|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:03 pm Post subject: Have Sweeter Words EVER Been Spoken? |
 |
|
Well, I suppose they have, but not since 1932 and that's almost beyond living human memory.
Permanent Democratic Majority: New Study Says Yes
A growing number of political scientists, analysts and strategists are making the case for a realignment of political power in the U.S. to a new Democratic majority based on two trends: 1) the increasing numbers of black and Hispanic voters, and 2) a decisive shift away from the Republican Party by the suburban and well-educated constituencies that once formed the backbone of the GOP.
...Ruy Teixeira makes a strong case that "progressive arguments are in the ascendancy," that demographic and geographic "trends should take America down a very different road than has been traveled in the last eight years. A new progressive America is on the rise."
...As a result of these demographic changes, the Democratic Party enjoys a large advantage over the Republican Party in the size of its electoral base -- an advantage that is almost certain to continue growing for the foreseeable future."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/13/pemanent-democratic-major_n_186257.html
Yo ho. Yo ho. I've always believed the US is a progressive nation that was founded on revolutionary, idealistic principles. It's history has been marked by periodic progressive eras punctuated by intervening periods of conservatism to allow time for the (I'm trying to be polite here) less cool to catch up--or die off in the natural course of time.
I especially like the way Paul Krugman put it in another piece: "Beyond that, Republicans have become embarrassing to watch. And it doesn�t feel right to make fun of crazy people. Better, perhaps, to focus on the real policy debates, which are all among Democrats." (Emphasis added)
I came across a new word the other day that perfectly describes certain of our citizens these days: poutrage. It is so accurate that it deserves to be 'word of the year'.
That's all. Have a nice day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, the Dems will wield supreme power for about 8-12 years.
But by 2020 they'll screw it up and piss off the electorate and people will have forgotten why they hated the GOP in the first place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
2020?
Maybe, but more like 2028 or so and that's all I ask. I'm turning 60 this year and don't expect to make 80.
I do take issue with 'screw it up' (not so much with 'piss off'), but I have to get to work. I don't consider the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act to be screw ups, although they certainly pissed off enough blue collar Dems that they abandoned the party. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| In 2001 the talk was of a permanent Republican majority. 8 years changed everything? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Yes, the Dems will wield supreme power for about 8-12 years.
But by 2020 they'll screw it up and piss off the electorate and people will have forgotten why they hated the GOP in the first place. |
I agree 12 years is probably a reasonable upper limit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Obama won't get a second term. We will be begging for the Republicans to come back in and fix the God awful mess that is being perpetrated on the American people (and by proxy, the rest of us.)
Of course Republicans are equally ill equipped to "fix" anything. Not until we start realizing govt is the problem and not the solution, will things start to improve.
It really saddens me to think what the world could be like today if we hadn't stunted our potential with govt interventions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| It really saddens me to think what the world could be like today if we hadn't stunted our potential with govt interventions. |
Without government interventions into the market place, we'd be living in a system of monopolies, trusts, and dirt poor workers with wealth even more concentrated in the hands of a few than it is now.
Completely free markets are a train wreck when it comes to quality of life for the common man, which is why countries regulate. Proponents of completely free markets are up there with proponents of true communism when it comes to people whose opinions don't mesh with reality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
Without government interventions into the market place, we'd be living in a system of monopolies, trusts, and dirt poor workers with wealth even more concentrated in the hands of a few than it is now.
|
That is a very surprising conclusion to jump to. I would love to see an example of a market where short term govt input led to a long term outcome that was better than not intervening at all. In fact I would love to see an example of a completely unregulated market. Typically govt intervention leads to unintended outcomes, and generally higher prices and lower output, in the given market.
If you want some examples give me some examples of where free markets have led to monopolies, trusts (the same thing) and dirt poor workers. I guarantee I can show you more govt cock-ups than market ones.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand what a market is. Pretty much by definition govt intervention leads to inefficiency. Whether it be by taxes, rent controls, subsidies, tariffs whatever.
Ontheway is going to rip you a new one on this so I will leave it to him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| That is a very surprising conclusion to jump to. I would love to see an example of a market where short term govt input led to a long term outcome that was better than not intervening at all. In fact I would love to see an example of a completely unregulated market. |
I'd love to see a society where no government was requried at all, because the people all behaved in such a way that no governance was required. It doesn't happen. The same is true of the subsection of society that is the marketplace. Standard Oil is a great example of how the market is decidedly un-self regulating; no one was going to rise up and "compete" with them after they gained the foothold they gained, and regulation was needed to bring them into line.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| If you want some examples give me some examples of where free markets have led to monopolies, trusts (the same thing) and dirt poor workers. I guarantee I can show you more govt cock-ups than market ones. |
Give me some examples of successful totally free markets that have produced as much good for their citizens as the regulated American market, on a comparable scale to the American market.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| I think you fundamentally misunderstand what a market is. Pretty much by definition govt intervention leads to inefficiency. Whether it be by taxes, rent controls, subsidies, tariffs whatever. |
I'm not disputing government intervention leads to inefficiency. The idea that efficiency is the alpha and omega of a market's quality might be attractive from a mathematical standpoint, but there's more to human society than economic math. The counterpoint is that no government intervention leads to incredibly poor living conditions for the common worker and lack of competition between businesses, for obvious reasons.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Ontheway is going to rip you a new one on this so I will leave it to him. |
Ontheway, if he is who I think he is, believes the only way to fix the medical system is to abolish income tax. He's not even in reality when it comes to economic discussion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
harlowethrombey
Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A permanent democratic majority. . .meh, that's only slightly more appetizing than Rove's permament republican dynasty. Which is to say, not much at all.
