Cynical Nation

After you e-mailed me, I visited my friend who recently bought the new Kindle. Guess what the first book he started reading was?

You got it.

I read it when I was 18. I'm almost 40. Ain't no way I'm putting myself through that again. Her and Thomas Pychon give avid readers a run for their sanity just by length alone.
I saw Dagny and Hank and Francisco are pretty ok. But I haven't read AS in 20 years.
Just wait until you get to John Galt's speech close to the end, Barry. Guess how many pages that dude goes on (and on, and on)? :)

I don't know how she felt about Ian Fleming, but she did have some kind words for Mickey Spillane.
I agree with you on the overwrought prose, but notice that nothing in the book is accidental or incidental.
Try mentally putting the faces of current celebs and politicians on the characters. Many are a good fit. (Cindy Sheehan= Kip Chalmers mom)
Alan Greenspan used to be one of her true believers. Then he moved to Washington and drank the koolaid. There was a character in Atlas like that. (Was it Floyd Ferris?) He kept lamenting "What can you do when you have to get along with other people?". He became a total sell out.

I have actually never read Ayn Rand. Mostly because of the exact reasons you've mentioned about her characters. I don't typically enjoy books, or movies or shows for that matter, when I don't like any of the characters. In fact, I didn't watch Seinfeld for that exact reason, which is practically sacrilege for a New Yorker. Seriously, I think I've seen maybe five episodes. It's not that it's not really funny. It's that I can't stand any of them, so why bother? There's plenty of other stuff to read or watch.

I read it a long time ago. I used to even believe it. Unfortunately, the truth is that people acting selfishly get us exactly what we have right now -- economic catastrophe.

Bernie Madoff certainly acted in his best interest, wouldn't you say? All of the insider traders, Ken Lay, all of the thieves, cheats, and liars who became millionaires and billionaires definitely acted selfishly.

Where Ann goes wrong is imagining that assholes like Bush and Cheney will somehow act fairly or even within the law. History shows us that without strict oversight and strict and consistent enforcement and punishment, the Wall St. types simply weigh the risk/reward and chose to steal.

The idea that Barney Frank forced banks to lend to poor (code for black) people and that these poor (black) folks not paying back their loans is what caused the economic meltdown is utterly absurd.

Greed. Selfishness. Criminal behavior. Yeah, Rand blindly misses the last one. Criminals like Bush and Cheney don't act like her fictional characters at all. They aren't the visionaries. They aren't the talent. They are simply wealthy criminals.

I have my issues with Rand's philosophy, as I said, but I think your critique of her message is simplistic and inaccurate. She doesn't simply glorify "greed" per se, a la Gordon Gecko.

There are plenty of greedy bastards in the novel (think Orren Boyle and Jim Taggart) who do more than their fare share to ruin the country.

The difference between them and Hank Rearden and the like is that the latter were motivated by self-interest within the context of honesty, integrity, sanctity of contract, etc, in the marketplace. She certainly doesn't espouse that greed is an unalloyed virtue.

"Bernie Madoff certainly acted in his best interest, wouldn't you say? All of the insider traders, Ken Lay, all of the thieves, cheats, and liars who became millionaires and billionaires definitely acted selfishly." (anonymous)

What a DOPE!

Madoff was a criminal, involved in a ruthless ponzi scheme.

Bill Gates has delivered MORE good over the last three decades, to MORE people than ANY government in the history of the world.

Anyone so dumb as to NOT be able to see the difference between entrpreneurial behavior and the Capital investment that fuels it, enriches EVERYONE far more than even those made incredibly wealthy by the value of their own ideas, is too stupid to breathe on their own.

Here's hoping someone trips over the cord to your iron lung while leaving the room tonight.

Ahh, what a beautiful sentiment at the end there.
Where was Bill Gates mentioned as one of the scumbag billionaires in anonymous's post anyway? JMK is good sometimes at connecting point A with point C via point D somehow, and skipping point C.

"Ahh, what a beautiful sentiment at the end there." (Fred)

I added a jocular punchline at the end, I'd figure anyone with a sense of humor would appreciate that.

What the ahistoric moron above DID was to equate entrepreneurs like Bill Gates, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison and John Rockefeller with a thug Bernie Madoff.

Apparently you either agree (unlikely) OR sympathize with this ill-conceived hatred for entrepreneurialism. That kind of class envy is a severe emotional pathology.

Rockefeller's or Gates' productivity never hurt any of us, in FACT, the prodigious output by such giants improved life for us all....a little gratitude and perhaps even inspiration, in the form of inspiring the rest of us to work ceaselessly and tirelessly to contribute something that'll help others while enriching ourselves.

The reason why there are so few such people is almost certainly proof that entrepreneurialism is the highest form of human creativity ever to exist.

But far from being linked to anarchy and criminality as the anonymous goofball above posits, because Capitalism is rooted in private property rights, it requires a STRONG law & order styled governance.

In FACT, Capitalism is INCONSISTENT with anarchy (no government). Everywhere Capitalism hs sprung up, so have harsh penalties for criminals (violent offenders and especially "crimes against property" scumbags).

Capitalism is VERY consistent with, say, a Bill Bratton-styled justice system that seeks to grind up those who don't comply to the accepted standard under the wheels of that judicial system.

Fred, get your head on straight, you're not getting any younger.

"Rockefeller's or Gates' productivity never hurt any of us, in FACT, the prodigious output by such giants improved life for us all....a little gratitude and perhaps even inspiration, in the form of inspiring the rest of us to work ceaselessly and tirelessly to contribute something that'll help others while enriching ourselves, would be in order.

Maybe I read it wrong. She/he wrote: "All of the insider traders, Ken Lay, all of the thieves, cheats, and liars who became millionaires and billionaires..." I didn't see any indictment of Gates in there, either outright or subtly. All billionaires are NOT crooks, and I think the same way you do about Bill Gates. But there are those uber-wealthy out there who got it the old-fashioned, dishonest and crimial way--and shoul dbe condemned.
I just didn't see a blanket indictment of all rich people in the earlier posting.
Other than that, JMK, how's everything else with you?

I see perhaps how this makes you of your time.. but ahead of your time?

A trendsetter initiates or popularizes a trend. If I go to the beach and the beach is crowded, does that make me a trendsetter?

"I didn't see any indictment of Gates in there, either outright or subtly." (Fred)

OK, Fred, I've always tried to give you the "benefit of the doubt" despite your inane and well-documented penchant for misrepresnting yourself as a "Conservative Republican" while earnestly advocating Left-wing nonsense, but your above statement makes you an out-and-out scumbag.

(No other way to put that)

The moron's ACTUAL QUOTE was; "...the truth is that people acting selfishly get us exactly what we have right now -- economic catastrophe.

"Bernie Madoff certainly acted in his best interest, wouldn't you say? All of the insider traders, Ken Lay, all of the thieves, cheats, and liars who became millionaires and billionaires definitely acted selfishly."

Got it?! He's calling all Capitalists, Madoff's and Lay's....ya dope.

Whooops!

You apparently left that part out ("...the truth is that people acting selfishly get us exactly what we have right now -- economic catastrophe....>"Bernie Madoff certainly acted in his best interest, wouldn't you say?")
because either you're a complete idiot OR, increasingly more likely, you sympathize with that anti-Capitalist ethos.

What I said in response was 100% CORRECT: "Madoff was a criminal, involved in a ruthless ponzi scheme.

"Bill Gates (generic CAPITALIST ENTREPRENEUR) has delivered MORE good over the last three decades, to MORE people than ANY government in the history of the world.

"Anyone so dumb as to NOT be able to see the difference between entrepreneurial behavior and the Capital investment that fuels it and criminal behavior (Tyco, Enron, Madoff, government approving and encouraging banks and brokers to "create all the wealth they want to" via creating credit - a form of wealth - out of thin air, etc.) is a complete idiot.

(Since you left out a key part of the message you quoted, forgive me for taking the liberty of embelishing my own anser....thanks)

Entrepreneurialism and the Capital Investment that fuels it enriches EVERYONE far more than even those made incredibly wealthy by the value of their own ideas, is too stupid to breathe on their own. (JMK)

MY SOLE issue was that the DOPE in question (Barely Hanging/anonymous) was comparing Bernie Madoff and other criminals with ALL Capitalist entrepreneurs (folks like Bill Gates, John D. Rockefeller, Robert Johnson, Henry Ford, Larry Ellison, Thomas Edison, Jeff Bezos, etc.) and Capital INVESTORS (like Warren Buffett and others).

If you don't get it, your an idiot. (certainly ONE possibility)

If you disagree, but lack the courage to say so, then you're something far worse....and slimier.

Whew! Ever notice how our exchanges always seem to descend into this kind of personal animus and dischord?

In my view, it's entirely because you lack the guts to actually stand up for what you believe in and make an argument in favor of those things.

That projects weakness and ineptitude on your part and draws aggression from people like myself.

Seems I'm always emboldened by people who exude an inability to stand up for what they believe in.

Of course, you may have your own view on whay that is...

Here's the funny thing about this, I AM a registered Democrat....I call myself a "Zell Miller Democrat."

Although I may be more like a Pat Buchanan Democrat....or at least a "Reagan Democrat."

I have no use for Liberals and while I understand Liberal Democrats (pandering and "looking to help the dispossessed") I can neither understand, nor tolerate Liberal Republicans.

I don't know why.

Probably for the same reason I never switched Parties, despite rarely voting Democratic in national elections - I recognize that Republicans SUPPORT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION for the same reasons they support many other anti-workingclass things - they're good for investors, at least short-term.

The Liberal Democrat is an abhorrent aberration. The Liberal (Moore-Gore-Soros-Brock) wing are committed "Chavez-loving socialists," who deserve a fat similar to that which the Musolinni's got after WW II.

For THAT reason, I SHOULD BE someone any reasonable Liberal/anti-Capitalist could swing with some decent arguments.

One reason I always engage and challenge Liberals is because I want those kinds of arguments....but the fact is, I've NEVER heard a single one...NOT a single, solitary reason why Keynesian economic policy would work better, nor any evidence to support that, nor even the most basic of pro-Liberal arguments on ANYTHING.

What I have gotten is empty rhetoric and idiotic dogma from the likes of BW and some others.

BUT one thing that I seriously don't get is YOUR consistent and continual penchant for jumping to the defense of idiotic left-wing drivel from the likes of Barely and Blue, while claiming to "think the same way I do" about Capitalists like Bill Gates and others, and in the process, opposing all things Capitalistic.

Look, you have EVERY right to believe Capitalism is a "fatally flawed system" as do the likes of Blue and Barely....but that's NOT "thinking as I do" about ANYTHING.

Be serious. The quote, "...the truth is that people acting selfishly get us exactly what we have right now -- economic catastrophe.

"...Bernie Madoff certainly acted in his best interest, wouldn't you say? All of the insider traders, Ken Lay, all of the thieves, cheats, and liars who became millionaires and billionaires definitely acted selfishly...."....Is DIRECTLY comparing and indicting people like Gates, Rockefeller, Bezos, Ford, Johnson, Edison and Ellison with the likes of Ken lay and Bernie Madoff.

We can blame a LOT of things for the current CRISIS, but MOSTLY it was the result NOT of government INACTION, but of wrong-headed government ACTION.

The ill-conceived Bush plan to "increase low income and especially minority homeowership" (a seemingly laudable goal) done in a very poor way, was a HUGE part of the crisis.

Bush signed onto the 0% DOWN for FHA mortgages, THAT coupled with the "turbo-charged CRA" of 1995, among other things, reconfigured lending criteria (although THAT was NOT entirely enforced or even encouraged UNTIL the Bush administration made increasing low income homeownership a stated goal.

Once 0% DOWN for FHA mortgages was signed onto in 2002, and the GSEs were directed to buy up (back) as much of those subprime mortgages as the banks and brokers could write - the U.S. government had, in effect, allowed "legalized counterfeiting." After 2002 Fannie and Freddie increased their share of the mortgage market they bought/backed from 24.8% to almost 50% including a HUGE portion of the post-2002 subprime mortgages!

That allowed banks and brokers to create as much wealth (CREDIT = wealth) as they could write.

The current crisis proved two things, (1) there's as much money in writing counterfeit credit (government-backed bad debt) as there is in counterfeiting currency and (2) counterfeit CREDIT/DEBT may be as dangerous if not MORE than currency counterfeiting.

Were those banks and brokers who gorged on that flawed policy greedy? Were their actions criminal?

Yes to the first and NO to the second, given that government had taken the lead in encouraging and BACKING the "creation of credit (wealth) out of thin air" by members of the private sector.

That dope (Barely Hanging/anonymous) didn't merely compare entrepreneurs to criminals like Madoff and lay, he clearly and inanely implied that that WAS part and parcel fo the market process.

That's what bothered me most about your reply....one that (deliberately or not) left off some key phrases that made all too clear that vile shitbird's intent.

Madoff was looking out for his own self interest? That worked out really well- didn't it?

Oh Fred.. why did you make JMK angry?

"Here's the funny thing about this, I AM a registered Democrat....I call myself a "Zell Miller Democrat."

JMK,
Stop this illusion. Neither you, nor Zell Miller are democrats. You are far-right republicans.

Madoff is a classic example of what extreme greed can do when left unregulated. He represents a classic example of the failure of "extreme unregulated capitalism" as advocated by the marginalized republican party of today.

Face it. Madoff is the outcome of the extreme republican philosophy. That philosophy, along with "conservatism" has been definitively rejected by Americans and the rest of the world. They are failed theories, as much as the soviet system was.

another friend of mine suggested that Atlas Shrugged sales are probably positively correlated with shotgun and canned food sales.

"Oh Fred, why did you have to make JMK angry?" (PE)

Actually I’m not angry PE...I AM a jerk.

In fact, I’m in JA (Jerk’s Anonymous), I’ve gotten through the first four steps admitting I’m a jerk, wanting to be less of a jerk, admitting that I’m powerless over my compunction to be a jerk and putting faith in a higher power, but the fifth thru twelfth steps, which I can’t remember right now (cause I’m a jerk) kind of escape me.

The “issue” between Fred and I is that Fred claims to believe in the market-based economy and other such things, but can (and please ANYONE, correct me if I’m wrong here) NEVER seem to be motivated to support such things, but instead CAN almost ALWAYS find the motivation to find appealing things, or at least things worthy of defense in the batshit crazy rantings of Barely Hanging or the admittedly know-nothing rantings of Blue(“I don’t know that much about economics”)Wind.

