Bush Stares Into The Abyss
With stocks plummeting across the world, the White House has decided its time to send George Bush out to give us a pep talk. I doubt he will tell us to stop whining, but the guy who was a cheerleader at Andover must be pretty pissed off that he has to end his Presidency in the same stupid business.
It doesn’t really matter what he says, because the U.S. economic freefall is not something he can do anything about. Take the dollar. British governments bonds are yielding 5% (Euro Bonds 4.5%) while U.S. Treasuries yield 2%. This simple fact is why the dollar is in freefall and oil costs us more everyday. In his congressional testimony this morning, Fed Chairman Bernanke talked about the banks need to rebuild capital, but as Bloomberg pointed out yesterday, even the biggest banks are in far more trouble than their balance sheets would indicate.
At an investor presentation in May, Citigroup Inc. Chief Executive Officer Vikram Pandit said shrinking the bank’s $2.2 trillion balance sheet, the biggest in the U.S., was a cornerstone of his turnaround plan.
Nowhere mentioned in the accompanying 66-page handout were the additional $1.1 trillion of assets that New York-based Citigroup keeps off its books: trusts to sell mortgage-backed securities, financing vehicles to issue short-term debt and collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs, to repackage bonds.
Way back in January we warned about the Shadow Banking System , the $500 Trillion of off balance sheet derivatives that would come to haunt America. When this slow-motion crash is all over and the genius quants and hedge fund wizards have taken early retirement in their Greenwich mansions some brave soul in Congress will call a 21st Century version of the Pecora Commission and these Masters of The Universe will have to tell under oath the rationale behind the debt addled insanity that brought us here. And though Republicans like Phil Gramm, Wendy Gramm, David Stockman and James Baker will be in that rogue’s gallery, we must also include Democrats like Robert Rubin and Sandy Weill who pushed through banking deregulation. This house of cards was a bi-partisan project.
“This house of cards was a bi-partisan project.”
Yes. That’s why I’m not sure I hope for much from a Democratic president. Even if there is an election, and even if Obama can overcome the vote fraud and win it, and even if he really is motivated to undo some of the messes, he’ll be dealing with the same Congress that has been doing (and continues to do) Cheney’s bidding. Regardless of how many Democrats are sitting.
People have to get pissed off and not just write polite e-mails but gather in the streets and start screaming. Strikes and civil disobedience and arrests and actual sacrifice to send the message, “You guys really need to start trembling. You really need to wipe the smirks off of your faces. The jig is up.”
Until then, any president is McSame.
“This house of cards was a bi-partisan project.”
Yes. That’s why I’m not sure I hope for much from a Democratic president. Even if there is an election, and even if Obama can overcome the vote fraud and win it, and even if he really is motivated to undo some of the messes, he’ll be dealing with the same Congress that has been doing (and continues to do) Cheney’s bidding. Regardless of how many Democrats are sitting.
People have to get pissed off and not just write polite e-mails but gather in the streets and start screaming. Strikes and civil disobedience and arrests and actual sacrifice to send the message, “You guys really need to start trembling. You really need to wipe the smirks off of your faces. The jig is up.”
Until then, any president is McSame.
Bank collapses, retirement fund collapses, $5-6 a gallon gas and food costs skyrocketing will get us there. It’s just a matter of how quickly.
Bank collapses, retirement fund collapses, $5-6 a gallon gas and food costs skyrocketing will get us there. It’s just a matter of how quickly.
It’s a sick feeling even when faced with economic calamity, the dog and pony show is trotted out to once rally the masses.
The masses aren’t paying attention anymore. We’re tired of being jerked around by criminals.
It’s a sick feeling even when faced with economic calamity, the dog and pony show is trotted out to once rally the masses.
The masses aren’t paying attention anymore. We’re tired of being jerked around by criminals.
The “masses” are partially to blame for this calamity. I want to point the finger of blame at the politicians and corporate crooks too, but when it comes right down to it, it takes two to tango.
If we were doing our job, being informed voters and choosing, spending, and investing wisely. And they were doing their job, making financial information and policy accessible and eliminating obscuring complexities, only then would we could have avoided this mess.
