Instead of taking offense at one another's convictions, let's ask each other why.
Children are always asking "Why?" They want to understand what they observe. They want to know what lies behind things. They want to be able to read some order and sense into the world.…
Article comments
76 - Christopher Rose
Baronius, well, you've already shown above that your economic understanding is paper thin and your objection to government involvement is based on dogma rather than pragmatism, in addition to your already cloudy faithist approach to life in general.
You may well be stating your views coherently but those views are so obviously based on theory rather than actual reality that I doubt they will convince anyone other than those who already share your position.
There is no such thing as a market that is not managed in some way, even if that is only the management of things to suit those running the market in the first place.
Hedge funds are a great example. These financial derivatives have been so unregulated as to cause a large part of the financial turmoil we have seen recently.
Yes, they were producing spectacular profits and salaries for those practising them but the end result almost brought down the US economy. That this damage was so profound that Bush 2 was persuaded to go against his own dogma and initiate an economic rescue is eloquent evidence that reality is more demanding than your theories.
You have no respect at all for the idea that collective action around a shared need or purpose can often be a positive thing but you do approve of the idea of an elite running things independently of the views of everybody else?
No wonder you don't believe you can actually influence the debate, your political and economic views are as "special" as your spiritual ones...
77 - bliffle
What astounds me is the alacrity with which all those Free Market Capitalist Milton Friedman guys have thrown over their professed beliefs in order to get their hands on a trillion dollars of tax-payer money.
I guess it was all hot air all this time.
78 - bliffle
Baronius nonchalantly reveals one of his reasoning flaws:
"...I'll admit to a nostalgia for feudalism."
Ah feudalism, a system where a nobleman and a serf negotiate while the noble holds a knife to the serfs throat.
Alas, Baronius himself would be more likely to be serf than noble and find himself in the inferior position.
79 - Cannonshop
#78
MOST people that sigh over the Feudal era would be Peasants in it, Bliffle. One of the things I found out hanging out with SCAdians is that very few of them really want to consider where they would be in a Feudal state for-real. It's a bit like spending time with Earth Firsters-most of THOSE wouldn't survive the world they're advocating either.
#77
Agreed. (again. damn it.) but I don't find it astounding in the least. Hypocrisy in the perfumed and tie-wearing cliques is practiced like a special virtue, from the IT dude that protests to get a dam knocked down, to the thousands of fur-prostesters that walk around in toxic-waste generating artificial fibres, to the greenpeacers and their oil-leaking boats, on up to the self-proclaimed "Free Market" advocates who really don't want to work in a market that's free-they want just enough regs to keep competition out, to the activists who hate congress, but re-elect THEIR congresscritters because they bring the bacon home, and don't forget all those 'anti-war' people who're perfectly good with War so long as it's against "Kapitalizt Pigz". (oh, and the folks who think Mugabe's doing a swell job, Chavez is a great guy, and Che Guevarra was anything but a thug that even Castro wanted to be rid of). It's all part of the same puzzle. It's disappointing, but far from a surprise.
80 - Clavos
Pretty much everyone in America is of serf/peasant stock. The ruling classes of the countries from whence our ancestors came had no incentive to emigrate, and for the most part, did not do so.
Those who did were of the underclasses of their respective homelands.
We are a nation of peasants -- a nation whose most pervasive cultural bequest to the world is the garbage produced in Hollywood.
81 - Baronius
Bliffle - Hey! I said "nostalgia", which by definition isn't rational. Believe you me, I'm happy I didn't live then. (Actually, I wouldn't have lived then, because I'd be dead from a childhood strep infection.)
Zedd - I can't imagine a better system. History hasn't indicated that there is one. I'm open to the possibility.
Christopher - Again, I'm talking in general terms because I thought that fit the thread better. If you want to talk specifics about polar bear populations, ethanol subsidies, or ACORN, we can. It won't explain why I think the way I do. But in each case, you'll see that my principle is completely practical, and that interference in markets by an outside agent is rarely beneficial.
