My post on The Fascist Impulse was meant to challenge the world view of one of our regular correspondents, Morgan–and by extension, the other conservatives who read this blog. And as I was sure he would, he rose to the defense of the philosophy which has pretty much run this country since the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. Some Democrats may claim that there was an eight year Interregnum in this nearly 40 year reign of Republican rule, during the Clinton administration, but I believe that since the Republican’s took power in the congress two years into the Clinton presidency, there was no real break in a world view that can summarized as follows:
- In domestic affairs the national government should shrink (by cutting taxes and business regulations).
- In foreign affairs the government should grow (by becoming the world’s sole military superpower).
Morgan’s thesis is that this philosophy of low taxation and freedom for business combined with hegemonic projection of military power has been incredibly successful, so successful in fact that all other country’s really wish they could be us, or as he puts it, “If not for us, they themselves would be doing it to us.” I have been making the argument for the past month, that this essentially neo-imperialist philosophy has real costs, not the least of which is the astonishing rise of our national debt (chart above) since the Republican takeover of our government in 1980. Morgan makes the rather bizarre argument that this is a good thing to owe China and Russia more than $2 trillion, because then they are “hooked on our currency.” I know the issue of walking away from your debts may be a sore subject in Austin, but America can’t declare bankruptcy and get our commercial rivals to forgive and forget.
But Morgan makes a secondary, more personal accusation– that I am anti-capitalist and believe that some form of socialism is the secret solution to our country’s problems. So I have to state at the outset that this is nonsense. I’m 61 years old and have thrived in my life in the push and pull of the marketplace. I have worked in the most competitive and most ferocious of capitalistic enterprises (such as investment banking, movie and music production). All this has allowed me the privilege of teaching in the later years of my career–the only way I knew to give back (aside from my church, which is a rock and roll Episcopal Parish called Thad’s). I do consulting work for two of the largest corporations in America and have worked for my government on issues of Cultural Diplomacy, even during the Bush administration. All of this is to say, that I will not have my love of country questioned by some mysterious Internet operator in Texas named Morgan Warstler.
This leads me to my main point. Our country cannot afford four more years of Republican rule. That’s why Obama’s election is so critical. The path which we have been on since Ronald Reagan has been disastrous–for our economy, our competitiveness, our culture and our democracy. I believe that a society cannot continue to spend more than it earns and survive. I believe that a country that ranks 26th in the world in 12th grade math and science scores cannot continue to compete. I believe that a country that is the only developed nation in the world without universal health care and yet spends 2x per capita than the rest of the developed world cannot compete and does not serve its citizens. I believe that a country that spends tens of billions a year turning out what the Times this morning called “puerile, vulgar, violent and gross” entertainment, while refusing to pay for music and art classes in school, gets the culture it deserves. And finally, I believe a country that forsakes a two century tradition of civil liberty, habeus corpus and privacy protection is the living example of Ben Franklin’s great fear that, “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.”
The policies of the Neoconservatives have been an absolute failure. And they are the policies that John McCain would not only continue but extend, as the New York Times points out this morning. Unlike the Neoconservatives (most of the founders of the movement were ex-Stalinists) I actually believe in the marketplace. Do you think when Republicans regularly came to the aid of American automakers to keep gas prices low with their low gas taxes and lack of CO2 regulation that they were really interested in the free market? No, because in the real market (the world market), companies were making fuel efficient cars of high quality and low cost. So when our artificially distorted market “corrected” closer to the rest of the world, Detroit was revealed for what it was, a dinosaur living off Republican subsidies.
So I guess what has irked me most, since Morgan first appeared on the blog with his accusations, is that many of the contributors, including myself, are trying to assess just what it would take to rebuild America. To be accused of Anti-Americanism–his quote was “you should promote our MO, not badmouth it”–seems to me to miss the whole point of the alternative media. It’s obvious that Fox News or any of the other corporate media have no interest in changing the status quo and neither do any of their corporate advertisers. If forums such as this cannot have a rational discussion to figure out how the Republicans got us into this mess and how we are going to get out of it, who will air these questions?
77 responses so far ↓
vint cerf // August 17, 2008 at 2:14 pm |
Jonathan,
You have at least one supporter here. I am persuaded that the general Republican view of things is unrealistic and leads the country into a financial, competitive, educational and technological abyss. The fable that deregulation assures fair and vigorous competition is false or produces unsustainable competition in which few survive, leading to ungoverned monopolies or undisciplined oligopolies. We have the most convoluted medical care system in the world, as nearly as I can tell, and all the incentives are wrong if we want to achieve high quality at reasonable cost. I am sure you and your other readers can supply additional and compelling observations.
vint
jonathan peterson // August 17, 2008 at 2:19 pm |
Corporations project more power than ANY citizens and the biggest corporations project more power than most countries.
Why is anyone still bother to argue with people claiming that multinational corporate shaping of US politics and policy has anything to do with capitalism and free markets?
Small, local businesses are the epitome of capitalism. Companies that spend millions on lobbyists to fight battles in DC instead of in the marketplace are not.
David Stowell // August 17, 2008 at 3:05 pm |
As a small business owner at 52 years of age I could not agree more with Mr. Taplin. The
right’s economic and foreign policy decisions since Reagan have had catastrophic results for
the middle class, once the engine of stable economic growth and now oppressed by plutocracy above and failing infrastructure below. My business nears bankruptcy NOT due to bad management but unstable markets due
to unregulated speculation by the billionaire class.
john // August 17, 2008 at 3:20 pm |
don’t worry, we’ve blown it. the credit crunch will take care of a host of ills over the next two to three years.
oh, yeah — they’re “hooked on our currency”. laughable. china owns us. we’re one Treasury auction away from having the rug pulled out from under us. we’re hooked on their line of credit and it’ll slowly and continually get pulled back.
Jon Taplin // August 17, 2008 at 3:22 pm |
Vint- We have both seen how oligopolies like the movie studios kill innovation under the guise of the “free market”. I appreciate your support and want to ackowledge the amazing contribution you made to making the Internet a free and open medium unlike anything that came before.
Let’s hope we can keep it that way.
Rick Turner // August 17, 2008 at 3:32 pm |
I’d like to reiterate two statistics I’ve cited before here: the US is 33rd in the world in terms of lowering infant mortality, and we are also 33rd in the world in extending longevity. These are two of the most significant statistics used in the world to judge the effectiveness of a country’s health care system. Maybe it’s because we’re 26th in 12 grade math that people just don’t understand who we’ve become…a third rate nation ruled by an elite (yeah, it’s the Repukelicans who are the elite) who would just as soon see us slip behind Mexico in terms of the uber-rich to struggling poor ratio.
Oops, I just looked this up again, and we’ve slipped to 37th in infant mortality. But there’s hope! We’re right ahead of Croatia! http://www.geographyiq.com/ranking/ranking_Infant_Mortality_Rate_aall.htm
And according to that, we’re 37th in longevity, too.
So for all of you who decry the Canadian, British, or French systems of universal (yes, socialized!) medicine, what do you have to say about the actual facts of world health care? I’ll take waiting for elective surgery (which I do anyway) over babies dying or me dying before my time.
This site is interesting. We rank 51st in the unemployment category…yes, 50 countries have higher employment rates that we do.
But you know where we’re #1? In national debt! Yes, we’re the biggest debtor in the world…thanks in a large part to Morgan’s pals, the rack it up Repukes.
Education again…we’re 27th in the world in literacy! You want to know why we elect such dick heads, just think on that one.
Ah, we are #1 again in KWH of electrical consumption. All those TVs on in bars or something like that…
There are, though, 19 nations doing better than us in terms of the percentage of population under the poverty line.
These are the issues that need to be faced, and the politicians who ignore these stats have their lead feet on the pedal and they’re steering us down the road to poverty and has been nation.
Not all the news is bad. There are 23 countries in the world who have worse per capita murder rates than we do.
Morgan, it’s your folks who have done this to us; your political pundits who espouse this path. The do it by instilling fear into normal human beings…fear that leads to irrational decisions guided just the way these amoral “leaders” would like folks to think and vote. But get your head out of the bunker and out of the sand and take a look around the world. We are not the leaders in any of the right categories. We try to bully and push, but we have not proven capable of truly leading, of setting a shining example for others in the world. We’re saying, “Be like us or else!”, and so many countries are saying, “Why? So more babies can die? So our people will die earlier and be sicker? So our children will not learn how to read and think?” Morgan, exactly why would any of those countries who are ahead of us in these so important ways want to emulate our way of life? So they can have their own Las Vegas?
