Why Democrat?

“I'm in favor of price supports for the entertainment industry. They should pay Britney Spears not to sing, and Carrot Top not to act.”

“A free-market is just that, chili. It takes its lumps before the situation gets really BAD and is not artificially propped up. That is the whole idea behind FREE and the reason that artificial props (such as the ones that helped make the California energy crisis so BAD) are BAD.

But I will do some further research. I also have an article about the free-market and environmentalism that I have been meaning to get to. Rosey's post jogged my memory.

Violin, come clean, if I hadn't made my post, you wouldn't have known that would you?”

“Without ag subsidies some farms will go belly up. Is that bad? Some people feel that is a natural consequence of a free market and is a survival of the fittest. Most likely the farm will be a smaller family owned farm as large corporate farms have the resources to survive market downturns.

Unfortunately, the farmer who owns the land will sell it to the highest bidder. If the farm is near an urban area the highest bidder will be a real estate developer, and thus the farm failure will contribute to urban sprawl. From a pure free market standpoint, urbanizing land is putting it to its highest and best use, but do we really want to lose all our family owned farms?

The same works for private forest land. Without an economic return to the landowner it gets paved over. To keep open land open we must provide incentives. Even the most altruistic and conscientious landowner must get a return on his land eventually.”

“Gordon- It's all a matter of proximity. Liberals complain when development occurs near someone elses property. Conservatives wait until it's next door to their own to complain.”

“If we're trying to save the family farm why wont Democrats in congress support removing the death tax to allow a guy's family to keep the farm after he's gone instead of having to sell to pay the tax. Maybe not on enormous corporate deals, worth debate, but in my area realestate is so high that a 200 acre farm that went for 700 an acre 20 years ago is now worth 15,000 an acre so Joe farmer's family owes tax on over exemption 2mil. Sell the farm time.”

“We are having an interesting discussion about those issues here, gordon. The county commission recently voted on a comprehensive development plan. They want to create a greenspace around the city to prevent urban sprawl. They put size restrictions on the lots that can be sold outside a certain radius of the city. These lots must be at least five acres in addition to having a corresponding public greenspace for every developed area. This prevents sprawl but it has other consequences. The price of real estate within the city is expected to rise. That’s nice for current homeowners. It’s not so nice for people wishing to buy their first home. People outside the city, who’s families have farmed the land their whole lives, are worried that they won’t have the, planned for, income from selling off their land when they retire. Moving to the country now becomes a more expensive proposition for those with less money. Consequences, consequences.

Let’s hear it violin. Care to take a snipe at the word consequences? Just poke your head out for a quickie post, and then duck back down. I’ll bet by the end of this discussion that you will actually manage to contribute something meaningful.

Good point mtnman. Talk about the consequences of bad policy.”

“Under current Federal tax law, the heirs to a family farm or small business have 15 years to pay the tax bill, you can put it off indefinitely under some conditions. If the decedent did some good estate planning while alive there would be no tax bill at all regardless of estate size. All the arguments about having to 'sell the family farm' are bogus. It was political rhetoric with no basis in reality. Sure fooled some people though.”

“Arclite brings up a good point.

Any public policy decision has winners and losers. Denying there are losers or dismissing the impacts as inconsequential will only undermine the legitimate reasons for the decision in the first place. Democracy only works when you have an informed populace. Misrepresentation by the various factions ultimately causes the process to fail.”

“Don’t bet on it arc. I don’t really want to change your religion. That’s a personal choice.

Besides as a trained and practicing applied economist I have to ask you: You want me to teach you what I know? How much are you willing to pay me for my hard work?”

“My best friend is an investment banker, and another good friend is a stock broker, violin. They been tryin' to 'splain this stuff to me for years. But for your knowlege, I would be willing to pay big bucks, violin. Can I owe ya?

Better yet, do you have any reading suggestions? That way I won't owe ya more than a small buck.”