If this 'permanent majority' institutes real gun control, univeral health care, creates a definate seperation of church and state, distances themselves from the Fedearl Reserve (or just declares it unconstitutional in the first place), does away with illegal wiretapping, puts up a nice big, well-guarded fence on our southern border and stops tossing our military into every conflict in the entire world I might get behind them.
Now, while I certainly feel some glee at the smug, vindictive bastard neocons gettin exiled from the politica landscape, to say that I think a person like Harry Reid is a dynamic, admirable leader is many steps too far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| That is a very surprising conclusion to jump to. I would love to see an example of a market where short term govt input led to a long term outcome that was better than not intervening at all. In fact I would love to see an example of a completely unregulated market. |
I'd love to see a society where no government was requried at all, because the people all behaved in such a way that no governance was required. It doesn't happen. The same is true of the subsection of society that is the marketplace. Standard Oil is a great example of how the market is decidedly un-self regulating; no one was going to rise up and "compete" with them after they gained the foothold they gained, and regulation was needed to bring them into line. |
Government is very necessary for such things as protecting the border and maintaining internal order, eg police. As for the Satandard Oil example just because it was monopolistic doesn't mean the price of oil products was high. In fact economies of scale probably led to greater efficiencies.
| Quote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| If you want some examples give me some examples of where free markets have led to monopolies, trusts (the same thing) and dirt poor workers. I guarantee I can show you more govt cock-ups than market ones. |
Give me some examples of successful totally free markets that have produced as much good for their citizens as the regulated American market, on a comparable scale to the American market. |
It's difficult because few exist. My father has been a sheep farmer in NZ for 35 years. He has been around pre and post govt subsidies for farmers. He produces more but gets a lower price bcause the govt no longer subsidizes him like he was back in the early 80s. If the markets he sells to weren't subsidized he would make a lot more. So he produces more, which is better for everyone but only gets about the same price he did 25 years ago.
If not for govt regs, both him and the consumers of sheep would be better off.
| Quote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| I think you fundamentally misunderstand what a market is. Pretty much by definition govt intervention leads to inefficiency. Whether it be by taxes, rent controls, subsidies, tariffs whatever. |
I'm not disputing government intervention leads to inefficiency. The idea that efficiency is the alpha and omega of a market's quality might be attractive from a mathematical standpoint, but there's more to human society than economic math. The counterpoint is that no government intervention leads to incredibly poor living conditions for the common worker and lack of competition between businesses, for obvious reasons. |
Who decides what is an efficient intervention? At least economists can measure and provide evidence for their theories. Leftist thinkers prefer to be "pragmatic" or "wait and see" but aren't required to show what they advocate actually works.
| Quote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Ontheway is going to rip you a new one on this so I will leave it to him. |
Ontheway, if he is who I think he is, believes the only way to fix the medical system is to abolish income tax. He's not even in reality when it comes to economic discussion. |
So the answer to the broken medical system is to throw more money at it? The US (believe it or not) already has the largest public health care system in the world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Not until we start realizing govt is the problem and not the solution |
Channel Ronald Reagan often, do we? Just as an aside, might I mention the results of the last election?
By 'Permanent' the writers mean a generation, as has been the case throughout our history. Take a generation to mean approximately 30 years. Some historians posit that we're just repeating the Hamilton vs Jefferson debate. It's a helpful idea if you don't take it too literally.
Of course this whole thing could go to hell in a handbasket if Obama blunders, but so far he's shown impeccable political instincts.
Who will be the Alf Landon of 2012? Any nominees for the honor? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Not until we start realizing govt is the problem and not the solution |
Channel Ronald Reagan often, do we? Just as an aside, might I mention the results of the last election?
By 'Permanent' the writers mean a generation, as has been the case throughout our history. Take a generation to mean approximately 30 years. Some historians posit that we're just repeating the Hamilton vs Jefferson debate. It's a helpful idea if you don't take it too literally.
Of course this whole thing could go to hell in a handbasket if Obama blunders, but so far he's shown impeccable political instincts.
