Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 136

Thread: The Era of Living Dangerously

  1. #41
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    Americans all love to hate "the corporations" [insert warding-off-evil symbol here], but might do well to reflect on where those "high paying jobs" everyone talks about actually come from. Ghastly as the corporations are, we'd be well stuffed without them.
    Well, sure. We'd be stuffed without fire, too, but that's no reason to let folks run around with flamethrowers.

    I'm pro-capitalism, but I'm also pro-not losing sight of the fact that the economic system serves the nation--not the other way around.
    Last edited by motorfirebox; 08-23-2011 at 05:21 PM.

  2. #42
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    Americans all love to hate "the corporations" [insert warding-off-evil symbol here], but might do well to reflect on where those "high paying jobs" everyone talks about actually come from. Ghastly as the corporations are, we'd be well stuffed without them.
    Not necessarily.

    The biggest advantage of a corporation over a SMEs is power, and more rarely economies of scale.

    Power translates into better safety against legal claims, ability to bully and push out smaller competition (even small patent applicants) with legal claims, get better purchase deals (and at times even get a discount with threat of legal action).


    Now think about it; such a power asymmetry exploitation enterprise pays a higher salary than a SME in the same market.
    This is often in part compensation for a worse work environment, and thus not always an employee's advantage tot he full extent.

    The corporation may also pay a higher salary because I exploited power asymmetry to gain a high market share in a generally very profitable market. Meanwhile, the SME can pay less in the same market because its lesser power leads to additional costs.


    I see no real reason why corporations should pay systematically better salaries/wages because they're somehow better organisations. In fact, up to 100% of the salary difference may be compensation for the job being ####tier and the ability to pay a high salary might be transferred to all SMEs in the same market if you get rid of the corporation(s).

    Did salaries drop when AT&T got dismembered, did they rise when it reassembled itself?



    The German economy rests on SMEs, many of them were founded during the rebuilding of the economy in the 50's. Our big corporations are mostly consumer brand enterprises. The B2B sector is mostly about SME suppliers.
    We seem to do fine. One nice trait of SMEs is that their direct investments in foreign countries are mostly marketing investments, not about exporting jobs.

  3. #43
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    I see no real reason why corporations should pay systematically better salaries/wages because they're somehow better organisations. In fact, up to 100% of the salary difference may be compensation for the job being ####tier and the ability to pay a high salary might be transferred to all SMEs in the same market if you get rid of the corporation(s).
    The reasons may be open to debate, but if you look at the salaries paid by major corporations in the US, even at the fairly mundane level (secrataries, office managers, etc), they tend to be at the high end of the wage spectrum for the job in question. Whether or not those jobs are in fact $#!ttier than equivalent jobs elsewhere is something I suspect neither of us knows. In any event the Government doesn't choose whether a given economic sector will be dominated by large corporations or SME's, neither is there anything preventing the two from coexisting. It's by no means an either/or situation.
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  4. #44
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    No, but legislation and gubernation can steer an economy towards a dominance of corporations or SMEs.

    Turnover taxation details, anti-trust legislation, taxation differences between ltd and inc, patent legislation, subsidies...

  5. #45
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    While I don't agree with Marx on capital and its evils, he wasn't totally out to lunch economically speaking -- politically, he was just overly hopeful.
    Politically.....he was nuts

    Economically his market value theory vs. his labor value theory was spot on and I never new why people thought it was bad or radical. All the man said was. Some People make Products to make Profits/Some People make PAPER to make Profits. Whenever the right side becomes unbalanced (make more money with Paper as opposed to Products) the people will rise up. I could never understand what is so radical or un-American about that? To me that is exactly the problem we have today. Marx was not really anti-business.....he was anti-Wall Street bank. His solution was to Nationalize the banking system to SUPPORT Production(business). You have to have Production before you can have Consumption. Never understood the big deal myself. "Ike" understood it perfectly.
    Last edited by slapout9; 08-24-2011 at 06:14 PM. Reason: stuff

  6. #46
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Talking That's harsh...