The “masses” are partially to blame for this calamity. I want to point the finger of blame at the politicians and corporate crooks too, but when it comes right down to it, it takes two to tango.
If we were doing our job, being informed voters and choosing, spending, and investing wisely. And they were doing their job, making financial information and policy accessible and eliminating obscuring complexities, only then would we could have avoided this mess.
By an unofficial poll, 100% of my co-workers think this press conference today was a travesty.
By an unofficial poll, 100% of my co-workers think this press conference today was a travesty.
Andy, we put a Democratic majority in place in 2006 and they’re still obeying Darth Cheney. I don’t see how you can blame voters for that. We expressed our disapproval and we’re getting more of the same. From the supposed opposition.
Andy, we put a Democratic majority in place in 2006 and they’re still obeying Darth Cheney. I don’t see how you can blame voters for that. We expressed our disapproval and we’re getting more of the same. From the supposed opposition.
Dan, The ineffectiveness of the Dem majority is partially in the wrong pockets, but more comes from the fact that it’s not enough of a majority to stop filibusters or override vetoes.
Dan, The ineffectiveness of the Dem majority is partially in the wrong pockets, but more comes from the fact that it’s not enough of a majority to stop filibusters or override vetoes.
errata: is partially due to some of the Dems being in the wrong pocket…
Skimming and proofreading are not friends in my dyslexic brain.
errata: is partially due to some of the Dems being in the wrong pocket…
Skimming and proofreading are not friends in my dyslexic brain.
21 of 48 Senators voted for FISA, and 105 out of 232 representatives. That’s about 45% in each case. In spite of polls that showed that a large majority of voters were consistently against immunity for telecoms, and against warrantless wiretaps. And that the opposition to both is widespread in voters across the political spectrum.
The only difference I can see is that GOP Congressman vote in lockstep against the wishes of their constituencies, whereas Democratic congreessmen are nearly evenly divided on telling voters to go screw.
You are certainly correct, going by these kinds of numbers, that the Democrats can’t put up the votes to override a veto. We could have 100% Democrats in both houses and *still* not be able to override a veto.
21 of 48 Senators voted for FISA, and 105 out of 232 representatives. That’s about 45% in each case. In spite of polls that showed that a large majority of voters were consistently against immunity for telecoms, and against warrantless wiretaps. And that the opposition to both is widespread in voters across the political spectrum.
The only difference I can see is that GOP Congressman vote in lockstep against the wishes of their constituencies, whereas Democratic congreessmen are nearly evenly divided on telling voters to go screw.
You are certainly correct, going by these kinds of numbers, that the Democrats can’t put up the votes to override a veto. We could have 100% Democrats in both houses and *still* not be able to override a veto.
Dan,
I’m not sure the Democrats are so much looking to vote against their constituents’ interests as they are susceptible to right-wing framing of the arguments.
Like our host himself, a great many people honestly take the question to be a technological puzzle about how best to draw a line between public and private spaces in the age of global telecom. And they aren’t wrong to spend time debating the finer points of how one taps into a vast stream of data and filters out “only” the parts in which one might have a legitimate law-enforcement interest.
What so many of those Democrats in DC aren’t getting is that the FISA debate was just as importantly about the balance between the powers granted in Articles I-III to distinct branches of government.
The Bush administration decided that their response to 9/11 “needed” to include a power grab involving disregard for Congressional intent about the exclusivity of the FISA court’s jurisdiction and involving disregard for the legitimate role of the judicial branch in review of executive “searches & seizures” The attitude was: warrants?! We don’t need no stinkin’ warrants!.
Bush having launched that power grab, the 107th through 110th Congresses (3 Rep, 1 Dem controlled) have all bent over backwards in their attempts to be “accommodating” about holding no one accountable for disregarding the original statute and disallowing — through “immunity” — the court actions which might surface facts needed to pursue such accountability.
But Democratic politicians understand very well that the constitutional nuances tend to get lost in the noise about “stopping terrorists”. I’m glad as many of them voted as they did. But without leadership from Obama, I’m not confident that we can really change the atmosphere to the point where constitutional issues could trump panic over terrorism.
