious weakness and unfairness in a progressive income tax system - namely wealth is not taxed and upwardly mobile people occasionally face extremely unfair marginal rates.


How many times do I need to give you the same answer? When I run for political office, my flat consumption based tax proposal will be the basis of my campaign. I see no value in sharing it with you in advance. If there is some value in it, let me know - otherwise I will keep this at a theoretical level.

No. We can move on anytime.

How about additional justification for the Republican strategy to stop Obama-care from being implemented. IBD reported today that in 20 years a 42-year-old at 300% of poverty would have to shell out about 19% of their total income to buy insurance through one of the exchanges created by Obama-care.

Or, how about giving me some advise on how to play the college tuition game. It seems to me that people who plan win, those who don't lose, and that poor people who don't have help (namely first generation students) are at the mercy of chance. Does such a system make you proud to be a liberal? In my view there is a better way than just throwing more and more money into a broken system. But I guess any Republican who wants "change" doesn't really want "change" they just don't want poor people to be able to go to college - well that line is getting old. I am betting more and more people won't buy into it any longer. You will see more Republicans not caring about how liberals use labels!

Why are they having a GOP Presidential debate 18 months before the election?

And why aren't the heavy hitters there?

Dude, they're shifting strategy....

I've been trying to figure this out all night. I thought they might be looking to get momentum going early, but this is more likely to burn people out by the time November of next year rolls around. The only thing I can think of is this is an attempt to make the GOP look weak and fool liberals and Democrats into not caring, so they can pull someone out of their hats later in the game and leave the Democrats to play catchup. Still... I dunno, this move doesn't make a lot of sense.

Oh, could it be ratings?

It's good for wealthy America. It does nothing for the middle or lower classes, to make more people wealthy or improve standards. in fact I believe the very point is to refine and maintain a smaller percentage at the top using funds in the poltical system to ensure more of that same outcome. I agree that those dependent on government for no good reason hurt the system, but a pro wealthy low tax agenda isnt going to solve the problem. It isnt designed to and hasnt made an effect.

That in a totally free system the cream does not rise to the top, the ruthless do. This utopian idea, largely the result of Rand, never materializes. Sure some good people may make it pretty far, but in a fiscal monarchy who makes it is decided by those on top because the control the means to do so. not because they are the best. This is achieved by all the means we are all very well aware of and turn our heads at all the time. That power corrupts in both directions. That when we should have used education we used regulation or deregulation to extremes.

The Koch brothers have created a populist vehicle to fund and drive benefits for corporations and the super wealthy. More of the same. The philosophy they espouse is, in reality, set against the worker not for the worker. It punishes the worker for not being innovative enough to create his own empire of success in a system deadset to make sure he cant and despises him for "stealing" if he tries to change his position through the use of teamwork (unions). The workers biggest enemy isnt the US government but the one taking actual advantage of the workers lack of a useful position with which to fight from, the employer. God forbid he should try to be competitive in such a market, hence the ever coming death of small business in this country.

I think in reality the differences between Obama and whoever ends up running against him look really important from an ideology standpoint but matter very little in relation to the real drivng forces behind all of this. Like the banking industry, the bubble, etc. In reality they are more similar than different, this is by design, and its maybe not accepted but certainly not unknown. Nothing serious has chnaged now nor would it have under McCain, nor will it under the next administration.

I disagree but agree. Government cannot do that, but the idea that the left thinks it should is just misconstruing a lie because it looks true for self gain. Secondly, neither can most people if even those select few anymore and as things progress especially under that "free" system. The middle class exists, quite geniously, as a way to keep most of the poepl happy enough, just believing enough, that they can make it big while simultaneously knowing that they proabaly wont. They believe enough though to not question enough to lose that chance. The lower class is kept still by those big government programs. Like it or not, change and cut all of that, thos programs keeping the morale, and you'll see a turn out in the next cycle to rival anything you could hope to even maybe dream of in 2012 for the right because the numbers are far greater, again by design. Do I think thats right? Yes and no again. There is no addict without a dealer, and just like the war on drugs, now that that war is an industry you cant just stop. Because now the addict and the dealer HAVE to exist to keep all that money going.


Money in life is like money in politics, your one guy before you have it and another once you do. Whats the quote? All power corrupts absolutely and money and power, in this society, are synonymous. It's a numbers game, if the idea was to make everyone more wealthy why they'd have done that by now. Made it very easy so everyone could do it and they would. If this was about making it, we wouldnt be having this conversation. This is about power. Look at what you said, "I have interacted with people in the top 1% who got there based on their work". How many are we talking? Of 1%? 100? 1000? .1% of the 1%? That isnt insipring, and even if it was, its not enough to counter balance.

Thats a generalized statement that is simply not always true.


In this response you basically make the argument against a totally free system that I was making as to corporations etc. I think tea party people THINK they are fighting for the same thing but are not. Your not going to get a "fair" system by less rules and an open system, you'll get more of the same. I think time has spoken on that.

The wealthy should pay more because they consume more, pollute more, use more, and create more mess.

Ditto on that to the right, and you simply wont get fair out of a free open system as its free enough to get away witht thing.

This is a reminder of what ace continues to forget about how "real wealth" is generated. It's not generated in a vacuum. Wealth doesn't come from the ether when some guy gets a great idea and starts a company. This doesn't formulate atoms miraculously into a multi-billion-dollar enterprise.

The generation of "real wealth" requires labour and spending.

It's as though Fordism never happened. It's as though Post-Fordism isn't happening.

It's not just ace who should realize this; it's the GOP too. This is why "cuttin' spendin' and taxes" isn't a panacea towards economic bliss, and it's why the GOP should consider returning to the centre a bit if they want to get anywhere.

ace is just another tiresome free markety metaphysician. the posts are interesting only to the extent that they perform something of the ideological paralysis that's abroad in the land. folk who's frame is entirely neo-liberal and context-independent find themselves in a something like a spiritual problem that they cannot resolve so they revert to repeating axioms. that it's unhinged from any reality beyond that of a collective cognitive problem is erased by the fact of repeating axioms. other folk are in a position to talk variously about context and in many cases move past the twitching corpse of neo-liberalism, but in an ad-hoc manner, first because there's no agreed-upon alternative framework---or even analytic basis for making such a framework as the transforms that neoliberal regimes pulled off while doping up its population with neo-liberal bromides amount to a basic reorganization of the geography of capitalism itself and so there's an extent to which a project like the marxian one has to start over again except that the dead weight of marxism itself is in the way. and people are taking that on, i think, in their ways---but there's no linkage between that and the ideological production machinery.

so you get results like ace's posts that perform the twitching of the corpse of an outmoded ideology without the slightest idea that is what it is.

the respite from reality comes in trying to shift every debate to the metaphysical register. this is duplicated by appeals to intuition, to the gut.

the moves are obvious and do not change.
the results are predicable and are, to my mind, without interest except in some anthropological way.

one either plays along or one doesn't

1) TV ratings
2) Small states wants to be perceived as having a big impact or think there is value in being first.

Romney won't win SC regardless and there is no upside for him to over expose himself.

Palin is not going to run.

Huckabee is already well known, no upside.

Newt wants to be persuaded to run, but it is not happening.

Pawlenty was there.

Hermon Cain needed to be there, won, and is now going to be a serious contender.

Paul was there, he is going to be considered much more seriously than he was in 2008.

---------- Post added at 03:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:32 PM ----------

Look at it this way. If you have a goose that lays golden eggs (rich people who know how to create wealth), you (the rest of us) would want to treat that goose well. You would not want to force the goose to go to your neighbors farm (business moving overseas). You would want the goose laying golden eggs and not waste time doing other things like cleaning the barn (excessive regulations and taxation).

Make no mistake about "trickle down" economics, it works. We want people who know how to create wealth focused on creating wealth. Poor people can hardly help themselves, we need some wealth creators in our society for the benefit of everyone.

---------- Post added at 03:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:42 PM ----------

I have created wealth. I have also lost wealth, but that is another story. I have been as poor as a person in this country can be, and I have been in the top 1%. I not only talk theory, I talk practical application. On my rise, I helped many others rise and I paid a hell of a lot of taxes to the government. When I fell, it impacted more than just me. When I rise again, the same result will occur. I will create wealth, I will create jobs, I will help others create wealth, and I will pay a hell of a lot in taxes.

I would suggest that people who were born in a socioeconomic class and never moved up or down don't understand - or those who have never taken a risk to create wealth don't understand, i.e. - academics who after an extensive education go on to be professors or work in government.

---------- Post added at 03:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:51 PM ----------

I know what I believe and it appears that you know what I believe. My question is what do you believe? If the fundamentals of free market concepts are incorrect, what is correct?

It is clear, in my interactions here is that when it comes to economics and government policy discussions, they will all end at some core fundamental point that does not allow for an irrational response. Hence, there are questions that you will forever absolutely refuse to answer directly.