"You have no respect at all for the idea that collective action around a shared need or purpose can often be a positive thing but you do approve of the idea of an elite running things independently of the views of everybody else?" I have no idea what you're referring to.
82 - Baronius
OK, I've got a "why" question for you, a genuine inquiry for whomever wants to answer. It's felt like, up until about a month ago, the left-of-center wouldn't allow any discussion of Obama's thin resume. Experience didn't matter; Cheney was often cited as someone who had great qualifications but was wrong for America. But now, Palin is getting slammed for her lack of experience. My question is, is this just campaign spin, or is there a sense that Palin has substantially weaker qualifications than Obama? Please explain.
83 - David Black
I am not surpised that a lib would lament the passing of that childish preoccupation with asking "why" every second about the most mundane occurences.
Isn't liberal thinking very much a childish preoccupation in regard to its fantastic idealism and unrealistic hopes for a world that can never exist?
84 - Cindy D
DAVID BLACK IS A DARK SPIRITED AMERICAN WITH A STRONG CONSERVATIVE BENT. HE'S NEVER MET A SWEEPING GENERALIZATION HE DIDN'T LIKE.
85 - Jon Sobel
Baronius #82: the problem is, there is clearly sexism that causes Palin to be scrutinized more closely and perhaps judged more harshly for her lack of experience. This is unfortunate and muddies the waters, but we have to put it aside and think clearly about the actual issue of experience.
While Obama has little "executive" experience, he has years of lawmaking experience in the the Illinois State Senate and then the US Senate. He has dealt with national issues closely and on a daily basis for a number of years. Those with more experience, like McCain or Cheney, come out of a decade of failed policymaking - but I know that's not your question.
Obama has, in fact, been challenged strongly on his lack of experience for many months, in the primaries and now the general election. He's been "vetted" and found intelligent and capable.
That's extremely important. There is another kind of experience besides quantity of years doing a particular job. There's the experience of being a deeply thinking, highly intelligent, culturally and politically active human being engaging in difficult work - in his case, public service - on planet Earth. In this, Sarah Palin is a wisp of nothing compared to Obama. That's just plain obvious after listening to her talk for twenty seconds - she's a lightweight. She could be governor of Alaska for 32 years and she'd still probably be a lightweight. And this isn't sex-related - there a plenty of equally lightweight males (our current President being the most obvious example, his father's VP being another). As Jon Stewart puts it (I'm paraphrasing), I don't want someone for President who's "like me" and who I'd "like to have a beer with" - I want someone for President who's smarter and "better" than I am. That's Obama. It's not Palin (and it's not McCain either).
86 - Mark Edward Manning
"Or coming up with a tax policy most of us can live with."
17% flat tax, everyone pays the same rate regardless of earnings or income.
87 - Cannonshop
There is another kind of experience besides quantity of years doing a particular job. There's the experience of being a deeply thinking, highly intelligent, culturally and politically active human being engaging in difficult work -
And the question of "Can and will deliver". You're measuring Obama as some kind of great Philosopher-king archetype, but when it comes to his record on delivery, he DOES fall short-short of the gal from Alaska, short of his vice-president, possibly short of the redneck in the White House now. I know a guy, he's studied all the books on mechanics and auto maintenance. He can talk the talk, but put a wrench in his hand, and not only will he not succeed, he ends up making the situation worse.
To me, that's the kind of guy Obama is. Love, hate, despise, whatever, Palin gets Results, and she gets the results she's SUPPOSED to get, not necessarily the ones she herself finds pleasing. When there is lots of time, a Philosopher can be very useful-but when the shit is hitting the fan, and work needs doing NOW, a Philosopher winds up being paralyzed (Jimmy Carter, for example) by doubts or indecision.
And all of that is presuming you're RIGHT about the man.
