I agree wholeheartedly. I have been reading for a couple of years. While I was already a conservative (leaning libertarian), reading your blog has made me think about my political ideology. You've made me look at myself, and has helped me decide to become more active. Your work is appreciated. Thank you.
Kevin:
"And this also why I'll never ban Markadelphia. He's too perfect an example of the Left in this country not to let him illuminate their failings."
Could you at least make him wear a ludicrous and demeaning hat?
No nut job (right, left, straight, gay, forward, backward, or extra-terrestrial believing) should be banned. They should have a spotlight put on them for the whole world to see.
Turning that glaring light of self examination on yourself can be a painful thing. To open yourself up and examine your beliefs and find them wanting is I believe one sign of a flexible mind. Bully for you Sploge.
That is NOT my son. *grins* Though, if he keeps on reading here, I might be willing to wish he was. Hmmm, then again, I do have some unaccounted for wild seed out there.
First, the fact the young man thinks to thank someone for their efforts is striking. Almost all of the folks his age I know will not thank you unless you give them something tangible. Even then, short of a Porsche it tends to be half-hearted.
The second point is a bit more subtle. That is, the comments are very readable. I don't know that the comments reflect his actual speech patterns, but it's nice to see someone that age who can string two sentences together without the addition of 28 repetitions of the work "like."
The second point is a bit more subtle. That is, the comments are very readable. I don't know that the comments reflect his actual speech patterns, but it's nice to see someone that age who can string two sentences together without the addition of 28 repetitions of the work "like."
or the phrase "You know" NO, I DON"T KNOW! it drives me batty.
"He's too perfect an example of the Left in this country not to let him illuminate their failings."
Ah, Kevin...I know you have been sad that I have not been posting of late but you really are quite kind to go to all the trouble of laying out an extra large tub of popcorn (butter and salt layered in the middle) like this for me.
There's been two sites that I've used to remind myself that the world has not gone bat$h1t fu¢k1ng 1n$ane! One was Kim duToit's site (RIP), the other is Kevin's.
Polite, intelligent individuals discussing complex issues using logic and common sense. I live in sight of San Francisco. I thought those qualities had been lost from the world.
We have different definitions of nut jobs then. To me all nut jobs have to be true believers first. This is different from wackos who are certifiably insane.
Well, folks, I don't really see myself as a true believer. Obviously, I can't control what other people think about me, but it's simply not true. I am friends with true believers on the left and they...don't like my views on such issues as nuclear power, Israel, education, and hirabis at all. I was just ripped on my blog the other day for saying that Joe Scarborough is my favorite show to watch.
This blog has changed me for the better as well. I find my perspective on information gathering has improved significantly. And earlier in the summer, a female student of mine expressed an interest in learning more about target shooting and gun collecting. I encouraged her to go and do it--she was nervous that other kids might think she was weird--so she did and she recently emailed me pictures of herself firing a SKS and and an AR-15 on the range, the former of which I told her should be her Facebook ID and now it is! I don't think that would've happened if a). female friends had not been mugged multiple times in Chicago and b). I never found this blog.
Speaking of students, several of mine from last year read this blog but are largely too afraid to post. One emailed me and asked me to ask Splodge (a young person) if he reads any liberal/Democratic blogs that akin to this one traffic wise and visibility wise.
Now, let's analyze this, shall we? I'll use an example from your neck of the woods.
On August 1, 2007, a bridge carrying I-35 over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis broke and fell into the river, killing 13 people and injuring 145. You can read about it here. The three key observations there are:
"The NTSB has cited a design flaw as the likely cause of the collapse, and asserted that additional weight on the bridge at the time of the collapse contributed to the failure."
and
"In internal Mn/DOT documents, bridge officials talked about the possibility of the bridge collapsing and worried that it might have to be condemned."
and
"At the time of the collapse, four of the eight lanes were closed for resurfacing, ... and there were 575,000 pounds (261,000 kg) of construction supplies and equipment on the bridge."
The bridge design was deficient, in that there was a "lack of redundancy in the main truss system, which meant the bridge had a greater risk of collapse in the event of any single structural failure." In engineering terms, the bridge could collapse due to a single point failure. It did collapse. Now, which was more important, the belief by the bridge designers that the bridge design was adequate for the job, or the reality that the bridge design was deficient and so it catastrophically collapsed as a result?
The bridge condition was known to be unsafe at the time of the collapse, as cited above. It did collapse. Now, which was more important, the belief by the bridge inspectors that people should be allowed to travel over it, despite their knowledge of its unsafe condition, or the reality that the bridge condition was unsafe and so it catastrophically collapsed as a result?
The bridge was being repaired at the time of the collapse, as cited above. This would make the lanes smoother, but it would not make the trusses stronger or less likely to collapse. It did collapse. Now, which was more important, the belief by the bridge repairers that the bridge condition was adequate for the load they placed on it, or the reality that the bridge was overloaded and so catastrophically collapsed as a result?
Consider those who died as a result of this bridge collapsing. Which was more important, their belief that the bridge was safe to travel over, or the reality that the bridge collapsed and so killed them when they tried?
Consider those who were injured as a result of this bridge collapsing. Which was more important, their belief that the bridge was safe to travel over, or the reality that the bridge collapsed and so injured them when they tried?
Teacher boy, this notion of yours that "belief is more important than reality" is the most stupid statement you have made in Kevin's parlor, in my unhumble opinion. I've told you over and over and over again; reality is what it is regardless of what you believe. This concept is beyond your understanding.
The incident I have described above shows that reality trumps beliefs, every goddamned time. Reality is the test of beliefs; if a belief does not square with observable, demonstrable reality, then that belief is wrong. Your three working neurons simply cannot handle this.
But you go one step further. Here are some more of your own words, found right after the earlier citation:
"Actually, I don't have any beliefs, only a bunch of ideas that can be easily changed. In other words, I am dynamic as opposed to static."
You are thus two steps removed from understanding and dealing with reality. You flit from notion to notion, slathering on lahars of gibberish, just making noise for the sake of noise, like a three-year-old child who screams because he has learned how to.
Despite all that, you are indeed a "true believer". You exhibit one belief that trumps all else, viz, that your ideas du jour are correct, without regard for reality, no matter how many times or how many ways it is demonstrated to you that they do not square with reality.
I think that his "belief is more important than reality" statements was really Standard Response #2. He was trying claim that we're actually the ones that think that way.
Of course, I think it was also a classic case of projection…
I'm glad Ed brought this up again. I have one more to add
#8-Letting my fellow TSM posters get the last word.
I am going to try for 12 standard responses...12 is a good number...12 Apostles and all...so only four more to go....which will be 11 more than DJ's (and some others here) standard response:
"I think that his "belief is more important than reality" statements was really Standard Response #2. He was trying claim that we're actually the ones that think that way."
Of course he was, Ed, which is why I didn't respond to that statement back then as I did now. But given how well it describes him, I think it is quite appropriate as a preface to his statement that he doesn't see himself a true believer. Sarcasm is not my specialty, and perhaps this was a bit too subtle.
Again, you demonstrate your lack of ability. For that is not the standard response.
Usually we demonstrate why it's a piss-poor idea using other examples that you cannot understand, despite their real-world relevance.
So you ignore it, write it off as "oh, they're anti-government," handwave, make some appeal to emotion in "rebuttal", make ludicrous claims, deny reality, deny your prior claims, reinforce the claim you just denied, and then say we're running on emotion.
I don't really see myself as a true believer.
Obviously. Of course, this also demonstrates how well you can self-evaluate. As I've linked to you in the past, the people who are the most incompetent think that they're the best.
Obviously, I can't control what other people think about me,
You can. You can influence it a great deal. We think that about you because of your behavior. Change the behavior, and you'll change the perception.
but it's simply not true. I am friends with true believers on the left and they...don't like my views on such issues as nuclear power, Israel, education, and hirabis at all.
And you're using another logical fallacy there.
See, it's not that people agree, or disagree with you that soley matters. It's how did you come to that conclusion. If you come to all your conclusions via illogical methods, it doesn't matter that you "agree" with me on 1/2 of the issues - you're just as likely to flip over tomorrow when you see a dead squirrel in the road.
You are a true believer. You believed all the claims Obama made, even as they were fanciful on their face. You'd whine and repeat them, even if they'd already been disowned, countered (By Obama or the campaign!) much less others. Even now, you're trying to support based only on belief, the belief that magically, amazingly, Obama will Make It Work.
You get angry with us for describing the state of Education in this country, demanding that we cannot know - what is right in front of us. The evidence that you're a True Believer is so overwhelming that it's staggering to think of how many examples you've given us.
In rebuttal you give us a generic misunderstanding of the argument. On top of that, you've never conclusively demonstrated that it's wrong, but you've conclusively demonstrated many times that you don't usually know what you're talking about. (FCC budget going up 40x, but you claiming it "got smaller".)
Now, you left a thread after throwing down a challenge. After you were demonstrated to be totally incorrect, unable to "see" us as we "really were" (at least according to that quiz).
That also demonstrates your True Believer status - when the Belief is credibly challenged - IGNORE. DENY. REVISE.
"#8-Letting my fellow TSM posters get the last word."
Nope. Everyone is unable to complete a discussion from time to time. For example, I wound up having to drop the discussion with James Kelly due to lack of time even though I definitely still had things to say. It's disappearing nearly every single time when you don't like how the discussion is going that indicates that it's not being able to stand the heat, instead of normal "out of time."
This is standard response #1, making your suggested #8 redundant.
If you know you don't have time to follow through on an argument, don't start one.
For example, there are two relatively recent threads here that I decided not to participate in because I knew that I didn't have time to properly make my case. So I simply didn't post anything in them. (They're the capital punishment and homosexuality threads.)
The simple fact of life here on TSM is that whenever there's a disagreement on a point, the accepted standard of making an argument is to do it right, providing reliable evidence and sound arguments. That takes time. Period.
"It's disappearing nearly every single time when you don't like how the discussion..."
So, Ed, are you saying that you have a magic ability that can tell how I feel? Awfully presumptuous of you...
"If you know you don't have time to follow through on an argument, don't start one."
It's quite clear that each of us has a different definition of following through. I define it as leaving several responses to several different comments. I would describe your definition as beating a dead horse.
"If you can't do the time, don't pick the fight."
Then I would never post here due to the fact that I am only one person debating anywhere from 4 to 10 people. I do have a life, folks, and don't have all day to spend time on the computer.
But you have given me Standard Response #9 which is now "I am but one man."
Ooo...and I just thought of #10..."I will not respond to childish comments, personal attacks or some combination therein."
So, Ed, are you saying that you have a magic ability that can tell how I feel? Awfully presumptuous of you...
I'll say that it hardly requires magic. Just common sense.
It's quite clear that each of us has a different definition of following through.
Funny how you keep saying that - and then proving that your definition isn't close to reasonable.
I define it as leaving several responses to several different comments.
But you abandoned the thread that you started. Running over to comment elsewhere would be defined as "lack of follow through". (Seriously. Look up ADD and ADHD and see how they define the concept of "following through" and how it factors into that diagnosis.)
Ooo...and I just thought of #10..."I will not respond to childish comments, personal attacks or some combination therein."
Par for your course, you've missed the point of DJ's proof - they're a study of your comments and behavior, not an easy list to allow you to keep from debating. However, also keeping in par with your mentality, you don't realize that you just agreed with DJ and gave credibility to his "Standard Markadelphia Responses. That's right, by saying what you said, how you said it, the convention is that you now have incorporated the previous into reasonable discussion. You cannot now quibble over DJ's descriptions at all, because you have now accepted them.
Amazingly, your "life" doesn't stop you from running in, dropping some bullshit, defending it poorly for a while, and then running away.
It's one thing when you run away from the losing end of the argument, when we've asked things of you.
But there's no excuse you can reasonably make to get away from running away from the topic that you challenged US on.
Other than for us to quite reasonably (no "magic" required) observe that like all the others, you were losing, looking foolish, "suddenly your life called." As it always seems to. At exactly the same point in the debate.
If there is anyone here guilty of that one, it's probably me.
Of course, you never seem to address the logical and philosophical underpinning of that opinion, that the fundamental flaw of government as opposed to the private sector is its power to take your money, your livelihood and your freedom if you fail to support its aims, regardless of whether you believe you are getting value from your investment or not.
I've pointed out that flaw to you any number of times. Mostly you ignore that, treat it as if it doesn't exist at all or that I never said it.
So can you explain to me why "Gubmint Bad...Ugh...It am always wrong" is any less logical than your standard, which seems to be "Gubmint Good, It am always right... except when it's an alleged conservative doing something, then it am always wrong." I mean, all the stuff the Democrats screamed at Bush about for 8 years, most of which Obama has continued... suddenly now it's all okay.
Hmmm...I think I just came up with SR #11: Since when are conservatives so authoritarian? :)
GOF, the "gubmint good" idea is just as short sighted as the "gubmint bad" meme. Each share a complete lack of width of vision. I don't government is always right. If you read Carson's books on US History, he makes several good points about the nanny state we have created which have been echoed here by Kevin. Government isn't always bad either. The ball cupping worship by several here of the free market and the private sector is laughable...especially in light of this recent defection (aka waking up and smelling the fucking coffee).
Obviously, everyone here agrees that the government does a decent job (not perfect) with our military. In my opinion, this extends to other areas as well like Medicare. Overall, they haven't seemed to turn the corner on the failed notion of "just throw money at it" strategy for education. Education is not a money problem...it's a people problem that begins with a severe lack of motivation and an unwillingness to change.
I don't everything that Obama is doing is OK. I take severe issue with his current policy in AfPak (same as Bush's), wonder wtf when it comes to his stance on gay marriage, and wish he would legalize all drugs (the libertarian in me). But he is still the most reflective, competent, and intelligent man we have had in office since JFK. Clinton was close but got mired in triangulation.
"Obviously, everyone here agrees that the government does a decent job (not perfect) with our military. In my opinion, this extends to other areas as well like Medicare."
Five years ago, my mother died at age 84 after a long bout with lung cancer. Of course, her only insurance option was Medicare. Getting the gubmint to simply do what it was legally obligated to do, per its own rules, was like trying to herd cats.
And you think the gubmint does a "decent job" with it. Why am I not surprised?
1. favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.
2. of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.
3. exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others: an authoritarian parent.
First excerpt: "Feinberg said on Sunday he has broad and 'binding' authority over executive compensation, including the ability to 'claw back' money already paid, and he is weighing how and whether to use that power."
Second excerpt: "'The statute provides these guideposts, but the statute ultimately says I have discretion to decide what it is that these people should make and that my determination will be final,' Feinberg said.
"'The officials can't run to the Secretary of Treasury. The officials can't run to the court house or a local court. My decision is final on those individuals,' Feinberg added."
Who appointed Mr. Feinberg again? And what was his Constitutional authority for doing so?
As for Judge Posner, there are plenty of fair-weather libertarians out there. In addition, one may argue that monetarist distortions of the market (which only a powerful central government and a central bank can create, by the way) help create the conditions that insulate corporate leadership from market forces with respect to compensation.
I realize that to the outsider, this stuff sounds kind of like the arguments over prelapsarian vs. postlapsarian millenialism. To make up your own mind on the matter in a really informed way, you'd have to read up on the competing views of the Chicago School (as the Times article mentioned -- there's a blog out there called "The Chicago Boys," the URL of which escapes me) and the Austrian school (the best place to start, bar none, is http://www.mises.org).
