Who will take on Obama in 2012?

[will.15]

Well, Romney gave his speech. Reading about the bacground, how he made a mistake not discussing earlier his Moromon faith, I completely had forgotten about that. It is amazing to me any Republican would think that was a big deal. His sudden born again right wingerism should have been the concern, not his faith.

[Yoda]

I hear way more talking about whether or not conservatives will be upset with his Mormonism than I do actual conservatives mentioning it. Which is to say, I've literally never spoken to anyone who cited it as a problem.

[rufnek]

"If you must have an answer to your question, I would suggest George Washington made the least mistakes since he didn't have a predecessor by which to judge him as he practically invented the office of president and was unopposed in his one bid for reelection. Doesn't mean all US citizens loved him, but he was almost totally respected by a grateful nation"

Washington's biggest mistake, and it was before he became President, was promoting Benedict Arnold.

Not really, because the Arnold Washington and most of the colonists knew was not the one we read about. What made it so bad about him selling out to the British was that he was a major hero in the war before that.

He made one long trek into eastern Canada to attack a British garrison there for its cannon. If I'm remembering my history right, the commander of the colonists was killed and Arnold took over and took the fort or at least the fort's commander. (haven't looked at a history book in a long time, but I think the rebel commander had started over a gate to enter the British fort and was shot dead. Now here's the American force outside the fort gate and have just seen their leader killed trying to get over, so nobody wants to be the one to try that again. That's when Arnold as second in command goes over the top, drops inside the fort and opens the gate for his men. The guy was as tough and brave as they come.)

There was another Canadian adventure where Arnold had soldiers build and man a warship on one of the Great Lakes to engage a British warship. At one point he led a raid into Canada on the other side of one of the lakes--can't remember the name of the town but the colonists sacked it and then set fire to it. Think they clashed with a British unit there, some of whom got away and ran for help. The thing I best remember is Arnold saw all of his men off in the landing boats, keeping just one boat and crew behind. He then rode to the other end of the burning town and sat there on his mount until the British forces were approaching, at which time he turns his horse and gallops back through town as some of the British cavalry charge after him. He rides to the dock , steps off his horse and shoots it so the British can't have it, steps into the boat and gets away with British shot splashing around him.

There was another key battle in which the leader of the colonists had put Arnold under house arrest or otherwise gotten him out of the way because of some disagreement over who should be in command or how the battle should be fought. Anyway, at some point Arnold mounts his horse and rides off against to witness the battle he's not supposed to be in, arriving in time to stop the retreat of some colonial troops, turn them around, and lead a charge that won the fight. It was at that time Arnold was shot in the leg, resulting in him being off duty in Philadelphia for a long while, where he met and married a young woman although she and her family were collaborators with the British. It was she who talked him into deserting the American cause for money and a commission in the British army.

After joining the British, Arnold once asked an American captive what his fellow countrymen would do if they lay hands on him (Arnold). The captive replied, "We would cut off your wounded leg and give it an honorable burial, and then we'd hang you like the dog you are."

It was because he was such a hero and for a long time a real patriot of the rebel cause that Washington placed him in command of the West Point fort which he tried to give over to the British.

[Yoda]

Well, we find out at 8:00 tonight if Huckabee's running. I'm not really sure what I want on this front. I like him okay, and incredibly, he actually seems like he'd be among the frontrunners if he ran. The downside for me is that, well...I don't love his economic positions. If he'd ditch the Flat Tax proposal I'd be on board, I suppose, but he's not the kind of candidate that excites me. So I'm torn between a) the fact that he, as a candidate, would probably give us a better chance to win, at least if the early polls are to be believed and b) the fact that I'd like him less as President than a handful of the other nominees.

Lucky for me I don't have to choose, I guess.

[will.15]

I'll take bets he will not get the nomination and if he does Obama wins in a walk. He is a very nice man, but he is not going to be President.

I'm surprised you don't like the flat tax.

It' is hard to handicap the race because we don't know for sure who is in. Right now my money is on Romney, but he is not Mr. Excitement and he still looks like the guy with the finger in the air trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing. All of his problems are self inflicted. If he didn't make a cold political decision to completely remake himself as a conservative last time he would have gotten the nomination. The problem wasn't he changed some of his positions. It was he did it wholesale and practically overnight. Ronald Reagan used to be Democrat, but he had a slow conversion and before he entered politics. McCain was smarter, fudge a little here and there, but don't be a total flip-flop.

[stevo3001]

Huckabee won't be taking his talents to Washington.

This really is an uninspiring field.

The freakshow candidates- Trump, Bachmann, Gingrich, Palin- cannot win the presidency. Does that mean they can't win the nomination? Yes, I think so- as long as the election projects to be the slightest bit competitive. The Republicans might treat themselves to some red meat if they think there is no possible way Obama can win, or if they think there is no possible way he can lose.

Obviously Ron Paul can't win, nor can Johnson or Cain.

Romney is the clear frontrunner, which is a terrible position for him. He has so many weaknesses and is so ill-adept at dealing with them, and even his superficial profile- pristine establishment candidate- is exactly wrong if any of the anti-establishment mood of last year remains in the Republican party. As the favorite, he'll be the target for all the others, and if they have anything about them, it's hard to see him surviving.

It would be interesting to see Giuiliani run (he keeps hinting he will, but no one seems to believe him), but only to see if he can possibly run anything near as awful a campaign as he did last time.

Of the people who seem at all likely to run and are not total no-hopers, that seems to leave Pawlenty, maybe Daniels or Huntsman. Very hard to say which it may be with them being untested at this level, with little evidence on whether they can run a presidential campaign at all. I'd have to wait to see who gets at least some momentum before having any confidence, but at the moment I suppose Pawlenty is the most established in the race, so he'd be my stab in the dark.

[Yoda]

I think Huckabee could have been President; the "nice guy" thing worked for Jimmy Carter, and don't let the folksy fool you: Huck is a fantastic natural politician. Makes even off-the-cuff answers sound rehearsed and refined. But, of course, he's not running. A couple weeks ago I didn't think he would; today's leaks made it sound like he was, so I was pretty steeled for a "yes" tonight.

Re: the Flat Tax. I don't think it's horrible, I just think one of the things people tout most about it -- that it would be much simpler -- isn't really true. I'm all for tax reform, and the tax code can be a lot simpler than it is, but it'll never be that simple, nor should it be. If it's that simple it'll only be because the government has stopped offering tax incentives, which means it's gotten completely out of the business of encouraging useful things, like business investment. Even if it were simpler in the short term, it wouldn't last.

With Huck out I say the last big piece of truly up-in-the-air news is whether or not Daniels runs. If he does I think I give him a slight nod over Pawlenty. If he doesn't, I think Pawlenty takes it.

I think Daniels has the better shot at winning the general, of the two, though. He's exactly the kind of candidate I was saying I wanted us to run against Obama over a year ago. Numbers-oriented and competent.

[planet news]

I have a simple taxing system: flat resultant income. Everyone takes home the same pay. :devil:

[Loner]

I think Huckabee could have been President; the "nice guy" thing worked for Jimmy Carter, and don't let the folksy fool you: Huck is a fantastic natural politician. Makes even off-the-cuff answers sound rehearsed and refined. But, of course, he's not running. A couple weeks ago I didn't think he would; today's leaks made it sound like he was, so I was pretty steeled for a "yes" tonight.

Have you ever heard of Maurice Clemmons?

[Yoda]

Aye. Huckabee wasn't without his problems or potential flaws in his record...they just seem way, way smaller than the ones most of the other candidates have.

[will.15]

His biggest flaw was his name.

[Yoda]

Except he could have sold awesome "I Heart Huckabee" bumper stickers.

[Yoda]

It's official: Trump isn't running (http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/05/trump-not-runninng-for-president.html), though he hilariously claimed he would have won if he had. Which is absurd because it asks us to believe a) that the polls are completely wrong, b) that he would've survived the Republican primary given his shifting allegiances and damning quotes in the past, and c) that a man with an incredibly healthy ego would willingly pass up the opportunity to become the most powerful man in the world. Yeah, right.

Here's a post of mine from almost four months ago:

Not running, wouldn't win.
Glad we can put the silliness to bed.

[will.15]

From the LATImes:

If, as some suspected, Trump's supposed presidential aspirations were actually an attempt to goose ratings for his NBC series, the strategy may have backfired. According to data obtained by The Atlantic online, "Celebrity Apprentice" had one of the most liberal audiences on television, and viewership was declining as Trump's criticism of the president peaked.



This is what I think: It was mainly publicity, then he started taking it seriously when his poll numbers jumped, then Obama released his BC and he realized he had become a joke.

[will.15]

Newt Gingrich is being Newt Gingrich, the smartest guy in the room being too smart for his own good, but he is right. Republicans are idiots for supporting the Ryan Plan and that is why the Tea Party will be a disaster for Repubs. No way that plan would have been backed by the House if it wasn't for the ascendancy of the Tea Party. I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans lose the House next year and if not, their lead will be much more narrow. Tea Party will be toast. Unless Daniels gets in it, it is looking more like Romney to me. He needs to get a little fire in his belly, otherwise I think he gets the nomination, but there will be a lot of struggle along the way as he becomes the last guy standing. Who else does the Party have? If he had a brain, he should stop worrying about attracting social conservatives in the primary, just don't alienate them, because the candidates that are left now that Huckabee is out are never going to get close to bagging the nomination with the exception of Sara Palin who I now think will pull a Huckabee. I am not sure, but I think Romnsy is being a little more himself this time (not completely) and has made a few thoughtful comments insted of just being a total phony red meat rightie like last time.

[Yoda]

Yeah yeah, I know: more confident-sounding predictions about how the Tea Party is going to kill Republicans in the end. Still don't see the logic in it. Given the tremendous gains they saw in November, it's almost impossible for the Tea Party to be even a net negative for the Republicans, let alone a "disaster," barring a massive electoral collapse with implications stretching across the next several cycles. And predicting their House majority will lessen next cycle, if it happens, isn't evidence of this -- it's the normal way of things. Historically, yes, of course they should lose some seats the next time around, particularly after such stunning gains the last time around. That's not even unusual, let alone indicative of some grand collapse. Particularly if they're riding on the anti-coat tails of some weak Presidential nominee, which is fairly likely.

But, again, at most this would be a political argument. If the Ryan plan sinks Republicans in the short-term (and really, it would only be in the short-term), it's only because people are buying into the idea that Republicans are the ones that want to destroy Medicare; nevermind that ObamaCare guts it plenty (ditto for Medicaid). Stop looking at ObamaCare! Ryan plan! Ryan plan! Look over here! It's pretty shameless even by political standards.

As for the nomination: Huck getting out clarifies things immensely, I think. My money's on Pawlenty...unless Daniels runs. He has his own problems but I think it'd be a genuine race between the two of them. By which I don't mean that Romney wouldn't be in the middle, just that I still don't see how he gets past RomneyCare in the end.

At this point I think our last hope for a potentially exciting, viable candidate is Rick Perry. I know he's said he isn't running, but the latest word is that he's got some vague feelers out. And why shouldn't he, given how underwhelmed voters apparently still are with their options?

[DexterRiley]

From the LATImes:

If, as some suspected, Trump's supposed presidential aspirations were actually an attempt to goose ratings for his NBC series, the strategy may have backfired. According to data obtained by The Atlantic online, "Celebrity Apprentice" had one of the most liberal audiences on television, and viewership was declining as Trump's criticism of the president peaked.



This is what I think: It was mainly publicity, then he started taking it seriously when his poll numbers jumped, then Obama released his BC and he realized he had become a joke.

all things considered, was pretty funny that Obama chose to adress the nation Regarding the OBL thing at the same time teh Donald was in the boardroom about to drop the hammer on Latoya.

:D

[rufnek]

I think Huckabee could have been President; the "nice guy" thing worked for Jimmy Carter, and don't let the folksy fool you: Huck is a fantastic natural politician.

My biggest concern about Huckabee was that he's a former Baptist preacher, and the Baptist Church I was raised in could never resist passing the collection plate at the drop of a hat. I think Huckabee out of habit would be more tax-and-spend than Obama. :laugh:

[rufnek]

I think Romnsy is being a little more himself this time (not completely) . . .

Being himself is Romney's biggest drawback. He's never gonna get the nomination if he doesn't totally denounce Romney-care.

[Yoda]

He might not even get it then. But yeah, I agree. I know 9 out of 10 things point to him being the nominee, but ObamaCare is so radioactive to conservative voters right now (particularly the kind that get up and excited for a primary or a caucus) that I think it might wipe out all the other natural advantages he has. The only thing that gives me pause is how much money he's still raising; clearly, plenty of smart, influential people must think he's viable, if they're opening up their wallets like that.

At this stage I think Daniels announces soon, and it's either him or Pawlenty. At this point I would actually take Pawlenty/Daniels together against every other candidate for the nomination.

[will.15]

If Daniels isn't in, my money is still on Romney. Pawlenty has a chance, but if he doesn't catch on in Iowa he is toast and he is about as exciting as painting your house. McCain looked like he had no chance of getting the nomination with all the enemies he made. All the talk show righties hated him and look what happened. None of the other candidates with the exception of Palin have any chance of being nominated. If one of them does, Obama doesn't even have to campaign.

[will.15]

This is why the Tea Party is not good for the Republican Party.

http://www.aolnews.com/story/2012-courting-fuels-tension-between-gop/1816536/

[Yoda]

I have no idea what part of that article is supposed to demonstrate that the Tea Party is not good for Republicans.

But, again: they helped Republicans win 63 freaking seats in November. They would have to do an unbelievable amount of damage to ever get to the point at which they won't have been a net positive for Republicans.

[will.15]

They aren't any good for Republicans because they are moaning about the power brokers not supporting a total loser like Bachmann (for President) and trying to find a candidate that could appeal to independents, which she can't do and being unruly and divisive. The Tea Party won in the House because Republicans, not voters in general turned sharply to the right. They don't know how to govern. Look at Wisconsin. Any Tea party candidates in cross over congressional districts will be defeated. Their victory will hurt Republicans in the long run more than their short term gains, particularly if Republicans are suicidal enough to actually nominate a Bachmann or what's-his-face from Pennsylvania (oh, Santorum). If they do, it will be a total rout, Democrats take the House back. But I don't think Republicans are going to do it. Unless Palin gets in it, the Tea Party candidates have no chance of winning even one primary, maybe a caucus here and there. (Gingrich had a remote chance, but not the way he's been campaigning). Looks like a race between slick Romney and nice, bland Pawlenty. I watched his speech just now at the Republican convention last time. I dunno. Nice guy, but ... He might catch on, but I still think Romney has the edge.

[DexterRiley]

er Tea partiers are republicans though Will. Many would prefer to be called libertarian i'd imagine, but it matters not. In a 2 party system, Republican is where they reside.

[Fiscal]

So Daniels is out. I can't stand Pawlenty. I'm already jaded and it's May 2011.

[will.15]

So Daniels is out. I can't stand Pawlenty. I'm already jaded and it's May 2011.
If Sarah Palin gets in and does something she has shown no interest in doing, softening her image and toning down her rhetoric, she could have a real chance of taking the nomination, but if she really wanted to do that, she should have already started and her bitchy comments about Obama not releasing the pictures suggest if she announces we get the usual Palin.

[Yoda]

So Daniels is out. I can't stand Pawlenty. I'm already jaded and it's May 2011.
I'd get used to him. My feeling was that it was Pawlenty unless Daniels got in, so yeah, I think it's him. I find it interesting that you say you can't stand him. Not because I adore the guy or anything, but because the overwhelming response to him is one of a lack of excitement in either direction; haven't found too many people who actively dislike the guy.

I think he'll probably be a bit more lively as things heat up, though. If Pawlenty does look like the sensible choice, though, I suspect a lot of conservatives will flock to the more firebrand-y guys like Hermain Cain, improbable though they may be. That kind of frustration needs an outlet, and for some people, Pawlenty won't do the trick. I could easily see Cain becoming a national figure (even in the process of losing the nomination by a fair bit) with an upstart campaign, like Huckabee had in '08.

I also think Daniels declining makes it a shade more likely that Perry jumps into the race. I think he's probably the last guy who pretty much everyone in the party could get behind who actually has some shot of running at this point.

[Fiscal]

I'd get used to him. My feeling was that it was Pawlenty unless Daniels got in, so yeah, I think it's him. I find it interesting that you say you can't stand him. Not because I adore the guy or anything, but because the overwhelming response to him is one of a lack of excitement in either direction; haven't found too many people who actively dislike the guy.


I guess I am just tired of the same old Republican rhetoric. The guy just spews all of the same phrases and he even has that one thing he does with his thumb and pointer finger. I honestly don't know much about the guys politics, but he is just one of those guys that I listen to and watch while becoming extremely irritated and I start rolling my eyes a lot.

He just really seems extra puppety to me. Like he will give all the blank statements in the world to make people happy, but really he doesn't stand for much at all. It's people like Pawlenty that really makes me want to give Ron Paul all of my support, because at least the guy stands for something. I can forgive his flaws because he has been one of the most consistent and non-sheit-taking politicians out there.

[will.15]

Perry is not running. These are your candidates. I think it is quite possible Pawlenty wins Iowa then Romney wins New Hampshire big time, then we will see how it goes with early teeter totter back and forth, but ultimately it is Romney because he is the only one who has a chance of beating Obama with his emphasis on the economy, which he couldn't do last time running with Republican sitting in the White House. Romney is the smoother, more polished articulate politician. This year it is the economy, stupid, and that is perfect for Romney, not Pawlenty.

I was looking at a site that had two early videos of Romney and Pawlenty and while the writer was trying to be objective, it is clear he was more impressed with the TP clip. I had the opposite reaction. It was slickly produced, lots of waving the American flag and said nothing. Romney just talked straight to the camera. I think the reason for the difference Pawlenty is a vapid speaker so they had to slick it up. Romney, not a politician I care for, always tilting at the wind, but he knows hot to talk. At the very least he will hold his own in a debate with Obama. Pawlenty doesn't show any indication he is capable of that.

[Yoda]

Perry is not running.
Probably not, but for every "I won't run" we have those "aides are privately putting out feelers" rumor articles. It's unlikely, but it's not a fact. And guys who had once decided not to run may certainly reconsider when they see how little competition they're ending up with, compared to the dozen or so candidates people were speculating about just 7 or 8 months ago.

These are your candidates.
Clinton didn't get in until October. I'd bet against any heavyweight jumping in late, but it's just not a foregone conclusion.

I'm sure I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but I see no value in feigning confidence about things that are currently unknowable.

[Yoda]

I guess I am just tired of the same old Republican rhetoric. The guy just spews all of the same phrases and he even has that one thing he does with his thumb and pointer finger. I honestly don't know much about the guys politics, but he is just one of those guys that I listen to and watch while becoming extremely irritated and I start rolling my eyes a lot.

He just really seems extra puppety to me. Like he will give all the blank statements in the world to make people happy, but really he doesn't stand for much at all. It's people like Pawlenty that really makes me want to give Ron Paul all of my support, because at least the guy stands for something. I can forgive his flaws because he has been one of the most consistent and non-sheit-taking politicians out there.
I'm the opposite: I can forgive things like tone or energy a lot more than just being flat-out wrong about an issue, or taking a stance for the wrong reason.

I dunno, I don't particularly disagree with what you're saying about Pawlenty, but isn't this all surface, speculative stuff? If anything, his biography leads me to believe that he's one of the more genuine candidates, at least out of the apparently viable ones. I am skeptical of our collective ability (this includes myself) to discern which guys are politicking and which are saying what they mean. They have to act like a politician whether they resemble a typical one in all the negative ways, anyway. Bill Clinton always sounded genuine to me early on, but that's the idea: by valuing someone who just "seems" genuine, you're really just deciding to support the best actor.

Anyway, this is one of the reasons I focus on policy. Far less guesswork.

[Fiscal]

I'm the opposite: I can forgive things like tone or energy a lot more than just being flat-out wrong about an issue, or taking a stance for the wrong reason.

I dunno, I don't particularly disagree with what you're saying about Pawlenty, but isn't this all surface, speculative stuff? If anything, his biography leads me to believe that he's one of the more genuine candidates, at least out of the apparently viable ones. I am skeptical of our collective ability (this includes myself) to discern which guys are politicking and which are saying what they mean. They have to act like a politician whether they resemble a typical one in all the negative ways, anyway. Bill Clinton always sounded genuine to me early on, but that's the idea: by valuing someone who just "seems" genuine, you're really just deciding to support the best actor.

Anyway, this is one of the reasons I focus on policy. Far less guesswork.

Oh, it definitely is surface, speculative stuff. I can't help it though. It's terrible, but I really just don't like the way he looks or talks.

You are correct though, it isn't right for me to say these things without really looking at his politics, but this one just urks me man. Him and Palin both. And Santorum. (my wife says I hate way too many people, it's a problem :D)

[Yoda]

Heh. I dig.

By the by, here's his little announcement video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i66q1f3M3w

Obviously a lot of it's standard (the music, the "action" shots, etc.) The only real meaningful takeaway from it, though, is the tack he's taking: "Time for Truth." He's trying to establish himself as the guy who's going to level with you about the problems we face, as opposed to the "we can do anything" types. I think that's probably pretty smart. If nothing else, it's the natural opposite of Obama's '08 campaign.

Pawlenty needs to find something he can own a bit more, and I think the "I'm not going to sugarcoat our problems or tell you it's going to be easy" thing is one that could work for him. Whether or not he'll be able to do this, or whether or not it'll work, I'm not sure, but I think it's among the better options out of all the choices he could have made on this front.

[Yoda]

Check this out: Pawlenty's calling for a phase out of ethanol subsidies, despite the fact that by all accounts he needs to do well in Iowa. It's really gutsy and, more importantly, it's right. As a conservative who, like most others, has been plenty underwhelmed by my apparent options, this is very encouraging. I'll have no problem getting excited about Pawlenty's candidacy if he keeps doing stuff like this.

He's also planning on going to Florida tomorrow to talk about the necessity of raising the retirement age. Wow.

[Silas]

Just back from Obama giving a speech in Dublin as part of his Irish visit. Great speech dedicated to the ties that between the USA and "a nation so small inspired so much in another" Ireland, and how inspiring Ireland is.

Just a short clip of his speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUbGO5OVdu0&feature=youtu.be

A picture of him drinking a pint of the black stuff in a pub in Moneygall Co Offaly where he has ancestoral roots.

Overall an electric experience, his speech of hope echoed around the crowd. He ended with an affirmation that if anyone says of the Irish that they cannot achieve greatness to reply Is feidir linn

[will.15]

Here is why Republicans are going to lose a lot of seats in November.

http://www.aolnews.com/story/ap-gfk-poll-medicare-doesnt-have-to-be/1817131/

Tim Pawlenty is taking a big gamble if the economy starts to pick up because negative campaigns (America is in trouble with the inference we need radical changes) has never been a winning strategy. His commercials are very slickly produced, but he is not very slick and that disconnect is going to create a problem at some point.

[Yoda]

Here is why Republicans are going to lose a lot of seats in November.

http://www.aolnews.com/story/ap-gfk-poll-medicare-doesnt-have-to-be/1817131/
I think there are two flaws in this claim, the first of which I've mentioned before:

1) You're assuming that Republicans are just going to sit there and absorb accusations, rather than point out that ObamaCare guts Medicare AND Medicaid, and thus the accusations to this effect from Democrats are about as egregious and selective as political accusations can get. Let's see what public opinion looks like when both parties settle on positions and have made their arguments.

2) Republicans are not entirely united behind the Ryan plan. Boehner calls it a road map (or something of the sort), Ryan has implied a willingness to use it as a starting point (even if he'd like it as-is), Scott Brown has condemned it outright, and Pawlenty is advancing an alternative plan. And that last point carries as much weight as all the others. The public perception of the opinion of each party on this issue is going to be mostly tied to what each nominee (Obama and whoever) proposes. Both parties will fall in behind that, and that's what each will be judged on.

By the by, if you're still truly adamant in this belief, you can make yourself a lot of money: InTrade.com currently has the Republicans as a 57% favorite to retain control of the House. To lose control they'd have to lose just 25 seats, which I'm pretty sure is well within the cyclical norm. So if you think they're going to lose "a lot," that'd have to be significantly more. So...45-50?

Tim Pawlenty is taking a big gamble if the economy starts to pick up because negative campaigns (America is in trouble with the inference we need radical changes) has never been a winning strategy. His commercials are very slickly produced, but he is not very slick and that disconnect is going to create a problem at some point.
Campaigning against a weak economy in no way necessitates that Pawlenty (or any other candidate) make their campaign largely negative. Reagan didn't. Clinton didn't. Obama didn't.

[will.15]

Obamacare replaces Medicare with something else, the Ryan plan just guts it with a flat rate subsidy, which means Medicare in any form whatsoever disappears. That makes it a lot more scarier to voters. If it is national health care versus medicare voters prefer what they are used to, Medicare, because they are not crazy about change. But if the choice becomes national health plan versus the Ryan Plan, Ryan loses big time and takes Republicans with them because it is currently the plan they are endorsing and no Republican has articulated an alternative. It will not have a major impact on Senate races at this point because they have not embraced it, but the House is going to lose a lot of seats. I never said they would lose the House, but think they might, and would consider twenty-five seats to be a lot. I do think at the very least they will lose nineteen or twenty seats and that to me is a lot also because it will marginalize the Tea Party as that is where most of the losses will come from.

If Pawlenty actually articulates an alternative plan significantly different from the Ryan Plan he will piss off the Tea Party people.

That video you released looks like a negative campaign in the making when you he gets to specific proposals. "America is in serious trouble, a lot of personal sacrifices," etc. Reagan campaigned against a weak economy, he never said anything about personal sacrifices. He didn't talk about making "painful' decisions.

Watch that New York congressional district. If the Repub loses as is being predicted, it will be more of the same in House elections next year. The only reason she will lose is the Ryan Plan which she endorsed. It is kryptonite for your party, the Ryan Plan.

[Yoda]

Obamacare replaces Medicare with something else, the Ryan plan just guts it with a flat rate subsidy
...which is replacing it with something else. Seeing as how Medicare is essentially a subsidy, I don't understand the logic in saying that replacing it with a different type of subsidy is a gutting, whereas ObamaCare is not.

There simply is no defense on this point. The Democratic talking points on Medicare and the Ryan plan are blatantly and demonstrably hypocritical. And you know how politicians are always accusing each other of using "scare tactics"? Well, this is what it looks like when it actually happens.

which means Medicare in any form whatsoever disappears.
Even Democrats don't take this stance; they carefully phrase their accusations to say that Medicare "as we know it" will be gone.

That makes it a lot more scarier to voters. If it is national health care versus medicare voters prefer what they are used to, Medicare, because they are not crazy about change. But if the choice becomes national health plan versus the Ryan Plan, Ryan loses big time and takes Republicans with them because it is currently the plan they are endorsing and no Republican has articulated an alternative. It will not have a major impact on Senate races at this point because they have not embraced it, but the House is going to lose a lot of seats. I never said they would lose the House, but think they might, and would consider twenty-five seats to be a lot. I do think at the very least they will lose nineteen or twenty seats and that to me is a lot also because it will marginalize the Tea Party as that is where most of the losses will come from.
You can, of course, use whatever personal, highly nuanced definition of "a lot" that you like. But historically, what you're talking about is average losses.

As for alternatives to the Ryan plan: it was voted on just five weeks ago.

If Pawlenty actually articulates an alternative plan significantly different from the Ryan Plan he will piss off the Tea Party people.
Again: it was voted on a grand total of five weeks ago, so I'm not sure how you've come to believe that it's even had enough time to become part of Tea Party canon. I don't know how many Tea Partiers you know, or how representative of the whole you've decided they are, but it's not my experience that the Ryan plan represents a sacred cow for many of them.

I also think the idea that Pawlenty will "piss off the Tea Party people" is kind of bizarre. We both know any alternative he offers is still going to be heavy on free market principles and low on state control, and it's hard to imagine Tea Partiers being "pissed" about such a proposal.

That video you released looks like a negative campaign in the making when you he gets to specific proposals. "America is in serious trouble, a lot of personal sacrifices," etc. Reagan campaigned against a weak economy, he never said anything about personal sacrifices. He didn't talk about making "painful' decisions.
Well, first off, he said "tough" decisions. Second, it was followed with the obligatory uptick in music and hopeful talk about how we can overcome our problems. And third, you're taking what is essentially a sentence or two in one video and extrapolating an entire 18-month campaign out of it.

Sure, if he spends all his time on the campaign trail saying "everything sucks," he'll lose. He might lose even if he doesn't do this; most challengers do. But at this point there's no good reason to think he will. Every challenger has to walk that line between condemnation of current policies and optimism that they can be rolled back and the tide can be turned. Pawlenty is no different, and I see no reason to believe he's going to shirk the conventional wisdom on this front.

Watch that New York congressional district. If the Repub loses as is being predicted, it will be more of the same in House elections next year. The only reason she will lose is the Ryan Plan which she endorsed.
You've said this before, and it just isn't true. First, the Republican incumbent (Chris Lee) resigned in disgrace. Second, though Lee won handily in 2010, the percentage of the vote for Republicans before that in recent elections was far from resounding: 55%, 52%, 55%. And third -- and most importantly -- there's essentially nothing to suggest that the 26th district is some magical bellwether.

People said the exact same sort of thing about the special election in the 23rd; Republicans had held the seat for almost 20 years, lost it, and I heard any number of Democratic commenters use it to disabuse people of the notion that the '10 midterms would be painful for the Democratic party. I have specific memories of them wildly mocking conservatives who had talked about a "wave" election. Obviously, they couldn't have been more wrong. They were clinging to a positive result because they merely wanted it to be predictive of all the others.

The takeaway is that special elections are just that -- special. Single elections turn on many things, and there's simply no valid reason for ascribing one of them with a special predictive power at any point, let alone a year and a half before the other elections.

I'm tempted to suggest that pretty much everything in your post that I disagree with stems from the same error: extrapolating and speculating based on precious little data. The Ryan plan is brand new, yet you've already declared it Tea Party canon and Republican gospel. Pawlenty has one sentence in a lone campaign video, and already he's apparently running a "negative" campaign. A Democrat might win in a special election in the 26th, and suddenly that's supposed to be indicative of a massive nationwide trend 18 months from now.

I know nobody likes to say they don't know things, but: we don't know these things. You, me, or anyone else. The fact that we have little information should not be used as an excuse to magnify the importance of what little information we have.

[will.15]

The Ryan Plan has become Tea Party canon. Look at how they ganged up on Gingrich because he criticized it. And of course the Ryan Plan guts Medicare except temporarily for retirees of a certain age. The direct subsidy, which is a flat amount which never goes up and can be used only to buy private insurance is not Medicare.

I thought you were going to make a more logical criticism why the current special election in New York is unique, but since you didn't I won't mention it. But this time it will be a predictor unlike the previous SE because the focus was on a national issue, it wasn't local. The polls show it was all about Medicare.

[Yoda]

The Ryan Plan has become Tea Party canon. Look at how they ganged up on Gingrich because he criticized it.
Please explain how it is "they" that did this, rather than conservatives in general, for example. Also, Gingrich wasn't ganged up on for merely criticizing it; he savaged it. He called it "right wing social engineering." When a Republican presidential candidate eviscerates a Republican budget proposal, yes, there is outrage. That isn't indicative of a special level of allegiance (let alone to Tea Partiers, specifically, which is what you're claiming, remember), it's indicative of a perfectly common level of allegiance.