Fentex // August 17, 2008 at 3:38 pm |
The position that “If not for us, they themselves would be doing it to us.” is not irrational.
As the strong do as they will and the week suffer what they must you can be sure any nation with dominant military and economic strength will wield those advantages against others.
What one must take particular notice of though is that the relevant strong and weak are not nations. They are the powerful elites and hapless citizenry. The failures of U.S government have not been failures for their patrons and comrades in looting the state treasury.
I think Jon correctly identifies many failures of government that is serving the rich at the epense of their tax base, which isn’t something really at odds with Morgans wish for strong foreign policy.
A nation could both serve it’s citizens domestically and vigorously pursue their interests abroard if it wanted – but the U.S would appear (I do live on the other side of the world, so I am being a bit presumptive in supposing I know this) to be practicing neither.
Its resources are being bent to the benefit of the wealthy at the ongoing and long term disadvantage of the general citizenry.
Stupidly enough this rush to fascist exploitation of people will eventually destroy the enormous wealth being exploited.
Good government supports wealthy countries that all benefit from. Corrupt, exploitative, theiving government creates mires that no one rises above.
Fentex // August 17, 2008 at 3:39 pm |
I wish I could correct my typos.
Rick Turner // August 17, 2008 at 3:43 pm |
What are our interests if not a better life for all? What we have is a better life for the top 5% at the expense of the rest here.
When was the last time Bush or McCain wrote a check for their own health insurance? Or sat in a waiting room at a doctor’s office? Or drove to the store to buy a quart of milk? These guys are totally out of touch, which is how they want to be. At least I think Obama has a clue as to how the rest of us live.
Rick Turner // August 17, 2008 at 5:22 pm |
Typos, yes, but what you often get with blog/forum edits is people totally removing their dumb posts which makes subsequent rebuttals look totally out of context. This is no-edit training…say what you mean, spell it correctly, stop after you think you’re done writing and do not hit “Submit” until you’ve read over your post. I, of course, am as guilty of hasty posting as anyone here.
Morgan Warstler // August 17, 2008 at 5:43 pm |
Oh yeah baby. We’re gonna finish this off. I’m begging you STICK THRU THE ARGUMENT.
First off Jon, I’m not some mysterious Texas operator. You know me. My business partner Lisa is a old close personal friend of yours.
Second off, you slide around too much. So I get to deal with sentences such as:
“I believe that a society cannot continue to spend more than it earns and survive.”
That’s MY line. That’s MY philosophy. It means our government CANNOT deficit spend. But as with everything, you won’t stick to your simple common sense rules when it comes to government spending. This is NOT the hallmark of a capitalist. So whatever you are, capitalist isn’t the right word.
To be HONEST, you have to say things like this, “I believe in government over-spending.” YOU HAVE TO. You personally can’t stand that Bill Clinton came into office and cancelled all his social agenda in order to balance the budget. YOU HAVE TO take it back. You must recant. You WANT deficit spending. You want us to live beyond our means. Say it. Stop sliding around.
I have to demand this silly admittance from you, because it goes to the fundamental argument that I make here routinely. It is the basis of all my thinking (it isn’t complicated, but it does require thought):
Because your side wants to deficit spend, your opponents can’t get a balance Budget Amendment passed – so your opponents have taken on the policy since 1980 of deficit spending like madmen, so that CHINA and RUSSIA owns $2T of our debt.
The REASON they own $2T our debt, is because Repubs go out of their way to deficit spend, JUST SO YOU CAN’T.
To really help your side, you need to recognize that “deficit spending” used to be the greatest gambit in the Democratic arsenal to get elected and redistribute wealth. Now it is the stupidest goal for you to have. Change that one thing – and I’LL SUPPORT YOU.
I’m NOT a Reagan Republican… I’m a deficit hawk. And I know that as long as you HOLD ON TO THE DAYDREAM that your side will get to deficit spend, your opponents will spend it all first.
—–
Let me SAY IT ONE MORE TIME… I do not think we should cut domestic spending and increase projection of foreign military force. I think that those behaviors are NATURAL occurrences when Republicans are 100% SURE, that if they don’t spend the money YOU WILL.
Which leads to this single basic idea:
If you truly want to see US military force draw down, you HAVE TO first agree that you will not deficit spend.
With a Balanced Budget amendment in place, the discussion of new social programs and military incursions becomes 100% tied to HOW MUCH people are willing to be taxed. Period. The end. And here’s a hint: your opponents wouldn’t care if they had a smaller military if in return you weren’t allowed to deficit spend.
—
All the other stuff, about being anti-american, well it is what it is. There’s no other country, we should be more like. That’s just dumb. To succeed globally, we need to accent the things that make us unique from old socialist economies – notice their recessions. We need to dance with the policies that brung us.
STS // August 17, 2008 at 8:08 pm |
Morgan’s “you should promote our MO, not badmouth it” is annoying because he pretends to own the definition of “our MO”. Then he describes our MO in terms that make it hard to distinguish from that of our enemies.
My American patriotism is connected to faith in the founding ideals of the Republic, not just a crude reflexive tribal loyalty.
MS // August 17, 2008 at 8:44 pm |
I find it ironic that the biggest proponents of the “free market” take advantage of every possible government advantage and subsidy — and lobby to make all those advantages possible for them and not for the poor ‘welfare moms’.
My fear is that those entrenched corporate interests — which are benefitting so greatly — will work very very hard to keep Bush/McCain and their corporate benefits in power.
Hence the question: How can we invent new approaches that would improve our healthcare, etc., if those entrenched interests will fight tooth and nail to keep them from being enacted?
Jon Taplin // August 17, 2008 at 8:48 pm |
Morgan_ It is so amusing looking at the chart at the top of this post and listening to you say “our government cannot deficit spend”. I fell like I’m in Alice in Wonderland–up is down and down is up. What did your partisans do for the last 38 years–deficit spent. And now your simplistic Grover Norquist idea is “sorry Democrats, we spent all the treasury on our war machine, so there is nothing left for your education, healthcare, infrastructure and social security”.
You say this with some glee and then pretend that you are now a deficit hawk. I don’t believe you and you don’t really believe a thing you are saying. You admit that your side has made a huge fiscal error–and then you laugh. Maybe we should just play your game, deficit spend like crazy on schools, alt. energy, bridges and health care.
Your generation is so smart, I’m sure you’ll figure out a way to pay the bill
Rick Turner // August 17, 2008 at 9:11 pm |
Morgan, you’re sliding around on this yourself. I think that Jon, many others, and myself agree that the days of deficit spending are drawing to a close, and that if they don’t by will of the people and those elected by them, then those days will end by bankruptcy.
But you…you want to keep spending on the military…the macho bullshit force projection that would make us numero uno in the world. But we’re not. Please look at all the stats I brought to the table and tell me why the US is so lagging in so many of the most basic benchmarks of a quality life for it’s people. You rant on and on about this person or that person not answering your questions. So I ask you directly to address the issue of the US sucking hind tit on so many quality of life, life and death issues. If we’re so great, then why aren’t we doing so well? You may be doing fine… You’d probably be doing fine in Zimbabwe, too. You’d probably be cozy with Mugabe and laugh at what happened to the other white folks there. Hey, you’re OK, so it’s their fault if they’re not! Morgan, it’s time to break out of your bubble and take a look around the country and develop a bit of compassion. Not everyone is as smugly satisfied as you with their lives. Not everyone has the same myopic vision as you. Damned good thing…
Armand Asante // August 17, 2008 at 9:56 pm |
seriously Morgan, are you under ANY impression that Bush and Chaney’s policy have HELPED America’s hegemony?
Cause I remember 8 years ago when the U.S went to war, the western world cheered and fell in line.
No one would ever dream of France and Germany voting AGAINST the U.S – they’d be sending troops, right along everyone else.
your government has failed YOU, Morgan Wrastler and you’re too afraid to face it, lest you realize you support the very people who are screwing you and your country over.
Morgan Warstler // August 17, 2008 at 10:04 pm |
Jon, my god man. I don’t say this with glee, I say this as fact. YES, I do like rubbing your nose in facts. But, that’s all that’s left to enjoy.
You meanwhile just refuse to answer the point. I stare in horror and amazement and watch both sides play out their strategies and it ends up with THAT CHART.
I’ve said this over and over, since I came here, it didn’t start with 1980, it started with 1913. 1980 is just when the Republicans stopped being deficit hawks. And as political strategy is appears to work better for them, than the previous 40 years.
You want what you can’t have. You want Republicans to clean up their act, so you can go all Keynes on them.