If I didn’t know better, or perhaps if I thought that Fred was...well, not at all a nice guy (which I actually believe him to be - a "nice guy" that is), I’d swear he takes some perverse pleasure in deliberately getting on my nerves...by things like NEVER taking issue with any of the nonsensical posts form some of the committed Left-wingers that come around and ALWAYS trying to find some nit to pick with my own...a date, that I didn’t say “in my view”, or “in my opinion”, etc.

And, not to bring up old baggage, BUT, just like the time Fred called me on “stating opinion as fact, and rarely, if ever saying things like ‘in my view,’ or other such qualifiers” AND the very post he criticized me on had THAT exact qualifier (“in my view”), THIS case seems more of the same – BW just got on board and acknowledged that YES, he, like the gleefully batshit crazy Barely Hanging (bBH), does indeed believe that Madoff is symptomatic of Capitalism.

Like I said, “Fred, how in the hell did you miss that.”

And YES, I did go off when Fred (apparently) deliberately posted a portion of bBH’s (batshit crazy Barely Hanging's) statement, leaving OFF the precise part that indicted all of Capitalism with the Madoff brush.

Again, Fred, PE, ANYONE else...I have no problem with people being deranged enough to believe such things, but I DO and I admit I DO have a huge problem with people who claim NOT to believe such things and then take to defending those who do, or sniping at those (such as I) who don’t.

So, yeah, I’m a jerk, but Fred...I don’t know what he is.

I’d like to believe "confused" at times, but I don’t get that (confusion) coming from him.

I DO get no small amount of animosity towards myself, which AGAIN, I understand...a common reaction – I’m arrogant, pedantically verbose and I’m vain to boot.

Look, I’d even appreciate a curt, “Much as I believe Blue and Barely are batshit crazy and completely wrong, I find your approach JMK to be so vexing that I have to take issue with you over (this)...(this)...(and that)."

In fact, I’d VERY MUCH appreciate that kind of honesty and it’d alleviate any and all rancor from my end, as at least I’d know where that person was coming from and that the individual did believe...in something.

FRED:

Barely (anonymous) SAID: "...the truth is that people acting selfishly get us exactly what we have right now -- economic catastrophe.

"Bernie Madoff certainly acted in his best interest, wouldn't you say? All of the insider traders, Ken Lay, all of the thieves, cheats, and liars who became millionaires and billionaires definitely acted selfishly...."

I SAID: "Madoff was a criminal, involved in a ruthless ponzi scheme.

"Bill Gates (generic CAPITALIST ENTREPRENEUR) has delivered MORE good over the last three decades, to MORE people than ANY government in the history of the world.

"Anyone so dumb as to NOT be able to see the difference between entrepreneurial behavior and the Capital investment that fuels it and criminal behavior (Tyco, Enron, Madoff, government approving and encouraging banks and brokers to "create all the wealth they want to" via creating credit - a form of wealth - out of thin air, etc.) is a complete idiot."

You (Fred) Said: "I didn't see any indictment of Gates in there, either outright or subtly. All billionaires are NOT crooks, and I think the same way you do about Bill Gates."

NB: Fred! That Barely Haning/anonymous post indicted ALL Capitalism as being based on Madoff-like criminality!

Thankfully, BW makes it clear by synopsing the above charge quite well with his own batshit crazy post;

"Face it. Madoff is the outcome of the extreme republican philosophy. That philosophy, along with "conservatism" has been definitively rejected by Americans and the rest of the world. They are failed theories, as much as the soviet system was." (BW)

Fred! Barely and Blue are NOT merely bashing the scammers and crooks....the aberrations of Capitalsim.

Quite the reverse!

They are indicting ALL of Capitalism as "The natural outcome of Republican support of the market-based economy."

I credit BW with chiming in with an "I hate the market rant" in such a timely manner.

"Stop this illusion. Neither you, nor Zell Miller are democrats. You are far-right republicans....Face it. Madoff is the outcome of the extreme republican philosophy. That philosophy, along with "conservatism" has been definitively rejected by Americans and the rest of the world. They are failed theories, as much as the soviet system was." (BW)

BW, only 43% of Democrats consider themselves Liberal.

The Blue Dog (Conservative) Democrats have a very long tradition in the Democratic Party. The Left-wing Democrats on the other hand, should be a part of the Worker's World Party.

As for your economic views; Well, we haven't had a "free market" in America since 1912, when J P Morgan and Bernard Baruch constructed the modern "regulated market."

TODAY, there is NO group nor political Party that advocates for the "unregulated market," not even most Libertarians.

Today, EVERY industrialized nation in the world has that same regulated market that we do.

Western European countries like France, England and Germany are far more Keynesian than the U.S. has been over the past three decades, but previous to that, the USA was about as Keynesian as France is today - highly Unionized, highly taxed, and with a listless economy (high inflation and unemployment rates and relatively low GDP growth).

The Misery Index (the inflation and unemployment rates added together) remains the best indicator of how ANY given economy is treating the people.

Today, the world's freest market (Hong Kong's) also has the world's LOWEST Misery Index (6.0), while Venezuela, perhaps the closest thing in the modern world to a command-economy has a very high Misery Index (39.6)...even Chile, which still has Friedman's economic reforms pretty much in place has a Misery Index less than half Venezuela's (15.3).

Madoff was a scammer, not a businessman, certainly not a Capitalist.

There have always been and will always be scammers and thugs....that's just "the way of the world"....under ANY and EVERY system.

No offense, but you are one of the most willfully ignorant people on economics imaginable.

There are ONLY two possible economic models - the market-based economy (which in its modern regulated form has been THE standared economy of the industrial world for last fifty to sixty years) and the command economy (which failed in the USSR, China, Bulgaria, Albania and Cambodia), to name but a few places it’s been tried.

Within the parameters of the regulated market are two poles represented by the Keynesian school (which seeks MORE regulation, more government-management and less individual initiative) and the Supply Side school (which seeks less regulation, less government control and more incentives to individuals to both invest and to create).

From 1964 thru 1980 we had an uninterrupted period of Keynesianism. That ended when Carter (a naive, Keynesian Democrat) followed up Nixon (a Keynesian Republican, who'd imposed, among other things "wage & price controls" on America for the first time, and grossly overspent)....over the past six years or so, we've had a Keynesian Republican (G W Bush), who overspent and over-regulated and motivated by the apparently "noble goal" goal of "increasing minority homeownership" - allowed, even encouraged banks and mortgage brokers to create wealth (credit) out of thin air, with the GSEs buying/backing that counterfeit credit and THAT is what is most responsible for the current credit crisis.

G W Bush made good on his goal.

He increased minority homeownership more than ANY other President in U.S. history, but it was done the wrong way and we're all paying for that now.

Worse still, just as in 1976, when a naive, Liberal "outsider" Democrat (Jimmy Carter) inherited a faltering Keynesian economy from a committed Keynesian Republican (Richard Nixon), we now have another naive, Liberal "outsider" Democrat (Barack Obama) inheriting yet another flawed Keynesian economy from yet another committed Keynesian Republican (G W Bush).

Ultimately RESULTS are ALL that will matter.

IF Barack Obama delivers results like Reagan did, Reagan took an inherited and staggering 22 pt Misery Index (today's is 9.6) and reduced it EVERY year he was in office, until it reached SINGLE DIGITS by 1986....Reagan inherited a whopping 23.5% prime lending rate (today's is 3.25%) and reduced THAT to single digits too!

Bottomline if things IMPROVE (ie. the Misery Index primarily) under Obama, he'll be a success, if things get worse under his tenure (ie. the Misery Index spiking over 10 pts in 2009 and getting worse in early 2010) then he'll be a failure by ANY appreciable measure.

Personally, I'd LIKE to see him succeed, but I don't see continuing G W Bush's Keynesian bailouts and "NON-Stimulating stimulus packages" being either (1) "CHANGE", nor (2) very viable economic policy, given Keynesianism's rather checkered history wherever and whenever its been implemented.

I'm looking at things from the view that "Carter-like economic policies probably will deliver Carter-like results."

We'll see soon enough.

"The Blue Dog (Conservative) Democrats have a very long tradition in the Democratic Party. The Left-wing Democrats on the other hand, should be a part of the Worker's World Party.

JMK,
Again try to wake up from your silly dreams. What you call "blue dog democrats" voted democratic. You have been voting Bush and republicans for long time now. Not to mention that you are a supporter and admirer of some fascist figures of the past (i.e. Pinochet). Democrats like democracy. Not fascism. Just re-evaluate your political orientation. You are to the right of Cheney. And that is not a compliment.

"Again try to wake up from your silly dreams. What you call "blue dog democrats" voted democratic." (BW)

Yet ANOTHER false statement, as it was, in fact, the Bluedog Democrats who joined WITH Republicans and overrode Pelosi-Reid to support the NSA Surveillance program WITH the Telecom Immunities (immunites that SHOULD HAVE BEEN "implied immunities") in place, last summer.

It's currently about six Bluedog Senate Democrats who are among those opposing the "Employee's Free Choice Act," a Bill that eradicate democratic, anonymous voting with a "card check system" for setting up labor unions.

Pryor (D-AR) and Landrieu (D-La), are among those who've switched their support, while other Bluedogs have been opposed from the start.

In the case of the "Employee's Free Choice Act" it is the supporters of that Bill who stand squarely AGAINST democracy.

Like ALL Americans I vigorously oppose any semblence of "pure democracy" or "Tyranny of the majority", like America's founders, I support a limited, representative democracy (people electing office holders who then vote their consciences) WITHIN the very tight constraints of a Constitutional Republic.

It is ONLY the Constitution that respects "minority rights," and ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE, the wealthy are a very vulnerable minority, subject to be scapegoated by the ignorant and easily misled masses.

Oy Vey, how exhausting you is, JMK.
LOLOLOL

"...how exhausting you is, JMK..." (Fred)

Right back at ya, Fred.

Like I said, I have no problem with your believing what you like - "Capitalism is great," or "Capitalism sucks," what I have had problems over is your (deliberate, or not) penchant for claiming what is there, really isn't and vice versa.

The two most vivid examples I can give are the time you called me on "posting opinion as fact" (something I almost never do...I also never say never) and in fact, and ironically enough, that was NOT even the case in the very post you called me on, as IT had the qualifier, "in my view" clearly posted in it.

I'd have no problem had you said, "I don't like the way you come off," or "I dislike the way you put things," but you chose instead to make a reckless and erroneous charge and yes, that bothered me....I believe rightly so.

And HERE, a long-time malicious poster clearly equates Madoff, scammers and criminality with ALL of Capitalism and you claim, I didn't see THAT, I merely saw that poster excoriating the crooks and scammers.

Forgive me for having more faith in your own innate and basic intelligence than that, but it was clear, QUITE CLEAR, in fact that the pre-phrase that you (deliberately, or not) left off "...the truth is that people acting selfishly get us exactly what we have right now - economic catastrophe...."Bernie Madoff certainly acted in his best interest, wouldn't you say?") clearly equates Capitalism with criminality.

As I noted, "That dope (Barely Hanging/anonymous) didn't merely compare entrepreneurs to criminals like Madoff and Lay, he clearly and inanely implied that that WAS part and parcel of the market process," and graciously, BW jumped in to amplify Barely's vile intent, "Madoff is a classic example of what extreme greed can do when left unregulated." (We haven't HAD an unregulated market in America since 1912, as you well know Fred) "He represents a classic example of the failure of "extreme unregulated capitalism" as advocated by the marginalized republican party of today." (BW)

So, you still don't "see any indictment of Capitalism in there, either outright or subtly," Fred?

It can't be any more clear.

Sorry, but I still don't see it as some sort of blanket indictment of capitalism but more an indictment of those who became wealthy via criminal and other nefarious actions.

Please Fred, STOP!

That assertion is simply too dumb to be called naïve.

The poster (the malicious, Beau Gritz devotee, Barely Hanging) said, “I read it (Atlas Shrugged) a long time ago. I used to even believe it. Unfortunately, the truth is that people acting selfishly (“unregulated Capitalism” in the demented minds of Blue and Barely) get us exactly what we have right now -- economic catastrophe. (HINT: THAT is a blanket indictment, NOT just of “unregulated market” but of the REGULATED MARKET-BASED economy we’ve had in the U.S. since 1912. There is no other, alternate interpretation)

“Bernie Madoff certainly acted in his best interest, wouldn't you say? All of the insider traders, Ken Lay, all of the thieves, cheats, and liars who became millionaires and billionaires definitely acted selfishly.” (Barely Hanging) And THAT is a very clear comparison of Madoff to Capitalists and scamming and criminality to the market-based economy.

Again, IF either Barely or Blue would’ve clarified that in your favor, I’d be inclined to be more gracious, BUT, ironically enough, Blue (a junior-member in Barely’s batshit crazy club) clarified very much in line with the way I did; “He (Madoff) represents a classic example of the failure of "extreme unregulated capitalism" as advocated by the marginalized republican party of today.”

No, it’s clear that YOU misinterpreted those remarks, so it’s on you to retreat on your initially mistaken stand.

“The idea that Barney Frank forced banks to lend to poor (code for black) people and that these poor (black) folks not paying back their loans is what caused the economic meltdown is utterly absurd.” (Barely Hanging)

Man, IF I ever hear ANYONE asserting such nonsense I’ll confront them as furiously as I do your own idiocy.

While G W Bush DID indeed set a goal of “increasing minority homeownership” and achieved that goal, increasing minority homeownership more than ANY other President in U.S. history, that was NOT the primary cause of the credit freeze, nor was it a bad goal at all.

In FACT, that IS a noble goal and one that CANNOT be thrown away just because the subprime mortgage meltdown has created such a global economic crisis.

What our government (Bush-Pelosi-Reid-Frank-Dodd) all DID was to change traditional lending criteria. Then Bush signed onto the 0% Down FHA mortgage program, as Frank & Dodd supported Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac increasing their share of the mortgage market FROM 24.8% in 2002 TO just under 50% by 2007 (almost ALL of that increase was due to those GSEs buying/guaranteeing much of that new high-risk, subprime debt)...CitiGroup’s CEO had clearly stated (back in 2000) that Citi WOULD NOT offer such high-risk (subprime) loans absent sufficient government backing...nor would any bank simply assume more risk, without some assurances from the government.

There was NO/ZERO motivation for banks to break away from the traditional lending criteria that had served them well and made them scads of profits for eons. The impetus for that break came from government backing that bad debt.

What that amounted to, on the federal government’s part was legitimizing the counterfeiting of credit (creating credit, a form of wealth, out of thin air), which has proven to be as disastrous as legitimizing banks to counterfeit currency that the government would back would've been.