And of course the Ryan Plan guts Medicare except temporarily for retirees of a certain age. The direct subsidy, which is a flat amount which never goes up and can be used only to buy private insurance is not Medicare.
Nothing is Medicare but Medicare. The point is that both parties are advocating the replacement of it. If anything, the Republican replacement is far more like the current system, because it's still a subsidy, whereas ObamaCare is a complete overhaul. Also, the Ryan plan doesn't even effect those near retirement, which makes the scaremongering even less intellectually defensible.

I thought you were going to make a more logical criticism why the current special election in New York is unique, but since you didn't I won't mention it.
I did, actually. I offered four reasons why its importance was being exaggerated: the first two were explicitly about why the 23rd is unique, and the other two were general principles. They were: 1) the Republican incumbent resigned in disgrace, 2) Republicans have not dominated the district in recent years, 3) special elections haven't acted as a reliable bellwethers in past elections, and 4) the 2012 elections are 18 months away, during which anything can (and will) happen. Which of these reasons do you not find logical?

But this time it will be a predictor unlike the previous SE because the focus was on a national issue, it wasn't local. The polls show it was all about Medicare.
To my memory the election in the 23rd was very much about ObamaCare, but I find the idea that any Congressional election is not local to be dubious. Many have a national component, but it's usually one factor of many. There were, of course, some very unusual extenuating circumstances to explain why Hoffman lost, but that's the entire point: there are a great number of variables in every individual race that make using any one of them as a nationwide predictor pretty foolhardy.

I'm also rather confused by your use of tense: you're suggesting that the polls will show it was all about Medicare, not that it "was," right?

[will.15]

You didn't mention this one: the Tea Party split the vote with a third part candidate. She probably would have narrowly held on without that joker. It also shows the great mischief they can do. Ryan Plan wouldn't exist without Tea Party support. It's their plan. Republicans have nothing else. They can't straddle the fence. It passed the House. It is not just something they are thinking about. They have endorsed it (the House).

Polls are showing if she loses she is going down strictly because of Medicare. It is the sole issue that is affecting her numbers dropping.

[Yoda]

You didn't mention this one: the Tea Party split the vote with a third part candidate. She probably would have narrowly held on without that joker.
Sure, that works, too. Though you keep slipping into the past tense, and it keeps confusing the crap out of me. I literally had to re-read this paragraph several times to figure out whether or not you were talking about the 23rd or 26th.

It also shows the great mischief they can do.
Well, do you think there'll be lots of third party candidacies all over the nation in 2012, then? Because if not, the 26th wouldn't seem to be a good bellwether election. I mean, I advanced four reasons it isn't, and you just advanced another, so...why should all those reasons be ignored?

Ryan Plan wouldn't exist without Tea Party support. It's their plan. Republicans have nothing else. They can't straddle the fence. It passed the House. It is not just something they are thinking about. They have endorsed it (the House).
They have "nothing else" because it's been five weeks, but Pawlenty's already announced an alternative, and we're 18 months out. The majority of conservatives will line up behind the eventual 2012 nominee's proposal, which will almost certainly be somewhat different from the Ryan plan, but based on similar market principles.

Polls are showing if she loses she is going down strictly because of Medicare. It is the sole issue that is affecting her numbers dropping.
Except for Davis, the third party candidate you mentioned. He's got something like 10-15% of the vote and Corwin trails by just 4-5 points in multiple polls, so it seems pretty clear that's as much to blame as Medicare, even without going into all the other reasons this is not necessarily indicative of a nationwide trend.

[will.15]

The Davis support comes almost entirely from dissaffected Republicans because of Corwin's support of Medicare. He is their protest vote instead of voting for a Democrat.

[DexterRiley]

http://i54.tinypic.com/16atpjd.jpg

[rufnek]

I have no idea what part of that article is supposed to demonstrate that the Tea Party is not good for Republicans.

But, again: they helped Republicans win 63 freaking seats in November. They would have to do an unbelievable amount of damage to ever get to the point at which they won't have been a net positive for Republicans.

Will doesn't like the Tea Party period. I'm sure he has good reasons. But the question remains, will the mainstream Republicans and the Tea Party waste time fighting each other or will they remember their common enemy is Obama and concentrate on defeating him?

The thing to recall is that a lot of people including a whole slew of independents who don't think the sun rises on either the Republicans or the Tea Party voted for them and against Obama last year. And in the last few days Obama has ticked off a whole bunch of pro-Israel Democrats and Independents. Odds now are the economy likely will get worse within the next year; certainly crude supplies are likely to be thinner and pump prices higher a year from now with the Obamatorium against offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. This could be the one time--despite the Republicans' tendancy to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory--that the Democrat incumbent will self-destruct with his continued bad calls.

[Yoda]

The Davis support comes almost entirely from dissaffected Republicans because of Corwin's support of Medicare. He is their protest vote instead of voting for a Democrat.

Then you have to pick which of your statements you're going to undermine, no? You're trying to simultaneously claim that Tea Partiers adore the Ryan plan AND that Davis, the Tea Party candidate who's against the Ryan plan, is siphoning votes away because the voters don't want it.

And if your reconciliation involves the fact that Davis isn't really a Tea Partier, then that goes right to my point about how this race is unique, unless you think we'll have all sorts of self-funded fake stealth Tea Party candidates throughout the country in 2012.

[Yoda]

Will doesn't like the Tea Party period. I'm sure he has good reasons. But the question remains, will the mainstream Republicans and the Tea Party waste time fighting each other or will they remember their common enemy is Obama and concentrate on defeating him?
I think mostly the latter, but some of the former, sure. The Tea Party enthusiasm helped Republicans tremendously in 2010, even if it also led to a few nominees who were not half as electable as the establishment Republicans they defeated in the primaries. A welcome trade on net, though, which has paid dramatically more than it has cost them.

[rufnek]

Tim Pawlenty is taking a big gamble if the economy starts to pick up . . .

That's a big "if." The economy hasn't exactly took off like a sky-rocket in spite of the Fed's "stimulus" program that expires in June. It hasn't made a big enough dent in unemployment, businesses are afraid to invest, and the Democrats want to spend more.

. . . because negative campaigns (America is in trouble with the inference we need radical changes) has never been a winning strategy.

Maybe. But people still talk about how the Lyndon Johnson ad of the little girl picking flowers with an atomic missile countdown in the background blew Goldwater out of the running. And that ad was pulled after only a few showings.

[rufnek]

I think mostly the latter, but some of the former, sure. The Tea Party enthusiasm helped Republicans tremendously in 2010, even if it also led to a few nominees who were not half as electable as the establishment Republicans they defeated in the primaries. A welcome trade on net, though, which has paid dramatically more than it has cost them.

I'm not crazy for any of the Republican candidates, but right now all of the Republican wannabes have a long time to find the hook that will lift one of them out of the crowd while Obama and his administration are still braiding enough rope to figuratively hang him and other Democrat candidates at the polls.

Even if the Republicans blow the presidential contest and Obama wins it on oratory and charm, his coattails are apt to be short to non-existant this time around, while the Republicans take more of the House and Senate. I'd settle for a Republican Senate with the votes of challenge a presidential veto.

[will.15]

The Obama controversy on Israel has petered out as he emphasized land swaps as part of the equation and explicitly stated Israel is a Jewish state. The previous labor government also accepted land swaps.

It is not clear what is going to happen with the economy, rufnek, but it still looks like it will most likely be better, not worse, but how much better will be the issue. And Obama's energy approach on off shore drilling has nothing to do with prices at the moment. If he eliminated all restrictions overnight, prices would remain high for years and it is doubtful it would make much of a difference even long term as local drilling wouldn't change the tremendous global demand for oil.

I tried to figure out what the Pawlenty Medicare proposal will be, but the hints are so vague I have no idea. It definitely sounds like it isn't The Ryan Plan. So he is probably playing the political game, praising Ryan while coming up with something only mildly different than the current program, more options apparently. If the Ryan Plan was like that Republicans wouldn't be in such trouble.

[will.15]

Originally Posted by will.15 http://www.movieforums.com/community/images/buttons/lastpost.gif (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=729687#post729687)
. . . because negative campaigns (America is in trouble with the inference we need radical changes) has never been a winning strategy.
Maybe. But people still talk about how the Lyndon Johnson ad of the little girl picking flowers with an atomic missile countdown in the background blew Goldwater out of the running. And that ad was pulled after only a few showings.

Negative campaigns agains candidates work, not when it is a negative campagn about America. Pawlenty's approach is different from Romney. Look at his video.
"I can fix it, it won't be easy, but I can do it," but nothing like Pawlenty's talk about hard decisons, sacrifices, and specific mention of cutting entitlement programs.

[Yoda]

Negative campaigns agains candidates work, not when it is a neagative campagn about America. Pawlenty's approach is different from Romney. Look at his video.
"I can fix it, it won't be easy, but I can do it," but nothing like Pawlenty's talk about hard decisons, sacrifices, and specific mention of cutting entitlement programs.
Pawlenty's video is almost just like that. "We need a President who understands our problems are deep, and who has the courage to face them. President Obama doesn't; I do."

Ten seconds later:

"I believe with all my heart that the challenges we face can be overcome."

That sounds exactly like a negative campaign against a candidate, but not against America.

[rauldc14]

I really don't think it matters. If Obama runs again, he'll get re-elected.

[Yoda]

Thanks for saving us all that trouble.

[DexterRiley]

What do you mean, if he runs again?

has a sitting president ever bailed after 1 term?

[will.15]

Yes, one guy did.

[will.15]

I guess we all forgot about Huntsman who may get in it. I know nothing about him.

I just looked at clips of that guy. Wouldn't count him out at all. I think he has a lot more potential than Pawlenty. Good looking, articulate charismatic guy. Maybe too nice? We'll see. I think that is the guy to watch if Romney fades.

[will.15]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/20/us-usa-campaign-huntsman-idUSTRE74J5VI20110520

Watch this guy. If he gets in, he will skip Iowa and concentrate on New Hamspshire. If he does well there, even if he comes in second to Romney, he could catch fire. He is like a more appealing Romney. I think Tim Pawlenty is a big question mark as the anti Romney. But does this one have the fire in his belly? He has a lot of catching up to do, but in this race with these candidates I think he has a decent shot of pulling an upset.

[Yoda]

I don't see how he gets past the fact that he was Obama's ambassador to China. That irks a lot of conservatives. I suppose it'd be foolish to discount him completely at this stage, but I think that's going to be a big problem for him.

[will.15]

That's the problem with conservatives, having a problem with someone who can work with people from the other side of the aisle.He could be a major headache for Obama if he got the nomination. He was Ambassador to China, not his Secretary of State, and I am not aware of conservatives having a serious disagreements with Obama's dealings with China. His support of civil marriages for gays will be a bigger problem, but Romney has health care as his achilles heel, and Pawlenty looks like the Republicans' Michael Dukakis. They cannot win with him if they nominate him.

[Yoda]

That's the problem with conservatives, having a problem with someone who can work with people from the other side of the aisle.He could be a major headache for Obama if he got the nomination.
It's not a problem with conservatives, it's a problem with primary voters and party activists of all stripes: they all demand ideological purity every time we do this. They just don't often get their way.

Pawlenty looks like the Republicans' Michael Dukakis. They cannot win with him if they nominate him.
One completely unsupported statement deserves another, so: sure they can.

[will.15]

That kind of candidate never wins when they are going against a candidate who is photogenic and a good speaker. He is not a good speaker, he is not photogenic, and he is going against a sitting President who is photogenic and a good speaker. Huntsman looks like a President and appears to be a better speaker than Pawlenty. But he is still a big question mark in many areas. If McCain could get the Republican nomination with all his negatives (a lot of conservatives hated him) it is hard to rule out someone who has the potential to be the Republican Obama, someone who catches fire because of his personable qualities. I am not saying he will at this point. His message is unclear and he is still an unknown, but New Hampshire likes to pick the longshots.

Huntsman if he gets the nod will have enormous appeal with Independents and being Ambassador to China will be a big plus. He looks bipartisan, he is fiscally conservative, and could give Obama real trouble in the swing states. Pawlenty is just another lackluster Republican. I think Romney if he gets the nomination will be more trouble for Obama than Pawlenty. His trouble is getting the nomination.

[Yoda]

Pawlenty's a perfectly adequate speaker, and he's going to spend the next 6-8 months practicing. But if the bulk of your reasoning is that he can't win simply because he's not handsome enough, or not enough of a public speaker, then there's not much more to say on this topic. That's a pretty simplistic reason to dismiss a candidacy, and it seems more than a little at odds with the early suggestions (which I've generally agreed with) that the economy would be paramount.

I'd also note the dramatic difference between saying something probably won't happen, and saying it can't. The latter is almost always bluster, and I think politics has enough of that without the people merely discussing it joining in. Besides, the position of MoFo Who States Every Opinion Like It's A Fact has already been filled by Gunny.

[will.15]

It may seem simplistic, but that is how it goes. If the ecconomy is actually worse than it is now, unlikely, than any Republican has the potential of beating Obama, even a snooze like Pawlenty. If we get a major event turner that would matter also. But as it now stands Republicans don't beat Obama with an adequate speaker (Dukakis was adequate and technically better than Pawlenty) and practicing when you are not a natural only gets you so far. Your party needs a little sizzle and Huntsman looks like the only one with the potential to provde it. I could potentially vote for Huntsman. I sure as hell wouldn't vote for Pawlenty. It may be frustrating and seem superficial that these things matter so much, style over substance, but it does.

[Yoda]

Well heck, "how it goes" based on what? One example? Two? Even if we could accurately say that a candidate today is perfectly analogous to a past candidate (which is never true), that'd still leave the issue of sample size. People talk about Presidential history like it's some massive body of information to be gleaned from, but it's actually a staggeringly small number of data points that often bear no meaningful relation to one another.

Anyway, I think campaigns turn on far, far more things than that, but if you think it's that simple, so be it. Mark me down as part of the "reality is way, way more complicated than that" camp.

Why would you consider voting for Huntsman? I've never gotten the impression from any of your posts that you were anything other than a firm Democrat, albeit one who doesn't think highly of politicians in general.

[will.15]

I'm for fiscal conservatism, but not for the typical Republican brand of cut taxes a lot more, gut social programs, and increase defense spending, and support pork projects at home, which is what you get from Republicans. We need someone who can w really be bipartisan and try to find solutions that both parties can live with. Does such a candidate exist? Probably not with the existing political process. Huntsman at this point is a blank slate and at this point probably will disappoint more we see of him, but at the moment there is the potential for him to be what Obama and George W. promised and couldn't deliver, be bipartisan. I like how Huntsman is so far taking a different approach, not attacking Obama but I assume will emphasize his disagreements on domestic policy. He isn't Romney whose opinions seem based on what he thinks he needs to win. Huntsman has said he would not have gotten involved in Libya, which is interesting because politically it doesn't help him because at this point our involvement is not controversial and potentially could cost him votes among Republicans. He appears to be a real person despite the poster boy looks unlike poll driven Romney. At least Romney in his commercials isn't afraid to speak plainly to voters straight up. But Pawlenty's commercials are all slicked up over produced cliches with red, white, and blue and his monotone delivery.

[Yoda]

I'm for fiscal conservatism, but not for the typical Republican brand of cut taxes a lot more, gut social programs, and increase defense spending, and support pork projects at home, which is what you get from Republicans.
Say what? The last Republican nominee for President was probably as virulently anti-pork as any politician in modern history. There is, of course, pork all over, but I don't think it's even remotely arguable that most anti-pork crusaders are Republicans, and that they support fewer of the large government programs and bills that attract pork to begin with, which is just as important.

At least Romney in his commercials isn't afraid to speak plainly to voters straight up.
As I mentioned before, Pawlenty's first campaign stop was to go to Iowa to rail on ethanol subsides, followed by a trip to Florida to talk about reforming Social Security. Straight talker doesn't get any straighter than that. Heck, you were railing on him just yesterday for talking about tough decisions and hardships, which is pretty much in direct contradiction with what you're accusing him of now.

But Pawlenty's commercials are all slicked up over produced cliches with red, white, and blue and his monotone delivery.
You say "commercials," plural, but you're referring to just the one I posted, right? Because I'm pretty sure that's not even technically a commercial, just an online video announcement.

Also...you're using the fact that he uses red, white, and blue in his video as a criticism? Really?

Moreover, you were talking about what you support on a policy level, but the only negatives you've offered about Pawlenty have to do with perception or style.

[will.15]

Most anti pork crusaders are not Republicans. That is bipartisan. Both parties have them. But both parties pork. With Republicans they are more hypocrites because they make such a big deal about government waste. Harry Reed is at least consistent.

The ethanol subsidy comment is interesting. But otherwise we have no specifics from Pawlenty about much else except vague talks about reforming Medicare and Social Security. Talking about reform isn't controversial. Specific proposals is something else. Right now he is doing the usual political talk.

Maybe you didn't notice it, but I expressly said earlier I saw a previous Pawlenty video before the one you posted and it was the same thing, lots of video clips, his monotone saying nothing, and flag waving. And those are commercials really. They are formatted like commercials. I don't know if that is going to be his standard ads, but that stuff does not personally impress me at all. I actually don't like it. It is very cynically done.

You asked me what I liked about Huntsman, not what I disliked about Pawlenty. I can't criticize him much about substance because there isn't much there yet on specifics. But I sure don't like his commercials (both of them).

[Yoda]

Most anti pork crusaders are not Republicans. That is bipartisan. Both parties have them. But both parties pork. With Republicans they are more hypocrites because they make such a big deal about government waste. Harry Reed is at least consistent.
Sure, both parties have them, but that's no excuse to just whitewash the issue. If a specific Republican opposes pork and accepts it, then that specific person is a hypocrite, but that doesn't mean the party as a whole isn't far less pork friendly than the Democrats.

I don't understand the Harry Reid comment. For one, he's not consistent, because pretty much every politician says they're against pork. And more importantly, why give credit to a politician for being consistent if you think they're consistently wrong?

The ethanol subsidy comment is interesting. But otherwise we have no specifics from Pawlenty about much else except vague talks about reforming Medicare and Social Security.
Not true. In regards to Social Security, he's talked specifically about raising the retirement age and reducing benefits at certain income levels (higher ones, obviously). But he announced his candidacy less than 48 hours ago, so yeah, he doesn't have a detailed policy proposal out yet. I wouldn't expect him to.

Talking about reform isn't controversial. Specific proposals is something else. Right now he is doing the usual political talk.
Going to Iowa to oppose ethanol subsidies is not usual. Particularly for a candidate who needs to do well there. A just-announced candidate going to Retirementland to talk about raising the retirement age isn't usual, either. This is gutsy stuff, particularly right out of the gate.

I expected Pawlenty to be boring. That's the narrative that's been pre-written about him. But his initial actions simply do not match that narrative. He's been bolder than anyone has expected. Maybe he'll follow through, and maybe he won't, but it's a great start.


Maybe you didn't notice it, but I expressly said earlier I saw a previous Pawlenty video before the one you posted and it was the same thing, lots of video clips, his monotone saying nothing, and flag waving. And those are commercials really. They are formatted like commercials. I don't know if that is going to be his standard ads, but that stuff does not personally impress me at all. I actually don't like it. It is very cynically done.
Correct, I didn't notice it, though now I'm curious about this other video. I'd kinda like to see it.

Anyway, I don't have any issue with you not liking the ads, but you're describing almost every political ad, ever. I mean, you criticized a Presidential video for using red white and blue in it. C'mon.

You asked me what I liked about Huntsman, not what I disliked about Pawlenty. I can't criticize him much about substance because there isn't much there yet on specifics.
That's kind of the point I was making: that a lot of the things that had you optimistic about Huntsman could equally describe Pawlenty, but that you were writing him off for what seem like trivial reasons. He seems to be a genuine fiscal conservative, which seems far more important than whether or not he's going to be the first Presidential candidate to feature green and orange and use a smooth jazz bass line in the background of in his commercials.

[will.15]

Sure, both parties have them, but that's no excuse to just whitewash the issue. If a specific Republican opposes pork and accepts it, then that specific person is a hypocrite, but that doesn't mean the party as a whole isn't far less pork friendly than the Democrats.

I don't understand the Harry Reid comment. For one, he's not consistent, because pretty much every politician says they're against pork. And more importantly, why give credit to a politician for being consistent if you think they're consistently wrong?

Harry Reid is not against pork. He is publicly for it. He is a strong advocate of earmarks. I give him credit for being consistent because he doesn't talk out of both sides of his mouth like many Republicans.


Not true. In regards to Social Security, he's talked specifically about raising the retirement age and reducing benefits at certain income levels (higher ones, obviously). But he announced his candidacy less than 48 hours ago, so yeah, he doesn't have a detailed policy proposal out yet. I wouldn't expect him to.

I didn't know he said anything specific. The two things he said isn't anything dramatic and is similar to what some Democrats have said. I suspect if that is the extent of his position on SS he is going to disappoint the Tea Party people who want more radical reform, more like gutting, of SS. At least he is proposing something that probably will happen at some point.

Going to Iowa to oppose ethanol subsidies is not usual. Particularly for a candidate who needs to do well there. A just-announced candidate going to Retirementland to talk about raising the retirement age isn't usual, either. This is gutsy stuff, particularly right out of the gate.

I expected Pawlenty to be boring. That's the narrative that's been pre-written about him. But his initial actions simply do not match that narrative. He's been bolder than anyone has expected. Maybe he'll follow through, and maybe he won't, but it's a great start.



Correct, I didn't notice it, though now I'm curious about this other video. I'd kinda like to see it.

Here it is with the more simple Romney video.

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2011/04/mitt_romney_tim_pawleny_campaign_video.php

Anyway, I don't have any issue with you not liking the ads, but you're describing almost every political ad, ever. I mean, you criticized a Presidential video for using red white and blue in it. C'mon.


That's kind of the point I was making: that a lot of the things that had you optimistic about Huntsman could equally describe Pawlenty, but that you were writing him off for what seem like trivial reasons. He seems to be a genuine fiscal conservative, which seems far more important than whether or not he's going to be the first Presidential candidate to feature green and orange and use a smooth jazz bass line in the background of in his commercials.

His commercials are the product of ad people trying to repackage a bland product, put it in a fancy gaudy box to hide the bland ingredients inside.

All the Republican candidates are fiscal conservatives. What I emphasized about Huntsman was he had the potential to be able to work with Democrats and be bipartisan. He has the potential of exciting voters across political lines and independents. He might be that uniter, not a divider. I said potentially, not for certain. Pawlenty definitely does not have that ability. He is not a potential star. Pawlenty may get the nomination because Huntsmen doesn't catch on or decides not to run and Romney still can't overcome the doubts about his candidacy, but he is not going to excite anyone.

[will.15]

Just watched this. Ooh! He endorsed the Ryan Plan. Still, after watching this I think he definitely could do well in New Hampshire, much better speaker than Pawlenty and more sincere and homespun than Romney. I assume that little Asian girl is adopted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB9NdVsxe0M

[will.15]

I'm not as excited about Huntsman after seeing that video, it is the standard RP position of cutting government and taxes at the same time, but he presents it much better than Pawlenty who seems more pessimistic and gloomy in his presentation. Voters like happy politicians and I think Pawlenty has a serious problem. I found a thing on the web there where an admitted liberal said much like what I said, either Romney or Huntsman would be a stronger candidate than Pawlenty against Obama, but they went further and said then would probably go with Pawlenty. He also thought the Repubs will lose big time with him. I agree. I really do think with Romney the election is close and they could actually win with Huntsman who is very likable and articulate and comes across as very capable as a leader. Pawlenty is like another failed candidate from Minnesota, Walter Mondale, although I admit he is a better speaker than poor Mondale who I personally liked.

[Yoda]

I'll have a reply to your previous posts shortly, but for now I'll just say: who gives a crap if the cutting government and taxes position is "standard"? It's right. Way too much focus on how people talk and whether or not they're saying things we've heard before. But give me an old truth over a new lie any day.

[will.15]

I'll have a reply to your previous posts shortly, but for now I'll just say: who gives a crap if the cutting government and taxes position is "standard"? It's right. Way too much focus on how people talk and whether or not they're saying things we've heard before. But give me an old truth over a new lie any day.
In American politics you need a little of both, style and some substance. Gary Hart almost torpedoed Walter Mondale because he was a more attractive candidate, but voters finally realized Hart stood for nothing. He kept saying he was for new ideas, but he never said what they were. A politician with the right message, from somebody's standpoint, is going to lose if he can't sell it. Pawlenty is not the best salesman for the Republican Party.

[Yoda]

One of the reasons it matters is because everyone keeps talking about how much it matters. The fact that we often, as an electorate, focus on style over substance, is not an immutable law, it is a choice, and one that is encouraged every time someone chooses to talk about trivial things over substantive ones.

Unrelated, but important: Paul Ryan's hitting back on Medicare (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/05/25/paul_ryan_obama_democrats_have_decided_to_shamelessly_distort_and_demagogue_medicare.html). Of course he is.

[will.15]

A former presidential candidate is in big trouble. I never cared for him, proof you can have a nice package and still not go over with voters. Edwards always came off like a snake oil salesman.

http://www.aolnews.com/story/ap-source-edwards-could-be-indicted/1518651/

[Yoda]

Great article from Matt Bai about the Republican field (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/cheer-up-republicans-the-2012-field-isnt-that-bad/?hp), and why the fear over its alleged weakness is overblown. Money quote:

No, the fact is that the best presidential candidates don’t start out as fully formed national figures, like a Bob Dole or a Bill Bradley. They evolve to meet the moment by listening to voters in depressing banquet halls and cramped living rooms. They sharpen arguments through endless repetition and find their voices when no one in the press is really listening. They meet adversity and keep on going, because they just can’t imagine living in a world where they haven’t proved the rest of us wrong.

Chances are that one of the candidates you see now is going to look a lot more presidential a year from now than he does today. Republicans shouldn’t underestimate the power of that transformation — and neither should the man they’re trying to unseat.
Interesting factoid from another column making some of the exact same points: no President since FDR has been reelected with unemployment over 8%.

[will.15]

"Interesting factoid from another column making some of the exact same points: no President since FDR has been reelected with unemployment over 8%."

If the Republicans nominate Pawlenty Obama will be.

I am doing this on the top of my head, but who were the sitting Presidents with more than eight percent unemployment?

Gerald Ford? Let's face it, not a strong candidate and never elected in his own right.

George Bush Sr? "Read my lips, no new taxes?"

I think that's it. You find that to be strong precedent for a drab gloomy gus like Pawlenty beating Obama?

But I agree the candidates really aren't any weaker than usual for either party. It is just at this point no one looks like a major threat to Obama. The problem isn't they are weak. It is that only Romney among the front runners is well known, but most elections have candidates emerging from the back of the pack. Who knew Huckabee last time? Giuliani was the big name that did nothing once the primaries started.

[Yoda]

"Interesting factoid from another column making some of the exact same points: no President since FDR has been reelected with unemployment over 8%."

If the Republicans nominate Pawlenty Obama will be.

I am doing this on the top of my head, but who were the sitting Presidents with more than eight percent unemployment?

Gerald Ford? Let's face it, not a strong candidate and never elected in his own right.

George Bush Sr? "Read my lips, no new taxes?"
Yeah, I dunno if the factoid is terribly useful or not, though the degree that it isn't mirrors the degree to which all such predictions are futile, because there are so few data points to draw from.

I think that's it. You find that to be strong precedent for a drab gloomy gus like Pawlenty beating Obama?
No, I find the idea of most such "precedents" to be shaky to begin with, including the notion that less charismatic candidates always lose to more charismatic ones, based on the same sample size problems you detailed above. Swap out the unemployment rate for a Charisma Index, and your argument doubles as mine. But if you want anecdotal evidence, how about Al Gore? He didn't win, but he certainly could have. Pawlenty's no duller than Gore, and he certainly has no more reputation for it than Gore did at the time.

I also think the idea of Pawlenty as a "drab gloomy gus" is extreme. He's not even really like that now, though what matters is what he is when Iowa rolls around. And that's a looooong ways away. And that still matters less than the state of the economy. Charisma is part of the equation, not the whole thing, and it's trumped by economic interests.

[will.15]

Al Gore was one of the worst politicians I have ever seen. Yes, even Pawlenty is better than him. I voted for him, but I was holding my nose. He was pathetic in the first debate. But Gore would not have come close to winning if he hadn't been Vice President.

Oh, I forgot about Jimmy Carter had high unemplyment. He was an awful President. I didn't vote for him for re-election.

[will.15]

I'll have a reply to your previous posts shortly, but for now I'll just say: who gives a crap if the cutting government and taxes position is "standard"? It's right. Way too much focus on how people talk and whether or not they're saying things we've heard before. But give me an old truth over a new lie any day.
I'm not the only one who had a problem with that part of his speech. From the Boston Globe:



Like most early efforts, Huntsman’s test-the-waters speech hovers at the level of platitude. The nation, he says, needs to reduce its spending and debt, create a new industrial revolution, and take bold steps toward energy independence.

Interviewing him later, I noted that two high-profile deficit commissions have declared that it will take both spending cuts and revenue increases to address our deficit and asked if he supported such an approach.

“The revenue side we need to earn through growth,’’ he replied. That is, no — an answer as politically predictable as it is fiscally unfeasible.



Quote ended above.
To me it shows Republicans are not really serious about reducing debt, their real goal is to eliminate government programs they don't like to finance tax cuts. They only want to shrink the part of government they ideologically don't llike. The Ryan Medicare Plan is clearly that.

[Yoda]

I'm not the only one who had a problem with that part of his speech.
I couldn't care less if some beat reporter is bored by hearing the same thing. I'm sure lots of people reject perfectly good ideas simply because they're not new. It's one of the annoying paradoxes of leadership: old ideas are not exciting, even when they, ya' know, work.

To me it shows Republicans are not really serious about reducing debt, their real goal is to eliminate government programs they don't like to finance tax cuts.
The first part of your sentence is not supported by the second. The Republicans have been ridiculously zealous about debt reduction since November -- to a political fault, even. Cantor's comment the other day about Joplin is a perfect example of this.

They only want to shrink the part of government they ideologically don't llike. The Ryan Medicare Plan is clearly that.
Well, duh, of course they want to shrink the part of government they don't like. If they liked it, they wouldn't have any reason to want to shrink it. I don't understand circular criticisms like this.

Honestly, I've pretty much lost interest in debunking this crystal-ball approach to trying to divine super secret Republican motives. I think that's pretty futile, and even if it wasn't it's not half as important as determining which ideas are actually better, which you don't seem very interested in.

[will.15]

You can't reduce real debt if while you cut government programs you cut taxes. It doesn't make mathematical sense. They want to cut government spending because they don't like entitlement programs. That is the reality. They made no serious effort to cut governmment under Bush Junior anywhere, they just cut taxes. Earmark spending under them went up dramatically.They only make noise about the deficit when they don't control the White House. Yes, Democrats suck also, they only want to cut Defense, but Republicans are no better.

[Yoda]

You can't reduce real debt if while you cut government programs you increase taxes. It doesn't make mathematical sense.
I assume this is supposed to be "cut taxes." And it makes sense if you realize that business can go outside of the United States, and that a friendly tax environment attracts growth, which raises revenue.

These simplistic economic notions that treat the budget like a simple add/subtract proposition are always based in some narrow view of capital. When you actually drill down into them, you always find some obviously false underlying assumption, like the idea that people and businesses in America have to pay whatever the government dictates and have no recourse to minimize or avoid it. But they can avoid it, and many of them will.

