Why Democrat?

“I found the article to be simplistic and untrue.

Thanx Kleety.”

“Yes, bacpac. That article is much like me.

But hey, at least we brought up Ayn Rand again.”

“The best thing posted on this thread, yet. Hands down. Thankyou, Kleetn.”

“"Some of the folks who come to mind (among many), Naviguesser, kleetn, Tom T., Dunadan, and Roseymushmind (who’s not at all embarrassed by his ideas) have all expressed disdain for the free-market economy".

My take is usually the folks who don't like a free market economy are either ignorant or are hard core members of some kind of union or government agency. Lets face it, They are usually someone who will benefit from a well regulated economy. Who would be in a better position to benefit then some government bureaucrat or someone who might loose his job because his union raised labor costs so high on his company that it is now cheeper to do business out side of the United States. France is like that.

The Democratic party is a collection of special interest groups who are disenfranchised from the mainstream somehow. Gays, Labor, Women’’s rights groups, etc.. They come together for political reasons only but may not have anything else in common. That explains why they sound so convoluted and out of sink as a group and so anti American. But it has proven to be a smart thing for them. They operate as a solid voting block and don’t budge. They have gotten much of what they want by doing so. They appeal to those like them and who don’t know any better and they have succeed in getting what they what up to now.

They also are the driving force for the distraction of traditional American values. By attacking the boy scouts, controlling the educational process and degrading religion etc., they hope to stop educating young folks in the traditional American ways and values so there convoluted augments make more since to the masses and thus they gain a stronger hold on government..... Just my take.

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned; this is the sum of good government.
    Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States
    First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801”

“t is liberty rather than peace, which breeds genuine prosperity in a nation.
    J.J. Rosseau, The Social Contract”

“The politicians don't just want your money. They want your soul. They want you to be worn down by taxes until you are dependent and helpless. – James Dale Davidson, National Taxpayers Union”

“"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
-- Thomas Reed - (Speaker of the House of Representatives - 1886)”

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.
    H.L. Mencken”

“An economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget -- just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.
    John Fitzgerald Kennedy, President”

“"The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it."
-- John Stuart Mill - "On Liberty" (1859)”

“"When did ignorance become a point of view?"
Dilbert by Scott Adams, Dilbert.com & United Feature Syndicate, Inc.”

“arc-

Re: centralized government regulation of business

Isn't it a little naive to think we don't need it? I work for the 5th largest company in the U.S. Many times, in my experience, we have needed government intervention. I deal with companies who would rather make post-its or thread locker than support aerospace products. Thank God for government intervention or we wouldn't have F-18's to fight the bad guys, even when it's not 'cool' to do so.”

“"The ability to quote is a servicable substitute for wit."

- Maugham


I do so love irony.”

“I am drunk and I can tell that post was just a bunch of BS. Don't you liberals ever sober up?”

“Tilt, you're still witty :P”

“Yaz... I quoted a quote deriding the practice of quoting, <G>.

I'm really into self-referent paradox

<RASPBERRY>


What say, bacpac? Another round for the house?”

“Nice post, ped.

Naive, Biz? I would say that it is naive to believe in the necessity of a centralized government that regulates business. May I suggest more more reading on economics.

Kleetn, you are too much. Even if you did get part of that post from somewhere else, I suspect that your editorial hand was at play. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that you made that whole thing up out of your own creative insanity. That is REALLY funny. Your conclusion; however, is wrong, about my take on your post that is. If I can’t laugh at my own foibles, I’d be a pretty sorry excuse. I think that your take on the parties was very funny. Once again you have proved that you are my favorite, witty poster boy.


Violin, tehipite, let me provide this:

From The Independent Review a journal of political economy, Vol. VI, number 3, winter 2002, published by the Independent Institute. In an article called “Latin American Liberalism: A Mirage?” Alvaro Vargas Llosa writes, “To suppose that economic reform can be carried out without political reform is to divide the indivisible, to delay indefinitely the emergence of fully free societies. We forget that capitalism in Flanders, Venice, and England was created by means of political processes, by the efforts of merchants to open up their towns for commerce by gaining political concessions from feudal lords and monarchs. Once created, those freer political frameworks generated natural economic consequences. This linkage does not mean that the creation of wealth is a political process. On the contrary, as Franz Oppenheimer (1975) observed, there are only two ways to amass wealth, the economic and the political: the first is the free and rational way, by means of production, and the second is the authoritarian way, by means of violence and expropriation.”