Herbert Hoover (the very first “Progressive” – a devotee of the inane idea that “every problem has a scientific solution, best implemented by government”), Richard Nixon (“We are ALL Keynesians now”), George Bush Sr. (who derided Supply Side policies as “Voodoo economics,” cooperated with Ted Kennedy on one of the largest tax increases in American history AND presided over four straight years of double digit Misery Indexes, averaging 10.2 per year) and G W Bush (Sarb-Ox, NCLB, the prescription drug boondoggle, etc) were all stalwart Keynesians. In fact, they were ALL far more adept and better Keynesian fiscal managers than were FDR (thankfully WW II ended the Great Depression) and Jimmy Carter, who, as Obama is doing now, simply continued the Keynesian policies of his Republican predecessor (Nixon), engaging in even MORE bailouts and MORE reckless, wasteful social spending than his predecessor and delivering the worst U.S. economy since the Great Depression - a four-year average annual Misery Index of 16.8, a final year (1980) record high Misery Index of 22 and a staggering 23.5% prime lending rate.

By comparison, 2008 completed SIXTEEN straight years of SINGLE DIGIT Misery Indexes (2008’s was 9.6) and the prime lending rate at the end of 2008 was 2.5%

Keynesian economic policies brought about BOTH this economic crisis and the faltering economy.

We are now embarking on even MORE Keynesian policy and the results over the next couple years can ONLY be compared to our latest Supply Side period (1995 – 2000) the Gingrich years, which had some of the LOWEST Misery Indexes in four decades.

The pernicious idea that "The Supply Side policies of G W Bush (and by extension Gingrich and Reagan) led to this economic crisis" isn't at all "evil" it's merely ahistoric, ignorant and rooted in gross mental incompetence....like the claim that "RICO allows for the confiscation of assets PRIOR to conviction" OR that "H-1B Visas exploded under G W Bush" (when in fact, they rose from just under 50,000 in 1992 to just over 1 MILLION in 2000 and the Keynesian Bush TWICE signed onto legislation lowering the number of H-1Bs during his administration.

Put down the Bo Gritz screeds and look around - the freest and least regulated economy in the world (Hong Kong's) has the world's LOWEST Misery Index (6.0), while one of the world's only modern command-economies (Venezuela) has a Misery Index far higher than the rest of the industrialized world (39.6).

THAT'S all you need to know. Don't weigh your mind down with all that excess and excrement from the Separatists and the "American Patriot Movement."

I mean, all that stuff is a little fast for you and over your head, no?

"Sorry, but I still don't see it as some sort of blanket indictment of capitalism but more an indictment of those who became wealthy via criminal and other nefarious actions."

Fred,
JMK has hard time understanding something very simple and obvious. That extreme unregulated capitalism (as it happened during the Bush administration/disaster)leads to fraud and abuse (Madoff is just an outcome of that experiment). Free market economy works well when there is adequate requlation and enforcement of regulation in place. But I would not expect better from JMK. After all, he has openly supported fascist regimes of the past (see Pinochet in Chile).

Once again, Barry has gotten the point and seems to have understood the malice beneath Barely’s vile harangue, though, as usual, his response was far more temperate and eloquent than my own.

I responded to Barely’s visceral malice the way I feel his malice warrants being responded to. He’s not merely a dim-witted dolt (posting charts and articles that prove his own points wrong) but he’s a vile, misanthropic, malevolent scumbag who needs to be confronted and constantly shown how stupid the things he posts are.

Barry’s response was even-keeled and decent, suggesting a “live and let live” and an “I’m sure Barely’s doing the best he can” kind of point-of-view...and I admire that, despite my feeling that Barely ISN’T “doing the best he can” and that his malignancy must be confronted directly and without any kindness or pity.

It’s clear that Barry gets it, “I have my issues with Rand's philosophy, as I said, but I think your critique of her message is simplistic and inaccurate. She doesn't simply glorify "greed" per se, a la Gordon Gecko...
There are plenty of greedy bastards in the novel (think Orren Boyle and Jim Taggart) who do more than their fare share to ruin the country...She certainly doesn't espouse that greed is an unalloyed virtue.” (BNJ)

YES“espouse that greed is an unalloyed virtue,” and NEITHER DOES Capitalism (the regulated market-based economy we’ve had in the U.S. since around 1912), nor do Libertarians.

As I noted earlier on, “But far from being linked to anarchy and criminality as the anonymous goofball above posits, because Capitalism is rooted in private property rights, it requires a STRONG law & order styled governance.

“In FACT, Capitalism is INCONSISTENT with anarchy (no government). Everywhere Capitalism hs sprung up, so have harsh penalties for criminals (violent offenders and especially "crimes against property" scumbags).

“Capitalism is VERY consistent with, say, a Bill Bratton-styled justice system that seeks to grind up those who don't comply to the accepted standard under the wheels of that judicial system.”

It should be noted that the misanthropically deranged Barely has opposed those internet pedophile stings and other law enforcement tactics that are rooted in the protection of individual liberties and private property rights.

Like I said, say ANYTHING else Fred, but DON’T say that Barely and Blue didn’t indict the regulated market-based economy we’ve had with in the U.S. for nearly a century, by linking Madoff andother scammers and thugs to market-based entrepreneurialism.

"Sorry, but I still don't see it as some sort of blanket indictment of capitalism but more an indictment of those who became wealthy via criminal and other nefarious actions." (BW)

“Fred,

“JMK has hard time understanding something very simple and obvious. That extreme unregulated capitalism (as it happened during the Bush administration/disaster)leads to fraud and abuse (Madoff is just an outcome of that experiment). Free market economy works well when there is adequate requlation and enforcement of regulation in place. But I would not expect better from JMK. After all, he has openly supported fascist regimes of the past (see Pinochet in Chile).” (BW)

What YOU and your crazy cousin Barely don’t seem to understand is that we in America have had the SAME regulated market-based economy in America since 1912.

I’ve NEVER supported the “unregulated market” (which hasn’t existed here since 1912), in FACT, neither did the GREAT Milton Friedman, either.

FACT is, G W Bush signed onto one of the most far-reaching and expensive pieces of regulation (Sarbannes-Oxley) in U.S. history. G W Bush spent more on SOCIAL SPENDING (even adjusted for inflation) than LBJ did. G W Bush, like his Dad (the only post WW II U.S. President other than Carter to preside over an entire elected term of double digit Misery Indexes, like Nixon and like Hoover is a stalwart Keynesian.

The U.S. National Debt rose FROM $3.2 TRILLION in 1990 TO $5.3 TRILLION in 1995 (an addition of $2.1 TRILLION addition over those five years). An increase of about a 66%!

It rose only $300 MILLION FROM $5.3 TRILLION in 1995 TO $5.6 TRILLION in 2000 because of the Gingrich Congress forcing the FIRST federal BUDGET (SPENDING) CUT in nearly a century, slashing the Capital Gains Tax RATE by a full 1/3 (FROM 30% TO 20%).

The U.S. national Debt rose FROM $5.6 TRILLION in 2000 to $7.9 TRILLION in 2005 (a $2.3 TRILLION gain, similar to that of the period btw 1990 and 1995). That’s an amount similar to the rise from 1990 to 1995, but a much smaller percentage rise, about a 43% increase!

Astoundingly, the U.S. National Debt has skyrocketed a staggering $2.1 TRILLION over a three year period (from 2005 thru 2008) FROM $7.9 TRILLION TO just about $10 TRILLION at the end of 2008.

Worse still, the National Debt as a percentage of GDP increased FROM 64.6% (2005) TO 65.5% (2007), a mere 0.9% increase, BUT since 2007 and the era of the Bush-Pelosi-Reid triumverate it’s increased to a whopping 74.6% of GDP – an eye-popping 9.1% increase! And in just TWO YEARS!!!

2009’s National Debt is estimated to be $12.3 TRILLION, though it may go even higher depending on upcoming expenditures. Estimates thru 2010 see the national Debt as standing conservatively at just over $14 TRILLION, which would complete an ALMOST doubling of the National Debt from 2005 – 2010!

Blue, the reason I abuse you almost as much as I do Barely Hanging is because YOU are willfully ignorant, whereas Barely is...well, very, VERY limited.

Still, IF you had any common sense at all, not great intellect, just some basic common sense, you’d challenge my assertions the way I challenge Barely’s – his posting that H-1B Visas exploded during the wrong period, his posting an article that said exactly the opposite of what he claimed about RICO, etc., but you DON’T because you CAN’T.

I posted the Misery Indexes and the site that documents them (http://www.miseryindex.us/) so no one could claim that “Reagan didn’t improve the horrific economy he inherited from the inept Jimmy Carter,” as I proved that Reagan inherited a record high 22 pt Misery Index and a staggering 23.5% prime lending rate and dropped BOTH to SINGLE DIGITS during his tenure, while tax revenues soared FROM $619 BILLION in 1980 TO OVER $1 TRILLION by 1986 and while over 20 MILLION private sector jobs were being created!

What I do to you is pretty much what I do to Barely Hanging – I confront your ignorance and your malice at every turn.

And the sad thing is, that both of you dopes together aren’t apparently smart enough to come up with even a single rebuke of anything I post.

Hey! Maybe someone else will come up with one for you guys...you never know.

So yeah, I’m gloating.

I’m a jerk. JA member and all.

But I’d rather be a jerk than a dimwit, which is what you and your kindred spirit Barely both are.

CORRECTION: YES, Rand does NOT “espouse that greed is an unalloyed virtue,” and NEITHER DOES Capitalism (the regulated market-based economy we’ve had in the U.S. since around 1912), nor do Libertarians.

Part of this got eaten in posting it above (the 2:08 pm post)

I'd rather be a jerk than a dimwit.
Yes I would.
If I could,
I surely would.

Jeez, JMK. You sure like to talk(type) a lot. Barrages of repetitive paragraphs, I guess, make you right. As for me, it's like reading miles-worth of transcript of my wife blabbering on and on and on while I nod blankly and say, "Yes, yes, yes...." Boooooooring.

Hey JMK,
I start thinking that you really like people like Madoff. That is why you defend the corrupt system that generates them. Now beyond pro-fascist ideas you seem to find corporate corruption appropriate. Is that right?

I repspondeded to a number of posts, from a number of posters, Fred.

I think the longest of my posts was around 600 words....my question, concerning that, is, as it always is, "Eye strain or ADD"?

I do tend to presume that most Americans are inveterite policy wonks, like my neighbor, a chemical engineer, who has a 97 page "Foreign Policy Statement" (it's actually pretty impressive, a lot more impressive than some of the stuff our State Dept puts out).

Why does a chemical engineer, who works in NJ and rarely leaves the country have a "Foreign Policy Statement"?

I don't know, but I love that kind of stuff.

Are you implying that I'm the only one who loves that kind of thing?

I really find that absolutely impossible to believe.

Fred, it's OK that you misinterpreted that initial post....your claim that you still don't see "indicting Capitalism by comparing all entrepreneurs and investors to Madoff and other criminals is, well, pretty dumb.

Could it be that perhaps you skimmed it the first time and missed the malicious essence of it?

Hey! It could be.

"I start thinking that you really like people like Madoff. That is why you defend the corrupt system that generates them." (BW)

Stop "thinking" Barely Jr., that's your first mistake.

I said Bernie Madoff, like Jeff Skillings and Dennis Kozlowski were aberrations within the system that consistently creates the MOST prosperity for the MOST people.

Fact is, the entire PUBLIC sector depends upon revenues from the PRIVATE sector in order to exist.

Ironically enough, the PRIVATE sector doesn't seem to depend on much from the PUBLIC sector.

The current crisis is decimating Municipalities who are coming up short on tax revenues because the Wall Street money machine isn't pumping out the profits any more.

As a result teachers, cops, social workers and other Municipal workers are facing layoffs, furloughs (four day work weeks, losing a day's pay to limit layoffs) and contract give-backs because the government doesn't have the revenues it was depending on.

Hey! Bottom-line, ALL I really care about is that NY State doesn't go belly-up and hiccup on my pension (yeah and millions of other police, teacher, social-worker, firefighter pensions along with it).

In NYC we're already facing certain layoffs for 2009 (thankfully, with over two decades of service, I'm fairly secure and just about ready to retire and take on another opportunity, hopefully in another locale) and new hires are going to have a very different pension system than the one I enjoy - no more pensioned overtime, no more triple tax-free disability pensions, etc.

Some of those are sensible things that SHOULD'VE been done long ago. They never should've pensioned OT, they were crazy to give out 3/4s of your salary (+OT) pensions for "disability pensions" for cops and firefighters - especially when things like the "Heart Bill", "the Lung Bill" and "the Cancer Bill" have made many of those disability pensions "automatic."

Ironically enough, we HAD a great economy when the Supply Sider Gingrich forced the FIRST federal budget CUTS on a reluctant Bill Clinton. Those BUDGET (spending) CUTS, coupled with the HUGE SAVINGS generated by welfare reform and workfare AND the incredible amount of investment spurred by SLASHING the Capital Gains Tax RATE by 1/3 delivered our best economy in over four decades!

Since then, we had ANOTHER Keynesian Republican (GW Bush), who pushed massive regulation (Sarb-Ox and others), wasted MORE $$$ on reckless social spending (even adjusted for inflation) than LBJ did and cooperated as gleefully with Pelosi-Reid as Clinton did with Gingrich....only with the opposite results.

Worse still, Bush's borrowing had been kept in "relative check" by Congress UNTIL Pelosi-Reid came into power.

The National Debt as a percentage of GDP increased FROM 64.6% (2005) TO 65.5% (2007), a mere 0.9% increase, BUT since 2007 and the era of Pelosi-Reid, it’s increased to a whopping 74.6% of GDP – an eye-popping 9.1% increase, and in just TWO YEARS!!!

2009’s National Debt is estimated to be $12.3 TRILLION, though it may go even higher depending on upcoming expenditures. Estimates thru 2010 see the national Debt as standing conservatively at just over $14 TRILLION, which would complete an ALMOST doubling of the National Debt from 2005 – 2010.

Blue stop "thinking", you're going to hurt yourself.

You don't have the facts with which to argue with me. I'm not saying that to be hurtful, just stating the obvious.

Zzzzzzz....

You GOT THAT???? JMK puts stuff in BOLDFACE AND CAPS to make his POINTS, you stupid morons!!! That's how he GETS HIS POINTS ACROSS. By repeeatedly stating the SAME POINTS over and over again so it gets drilled into your STUPID HEADS!!!!

You GOT THAT???? JMK puts stuff in BOLDFACE AND CAPS to make his POINTS, you stupid morons!!! That's how he GETS HIS POINTS ACROSS. By repeeatedly stating the SAME POINTS over and over again so it gets drilled into your STUPID HEADS!!!!

The problem with JMK is that he really believes what he writes. He openly admires Bush, Cheney, old fascist regimes, and fascist corporatism as a system. He thought that it was just "ok" that corporatism grew in Chile under a fascist regime and has been talking about the economic miracles of fascism.