They want to cut government spending because they don't like entitlement programs. That is the reality.
You've said this before, and I've already answered it: it's not that they choose to cut them because they arbitrarily don't "like" them, they don't "like" entitlement programs precisely because they destroy budgets. This is the only even remotely sensible way to tackle government spending, because everything else is dwarfed by it.

You seem to oscillate between pretending Republicans aren't serious about cutting spending and accusing them of only caring about cutting entitlements, which by definition is the most serious way to do so. Make up your mind.

They made no serious effort to cut governmment under Bush Junior anywhere, they just cut taxes. Earmark spending under them went up dramatically.They only make noise about the deficit when they don't control the White House. Yes, Democrats suck also, they only want to cut Defense, but Republicans are no better.
That doesn't really follow. You're saying that Democrats don't do it, and Republicans don't always do it. The conclusion then is not that "Republicans are no better." It's that they're sometimes no better. Which is, of course, true. But they're still going to be generally better at reducing government spending than the party that doesn't even make the attempt.

[will.15]

They are no better because they don't make a serious effort when they control the executive branch.

The way you take care of business fleeing is targeted business tax breaks, but they just want to cut taxes for everyone because the opposite, just for businesses in some circumstanses, is politically unpopular. It is too much tax cutting and you will never reduce the deficit. It absolutely does not make sense and those bipartisan commissions think so also.

[Yoda]

They are no better because they don't make a serious effort when they control the executive branch.
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. 90% of your arguments seem to be making an exaggeration and then treating it as literal truth. For what you're saying to be true, Republicans have to never make a serious attempt. And since that's obviously not true, your statement isn't, either.

You can't whitewash this. Republicans are politicians, so don't mistake my point for the idea that they'll do what they say with any reliability. But it doesn't make sense to say that a party which barely even feigns caring about runaway spending is the same as one which does, but doesn't always follow through.

Simple question: which party is making a more serious effort to curb entitlement spending? I count two attempts by Republicans in the last six years, both of which Democrats have positively skewered them for, both times without offering an alternative solution. Are you really going to try to to tell me with a straight face that these two parties are a wash when it comes to addressing entitlement spending (which is the spending that matters)?

The way you take care of business fleeing is targeted business tax breaks
Which also costs money, and which Democrats almost always oppose as giveaways to the wealthy. You're also drawing a false distinction between business tax breaks and income taxes on the rich; the rich are perfectly capable of keeping their money elsewhere, personal or not.

There's a reason they call money "liquidity." It can move around. It's going to get out. And it can't be controlled or channeled with blunt force via taxes and regulations, at least not for long. Only one of the two major parties seems to realize this and reflect it with both their proposals and their rhetoric, and it sure isn't the Democrats.

...but they just want to cut taxes for everyone because the opposite, just for businesses in some circumstanses, is politically unpopular.
Congratulations, you have successfully accused the Republicans of having to operate within the confines of reality. But again, you can use your crystal ball to conclude whatever you want about what Republicans really think. But it's not evidence, or an argument.

It is too much tax cutting and you will never reduce the deficit. It absolutely does not make sense and those bipartisan commissions think so also.
So, you're saying we need business tax cuts and not personal ones. Sounds like you're pretty at odds with pretty much every major Democrat, then, as most of them favor personal middle-class tax cuts with little to no interest in things like cutting the capital gains tax rate.

[Yoda]

Also, a follow-up to the post yesterday that I didn't earlier reply to. Sorry for the delay:

Harry Reid is not against pork. He is publicly for it. He is a strong advocate of earmarks. I give him credit for being consistent because he doesn't talk out of both sides of his mouth like many Republicans.
You said this before, but my question is the same: why would you give credit to a politician for being consistent if you think they're consistently wrong? That sort of consistency is not virtuous.

I didn't know he said anything specific. The two things he said isn't anything dramatic and is similar to what some Democrats have said. I suspect if that is the extent of his position on SS he is going to disappoint the Tea Party people who want more radical reform, more like gutting, of SS. At least he is proposing something that probably will happen at some point.
Yes, going to Iowa to kick off your campaign by railing on ethanol is dramatic. Of course it is. It's all the more dramatic because everyone expected him to be bland and simply outlast the more flawed candidates, but he's not doing that. If you (or someone else) wants to suggest that he'll end up running a bland campaign, you are free to speculate to that effect. But what he's ACTUALLY done in the early going directly contradicts the narrative most people have about him.

As for whether or not he'll disappoint some Tea Partiers: sure. Nobody gets a perfect candidate. But I doubt they'll be so disappointed that they'll derail his candidacy.

His commercials are the product of ad people trying to repackage a bland product, put it in a fancy gaudy box to hide the bland ingredients inside.
Just to be clear, that first commercial is for his Political Action Committee. Which isn't as subtle and hair-splitting a distinction as it sounds. But nevertheless, criticizing his commercials for utilizing the colors of the American flag is super goofy.

All the Republican candidates are fiscal conservatives. What I emphasized about Huntsman was he had the potential to be able to work with Democrats and be bipartisan. He has the potential of exciting voters across political lines and independents. He might be that uniter, not a divider. I said potentially, not for certain. Pawlenty definitely does not have that ability. He is not a potential star. Pawlenty may get the nomination because Huntsmen doesn't catch on or decides not to run and Romney still can't overcome the doubts about his candidacy, but he is not going to excite anyone.
You've misunderstood me: I'm trying to suss out why you would consider voting for Huntsman, but not for Pawlenty. To do this, I asked you why you might consider voting for Huntsman, and you emphasized his fiscal conservatism. So my question is: does this mean you'd consider voting for Pawlenty? It would seem the answer should be yes, unless you would reject voting for him simply because you don't find him exciting.

[will.15]

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. 90% of your arguments seem to be making an exaggeration and then treating it as literal truth. For what you're saying to be true, Republicans have to never make a serious attempt. And since that's obviously not true, your statement isn't, either.

The supply siders never have. Back in the day when the old style moderates of a different era like Bob Dole, yeah, but the party is now dominated by the Reaganites

You can't whitewash this. Republicans are politicians, so don't mistake my point for the idea that they'll do what they say with any reliability. But it doesn't make sense to say that a party which barely even feigns caring about runaway spending is the same as one which does, but doesn't always follow through.

Simple question: which party is making a more serious effort to curb entitlement spending? I count two attempts by Republicans in the last six years, both of which Democrats have positively skewered them for, both times without offering an alternative solution. Are you really going to try to to tell me with a straight face that these two parties are a wash when it comes to addressing entitlement spending (which is the spending that matters)?

Yeah, Republicans have proposed a change in Medicare that essentially guts it, a program most Republicans opposed when it was first enacted (at the time). But they want to cut taxes, and cut them deeply, at the same time, so they are not seriously proposing anything that would actually reduce the deficit. So they are not coming up with a solution that would supposedly fix the problem they are supposed to be concerned about. Have the Democrats proposed anything publicly? No, because unlike Republicans they are not stupid. An election is coming up. But the talks about the budget deficit with Joe Biden and congressional leaders is ongoing as we speak and reform of Medicare (and Social Security) is not off the table.


Which also costs money, and which Democrats almost always oppose as giveaways to the wealthy. You're also drawing a false distinction between business tax breaks and income taxes on the rich; the rich are perfectly capable of keeping their money elsewhere, personal or not.

The country has a problem, deep debt and very bad economy (which I think is starting to mend, it takes a while to get out of these things). You can't stimulate the economy in a big way and reduce debt in a meaningful way at the same time. It is impossible. You have to choose your focus. Targeted business taxes cost money, but not as much as across the board taxes for everyone and they will more directly add jobs and stimulate growth than broad tax cuts, which don't always work, if people feel more like saving than spending.

There's a reason they call money "liquidity." It can move around. It's going to get out. And it can't be controlled or channeled with blunt force via taxes and regulations, at least not for long. Only one of the two major parties seems to realize this and reflect it with both their proposals and their rhetoric, and it sure isn't the Democrats.


Congratulations, you have successfully accused the Republicans of having to operate within the confines of reality. But again, you can use your crystal ball to conclude whatever you want about what Republicans really think. But it's not evidence, or an argument.


So, you're saying we need business tax cuts and not personal ones. Sounds like you're pretty at odds with pretty much every major Democrat, then, as most of them favor personal middle-class tax cuts with little to no interest in things like cutting the capital gains tax rate.

When did I give you the impression I was a shill for the Democratic Party? Both parties suck but I vote usually for the Democrats because I am more anti Republican than anti Democrat. Religious Right I don't like. Tea Party has a bunch of nutters. I'm sure glad I don't live in Wisconsin. Their conventions aren't as fun as the Democrats, much better at partying. Both parties starting in the seventies have been lurching further away from the center and I like politicians who can work together and come up with solutions. But I really think Republicans are more the problem than Dems in coming up with a consensus for debt reduction. Insisting on big tax cuts in these circumstances makes negotiations probably impossible.

[planet news]

When did I give you the impression I was a shill for the Democratic Party?You've certainly given me that impression.

But I don't know what we're bolding about.

Both parties suck but I vote usually for the Democrats because I am more anti Republican than anti Democrat.Nah, you believe all the liberal axioms about government being necessary and so forth. You're extremely prejudiced to any right wing views and call them all your favorite name: "whack jobs". You are a democrat. Sorry.

[will.15]

I put it in bold, you supposed alleged proclaimed Communist, because I never figured out how to use the multi quote.

I'm glad you kept it brief for once and never mentioned Deleuze.

[planet news]

you supposed alleged proclaimed CommunistI like how you're supposedly so independent and yet you can't even accept that this or a tendency towards this exists in decent numbers today. It's weird you spent so much time a while ago to try to deny that I am one by drawing out some straw man definition of what it is. Also, I'm trying it out because I like what it says. I find it extremely interesting and inspiring on many levels. It also seems "correct" on many levels that liberalism isn't. I don't know if I need some kind of tattoo or something to prove that I am one, but since I like it and you don't we can agree we're not the same thing, so that's that.

I'll stop now. :)

[Yoda]

The supply siders never have. Back in the day when the old style moderates of a different era like Bob Dole, yeah, but the party is now dominated by the Reaganites.
You keep using words like "never." I do not think it means what you think it means. But the comparison is inappropriate for another reason, anyway. See below.

Yeah, Republicans have proposed a change in Medicare that essentially guts it, a program most Republicans opposed when it was first enacted (at the time). But they want to cut taxes, and cut them deeply, at the same time, so they are not seriously proposing anything that would actually reduce the deficit. So they are not coming up with a solution that would supposedly fix the problem they are supposed to be concerned about.
Doesn't it depend on how much they cut, and how they're reforming entitlements? Entitlements are insanely massive, and getting bigger all the time. You'd have to be talking about some unbelievably huge tax cuts to be able to legitimately declare the whole thing a wash.

I think this mirrors the things you're saying about Republicans in general; it's forcing an equivalence where it doesn't exist. Republicans don't always follow-through on reducing spending? Well, then they're LITERALLY no better than Democrats! Cutting taxes and spending at the same time? Well, that's one instance of saving money and one instance of spending it, so it must be the same! Nevermind the actual amounts or the nature of either.

Let's try this:

Fact #1: entitlements utterly dwarf other spending concerns and threaten to cripple our budget. Fact #2: Republicans have made two significant efforts to reign in entitlement spending in the last six years. Fact #3: both times Democrats have positively villified them for the attempt despite offering no alternative solution and sometimes even pretending there was no problem.

Which fact do you dispute? Because if you don't dispute any of them, then the idea that the parties are a wash on spending is completely indefensible.

No, because unlike Republicans they are not stupid. An election is coming up. But the talks about the budget deficit with Joe Biden and congressional leaders is ongoing as we speak and reform of Medicare (and Social Security) is not off the table.
This is worth nothing. Seriously, nothing. Saying something is "not off the table" is as empty as a political statement can get.

Also, the picture you're painting of the Republican Party is at odds with the one you were painting months ago, about how they were caving and wimping out and not serious about cutting spending at all. Now you're telling me they're trying to cut entitlements in spite of it being terrible for them, politically.


When did I give you the impression I was a shill for the Democratic Party?
You gave me that impression by always posting and saying things that speak badly of Republicans for months on end. Similar concessions about Democrats are genuinely wrung out of you after several rounds of back-and-forth, and even then they are played down and there are any number of false equivalencies to contend with.

Both parties suck but I vote usually for the Democrats because I am more anti Republican than anti Democrat. Religious Right I don't like. Tea Party has a bunch of nutters. I'm sure glad I don't live in Wisconsin. Their conventions aren't as fun as the Democrats, much better at partying. Both parties starting in the seventies have been lurching further away from the center and I like politicians who can work together and come up with solutions. But I really think Republicans are more the problem than Dems in coming up with a consensus for debt reduction. Insisting on big tax cuts in these circumstances makes negotiations probably impossible.
Except they're not "insisting" on big tax cuts. They certainly want them, and try to get them, but they've made a number of proposals that simply involved cuts, or else involved far more in the way of spending cuts than tax cuts. Democrats don't seem interested.

Even the Ryan budget seemed (we don't know for sure, I don't think) to involve a fairly modest expansion of the 2001/2003 tax cuts alongside $6 trillion in cuts. You can't tally this up as a "1" in the tax cut column and a "1" in the spending cut column, because they're not equivalent.

It's just absurd to say that the only party trying to reform entitlements is somehow worse than the one who keeps talking about throwing seniors out of their homes whenever they try to do so. Because that's what's actually happened: Republicans advanced reform programs, and Democrats trotted out the old saws about old people eating freaking cat food. And the fact that Republicans also like tax cuts (though in the case of SSN reform they didn't even try to bundle them, I don't think) is supposed to tilt this ridiculous disparity so that it's the Republicans who are the primary impediment? Are you kidding me?

[planet news]

It's just absurd to say that the only party trying to reform entitlements is somehow worse than the one who keeps talking about throwing seniors out of their homes whenever they try to do so. Because that's what's actually happened: Republicans advanced reform programs, and Democrats trotted out the old saws about old people eating freaking cat food. And the fact that Republicans also like tax cuts (though in the case of SSN reform they didn't even try to bundle them, I don't think) is supposed to tilt this ridiculous disparity so that it's the Republicans who are the primary impediment? Are you kidding me?I'll grant you that cutting entitlements is a viable solution to all this terrifying national debt stuff. However, I think the Democrats have fair points when they focus on the already-dependent people who would indeed suffer from a loss of these entitlements.

It's like a drug. When you have people already depending on something, taking that away can do more harm than good. You need to ease off of it very slowly.

But this all comes down to the issue of whether or not private entities can replaces the services rendered by entitlements when all these easing off is over, and that all comes down to just what private businesses are and how they work.

If you believe that private businesses "can't be trusted", then it's the same as the social security thing we came down to in the other thread. The government is the only other place to go. Or Communism.

[Yoda]

I'll grant you that cutting entitlements is a viable solution to all this terrifying national debt stuff. However, I think the Democrats have fair points when they focus on the already-dependent people who would indeed suffer from a loss of these entitlements.

It's like a drug. When you have people already depending on something, taking that away can do more harm than good. You need to ease off of it very slowly.
Absolutely. Which is why Ryan's plan, for example, doesn't take effect for something like a decade. People would have a legitimate gripe if they simply eradicated one of these plans, given that many people of a certain age have been paying taxes for this stuff for decades, expecting some benefit on the other end (though it's perilously little compared to what they put in, without exception). That's one of the reasons it's so amazing that these things keep getting shot down: they're almost all sensible enough to grandfather a good many people in, and they still get eviscerated by demagogues.


But this all comes down to the issue of whether or not private entities can replaces the services rendered by entitlements when all these easing off is over, and that all comes down to just what private businesses are and how they work.

If you believe that private businesses "can't be trusted", then it's the same as the social security thing we came down to in the other thread. The government is the only other place to go. Or Communism.
I think even someone with a great distrust of private business (though I'd like to find a person who really lived and breathed this principle in their personal lives...I don't think there are very many) would be hard-pressed to make the case that government has shown an ability to be any better.

[will.15]

My computer had a fit and I lost everything I typed and I was almost done. Not going to redo it.

Maybe later.

[Yoda]

That sucks. No rush.

[planet news]

YO. This can wait. Don't reply to it if you don't feel like. I don't want to cancel out Will's long-term line or anything. :) Whatever criticisms I have of him, he's more substantial in terms of fact arguments, and I guess that's the nature of the thread.

Well, I'll just choose to believe that these plans are somewhat sensible (it would be bad for both sides if they weren't).

But then we move onto the fundamental character of the ideological impasse. What then after this privatization? How much regulation from the government? Ideally none, no?

We must ask ourselves what businesses are and whether or not they are indeed regulated by the invisible hand for the good of the people as opposed to introducing a new visible hand also guided by the people but as a skyhook from above -- the government.

though I'd like to find a person who really lived and breathed this principle in their personal livesYou like to bring this kind of think. I think it's totally irrelevant. We are all deeply steeped in capitalism. The entire world. To call people hypocrites for buying food at a store and espousing communism or anti-commercialism in general is like calling someone stuck in quicksand a hypocrite for wanting to crawl out.

would be hard-pressed to make the case that government has shown an ability to be any better.I would be hard pressed only because any success of the government I point out will either be "countered" by a presentation of some analogous success of private business or "invalidated" by nitpicking from the many inevitable problems that arise in any extremely large scale system.

But I can try to convince you without facts at all. How so? Well, simply the idea that two voiceboxes are better than one if you want to be heard. Capitalism apparently gives the people a voicebox since businesses listen to people can want to please them (supposedly). Government also gives people a voicebox because politicians want to please the people. These are both forms of REpresentation, but they are twofold instead of onefold. The same idea of multiple, complementary forms of REpresentation exists in the very structure of the government with checks/balances. When there are two opposed structures, they can communicate with each other, check each other, and mediate each other into something maybe not all that good but at least not something catastrophic.

So it is not that government can do it better than capitalism, but rather that government needs to be around in order to check capitalism. When you distrust something, you either cast it out by replacing it or keep a sharp watch on it. In practical terms, even if you privatize, there need to be stringent regulations.

In short, don't straw man this into "government > capitalism". It's rather "government + private business = Capitalism". Government SUSTAINS capitalism. It keeps it going. This is why I find it so interesting why liberals are so strident against conservatives and vice versa. You are both partners in the maintenence of capitalism with government as super-ego and capitalism as id. All your inner turmoil is just how the whole system works. In other words, the antagonism between democrat/republican is constitutive of the entire system.

[Dog Star Man]

I have to disagree with government begetting private business. What of the American Old West and Early Icelandic Societies. Those were purely capitalism in it's most unadulterated form.

[planet news]

Never said government begets private business though. Only that today governments clearly sustain the survival of capitalism at all. They are two sides of the same coin. One could not survive without the other.

Societies are supposed to pass through capitalism. Businesses are supposed to become unwieldy, corrupted, and oppressive. Works get mad, revolt, then communism. The liberal-progressive movement STOPPED this. It is not a road towards communism, it is a way of maintaining capitalism, a way of sweeping up the mess that capitalism ultimately makes to keep it going. After the gilded age, the great depression, and just about every major recession including the most recent, the government has to take action to fix things and keep the system going.

The first time this had to happen where the government intervened to save capitalism is when we entered late capitalism which coincides with the postmodernist era.

But enough about me.

[will.15]

PM got that one right. That is what the consevatives don't understand. We get more government because of the excesses and failure of capitalism.

[planet news]

I wouldn't want to disturb this agreement too much (it's... beautiful), but I would even go as far as to say that government itself is part of the excesses of capitalism, since as you say its necessity is derived from it.

[Dog Star Man]

Even though the societies I mentioned were anarchist?

[planet news]

Societies exist throughout time. They change. Capitalism changes as society changes. Iceland and America now fully resemble the late capitalist landscape I was describing. Blame it on mass production, telecommunications, or population growth, but capitalism today is different than it was before and it will be in the future. Just because it is all filed under one name does not mean its historical contingency should be ignored.

[will.15]

"I wouldn't want to disturb this agreement too much (it's... beautiful), but I would even go as far as to say that government itself is part of the excesses of capitalism, since as you say its necessity is derived from it. "


Sure they are, they actually keep it going and thriving by actually putting only minimal restraints on it and when they seriously screw up they bail them out. Business never had a better friend than big government (which really isn't all that big compared to other countries). They bitch and moan about the littlle restrictions just as a teengaer bitches about their parent's rules keeping them from staying out all night, but who do they run to when they find themselves in a serious jam? Their daddy, government.

[Yoda]

No no no no no. You are confusing business with capitalism. Bailing out a failing business is the opposite of capitalism.

[Dog Star Man]

This is also where I disagree. Capitalism failed in both societies due to government control existing outside the realms of the capitalist society itself.

In Iceland the Commonwealth failed due to the King of Norway.

In the American West the structure failed after the loss of the Confederacy and their fight for states rights. When America became a federal nation, so was the loss and collapse of that society.

I'm still not entirely convinced. I do believe capitalism can exist within the confines of anarchism. That it is not a total precursor to government influence. Are we talking capitalism anymore? Or corporatism?

[planet news]

No no no no no. You are confusing business with capitalism. Bailing out a failing business is the opposite of capitalism.Wha? "Confusing" business with capitalism? Businesses are a part of capitalism. They are vital organs of its functioning. Are you somehow saying that capitalism could exist without businesses?

Capitalism or the market simply refers to the collective flow of capital. A business is an enclosed region or apex of high flow activity.

What the government does is stop collapsing businesses from collapsing because those businesses are so integral to the maintenance of the flows of global capital that have emerged over time.

If the government lets these businesses collapse, the flows associated with them will collapse.

A decrease in flow is called a depression. When the market becomes "frozen" or stops flowing, the market ceases to exist entirely. Capitalism dies.

[will.15]

No no no no no. You are confusing business with capitalism. Bailing out a failing business is the opposite of capitalism.

It is still capitalism. Capitalism isn't a synonym for laissez faire. The money the banks and car companies received came with little restrictions really, much less if it came from loans by the private sector. I don't like giving those guys money either, but we would be in major doo-doo if it didn't happen. Instead of recession we would be in an economic depression comparable to the thirties or possibly worse.

It became a world crisis and no government was willing to just let things go their natural cause. They all interfered to some extent and most more than the United States.

[Yoda]

I was responding to the post just preceding mine, IE: will's post. Businesses are a part of capitalism, but it does not follow that anything that is good for a specific business is good for capitalism, or consistent with capitalistic principles.

That's one of the reasons this issue is so confused: people look at the bailouts, which they rightly regard as absurd, and think that if they dislike them they dislike capitalism. But it's just the opposite: the bailouts are completely antithetical to capitalism. They do not "save" it, they undermine it. If allowed to fail, capital will flow where it is better used. It will adjust, as always. When it can't, or when that adjustment is unusually painful, it will be a reflection of how much the government is intervening to begin with, with price/wage floors/ceilings and the like.

In other words, government is creating situations that only government can insulate us from. But more insulation from failure is not the answer. It's an illusion that begets more failure, just like any form of moral hazard.

[Yoda]

If you believe that the government has to bail out failing financial institutions to "save" capitalism, keep asking yourself what will happen if they don't. And then ask why that thing will happen, and on and on. You'll end up at a regulation or interference of some kind.

[planet news]

If the government doesn't bail out failing financial institutions, there will be untold suffering. Then the Marxists will take over and revolution will happen. Simple.

I think you should realize that capitalism is still around even after these bailouts, and it was still around after the progressive era, and it was still around after FDR. It will always be around as long as it is never allowed to eat itself alive and cause the catastrophe that is built into its very structure.

[Yoda]

If the government doesn't bail out failing financial institutions, there will be untold suffering. Then the Marxists will take over and revolution will happen. Simple.
Take me up on the exercise I mentioned in my second post. Why will this happen?

[planet news]

Sudden stoppages or annihilations of flows leading to other flows leading to other flows. Major disruptions of the market. Untold suffering.

See the Great Depression.

I'm not sure I'm getting your rhetorical tactic here. I'd rather you just make your point explicitly or tell me what you think I was going to say.

(such a derail, sorry)

[will.15]

They certainly should not get into the habit of bailing out business. I still have reservations about them bailing out automakers although it looks at the moment that turned out well. But without government bailing out the banks the banking institution would have collapsed.. We are talking about systematic failure. Planet News is right. Government is not going to let capitalism collapse and there would have been a real danger of that if they just let free markets muddle through a nightmarish situation.

I was typing this when post 362 was the last one. You guys type faster than me.

[rufnek]

The Obama controversy on Israel has petered out

I don't think so. Obama struck a nerve in the Jewish community. I think some of his political donations and support will dry up as a result.

It is not clear what is going to happen with the economy, rufnek, but it still looks like it will most likely be better, not worse, but how much better will be the issue.

No, no one has a crystal ball by which to predict the future. But I spend a lot of time daily reading economic reports and talking to company execs and my gut feeling is that the economy has not yet bottomed out. For one thing, sovereign debt is hanging like a sword over several European nations at present, and it is possible it could reach a danger level here in the states, too. When Standard & Poor's warned some weeks ago that the US debt rating may be lowered for the first time ever, that was a serious warning to the government and business. Some institutional investors cannot buy bonds from governments whose debt ratings are below a certain level and the usual buyers of bonds will want a better interest rate, which will make it tougher for the US to borrow money through bond sales. The national debt and Congress' inability to get government finances under control is much more serious than most voters realize. Most don't understand economics or the international bonds market, but they do understand unemployment which has not decreased significantly despite all the "stimulus" spending.

And Obama's energy approach on off shore drilling has nothing to do with prices at the moment.

No, not at the moment--but I'm talking 2012 and beyond. More than a quarter of our oil and about a third of the natural gas produced in the US comes from the Gulf of Mexico. It is our biggest single source of domestic oil and gas, and the current oil and gas reserves in the gulf are being produced as quickly as they can. But for more than a year now, the Obamatorium has shut in new exploration and development drilling in the gulf, which is creating a gap between today's production and the replacement of those reserves for production next year. Right now all the financial signs are lining up to indicate oil prices will be much higher in a much tighter market by the end of this year or certainly before November 2012. If the economy improves as you predict, than the price of energy will be even higher since demand will multiply while supplies do not.

Remember, Iraq's production is not yet back to where it was prior to invasion; when US troops leave and the different Arab and Muslim groups start fighting for control again, Iraq's production may be curtailed by sabotage. Meanwhile, production in Nigeria has been down by a quarter to a third for years now because of the conflict between rebels and the military in the prolific Niger Delta. And Libya's production is totally shut-in and likely will be through 2012 unless that civil war ends. Even then, the production and export facilities may be shot to hell and could be a long time to bring back on stream. OPEC's excess production capacity is more limited now than it has been in years, and could barely make up for the loss of Libyan oil. There's still a lot of civil unrest in several oil producing countries in Africa, South America, and the Middle East, so more production capacity in various countries could go offline. Non-OPEC production has been less than predicted for the last couple of years.

Meanwhile, the economies of China, India, and South Korea are on the rise, and China especially is competing for oil reserves around the world.

If he eliminated all restrictions overnight, prices would remain high for years and it is doubtful it would make much of a difference even long term as local drilling wouldn't change the tremendous global demand for oil.

Yeah, the price of oil and refined products are likely to remain high for some years. It's not going back to the prices you saw in the '90s, '80s, or '70s. But bringing on more supplies from the Gulf of Mexico means the price won't be as high as it is now. Wouldn't even $2.99/gal look good to you right now? At this moment, it's not a matter of whether access to federal lands on and offshore will give us cheap fuel--it's a matter of trying to keep it from going much higher.

Naw, local drilling will not immediately affect global demand. But if the drilling doesn't happen, it will be that much less oil and natural gas available to satisfy that demand.

A general rule of thumb used to be it takes about 10 years or more from the time a company buys an offshore lease until it comes in production. Takes less time the shallower state waters, more time for a well in ultradeep waters. But when Obama shut down drilling in the gulf last year, that included wells that were being drilled to develop fields and bring them into production. The first 15 or so "new" drilling permits the Interior Dept. issued a few months ago were for development wells that the company was already drilling when everything was stopped. Now those wells have been sitting idle for more than a year, adding that additional time it will take to develop them. All the wells and projects affected by that 1-year gap will show up in supply reductions somewhere down the line, because the new supplies weren't being brought on while existing supplies were being used up.

And the clock hasn't yet restarted for many of those projects. When Obama shut down drilling, producers couldn't keep the driling rigs they had hired under contract at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars a day. They released those rigs, and the contractors who own the rigs and hire the drill crews started looking for other work. Other countries did not shut down their drilling operations while coming up with new safety programs, so rigs in the gulf could leave US waters and find lots of work overseas. Now that Interior is letting a few companies go back to work, they're having to shop around for rigs, which means paying the cost of moving them back to US waters in a year or two when they finish their current contracts overseas.

I tried to figure out what the Pawlenty Medicare proposal will be, but the hints are so vague I have no idea. It definitely sounds like it isn't The Ryan Plan. So he is probably playing the political game, praising Ryan while coming up with something only mildly different than the current program, more options apparently. If the Ryan Plan was like that Republicans wouldn't be in such trouble.

I haven't been following the potential Republican candidates or their proposals. I'll wait until it gets down to 2-3 top candidates in about a year before I starting worrying about who the Republicans nominate. All I'm talking about now is the possible economic effects on the November 2012 election. What I see now is continued high employment, continued weak housing market, a double-dip recession, and higher energy prices. In the last week, one investment bank has forecast $130/bbl oil by the end of this year, while two others predict $130/bbl oil in 2012.

It's been my observation over the years that people generally vote their checkbooks. If as I expect financial, housing, and trade conditons are as bad or worst in November 2012 and energy prices are high, the populace will blame Obama's failed stimulus plans and vote him and many other Democrats out of office.

[will.15]

Hey, I have no crystal ball either but no economist I am reading is predicting a double dip recession. Talk about pessimism. The economic indicators are going in the right direction, but I certainly don't know what is going to happen. The Republicans can beat Obama certainly, but voters remember this mess didn't start with him, the crisis happened under the previous Republican Administration and they are not automatically going to reward any Republican with the White House. If the Republican candidate's solution is slash entitlement programs he ain't going to Washington.

[Yoda]

Sudden stoppages or annihilations of flows leading to other flows leading to other flows. Major disruptions of the market. Untold suffering.

See the Great Depression.

I'm not sure I'm getting your rhetorical tactic here. I'd rather you just make your point explicitly or tell me what you think I was going to say.
Basically, I'm saying that if there's a "major disruption of the market," it'll only be because government has made it difficult for capital to flow and adjust in response to these problems the way it would otherwise be able to.

Economic growth comes from innovation. There is no reason that people will be less innovative or competent during times of economic depression. So the question is: what causes them? It's not that people are suddenly bad at producing things, or worse at coming up with the ideas and methods that make us wealthier over time. Businesses don't forget how to do business. Barring some kind of actual, physical disaster, the problem is always with a regulation, policy, or law that has created a situation where it no longer makes sense for lenders to lend, or buyers to buy, etc. Something has interfered with the basic incentives.

[rufnek]

See the Great Depression.

OK, look at the Great Depression--any class warfare in the streets? Any major surge in membership of the Communist Party in the US? Anyone run as a communist who was elected to a federal, state, or local office?

What you had instead were people who continued to look for jobs. Some found some, some didn't.