Llosa also says, “What good is it to have fiscal gains as a result of privatization if, instead of reducing taxes or the debt, the government dedicates these gains to exorbitant social expenditures?”


On another note:
The happy leftist fantasy of people working for others does not work in real life. One former communist, interviewed on the PBS program, said that there was no incentive to work efficiently in a socialist system. If one cannot see a means to better himself and his family through his labor he has no incentive. Slavery has never worked well. When my labor is for others, I am a slave.”

“You are quite the martyr. Pardon me while I dry away the crocodile tears for the rough life you've lead.

Now tell me, please, when was the last time you were chained to a post and horsewhipped? Where are your children? Have they been sold and scattered across the country?

Simply astounding, Arclite. Extra points for gall on this one.”

“arc-
My point was without centralized government regulating business you might not have F-18's because you might not have suppliers willing to build parts for F-18's. It was meant to be ironic, because defense spending is seen as a 'Republican' platform.

Anyway, I'm for a system of checks and balances. I like the 2 party system. I don't see gross negligence in either party and I'm sure the country won't go to pot with either in power.

Now, what do you plan to do with your computer when you're done with it??”

“Read a book on economics. Ok, here's a scenario

Hypothetical Scenario:

A) the 'Post-it company' makes $100,00,000,000/year making sticky labels that go on memos.

B) They make $10,000/year making glass bubbles that are used as fillers in aerospace products (the goal in aerospace is to make everything lighter so planes can carry more weapons/cargo and fly faster/further).

Why should they devote resources and people to supporting B) when A) is so lucrative?

Post 911, B) is cool because you can paste pictures of F-18's and missiles all over your company literature and say you support defense. Even if it is not profitable it is good PR. Pre 911, these guys wouldn't even talk to defense companies. So, F-18's don't get built?

That was just an example. In general, I support the Democrats because they are willing to spend more (in general) to support government funded science, research and development. Also, I believe that some government intervention/control of large corporations is warranted. The thought of those companies running unchecked makes me nervous.”

“I used to like you, Biz, but it's become apparent you are on drugs AND you're a democrat?”

“Is any party so superior as to be the answer in the face of exclusion of the others?”

“Well, the whole argument of Dem/Rep is not worth the breath it takes. The truth is that both parties have demonstrated a knack for spending lots of tax dollars that go to waste. Do you hear that out there? Both parties! Why Democrat? Why Republican?”

“Tilt, do you actually have something constructive to add? What, pray tell, is your point?

I’m not sure where you make the connection between regulation and building something as profitable as F-18 parts, Biz? With the prices that the defense department is will to pay, I only wish I knew how to build them. You don’t think I’m a republicrat do you? Ask kleetn, he knows. That’s a strange concept for a book, Biz. What’s the title?

Too bad that you don’t believe in the checks and balances of a free market, Biz. There’s a lot of that paranoia going around in leftist circles. Mostly it’s just the fact that most leftists don’t want to learn about how markets function.

Government funded research and development can have some real benefits. I wish that Reagan had never ended subsidies for solar energy. There is a lot of research, that needs to be done, for which there is no immediate profit. Since there is no profit, the market sometimes responds slowly to speculative research. There are gaps that funded research fills. Although I’ve seen some pretty useless research being funded by our government. A great deal of useless research as a matter of fact. Private Universities fill a lot of those research gaps and probably a lot more efficiently than the government.”

“Tell us more about the checks and balances of the free market. And, tell us who makes the big boys play fair.
And tell us the amount of public money in the form of government grants that goes to funding research at the Private Universities.”

“I have spent a lot of time trying to understand the complexities of economics, Dunadan. Since I was not an economics major I have self studied by reading books and subscribing to periodicals. I have a working understanding of economics at best. You want me to teach you what I know? How much are you willing to pay me for my hard work? Your first homework assignment is to read Free to Choose, and subscribe to The Independant Review.

The point, my friend, is that Private Universities get private funding.”

“You don't think that Duke and Stanford are doing research right now that is funded by your tax dollars?”

“"Mostly it’s just the fact that most leftists don’t want to learn about how markets function."

Good point arc. Only you forgot to add that most right wingers don't want to learn how markets function.

Most (insert here any group you choose) don't want to learn how markets function.

Most AMERICANS don't give a #&%!$ how markets function. The vast majority have an interest only in micro economics as it applies to their household.