I have had a hand in creating wealth too, ace. Most of us have. It's not a foreign concept. However, what tends to be the case is that the lower and middle classes have little recourse when a large proportion of this wealth flows up the chain into the minority upper class.

Call it trickle-up economics, if you will. It works.

As for whether free-market concepts are incorrect, I suppose we'll never know, but that's probably a good thing.

If you have created wealth then you had to have created wealth for others. Why not say that?

If the issue has more to do with how much the most wealthy has compared to the most poor, to me that is a different issue than wealth creators benefiting others through their efforts of creating wealth.

It does not. Poor people do not form the basis for anyone getting rich. There is no doubt that poor people can be exploited for their labor and they can be cheated or defrauded of wealth they do not know they have - but that as a given the question is how do we address exploration, fraud, unethical business practices not to condemn free market principles. I would argue that many of the problems are systemic as I have pointed out in many examples over the years I have been posting here. Many policies designed to help the poor actually harm them or make it harder for them to improve their lives.

I think I know.

That pretty much is what I'm saying. My part in creating wealth was helping create wealth for others. I myself am not (nor have I ever been) wealthy by any stretch of the imagination.

I'm not saying that there is something inherently wrong with rich people taking initiatives in businesses that create wealth. What I'm going on about is your oversight regarding how that business is able to generate it in the first place, including but not limited to the environment required as a precondition.

The wealthy could not exist if it weren't for the lower classes. Have you ever seen a society that consisted purely of wealthy citizens that wasn't some oil-rich anomaly?

Again, you are missing the essential reality of economics. Labour, whether it is performed by the poor or the middle class, is one of the foundational elements of wealth creation. Without it, wealth would be very difficult if not impossible to generate in most aspects of an advanced and complex economy. You continue to overlook if not undermine this very basic idea of economics.

Labour is used by holders of capital as leverage to turn a profit. When this system operates in such a way where a majority of the wealth that is generated flows up to the top 1% of citizens, and especially to the detriment of the lower classes, then there is a problem with the system. If some—despite playing an integral role in the generation of wealth—lack any basic and essential needs such as food, shelter, health care, security, etc., based on their inability to afford it, something has gone wrong on a moral level: because way more than enough wealth for these things is there.

This is the danger of a free market. This is why we don't let a free market exist. A free market is amoral and we, as a society, are moral.

I think you don't know. Where does that leave us?

If you controlled more wealth, you would be able to help more people exponentially.

For example one situation I am most proud of involves a young woman we (my wife and I) hired shortly after she got out of HS. She lived in a mobile home with her mother who was receiving disability payments, barely enough for their expenses. The young lady had no business experience, but was willing to work and learn and we were willing to hire her. The young lady had no plans on attending college, but we convinced her to do it. while she worked for us we offered flexibility in her schedule as to not conflict with school. She became very productive for us, she was able to financially help her household and she graduated. While she worked with us she got the entrepreneurial bug and started using her artistic abilities in design of websites, fashion and jewelry. When she left us, she left and started making her living from her own business. My wife and I recently received an invitation to her wedding this summer, she is getting married to her female partner in California. She is in her twenties and the bread-winner and has an excellent future. So, while I was making money, I was helping her and others. As a conservative, I did not care about her sexuality or any other "social" issue, she was willing to work, learn, be productive and we wanted to see her fly. One day she will probably be making more money than I have ever dreamed about, she has that kind of drive. And along the way, she is going to help thousands along the way. But, if I am not making money, if I am not in a position to take a chance on an inexperienced recent HS grad, if I don't have the ability to flex her schedule, if I don't mentor her, perhaps none of this happens. At the risk of sounding arrogant, if the government gets out of my way, I can do more with my money to make the world better than the government can. I bet you could too.

I can give example after example of how government is ineffective or inefficient regarding helping the poor and regulating the "rich", but it just won't matter. But I keep on trying??? No doubt, I am obsessive compulsive.

Yes.

Take the "society" of golf professionals. Along come Tiger Woods and (no disputes) because of his talent, everyone involved in professional golf gets richer. Woods make a ton of money, but the guy ranked at the bottom makes more money than ever before. Woods creates wealth that benefit everyone. Every pro golfer in the "society" does well. However, there is a big gap between Woods and the guy at the bottom, if your argument is the gap is too wide - that is one argument but not the argument against "trickle-down". And to your argument, if I got it right, I say that if you risk forcing Woods out, you risk harming everyone. If Woods is motivated by money and you reduce his prizes to redistribute to others, what if he plays less? What happens? Everyone starts making less.

I don't overlook it. I suggest that we allow people the right to earn their proper free market wage. Under our current system of employment law, and employee can easily be locked into a specific employer for many reasons. this is not good for the employee. Employers or "rich" people know how to play the game and they have experts who navigate the complexities of employment law to control labor - government either knowingly or in ignorance plays into that. What will it take for you to see it, I don't know - but it is obvious to me.

ace, I guess my basic point is that the free-market experiment had been going awry, which is why we are where we are today with more stable mixed-market economies. If it hopes to be taken seriously, the GOP had better put forth a presidential candidate who understands the need for a balanced economy rather than one that favours the rich via cutting taxes (which are already competitive) and cutting spending (where it will hurt the poor).

A return to the principles of the last era of Republican rule will only serve to continue the damage it wrought. Going even further will make it even worse. It's entirely possible to reduce the deficit and return to a surplus without going all Tea Party–like. Google can show you.

Take a look at the most stable economies in the world. What are their characteristics? How many of them are low-tax free-market utopias?

ace's views of economics are reality-optional. and the statements are set up so that there's no possibility of moving outside his frame of reference---you can say things directly about where you're coming from for example and they won't register. the only statements that register are symmetrical with the markety-market metaphysics that is the one trick this pony runs. it doesn't matter the thread, either. this one, for example, started out being about the republican's tactical problems, most of which are generated by people who buy the same markety-market metaphysics that ace goes on about at some length. the result? long strings of posts in which ace talks about himself and his quaint beliefs.

there's no discussion really because ace writes as though he's incapable to stepping outside his hyper-orthodox friedmanite framework.

and if it is the case, then its a pretty sad testimony about the sort of intellectual capabilities conservatives bring to the table. markety-market metaphysics aren't upheld because their coherent and still less because they're correct either descriptively or normatively. they're upheld because these people can't do anything else. they haven't the skills to be flexible, seemingly.

that's a problem.

fortunately, it's not so big a problem here as it is in the world because ace can be allowed to write endlessly about the religious geography inside his skull and no-one gets hurt because he isn't in a position to fashion policy.

The irony of it all is that communism has a much more successful track record than laissez-faire.


As an aside: The Atlantic recently ranked Toronto the #2 city in the world regarding characteristics of business, life, and innovation—second only to New York City.

This included receiving the #2 spot for "entrepreneurial environment." Not bad for a city that lives—as some would say—"under the yoke of socialist policies." The worst aspect of Toronto? It's ranked third last in the cost of public transportation, which is sad because the system kind of sucks. This is because the federal (and provincial, arguably) government hasn't done enough to step up its funding of the system...you know, socialist style.

Yes they do. If people werent paid less than they could be, then there would be no profit to be made selling the goods that were created using their labor.

Furthermore, if your going to claim an economic model works it is perhaps to your benefit to not have gobs of free information just laying about the internet that shows that over a sustained time, or really any amount of time, it in fact does not work.

What I see is this: Your claiming you alone are right, by the worth of your experience, which is unprovable and subjective. So your not really arguing at all.

I have no ill will towards you, i just dont understand how this is supposed to go given that. I've said what i have to say and it stands in this case.

urville, he gave you proof. Just look at the society of golf professionals.

Communism and socialism. To me is a great idea in theory and for its time. I think it needs a serious update and I dont mean this social democracy stuff either, though i definitely live in that realm and at this time I am rooted there. I'm actually writing a thing on this right now. I'm no genius, but I have my ideas. A new socialism. Eh, this isnt the place and this isnt my thread, but I am excited inside, hah.

---------- Post added at 03:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:56 PM ----------

Yeah I saw that, the problem is he forgot all the laborers that without whom, there would be no golf, certainly not playable, who do not get paid zillions of dollars. I know a guy who at this very moment is cooking hamburgers for wealthy golfers under the table to the tune of $8.00 an hour. I guess they forgot to trickle it down that far.

Well, you're more than welcome to start a new thread to bounce some ideas around if you wish. In fact, I urge you to.

Well, imagine that!

I retract what i was saying here, it was too much in the wrong direction i think. apologies

Recent economic events do not reflect stability.

I repeat what favors the "rich" is our current system. A system of confusion and misdirection. Having a tax code that no single person understands does not benefit those who don't have the ability to employ experts or highly paid and connected lobbyist. Actually, the irony in this is that you support the conservative or status-quo position. My position reflects simplicity, openness, fairness - change.