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    Politically.....he was nuts
    Very harsh. To be more collegial, can't we just say his theories were, umm, different?

    Then again, given the people that aberrations of his political system killed in the name of helping them, maybe nuts is a good pick...
    Economically his market value theory vs. his labor value theory was spot on and I never new why people thought it was bad or radical.
    Not sure that people did. However, I think the Paper creators knew it was bad -- for them!
    ...His solution was to Nationalize the banking system to SUPPORT Production(business). You have to have Production before you can have Consumption. Never understood the big deal myself. "Ike" understood it perfectly.
    Those Wall Street folks made it into a big deal because it would hit them where it hurt. So they bought -- er, contributed to -- politicians to preclude that.

    In fairness to them and to others who disagreed and do disagree (I'm one...) with that nationalizing approach, their argument was and is valid and twofold. (a) Governmental operations tend to develop inefficiencies and bureaucracies grow and lose sight of their original purpose. (b) One cannot trust politicians one bit more than one can trust rampant capitalists or bankers. In fact and in my observation, one can trust them less because they garner power and power does corrupt...

    Speaking of which, the Feds are down here now, in the County next door, investigating the building of a commercially operated prison and the self enriching involvement of our wunnerful Florda Legisladers therein...

    Ideally a mix of governmental and private commercial institutions will work with and against each other and thus keep the total system fairly honest most of the time. As long as people are involved, some will find a way to game any system.

  7. #47
    Council Member J Wolfsberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    Politically.....he was nuts

    ...
    I think Terry Pratchett referred to him in one of his Discworld novels. As best I recall, the vignette involved an old man who wrote a book about economics as a practical joke. Unfortunately, a lot of people didn't get it it and millions died before it was all sorted out.

    The one thing Marx got close to right was the labor theory of value, but only close. As individuals, the one thing each of us owns that can be sold is our labor. Unfortunately, Marx and other communists/socialists/Leftists/progressives/whatevers still haven't figured out that not all labor hours are created equal, that the right to property is fundamental if the right to one's labor is to mean anything , and so on.

    What can I say? Some people are slow to get the punch line.
    John Wolfsberger, Jr.

    An unruffled person with some useful skills.

  8. #48
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    No, but legislation and gubernation can steer an economy towards a dominance of corporations or SMEs.

    Turnover taxation details, anti-trust legislation, taxation differences between ltd and inc, patent legislation, subsidies...
    To some extent, yes, though the extent to which these have actually influenced conditions on the ground is in any case debatable.

    In the US, small businesses (>500 employees) account for a bit over 50% of private nonfarm GDP and close to 50% of employment, so it's hard to argue that they have been marginalized by large corporations. 65% of new hires in the 17 years ending 2009 were from small business, though of course these jobs tend to pay less and be less secure than those in large companies.

    The two co-exist, and dominate the respective niches where they are most efficient. Obviously Boeing, GM, Apple, ExxonMobil, Lockheed Martin etc are not going to be replaceable by small businesses, nor would it make sense for government to try to initiate such a dramatic change.
    Last edited by Dayuhan; 08-24-2011 at 10:35 PM.
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  9. #49
    Council Member ganulv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berkshire County, Mass.
    Posts
    896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    Politically.....he was nuts
    I think that the notion that the workers should be arguing about who owns the bakery rather than about the size of their slice of the pie is sensible enough. He did glorify violence (more than) a bit, though. (Though I don’t think he can touch Fanon on that count.)

    All the man said was. Some People make Products to make Profits/Some People make PAPER to make Profits.
    The productive/unproductive labor distinction really jumps out at you when you keep in mind that the Party boys in China all received an education founded in Marxist economic principles—where it’s all about materialism—and you compare how wealth has been generated and invested in the PRC for the past couple of decades vs. the same in the United States. I have to say that the development of high speed rail and overall infrastructure improvement strike me as better long term bets than rent seeking and credit default swaps.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Then again, given the people that aberrations of his political system killed in the name of helping them, maybe nuts is a good pick...
    Judging Marx by the Marxists seems as unfair as judging Jesus by the Christians, at least to me. But I confess to a certain fondness for both of those guys.
    If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)

  10. #50
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Ah. However, must the Bakers support the Candle Stick makers? What of the Butchers?