Obama posed of “changing the thinking that led to this war” and I would argue that turning every debate into a panic over terrorism is precisely the “thinking” which allowed the public to be gulled into Iraq. It’s got to stop.
But Obama may be right to think he can’t stop it *before* getting elected. I hope he’s right.
Dan,
I’m not sure the Democrats are so much looking to vote against their constituents’ interests as they are susceptible to right-wing framing of the arguments.
Like our host himself, a great many people honestly take the question to be a technological puzzle about how best to draw a line between public and private spaces in the age of global telecom. And they aren’t wrong to spend time debating the finer points of how one taps into a vast stream of data and filters out “only” the parts in which one might have a legitimate law-enforcement interest.
What so many of those Democrats in DC aren’t getting is that the FISA debate was just as importantly about the balance between the powers granted in Articles I-III to distinct branches of government.
The Bush administration decided that their response to 9/11 “needed” to include a power grab involving disregard for Congressional intent about the exclusivity of the FISA court’s jurisdiction and involving disregard for the legitimate role of the judicial branch in review of executive “searches & seizures” The attitude was: warrants?! We don’t need no stinkin’ warrants!.
Bush having launched that power grab, the 107th through 110th Congresses (3 Rep, 1 Dem controlled) have all bent over backwards in their attempts to be “accommodating” about holding no one accountable for disregarding the original statute and disallowing — through “immunity” — the court actions which might surface facts needed to pursue such accountability.
But Democratic politicians understand very well that the constitutional nuances tend to get lost in the noise about “stopping terrorists”. I’m glad as many of them voted as they did. But without leadership from Obama, I’m not confident that we can really change the atmosphere to the point where constitutional issues could trump panic over terrorism.
Obama posed of “changing the thinking that led to this war” and I would argue that turning every debate into a panic over terrorism is precisely the “thinking” which allowed the public to be gulled into Iraq. It’s got to stop.
But Obama may be right to think he can’t stop it *before* getting elected. I hope he’s right.
Is that a picture of Bush with his coke straw?
Is that a picture of Bush with his coke straw?
If so, that would explain a lot …
If so, that would explain a lot …
We’re in agreement, then.
It’s only a mental recession.
We’re in agreement, then.
It’s only a mental recession.
Rick- Remember George can’t remember if he ever did coke.
STS- I think your notion of Democratic fear of Republican framing is the key here. It may take a few years to recover from Karl Rove.
Rick- Remember George can’t remember if he ever did coke.
STS- I think your notion of Democratic fear of Republican framing is the key here. It may take a few years to recover from Karl Rove.
In terms of the actual members of Congress, I think it has a lot more to do with carrots and sticks. The carrots are earmarks for the member’s local district, and lobbying jobs once they leave Congress, and the stick is whatever junk Cheney’s friends in the FBI have picked up about the member.
I assume that at any given time, at least half of the members of Congress are haircuts, empty suits with nothing between the ears but a frat boy’s desire to party until dawn, and any work ethic is limited to the never-ending campaign funding drive. Which is admittedly quite a burden in itself.
The only fear they have is that their shenanigans will be outed and they’ll lose their place at the trough.
Of the other half, a good percentage are sharks, looking down the road to the day when they become lobbyists and rake in the real money, so their public service in Congress is tailored to that end.
The members of both of these classes know that, as long as the pork gets shipped back home, and they don’t get caught too red-handed with their noodle in somebody’s cadoodle, they can do almost anything and get re-elected.
Which is why, again, I don’t have that much hope that Obama (or any president) can change much.
In terms of the actual members of Congress, I think it has a lot more to do with carrots and sticks. The carrots are earmarks for the member’s local district, and lobbying jobs once they leave Congress, and the stick is whatever junk Cheney’s friends in the FBI have picked up about the member.
I assume that at any given time, at least half of the members of Congress are haircuts, empty suits with nothing between the ears but a frat boy’s desire to party until dawn, and any work ethic is limited to the never-ending campaign funding drive. Which is admittedly quite a burden in itself.
The only fear they have is that their shenanigans will be outed and they’ll lose their place at the trough.
Of the other half, a good percentage are sharks, looking down the road to the day when they become lobbyists and rake in the real money, so their public service in Congress is tailored to that end.