What is clear is that subsequent government interventions haven't solved the perceived problem. But what Posner is effectively proposing, whether he cares to admit to it or not, is a wage control scheme for executives. Apart from failing every time it's ever been tried, there is nothing remotely libertarian about that.
Indeed, Humpty Dumpty makes words mean what he wants them to mean.
"Obviously, everyone here agrees that the government does a decent job (not perfect) with our military. In my opinion, this extends to other areas as well like Medicare."
No, it's not obvious. I, for one, have a lot of complaints about the way our government runs the military. Mostly because I have two brothers in it now (Army and Air Force), and my family has a long history of having at least one member serving every generation. My wife's family has a similar track record of members in the military. We have a long list of complaints of just how FUBARed the military is. One of the family's favorite complaints this generation is military health care, by the way. It sucks.
I work in the health care industry, my company has government contracts to supply software services to different branches and hospitals. We work with the VA. The VA has so many problems it isn't funny. By dint of the position my company holds with the VA, I'm privy to information that the public doesn't know, not because it's secret, but it's just part of business that never gets reported. It ain't pretty.
Second, the military is run different from the rest of the government. Much, much different, so unless you want to run the rest of the US like the military, then comparing the military "success" to potential "success" of socialized medicine isn't valid.
In fact, what you said is because A is a success because it is run by the government, then B will be a success too, because it will be run by the government.
This is known as the Weak Analogy Fallacy:
(1) A and B are similar.
(2) A has a certain characteristic.
Therefore:
(3) B must have that characteristic too.
(It's also Arguing from Ignorance and the Cum Hoc Fallacy, but let's not get too tangled.)
It's also easy to refute, one only points to a failure of a government run program, let's say Medicare as DJ so explicitly delineated, and now the weak analogy is deflated.
Instead, the counter argument runs much like this
1) Government programs spend taxes.
2) Taxes are taken from the citizens.
3) Increasing taxes takes more away from citizens.
4) Any government program that requires a tax increase takes more away from the citizens.
Therefore, Socialized Medicine will take more from citizens because it will require increasing taxes.
Or,
1) Command economies result in inefficient resource distribution.
2) Command economies cannot determine and prioritize social goods better than the market can.
3) Command economies infringe on individual freedoms.
4) Socialized Medicine has the same principles of command economies. (Note, not just characteristics, but principles. If you read the bill, it has the same basic principle of command economy, namely ensuring the production of necessary goods and services that does not rely on the vagaries of free markets. The rest of the bill is designed to support that starting principle.)
5) Socialized Medicine is the same as a command economy.
Therefore, Socialized Medicine will have the same problems as a command economy.
Or,
1) Increasing government power over citizens decreases the liberty of citizens.
2) Socialized Medicine increases government power.
Therefore, Socialized Medicine decreases the liberty of citizens.
There are a number of valid, sound arguments against Socialized Medicine, and it amuses me greatly to watch certain people fail to address any of them. At all. Mere appeal to emotion and bandwagoning passes as "opposition".
"The ball cupping worship by several here of the free market and the private sector is laughable...especially in light of this recent defection (aka waking up and smelling the fucking coffee).
For the love of all that is holy, please do yourself a huge favor and get an education. Stop posting here and with all that time savings take a community college class in economics 101. You need to discover what a free market economy really is. (here's a hint, it doesn't start with the govt. forcing lenders to make high risk loans...)
Even better than taking econ 101, Markadelphia, go here:
http://jim.com/econ/
It's the 1978 edition of Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson, in HTML format, free as the air.
The book makes the free-market argument in plain language anyone can understand, starting from Bastiat's broken-window fallacy. What you do with the information is up to you, but whether you agree with it or not I think it will repay your time.
"DJ, Marky's private definitions of words isn't on your list. Response #8?"
Yup. So adopted.
Here they are again, now at Rev. 4:
#1 The "I can't hear you" response. He behaves as if a request to respond or to answer a question was not made, or that he never read it. This seems to be his favorite.
#2 The "What's the point" response. He complains that it is pointless to respond because he won't be believed anyway. One often finds this on a playground during third grade recess.
#3 The "I'm not alone" response. He states his opinion, and then he points to the writings of other people who share his opinion, as if the request were about votes instead of verifiable facts, logic, and reasoned thought.
#4 The "How 'bout that anthrax, eh?" response. He simply tries to change the subject. This is also known as the "Hey, look! A pony!" response.
#5 The "I'm drowning in stupidity" response. He simply lays on the blather, slathering on one turgid catch-phrase, slogan, and cliché after another, and then declares, later, "I answered your question."
#6 The "How 'bout a little fire, Scarecrow?" response. He deliberately misses the point, laying on one straw man after another.
#7 The "Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' camera?" response. Nothing is valid, no matter what the evidence for it is, unless it squares with the conclusions he's already jumped to.
#8 The "Humpty Dumpty" response. He simply asserts that your words mean what he says they mean. Thus, no matter what you write, it means that he is correct. This is also known as the "We don't need no stinking dictionary!" response.
GOF, the "gubmint good" idea is just as short sighted as the "gubmint bad" meme.
Except one has a lot of history and proof. Hint: not yours.
Each share a complete lack of width of vision.
No. By all that is holy, NO, NO, NO and NO.
They share NOTHING. And it's not a "lack" of "width of vision" (whatever the hell that means). This is just your equivocation and lack of ability to use words correctly to try and prop up your ego. "Yes, well, you did it first!"
You continually fail to notice, note, and honestly discuss the failures inherent in the system that you advocate.
The Founding Fathers saw those failures, which are endemic to human nature, and built a system to work around it. To wit: keep government out of as much as possible.
The ball cupping worship by several here of the free market
And yet, your previous comment was whining about personal attacks.
More hypocrisy along with the guttermind.
and the private sector is laughable.
Only by someone ignorant. Deliberately so. But we've proven that many times over.
Obviously, everyone here agrees that the government does a decent job (not perfect) with our military.
Military does not equal the rest of government, unless you're proposing a martial government. Are you? Yes or no.
In my opinion, this extends to other areas as well like Medicare.
Yes, and we've seen how well you arrive at correct opinions.
Education is not a money problem...it's a people problem that begins with a severe lack of motivation and an unwillingness to change.
So close, and yet, so so far.
But he is still the most reflective, competent, and intelligent man we have had in office since JFK.
And you call us "Ball-cupping?"
Seriously, Mark, c'mon.
Reflective? How? What has he done that DEMONSTRATES "reflective" behavior? He's acted like a petulant child (which you do as well) when stymied at places where obviously he was going to face opposition.
Competent? What has he succeeded at?
Intelligent?
Mark, you really need to go read Reagan's writings, if you think that. But you might well believe that, but the evidence for all of that is at best arguable, and usually laughable.
What country have you been living in for the last 10 years? Keep drinking the fucking Kool Aid on that "govt. forcing lenders to make high risk loans" horse shit and you will show how horribly uneducated yOU are. The high risk loans were made because everyone else was doing it so they had to do it to stay competitive. Go watch this:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/28892719/
Instead of reading right wing blogs that have a paranoid ax to grind about "gubmint bad" take a look at what actually happened. The government was busy doing its Claude Rains impression. This doc was shown to me by last in line, brw, and its message is quite clear: nothing can stop the free market. Nothing.
Markadelphia - where did the subprime mortgage market START?
WHY was it initially seen as a profitable venture?
BECAUSE GOVERNMENT BACKED ENTITIES WOULD BUY THE RISKY LOANS.
What caused the sudden change in bank lending rules? PRESSURE FROM THE GOVERNMENT TO LOAN TO "SUBPRIME" BORROWERS.
And the unintended consequences of this? Credit Default Swaps. Collateralized Debt Obligations. "NINA" loans. Etc. etc. etc.
Note Greenspan's comment from that slide show: "Had we tried to suppress the expansion of the sub-prime market, do you think that would have gone over very well with the Congress, when it looked as though we were dealing with a major increase in home ownership, which is of unquestioned value to this society –- would we have been able to do that? I doubt it."
That's not Claude Rains "I'm shocked, shocked!" That's deliberate interference.
Do I need to pull up the YouTube videos of Barney Frank et al. coming unglued over proposed oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
The high risk loans were made because everyone else was doing it
Well, Russell, he had to top his previous line.
Had to. You made him.
As DJ pointed out to him, he cannot think through the crap he spews, before he says it. Just can't do it.
Mark: you whine about "ball-cupping", and then miss the point that those loans were entered into because someone else (us, via the government) assumed the risk.
In the name of "fairness", because all those people with poor credit, having to pay more for the likelihood they'd default, or get more loan than they could afford, was unfair.
"High Risk" loans weren't the problem, it was the high-risk loans without the safeguards the industry has developed to protect themselves - the safeguards stripped away by the government, and shoved down the throat of lenders at quite literally the point of a gun.
"Do I need to pull up the YouTube videos of Barney Frank et al. coming unglued over proposed oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?"
You should pull up YouTube videos of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd championing the cause of the problem, then later complaining about that cause of they had nothing to do with it.
The Community Reinvestment Act certainly comes in for a sizable share of the blame. Add to that the fact that interest rates were forced below market rates by, you guessed it, the Federal Reserve.* The current crisis is driven by real estate because real estate was explicitly chosen as the next bubble, to replace the previous NASDAQ bubble.
Artificially low interest rates promote malinvestment by making relatively bad deals look better than they would be in an environment in which interest rates are left to market forces. That's what government intervention does: it adds noise to price signals that would otherwise be absolutely unambiguous, eventually making economic calculation impossible because the actor can no longer be sure of the difference between a good opportunity and a bad one.
The combination of artificially low interest rates (I'll be ecumenical and blame everyone from Bush the Elder on up to Obama for that, since they're the ones who appointed and reappointed Greenspan and Bernanke) and implicit (in the case of Fannie and Freddie) and explicit (in the case of FHA and VA, as well as the general case created by FDIC) government guaranteers led to the practice of "fog a mirror" loans (hat tip: Karl Denninger, http://www.market-ticker.org).
*In a free market, there would be no Federal Reserve. Central banking is only necessary if the government intends a course of monetary inflation. One of the things the Fed is supposed to do is control inflation, which is risible both in principle and in practice.
Principle, because only the Fed can increase the supply of money in such a way as to "make you an offer you can't refuse" (because it's implicitly backed by government guns). Absent the Fed, a private issuer of fiat or even fractional greenbacks would quickly finds itself at a disadvantage against issuers of sound money.
Practice, because since 1913, the year the Fed came into existence, the U.S. dollar has lost some 97% of its value. Heck of a job they did controlling inflation, don't you think?
"The high risk loans were made because everyone else was doing it so they had to do it to stay competitive."
Really? So if everyone else jumped off a cliff, they would have to do it too, to stay competitive?
First, the premise needs to be proven: that making high risk loans was the only way to be competitive. And also, competitive on what grounds?
If that is true, then there is another logical fallacy, namely the Appeal to Popularity, or the Bandwagon Fallacy. Everyone thought to stay competitive, one had to make high risk loans, so everyone made high risk loans.
So then it must be proven that this is what everyone was thinking when they made the high risk loans. Which implies that everyone in the home loan business was engaging in mass fallacy. It seems to me to be a bubble mentality. Everyone wanted a piece of government backed pie, the good times would never end, etc, etc.
(The bubble madness isn't part of a free market, btw, it's part of human nature and can manifest under any economic model.)
Add to Russell's most recent is that central banking makes bubbles easier to inflate, as my comment demonstrates.
Also, one might reasonably ask why government would choose a course of monetary inflation? Well, whatever else monetary inflation does, it makes two things relatively easier:
So then it must be proven that this is what everyone was thinking when they made the high risk loans. Which implies that everyone in the home loan business was engaging in mass fallacy. It seems to me to be a bubble mentality. Everyone wanted a piece of government backed pie, the good times would never end, etc, etc.
Russell, this is a really good point. In fact, that is the case. People even published books:
From the review: "Further, the amount of leverage used to buy homes during this boom has been increased to absolutely unprecidented levels. Even during the last boom of the late 80s/early 90s, the standard was still 30 yr fixed and 20% down. Not anymore. Last year, less than 15% of borrowers put down 20% or more! Further, the 30 yr fixed has been replaced by the IO, or interest only loan. See now, we have the same borrower capable of bidding 30-40% more for a propery without any better credit or ability to repay. Neat trick, but sadly, Lereah at no point addresses any of these fundamentals.
"Our stock/housing pattern appears remarkably similar to the one Japan had 20 years ago. First the stock market busted. Right after, the real estate market rallied, and it busted too. The current Japanese real estate market is in a 14 year slide to date, and houses are going for roughly their 1980 value."
Thanks Ken, this also illuminates another economic principle: money, like water, will seek the lowest level. As money pours in, that level rises, and as it rises, the incentive to pour money in decreases.
What happened with this bubble, is that the government showed up with dump trucks to build levees around the level, artificially raising the potential level. So the money kept pouring in, investors filled with a false sense of security that the levees will hold, after all, the government is backing it up!
Of course, the levees didn't hold, and a lot of money ran right out.
From the comment "Historically, the ratio of housing price to annual income has been 2.1, with very little variation. In many parts of the country, this ratio is now approaching 10.5!"
How was that ration achieved? What changed?
To put it simply: government meddling caused Unintended Consequences.
In short, it was free money, and everyone wanted some. Coming back to Ed's link to the article, the housing market performed much like the fictitious supermarket, to wit, there was a run on the free goods, and then there wasn't anything left to keep the business model, such as it was, moving forward.
Setting aside the CRA, the point needs to be repeated that the Fed's lowering the interest rate to 1.25% was critical in creating the mortgage bubble.
This worked in two directions. First, obviously, the low interest rates made borrowing more attractive for home-buyers.
Second, and this is a point that many people don't realize, the low rates severely damaged mortgage lenders' profits—both because they earned less on each mortgage, and because homeowners had more incentive to refinance existing mortgages.
Thus the trend for looser lending standards. The Fed forced lenders to seek out more aggressive loans, just to stay profitable.
Ergo, government policy led directly to the mortgage bubble. (I consider the Fed to be an arm of government, albeit one that is highly subject to influence by bank plutocrats.)
"Apart from failing every time it's ever been tried, there is nothing remotely libertarian about that."
Ken, then what is your solution? Posner clearly illustrates that boards are powerless. If the government isn't the entity to take care of this, then what is?
DJ, I never said Medicare was perfect. Certainly you would fall into the 20 percent or so that is not satisfied with its policies. Most people are, though, and getting rid of Medicare (something I think you would be in favor of) would be met with quite a bit of opposition.
Our central problems with health care were recently summed up here.
Andy, as always, provides a nice capsule of why our country has its head up its ass about health care. He also has a link from the Atlantic which you should all read by David Goldhill
As to round 97 of why our economy went south, once again...for the cheap seats...the CRA only applies to banks and thrifts and the Fannie/Freddie debacle was largely caused by Alt A loans. Combine all of this with the information in the CNBC doc and it is quite clear that our economy tanking had nothing to do with government quotas/affirmative action/ACORN/secretly racist left wingers.
'Unhampered entrepreneurial action in free markets is not merely the most efficient and best way to achieve the common good, it is the only way. There is no "middle of the road." As Mises puts it, "The market economy … and the socialist economy preclude one another. There is no mixture of the two systems possible or thinkable. Production is either directed by the market or by the decrees of a production tsar."'