It is hard to imagine that anyone would find these days fascism acceptable, but apparently some do. Although JMK would never admit it, the ideal country for his apparent ideology seems to be China these days. They have exactly the system he admires. Fascist state-run capitalism.

"You GOT THAT???? JMK puts stuff in BOLDFACE AND CAPS to make his POINTS, you stupid morons!!!" (Fred)

Actually, I bold key words and phrases, always have.

I do not adhere to the arbitrary and capricious "internet protocols" that delineate CAPS as "shouting."

I post facts and make substantive arguments, rather than my own mere opinions.

I've always said that if ANYONE could/would deliver actual evidence that proved that the Supply Side policies employed during the Reagan and Gingrich tenures delivered worse results than the Keynesian policies employed during the LBJ-Nixon-Carter, Bush Sr and Bush Jr-Pelosi-Reid eras, I'd be happy to change my mind on that topic.

Not only has no one been able to do that, not a soul has been able to argue against any of the facts that seem to prove the reverse.

"(JMK) openly admires Bush, Cheney, old fascist regimes, and fascist corporatism as a system. He thought that it was just "ok" that corporatism grew in Chile under a fascist regime and has been talking about the economic miracles of fascism." (BW)

Actually I've detested G W Bush's Keynesian economic policies (his OVER-regulation and OVER-spending) and his internationalist policies regarding America's borders.

I credit him with FINALLY engaging the U.S. in the global WoT and recognizing that that the WoT must be a MILITARY war on terror.

I also credit him with realizing that tax RATE cuts INCREASE revenues - BOTH his across-the-board income tax RATE cuts and his Capital Gains RATE cut (FROM 20% TO 15%) had tax revenues soaring in their wake.

While I share an appreciation for G W Bush's goal of "increasing minority homeownership" and his bravely taking the lead on that issue, bringing along even Democrats like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, I DID NOT approve of the way the Bush administration went about that...it resulted in allowing parts of the private sector to, in effect, counterfeit credit, that is, to create wealth (credit is a form of WEALTH) out of thin air.

That has been a major factor in the current global credit crisis. The blame for that belongs to a triumverate; Bush-Pelosi-Reid.

Chile's former dictator and I share one common belief, that "socialists are economic terrorists" and thus don't have to be treated as human beings.

They literally "hate FREEDOM,"...especially economic freedom/Liberty, but in essence all freedoms, since economic liberty is the foundation of ALL other freedoms.

But whether one dislikes or reviles Pinochet, THAT issue is separate and apart from whether Milton Friedman's economic reforms worked in Chile.

Without question, Friedman's reforms worked so well, that they're still pretty much in place TODAY.

How's that still working?

A fair question and one I've asked and looked up.

Turns out that Chile, despite moving away from some of the basic economic freedoms advanced by Friedman, still has many of his reforms in place and Chile today has a Misery Index of 16.3 (a 7.5% unemployment rate + an 8.8% inflation rate).

Compare that to the modern-day tyrannical regime YOU seem to favor, Hugo Chavez' and the comparison is stark and VERY MUCH in favor of Milton Friedman's policies, as Venezuela today, despite an incredible amount of natural resource wealth, boasts a Misery Index of a staggering 39.5 (an 8.5% unemployment rate and a 31% inflation rate"

You can look them up for yourself: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

So, apparently you don't know what you're talking about concerning Dr. Friedman, Pinochet, Chavez, G W Bush OR myself

Am I right?....Or am I right?


"Although JMK would never admit it, the ideal country for his apparent ideology seems to be China these days. They have exactly the system he admires. Fascist state-run capitalism." (BW)

Another ignorant statement vis-a-vis China.

Newsweek got it just about right when they recently said, "China is becoming more 'American', while America is becoming more 'Chinese.' " They are right, in that as China is becoming more market-oriented, it's also becoming MORE open and free, at the same time, ironically enough, that America is becoming more Keynesian (more authoritarian) and less open and free - the world is currently worried about the current American administration sparking "a new wave of protectionism" that could have devastating effects on the global economy.

China has abandoned the unworkable command economy, in favor of the Capitalism that has worked so well in Hong Kong (the world's freest economy has also long had the world's LOWEST Misery Index).

As is typical in such instances, economic freddom (Liberty) or freer markets also lead to more political freedoms and that's why CHina is emerging as America looks to be waning.

So, is it safe to say, that you don't know what you're talking about regarding China either?

I think so.

"As is typical in such instances, economic freddom (Liberty) or freer markets also lead to more political freedoms and that's why CHina is emerging"

JMK,
You just confirmed what I wrote above. You are apparently an admirer of the fascist horrendous regime in China. And, no, economic freedom does not lead to political freedoms. Chile and China are classic examples of this not happening. Again, you may think that it is ok to have fascist dictatorships as long as there is "economic freedom". But the reality is that such fascist regimes are terrible. And such an idea is anti-American anyway. In reality your views are anti-American.

>If I go to the beach and the beach is crowded, does that make me a trendsetter?

C'mon, I started reading the book at least a week and a half before I'd heard of anyone else doing it.

So, from when JMK joined this thread last Thursday through last night, others have posted a total of 998 words while he has posted a total of 7,626 words. Is it getting windy in here? HAhahahahahaha

Well, let's annoy JMK some more by calling him out on some of the alleged FACTS he's thrown out there among the nearly 8,000 words he's typed the past few days. Is some of this nitpicking? Perhaps, but everything he states he states with such absolute certitude that sometimes those rantings must be verified.
#1. "Reagan inherited a 22 pt misery index" Not quite. That 22 pt index was hit in June 1980, 7 months before Reagan, who took office in Jan 1981 with a 19 pt misery index. Not a giant error, but JMK passes off all of his writings as being fact-based when they apparently are not.
#2. Reagan reduced the misery index every year he was in office. Not quite. Close but not quite, and if we want to be accurate and FACT-BASED check http://www.miseryindex.us/customindexbymonth.asp for verification of these numbers.
#3. Reagan inherited a prime rate of 23.5%. Again, sounds valid given how bad things were back then, but it doesn't appear to be accurate. Check out http://www.moneycafe.com/library/primeratehistory.htm, and see the chart from the Fed shows the primate peeaked back in 1980 at what looks to be just below 21%. If you're gonna be FACT-BASED, make sure you've got your FACTS in order.
4. "...because of the Gingrich Congress forcing the FIRST federal BUDGET (SPENDING) CUT in nearly a century," says JMK. HUH?? How is this claim being measured? Federal outlays as a % of GDP? Total outlays by year? In my rush looks at charts, myabe the %/GDP claim could work, but an actual cut in total federal outlays vs. the prior year? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

So there's really no need to exaggerate your FACTS to extol the Reagan economic record and its achievements in the wake of the Carter debacle.

Ruh roh.. the Monitor has fired but the Merrimac surely will be back. A return volley of 100,000 words is forecast for the 'morn.

I think JMK gave up. He realized his ideas were wrong. He will start believing in democracy again.

"Well, let's annoy JMK some more by calling him out on some of the alleged FACTS..." (Fred)

How do you figure posting minor nits, the equivalent of pointing out a mis-spelling in an argument you appear to agree with "annoy me"?

#1. "Reagan inherited a 22 pt misery index" Not quite. That 22 pt index was hit in June 1980, 7 months before Reagan, who took office in Jan 1981 with a 19 pt misery index. Not a giant error, but JMK passes off all of his writings as being fact-based when they apparently are not." (Fred)


The Misery Index that counts for Reagan is the annual Misery Index of the year before he took office (1980, which was 21 (20.76) for 1980.

SEE: http://www.miseryindex.us/customindexbyyear.asp

I'll agree that the Misery Index Reagan inherited was a record-high 21, not 22, but NOT 19 either.

SEE: http://www.miseryindex.us/customindexbyyear.asp

Ironically enough you erred (19 or -2) by a larger margin than myself (22 or +1)...funny stuff.

It should also be noted that the Misery Index for 2008, by comparison was 9.6 (a 7.4% unemployment rate + a 2.2% inflation rate). 2008 capped 16 straight years of SINGLE DIGIT Misery Indexes.

Score this nit a toss-up?


#2. Reagan reduced the misery index every year he was in office. Not quite. Close but not quite, and if we want to be accurate and FACT-BASED check. (Fred)

http://www.miseryindex.us/customindexbymonth.asp for verification of these numbers. (Fred)

What I actually said was “Reagan took an inherited and staggering 22 pt Misery Index (today's is 9.6) and reduced it EVERY year he was in office, until it reached SINGLE DIGITS by 1986.

(March 14, 2009 08:10 PM) and THAT is VERY TRUE:

1980 20.76
1981 17.97
1982 15.87
1983 12.82
1984 11.81
1985 10.74
1986 8.91
1987 9.84
1988 9.57

http://www.miseryindex.us/customindexbyyear.asp

Score this one in my favor..."EVERY year UNTIL they reached SINGLE DIGITS in 1986..."


#3. Reagan inherited a prime rate of 23.5%. Again, sounds valid given how bad things were back then, but it doesn't appear to be accurate. Check out

http://www.moneycafe.com/library/primeratehistory.htm, and see the chart from the Fed shows the primate peeaked back in 1980 at what looks to be just below 21%. If you're gonna be FACT-BASED, make sure you've got your FACTS in order.

I read 23.5%....but according to the chart you linked to the HIGH was 21.5% (December 19, 1980 and not "just below 21))...STILL, a record-HIGH!

AND the prime rate WAS reduced to single digits by June of 1985!

I'll even call this a toss-up (we were both wrong on the exact number), but we agree on the fact that Carter presided over a RECORD HIGH prime rate and Reagan brought it down to single digits by 1985.


4. "...because of the Gingrich Congress forcing the FIRST federal BUDGET (SPENDING) CUT in nearly a century," says JMK. HUH?? How is this claim being measured? Federal outlays as a % of GDP? Total outlays by year? In my rush looks at charts, myabe the %/GDP claim could work, but an actual cut in total federal outlays vs. the prior year? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA." (Fred)


Actually, cutting “proposed/scheduled increases for the coming budget year ARE indeed “spending cuts.”

There were also a number of actual federal cuts enacted by the Gingrich Congress: “SPENDING CUTS -- The Senate Appropriations Committee slashed $13 billion from hundreds of Federal programs as a way to reduce the budget deficit...”

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CEFDF103CF936A15750C0A963958260

That’s probably why the National Debt only increased a measley $300 MILLION between 1995 and 2000. Those spending cuts, welfare reform and the slashing of the Cap Gains rate that sparked investment and increased Cap Gains tax revenues are the things responsible for all those “budget surpluses.”

I think I have to score this one in my favor as well. There WERE spending cuts enacted by the Gingrich Congress that resulted in those late 1990s budget surpluses.


"So there's really no need to exaggerate your FACTS to extol the Reagan economic record and its achievements in the wake of the Carter debacle." (Fred)

I don't know, I have two of your nits scored as toss-ups, as we both were wrong on some minor numbers and two in my favor...not much of an "exaggeration."

Bottom-line, I believe ANY reasonable person would agree with Time Magazine's assessment back in March of 1980;

"Though he came to office with inflation at less than 5% and the economy growing briskly, Carter has presided over economic and financial turmoil that has nearly tripled the rise in consumer prices, flattened growth, ballooned the federal debt and pushed interest rates to their highest levels in the nation's history. Last week the rate banks charge their best corporate customers rose a quarter-point to 16.75%. The so-called leading economic indicators, which seek to portend future business trends, fell in January, the fourth consecutive monthly decline. Many economists regard this as a sign that the nation is near a recession."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,950356,00.html

“And, no, economic freedom does not lead to political freedoms. Chile and China are classic examples of this not happening.” (BW)


That’s an UNSUBSTANTIATED and woefully misguided opinion.

Worse yet, you’re apparently mixing up economic and political terms.

ALL dictatorships are, in fact, politically totalitarian. That’s true whether the tyrant or despot is a Monarch, came to power through a coup, like Sukarno or Pinochet, OR was originally “democratically elected,” as in the case of Hitler and Chavez.

There really are only three possible political systems; (1) authoritarian totalitarian rule (that sees the people as “subjects” or “owned by” the state or government, (2) Constitutional Republics that see the rule of law above ALL men and institutions, including government, in fact, the Constitutional Republic is predicated upon the view of the government as subservient to the people – not “the will of the people” (as in pure democracy) but the innate individual rights of the people, as defined in a Constitution and (3) pure democracy, rightly derided by Ben Franklin as “Four wolves and sheep deciding on what’s for dinner.” Pure democracy unleashes the WORST possible abuse – the unbridled tyranny of the majority.

The ONLY system that could be potentially worse than that of the most miserable tyrannical despot is a pure democracy. It was pure democracy that brought down the Roman Empire.

Saying all that, without question, some dictatorships, some totalitarian regimes are better (at least in terms of the overall quality of life of the people) than others. Those tend to be those that respect individual PROPERTY rights AND economic freedom/Liberty. Of course, those also tend to be few and far between, for exactly that reason. So, market-based totalitarianism, like that under Pinochet, Suharto and to a lesser, but still viable extent, Mussolini and Franco have proven preferable in terms of LESS overall deprivation and suffering and less violence toward the people (even dissenters,) than have Leftist or Marxist totalitarian regimes such as Hitler’s, Mao’s, Pol Pot’s and Stalin’s.

Economic freedm doesn’t only LEAD to other freedoms, ALL other freedoms evolve FROM economic liberty, for without the right to OWN property, the people become property – “the property of the state.”

Freedom is NOT “the right or ability to do what we like” – THAT is license.

Freedom is individual Liberty, which is self-ownership – which carries with it the DUTY of self-defense, the right to own and the duty to upkeep and better one’s property and to be self responsible for making one’s own way in the world.

Economic freedom is, in essence, the right to CREATE (art, businesses, professional skills, etc.) and to market those creations for “what the market will bear.” ALL other freedoms evolve from the foundation that is economic freedom.

Freedom/Liberty is innately disproportionate and “unfair” because life is unfair.

Life is unfair because people are born into this world with differing and varying talents, abilities and ambitions, BUT history has shown us that those societies that allow for the unfettered interplay between individuals, between the strong and the weak, the creative and non-creative, do far better, in terms of both overall quality of life and faster and more widespread economic and social development.

As for China, you appear to be holding onto a 1980s mindset on that nation.

Don't just take my word on it, take Mark Leonard's (Executive Director of the European Council on Foreign Relations), who's studied China for the past two decades; “You're right. The [1989 Tiananmen Square uprising] was an absolutely seminal time in China's political and intellectual development. In the west what we saw was a group of students longing to join the west and overthrow the socialist economic and political system.