“OK, it's the argument about ag subsidies that has me going now.
Some "corporate" farmers are just family farmers who have been frugal and lucky and have bought out their neighbors. They realize that you either "get big or get out". Their interest in maintaining the viability of the land remains and, for the most part, they take care of their property. So far, so good.
Then there are the corporations whose investment in actual farming is not their biggest asset. So, if these corporations are allowed to come in with the intention of making maximum short-term profit to the detriment of the environment, they would only be following good free-market tactics.
I think we need (gasp) government control to know the difference and make the big boys play fair.
Let me know how you like it when a feedlot opens up next to your house, or the river that you like to kayak on is flowing with chicken manure. Hey, it's just the free market.”

“Have a good weekend folks. I hope to come back to some incredibly thought provoking material. Maybe violin can save the day again!”

“I'm in such a hurry to bug out quickly that I almost forgot. Hey violin, as an interesting side note, both of the friends I mentioned got their economics degrees from Lehigh and their MBAs from RUTGERS!”

“Reading suggestions arc? What conclusion do you want?

The trouble with economics is that it can never be a true science. The experiments have such dire human consequences, that you can’t ethically test your hypothesis.

Public policy is not often based upon economics but political ideology. The balanced budget amendment was a terrible idea from an economic perspective but voting for it sure made political sense.

There is really too much available to give you any brief reading list. Like anything else, I think the best approach is to expose yourself to as many different points of view as possible and keep an open mind. I can however provide you with some economics humor:

Ask five economists a question and you'll get five different answers, six if one is Violin.

“If the game of Trivial Pursuit were based on economics it would have 100 questions and 3000 answers.”
– Ronald Reagan”

“Ayn Rand has left the building.”

“You can’t say Ayn Rand on the Libertarian Thread kleetn. Read on:

IS LIBERTARIANISM AN EVIL DOCTRINE? Yes, if evil is the irrational and the destructive. Libertarianism belligerently rejects the very need for any justification for its belief in something called “liberty.” It repudiates the need for any intellectual foundation to explain why “liberty” is desirable and what “liberty” means. Anyone from a gay-rights activist to a criminal counterfeiter to an overt anarchist can declare that he is merely asserting his “liberty” — and no Libertarian (even those who happen to disagree) can objectively refute his definition. Subjectivism, amoralism and anarchism are not merely present in certain “wings” of the Libertarian movement; they are integral to it. In the absence of any intellectual framework, the zealous advocacy of “liberty” can represent only the mindless quest to eliminate all restraints on human behavior — political, moral, metaphysical. And since reality is the fundamental “restraint” upon men’s actions, its is nihilism — the desire to obliterate reality — that is the very essence of Libertarianism. If the Libertarian movement were ever to come to power, widespread death would be the consequence. (For elaboration, see my essay “Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty.”)

Justice demands moral judgment. It demands that one objectively evaluate Libertarianism, and act in accordance with that evaluation. It demands that one identify Libertarianism as the antithesis of — and therefore as a clear threat to — not merely genuine liberty, but all rational values. And it demands that Libertarianism, like all such threats, be boycotted and condemned.

Moral judgment, and not some pragmatic calculation of losses and gains, is what must precede any decision about whom to associate with. As Dr. Peikoff makes clear (in his lecture “Why Should One Act on Principle?” and, much more extensively, in his forthcoming book on Objectivism), there cannot be any “cost-benefit analysis” of justice versus injustice, or of not sanctioning versus sanctioning evil (or of the alleged pro’s and con’s of any proper moral principle). The moral is the practical. No matter what the short-range appearances may be, there are no real “benefits” in acting unjustly, and no “losses” in acting justly. There can be no value in pretending that the irrational is rational. The moral principles of Objectivism identify the kind of action — the only kind of action — that is in accord with the demands of reality and therefore beneficial to man’s life. If an action is consonant with moral principles, then and only then can the question of costs versus benefits legitimately arise. Only then can various alternative courses offer genuine advantages and disadvantages that need to be compared. But the immoral — the unjust, the dishonest, the irrational — is by its nature the anti-life and can offer no value.

From http://www.aynrand.org/objectivism/sanctions.html " target="_blank">http://www.aynrand.org/objectivism/sanctions.html”

“Mutt: When the experts diagree, it hightens not weakens the requirement that we try to think some things out for ourselves.”

