Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Ya-ta Boy]

We�re entering an era of epic legislation. There are at least five large problems that will compel the federal government to act in gigantic ways over the next few years.

First, there is the erosion of the social contract. Private sector firms are less likely to provide health benefits, producing a desperate need for health care reform. Second, there is the energy shortage. Rising Asian demand strains worldwide supply, threatening industry and consumers, and producing calls for a bold energy initiative. Third, there is the stagnation in human capital. During the 20th century, Americans were better educated than the citizens of any other power. Since 1970, that lead has been forfeited, producing inequality and wage stagnation. To compete, the U.S. will require a series of human capital initiatives.

Fourth, there�s financial market reform. In an intricately connected world, even Republican administrations cannot allow big institutions to fail. If government is going to guarantee against failure, then it is inevitably going to get more involved in regulating how businesses are run. Fifth, there�s infrastructure reform. The U.S. transportation system is in shambles and will require major new projects.

All of this means that the next few years will be an age of government activism.
***

Two questions:
1. Is David Brooks correct? Are we going to see major reforms made in the next few years?

2. Do you agree with the rest of his piece about who should be in charge of the reform?

Read that here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18brooks.html?ref=opinion

My thoughts:

1. It's certainly possible and I do think it's necessary, but I don't think it's inevitable. I don't sense a demand for reform from the public like existed during previous eras of reform. I'm getting the feeling that the calls for reform are coming from the top rather than from the bottom up, but I could be wrong.

2. He could have included Bismarck in his discussion of conservative-led reform. Conservatives certainly have a constructive role to play, but frankly I'm skeptical of the current crop of conservatives. They played too big a role in creating this mess and I don't trust them to lead the way out of it. Too much of the fox guarding the hen house feel to that idea. Let them voice caution on the overly-ambitious reformers, but don't give them much power to shape the direction of change.

[sojourner1]

It's past due that average Americans take a stand to demand change, hold leadership responsible, restructure, and not continue to be dumbed down.

[Nowhere Man]

Probably the best thing about 8 years of Bush is how it's pushed people to become political. How activist they;re going to be is another story. But I think it's a fairly safe bet we're heading into a period that will be punctuated by change. Reform would be nice.

[Czarjorge]

Brooks' analysis is nonsense. John McCain is not the man to clean up this mess. He helped make the mess, as did Roosevelt, but he's no Teddy. Roosevelt's ability to necessitate change was greatly influence by his own affluent upbringing. He saw both sides of the coin, and realized that his side, the rich side, couldn't be sustained by the standards they operated under at the turn of last century.

As they say, history repeats itself (Ever read all those "eerie" connections between Lincoln and Kenndy?) and we're back in an America where the rich have been raking the poor over the coals to increase their share of the nations wealth. Thing is, it can't be maintained. The 'rape and pillage' corporate model burns out eventually. The only thing that's kept it going for so long in its current incarnation is the rise of globalism and the ability of these corporations to spread themselves out over ever wilder areas. (The Norse culture would have lasted a lot longer if they could have done their thing all over the world as our current corporate Vikings are doing.) It seems every fifty years or so the people with power and wealth forget that the system works better if that power and wealth is distributed fairly, and the whole mess starts over.

Why? Because power and wealth are corrupting and stupefying. It's shocking that the wealthy don't understand that giving more money to labor means labor spends more money which generates more profits for the wealthy and there companies. That's how economies grow.

The mistake Brooks makes is laying this at the feet of conservatives. FDR did a pretty damn good job and he's not really a conservative. Lincoln was a pretty big reformer, and back when the Reps were the liberal party. It's about the right person at the right time, not about conservative or liberal.

[Ya-ta Boy]

[blaseblasphemener]