“What is very interesting about the Chinese intellectuals now, is the revisionist account of what was happening in 1989. In many ways it was the moment when the reformist camp split in two.

“One group, mainly students, wanted to join the west, looking for political and economic reforms and another group [was] workers, trade unionists whose reasons for coming to the square were very different. They were protesting the economic reforms that had taken place within China that had caused hyper-inflation, that had made their lives a lot tougher.

“After the protest, when the government cracked down on the protesters, people went into exile, into prison, and you saw the reformist camp split. On the one hand you had a group of people who wanted to continue the economic reform and saw that as the absolute priority for China. They were mainly economists and people who had been very influential in the decade before Tiananmen Square. Many people talk about the ‘80s and ‘90s as 'The Dictatorship of the Economist'.

“[The other] group [was] quite aware of the social damage and environmental destruction that this economic growth was causing in China. They wanted a different kind of capitalism, one that was gentler, better able to deliver to the people at the bottom and less disrespectful of the environment.

“While the new right - sort of the Chinese equivalent of the aficionados of Reaganomics - have been willing to make political compromise in order to drive economic reform, the new left - who look more like social democrats - tend to be less willing, partly because they think the only way the state will be able to take on the vested interest of capital, is [with] greater political liberalization. If not, the interest of corrupted leaders will always win out over the interest of the mass of people.

How do you treat society as a whole and open it up in steps towards democracy?

“This debate about what model of capitalism China should have -- an embrace of the market [or] charting a more distinctive Chinese cause -- is mirrored in the political realm as well.

“A famous political scientist, who is supposed to be close to the Chinese president, has gathered all sorts of experiments in grass roots democracy; elections on the local level, villages, townships, even experiments within the Communist party.

“In China I went to a township in Sichuan Province where all of the township party sections were elected by their members. The group says elections have nothing going for them, from the Chinese perspective; they won't solve any of the problems that China faces. They believe China would be much better going for greater rule of law and supplementing that with different ways of finding out what the public wants. They talk about using focus groups, using opinion polls, using public consultations.”

http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=104dc9381d003122e356b8aa333d848f&from=rss

See also: Ted Koppel’s The People’s Republic of Capitalism http://www.amazon.com/Koppel-Discovery-Peoples-Republic-Capitalism/dp/B001O7R75Y/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1237473105&sr=1-2

Or he could just be putting out fires.

Either that or he's discovered that there actually is a word limit here. He's been typing for days and days, only to lose it all when he hit "post."

As for China, you appear to be holding onto a 1980s mindset on that nation.

Oh please. As I told you, you appear to admire the fascist Chinese regime. Let me tell you simply this. I have been to China a few years ago and it sucks big time. What I found impossible to comprehend was the internet censorship. Then I could not visit the BBC news site or Daily Kos from my hotel.

Fascism sucks. Stop supporting fascism. China is a fascist country.

"Stop supporting fascism. China is a fascist country." (BW)


Now THAT is really funny! Woefully and "bone ignorant" (as Rep Murtha would say) but funny.

Actually, China was the LAST, BEST hope for Communism.

Communism/socialism and “the command economy) CANNOT exist absent authoritarian totalitarianism.

Now China remains a totalitarian country, much like Cuba and Venezuela, but it is a far FREER place than either of those today.

Mao's red book stirred the passions of fellow travelers around the world, BUT, the pathetic thing is, Mao's utopian vision translated into a nightmare for the world's most populous country, in real life.

Not only were over 100 MILLION "dissidents" (dissenters) killed or "purged" during his reign, but the Command economy that ALL socialists/communists espouse delivered its predictable results - overwhelming and widespread misery and poverty.

Today China is liberalizing, opening up its markets and the "people's republic of Capitalism" (as Ted Koppel calls it) boasts one of the fastest growing GDPs in the world today.

Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau, or SAR – Special Administrative Region are all openly free market Capitalist regions, with some of the LEAST regulated and MOST open/free markets in the world today. They are all also multi-party democracies, with universal suffrage at age 18.

As a result, while Communist (Maoist) China once wallowed in massive poverty and misery (high inflation, massive, upwards of 40% unemployment and a backwards culture), today, since the anti-communist reforms that began in the late 1970s, the restructuring of the economy and resulting efficiency gains have contributed to a more than tenfold increase in GDP since 1978.

Today’s China boasts one of the world’s fastest GDP growth rates 9.8% for f/y 2008, 11.2% for f/y 2007. China now boasts a 10 pt Misery Index (due largely to its 6% inflation rate and a 4% official unemployment rate).

China's economy during the past 30 years has changed from a centrally planned system that was largely closed to international trade to a more market-oriented economy that has a rapidly growing private sector and is a major player in the global economy.

After World War II, the Communists under MAO Zedong established an autocratic socialist system that, while ensuring China's sovereignty, imposed strict controls over everyday life and cost the lives of tens of millions of people. There was simply no other way to force a command economy on a nation other than that.

After 1978, Mao’s successor DENG Xiaoping and other leaders focused on market-oriented economic development and by 2000 output had quadrupled.

For much of the population, living standards have improved dramatically and the room for personal choice has expanded, and yet political controls remain tight.

One generation post-communism and China is doing far better for its people. The people are more prosperous, more free, they have more individual choice and the government is heading cautiously toward more democratic reforms.

The KEY for ALL “small-d” democracies is to avoid any semblance of a “pure democracy,” where the “will of the majority is inviolate.”

America’s Founders designed a platform to thwart pure democracy at every turn, from the Electoral College to the unelected judiciary, to the Bill of Rights, written EXCLUSIVELY to LIMIT government action.

I’m certain you’d agree that it’s that disavowing of “pure democracy” that has helped make America as great and as free as it is today.

"Now China remains a totalitarian country, much like Cuba and Venezuela, but it is a far FREER place than either of those today.

JMK,
Do you really believe the bizzare things that you post here? China is a fascist regime. No elections. Venezuela is a republic that respects the democratic process. Chavez was elected repeatedly in fair and square elections, recognized by the US government and europe. Learn the basics before you post crazy comments like that.

"China is a fascist regime. No elections. Venezuela is a republic that respects the democratic process." (BW)


WHY do you keep on insisting on misusing terms, BW?

You keep refering to TOTALITARIAN REGIMES as "fascist regimes," which they are NOT.

Fascism is really an economic definition - the highly regulated market-based economy or "Corporatism" and NOT a political definition synonymous with authoritarian totalitarianism.

There are THREE basic political formulations;
(1) Pure Democracy (UNWORKABLE).

(2) The Constitutional Republic (with a Constitution that reins in governmental action and abuse, while blunting the thuggish will of the majority).

and
(3) Authoritarian Totalitarianism (from Monarchies to Dictatorships).

There are also three basic economic models;
(1) the unregulated free market (which hasn't existed anywhere since around 1912).

(2) The unworkable Command or government-run Economy, which has never worked ANYWHERE.

and
(3) the regulated market-based economy - the default economy of the U.S., Japan, Western Europe, Hong Kong and the rest of the industrialized world.


Maybe you really ARE that ignorant, so I'll quote you a UK Guardian article about a recent Human Rights Watch Report on Venezuela;

"Venezuela's president, Hugo Chávez, has flouted human rights, persecuted opponents and undermined democracy during his decade in power, according to a damning new report.

"Human Rights Watch, a New York-based watchdog, today accused the socialist revolutionary of betraying a promise to shore up the rule of law and turn Venezuela into a progressive beacon.

"The report claimed Chávez's government had taken over the courts and cowed the media, trade unions and civil society, leaving the South American oil giant dominated by an overmighty executive. "Discrimination on political grounds has been a defining feature of the Chávez presidency... (as) has been an open disregard for the principle of separation of powers."

"The 230-page report, titled A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/18/venezuela.humanrights

I'm here to help BW.

Maybe you don't have a lot of time to read up on international affairs....understandable (but then, why presume what isn't true?).

China has liberalized its economy, providing a once starving nation, unprecedented prosperity and its liberalizing its society as well, while Venezuela suffers under an autocratic thug who's intent on forcing a Command Economy on a largely unwilling populace.

Chavez was NOT elected "fair and square" any more than Joe Stalin was.

YES, Joe Stalin won EVERY "election" while alive, NOT because he was voted in, but because he adhered to the tenet, "It doesn't matter who votes, but who counts the votes." Same with Chavez.....maybe that's why you like him so much???

Economic Liberty/freedom is the foundation of ALL other freedoms, WITHOUT the right to OWN property, the people BECOME property - "property of the State."

Chavez was NOT elected "fair and square" any more than Joe Stalin was.

Hey JMK,
You are either totally ignorant or enjoy lying deliberately. The most recent elections and the last referendum in Venezuela were done under international observers, including US observers, and the results were recognized by the US administration. Learn the basics. Are you saying that the US government would approve "Stalin-type" elections? That happened only in Florida in 2000.

It wasn't I who said Chavez has UNDERMINED democracy and has had "no respect for the rule of law" in Venezuela, Human Rights Watch DID!

Human Rights Watch a prototypically Liberal group, no less.

Yeah, read that AGAIN;

Venezuela's president, Hugo Chávez, has flouted human rights, persecuted opponents and undermined democracy during his decade in power, according to a damning new report.

"Human Rights Watch, a New York-based watchdog, today accused the socialist revolutionary of betraying a promise to shore up the rule of law and turn Venezuela into a progressive beacon.

"The report claimed Chávez's government had taken over the courts and cowed the media, trade unions and civil society, leaving the South American oil giant dominated by an overmighty executive. "Discrimination on political grounds has been a defining feature of the Chávez presidency... (as) has been an open disregard for the principle of separation of powers."

"The 230-page report, titled A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/18/venezuela.humanrights

Ironically enough, Chavez is every bit as authoritarian and undemocratic as Castro, Pinochet, Stalin or Mao.

China's Deng Xiaoping has been better to the Chinese than Chavez has to the Venezuelans - China's economic reforms have delivered mass prosperity where Mao's communism once delivered mass starvation.

JMK,
Try to read a little to understand a few things. You have been calling Hitler a marxist. That says it all. It is a good summary of how ignorant politically you are.

“You have been calling Hitler a marxist. That says it all. It is a good summary of how ignorant politically you are.” (BW)


I did indeed call Hitler “a Leftist” (close enough), based on his own words.

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler
(Speech of May 1, 1927.

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/index.html

UNLESS that speech can be proven false, there's no other way to define "the fuher."

I hope you’d agree that that quote is as vile as ANYTHING that Karl Marx ever said (I’m assuming you revile Marx as much as Hitler...I know I do).

Here’s a few of the things that I don’t get;

You defend, even laud Hugo Chavez, an authoritarian tyrant, who Human Rights Watch has claimed has “persecuted the political opposition” and “undermined democracy” in Venezuela.

I link to the article that proves that and you STILL defend Chavez!

Then, apparently after reconsidering the damning quotes, you retreat from defending Chavez to your inane claim that “You (JMK) support tyrants too.”

But that’s not true, is it?

I’ve remarked over and OVER that "LIFE for the bulk of the people is BETTER under those rare despots who adhere to ECONOMIC LIBERTY (Pinochet, Suharto, Mussolini and even today’s China under Deng Xiaoping)"...and THAT is undeniable.

Milton Friedman spent no more than three hours (in total) with Augusto Pinochet and yet, Pinochet adopted most of the Friedman reforms AND that nation was transformed very quickly from the economic basketcase it had been under the despised Allende regime, to “the jewel of South America.”

A number of the core Friedman economic reforms are still in use in Chile TODAY and that’s almost certainly why, despite a lurch Left and a greater DIS-INCENTIVE for work and productivity (higher taxes, regulations and fees) to pay for subsidizing those who cannot and do not want to work, Chile (16.3 pt MI) STILL has a Misery Index (MI) far less than HALF what Venezuela’s (39.5 pt MI) is, despite Venezuela having far more natural resource wealth.

Prosperity provides the greatest gift to all humans, an improving quality of life, while poverty or economic deprivation is the worst kind of abuse.

That’s almost certainly why governments that tend to be more socialistic ALWAYS deliver far more deprivation and poverty, while those that tend to be more open, market-oriented deliver more prosperity to more people.

It’s been show around the world, as it’s been shown here. Herbert Hoover, was the first American President to believe in “Progressivism” – the batshit crazy idea that “Every problem has a scientific solution best implemented by government.”

We can easily see how that view worked out for us!

Worse still, FDR came in and continued many of Hoover’s policies, including the “alphabet soup” of programs and initiatives begun under Hoover (to be fair, Smoot-Hawley and the protectionist anti-trade “trade wars” it touched off, is really what triggered the Great Depression)...and the Depression WORSENED during the 1930s. THANKFULLY WW II mercifully ended the Great Depression in America.

I can assure you that there’s nothing at all controversial about that BW, EVEN Barack Obama lauded Capitalism the other day, “All of us here support the free market capitalism that made this country great,” it’s just that he’s continuing many of G W Bush’s disastrous economic policies (MORE bailouts, MORE stimulus packages, MORE overspending and even failing to eradicate the inane lending criteria that the revamped CRA of 1994 brought to bear)...and WORSE YET, he’s going along with a few radicals in Congress who’re are pushing for a modern-day Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, with their “Buy American” campaign that’s alienating and provoking other nations to embrace protectionist measures.

As an example, the recent end to the program that allowed Mexican trucks easy access to our major highways, has been met by Mexico’s tariffing many of the goods we export to that country.

But even the Obama administration lauds “free market Capitalism” BW, are they wrong too?

At least in that regard, I don’t think so.

Hmmmmm, I wonder what happened to Fred after going 0-2-2 with me over those nits?

I was sort of expecting a renewed engagement on yet another set of numbers, dates or spellings.

Apparently we agree more than we disagree on any of this?

JMK,
Chavez is democratically elected. Calling him a dictator can not change the fact that he was elected in free elections.

The fact that you believe that Hitler (one of the worst enemies of marxism) was marxist himself shows total lack of understanding of the very basics. The fact that Hitler was calling himself "national socialist" does not mean much. Another dictator that you happened to admire, Pinochet, was calling himself a "democrat". Even Stalin and the Soviet system were pretending to be "defenders of democracy". Sorry, but your statements have no real basis. And calling Hitler a "socialist" is bizarre.

"Chavez is democratically elected. Calling him a dictator can not change the fact that he was elected in free elections." (BW)


I called Chavez what he IS (a tyrannical despot), while YOU are defending an anti-democratic thug whom Human Rights blasted as "[having] flouted human rights, persecuted opponents and undermined democracy during his decade in power, according to a damning new report.

"The report claimed Chávez's government had taken over the courts and cowed the media, trade unions and civil society, leaving the South American oil giant dominated by an overmighty executive. "Discrimination on political grounds has been a defining feature of the Chávez presidency... (as) has been an open disregard for the principle of separation of powers."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/18/venezuela.humanrights

So, you're saying YOU support a thuggish tyrant who's undermined democracy and persecuted the political opposition in that country? (I guess two really CAN play that silly game)

There's little distinction between Chavez and Pinochet in that regard.

The ONLY distinction between the two is that apparently Pinochet DID more for the people of Chile (especially the poor) by expanding economic opportunities and driving the Misery Index there FROM a high of over 50% under Allende to under 10% by the end of his tenure.

Chavez has done nothing but spread increasing poverty and misery among the people of Venezuela.


"The fact that you believe that Hitler (one of the worst enemies of marxism) was marxist himself shows total lack of understanding of the very basics. The fact that Hitler was calling himself "national socialist" does not mean much." (BW)

Once AGAIN, it doesn't MATTER what people "CALL THEMSELVES", it's their words and actions that determine what they are. Hitler SAID, ""We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler
(Speech of May 1, 1927)

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/index.html

(God, I LOVE that quote)

And he acted on those sentiments. Hitler was an authoritarian thug (like Mao, Allende, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Chavez and Pol Pot) AND he was an economic socialist.

Look, I'm not merely suggesting that socialism, fascism/Corporatism and free market are economic terms, while authoritarian totalitarian, Constitutional Republic and Pure democracy are political terms, I'm stating that as FACT.

Monarches, dicatorships (YES, even "democratically elected" tyrants - Stalin, Hitler, Chavez, etc.) are ALL authoritarian totalitarians.

There are NO "pure democracies" because that's an unworkable and despicable system.

So, the ONLY workable alternative to authoritarian totalitiarianism is the Constitutuional Republic, which is the default government of the U.S., Japan, Western Europe and the bulk of the industrialized world.

Economically there are ONLY 2 workable models WITHIN the framework of the REGULATED MARKET-based economy (the default economy of the U.S., Western Europe, Japan, and the rest of the industrialized world) because the unregualted free market has not existed anywhere since 1912 and socialism CANNOT work.

Those two viable economic schools/models within the REGULATED MARKET-based economy are Keynesianism and the Supply Side schools/models.

ALL those nations that adhered to socialist and even Keynesian policies have generally delivered far LESS prosperity and MORE widespread misery/poverty for the people.

Those nations that have adopted more market-oriented Supply Side policies, whether they be Constitutional Republics like OURS, OR authoritarian totalitarians, like Pinochet's Chile, delivered MORE prosperity and less poverty/misery for the people.

Here in the U.S. the Supply Side Reagan (1981 - 1989) and Gingrich (1995 - 2000...yes Fred, even though Gingrich left in '98, his policies carried on thru 2000) years delivered MORE propserity than the Keynesian Nixon, Carter, Bush Sr and Bush Jr years.

THIS WEEK, ironically enough, France, of all places, scolded the U.S. on its overspending and its reversion to "failed Keynesian policies."

I guess France is worried that if we keep screwing this up, all that foreign aid will dry up....a fair reason to worry.

Nothing like a non-neutral observer declaring himself the winner. You were incorrect on #1, #2 and #3--face it. And a spending cut is not a cut in proposed increases but a CUT. There was not a federal budget CUT...perhaps in some areas the increase in outlays was cut back, but the actual levels were not CUT overall.
Reagan did not inherit a 22 misery index, the prime rate was not 23.5% and while Reagan reduced the misery index using a year-end measure, intra-year is a different story. And while we're at it, who uses the misery index anymore anyway? The unemployment rate as an economic measure is going the way of the prime rate and the LEI index. What sophisticated observer trumpets the unemployment rate each month? It's nonfarm payrolls that are watched, not the % of 'unemployed.'
So, I score it JMK 0, FACTS 4. Thank you.

"JMK,
Chavez is democratically elected. Calling him a dictator can not change the fact that he was elected in free elections.

The fact that you believe that Hitler (one of the worst enemies of marxism) was marxist himself shows total lack of understanding of the very basics. The fact that Hitler was calling himself "national socialist" does not mean much." (BW)


Once AGAIN, I DID NOT call Chavez a "tyrant, or an authoritarian dictator" - Human Rights Watch DID!

Has Chavez undermined democracy in Venezuela and persecuted political opponents?

According to Human Rights Watch, the answer to that is YES and they’ve documented the incidents.

So, apparently YOU happily “support anti-democratic, fascist (in YOUR words, authoritarian totalitarian) dictators”!

The question is WHY?

You can’t possibly believe in Chavez’ socialist economic vision, coming as you do from a nation blessed by the bounty of Capitalism!

And I DIDN’T call Hitler a Leftist or socialist – his OWN WORDS DO!

“We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." - Adolf Hitler
(Speech of May 1, 1927.

I just LOVE that quote...and what’s MORE Hitler lived by those words and tried mightily to live UP TO those disgusting ideals.

He targeted the Jews, largely because he saw them, the entrepreneurial class in Germany at that time, the way ALL socialists/collectivists do, as “parasites who profited off the blood and sweat of others.”

Apparently "de Fuher" understood economics about as well as you seem to.

“Nothing like a non-neutral observer declaring himself the winner. You were incorrect on #1, #2 and #3--face it...

“...So, I score it JMK 0, FACTS 4. Thank you.” (Fred)


I clearly and carefully explained why you went 0-2-2....YOU were completely wrong on your second and fourth charges and you were wrong on the numbers yourself in your other nits.

N.B. YOU have to be correct on the facts yourself for them to count.

“#1. "Reagan inherited a 22 pt misery index" Not quite. That 22 pt index was hit in June 1980, 7 months before Reagan, who took office in Jan 1981 with a 19 pt misery index. Not a giant error, but JMK passes off all of his writings as being fact-based when they apparently are not.” (Fred)

The Misery Index for f/y 1980 was a record high 21 pts., NOT 22, but NOT 19 either.

RESULT Fred off by 2, JMK off by 1

That nit can’t be scored in your favor. 0-0-1


“#2. Reagan reduced the misery index every year he was in office. Not quite. Close but not quite, and if we want to be accurate and FACT-BASED check
http:// www.miseryindex .us/ customindexbymonth .asp for verification of these numbers.” (Fred)


Again you’re wrong in your claim that I was wrong about Reagan’s “reducing the Misery Index every year...” as he did just that.

I very accurately said “Reagan took an inherited and staggering 22 pt Misery Index (today's is 9.6) and reduced it EVERY year he was in office, until it reached SINGLE DIGITS by 1986...
(March 14, 2009 08:10 PM)...and THAT is VERY TRUE:

1980 20.76
1981 17.97
1982 15.87
1983 12.82
1984 11.81
1985 10.74
1986 8.91 (It was reduced “EVERY year UNTIL it reached single digits by 1986.”

1987 9.84
1988 9.57
http:// www. miseryindex.us /customindexbyyear. asp

Score this one in my favor..."EVERY year UNTIL they reached SINGLE DIGITS in 1986..." Indeed he DID.

So, that’s 1-0-1, with two down, one to go.


“#3. Reagan inherited a prime rate of 23.5%. Again, sounds valid given how bad things were back then, but it doesn't appear to be accurate. Check out
http:// www. moneycafe.com /library/ primeratehistory .htm, and see the chart from the Fed shows the primate peeaked back in 1980 at what looks to be just below 21%. If you're gonna be FACT-BASED, make sure you've got your FACTS in order.” (Fred)


AGAIN you’re wrong on the FACTS here too.

See how that works?

The prime lending rate reached, according to the chart you linked to, a HIGH of 21.5% (December 19, 1980 and NOT "just below 21))...and STILL, a record-HIGH!

AND the prime rate WAS reduced to single digits by June of 1985!

This nit also can’t be scored in your favor, since you were also wrong on the FACTS. 1-0-2 (the two for those two nits on which we wwere both wrong on the numbers)


“4. "...because of the Gingrich Congress forcing the FIRST federal BUDGET (SPENDING) CUT in nearly a century," says JMK. HUH?? How is this claim being measured? Federal outlays as a % of GDP? Total outlays by year? In my rush looks at charts, myabe the %/GDP claim could work, but an actual cut in total federal outlays vs. the prior year?” (Fred)


Actually, cutting “scheduled increases for the coming budget year ARE indeed “spending cuts.”

That’s probably why the National Debt only increased a measly $300 MILLION between 1995 and 2000. Those spending cuts, welfare reform and the slashing of the Cap Gains rate that sparked investment and increased Cap Gains tax revenues are the things responsible for all those “budget surpluses.”

Here's an example of that "accepted practice; “The "spending cuts" that the administration or legislators proposed and journalistic accounts reflected represented reductions in those amounts, even if the lower number was still higher than the current level of spending. Thus, for example, if Program X has a $10 million appropriation now and would automatically go to $12 million in 2009-10, reducing it to $11 million is considered a "spending cut." ”

http:// www.ocregister.com /articles /billion-spending-million- 2319787-year-state

I’m RIGHT on this, despite the fact that you object to counting “cutting SCHEDULED increases” as the “spending cuts” they are.

I’d sympathize slightly more with you IF you had the personal integrity and intellectual honesty to decry media whores claiming “tax cuts actually DECREASE tax revenues because, despite rising tax revenues, they’d be even higher IF the people paid to pay taxes on that newly claimed income at the older/higher rate.”

See?

THAT’S completely dishonest.

The very reason tax cuts INCREASE revenues is because “people respond to incentives” – when RATES go down, more people claim more of their income upfront and NON-deferred, thus increasing tax revenues. Likewise, those same earners save/DEFER more of their income as tax RATES go up.




“And while we're at it, who uses the misery index anymore anyway?” (Fred)


Glad you asked.

The Return of the Misery Index

The NY Times
By FLOYD NORRIS

IT has been almost three decades since the term “misery index” gained political currency, as President Jimmy Carter confronted the twin problems of rising inflation and unemployment. Now that almost-forgotten index is rising more rapidly than at any time since Mr. Carter’s last year in office — 1980.

The index is the sum of the unemployment rate and the inflation rate over the preceding 12 months. In normal times, the two indexes are likely to move in different directions, with inflation easing when unemployment rises, and climbing as the economy gets stronger and unemployment ebbs.

“This year, however, both have been rising.

“On Tuesday, the Labor Department will report on the inflation rate, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, for August. The consensus forecast of economists, according to Bloomberg News, is for a 5.6 percent rate. With the unemployment rate already reported at 6.1 percent, that would produce a misery index of 11.7 percent, up from July’s figure of 11.2 percent.

“That rate has been rising rapidly, and in July was up 4.2 percentage points from a year earlier. If the consensus forecast is accurate, the August year-over-year rise will be 5.1 percentage points.

“Before the Bush administration, there were only three presidential terms in which the misery index rose at least 4 percentage points over a 12-month span. The first was in 1949-53, and the second in 1973-77. In each case, the incumbent party lost the following election.

“The third was President Carter’s term, from 1977 to 1981, when the combination of soaring oil prices and recession caused the misery index to peak at 21.9 percent. Ronald Reagan famously asked voters, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” and defeated President Carter.

http:// www.nytimes.com /2008/09/13/ business/economy/ 13charts. html?_r=1&fta=y&pagewanted=print

The Return of the Misery Index

August 18, 2008
James Pethokoukis
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/8/18/the-return-of-the-misery-index.html

The Wonk Room blog from the liberal Center for American Progress happily tosses out this little factoid:

By one measure—the "Misery Index" made famous by Jimmy Carter—the economy is in its worst shape since mid-1991. The Misery Index is simply the combination of the unemployment rate and the inflation rate. It reached 11.3 percent in July. While still well below its heights in the 1970s and early 1980s, the Misery Index is now at its highest level since the first George Bush was president according to data from www. miseryindex. us.

FYI: The MI's low point in the past 40 years was 6.05 percent in 1998. The highest point ever was 20.76 percent in 1980. And what did we do after that horrific year? Cut taxes, continued to cut regulation, eviscerated inflation with tight money and pro-growth economics. Not a bad formula.

http:// www.usnews.com/blogs /capital-commerce /2008/8/18/ the-return-of-the-misery-index.html


“The unemployment rate as an economic measure is going the way of the prime rate and the LEI index. What sophisticated observer trumpets the unemployment rate each month? It's nonfarm payrolls that are watched, not the % of 'unemployed.' ” (Fred)


According to the Conference Board Leading Economic, the Leading Economic Indicators are comprised of ten components. The ten indicators that make up The Conference Board LEI for the U.S. were the interest rate spread, index of supplier deliveries (vendor performance), building permits, real money supply, manufacturers' new orders for consumer goods and materials and manufacturers' new orders for non-defense capital goods, average weekly initial claims for unemployment insurance (inverted), stock prices, the index of consumer expectations, and average weekly manufacturing hours.

http://www.conference board.org/economics/

bci/pressRelease_output.cfm?cid=1

BUT there’s no quicker and more accurate way to see how the economy is treating the people than the traditional Misery Index developed in 1968 by economist Arthur Okun, which is why the Misery Index is still tracked today and why the above referenced articles hearken its return.

Oh, and speaking of nits, you mis-spelled (MAYBE) maybe and (PEAKED) peeaked in your initial post.

CLARIFICATION: "So, apparently YOU happily “support anti-democratic, fascist (in YOUR words), "authoritarian totalitarian dictators” (in mine)!

That IS pretty ironic now, isn't it BW?

CLARIFICATION II: "Actually, cutting “scheduled increases for the coming budget year ARE indeed “spending cuts.”

"That’s probably why the National Debt only increased a measly $300 MILLION between 1995 and 2000. Those spending cuts, welfare reform and the slashing of the Cap Gains rate that sparked investment and increased Cap Gains tax revenues are the things responsible for all those “budget surpluses...”

That fourth one is also in my fovor, bringing the total to 2-0-2.


In yet another irony, even two writers on the economy had different numbers for Carter's record high Misery Index - Floyd Norris of the NY Times wrote, “The third was President Carter’s term, from 1977 to 1981, when the combination of soaring oil prices and recession caused the misery index to peak at 21.9 percent," while James Pethokoukis wrote, "The MI's low point in the past 40 years was 6.05 percent in 1998. The highest point ever was 20.76 percent in 1980...."Amost a FULL percentage point's difference!

Fact is, Reagan inherited the real "WORST economy since the Great Depression" and improved it EVERY year UNTIL the Misery Index reached SINGLE DIGITS in 1986, with the prime rate reaching SINGLE DIGITS in 1985.

And, ironically enough, the Gingrich Congress forced federal budget cuts on an unwilling Bill Clinton and slashed the Capital Gains RATE by a full THIRD (FROM 30% TO 20%) and those, along with the savings generated by welfare reform brought about all those late 1990s BUDGET SURPLUSES and some of the LOWEST Misery INDEXES (including 1998's 6.05 MI), while Keynesian Republicans (Nixon, Bush Sr and Bush Jr) all presided over worsening Misery Indexes, although Bush Jr's were covered (for a time) by those early tax RATE cuts that had tax revenues skyrocketing in their wake!

hee hee hee heeeeeee, he thinks he so right all the time. heheheheheheheehe, so funny.

hee hee hee heeeeeee, he thinks he's so right all the time. heheheheheheheehe, so funny.

Wrong again Fred, I correctly noted that I was right on #s 2 and 4 we were BOTH wrong on #s 1 and 3.

For #1, the Misery Index reached a record-high of 21 for 1980 NOT 22 (as I said), but NOT 19 as YOU states...and ironically enough two writers on the economy had different numbers for that high - two writers on the economy had different numbers for Carter's record high Misery Index - Floyd Norris of the NY Times pegged its peak at, 21.9, while James Pethokoukis wrote, "The Misery Index's low point in the past 40 years was 6.05 percent in 1998. The highest point ever was 20.76 percent in 1980" - there figures differed by 1.24 pts!

For #3, the prime lending rate reached, according to the chart YOU linked to, a HIGH of 21.5% (December 19, 1980 and NOT "just below 21", as you said)).

AND the prime rate WAS reduced to single digits by June of 1985!

Those TWO have to be scored 0-0-2, as we were BOTH wrong on the figures.

On #1 I was right, in that Reagan, “Reagan took an inherited and staggering 22 pt Misery Index (today's is 9.6) and reduced it EVERY year he was in office, until it reached SINGLE DIGITS by 1986...”
(March 14, 2009 08:10 PM)...and THAT is VERY TRUE:

1980 20.76
1981 17.97
1982 15.87
1983 12.82
1984 11.81
1985 10.74
1986 8.91 (It was reduced “EVERY year UNTIL it reached single digits by 1986.”)

1987 9.84
1988 9.57
http:// www. miseryindex.us /customindexbyyear. asp

And I was right on #4 as well, "Actually, cutting “scheduled increases for the coming budget year ARE indeed “spending cuts.”

“That’s probably why the National Debt only increased a measly $300 MILLION between 1995 and 2000. Those spending cuts, welfare reform and the slashing of the Cap Gains rate that sparked investment and increased Cap Gains tax revenues are the things responsible for all those budget surpluses...”

I believe that fourth one has to be scored in my favor.

That makes me right on only TWO, and it makes us BOTH wrong on the other TWO, which is why I claim that I'm 2-0-2 on your nits.

Look, I'm not being mean-spirited here at all.

This whole thing started when you defended a vile and batshit crazy post that equated ALL of Capitalism to criminality. I believe the exact quote was, "...the truth is that people acting selfishly get us exactly what we have right now -- economic catastrophe.

"Bernie Madoff certainly acted in his best interest, wouldn't you say? All of the insider traders, Ken Lay, all of the thieves, cheats, and liars who became millionaires and billionaires definitely acted selfishly."

My response was, "Madoff was a criminal, involved in a ruthless ponzi scheme.

“Bill Gates has delivered MORE good over the last three decades, to MORE people than ANY government in the history of the world.

“Anyone so dumb as to NOT be able to see the difference between entrepreneurial behavior and the Capital investment that fuels it, enriches EVERYONE far more than even those made incredibly wealthy by the value of their own ideas, is too stupid to breathe on their own."

I responded that way because I clearly saw that the post related the entrepreneurialism of Gates, Ellison, Buffett, Bezos and Ford with criminality.

Then YOU naively said, "Where was Bill Gates mentioned as one of the scumbag billionaires in anonymous's post anyway?”

Sorry Fred, there's NO other way to construe that than as defending the batshit rantings of Barely Hanging.

That idiot clearly compared Capitalism itself to criminality and thus Madoff to Gates, Ford, Bezos, Buffett and other legitimate entrepreneurs.

While you claimed to "agree with my view" that “Capitalism is not criminality”, you still reflexively defended the anti-Capitalists.

BUT worse, you did so in what came off as a craven manner. The idiot was at least stalwart in his convictions and bold in his assertions.

You came off as naive and even craven – seemingly not wanting to dare offend anyone.

To make matters even worse for you, the always reliably anti-freedom and anti-Capitalist BW, conveniently amplified Barely Hanging's post; "Madoff is a classic example of what extreme greed can do when left unregulated. He represents a classic example of the failure of "extreme unregulated capitalism" as advocated by the marginalized republican party of today.

"Face it. Madoff is the outcome of the extreme republican philosophy. That philosophy...", so while BW unnecessarily politicized the issue, he made it clear that he too agreed that the criminality of thugs like Madoff and Skillings are indicative of Capitalism. I discount the "unregulated" comment, simply because we DON'T HAVE an unregulated market and HAVEN'T since 1912.

That should've cleared things up for you and allowed you an exit point to say, "You know, I misinterpreted that initial comment, but BW's made it clearer and I DO disagree that Capitalism can be defined as criminality, the way both those guys clearly do."

BUT you didn't!

Instead you dug in, clearly wrong on that point, so you then retreated to picking these four nits.

Like I said, I found it humorously odd that YOU turned out to be wrong on TWO of them - Reagan DID reduce the Misery Index every year until it reached single digits in 1986" AND Cutting scheduled increases in the upcoming budget are indeed spending cuts."

And on the TWO others YOUR FIGURES were as wrong as mine...and YOU had apparently just looked them up!

The prime rate reached a high of 21.5% (Dec, 1980) and NOT the "just under 20% YOU claimed, AND the Misery Index peaked at 21, NOT 22 as I said, BUT NOT the 19 YOU claimed either.

That's where the 2-0-2 comes from. I was right on TWO, and we were BOTH WRONG on the other TWO.

Perhaps you should’ve quit right after your initial, reflexive defense of Barely Hanging???

Fred, and I'm not taking a shot here, but if your judgment on things and assessments of the issues are being used in the private sector, then it's folks like yourself that are a big part of the problem. A recent study showed that over 55% of the people sitting on American boards of directors are people who don't see Capitalism as viable and believe that government regulated competition out of the market, as much as possible is really in their company's best interests.

That kind of misanthropic, anti-freedom ethos is what's wrong in this country today.

I think your word count is now up to 1.2 trillion, 883.2 billion of it repetitive.

That['s anon-sequitor, Fred.

My "word count" isn't the issue, UNLESS you're complaining about eye strain or ADD.

In fact, I've repeatedly and very carefuklly explained to you where you were wrong - on your initial misinterpretation of Barely Hanging's post, even when BW kindly amplified those same sentiments and on TWO of your nits (#s 2 & 4)...and we were BOTH wrong on the exact numbers on nits #s 1 & 3).

Whoooops!

The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do.

Heh, I guess I pulled jackass JMK's little Rush Limbaugh's Parrot string and set him off on a twitching and jerking 100,000 word Turret's Syndrome recap of every dumb thing ever force fed to him through the radio along with his lunch.

As shocking as this might be to you, jackass, Fred is right, and I (an actual business owner and true entrepreneur) was, believe it or not, actually NOT ATTACKING MYSELF or all capitalism when I said that cocksuckers like Madoff, Lay, and all the other "conservatives" who gave of their stolen monies so generously to the conservative movement and the Republican Party should be tried and executed.

Amazingly enough, you put them in the same class as Bill Gates??? I really don't see the connection. I mean, I do see the connection with Rockefeller who, because of lack of oversight and regulation actually enslaved and murdered his employees who tried to unionize or petition against his greed and abuse, but that was only in the later years, when Rockefeller was drunk and corrupted with greed and power like many modern day corporate executives.

You keep squawking and I'll keep pulling your strings, my little puppet. LOL!

At the root of all this excessive wordiness is and remains my failure to see any connection having been made with Bill Gates, but perhaps JMK's typing fingers had the itch to bang out tens of thousands of words totally unrelated to the original topic of this thread, which was Ayn Rand....how that ended up being connected to the misery index, etc., is beyond me....but then again, JMK is often beyond me--at least in typing stamina.

"hee hee hee heeeeeee, he thinks he so right all the time. heheheheheheheehe, so funny."

The funny thing with JMK is that he REALLY believes what he writes. Unbelievable, but true.

I give Fred credit for at least trying to point out some errors on my part....minute as two were and as wrong as the other two of his nits turned out to be.

At least he tried.

BUT, he hasn't made an argument against me. In fact, claims he agrees that your's and Barely's view that "Capitalism = criminality" is wrong.

Ironically enough, despite all your passion, you have NEVER been able to mount an argument in favor of anything you claim to believe in more substantial than "it's obvious."

BUT none of what you claim to support is obvious.

What IS obvious is that Barack Obama is now continuing some of G W Bush's WORST economic policies - MORE (and larger) bailouts with even less oversight, MORE "non-stimulating stimulus packages, etc.

On the security front, the current administration has stepped up RENDITION, supported and fought for the NSA Surveillance program, even going to court to stymie FOIA inquiries and they've ratcheted UP the military operation in Afghanistan.

What's odd is that you don't seem to even know what YOU believe.

I mean, if you DID believe in more Keynesian or even socialistic economic policies, how can you support someone continuing the worst economic policies of the previous administration.

And IF you really opposed the "militarism that's infected the U.S. since 9/11", how can you laud an administration that's increased the use of rendition, fought hard for the NSA Surveillance program and protected its secrecy in courts AND ratcheted UP the war in Afghanistan?

Maybe you DON'T really believe in what you claim to?

Maybe that's why you find it so hard to make actual arguments for your views???

JMK, I'm glad that you feel that you win every argument.

Like the dog barking out the window of a moving car, you have this feeling of omnipotence as seemingly everyone is fleeing from your ferocious bark.

Of course, there may be other reasons why someone may choose not to argue with you, but you can ignore those if you want to believe what you want to believe.

"JMK, I'm glad that you feel that you win every argument." (PE)


Never said, nor implied that.

I DON'T argue.

I make the most well-reasoned case for what I believe on a subject and offer it, along with links and documentation to things like the Misery Index.

Fred happened to be wrong on two of the points he challenged, (1) Reagan DID lower the Misery Index EVERY YEAR until it reached single digits in 1986, where it stayed throughout the rest of his tenure and (2) Cutting scheduled budget/spending increases for the coming year ARE indeed called and counted as "spending cuts."

On the other two, and this really is humorous - Fred and I were both wrong on the exact numbers, though we were both close. In fact, so were two writers on the economy (refrenced by me, above) both slightly off on the peak of the Misery Index.

“Like the dog barking out the window of a moving car, you have this feeling of omnipotence as seemingly everyone is fleeing from your ferocious bark.

“Of course, there may be other reasons why someone may choose not to argue with you, but you can ignore those if you want to believe what you want to believe.” (PE)


My “bark” would only seem to be found in the content I post and not my tone or temperament with others, PE.

While I’d be the first one to admit that I have strong opinions and that I’m passionate about my beliefs, I’ve always sought that from those who disagree.

But with very few exceptions (GZ being one) no one on the Left has EVER offered that – full and well-reasoned cases in favor of their own viewpoints.

Without question, I’ve always been open to changing my views on any issue, though ONLY in the presence of overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence and while I NEVER initiate nastiness or mean-spiritedness, I DO respond in kind.

I don't believe that there’s any way that my “responding in kind” is wrong, given that it’s merely following the accepted dictate of “treating others how they treat you.” What could ANYONE find wrong about that.

On THIS board there is ONLY one poster who regularly engages in insults and personal attacks and that is BH.

As for Fred, I’ve been straight up with Fred since I’ve posted with him. Something he’s not – Fred isn’t straight up with anyone. I’ve made it clear to Fred that I take his drive-by defenses of left-wing posts, while posing as a “Republican” (I’M NOT, and NEVER HAVE BEEN a Republican) as the insulting provocations that they are.

Fred’s probably not a bad guy, but he IS a frivolous guy. An obviously liberal guy who poses as a Republican to attempt to give some added credence/leverage to his shots.

In THIS comments section, BH posted a vile indictment of “Capitalism as criminality,” a view which BW graciously amplified.

I took issue, in a very well-reasoned retort (in my view) with BH and Fred, then took issue with me and he did so in a blatantly dishonest way.

Yes, I DID respond to that 657,489th such drive-by-Fred post in an insulting manner. Probably shouldn’t have and I made that clear a few posts down with the “jerks anonymous” post, BUT Fred was and remains not only wrong, but blatantly maliciously wrong on this issue, as he is on most others.

Now, I know there are those who’d say that, “A liberal reader would see such an exchange and see justification for the liberal outrage and thus some righteous indignation at Conservatives responding as though they were outraged – seeing the Conservative response as “insult” rather than outrage.”

I don’t buy that, as it’s predicated on a false assumption. Notably that there IS a set morality, that there is a defined and definite "RIGHT and WRONG" and that liberal values are in line with some “accepted morality” while conservative and Capitalist ones are not.

Actually, I believe we HAVE an "Accepted morality" (more or less) but that Conservative values are in-line with those and liberals one are not.

Be that as it may, I think we can agree that in regards to public policy there is one standard and it is NOT so much based on what is “Right & Wrong”, but primarily on “what works” and “what doesn’t work.”

To date, all available evidence seems to point to the conclusion that BOTH Keynesian policy (Europe recently and the USA circa 1964 – 1981) and socialism (the former USSR, and Albania, Bulgaria until the USSR fell, Cambodia under Pol Pot, etc.) must be filed under “those things that don’t work.”

The fact that NO ONE on the Left on ANY board has been able to argue in their favor is (1) NOT my fault and (2) is NOT mean-spirited or nasty on my part. The facts are what they are and the truth is what it is.

It’s inconceivable to me that someone who disagrees with me and is frustrated by my arguments, would use insults and personal attacks to actually try and shame or silence me. That doesn’t make any sense at all. Of course, I’m discounting that “moral outrage” argument.

To me, such insults and personal attacks seem like an indication that the poster initiating them WANTS that kind of “vigorous” exchange, an invitation to a more colloquial manner of exchange.

Here, as you well know, I’ve only had such exchanges regularly with a single poster (BH), who engages in vitriolic insults and attacks every time he posts.

I simply can’t accept that other people’s either unwillingness or inability to make full and well-reasoned arguments to counter mine, reflects badly on myself.

How can it?