Certainly you would fall into the 20 percent or so that is not satisfied with its policies.
That 20% being the 20% forced to use it. Important to know your populations.
Most people are, though,
The support has been dropping faster than doctors taking it.
and getting rid of Medicare (something I think you would be in favor of) would be met with quite a bit of opposition.
That would entirely depend on what we'd be replacing it with.
As to round 97 of why our economy went south, once again...for the cheap seats...the CRA only applies
And in the previous 96 rounds, you've been proven to not understand basic math, English, history, the legislation, blamed Republicans for the CRA... ignored the evidence that the CRA expansion which was Clinton's compromise requirement for your previous bugaboo...
So you might want to settle down, Beavis, my fellow leftist, for you have not proven this other than your vehemence. Which is rather ill-sourced.
it is quite clear that our economy tanking had nothing to do with government quotas/affirmative action/ACORN/secretly racist left wingers.
Who the hell said they're secretly racist? They're out and out racists and that's what we've been saying.
But you might want to actually look at what the CRA and regulators required.
"Keep drinking the fucking Kool Aid on that "govt. forcing lenders to make high risk loans" horse shit..."
Your swearing has thoroughly convinced me. What was I thinking? Clearly I'm wrong and you are right based on such a clearly detailed analysis consisting of one sentence on why high risk loans were made and a linked video preview that is “not available at this time”. The photo of the Wall street sign in the slideshow was awesome. I’m blown away.
In answer to your question, I have been living in a country that does not have a free market economy.
Free Market: “An economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies.” (source: Dictionary.com).
You stated in plain English that, in your opinion, gubmint does "a decent job" with Medicare. I've talked about Medicare with lots of doctors (I've talked with a lot of doctors in recent years), with my sister-in-law, who is an RN, and with lots of friends and relatives who try to make use of it. I have not found ONE who describes it as other than "awful". Yes, not even ONE.
"Certainly you would fall into the 20 percent or so that is not satisfied with its policies."
And your source for this numerical statement is something other than thin air?
"... and getting rid of Medicare (something I think you would be in favor of) would be met with quite a bit of opposition."
Opposition by whom? Doctors don't like it because it doesn't pay enough and they don't like dealing with the gubmint paperwork. One in three refuses to deal with it at all. Dealing with insurance companies is a pain in the ass in absolute terms but a relative pleasure in comparison to Medicare. Patients don't like dealing with it because it is has the compassion of the IRS coupled with the efficiency of the DMV.
Opposition for what reason? That depends on what replaces it, now doesn't it?
Still can't think ahead, can you?
"Combine all of this with the information in the CNBC doc and it is quite clear that our economy tanking had nothing to do with government quotas/affirmative action/ACORN/secretly racist left wingers."
Damn, teacher boy, but you cranked up the random but important sounding blather generator again, didn't you?
Alright Russell, fair enough. Then what happens with a UHC-Bill MacGuire situation crops up? The shareholders were begging the government to step in and the government refused due to Governor Keane's professed belief that you quote above. And I want to be clear about this, are you saying that "unhampered" means no regulation at all?
"ignored the evidence that the CRA expansion which was Clinton's compromise requirement for your previous bugaboo..."
I didn't ignore it. It's ludicrous.
DJ, my experience has been different. I've heard good from everyone who is covered by it--and that includes a couple dozen in laws and several of my direct family--as well as every doctor and nurse I know save one...and, surprise surprise, he is ultra right wing.
What is your source for 1 in 3 refuse to deal with it? From a post on my blog recently
"I was speaking in terms of reimbursement when I said Medicare was the best system. Every day I work with practitioners in my field and it has gotten to the point where they prefer patients who are covered under medicare because they get reimbursement for their work in 2 weeks like clockwork from medicare. Insurance companies just throw the claims our practitioners submit to them into "review" for 45 or 60 days and we still have to deal with plenty of denials from the insurance companies."
And that was only a 4% jump from 2007. Want to bet it's been in the 25% range for a while?
More and more of my fellow doctors are turning away Medicare patients because of the diminished reimbursements and the growing delay in payments. I've had several new Medicare patients come to my office in the last few months with multiple diseases and long lists of medications simply because their longtime provider -- who they liked -- abruptly stopped taking Medicare.
Apparently, you're the only one who's heard of the problem.
Now, it's possible who you're quoting is in a niche speciality - without options, and very standard billing. There are a few - and getting to be fewer - that fall into that.
"ignored the evidence that the CRA expansion which was Clinton's compromise requirement for your previous bugaboo..."
I didn't ignore it. It's ludicrous.
Then.. you ignored it.
Ludicrous. You keep using that word. Bloody hell, you keep using ALL THE WORDS. They DON'T MEAN WHAT YOU THINK THEY MEAN.*
* - Knowing of course that they mean whatever you mean them to at the time, and it's just unfair and a different set of rules to expect you to alpaca fit grumble electric.
This is why I don't like the constant focus on the CRA. It tends to degenerate into a lot of "he said, she said," when its effects are distinctly secondary to the root of the problem, which is direct government manipulation of mortgage rates.
The CRA itself came into existence, along with several similar laws in the 1970s when Congress was trying to compensate for the horrible distortions caused by its blatant attempt to use Regulation Q to subsidize mortages, by capping interest rates at artificially low levels.
You'll notice that Mark hasn't even tried to address this issue. Partly this is because he, like 99% of the public, likely knows nothing about it—but more importantly, while the CRA's effects are open to some dispute, the effects of the bigger issue are not.
My source for the statement you asked about was in that last cited article, wherein it states:
"The number of Texas physicians willing to take on Medicare patients is declining, according to the Texas Medical Association, and even fewer doctors are expected to do so in the future.
"Only 58 percent of Texas physicians are taking new Medicare cases, and only 38 percent of primary care physicians are doing so, according to a study conducted by the Houston Chronicle.
"Across the country, only 600,000 of 1.5 million total physicians are currently willing to treat Medicare patients, the study notes."
In round numbers, that's about one in three.
Ah, liar boy, the only time you are believable is when you reveal something without knowing that you are revealing it. Y'see, that's what you just did. You responded to my statement with
"DJ, I never said Medicare was perfect."
and then asked me what the source was for my statment. You didn't actually read the whole comment and follow the links I cited, did you? Ah, what a guy. You comment on something that you won't actually read. I'm so impressed.
Now, go google "doctors who don't accept medicare" and read all of the (about) 3,750,000 hits that come up. Show us what a scholar you are.
By focusing on the CRA, you are allowing yourselves to be manipulated by banking interests who want to restrict the public debate to areas that don't inconvenience them.
What you should be talking about is the entire political economy of government intervention into the banking sector, through direct legislation as well as through the Federal Reserve. (This system, although horrible in the aggregate, is what the biggest banks have grown used to and thrive under; therefore they will fight to keep it in place.)
Mark, on the other hand, is allowing himself to be manipulated by those government power-seekers who want to nationalize the banks altogether (or at least exert de facto control through regulatory fiat), along the lines of the classic social-democratic program. If he would bother to study how the economy actually works instead of mouthing the slogans of the unscrupulous because they look good at first glance and confirm his prejudices, the world would be a better place.
The reason I, at least, keep harping on the CRA is that Mark has at times, claimed that the sole, only, proximate cause of the problem was the repeal of Glass-Steagall - while totally ignoring that repeal of Glass-Steagall was part of a compromise, and as part of that, the CRA was massively expanded. So to claim that "It's been around since the 70s, how could it be the problem" is nonsensical, because it was drastically changed.
Mark thinks he's found a point - but he's forgotten about it apparently - despite the fact that his supposed point actually undermines his constant "unregulated" drumbeat. Such inconsistencies are for petty, small minds. Great minds can just vote Democrat, after all.
Granted. It's ironic that Mark focuses so much on the repeal of Glass-Steagall, since there is a very good case to be made that had it never been passed in the first place, collateralized mortgage obligations would have never come into existence.
Expansions of the financial markets tend to cannibalize direct lending. Thus, banks will tend to avoid financial innovation, since it will cut into their own profit margins. What Glass-Steagall did was create a class of banks (investment banks) who were forbidden to lend money, and thus had every reason to create new securities products. Fast-forward a few decades, and voila!
Ken, then what is your solution? Posner clearly illustrates that boards are powerless. If the government isn't the entity to take care of this, then what is?
I question the degree to which there is a "this" to take care of. Here is what the issue of executive compensation amounts to, provisionally absent TARP taking or the like: "That guy makes a lot more money than I do, and I don't like it."
Let's look at GE, just to pick a company out of the air. Here's a link to their 2008 audited financial statement:
On page 23, we see that Jeff Immelt received 2008 compensation totaling $14,096,603.
Total 2008 comp for the officers named in the summary compensation table on page 23 was in the neighborhood of $112-113 million. Handful of 'em made more than Immelt.
Okay, they're getting to where we're talking about real money, but what does it amount to? $113 million divided by $182 billion is ...
...0.06% in round numbers. In the big picture, it's a drop in the bucket.
It's a lot of money, but unless Richard Posner owns (or I own) a chunk of GE common, it's no more of his damned business (nor mine, for that matter) what they get paid -- beyond having the right to hold and express an opinion -- than it would be his business what I get paid by my private-sector employer.
That's at least the second time in the last year you've trotted out McGuire, Mark. Using the same anecdote more than once does not make it more than one anecdote, and in any case the plural of anecdote is not data.
I taught corporate governance to MBA students for three years, until I had to stop to pursue my doctorate because I already had e full-time job and a family, therefore enough already. Personally, I think there's considerable room for improvement in the performance of boards of directors with respect to representing the interests of common shareholders. (I also think there's entirely too much emphasis on "the cult of the CEO," thanks in part to authors like Ram Charan, but that's another story.)
Where corporate misgovernance rises to the level of actual fraud, though...well, that's already against the law. The burden of proof lies with those who, like you, think the government should set executive compensation. I think it would, as wage controls have always and everywhere done, make things worse. The most qualified people are relatively less likely to get into the game. Their workload won't be capped, but their compensation will be. They will, to at least some extent, be replaced by corporate politicos, who will either sandbag or game the system with their Washington connections.
That's an interesting point about Glass-Steagall, Mastiff. I'd not heard that argument before.
That's what makes reading both Denninger and Mike Shedlock so interesting. Denninger takes a more populist line, supports fractional reserve banking with strictly enforced 10:1 leverage limits, wants Glass-Steagall back in place, and wants a ton of people prosecuted, starting with Bernanke, Paulson, and Geithner. Mish, by contrast, is an Austrian. I tend to prefer his approach, but I think interested parties would be rewarded by reading both, to get a sense of the diversity of opinion out there.
"wage controls have always and everywhere done, make things worse."
This statement struck a particularly strong chord with me because I already happen to know what triggered the appearance of employer provided health insurance: it was government restrictions on wages.
"Although the earliest employer-sponsored health plans date to the 1920s, two public policies from the 1940s and 1950s firmly established the link between health insurance and the workplace. First, during World War II Congress responded to excess demand for labor by enacting limits on the extent to which employers could increase wages. Since these limits did not apply to fringe benefits, many employers began offering health insurance to attract and retain workers. Second, in 1954 the IRS created a permanent incentive for employers to substitute in-kind benefits for cash wages by declaring that fringe benefits are not taxable. Although workers ultimately pay for health insurance, either through direct premium contributions or reduced wages, this tax treatment provides a powerful incentive for workplace provision of health insurance."
* - Knowing of course that they mean whatever you mean them to at the time, and it's just unfair and a different set of rules to expect you to alpaca fit grumble electric.
ROTFL!! That's hysterically funny! Thanks U-J! You just made my whole month! (And since today was a bad day, that was a huge help!)
Aphasia as humor. Wonderbar!
Just to make sure I was using it right, I looked up the definition of aphasia. I was struck by some of what Wikipedia said:
People with aphasia may experience any of the following behaviors due to an acquired brain injury, although some of these symptoms may be due to related or concomitant problems such as dysarthria or apraxia and not primarily due to aphasia.
- inability to comprehend language
- inability to pronounce, not due to muscle paralysis or weakness
- inability to speak spontaneously
- inability to form words
- inability to name objects
- poor enunciation
- excessive creation and use of personal neologisms
- inability to repeat a phrase
- persistent repetition of phrases
- paraphasia (substituting letters, syllables or words)
- agrammatism (inability to speak in a grammatically correct fashion)
- dysprosody (alterations in inflexion, stress, and rhythm)
- incompleted sentences
- inability to read
- inability to write
I didn't recognize "neologisms" so I followed the link to its definition where I found this interesting sentence:
"In psychiatry, the term neologism is used to describe the use of words that only have meaning to the person who uses them, independent of their common meaning."
U-J: I almost lost a good keyboard because of that. A warning that teapot couple Tuesday Bangkok, if you please.
And speaking of non sequiturs, what does Bill McGuire's bloated salary have to do with the price of tea in China?
As I understand it, McGuire earned $10 million in 2004, while the rest was made from cashing in on stock options. And just because the board of directors decided be be insane and throw money at McGuire doesn't mean the government should do diddly squat about it. Ken's further comments do a better job than I could, so just re-read them.
I didn't say "unhampered", Mises did.
He defines it thus: "A pure or unhampered (i.e., free) market economy is an imaginary construction which assumes: (1) The private ownership (control) of the means of production; (2) The division of labor and the consequent voluntary market exchanges of goods and services; (3) No institutional interferences with the operation of the market processes which generate prices, wage rates and interest rates which reflect the actual conditions of supply and demand for all goods and services; (4) A government, the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion, which is intent on preserving market processes while protecting peaceful market participants from the encroachments of those who would resort to the threat or use of force or fraud." (http://mises.org/easier/M.asp)
So, Russell (and everyone else) would you say that the following characterizes your view point?
The conservative worldview is totally committed to "the ideal of laissez faire, meaning minimal government interference in the marketplace, along with hostility to taxation, regulation, organized labor, state ownership, and all the business community's other enemies. "The conservative movement promotes the interests of business exclusively over all else in accordance with the motto, "More business in government, less government in business." So-called "big government," also tagged as the liberal state, is the enemy; in fact, virtually all government is the enemy, other than the national defense.
Teacher boy, you give yourself away when you post such comments. You are neither intelligent enough nor grammatically correct enough to post such a comment. The giveaway is that this comment reads as if someone else wrote it.
So, I googled "The conservative worldview is totally committed". Guess what I found? It's a comment in a thread of comments following a review of "A Depressingly Compelling Review of Conservatives' Philosophy of Government in Practice", by Steve Koss, on Amazon.com.
Now, try to convince us that you actually understand the comment you copied and pasted. Go ahead. Try.
He's just looking for another excuse for "Life" to occur. See, it's another question, and once he gets us to answer it and roundly defeat him intellectually, he gets "busy" and will snidely comment about how busy he is from another thread.
Let me see if it makes sense to you this way, Mark. You say we all agree that there are some things government does well. Well for me, that's not quite true. There is one, count em, one, thing that government does well. And if you think about various opinions of the military, and my statements earlier re: the customer's freedom to spend his money elsewhere, which one thing government does well should be obvious:
Government does well at enforcing particular behaviors from given groups of people through violence and the threat of violence.
That is the only thing governments do well, and because of the nature of the whole "you can't spend your money elsewhere" problem, it's the only thing it's possible for a government to do well. Any government, no matter how constituted nor who's in charge.