Meanwhile, there was a major oil boom going on in Texas, the great East Texas field, the biggest ever found in the lower 48. The whole area boomed, all sorts of opportunities for investors, workers, rented rooms and new cafes, moonshiners, gamblers, you name it--they all came to East Texas by the hundreds of thousands to get rich or just get a job.

That's because under the capitalist system in the US, the mineral rights beneath the ground belong to the landowner and could be sold or developed seperately from the surface rights. The East Texas field was discovered and developed by the independent oil companies, not by the major companies of its day who had written it off as a loser because it had strategraphic traps instead of the salt domes where they had been finding oil in other areas.

As for communism, Karl Marx badly overestimated its allure and possibilities. He was expecting a modern industrial country like Germany to go communist with the resulting class warfare between the workers and the capitalists. He was amazed when basically rural Russia was the first successful communist nation.

I never cared for communism, but I talked up socialism a lot when I was a kid and broke. But as soon as I had some money of my own and especially kids to raise and care for, I became a flaming capitalist. That hooey about "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" don't cut it with me. I don't want someone with less ability than me getting part of the return on my labor just because his "need" is greater. I don't trust the government to decide what I need. I rather make it on my own, sink or swim.

[Yoda]

They certainly should not get into the habit of bailing out business. I still have reservations about them bailing out automakers although it looks at the moment that turned out well.
That merely repaying a loan is considered a rousing success speaks to just how low the bar on government decision making has gotten.

But more importantly, this isn't really true. The only true way to judge an economic decision is to judge it against all possible alternatives, which includes every other possible use for the money. I'm talking about opportunity costs: the cost of X is not just a number, but has to include the detriment from not doing Y or Z instead. The decision is not good economics if they repay the loan or bad if they don't; it's good or bad only when considering how else it might have been used. Henry Hazlitt calls this "the seen and the unseen," and suggests that it's the primary delineation between good and bad economists.

And you have to ask yourself: if iit was such a great investment, why didn't private investors make it? Why didn't consumers support the automakers enough to stop them from getting to that place?

But without government bailing out the banks the banking institution would have collapsed.. We are talking about systematic failure. Planet News is right. Government is not going to let capitalism collapse and there would have been a real danger of that if they just let free markets muddle through a nightmarish situation.
A market that is insulated from failure and/or compelled to behave in ways it otherwise wouldn't is not a "free market."

[Yoda]

Hey, I have no crystal ball either but no economist I am reading is predicting a double dip recession. Talk about pessimism. The economic indicators are going in the right direction, but I certainly don't know what is going to happen.
They're not predicting a double dip recession because "recession" has a technical definition (six consecutive months of negative growth). But what we do have is anemic growth while we're pumping the so-called "stimulus" in and printing lots of new money. That's masking how bad the growth rate really is. We should be growing like mad given what we're spending.

In other words, I'd rather be growing at 1% legitimately, without having to spend hundreds of billions of dollars, than the 1.2-1.8% we're managing now, but which we manage to achieve only by spending out of our minds.

Also, sub 3% growth (never mind 2%) is not really going in the right direction simply because the number is positive. It's well below modern historical averages. And it's way below the averages coming out of recessions, when growth is usually accelerated. That's another thing people aren't taking into account properly. We usually come roaring back out of recession initially (like under Bush in '03).

If the Republican candidate's solution is slash entitlement programs he ain't going to Washington.
Maybe this is so. But Americans are going to face up to the insolvency of entitlements some how, some day. One day they'll just be forced to accept it. And no one will believe it because up to that point they'll always have rejected the idea, but it will happen, and it will happen while people are saying things just like this. In other words, people won't accept it until they do.

Also, they should. Whatever the politics, I'll say it again: the Republicans are being the grown-ups on entitlements. And they deserve credit for confronting the issue, despite the fact that it may hurt them politically.

[will.15]

We haven't had a totally free market system since the nineteenth century, and arguably not even then as the latter half of the century was dominated by Republican administrations which imposed high tariffs on imports.

[rufnek]

The Republicans can beat Obama certainly, but voters remember this mess didn't start with him, the crisis happened under the previous Republican Administration and they are not automatically going to reward any Republican with the White House. If the Republican candidate's solution is slash entitlement programs he ain't going to Washington.

Personally, I think one could never go broke betting against the voting public's memory. Maybe when you go to the poll in 17 months you may remember it started with Bush and vote straight Democrat ticket. But unless there is a major turn around in the economy by then, most voters will remember only that they were better off financially 4 years ago before Obama was elected.

Obama is a charming guy, has a nice looking family and is a great talker. More than that the US have certain bragging rights invested in him. He's the first black leader of any modern industrial nation, the sum total of all the Civil Rights issues, integration, and the Great Society programs to advance the rights and success of minorities. On that alone, I can see him possibly out-polling some white-bread Republican, even one with a better economic program (don't worry, I haven't seen much that makes economic sense on either side yet).

However, the other Democrats who will be seeking reelection next year don't have that warm, fuzzy historical accomplishment wrapped around them. People are gonna want someone to blame for their hard times, and it's likely to be the Democrats with their majority government for the last 4 years. A lot of those Democrats were swept into office on the good feelings about Obama as a presidential candidate, and a lot of them are going to heaped over with the public blame for his bad policies and get swept out again. Like I said before, I can live with a Democrat administration (even Obama's) and a Republican Congress to disassemble some of the mess from his first 4 years.

[Yoda]

Whether they blame Bush or not, they "hired" Obama to fix it. He said he would. He got the stimulus he wanted and everything, and made numerous promises about what it would do to the economy in general. He also made very specific guarantees about unemployment, which haven't even come close to coming true. It would be perfectly reasonable for voters to hold him accountable for either so vastly overestimating his own ability to fix things, or for simply choosing a course of action which had a fraction of the effect he had promised.

[planet news]

the problem is always with a regulation, policy, or law that has created a situation where it no longer makes sense for lenders to lend, or buyers to buy, etc.Could you provide a specific example of this relation? Nothing to my (rather limited) knowledge is linking up with the claims you're making.

Here's why I think suffering occurs.

Businesses, banks, and the stock market only make money when there are flows passing through them. When there are few flows passing through them, businesses collapse. What causes this disruption of flows? Something. In recent times we have seen that it is repeatedly a result of speculation. Speculation creates virtual flows that exist only one paper which, when actualized, yield nothing. This creates a violent stoppage in flow. Speculation bubbles usually involves a lot of money, several businesses, and all the people directly associated with those businesses. In addition each business is attached to countless other businesses through various means (stocks, partnerships, the simple rendering of services). Today, all large scale flows are interconnected, since information is shared instantly.

Therefore, in addition to large scale unemployment which decreases the individual's powering of flows on a global level, the failure of a single business will have repercussions for the amount of flow into other businesses. Flow, as I said earlier, is the cause of profit. As businesses loose profit, they loose more people, those people lose more spending power, the entire system is less powered by spending. In the case of a speculation bubble, the entire system degrades in order to mirror the actual flows that exist. This process becomes more violent the larger the virtual flows powering the system were before.

I highly doubt I have said anything controversial here. This is the most general of the general. I just don't see where government interference comes in during any of this. None of this stuff would happen if the government forcibly prevented the excess of virtual flows in the first place. The government would have saved capitalism (the totality of flows) from having to go through the difficult process of redirecting actual flows to actual sources, and it did this last time, didn't it? It made up for the lack of virtual flows by artificially injecting actual flows into the system.

[rufnek]

We haven't had a totally free market system since the nineteenth century, and arguably not even then as the latter half of the century was dominated by Republican administrations which imposed high tariffs on imports.

I've never advocated a "totally free market system" I have no problem with the government regulating slaughter houses and meat packers. I've got nothing against a government agency regulating and licensing aircraft controlers and pilots. I think there are many ways goverment could and should interact with both business and labor to promote safety and level the playing field.

But I trust the consumer to express through his spending what he wants rather than the government deciding what is best for the consumer and dictating what he can have. People want cars with better gasoline mileage, they'll buy them even if they have to be imported from Japan and Germany. People think energy is too expensive, they'll turn down their thermostats in winter, turn them up in the summer, and walk or take public transportation.

Best way to return to low prices is through high prices. If the price of any item is more than a person can or will pay, it will kill demand for that item and the price will fall. If demand then increases at the lower price, the supply of that item will tighten and that will drive up prices until price again kills demand. That's how the system should work. not with the government dictating what the manufacturer can or should produce or bailing out anyone who cannot survive in business.

[Yoda]

Could you provide a specific example of this relation? Nothing to my (rather limited) knowledge is linking up with the claims you're making.
Sure. Imagine a situation where a business has enough profit and cause for optimism that it would like to expand and hire more people. Normally, it would just do so. But suppose the government has dramatically lengthened unemployment benefits, which in turn means that businesses must pay higher premiums for unemployment insurance when they hire more people. Suddenly, it might not make sense for them to expand, particularly if the decision was a marginal one before. Or it might only make sense for them to expand a little, instead of a lot.

Imagine you have an entry-level position that involves a very menial job. It needs to be done but it's not a crucial job, nor one that requires any training. It's worth about $7 an hour to you. Now imagine the government raises the minimum wage yet again, to $8 an hour. Now you either have to hire someone to do a task for more than it's worth to you, or you hire them to do more things you didn't actually need, or else you try to foist the job off on someone else for a bit more pay, etc. But you don't have the choice to do the thing you feel makes the most sense for your business.

There is also the issue of uncertainty. Imagine you want to expand and need to take out a loan to do so. But there is speculation that the government will print more money, thereby lowering interest rates temporarily. Do you take the loan, or do you wait to see if they proceed, making it possible to secure a lower interest rate on your loan? What if you also fear deflation? You might put the entire thing off until you have a better sense of what might happen.

In each of these situations, the business owner is acting in a completely rational manner based on the circumstances the government has put him or her in.

You really have to let me buy you Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson. Or some Hayek or Friedman. Despite being a total Commie, I think you'd really admire the elegance of the Austrian school. This stuff can be beautiful.

Businesses, banks, and the stock market only make money when there are flows passing through them. When there are few flows passing through them, businesses collapse. What causes this disruption of flows? Something. In recent times we have seen that it is repeatedly a result of speculation. Speculation creates virtual flows that exist only one paper which, when actualized, yield nothing. This creates a violent stoppage in flow. Speculation bubbles usually involves a lot of money, several businesses, and all the people directly associated with those businesses. In addition each business is attached to countless other businesses through various means (stocks, partnerships, the simple rendering of services). Today, all large scale flows are interconnected, since information is shared instantly.
The speculation you mention is simply a contract to buy or sell a commodity for a certain price at a certain date. If you think oil's going to cost more in six months, and can find someone who disagrees, you can create such a contract. If you are wrong, you don't reduce "flow," the money is simply in the other guy's pocket instead of yours, because he's sold you a commodity at what is now above-market price. Every speculation is matched by someone on the other end of the contract.

Therefore, in addition to large scale unemployment which decreases the individual's powering of flows on a global level, the failure of a single business will have repercussions for the amount of flow into other businesses. Flow, as I said earlier, is the cause of profit. As businesses loose profit, they loose more people, those people lose more spending power, the entire system is less powered by spending. In the case of a speculation bubble, the entire system degrades in order to mirror the actual flows that exist. This process becomes more violent the larger the virtual flows powering the system were before.
Normally, looking at the big picture is a good thing, but in economics it often obscures things. What you have to ask yourself is: what are the people on the ground thinking? Both entrepreneurs and consumers. I think the idea that growth starts with the consumer is completely backwards, but for these purposes let's start there: why won't consumers spend? Well, lots of them have lost their jobs or are worried about losing them, so they spend less. Okay, so why are they losing their jobs? Because businesses are laying people off and not hiring many new ones. Okay. Why are they doing that? Lots of reasons, potentially, like the three I mentioned above. But there's going to be a reason underneath all the big-picture stuff.

In other words, left to their own devices people will start businesses, make investments, hire people, take chances, innovate, build, etc. When they don't, it's because someone's given them a reason not to, not because we've suddenly stopped wanting to do these things, or stopped being any good at them.

I highly doubt I have said anything controversial here. This is the most general of the general. I just don't see where government interference comes in during any of this. None of this stuff would happen if the government forcibly prevented the excess of virtual flows in the first place. The government would have saved capitalism (the totality of flows) from having to go through the difficult process of redirecting actual flows to actual sources, and it did this last time, didn't it? It made up for the lack of virtual flows by artificially injecting actual flows into the system.
The problem here is the underlying assumption that "flow" is what's important, as if we achieve better standards of living simply because money changes hands. Obviously, that isn't so. We don't achieve collectively better standards of living by just moving money around, we achieve it through work and innovation. The flow of money is merely the mechanism by which we are enable this process, a way to exchange things more fluidly. It is not an end in and of itself.

[will.15]

That is all fine, but business brought government reguation upon themselves. An example:

The Triangle Shirtwaist Fire of 1911 would change the regulation by government of business. Before the fire government had mostly stayed away from business feeling it had no power to legislate it. After the fire government could not avoid instituting laws to protect the workers. Once the New York legislature enacted safety laws, other states in the US followed suit. Workers also began to look toward unions to voice their concerns over safety and pay. Samuel Gompers of the AFL had won a lot of trust and admiration by sitting in on The Factory Commission of 1911. The International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union also won support and led a march of 100,000 to tell the New York legislature to move into action. Unfortunately not everyone had learned their history. March 25, 1990, on the 79th anniversary of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire, the Happy Land Social Club fire in the Bronx, New York killed 87 people. Most of the people killed were not workers but customers. There was no sprinkler system, fire alarms, nor exits. The windows had iron bars on them leaving only one door to escape the inferno. On September 3, 1991 in Hamlet North Carolina 25 workers died at a poultry factory. The exits were ill marked, blocked or padlocked. The doors were padlocked to prevent theft. The Triangle Shirtwaist Fire remains as a turning point in US history. Countless state and federal laws were enacted because of this incident. Unions gained numerous new workers who wanted someone to fight for their safety. Now employers in the US have a clear set of guidelines that they need to follow to ensure the safety of their employees.






Too much regulation is not good for business and the economy. Too little regulation is not good for workers and the economy

[will.15]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/us/politics/26campaign.html?_r=1

Is Sarah Palin getting in after all? Not good for Pawlenty if she does, she has a very good shot of winning Iowa and he needs to win Iowa or else according to his own strategists he is done.

I'm going to make a prediction right now. Pawlenty is not going to get the nomination. But I admit I know nothing. I voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary last time and thought McCain was toast.

If Sarah runs she is going to get the Tea Partiers and win some states. I think.

[Yoda]

I don't think pointing to a lack of fire alarms 100 years ago makes a very compelling argument for eliminating certain kinds of derivatives, raising the capital gains tax rate, mark-to-market accounting, or other things of that sort. I think we all acknowledge that there are a few fundamental basis that it makes sense to require, but we are way, way beyond merely requiring clearly marked exits.

Re: Palin. I really hope she doesn't run. I don't think she can win, and all she's going to do is disillusion her supporters, who seem very much like the type that will offer a much lower level of cash and enthusiasm to their second or third choice. EDIT: I still think she doesn't run, but I'm certainly less sure of it than I was two weeks ago.

I also don't think Pawlenty needs to outright win Iowa; it depends largely on who else is in. Palin, in one sense, gives him an excuse for losing it, though it would still be a blow. And as silly as it seems, how you perform relative to expectations seems to matter a good deal in the early states. But I would certainly agree that he probably can't afford to get whooped there, no matter who's in the race.

[Yoda]

I'd like to say something about Romney and the general election, as well, because I'm hearing more on the Internet (and on cable news) about how RomneyCare is a liability now, but would be an asset and make him more electable in the general. I don't agree, for three reasons that I think I listed earlier, but will run through again:

1) Democrats aren't going to vote for him because of it. Why would they switch camps simply because he passed something similar when he condemns ObamaCare outright?

2) Independents aren't going to vote for him because of it. ObamaCare isn't terribly popular to begin with, and his attempt to draw a distinction between his plan and Obama's isn't going to persuade many. Crossing party lines to look more moderate only sways independents if they actually like what you're crossing party lines for.

3) Republicans won't throw their full weight behind him. Many will dislike Obama enough to turn out, to be sure. But there are lots of diehard activists who aren't going to knock on doors, mail letters, or donate to a campaign that they think is defending ObamaCare Lite. Whatever gains Romney may find from being perceived as more moderate, he'll lose some of that back in a less enthusiastic Republican base.

The best argument that can be made -- not that I agree with it -- is that independents will dislike ObamaCare, but just sort of vaguely approve of the fact that he was willing to do something a bit more liberal than your average Republican. That's a pretty subtle way to look at the situation, though. I think the only way this sort of thing happens is if people in the middle are so disillusioned with Obama that they start looking for reasons to make the Republican candidate more palpable. And if that's the case, most other candidates would benefit from that disillusion just as well. I think any scenario under which Romney can actually benefit from RomneyCare in the general is a scenario in which any Republican candidate would benefit.

That's kind of what Pawlenty's betting on. The common wisdom, correct or not, is that a reelection campaign has two basic questions behind it: 1) are you satisfied with the President? And 2) if you're not, is the alternative reasonable/acceptable? Pawlenty is tailor-made for a situation in which voters are upset with Obama and merely looking for an unobjectionable alternative. Doesn't mean he'll win, or even get that far, but I think that's the logic behind the Pawlenty candidacy.

[will.15]

Based on what I read the Romney Health Plan is popular and working in Massachusetts. I don't personally have any feelings about it either way except in principle I am lukewarm to both plans.

If Romney gets the nomination he will find a way to denounce Romneycare. Republicans hate Obama and the economy sucks. They will knock on those doors and turn out to vote.

Romney is the better, not the perfect candidate over Pawlenty because he is ultra smooth, a very good talker. He will hold his own in any debate with Obama., might even score a technical win, but not a knockout. Pawlenty doesn't strike me as very swift as a debater. I don't mean he would be terrible. But just staying afloat isn't going to cut it. I think the logic all the Republicans need is someone credible to go against Obama and economic concerns take care of the rest is dubious. Obama is not unpopular, the economy makes him vulnerable, but Pawlenty looks like the Republican equivalent of Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry. Those guys were strictly anti Republican candidates, they got votes not because anybody liked them but because they weren't the Republican, not a good strategy to attract independents, particularly with Republicans handing Democrats a gift by making Medicare an issue.

Actually, although I posted that, I don't think the indicators Palin is seriously considering a run pretty meager. Rehiring two operatives might mean something. But buying a home in Arizona where her daughter lives? Big deal. She obviously isn't going to live in Alaska anymore. Who in their right mind lives in Alaska if you're making a bunch of money away from Alaska? Practically any state she moved to she could launch a national campaign. I don't think she will do it, but I wish she would for the same reason you (Yoda) don't want her to. She really screws everything up.

[Yoda]

I think it depends on how you define working. It's working in the same sense that ObamaCare will: it will, in fact, require that pretty much everyone has health insurance. But it's also costing, I've heard, something like twice what they expected. I don't think even people who hate it deny that it accomplishes its basic goal, particularly in the short-term. And, of course, he's not going to win Massachusetts either way, most likely.

As for Romney denouncing RomneyCare: do you mean he'll find a way to defend it? Because he seems to have made it clear he's not going to denounce it, and his attempts to defend it don't seem to have gone over very well. And if he's going to denounce it at all, surely he'd do it now, when it's most burdensome to him heading into the primaries and all.

I do think Romney's a better politician than Pawlenty and would hold his own in any debates or public appearances. And that matters. But as George Burns once said: the secret of this business (acting, in his case) is sincerity. If you can fake that, you've got it made. Pawlenty might not be as smooth, but he seems (and is) more genuine.

If you reject the idea that the incumbency comes down to those two questions, that's fine. I think there's some merit to them, though. I think Mondale lost because the voters didn't answer question #1 the way they had to: they did not reject Reagan. I think Dukakis lost because there was no incumbent, but insofar as you count Bush Sr. as one, they didn't reject him, either, as Reagan was quite popular. Kerry is the only borderline case, and I don't think voters entirely rejected Bush, either. They were just ambivalent about him. In all three cases I think the boring alternative might have been acceptable, but voters were just lukewarm, rather than cold, toward the incumbent.

This is how everyone suggests Reagan won: people clearly weren't high on Carter, but Reagan's numbers didn't pull away until the first debate, when people (apparently) decided he acted Presidential enough and therefore was a plausible alternative.

Dunno if it's true or not. I'm sure it's a little too simplistic. But I think there's some merit to the idea that the first question for reelection is whether or not the incumbent needs to go, and the second is less about whether the alternative is exciting, and more about whether or not they'll do. If a lot of challengers seem to lose, it's probably because people don't usually go from liking someone enough to elect them to wanting to throw them out in four years. It's hard to pass that threshold of Presidential viability and then lose it before getting reelected.

I agree completely on Palin in that a lot of the supposed evidence that she's running consists of things she'd be wise to do even if she weren't running. But it's hard not to speculate given the splash she would make.

[planet news]

Alright, man. This post should be my bookend to this derailment, I promise. Also, you really don't have to read this. Seriously. I went a little overboard here, I know.

In each of these situations, the business owner is acting in a completely rational manner based on the circumstances the government has put him or her in.Agreed.

You really have to let me buy you Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson. Or some Hayek or Friedman. Despite being a total Commie, I think you'd really admire the elegance of the Austrian school. This stuff can be beautiful.Now, you are the second person I know to personally suggest Friedman, so I might have to take you up on that offer (not really, since it's probably at the library). :)

Every speculation is matched by someone on the other end of the contract.There are many different types of speculations nowadays. Some of them are backed or matched ahead of time like you say, but some of them aren't. The temporary profits garnered through kind of speculation that caused the current situation we are in was definitely not generated by any actualized flow. One thing remains clear. Bad credit (unactualized virtual flows) has been the cause for all major recessions/depressions.

What you have to ask yourself is: what are the people on the ground thinking?The flow of money is merely the mechanism by which we are enable this process, a way to exchange things more fluidly. It is not an end in and of itself.I agree that at some point this question becomes relevant, but when one speaks on the level of flows, it is precisely to avoid addressing these processes. It reminds me of the biology class thought experiment to imagine removing all the matter of the Earth from existence except for the nematode worms. One would supposedly see a thin shell of nematode worms outlining the crust of the Earth. The same goes for talk of flows of capital. Imagine removing or rendering utterly invisible all matter on Earth except for the various forms of capital flowing about the globe. One would also see a shell of sorts but an extremely dynamic shell. (In the scenario virtual, purely informational flows would have to be depicted somehow.) Examining the behavior of these flows themselves without regard to sources doesn't change the patterns involved. It merely makes them intelligible as a body with organs -- a pure abstraction that allows the various underlying processes of the world to flow through it and animate it. For me, it makes no sense to speak of capitalism as such in any other sense than this extremely abstract, Earth-removed way. But economics is a wide discipline which seeks to predict and prescribe as well as describe, so it must factor in causes. I, however, have not spoken of those. Only what occurs in this Earth-removed model.

TL ; DR: "What people on the ground are thinking" is part of the overall processes that drive flows in the same way that "what the quantum mechanical interactions are doing" is part of the processes that drive macroscopic interactions. "What people on the ground are thinking" is what Deleuze calls a double articulation where you express on two levels, local and global, once at the level of everyday life and once as the substance -- the intensity -- of the abstract structure of the body without organs comprised by the totality of the flows of capital a.k.a. capitalism.

In other words, left to their own devices people will start businesses, make investments, hire people, take chances, innovate, build, etc. When they don't, it's because someone's given them a reason not to, not because we've suddenly stopped wanting to do these things, or stopped being any good at them.I agree with this, and would be willing to read anything you suggest (Friedman?) that would clarify these processes.

But to conclude, I just want to make myself clear. As enchanted as I am with Will's agreement with me, there is still a stark contrast here between him and I. Will believes that government saving capitalism is a good thing like an intervention or Sam pulling Frodo up to safety from the fires of Mount Doom. For me, however, the government saving capitalism is like an overprotective parent. This might surprise you, since I'm sure you feel the same way, i.e. the government is like an overprotective parent who doesn't allow their child to grow. So, we are the same, no? No.

The crucial thesis of Marx's theory of history is that capitalism will eventually eat itself alive. This self-destruction is the kind of "growth" that I would like to see in capitalism. This stands in stark contrast with the kind of "growth" you would like to see in capitalism, no doubt some sort of flourishing prosperity.

So yes, I want capitalism to fail. Questions of whether or not this is an ethical viewpoint go back to Marx's conception of material progress. It is never exactly up to me one way or another. In many ways, the best way for me to succeed in contributing to the failure of capitalism is, paradoxically, to ostensibly contribute to its success, to push government away as far as possible, to deregulate all industries, to let the markets run wild. Like Will, I believe this will lead to major catastrophe. Unlike Will, I do not seek to rescue from this fate with bigger government. I seek to contribute to the reorganization of a new social structure entirely without government or capitalism.

In other words, the reason why Marx was wrong about the uprising of the proletariat was government instituted social programs and government regulations on business. If capitalism has been allowed to progress freely without government institution, it would have collapsed in on itself. Every time the government interferes with capitalism, you're right: it does stifle capitalism, but in doing so it also saves capitalism from imminent self-destruction.

TL ; DR: If I were truly shrewd, I would spend all my time parading fiscal conservative policies and libertarian attitudes.

[will.15]

I was there during that 1980 election. People hated Jimmy Carter, Democrats and Republicans. I hated Jimmy Carter. The economy was terrible, and had been for a longer time, going back to the early Ford years, with both recession and inflation, so it seemed even more bleak, he was an inept leader disliked by Congressional Democrats, and he was doing nothing about the American hostages in Iran. Ronald Reagan was always ahead a little in the polls, he was never behind, but because he was so much more conservative than your standard Republican at the time his poll number didn't take off. Because Carter refused to Debate Anderson, the third pary candidate, he only had one debate with Reagan a week I think before the election. Carter was terrible, even for him (remember he beat Gerald Ford just barely during a terrible economy, losing a once formidable lead in the polls) and Reagan seemed like a nice guy and not as scary as some of his positions seemed to be.. And Reagan trounced him. But if there was no debate, Reagan still would have won, maybe not as big.

Obama isnt hated by Democrats, and he killed Bin Laden and Republicans have to defend the Ryan Plan. Get your best guy out there to go against him. You won't get any arguments from me Romney lacks sincerity. Does it matter when the economy is sour and the focus will be Romney selling himself as a successful busnessman who can fix the economy better than the incumbant? Probably not. If Romney gets the nomination, it will give him a little more wiggle room to disance himself from Romnsycare. He will say something maybe like if he had to do it over again, he would do some of it a little different. If people are ready for a change they will give him a pass on it.

[rufnek]

None of this stuff would happen if the government forcibly prevented the excess of virtual flows in the first place.

What are you advocating, Planet? The government should shoot investors? :)

[rufnek]

The crucial thesis of Marx's theory of history is that capitalism will eventually eat itself alive. . . . the reason why Marx was wrong about the uprising of the proletariat was government instituted social programs and government regulations on business.

What Marx expected was eventual class warfare in which the more numerous proletariat would destroy the capitalists. But Marx did not foresee the widespread success of labor unions that could negotiate higher wages and better working conditions for workers instead of them going to the baracades as revolutionists to wrench from the employers.

More important, Marx didn't foresee the rise of the middle class as a sorta transition point from the proletariat to the capitalist. Marx could not imagine a worker, whether blue collar or white, owning stock in the company for which he works or in other companies as the basis of his retirement program through his company. Marx saw only his two-dimensional stereotypes of the fatcat landlord and capitalists squeezing his riches out of the starving proletariat. It's a false image that capitalism has progressed beyond by benefitting rather than exploiting workers.

[planet news]

There were labor unions already during Marx's time. He even mentions how they can be incorporated into the overall narrative.

Also, both of us agree that capitalism has changed since Marx. And yet you criticize Marx for being two-dimensional as if he was speaking of postmodern times. You must learn to think in terms of time. Capitalism today cannot be made equal with capitalism over a hundred years ago even though it is the same word. Marx was speaking about his own time, and there he was quite accurate.

To say that Marx was mistaken about the proletariat is not to say that there was never a proletariat. It is to say that the proletariat was incorporated into the system itself through government protectionism and the creation of the middle class. Capitalism handled the proletariat quite readily but at a cost. That cost is government protectionism.

A true proletariat is someone, or something, that is incapable of being incorporated into the system and therefore causes a rupture in the functioning of that system. I don't know what this would be, since capitalism is so inclusive, but it is no longer the wage laborer. Still, this does not change the fact that it was the wage laborer during Marx's time. Revolutions did occur over precisely the reason Marx declared they would starting with the French Revolution itself and the Paris Commune.

What are you advocating, Planet? The government should shoot investors? :)At what point in your life did you decide that this kind of ridiculous non-sequitur was an acceptable from of argumentation?

[rufnek]

There were labor unions already during Marx's time. He even mentions how they can be incorporated into the overall narrative.

Duh! Yes, I know there were labor unions and labor movements during Marx's time, many of which were hardline socialists. However, my argument was not that unions didn't exist, but that Marx did not foresee the widespread success of labor unions that offered another means for workers to improve their lots without resorting to class warfare. Certainly the unions were not widespread or highly successful in Marx's time. He essentially dismissed a separate role for them and visualized it all ending in class warfare between the bosses and workers.

And yet you criticize Marx for being two-dimensional as if he was speaking of postmodern times. . . . Marx was speaking about his own time, and there he was quite accurate. Didn't say Marx was two-dimensional; an impossible state for a living person. But his stereotypes of the capitalist and the proletariat and things like the use of religion to keep the proletariat's eyes on the promise of paradise after death instead of trying to improve their lot while alive were certainly simplistic, with not all the possibilities adequately examined. Even in his day, not all people fit those pigeon holes.

Marx was highly inaccurate in his own theory, under which Russia was never seen (by him) as a candidate for a communist revolution because it was mostly rural with most of its population in surfdom, rather than an urban proletariat that Marx wrote about. Leaders of the Russian revolution were primarily intellectuals who came out of the Russian traditional anarchist movement, not members of the proletariat leading fellow workers into the streets. The second large country that succeeded in going communist was China, where virtually everything and everyone was rural. Plus the Chinese communists made their biggest advance as nationalists fighting for China against the invading Japanese. There was no place for nationalism in Marx's brand of communism.

No, Marx totally miscalculated the future of capitalism and communism both within his lifetime and afterward.

It is to say that the proletariat was incorporated into the system itself through government protectionism and the creation of the middle class. Capitalism handled the proletariat quite readily but at a cost. That cost is government protectionism.

Government protectionism of what? The government didn't create the middle class that changed Marx's limited mix of capitalist and proletariat. The democratic form of government and the capitalist system in this country developed a strong middle class long before any real regulation of business by government.

Revolutions did occur over precisely the reason Marx declared they would starting with the French Revolution itself and the Paris Commune.

Hmm, I thought for sure the French Revolution and the commune occurred years before and were pretty much gone by the time Marx wrote his book. The French Revoluton gave birth to the Napoleon dictatorship, not a proletariat paradise.

At what point in your life did you decide that this kind of ridiculous non-sequitur was an acceptable from of argumentation?

Aw for gawd's sakes, Planet, get the wad out of your panties and lighten up! I even drew a little smiley face to help you figure out I was yanking your chain, not arguing with you. Chit, you take yourself way too seriously, kid.