Nothing I do can give it to you. BUT, I can help you. I can explain this over and over – IF YOU WANT to fix it, you have to be the bigger side. Your side started the deficit spending, you’d TOTALLY FREAK PEOPLE OUT if you said, “We want a balanced budget amendment, from now on, we’ll argue for ours causes on the merits, and trust people want our stuff more than they want a war machine.”
It’s pure political genius for your side!
Look, what’s your alternative? The deficit is out of control, WHY take the chance that the next president does like Clinton, and then another guy you don’t like comes in and spends all the money?
The smart play is for both sides to put down their nuclear option.
Think clearly here. If both sides were forced to not deficit spend, it would all just be “what do we want” and “what can we afford” – and I promise you, you KNOW THIS IS TRUE, that level of rationality would be better for both sides. Because this is nuts.
rhbee1 // August 17, 2008 at 10:20 pm |
I am still trying to get my mind around the fact that the debt we are in is the Democrats fault because the Republicans were trying to keep us from spending it on healthcare, education, and the infrastructure it would take to make this a sustainable economy so instead they spent it first on the MIC and second in an incredible array of ongoing corporate subsidies and bailouts.
Did I get that right Morg?
Meanwhile, as I see it, you and the others that try to claim patriotism for their only, are blowing right by Jon’s main point. He doesn’t want us to emulate some other country or economic strategy or ism, he wants, and do I and many others, us to find our selves. To look straight at what we have become and then find ourselves a way to balance our plans, our needs, our hopes and our possibilities on the principles upon which this country was founded.
Morgan Warstler // August 17, 2008 at 11:42 pm |
rhbee,
Yes, you got that right. Look, just think it thru, PLEASE. If the Repugs as some here call them, do not over-spend all the money, the Dems will.
To understand my point, imagine that there is a series of chess games going on… each game lasted thru a “Keynesian” economic cycle – for 60+ years (1913-1980), Republicans were conventional fiscal conservatives, they hated Keynes, they screamed about deficits. To have wars, the government sold WAR BONDS (imagine that).
How’d that work out for them? As a chess strategy they were getting their asses kicked.
So they changed. They started with a whole new gambit in 1980. Now, they spend all the money, and when a Democrat gets in office, the chairman of the Fed says, “choose between deficit spending, or lower short term interest rates.”
Look, I’m not trying to BLAME Democrats, meaning, I get you want to have healthcare, environment, etc. I’m saying, it is stupid, it is insanity, not to step back and see the big picture.
It is impossible, for Dems to win this chess game, when the Repubs no longer are deficit hawks.
I’m a deficit hawk, so I’m pointing this out. The fact that pointing this out causes soooo much anger is PROOF that your side isn’t yet looking at the stupidity of the game play.
It’s like the movie “WAR GAMES,” the only smart approach to deficit spending (nuclear war), is NOT TO PLAY.
I fear I can’t be more clear than this, but I will undoubtedly try – I keep thinking, you’ll step back and say, “those fucking republicans, will never stop deficit spending,” and accept that a new strategy is required.
You are angry all the money has been spent, for Kee-Ryst’s sake, get over it, and make sure it doesn’t happen again.
Ed Darrell // August 18, 2008 at 12:58 am |
There are a couple areas of malign neglect that we must correct, and no Republican can: Research, especially the far-out, hard science research that fueled our economic rise, and higher education, especially like the old GI Bill stuff that schooled thousands of engineers to build America’s now-crumbling and much-in-need-of-repairs roads, bridges, sewers, airports, seaports, and telecommunications neteworks.
China’s top 10% of students numbers more than all of our students. China and India, each, graduate more engineers in their nations each year than the U.S. and EU combined — worse, a significant number (some say half!) of U.S. graduates are Chinese and Indian.
We can’t continue to ignore NIH and NSF funding, NASA, physics (CERN is now the center of physics research, and U.S. physicists go to Europe, hat in hand, hoping to get time for their work — which will support European development before U.S. development), and educational help for college and graduate degrees.
It may not be possible for a Democrat to reverse that tide. It is not possible for a Republican to even say he would.
Alex Bowles // August 18, 2008 at 1:41 am |
The dynamic that Morgan described (we need to create a giant deficit for things we like to preclude the other side from doing so for things they like) shows all the restraint, prudence, and long-term vision of a runaway train.
But he does raise one excellent point, which is the need for a consensus – respected by Republicans and Democrats alike – about how big a tax burden anyone can be expected to bear.
Not just Federal tax, mind you, but tax in general. Assuming a house, a job, two kids and a dog, can we safely say that 30% of gross income is about right?
10% Federal, 10% State, 10% Local. How it’s collected is less important (via income tax, sales tax, property tax, whatever). What matters is that 70% of an individual’s economic power remains directly in the hands of that individual.
Of course, this may not be the sweet spot. But I don’t see how you can go much lower without serious infrastructure decay, and an overall loss to in individual in terms of economic opportunity. At the same time, much more than that means that the value of taking economic risks (going to college, getting married, having kids, investing in the future) starts to decline. By the time the government is taking 40 cents out of every dollar, you really begin to wonder who is working for who.
Right now, I have nothing but contempt for both our political parties. But I’ll feel a lot better about which ever one comes out and acknowledges that (a) there is an economically optimum point for taxation (b) this point defines the government’s fundamental means and (c) any deviations from this point come at undue cost to the individual or the collective, depending on the deviation’s direction.
In other words, this optimum point of taxation also represents a sustainable balance between the ‘me’ and the ‘we’ – at least in terms of basic civil society.
Michael R // August 18, 2008 at 5:07 am |
Another take on our choices in political parties:
http://blog.oregonlive.com/steveduin/2008/08/fiscal_conservatives.html
Jon, thank you for the research and presentation.
I’ve often thought Jason was a convenient straw man of counterpoint. His anti-American accusations uncomfortably come with that role.
pond // August 18, 2008 at 5:38 am |
Arguing with Morgan is tricky, because it is easy to assume that ‘Morgan is conservative hawk, defending the Iraq war, therefore Morgan is in favor of what the Bush administration has done to run up deficits and spend the nation close to bankruptcy.’
Morgan argues that he is a ‘deficit hawk,’ but that is hard to square with his defense of the 2-trillion dollar Iraq war, conducted at the same time income tax rates were being lowered, especially for the very-rich. It seems to me you are on one side or the other: if you want that war, then you must pay for it in higher taxes (or lower domestic spending, which Morgan also insists he is not clamoring for). If you want a balanced budget, you must CUT the discretionary spending items, chief of which is Defense at near $1 trillion in the latest budget (I think that is for next year, but I could be mistaken there).
Morgan, re: a constitutional ‘Balanced Budget Amendment’ — here in Rhode Island we have a constitutional mandate for a balanced budget, and it has done no good at all. Even with it, our Republican governor and the Democratic legislature have combined to run up a huge relative deficit, and the Governor’s only answer has been to try to lay off all the state workers (who are in unions) while at the same time supporting outside contractors (who cost the state more money yet pay the people who do the actual work less).
There are always ways a tricky, pandering, corrupt government will get around deficit spending limits. The only real answer is constant vigilance on our parts, and that we refuse to re-elect Presidents and Congressmen who vote for deficits.
Morgan, your thinking that ‘first cut spending, then we can talk about taxes’ is screwy to me. The first place to cut spending is in the empire. It is just plain anti-American to ask people to pay for welfare and socialistic programs to support Iraqis and not Americans.
Finally, I believe that anyone (Morgan or not) who supports this insane empire-building, and the PNAC desire for America to rule the world for the next 100 years, is the one who is truly ‘anti-free markets.’ As James Madison remarked, ‘war is the one true path to tyranny,’ and the military contractors who exist on subsidies from the State are the very opposite of capitalist companies. They want and need and depend on a big Government throwing lots of money their way.
We might also note that the Reagan-Bush crowd’s insistence on refusing to enforce the laws regarding monopolies are having a very pronounced anti-competitive, anti-market result in areas such as media, banking, and the aforementioned arms industries. There we can see how ‘anti-regulation’ ideologies and political corruption can go hand-in-hand to lead us into one of the worst systems imaginable, where corporations write the laws that Senators and Representatives don’t even get to read before they vote to pass them, and international trade treaties are, in secret, written by media corporations so that the future of international trade hangs on protecting the music labels and movie studios — as though these were vital American interests!
Daniel // August 18, 2008 at 6:12 am |
Morgan and people like him simply buy into the narrative promoted by hegemonic powers that be. They become so attached to this absolute worldview that any challenge threatens the entire structure.