I have a different view. In my view, he's learned the right psychobabble and he's a Mirror-man, a con-artist, and a Chicago Politician. he reflects back to his supporters what they want to see in him, and they give him a pass because he's clean and articulate-and a minority-and that last bit only matters to a Democrat.
To anyone who really gives not a shit about race, he's no Martin Luther King, he's not even Mike Steele, and he certainly isn't a John Kennedy or Harry Truman. Obama's books are about...Obama. Doesn't this strike you the least bit odd? Kennedy wrote "Profiles in Courage" about people who were NOT John Kennedy. he wrote about people he admired and respected, this communicates a lot more about a man's character than what he writes about himself- look at history, then read, for instance, Westmoreland's book defending his record in Vietnam. When you write books, and the only books you write are about yourself, that tells quite a story in and of itself about who you REALLY are-not the text, but the ACT.
Compound that with a look at Obama's career...
he's been running for office the entire time. You talk about his "Community Service", so, I ask you....
Is the south ward of Chicago better for having had Barack Obama represent them in the Illinois State Legislature?
Was Chicago helped in some tangible way by Barack Obama the Community Organizer?
Did the Chicago Annenberg Challenge succeed in improving Chicago's schools under Barack Obama's directorship? did Literacy, Math, or Science scores among ALL the students in the schools his decisions impacted improve?
Did people get family wage jobs as a result of his community organizing, or NOT?
Have the Ethics reforms he (co)sponsored in Illinois impacted political corruption or NOT?
Have the bills he (co)sponsored in the U.S. Senate impacted Senate corruption...or not?
You speak to what you presume to be his motives, but speak to his ACTIONS-did they have positive impacts, did they deliver what he promised his voters in the past??
A man who fails to deliver may have deep thoughts and wonderful intent, but there's that whole failing to deliver thing to consider. Palin's popular mainly because she DID deliver what she promised when she ran for office. This tends to make her very popular in some quarters. Not yours, obviously, but some.
88 - Franco
Baronius
The economic principles you expressed throughout this thread are sound, logical, and thus worthy of recognition. They have value for all of us.
I have read through your discourse with Cindy D, and Zedd, and others, and while it might appear that they do not agree with you, they are a lot closer to it then they, or you, realize.
I have noted your self-professed frustrations at being unable to express your economic principles to the fullest extent you desire, as noted by your following post to Christopher Rose.
#72 -- September 20, 2008 @ 22:50PM -- Baronius
Chris, I should have stated that more clearly.
I believe I'm right. I doubt I'm going to persuade you that I'm right on this thread. I've pretty much given up persuading anyone online - but if I can at least state my views coherently, maybe somewhere down the road, they'll click for someone.
For these reasons I wanted to call your attention to the following economist, Frederic Bastiat.
Many economists have made important contributions to the discourse on economic liberty, and Frederic Bastiat is among them. But Bastiat's greatest contribution is that he took the discourse out of the ivory tower and made ideas on economic liberty so clear that even the man/woman on the street can understand them and statists cannot obfuscate them. Clarity is crucial to persuading others of the moral superiority of personal economic liberty.
I thought maybe Frederic Bastiat might help you do that, for he firmly shared your sentiments, and fare more of Cindy D, and Zedd's then they, or you, realize, as he answers their concerns as well.
Bastiat was the author of many works on political economics, generally characterized by their clear organization, forceful argumentation, and acerbic wit. But his most famous work, however, is undoubtedly "The Law", originally published as a pamphlet in 1850.
"Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing." - from The Law
"But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man - in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain. - from The Law
"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
You can find these and other selected quotations at the Wikipedia link below, and most all if his writtings in "The Law" at the two other links. The book can be read in one eveining.
It is from within Bastiat writings in "The Law" that you will find all the purity and power to express how you feel on economic issues and why and in plain launguage. So much so that Christopher Rose will find himself the one who stands on paper thin economic theories, and not you.