[planet news]

He essentially dismissed a separate role for them and visualized it all ending in class warfare between the bosses and workers.Labor unions cannot have power without government sanction. End of story. They are not a form of revolution but demonstration that is sanctioned by the government. This sanctioning was not always the case.

But his stereotypes of the capitalist and the proletariat and things like the use of religion to keep the proletariat's eyes on the promise of paradise after death instead of trying to improve their lot while alive were certainly simplistic, with not all the possibilities adequately examined. Even in his day, not all people fit those pigeon holes.Wrong on two counts. They aren't pigeon holes at all. And not all people need to fit them. Only enough to bring about the revolution.

Marx was highly inaccurate in his own theory, under which Russia was never seen (by him) as a candidate for a communist revolution because it was mostly rural with most of its population in surfdom, rather than an urban proletariat that Marx wrote about. Leaders of the Russian revolution were primarily intellectuals who came out of the Russian traditional anarchist movement, not members of the proletariat leading fellow workers into the streets. The second large country that succeeded in going communist was China, where virtually everything and everyone was rural. Plus the Chinese communists made their biggest advance as nationalists fighting for China against the invading Japanese. There was no place for nationalism in Marx's brand of communism.First mistake: Communists are never said to identical with the proletariat. Example: Marx himself. Second mistake: think throughout time. Russian/Chinese revolutions were concerned with strategic victory, not Marx. Times had already changed.

Marx's theory of capital applies for all time. Marx's program for revolution applied only during a short span of time. NO POLITICAL PROGRAM applies throughout all history.

No, Marx totally miscalculated the future of capitalism and communism both within his lifetime and afterward.This cannot be denied. But the fact that his theories were usurped by unexpected conditions doesn't discount his theories. Nothing empirical and discount his theories. They are unfalsifiable and therefore not science. Nevertheless, as I have tried to show, his theories still hold explanatory power today and especially so for his own failure.

Government protectionism of what?Any government regulation of business period. This began just after Marx.

Hmm, I thought for sure the French Revolution and the commune occurred years before and were pretty much gone by the time Marx wrote his book. The French Revoluton gave birth to the Napoleon dictatorship, not a proletariat paradise.The Paris Commune and the French Revolution are far apart. The former occurred while Marx was writing Capital. The French Revolution occurs during the period in which Marx is directly applicable. The fact that Marx knew about it (as opposed to Russian/Chinese revolutions) means that his theory actually developed off of it. The period of time between Wealth of Nations and Capital is roughly the amount of time during which Marx was perfectly applicable. Things began to change afterwards. Perhaps even because of Marx's work and warnings.

All in all, for someone who seems to know stuff about history (MUCH more than myself), you still make the mistake of evaluating all events and figures as if they existed simultaneously in some ultra-dense phase space. The past is pure, but it is also linear. Every event should be evaluated in a specific context. Even two years side by side can present wildly different contexts.

[will.15]

Rick Perry might get in it after all, the joker who made noise about Texas succeeding from the Union.

I hope he gets the nomination. A Texas guy much further to the right than Bush. Good luck with him as your candidate.

[Yoda]

Here's Paul Ryan's video explanation for his budget. Simple, concise, illustrative.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJIC7kEq6kw

This is really commendable stuff. Nobody wants to hear it, but it's undeniable: the system is unsustainable. It's depressing as all hell that a) Democrats' response to this is not fact-based, but just scaremongering, and b) it might be working.

[Yoda]

Rick Perry might get in it after all, the joker who made noise about Texas succeeding from the Union.

I hope he gets the nomination. A Texas guy much further to the right than Bush. Good luck with him as your candidate.
I'd be glad if Perry got in. I don't care if he's a "Texas guy," and I don't think voters will be simple-minded enough to link him with Bush for that reason alone. The succession stuff will barely be an issue, in my opinion. It didn't actually happen, obviously, and people haven't shunned Texans in general for making noise about it before. I think a lot of people admire the independent tenacity that Texas represents, and wouldn't really get worked up about such things unless they actually happened.

[will.15]

http://www.aolnews.com/story/texas-governor-will-consider-running-for/1825978/

And Giuliani! Why is he even wasting his time?

I'll look at the video later. But the problem is not Medicare has a problem, but his brutal approach. First you have ti convince voters there is a problem that needs fixing, and second your approach is a good way to do it. They haven't even done a good job of convincing voters there is a problem to fix. And their plan is to dismantle it for a voucher or whatever you call it that will cover only a third of medical expenses.

[Yoda]

http://www.aolnews.com/story/texas-governor-will-consider-running-for/1825978/

And Giuliani! Why is he even wasting his time?[

I'll look at the video later. But the problem is not Medicare has a problem, but his brutal approach. First you have ti convince voters there is a problem that needs fixing, and second your approach is a good way to do it. They haven't even done a good job of convincing voters there is a problem to fix. And their plan is to dismantle it for a voucher or whatever you call it that will cover only a third of medical expenses.
It'll cover a third of medical expenses as they are now, but it's also designed to bring costs down. But I find it interesting that we're already operating under the assumption that any government voucher which only covers some medical costs is somehow at fault. As if it's taken for granted that it's the government's job to just pay for all medical costs. There is no fiscally sustainable plan that will cover all medical expenses. Ryan's plan is only "brutal" compared to some pie-in-the-sky wishlist, not compared to the reality of the situation.

I'd have to look at polling as to whether or not people have been convinced that Medicare has a problem, but I would think a fair number of people would realize that much. Anyone who doesn't realize that isn't paying any attention. Which could very well describe the majority of voters, to be sure. Democratic demagoguery gets half the blame; the other half is on people who allow themselves to believe it.

I agree about Giuliani.

[planet news]

Myth: competition creates better services

Competition is competition in profits, not services. I'd rather have a baseline minimum quality then a bunch of people trying to figure out clever ways of making money (which means cutting quality as much as possible in order to make more money, since quality costs money).

For health care, the consumer will have to pay whatever they want. Health care is too important to people.

[Yoda]

Myth: competition creates better services
lulz

Competition is competition in profits, not services.
And you get profits by...wait for it...offering a better service (or product)!

I'd rather have a baseline minimum quality then a bunch of people trying to figure out clever ways of making money (which means cutting quality as much as possible in order to make more money, since quality costs money).
Quality is also worth money. For examples of this, see: every industry that contains some items that are better than others, cost more, and still get sold and make their supplier profitable. Basically, every industry in the world.

For health care, the consumer will have to pay whatever they want. Health care is too important to people.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Health care costs money. People don't have the option to pay nothing. It does not exist. They may have such a strong desire to believe otherwise (encouraged by countless irresponsible politicians over the decades), but that only means it will take the public longer to confront it. We cannot ignore economic realities through the sheer strength of our denial.

[planet news]

And you get profits by...wait for it...offering a better service (or product)!No.

You get profits by charging as much as a customer is willing pay for something.

For example, if you are the only store in town who sells a certain item and somebody needs that item, you can pretty much charge as much as you want for it.

I can't believe you actually think capitalism has some kind of arrow that points in the direction of "good". It is a system based upon profit only. There are no other such axioms other than axioms of gaining profit.

The so-called conspiracy theory about oil companies stifling the electric car carries sound logic. Oil companies make more profit that way. If electric cars were abundant, they'd make no money.

Infamous passages from Sinclair's The Jungle describing attempts to raise profit but selling sh*t to people who had nowhere else to buy it from.

[Yoda]

No.

You get profits by charging as much as a customer is willing pay for something.
And the amount they will allow you to charge is generally a good reflection of the quality of the something.

For example, if you are the only store in town who sells a certain item and somebody needs that item, you can pretty much charge as much as you want for it.
Really? They can't get it on Amazon. They can't get it on eBay?

I'll answer for you: they have to buy it from that place if they want it IMMEDIATELY, right? Or if this hypothetical is taking place in a place without Internet connectivity. Okay, fine. What you fail to realize, then, is that having that thing in stock is part of the quality of the product. This is why convenience stores cost more: we pay more for convenience (and for the longer supply lines that make convenience stores possible). A thing has its obvious value (food nourishes, cars transport, etc.), but that is not their total value. Their total value also includes its availability. This is also why it costs more to have food placed in front of you on a table in a restaurant than it does in places where you pick it up yourself, but on a much larger scale. The way a thing is delivered to you is part of its value.

I can't believe you actually think capitalism has some kind of arrow that points in the direction of "good". It is a system based upon profit only. There are no other such axioms other than axioms of gaining profit.
And you only get profit by giving someone else something they think is good in some way. Otherwise, they don't give you their money.

The so-called conspiracy theory about oil companies stifling the electric car carries sound logic. Oil companies make more profit that way. If electric cars were abundant, they'd make no money.
A billion things wrong with this, but it's not worth getting into until we establish the basic tenets above.

[planet news]

And the amount they will allow you to charge is generally a good reflection of the quality of the something.This is what you have to prove, man. This is just a claim.

Really? They can't get it on Amazon. They can't get it on eBay?Seems clear from my original statement that it's a system isolated to what I described. Such isolated systems still exist, but it's not important if they do or not. The principle is still there.

The way a thing is delivered to you is part of its value.How is this even an answer? This is clearly already factored into the above scenario. Just because you have something that no one else does, does not make the value infinite, does it? The value should be close to whatever effort you had to go to in order to get it. In fact, the value is countably, determinably finite. I said that depending on what the item is and how bad the need, it could be sold for any price. Are you saying that just because the only store in town to have this item happened to have this item, this singularity warrants that store to charge whatever they want as part of its delivery/availability-value?

And you only get profit by giving someone else something they think is good in some way. Otherwise, they don't give you their money.How is this the only way to get profit? There are tons of ways to get profit. The best way to get profit is to be in a position where the other person HAS to buy something from you. When the other person is in NEED. Then you can charge as much as you want.

My claim, hell Marx's claim, is that all businesses tend towards this model. If I was a business, I would want to realize this model. It's the best model for me. I make the most money. I get what I want a.k.a. money.

A billion things wrong with this, but it's not worth getting into until we establish the basic tenets above.Address The Jungle then. How do you explain that what I said above happened exactly in American history not but a century ago.

[Yoda]

This is what you have to prove, man. This is just a claim.
Well, first you'd have to define what you mean by "value," because the word looks pretty empty once you try to make it objective rather than personal and relative. But even if you somehow came up with a rigorous, objective definition and sensible criteria, you'd still be faced with the fact that the variables which go into determining such a thing are unfathomable, particularly for people outside of the transaction.

So, if your stance is that you will deny the value of something without proof, you'll be forced to conclude that nothing has any value. And since this is obviously nonsense, so is the requirement of proof.

Seems clear from my original statement that it's a system isolated to what I described. Such isolated systems still exist, but it's not important if they do or not. The principle is still there.
Well, good thing I assumed this and answered accordingly. :)

Just because you have something that no one else does, does not make the value infinite, does it?
No, of course not. I said that availability was part of the value, not all of it.

The value should be close to whatever effort you had to go to in order to get it.
I see no reason this should be true. Also, good luck quantifying "effort," particularly in regards to the value of ideas.

In fact, the value is countably, determinably finite. I said that depending on what the item is and how bad the need, it could be sold for any price. Are you saying that just because the only store in town to have this item happened to have this item, this singularity warrants that store to charge whatever they want as part of its delivery/availability-value?
This entire phrase hinges on the word "warrants," just like the previous quote hinges on the word "should." In both cases you've left the source of the standard undefined.

That said, your question seems to have embedded in it the assumption that the price is inflicted on the buyer, when in reality it is an offer that they can accept or reject.

How is this the only way to get profit? There are tons of ways to get profit. The best way to get profit is to be in a position where the other person HAS to buy something from you. When the other person is in NEED. Then you can charge as much as you want.
You say this is the "best" way to get profit, but what you really mean is that if you had the power to insert yourself into ANY situation without cost or complication, this would be the surest way to obtain it. But we don't get to wave our magic wands like that. Real-life situations where people HAVE to buy from you, or nearly have to, are generally rare, temporary, and have very limited upside.

For example, you can try selling water to thirsty tribesmen in the African desert, and they might very much need it, but they won't have much to pay you with. If they did have much to pay you with, you wouldn't be the only one willing to transport water to them. And once other people started transporting water to them, you wouldn't be able to charge them an exorbitant amount.

Basically, capitalism thought of all this already. Put your questions into real-world scenario and follow each of their implications. They will probably always turn out to be incomplete.

My claim, hell Marx's claim, is that all businesses tend towards this model. If I was a business, I would want to realize this model. It's the best model for me. I make the most money. I get what I want a.k.a. money.
I've answered more specifically above, and that's how I prefer to answer these abstractions: by putting them into reality and seeing where they break down. However, I also have an abstract response: if this were the best model for making money, and you say that capitalism is only about making money...why doesn't it happen all the time? Why do capitalistic societies have MORE goods and options, rather than fewer, if what you're saying is true?

Address The Jungle then. How do you explain that what I said above happened exactly in American history not but a century ago.
I don't even know what it is you're referring to. You'll have to be much, much more specific.

[planet news]

Well, first you'd have to define what you mean by "value," because the word looks pretty empty once you try to make it objective rather than personal and relative. But even if you somehow came up with a rigorous, objective definition and sensible criteria, you'd still be faced with the fact that the variables which go into determining such a thing are unfathomable, particularly for people outside of the transaction.Value is typically meant by Marx how much it costs on paper as a shorthand for exchange-value. Use-value is what it can be used for, which depends on the person. You could call this material value or what I called in that other thread immanent significance. All other types of value derive from these ideas.

So, if your stance is that you will deny the value of something without proof, you'll be forced to conclude that nothing has any value. And since this is obviously nonsense, so is the requirement of proof.lolwut. You don't have to discuss this if you don't want to, man. That's all I meant by proof.

No, of course not. I said that availability was part of the value, not all of it.I see no reason this should be true.So wait. You see no reason why the price of an item should have anything to do with what it costs to get it to the person (delivery, availability, manufacturing)? What? So it can be, I dunno... whatever? So I suppose I was right in saying that the value of something is infinite? And yet you deny this. <- a.k.a. contradiction

This entire phrase hinges on the word "warrants," just like the previous quote hinges on the word "should." In both cases you've left the source of the standard undefined.What standard? You're the one who's setting the standard. Not me. Capitalism is all about amassing profit. I said warrant, because you seem to think that the amassing of profit will somehow create an emergence of "good". That's the standard you're setting. -> Your thesis: prices in capitalism make sense a.k.a. the standard.

That said, your question seems to have embedded in it the assumption that the price is inflicted on the buyer, when in reality it is an offer that they can accept or reject.The buyer could also be on Mars and never make the transaction because he's an alien. The system here obviously assumes someone is buying something. It is also assuming that someone needs that something as opposed to just wants it. Since this started off being about health care, you can see why I chose a necessity over a luxury.


Basically, capitalism thought of all this already. Put your questions into real-world scenario and follow each of their implications. They will probably always turn out to be incomplete.

. . .

by putting them into reality and seeing where they break down.I don't have to. Reality already did it. You keep avoiding it but how do you explain the era of robber barons, political machines, Pinkertons, and monopolies? This era is crucial to EVERYTHING I have been saying about Marx, capitalism, and now this topic. History played out EXACTLY as I said would happen. They lowered the quality of their goods instead of increased them, because lower quality goods are cheaper, thus more profit. Businesses desire these sorts of movements. Their profit increases. Their "customers" suffer. Nothing at all to do with any standard of "good", which is your claim about capitalism, not mine.

Capitalism has no arrow towards anything. That's the main thing that justifies Paul Ryan's idea that competition will create "better services". Ask Upton Sinclair about the great services offered up in his time.

if this were the best model for making money, and you say that capitalism is only about making money...why doesn't it happen all the time? Why do capitalistic societies have MORE goods and options, rather than fewer, if what you're saying is true?GOVERNMENT REGULATION BRO

^ this is equal to my entire, intrusive presence in this thread throughout this long day

Did you not learn in history class just how bad working conditions were for nearly a hundred years in America and Europe during the industrial revolutionS and beyond before the government stepped in? Rufnek says labor unions. lol bro, they were either shot down by hired police or replaced by strike breakers. I mean, this is capitalism at its purist without all the regulation and imposed standards.

Again, capitalism HAS NO STANDARDS other than profit. It is a body without organs and therefore fundamentally schizophrenic. The government on the other hand is a regulative agency that draws and enforces firm rules which become the standards (however right or wrong they might be). But to say that pure capitalism will always create something tending towards "good" or sensible or "good" for people as a whole is based on nothing but wishful thinking and the false exchange value mechanics of Adam Smith and the otherwise Austrian school. This is what Marx's Capital is all about. How it is purely the flow of money that produces profit, nothing having anything to do with the consumer's "good" or the worker's "good".

And since it is health care let's just define "good" from now on as healthy and not-dead.

I don't even know what it is you're referring to. You'll have to be much, much more specific.Sinclair's The Jungle, man.

[planet news]

I don't know why I feel this way after every long post, but seriously, man, if you don't want to reply to it just don't. Keep talking substance with Will. That's definitely better than this stuff. :bored:

Honestly, I tried to get something across, but I don't think I did, and I'm too tired to try again.

Recommend me the best Friedman!

Goodnight, thread. I am done raping you.

[will.15]

Here is the problem with private health insurance companies. They don't really make money by creating efficiencies (which they can't do any better than the government, they don't own the hospitals), they do it by finding a way to deny benefits. And do you support the system in some states where they have to ask the government permission to raise prices? I didn't think so.

http://www.fiercehealthpayer.com/story/blue-shield-delay-rate-hike-after-public-pressure/2011-02-03

[will.15]

I watched that Ryan video. I assumed he was going to be truthful because there is a serious problem. He was lying. Medicare does not reimburse doctors no questions asked. They have a fee structure and they don't reimburse the full amount of the bill if it exceeds their structure. He present a false, misleading, and simplistic way Medicare operates. In a debate he would get skewered. Why doesn't he present an honest presentation of Medicare? Some of what he is saying is true about the crisis it is facing, but he is also lying.

Doctors don't have to accept Medicare patients. Those that do agree to accept Medicare's reimbursement.

They can't refuse treatment to Meicare patients they have already accepted.

Excerpt from a Yahoo Question:

Medicare has been reimbursing doctors between 60 and 80 percent of what they get billed for. The biling code determines the reimbursement. Maybe some doctors are more honest than others and actually bill correctly but their reimbursement from Medicare may be too low. The advantage of Medicare billing is that they pay within 30 days unless the claim looks fraudulent, about 10% of them are.


This directly from Ryan's video:

Here’s how it works: A Medicare patient goes to the doctor and receives health care services. The doctor sends the bill for these services to Medicare, and Medicare reimburses the doctor -- with your tax dollars and borrowed money -- no questions asked.

[Yoda]

I watched that Ryan video. I assumed he was going to be truthful because there is a serious problem. He was lying. Medicare does not reimburse doctors no questions asked. They have a fee structure and they don't reimburse the full amount of the bill if it exceeds their structure.
And that amount is reimbursed no questions asked, yes? He didn't say they reimburse anything for any amount no questions asked. There's nothing in the statement that implies they get full reimbursement, just that they're reimbursed, and that that reimbursement is simply handed over. The entire critique of Medicare is based around the idea that the quality of service is not audited.

Also, the fact that Medicare doesn't reimburse everything is an argument against Medicare, not for it, because it eventually forces some physicians to stop accepting as many Medicare patients.

He present a false, misleading, and simplistic way Medicare operates. In a debate he would get skewered. Why doesn't he present an honest presentation of Medicare? Some of what he is saying is true about the crisis it is facing, but he is also lying.
It is definitely on the simplistic side, but then again, it's supposed to be: it's a summary of the situation, not an exhaustive analysis. I look forward to you similarly critiquing Democrats for basically saying "it ends Medicare!" Is that "simplistic"? Why haven't you said so? If you don't want people to think you're a Democratic shill, it would help if you didn't go out of your way to try to break down Republican statements while ignoring glaring errors of the exact same kind from Democrats.

However, let's assume you're right, and that it is misleading: that changes the fundamental critique of Medicare's insolvency...how? You don't dispute that it's unsustainable, right? You seem to be disagreeing with him about part of the reason why this is so...if even that. I can't tell if you're indicating an actual ideological disagreement or if you're just going after him because you think he's playing loose with the facts. I think both are wrong, but suffice to say, I'm a bit more interested in the wisdom of the ideas than whether or not you think Ryan is a standup guy. Hell, you could rip his video to shreds and make out that he's positively Clintonian with his dissembling, but you'd be arguing with Paul Ryan, and not much with the premise being advanced by the party as a whole.

[will.15]

It is not reimbursed no questions asked. They don't reimburse if they suspect fraud. Their criteria for reimbursement is no different than health insurance plans. Some procedures are not covered.

I don't mean they have the exact same criteria as private plans, but they don't okay automatically everything on the bill. Experimental drugs for example are not covered.

[Yoda]

Okay, so they reimburse if they suspect fraud, but they don't question the quality of the care or audited the effectiveness or wisdom of the procedure. This sounds, at worst, like a simplistic summary of the system. The point Ryan emphasizes repeatedly is the gulf between payment and outcome, which is necessary to achieve any of the benefits of marketplace competition. The "no questions asked" would refer, then, to the fact that there is no question of quality or decision making.

If you dislike that phrasing, okay, fair enough. It's definitely phrased in way that allows us to fill in those gaps in a way that isn't complimentary to Medicare, but I think it's a stretch to call it a "lie." Though, again I ask: what would you response to the plan be if it were rephrased slightly? Is your issue with the phrase "no questions asked," or with the actual critique?

[will.15]

And that amount is reimbursed no questions asked, yes? He didn't say they reimburse anything for any amount no questions asked. There's nothing in the statement that implies they get full reimbursement, just that they're reimbursed, and that that reimbursement is simply handed over. The entire critique of Medicare is based around the idea that the quality of service is not audited.

Also, the fact that Medicare doesn't reimburse everything is an argument against Medicare, not for it, because it eventually forces some physicians to stop accepting as many Medicare patients.

Private health insurance plans operate the same way and many doctors who have stopped accepting Medicare patients also don't accept them either. They want the patient to pay their bill and then they, the patient, apply for reimbursement from their patients' private or public health plan.


It is definitely on the simplistic side, but then again, it's supposed to be: it's a summary of the situation, not an exhaustive analysis. I look forward to you similarly critiquing Democrats for basically saying "it ends Medicare!" Is that "simplistic"? Why haven't you said so? If you don't want people to think you're a Democratic shill, it would help if you didn't go out of your way to try to break down Republican statements while ignoring glaring errors of the exact same kind from Democrats.

However, let's assume you're right, and that it is misleading: that changes the fundamental critique of Medicare's insolvency...how? You don't dispute that it's unsustainable, right? You seem to be disagreeing with him about part of the reason why this is so...if even that. I can't tell if you're indicating an actual ideological disagreement or if you're just going after him because you think he's playing loose with the facts. I think both are wrong, but suffice to say, I'm a bit more interested in the wisdom of the ideas than whether or not you think Ryan is a standup guy. Hell, you could rip his video to shreds and make out that he's positively Clintonian with his dissembling, but you'd be arguing with Paul Ryan, and not much with the premise being advanced by the party as a whole.


Forgot to use bold print below:

Your contradicting yourself a little here. I said previously and stand by it the Ryan Plan does end Medicare. And you said Democrats don't even say that, just that it ends Medicare as we know it. And, of course, they (different Democrats) have said both. What makes someone a shill for a particular party is when they always parrot the party position. You know I don't do that. Look at some of these political forums (I am not nor ever been a member of any of them, I only visit when I am googling to research something) and you will see the difference. But I am a registered Democrat and more critical of Republicans than Democrats.

Is the current model sustainable? No. But Ryan is presenting a false analysis of the problem to justify his radical solution. There are other ways to fix Medicare. Apparently Pawlenty is going to propose something different. What exactly, I dunno, but something about different options or plans to choose from and whatever that means isn't the Ryan Plan.

[will.15]

Okay, so they reimburse if they suspect fraud, but they don't question the quality of the care or audited the effectiveness or wisdom of the procedure. This sounds, at worst, like a simplistic summary of the system. The point Ryan emphasizes repeatedly is the gulf between payment and outcome, which is necessary to achieve any of the benefits of marketplace competition. The "no questions asked" would refer, then, to the fact that there is no question of quality or decision making.

If you dislike that phrasing, okay, fair enough. It's definitely phrased in way that allows us to fill in those gaps in a way that isn't complimentary to Medicare, but I think it's a stretch to call it a "lie." Though, again I ask: what would you response to the plan be if it were rephrased slightly? Is your issue with the phrase "no questions asked," or with the actual critique?
I don't know what he means when he says they don't question the quality of the care. You mean they have doctors see if the patient is getting the right treatment? Of course not. The patient is still responsible for his medical care. If he is not happy with his doctor he can get another one. They don't approve as I said before all procedures. Do you really want government to be super critical of decisions doctors make? Does that make any sense to you? That would really be government intrusion and over regulation, wouldn't it? Ryan is criticizing Medicare (the government) for not doing something he would have a fit about if they were doing it. So his presentation is not focused on the problems directly involving the solvency of Medicare. He is attacking, and not coherently, aspects of Meidicare that are unrelated to solvency.

Can you give me examples of what private insurance does that is significantly different than Medicare that is beneficial to seniors because Ryan isn't talking about patients paying doctors directly, they go out and get their own insurance under his plan. And private plans are often more burdensome and bureaucratic for both patients and doctors because they want to pay out as little as possible. They restrict the doctors available to patients. Private plans are not interested in quality of care. They are interested in limiting what a doctor can do to keep their costs down, but it may not be the best approach for the patient.

By the way, seniors receive statements that show what their doctor billed Medicare for and what Medicare paid, so they are not ignorant as Ryan suggests to what their medical care is costing. Does that factor in government's total cost, no, but that is true for anything government subsizes or pays for, like education and fire and safety.

[will.15]

And what does questioning the quality of the care have to do with the problems of Medicare? Nothing. Part of the reason it is in trouble is the quality of care has improved, patients are living longer and that puts more drain on the system.

Ryan's presentation is a complete suck. He isn't really arguing about its financial sustainability even though he throws that out. It is really an ideological argument, and surprisingly poorly presented, why Mediciare by government isn't something government should be doing. He is not trying to fix Medicare. He is using the crisis as a convenent excuse to dismantle something he and many Republicans dislike.

[DexterRiley]

Herman Cain is a non-factor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TawnKN3_kiM

btw toute suite means "right away"

[will.15]

Bring back Alan Keyes.

http://www.aolnews.com/story/obama-finds-some-solid-ground-tests/1827922/

[Yoda]

Private health insurance plans operate the same way and many doctors who have stopped accepting Medicare patients also don't accept them either. They want the patient to pay their bill and then they, the patient, apply for reimbursement from their patients' private or public health plan.
Private health insurance has cost problems, too, though. The problem is not compartmentalized.

Your contradicting yourself a little here. I said previously and stand by it the Ryan Plan does end Medicare. And you said Democrats don't even say that, just that it ends Medicare as we know it. And, of course, they (different Democrats) have said both.
A fine point, but by way of explanation, when I said that I hadn't heard them say anything quite that blatant. Since then, I have.

What makes someone a shill for a particular party is when they always parrot the party position. You know I don't do that. Look at some of these political forums (I am not nor ever been a member of any of them, I only visit when I am googling to research something) and you will see the difference. But I am a registered Democrat and more critical of Republicans than Democrats.
I don't actually think you're a shill, for the record. I'm just explaining why people would think of you as fairly partisan.

Is the current model sustainable? No. But Ryan is presenting a false analysis of the problem to justify his radical solution. There are other ways to fix Medicare. Apparently Pawlenty is going to propose something different. What exactly, I dunno, but something about different options or plans to choose from and whatever that means isn't the Ryan Plan.
What other ways do you think we can fix Medicare? Also, it's worth noting, again, that the debate is not one fix versus another. It's "here's an idea to fix" versus "you want to destroy it!"

[Yoda]

I don't know what he means when he says they don't question the quality of the care. You mean they have doctors see if the patient is getting the right treatment? Of course not. The patient is still responsible for his medical care. If he is not happy with his doctor he can get another one. They don't approve as I said before all procedures. Do you really want government to be super critical of decisions doctors make? Does that make any sense to you? That would really be government intrusion and over regulation, wouldn't it? Ryan is criticizing Medicare (the government) for not doing something he would have a fit about if they were doing it. So his presentation is not focused on the problems directly involving the solvency of Medicare. He is attacking, and not coherently, aspects of Meidicare that are unrelated to solvency.
No no no, not at all. He's not saying Medicare should be more involved in doctor-patient decisions, he's simply saying that because they don't audit it, there is a massive disconnect between price and quality, because there's a massive disconnect between the people receiving the care and the mechanisms by which it is paid for.

Surely even if we have different political philosophies, we can agree on a few fundamental market truths. In this case, Ryan's point only relies on the fairly empirical claim that you lose the benefits of competition and the driving-down of prices that competition can provide if there is too much distance (or too many layers of abstraction) between the people paying and the people receiving the product.


Can you give me examples of what private insurance does that is significantly different than Medicare that is beneficial to seniors because Ryan isn't talking about patients paying doctors directly, they go out and get their own insurance under his plan. And private plans are often more burdensome and bureaucratic for both patients and doctors because they want to pay out as little as possible. They restrict the doctors available to patients. Private plans are not interested in quality of care. They are interested in limiting what a doctor can do to keep their costs down, but it may not be the best approach for the patient.
This isn't different than any other type of insurance, but notice that private car insurance doesn't balloon out of control. Life insurance doesn't balloon out of control.

Also, it's important to remember that any comparison between the public and the private health care markets isn't really a comparison between public and private philosophies, because the giant elephants of Medicare and Medicaid are already in the room. We don't actually have a normal, relatively free private health market with which to make comparisons; our private health market is warped by the financial gravity of the public interferences into it at every turn. Heck, we can't even purchase health insurance across state lines! Imagine what would happen to the costs of all sorts of things if you had to buy them from the state you're already in.

By the way, seniors receive statements that show what their doctor billed Medicare for and what Medicare paid, so they are not ignorant as Ryan suggests to what their medical care is costing. Does that factor in government's total cost, no, but that is true for anything government subsizes or pays for, like education and fire and safety.
Sure. But the education system has tons of problems, too. And while fire and safety seem to get the job done, there's lots of reasons to believe it's with way, way more money than is necessary. I actually live at the center of the universe for this particular issue: Pittsburgh has something like one-third of the population it had in the 1970s but lagged way, way behind in actually reducing the number of fire stations to coincide with this drop. In the last few year's we've finally started to reduce the amount we spend on safety services, but for awhile it was much, much higher than comparable areas.

And that, sorry to say, is what passes for success with a public program: if it gets the job done most of the time, that's a "success," even if it spends twice as much as it should to do so. Just like it's a "success" that GM repaid its government loan, even though no one even feels the need to address the idea that it could have been better spent elsewhere. We have so little inherent faith in these programs that going overbudget is barely even a problem, and the idea of opportunity cost is completely non-existent! We're just happy if they actually do what they say they're going to do.

[Yoda]

And what does questioning the quality of the care have to do with the problems of Medicare? Nothing. Part of the reason it is in trouble is the quality of care has improved, patients are living longer and that puts more drain on the system.
That, too. But see the previous post about the effects on cost. Putting people in a position to benefit from being discriminatory about health care costs will lower them.