“Let's keep this thread near the top for Monday.”

““A free-market is just that, chili. It takes its lumps before the situation gets really BAD and is not artificially propped up. That is the whole idea behind FREE and the reason that artificial props (such as the ones that helped make the California energy crisis so BAD) are BAD.” - Arclite

Now we are getting into the mystical faith in the “magic” of the market place. Even if markets are always self correcting – there is nothing in the process of self correction that guarantees that individual human beings, eco-systems or large groups of human beings will come out OK. What self corrects, according to the notion are things like the balance of supply and demand. There is nothing in the process that guarantees that the human cost will not be extreme. The Irish famines of the 19th century are an example. Free markets dictated that food was exported from Ireland while masses of people in Ireland starved. Eventually things self corrected… the demand for food decreased due to death and emigration. New strains of potatoes and other foods came into Ireland so that people could be fed… but in the meantime: a human catastrophe of awesome proportions. Things got really BAD. Similar things are happening around the world where fertile land is used to grow food for export while people starve.

I am not saying that there are not times where regulations make things worse. I am not denying that there were awesome famines in China and Russia under communism. What I am saying is that markets take care of markets. They are enormously creative and powerfully transformative amoral forces.

Market forces are responsible for the endless creativity of the drug trades, for the use of increasingly younger child prostitutes in many corners of the world, for the development of the amazing computers we all use to talk here and for the amazing availability of high quality backpacking gear that is ever improving.

Respect for market forces yes, market worship no.”

“I will take time for some research tomorrow evening after I take the kids home. This could be an opportunity to educate arclite. LOL.”

“This thread just stays alive day after day.

That proves dumbocraps are inherently stupid.”

“Kleetn, that article you put in was the best thing I`ve seen done on Polly and her damned o` ticks in a long time!!!

Thanks for that!LOL”

“Well, I'm off to hike around the Republican Happy Hunting Ground. Ya Know... if some wacko wanted to take out a ton of Fat Cats, this golf course would be a prime target. Hmmm... maybe I should sell my tickets and head out of town during the tournament for the next few years...”

“Tilt. Y'all be careful not to get hit in the head by any errant golf balls. Market forces demand that we keep the old geezers on the course, even if it costs a few fans their teeth.”

“Gerald Ford never made it on the Senior Tour, thank G-d, <G>.

People used to get whacked on the head all the time to the right of the 15th Green, but they've moved the gallery back about 40 ft. We were pissed because that was one of the best spots on the course... "up close and personal," tho' a tad dangerous.”

“That's a fact, violin. Economists may not agree all of the time but Greenspan (a libertarian I believe) has done a pretty decent job for many years. Economics may have a lot in common with chaos theory, if a butterfly flaps its wings in Canada, how does that effect the weather in Peru? There are so many factors involved. Interesting post about Libertarianism. I happen to believe it is very moral belief system, but then, those are my morals. I like Libertarian ideas about victimless crime. I believe that too many people (from the right and the left) try to push their morality on others. I like their ideas on smaller government, the way our founding fathers originally intended, not the bloated bureaucracy that it has become. Sounds like the author of your post may not share the same moral belief structure that I do. But isn't that also the problem with morals? We could debate the philosophy of morals ad infinitum. I try to read different perspectives. I would never want to get all of my information, about any subject, from one viewpoint. Do you have any suggested reading about a positive viewpoint on government regulations, checks on the market, or government provided services? Being an economist, you bring a lot to this discussion.

Chili, one of my main objectives is ALWAYS to educate myself. Sometimes I push and prod and get obnoxious in my posts to keep people coming back just to prove me wrong or to give a rational viewpoint that differs from my own. And it sometimes works. Different perspectives help to give me an objective view. At least that is what I’m aiming for.

I agree, Ped, market worship would be crazy. Relying on nothing but a free-market may be a very BAD idea. Nobody really seems to know for sure, but I like trying to learn more about different perspectives. Nice, thoughtful post.