    Quote Originally Posted by ganulv View Post
    I think that the notion that the workers should be arguing about who owns the bakery rather than about the size of their slice of the pie is sensible enough.
    True -- problem is some workers won't argue who but wish to argue why...
    I have to say that the development of high speed rail and overall infrastructure improvement strike me as better long term bets than ... and credit default swaps.
    Can't disagree with the motherhood and apple Pie of infrastructure improvement. The States whose responsibility that is could perhaps do a better job were not excessive income going to the Feds as opposed to the States or were the Feds to pass that excess back down to the States with less social engineering attached. We have plenty of money to do things, the governmental intakes are just terribly skewed and Federal grants and transfers are a woefully inefficient method of papering over that.

    As for High Speed Rail, in this country, it makes sense in the Northeast Corridor, Washington to Boston -- other than that, not so much. Distance and empty spaces -- it'll never compete with flying for passenger count no matter how difficult the government makes it for the airlines to compete. Problem of course is that in the corridor and the very few other places where it might be a bit beneficial, construction costs are beyond astronomical. It is a political toy and not a very smart one...

    It's not quite as dumb as the CAFE standards but almost.

    Speaking of credit default swaps, much of the recent spate thereof was engendered by rent seeking (which Adam and his brethren taught me about fifty years or so ago...) politicians, only nominally non-Marxist (Barney, Bernie et.al. ... ), tilting the playing field in order to buy votes for selected constituencies and to raise and lower all boats to marginal mediocrity. Add in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- political ploys of the first water with the same goal -- and ol' Karl was a piker...
    Judging Marx by the Marxists seems as unfair as judging Jesus by the Christians, at least to me. But I confess to a certain fondness for both of those guys.
    While I'm not particularly enamored of either...

    I did not know either of those gentlemen so my judgment must by default be based on their legacies and writings, pro and con, about them -- all of which IMO leave a great deal to be desired based on the number of bodies they strewed about and the rapaciousness and intransigence of their more 'dedicated' followers. In this case, I not only don't share the opinion, I also respectfully disagree with it. Again, that's why there are many manufacturers of automobobils and such -- choices...

    Both those folks also made much of 'equality.' People did not understand 'equality' and thus they've failed to do a decent job of ensuring equality of opportunity while they have tried, quite futilely, wasting untold Billions and much effort, to insure equality of outcome. That has never been achieved and will never be. Nope, both those folks, or, more correctly, their followers, have much to answer for...

  11. #51
    Council Member ganulv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berkshire County, Mass.
    Posts
    896

    Default

    However, must the Bakers support the Candle Stick makers? What of the Butchers?
    The state as the enforcer of the must is where Lenin parted ways with Marx, FWIW.

    The States whose responsibility that is could perhaps do a better job were not excessive income going to the Feds as opposed to the States or were the Feds to pass that excess back down to the States with less social engineering attached.
    That’s pretty much the same tension that lead to the Nullification Crisis, isn’t it? Efficiency is best assured at the local level, but the free flow of capital is best assured by fewer local agendas and more standardization, something best assured at the supralocal level. I don’t know that you can make that tension disappear.

    As for High Speed Rail, in this country, it makes sense in the Northeast Corridor, Washington to Boston -- other than that, not so much.
    The two-to-four hour journey is where it makes sense. Add Chicagoland, the Texas Triangle, and California.

    Problem of course is that in the corridor and the very few other places where it might be a bit beneficial, construction costs are beyond astronomical.
    There are also costs associated with the status quo. Decisions, decisions…

    Both those folks also made much of 'equality.'
    I imagine there is something about being a Jew that lends itself to the realization, “People keep telling me I’m a dog but I’m quite sure that I’m not.” Their equality was more about acknowledgment as fully human, not three weeks paid vacation a year and a pension at 58.