Ryan's presentation is a complete suck. He isn't really arguing about its financial sustainability even though he throws that out. It is really an ideological argument, and surprisingly poorly presented, why Mediciare by government isn't something government should be doing. He is not trying to fix Medicare. He is using the crisis as a convenent excuse to dismantle something he and many Republicans dislike.
...which, for the third time...they dislike because it's a budget killer.

Really, think about how perverse this all is. Medicare gives away free money. Of course it's freakin' popular! Programs that give away money are always popular. You keep talking about how Republicans want to get rid of this program as if you're leveling some devastating charge, when the absurd position is defending it simply because it's popular. And that's kind of where the debate is: politicians know they can just talk about how popular it is to give stuff away. They don't have to debate the program on its merits. That's boring. Whee! Free stuff! Isn't that way more exciting than listen to that bug-eyed guy with the hair gel talk about budget problems?

Anyway, I think Ryan utterly crushes the idea that Medicare is unsustainable, and I think he makes a solid case as to why costs are so much higher in this industry than others. Agree with the conclusions or not, it seems plenty coherent.

[will.15]

Medicare isn't free, of course, it is paid by taxes and was not a drain on the budget until recently. Republicans didn't like Medicare before it cost too much.

Democrats do have something on the table to control Medicare cost, the so-called and misleadingly called by Republicans' "Death Boards." Would it be enough? I kind of doubt it, but right now their political strategy is the same as Republicans last year, the best attack is offense, not defense. I saw yesterday some article on the web that predicted the way things are going neither party is going to want to propose any meaningful reform of Medicare because voters will skewer them. Any plan by either Democrats or Republicans to reform Medicare is going to be attacked, but I am mystified why they chose such a stark plan. Right now seniors have the option of staying in the current program or enrolling in a private plan and paying a smaller premium, the rest picked up by Medicare. Requiring all seniors in some type of program would probably reduce Medicare's costs considerably, but seniors will holler because those private plans aren't as generous as Medicare's direct program. But it would still be less onerous than the Ryan Plan and wouldn't seem as scary and drive so many potential Republican voters away.

Bothe parties keep making the same political mistake. They think when voters vote for them they like them and the policies they stand for. Independents and swing voters who decide things don't. They are almost always voting against the other party, not for the one they vote for. They voted for Obama because they were tired of Republican rule, not because they were paying close attention to his position on national health insurance. They voted for Republicans next time becuse of the economy and for some Obamacare. They liked the talk of reducing debt, didn't like it when it was to be done by gutting Medicare, which they didn't find out about until after the election. Unless they figure out some kind of strategy by next year that neutralizes it, they have set themselves up for a fall, and it could be a catastrophe if unemployment drops down to seven percent.

[Yoda]

Medicare isn't free, of course, it is paid by taxes and was not a drain on the budget until recently. Republicans didn't like Medicare before it cost too much.
Well, yeah, because even then it was just another "free stuff" program, and because it was obvious even then that it would only grow. Entitlement programs always get out of control. That's one of the reasons Republicans reacted so severely to ObamaCare: not just because of what it's going to do now, but because of what they fear it will become.

Democrats do have something on the table to control Medicare cost, the so-called and misleadingly called by Republicans' "Death Boards." Would it be enough? I kind of doubt it, but right now their political strategy is the same as Republicans last year, the best attack is offense, not defense. I saw yesterday some article on the web that predicted the way things are going neither party is going to want to propose any meaningful reform of Medicare because voters will skewer them.
I agree completely. But someone's going to have to do it, and at some point the public will have had enough dire warnings about debt that they will have mentally prepared themselves for the move away from ever-growing entitlements. Maybe it isn't this election cycle, is all.

One thing to consider, however, is that this is probably going to change with demographics. Poll after poll shows that people my age (older, I think, in general) do not expect these programs to be viable long enough to support them when they retire. So while there's a lot of opposition to these right now, I think the next couple generations will have a more realistic view of what's financially feasible. Which is why Ryan's plan proposed basically a decade of grandfathering in, which amazingly (apparently) isn't enough.

Any plan by either Democrats or Republicans to reform Medicare is going to be attacked, but I am mystified why they chose such a stark plan. Right now seniors have the option of staying in the current program or enrolling in a private plan and paying a smaller premium, the rest picked up by Medicare. Requiring all seniors in some type of program would probably reduce Medicare's costs considerably, but seniors will holler because those private plans aren't as generous as Medicare's direct program. But it would still be less onerous than the Ryan Plan and wouldn't seem as scary and drive so many potential Republican voters away.
Well, let's consider that this might be a rare situation in which politicians are doing something because they think it has to be done. Hey, it could happen. ;)

It is a very bold suggestion, yes. And very risky. I think this is primarily because they've been talking tough about deficits and they have to, if anything, overshoot what most people have come to expect from parties that do that. They need to reclaim trust on financial conservatism. This is one thing I've really liked about Republicans this last cycle -- Boehner literally said that Republicans had lost the public's trust on the issue and had to work extra hard to regain it. And it kinda seems like they are, at least more than most people had expected.

So, there's a long-term game being played here, as well, where even if this plan fails badly, they've reclaimed the financial prudence flanking position. And as Medicare gets worse, there'll be no end to the opportunity for I-told-you-sos.

I also think they understand that Tea Partiers are not afraid to throw out Republicans who they don't feel are acting like Republicans. And I think they recognize that the political benefits of taking a major issue head-on and fixing it have a lot of reward to go with all that risk.

Doesn't mean it'll work, but I think these are some reasons why they might have felt the chance was justified. One other reason, as well, detailed below...


Unless they figure out some kind of strategy by next year that neutralizes it, they have set themselves up for a fall, and it could be a catastrophe if unemployment drops down to seven percent.
...I think the fact that this happened such a long, long way from the election helps matters quite a bit. There are going to be at least 7 or 8 MAJOR, media-dominating issues between now and the election. More, if the Presidential race is half as eventful as the last one was. But sure, it's a hit. But it's probably not for nothing that they took it in the 2nd round instead of the 9th.

[will.15]

"I also think they understand that Tea Partiers are not afraid to throw out Republicans who they don't feel are acting like Republicans. And I think they recognize that the political benefits of taking a major issue head-on and fixing it have a lot of reward to go with all that risk"




I think a lot of tea partiers aren't going to be in the House next year.


"...I think the fact that this happened such a long, long way from the election helps matters quite a bit. There are going to be at least 7 or 8 MAJOR, media-dominating issues between now and the election. More, if the Presidential race is half as eventful as the last one was"



Only two really matter to independents and swings, the economy and thanks to repubs, medicare.

[Yoda]

I'm talking about the people who voted them in. I don't really care too much how many are in the House, so much as I care about their effect on the House's overall behavior. If one self-proclaimed Tea Party Congressperson loses their seat but two other members of the House have been imbued with the need to pay a bit more attention to spending, that might be a wash.

That's the most encouraging thing about the Tea Party movement, to my mind: the heavy emphasis on results over simply scoring a numbers-based win for a given party.

[rufnek]

It is not reimbursed no questions asked. They don't reimburse if they suspect fraud.

So what questions do Medicare officials ask if they don't suspect fraud? Or are you saying they ask questions only at the extreme suspicion of fraud?

[Yoda]

By the way, one of the main arguments for a Rick Perry candidacy is that Texas is an island of economic strength these days in a sea of recession. It's been growing wildly for a very long time, and its economic policies have done a stunning job of insulating it from the rest of the nation's problems. It would be very easy for him to campaign on "let's start doing everywhere what we've been doing in Texas."

And yes, of course, you can pick him apart on paper and come up with weaknesses. All prospective candidates have them. But that's a potentially powerful angle for his campaign to take. And he's swaggerrific (I made that up!) enough to be cathartic to the elements of the party that artificially prop up a Bachmann or a Trump not because they're viable, but because they like someone who they feel is a "fighter."

[will.15]

By the way, one of the main arguments for a Rick Perry candidacy is that Texas is an island of economic strength these days in a sea of recession. It's been growing wildly for a very long time, and its economic policies have done a stunning job of insulating it from the rest of the nation's problems. It would be very easy for him to campaign on "let's start doing everywhere what we've been doing in Texas."

And yes, of course, you can pick him apart on paper and come up with weaknesses. All prospective candidates have them. But that's a potentially powerful angle for his campaign to take. And he's swaggerrific (I made that up!) enough to be cathartic to the elements of the party that artificially prop up a Bachmann or a Trump not because they're viable, but because they like someone who they feel is a "fighter."
Yeah, Texas is doing great.

AUSTIN, Texas — Some in Texas had talked tough about solving the state's budget problem by austerity alone, but lawmakers finally faced a hard fact: Texas is in serious financial trouble.
The severity of the state's $27 billion budget crisis was evident in the furrowed brows, sad eyes and pained expressions of legislators. They fidgeted in their seats as hundreds of teachers, parents and disabled people explained in testimony in recent weeks how proposed budget cuts would ruin their lives.
Legislatures elsewhere are facing budget problems, but most are blending cuts with asset sales, increased fees and tax modifications to soften the impact. Texas prides itself on lean government so Republicans here promised to solve the crisis here by budget cuts alone.
Then rhetoric hit reality this week. The result was the latest and most vivid example of a state taking steps it had fiercely resisted.
The Republican committee chairman's southern accent turned plaintive as he urged legislators who had campaigned on preserving the state's $9.2 billion Rainy Day Fund to now break that promise to ease the budget pressure.
"If you want to close this shortfall through cuts alone, you have to either (completely) cut payments to Medicaid providers, cut payments to school districts or lay-off a substantial number of state employees," said state Rep. Jim Pitts, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. "You would have to do these things immediately."
Magnifying the difficulty of the move here was that Pitts and other conservatives knew they had to get the state's – and perhaps the nation's – most outspoken advocate of budget cutting -- Gov. Rick Perry -- to climb down from the no-spending pledge with them. It took a week of convincing, but Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and Speaker Joe Strauss – all Republicans – issued a statement on Tuesday approving a $3.2 billion withdrawal from the reserve fund to plug the budget hole, in addition to making $1 billion in cuts.
That deal will solve the budget problem – until Aug. 31. Lawmakers still need to cut another $23 billion from the next two-year budget.
"In other words, the state only has about three-fourths of the money it needs to continue doing what it is doing now," explained F. Scott McCown, director of the Center for Public Policy Priorities, an advocacy group for the poor. "And every single thing the state does now is something that the governor previously agreed it ought to be doing."
Story continues below




#adwrap_mid_article_f60d3b2ac912da6edf655bce088c4ae9 {float:left;width:300px;margin:10px 10px 10px 0} #adwrap_mid_article_f60d3b2ac912da6edf655bce088c4ae9 .mid_article_ad_label {display:none} #adwrap_mid_article_f60d3b2ac912da6edf655bce088c4ae9 .mid_article_deco {border:none;margin:0;padding:0}Advertisement


#adwrap_mid_article_b944acf41abf0539a1146406fc583906 {float:left;width:300px;margin:10px 10px 10px 0} #adwrap_mid_article_b944acf41abf0539a1146406fc583906 .mid_article_ad_label {display:none} #adwrap_mid_article_b944acf41abf0539a1146406fc583906 .mid_article_deco {border:none;margin:0;padding:0}Advertisement


Several months into the current legislative session, the government fiscal crisis across the nation is proving as difficult for states with a tradition of austerity as for those more accustomed to spending. Other conservative states are struggling with how to pay for keeping tough-on-crime corrections policies in place.


Perry, the state's longest serving governor, has signed every budget over the last 10 years and praised lawmakers for spending only what's necessary. Last week lawmakers pressed Perry's budget experts to help cut $4 billion from the current budget, but neither side could reach the goal.
So Perry relented, but his support for tapping the Rainy Day Fund now came with an ultimatum about the budget that begins Sept. 1.
"I remain steadfastly committed to protecting the remaining balance of the Rainy Day Fund, and will not sign a 2012-2013 state budget that uses the Rainy Day Fund," Perry warned. So the dilemma may return.
The Texas Public Policy Foundation, one of the most influential conservative groups in Texas, opposed this week's concession and will fight any future solutions involving spending.
"We are disappointed to learn that Texas will likely resort to using its Rainy Day Fund this early in the legislative session," said Talmadge Heflin, director of the group's Center for Fiscal Policy. "Those who seek to empty the fund because it is raining today have not checked the long-range weather forecast."
That Republican leaders' posture in the financial crisis came in stark contrast to their campaign rhetoric.
"Texas is better off than practically any state in the country," Perry said in September, well after the coming problem was identified. When asked about the budget deficit in December, Perry dismissed the question as speculative.
Even though Texas' budget shortfall is among the worst in the nation, Perry says Texas remains an example for other states.
Last week, he touted a Federal Reserve Bank statement forecasting that Texas could add more than 264,000 jobs in 2011. Proposed budget cuts, though, could lay-off 100,000 school employees, 60,000 nursing home workers and eliminate 9,600 state jobs this year.
Democrats question why Perry and Republican lawmakers would tap the Rainy Day Fund to pay bills to creditors due in August, but not to save jobs.
Using the fund, which is made up of revenue from oil and gas taxes, could "mitigate the cuts to our children's education, the zeroing out of pre-kindergarten, the zeroing out of college scholarships for all freshman starting in 2012 and 2013," Democratic state Rep. Mike Villarreal said.
But there is little for Democrats to do. Republicans hold every statewide office in Texas, two-thirds of the state House seats and 19 out of the 31 seats in the Senate. The main political division is between veteran conservatives and ultra-conservative Tea Party Caucus members.
State Rep. Debbie Riddle, a caucus member, said her constituents expect her to slash state spending. In the end, though, she voted to spend the Rainy Day Fund.
"I don't think there is one of us ... who has not had our heart hurt and even broken in two with a lot of the testimony we have heard," she said. To tap the Rainy Day Fund "is a long step for me, and I imagine it is for others here, too."
Pitts, the appropriations committee chair, acknowledged that making $23 billion in cuts for the next budget would be devastating. Pitts said. He added that he has a plan that he doesn't want to make public yet. But if it involves the Rainy Day Fund, the question will be whether he can rally enough conservative support for it when the time comes.

[Yoda]

Pretty much every state has budget trouble, but Texas has way more options than most, from the looks of things. I'll bet New Jersey dreams about $9 billion "Rainy Day" funds. But most importantly: people are coming there in droves. They've seen massive population gains over the last decade. Why? Because they're friendly to business and have low taxes (including no personal income tax), of course.

[will.15]

The Texas defecit is worse than California's.

So I guess Terry will be campaiging on growth is more important than deficits.

State governments have to balance their budgets so Tezas will either have to slash state spending or raise taxes, either of which will slow their economy down drastically.

Sounds like they are headed for late term recession when the rest of the country is pulling out of it.

[Yoda]

By what measure? Texas' state and local dept combined is just a little over half of California's for FY 2011 (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/gdp_by_state).

Also, Texas claims it's submitting a balanced budget this year, so I think you might be thinking of cumulative debt, rather than the deficit.

But more important is their spending relative to GDP, which is very low (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/state_summary.php?year=2011&chart=F0&units=p&rank=c). Way lower than California's. And that's the difference: growth. States with budget problems and a shrinking tax base have little recourse. States that are growing like wildfire have far more options.

[will.15]

Their growth according to that chart is practically the same as CA. They still have to either cut government spending (jobs) or raise taxes. Reduced services will eventually cause them problems. They provide a lot less to begin with.


Oops!

http://www.aolnews.com/story/nj-gov-takes-state-helicopter-to-sons/1830671/

[Yoda]

You'll be to be more specific than "growth" here. What are we talking about? GDP? Quarterly? Yearly? Annual percent change?

Either way, I was referring to population growth, which is an important harbinger of things down the road, and an awfully good measure of success. There is no more enthusiastic vote than to vote with one's feet.

[rufnek]

Yeah, Texas is doing great.

AUSTIN, Texas — Some in Texas had talked tough about solving the state's budget problem by austerity alone, but lawmakers finally faced a hard fact: Texas is in serious financial trouble.
The severity of the state's $27 billion budget crisis was evident in the furrowed brows, sad eyes and pained expressions of legislators. They fidgeted in their seats as hundreds of teachers, parents and disabled people explained in testimony in recent weeks how proposed budget cuts would ruin their lives.
Legislatures elsewhere are facing budget problems, but most are blending cuts with asset sales, increased fees and tax modifications to soften the impact. Texas prides itself on lean government so Republicans here promised to solve the crisis here by budget cuts alone.
Then rhetoric hit reality this week. The result was the latest and most vivid example of a state taking steps it had fiercely resisted.
The Republican committee chairman's southern accent turned plaintive as he urged legislators who had campaigned on preserving the state's $9.2 billion Rainy Day Fund to now break that promise to ease the budget pressure.
"If you want to close this shortfall through cuts alone, you have to either (completely) cut payments to Medicaid providers, cut payments to school districts or lay-off a substantial number of state employees," said state Rep. Jim Pitts, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. "You would have to do these things immediately."
Magnifying the difficulty of the move here was that Pitts and other conservatives knew they had to get the state's – and perhaps the nation's – most outspoken advocate of budget cutting -- Gov. Rick Perry -- to climb down from the no-spending pledge with them. It took a week of convincing, but Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and Speaker Joe Strauss – all Republicans – issued a statement on Tuesday approving a $3.2 billion withdrawal from the reserve fund to plug the budget hole, in addition to making $1 billion in cuts.
That deal will solve the budget problem – until Aug. 31. Lawmakers still need to cut another $23 billion from the next two-year budget.
"In other words, the state only has about three-fourths of the money it needs to continue doing what it is doing now," explained F. Scott McCown, director of the Center for Public Policy Priorities, an advocacy group for the poor. "And every single thing the state does now is something that the governor previously agreed it ought to be doing."
Story continues below




#adwrap_mid_article_f60d3b2ac912da6edf655bce088c4ae9 {float:left;width:300px;margin:10px 10px 10px 0} #adwrap_mid_article_f60d3b2ac912da6edf655bce088c4ae9 .mid_article_ad_label {display:none} #adwrap_mid_article_f60d3b2ac912da6edf655bce088c4ae9 .mid_article_deco {border:none;margin:0;padding:0}Advertisement


#adwrap_mid_article_b944acf41abf0539a1146406fc583906 {float:left;width:300px;margin:10px 10px 10px 0} #adwrap_mid_article_b944acf41abf0539a1146406fc583906 .mid_article_ad_label {display:none} #adwrap_mid_article_b944acf41abf0539a1146406fc583906 .mid_article_deco {border:none;margin:0;padding:0}Advertisement


Several months into the current legislative session, the government fiscal crisis across the nation is proving as difficult for states with a tradition of austerity as for those more accustomed to spending. Other conservative states are struggling with how to pay for keeping tough-on-crime corrections policies in place.


Perry, the state's longest serving governor, has signed every budget over the last 10 years and praised lawmakers for spending only what's necessary. Last week lawmakers pressed Perry's budget experts to help cut $4 billion from the current budget, but neither side could reach the goal.
So Perry relented, but his support for tapping the Rainy Day Fund now came with an ultimatum about the budget that begins Sept. 1.
"I remain steadfastly committed to protecting the remaining balance of the Rainy Day Fund, and will not sign a 2012-2013 state budget that uses the Rainy Day Fund," Perry warned. So the dilemma may return.
The Texas Public Policy Foundation, one of the most influential conservative groups in Texas, opposed this week's concession and will fight any future solutions involving spending.
"We are disappointed to learn that Texas will likely resort to using its Rainy Day Fund this early in the legislative session," said Talmadge Heflin, director of the group's Center for Fiscal Policy. "Those who seek to empty the fund because it is raining today have not checked the long-range weather forecast."
That Republican leaders' posture in the financial crisis came in stark contrast to their campaign rhetoric.
"Texas is better off than practically any state in the country," Perry said in September, well after the coming problem was identified. When asked about the budget deficit in December, Perry dismissed the question as speculative.
Even though Texas' budget shortfall is among the worst in the nation, Perry says Texas remains an example for other states.
Last week, he touted a Federal Reserve Bank statement forecasting that Texas could add more than 264,000 jobs in 2011. Proposed budget cuts, though, could lay-off 100,000 school employees, 60,000 nursing home workers and eliminate 9,600 state jobs this year.
Democrats question why Perry and Republican lawmakers would tap the Rainy Day Fund to pay bills to creditors due in August, but not to save jobs.
Using the fund, which is made up of revenue from oil and gas taxes, could "mitigate the cuts to our children's education, the zeroing out of pre-kindergarten, the zeroing out of college scholarships for all freshman starting in 2012 and 2013," Democratic state Rep. Mike Villarreal said.
But there is little for Democrats to do. Republicans hold every statewide office in Texas, two-thirds of the state House seats and 19 out of the 31 seats in the Senate. The main political division is between veteran conservatives and ultra-conservative Tea Party Caucus members.
State Rep. Debbie Riddle, a caucus member, said her constituents expect her to slash state spending. In the end, though, she voted to spend the Rainy Day Fund.
"I don't think there is one of us ... who has not had our heart hurt and even broken in two with a lot of the testimony we have heard," she said. To tap the Rainy Day Fund "is a long step for me, and I imagine it is for others here, too."
Pitts, the appropriations committee chair, acknowledged that making $23 billion in cuts for the next budget would be devastating. Pitts said. He added that he has a plan that he doesn't want to make public yet. But if it involves the Rainy Day Fund, the question will be whether he can rally enough conservative support for it when the time comes.

Let me guess--you didn't take this from any real news report, did you. Don't know a working journalist who writes that poorly. Or that biased.

Don't know why you've got a prod on for Texas, Will. If you don't like us, don't come. But a whole lot of people have been moving here for years from California and the rust belt, so some folks evidently prefer it to where they were. Lots of companies moving here, too, and bringing jobs with them.

[will.15]

Did you read the previous post, rufnek? Yoda was saying what a great candidate Rick Perry would make because Texas was doing so well. I didn't post it because I dislike Texas. Although I definitely don't like your Texas-can succeed-if-it-wants-to governor (no, it can't).

[rufnek]

Did you read the previous post, rufnek? Yoda was saying what a great candidate Rick Perry would make because Texas was doing so well. I didn't post it because I dislike Texas. Although I definitely don't like your Texas-can succeed-if-it-wants-to governor (no, it can't).


Sounded like you were talking about Texas instead of Perry.

Well, I never voted for the dude, so I got no vested interest in him. As I've said before, being governor of Texas has never been a stepping stone to higher office, because there's not much a governor can do to distinguish himself. Besides, I'd think it will take a long time before they want another Texan in the White House after the Bushes.

But Texas has pulled itself out of worse scrapes than today's poor economy. Back in 1986, Saudi Arabia pulled the plug on its oil production to get back it's market share by driving practically everyone else out of business. Houston practically turned into a ghost town with so many empty malls and office buildings. Price of crude dropped below $10/bbl for awhile and pulled the whole state down with it.

Rest of the country and the world were prospering on cheap oil, and no body paid Texas no mind. But we already knew we couldn't count on Washington for anything but a raw deal, so we handled the problem ourselves. I knew one rig manufacturer, for example, who turned to building convienence stores and such. Lost money at first because he was used to building things hell for stout to last in the oil patch. But in time he learned to cut corners and started making money. He also designed and manufactured a catamaran sailboat. Some companies folded, some adapted to the times and actually prospered.

When the newspaper where I worked sold out and closed in '95, there were hundreds of us news folks out on the street. They showed me how to register for unemployment, but I never collected a penny because I was getting job offers while I was still cleaning out my desk. Anyway, there are now a lot of energy-related companies in this state who are doing quite well on $100/bbl+ oil. Seems we are just on a different schedule from the rest of the country, up when you are down, down when you are up. But I wouldn't want to be anywhere else.

[will.15]

That's fine, but Yoda think your guv is the reason Texas is on a different cycle. But as you point out Texas is an oil state and gas never has been higher. I remember ten bucks a barrel. I loved it.

[Yoda]

I didn't elaborate on what effect Perry may have had. But since you have to this point mostly shown interest in the perception of candidates (not necessarily a criticism, just an observation), there's no doubt that Texas' relative success and rampant popularity is a major selling point.

[will.15]

I remember when Dukakis running against the first Bush boasted about the Massachustetts miracle. The economy was booming then also when the rest of the country was still in a funk. He lost and a few years ater reality hit Mass. and times were far worse there then in the rest of the country. And though I voted for Dukakis I couldn't figure out wwhat he did that had anything to do with what turned out to be a very temporary miracle.

If times were so much better now in Texas than the rest of the nation, why are they facing huge deficits? Their tax revenue should be way up if business is booming there.

[will.15]

What Texas miracle...with eight percent unemployment??? Better than the national average of nine percent, but hardly worth getting excited about. With hundred bucks a barrel oil I thought they would be doing better than that.

I kind of doubt despite the noise recently Perry is jumping in, but I don't see him a miracle Presidential candidate.

http://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/states/

[Yoda]

Again: there are deficits everywhere. But their spending-to-GDP ratio is among the lowest in the nation, and they have recourse because they're growing in droves. The significance of people flocking to an area for an entire decade cannot be easily overstated.

[will.15]

http://www.robertmiklos.com/2011/03/texas-miracle-or-texas-mirage/

[Yoda]

Okay? It's an editorial from a Democratic Congressman. He is free to make his predictions about how terrible everything will become, and we are free to see if it actually happens. This demonstrates basically nothing, but I'll bother to address one quote from it, anyway, because it's a great example of something I often complain about:

Ray Perryman, a noted economist from Waco, says that for every job loss, there is a 2.5 multiplier of job loss(1), as communities absorb those losses by cutting back themselves.
Huh? So what do they do? Keep it in their bank accounts? Which means there's more money in the bank's hands to lend out. Might this effect interest rates, and make investment more attractive? Unless people are putting money in mattresses, it doesn't disappear from the economy. This is exactly the kind of crappy "I'm going to stop tracing the effects of a policy as soon as it gets beyond two steps" economics I've been railing against. It's like it's too much work to keep going once you get a little removed from the initial claim. Or, more likely, that they just stop when they get the result they like.

Question: if Texas provides fewer government services, why do people keep flocking there? Is that not the most significant endorsement that citizens can offer to a state? To actually uproot and move to it? Any serious criticism of Texas' policies has to at least acknowledge and account for this somehow.

[will.15]

What will happen when a state that provides minimal service to begin with cuts state programs as much as they now have to do?

This has nothing to do with Perry, but a state legislature that meets as infreqently as Texas does, a large state, is not well managed.

[Yoda]

Gee, I dunno. How did people get by before the government was there to do things for them? It's a wonder we even made it as a species given how little oversight there used to be. Imagine how many crazy people must have been running around doing things with their own money and tending to their own matters. Chaos!

[Yoda]

Serious answer: people will keep coming to Texas more often than not because it's good to do business there, and the lack of a state income tax means you get to run your own damn life a little bit more. People like that. Yes, even more than they like lots of social programs.

[will.15]

We have more government because people wanted more government. Robber barons and monopolies brought the Progressive Era, the Great Depression spawned the ZNew Deal, and so on.

It's official,

http://www.aolnews.com/story/romney-barack-obama-has-failed-america/1553845/


That Sarah Palin thing looks like a publicity tour more than a serious way to start a campaign. She is going to run treating the press with that much disdain?

[will.15]

Serious answer: people will keep coming to Texas more often than not because it's good to do business there, and the lack of a state income tax means you get to run your own damn life a little bit more. People like that. Yes, even more than they like lots of social programs.
Maybe they will keep coming and maybe they won't. The past is no predictor of the future. Other states have had miracles like Massachusetts that turned out to be temporary and resulted in worse times after the good.

[Yoda]

We have more government because people wanted more government. Robber barons and monopolies brought the Progressive Era, the Great Depression spawned the ZNew Deal, and so on.
Yep, people got spooked, politicians took advantage and vastly expanded government's responsibilities, and now our budget is crying uncle from the weight of the inane promises made not out of wisdom, but out of fear. Fear itself, if you'd rather.

Robbert barons and monopolies do not create these things. Politicians talking about robber barons and monopolies and insisting they can protect people from such things did.

That Sarah Palin thing looks like a publicity tour more than a serious way to start a campaign. She is going to run treating the press with that much disdain?
Who knows. But two things:

1) I still don't think she's running. Everything she's doing makes perfect sense...if she's not running. It makes a lot less sense if she does.

2) I realize a lot of people are loathe to give her any credit about anything, but is there any serious doubt that she's ahead of the curve when it comes to media strategy? The lines between politician and celebrity have been blurring for awhile now, and she seems to have fully embraced that fact. It'll be a long time before a viable candidate can afford to give the finger to the media like this...but I think that'll be less and less ridiculous with each passing election cycle.

Right now, lots of prospective candidates put out what's termed a "campaign autobiography." Would it shock anyone if they all started putting out "campaign reality shows" or "campaign documentaries" instead? If you're a politician, and you have more and more options to speak to voters DIRECTLY, without having your comments parsed by any kind of media filter, why wouldn't you? This stuff is the future, even if it doesn't make for a viable Presidential campaign yet. This is going to look prescient in a decade.

[Yoda]

Maybe they will keep coming and maybe they won't. The past is no predictor of the future. Other states have had miracles like Massachusetts that turned out to be temporary and resulted in worse times after the good.
Well, you know I have a soft spot for uncertainty, so I'm not going to argue that we don't know what will happen next. But I do know that Texas' population explosion has been going on for awhile now, and with each passing year it becomes harder and harder to dismiss. I think it's big enough that it demands some kind of larger explanation, and the simplest and most elegant is that it's business and taxpayer friendly. That's the common thread we see with almost every tax-friendly environment: people go to them.

[Yoda]

By the way, just to get a bit more specific: Texas' population grew more than twice as fast as the rest of the nation's over the last decade. It's up something like 20% since 2000.

[will.15]

uote:Originally Posted by will.15 http://www.movieforums.com/community/images/buttons/lastpost.gif (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=732446#post732446)
We have more government because people wanted more government. Robber barons and monopolies brought the Progressive Era, the Great Depression spawned the ZNew Deal, and so on.
Yep, people got spooked, politicians took advantage and vastly expanded government's responsibilities, and now our budget is crying uncle from the weight of the inane promises made not out of wisdom, but out of fear. Fear itself, if you'd rather.

Robbert barons and monopolies do not create these things. Politicians talking about robber barons and monopolies and insisting they can protect people from such things did



You don't think government breaking up Standard Oil to prevent it from dominating the oil industry and controlling the price of oil was a good thing?

[Yoda]

Well, right off the bat there's a fallacy at play, because you're now suggesting that breaking up a specific monopoly is somehow a justification for, I dunno, Medicare or some other government overreach, as if wanting government to have a role in one thing justifies having it do any other number of things.

But for fun, let's play the whole thing out, step by step. Why was what Standard Oil was doing bad?

[planet news]

Yep, people got spooked, politicians took advantage and vastly expanded government's responsibilities, and now our budget is crying uncle from the weight of the inane promises made not out of wisdom, but out of fear. Fear itself, if you'd rather.You are smearing everything together into some kind of timeless phase-event. What you are speaking of is over a century in the making.

You also want to deny the reality of recorded history by claiming that all the horrors of the gilded age were just possibilities "spooking" people instead of already actualized.

Politicians did not take advantage. What they did was a necessity.

The fact that social programs eventually proved too expensive has nothing to do with the fact that they were necessary. Perhaps with better management, we would not be in this situation.