The next installment, on that PBS series, is about the World Economy. It comes on here at 9:00pm on Wednesday. The last one was two hours long, so I stayed up a bit past my bedtime, but it was informative. I’ll be interested to see what they say about global interaction of markets.”

“Arc is mellow on Monday and gets more caustic as the week progresses. Post now and avoid his rath. (joke)
I am reading an interesting book that sheds light on the roiginal reformers from the turn of the 20th century. It's the "Autobiography of William Allen White". It talks about the fight with the "robber barons" and the Republican's fight against predatory wealth. Good reading.”

“LOL...You may be right about that, Dun. Here's another thought for the day on morality.


My moral position is fairly simple: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I live in what most people would consider a “liberal” town. The majority of jobs here are with the government and democrats overwhelmingly outnumber republicans. Every day I drive the speed limit. I don’t drive five miles-an-hour over the limit, I drive the limit. I do this because traffic authorities have determined that, for the good of all, this is the safe maximum speed to travel. I do this because I know that if enough people break a law, government creates new laws and/or increases the penalties for breaking the existing law (this has been proven to me by observation), and I don’t wish to be constrained by an overabundance of laws. I do this because as a nation of laws, it is my duty to live within the law. If I do not like a law, there are proper avenues of protest. Willful breaking of traffic laws is not an effective protest, causes danger and/or inconvenience to others, and shows a general disrespect for authority.

People tailgate me when I drive the speed limit. This causes a danger to them and myself. People have sped past me, in no passing areas, when I drive the speed limit. This causes a danger to them, others, and myself. The funny thing is that these people save very little time by speeding to the next traffic light. They remind me of my girlfriend’s fifteen year-old daughter. One afternoon, after speeding through traffic, and changing lanes in a fairly reckless manner, she arrived at her place about five seconds before I did, hopped out of the car and declared, “I got here first!” I wonder if many of these people have heard of time management.

If someone’s dog got loose and wandered into traffic, I stand a better chance of being able to stop in time to avoid hitting him if I am not speeding. If someone’s child ran into the street, I stand a better chance of being able to stop in time to avoid hitting him if I am not speeding. I find it morally essential for me to care about other people by this very simple behavior.

Why do you think so many people have such a problem with this simple moral principle? Is this a moral principle that we can all agree on?”

“I'm with you all the way on this one. Don't get me started about the illegal raceways that we call highways. It always amazes me when you are doing the speed limit and someone passes you and then flips you off.”

“Arc, there seems to be very few moral principles that all can agree on. I drive the speed limit. For all the reasons you stated. But the transgression that irks me the most is littering. Talk about moral principles. What causes someone to throw their trash out on the side of the road instead of disposing of it properly.

At the Sipsey clean up, Tango and I bagged a good deal of garbage from fire pits and the side of the trail. Then when we got to the trail head, low and behold, there was a Big Gulp paper cup under the bridge in the middle of the Thompson Creek. What evil posesses someone (who presumably was a hiker) to do something like this. I causually made the comment that I could have beat the #&%!$ out of someone I saw doing this. I almost meant it.”

“'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.'

arclite,
I enjoy yours posts but you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Did you say you wanted more or less government controls?”

“I don't see Arc as being that inconsistent. He wants fewer government controls and fewer regulations, but he is also advocating cooperation with regulations that makes sense.

Just as scientists work from a position of skepticism regarding new scientific claims, Arclite argues for skepticism about government regulation and intervention. This skepticism (as opposed to a blanket rejection) regarding regulations and laws is part of what (in my mind) separates Anarchists from Libertarianism.

I am not saying I agree with the extent and nature of Arclite's skepticism and his rules for evidence.”

“I've cleaned many a place while being a memeber in the Jaycees, the Florida Trail Association, and Adopt-a-River. I could go on about litter as well, chili. I don't understand the mentality of thinking that other people will fix my messes.

That's about the gist of it, Ped. I search for a balance regarding government regulation and business. My position is always adaptable to change as I become more educated about the issues. Skeptical? Moi? QUESTION EVERYTHING I say!

I love to hear about people driving the speed limit, because in my town I'm something of a freak. I'm sure that this revelation comes as no big surprise to some of my detractors. It certainly ain't no surprise to my friends.