Singling out leftists is a somewhat misleading statement.”

“A good point made by Mr. Chili, and one that some people here, fail to respond to. Probably because they are too busy stirring the pot.”

“Chili, that is a very good point.

The sarcastic person- “Oh great guru of economics, tell us what you know.”

Why? Many people don’t bother to pay attention to people who know more about a subject than they do.



The disgusted person- “Bah, you don’t know it all, why should I listen to you?”

What a great way to avoid doing any research of one’s own.



Perfect knowledge is unattainable. The desire to exceed one’s current boundaries is a driving force in the evolution of mankind.

Closed-minded, closed-minded, closed-minded. Unfortunately, that is what many people call thinking. They become defensive and ignore anything that doesn’t match their self-image or world-view.”

“'With the prices that the defense department is will to pay, I only wish I knew how to build them.'

Defense spending is focused on minimizing cost just like everything else. This is a naive statement in today's climate.”

“arc, as I have said before, I enjoy your post because the cause me to think. While I don't agree with some (most?) of your thoughts. I do find them to provoke critical thought. However, any position that advocates any political party is so superior as to be the "only true way" is open for criticism.”

“You seem to focused on naive today, Biz. is that today's buzz-word? The frugal defense department? Bwaaaaaaahahahaha.

That is not my position, chili. My position is that on the one, single, only, specific issue of economics, the democrats beleive in some socialist economic ideas. My research indicates that this thinking is backwards at best.”

“point well taken arc. Thanks for defining your position. My studies lead me to believe a certain level of governmental intervention into the market place is necessary. However, I respect your position and appreciate the means in which you formed your opinion.”

“Chili, what form should this intervention take, and what is it's purpose?”

“One thing that is interesting about Friedman's anlaysis is that he describes Hong Kong (under the system set up and administered by the British) as being having perhaps the greatest degree of market freedom.

The system in Hong Kong was quite free, but largely un-democratic. It was a product of fairly enlightened colonial rule by the British. Elements of democracy were introduced rather late in the game.

This underlies the fact that democracy (including represetntative democracy), personal freedom, and free markets don's necessarily have to go together.”

“Arc:

I think it's fairly safe to say that big business would NOT govern itself wisely, especially with regards to the environment. They don't even do it now under the current legal statutes on the books. What we'd wind up with is a giant world cesspool (which many would say has already happened).”

“arc, where would we be without Anti Trust legislation?

The biggest would get bigger (and vertical integration would explode), and new players would run the risk of being exterminated.

Consolidate the competition, then you will abslolutely get to see a "free market" economy that will find equlibrium at the intersection of supply and demand.
Of course the equilibrium price will be skewed by the control of the supply by the few.

I absolutely believe we not only need Anti Trust legislation, but that we need to enforce it.”

“additionally arc, I am a firm supporter of governmental intervention into the agricultural production marketplace in that the subsidies, supports and management of crop production is vital in maintaining a healthy enough economic market in which the independant producers can survive.

I don't think there are too many in the agricultural economic world who support a completely "free market economy".”

“arclite –

I’m sure you know quite well that members of both parties have supported socialist economic ideas for quite some time now. I don’t mean to ruin a perfectly good troll with a dose of reality but...

The excesses of the free market nearly destroyed democratic freedoms in this country. We came very close to revolution during the Great Depression and main stream economists recognize that the socialist reforms undertaken saved our economy. The mixed economy that we have has proven to be the best way yet devised as witnessed by the dominance of our economy. The real argument is not whether there is a place for a central government in our economy; it is to what degree it should be involved. History has proven that essentially pure capitalism and essentially pure socialism are internally flawed.”

“The whole issue of completely free markets vs. regulated markets is a red herring. What people are generally arguing about is the type of regulation. A great book on the topic is Steven Vogel's "Freer markets more rules" see http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0801485347/qid=1018630911/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_7/102-7678500-5201724”

“That may be true, ped. But what Friedman’s point was (as well as the article that I posted) is that REPRESSIVE government and free-trade do not go hand-in-hand.

Rosey, I agree, I think many businesses do the most expedient thing that they can in order to maximize profits. I think that many of the worst abuses of the market come from polluters, although something like the ENRON scandal really burns my butt. The government isn't too far behind. The Army Corp of Engineers has screwed up the environment many times. The Department of Defense is no poster boy for environmental friendliness. And think of all the trees cut down to keep all those government bureaucrats in paper.