Who will be the Alf Landon of 2012? Any nominees for the honor? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Ya-ta Boy"]
| Quote: |
Of course this whole thing could go to hell in a handbasket if Obama blunders, but so far he's shown impeccable political instincts.
|
Tehe, I got a giggle out of this.
If by "impeccable political instincts" you mean bowing to a despot, making fun of disabled people, advancing failed economic ideas, subsidizing economic failures with funds confiscated from people who actually create wealth, then you would probably be correct.
He's basically just the pinko-fascist version of Bush. Nothing really changes hence govt is the problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| That is a very surprising conclusion to jump to. I would love to see an example of a market where short term govt input led to a long term outcome that was better than not intervening at all. In fact I would love to see an example of a completely unregulated market. |
I'd love to see a society where no government was requried at all, because the people all behaved in such a way that no governance was required. It doesn't happen. The same is true of the subsection of society that is the marketplace. Standard Oil is a great example of how the market is decidedly un-self regulating; no one was going to rise up and "compete" with them after they gained the foothold they gained, and regulation was needed to bring them into line. |
Government is very necessary for such things as protecting the border and maintaining internal order, eg police. As for the Satandard Oil example just because it was monopolistic doesn't mean the price of oil products was high. In fact economies of scale probably led to greater efficiencies. |
I agree, the government is needed to maintain internal order, including internal order within markets, such as ensuring safe products, fair competition, fair pay, and so forth. As far as the example of Standard Oil, the point is that it's an example of lack of regulation culminating in the inevitable result of a monopoly, which is something you requested.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| If you want some examples give me some examples of where free markets have led to monopolies, trusts (the same thing) and dirt poor workers. I guarantee I can show you more govt cock-ups than market ones. |
Give me some examples of successful totally free markets that have produced as much good for their citizens as the regulated American market, on a comparable scale to the American market. |
It's difficult because few exist. |
It's difficult because zero exist on the scale I asked about. That said, in response to your example:
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| My father has been a sheep farmer in NZ for 35 years. He has been around pre and post govt subsidies for farmers. He produces more but gets a lower price bcause the govt no longer subsidizes him like he was back in the early 80s. If the markets he sells to weren't subsidized he would make a lot more. So he produces more, which is better for everyone but only gets about the same price he did 25 years ago. |
I think it's worth noting that, while I feel totally free markets are a bad idea, any individual type of regulation can either be a bad or good thing. I think this is something pro-free market individuals often over-generalize about, pointing to individual regulations that might be bad, and then concluding all regulation is bad.
I think a good example of poorly instituted government interference is within the energy sector of our economy. Many types of power receive what amounts to government aid, but solar power plants don't (or at least didn't last year when I was reading more actively about them; there was a law at the cusp of being enacted which could have changed that, I didn't read as to whether or not it passed), which makes them less competitive than they otherwise would be. I don't think that means energy in general shouldn't receive government aid, I think it means that the choice to not include solar is a bad one. I also agree with you regarding the farming regulation in question.
That doesn't mean all government regulation in the market is bad, though. I have a much harder time, for instance, finding fault with the idea of regulation of medicinal drugs or food to protect citizens, or regulation of cars to meet certain safety standards, or regulations that require food to show certain nutritional information. These things benefit society, and they wouldn't exist in a purely free market.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| I think you fundamentally misunderstand what a market is. Pretty much by definition govt intervention leads to inefficiency. Whether it be by taxes, rent controls, subsidies, tariffs whatever. |
I'm not disputing government intervention leads to inefficiency. The idea that efficiency is the alpha and omega of a market's quality might be attractive from a mathematical standpoint, but there's more to human society than economic math. The counterpoint is that no government intervention leads to incredibly poor living conditions for the common worker and lack of competition between businesses, for obvious reasons. |
Who decides what is an efficient intervention? |
The same people that ultimately enact all legislation: elected representatives of the people. If you feel those representatives are making poor choices regarding intervention, vote against them. If enough people feel the same way, they won't be voted in.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| At least economists can measure and provide evidence for their theories. Leftist thinkers prefer to be "pragmatic" or "wait and see" but aren't required to show what they advocate actually works. |
I don't like that you put "economists" and "leftist thinkers" into separate categories. Are you genuinely suggesting there are no left-leaning economists?
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Ontheway is going to rip you a new one on this so I will leave it to him. |
Ontheway, if he is who I think he is, believes the only way to fix the medical system is to abolish income tax. He's not even in reality when it comes to economic discussion. |
So the answer to the broken medical system is to throw more money at it? The US (believe it or not) already has the largest public health care system in the world. |
I don't feel the answer to a broken medical system is to throw more money at it, actually. I think a number of (possibly government driven) reforms are in order, particularly focusing on financial administration and primary care systemology at the hospital level; things that would increase efficiency and reduce costs.
However, I assuredly don't think fixing the medical system requires the abolishment of income tax, which was my point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