I think the outline of my current position is fairly clear, Biz. In past posts I've said that I believe in limiting government to enforcing contracts and providing a means of redress for the citizens against the organizations. I had hoped for some discussion on either general theory or specifics. Got some? Can I get some?”

“Remember in “2001, A Space Odyssey” how HAL fell apart because of his conflict between two irreconcilable objectives?

I knew posting a Randian attack on Libertarianism would be bad for arclite, but I never expected him to warp this into a speeding/littering thread.”

“Pay attention, violin. Apparently, we warp speeded right past your morality post.”

“Awfully randy of you, Violin.

Geez, this thread sure calmed down.

biz....Biz

Big BIZ, little biz, what begins with "biz".

Cutcha down to siZe?”

“arc-Do you want to fight or do you want a discussion? I don't like generalities. I deal with specifics. The company I work for (builds F-18's) does NOT get a blank check from the government. In fact, most of the projects I work on are being renamed 'The Affordable [whatever] project' to remind us that Everything focuses around cost these days. Also, more than half the money for research and development projects often times comes from internal company dollars, not the U.S. government. The government is willing to step in and fund projects only after the design has been proven. I think there is a lot of confusion about this among people who don't work in the industry. We are not fat, dumb and happy when it comes to defense spending anymore.

As far as limiting government to enforcing contracts and providing a means of redress for the citizens against the organizations, sounds great. In my experience, the EPA has and is having a tremendous affect on companies. Why do you think the laws are not being enforced?”

“little biz, lol

That's my new look Ü”

“Viol: To be honest, I hadn't read Rand's anti-libertarian tome. Its kinda kewl to see how she defines it in order to set it up for the shellacking she gives it. It's a gorgeous piece of Randy rhetoric.

Biz: I am an independent, but I agree with the core notion in your explanation of why you lean towards the Democrats: market values are not necessarily the same as human values. They often diverge and often these divergences are important enough to warrant government intervention.

The libertarian contribution to the argument is to emphasize that there is always some cost to government intervention: records need to be kept, laws and regulations need to be enforced, compliance needs to be monitored and sanctions need to be imposed. Even when the only government intervention involves spending money... there are still taxes to be raised and spending oversight to consider (and this gets us into all the problems listed above).”

“GW Bush = Closet Keynesian

The Washington Post analyzed Bush's budget and found it to contain the biggest U.S. budget increases since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society in the 1960s.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48583-2002Apr14.html

So, If you are a free marketeer, the question is: "Why Republican?"

rl”

“its the leaner and meaner biz!”

“She all bizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz-ness and no baloney!”

“Good golly Biz, let's not fight. We shouldn't go to bed angry. Sorry...must... control...silly...urge...towards Biz. I noticed that you're not using naive today. That's a nice start. It's good to know that the defense department has become more fiscally responsible. The media has a nasty habit of uncovering wasteful defense department spending. Thank God we won't have to read any more of those articles. The EPA has, throughout its history, had a spotty record about enforcing existing pollution laws. I don't have time right now to look up past articles about Superfund Sites and post them. If you still don't believe me, maybe someone else could help us out. Or you'll have to wait until later, when I have time. Wanna wrestle?

If you believe in a free-market and only have two choices (yuck!), why republican? One word: TaxCuts! Two more words: De regulation.”

“What?! I have alienated KLEETYFACE?!”

“In the past several months, Bush and the Republicans have put forth massive budget increases. With feeble economic growth, that means tax cuts are temporary.

In those same months, Bush has increased tariffs on steel. This is essentially marketplace regulation to decide what steel gets purchased.

This is very strange. Clinton kept budgets in check and pushed forward the cause of free trade. I seem to remember tax cuts in his administration as well.

Now we get Bush who is, by his actions, less receptive to free trade and supportive of bigger government.

BTW, I'm not saying that one president was better than the other. I just think this switch is interesting. Can anyone say "paradigm shift?"”

“'The EPA has, throughout its history, had a spotty record about enforcing existing pollution laws.'