I must ask whether you really think Obama will create serious changes in this country. He won’t do anything to shrink the military budget. He now says he might not adhere to the 16-month timetable for troop withdrawal. He has already showed that he will do what it takes to appease the Israel lobby. At least he’s not cut from the Cheney/Bush mold. But the Democrat congress has played follow-the-leader with the Republican policies and I no longer see how they will do anything differently once in power. Maybe they won’t base decisions on a flawed ideology, but they will continue the corporatocracy.
Rick Turner // August 18, 2008 at 6:25 am |
The reason we have “military contractors”, that just being a euphemism for mercenaries, is that it is easier to steal money from the American people in the form of running up the deficit than it is to ask mothers and fathers to sacrifice their children in a draft. If you want to see empire building slow to a crawl here in the US, then laws forbidding private military contractors would be a step in the right direction. No Americans who are not in the military should carry lethal weapons in a war zone, and any violence done by non-military Americans should be subject to any applicable local or international law.
rhbee1 // August 18, 2008 at 6:34 am |
All this talk is well and good but it doesn’t address what I believe may be the elephant in our room in more ways than one. For me, it seems quite clear that the Repubs and Bush and thus McCain have one very important card up their sleeve. The end in Iraq as signalled by troop pullout beginning in October. As M, L, and H seem to be sitting in smug because after all the war is over and we (Repugs) were right and, and, and, . . ., I can’ t help but feel that all of our reasonableness is seeping right out the window.
And while we reason, Rome continues to burn.
Patrick // August 18, 2008 at 7:07 am |
Jon has, again, captured the essence of the debate in his opening paragraphs. It is obvious that the majority of writers in this discussion essentially agree with Jon and with each other. The other, very small minority, want to say provocative things and, in Morgan’s case, insult our host and anyone else who disagrees with him. But they always say the same thing, generally make incoherent and contradictory statements, and are unable to defend their arguments credibly. The obvious thing to do is to ignore those who absolutely refuse to participate in any substantive way and for the rest of us to press on with a search for solutions. I say let ‘em have their say, just ignore them when they make the same tired old arguments. The rest of us seem to agree that the old paradigm does not offer solutions for the enormous problems facing us. Certainly, old politicians offer nothing but more of the same, hoping for different results. Which, as Jon pointed out the other day, is a sure sign of insanity.
MS // August 18, 2008 at 7:30 am |
In the discussion of taxes (keeping them low because money is scarce), I see too little discussion of what our taxes are meant to go for.
Most Americans would probably agree that we need roads, schools (an educated workforce), police and firefighters. Most would probably agree we need health care – even if they disagree as to how it should be paid for.
Following Morgan’s argument, now that all those funds are being spent on the military — on the false argument that we needed to send troops to Iraq to protect us from WMDs, and the false argument that we needed to pay Blackwater and Halliburton to do the job ‘better’ than the armed forces and State Department would have done — that is somehow better than having those funds to spend on roads and schools and healthcare.
That’s what’s so distressing about the current state of affairs. Every time we talk about national needs, someone from the right complains about the ‘tax burden.’
Countries with higher tax rates that are fairly distributed have better living for most people, in my opinion. If it weren’t so cold, I’d much prefer to live in Norway, Denmark or Canada, than in our don’t-tax-the-rich nation.
STS // August 18, 2008 at 7:53 am |
Patrick makes a sensible suggestion: don’t feed the trolls.
We need to elect Obama and set an agenda which shifts resources away from a militarized foreign policy (let our traditional allies share the burden) and reinvests in domestic infrastructure.
And don’t be distracted by these arguments from our trolls:
1) our tax burden isn’t really that remarkable — no we should not get carried away raising taxes, but Obama’s plans won’t take us beyond Morgan’s beloved $MAX, so he can (but won’t) STFU about that,
and 2) governments are not like individuals — they don’t die — so their horizon for capital budgeting is practically infinite. This means deficits aren’t the end of the world. The point is to manage them against growth in the economy. Deficit spending on investment in infrastructure is quite different from spending on military adventures. Especially when those military adventures are supposed to increase our access to oil, but instead raise the price dramatically.
len bullard // August 18, 2008 at 8:10 am |
The closest we came to balancing the budget was under Clinton. But hey, we are more interested in making a statement on race than electing a competent executive. That’s why we are Democrats. We have principles.
Running a war without raising taxes leads to inflation. A program to lift the world out of poverty through wealth redistribution produces the same results.
California Gov. Schwarzenegger said he would not raise taxes. Now he will. So much for discipline.
What will you give up to eliminate deficit spending? It’s a simple question. Now, given no one gives up something in their own community/backyard how do you propose to achieve consensus?
Peter or Paul? Someone will get robbed. Result? Force. It will be the left mau mauing the military and education or the right mau mauing those big server farms and education.
Education is always the loser.
Ken Ballweg // August 18, 2008 at 8:52 am |
Morgan, while incredibly obnoxious, is not totally wrong. Republican leaders do actively spend what they don’t have (the Social Security funds) in order to bankrupt New Deal social services.
They also have created a trap for congress in setting “No new taxes” as the American agenda by moving the tax burden from corporations to small business (their original Base and the rest of the “not wealthy”. This strategy, like renaming the inheritance tax the Death Tax means they can get the majority of the public to support agendas that are totally against their best interests.
Allow less than 60% of business to pay any tax at all in the name of needed for economic growth?
Allow the IRS enforcement arm to be gutted?
Allow congress to get away with years of spending the SocSec trust fund, then bemoan that it’s unsustainable?
Allow corporations to have all the benefits but none of the responsibilities of being considered an individual?
Allow guns to become sacred despite their unregulated trade killing far more innocent Americans then terrorists ever have or ever will?
Allowi money to be considered “free speech” when it actually allows the biggest megaphone to drown out opposing voices?
Allow totally disproportional spending on the military industrial complex over infrastructure and education?
Allow the wealthy to own and control the content of 90% of the nation’s media?
Crazy!
All these things are stupid to the core for the majority of Americans. But, in the voting booth, the majority of Americans support them. And here is where Morgan is especially right, the Dem congress critters don’t actively fight to stop any of this because they can’t buck the Repub propaganda machine and stay elected. (Props to the few who try.)
Crazy!
We have fought a Class War and the Upper Class won. Morgan’s solutions are, for the most part, as bone stupid as all the Republican agendas listed. But he’s right that we can’t sustain deficit spending. I think he’s wrong about taxes, in that he seems to assume we’ve peaked on the amount of taxes that can be generated, and, if that’s true, then it completely overlooks having business taxed fairly, and shutting off the crazy idea that taxes for corporations are anti-business. I also think he is FOS for believing that it is necessary for America to control the world through massive force projection. Any way you slice it, that’s Imperialism, and completely counter to the supposed Libertarian values he cloaks himself in, when convenient. So….
Both parties equally guilty. Check.
The Class War fought and lost. Check.
Legislators unable to raise taxes. Check.
Minds of the majority of Americans largely controlled by the smoothest propaganda machines ever. Check Mate, mate.
Giving Morgan as much attention as this post does probably wont do much to a) convince him he is at least partially wrong (since in his Morgancentric world, partially right = infallible), b) convince him that his style is counter productive (for a narcissist any attention is great attention), or c) further the agenda of this forum (which, I like to believe, is to try to find ways to focus the majority of the American public on their best interests.)
I see fighting rear-guard class war skirmishes with Morgan as some inverted variant of The Emperor’s Last Soldiers (only we are acting the role of Teruo Nakamura. Lets all agreed to just tell Morgan “The side you’re closest to won, just go home and gloat; we have a revolution to plan up here in the hills.” And get on with it.
Morgan Warstler // August 18, 2008 at 9:33 am |
OR,
Have faith in your arguments.
IF you really believe that Americans will CHOOSE to elect politicians that will CHOOSE to spend more money on social services than on defense – then LIMIT the amount being spent to the amount being brought in.
Look, if there is a Balanced Budget Amendment, and the people want Universal Healthcare, they WILL VOTE for politicians who will tax the rich to provide it.
The friggin issue here is ENTITLEMENTS, when you legislate guarantees without regard to size of the population getting the guarantees, you will INEVITABLY face situations where a huge number of boomers are getting old and suddenly the tax burden per younger citizen is too high.
No new math will get you around that issue.
BUT if the was a Balanced Budget Amendment, you’d be certain that taking care of more old people meant more taxes, you’d be SURE of it. So, we’d be much more honest and fair in giving out social services based on the actual money we have in our pocket to spend.