    People did not understand 'equality'
    Yep, as with Sherman’s (in)famous march, a historical perspective is indeed woefully lacking.
    If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)

  12. #52
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    273

    Default

    Ah. However, must the Bakers support the Candle Stick makers? What of the Butchers?
    Well... to an extent, yeah. This goes back to what I said earlier about the economic system serving the country rather than the other way around. The purpose of an economic system isn't to allow some people to get rich. That's an outcome, and it's not an undesirable one, but it's not the goal. The goal is to create prosperity for the nation as a whole.

    But I don't think that's really the right question anyway. Asking if butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers should have to support each other assumes that all three are starting on the same footing. If they are, and if one of them fails, well, better luck next time--failure is a necessary part of a capitalist economy. What we have now, though, is candlestick makers running up the cost of candles while simultaneously using the excess money they gain from doing so to legislate against butchering and baking during daylight hours. Preventing that sort of thing isn't asking candlestick makers to "support" butchers and bakers.

  13. #53
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default A Twofer...

    Ganulv:

    Yes, Lenin did part way with Marx -- so have most of Karl's hangers-on. As I said, they have much to answer for...

    You make that tension disappear by having the Federal government do the things it is supposed to do and cease doing all the many things that are none of its business. That proliferation of assumed tasks has created an overlarge governmental crowd that doesn't do much of anything well because it is trying to do too much. I say that based on 45 years in uniform and as a civilian working for that government. It generally means well; it always is over-involved. To rid us of that problem we can vote out all incumbents in Congress. Both Parties. Repeatedly. Until they get the message and reform the process -- without that, it will not reform; not seen as in the interest of its politicians and employees -- perspective again.

    I'll grant two -- California is woefully suspect other than San Diego to LA. To San Francisco you'll never beat the air time. Rather than trying to force people to do something they likely will not be interested in doing, why not cater to their wishes and simply improve the quo???

    True on decisions and those are best made locally. that would be definitely less efficient but we can afford it, we're wealthy but just do not spend well. Local effort is certainly far more effective -- and that, not efficency, is or should be the goal of governance. This nation is simply too large and diverse to adopt one-size-fits-all solutions to satisfy all the Nannies involved. Distressing but there you have it.

    No problem with acknowledging full humanity -- that would be guaranteeing equality of opportunity -- but I do have problems with three weeks vacation and a pension at 58 for everyone. Some jobs merit it, all do not and my quarrel is with those who would say all must be treated equally because they are all people. People and jobs are not all equal, never have been or will be until we perfect cloning. Michael Jordan is certainly a far better Basketball player than I. The Cop who puts his life on the line daily deserves different treatment than the soldier who only does that occasionally but who deserves different treatment than the medical professional who works long hard hours but with little danger -- or the Butchers and Bakers who cope with none of the above...

    Not only a historical perspective but, too often, just common sense...

    motorfirebox:

    The goal is not or should not be to create prosperity for the nation as a whole. That it is now a nominal goal is really a part of the problem. "Prosperity for the country" implies (not states, just implies...) a certain equality of outcome. That the implication is having adverse effects on us is shown by your second paragraph with which I agree -- the system has been corrupted and our Political Class has not only allowed that, they have (foolishly IMO) encouraged it.

    I'm reminded of this little tale I recently noted:
    A doctor, a priest, a lawyer and an engineer are waiting to tee up, but they have to wait an inordinate amount of time. The club pro explains that the foursome ahead of them are firefighters who lost their sight saving children. in a local school fire, and that the club lets then play any day they want. The golfers answer the pro:
    Pastor: Forgive my impatience, I’ll pray for them.
    Lawyer: Well, the club should give us a discount.
    Doctor: Maybe they can be cured; I’ll talk to my ophthalmologist friend.
    Engineer: Why can’t these guys play at night?