Also I don't speak for the GOP on this issue, I think both parties are at fault with the difference being Democrats are less honest in their advocating for big moneyed interests.

They can always deflate the currency, oh, but they are doing that aren't they. Deflating the currency does not help the middle class or the poor - to the contrary people who hold real assets or real wealth do not get harmed by inflation.

Again, in this thread the importance of the last paragraph will mostly go unnoticed. But, to anyone really wanting to understand the nature of economic oppression really needs to take some time and think it through.

If possible to discount for past wars and colonialism perhaps we could look into your point. If your point is reflected in isolated tribal type situations where culturally the people are predisposed to community, I see your point. But, once those people are exposed to competitive outsiders that spirit does not last and they have to revert to aggressive economic activity or rely on the mercy of others.

When we look at resource rich nations with relatively small populations, if those nations maintain control of those resources it is very easy for those controlling the wealth to give the illusion of wealth redistribution.

---------- Post added at 10:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 PM ----------

I give specific support for my views, you do not.

Reading my posts is optional. Responding to my posts is optional. The best way to get me to move on is to ignore me.

I don't perceive being right a bad thing, even if it is within the confines of a box.

And what did you bring to the table? Nothing. We already know your opinion about me.

---------- Post added at 10:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:09 PM ----------

Perhaps that was true 100 years ago, but it wasn't even true then. Henry ford famously made a point of saying he paid more so more people could buy his product. Think about what actually happened and why Ford factories got unionized! Ford played to populist sentiment and played it as long as he could get away with it.

Try to understand my point. Labor is exploited to the degree that choice is restricted, to the degree of ignorance of true market value. Labor has allowed big money interests, with the help of government, to develop and design systems that restricts choice and promotes ignorance.

Do you know the market value of your labor in the market place? Most people don't and would not even know how to begin to figure it out. If I am an employer, that is not my fault. Government should know better or does government have an interest in labor ignorance?

Can you be more specific.

Correct, I am not arguing. I am sharing what I know to be true.

First step would be to answer one of my questions. Start with this one:

Is government more or less efficient at creating wealth than individuals acting collectively?

The problem with indulging me in answering my questions, is that other questions will follow that will lead you to the correct conclusion. Why do people here fear that?

---------- Post added at 10:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:26 PM ----------

Why does it have to be I "forgot" or I "ignore" - neither of which is true.

I simplified the example as to make it readable. If we extend the analogy to caddies, grounds keepers, bar tenders, guys who hand out towels, etc., everyone in the industry benefited from the Woods phenomenon. Again if your point is that some benefited more than others, I already said I agreed to that. But, do you agree that as a wealth creator there is in fact a real "trickle down" effect in play. Do you agree that there is no possibility in the golf "society" that 'trickle up" is realistic. It is a simple matter of "rich" people consuming more golf as a result of tiger Woods and has nothing to do with poor people.

Also, keep in mind the context. I was asked a question and I gave an answer to the question.

---------- Post added at 10:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:35 PM ----------

Well Mr. Wealth Creator, you have created wealth for others - could you have done more exponentially if you had created more personal wealth?

Feel free to ignore the above poignant point and give more and more of your wealth to government. :sad::sad::sad: It is sad that you abdicate personal responsibility to help others - is leave it up to government really your point of view?

My point of view, ace, is that advanced developed economies are mixed economies and rightly so. They proved the most stable environment than do purely communist or laissez-faire (would in theory*).


*This is mainly because both of these in their pure forms are highly volatile in attempts to implement and/or maintain them, or, perhaps, purely theoretical.

Is your position, ace, that mixed economies are a bad idea and we should rid economics of government intervention of all kinds?

ace, you know my position: I support mixed economies. I'm not abdicating anything.

What's yours? Are you for or against mixed economies?

I solely support and advocate for free market economies. I am not of the view that mix economies or other types can not be successful, I simply believe free market economies are the most efficient and benefit the most people regardless of their starting station in life.

Is there a difference in your mind between wealth creation and getting rich off of others?

We may never see a pure free market economy, so there will always be some kind of mix. I will always support policy movements towards free market economies. The freer the market economy the better, in my view.

Can you name some historical free market economies (free market by your own definition) that were highly successful; that is, more successful than mixed systems with similar circumstances? What were the largest or most significant contributing factors in these systems that you believe lead to the success?

What are you basing this on? It's a theory. You think this would be the case. A purely free market economy is a pipe dream. It would be impossible to implement, even over a long-term strategy, because sooner or later, it's going to lead to social unrest and eventual upheaval. That last part isn't purely theoretical on my part. There is evidence of this.

The words are different. I suppose it depends on how you interpret them. I studied semantics, semiotics, and critical theory in university. I don't think it's the kind of thing I want to get into here though.

The better for all. Yeah, yeah, I know, ace. I know.... I simply disagree.

I cannot see how a society can be governed by capitalism on its own. I don't see how a society would deem this to be the fairest model. I don't see how this could be implemented by anything other than an authoritarian plutocracy.

It would require the rescinding of many laws that are considered fundamental. It would require further exposing the American economy to the likes of China and India, who won't share the same economic policies. I sincerely doubt there will be all that many companies interested in dismantling the aspects of nanny statism that benefit them.

I could go on but I won't.

You will have to wait until ace runs for office. Much like my attempted discussion with him on the flat tax.

We evidently have to accept ideological theoretical models that never worked anywhere at anytime in order to discuss it further.

What ace would prefer to see in the U.S. is nothing short of economic extremism. To even attempt to implement it would shake the very foundations of American society.

This is what makes the Tea Party a fringe party.

They were born too late.

He and they would have fit right in with the robber barons of the 19th century.

Nah, they'd criticize them for their support of the nanny state. The robber barons were close, but they weren't free-market enough.

What the hell everyone in here seems to love bitter sourness.

How does it promote fairness? What I see is certainly openness, with no way to stop more of exactly what your complaining about. This system is pretty open as it is, enough to allow them to nearly destroy us and get away nearly scott free. Yeah, give me more of THAT!

I agree that the current system does the same thing. Thats my point. Dont mistake me for a common liberal, no offesnse to anyone but my admitted choice of Obama was nothing more than the less of two evils. Every time a con calls him a socialist I can only think of how that entire wing of philosophy is ignorant of fact in favor of ideology. This man went to this one area in Iran and couldnt prove facts you and i know because their ideology said otherwise. they believed without question so deeply that they were sure he was using trickery. Thats the right, and it fits perfectly into their whole leaning toward fascism, theocracies, and fundamentalism. It's centered in that exact thinking you espouse. That you believe it so it is true. Which it isnt.

You think I dont understand you because its the only way you can solve for the fact that I'm not buying it. Not that i simply dont agree because we are philosophically and fundamentally apart. but your wrong, and theres just about all of history to prove it.

I apologize, I was assuming you didnt do it on purpose which frankly in my mind was more in your favor. So,You left them out to simplify? Thats convenient because they all make up the "golf" system or society as you put it. It requires all of them to function so leaving them out doesnt simplify, it chnages the argument, no surprise in your favor.You left out the people who made your argument ineffective. It proves what your saying to be not true. They need those people, but pay them the least they can get away with to maximize profit and keep that system that allows them to amass capital at amazing rates intact. Sharing the bare minimum is not trickling down being effective.

Thats MY point. Of course there is a trickle down happening, but its always there, they have to give them something in that system. it isnt a model for an entire economic philosophy because it ignores completely that they arent going to give any more, and citing Ford does nothing for your argument. It simply isnt true. There no basis for it in a free system. If they dont have to, no one is going to.

It's true now. When the American labor force either enchroaches on, or more likely when these executives decide they need to free up money for more profit. The first thing they do is outsource it to a country that doesnt have all those pesky laws for peoples rights. Its not just their wage, its the benefits, aorkmans comp that has to be paid, unemployment, taxes, workplace conditions, all of that adds up.

Yeah, lol, I know labor is exploited. You actually believe by opening up and deregulating, and I guess just trusting in the good nature and progress based instincts of companies and thier owners (their intellignece to know its ion thier best interest?), to actually improve that system. This is Randian heroism at its most ridiculous whether you intended it that way or not. It would never happen. I dont disgaree that govenrment makes it worse right now, and will do so if you get a con in or even a tea candidate. This is where your blind belief will fail you. Mark my words. I have issue witht he entire philosophy.

I dont know the value of labor in my market, only because I have no reason to. Its immaterial to me if most could figure it out, I can and they could learn. I can predict now with absolute confidence what is paid is out of scale with what it should be and certainly out of scale with the cost of products and property. None of this is amazing nor should be, its designed this way on purpose and your proposed system and philosophy will only worsen it not improve it. No its not your fault, but you should be kept from capitalizing on it because its unethical. Oh please, youd just love even less government and yet you make the argument that the gov should know better, thats laughable. listen to yourself.

No offense, but the moment you can convince me I should take this serious I'll certainly cite you tons of material on it. I'm sure you can use the internet quite capably in the meantime.



I know, and hence I dont take you too seriously, because how can I?

Hah...
Government shoudlt create wealth, thats not its job and so it cannot be efficient at it in comparison to individuals acting collectively. Are you excitied? so what?

It's you that doesnt understand.

Without regulation you cannot control wealth creation no matter where it comes from. Wealth is like anything, abusable, and done so without regard the very minute there is no rule or law to keep such from happening. This makes it a failed system as a whole. It cant self regulate, and any attempt to regulate it just degrades into beauacracy so deep and expansive it becomes impossible to operate. Leaving it alone and/or opening it up creates choas and allows only those willing to do anything to succeed and it quickly degrades into that. because it relies on a negative and primal human urge called greed to operate and somehow benefit everyone only it has no way other than "optional" to enforce that. We already had that, its called monarchies. The supposed cream rising to the top. More like the most ruthless, uncouth, and low rising to the top. Thats the genius of the modern society, fiscal monarchies and the middle class. You do understand that the whole philosophy was invented by the European nobility to suppress that middle class, don't you? It allows the ruling class to amass the money they need to have power over our society while doing no actual work.

It doesnt work on any level, because instead of progressing us it keeps us base. We dont progress in any matter socially, or otherwise. It's antiquated system for humans of an atiquated time that like any system must acknowledge and take caution of, but in this case relies on, mans selfishness. They all must at least take it into account, one of socialisms biggest shortcomings is that it didnt do this effectively. Instead of harnessing it for the species moving us up and forward it serves only the individual and thus holds us back.

Here we are at some form of Rand, of the right, and thus We are at a philosophical impasse. Having said that, I am afraid of nothing you have to say. Been there, considered it, been it, not impressed. Its nothing more than an excuse for greed and power, essentially adolescence. Luckily I had the will and conscience to think better. We should be moving beyond this because its usless to us a species as a people and will most obviously and ultimately destroy us. What more proof do you need than the very whole of human history?



just my nickel hah

---------- Post added at 09:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 PM ----------

I disagree, and I think that assumption is dangerous. I think we're just under halfway there, and if nothing changes especially the education system, it will move that way exponentially. Talk about "Slow change you can believe in"...

The US economy during the 1800's and early 1900's.

The ability to profit from one's labor, initiative, creativity, resourcefulness, planning, sacrifice, courage, etc.

---------- Post added at 04:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:59 PM ----------

I disagree. For clarification, a free market is not a market based on chaos, but a market that is free to operate under the true forces of supply and demand. The unrest that you speak of has historically been based on militarism or the human desire to take resources by force.

I try to avoid word games. To give a clear and concrete example of wealth creation is - farming. A farmer with land, seed, tools and labor, can harvest a surplus of food not only for his consumption but for the consumption of others. The farmer benefits and so do others on a net basis without a transfer of wealth. Those that benefit from the farmers surplus are free to do other more productive activities. In turn those activities may allow the farmer to become even more productive - creating greater and greater wealth.

The question then becomes what if you introduce taxation in to the system? It is clear that if the taxation is used as efficiently as those that are taxed, the system is not harmed. I argue that taxation is less efficient, and harms the system and harms the creation of wealth.

On another note - I know a person who has spent years in the Peace Corp., in under-developed nations. His experience is that public farms are always less productive than private farms. Why? to me it is obvious.

Some of these laws actually hurt people.

---------- Post added at 04:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:14 PM ----------

I refrain from mocking you, why do you insist on doing it to me? What is your point with this statement?

Read what I have written. I give specific examples that support my point of view.

---------- Post added at 04:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:17 PM ----------

I support is what works. I have no tolerance for the misdirection and hiden agendas used in modern politics. We have a system that allows some to preserve wealth at the expense of other - we have a system where those in power pick winners at the expense of others - we have a system loaded with unintended consequences that do more harm than good. I support asking simple and direct questions, like - does policy X actually work? Does policy X work better than doing nothing? Simple things like that

Mounting debt from uncontrolled spending is shaking the very foundations of American society. After more that 40 years in the war against poverty, poverty is as bad as it has ever been.

I suggest that you and others spend some time with people who actually have to live only on aid or support from the government. It is not a good situation. It is not a situation you would wish on anyone. The movement towards more and more of a welfare state is moving towards failure and misery.

Another suggestion is to try to live the life-style of those having to live off of government. You would not do it. Why would you want more of what does not work?

Ace, can you at least acknowledge that free-ish markets tend to produce situations where participants have substantial motivation to work counter to the best interests of society?

I can acknowledge that government intrusion is frequently heavy-handed and counter-productive. This seems to be inherent and why industry should do its best to self-regulate. Many industries do self regulate. Many don't. And when necessary, government intrusion exists to intentionally restrict certain kinds of growth.

For example, government regulation right now is limiting the growth of the market for cigarettes and alcohol among minors. I'm fine with this. The government is also limiting the toy market by placing rules on what sort of chemicals can be used in toy production. I'm fine with this.

I don't buy into the idea that the wisdom of the market is always sound when it comes to the well being of humanity. Regulations frequently arise when industries so egregiously fuck up that even the largely corrupt class of politicians who run the country have to get off their worthless asses and pretend to care about their constituents.

Where there aren't compelling reasons to inhibit market growth, I can't imagine you'd find any large group of people willing to regulate capriciously (though I recognize that the folks who stand to gain from the exploitation of certain markets might differ in opinion on the need for regulation from the people in these markets who stand to be exploited).

I know how I help people and I know what it takes. I have been on the front lines, so to speak. Teach a man or woman to generate wealth and you change their lives - gifts, loans, welfare, etc., do not work. Again, I see an abdication of responsibility in your way of thinking - let government handle it? Do you fear getting your hands dirty? End poverty by directly helping people learn how to create wealth rather than stealing self-respect, dignity and the motivation to do better.

That is the only portion of that statement I agree with.

Its useless to teach wealth creation when only a very small percentage have an actual chance to make it despite that knowledge. Again, if it were true and possible it would have or be happening, and the argument that less rules/regs will somehow make it happen is just denying reality.

"A market that is free to operate under the true forces of supply and demand." Whose mythology is this?


I suppose in your farm example I can agree on at least one thing. I agree that wealth can be generated by land and labour. ace, you're hit and miss at best.

And the solution to America, by default, is the "true force of supply and demand"? That's a fix for uncontrollable spending and debt? I don't get it. Maybe it's because I live in a country with more widespread social policies and more sensible fiscal conservatism than yours.

"Some of these laws actually hurt people."

I'm not concerned about whether those that hurt people are rescinded. I'm concerned about those that prevent people from exploitation and injury. Though your definition of "hurt" I imagine is different from mine. Either way, a truly free market would put society at the mercy of the wealthy, at the mercy of profit. I prefer society to be governed by elected representatives that are accountable to the people.

Our current system has favorites. For example I suggested that people here look into the sugar subsidies and the impact it has on the poor. I don't support such subsidies.

The Great Sugar Shaft

Rich and powerful people have devised a system so complex that average people don't know the many ways they get the shaft. In a simplified system based on market forces we would not have these hidden forms of exploitation.

Then we support the same cause, even if I am more extreme.

Time and time I give specifics in history and in current times, you have not given specifics.

We can focus on the big picture or we can discuss the trivial - I prefer the big picture. It is clear that Woods benefited everyone in the sport, and he did not do it at their expense.

Is it your fundamental belief that people have to be forced to do good?

What you describe is natural and predictable. It it rational and logical behavior even when profit is not the key consideration. A charity would respond the same way under the circumstances you describe. If the labor force encroaches on the good works of the charity, leaders would decide to free up money by reducing labor costs. However, labor does not have to be passive. Labor can respond in ways to minimize its exposure to risks. Do you want a system where some have responsibilities and others don't?

I would suggest you or anyone "trust" anybody or anything. I suggest people be active participants in the market. Individuals force others to treat them fairly by commanding it. If a person enters the market in ignorance or being naive, you will be treated as such. Labor needs to know what its value is.

If you fall into the foolish belief that government will take care of you, you have my sympathy. I think you have every reason to know the value of your labor. Who is looking out for your best interests in the labor market?

---------- Post added at 07:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:04 PM ----------

No.

What I will acknowledge, and it has nothing to do with market type (it is universal) is that there are thieves, criminals and some evil people in the world.

Also, as I tried to explain there is a difference between wealth creators and those who generate personal wealth from more or less taking from others. People who generate wealth, by definition, benefit society.

I am not an advocate of anarchy and I do believe there is a role for government or governance in a free market.

but, where do you draw the line? At what point do you expect the consumer to be active in the decision making process? Why not ban salt, sugar, meat sunshine...exhaling CO2????

A common theme is the difference in what I consider active participation and what I see you as saying is that when others don't protect me that they are at fault. I suggest full disclosure to address politicians who are unduly influenced by special interests. Our current system is one based on misdirection and deception in order to hide the influence of special interests.

There are thousands of capricious regulations and laws. For example it is o.k. to get drunk drinking beer, but illegal to get high smoking marijuana - why? It is legal to spend money to take a person to dinner, get them flowers, etc., in exchange for...oh never mind - I am sure you get the point.

---------- Post added at 07:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:22 PM ----------

We can look at black communities in urban centers 50 years ago as compared to today. With the boom in welafare black communities where ruined. When home-ownership, business-ownership and families ties peaked so did the quality of life peaked in these communities.

Not everyone is going to be Bill Gates, but people can own land. People can save money. People can own small businesses. People can own other assets. The mentality of "ownership" compared to "renting" is a small shift in thinking that everyone (don't split hairs with the small percent of exceptions) can make. This shift in thinking forms the basis of wealth creation. it forms the basis of creating generational wealth or having something to pass on to your children as opposed to a legacy of debt and dependence on others.

My grandparents owned land in the south when my father was a child. when my grand-father died my dad worked the land until he went into the army. Based on "rules/regs" the land was in my view stolen from my grandmother. If you think "rules/reg" are to benefit average/poor people, I simply suggest re-thinking this. No doubt, some "rules/regs" are needed and do good, but currently our system of "rules/reg" generally are more harmful than they are good.

---------- Post added at 08:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:37 PM ----------

The economist I have studied the most is Milton Friedman, Nobel prize winner. I have not written anything here that he would not agree with.

If you don't like my examples that is one thing - and I give examples because I suspect that some will resonate and some won't. Isn't that the point of giving examples?

Again, if you focus on trivial matters involving an example we get no where. In context, wealth can be created or wealth can be gained through the expense of others. There is a difference. I understood your post explaining why you did not want to address the difference and i wanted to clarify the difference by using an example. Perhaps it is not perfect, but the point is there if you want to see it.

As I understand it the Canadian economy moves in sync with the US economy about 75% of the time. The income gap between Canadians and Americans is getting bigger in favor of America. In addition the Canadian birth rate is low putting more and more pressure on the country's ability to maintain social programs. If not for the booming oil and minerals industries Canada would not be in a strong position at all. The boom is very real and very beneficial, and it can easily mask underlying problems.

"...at the mercy of the wealthy..."

That is at the core of our different points of view. If people can exercise free choice they would never be at anyone's "mercy". In the US big banks get billions of tax payer money in bailouts...and it is then the tax payers who are at the "mercy" of big banks...this is your preferred mixed system at work. Believe me, I can present such examples all day long - will you ever see the problems that are systemic in this "mixed" up system?

I could have guessed as much. Friedman's ideas are not without worth. Friedman's ideals, however, are disagreeable by many.

How am I focusing on trivial matters? I'm trying to see if you understand a fundamental fact about economics, which is where wealth comes from. This goes back to proto-capitalist Adam Smith.

If you look at overall figures on poverty, inequality, and the efficiency of Canada's social programs, we rank higher than most countries in the OCED. Although we have problems with growing poverty and inequality, these are recent problems and are likely reversible.

Also, despite a low birth rate, Canada's population growth rate is historically higher than the U.S. rate, possibly having to do with a more flexible immigration policy.

Finally, the oil and mineral boom is confined for the most part to two provinces. Canada is comprised of 10 provinces and 3 territories; our economy is more than about us being "hewers of wood and drawers of water," though that is our legacy. We're not all lumberjacks and curlers either. Have a look. The city I live in is considered the "economic engine" of Canada. Ontario is the most populous province. Toronto is over 1,600 miles away from Calgary, Alberta, the epicenter of the oil boom.

Energy exports account for less than 3% of our GDP. Overall, a small minority of Canadians are employed in the primary industries (including oil and minerals), and these industries in total only account for about 6% of GDP. The service sector? It accounts for over two thirds. (And I haven't even touched manufacturing.)

So your argument that if it weren't for oil and minerals that Canada wouldn't be in a good position at all is tenuous at best. You're going to have to explain it much better than that.

People can exercise free choice in anarchy as well.

It's difficult to consider your free choice when you're being exploited by holders of capital when you have little to hold of your own.

But you're right, I suppose this is where our opinions differ. I find it difficult to address your position, since it's so radical. I view free-marketers with a similar difficulty as I view adamant communists. Compared to communists and free-marketers, I view socialists and Third-Way corporatists as moderates. It would be easier to address your point of view if it were less extreme and more in line with, say, the corporatist position. But, alas, that's not the case. You want society to have next to no governance outside of the market, as though the market is the purest and truest means to build a society.

Well, that's not going to work. Without reasonable regulation, the market does some pretty nasty things. Look at the history. It's not like Marx and Engels decided to do their thing because they were bored. If everything were so hunky-dory with capitalism running amok, they would have done something else probably—say, build a sewing thread empire or somesuch.

But no. Marxism was a resistance to a phenomenon, and that phenomenon happened to be capitalism at work with little to get in its way.

Do you truly wish to do away with decades of labour law? Safety regulations? Fair practice legislation? Obliterate it all? In the name of the market?

I find it hard to take. I would find your position more feasible if you were more concerned with making the economic environment more open, perhaps simply moving away from socialism from a business perspective. I would find it easier to address you if you were mostly concerned with bailouts, corporate tax rates, and unfair or heavy-handed regulatory practices. But as far as I can see, you want to get rid of it all.

That, ace, is a radical position, and it's why I find it difficult to address, just why I'd find it as difficult to address an adamant communist arguing that America must have a revolution to make things better for all Americans.

I have little interest in radicalism.

But your response essentially acknowledges my point, which is that there isn't anything inherently noble in the "freeness" of the free market. However, you seem to be under the impression that the bad actors are thieves or criminals. The fact of the matter is that under the free-est of free markets, certain types of thievery are the natural consequence of the market working how it ought to.

I don't know that this matters enough to me to agree or disagree.

Good. But you're coming across as one of those "all regulation is bad"-type folks.

I don't know. Dealing with problems in the real world requires more than just the ability to draw lines on theoretical beaches. I guess bans would likely be subject to the court of public opinion. This is probably why you're the only one who ever brings up the specter of things like sugar bans- because aside from a vocal minority of folks nobody in reality wants to ban sugar. But geez, it is a good question. Democracy is hard.

The market wholly supports the dumping of wastes in our rivers. The market wholly supports the complete elimination of any semblance of worker safety rules. The market wholly supports ... It isn't a matter of being protected from my own ignorance. It's a matter of recognizing that the market is driven by profit and the profit motive often acts in direct opposition to any notions of personal or social responsibility (your personal experiences notwithstanding). Destroying the world is profitable in the short term, and the current market emphasis on short-term gains means that the market can't take into account that destroying the world is in nobody's long term interest.

And? What's your point? Marijuana prohibition is an example of a flawed regulatory system? The criminalization of prostitution is too? These prohibitions, while possibly based on bad ideas, are anything but capricious.

I don't understand your point. I believe wealth comes from the application of labor, intellect and resources. Those are broad categories that can be defined further.

As long as the oil/minerals boom does not go bust.

When it comes to natural resources like oil and minerals, it is easy to and I support government's role in a distribution of a fair share of that wealth to all citizens. A private company should pay "the people" for the right to drill oil or extract minerals from the earth. Those private companies should have to compete for those rights in a free, open and competitive market as to give the biggest benefit to "the people". Is that the way it is done in Canada, consistent with free market principles? In the US I argue that our system is corrupt and is prone to favoritism from powerful politicians or based on political influence.

You might argue for a "mixed" approach in this regard, I don't. The BP oil spill proved that there are weaknesses in a "mixed" approach. BP had to meet all the government "rules and regs" and there was still failure. Using free market principles, I say let those that fail, pay the real price for failure. BP was able to negotiate with the government to limit its liability (and I am betting BP got the best end of the deal), I would suggest we let the free market determine the true liability.

My wife spent time in Toronto and said it was the nicest large city she had ever been to, I have absolutely nothing against Canada. I am sure it is a great place to live.

O.k., but let's not underestimate the importance of that comparing US oil imports are "only" about 2% of GDP. Having what you need, plus a surplus that can be exported. Very few industrialized nations are in the position Canada is in.

Canadian debt is about $500 billion (ed.). GDP about $1.3 Trillion. Canada sits on over 1 trillion barrels in oil sand reserves. If we multiply that by $100 per barrel, using round numbers you have $100 trillion in resources. If the prices stay high, Canada can do all the social activities it wants. If the price drops to the point where it is not economically feasible to exploit the resource. Debt will eventually consume GDP.

I don't support anarchy. I think there is a role for government in free markets.

Labor will always have the value labor. Labor in a free market can be more valuable than natural resources or intellect. It is possible for labor to exploit holders of capital.

It appears that you place little value to labor in the market and you think my view is radical? It appears that you assume labor has no power in the market and you think my view is radical? Rhetorical questions. I understand our differences and nothing I can present will change your point of view as there is nothing that you can present will change mine.

---------- Post added at 09:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 PM ----------

I don't look for "nobility" in free markets. I assume market participants will do what they perceive is in their best interest. And there certainly no "nobility" in bureaucracy or powerful politicians wanting to control others. I fear people who want to control and restrict the freedoms of others.

A guy like Maddoff is a theif. A guy like Zuckerberg may have defrauded others, we will never know. A guy like Buffett made billions off of the work of others from buying and selling financial instraments. A guy like Ray Kroc (Mcdonalds) used his drive and initiative and made billions that benefited millions of people and will continue benefiting millions and millions more into the future. There are subtle and not so subtle differences. To understand my point of view, one would need to explore those differences in greater detail.

This argument falls flat on its face. If rules and regulations can't make the world perfect, then there shouldn't be rules and regulations. Let the market fix things instead. Nice.

Oh, I'm sure you have nothing against Canada. I just want to point out to you that you're grossly misreading what's going on here.

Isn't America in the same position in several industries?

[Correction: Canadian debt is $500 billion.]

If the tar sands were to blow up right now and be consumed in flames, Canada would not be consumed by its debt. Look at the numbers. The tar sands produces about 2% of our overall GDP and consist of less than 1% of our jobs. Even if you look at our entire oil industry, of which the oil sands is the lion's share, we have other energy industries, including a powerful hydroelectric industry. Again, ace, you fail to understand the Canadian economy. The high oil price is icing on the cake for us.

I wouldn't suggest you do support anarchy. I merely fail to see how free markets would work in your view that would not include the exploitation of people.

In a free market, it's possible but not likely. In a free market, it's left to chance. In a free market, even if things go wrong in the view of the people, the market will still view it as "right." Oil spills are good in the eyes of the market, because there is an opportunity for cleanup services. Exploding oil platforms are good in the eyes of the market because there is an opportunity for repairs and rebuilding. Nothing is bad in the eyes of the market. The market only sees opportunity.

It's not me who places little value on labour. My view is that a free market would seek to minimize the value of labour and restrict the power of labour. The profit motive requires this.

That was not the argument presented.

I can see the major trends. If you take the position that Canadian debt is not on track to consume GDP without some major change in policy, I suggest you do not know what is going on. In addition, like I presented, Canada has a solution in Oil and minerals if the market holds. That is my primary point, is that what you dispute?

O.k., you don't see what I see.

Labor has a profit motive. If labor is 1/3 of the equation why do you insist it is less important? Why do you not realize that labor can exploit those who hold capital? Again, rhetorical. Perhaps like those Rorschach tests, what I see clearly is not clear to you. I don't know what to add.

Then the argument failed on the grounds of coherence.

Canada has been running a deficit throughout the recession. The minority Conservative government has been using stimulus spending to weather the storm and arguably they've been doing a good job (some would argue we would have been okay either way).

Now I want you to watch Canadian economic policy and watch closely. Canadians have just elected a majority Conservative government, which means that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is easily the most powerful politician domestically than anybody in North America. This guy is Chicago School. You'd like him. But let's rewind: since the '90s, we've reduced our debt by nearly 1/6th. We even legislated rules regarding balanced budgets. This recent deficit spending will not be nearly as bad over the next few years because we're heading out of the recession. We're likely to move back to a surplus if the majority Conservatives don't fuck it up. Balanced budgets aren't serendipity in Canada; they're expected.

This will happen despite oil prices. It has happened in the past, before the oil boom. The boom is less than 10 years in the making.

And I'm right here.

You aren't listening. I'm not devaluing labour; I'm suggesting a free market would actively do that. Just as capital would be used to exploit land and ideas, it would exploit labour: maximum output, minimum cost. It would strip balanced approaches to how labour would be treated, just as it would strip balanced approaches to using land and ideas (wanton environmental degradation and no such thing as "stealing" ideas, i.e. no copyright, no patents, etc.).

My position is that I value labour and think it deserves rights, power, and privileges that a free market wouldn't necessarily afford it unless it would be more profitable to do so. If government is required to ensure that, then so be it. It's not my desire per se; it's the fault of free-market principles. Again, a society should be governed primarily by people, not supply and demand.

Call me a hopeless social democrat if you will, but at least my ideals are feasible and are currently being applied in the real world. Despite what you may think, social democrats are capable of balancing budgets just as much if not more than conservatives.

Then why do you have so much faith in the market? It is every greedy person's dream to be able to control and restrict the freedoms of others. Free markets excel at giving power to greedy people.

I think that the market is good for a lot of things. Looking out for the powerless isn't one of them.

I don't think your point of view is as mysterious as you do. And thievery isn't always illegal.

An argument against free markets is that a free markets lack regulatory control and oversight from a centralized source. However, when we look at what you called "mixed" markets as in the case of the US oil industry which is heavily regulated and controlled an event like the BP oil spill occurs. Centralized regulation and control can not prevent disasters from occurring. What then follows are the consequences or how a free market would respond compared to a "mixed" market. In the case of BP and the US government a settlement was arrived at that was politically based rather than a settlement based on real costs and real consequences. In the end the settlement with the government benefited government and BP, in my view disproportionately, at the expense of tax payers and those most damaged.

The reason I included a reference to the Canadian birth rate is because over time it will be increasingly difficult for fewer and fewer people to sustain the weight of social spending. Something is going to have to change. Either spending cuts, or significant gains in wealth creation. Canada is fortunate as it currently sits on a vast amount of untapped wealth. The thought that Canada could simply tax more to address social spending is not realistic. You must have wealth creation or spending cuts. The same condition is true in the US. The US can not tax its way out of the train wreck that is going to occur unless we act. Conservatives in Canada and in the US are prepared to do what needs to be done. The real extreme position is held by those who think we can tax our way into solving problems with spending.

Hence the value of Canada's untapped resources. Social programs will be cut unless Canada monetizes the value of those resource at a pace that exceeds increasing costs in social programs.

In the US we have to deal with silliness from environmentalist. We have resources that can be monetized, but they fight it. i doubt they realize what is at risk.

No it wont. There is a price where developing oil sands is worth while or profitable and there is a price where that is not true. Over time with improvements in technology that price has come down, but there is still the magic price point. If supplier A has a cost of production of $10 per barrel, supplier B $20, and oil sand is $40. If A and B can satisfy demand, oil sands won't be developed-unless tax payers are willing to subsidize the difference - but there are consequences to that.

That is only half of the view. When supply of labor exceeds demand, the price or wage drops. But when demand exceeds supply the price goes up. Labor has to be active in the market and adjust to changes. If the demand for auto workers drops, but the demand for computer programmers is increasing labor has to respond. However, when the market is controlled by government you end up with high numbers of unemployed and unemployable auto workers waiting for jobs that will never return - encouraged by government policy. Labor would respond faster to changing market conditions if not for government. Government policy is often the root of the problem.

Your view seems to assume that certain parties would be uninformed. If market participants are passive and unwilling to do their homework, so to speak, they will be exploited. But even that condition is self correcting in a free market. Different employers would compete for labor at below market costs and in time bid up the price of labor.

Okay, ace, don't listen to what I say, or simply disagree with very little (if any) basis, including disagreeing with facts.

I think we're done here. For now.

My view is not based on faith. My view is based on my experience, observations, study and at times some tests I have conducted.

Actually, the opposite is true. It is the few who seek political power that most aggressively try to control the behaviors of others. It is through centralized command and control systems that are most exploitative. Free people with choice can respond. Controlled people can not.

I support social safety nets for children, elderly and the disabled. I think we have a moral obligation to protect the powerless. I am guessing we fundamentally disagree on what we consider as "powerless". For example to me a 20 year-old who failed to take advantage of a free education and lives in his mother's basement, playing video games and eating Doritos all day and night is not "powerless". I have no sympathy for people like that. However, as soon as he is willing to go to work, i would be the first in line to want to help him - just don't tell me I gotta pay him $15 per hour to get trained or more than he is worth after he gets trained.

But it is always wrong.

---------- Post added at 04:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:17 PM ----------

Nothing I have written here is incorrect (not including typos), in my opinion. and most of my last post was really just further clarification on points I had been making all along and in response to your critique. But it is true, I have nothing new to say that will influence anyone here on this topic. But, it is clear that there are shifting views as evidenced by the Tea Party and perhaps by conservatives in Canada.

Given our exchange, if it is representative of what the political discourse will be over the next two years, I fully expect a massive sweep by the Tea Party or those who advocate for Tea Party principles, in the 2012 elections in the US

More of that reality-optional thing that I've heard is going around.

Given our exchange, if it's representative, and the Tea Party does sweep some kind of victory in 2012, it will be based on propaganda and fear-mongering.

That's the only way it could happen.

...

I shop at Marxist co-op workers' markets. The food is really good. It's pesticide- and exploitation-free. You can taste it.

I'm not trying to step on Baraka's dick here, but...

This is hardly a reasonable example of regulation being worse than no regulation. In fact, it's an example of what happens when regulatory agencies are stocked with industry friendly people, and as such, is actually an example of what happens when regulations aren't adequate or adequately enforced (ie, what happens in free-er markets).

It's a common source of confusion amongst certain folks: that poorly run government programs are an example of why the government sucks. These people then vote for people who have a record of running the government poorly and the cycle continues. The real problem is that regulation (and government in general) doesn't work well when you stock it with people who are more concerned with catering to whichever industry they're looking to get a job in after they step down from their public sector job. Unfortunately, the folks who complain about ineffective government programs are often the same folks who pewl up a storm whenever anyone in the government attempts to hinder the purposefully stupefying effects of outside influence.

The idea that the government is standing in the way of displaced autoworkers who want to learn to write fluent computer has nothing to do with reality. How long does it take to learn to write professional level code? And how should these folks feed their families in the year or two it will take them to get up to speed in the programming language du jour?

Do you know what price inelasticity is? It's when prices don't respond to changes in supply and/or demand.


When has this ever happened without the aid of organized labor? Please, give me one example (no golf professionals, please).

"I want to let the market handle this whole labor cost and allocation thing without any government intervention at all." is code for "I want a sweatshop based economy."

Okay, well, I generally don't find your view or your ability to support it with the written word all that compelling.

That isn't what opposite means. Opposite of what? That free markets excel at giving greedy people power or that greedy people know that controlling others can be extremely profitable?

Who is telling you that you must pay 20 year old college drop outs $15/hour? I can't talk you out of your fantasies, Ace.


Your opinion or stealing? ;)

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

---------- Post added at 11:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 AM ----------

I wrote a whole slew of responses and quotes and then figured whats the point... its useless. Especially the minute he mentioned Friedman.

---------- Post added at 11:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 AM ----------

Now see.... this is why the forum could use a like button lol :thumbsup:

How do you explain the conservatives gaining political control in Canada? Rhetorical, I can guess your answer or i will read it in the thread on the subject. My explanation, and it applies in the US also, is that people can see the the problems coming and want to do something about it.

It only takes moments of looking at some basic data to understand that debt is going to consume national income or GDP. Taxing national income absolutely can not solve spending problems.

The importance of the above is easily overlooked by those seeking overly complex answers to simple problems. However, this message is easily communicated to typical voters.

If you call the above message propaganda or fear mongering, you and those who share your viewpoint have opportunity to do something about it, by sending your message - whatever it is, I am not clear on what you want to do (I suspect most others don't either). The conservative message is clear and easy to understand - so we will sweep in 2012. We will control Congress and the WH. I even expect a super majority - and if that happens, hold on to your hat!

My comment about our exchange was not personal, but in my view reflects core differences in how people like me with my views communicate with people like you with your views. I see simplicity, you see complexity.

---------- Post added at 07:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:04 PM ----------

I do not advocate for no regulation. I advocate for fair or neutral rules and regulation. Government should not play favorites in the market.

That is the key point, if you want to respond to it.

This is what I mean by responding to trivial matters relative to an example. Perhaps, it is not about all auto workers learning to be be computer programmers, but auto workers not sitting around collecting unemployment, going to rallies and fighting for bailouts but adapting to changing market conditions.

A short-term issue. And it works both ways, potentially in favor of labor and potentially against labor. For example, as a business owner, if there are short-terms swings in business activity, the last thing I want to do is let go a fully trained employee. So if business slows and demand for labor declines, my response is not to immediately cut labor cost.

Look at both sides of issues. Labor has power in free markets. I don't understand why you folks assume labor will always be a victim. Honestly, can you share some insight on this?

Conservatives in Canada are basically the same as Democrats here in the United States (center right). Imagine a US which has a far left party, center left party and a center right party and add a bit of delicious maple syrup and you've got Canada.

We agree. In street lingo, we would call this getting "pimped". A person who controls street prostitutes mentally (and sometime physically but my focus is on the mental aspect here) breaks the person down to the point where they do not know or understand their true worth - and in a weird way that become their choice not to understand. I say to labor, stop being "pimped" by government. Government is not your "daddy", not your protector, not you provider, not you lover, not your advocate. Each individual has to be their own "man".

Oh, and just like in the "game" as with government - labor pays the "pimp" first.

criminy. talk about ludicrous analogies.

this is kinda interesting on the influence that that staggeringly idiotic pseudo-philosophy "objectivism" in conservativeland:

| The Randian Fault That Could Shake Conservatism

sounds a bit like the underlying logic of a lot of ace's bad examples/analogies/simplification-falsification exercises.

I meant you.

A persons ignorance should not be a license to act unethically.

The laws of capitalism, blind and invisible to the majority, act upon the individual without his thinking about it. He sees only the vastness of a seemingly infinite horizon before him. That is how it is painted by capitalist propagandists, who purport to draw a lesson from the example of Rockefeller—whether or not it is true—about the possibilities of success. The amount of poverty and suffering required for the emergence of a Rockefeller, and the amount of depravity that the accumulation of a fortune of such magnitude entails, are left out of the picture, and it is not always possible to make the people in general see this.

Perhaps that will explain better what I meant.

---------- Post added at 01:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:51 PM ----------

If Objectivism seems familiar, it is because most people know it under another name: adolescence. Many of us experienced a few unfortunate years of invincible self-involvement, testing moral boundaries and prone to stormy egotism and hero worship. Usually, one grows out of it. Libertarians and Objectivists are moved by the mania of a single idea — a freedom indistinguishable from selfishness.

The Conservatives in Canada won mainly because of their obvious shift towards the centre and the disastrous implosion of the Liberal party from the leadership down. (More or less the opposite of what happened in the U.S.)

If the GOP wants to "sweep" or to make any significant headway into restoring what's left of their power, then maybe they should consider a similar move. I've said this before: maybe it's time to return to the Third Way in America.

Let's play a game. We can call it who is getting F*cked! I'll start it off.

Working middle class homeowners, billions in tax dollars go to bailout banks for making bad home loans. The bad loans lead to lowered home values. Thousands and thousands have loans with a greater value than their homes. Banks won't refinance, but they will foreclose. Choice; your "pimp" (government), your trick (banks), or you the middle class homeowner - who is getting F*cked? :rolleyes:

So how do I get citizenship and wheres a good place to move?

I know when I am getting f*cked, do you?

Shouda, woulda, couda - I don't trust anyone until they earn it. Your statement suggests that you depend on the good will of others - good luck with that.

This is almost correct. There are three left-wing parties. One is only in Quebec representing Quebecois interests, the Bloc Quebecois. One is the Green Party of Canada, a minority party representing green politics, though they've just won their first seat in the House of Commons. One is a national social democratic party—the New Democratic Party (NDP)—that has had some minority influence in the House of Commons for a while but have just won for the first time in history the status of the Official Opposition, and they did this by more or less doubling their seats in the House. None of these parties are "far left."

The Liberal Party of Canada, though considered centre-left does veer close to the centre quite often. Until recently, they were considered the "ruling party" of Canada, and much of that has to do with this centrism.

The Conservative party is an amalgamation of the Progressive Conservative Party and the Reform Party, which makes them a mixed-bag of small "c" conservative issues, including both fiscal and social platforms. They are both centre-right and right-wing depending on the issue, the politician, and the political environment. Comparatively, however, they are probably like the rightest of Democrats and the leftest of Republicans.

If you consider the recent platform they ran on, the Conservatives clearly went for centre-right over right-wing. Social conservative values were notably absent for the most part, while still maintaining the conservative brand otherwise.

It should be a lesson to the GOP. If they want to be a ruling party, perhaps try to encompass more voters, which tend to gravitate nearest to the centre.

Experience, inevitability of markets and their forces, knowledge of my fellow man, knowledge of history and current events.

There is a great difference between free-enterprise development and revolutionary development. In one of them, wealth is concentrated in the hands of a fortunate few, the friends of the government, the best wheeler-dealers. In the other, wealth is the people’s patrimony.

The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx - Free eBook

and on and on...

---------- Post added at 02:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:30 PM ----------

Oh yes. I question that statement. I wonder if you really do...

---------- Post added at 02:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:34 PM ----------

Whata re you talking about? No it doesnt. This is a question of ethics, your trying justify yourself in taking advantage of others unethically. I have no idea what you mean that I rely on the goodness of others, i think your talking about yourself. Or maybe you meant the goodness of market forces. Either way, utopian nonsense.