What keeps market abusers in line are laws. The EPA has a spotty record of protecting the citizenry from polluters. Why shouldn’t individuals be free to bring suit against large corporations? They are now, to a degree, but it can be costly and time consuming. Maybe we need some reforms within the legal system. Maybe? Boy is that an understatement.

Businesses should have a contract with the government that controls the level of permissible pollution. We have something like that in place now, but the EPA has been half-hearted in its attempts to stop many of the abusers. In a free-market, not only should government stay off the back of business, business should stay off the back of government. Our government is overly influenced by business, in my opinion.

I’m talking about two issues here. The idea of enforcing compliance with accepted behavior (amounts of allowable pollution for example) and having an adequate system of punishing the abusers. This is what I talked about when I said that the job of government should be to enforce contracts and redress grievances.


I disagree strongly with agricultural subsidies, chili. The government pays farmers to let crops rot in the silos so the price of grain can remain constant. What a horrible waste of resources. Nobody can be sanctimonious about people starving in the world while we allow this practice to continue. Let the market control the cost of grain, the price goes down, and we work from there. If the independant producers can't make it, so be it. This practice causes many more problems for more people than the few it helps.”

“No one here seems to have an academic knowledge of economics. I took enough college courses to realize economics scholars don't agree on the basic operation of the economy. If the best and brightest haven't been able to use science to gain a basic, universal understanding of economics, it stands to reason that people here are going to know only 2 things about it: Jack and #&%!$.

Still, for trailtalk, it's fairly interesting - not the economics misinformation, but the struggles for power and social dominance.

This concludes my editorial.”

“The disgusted Mutt- “Bah, you don’t know it all, why should I listen to you?”

What a great way to avoid doing any research of one’s own.


Am I prescient or what?”

“arc, if I saw many (any?) farmers in this country getting rich, I would agree. If you consider the enormous amount of resources it takes to engage in agricultural production, the return to land, labor, capital, and management is among the slimmest profit margins in any type of enterprise. There is a huge misconception that farmers are paid to allow crops to "rot in the silos". Can you find some hard evidence on that?

Magnitude would be appreciated if you find any. What farmers are paid to do is NOT plant crops. If you took out the governmental intervention, the number of producers would fall drastically. Of course, production would follow, demand would remain constant.

You have to realize that the entire production shedule in the agricultural arena is affected by factors totally out of control on a world wide basis. Flood and drought can cause a huge disruption in world wide production. Keeping a level flow of production is vital in maintaining the supply channel. If every farmer, world wide, decided to plant corn this year because the prices are high (this is an example only) and there was no intervention, and no natural disruptions, the price would plummet and we would farm failure in unheard of proportions. Do you realize the economic investment per acre of crop planted? There is no way for indivuduals to buy land, equipment and engage in farming from scratch.

There is an addage in the farm world, you have to inherit it or marry it. Given the returns, I don't see many major corporations starting "farms". I don't envision any getting interested in going that route unless prices go way, way up. If they do, the effects of the "free market" will show up in your grits........literally.”

“My grandfather was a farmer and my father grew up on a farm. We lease the land and I am somewhat familiar with the finances involved.

That has nothing to do with my point.”

“As I understand it, the reason that the US uses price supports for agricultural products rather than income supports for farmers is that no farmer would want his income to be guaranteed at the level that they declare to the IRS.”

“arc, I respectfully disagree, I think it has everything to do with your point. If the resource requirments are so high as to restrict entry into the marketplace, how can a "free market" rebound from producer failure?

I will be interested in reading any information you can generate from an Agricultural Economist on this. My bachelor's degree is agricultural economics and I am very open to ideas that would contradict my position in regard to subsidies.”

“Ya gotta love the work, violin.

Want to know what happened to the Soviet Union under Gorbachev? The Soviet Union had been spending an estimated 50% of its GNP on defense. The Soviet economy had crumbled a decade before it publicly went belly up. For ten years he Soviet economy had been propped up by the high price of oil. When prices dropped, their economy had a myocardial infarction. Their economy had been artificially sustained by market conditions that were bound to change.

Artificially propping up a sector of the economy is bad. Any way you look at it, it is bad. The subsidies go on endlessly because of the new market conditions that are artificially created.”

“There's your well thought out answer chile36: Subsidies are bad... bad.”