The members of both of these classes know that, as long as the pork gets shipped back home, and they don’t get caught too red-handed with their noodle in somebody’s cadoodle, they can do almost anything and get re-elected.
Which is why, again, I don’t have that much hope that Obama (or any president) can change much.
I agree a president has little real control over an economy. But how much of this can be attributed to our borrowing from the Chinese and Saudis? That works against us on several levels.
What is that saying about what a man sees when he stares into the abyss?
I agree a president has little real control over an economy. But how much of this can be attributed to our borrowing from the Chinese and Saudis? That works against us on several levels.
What is that saying about what a man sees when he stares into the abyss?
madmonq:
Are you thinking perhaps of this quote from Samuel Johnson?
Dan, your view of Congress is a shade or two more cynical than mine I guess. Napoleon is said to have admonished someone not to ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence. Maybe somebody has the goods on our Congress-critters, but I think an awful lot of their behavior is explained by being chronically over scheduled and harried by lobbyists (and the occasional constituent). You really should experience walking the halls of the Congressional office buildings. At times, you can barely move in the hallways for all the lobbyists running hither and thither. How anyone can think in that environment — or on planes back-and-forth to their home districts — is beyond me.
madmonq:
Are you thinking perhaps of this quote from Samuel Johnson?
Dan, your view of Congress is a shade or two more cynical than mine I guess. Napoleon is said to have admonished someone not to ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence. Maybe somebody has the goods on our Congress-critters, but I think an awful lot of their behavior is explained by being chronically over scheduled and harried by lobbyists (and the occasional constituent). You really should experience walking the halls of the Congressional office buildings. At times, you can barely move in the hallways for all the lobbyists running hither and thither. How anyone can think in that environment — or on planes back-and-forth to their home districts — is beyond me.
The solution is to put the monetary system back into the hands of the American people, and to implement a currency backed by wealth – the gold standard. The private criminal cartel that is The Federal Reserve must be eliminated.
There is a presidential candidate suggesting that we do all of these things, his name is Ron Paul.
The solution is to put the monetary system back into the hands of the American people, and to implement a currency backed by wealth – the gold standard. The private criminal cartel that is The Federal Reserve must be eliminated.
There is a presidential candidate suggesting that we do all of these things, his name is Ron Paul.
Remember, FDR had no idea what he was going to do when he took office. He did have smart people to help him figure it out.
Obama’s sought advice from people like Joe Stiglitz — who he invited to join his White House team of advisers. McCain’s getting his advice from Phil Gramm. You know, the guy who thinks that growth of less than one percent means we’re not really in a recession?
Actually, Gramm is right in that regard: One percent growth isn’t recession growth. It’s Depression growth. As in Great Depression.
Remember, FDR had no idea what he was going to do when he took office. He did have smart people to help him figure it out.
Obama’s sought advice from people like Joe Stiglitz — who he invited to join his White House team of advisers. McCain’s getting his advice from Phil Gramm. You know, the guy who thinks that growth of less than one percent means we’re not really in a recession?
Actually, Gramm is right in that regard: One percent growth isn’t recession growth. It’s Depression growth. As in Great Depression.
Neither FDR nor his “smart people” (read: CFR traitors) figured out anything except how to socialize much of the American economy; and we know how well socialism works economically – it doesn’t.
The depression of FDR’s era subsided because of of the WW2 ‘war economy’, not because of any government regulation or intervention. Sorry, but your grade-school civics classes misled you re: the effect of the New Deal on the U.S. economy.
Note that today’s ‘war economy’ will not have the same effect due largely to enormous military budget deficits which are sending inflation skyward and destroying our economy at its very foundation – the U.S. Dollar. .
As well, present-day wartime manufacturing is more capital intensive and less labor intensive than that of the 1940s . It doesn’t employ all that many people or entail a great deal productive manufacturing.
Neither FDR nor his “smart people” (read: CFR traitors) figured out anything except how to socialize much of the American economy; and we know how well socialism works economically – it doesn’t.
The depression of FDR’s era subsided because of of the WW2 ‘war economy’, not because of any government regulation or intervention. Sorry, but your grade-school civics classes misled you re: the effect of the New Deal on the U.S. economy.
Note that today’s ‘war economy’ will not have the same effect due largely to enormous military budget deficits which are sending inflation skyward and destroying our economy at its very foundation – the U.S. Dollar. .
As well, present-day wartime manufacturing is more capital intensive and less labor intensive than that of the 1940s . It doesn’t employ all that many people or entail a great deal productive manufacturing.
Scott-I’m afraid you are the one displaying a grade school civics education. Your CFR traitors line is straight out of the conspiracy wack job sites like the Illuminati which write stuff like this.
“The CFR is the promotional arm of the Ruling Elite in the United States of America. Most influential politicians, academics and media personalities are members, and it uses its influence to infiltrate the New World Order into American life. Its’ “experts” write scholarly pieces to be used in decision making, the academics expound on the wisdom of a united world, and the media members disseminate the message.”
The people who destroyed the dollar are the same ones who have been trying to “undo” the New Deal since Reagan took office.
Scott-I’m afraid you are the one displaying a grade school civics education. Your CFR traitors line is straight out of the conspiracy wack job sites like the Illuminati which write stuff like this.
“The CFR is the promotional arm of the Ruling Elite in the United States of America. Most influential politicians, academics and media personalities are members, and it uses its influence to infiltrate the New World Order into American life. Its’ “experts” write scholarly pieces to be used in decision making, the academics expound on the wisdom of a united world, and the media members disseminate the message.”
The people who destroyed the dollar are the same ones who have been trying to “undo” the New Deal since Reagan took office.
I don’t see how this “war is good for the economy” bullshit ever stuck. War is total economic waste. Put the same money into things that improve society, and then you’ll see some long term good. Money for killing machines is just money pissed down the hole to hell.
I don’t see how this “war is good for the economy” bullshit ever stuck. War is total economic waste. Put the same money into things that improve society, and then you’ll see some long term good. Money for killing machines is just money pissed down the hole to hell.
Rick:
To the extent war helps the economy it is because it overcomes the ideological mental block about government spending. It’s Military Keynesianism. As Keynes famously put it, you could just as well pay people to bury money in bottles and dig it up again. Military Keynesians prefer to use high explosives to create the holes and rely on killing people in the process to create the necessary public will.
Rick:
To the extent war helps the economy it is because it overcomes the ideological mental block about government spending. It’s Military Keynesianism. As Keynes famously put it, you could just as well pay people to bury money in bottles and dig it up again. Military Keynesians prefer to use high explosives to create the holes and rely on killing people in the process to create the necessary public will.
If there’s a general theme here, it appears to be wholesale frustration with Congressional accountability, and the astonishing lack thereof.
Whatever the reason, it seems abundantly clear that this – and not the White House – is where the real trouble resides. This is not meant to justify any of what’s happened since 2000. The point is that what we’re seeing in the White House is simply the inevitable result of congressional abdication coming into contact with the exact type of people our Founding Forefathers warned us about (right after they staged a revolution to expel the prior set of monarchists.)
If there’s a general theme here, it appears to be wholesale frustration with Congressional accountability, and the astonishing lack thereof.
Whatever the reason, it seems abundantly clear that this – and not the White House – is where the real trouble resides. This is not meant to justify any of what’s happened since 2000. The point is that what we’re seeing in the White House is simply the inevitable result of congressional abdication coming into contact with the exact type of people our Founding Forefathers warned us about (right after they staged a revolution to expel the prior set of monarchists.)
Alex:
No! The “trouble” resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The folks on Capitol Hill are just being codependent and hoping everything will be hunky-dory right after “trouble” leaves town.
This codependency ain’t pretty, but the drunk is still the one with a problem.
Alex:
No! The “trouble” resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The folks on Capitol Hill are just being codependent and hoping everything will be hunky-dory right after “trouble” leaves town.
This codependency ain’t pretty, but the drunk is still the one with a problem.
Yeah those darn conspiracies. Indeed there are thousands of criminal conspiracy convictions every year, and every human being conspires one or more times during his or her life. To conspire is a human activity.
But would wealthy men or influential politicians conspire? Would the men with the most to gain and the most to lose ever conspire? Nope, never.
Just keep blaming these problems on incompetence and bad luck, because you know it is not possible that men would lie to you and intentionally defraud you in order to gain more power and wealth.
Yeah those darn conspiracies. Indeed there are thousands of criminal conspiracy convictions every year, and every human being conspires one or more times during his or her life. To conspire is a human activity.
But would wealthy men or influential politicians conspire? Would the men with the most to gain and the most to lose ever conspire? Nope, never.
Just keep blaming these problems on incompetence and bad luck, because you know it is not possible that men would lie to you and intentionally defraud you in order to gain more power and wealth.
David Rockefeller founded the CFR. And here is a direct quote from his Memoirs, page 405:
“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” -David Rockefeller
David Rockefeller founded the CFR. And here is a direct quote from his Memoirs, page 405:
“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” -David Rockefeller
Scott, Rockerfeler was saying he was guilty of believing in global economics, including the World Bank and IMF. He wasn’t coping to belonging to a cabal working against the best interests of the US.
Judging from you political slant I assume you find the right side of the isle to be the most comfortable. If that is true, I assume you would have some affinity for Chaney and crew, perhaps? Do you just support the corporate globalism that the cabal of Oil (Cf. energy policy planning, Chaney’s office early 2000) has brought us?
Is it that you don’t like it being done in an open way (e.g. CFR) preferring the behind closed doors way?
Its all very confusing, really.
Scott, Rockerfeler was saying he was guilty of believing in global economics, including the World Bank and IMF. He wasn’t coping to belonging to a cabal working against the best interests of the US.
Judging from you political slant I assume you find the right side of the isle to be the most comfortable. If that is true, I assume you would have some affinity for Chaney and crew, perhaps? Do you just support the corporate globalism that the cabal of Oil (Cf. energy policy planning, Chaney’s office early 2000) has brought us?
Is it that you don’t like it being done in an open way (e.g. CFR) preferring the behind closed doors way?
Its all very confusing, really.
I like this thread because it exposes a fuller political compass. Scott is a Pat Buchanan / Ron Paul guy – no government / no military.
I’m a $MAX government realist. I accept that we will have taxes set way past what they should be… and I want to use those taxes to secure our growth, not use it to buy votes. So I’m against corporate and social welfare, and in favor of the CFR and Iraq war – using tax policy to do alt.energy and independence.
Ken, you are against government subsidies, but you can’t let go of buying votes (providing social services)… which is weird to me, because there are in fact no “big evil companies” – there are only shareholders and they tend to be pension plan holders (many working for public employee unions). Bail-outs buy vote too. You don’t want money spent on fighting wars, and believe we can be global community without having to remake the world in our image along the way.
I like this thread because it exposes a fuller political compass. Scott is a Pat Buchanan / Ron Paul guy – no government / no military.
I’m a $MAX government realist. I accept that we will have taxes set way past what they should be… and I want to use those taxes to secure our growth, not use it to buy votes. So I’m against corporate and social welfare, and in favor of the CFR and Iraq war – using tax policy to do alt.energy and independence.
Ken, you are against government subsidies, but you can’t let go of buying votes (providing social services)… which is weird to me, because there are in fact no “big evil companies” – there are only shareholders and they tend to be pension plan holders (many working for public employee unions). Bail-outs buy vote too. You don’t want money spent on fighting wars, and believe we can be global community without having to remake the world in our image along the way.
Actually it’s pretty simple. Men with great power and wealth will almost always work to get more of both. They will lie, cheat, and steal to accomplish it.
This applies to middlemen like Cheney, and big fish like Rockefeller.
Actually it’s pretty simple. Men with great power and wealth will almost always work to get more of both. They will lie, cheat, and steal to accomplish it.
This applies to middlemen like Cheney, and big fish like Rockefeller.
My previous comment was in response Ken’s confusion.
Re: Morgan’s characterization, I believe in a system of ‘limited government and limited military’; that crazy notion expressed by the Founding Fathers.
My previous comment was in response Ken’s confusion.
Re: Morgan’s characterization, I believe in a system of ‘limited government and limited military’; that crazy notion expressed by the Founding Fathers.