SAME GOES FOR MILITARY. With only a certain amount to spend, we’d be much more watchful about a new foreign campaign… because that would mean cutting a social service, or raising another tax.
Look, Keynes MADE SENSE when you could count on the Repubs to always pay down the debt, when they were the fiscal conscious, Keynes could work on paper. But if Keynes himself new that the “spend it all” attitude would permeate politics, he’d NEVER have put forward his theories.
How awesome would it be, if government could only be as big as its tax receipts, and had to be accountable for its spending? Both sides would benefit. I don’t know why this makes soooo many here, soooo angry.
Have faith in your arguments.
Ken Ballweg // August 18, 2008 at 10:33 am |
Nice puppy, now shoo, go home. You won in your own mind and that’s all that matters. Take your milk bone and go.
Shoo.
Rick Turner // August 18, 2008 at 10:50 am |
Um, er, Morgan…would you care to address our suck hind tit status in the world? Did you bother to read what I researched and wrote about? Would you please tell me why other countries should look up to the Great White Father in Washington? And I sure hope the next great father in WashDC isn’t white…
Morgan Warstler // August 18, 2008 at 11:54 am |
Rick,
The fattest nation will never be the #1 healthiest nation. You take my point here? Being fat and unhealthy is a personal decision, one that may suck, but better to allow it, than to legislate against it.
But on your point, I 100% agree that the bulk of our social services $ should be spent on the young: pre-natal, health, and education. They deserve the investment.
As to why other countries look up to the US, well it stems from our growth. It is continuous and abundant. Notice that Europes economy is slowing faster than ours did. We sneeze, the world catches a cold.
Again, to your point, I’m NOT saying that people don’t have grudges against us. I’m not saying, everyone just worships us, the big dog. I’m saying that WE ARE THAT BIG, we are in reality the driving force of the global economy, and we got that way BY NOT BEING SOCIALIST.
The means to our success, the secret sauce, is economic freedom. Hell China turns to economic freedom, and even with a autocratic totalitarian regime, and they get stronger. Economic freedom is the secret sauce.
BUT PLEASE, I don’t want to lose the jibe here – WTF else, are the Dems going to do? if the Repubs spent all the money? More spending isn’t possible.
For Jon, with me, it is just shoot the messenger. I get attacked over and over, because I tell the truth about what Republicans do. But, I’m the only one with a smart policy for the Dems to follow. Demand a Balanced Budget Amendment! OBAMA WOULD WIN!
Here’s the rub: if you guys don’t admit what the other side is doing, how can you strategize effectively for your interests? Sorry Ken, me going away, doesn’t get rid of the deficit.
But with a Balanced Budget Amendment, now you could use VOTER WANTS to justify higher taxes. If they didn’t go vote in every election, to get more stuff, they wouldn’t get free shit. They’d have to CHOOSE to go vote to get free shit.
pure genius.
p.s. Notice Jon doesn’t actually answer for my points, he just says he doesn’t believe me, calls me Grover Norquist, poo-poos my point… BUT NO REAL RESPONSE. Imagine that.
Jon Taplin // August 18, 2008 at 1:29 pm |
Morgan- I devoted a whole damn post to answering your points. You are a close minded person, who does not listen to others. I had a friend who was a destructive coke head. I tried to get him to see how he was ruining his life, but he never changed his real outlook. I went to talk to someone who had dealt with addictions and he told me I just had to walk away with love, because my friend was never going to hear me until he hit rock bottom.
That’s what I feel about you.
Rick Turner // August 18, 2008 at 1:46 pm |
Wow! Your so called freedom is so valuable to you that it’s utterly self-destructive course of action is the one you’ll embrace… Holy shit! So that’s the price of Libertarianism… Well, no thanks. I like the communitarian point of view that is embraced in what Jon is calling the New Federalism. And, Morgan, the better you define your position here, the clearer we see that you’ve painted yourself into a corner that few would want to share. Good luck. It’ll get lonely there.
Morgan Warstler // August 18, 2008 at 2:24 pm |
You spent a whole damn post to re-asserting your position, NOT answering my points. Jon, I’m here to change you. To force you out of your world view. I ANSWER your points. You don’t actually answer mine.
You don’t like that “spend all the money” works to stymie your goals, you hate it, you yell at me for it. You get mad because I keep pointing it out. You call me Grover Norquist. You call me a bully. You don’t deal with the problem.
Where’s the DEEP discussion about what to do when one side no longer lets your side spend the money?
My god man. I asked you at the start of this thread to STICK WITH THE DEBATE, to follow it through, you don’t. Your responses in this thread are exactly how deep you really go – not very. RE-read your responses, not your post, your actual engagement… very shallow.
Go on, re-read this thread, I keep saying the same thing, I keep repeating the same single idea… and not you, not anyone says, “here’s a winning strategy,” no one says, “here’s how to stop the Repubs.”
I don’t think you have one. I think you are stuck. And you are mad that you are stuck. And you lash out at me because of it.
There’s lots of frustration here about the EVIL Republicans, until you confront the true problem you face, it will all just be talk.
—-
Jon, it will be cathartic for you, try it…. what exactly do you fear in a Balanced Budget Amendment?
What objection do you have to it?
Jon Taplin // August 18, 2008 at 3:06 pm |
Morgan- You have put forth the idea that there is “no more dough” for months and I answered back in late July with this post.
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/07/28/return-to-the-mean/
The market’s desire for Bonds of good quality is insatiable. There is no reason, especially given the deflationary economics we will probably be living with for the next three years, to cut government spending. The only issue is what are we going to spend the governments money on–Guns or Butter. I say butter, you say guns. Its that simple.
You sound like the famous Treasury Secretary Mellon, who counseled Herbert Hoover to cut the Budget after the Crash of 1929. He thought it was healthy for the economy to clear out the excess. He prolonged the depression by maybe three years.
Alex Bowles // August 18, 2008 at 3:15 pm |
Okay, so I think Morgan has made his fundamental points absolutely clear.
1. Socialism, in any and all forms, is the natural enemy of economic success, in any and all forms.
2. New Deal social programs, and those built on this pattern, represent the core of Socialist thinking in American politics.
3. In spite of the inherent terribleness they contain, it is impossible for us to move beyond them in any orderly fashion.
4. Consequently, it it the responsibility of the Republicans to push the nation the to very brink of economic collapse, as this is the only practical way to prevent Democrats from advancing their Socialist agenda with even more insidious entitlement programs (kind of like the basic theory of chemotherapy – yes, it’s toxic, and will bring you to the edge of death, but if the cancer dies in the process then hey, it’s a win).
5. All of this could be easily avoided, however, if we simply had a balanced budget amendment. But since that will never happen, it’s important to continue with the agenda in point 4.
6. Civility isn’t important. Which means, if people are reacting negatively it cannot possibly have anything to do with the chosen approach. Therefore, they are opposed to the ideas themselves. Therefore, they are idiots. Therefore, it’s okay to further insult them.
If I’ve left anything out, I’m sure others can add to the list. But since it’s safe to say that Morgan is unlikely to change or develop any of these positions, it’s fair to say he hasn’t got much else to contribute. Not now, anyway.
That said, his contribution to date has been a welcome one, as it does represent the type of thinking that has obviously become endemic in this country (after all, SOMEBODY had to keep the Republicans in office all these years).
What’s really needed is a comprehensive picture of this New Federalism, full of clear indications of how all the parts work together as a whole. Again, we can thank Morgan for helping us understand exactly how clear and comprehensive this picture will need to be. For the moment, his work here is through.
As soon as we have a plan, we’ll let him know, and he can tell us what he thinks once the whole thing is clear. In the meantime, we can work with this excellent set of points he’s shared with us, knowing that any model of the New Federalism that actually answers these objections will have lived up to some of the toughest and most vitriolic opposition out there.
Morgan Warstler // August 18, 2008 at 4:10 pm |
so you wont answer my actual question?
What problem do you have with a Balanced Budget Amendment?
Jon Taplin // August 18, 2008 at 4:24 pm |
Morgan- Read Keynes on the history of the Great Depression. You don’t slash spending in an economic downturn. Balancing the budget immediately would be disastrous.
Rick Turner // August 18, 2008 at 5:42 pm |
Cart before horse, Morgan. You’re the proverbial stuck record. Try a different recording to play back here. Things have to be eased back into the good zone. Unless you want a bloody revolution, which might suit your style. Morgan Warstler, the leader of the Sweeney Todd party. Bleed ‘em dry and then burn ‘em…
Morgan Warstler // August 18, 2008 at 5:46 pm |
Uh huh?
Bill Clinton faced economic downturn in 1990, remember Black Monday in 1987. And he focused exclusively on balancing the budget.
Jon, PLEASE think about what I’m saying, because you are talking OVER me and missing it.
Keynes WORKS if you have deficit spending available to you. In good times you pay off the debt. In bad times, you deficit spend. That’s Keynes. What you aren’t hearing, don’t want to hear, refuse to accept, IN GOOD TIMES, Repubs are now deficit spending. So Keynes is out the window. He advocates deficit spending WHEN it is possible. This isn’t about the market for long term bonds. IT MEANS NOTHING that people will buy our T-Bills. This is about short term interest rates vs. government deficit spending. That’s the choice, THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION. Those are the two main causes of inflation (increase money supply). AND WHEN we have massive deficits, to hold down inflation, we have to either cut short term rates (which we can barely do now) OR cut the deficit.
In the new model, the incoming president (remember Bill Clinton), is handed massive deficits, making new deficit spending IMPOSSIBLE.
Look, let me say this is to you as a thought exercise. A pure hypothetical. Don’t feel threatened by the assumptions.
Forget Keynes. Massive deficits in good times done on purpose, nuked Keynes. If you don’t have Keynes, now please for the love of god, what actual problem do you have with a Balanced Budget Amendment?
I know it takes a paradigm shift for you. Just stop the reflexive response for once – what specific bad effect do you think happens if we have a Balanced Budget? DEMS are the ones who are GOOD at balancing the budget. WHY O WHY O WHY, do you have a problem requiring by law that Republicans also abide by a balanced budget when they are in charge?
Rachel // August 18, 2008 at 5:51 pm |
I think you pretty much nailed it, Alex. About the only thing I’d add is the rinse and repeat, wherein all objections to the process can be ignored, and whatever point was not made well last month can be revisited in the same boorish manner.
Alex Bowles // August 18, 2008 at 6:47 pm |
Thanks Rachel.
The real problem with guys like Morgan is that they don’t seem to understand the issues they’re supposed to be advocating, but they don’t seem to be very concerned about this either.
For example, Balanced Budget Amendments exist in 38 states (including NY and CA, two of the most notoriously unbalanced states in the union) and represent a wide range of provisions, interpretations, rigidity and utility.
In other words, even the most cursory glance indicates that an issue like this is a not a simple one, and that, when it comes to replicating these structures at the federal level, reasonable people are likely to disagree – and for many different reasons.
Which is why Morgan’s request for Jon to describe ‘what problem’ he has with a Balanced Budget Amendment is so off base.
1. It implies that the ‘problem’ Jon may have is a bumper-sticker simple one (unlikely).
2. It implies that a Federal BBA has a form and scope that is clear to all and beyond debate (wrong on both counts).
3. It suggests that folks here have an obligation to take hard pro / con positions on everything that transpires, and defend these positions adamantly, at the risk of loosing, oh, I don’t know what, instead of letting ideas simply be considered from a range of perspectives, and developed or discarded according to the level of interest they provide for the group.
I grant that MW has, at times, provided an interesting spur for thought. But from my perspective, his batting average is pretty low. And I keep wondering how many other ideas could have gotten off the ground if folks weren’t wasting time on troll patrol.
I’ve also noticed that there’s a pretty diverse range of opinions on this site. In other words, this isn’t one of the dime-a-dozen echo chambers that seem to be the internet norm.
Personally, I think the hard-core partisan politics that really took off with the Gingrinch Revolution are both a symptom and a cause of much larger ills. I can’t tell you how nice it is to find a place where folks of either stripe seem able to discuss things from legitimately different perspectives without feeling the need to weaponize their positions and demolish their opponents.
Seriously, that ‘you’re with us or you’re against us’ nonsense has gone on for way too long, with plenty of offenders on both sides of the aisle.
Morgan Warstler // August 18, 2008 at 6:57 pm |
Rachel,
Instead of all that noise, why not just say what other option Dems have? That would shut me up. I’ve never seen so many people afraid to answer questions.
Its boorish for someone to pour reality on the white fire of a group’s day dreams, huh?
Tell ya what, if Jon actually ANSWERS my points, sticks to the exact questions he is asked, and answers my exact responses – I’ll LEAVE.
He won’t answer cause I have him beat. And I use words like “beat” because it drives him crazy. But still, he’ll either delete this, or he won’t actually answer, or he’ll talk around the subject. Direct response equals a loss and his sub-conscious knows it, so he must dance, and slide, and squirrel.
Jon Taplin // August 18, 2008 at 8:03 pm |
Morgan as I learned from this poster, you have obviously been playing this game for a long time at other sites. You are not interested in dialogue, you are interested in shouting your opinions over and over. I could blame it all on your alleged substance abuse problems, but it wouldn’t be worth the effort.
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/08/15/the-fascist-impulse/#comment-9976
Morgan Warstler // August 18, 2008 at 9:30 pm |
Jon, are you freaking NUTS.
Instead of JUST ANSWERING my questions, as I ask them, going thru single small dialogue, take 3 minutes of your life (but focused minutes on someone else’s mindset) you have instead, just in this thread:
1. Said, “You say this with some glee and then pretend that you are now a deficit hawk. I don’t believe you and you don’t really believe a thing you are saying.”
I invite you to look at countless posts here at your site. I say and have said, over and over, I’m a deficit hawk, but conservatives will no longer be deficits hawks, BECAUSE YOU WON’T BE. And who cares if I am gleeful? Thats doesn’t change your situation.
2. You call me a bully. Yet you delete what I write.
3. You call me Grover Norquist. No matter how much I ACCEPT a higher tax rate.
4. You act like I’m some shadowy dude, instead of someone who’s met you, and has many of the same folks in our social circle.
5. Now you talk about my “alleged” coke habit INSTEAD OF JUST ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS. I was 29, it was 1999. It’s 2008, I’m a family man, that life was long ago, I wake up everyday, go to work, in a field you claim you know about.
But you NEVER really just ANSWER the question. In my last post, I said to Rachel, if you’ll take the time to really find an answer to my line of questioning. Seriously, not change the subject, attack me, act like you’ve covered this all before, BUT REALLY truthfully show me you have dealt with the real hard questions I’m asking, I’ll LEAVE, and you’ll never have to delete me stuff again.
Your a 61 year old hippie who goes to church, but you fight soooooo low, I’m a 38 year old Gen X’er who doesn’t need to get by on gossip I hear about you. I use my real name, I say my real thoughts. And you refuse to REALLY answer.
I’m not some dumb student you can push around, I bring it. I can argue your ass under the table.
I challenge you to any kind of debate you want. Let’s do Bloggingheads.tv. Let’s MEET in LA (like you wanted) and record the argument (I’m there on the 28th). You’ll get crushed. Because I’m post partisan, who doesn’t mind higher taxes, and you are greedy old hippie who wants to end America’s defenses, so your crowd can 2 years longer eating green jello on the backs of our children.
Ok, pretend I’m some poor soul, grant me this one single thing – my one small request – you built this post around claiming to ANSWER me, why not take the time to let me actually ask the questions, and you answer, let me interrogate you HONESTLY. Why the hell not? What are you afraid of?
Alex Bowles // August 18, 2008 at 9:35 pm |
“Tell ya what, if Jon actually ANSWERS my points, sticks to the exact questions he is asked, and answers my exact responses – I’ll LEAVE.”
That sounds awfully like ‘tell me, yes or no, do you still beat your wife?’, followed by accusations of ‘dodging’ the question if the target balks at an obviously abusive tactic.
Jon, seriously, can we just get rid of this guy? He’s already admitted that, for him, it’s not about exchanging ideas, it’s about beating people (at what? I wonder).
I really doesn’t matter what personal problems may be behind this. You can just call him out for what he is – a troll.
Don’t worry, you won’t be the first to think so.
http://jyte.com/cl/i-have-googled-the-word-morgan-warstler-and-almost-every-search-result-resembles-the-morgan-warstler-i-know-on-jyte
Rick Turner // August 18, 2008 at 9:53 pm |
Time to return to the days of putting anti-social types in stocks in the public square for the targeted benefit of getting rid of old tomatoes.
Stephanie Smith // August 18, 2008 at 10:40 pm |
This is a very nice blog.