Revolution would have occurred if the government did not step in when it did. And at that time revolutions were happening all around the world. The government saved your beloved capitalism from self-destruction of which it was already on the brink.

Robbert barons and monopolies do not create these things. Politicians talking about robber barons and monopolies and insisting they can protect people from such things did.Wow, dude. Just wow.

And no, I'm not involved in World of Warcraft either.

The fact that our budget is in trouble is entirely a separate issue from whether or not monopolies need regulation or are indeed the ultimate fate of all laissez-faire markets.

When you see someone dying on the street, you go and save them. The ethical necessity has already presented itself. If later you discover you weren't able to afford it, that's a separate issue.

[planet news]

breaking up a specific monopoly is somehow a justification for, I dunno, MedicareHealth insurance companies sure treat people well these days, I hear. The same injunction that spurred monopolies is at work here: profit by any means.

[will.15]

Well, right off the bat there's a fallacy at play, because you're now suggesting that breaking up a specific monopoly is somehow a justification for, I dunno, Medicare or some other government overreach, as if wanting government to have a role in one thing justifies having it do any other number of things.

But for fun, let's play the whole thing out, step by step. Why was what Standard Oil was doing bad?
I didn't make a direct link to Medicare and breaking up monoploies. I was responding to:



Originally Posted by Yoda http://www.movieforums.com/community/images/buttons/lastpost.gif (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=732448#post732448)
Robbert barons and monopolies do not create these things. Politicians talking about robber barons and monopolies and insisting they can protect people from such things did.




This is what Satndard Oil did and an extremely conservative Supreme Court unanimously ruled against them.


Rockefeller and the Standard Oil Monopoly
Following the Civil War, few laws limited how businesses went about making money. In building the giant Standard Oil monopoly, John D. Rockefeller made up his own rules.
Born in 1837, John Davidson Rockefeller (http://www.rockefeller.edu/archive.ctr/jdrsrbio.html) grew up in rural New York. His father was a peddler of doubtful medical cures, a bigamist, and possibly a horse thief. When he was around, however, "Devil Bill" (as the neighbors called him) carefully instructed John how to keep meticulous account of his money and to outwit any business competitor. John's mother, Eliza, had a far different influence on him. A deeply religious woman, she taught him to be charitable.
John lived in an age when owners of industries operated without much interference from government. Even the income tax did not exist. Rockefeller built an oil monopoly by ruthlessly eliminating most of his competitors. This made him the richest man in the world. But he spent his retirement years giving away most of his money. The unlikely match (http://www.c-span.org/guide/books/booknotes/chapter/fc062198.htm) between "Devil Bill" and Eliza Rockefeller produced a son who would paradoxically become the most hated and admired man in America.
The Standard Oil Monopoly
Shortly before the Civil War, Rockefeller and a partner established a shipping company in Cleveland, Ohio. The company made much money during the war. In 1863, he and his partner invested in another business that refined crude oil from Pennsylvania into kerosene for illuminating lamps (http://www.aladdinknights.org/anglelmp.htm).
By 1870, Rockefeller and new partners were operating two oil refineries in Cleveland, then the major oil refining center of the country. The partners incorporated (under a charter issued by the state of Ohio) and called their business the Standard Oil Company.
To give Standard Oil an edge over its competitors, Rockefeller secretly arranged for discounted shipping rates from railroads (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/1881mar/monopoly.htm). The railroads carried crude oil to Standard's refineries in Cleveland and kerosene to the big city markets. Many argued that as "common carriers" railroads should not discriminate in their shipping charges. But small businesses and farmers were often forced to pay higher rates than big shippers like Standard Oil.
The oil industry in the late 1800s often experienced sudden booms and busts, which led to wildly fluctuating prices and price wars among the refiners. More than anything else, Rockefeller wanted to control the unpredictable oil market to make his profits more dependable.
In 1871, Rockefeller helped form a secret alliance of railroads and refiners. They planned to control freight rates and oil prices by cooperating with one another. The deal collapsed when the railroads backed out. But before this happened, Rockefeller used the threat of this deal to intimidate more than 20 Cleveland refiners to sell out to Standard Oil at bargain prices. When the so-called "Cleveland Massacre" ended in March 1872, Standard controlled 25 percent of the U.S. oil industry.
Rockefeller saw Standard Oil's takeover of the Cleveland refiners as inevitable. He said it illustrated "the battle of the new idea of cooperation against competition." In his mind, large industrial combinations, more commonly known as monopolies, would replace individualism and competition in business.
Rockefeller planned to buy out as many other oil refineries as he could. To do this, he often used hardball tactics. In 1874, Standard started acquiring new oil pipeline networks. This enabled the company to cut off the flow of crude oil to refineries Rockefeller wanted to buy. When a rival company attempted to build a competing pipeline across Pennsylvania, Standard Oil bought up land along the way to block it. Rockefeller also resorted to outright bribery of Pennsylvania legislators. In the end, Rockefeller made a deal with the other company, which gave Standard Oil ownership of nearly all the oil pipelines in the nation.
By 1880, Standard Oil owned or controlled 90 percent of the U.S. oil refining business, making it the first great industrial monopoly in the world. But in achieving this position, Standard violated its Ohio charter, which prohibited the company from doing business outside the state. Rockefeller and his associates decided to move Standard Oil from Cleveland to New York City and to form a new type of business organization called a "trust."
Under the new arrangement (done in secret), nine men, including Rockefeller, held "in trust" stock in Standard Oil of Ohio and 40 other companies that it wholly or partly owned. The trustees directed the management of the entire enterprise and distributed dividends (profits) to all stockholders.
When the Standard Oil Trust was formed in 1882, it produced most of the world's lamp kerosene, owned 4,000 miles of pipelines, and employed 100,000 workers. Rockefeller often paid above-average wages to his employees, but he strongly opposed any attempt by them to join labor unions. Rockefeller himself owned one-third of Standard Oil's stock, worth about $20 million.
During the 1880s, Standard Oil divided the United States into 11 districts for selling kerosene and other oil products. To stimulate demand, the company sold or even gave away cheap lamps and stoves. It also created phony companies that appeared to compete with Standard Oil, their real owner. When independent companies tried to compete, Standard Oil quickly cut prices--sometimes below cost--to drive them out of business. Then Standard raised prices to recoup its losses.
Much of the trust's effort went into killing off competition. But Standard Oil while Rockefeller was in command also usually provided good quality products at fairly reasonable prices. Rockefeller often declared that the whole purpose of Standard Oil was to supply "the poor man's light."
The Antitrust Movement
By 1900, the Standard Oil Trust had expanded from its original base in the East to new oil regions further west. At the same time, a wave of anti-monopoly sentiment swept the United States. Farmer organizations, labor unions, muckraking journalists, and many politicians attacked such combinations as the sugar and tobacco trusts. But they especially targeted the "mother trust," Standard Oil.

By this time, nearly 30 states and the federal government had passed antitrust laws that attacked monopoly abuses. These laws usually rested on a set of legal and economic assumptions:
The common law, inherited from England, condemned the restraint of trade.
Monopolies tended to restrain trade by keeping prices high, suppressing product improvements, and making excessive profits.
Competition among many independent firms was necessary to assure fair prices, high-quality products, and reasonable profits.
Starting with Ohio in 1887, 10 states and the Oklahoma Territory filed 33 separate lawsuits against companies affiliated with the Standard Oil Trust. In most cases, Standard lost in court. But Standard's directors reorganized the trust shifted operations from state to state, and otherwise evaded court rulings to maintain their monopoly.
Since state lawsuits against Standard Oil were going nowhere, muckraking journalists pressed for federal action against the trust.
Starting in November 1902, Ida Tarbell (http://tarbell.alleg.edu/biobib.html) wrote a series of 19 carefully researched articles (http://www.history.rochester.edu/fuels/tarbell/MAIN.HTM) in McClure's Magazine. She detailed how John D. Rockefeller ruthlessly forced his competitors to "sell or perish." She correctly identified railroad discounts, specifically outlawed by the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 (http://www.fwkc.com/encyclopedia/low/articles/i/i012000821f.html), as key to creating Rockefeller's Standard Oil monopoly.
Called "Miss Tarbarrel" and "this poison woman" by Rockefeller, Tarbell helped push the federal government to investigate the Standard Oil Trust. While publicly attacking Standard Oil and other trusts, President Theodore Roosevelt did not favor breaking them up. He preferred only to stop their anti-competitive abuses.
On November 18, 1906, the U.S. attorney general under Roosevelt sued Standard Oil of New Jersey and its affiliated companies making up the trust. The suit was filed under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 (http://www.stolaf.edu/people/becker/antitrust/statutes/sherman.html). Under this federal law, "Every contract, or combination, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal."
Standard Oil v. United States
The Standard Oil trial took place in 1908 before a Missouri federal court. More than 400 witnesses testified. The government produced evidence that the Standard Oil Trust had secured illegal railroad discounts, blocked competitors from using oil pipelines, spied on other companies, and bribed elected officials. Moreover, the government showed that from 1895-1906 Standard's kerosene prices increased 46 percent, giving enormous profits to the monopoly.
Although Rockefeller was technically president of Standard Oil, he had retired from active management in 1895. But he remained the single largest stockholder. Rockefeller testified (http://www.micheloud.com/FXM/SO/antitrust.htm) that Standard Oil achieved its position because its combination of cooperating companies was more efficient and produced a better product than its rivals. When cross-examined on how Standard Oil grew so dominant, the 71-year-old Rockefeller frequently stated that he could not remember.
Attorneys for Standard Oil contended that the large combination of companies making up the trust had developed naturally and actually saved the industry from destructive price wars. They also argued that since Standard Oil was a manufacturing business, it was exempt from the Sherman Act, which only addressed interstate commerce.
Both the trial judge and a unanimous federal appeals court agreed that Standard Oil was a monopoly violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. They also supported the government's recommendation that the trust should be dissolved into independent competing companies. Standard Oil then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On May 15, 1911, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the federal appeals court and ruled that the Standard Oil Trust was a monopoly that illegally restrained trade. All but one justice, however, went on to hold that only monopolies that restrained trade in "unreasonable" ways were illegal. Although it found that Standard Oil did, in fact, act unreasonably, the Supreme Court's use of the "rule of reason" made it more difficult for government to prosecute other monopolies. [Standard Oil of New Jersey v. United States (http://www.ripon.edu/Faculty/bowenj/antitrust/stdoilnj.htm)]
The Supreme Court justices concluded that to restore competition in the oil industry, the Standard Oil Trust would have to be broken into independent companies. But the government permitted Standard Oil stockholders to each receive fractional shares in all 34 companies that were formed. This meant that each of these companies had exactly the same stockholder owners. These companies were then supposed to compete with one another. In reality, the companies had little real incentive to do this and acted together in setting prices for a decade or more

[Yoda]

You are smearing everything together into some kind of timeless phase-event. What you are speaking of is over a century in the making.
I'm speaking in broad generalities about the ways in which we come to support financially insolvent programs. It certainly is not because of a careful analysis of their viability and necessity. This in no way implies that I am "smearing" things together, nor that this all happened at once. Indeed, the kind of political climate necessary to convince people of the necessity of these programs certainly doesn't formulate overnight. I said nothing to the contrary.

You also want to deny the reality of recording history by claiming that all the horrors of the gilded age were just possibilities "spooking" people instead of already actualized.

Politicians did not take advantage. What they did was a necessity.
This is vague. What politicians? Who are "they"? What necessary action are you referring to?

The fact that social programs eventually proved too expensive has nothing to do with the fact that they were necessary. Perhaps with better management, we would not be in this situation.
Well, we've gone through quite a few management teams and reform attempts over the years, so while this is technically possible, it seems pretty unlikely. Also, the ways in which these programs are insolvent are obvious and explainable in simple terms. We pay out way more than we put in, and there's a little of overhead in the middle. There's no reason to believe this is anything other than an inalterable financial reality.

Revolution would have occurred if the government did not step in when it did. And at that time revolutions were happening all around the world. The government saved your beloved capitalism from self-destruction of which it was already on the brink.
Nope. I know you think this, but I don't. If revolution would have occurred, it is only because there would have been a great many people instigating and inviting it for political ends. There is a degree to which such "revolutions" are self-fulfilling.

The funny thing is, we want the same thing. We both want capitalism let off its leash a bit more. You think this will lead to its demise and downfall. Great! Then join me in supporting more business-friendly economic policies and maybe we'll get to see who's right.

The fact that our budget is in trouble is entirely a separate issue from whether or not monopolies need regulation or are indeed the ultimate fate of all laissez-faire markets.

When you see someone dying on the street, you go and save them. The ethical necessity has already presented itself. If later you discover you weren't able to afford it, that's a separate issue.
And then, hopefully, you try to figure out why people are dying in the streets. And if it turns out you're doing things that make this more likely in the long-term, you stop doing them.

The fact that one consequence is sitting right in front of you and another will happen much later does not make one more morally important than the other. Every time we put this in a real-world scenario, it becomes obvious. Are you helping or hurting your screwup of a son if you bail him out of jail every time he gets a DUI, or hits someone? When is it necessary and merciful, and when is it insulating him from the very consequences necessary to change his behavior? Draw that line for me.

[Yoda]

I'm not sure why repeating the charges is supposed to be relevant, Will. Nobody's disputing that the Supreme Court thought what Standard Oil was doing was bad. But I'm asking you why it was bad. I'm asking you to do the same thing I'm always asking everyone in these discussions to do: trace the consequences, step-by-step.

[will.15]

They artificially controlled the price of oil by reducing competition by using various tactics now against the law to achieve those ends. The article gives the details how they did it.

[planet news]

>The fact that one consequence is sitting right in front of you and another will happen much later does not make one more morally important than the other

Yes it does. You sound like a utilitarian. Proximity has and always will be a part of the way we compute ethics (which is very different from morality, so interchanging them without clarification is unwise).

Now, for Marxists, we have a theory about capitalism that necessitates a passage through this suffering, so in that sense I agree with you. But without that theory, no one should be willing to allow that to go on for years and years because of something down the road.

This doesn't work unless you are a utilitarian computer, which you often sound like despite your Christian background.

Reacting to suffering before our eyes is the event of ethics. Nothing has any meaning without this event.

The funny thing is, we want the same thing. We both want capitalism let off its leash a bit more. You think this will lead to its demise and downfall. Great! Then join me in supporting more business-friendly economic policies and maybe we'll get to see who's right.Yeah, I said this a while back.

But we would need someone more like Ron Paul. Not your people.

Also, government will only rebound when things start getting really bad again. This machinery came about during the progressive era and it is what sustains capitalism.

However, as I've brought up before, there might be different ways in which capitalism is unable to account for "things". Gattaca is one example of an unallowable excess (no one will stand for bought genetics). Intellectual property is another biggie. Stuff like this which question the very fabric of what capitalism is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_information_paradox).

People like the main character in Gattaca have more chance of becoming proletariate than the working class. Government will always have their backs in one way or another.

[Yoda]

They artificially controlled the price of oil by reducing competition by using various tactics now against the law to achieve those ends. The article gives the details how they did it.
I'm not asking if it was legal, or would be legal today, and I'm not disputing the basic facts of the accusations (not yet, at least). You are taking for granted that monopolis a) can/do exist and b) are bad and should be stopped. And I'm asking "why?"

[planet news]

You are taking for granted that monopolis a) can/do exist and b) are bad and should be stopped. And I'm asking "why?"http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx205/planetnews/th_1306952689847.jpg

a) they have and they do
b) they don't give a f*ck about anything other than profit
i) what ever happened to the benefits of competition?

[will.15]

You just want to repeat what is in the article? Here is one of many examples:

During the 1880s, Standard Oil divided the United States into 11 districts for selling kerosene and other oil products. To stimulate demand, the company sold or even gave away cheap lamps and stoves. It also created phony companies that appeared to compete with Standard Oil, their real owner. When independent companies tried to compete, Standard Oil quickly cut prices--sometimes below cost--to drive them out of business. Then Standard raised prices to recoup its losses.

They used their dominance of the industry with often deceptive practices to dictate the price of oil. The supposed free market model of competition didn't work because they dominated the industry.

[Yoda]

Yes it does. You sound like a utilitarian. Proximity has and always will be a part of the way we compute ethics (which is very different from morality, so interchanging them without clarification is unwise).
Abstraction: if you help someone with something today someone else will have a similar problem in the future as a result. What do you do, and why is it more moral than the alternative?

Now, for Marxists, we have a theory about capitalism that necessitates a passage through this suffering, so in that sense I agree with you. But without that theory, no one should be willing to allow that to go on for years and years because of something down the road.
Why? If a policy helps some people but also creates more suffering later, why shouldn't that be factored into whether or not we continue that policy?

But we would need someone more like Ron Paul. Not your people.
Nevertheless, we find ourselves wanting the same thing for opposite reasons. Except that you don't really act like you want it; you argue against it, even though you believe it makes what you want more likely, yes?

Also, government will only rebound when things start getting really bad again. This machinery came about during the progressive era and it is what sustains capitalism.
Innovation is what sustains capitalism. You can keep saying otherwise, but I'm just going to keep contradicting you. Government regulation is not sustaining capitalism, it is sustaining government officials.

[planet news]

This is ninth grade history, no?

Seriously, man. Either recommend me some alternate history books or attack something other than history, like, the present instead (which is actually f*cked, so I don't mind). The past is pure.

[Yoda]

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx205/planetnews/th_1306952689847.jpg

a) they have and they do
b) they don't give a f*ck about anything other than profit
i) what ever happened to the benefits of competition?
Dude, if you want to engage on this point, then actually engage by answering the question. Telling me what a business cares about is not telling me why this leads to bad results.

You just want to repeat what is in the article? Here is one of many examples:
No, I don't. I want you to tell me why you think they had a "monopoly" and why it is bad. How could I possibly be any clearer?

During the 1880s, Standard Oil divided the United States into 11 districts for selling kerosene and other oil products. To stimulate demand, the company sold or even gave away cheap lamps and stoves.
It's unfair that they gave away things?

It also created phony companies that appeared to compete with Standard Oil, their real owner. When independent companies tried to compete, Standard Oil quickly cut prices--sometimes below cost--to drive them out of business. Then Standard raised prices to recoup its losses.
It's unfair that they responded to competitors by lowering prices?

They used their dominance of the industry with often deceptive practices to dictate the price of oil. The supposed free market model of competition didn't work because they dominated the industry.
So far you've accused a company of giving away things and lowering prices. You were supposed to tell me why this stuff is bad.

[will.15]

The real reason Wonka retired the government was going after him. He was a rutheless businessman and giving a kid his business was a pathetic attempt to make him sympathetic to a jury. In truth he still controlled the company and Charlie was a figurehead.

[Yoda]

This is ninth grade history, no?
What is? You're being super vague about everything. I have almost no idea what historical event you're referring to.

Seriously, man. Either recommend me some alternate history books or attack something other than history, like, the present instead (which is actually f*cked, so I don't mind). The past is pure.
But our interpretation of it isn't. The Great Depression happened. The New Deal happened. The dispute is not about what happened, it's about what it means.

[rufnek]

What Texas miracle...with eight percent unemployment??? Better than the national average of nine percent, but hardly worth getting excited about. With hundred bucks a barrel oil I thought they would be doing better than that.

I don't know the percentage of Texas unemployment, but I do know that it isn't as high as the national average, that the number of new businesses either moving or originating in Texas is better than the national average. Saw an article the other day that said the same is true for the handful of states that now have no state income tax, lower corporate taxes, and right-to-work laws that inhibit the growth of unions, but that Texas leads that pack. Also Texas has never given teachers or state employees the right to collective bargaining for pay. In other words, we've avoided many of the mistakes that are driving business out of other states.

I think it's funny that you knock Texas for--according to your numbers--having only 1% less unemployment than the national average. Wonder what Obama would give to have US unemployment improve to 8% from 9%?

I don't credit Perry for Texas' success. Like I keep saying, the governor of Texas generally has fewer powers and controls than do governors of most other states.

As for $100/bbl oil, I don't own any mineral rights, so like most Texans I'm not getting a direct cut from the price of oil. However, there are 3-4 times more rigs drilling in Texas and its state waters than the next largest oil producing state. With crews needed for 3 tours for each rig since drilling continues around the clock, that is one thing that helps boost employment, plus the extra workers necessary for the oil service companies, laying pipe, building containers, running tankers and barges and refineries. Lots of payrolls coming directly or indirectly from the oil industry. Lot of rent being paid for offices and tools. Lots of taxes being collected by local, state, and federal governments. Plus oil workers' families buy lots of school clothes, lots of furniture (my wife is currently shopping for new living room chairs and tables). It mounts up. Plus not only is our unemployment lower than the national average, but it's still falling, too. Probably be down to 7% before you know it, whereas I don't see the national average making much progress.

[will.15]

Dude, if you want to engage on this point, then actually engage by answering the question. Telling me what a business cares about is not telling me why this leads to bad results.


No, I don't. I want you to tell me why you think they had a "monopoly" and why it is bad. How could I possibly be any clearer?


It's unfair that they gave away things?


It's unfair that they responded to competitors by lowering prices?


So far you've accused a company of giving away things and lowering prices. You were supposed to tell me why this stuff is bad.
I included the whole paragraph, but the point was they lowered prices temporarily under cost to undercut a smaller rival, then when they drove them out of business, the company unaware they were competing with Standard Oil, they raised prices at a level to cover their losses. That is not the Adam Smith ideal of fair competition.

[planet news]

Abstraction: if you help someone with something today someone else will have a similar problem in the future as a result. What do you do, and why is it more moral than the alternative?"Moral"...

Depends on if its morality or ethics... depends on what your ethical injunctions are... huge discussion here...

Both consequentialism and intentionalism have their failings as demonstrated by extremely obvious counterexamples. The reality is a dialectic between them mediated by our simultaneous and incomplete universality and individuality.

Time, memory, proximity, and predictability all play a part in such judgements. They are all part of the theory, since theory is not one of description but one of action. It is deservedly complex.

Why? If a policy helps some people but also creates more suffering later, why shouldn't that be factored into whether or not we continue that policy?Because it doesn't have to.

Also, it hasn't. It's currently saving lives. If we can fix it, it won't cause any damage. We'll just have to see.

But to say that social programs hurt people is the ultimate delusion. They might be astronomically expensive, but they save lives. Deal with it. We can always take on more debt and raise the ceiling.

Better yet we can raise taxes to Scandinavian levels. In socialist Sweden, college pays you.

Nevertheless, we find ourselves wanting the same thing for opposite reasons. Except that you don't really act like you want it; you argue against it, even though you believe it makes what you want more likely, yes?No. I'm only arguing for this idea to forward the neo-Marxist position that the state is complicit in capitalism.

You are still stuck in the distinction between free market and regulated market. A free market is a regulated market.

I am also trying to show how from an ethical standpoint, it was necessary to reign in big business.

This is a risky road with Marxism and allowing suffering for a bigger cause. That's how Stalin got away with half the stuff he did (it's for the future utopia, etc).

But day to day politics in a parlaimentary republic won't let you do what Stalin did (which was f*cked from the beginning).

Innovation is what sustains capitalism. You can keep saying otherwise, but I'm just going to keep contradicting you. Government regulation is not sustaining capitalism, it is sustaining government officials."innovation"

Profit sustains capitalism. You seemed to agree with me a while back that flows of capital sustain capitalism.

Is Malick not popular because he's not innovative or because he's not profitable?

[Yoda]

the point was they lowered prices temporarily under cost to undercut a smaller rival, then when they drove them out of business, the company unaware they were competing with Standard Oil, they raised prices at a level to cover their losses. That is not the Adam Smith ideal of fair competition.
Again, you're giving me a fact-based account of what happened. You are not explaining why it's bad.

I am not asking whether or not Standard Oil did these things. I'm taking for granted, for now, that they did. I'm asking you about the negative effects of these actions. So far, you have successfully accused them of lowering their prices and giving things away. When do we get to the part where what they're doing hurts their customers?

[planet news]

What is? You're being super vague about everything. I have almost no idea what historical event you're referring to.Jesus, man. The Gilded Age's relation with the Progressive Era, unprecedented Socialist popularity and the birth of big government. This is literally a chapter in my 9th grade history book. Right before the world war I chapter. That was a fun chapter, because we got to roleplay WWI.

But our interpretation of it isn't. The Great Depression happened. The New Deal happened. The dispute is not about what happened, it's about what it means.But you literally deny any of this stuff happened.

You think it's all lies made up by politicians. Fear tactics and the liberal agenda. Monopolies didn't exist. They didn't do whatever they want once they consolidated. They didn't buy politicians to deregulate everything. They didn't make crappier and crappier products. They didn't put down strikes with armed police.

The discussion stops as soon as you make these assertions. One cannot go any farther.

[planet news]

Again, you're giving me a fact-based account of what happened. You are not explaining why it's bad.Things I don't like and you don't like:
1. super expensive stuff
2. crappy products
3. no alternative

[will.15]

They prevented their customers from making a choice to buy from another supplier. if they wanted oil, they had to get it from either Standard Oil, a shell company, or a rival who agreed through a secret deal not to undercut a price that was agreed on.

[Yoda]

"Moral"...

Depends on if its morality or ethics... depends on what your ethical injunctions are... huge discussion here...

Both consequentialism and intentionalism have their failings as demonstrated by extremely obvious counterexamples. The reality is a dialectic between them mediated by our simultaneous and incomplete universality and individuality.

Time, memory, proximity, and predictability all play a part in such judgements. They are all part of the theory, since theory is not one of description but one of action. It is deservedly complex.
Yes, it is very complex. But a moment ago you were saying this choice was obvious, and that "no one should allow" things in the present to persist because of what might happen later.

Because it doesn't have to.
This isn't an available answer. I am positing that it does. Which means if you want to dispute it, we have to get specific and you have to make fact-based arguments, not abstract ones. So what is the source of your dispute? That it's okay to do things with negative consequences so long as they happen later, or that they don't actually happen? If it's the latter, we can get into whether or not that's true.

But to say that social programs hurt people is the ultimate delusion. They might be astronomically expensive, but they save lives.
This is very (I know I use this word a lot, but I find it applies to many things) myopic. Money spent on one thing is not spent elsewhere, and when you're talking about trillions of dollars, every major decision leads people to die. There is no way around that. A billion for cancer research? A billion less for diabetes. A trillion for a social program? Less business investment and economic growth, which has a direct effect on things like life expectancy and medical technology.

Yes, economic growth saves lives. Of course it does. How many lives have been saved by the portable defibrillator, which is only possible with technological miniaturization? Lots, right? How many more people survive if it's invented a month sooner? A year sooner? A decade sooner?

You're favoring one form of using money simply because it's the one you're able to see right now. But that gives extra weight, for no good reason, to whatever policy is already in place. In reality, at any given moment, we are taking away from ways we could be helping people, both in how we use public money and in the fact that we take it at all, and the fact that whatever we're doing with it currently allows us to see the effects is not even the slightest argument in favor of its wisdom relative to other courses of action.


No. I'm only arguing for this idea to forward the neo-Marxist position that the state is complicit in capitalism.

You are still stuck in the distinction between free market and regulated market. A free market is a regulated market.

I am also trying to show how from an ethical standpoint, it was necessary to reign in big business.

This is a risky road with Marxism and allowing suffering for a bigger cause. That's how Stalin got away with half the stuff he did (it's for the future utopia, etc).

But day to day politics in a parlaimentary republic won't let you do what Stalin did (which was f*cked from the beginning).
I don't understand your position. So I'll do another causal chain and you can tell me which link is wrong.

1. You think capitalism survives because government reigns it in with regulation.
2. You don't want capitalism to survive.
3. Ergo, you support a repeal of many (all?) business regulation.


"innovation"

Profit sustains capitalism.
And innovation creates profit. Innovation in the actual product, incremental improvements, spotting market opportunities and taking risk, or simply innovation in the means of production and distribution. Profit does not spring into being, it is almost always the result of the delivery of a product or service in a way that people find valuable.

You seemed to agree with me a while back that flows of capital sustain capitalism.
I did? I recall forcefully disputing your use of "flows."

Is Malick not popular because he's not innovative or because he's not profitable?
Well, by most standards he is popular. Just not as popular as Michael Bay. But then again, from a visual effects standpoint, or a technical standpoint, Transformers is actually quite innovative, isn't it? Not in the way you or I happen to value as much as other forms of innovation, but it provides value to people.

[will.15]

Getting back to Willie Wonka, he was a real sleaze. He exploited his illegal alien workforce.

[Yoda]

But you literally deny any of this stuff happened.

You think it's all lies made up by politicians. Fear tactics and the liberal agenda.
No, this is not what I'm saying at all. I'm accusing them of using the facts of the situation to achieve an end, not of making up the facts. That we had an economic depression we all call "The Great Depression" is a fact. What I deny is that it's caused for the reasons people sometimes think, or that it can be fixed by the methods often proposed as its solution.

Hell, I said it in the very quote you're replying to here: it's not about whether or not this happened, it's about what it means. How can I make myself plainer?

They didn't buy politicians to deregulate everything.
We have laws against bribery, so this point is superfluous as a defense of antitrust law.

Things I don't like and you don't like:
1. super expensive stuff
2. crappy products
3. no alternative
Yup, I don't like those things. Now give me an example of an alleged monopoly that led to them.

[Yoda]

They prevented their customers from making a choice to buy from another supplier. if they wanted oil, they had to get it from either Standard Oil, a shell company, or a rival who agreed through a secret deal not to undercut a price that was agreed on.
Okay. So let's follow the assertion out.

1. Standard Oil sells oil. They charge too much.
2. A competitor spots the opening and starts selling cheaper oil.
3. Standard Oil has to match this competitor by lowering its prices.
4. The competitor can't keep up and goes out of business.
5. Standard Oil raises prices back up.

So what happens next? Well, duh: either they eat those losses (cheaper prices for the consumer while the price war was going on -- yay!) or they raise them way too high to make up the difference, making the climate for another competitor far more enticing and lucrative than it was the first time. At best, they are staving off competition temporarily by lowering prices, not eliminating it with anything resembling permanence. Which leads to another point: if being the one big oil company is so incredibly lucrative, why assume Standard Oil will have more of a stomach for those temporary losses than investors in the new, competing company?

And this is without even getting into whether or not the consumers will switch right back when they can see, plain as day, that SO's prices are subject to volatility. The machinations of the price wars are public and obvious.

But, above all, this is also assuming they can raise them enough to recoup their investment to begin with. Case studies (http://cei.org/outreach-regulatory-comments-and-testimony/comments-department-transportation-statement-enforcement-) suggest that undercutting prices in this way is almost never smart in the long run. And, indeed, Standard Oil had already lost a significant amount of its market share when it was broken up.

[planet news]

Yes, it is very complex. But a moment ago you were saying this choice was obvious, and that "no one should allow" things in the present to persist because of what might happen later.Well, it was obvious. But the reasoning behind it is complex and depends on a lot of things. It cannot be abstracted the way you did it. Not without being a total consequentialist.

This isn't an available answer. I am positing that it does. Which means if you want to dispute it, we have to get specific and you have to make fact-based arguments, not abstract ones. So what is the source of your dispute? That it's okay to do things with negative consequences so long as they happen later, or that they don't actually happen? If it's the latter, we can get into whether or not that's true.I will save this question then and think on it while doing extra readings. I believe the question now is (and correct me if I'm wrong) CAN THE STATE PAY FOR SOCIAL PROGRAMS? AND IF SO HOW?

My immediate toss-out of an answer is Scandinavia.

This is very (I know I use this word a lot, but I find it applies to many things) myopic. Money spent on one thing is not spent elsewhere, and when you're talking about trillions of dollars, every major decision leads people to die. There is no way around that. A billion for cancer research? A billion less for diabetes. A trillion for a social program? Less business investment and economic growth, which has a direct effect on things like life expectancy and medical technology.For people who can pay, Yoda. For people who can pay. This is what Medicare is all about. Helping people get access to all that stuff. Rich people take all this for granted, but it's expensive enough to be absolutely prohibitive to millions without government assistance. End of story.

That's the whole problem with health care isn't it? Why does it cost so damn much? Part of the problem is the technology itself.

You're favoring one form of using money simply because it's the one you're able to see right now. But that gives extra weight, for no good reason, to whatever policy is already in place. In reality, at any given moment, we are taking away from ways we could be helping people, both in how we use public money and in the fact that we take it at all, and the fact that whatever we're doing with it currently allows us to see the effects is not even the slightest argument in favor of its wisdom relative to other courses of action.Yes it is. It absolutely is. People are currently dependent on Medicare. I used the drug metaphor earlier. It's accurate. They are plugged into the machinery. You can't pull the plug. You can only figure out ways to keep the power flowing through.

I don't understand your position. So I'll do another causal chain and you can tell me which link is wrong.

1. You think capitalism survives because government reigns it in with regulation.
2. You don't want capitalism to survive.
3. Ergo, you support a repeal of many (all?) business regulation.In theory, yes.

But only because I have a fairly confident prediction of the results. Liberals like Will could not make such a decision, because it is simply unethical. However, for me, the question of allowing capitalism to suffer irremediable catastrophe in order to achieve communist utopia is the same as violating the categorical imperative to save millions of lives.

It is a risky stance and it can easily lead to Stalin, but hey! Whatareyougonnado?

And innovation creates profit. Innovation in the actual product, incremental improvements, spotting market opportunities and taking risk, or simply innovation in the means of production and distribution. Profit does not spring into being, it is almost always the result of the delivery of a product or service in a way that people find valuable.Agreed. But innovation is not a part of capitalism. It is incidental to capitalism. Flows of profit are capitalism. Before I used the thought experiment of making the matter of the Earth invisible and only looking at the flows of capital. This is what capitalism is, the totality of this flow.

Anything can cause this flow. Stealing can cause it. Speculation can cause it (a.k.a. a bubble). Selling crappy products can cause it. And now for an undeniable counterexample: deliberately stifling innovation will not stifle the flows. People will just keep doing the same old crap and the flows will still go. Profits will still flow in. In fact, this is another axiom of capitalism: standardization. Because everything is based on profits, it is actually against the logic of capitalism to constantly innovate, because changes cost money. It is much better that people get used to the same old stuff and keep going back to it again and again.

If all theaters started innovating and showing art house films, people would leave. This is why movies are all formulaic and have been for years and years. It is a working formula. Why change it?

The necessities of life create innovation. Innovation is then incidentally channeled into capitalism. Just like religion and sex and anything. Capitalism doesn't have any injunction but to keep flows going a.k.a. profiting. Everything else is just used to its advantage.

Well, by most standards he is popular. Just not as popular as Michael Bay. But then again, from a visual effects standpoint, or a technical standpoint, Transformers is actually quite innovative, isn't it? Not in the way you or I happen to value as much as other forms of innovation, but it provides value to people.Let's not pick two people. Take a look at the highest grossing films of all time. Are these really the most innovative films of all time as well? Let me answer for you: hell no.

The films Dog Star Man likes are never going to make a cent.

[planet news]

making the climate for another competitor far more enticing and lucrative than it was the first timeIt would be enticing be extremely difficult to implement and more and more difficult each time. When you vertically and horizontally consolidate, that leaves no room for anyone else. You try to start a business and you find that everything is bought out our that you are locked out completely. Factor this into your bold conclusions about competition under monopolies.

And this is without even getting into whether or not the consumers will switch right back when they can see, plain as day, that SO's prices are subject to volatility. The machinations of the price wars are public and obvious.When was the public ever a part of this? The public is such a feeding tube that always sucks and is willing to give whatever the monopoly wants to get the stuff back through that tube. The monopoly exists on their energy but it doesn't cater to them. It just assumes that they will always need, and they do.

Until that tube revolts.

[rufnek]

Yeah, more than 100 years ago, Rockefeller and Standard oil were mean dudes. In the late 1800s, the US government was killing off the last of the wild Indians and picking a war with Spain. We landed Marines in Vera Cruz, Mexico, and took over customs collection from the Mexican government to make sure that country's debts to the US were repaid. We sent the US Army into Mexico hunting for Pancho Villa.

Yeah, it was a different time and place and we were making up US diplomacy and US business on the fly. So what? We were no worse and in some cases still much better than a lot of the other countries at that time. To our credit, we on our own improved our rules and our society and evolved into what we are today. So why do you feel this need to horsewhip Rockefeller today for the way he ran his business 100 years ago? Everyone from that era is dead and gone, no remnant is left. Even Standard Oil itself is long since dead and gone.

I love that when the government refused to rob the Standard Oil shareholders of their investment via the breaking up of that company, you leap to the conclusion that everything Standard Oil was attacked for continued as business as usual. First of all, go back and count the hundreds of stockholders in each company. No way in hell you're gonna build a monopoly with hundreds of stockholders invested in a half dozen competing companies--and they did compete because despite having the same stockholders (and I'm not sure that was as universal as you're stating), each company had different administrative officers in charge of running their companies at a competitive profit year to year. Plus the government didn't just bust up Standard Oil. They outlawed many of the things Rockefeller was doing to form a monopoly, the chief being laws against price fixing. Those laws--or their evolved versions--are still on the books today, still being enforced.

Plus all of those were public companies, which meant their stock were being traded on Wall Street, so the number and diversity of shareholders were growing far beyond the original group.

Another major item was that Rockefeller's influence over the companies carved out of Standard Oil was greatly curtailed. The monopoly was his baby, he thought it up and breathed life into it. No one has ever come as close as he did to controling a vital industry.

A lot of people seem to think that companies great or small exist by themselves. That Exxon is just a big office building somewhere or maybe 4-5 people that run the whole company and make all of the decisions. But a publicly traded company is its shareholders--hundreds, sometimes thousands of them. Until recently the people who ran the companies--the CEO, president, vice presidents, etc., owned little or none of the company's stock. They were simply company employees hired to get the biggest return possible for the shareholders who own the company--and if they fail, they'll be replaced. Most of the shareholders are retirees who used to work for the company, and they'll raise hell if their retirement package is reduced by a blowout or illegal action. And then there are the professional managers of investment groups, representing an organization like New York police and firefighters and managing their retirement funds by investing in several companies. They'll terminate their holdings the moment the company appears to lose it's momentum and switch their investments to the next hot thing. Meanwhile, the corporate adminstration has to file regular reports with government regulators, reporting their officers salaries and bonuses, how much stock they own, if they sell or buy more stock, etc. They even have to report if one person or entity acquires a large enough percentage of the firm's outstanding stock to possibly exert some influence over the company's business decisions. It's a very small percentage, I'm thinking 10-15%, maybe less. But in most publicly traded companies, no single investor owns that much of the firm. The bigger the company, the smaller overall share any one person or investment group owns.

It's gotten even more complicated as a result of the governance laws passed after the Enron collapse. Companies must now have a certain percentage of outside board members, people who are not directly employed by the company, and these outside directors are the ones who make decisions like the salaries and benefits of executive staff, and most of the company's investments and major purchases.

There are all sorts of other requirements. For one thing, members of most board of directors have an insurance policy carried by the company to protect them against having to pay a fine or settlement on behalf of a company out of their own pockets. The reason is simple--most of these guys are retired from the business they once were in and they don't want the government or shareholders suing for their pensions, savings, and properties acquired from their previous employment if, God forbid, something goes wrong. There was one particular seismic company that was really getting whipsawed financially back in the great oilfield depression of the 1980s, to the point where, for whatever reason, the insurance company cancelled their policy, including the fiduciary coverage for the CEO and the board of directors. Well, all of those executives immediately resigned rather than risk having to personally take over the company's debts. No replacements could be found under those conditions, and the company went under.

So it's not just a matter of corporations running wild. It's not even a matter of stand-alone corporations because Exxon, IBM, and Sears all have shareholders they must answer to.

[Yoda]

It would be enticing be extremely difficult to implement and more and more difficult each time. When you vertically and horizontally consolidate, that leaves no room for anyone else.
It's the opposite; it's easier the next time, because the previous challenger has forced Standard Oil to absorb losses. The next challenger did not have to suffer through this war of attrition. And, again, even without this fact, there's no reason that the established business would have more reason to stomach temporary losses for later gain than the owners and investors of the challenger. They're fighting for the same prize.

You try to start a business and you find that everything is bought out our that you are locked out completely. Factor this into your bold conclusions about competition under monopolies.
What does "everything is bought out" mean? People ran out of drilling equipment and just stopped making it?

When was the public ever a part of this? The public is such a feeding tube that always sucks and is willing to give whatever the monopoly wants to get the stuff back through that tube. The monopoly exists on their energy but it doesn't cater to them. It just assumes that they will always need, and they do.
The public can (and sometimes will) respond to these things. When they don't, it's because it's not terribly important to them. And if it's not terribly important to them, it's because it's not really hurting them much. Either way, the antitrust argument is severely undercut.

[will.15]

Okay. So let's follow the assertion out.
1. Standard Oil sells oil. They charge too much.
2. A competitor spots the opening and starts selling cheaper oil.
3. Standard Oil has to match this competitor by lowering its prices.
4. The competitor can't keep up and goes out of business.
5. Standard Oil raises prices back up.
So what happens next? Well, duh: either they eat those losses (cheaper prices for the consumer while the price war was going on -- yay!) or they raise them way too high to make up the difference, making the climate for another competitor far more enticing and lucrative than it was the first time. At best, they are staving off competition temporarily by lowering prices, not eliminating it with anything resembling permanence. Which leads to another point: if being the one big oil company is so incredibly lucrative, why assume Standard Oil will have more of a stomach for those temporary losses than investors in the new, competing company?

And this is without even getting into whether or not the consumers will switch right back when they can see, plain as day, that SO's prices are subject to volatility. The machinations of the price wars are public and obvious.

But, above all, this is also assuming they can raise them enough to recoup their investment to begin with. Case studies (http://cei.org/outreach-regulatory-comments-and-testimony/comments-department-transportation-statement-enforcement-) suggest that undercutting prices in this way is almost never smart in the long run. And, indeed, Standard Oil had already lost a significant amount of its market share when it was broken up.
In 1904, Standard controlled 91% of production and 85% of final sales

What market share were they losing when they had 85 percent of final sales?

Undercutting probably isn't a good long term strategy when you are not a monopoly. but when you have the means to eliminate practically all competition it works beautifully.

The customer can't switch back to a competitor of SO if a competitor no longer exists. That was their entire purpose and they were succeeding without government to stop them. The free market wasn't working.

[planet news]

stuffYour post:

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx205/planetnews/th_147cfd8a37180da96a377cd8a17780e1.gif

10/10

All I have to say is, monopoly or not, psuedo-democratic shareholding or not, there still remains a class of people who are part of these companies and a class of people who are not. And who's to say that several companies (shareholders and all) don't cooperate together and act effectively as one. Just how many "average" people were involved in this trade (then and now)? I'll have to think a little on this stuff you just wrote. Do more readings, etc.

[planet news]

Well, I'm going to assume that everything that rufnek said is accurate and revise my position to simply include them, since we did see in fact see massive consolidations of industries during that time. Somehow, somewhere, people managed to accomplish this. Since shareholders are just people, I can easily imagine some kind of under the table thing, but I don't know, this is just guesswork based off of the mood of the time.

It's the opposite; it's easier the next time, because the previous challenger has forced Standard Oil to absorb losses. The next challenger did not have to suffer through this war of attrition. And, again, even without this fact, there's no reason that the established business would have more reason to stomach temporary losses for later gain than the owners and investors of the challenger. They're fighting for the same prize.Who knows if what you're saying is true.

What does "everything is bought out" mean? People ran out of drilling equipment and just stopped making it?Or preventative measures against them, yeah. This is not hard to see.

The public can (and sometimes will) respond to these things. When they don't, it's because it's not terribly important to them. And if it's not terribly important to them, it's because it's not really hurting them much. Either way, the antitrust argument is severely undercut.You keep assuming they have any say in the matter (and the "they" is for non-shareholders obviously).

[Yoda]

Who knows if what you're saying is true.
Well, er...what part of it makes you think it might not be? Can you think of any reason why the established company would be more willing to sustain losses than the challenging one (we'll call them Nonstandard Oil)? Or why it wouldn't be harder each successive time to take on the next challenger, given that they need to absorb losses each time and nobody's going to patiently wait around for them to lick their wounds before undercutting them again?

Or preventative measures against them, yeah. This is not hard to see.
What kind of preventive measures? Why would the company that manufactures the equipment not build and sell more? And if they did, why wouldn't another company emerge to sell it, since there's a clear demand?

Also, you may be forgetting that when the first oil company fails to supplant Standard Oil, it doesn't vanish, it gets sold off. So that stuff is right back on the market.

You keep assuming they have any say in the matter (and the "they" is for non-shareholders obviously).
That's because I'm thinking about the entire process. Once there is ONLY Standard Oil, at that moment in time, obviously they can only buy oil from the place selling oil. But the accusation is that there were two companies, and that Standard Oil undercut them by charging less and taking a loss. And that's the moment of choice: the consumer either jumps ship from Nonstandard Oil because of the super-low prices from Standard Oil, or they else they choose to stay with Standard Oil. Either way, that's the point at which they have the say.

[Yoda]

Driving home now. Response to the other posts (or post) soon.

[will.15]

Yoda thinks everytime SO drove a company out of existence another one would appear to take them on. Not so. Their aim was to be either the last one standing or for the other companies to agree not to directly compete with them in smaller markets by not undercutting their price. If they did, they would go after them and drive them out of business. Their goal was to make sure smaller companies didn't get bigger and compete with them.

[Yoda]

In 1904, Standard controlled 91% of production and 85% of final sales

What market share were they losing when they had 85 percent of final sales?
They weren't broken up until 1911, at which point their control already down by a third; and it happened gradually, too, and not just as one big lump-sum decrease resulting from the proceedings.

Undercutting probably isn't a good long term strategy when you are not a monopoly. but when you have the means to eliminate practically all competition it works beautifully.
Based on...what? I can link you to more research on why it's a crappy strategy. I realize it sounds smart, but so does most pervasive misinformation (or else it wouldn't be pervasive).

What of all the other arguments? The costs of the attrition, stomach for losses, etc.?

[planet news]

Driving home now. Response to the other posts (or post) soon.If you mean me, don't. If you mean anyone else, then by all means.

Stop wasting your time. If you couldn't tell from my Dexter-Riley style posts for the last page and a half I don't have so many good points specifically rather than a wide theoretical idea that needs to be hammered into something more tangible for presentation with you -- something I haven't actually sat down and done! (-_-)

Go about your substantive doings. Once again I show that I have no business among matters of "fact" since I don't know too many hehe.

My references to 9th grade history were not ironic. They were references to the basis of my knowledge.

[Yoda]

Yoda thinks everytime SO drove a company out of existence another one would appear to take them on. Not so.
Why is this "not so"?

Seriously, why spend your time or mine just flat-contradicting things without elaboration? I don't get it.

Their aim was to be either the last one standing or for the other companies to agree not to directly compete with them in smaller markets by not undercutting their price. If they did, they would go after them and drive them out of business. Their goal was to make sure smaller companies didn't get bigger and compete with them.
This isn't being disputed. The goal of the policy of undercutting, and the fact that they actually tried it, is not being disputed. That doesn't mean it was smart or sustainable, or that consumers were being victimized and needed to be protected.

[will.15]

They created shill companies in regional markets so the company they was going against was unaware it was SO. They deliberately set out to destroy the smaller oil companies. The smaller oil companies were not trying to compete with Standard Oil. In the late stages they were trying to avoid taking them head on.

[Yoda]

Why is their use of shill companies relevant to the points I'm raising?

[planet news]

Hey, Chris. Sup. Could you list, like, maybe three principal questions who's answers will reveal major truths about our situation?

I think maybe one of them is whether or not it is possible for the government to pay for extensive social programs.

Another is, of course, whether or not government is crucial to capitalism's survival.

If you can think of other, more clear queries or perhaps others, let me know.

Reason being is I want to start to do some major "research" into this topic of government-capitalism linkage and give your stuff a more fair say.

[will.15]

Why is their use of shill companies relevant to the points I'm raising?
Standard Oil Company's market share dropped after 1904 because they stopped dropping their costs under expenses to drive out competitors. I can't find anything on the interenet to explain the change in strategy. But I think the probable reason was Tarbell's muckraking articles exposing the company's practices were published that year and they were facing a more concentrated effort to regulate them and breaking up the company. Their better behavior was not due to market pressure, but bad publicity which created government pressure. They ceded market share not because under pricing wasn't effective, it was from being exposed and facing the threat of government regulation.

I have already explained the relevncy of shell companies.

[Yoda]

Standard Oil Company's market share dropped after 1904 because they stopped dropping their costs under expenses to drive out competitors. I can't find anything on the interenet to explain the change in strategy. But I think the probable reason was Tarbell's muckraking articles exposing the company's practices were published that year and they were facing a more concentrated effort to regulate them and breaking up the company. Their better behavior was not due to market pressure, but bad publicity which created government pressure. They ceded market share not because under pricing wasn't effective, it was from being exposed and facing the threat of government regulation.
I'm confused: you say you can't find anything to explain the strategy, then you go on to explain the strategy? This is speculation, yes?

It seems to me that it's every bit as likely that they concluded it wasn't a viable strategy. Because it isn't. Don Boudreaux (who blogs at www.cafehayek.com, which I can't recommend enough) made some comments before the Dept. of Transportation (http://cei.org/outreach-regulatory-comments-and-testimony/comments-department-transportation-statement-enforcement-) where he systematically deconstructed the idea. Here's one very straightforward example:

One such counterstrategy is simply to sell less at the below-cost price than the predator sells -- therefore forcing the predator lose more money. It is important to remember that a predator’s low prices as such do no harm to its prey. Rather, a predator harms its prey only by driving consumer demand for the preys’ outputs down so low that the prey must sell their outputs at a loss. Lowering prices is only a means of taking customers away from the prey. To strip its prey of valuable customers, the predator has no choice but to increase the amount it sells below cost during the price war.

Each prey, in contrast, can (and will) respond to the reduction of demand by selling a lower quantity of outputs at the predatorially low price. The predator does not have the preys' luxury of reducing the amount it sells below cost. Consequently, the predator must sell much more than is sold by its prey at below-cost prices -- which, in turn, means that the predator’s self-inflicted losses are larger than are the losses that the predator inflicts on each prey.
He also, in a fact that pleases me to no end, made the same point I've been making about tolerating losses:

Recognizing the fact that the predator necessarily suffers losses larger than those inflicted on the prey immediately casts doubt upon any claim of predatory pricing. The only way to salvage any such claim is to argue that the predator has a greater capacity than the prey to absorb losses. Such greater capacity enjoyed by the predator is absolutely necessary for the success of any predatory pricing campaign.

Common sense seems to dictate that a wealthier and more established firm can better afford to absorb predatory-pricing losses than can a less-wealthy and less established rival. Common sense, however, is here misleading. No firm, no matter how large, profitable or "dominant," necessarily possesses greater power to absorb losses than do any of its equally efficient prey.

The reason is that a firm targeted for extinction by a predator can borrow what it needs to withstand attacks by a predator. Those who doubt this fact forget that financial credit supplied to survive a predatory-price attack differs in no fundamental respect from financial credit supplied to build or expand factories, to acquire supplies or inventories, or to do any of the thousand-and-one other things that firms do with credit. In all these cases, including surviving price wars, lenders lend monies to less-liquid borrowers who can profitably use these funds but do not presently have sufficient liquidity of their own to finance necessary current expenditures.
It's just not economically sound.

There's a lot more there, but I've reproduced two highly salient examples so that I'm not just throwing a bunch of homework around.

I have already explained the relevncy of shell companies.
Where? I'm not putting you on, I honestly don't see how they're relevant to the points I'm making about financial attrition or tolerance for loss. I don't even see how they could be. I can sort of see how they might rule out consumers getting savvy to things, but that was one point of several and, frankly, probably the least important.

[planet news]

From this and rufnek, I might want to terminate my solidarity with this line of attack.

In other words, you've convinced me.

For now, anyways. I have a feeling liberals are generally correct about monopolies, but I can't readily explain what happened with U. S. Steel with my current ideas.

This sucks (for me). :laugh:

[Yoda]

Well, if that doesn't just disarm the crap out of me.

But seriously, I know you said not to reply to your earlier post, but...I'm going to. I actually think my response will be very clarifying on a number of points, and I think you'll find it interesting. Also, because I pretty much already did and I'm just checking on something in regards to "flows" before posting it.

[planet news]

Several reasons why you've convinced me.

1) I've been struggling to believe that other companies can't rise up (lots of ways this could happen)
2) Rufnek's idea about shareholder's being fundamentally heterogeneous

3) Even if you're right, that still doesn't necessarily mean the end of my statement about government

4) Tons more reasons why capitalism sucks :laugh:

[will.15]

Yes, it is speculation on my part to explain the change in strategy, but it is very probable if we are using logic. The Supreme Court decision concluded the pricing strategy was effective and it isn't until 1904 when the Tarbell articles published that year caused them a whole bunch of trouble when they changed their ways. Their market share didn't drop until after they dropped the strategy, not before, so why would they do it? Because they were facing the heat.

The pricing srategy most likely doesn't work in today's environment. It doesn't work for airlines obviously long term. But SO was operating under a different unregulated situation where they could eliminate the competition before they became a force. They had close to ninety percent dominance of the marketplace. That obviously was a very successful strategy.

The relevancy of shell companies for SO was so the companies they were going after didn't know it was SO, so they didn't know what resources was being used against them. If it was known to be SO, public and the government would be alerted.

[planet news]

They had close to ninety percent dominance of the marketplace. That obviously was a very successful strategy.Yeah, this still holds some water for me. Hell, a lot of water.

Nevertheless, Yoda has given some decent points about how hard it is to keep that dominance.

It seems that over time that would just have to happen.

Now... I can IMAGINE up some scenarios about buying out politicians and law enforcement (and this obviously did happen quite frequently [and maybe still does today]), but that didn't happen to U. S. Steel. They just seemed to, well, decline because of competitors popping up. They couldn't deal with it. That's got to be a tough thing to do keeping a full dominance.

And I don't think our argument holds very well without a full dominance. Otherwise the monopolies just splinter naturally and we're back to the self-corrective pricing of competition.

[Yoda]

Well, it was obvious. But the reasoning behind it is complex and depends on a lot of things. It cannot be abstracted the way you did it. Not without being a total consequentialist.
I will save this question then and think on it while doing extra readings. I believe the question now is (and correct me if I'm wrong) CAN THE STATE PAY FOR SOCIAL PROGRAMS? AND IF SO HOW?
I would like to augment this. "Can the state pay for social programs? And if so how?" makes it sound like my dispute is purely one of economy: that we don't have the money for growing entitlements and can't afford fundamentally insolvent programs. This is true, but it is not my only problem with them. I also object on the grounds of moral hazard: that some programs make the things they're trying to stop more likely by insulating people from them on an institutional level.

Regarding the ethics question, I think we all know that we have to consider future effects, and we can show this with some admittedly extreme examples. If someone had financial trouble and needed help, they'd be set for life if we gave each of them $1 billion. But that's ridiculous, right? And we're not "total consequentialists" for thinking it's ridiculous, are we? So clearly, we all understand that a solution is not necessarily a good idea just because it solves a problem. Costs -- nominally or metaphorically -- have to be considered.

My immediate toss-out of an answer is Scandinavia.
I'll go with Sweden, specifically, since I already know a little bit about it from discussions with another user here named Pidzilla years ago. One way that Sweden's economy may be viable despite high tax rates is that it has a huge emphasis on free trade. This fact led to an amusing exchange with Pidzilla; in most of our discussions, he'd end up taking the liberal position, and I'd take the conservative one. Most of the disagreements we had could've just as well been an American Republican and an American Democrat arguing about standard issues...except for trade. He was surprised that free trade was even an issue in our country, because in Sweden, he said, it's not a point of contention at all. Its benefits are clear and accepted. So that can go a long way, I think, in staying ahead of nations that have lower taxes but dabble in protectionism.

In fact, this idea dovetails very well with another theory I'm interested in. Specifically, that nations that do not have business-friendly fundamentals can, with the right trade policies, still get a great deal of the benefit from such policies. Simply put, they don't need to entice enough business activity to build a great laptop or flat-panel TVs, they just need to trade with places that do, and find some other way to make themselves useful. Not coincidentally, perhaps, over 70% of Sweden's labor force is in the service industry.

I usually make this observation in the midst of discussions about healthcare and the availability of prescription drugs. It's possible that high-tax states are far more viable as long as enough other countries have lower taxes, and they can trade with them. The existence of the more business-friendly places may insulate the less business-friendly places from the true consequences of their economic policies. If everyone were like Sweden, Sweden might not be as viable as it seems now, in other words.

This kind of parallels foreign policy, too: I'm betting Sweden doesn't spend a lot on its military. And it certainly isn't funding lots of peacekeeping excursions. Now, you can say what you will about the wisdom of being the "police of the world," or other ideas of foreign intervention. But wise, annoyingly necessary, or downright foolish, other countries get to enjoy the potential stability benefits without having to shoulder the defense spending. So if there's any benefit to stability or peace at all, it's basically free to the countries sitting on the sidelines.

For people who can pay, Yoda. For people who can pay. This is what Medicare is all about. Helping people get access to all that stuff. Rich people take all this for granted, but it's expensive enough to be absolutely prohibitive to millions without government assistance. End of story.
It's just the beginning of the story. I'm surprised I even have to point this out, but technological progress means that today's Hot New Thing is tomorrow's cheap, universally available hand-me-down. Think of the iPod:

1980: Nobody in the world is rich enough to buy an iPod, because it's not feasible yet.
2000: Some people can afford the iPod, but it's very expensive. Nobody in the world is rich enough to buy an iPod Touch, because it's not feasible yet.
2011: Lots of people can afford iPods, iPod nanos, and iPod Touches. Nobody in the world is rich enough to buy an iPod Holo, because it's not feasible yet.
The idea that the benefits of technology are only for the rich is demonstrably false; they just get it a bit sooner than the rest of us, sometimes. Which means the sooner it gets to market, is refined, attracts more investors, becomes mass-produced, etc., the sooner it reaches people with less wealth. That was the point, as you may remember: that economic growth saves lives, and that policies which delay that growth delay the introduction of technology that will save more lives if it becomes available sooner. Whether or not rich people get the equivalent of a "sneak preview" only changes the timeline of when it reaches everyone else, not that it reaches everyone else.

That's the whole problem with health care isn't it? Why does it cost so damn much? Part of the problem is the technology itself.
Yes. Lots of other parts of the problem are artificial, but health care is inherently expensive compared to other needs, no doubt about it. But this is an inalterable fact. We can't wish it away by simply declaring that everyone should have access, just as we can't wish away the distribution and construction costs of this product or that product by imposing price caps. You can't use brute legislative force to override actual scarcities. But boy, they keep trying, don't they?

Yes it is. It absolutely is. People are currently dependent on Medicare. I used the drug metaphor earlier. It's accurate. They are plugged into the machinery. You can't pull the plug. You can only figure out ways to keep the power flowing through.
This is entirely valid if your argument is that Medicare cannot simply be replaced overnight. But the Ryan plan, for example, grandfathers (get it?) in anyone over 55.

It is absolutely true -- and some conservatives forget this, I think -- that the government has made promises to people, and people have paid into systems, and that our word is important and we must fulfill those obligations as best we can. But all this means is that we have an obligation to wean people off these dependencies over time, not that we cannot reform the programs.

There is also the purely utilitarian argument that we simply can't afford this stuff. So whatever you feel ought to happen, and however many people rely on it, that does not change the fundamental fact of their insolvency, which will, at some point, become too big to be sustained no matter what lengths we go to do "keep the power flowing." It's the same point as above: this is an actual scarcity, not a contrived one. It cannot be made to go away.

In theory, yes.

But only because I have a fairly confident prediction of the results. Liberals like Will could not make such a decision, because it is simply unethical. However, for me, the question of allowing capitalism to suffer irremediable catastrophe in order to achieve communist utopia is the same as violating the categorical imperative to save millions of lives.

It is a risky stance and it can easily lead to Stalin, but hey! Whatareyougonnado?
Aye. But I'm pointing this out because it seems like one of those things your theory leads you to support, but which you don't/wouldn't actually support. That is to say, when we're having discussions about business regulations, you're not backing the deregulatory side. But shouldn't you?


Agreed. But innovation is not a part of capitalism. It is incidental to capitalism. Flows of profit are capitalism. Before I used the thought experiment of making the matter of the Earth invisible and only looking at the flows of capital. This is what capitalism is, the totality of this flow.
And I strenuously objected to this characterization then, too:

"The problem here is the underlying assumption that "flow" is what's important, as if we achieve better standards of living simply because money changes hands. Obviously, that isn't so. We don't achieve collectively better standards of living by just moving money around, we achieve it through work and innovation. The flow of money is merely the mechanism by which we are enable this process, a way to exchange things more fluidly. It is not an end in and of itself."
I guess in a very, very technical or semantic sense, you could say that the word "capitalism" refers to the creation and allowance of liquidity for trade. But I think that would be missing the point: for these purposes, when I say that capitalism is about innovation, I mean that innovation is what makes capitalism effective and valuable, not that the definition of capitalism encompasses or includes the word. Sorry if using "capitalism" in this way has caused any confusion.

Anything can cause this flow. Stealing can cause it. Speculation can cause it (a.k.a. a bubble). Selling crappy products can cause it. And now for an undeniable counterexample: deliberately stifling innovation will not stifle the flows.
Undeniable: that stifling innovation will not stifle the mere flow of money. Deniable: that "flows" are what cause growth.

People will just keep doing the same old crap and the flows will still go. Profits will still flow in. In fact, this is another axiom of capitalism: standardization. Because everything is based on profits, it is actually against the logic of capitalism to constantly innovate, because changes cost money. It is much better that people get used to the same old stuff and keep going back to it again and again.
This is true for a specific business, but not for "capitalism" as a whole. It's good for the guy selling portable CD players that people keep going back to him, yes. But it's not good for Apple. So they create an MP3 player and mop the floor with them. Innovation is often the enemy of an existing business, because it often comes from an entirely new business (or a new business is created to sell it).


Let's not pick two people. Take a look at the highest grossing films of all time. Are these really the most innovative films of all time as well? Let me answer for you: hell no.
Again: innovative how? Narratively innovative: Rashomon. Technically innocative: Avatar.

The innovation in cinema, however, comes largely from the creation and distribution. The fact that we've gotten good enough at making niche things profitable means that someone like Malick may not be popular, but he's viable enough to keep making films. The innovation, then, is in lowering the barriers to entry with cheaper equipment, editing software, and easier distribution, so that the people who want such things can more easily find them.

[planet news]

http://zulfiqar.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/neo_whoa_1.jpg

I ain't gonna reply to it before doing more reading, but know that I'm reading it now.