I mean, how can another person’s shortcoming (either the inability or unwillingness to argue in favor of what they believe) be an example of “bad behavior” (“bark”) on my part? AND how could those who have no problem with insults and personal attacks from the Left, claim to take issue with those in response, from the Right?

I don’t think they reasonably can!

I’ve far more often than not, responded to the always vile Barely Hanging with the same full and well-reasoned arguments I offer anyone else. So, in my own case, even gratuitous and initiating insults from another poster NEVER deter me from making my case. So, why would that stop anyone else?

I don’t believe it does.

I know most posters here ignore BH, but I believe the vast majority of those on the Left (certainly BW and Fred and probably most others) do so because they somehow see him and his posts as an embarrassment to them, NOT because they actually disagree or really take issue with many if any of his sentiments, but that’s merely my opinion, based solely on observation.

I’ve ALWAYS offered the most full and well-reasoned cases for what I believe with the hope/expectation that someone who disagreed could/would make an equally well-reasoned case for the other side, so that I’d have to re-think some things. Hell, I’d even settle for one that would make me think, period. So far I’ve seen/heard NONE.

Since that has never happened ANYWHERE, that is, since I’ve NEVER seen/heard an argument in favor of more Keynesian, even socialistic policies etc. be made fully and with facts that would substantiate that those types of economic system “could work” under “the following conditions”, I must presume that those kinds of arguments just cannot be made, or are so hard to make, that most people just lack the abilities to do so.

Well I just got back from a week out of town, but now I'm tempted to just leave this thread here to see how many comments it gets. Or until I actually finish Atlas Shrugged, whichever comes first.

JMK,
You are entitled to have beliefs against your own interests. You are also entitled to believe that you make convincing arguments. But that does not change the fact that you are totally out of touch with reality. Politically you are at the extreme antidemocratic far right. You are to the right of Dick Cheney and Augusto Pinochet. That is certainly not good.

"You are entitled to have beliefs against your own interests..." (JMK)


I've asked you, numerous time, to prove or give ANY evidence you can find that my beliefs/Conservative beliefs are "against the best interests of working people, like myself."

To date, you've been unable to do that, BW.

Here's just some of the reasons why I believe Conservative viewpoints ARE definitely and very much in MY interests and the interests of ALL working people;

On crime - making it easier to convict violent criminals and subjecting to them to longer sentences, "Three strikes laws" and civil commitment – the practice of keeping especially dangerous felons behind bars beyond their allotted sentences are in the interests of ALL working people, as they eradicate a great barier to individual liberty - thugs who'd depirve other citizens of their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of property.

INCREASING internet pedophile stings, random DUI stops and other such crime reducing programs is also VERY MUCH in the interests of working people.

On Foreign policy - a government willing and able to defend American interests like the free flow of oil at market prices, the protection of U.S. owned businesses and the citizens who work for them, around the world, is very definitely in the interests of ALL working people.

On the economy - LESS social spending (in terms of government programs, working people get few to NONE), LESS intrusion (ie. bans against tobacco, trans fats, black cars, etc) and LOWER tax rates and LESS government spending is very definitely in the interests of ALL working people.

LOWER income and Capital Gains tax RATES increase revenues in those areas, BUT we should cut those taxes and others to the point where government revenues fall, MANDATING cuts in government spending, ESPECIALLY in "entitlement spending."

The BEST economy we've had over the past forty years was due to EXACTLY THAT! When the Gingrich Congress cut the federal budget, instituted national welfare reform and workfare and slashed the Capital Gains tax rate FROM 30% to 20%, we had BOTH budget surpluses AND some of teh LOWEST Misery Indexes in four decades, including 1998's 6.5 Misery Index - the LOWEST since the 1950s!

ALL of that is very definitely in ALL working people's best interests.

So is drilling for more domestic oil (we have over 600 BILLION Barrels that we know of, in the Bakken Ridge alone) is also in working people's interests - cheaper energuy is GOOD for all of us!

So is streamlining (cutting) the public sector (teachers, cops, firefighters, social workers, legislative staffs, etc.) because cutting public sector costs helps the private sector create more jobs.

The public sector SHOULD be comprised of small, elite teams that are decently compensated, but subjected to far heavier workloads than they are now...and THAT is also in the best interests of ALL working people.

Welfare reform and workfare have also been in the interests NOT ONLY of working people, but of poor people as well!

Welfare reform and workfare have seen NYC's welfare rolls drop FROM over 1.2 MILLION TO under 400,000 saving upwards of $25 BILLION/year, based on $30,000/year in costs X those 800,000 former recipients. Now THAT is very much in working America's best interests.

And that is also very much in the interests of America's poor people as well. Sure, most of that drop was due to eradicating all the previous "double dipping," BUT it did get a lot of formerly dependent people back to work and on the road to independence.

What I require from you is your evidence and reasons for believing that such things are NOT in mine and other working people's best interests....and NOT just one or two of those things, but ALL of them.

If you can come up with such a case, I'd be happy to very carefully consider it.

Looks like a tall order.

Good luck!

“Politically you are at the extreme antidemocratic far right.” (BW)

The term “anti-democratic far-Right” has no meaning, since we live in a Constitutional REPUBLIC, the polar opposite of a “democracy.”

The Constitution was written to LIMIT democracy and rein in the inevitable “tyranny of the majority” inherent in ALL pure democracies.

The far Right favors NO government at all.

I do NOT favor that.

The extreme Left (Communism, Fascism, Nazism, Socialism, etc.) favor COMPLETE CONTROL by government.

SEE: http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment

I do NOT favor that at all and acknowledge that history shows that neither of the above two possibilities CAN work.

So, I favor the Constitutional Republic and the regulated market-based economy that America’s had since 1912.

Ohmy god what a windbag....hahahahaha. Why write a mere sentence when an encyclopedia will suffice? Jesus god, JMK is the Joe Biden of message board posters. Hahahahahaha

In a Republic, the people's will is, directly or indirectly, behind all institutions (including constitutional amendments.) Because of this, I would not consider a Republic to be the polar opposite of Democracy, rather a Republic is a variation of Democracy that provides safeguards for the minority, as well as an involved amendment process which means that the Constitution can be changed, but not quickly and not often.

“In a Republic, the people's will is, directly or indirectly, behind all institutions (including constitutional amendments.) Because of this, I would not consider a Republic to be the polar opposite of Democracy, rather a Republic is a variation of Democracy that provides safeguards for the minority, as well as an involved amendment process which means that the Constitution can be changed, but not quickly and not often.” (PE)


A fair point about a Republic not being “the polar opposite of democracy” PE, but a Republic is designed solely to protect the minority (ie. wealthy, well-educated land-owners – always and everywhere the most vulnerable minority) primarily by limiting the pernicious influences of democracy.

Rome fell because it became a pure democracy.

IF the legislatures, elected by the people, were duty-bound to vote the way their constituency wanted, THAT would be “more democratic,” but also more disastrous, at least in my view.

America’s FOUNDERS feared a pure democracy even more than they feared a tyrannical monarchy and rightly so. That’s why they wrote the Bill of Rights exclusively to LIMIT governmental action and powers.

John Adams said, “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

Chief Justice John Marshall said,
“Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”

The great Professor Walter E Williams wrote, “We often hear the claim that our nation is a democracy. That wasn't the vision of the founders. They saw democracy as another form of tyranny. If we've become a democracy, I guarantee you that the founders would be deeply disappointed by our betrayal of their vision. The founders intended, and laid out the ground rules, for our nation to be a republic.

“The word democracy appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution - two most fundamental documents of our nation. Instead of a democracy, the Constitution's Article IV, Section 4, guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...

“So what's the difference between republican and democratic forms of government? John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he said, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is a protector of rights...

“...Contrast the framers' vision of a republic with that of a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government...

“...The framers gave us a Constitution that is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. One that has come in for recent criticism and calls for its elimination is the Electoral College. In their wisdom, the framers gave us the Electoral College so that in presidential elections large, heavily populated states couldn't democratically run roughshod over small, sparsely populated states.”

So, while I can understand your point that “polar opposite” may be hyperbole, it is expressly designed to thwart the evils inherent in democracies. It serves to blunt “the will of the people.” In that regard, far from being “a variation of Democracy,” a Republic is a means of thwarting democracy in the vast majority of instances.

"Why write a mere sentence when an encyclopedia will suffice?" (Fred)


No, I don’t engage in those short, drive-by insult posts that you specialize in Fred.

I won’t do that.

Your every post, save for two ill-conceived nit-pick posts, in this comments section have been drive-by insult posts.

That’s not my style.

Your initial post clearly WASN’T a mere misinterpretation of BH’s “Capitalism = criminality” post. If it were, after BW jumped in and amplified BH’s charge, you would’ve looked at that again and realized you’d misinterpreted BH’s initial point.

Not YOU. You can’t admit when you’re wrong.

Even in your nits, two of those were factually wrong – Reagan DID reduce the Misery Index every year until it reached single digits (as your own referenced chart shows) AND the Gingrich Congress DID cut the federal budget.

AND on the other two, we were both wrong on the exact figures. The Misery Index for 1980 was 21, as I noted, not the 22 I had said, but certainly not the 19 you later claimed...and you’d apparently looked that up. Moreover, ironically enough two writers on the economy had different numbers for that high - Floyd Norris of the NY Times pegged its peak at, 21.9 (which was, in fact, my number), while James Pethokoukis wrote, "The Misery Index's low point in the past 40 years was 6.05 percent in 1998. The highest point ever was 20.76 percent in 1980", and while there figures differed by 1.24 pts, one was effectively 22, the other 21, neither one was close to 19.

BUT you can’t even admit we were both wrong on the numbers there!

Same on the prime lending rate, the prime lending rate reached, according to the chart YOU linked to, a HIGH of 21.5% (December 19, 1980 and NOT "just below 21", as you said and not the 23.5% I’d claimed.)

But you’re even unable to admit you were wrong too, even though you’d apparently looked it up (skipping over December of 1980, I guess).

While I can understand your not liking being taken to task by a mere fireman, I’d think you’d at least be able to re-assess when you’ve obviously misinterpreted another’s post, as you did with Barely’s and acknowledge when your own figures are as wrong as the person your correcting.

No?

I cry every time I hear the "Wealthy, Well-educated Land-owner Blues"..

Me too!

But it was put to real crappy music.

The lyrics aren't really all that bad.


Still, that was "the minority" whose rights America's Founders were obviously interested in protecting.

Still, I think the most charitable thing you can say about a democracy is what Ben Franklin did, "A democracy is five wolves and a sheep deciding on what's for dinner."

WoW! This IS the longest comments section around here in well over a year.

I printed the entire thing out and if you lay it end to end, it stretches from here to China and halfway back!

I'm waiting for the audio book.

The audio book version is supposed to be great, but I guess it all depends on who you'll get as the reader.

Henry Kissinger? Fran Drescher?

>The audio book version is supposed to be great, but I guess it all depends on who you'll get as the reader.

I'm actually listening to an audio book of Atlas Shrugged, and you're right, the reader is very important. This particular version is read by a dude named Christopher Hurt, who reminds me of a slightly speeded-up version of Richard Bey.
(For all I know, that's exactly what they did. This is one of two famous unabridged recordings, and this one weighs in at 11 hours shorter than the other.)

"I'm actually listening to an audio book of Atlas Shrugged..." (BNJ)


That's interesting, I just ordered that in CD AND one of my favorite books ever (Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintanance) on CD!

I have Freakonomics on CD and it's great to listen to in the car.

The reader IS key.

I don't know if either Kissinger or Drescher fit the bill, but if either Kirby Grant (Sky King) or Robert Young (Father Knows Best, Marcus Welby M.D. etc.) were still around....

Now, those guys not only some pipes, but that pure, American attitude!

"Zen and the Art..." is one of those rare books that actually changed my life.

SAME!

It had was amazing to me in that it explained so much about the way things are. My maternal grandfather and my brother Jim are, like Phaedrus, blessed with an innate mechanical ability.

I, like my late father, have to pore over manuals and diagrams for hours before touching any mechanical job. Neither my maternal grandfather nor Jim ever even look at a manual or set of instructions, they just "figure it out."

They are both classic thinkers - function over form, and I never realized how rare that was until I got much older.

GREAT book!

The soliloquy ("chataqua") on quality remains classic.

YIKES!

That should read: It was amazing to me in that it explained so much about the way things are...

100th post.

Woo-hoo!

Perhaps one of the best, or at least most noteworthy passages was that of Francisco D’Anconia explaining to Bertram Scutter, who uttered the phrase “Money is the root of all evil...”, that money is merely a tool, a medium of peaceful exchange that could not exist without the productive efforts of others. “When you accept money in exchange for your efforts/labors, you do so only on the conviction that you will be able to exchange it for the products of the efforts of others. The trade, by means of money, is the code of men of good will. Money is rooted in the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his efforts.”

It IS an awesome book.

Did you guys enjoy tea-bagging each other April 15th? ROFL!

Too bad you didn't throw your little partisan tantrums back when Bush busted the budget, because now you look like crybabies, sore losers, AND hypocrites.

JMK,

There is one benefit to you're quarreling with those fools. The benefit is not that you will ever convince them to attempt rational thinking or valid debate. The benefit instead is this lengthy proof to passerbys that one ideology is much more serious about its authenticity in reasoning. There is a lot to learn from your posts because you dissect posts and respond with completeness.

Don't get frustrated if you never see a concession from those dopes. Whether you can tell it or not you are working not on them, but on those who happen upon the discussion and watch with a keen eye. A proper observer can see with ease where the truth lies.

Keep well my friend.

(hopefully not a double post...)

JMK,

There is one benefit to you're quarreling with those fools. The benefit is not that you will ever convince them to attempt rational thinking or valid debate. The benefit instead is this lengthy proof to passerbys that one ideology is much more serious about its authenticity in reasoning. There is a lot to learn from your posts because you dissect posts and respond with completeness.

Don't get frustrated if you never see a concession from those dopes. Whether you can tell it or not you are working not on them, but on those who happen upon the discussion and watch with a keen eye. A proper observer can see with ease where the truth lies.

Keep well my friend.

Well, I don't expect agreement, nor certainly a concession from those who disagree, Observer.

IF anything I offer ultimately challenges some of those who disagree to at least think about an issue from a different persepective, or understand why others believe as they do, that's the best I could possibly hope for.

And saying that, I think it's very important to distinguish between the "dopes", as you rightly call them (both vicious, haters like BH and naive and deluded "utopianists" like BW) and serious posters who happen to honestly disagree and merely look to defend a more Leftist perspective, like PE, for instance.

I appreciate your perspective since my "completeness" has come under fire for being somewhat overly verbose.

I'm glad you're out there and happening by....I can only hope that there are more like you than not.