So really, the thing you need to ask yourself when thinking, "Should we have a government program for _______?" is "Is violence or the threat of violence the only means by which we can achieve ______ result? And is ________ result worth accepting the ongoing, daily use of violence and the threat of violence in order to have it?"
The reason so many here disagree with you is because they think there are far too many issues that cause you to answer the above questions "Yes! Absolutely!"
I think he's pulled quotes from there before. That comment sounded familiar...
What amazes me that after years knocking about Kevin's parlor, he still requires someone else to speak for him to mischaracterize some conservative principles, and he still doesn't get that quite a number of people here aren't conservative.
And the rest of this tread appears to be meaningless noise to the True Believer.
Ah well, down the memory hole it goes, and another thread he'll be able to look back on with a warm glow for 'defeating' those knuckle dragging Rethuglicans again.
Yes, I did pull it from those comments and the quotes are from Thomas Frank. I wanted to know if this was an adequate summation of your view.
Frank was on Morning Joe this morning and I remembered reading his book when it came out a year ago...now out in paperback. Russell's quote above regarding the free market made think about this comment from Steve Koss as they seemed to be similar. Before engaging in further debate, I wanted to see if that, was in fact, your view.
So, is the comment with the quotes from Frank an accurate representation of your view point? GOF has answered...will anyone else care to answer?
Your mischaracterization misses one CRUCIAL point, which Russell already included in his quote from Mises. That is:
"(4) A government, the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion, which is intent on preserving market processes while PROTECTING peaceful market participants FROM the encroachments of those who would resort to the threat or use of FORCE or FRAUD."
That is an appropriate role for government, and I sincerely doubt you will ever find a genuine conservative who says otherwise.
Whew, the irony meter was already broken when this hit.
", I wanted to see if that, was in fact, your view. "
There are so many things wrong with your uncited cutnpaste "summary" that should be apparent after reading Kevin's blog lo these many years.
It seems you have no ability to synthesize information. Compounded with your utter ignorance of the founding concepts of Western Civilization (again, proven many times here) and your inability to reason beyond a sound bite level, that the idea of a "debate" is risible, at best. Worrisome when held in the light that you are a teacher, entrusted with the young.
We've given enough responses over the years for you to adequately formulate a rough response to your question, all by yourself. Failure to be able to do so doesn't make it incumbent upon me to do your work. The fact you are asking this, all doe eyed and innocent, after years of being here, speaks volumes.
Ed: At the risk of invoking the "No True Scotsman Fallacy", yup.
Your "life" seems to have abated, so how about going back to that previous demand you made of us and continue it.
Before engaging in further debate, I wanted to see if that, was in fact, your view.
For two years, many of us here have spelled out in a graphic, eye-straining-detail repeated many times form what "our views" are.
They don't jibe with your "HEY, LOOK A PONY" moment, and there's no reasonable excuse you can have for myself, DJ, Ed, Russell, our host Kevin - and many others - for to to act like it's the first time it's come up.
You should know that Thomas Frank is a hack of the first water. His central argument in What's the Matter With Kansas? (that dumb voters were being misled by evil Republicans into voting for free trade) is completely vitiated when you realized that both Republican and Democratic candidates in Kansas were advocating free-trade policies.
Could it be that the voters actually perceived free trade as being in their interest? Naaah…
Ed, if that is the case then what is an acceptable way for the government to protect those peaceful citizens?
Based on some of what I hear on here and out there...well...some of it is an almost pathological hatred of any sort of governmental regulations. You have to admit that Russell's original quote jibes more with Frank's assertion that the free market conservative has "hostility to taxation, regulation, organized labor, state ownership, and all the business community's other enemies."
Mastiff, your point exactly proves Bill Maher's point to be true...the Democrats have become more conservative and less statist. In other words, they are now the new conservative party of America (running on free trade and cutting taxes) and the base of the Republican party has become...well...you know:)
Here's another quote from the same thread at Amazon:
"Actually, taxation and regulation are friends of Big Business, because it allows them to gain an artificial monopoly rather easily. Many industries even lobby Congress to increase regulations to cut out small competitors. Big Business can easily meet these regulations. Look at Wal Mart. They support a higher minimum wage. The reason? Because they know it will hurt the small businesses trying to compete with them. Wal Mart is a big multinational corporation. They can handle a higher minimum wage easily."
Now to be sure, if those we now describe as "big business" could find a way to
A free market makes competition easier, not harder. I, for one, spelled this out for you -- in so many words -- in a recent thread. That you still ask these questions after all this time and all this evidence says far more about you than it does us, Mark (quite apart from your presuming to call anyone here to account for themselves to your satisfaction).
The evidence that your worldview is one of group identity and class envy can no longer be doubted. Beyond that, you are either incompetent or dishonest. I see no third possibility (unless, of course, you are both). Fortunately for you, these things can be remedied, but the remedy is up to you.
Excuse me: I failed to complete a paragraph in the above. Here is the full paragraph:
Now to be sure, if those we now describe as "big business" could find a way to use government to arrange matters to their advantage and to the disadvantage of competitors at less cost, they would so so. No one bears fixed regulatory costs because they enjoy it. Absent government, most business owners would avoid direct "extracurricular" means of limiting competition (sabotage, etc.), because it would expose them to the legitimate action of the wronged competitor in self-defense. If you have government agents to act as your muscle, why risk your own skin?
As the Democrats contemplate taking over HEALTH CARE, after dictating, ordering, and by fiat re-arranging the FINANCIAL SECTOR, you can, with a straight face, claim that they are less statist?
"A major government or state role in the direction of the economy, both directly through state-owned enterprises and indirectly through the state-directed economic planning of the overall economy" - Wikipedia
In other words, they are now the new conservative party of America (running on free trade and cutting taxes)
WHERE? Obama claimed he wouldn't raise taxes. (Which was laughable then, and he's already been trying to raise taxes in multiple places. And he's still letting the "Bush Tax Cuts" expire.
I don't recall him promising to lower taxes - and I note he, and the Democratic Congress have not. Free trade? The guy who ran and talked about bailing out of NAFTA?
You paid attention to his campaign about as well as you did to DJ's medicaid sourcing, didn't you?
and the base of the Republican party has become...well...you know
I'm still waiting on you to manage to ID the base of the Republican party, much less chuckle and agree with you OH HEY WHERE'S THE PONY?
Based on some of what I hear on here and out there...well...some of it is an almost pathological hatred of any sort of governmental regulations. You have to admit that Russell's original quote jibes more with Frank's assertion that the free market conservative has "hostility to taxation, regulation, organized labor, state ownership, and all the business community's other enemies."
I've never seen accurately recognizing something for what it is described as "almost pathological hatred" before. Let's take that a piece at a time, shall we?
"taxation, regulation, organized labor, state ownership..."
Is there a single piece of that which is able to function other than through violence and/or the threat of violence, as I stated above?
If not, I would suggest that they are not merely "the business community's" enemies but everyone's. Keeping something in place by violence or the threat of it is something I wouldn't expect people to voluntarily do if they had any other choices at all, would you?
Now, contrast that with how the US government typically operates, and how you apparently wish it to continue operating:
1. A certain aspect of free-market economics is arguably placing an unjust burden on a given section of the citizenry.
2. The government, seeing that the free market apparently is not correcting the problem all by itself, puts a regulation in place (that is, a behavioral modifier operating through the use of violence or the threat thereof) in hopes of correcting the behaviors that led to the injustice.
So far, so good, until:
3. The effects of the regulation show that those who wrote it were only human after all, and that the regulation results in unintended consequences that are just as unacceptable as the original problem that caused the regulation to be put into effect in the first place.
Not good, but certainly predictable, and something that can't effectively be fixed as long as humans remain humanly fallible. Now comes the fun part:
4. Does the body that wrote the original regulation change it, "tweak" it, in an effort to find something that will solve the original problem without generating the newly discovered "unintended consequences"? Generally... no. Instead, what happens is that the original problem-causing regulation is left in place, and a new regulation is slapped over the top to deal with the unintended consequences. What happens next? The new "band-aid" regulation generates an entirely new set of unintended consequences, thus generating an entirely new set of injustices.
5. Repeat as necessary for 233 years.
So the bottom line remains a question I have asked you before: If you can't be bothered to take the time to do it right, how will you manage to shake loose the time to do it again?
And more to the point, why in hell would you want someone who has already screwed things up to add yet another layer of fuckedupness to the fuckedupness that is already giving you trouble? Doesn't it make more sense to get someone in who has an actual interest in fixing the fucking problem, correctly, ONCE?
And if you're thinking the person referred to just above is Barack Obama, let me ask you why, even though healthcare reform is apparently a top priority and even though 10% of all medical costs are "defensive medicine" which serve no other purpose than to arm the providers against lawsuits, those who are demanding the aforesaid healthcare reform have yet to include even one word in favor of tort reform?
"Mastiff, your point exactly proves Bill Maher's point to be true...the Democrats have become more conservative and less statist. In other words, they are now the new conservative party of America (running on free trade and cutting taxes) and the base of the Republican party has become...well...you know"
Thus, we see Standard Response #9.
Here they are again, now at Rev. 5:
#1 The "I can't hear you" response. He behaves as if a request to respond or to answer a question was not made, or that he never read it. This seems to be his favorite.
#2 The "What's the point" response. He complains that it is pointless to respond because he won't be believed anyway. One often finds this on a playground during third grade recess.
#3 The "I'm not alone" response. He states his opinion, and then he points to the writings of other people who share his opinion, as if the request were about votes instead of verifiable facts, logic, and reasoned thought.
#4 The "How 'bout that anthrax, eh?" response. He simply tries to change the subject. This is also known as the "Hey, look! A pony!" response.
#5 The "I'm drowning in stupidity" response. He simply lays on the blather, slathering on one turgid catch-phrase, slogan, and cliché after another, and then declares, later, "I answered your question."
#6 The "How 'bout a little fire, Scarecrow?" response. He deliberately misses the point, laying on one straw man after another.
#7 The "Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' camera?" response. Nothing is valid, no matter what the evidence for it is, unless it squares with the conclusions he's already jumped to.
#8 The "Humpty Dumpty" response. He simply asserts that your words mean what he says they mean. Thus, no matter what you write, it means that he is correct. This is also known as the "We don't need no stinking dictionary!" response.
#9 The "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response. He simply asserts that the other side is what he doesn't like his side being accused of. As with #2, one often finds this on a playground during third grade recess.
Going back to something I already had pointed out..
Mark: But he is still the most reflective, competent, and intelligent man we have had in office since JFK.
Just ran across this, which makes the point even more sharply:
What to do about all the promises made? Turn everything over to the haggard old, tax-and-spend liberals in Congress and their power-pimping lobbyists.
Even Barack Obama himself admitted in his "Audacity" book that lawyers aren't good at solving problems, that they're trained to win arguments, not formulate policy or find workable solutions. He also denounced political operatives in print, summarizing that too many lawyers and too many political operatives were the very source of the mountainous un-workability of our federal government.
Then, why oh why, is his whole administration a flailing mix of lawyers and political operatives?
Of course, none of this should come as a surprise.
We had the president's own shadowy record, with far more deletions than "allowable" information, which should have raised the skeptical antennae of anyone with half an ounce of common sense. What is the single reason why anyone assumed and portrayed as brilliant-beyond-brilliant hides his own scholarship and grade transcripts? If these records were demonstrably brilliant, they would be on prominent display.
Why doesn't this country have a drug control policy concerning the sniffing of unicorn farts? I mean, they're obviously addictive, they're obviously incredibly hallucinogenic, the young are obviously at greatest risk, and they glaringly obviously rot your brain, right?
How is it that a lame man does not annoy us while a lame mind does? Because a lame man recognizes that we are walking straight, while a lame mind says that it is we who are limping.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-i-do-this.html (108 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
I agree wholeheartedly. I have been reading for a couple of years. While I was already a conservative (leaning libertarian), reading your blog has made me think about my political ideology. You've made me look at myself, and has helped me decide to become more active. Your work is appreciated. Thank you.
Jim
I can add nothing to the statement made by Jim.
"This critical thinking stuff is harder than it looks!"
The cliché is, "It's harder when you think."
And you get a salute in return.
Kevin:
"And this also why I'll never ban Markadelphia. He's too perfect an example of the Left in this country not to let him illuminate their failings."
Could you at least make him wear a ludicrous and demeaning hat?
No nut job (right, left, straight, gay, forward, backward, or extra-terrestrial believing) should be banned. They should have a spotlight put on them for the whole world to see.
Seventeen when you began reading this stuff.
Pretty heady stuff for a teen.
All I was interested in at seventeen was running and chasing skirt.
We may have some hope for the future afterall.
Reputo, I ban nut-jobs. Well, the one.
Markadelphia is not a nut-job. He's a True Believer, which is not at all the same thing.
To add a data point:
My son also reads here, and occasionally comments. He's been doing so since he was 17.
Okay, he's only 18 now, but I am pushing him. :)
Sploge, thanks for giving Kevin hope. And thanks to Kevin for sharing that hope with the rest of us!
Turning that glaring light of self examination on yourself can be a painful thing. To open yourself up and examine your beliefs and find them wanting is I believe one sign of a flexible mind. Bully for you Sploge.
That is NOT my son. *grins* Though, if he keeps on reading here, I might be willing to wish he was. Hmmm, then again, I do have some unaccounted for wild seed out there.
I am struck by two items here.
First, the fact the young man thinks to thank someone for their efforts is striking. Almost all of the folks his age I know will not thank you unless you give them something tangible. Even then, short of a Porsche it tends to be half-hearted.
The second point is a bit more subtle. That is, the comments are very readable. I don't know that the comments reflect his actual speech patterns, but it's nice to see someone that age who can string two sentences together without the addition of 28 repetitions of the work "like."
You're all welcome.
As I said, I've been reading every morning for three years now. In a moment of introspection I realised how much of a difference this place has made.
Kevin deserves Kudos for that, and so do you guys.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need breakfast!
The second point is a bit more subtle. That is, the comments are very readable. I don't know that the comments reflect his actual speech patterns, but it's nice to see someone that age who can string two sentences together without the addition of 28 repetitions of the work "like."
or the phrase "You know" NO, I DON"T KNOW! it drives me batty.
"... it drives me batty ..."
... and stuff.
"He's too perfect an example of the Left in this country not to let him illuminate their failings."
Ah, Kevin...I know you have been sad that I have not been posting of late but you really are quite kind to go to all the trouble of laying out an extra large tub of popcorn (butter and salt layered in the middle) like this for me.
I tip my hat to you sir:)
There's been two sites that I've used to remind myself that the world has not gone bat$h1t fu¢k1ng 1n$ane! One was Kim duToit's site (RIP), the other is Kevin's.
Polite, intelligent individuals discussing complex issues using logic and common sense. I live in sight of San Francisco. I thought those qualities had been lost from the world.
Thanks.
"I live in sight of San Francisco. I thought those qualities had been lost from the world."
Heh. I'm in L.A. for work this week, and this state is its own *universe*.
kevin,
We have different definitions of nut jobs then. To me all nut jobs have to be true believers first. This is different from wackos who are certifiably insane.