Just forget about all that stuff, why not let me be your "Daddy". Choose me! I will protect you from all the bad people in the world. I will pay for your medicine when you get sick. I'll buy you nice cloths, jewelry, make sure you got a nice place to live in, I'll even get you a little rag top car - hybrid of course (don't want you to go to far). You can cry on my shoulder when you get sad. I will take you out and show you a good time every once in a while, and when you get old - I'll be there for you then too. In exchange for all of this, all you gotta do is go out there and get me my money!

Almost sounds like the relationship liberals have with government doesn't it?:eek: The irony is liberals are getting screwed by big business, but are being "pimped" by government. I raise the alarm because I don't want to be screwed or "pimped" - yet I am the extreme one???

traditionally, the whiny petit bourgeois victim is the basis of all fascist constituencies.
traditionally, the whiny petit bourgeois victim likes to fantasize about manly man competition as an entryway into some curious "moral economy" be it processed through martial virtues or through some pseudo-neutral language like market "fitness".

always the same thing.
and fascism/neo-fascism has an appeal to whiny petit bourgeois victims during period of economic crisis.

Power to the government...or is that people...? Please clarify where you want power to go?:orly:

I agree with you. However, your words don't convey the nature of your advocacy very well. When you make ridiculous claims about how regulation could not have prevented the BP oil spill it makes it seem like you're a little overeager to discredit the very notion that regulation can be useful.

Perhaps if you didn't litter your examples with inexcusable jumps in logic we wouldn't be so easily distracted by the inexcusable jumps in the logic of your examples. What do you expect? You should spend more time explaining your position and less time clouding the waters with haphazardly constructed anecdotes, especially when they rarely support your position convincingly.

How many auto workers were sitting around collecting unemployment? If you don't know the answer to this question then you're assumption that it was problematic is nothing but hot air.

Yes? And? My point was that you should be overly simplistic with your casual predictions about the all-powerful corrective powers of supply and demand.

I don't assume that labor will always be a victim. I do know that without unions, laborers typically have significantly less power than employers do, which frequently leads directly to the victimization of laborers.

Which is ironic considering that America was founded on nanny-statist protectionist measures overseeing precious business interests. Corporate America has no idea what a free market looks like. It has no idea what its true market fitness is. But the likes of China and India are dying to know. But, alas, I don't even think Tea Partiers are interested in dismantling the nanny state. Too much risk involved. The world is a scary place across those oceans, you know.

I've aways loved Toronto. There's something about Toronto girls-they're down to earth but they still have that lovely Canadian dignity (it's like regular dignity, but with better pot).
Ah. Being a typical American, I always forget about the existence of Quebec. Having watched the recent election with popcorn and Mike & Ikes, I don't see too many big differences between American Democrats and Canadian conservatives.

The American right goes far right when there's a Democratic president in order to prevent the center from moving left. Normally, they're able to balance it well enough that they can put forward a moderate conservative to sweep the middle, but the GOP went too far this time and a centrist Republican runs the risk of alienating the right wing by saying things like "The President was born in America" and "perhaps a few less wars, but still lotsa wars".

A component of the GOP shifting strategy...sharia law is a threat to the American way of life.
Freedom of religion? Bah, humbug.

Better to acknowledge the irrational fear and bigotry of the base.

I'm still afraid of gypsies. Will somebody please do something about the gypsies!

the people. state controlled is not the only socialist model

---------- Post added at 04:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:24 PM ----------

lol i never claimed i wasnt extreme... or that i was a liberal. I'm more extreme than you in a different direction.

I have stated many times that I am not an anarchist and that there is a role for government, rules/regs, in free markets. I agree that my tone is not sugar-coated

I can't afford focus groups, so feed back is very valuable in my preparation for a run for congress.

Note to self:

Let me be your "daddy" - don't use as a campaign slogan.
Promises to protect, shelter, cloth, and of riches, etc. - O.k.
Ask in turn for voters to go out and get me my money - don't do.

Note to self completed.

I agree that I need to sharpen my focus and avoid distracting jumps in logic and examples. I will work on that. Thanks for the tip.

My father was a union factory worker for over 30 years. I know how it works. Men wait and wait hoping and praying they get called back after a layoff. I know of men who basically waited 5 in some cases 10 years waiting for a call that never came. They would go to union meetings, to political rally's or to speeches by politicians getting false hope, false encouragement and false promises of a fading industrial base rebuilding when the actual and real trends were clear.

What is your experience with blue collar factor unions?

---------- Post added at 11:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:11 PM ----------

My political advisers (my wife and barber so far) tell me that running for US Congress is a mistake, that I should run for a state office first. I am actually thinking of running for national office to lose, and then send a audition clip to Fox News and make a ton of money. You have to admit, I have some pretty edgy yet funny stuff, what do you think?:thumbsup:

It's coated in something. Definitely not sugar.

Funny thing, I just saw something on some news show with that mean old journalist who asked Sarah Palin that gotcha question about naming newspapers. Apparently, there is a government program to help displaced workers get training for new careers. The "Plain English" Version of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, Employment & Training Administration (ETA) - U.S. Department of Labor
I haven't read the details. Maybe it's a scam. Probably some sort of liberal job training dependence for vote operation or something.

I don't have any experience with blue collar factory unions. I don't know that that makes me less credible than you.

I think maybe the real reason they are against it is because it interferes with their own version of sharia law. This is another of those weird conservative lies. We're for less control and letting you live how you want to... unless it isnt Christian or free market, or what we want, then oh man look out! :crazy:

I'll run against you. You can be open markets guy, I'll be money abolition guy.

Good. I wonder why Detroit is but a shell of what it used to be?

I bet it makes liberals feel all warm a fuzzy when they implement a government program to re-trained displaced workers. To bad they don't take the next step and see if the programs actually work.

I am almost out of business, think I can sign up for re-training? I want to try special high intensity training in feng shui or flower arranging - think I can get a job after 6 months of SHIT in those disciplines?

---------- Post added at 04:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:01 PM ----------

Deal, can't wait for the debates. Do you think Obama is going to debate the Republican nominee? My guess is he is going to do everything possible to avoid direct debate or any setting where he risks the questions the media refuses to ask. Once Obama gets confronted with his many contradictions and false promises, it will be over for him. If anything that is going to be the winning strategy for Republicans to win the WH.

it's always the less worthy who are the beneficiaries of imaginary state "handouts" so far as the whiny petit bourgeois victims are concerned.

the evil bad state does not respect natural hierarchies the way "free markets" do. "free markets" allow for the true economic aristocracy to surface. that economic aristocracy is the result of being more naturally "fitted" to the justice-dispensing mechanisms that are the market.

anything that interferes with that process of allowing the true aristocracy to surface is an unnatural intrusion. they introduce distortions.

the natural aristocracy, made up largely of socially and economically marginal petit bourgeois victims see in the evil bad state allocations of resources away from themselves.

in a better, more natural world, petit bourgeois victims would be beneficiaries of righteous allocations.

those less fitted would perhaps die off. it's nature's way. read some herbert spenser. if they survive, it'll be as parasites. they shall be treated as such. degenerates. lesser than us. perhaps we will set up large camps to re-educate them. then things will get better.

o yeah, we need some military discipline around here too.

and more patriotism. people are climbing into rafts to float here to the best of all possible worlds.

blah blah blah.

Really? I think the reason is pretty obvious.

Do you really think this? I'm pretty sure that neither side has a monopoly on prioritizing plans over their outcomes. I would hope that the idea of keeping a family off the streets would make anyone feel warm and fuzzy, not just liberal folks.

And in any case, measurable outcomes can't be too important to someone whose economic philosophy eschews them altogether because the market knows best. Whole finance industry toxic and going to poison the world's economy? Let 'em die, the market knows best. Crushing economic depression? Who cares? It's the market at work. Crippling unemployment? Why does it matter? It's the market, just doing its thing. Just let the market be free, then we can all sit back and bask in the amoral glow of a dynamic system running its course.

Maybe you could pick up computer programming in a week or two and take one of the job opportunities currently being squandered by those uppity union workers in Detroit?

I don't get it. Why would government provided job retraining be bad? Why does it not make sense if we're going to encourage the kind of economy that treats people like cogs? Why does it not make sense for the government to help displaced workers become economically productive as soon as possible? Wouldn't this in principle also make the markets free-er?

In some urban centers in this country young black male unemployment is north of 50%. Liberals not only sit back and do nothing, but they enact policies to make things worse. In a free market economy this problem would be self correcting.

From your favorite bourgeois publication, IBD today.

Punished By Minimum Wage - Investors.com

and as usual, tell us about how you feel about IBD, me, Walter Williams, and not address your views on actually solving a problem - it never gets old (tongue firmly planted in cheek as I write your responses don't get old)

I asked people at the grocery store today, they told me I'd be better off....
http://eddiedeguzman.files.wordpress...if?w=200&h=200