Kenneth // August 19, 2008 at 7:16 am |
Rather than the blunt tool of balanced budget laws, try a tax on consumption (the least distortive tax if universally applied without higgedly piggedly exceptions) to generate some breathing room and a debate about the spending priorities of the nation. Then spend an amount of time getting out of financial difficulty roughly proportional to the amount of time getting into it. A BBA on Friday does not fix a nation by Monday.
This has happened in other countries and entitlement benefits were kept. There is no natural connection between a balanced budget and entitlements. Nations with much lower birth rates (and more older citizens) have been able to keep what they like and get rid of what they don’t. The principle is simple: if you want entitlements, you must merely do what it takes to keep paying for them.
Unfortunately, the US political system is broken and a simple VAT could never pass without the thousands of exemptions lobbyists would want.
A discussion of the spending priorities of the people would also be impossible because the US system is predicated on the notion that to lobbyists and interest groups are the legitimate voice of the ‘people’.
I really mean this, too.
Unless you have hired a lobbyist or (less good) organized into a PAC or other such organization (viz NRA, AARP) your issue is not considered serious.
Amazingly, the presence of a lobbyist is seen as a sign that the issue at hand is pressing and legitimate, rather than being seen as a sign the issue at hand has no natural constituency among the people and that one must be created.
It puzzles me greatly that so many Americans have such a sophisticated understanding (and vocabulary) of the mechanisms of lobbying, astro-turfing, swift-boating etc, but so few have a sense of the damage it does to the body politic. Even those who oppose it normally do so on mechanistic ‘declare it and regulate it’ types of arguments.
Debating what to do may be getting out
ahead of figuring how to do it.
Morgan Warstler // August 19, 2008 at 9:07 am |
Ken and Alex, you are correct a Balance Budget Amendment isn’t easy. Passing it isn’t “perfect.”
The same thing could be done if both sides just agreed not to spend more than tax receipts brought in.
But now, it is pure on Prisoner’s Dilemma.
When there isn’t a deficit, both sides have to agree to not deficit spend. Otherwise, both sides will value their own goals so greatly that they violate the cooperative agreement and its a race to the bottom.
It is painfully obvious that the Dems are the ones who have in recent years proven they can live with a balanced budget.
Why not at least try to codify the agreement and force the Repubs to do so as well?
——
You gotta trust the opposition, and be prepared to live with what the country’s voters decide to do with an honest budget.
This is a very middle of the road analysis and completely rational.
What doesn’t seem rational is railing on about empire building and imperialism, when your opponents real agenda is keeping you from getting at the purse strings.
Use judo man! MANY old school conservatives MANY MANY independents would willingly switch sides and vote Dem IF “no deficit spending,” became the rally cry. McCain is winning that group right now, even those who aren’t happy about the war.
bernard // August 19, 2008 at 9:11 am |
JT
Socialists, Capitalist ect… how about finding simple solutions to the existing problems … we all are in this mess ( the world) either we like it or not .Guilt is of no use here and now . A change in the course of action is badly needed. A more humane approach to old problems.
Its a nice blog
Saludos
Amber in Albuquerque // August 19, 2008 at 10:57 am |
Ahhh. Morgan’s pnultimate post finally sheds some light on the whole “Republicans have to spend all the money so the Democrats don’t argument.” It’s generational. I too am a Gen-X’er who doesn’t mind higher taxes (I can’t honestly call myself post-partisan). I’ve watched my generation, brought up on Reagan-era economics, spend themselves into foreclosure.
I’ve watched it so long, I even have a name for it ‘retaliatory spending’. It’s where one party in a relationship buys something and the other party doesn’t approve. The other party goes out and spends to ‘get even’. Both parties lose sight of the whole don’t live on money you ain’t made yet concept and, eventually, all hell breaks loose.
What can you expect from a generation taught that ketchup was a vegetable and weaned on pop culture? (Did I mention that I once had a college class where one of the students had never heard of Karl Marx? Not hadn’t read Marx…didn’t know who he was.)
Anyway, apparently New Deal Democrats spent our country’s money on a bunch of stuff that the neo-cons simply cannot tolerate: infrastructure, healthcare, social security. So to pay them back the neocons are spending on imperialism and making rich people richer.
I understand the game. It sucks and I, for one, would prefer it not be played with my tax dollars and, indirectly, my life. I seriously hope that Obama wins and not only understands this ridiculous game, but can surround himself with others (maybe some of the more rational commenters and the blog host?) who are capable of engineering a long-term exit strategy that lays the foundation (through better education for starters) for a return to politics of the people by the people for the people…instead of by whoever is making the biggest campaign contributions.
len bullard // August 19, 2008 at 12:56 pm |
Morgan:
Humor me. Isn’t this more similar to a Nash equibrium over Prisoner’s Dilemma? Prisoner’s Dilemma assumes there is missing information and parties may or may not be rational. A Nash equilibrium assumes all parties are equally informed and rational. (anyone correct me if I have that wrong.)
I realize that second quality is hard to quantify and where these left-right spy vs spy debates tend to go into the briar patch because they spiral off into ye olde ‘what is the greatest good’ debates.
picky // August 19, 2008 at 1:05 pm |
The key thing that makes Prisoners dilemma a dilemma is that neither have any way of knowing anything about what the other might do. So no, it is not at all “pure on Prisoner’s Dilemma.”
JR // August 19, 2008 at 1:29 pm |
Morgan’s BOTTOM LINE:
It’s OK to deficit spend on Corporate Welfare (defense programs, farm subsidies, even Medicare, as long as the US government has to pay Big Pharma retail for the drugs discovered with taxpayers $$)
No deficit spending on Social Welfare. (sorry, the money is all gone.)
bernard // August 19, 2008 at 1:31 pm |
Morgan
You cannot be an Imperialist with a Nationalistic point of view, unless of course you dont travel.
bernard
Rachel // August 19, 2008 at 2:58 pm |
Love it, Bernard.
Morgan Warstler // August 19, 2008 at 5:45 pm |
(heads off to wikipedia to check for sure)
My meaning was Prisoner’s Dilemma, has both sides almost certain the other side will act badly (overspend), so they act badly first.
I guess it is more like an interated PD, because each side has past experience where the other side has acted badly.
It certainly isn’t “pure on,” though because ultimately, both sides have to actually believe their own political interests will be made better – by not overspending.
Which is the point I’m trying to make. Dems should be SURE after the last 38 years, that the overspending is not their friend, because Repubs will NEVER believe Dems don’t want to deficit spend – Dems INVENTED Keynsian econ to justify it. It is therefore the Dems that stand to gain the most from a legal constraint against overspending.
Imagine the glorious EXTRA MONEY they’d actually have. A Repub administration comes in and cuts taxes… and services get cut accordingly. BUT then when Dems get in, they tax more, and assuming revenues go up, they get to provide more services – there’s no Repub debt to pay off. WINNER!!
Now it is a fair easy self-learning system that the public can LEARN QUICKLY from, are those extra taxes worth the new services?
We can quickly find equlibrium, because there isn’t any hidden pain passed on to our children. All spending is immediately felt. Open, honest, a fair way of actually determining once and for all what the public wants and what it will pay for.
—
JR, I hate all that, BUT if there’s going to be deficits, then it might as well be for defense. Give up your overspending and I’ll give up mine.
Patrick // August 19, 2008 at 8:09 pm |
In my first comment to this blog post, I suggested that it might be OK to just allow the trolls to have their say, but to ignore them if they fail to participate in a rational discussion of the topic of the hour. I recant. Kick ‘em out. There has been far too much discussion about Morgan, and not nearly enough about the real topic of Jon’s original post. Whatever that was. I forget.
Jon Taplin // August 19, 2008 at 8:17 pm |
Patrick-I’m coming to the same conclusion. I’m not interested in being Politico where everyone is talking over eachother and nothing substantial gets said. Besides, Morgan is so needy.
Rick Turner // August 19, 2008 at 8:57 pm |
Don’t you just love the Orwellian use of words like “defense”? No, in fact it’s “offense”, but if one calls it defense and raises the paranoia bar, then defense dollars can be spent any damned where you want if you’re signing the overdrawn bank account checks that will be paid by our children’s children. Or is it a mis-spelling of “de fence”…as in “de big damned wall to keep the wetbacks out”? And that one is “off fence” as in offensive, too…the US as a disfunctional gated community…
Morgan has been very useful to me. I used to think of myself as being somewhat friendly toward Libertarian ideals. Morgan has shown me the error of my evil ways by exhibiting a meanness of spirit and a one trick pony mentality here that has caused me to carefully examine his philosophy, and I’ve come to the conclusion that most of it sucks for the inherent greed and self-destructive self-interest to be found in the philosophy. I don’t see Libertarians as really being capable of kindness or being happy. Others “get what they deserve” when they’re unfortunate, and there’s always so much to bitch about. Screw that…
Amber in Albuquerque // August 20, 2008 at 6:01 am |
Addressing the Morgan thing and not the post again…I think I’m in love with Rick Turner!