Well, folks, I don't really see myself as a true believer. Obviously, I can't control what other people think about me, but it's simply not true. I am friends with true believers on the left and they...don't like my views on such issues as nuclear power, Israel, education, and hirabis at all. I was just ripped on my blog the other day for saying that Joe Scarborough is my favorite show to watch.
This blog has changed me for the better as well. I find my perspective on information gathering has improved significantly. And earlier in the summer, a female student of mine expressed an interest in learning more about target shooting and gun collecting. I encouraged her to go and do it--she was nervous that other kids might think she was weird--so she did and she recently emailed me pictures of herself firing a SKS and and an AR-15 on the range, the former of which I told her should be her Facebook ID and now it is! I don't think that would've happened if a). female friends had not been mugged multiple times in Chicago and b). I never found this blog.
Speaking of students, several of mine from last year read this blog but are largely too afraid to post. One emailed me and asked me to ask Splodge (a young person) if he reads any liberal/Democratic blogs that akin to this one traffic wise and visibility wise.
Mark, lets fly down to Tucson and shoot guns with Kevin.
"Well, folks, I don't really see myself as a true believer."
Here are your own words, from 10/31/08, little boy:
"Belief is more important than reality."
Now, let's analyze this, shall we? I'll use an example from your neck of the woods.
On August 1, 2007, a bridge carrying I-35 over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis broke and fell into the river, killing 13 people and injuring 145. You can read about it here. The three key observations there are:
"The NTSB has cited a design flaw as the likely cause of the collapse, and asserted that additional weight on the bridge at the time of the collapse contributed to the failure."
and
"In internal Mn/DOT documents, bridge officials talked about the possibility of the bridge collapsing and worried that it might have to be condemned."
and
"At the time of the collapse, four of the eight lanes were closed for resurfacing, ... and there were 575,000 pounds (261,000 kg) of construction supplies and equipment on the bridge."
The bridge design was deficient, in that there was a "lack of redundancy in the main truss system, which meant the bridge had a greater risk of collapse in the event of any single structural failure." In engineering terms, the bridge could collapse due to a single point failure. It did collapse. Now, which was more important, the belief by the bridge designers that the bridge design was adequate for the job, or the reality that the bridge design was deficient and so it catastrophically collapsed as a result?
The bridge condition was known to be unsafe at the time of the collapse, as cited above. It did collapse. Now, which was more important, the belief by the bridge inspectors that people should be allowed to travel over it, despite their knowledge of its unsafe condition, or the reality that the bridge condition was unsafe and so it catastrophically collapsed as a result?
The bridge was being repaired at the time of the collapse, as cited above. This would make the lanes smoother, but it would not make the trusses stronger or less likely to collapse. It did collapse. Now, which was more important, the belief by the bridge repairers that the bridge condition was adequate for the load they placed on it, or the reality that the bridge was overloaded and so catastrophically collapsed as a result?
Consider those who died as a result of this bridge collapsing. Which was more important, their belief that the bridge was safe to travel over, or the reality that the bridge collapsed and so killed them when they tried?
Consider those who were injured as a result of this bridge collapsing. Which was more important, their belief that the bridge was safe to travel over, or the reality that the bridge collapsed and so injured them when they tried?
Teacher boy, this notion of yours that "belief is more important than reality" is the most stupid statement you have made in Kevin's parlor, in my unhumble opinion. I've told you over and over and over again; reality is what it is regardless of what you believe. This concept is beyond your understanding.
The incident I have described above shows that reality trumps beliefs, every goddamned time. Reality is the test of beliefs; if a belief does not square with observable, demonstrable reality, then that belief is wrong. Your three working neurons simply cannot handle this.
But you go one step further. Here are some more of your own words, found right after the earlier citation:
"Actually, I don't have any beliefs, only a bunch of ideas that can be easily changed. In other words, I am dynamic as opposed to static."
You are thus two steps removed from understanding and dealing with reality. You flit from notion to notion, slathering on lahars of gibberish, just making noise for the sake of noise, like a three-year-old child who screams because he has learned how to.
Despite all that, you are indeed a "true believer". You exhibit one belief that trumps all else, viz, that your ideas du jour are correct, without regard for reality, no matter how many times or how many ways it is demonstrated to you that they do not square with reality.
Um, DJ…
I think that his "belief is more important than reality" statements was really Standard Response #2. He was trying claim that we're actually the ones that think that way.
Of course, I think it was also a classic case of projection…
I'm glad Ed brought this up again. I have one more to add
#8-Letting my fellow TSM posters get the last word.
I am going to try for 12 standard responses...12 is a good number...12 Apostles and all...so only four more to go....which will be 11 more than DJ's (and some others here) standard response:
Gubmint Bad...Ugh...It am always wrong.
"Gubmint Bad...Ugh...It am always wrong."
See what I mean about slathering on lahars of gibberish?
"I think that his "belief is more important than reality" statements was really Standard Response #2. He was trying claim that we're actually the ones that think that way."
Of course he was, Ed, which is why I didn't respond to that statement back then as I did now. But given how well it describes him, I think it is quite appropriate as a preface to his statement that he doesn't see himself a true believer. Sarcasm is not my specialty, and perhaps this was a bit too subtle.
DJ's (and some others here) standard response:
Gubmint Bad...Ugh...It am [sic]always wrong.
Again, you demonstrate your lack of ability. For that is not the standard response.
Usually we demonstrate why it's a piss-poor idea using other examples that you cannot understand, despite their real-world relevance.
So you ignore it, write it off as "oh, they're anti-government," handwave, make some appeal to emotion in "rebuttal", make ludicrous claims, deny reality, deny your prior claims, reinforce the claim you just denied, and then say we're running on emotion.
I don't really see myself as a true believer.
Obviously. Of course, this also demonstrates how well you can self-evaluate. As I've linked to you in the past, the people who are the most incompetent think that they're the best.
Obviously, I can't control what other people think about me,
You can. You can influence it a great deal. We think that about you because of your behavior. Change the behavior, and you'll change the perception.
but it's simply not true. I am friends with true believers on the left and they...don't like my views on such issues as nuclear power, Israel, education, and hirabis at all.
And you're using another logical fallacy there.
See, it's not that people agree, or disagree with you that soley matters. It's how did you come to that conclusion. If you come to all your conclusions via illogical methods, it doesn't matter that you "agree" with me on 1/2 of the issues - you're just as likely to flip over tomorrow when you see a dead squirrel in the road.
You are a true believer. You believed all the claims Obama made, even as they were fanciful on their face. You'd whine and repeat them, even if they'd already been disowned, countered (By Obama or the campaign!) much less others. Even now, you're trying to support based only on belief, the belief that magically, amazingly, Obama will Make It Work.
You get angry with us for describing the state of Education in this country, demanding that we cannot know - what is right in front of us. The evidence that you're a True Believer is so overwhelming that it's staggering to think of how many examples you've given us.
In rebuttal you give us a generic misunderstanding of the argument. On top of that, you've never conclusively demonstrated that it's wrong, but you've conclusively demonstrated many times that you don't usually know what you're talking about. (FCC budget going up 40x, but you claiming it "got smaller".)
Now, you left a thread after throwing down a challenge. After you were demonstrated to be totally incorrect, unable to "see" us as we "really were" (at least according to that quiz).
That also demonstrates your True Believer status - when the Belief is credibly challenged - IGNORE. DENY. REVISE.
"#8-Letting my fellow TSM posters get the last word."
Nope. Everyone is unable to complete a discussion from time to time. For example, I wound up having to drop the discussion with James Kelly due to lack of time even though I definitely still had things to say. It's disappearing nearly every single time when you don't like how the discussion is going that indicates that it's not being able to stand the heat, instead of normal "out of time."
This is standard response #1, making your suggested #8 redundant.
"you're just as likely to flip over tomorrow when you see a dead squirrel in the road."
::: chuckling :::
Is it just me, or has Marky's presence inspired new highs (or lows) in the Art of the Burn?
One more thought…
If you know you don't have time to follow through on an argument, don't start one.
For example, there are two relatively recent threads here that I decided not to participate in because I knew that I didn't have time to properly make my case. So I simply didn't post anything in them. (They're the capital punishment and homosexuality threads.)
The simple fact of life here on TSM is that whenever there's a disagreement on a point, the accepted standard of making an argument is to do it right, providing reliable evidence and sound arguments. That takes time. Period.
If you can't do the time, don't pick the fight.
"when the Belief is credibly challenged - IGNORE. DENY. REVISE."
Check out Baghdad Bill Burton in action. He gets absolutely blasted by Shep Smith, who has acted as a lefist in the past.
That Obama chose a guy who obviously believes in Geobbels style tactics told me all I ever needed to know about Obama's character.
"It's disappearing nearly every single time when you don't like how the discussion..."
So, Ed, are you saying that you have a magic ability that can tell how I feel? Awfully presumptuous of you...
"If you know you don't have time to follow through on an argument, don't start one."
It's quite clear that each of us has a different definition of following through. I define it as leaving several responses to several different comments. I would describe your definition as beating a dead horse.
"If you can't do the time, don't pick the fight."
Then I would never post here due to the fact that I am only one person debating anywhere from 4 to 10 people. I do have a life, folks, and don't have all day to spend time on the computer.
But you have given me Standard Response #9 which is now "I am but one man."
Ooo...and I just thought of #10..."I will not respond to childish comments, personal attacks or some combination therein."
So, Ed, are you saying that you have a magic ability that can tell how I feel? Awfully presumptuous of you...
I'll say that it hardly requires magic. Just common sense.
It's quite clear that each of us has a different definition of following through.
Funny how you keep saying that - and then proving that your definition isn't close to reasonable.
I define it as leaving several responses to several different comments.
But you abandoned the thread that you started. Running over to comment elsewhere would be defined as "lack of follow through". (Seriously. Look up ADD and ADHD and see how they define the concept of "following through" and how it factors into that diagnosis.)
Ooo...and I just thought of #10..."I will not respond to childish comments, personal attacks or some combination therein."
Par for your course, you've missed the point of DJ's proof - they're a study of your comments and behavior, not an easy list to allow you to keep from debating. However, also keeping in par with your mentality, you don't realize that you just agreed with DJ and gave credibility to his "Standard Markadelphia Responses. That's right, by saying what you said, how you said it, the convention is that you now have incorporated the previous into reasonable discussion. You cannot now quibble over DJ's descriptions at all, because you have now accepted them.
Amazingly, your "life" doesn't stop you from running in, dropping some bullshit, defending it poorly for a while, and then running away.
It's one thing when you run away from the losing end of the argument, when we've asked things of you.
But there's no excuse you can reasonably make to get away from running away from the topic that you challenged US on.
Other than for us to quite reasonably (no "magic" required) observe that like all the others, you were losing, looking foolish, "suddenly your life called." As it always seems to. At exactly the same point in the debate.
Well, the dog keeps eating my homework.
I blame the lack of socialized health care for canines.
Yet again, teacher boy, this is what happens when you don't think through the consequences of your comments before making them.
Gubmint Bad...Ugh...It am always wrong.
If there is anyone here guilty of that one, it's probably me.
Of course, you never seem to address the logical and philosophical underpinning of that opinion, that the fundamental flaw of government as opposed to the private sector is its power to take your money, your livelihood and your freedom if you fail to support its aims, regardless of whether you believe you are getting value from your investment or not.
I've pointed out that flaw to you any number of times. Mostly you ignore that, treat it as if it doesn't exist at all or that I never said it.
So can you explain to me why "Gubmint Bad...Ugh...It am always wrong" is any less logical than your standard, which seems to be "Gubmint Good, It am always right... except when it's an alleged conservative doing something, then it am always wrong." I mean, all the stuff the Democrats screamed at Bush about for 8 years, most of which Obama has continued... suddenly now it's all okay.
Why is that, hmmm?
"Yet again, teacher boy"
"don't start one."
"don't pick the fight."
Hmmm...I think I just came up with SR #11: Since when are conservatives so authoritarian? :)
GOF, the "gubmint good" idea is just as short sighted as the "gubmint bad" meme. Each share a complete lack of width of vision. I don't government is always right. If you read Carson's books on US History, he makes several good points about the nanny state we have created which have been echoed here by Kevin. Government isn't always bad either. The ball cupping worship by several here of the free market and the private sector is laughable...especially in light of this recent defection (aka waking up and smelling the fucking coffee).
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/us/18bar.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Richard%20Posner&st=cse
Obviously, everyone here agrees that the government does a decent job (not perfect) with our military. In my opinion, this extends to other areas as well like Medicare. Overall, they haven't seemed to turn the corner on the failed notion of "just throw money at it" strategy for education. Education is not a money problem...it's a people problem that begins with a severe lack of motivation and an unwillingness to change.
I don't everything that Obama is doing is OK. I take severe issue with his current policy in AfPak (same as Bush's), wonder wtf when it comes to his stance on gay marriage, and wish he would legalize all drugs (the libertarian in me). But he is still the most reflective, competent, and intelligent man we have had in office since JFK. Clinton was close but got mired in triangulation.
"Hmmm...I think I just came up with SR #11: Since when are conservatives so authoritarian?"
I note for the record that your response to my analysis of you being a "true believer" is your Standard Response #1, you Simply Ignored It.
"Obviously, everyone here agrees that the government does a decent job (not perfect) with our military. In my opinion, this extends to other areas as well like Medicare."
If you are age 65 or over, and you want health insurance coverage, your only option is Medicare. But trying to find a doctor who accepts Medicare patients is difficult, and the reason given by doctors who don't is "reimbursement rates are too low and paperwork too much of a hassle." In fact, only about one doctor in three is enrolled with Medicare.
Medicare is a single-payer health care system that is administered by the gubmint and funded by payroll taxes. It is a clear example of why many of us oppose such a system.
Five years ago, my mother died at age 84 after a long bout with lung cancer. Of course, her only insurance option was Medicare. Getting the gubmint to simply do what it was legally obligated to do, per its own rules, was like trying to herd cats.
And you think the gubmint does a "decent job" with it. Why am I not surprised?
"Since when are conservatives so authoritarian?"
Since you decided to change the meaning of the word "authoritarian" to something else.
(DJ, Marky's private definitions of words isn't on your list. Response #8?)
Here's what "authoritarian" really means:
1. favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.
2. of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.
3. exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others: an authoritarian parent.
Allow me to provide an example of what Ed just described, Mark:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2009/08/the-obama-administrations-pay-czar-for-bailed-out-companies-kenneth-feinberg-sounds-like-hes-taking-the-czar-title.html
First excerpt: "Feinberg said on Sunday he has broad and 'binding' authority over executive compensation, including the ability to 'claw back' money already paid, and he is weighing how and whether to use that power."
Second excerpt: "'The statute provides these guideposts, but the statute ultimately says I have discretion to decide what it is that these people should make and that my determination will be final,' Feinberg said.
"'The officials can't run to the Secretary of Treasury. The officials can't run to the court house or a local court. My decision is final on those individuals,' Feinberg added."
Who appointed Mr. Feinberg again? And what was his Constitutional authority for doing so?
As for Judge Posner, there are plenty of fair-weather libertarians out there. In addition, one may argue that monetarist distortions of the market (which only a powerful central government and a central bank can create, by the way) help create the conditions that insulate corporate leadership from market forces with respect to compensation.
I realize that to the outsider, this stuff sounds kind of like the arguments over prelapsarian vs. postlapsarian millenialism. To make up your own mind on the matter in a really informed way, you'd have to read up on the competing views of the Chicago School (as the Times article mentioned -- there's a blog out there called "The Chicago Boys," the URL of which escapes me) and the Austrian school (the best place to start, bar none, is http://www.mises.org).
What is clear is that subsequent government interventions haven't solved the perceived problem. But what Posner is effectively proposing, whether he cares to admit to it or not, is a wage control scheme for executives. Apart from failing every time it's ever been tried, there is nothing remotely libertarian about that.
Less government == more authoritarians!
Indeed, Humpty Dumpty makes words mean what he wants them to mean.
"Obviously, everyone here agrees that the government does a decent job (not perfect) with our military. In my opinion, this extends to other areas as well like Medicare."
No, it's not obvious. I, for one, have a lot of complaints about the way our government runs the military. Mostly because I have two brothers in it now (Army and Air Force), and my family has a long history of having at least one member serving every generation. My wife's family has a similar track record of members in the military. We have a long list of complaints of just how FUBARed the military is. One of the family's favorite complaints this generation is military health care, by the way. It sucks.
I work in the health care industry, my company has government contracts to supply software services to different branches and hospitals. We work with the VA. The VA has so many problems it isn't funny. By dint of the position my company holds with the VA, I'm privy to information that the public doesn't know, not because it's secret, but it's just part of business that never gets reported. It ain't pretty.
Second, the military is run different from the rest of the government. Much, much different, so unless you want to run the rest of the US like the military, then comparing the military "success" to potential "success" of socialized medicine isn't valid.
In fact, what you said is because A is a success because it is run by the government, then B will be a success too, because it will be run by the government.
This is known as the Weak Analogy Fallacy:
(1) A and B are similar.
(2) A has a certain characteristic.
Therefore:
(3) B must have that characteristic too.
(It's also Arguing from Ignorance and the Cum Hoc Fallacy, but let's not get too tangled.)
It's also easy to refute, one only points to a failure of a government run program, let's say Medicare as DJ so explicitly delineated, and now the weak analogy is deflated.
Instead, the counter argument runs much like this
1) Government programs spend taxes.
2) Taxes are taken from the citizens.
3) Increasing taxes takes more away from citizens.
4) Any government program that requires a tax increase takes more away from the citizens.
Therefore, Socialized Medicine will take more from citizens because it will require increasing taxes.
Or,
1) Command economies result in inefficient resource distribution.
2) Command economies cannot determine and prioritize social goods better than the market can.
3) Command economies infringe on individual freedoms.
4) Socialized Medicine has the same principles of command economies. (Note, not just characteristics, but principles. If you read the bill, it has the same basic principle of command economy, namely ensuring the production of necessary goods and services that does not rely on the vagaries of free markets. The rest of the bill is designed to support that starting principle.)
5) Socialized Medicine is the same as a command economy.
Therefore, Socialized Medicine will have the same problems as a command economy.
Or,
1) Increasing government power over citizens decreases the liberty of citizens.
2) Socialized Medicine increases government power.
Therefore, Socialized Medicine decreases the liberty of citizens.
There are a number of valid, sound arguments against Socialized Medicine, and it amuses me greatly to watch certain people fail to address any of them. At all. Mere appeal to emotion and bandwagoning passes as "opposition".
Russell,
In case you missed it, this article is the clearest explanation I've yet seen of why socialized medicine cannot work.
"The ball cupping worship by several here of the free market and the private sector is laughable...especially in light of this recent defection (aka waking up and smelling the fucking coffee).
For the love of all that is holy, please do yourself a huge favor and get an education. Stop posting here and with all that time savings take a community college class in economics 101. You need to discover what a free market economy really is. (here's a hint, it doesn't start with the govt. forcing lenders to make high risk loans...)
Ed, thank you, I had missed that one.
Very clear and concise, something I wasn't! :)
Even better than taking econ 101, Markadelphia, go here:
http://jim.com/econ/
It's the 1978 edition of Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson, in HTML format, free as the air.
The book makes the free-market argument in plain language anyone can understand, starting from Bastiat's broken-window fallacy. What you do with the information is up to you, but whether you agree with it or not I think it will repay your time.
"DJ, Marky's private definitions of words isn't on your list. Response #8?"
Yup. So adopted.
Here they are again, now at Rev. 4:
#1 The "I can't hear you" response. He behaves as if a request to respond or to answer a question was not made, or that he never read it. This seems to be his favorite.
#2 The "What's the point" response. He complains that it is pointless to respond because he won't be believed anyway. One often finds this on a playground during third grade recess.
#3 The "I'm not alone" response. He states his opinion, and then he points to the writings of other people who share his opinion, as if the request were about votes instead of verifiable facts, logic, and reasoned thought.
#4 The "How 'bout that anthrax, eh?" response. He simply tries to change the subject. This is also known as the "Hey, look! A pony!" response.
#5 The "I'm drowning in stupidity" response. He simply lays on the blather, slathering on one turgid catch-phrase, slogan, and cliché after another, and then declares, later, "I answered your question."
#6 The "How 'bout a little fire, Scarecrow?" response. He deliberately misses the point, laying on one straw man after another.
#7 The "Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' camera?" response. Nothing is valid, no matter what the evidence for it is, unless it squares with the conclusions he's already jumped to.
#8 The "Humpty Dumpty" response. He simply asserts that your words mean what he says they mean. Thus, no matter what you write, it means that he is correct. This is also known as the "We don't need no stinking dictionary!" response.
GOF, the "gubmint good" idea is just as short sighted as the "gubmint bad" meme.
Except one has a lot of history and proof. Hint: not yours.
Each share a complete lack of width of vision.
No. By all that is holy, NO, NO, NO and NO.
They share NOTHING. And it's not a "lack" of "width of vision" (whatever the hell that means). This is just your equivocation and lack of ability to use words correctly to try and prop up your ego. "Yes, well, you did it first!"
You continually fail to notice, note, and honestly discuss the failures inherent in the system that you advocate.
The Founding Fathers saw those failures, which are endemic to human nature, and built a system to work around it. To wit: keep government out of as much as possible.
The ball cupping worship by several here of the free market
And yet, your previous comment was whining about personal attacks.
More hypocrisy along with the guttermind.
and the private sector is laughable.
Only by someone ignorant. Deliberately so. But we've proven that many times over.
Obviously, everyone here agrees that the government does a decent job (not perfect) with our military.
Military does not equal the rest of government, unless you're proposing a martial government. Are you? Yes or no.
In my opinion, this extends to other areas as well like Medicare.
Yes, and we've seen how well you arrive at correct opinions.
Education is not a money problem...it's a people problem that begins with a severe lack of motivation and an unwillingness to change.
So close, and yet, so so far.
But he is still the most reflective, competent, and intelligent man we have had in office since JFK.
And you call us "Ball-cupping?"
Seriously, Mark, c'mon.
Reflective? How? What has he done that DEMONSTRATES "reflective" behavior? He's acted like a petulant child (which you do as well) when stymied at places where obviously he was going to face opposition.
Competent? What has he succeeded at?
Intelligent?
Mark, you really need to go read Reagan's writings, if you think that. But you might well believe that, but the evidence for all of that is at best arguable, and usually laughable.
"But he is still the most reflective, competent, and intelligent man we have had in office since JFK."
I vote this sentence for the most amount of fail on this thread!
I'll second, just so I don't have to re-read all of them to find the other candidates.
This is known as the Weak Analogy Fallacy:
I learned it as The Paradox of Socrates' Paws:
1. My cat has four paws.
2. My cat is dead.
3. Socrates is also dead, ergo
4. Socrates has four paws.
A response to CAshane first,
What country have you been living in for the last 10 years? Keep drinking the fucking Kool Aid on that "govt. forcing lenders to make high risk loans" horse shit and you will show how horribly uneducated yOU are. The high risk loans were made because everyone else was doing it so they had to do it to stay competitive. Go watch this:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/28892719/
Instead of reading right wing blogs that have a paranoid ax to grind about "gubmint bad" take a look at what actually happened. The government was busy doing its Claude Rains impression. This doc was shown to me by last in line, brw, and its message is quite clear: nothing can stop the free market. Nothing.
The high risk loans were made because everyone else was doing it so they had to do it to stay competitive.
NEVERMIND THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!
And put that Kool-AID down! Here! DRINK THIS! Now go lie down somewhere, quick! Artistic-like!
(*sigh*)
Markadelphia - where did the subprime mortgage market START?
WHY was it initially seen as a profitable venture?
BECAUSE GOVERNMENT BACKED ENTITIES WOULD BUY THE RISKY LOANS.
What caused the sudden change in bank lending rules? PRESSURE FROM THE GOVERNMENT TO LOAN TO "SUBPRIME" BORROWERS.
And the unintended consequences of this? Credit Default Swaps. Collateralized Debt Obligations. "NINA" loans. Etc. etc. etc.
Note Greenspan's comment from that slide show: "Had we tried to suppress the expansion of the sub-prime market, do you think that would have gone over very well with the Congress, when it looked as though we were dealing with a major increase in home ownership, which is of unquestioned value to this society –- would we have been able to do that? I doubt it."
That's not Claude Rains "I'm shocked, shocked!" That's deliberate interference.
Do I need to pull up the YouTube videos of Barney Frank et al. coming unglued over proposed oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
The high risk loans were made because everyone else was doing it
Well, Russell, he had to top his previous line.
Had to. You made him.
As DJ pointed out to him, he cannot think through the crap he spews, before he says it. Just can't do it.
Mark: you whine about "ball-cupping", and then miss the point that those loans were entered into because someone else (us, via the government) assumed the risk.
In the name of "fairness", because all those people with poor credit, having to pay more for the likelihood they'd default, or get more loan than they could afford, was unfair.
"High Risk" loans weren't the problem, it was the high-risk loans without the safeguards the industry has developed to protect themselves - the safeguards stripped away by the government, and shoved down the throat of lenders at quite literally the point of a gun.
"Do I need to pull up the YouTube videos of Barney Frank et al. coming unglued over proposed oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?"
You should pull up YouTube videos of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd championing the cause of the problem, then later complaining about that cause of they had nothing to do with it.
The Community Reinvestment Act certainly comes in for a sizable share of the blame. Add to that the fact that interest rates were forced below market rates by, you guessed it, the Federal Reserve.* The current crisis is driven by real estate because real estate was explicitly chosen as the next bubble, to replace the previous NASDAQ bubble.
http://www.businessinsider.com/krugman-in-02-greenspan-needs-to-create-a-housing-bubble-2009-6
Artificially low interest rates promote malinvestment by making relatively bad deals look better than they would be in an environment in which interest rates are left to market forces. That's what government intervention does: it adds noise to price signals that would otherwise be absolutely unambiguous, eventually making economic calculation impossible because the actor can no longer be sure of the difference between a good opportunity and a bad one.
The combination of artificially low interest rates (I'll be ecumenical and blame everyone from Bush the Elder on up to Obama for that, since they're the ones who appointed and reappointed Greenspan and Bernanke) and implicit (in the case of Fannie and Freddie) and explicit (in the case of FHA and VA, as well as the general case created by FDIC) government guaranteers led to the practice of "fog a mirror" loans (hat tip: Karl Denninger, http://www.market-ticker.org).
*In a free market, there would be no Federal Reserve. Central banking is only necessary if the government intends a course of monetary inflation. One of the things the Fed is supposed to do is control inflation, which is risible both in principle and in practice.
Principle, because only the Fed can increase the supply of money in such a way as to "make you an offer you can't refuse" (because it's implicitly backed by government guns). Absent the Fed, a private issuer of fiat or even fractional greenbacks would quickly finds itself at a disadvantage against issuers of sound money.
Practice, because since 1913, the year the Fed came into existence, the U.S. dollar has lost some 97% of its value. Heck of a job they did controlling inflation, don't you think?
"The high risk loans were made because everyone else was doing it so they had to do it to stay competitive."
Really? So if everyone else jumped off a cliff, they would have to do it too, to stay competitive?
First, the premise needs to be proven: that making high risk loans was the only way to be competitive. And also, competitive on what grounds?
If that is true, then there is another logical fallacy, namely the Appeal to Popularity, or the Bandwagon Fallacy. Everyone thought to stay competitive, one had to make high risk loans, so everyone made high risk loans.
So then it must be proven that this is what everyone was thinking when they made the high risk loans. Which implies that everyone in the home loan business was engaging in mass fallacy. It seems to me to be a bubble mentality. Everyone wanted a piece of government backed pie, the good times would never end, etc, etc.
(The bubble madness isn't part of a free market, btw, it's part of human nature and can manifest under any economic model.)
Add to Russell's most recent is that central banking makes bubbles easier to inflate, as my comment demonstrates.
Also, one might reasonably ask why government would choose a course of monetary inflation? Well, whatever else monetary inflation does, it makes two things relatively easier:
1. Expansion of government.
2. Waging war on the industrial scale.
So then it must be proven that this is what everyone was thinking when they made the high risk loans. Which implies that everyone in the home loan business was engaging in mass fallacy. It seems to me to be a bubble mentality. Everyone wanted a piece of government backed pie, the good times would never end, etc, etc.
Russell, this is a really good point. In fact, that is the case. People even published books:
http://www.amazon.com/Real-Estate-Boom-Will-Bust/dp/0385514352
Oh, and here's a customer review of the book from April 2005 that frankly creeps me out a little, it's so accurate:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R3R4SJ8YZY5326/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
From the review: "Further, the amount of leverage used to buy homes during this boom has been increased to absolutely unprecidented levels. Even during the last boom of the late 80s/early 90s, the standard was still 30 yr fixed and 20% down. Not anymore. Last year, less than 15% of borrowers put down 20% or more! Further, the 30 yr fixed has been replaced by the IO, or interest only loan. See now, we have the same borrower capable of bidding 30-40% more for a propery without any better credit or ability to repay. Neat trick, but sadly, Lereah at no point addresses any of these fundamentals.
"Our stock/housing pattern appears remarkably similar to the one Japan had 20 years ago. First the stock market busted. Right after, the real estate market rallied, and it busted too. The current Japanese real estate market is in a 14 year slide to date, and houses are going for roughly their 1980 value."
Thanks Ken, this also illuminates another economic principle: money, like water, will seek the lowest level. As money pours in, that level rises, and as it rises, the incentive to pour money in decreases.
What happened with this bubble, is that the government showed up with dump trucks to build levees around the level, artificially raising the potential level. So the money kept pouring in, investors filled with a false sense of security that the levees will hold, after all, the government is backing it up!
Of course, the levees didn't hold, and a lot of money ran right out.
From the comment "Historically, the ratio of housing price to annual income has been 2.1, with very little variation. In many parts of the country, this ratio is now approaching 10.5!"
How was that ration achieved? What changed?
To put it simply: government meddling caused Unintended Consequences.
In short, it was free money, and everyone wanted some. Coming back to Ed's link to the article, the housing market performed much like the fictitious supermarket, to wit, there was a run on the free goods, and then there wasn't anything left to keep the business model, such as it was, moving forward.
Setting aside the CRA, the point needs to be repeated that the Fed's lowering the interest rate to 1.25% was critical in creating the mortgage bubble.
This worked in two directions. First, obviously, the low interest rates made borrowing more attractive for home-buyers.
Second, and this is a point that many people don't realize, the low rates severely damaged mortgage lenders' profits—both because they earned less on each mortgage, and because homeowners had more incentive to refinance existing mortgages.
Thus the trend for looser lending standards. The Fed forced lenders to seek out more aggressive loans, just to stay profitable.
Ergo, government policy led directly to the mortgage bubble. (I consider the Fed to be an arm of government, albeit one that is highly subject to influence by bank plutocrats.)
"The government was busy doing its Claude Rains impression."
Is Hollywood the standard by which you gauge gubmint competence? If so, why?
"Apart from failing every time it's ever been tried, there is nothing remotely libertarian about that."
Ken, then what is your solution? Posner clearly illustrates that boards are powerless. If the government isn't the entity to take care of this, then what is?
DJ, I never said Medicare was perfect. Certainly you would fall into the 20 percent or so that is not satisfied with its policies. Most people are, though, and getting rid of Medicare (something I think you would be in favor of) would be met with quite a bit of opposition.
Our central problems with health care were recently summed up here.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2009/Senate/Maps/Aug17-s.html#1
Andy, as always, provides a nice capsule of why our country has its head up its ass about health care. He also has a link from the Atlantic which you should all read by David Goldhill
As to round 97 of why our economy went south, once again...for the cheap seats...the CRA only applies to banks and thrifts and the Fannie/Freddie debacle was largely caused by Alt A loans. Combine all of this with the information in the CNBC doc and it is quite clear that our economy tanking had nothing to do with government quotas/affirmative action/ACORN/secretly racist left wingers.
'Unhampered entrepreneurial action in free markets is not merely the most efficient and best way to achieve the common good, it is the only way. There is no "middle of the road." As Mises puts it, "The market economy … and the socialist economy preclude one another. There is no mixture of the two systems possible or thinkable. Production is either directed by the market or by the decrees of a production tsar."'
From Caritas in Iustitia Distributiva
Certainly you would fall into the 20 percent or so that is not satisfied with its policies.
That 20% being the 20% forced to use it. Important to know your populations.
Most people are, though,
The support has been dropping faster than doctors taking it.
and getting rid of Medicare (something I think you would be in favor of) would be met with quite a bit of opposition.
That would entirely depend on what we'd be replacing it with.
As to round 97 of why our economy went south, once again...for the cheap seats...the CRA only applies
And in the previous 96 rounds, you've been proven to not understand basic math, English, history, the legislation, blamed Republicans for the CRA... ignored the evidence that the CRA expansion which was Clinton's compromise requirement for your previous bugaboo...
So you might want to settle down, Beavis, my fellow leftist, for you have not proven this other than your vehemence. Which is rather ill-sourced.
it is quite clear that our economy tanking had nothing to do with government quotas/affirmative action/ACORN/secretly racist left wingers.
Who the hell said they're secretly racist? They're out and out racists and that's what we've been saying.
But you might want to actually look at what the CRA and regulators required.
Kevin's Irregulars: Blah, bubble, blah, interest rates, blah, government meddling in free market mechanics, blah, blah CRA.
What Marky hears: "government quotas/affirmative action/ACORN/secretly racist left wingers."
"Keep drinking the fucking Kool Aid on that "govt. forcing lenders to make high risk loans" horse shit..."
Your swearing has thoroughly convinced me. What was I thinking? Clearly I'm wrong and you are right based on such a clearly detailed analysis consisting of one sentence on why high risk loans were made and a linked video preview that is “not available at this time”. The photo of the Wall street sign in the slideshow was awesome. I’m blown away.
In answer to your question, I have been living in a country that does not have a free market economy.
Free Market: “An economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies.” (source: Dictionary.com).
"DJ, I never said Medicare was perfect."
You stated in plain English that, in your opinion, gubmint does "a decent job" with Medicare. I've talked about Medicare with lots of doctors (I've talked with a lot of doctors in recent years), with my sister-in-law, who is an RN, and with lots of friends and relatives who try to make use of it. I have not found ONE who describes it as other than "awful". Yes, not even ONE.
"Certainly you would fall into the 20 percent or so that is not satisfied with its policies."
And your source for this numerical statement is something other than thin air?
"... and getting rid of Medicare (something I think you would be in favor of) would be met with quite a bit of opposition."
Opposition by whom? Doctors don't like it because it doesn't pay enough and they don't like dealing with the gubmint paperwork. One in three refuses to deal with it at all. Dealing with insurance companies is a pain in the ass in absolute terms but a relative pleasure in comparison to Medicare. Patients don't like dealing with it because it is has the compassion of the IRS coupled with the efficiency of the DMV.
Opposition for what reason? That depends on what replaces it, now doesn't it?
Still can't think ahead, can you?
"Combine all of this with the information in the CNBC doc and it is quite clear that our economy tanking had nothing to do with government quotas/affirmative action/ACORN/secretly racist left wingers."
Damn, teacher boy, but you cranked up the random but important sounding blather generator again, didn't you?
Alright Russell, fair enough. Then what happens with a UHC-Bill MacGuire situation crops up? The shareholders were begging the government to step in and the government refused due to Governor Keane's professed belief that you quote above. And I want to be clear about this, are you saying that "unhampered" means no regulation at all?
"ignored the evidence that the CRA expansion which was Clinton's compromise requirement for your previous bugaboo..."
I didn't ignore it. It's ludicrous.
DJ, my experience has been different. I've heard good from everyone who is covered by it--and that includes a couple dozen in laws and several of my direct family--as well as every doctor and nurse I know save one...and, surprise surprise, he is ultra right wing.
What is your source for 1 in 3 refuse to deal with it? From a post on my blog recently
"I was speaking in terms of reimbursement when I said Medicare was the best system. Every day I work with practitioners in my field and it has gotten to the point where they prefer patients who are covered under medicare because they get reimbursement for their work in 2 weeks like clockwork from medicare. Insurance companies just throw the claims our practitioners submit to them into "review" for 45 or 60 days and we still have to deal with plenty of denials from the insurance companies."
Google, mofo, CAN YOU USE IT?
Fitting, innit?
Apparently you can't use Google in WHAT.
First article:
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission reported in 2008 that 28% of Medicare beneficiaries looking for a primary care physician had trouble finding one, up from 24% the year before.
And that was only a 4% jump from 2007. Want to bet it's been in the 25% range for a while?
More and more of my fellow doctors are turning away Medicare patients because of the diminished reimbursements and the growing delay in payments. I've had several new Medicare patients come to my office in the last few months with multiple diseases and long lists of medications simply because their longtime provider -- who they liked -- abruptly stopped taking Medicare.
Apparently, you're the only one who's heard of the problem.
Now, it's possible who you're quoting is in a niche speciality - without options, and very standard billing. There are a few - and getting to be fewer - that fall into that.
But he's not indicative of the field.
"ignored the evidence that the CRA expansion which was Clinton's compromise requirement for your previous bugaboo..."
I didn't ignore it. It's ludicrous.
Then.. you ignored it.
Ludicrous. You keep using that word. Bloody hell, you keep using ALL THE WORDS. They DON'T MEAN WHAT YOU THINK THEY MEAN.*
* - Knowing of course that they mean whatever you mean them to at the time, and it's just unfair and a different set of rules to expect you to alpaca fit grumble electric.
Sure ball went punch (God painted coffee lead) cloth sheeted fedora?
This is why I don't like the constant focus on the CRA. It tends to degenerate into a lot of "he said, she said," when its effects are distinctly secondary to the root of the problem, which is direct government manipulation of mortgage rates.
The CRA itself came into existence, along with several similar laws in the 1970s when Congress was trying to compensate for the horrible distortions caused by its blatant attempt to use Regulation Q to subsidize mortages, by capping interest rates at artificially low levels.
See here:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/86/02/Requiem_Feb1986.pdf
You'll notice that Mark hasn't even tried to address this issue. Partly this is because he, like 99% of the public, likely knows nothing about it—but more importantly, while the CRA's effects are open to some dispute, the effects of the bigger issue are not.
"What is your source for 1 in 3 refuse to deal with it?"
Just this morning, only forty minutes after you posted a comment, I posted this:
If you are age 65 or over, and you want health insurance coverage, your only option is Medicare. But trying to find a doctor who accepts Medicare patients is difficult, and the reason given by doctors who don't is "reimbursement rates are too low and paperwork too much of a hassle." In fact, only about one doctor in three is enrolled with Medicare.
My source for the statement you asked about was in that last cited article, wherein it states:
"The number of Texas physicians willing to take on Medicare patients is declining, according to the Texas Medical Association, and even fewer doctors are expected to do so in the future.
"Only 58 percent of Texas physicians are taking new Medicare cases, and only 38 percent of primary care physicians are doing so, according to a study conducted by the Houston Chronicle.
"Across the country, only 600,000 of 1.5 million total physicians are currently willing to treat Medicare patients, the study notes."
In round numbers, that's about one in three.
Ah, liar boy, the only time you are believable is when you reveal something without knowing that you are revealing it. Y'see, that's what you just did. You responded to my statement with
"DJ, I never said Medicare was perfect."
and then asked me what the source was for my statment. You didn't actually read the whole comment and follow the links I cited, did you? Ah, what a guy. You comment on something that you won't actually read. I'm so impressed.
Now, go google "doctors who don't accept medicare" and read all of the (about) 3,750,000 hits that come up. Show us what a scholar you are.
To be more blunt:
By focusing on the CRA, you are allowing yourselves to be manipulated by banking interests who want to restrict the public debate to areas that don't inconvenience them.
What you should be talking about is the entire political economy of government intervention into the banking sector, through direct legislation as well as through the Federal Reserve. (This system, although horrible in the aggregate, is what the biggest banks have grown used to and thrive under; therefore they will fight to keep it in place.)
Mark, on the other hand, is allowing himself to be manipulated by those government power-seekers who want to nationalize the banks altogether (or at least exert de facto control through regulatory fiat), along the lines of the classic social-democratic program. If he would bother to study how the economy actually works instead of mouthing the slogans of the unscrupulous because they look good at first glance and confirm his prejudices, the world would be a better place.
Mastiff:
The reason I, at least, keep harping on the CRA is that Mark has at times, claimed that the sole, only, proximate cause of the problem was the repeal of Glass-Steagall - while totally ignoring that repeal of Glass-Steagall was part of a compromise, and as part of that, the CRA was massively expanded. So to claim that "It's been around since the 70s, how could it be the problem" is nonsensical, because it was drastically changed.
Mark thinks he's found a point - but he's forgotten about it apparently - despite the fact that his supposed point actually undermines his constant "unregulated" drumbeat. Such inconsistencies are for petty, small minds. Great minds can just vote Democrat, after all.
Here's another good one. Peter Schiff was right, especially at 2:12.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw&feature=related
U-J,
Granted. It's ironic that Mark focuses so much on the repeal of Glass-Steagall, since there is a very good case to be made that had it never been passed in the first place, collateralized mortgage obligations would have never come into existence.
Expansions of the financial markets tend to cannibalize direct lending. Thus, banks will tend to avoid financial innovation, since it will cut into their own profit margins. What Glass-Steagall did was create a class of banks (investment banks) who were forbidden to lend money, and thus had every reason to create new securities products. Fast-forward a few decades, and voila!
Ken, then what is your solution? Posner clearly illustrates that boards are powerless. If the government isn't the entity to take care of this, then what is?
I question the degree to which there is a "this" to take care of. Here is what the issue of executive compensation amounts to, provisionally absent TARP taking or the like: "That guy makes a lot more money than I do, and I don't like it."
Let's look at GE, just to pick a company out of the air. Here's a link to their 2008 audited financial statement:
http://www.ge.com/ar2008/pdf/ge_ar_2008_audited.pdf
Highlights: GE booked $17 billion net earnings on revenue of $182 billion.
Here's the 2009 proxy statement:
http://www.ge.com/pdf/investors/financial_reporting/proxy_statements/ge_proxy2009.pdf
On page 23, we see that Jeff Immelt received 2008 compensation totaling $14,096,603.
Total 2008 comp for the officers named in the summary compensation table on page 23 was in the neighborhood of $112-113 million. Handful of 'em made more than Immelt.
Okay, they're getting to where we're talking about real money, but what does it amount to? $113 million divided by $182 billion is ...
...0.06% in round numbers. In the big picture, it's a drop in the bucket.
It's a lot of money, but unless Richard Posner owns (or I own) a chunk of GE common, it's no more of his damned business (nor mine, for that matter) what they get paid -- beyond having the right to hold and express an opinion -- than it would be his business what I get paid by my private-sector employer.
That's at least the second time in the last year you've trotted out McGuire, Mark. Using the same anecdote more than once does not make it more than one anecdote, and in any case the plural of anecdote is not data.
I taught corporate governance to MBA students for three years, until I had to stop to pursue my doctorate because I already had e full-time job and a family, therefore enough already. Personally, I think there's considerable room for improvement in the performance of boards of directors with respect to representing the interests of common shareholders. (I also think there's entirely too much emphasis on "the cult of the CEO," thanks in part to authors like Ram Charan, but that's another story.)
Where corporate misgovernance rises to the level of actual fraud, though...well, that's already against the law. The burden of proof lies with those who, like you, think the government should set executive compensation. I think it would, as wage controls have always and everywhere done, make things worse. The most qualified people are relatively less likely to get into the game. Their workload won't be capped, but their compensation will be. They will, to at least some extent, be replaced by corporate politicos, who will either sandbag or game the system with their Washington connections.
That's an interesting point about Glass-Steagall, Mastiff. I'd not heard that argument before.
That's what makes reading both Denninger and Mike Shedlock so interesting. Denninger takes a more populist line, supports fractional reserve banking with strictly enforced 10:1 leverage limits, wants Glass-Steagall back in place, and wants a ton of people prosecuted, starting with Bernanke, Paulson, and Geithner. Mish, by contrast, is an Austrian. I tend to prefer his approach, but I think interested parties would be rewarded by reading both, to get a sense of the diversity of opinion out there.
"wage controls have always and everywhere done, make things worse."
This statement struck a particularly strong chord with me because I already happen to know what triggered the appearance of employer provided health insurance: it was government restrictions on wages.
"Although the earliest employer-sponsored health plans date to the 1920s, two public policies from the 1940s and 1950s firmly established the link between health insurance and the workplace. First, during World War II Congress responded to excess demand for labor by enacting limits on the extent to which employers could increase wages. Since these limits did not apply to fringe benefits, many employers began offering health insurance to attract and retain workers. Second, in 1954 the IRS created a permanent incentive for employers to substitute in-kind benefits for cash wages by declaring that fringe benefits are not taxable. Although workers ultimately pay for health insurance, either through direct premium contributions or reduced wages, this tax treatment provides a powerful incentive for workplace provision of health insurance."
* - Knowing of course that they mean whatever you mean them to at the time, and it's just unfair and a different set of rules to expect you to alpaca fit grumble electric.
Sure ball went punch (God painted coffee lead) cloth sheeted fedora?
ROTFL!! That's hysterically funny! Thanks U-J! You just made my whole month! (And since today was a bad day, that was a huge help!)
Aphasia as humor. Wonderbar!
Just to make sure I was using it right, I looked up the definition of aphasia. I was struck by some of what Wikipedia said:
People with aphasia may experience any of the following behaviors due to an acquired brain injury, although some of these symptoms may be due to related or concomitant problems such as dysarthria or apraxia and not primarily due to aphasia.