I think libertarians should learn to make a distinction between government managing social insurance (eg. social security, medicare) and government providing services (eg. schools).
Military spending is a fantastic way to buy votes, so that “buying votes” label is pretty arbitrary and uninformative. It’s more useful to focus on what the government is uniquely positioned to provide.
Insurance is a natural for government because it’s scope is broader than any private company’s — hence it can create the largest risk pool. On the other hand, the government often can be improved upon by the private sector in building services. A voucher-style approach to education might be reasonable simply because it allows government to address the social insurance issue — risk that poor children simply won’t get opportunity commensurate with their potential value to society or their human rights — while leaving the private sector (parents, private schools) to figure out what services to provide in what way.
What is the military but a type of insurance anyway? Do you want to go buying “foreign invasion insurance” on the private market?
I think libertarians should learn to make a distinction between government managing social insurance (eg. social security, medicare) and government providing services (eg. schools).
Military spending is a fantastic way to buy votes, so that “buying votes” label is pretty arbitrary and uninformative. It’s more useful to focus on what the government is uniquely positioned to provide.
Insurance is a natural for government because it’s scope is broader than any private company’s — hence it can create the largest risk pool. On the other hand, the government often can be improved upon by the private sector in building services. A voucher-style approach to education might be reasonable simply because it allows government to address the social insurance issue — risk that poor children simply won’t get opportunity commensurate with their potential value to society or their human rights — while leaving the private sector (parents, private schools) to figure out what services to provide in what way.
What is the military but a type of insurance anyway? Do you want to go buying “foreign invasion insurance” on the private market?
Police and fire services are socialist at their core, too. Ditto for city, state, and federal highway programs, libraries, parks, sanitation and sewers, etc. We’re all a bunch of socialists; the only differences are that some folks admit it, and some seem to see arbitrary lines drawn in the sand re. certain services as opposed to others.
Full agreement re. risk pools being universal to be fairest. And the US seems once again to be slipping in the quality of health care world wide…ever wonder why? We’re down there on every marker except for the very rich here.
Police and fire services are socialist at their core, too. Ditto for city, state, and federal highway programs, libraries, parks, sanitation and sewers, etc. We’re all a bunch of socialists; the only differences are that some folks admit it, and some seem to see arbitrary lines drawn in the sand re. certain services as opposed to others.
Full agreement re. risk pools being universal to be fairest. And the US seems once again to be slipping in the quality of health care world wide…ever wonder why? We’re down there on every marker except for the very rich here.
Morgan,
Characterizing social services as “buying votes” is an interesting take. I think business bailouts are much more deserving of that label, in that money from big contributors is very much more powerful in buying votes than care for kids/seniors/disabled, schools, infrastructure, resource management and basic public health and safety.
If you believe there are no “evil big corporations” it explains why you can see an even freer market place as the panacea you do. Enron was not a fluke. Citing share holders as the source of corporate greed is accurate to a point, but the people who ultimately profit from retirement funds are not in the least involved in fund manager decisions. That’s disingenuous in that it is a roundabout way of letting those large businesses who don’t care who gets hurt in the process of making a buck (and there are many who don’t function that way) ultimately blame the power of the share holder. Corporate executives, boards, and retirement fund investors don’t represent the collective ethics of the shareholders who are three or four steps removed from their decisions.
Morgan,
Characterizing social services as “buying votes” is an interesting take. I think business bailouts are much more deserving of that label, in that money from big contributors is very much more powerful in buying votes than care for kids/seniors/disabled, schools, infrastructure, resource management and basic public health and safety.
If you believe there are no “evil big corporations” it explains why you can see an even freer market place as the panacea you do. Enron was not a fluke. Citing share holders as the source of corporate greed is accurate to a point, but the people who ultimately profit from retirement funds are not in the least involved in fund manager decisions. That’s disingenuous in that it is a roundabout way of letting those large businesses who don’t care who gets hurt in the process of making a buck (and there are many who don’t function that way) ultimately blame the power of the share holder. Corporate executives, boards, and retirement fund investors don’t represent the collective ethics of the shareholders who are three or four steps removed from their decisions.