Some new laws just came out. They are requiring companies to reduce chrome emmisions by 85% and nickel by 90% by next year. This is great except there are no currently no good alternatives to the technologies that use chrome. So, companies will cry 'we can't build our parts without an alternative. Let us develop one, we need more time.' The EPA will grant extensions...

It's a slow process but I believe it works.

The media. Hmmmm. Aren't they in the business of selling something?”

“And wasn't it our new President Bush that just lifted EPA laws on air pollution for Oil companies? After one company spent millions upgrading scrubbers, etc. to comply and is now at a competitive disadvantage because the other companies who were slow to comply are now exempt?”

“I think it’s interesting how Whitman’s EPA is eliminating the ombudsman after he criticized her office for apparent conflicts of interest regarding sweetheart deals for Citigroup (her husband has strong ties to them).

This is the same thing she did as Governor of New Jersey. Once elected she eliminated the office of the Public Advocate whose job was to help citizens and citizen groups deal with government bureaucracy and even sued the State on behalf of environmental groups.

I guess you stick to what works.”

“What we need is more government control of the media! There should be laws in place to prevent the spread of misinformation and hysteria!”

“Came across this article"
Politically MotivatedE

And this:
NATIONAL WILDERNESS INSTITUTE

This is interesting:
Politics over science at the EPA?
Abuses Lead To Bad Policies, Scientists Charge
By Daniel J. Murphy
Copyright 1998 Investor's Business Daily
August 20, 1998

Less than a year after Internal Revenue Service employees told a Senate hearing about widespread abuse at their agency, their counterparts at the Environmental Protection Agency are going public with their own accounts.
They aren't getting as much media attention. But their complaints reveal how the agency's alleged use of bad science may be harming the environment and wasting taxpayer dollars.
Does it matter?
Seemingly small decisions by the EPA can have a huge effect. Take the EPA's labeling of secondhand cigarette smoke as a Group A carcinogen, for instance. That led many cities and the state of California to ban smoking in public places.
Yet U.S. District Judge William Osteen last month threw out the EPA's claim that secondhand smoke causes cancer. Scientific studies, he said, didn't back up the claim.
It isn't just agency bureaucrats who are mad. Many of those who are most angry are scientists.
A '96 survey of the EPA's Office of Research and Development noted that a "major source of frustration (and insecurity) to ORD employees is that the research direction and even the very existence of ORD is determined by politics" (emphasis in original).
Microbiologist David Lewis, who works for the EPA, is one leading critic. In '96, Lewis published a critical review of EPA science practices in Nature, a respected science journal. A spate of workplace recriminations, such as alleged ethics violations, ensued against Lewis. He later filed suit and won.
"In Lewis' case, you get people who are saying the agency may have gone too far," said EPA spokesman David Cohen. "As long as this agency has existed, there have been very high-profile whistleblowers - most of whom in previous years have always made the argument that the agency wasn't doing enough" to protect the environment.
Lewis counts himself among them. "That message is not getting out there - that we're not just wasting money with bad science, we're (also) putting public health and the environment at risk. And we're operating blind," he said.
In June, a letter in The Washington Times signed by 10 EPA employees, agency contractors and others with agency business stated that "we find the situation so reprehensible that we submit this letter, risking our careers rather than remaining silent."
Those signing, including a few under agency investigation, called themselves "but a few scientists, managers" and others from around the country speaking out against "fraud or waste" and "poor science" at the agency.
A report by the Alexandria, Va.-based National Wilderness Institute in May has helped spawn the ferment. That group advocates free-market solutions to environmental problems.
Provocatively titled "The People v. Carol Browner: EPA on Trial," the detailed account charged that in recent history there's no other example of an "agency's pretenses being so at odds with its practices."
One example in the report involved something simple: asthma inhalers.
Asthma inhalers contain chlorofluorocarbons, which face an eventual total ban under the Montreal Protocol, a treaty that the U.S. signed in '87. However, certain uses deemed essential were exempted until substitutes were found. So far asthma inhalers using CFCs qualify.
But last year, the EPA and the Food and Drug Administration moved to speed up the phaseout of inhalers until they ran into a wall of political outrage.”