- inability to comprehend language
- inability to pronounce, not due to muscle paralysis or weakness
- inability to speak spontaneously
- inability to form words
- inability to name objects
- poor enunciation
- excessive creation and use of personal neologisms
- inability to repeat a phrase
- persistent repetition of phrases
- paraphasia (substituting letters, syllables or words)
- agrammatism (inability to speak in a grammatically correct fashion)
- dysprosody (alterations in inflexion, stress, and rhythm)
- incompleted sentences
- inability to read
- inability to write
I didn't recognize "neologisms" so I followed the link to its definition where I found this interesting sentence:
"In psychiatry, the term neologism is used to describe the use of words that only have meaning to the person who uses them, independent of their common meaning."
Hmmmmmm…
"Sure ball went punch (God painted coffee lead) cloth sheeted fedora?"
U-J: I almost lost a good keyboard because of that. A warning that teapot couple Tuesday Bangkok, if you please.
And speaking of non sequiturs, what does Bill McGuire's bloated salary have to do with the price of tea in China?
As I understand it, McGuire earned $10 million in 2004, while the rest was made from cashing in on stock options. And just because the board of directors decided be be insane and throw money at McGuire doesn't mean the government should do diddly squat about it. Ken's further comments do a better job than I could, so just re-read them.
I didn't say "unhampered", Mises did.
He defines it thus: "A pure or unhampered (i.e., free) market economy is an imaginary construction which assumes: (1) The private ownership (control) of the means of production; (2) The division of labor and the consequent voluntary market exchanges of goods and services; (3) No institutional interferences with the operation of the market processes which generate prices, wage rates and interest rates which reflect the actual conditions of supply and demand for all goods and services; (4) A government, the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion, which is intent on preserving market processes while protecting peaceful market participants from the encroachments of those who would resort to the threat or use of force or fraud." (http://mises.org/easier/M.asp)
So, Russell (and everyone else) would you say that the following characterizes your view point?
The conservative worldview is totally committed to "the ideal of laissez faire, meaning minimal government interference in the marketplace, along with hostility to taxation, regulation, organized labor, state ownership, and all the business community's other enemies. "The conservative movement promotes the interests of business exclusively over all else in accordance with the motto, "More business in government, less government in business." So-called "big government," also tagged as the liberal state, is the enemy; in fact, virtually all government is the enemy, other than the national defense.
I don't see any pony... Where?
Oh, and fellow Leftist Mark, you get a automatic 0 on that assignment for plagarism.
Teacher boy, you give yourself away when you post such comments. You are neither intelligent enough nor grammatically correct enough to post such a comment. The giveaway is that this comment reads as if someone else wrote it.
So, I googled "The conservative worldview is totally committed". Guess what I found? It's a comment in a thread of comments following a review of "A Depressingly Compelling Review of Conservatives' Philosophy of Government in Practice", by Steve Koss, on Amazon.com.
Now, try to convince us that you actually understand the comment you copied and pasted. Go ahead. Try.
DJ:
He's just looking for another excuse for "Life" to occur. See, it's another question, and once he gets us to answer it and roundly defeat him intellectually, he gets "busy" and will snidely comment about how busy he is from another thread.
Let me see if it makes sense to you this way, Mark. You say we all agree that there are some things government does well. Well for me, that's not quite true. There is one, count em, one, thing that government does well. And if you think about various opinions of the military, and my statements earlier re: the customer's freedom to spend his money elsewhere, which one thing government does well should be obvious:
Government does well at enforcing particular behaviors from given groups of people through violence and the threat of violence.
That is the only thing governments do well, and because of the nature of the whole "you can't spend your money elsewhere" problem, it's the only thing it's possible for a government to do well. Any government, no matter how constituted nor who's in charge.
So really, the thing you need to ask yourself when thinking, "Should we have a government program for _______?" is "Is violence or the threat of violence the only means by which we can achieve ______ result? And is ________ result worth accepting the ongoing, daily use of violence and the threat of violence in order to have it?"
The reason so many here disagree with you is because they think there are far too many issues that cause you to answer the above questions "Yes! Absolutely!"
Well, here's another thread that marky will abandon and forget about.
I think he's pulled quotes from there before. That comment sounded familiar...
What amazes me that after years knocking about Kevin's parlor, he still requires someone else to speak for him to mischaracterize some conservative principles, and he still doesn't get that quite a number of people here aren't conservative.
And the rest of this tread appears to be meaningless noise to the True Believer.
Ah well, down the memory hole it goes, and another thread he'll be able to look back on with a warm glow for 'defeating' those knuckle dragging Rethuglicans again.
So, not only does he use Standard Response #6, he piles plagiarism on top?
Just when you think the doppelganger can't get any lower…
Way to answer the question, Russell.
Yes, I did pull it from those comments and the quotes are from Thomas Frank. I wanted to know if this was an adequate summation of your view.
Frank was on Morning Joe this morning and I remembered reading his book when it came out a year ago...now out in paperback. Russell's quote above regarding the free market made think about this comment from Steve Koss as they seemed to be similar. Before engaging in further debate, I wanted to see if that, was in fact, your view.
So, is the comment with the quotes from Frank an accurate representation of your view point? GOF has answered...will anyone else care to answer?
Marky,
Your mischaracterization misses one CRUCIAL point, which Russell already included in his quote from Mises. That is:
"(4) A government, the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion, which is intent on preserving market processes while PROTECTING peaceful market participants FROM the encroachments of those who would resort to the threat or use of FORCE or FRAUD."
That is an appropriate role for government, and I sincerely doubt you will ever find a genuine conservative who says otherwise.
"Way to answer the question, Russell."
LOL! My irony meter just broke!
"Before engaging in further debate"
Whew, the irony meter was already broken when this hit.
", I wanted to see if that, was in fact, your view. "
There are so many things wrong with your uncited cutnpaste "summary" that should be apparent after reading Kevin's blog lo these many years.
It seems you have no ability to synthesize information. Compounded with your utter ignorance of the founding concepts of Western Civilization (again, proven many times here) and your inability to reason beyond a sound bite level, that the idea of a "debate" is risible, at best. Worrisome when held in the light that you are a teacher, entrusted with the young.
We've given enough responses over the years for you to adequately formulate a rough response to your question, all by yourself. Failure to be able to do so doesn't make it incumbent upon me to do your work. The fact you are asking this, all doe eyed and innocent, after years of being here, speaks volumes.
Ed: At the risk of invoking the "No True Scotsman Fallacy", yup.
will anyone else care to answer?
We're still waiting for you over here.
Your "life" seems to have abated, so how about going back to that previous demand you made of us and continue it.
Before engaging in further debate, I wanted to see if that, was in fact, your view.
For two years, many of us here have spelled out in a graphic, eye-straining-detail repeated many times form what "our views" are.
They don't jibe with your "HEY, LOOK A PONY" moment, and there's no reasonable excuse you can have for myself, DJ, Ed, Russell, our host Kevin - and many others - for to to act like it's the first time it's come up.
Now. About that thread you ran away from...
Quoting myself:
About that thread you ran away from...
I'm sorry. That's not very clear, is it, since it refers to so many of them?
My apologies.
I meant to refer to the most recent one, the one I had referred to earlier in that post.
Mark,
You should know that Thomas Frank is a hack of the first water. His central argument in What's the Matter With Kansas? (that dumb voters were being misled by evil Republicans into voting for free trade) is completely vitiated when you realized that both Republican and Democratic candidates in Kansas were advocating free-trade policies.
Could it be that the voters actually perceived free trade as being in their interest? Naaah…
Ed, if that is the case then what is an acceptable way for the government to protect those peaceful citizens?
Based on some of what I hear on here and out there...well...some of it is an almost pathological hatred of any sort of governmental regulations. You have to admit that Russell's original quote jibes more with Frank's assertion that the free market conservative has "hostility to taxation, regulation, organized labor, state ownership, and all the business community's other enemies."
Mastiff, your point exactly proves Bill Maher's point to be true...the Democrats have become more conservative and less statist. In other words, they are now the new conservative party of America (running on free trade and cutting taxes) and the base of the Republican party has become...well...you know:)
Here's another quote from the same thread at Amazon:
"Actually, taxation and regulation are friends of Big Business, because it allows them to gain an artificial monopoly rather easily. Many industries even lobby Congress to increase regulations to cut out small competitors. Big Business can easily meet these regulations. Look at Wal Mart. They support a higher minimum wage. The reason? Because they know it will hurt the small businesses trying to compete with them. Wal Mart is a big multinational corporation. They can handle a higher minimum wage easily."
Now to be sure, if those we now describe as "big business" could find a way to
A free market makes competition easier, not harder. I, for one, spelled this out for you -- in so many words -- in a recent thread. That you still ask these questions after all this time and all this evidence says far more about you than it does us, Mark (quite apart from your presuming to call anyone here to account for themselves to your satisfaction).
The evidence that your worldview is one of group identity and class envy can no longer be doubted. Beyond that, you are either incompetent or dishonest. I see no third possibility (unless, of course, you are both). Fortunately for you, these things can be remedied, but the remedy is up to you.
Excuse me: I failed to complete a paragraph in the above. Here is the full paragraph:
Now to be sure, if those we now describe as "big business" could find a way to use government to arrange matters to their advantage and to the disadvantage of competitors at less cost, they would so so. No one bears fixed regulatory costs because they enjoy it. Absent government, most business owners would avoid direct "extracurricular" means of limiting competition (sabotage, etc.), because it would expose them to the legitimate action of the wronged competitor in self-defense. If you have government agents to act as your muscle, why risk your own skin?
Democrats have become more conservative and less statist.
Holy Dissonance, Batman!
GOOGLE. CAN YOU USE IT?
SAY STATIST ONE MORE TIME. GO ON, I DARE YOU.
...
As the Democrats contemplate taking over HEALTH CARE, after dictating, ordering, and by fiat re-arranging the FINANCIAL SECTOR, you can, with a straight face, claim that they are less statist?
"A major government or state role in the direction of the economy, both directly through state-owned enterprises and indirectly through the state-directed economic planning of the overall economy" - Wikipedia
In other words, they are now the new conservative party of America (running on free trade and cutting taxes)
WHERE? Obama claimed he wouldn't raise taxes. (Which was laughable then, and he's already been trying to raise taxes in multiple places. And he's still letting the "Bush Tax Cuts" expire.
I don't recall him promising to lower taxes - and I note he, and the Democratic Congress have not. Free trade? The guy who ran and talked about bailing out of NAFTA?
You paid attention to his campaign about as well as you did to DJ's medicaid sourcing, didn't you?
and the base of the Republican party has become...well...you know
I'm still waiting on you to manage to ID the base of the Republican party, much less chuckle and agree with you OH HEY WHERE'S THE PONY?
Based on some of what I hear on here and out there...well...some of it is an almost pathological hatred of any sort of governmental regulations. You have to admit that Russell's original quote jibes more with Frank's assertion that the free market conservative has "hostility to taxation, regulation, organized labor, state ownership, and all the business community's other enemies."
I've never seen accurately recognizing something for what it is described as "almost pathological hatred" before. Let's take that a piece at a time, shall we?
"taxation, regulation, organized labor, state ownership..."
Is there a single piece of that which is able to function other than through violence and/or the threat of violence, as I stated above?
If not, I would suggest that they are not merely "the business community's" enemies but everyone's. Keeping something in place by violence or the threat of it is something I wouldn't expect people to voluntarily do if they had any other choices at all, would you?
Now, contrast that with how the US government typically operates, and how you apparently wish it to continue operating:
1. A certain aspect of free-market economics is arguably placing an unjust burden on a given section of the citizenry.
2. The government, seeing that the free market apparently is not correcting the problem all by itself, puts a regulation in place (that is, a behavioral modifier operating through the use of violence or the threat thereof) in hopes of correcting the behaviors that led to the injustice.
So far, so good, until:
3. The effects of the regulation show that those who wrote it were only human after all, and that the regulation results in unintended consequences that are just as unacceptable as the original problem that caused the regulation to be put into effect in the first place.
Not good, but certainly predictable, and something that can't effectively be fixed as long as humans remain humanly fallible. Now comes the fun part:
4. Does the body that wrote the original regulation change it, "tweak" it, in an effort to find something that will solve the original problem without generating the newly discovered "unintended consequences"? Generally... no. Instead, what happens is that the original problem-causing regulation is left in place, and a new regulation is slapped over the top to deal with the unintended consequences. What happens next? The new "band-aid" regulation generates an entirely new set of unintended consequences, thus generating an entirely new set of injustices.
5. Repeat as necessary for 233 years.
So the bottom line remains a question I have asked you before: If you can't be bothered to take the time to do it right, how will you manage to shake loose the time to do it again?
And more to the point, why in hell would you want someone who has already screwed things up to add yet another layer of fuckedupness to the fuckedupness that is already giving you trouble? Doesn't it make more sense to get someone in who has an actual interest in fixing the fucking problem, correctly, ONCE?
And if you're thinking the person referred to just above is Barack Obama, let me ask you why, even though healthcare reform is apparently a top priority and even though 10% of all medical costs are "defensive medicine" which serve no other purpose than to arm the providers against lawsuits, those who are demanding the aforesaid healthcare reform have yet to include even one word in favor of tort reform?
"Mastiff, your point exactly proves Bill Maher's point to be true...the Democrats have become more conservative and less statist. In other words, they are now the new conservative party of America (running on free trade and cutting taxes) and the base of the Republican party has become...well...you know"
Thus, we see Standard Response #9.
Here they are again, now at Rev. 5:
#1 The "I can't hear you" response. He behaves as if a request to respond or to answer a question was not made, or that he never read it. This seems to be his favorite.
#2 The "What's the point" response. He complains that it is pointless to respond because he won't be believed anyway. One often finds this on a playground during third grade recess.
#3 The "I'm not alone" response. He states his opinion, and then he points to the writings of other people who share his opinion, as if the request were about votes instead of verifiable facts, logic, and reasoned thought.
#4 The "How 'bout that anthrax, eh?" response. He simply tries to change the subject. This is also known as the "Hey, look! A pony!" response.
#5 The "I'm drowning in stupidity" response. He simply lays on the blather, slathering on one turgid catch-phrase, slogan, and cliché after another, and then declares, later, "I answered your question."
#6 The "How 'bout a little fire, Scarecrow?" response. He deliberately misses the point, laying on one straw man after another.
#7 The "Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' camera?" response. Nothing is valid, no matter what the evidence for it is, unless it squares with the conclusions he's already jumped to.
#8 The "Humpty Dumpty" response. He simply asserts that your words mean what he says they mean. Thus, no matter what you write, it means that he is correct. This is also known as the "We don't need no stinking dictionary!" response.
#9 The "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response. He simply asserts that the other side is what he doesn't like his side being accused of. As with #2, one often finds this on a playground during third grade recess.
Going back to something I already had pointed out..
Mark:
But he is still the most reflective, competent, and intelligent man we have had in office since JFK.
Just ran across this, which makes the point even more sharply:
[Tentatively raising hand]
Um, teacher, I gotta question....
Why doesn't this country have a drug control policy concerning the sniffing of unicorn farts? I mean, they're obviously addictive, they're obviously incredibly hallucinogenic, the young are obviously at greatest risk, and they glaringly obviously rot your brain, right?
Blaise Pascal, Pensees #98
How is it that a lame man does not annoy us while a lame mind does? Because a lame man recognizes that we are walking straight, while a lame mind says that it is we who are limping.
Well I've been telling you this for years. ;-)
Love ya Kev. Keep up the Good Fight!
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>