Enjoy :-)
Frederic Bastiat at Wikipedia
Frederic Bastiat book "The Law" at the Foundation for Economic Education
Frederic Bastiat book "The Law" Read Free Online
This text should be a required reading for those who study political science, civics, government, and law, or those who are employed in government.
89 - Christopher Rose
Franco, you're obviously very excited about Bastiat but I think you've posted these links enough times now. Enough with the repetition and on with the debate...
For what it is worth, despite his denials, I do find his thinking to be springing from a "gloomy and uncharitable spirit" and personally, despite having met many thousands of people in my life, very few of them have been of the habit or view that "everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else".
What you're doing here is the classic superficial argument of taking a few, usually self-serving, quotes and trying to make them have some universal relevance.
90 - Jon Sobel
Baronius, it doesn't sound like you've looked at Obama's actual legislative record. Health insurance, ethics, and immigration are some of the issues on which he sponsored bills, some passed, some not. When you're a legislator, obviously, not every bill you sponsor is going to pass. But some major ones did. You just have to look it up. Health care is one of the major issues facing the country, and he has led on it, for example.
91 - Jon Sobel
Also, I don't agree with your point about Obama's books - they're memoirs. They're supposed to be about your own life. Do you think Sarah Palin or GW Bush could sit down and write a book about anything? Intellectual featherweights should not be leaders of our nation. Period.
92 - bliffle
Obama and Lugar sponsored a bill dealing with nuclear proliferation that could produce more felicitous results for the USA than all GWBs pre-emptive wars.
You can check out anyones congressional record at opencongress.com
93 - Baronius
Jon - In terms of big-league experience, Palin has two years as governor. Obama has four years in the Senate: two as the lowest-ranked member of the minority party (on one committee), and two spent campaigning for president. They've got about 6 years of experience between them. Between Biden and McCain, they've got about 60 years experience in the big leagues. That's an order of magnitude.
As for the vetting process, that's not really the same thing as experience. That's more about what the press considers important.
So I'm still stymied. If Obama is considered presidential despite inexperience, how can inexperience be a disqualifier for Palin? Or is it more that the overall impression of the person is positive with Obama and negative with Palin?
94 - Baronius
Bastiat, huh? I'll look him up.
95 - Jon Sobel
B, I think I explained what is to me a pretty important "Why" in comments 85 and 90. I will note that you've just ignored Obama's state legislative experience, although I know you must be aware of it, so are you leaving it out on purpose to try to bolster a weak point? That experience would seem to be more meaningful in this context than being mayor of a town of 9,000. I think 9,000 people live on my block, ferchrissakes.
No one's addressed my point about basic intelligence, either.
96 - Baronius
No, Jon, I'm not ignoring it. I'm just talking about high-level experience. I've known state senators and mayors (ok, a mayor), and I wouldn't consider either job sufficient qualification for a cabinet position, much less President or VP. There's maybe a dozen cities and zero state legislatures that would be exceptions to that rule.
Remember, I'm not trying to argue my side, just understand yours. If you want to say that Obama's more intelligent I'm not going to challenge you.
97 - Jon Sobel
OK... let me step back a bit further to lay out my thinking. For me, experience is only one factor to consider. Counterbalancing a candidate's lack of experience (e.g. Obama) is his judgment, and that includes judgment on the kinds of advisers he'd surround himself with. Looking at Obama's published proposals and plans in the campaign, it's clear to me that he's done a lot of cogent thinking about both economics and foreign policy, and obviously some very smart people have advised him.
The same is true of McCain, although it seems to a lesser degree (Carly Fiorina, oy vey), but the proposals that he has come out don't jibe, in most cases, with my view of how things should best be done. This takes us into the other important factor in deciding who to vote for - the issues. On that, when it comes to decisions a President, specifically, will have to be making, the Democrats align better with how I deeply believe things should be done. (Diplomacy vs. war, tax relief for the middle class before the rich, etc.)
So that's how I come down.
98 - Baronius
Jon - Thanks.