    Quoted from p. 126, "Winning Insurgent War, Back to Basics" by Geoff Demarest , Foreign Military Studies Office, Ft. Leavenworth.
    Problem is, of course, that we all see things from our own perspective and self protection is instinctive. In that tale, the four golfers would have worked it out on their own and the 'help' of the Pro would have been unnecessary. My point is that effective leadership and / or politics should account for that perspective issue and arrive at a fair consensus of courses of action. History shows us that such leadership or political acumen is actually and unfortunately rather rare. The counterpoint is that most societies if not unduly manipulated by their government will slowly arrive at a correct balance. In prior centuries a lack of education made the process haphazard and agonizingly slow. Given today's educational capability (as opposed to demonstrated production... ) there's a case to be made for less, not more governmental intrusion as the tendency to get to a satisfactory conclusion is more likely than ever...

    The linkage of all this to the Thread is that this era is no more dangerous than any prior era. A strong argument that it is less dangerous due to world wide societal advances could in fact be made.

    The linkage to Small Wars is that we do not do them at all well. A large contributor to that shortcoming is that steep declines in US some military capabilities, not offset by known and obvious improvements in other areas of armed forces conduct and equipage, are societally or governmentally induced. The drive toward the equality of mediocrity, excessive concerns with stability and security -- 'force protection' -- and a fragmented government funded by a Congress that has its nose in too many things have had severe detrimental impacts on our education, our training and our performance in too many -- not all by any means, but far too many -- aspects

  14. #54
    Council Member ganulv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berkshire County, Mass.
    Posts
    896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    You make that tension disappear by having the Federal government do the things it is supposed to do and cease doing all the many things that are none of its business. […] To rid us of that problem we can vote out all incumbents in Congress. Both Parties. Repeatedly. Until they get the message and reform the process -- without that, it will not reform; not seen as in the interest of its politicians and employees -- perspective again.
    I grew up on an Indian reservation so you’re preaching to the choir. The irony is that one gets elected to the House (and often enough to the Tribal Council) by promising and proving s/he can milk the Feds to the benefit of the district/reserve.

    True on decisions and those are best made locally. that would be definitely less efficient but we can afford it, we're wealthy but just do not spend well. Local effort is certainly far more effective -- and that, not efficency, is or should be the goal of governance. This nation is simply too large and diverse to adopt one-size-fits-all solutions to satisfy all the Nannies involved. Distressing but there you have it.
    I don’t disagree with any particular part here, but do think Americans should keep in mind the Federal Government’s role in creating some of that wealth. Not saying it doesn’t do its fair share of standing in the way, but it also opens doors. The current political discourse is focused on the former to the point of excluding the latter.
    If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)

  15. #55
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Yes, verily to all that.

    We agree on every point. While I didn't address it, no question in my mind that apparent selfishness on the part of voters at all levels has for many years aided Congress and legislative bodies in general in their unending pursuit of venality...

    We started educating people to preclude that and -- Hanlons razor here (mostly...) -- in the early 60s we quit, dumbed down 7-12 education to promote self esteem over basic competence and began insisting on a Degree for more jobs than should logically require one. That did tertiary education no favors. I know more than one degreed 20-30 something who's amazingly naive and short on, to me, rudimentary knowledge -- but they can tell me anything I want to know about their I-Pod or the travails of Amy Winehouse. Sad, really. I digress. That educational regression allowed a relapse to the 19th century model of US voting...

    I know it's more complex than that but the failures in education are a big part of the flawed politics problem. The good news is that seems to be slowly being retooled.
    Last edited by Ken White; 08-25-2011 at 08:01 PM.

  16. #56
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    -- but they can tell me anything I want to know about their I-Pod or the travails of Amy Winehouse. .

    You run with a pretty hip crowd ...
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  17. #57
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Heh. As one ot them acknowledges...

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    You run with a pretty hip crowd ...
    They have too much money and too much time on their hands...

