Originally Posted By Mr X Yes, Sport Goofy, that was the first thing I thought...HARDING in 1920?? Did he really go there!? Here's my "final reply", hopefully he won't unfriend ME over it. ***Okay, here goes... The first 100 years were not a model of prosperity, first of all. Far from it. The 19th century was rife with depression economies, four of them to be exact (compared to just ONE in the 20th century, but I'll get to your friend Harding in a moment), encompassing roughly a quarter of that entire century. 1807-1814, 1837-1844, 1873-1879, and 1893-1898...note that ALL of them lasted longer than the great depression (yes, Harding, I'm getting there!), and at least one of them (1873) was arguably deeper and more devastating. Okay, so Harding and his free market brilliance stepped in and saved the day in 1920, you say? And then America entered into a golden age, with decades of prosper...oops. Yeah, 9 years later, after rampant "classical economics" ran wild for LESS than a decade, that pesky Great Depression went down. One of the bleakest chapters in American (nay, WORLD) economic history, and PRECIPITATED by runaway capitalism which you are using as an example of success? How do you not put 2 and 2 together here Brett? Luckily, America was saved by a great liberal with lots of big government ideas, managed to climb out of the mess in far less than a decade, and THEN went on into a golden age, with decades of economic prosperity that finally got killed by Reaganomics, from which we suffer to this day. Classical economics as proven as gravity itself? Yes, if by that you mean both things make stuff fall, drop and crash. As far as "which facts" I think you were inaccurate on in that first comment, I'd start with your that government provided health insurance options are "communist" (unless you also consider the post office, fire departments and libraries equally "communist"). And also, I'd like to know specifically what you believe is unconstitutional about the health care reform bill. If it really WERE unconstitutional, I would think all the right wingers would be happy to let it pass...since the heavily right wing Supreme Court could then easily turn around and strike it down.***
Originally Posted By mawnck >>according to American foundational principles << >>America is known for and was prosperous because of invention and freedom<< These I would have called him on. The first one is religion, not government. The real American foundational principle is that we adjust to circumstances, and not let vocabulary get in the way of prosperity and fairness. Socialist, smocialist. The second leaves out the main reason America is prosperous ... Columbus et al snagged the best undeveloped piece of real estate on the globe. America has never been real big on humility, and I fear we're about to have some handed to us, with a Made in China sticker on it. (Although it looks like Europe's gonna go first. Thanks, Europe. We owe you one.)
Originally Posted By mawnck X - Your friend (and a lot of other people) ought to read this: <a href="http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00431" target="_blank">http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/...id=00431</a> >>Efficient market theory dominated economic thinking from the days of Ronald Reagan to the collapse of 2008. It was the rationale for deregulation, the cause of a massive transfer of wealth and income from the middle class to a tiny number of the very rich. Now it is dead and gone but Republican politicians won’t let go, and many in the media show no understanding of the issue.<< >>These are economists whose work has been grounded on the “efficient market hypothesis,” and until the financial collapse of 2008 their views dominated in large parts of the academic world and almost all of the political. Central to their thinking is the idea that markets will always accurately, rationally and efficiently value assets. The concept of a “bubble” is unthinkable: since it can’t happen, it therefore didn’t.<< >>Despite catastrophic events, it is folly to expect the suffering of millions and an onslaught of inconsistent facts to wipe out an economic theory whose tenets were and still are so convenient for so many powerful economic interests. At present the defenders of the efficient market hypothesis are engaged in trying to pin the cause of the financial crisis on the government. (If the financial crisis was the result of government policies, then one could still plausibly claim the market to be rational, efficient, etc.)<< Much more @ the link.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 GREAT article. Really, one of the best and most succinct I've read in a while.
Originally Posted By Mr X Well, I haven't hit him with that excellent article yet, Maw (I need to give it a more thorough read myself first, although it touches on a LOT of my own theories on the crash of 2006 (YES, 2006, NOT 2008...me and a few others (SuperDry was one of them too) noticed the canaries dying in the bird cages a couple of years early. We've exchanged a few back and forths since I last cut and pasted (I don't want to bore everyone TOO much lol), but the latest thing he wrote really struck me...it's pretty clear that he's a total Libertarian in any case, since he indicated that health care is not a Government concern because the constitution doesn't say anything about health care... So, he wrote the following which I'm still thinking about how to respond (at first glance I'm inclined to write "excellent point!", though I feel as though I'm missing some key stuff and my mind isn't really "on task" at the moment)...ANYWAY, he wrote: "I believe in watchdogs- I just don't believe the government is qualified to be the watchdogs of the free market. Consumers and the free market system do a very good job at that. The government's job is to protect us from attack, protect our freedom and provide civil infrastructure. They shouldn't interfere with the economy at all." Okay, the first part on "consumers and the free market system" is easy enough to slam. But the second part...I find intriguing. I wonder what kind of a country we'd have IF the government limited itself to only those three things and NOTHING more. Of course by that I mean the Federal government, state governments would have the task of providing local services per orders by the people, I'd imagine. Thoughts?
Originally Posted By oc_dean I'm going to have to read all this a bit later ... but let me say something about Australia .. since I've been here a while now. They have a public health care system. Instead of state tax they have what they call GST .. that is 10% across the board. Life in the greater Sydney area is very much like America. Not much different at all. Seems like our country should take some notes on how Australia takes care of themselves!!! And they're doing pretty good at it! After my amount of time here !!
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Agreed OC_DEAN. Similarly in the UK, the National Insurance Contributions are 11% across the board, and the standard of life is a little better in some respects, worse than others, but good care levels. I work with a Commissioniner in the NHS from Australia - she says in her experience of working in health in Australia, the US and the UK, UK and Australia are equal to each other and better than the US.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>since he indicated that health care is not a Government concern because the constitution doesn't say anything about health care...<<< What is his view on education and sanitation since those are not in the constitution? What about the internet, that's not in their either. It is ironic that so many people in the US look to old documents for their guidance - the Constitution, the Bible etc. It is a real worry. The world changes.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>"I believe in watchdogs- I just don't believe the government is qualified to be the watchdogs of the free market. Consumers and the free market system do a very good job at that. The government's job is to protect us from attack, protect our freedom and provide civil infrastructure. They shouldn't interfere with the economy at all."<<< Supporting civil infrastructure and even defence divorced from economics. Politics are the instruments of power, economics are the intruments of resources. They are inextricably linked. It's the first thing they teach you in Politics or Economics 101. When you have a government that does not work with managing an economy, that's when you get third world or Victorian structures. And his myopic view does not account for the fact that the population is growing and resources are shrinking. Very closed minded, but then again, most of the right wing are.
Originally Posted By mawnck What he said. Regulating business (oh, OK, "interfering with the economy") IS protecting our freedom, in the most literal possible sense. Just ask Uncle Remus. A totally unregulated free market system gives the advantage to unethical actors who "get away with it," and eventually results in someone, or some small group, owning absolutely everything. Those who think that market forces will take care of such situations need to get out more. The PRIMARY purpose of the US government, at least according to some article that I can't seem to find at the moment ;-) , is "to form a more perfect union," with "establish(ing) justice" running a close second. You bet your sweet kazootie that includes managing the economy.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Spot on Mawnk, otherwise indeed things such as slave labour and environment degredation are given a free pass. Look how "ok" the consumer is with importing cheap disposable goods from China or sweat shops in Africa/Asia to buy at Walmart. Yuck!!!!
Originally Posted By hopemax I've been meaning to, and I have the Federalist Papers in book form, but they are free online, is read more about the time from the adoption of the Constitution. I know generally, Hamilton found the Bill of Rights amendments to be unnecessary, and worried that the enumeration of some rights would be used in the future, to deny other rights, because those rights were NOT enumerated. Which is where we find ourselves with a lot of things. On the specific subject of health care, I would like to more about that at the time of the Constitution. Obviously, at that time we had less ability to diagnose, and treat people. Treatments were less expensive. But my guess is that the idea that a doctor would not treat somebody would have been a foreign notion to people. If someone sliced a hand while working, a woman going into labor, they would be treated without question. If an outbreak of disease came to a town, the town would work together to keep as many people as alive as possible. A health care provision would have been completely unnecessary because the people would have already accepted that as the community's responsibility. No need to have the government make sure that was protected. So I would like to know if my guesses are accurate.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder >>>"I believe in watchdogs- I just don't believe the government is qualified to be the watchdogs of the free market. Consumers and the free market system do a very good job at that. The government's job is to protect us from attack, protect our freedom and provide civil infrastructure. They shouldn't interfere with the economy at all."<<< Oh, for heaven's sakes, this is the most head in the sand statement anyone could make, given what HAS happened to our economy. As mawnck so eloquently put it months ago, regulate the snot out of them. If you want to get to core reasons why we find ourselves in this economic predicament, it's that when left unfettered, greed will win out every single damn time. Every time. We simply cannot trust one another to do the right thing. We are at the point where we need to be saved from ourselves. For example, despite the bailouts, despite all the horribly bad press about Wall Street, apparently we're still "contractually obligated" to use taxpayer money to pay out bonuses to this day. Anyone with a freaking conscience would turn it down. None of the people eligible for one need the money, but they're taking it nonetheless. Another example- a few years back, despite the fact interest only loans had warning signs all over them, or low interest loans with 5 year ARMS screamed stay away, banks still offered them and otherwise intelligent people signed up for them, with little regard, if any, for the long term consequences. Now, one of the main reasons our ecomony tanked is because it became time to pay up. More- despite all the aforementioned bad press, once Congress did enact a credit card bill with a little bit of teeth in it, lenders went crazy finding loopholes in it, jacking up rates, cancelling accounts, slashing limits. This, of course, done to consumers in a by-then already tanking economy, consumers who could have used more than a little help by that point. This little gem is going to lead to record setting amounts of BK filings in 2010 and 2011. Off shoring of jobs- still no regulations here to speak of. Despite job losses right and left, corporations are still farming out jobs to India and wherever because they're married more to their shareholders than the good of the country as a whole. Companies that continue to do this need to be penalized. Then there's gas prices and health care. Enough said there just mentioning them. We don't need to be overly worried about Al Qaeda or that dick head that runs Iran, we need to be worried about what we do to ourselves. We have absolutely proven we can't trust each other, and we need big brother to step in. How sad is that?
Originally Posted By Mr X His latest rant... "America is called the "land of opportunity" not the "land of equal results". NO ONE is ENTITLED to anything other than life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. Everybody gets a shot and gets to shoot for whatever target they wish. In a society that the utopian, progressive fools want to create they set the target, redistribute success and take all of the joy out of work, all of the pain out learning and turn people into society machines with no incentive to do anything. These idealistic, utopian progressives forget the fact that all people are inherently lazy, greedy and sinful and there is no way to legislate us into being anything else but what we are. If you take away freedom, you take away everything that made America the greatest country in the world. How is it great? Because of freedom America has been prosperous, the leader in invention and innovation, the leader in strength and strategy in military, a leader in music and sports, a model for many other countries around the world to emulate on many different levels (including Japan which enjoys much of what they have learned and gained from America) and all of it will come to an end because progressives want to steal from the rich and give to the poor, level the playing field and foolishly think that we'll have a better society because of it. It is complete and utter foolishness and does not work with sinful humans. Btw, sanitation is taken care of by local governments which is appropriate according to the 10th amendment. Didn't I explain that? You're not lobbying for a Federal Sanitation Department are you? Because, I can't afford to pay the taxes I owe already. Anymore will destroy me. It shouldn't be that way. I'm self employed- in America I should be doing better than any, but I'm economically oppressed by a big government who gives billions in tax money to corrupt labor unions (SEIU) and corrupt corporations like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They also cater to the EPA which exasperates us to a point which doesn't make a difference for the environment. It only serves the bureaucracy and the redistribution of wealth. I've had enough- I want my freedom back!"
Originally Posted By mawnck Oy, he's going on about being economically oppressed by the government? And who has been benefitting from all that oppression? The big corporations he wants to be "free." He's gone. Drowned in the Kool Aid. Cut him loose.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Oy, he's going on about being economically oppressed by the government? And who has been benefitting from all that oppression? The big corporations he wants to be "free."<< Read Deer Hunting With Jesus. The author, IMHO, does a great job of explaining why people like your friend repeatedly vote against their economic self interest. And sadly, a big reason is their religious background (Calvinism). >> These idealistic, utopian progressives forget the fact that all people are inherently lazy, greedy and sinful<< He sounds like a hard core Calvinist. >>He's gone. Drowned in the Kool Aid. Cut him loose.<< I agree. Give him time. He might wise up.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Yep, lost cause that seems to have an axe to grind. Funny, as someone who lives in an almost socialist state, things are even better now that I have become self employed.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 I just don't get why people think letting big corporations "go free" and do whatever they want is a good thing. To me, it seems common sense that given the chance, big business will screw the little guy every time. How do these anti-government people not see the corporate greed?
Originally Posted By mawnck As I understand it, the belief is that these companies have earned the right to screw everybody over and pay themselves billion dollar bonuses, and it is anti-American to take that right away from them. Shrug.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Yep, lost cause that seems to have an axe to grind. Funny, as someone who lives in an almost socialist state, things are even better now that I have become self employed.<< Indeed, you don't have to worry about qualifying for an individual health insurance plan and the paying at least $1400 a month for a crappy policy with HUGE deductibles to cover your family (I can only imagine what a good policy costs).