But now I must get back to serious work.
len bullard // August 20, 2008 at 6:24 am |
@morgan:
“My meaning was Prisoner’s Dilemma, has both sides almost certain the other side will act badly (overspend), so they act badly first….I guess it is more like an interated PD, because each side has past experience where the other side has acted badly.”
Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma is the game of Tit for Tat. Google that.
Prisoner’s Dilemma doesn’t assume both will act badly. It is a game of trust given missing information that cannot be communicated. The players are separated, no information can be communicated, and all the power is in the hands of the handler except the decision of the prisoner to defect on his partner. It’s zero-sum. One round, all bets settled.
Tit for tat is repetitive play with memory. Players see outcomes. In simulations run on tit for tat, simple rules have emerged that provide a means to win in the long run as long as losses in the short term are affordable.
1. Unless provoked, the agent will always cooperate
2. If provoked, the agent will retaliate
3. The agent is quick to forgive
4. The agent must have a good chance of competing against the opponent more than once.
Note that for 3 and 4 to be possible, retaliation cannot be massive. The retaliation must be proportional to the offence. In short, don’t let your tats get bigger than their tits.
Look this up at wikipedia and check out the payoff matrices.
len bullard // August 20, 2008 at 6:46 am |
By the way, Morgan, what you are after is an ESS or evolutionary stable strategy. It is the holy grail of diplomatic solutions. It is a refined form of the Nash equilibrium. Because of noise and aggression in tit for tat, those rules can’t be counted on to work although they indicate a player who plays to a draw can over time win by scores even if never winning a single contest. See Viet Cong.
Note the role of memory. Memory can’t be noisy but it can be interpretive if changing strategies; however, a perfect Nash equilibrium means the game is in a state where no change of strategy has a higher payoff. Such conditions are rare in dynamic systems and non-existent if the systems are non-linear.
High threat single payouts led to the nuclear response strategy of MAD. Even if Alfred E. would be proud, living in fear led to the Haight and if you don’t like that lifestyle, you might consider ratcheting down the fear quotient while maintaining the defensive posture. The sad analysis of history is that nuclear weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems probably did reduce the probability of all-out war but only because excessive fear led to minimal rationality. No one really wants to die uselessly.
Then the radical Islamists appeared on the scene with the urge for atoms and the projection of an image of ready to die for their Big Guy In the Sky. The introduction of a non-rational player collapses the equilibrium.
What to do?
Rick Turner // August 20, 2008 at 2:02 pm |
The “what to do” is, unfortunately, massive retaliation if there is a nuclear incident. It’s probably the obliteration of millions of innocent people in whose midst the enemy takes refuge. It’s a bleak scenario, but probably provides for the fewest deaths on “our” side. If “they” take out New York, for instance, then probably an entire country has to be made uninhabitable as an example, if nothing else. It is disproportional tit for tat. It is not MAD as “the other” probably doesn’t have the resources for massive destruction on US soil. But we do have the resources to make any small, medium, or large area on earth barren of life and uninhabitable for a hundred years.
Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.
len bullard // August 20, 2008 at 2:43 pm |
Me too, Rick. Time to chant. It can’t hurt.
I’m serious. The old guard should be playing to their strengths and using their art. As politicians, you suck. As message makers with a beat we could dance to, you were sublime. There’s been nothing like it or as good as that since.
There is a lot of admiration for what you did then among the kids today. I wish I had the resources but all I can do is give away songs and blog.
Otherwise I’d produce a TV series about an old guy who falls from a great height of fame and wealth into his old neighborhood and finds himself saving the world one crazy situation at a time by teaching the kids the real rules of magick, how to find the lagrange points, then how to use just a little push here and there while rediscovering his own soul. Oh, yeah, a love interest too. An aging hippie chick. And then get all of the unmortified immortals to make guest appearances like Wavy Gravy in the wheelchair in the book store.
Unfortunately I think Dennis Hopper already made that movie a little too early.
Do you know about the Anonymous group that’s formed among the game nerds and hackers to take on the Scientologists? They decided to risk it for the right reasons using low force asymetrical means. I don’t know how they are faring but I love that spirit.
Rick Turner // August 20, 2008 at 4:53 pm |
I suppose the other scenario would be to announce that on a particular day at a particular time, at certain target in the middle of a (probably) Middle Eastern country desert…a symbolic target with few or no people anywhere nearby…there would be a demonstration of what happens when a cruise missile with a small nuke goes off there. Video feed at 11:00, one picture from the missile itself, and several from nearby drones. Send out a message: get all people the hell away from this spot, because at XX:00 hours, there will be fireworks just to show what’s possible. Wear dark glasses…duck and cover. Then we talk openly, honestly, and softly. The big stick has been revealed.
Where’s Osama?
Jon Taplin // August 21, 2008 at 7:21 am |
Len and Rick -I’ve been away from this post for a few days, but, like much of this blog, it has taken on its own momentum.
Re the Prisoner’s Dilemma. It’s my theory that many of the problems we are wrestling with are “collective action problems”. Rational Indian and Pakistani leaders would understand that spending billions on nukes is not only making them less secure, but is taking capital away from solving the crushing poverty in their countries. But of course they are not rational. Rational utility plant owners would cooperate to install the latest environmental scrubbers, but instead, they compete on price per megawatt and we all lose because of dirty air. Rational employees of a big firm that give them a Blackberry should understand its just a trick to get them to work 16 hours for 8 hours pay. But they don’t turn it off, because their on the gerbil treadmill and afraid to stop.
We are all caught in these Prisoner’s Dilemmas and we have to figure out a way to use new tools of cooperation (my hope for Web 2.0 and beyond) to get us out of them
Ken Ballweg // August 21, 2008 at 8:30 am |
My gut response to your nuke in the wilderness scenario is that it would look doable going in, but the devils it would unleash would be uncontrollable.
Personal opinion, there would never be a good
use of nukes in response to a terrorist attack that wasn’t clearly (beyond a reasonable doubt x 2) tied to a specific nation. To use one against a diffuse target (like the caves of Pakistan for example) requires treating the caves as if they were a sovereign nation, and wouldn’t likely have anymore effect than the bombing of Bagdad did.
As many have pointed out, you don’t conduct a “war” against terrorists, to be successful you have to have a relentless international police operation.
What do you think the historical consequences would have been if the Brits had responded to the Easter Rising with a massive mustard gas bombardment of some deserted peat bog, followed by an announcement to Sinn Fein that suspected safe houses were next if they didn’t come in and negotiate?
For some reason, Cagney’s “Come and get me, copper!” line is sticking in my head right now.
Ken Ballweg // August 21, 2008 at 9:03 am |
PS: Iraq has pretty much proven that the Big Stick is pretty much useless for swatting lethal-virus carrying mosquitoes.
Rick Turner // August 21, 2008 at 10:38 am |
“Top of the world, Ma! Top of the world!”
Yeah, it’s a mini Doomsday scenario, but we’re in a very asymmetrical conflict with people who do not play by “the rules”, and we aren’t showing them any better rules to play by than our own sad shit. Once again, I think the only way out is to lead the world into the good life, to lead by the example of having a country that works, where everyone is treated well, where the culture is vital, and where education and the general welfare of the people comes first and is spread around a bit more equally than it currently is.
I don’t need to reiterate the stats on how we’ve slipped way down in so many important ways compared to the rest of the world. We’re in no position right now to be dictating to others how they should live or what political system they should adopt. We’ve got too much house cleaning to do here.
That said, let’s face it, the current conflict is not a nation state vs. a nation state, rather it’s a nation state (us) vs. an extreme religious state that would like to be a nation state encompassing all of the Arab countries…and expand from there. Until liberal and moderate Muslims start to nudge their youth in a better direction and apply real pressure to the Islamists, the current state of affairs will continue. It may take a shock of a nuclear nature to wake up that messy world. I don’t want it to happen, but I could certainly see a drastic reaction aimed willy-nilly if the nuke shit hits the fan here in the US or Europe.
len bullard // August 22, 2008 at 11:48 am |
“It may take a shock of a nuclear nature to wake up that messy world.”
Could we just send them DVDs of The Day After?
Rick Turner // August 22, 2008 at 11:52 am |
How about “On the Beach”?