  18. #58
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    motorfirebox:

    The goal is not or should not be to create prosperity for the nation as a whole. That it is now a nominal goal is really a part of the problem. "Prosperity for the country" implies (not states, just implies...) a certain equality of outcome. That the implication is having adverse effects on us is shown by your second paragraph with which I agree -- the system has been corrupted and our Political Class has not only allowed that, they have (foolishly IMO) encouraged it.
    By "nation as a whole" I don't necessarily mean every individual person in the nation. I mean the average--the whole. Enforcing absolute equality of outcome is bad, but it's just as bad as a system that results in absolute inequality of outcome. There has to be a certain general parity--the bottom end can't drag too far behind the top end, if only to satisfy the demands generational wealth places on equality of opportunity.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    The counterpoint is that most societies if not unduly manipulated by their government will slowly arrive at a correct balance. In prior centuries a lack of education made the process haphazard and agonizingly slow. Given today's educational capability (as opposed to demonstrated production... ) there's a case to be made for less, not more governmental intrusion as the tendency to get to a satisfactory conclusion is more likely than ever...
    Economically, the idea that too much government is the major source of harm just doesn't fly--our current woes came after decades of stripping government oversight.

  19. #59
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Thumbs down We can disagree on that...

    Quote Originally Posted by motorfirebox View Post
    Economically, the idea that too much government is the major source of harm just doesn't fly--our current woes came after decades of stripping government oversight.
    I think that the problem was not stripping of government oversight in the deregulation sense but lack of effective government oversight in still regulated industries and sectors at the behest of Congroids who wanted favors for donors and forced Regulators to back off by threatenting their budgets (or adding to same as a carrot...). Our current woes were caused, more than any one thing, by the bundling of mortgages and governmental entities Fannie and Freddy were in the midst of that -- and Congress resisted calls from three Presidents from both parties to clean up that mess. They also protected the SEC in the face of whistleblowers (plural) that tried to warn them of the impending crunch.

    Don't forget several Presidnts who overspent deliberately and / or structured governmental responses for purely partisan political purposes...

    Add in the plethora of Federal programs that pass money to States, localities and individuals in monumental vote buying schemes. A great deal of the money in those grants and transfers is frittered away on nice to have stuff.

    Then there's Medicare and Social Security -- neither of which I particularly need or want; so by spending money on me, someone who needs help isn't getting it -- or is getting less than they should. There's no excuse for not means testing those programs. The Medicare is particularly onerous because even though I do not need it, the system virtually forces me to use it...

    Governance failure by design. Whether too much government is the major problem is arguable -- that excessive government IS bad and ineffective government is worse should not be in dispute. Combine the two flaws and you have today's USA. The governmental milieu and its excesses may not be the major problem but it is certainly one of them.

    Ain't we got fun...

  20. #60
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by motorfirebox View Post
    By "nation as a whole" I don't necessarily mean every individual person in the nation. I mean the average--the whole. Enforcing absolute equality of outcome is bad, but it's just as bad as a system that results in absolute inequality of outcome. There has to be a certain general parity--the bottom end can't drag too far behind the top end, if only to satisfy the demands generational wealth places on equality of opportunity.
    I don't think anyone would argue against the proposition that economic policy should serve the nation as a whole. What policies will actually come closest to that goal are a matter of some dispute, and many proposals seem to be either clueless, or thinly disguised attempts to advance specific agendas, or barefaced pseudo-populist attempts to play to popular illusions. Frequently they are all three.

    Quote Originally Posted by motorfirebox View Post
    Economically, the idea that too much government is the major source of harm just doesn't fly--our current woes came after decades of stripping government oversight.
    Our current woes came after a good number of other things as well, and I see no good reason to believe that oversight or lack thereof was the critical factor. There was also a long series of short-sighted policies targeting political advantage rather than long-term economic health. After a fair number of years of watching, I've personally come to believe that sound management of macro incentives achieves far more than oversight... though sound management of macro incentives often conflict with political agendas and is consequently ignored. Both political parties in the US have done their share of that, and both have shown themselves eager to focus blame on the ever-available scapegoat of Wall Street to distract attention from their own rather gargantuan contribution to the situation.
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-07-2009, 01:14 PM
  2. Hakim-Sadr Pact: A New Era in Shiite Politics?
    By tequila in forum Who is Fighting Whom? How and Why?
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-10-2008, 05:39 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •