Stephen Moore-Imbecile
Stephen Moore used to run the Club For Growth, the propaganda arm of the Reagan Revolution. Now he writes for the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which is assuming the role of the Anti-Obama disinformation bureau. In his attempt to warn us off any plan for reviving the economy with fiscal stimulus, Moore trots out the uber-Libertarian war horse, Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.
In one chapter of the book, an entrepreneur invents a new miracle metal — stronger but lighter than steel. The government immediately appropriates the invention in “the public good.” The politicians demand that the metal inventor come to Washington and sign over ownership of his invention or lose everything.
The scene is eerily similar to an event late last year when six bank presidents were summoned by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to Washington, and then shuttled into a conference room and told, in effect, that they could not leave until they collectively signed a document handing over percentages of their future profits to the government. The Treasury folks insisted that this shakedown, too, was all in “the public interest.”
That Moore is so entranced with Rand’s farcical plotting is only topped by his wierd understanding of who was the supplicant in the Treasury Conference Room a few months ago. For example the President of Citigroup, one of the six in the room, has gladly accepted $45 billion of government bailout funds and a $300 billion guarantee of Citi’s assets. Without these funds, Citigroup would be sitting next to Bear Stearns and Lehman Bros. as credit crisis road kill.
I’m well aware that the events of the last 18 months have not gibed with the laissez faire world view of Stephen Moore and the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board. Their belief in the radical deregulation of capital brought us to this crisis. We will not get out of it by listening to their advice. Stephen Moore is an imbecile and we can ignore him. The Wall Street Journal however is one of the major press organs of our society. Rupert Murdoch and his minion Paul Gigot, who runs the Editorial Board might consider that they have more of an obligation in this crisis than to sit on the sidelines and throw brickbats at the Obama Administration.
You are either part of the problem or part of the solution. It’s your choice Rupert.
You’re confusing the WSJ with the WSJ op-ed page. One is a trusted news source, the other is a braying jackass. I think everyone knows that, and of those who don’t, the only ones who won’t figure it out on a first reading will be Dittoheads.
The WSJ op-ed was one of the leading champions of the rehabilitation of Michael Milken, as a single braying example.
You’re confusing the WSJ with the WSJ op-ed page. One is a trusted news source, the other is a braying jackass. I think everyone knows that, and of those who don’t, the only ones who won’t figure it out on a first reading will be Dittoheads.
The WSJ op-ed was one of the leading champions of the rehabilitation of Michael Milken, as a single braying example.
I love this part -
It puts the whole thing in perspective.
Tells us as much about who these fans of Rand are, as well as hinting at their capacity for critical thinking.
I love this part -
It puts the whole thing in perspective.
Tells us as much about who these fans of Rand are, as well as hinting at their capacity for critical thinking.
Jumping back a few threads to dredge up sMr. Taplinomething to go along with old Aynal Rand and her cavalier use of symbols and language:
— I mentioned in a brief exchange with Mr. Taplin an article relating to junk language, the dishonest and imprecise use of symbol-language, and the threat that poses to our already handicapped species, where technical and engineering skills and “financial wealth” and all our other great successes far outstrip our collective abilities to point those potential weapons of very mass destruction in a useful direction. Reminds me of a Biblical story about human pride and a tower in some place called Babel.
I found my paper version of the article I referred to. It’s from 109 Harvard Law Review 1801, and is a book review titled “This Could Be Your Culture — Junk Speech In A Time Of Decadence,” by Pierre Schlag. The book loosely reviewed is “The Death of Discourse,” by Ronald K. L. Collins, Westview Press, 1995. I imagine you can find these references on the net. Maybe you already are well aware of them.
Critical thinking is a lot like watch making and microsurgery. If you try it with the wrong tools, even if they “sort of” fit, your watch ain’t likely gonna run. And your nerves are gonna get cross-wired.
Good luck changing the course and momentum of our collective human sociobiomass. You certainly have my prayers for success in moving things maybe a little closer to world homeostasis, the meta-stability that would please old Gaia.
Jumping back a few threads to dredge up sMr. Taplinomething to go along with old Aynal Rand and her cavalier use of symbols and language:
— I mentioned in a brief exchange with Mr. Taplin an article relating to junk language, the dishonest and imprecise use of symbol-language, and the threat that poses to our already handicapped species, where technical and engineering skills and “financial wealth” and all our other great successes far outstrip our collective abilities to point those potential weapons of very mass destruction in a useful direction. Reminds me of a Biblical story about human pride and a tower in some place called Babel.
I found my paper version of the article I referred to. It’s from 109 Harvard Law Review 1801, and is a book review titled “This Could Be Your Culture — Junk Speech In A Time Of Decadence,” by Pierre Schlag. The book loosely reviewed is “The Death of Discourse,” by Ronald K. L. Collins, Westview Press, 1995. I imagine you can find these references on the net. Maybe you already are well aware of them.
Critical thinking is a lot like watch making and microsurgery. If you try it with the wrong tools, even if they “sort of” fit, your watch ain’t likely gonna run. And your nerves are gonna get cross-wired.
Good luck changing the course and momentum of our collective human sociobiomass. You certainly have my prayers for success in moving things maybe a little closer to world homeostasis, the meta-stability that would please old Gaia.
And please, if you haven’t, get a copy of the 1980 and subsequent versions of the Heritage Foundation’s “Mandate For Leadership.”
Everybody yaks about “transparency” in government and finance and even “Real business,” where the Real Economy and Real Wealth come from. Here these guys told the rest of us right out in the open exactly how they were going to eviscerate the economic and political horse the rest of us had hoped to be riding off into the sunset.
“Transparency” means dam-nothing if nobody is going to take off their Vuarnet sunglasses or rose-colored contacts to look at what is being exposed and/or displayed. And act on what they see, by doing things that are homeostatic for the whole body politic rather than just likely to improve their own personal financial state.
And please, if you haven’t, get a copy of the 1980 and subsequent versions of the Heritage Foundation’s “Mandate For Leadership.”
Everybody yaks about “transparency” in government and finance and even “Real business,” where the Real Economy and Real Wealth come from. Here these guys told the rest of us right out in the open exactly how they were going to eviscerate the economic and political horse the rest of us had hoped to be riding off into the sunset.
“Transparency” means dam-nothing if nobody is going to take off their Vuarnet sunglasses or rose-colored contacts to look at what is being exposed and/or displayed. And act on what they see, by doing things that are homeostatic for the whole body politic rather than just likely to improve their own personal financial state.
Saw Gigot on Meet the Press yesterday. He seemed downright conciliatory and hopeful vis-a-vis Obama.
I think at this point everyone is so shocked at the enormity of the problem, they’re just glad to not be President, and fastening their seatbelts.
Saw Gigot on Meet the Press yesterday. He seemed downright conciliatory and hopeful vis-a-vis Obama.
I think at this point everyone is so shocked at the enormity of the problem, they’re just glad to not be President, and fastening their seatbelts.
Jon, the Libertarian motto….if I take care of me, you don’t have to. Sorry if you can’t see the humanity in it.
Jon, the Libertarian motto….if I take care of me, you don’t have to. Sorry if you can’t see the humanity in it.
Davaudian, you left the motto only half said; the rest is “and I’m damned if I’ll take care of anyone else no matter how much they may need it.”
That’s the dangerous and v. v. anti-humanitarian part of the Libertarian creed. It’s the empty chest pounding of alpha silverbacks who fail to see the world has changed around them.
Davaudian, you left the motto only half said; the rest is “and I’m damned if I’ll take care of anyone else no matter how much they may need it.”
That’s the dangerous and v. v. anti-humanitarian part of the Libertarian creed. It’s the empty chest pounding of alpha silverbacks who fail to see the world has changed around them.
Dan,
You forget that the folks who write the op-ed page also decide on what stories to carry and how to slant them. Saying that results in “trusted news” is akin to saying Fox really is “fair and balanced”.
The fact that the captains of Finance, who replaced the Captains of Industry at the helm of America’s powerful, continue to listen to and insist on more of the failed policies that have so imperiled the American economy is frightening to me.
It’s not news Dan, it’s a very careful mix of news and propaganda that seeks to keep the bubble world of the Financial Class inflated.
Dan,
You forget that the folks who write the op-ed page also decide on what stories to carry and how to slant them. Saying that results in “trusted news” is akin to saying Fox really is “fair and balanced”.
The fact that the captains of Finance, who replaced the Captains of Industry at the helm of America’s powerful, continue to listen to and insist on more of the failed policies that have so imperiled the American economy is frightening to me.
It’s not news Dan, it’s a very careful mix of news and propaganda that seeks to keep the bubble world of the Financial Class inflated.
I don’t read the journal any more and haven’t for some years. But I can tell you that, for a long time, everything outside of the op-ed was what I would call fair and balanced. Every administration, every act of Congress was open to scrutiny and analysis. Not the “here the liberals go again trying t0 inflict their agendas on us” scrutiny, but actual analysis that considered the pros and cons of a given situation and provided the opinions of various experts in the field.
WSJ has in fact been a trusted news source and with good reason. Comparing it to Fox News is not accurate, unless you’re talking about the op-ed page.
That opinion comes from someone who is a million miles away from being a cheerleader for the billionaire club.
I don’t read the journal any more and haven’t for some years. But I can tell you that, for a long time, everything outside of the op-ed was what I would call fair and balanced. Every administration, every act of Congress was open to scrutiny and analysis. Not the “here the liberals go again trying t0 inflict their agendas on us” scrutiny, but actual analysis that considered the pros and cons of a given situation and provided the opinions of various experts in the field.
WSJ has in fact been a trusted news source and with good reason. Comparing it to Fox News is not accurate, unless you’re talking about the op-ed page.
That opinion comes from someone who is a million miles away from being a cheerleader for the billionaire club.
I don’t read the journal any more and haven’t for some years. But I can tell you that, for a long time, everything outside of the op-ed was what I would call fair and balanced. Every administration, every act of Congress was open to scrutiny and analysis. Not the “here the liberals go again trying t0 inflict their agendas on us” scrutiny, but actual analysis that considered the pros and cons of a given situation and provided the opinions of various experts in the field.
WSJ has in fact been a trusted news source and with good reason. Comparing it to Fox News is not accurate, unless you’re talking about the op-ed page.
That opinion comes from someone who is a million miles away from being a cheerleader for the billionaire club.
you left the motto only half said; the rest is…
Ken, yeah, I’ve heard that one….not buying it. Guess I could switch to an intolerant lefty….not. Actually, I don’t like the extremes on either side. The lunatic fringe gets us nowhere.
you left the motto only half said; the rest is…
Ken, yeah, I’ve heard that one….not buying it. Guess I could switch to an intolerant lefty….not. Actually, I don’t like the extremes on either side. The lunatic fringe gets us nowhere.
you left the motto only half said; the rest is…
Ken, yeah, I’ve heard that one….not buying it. Guess I could switch to an intolerant lefty….not. Actually, I don’t like the extremes on either side. The lunatic fringe gets us nowhere.
I am always curious about which parts of the modern semi-socialist state a self-identified Libertarian would want to kill off. Along with, oh, say, a family member with MS or ALS or Alzheimer’s or COPD or a traumatic brain or spinal cord injury from “taking care of themselves” on a Harley and going head-first sans helmet (Ride Free!) into a light pole. Who I guess ought to be taking care of themselves so we won’t have to.
Granted, I believe the human body politic has a terminal disease of its own free-will making. But where on a sliding scale of Ubermensch-to-mollycoddle would the mythical average mainstream Libertarian cut the string?
Again, just asking.
I am always curious about which parts of the modern semi-socialist state a self-identified Libertarian would want to kill off. Along with, oh, say, a family member with MS or ALS or Alzheimer’s or COPD or a traumatic brain or spinal cord injury from “taking care of themselves” on a Harley and going head-first sans helmet (Ride Free!) into a light pole. Who I guess ought to be taking care of themselves so we won’t have to.
Granted, I believe the human body politic has a terminal disease of its own free-will making. But where on a sliding scale of Ubermensch-to-mollycoddle would the mythical average mainstream Libertarian cut the string?
Again, just asking.
I am always curious about which parts of the modern semi-socialist state a self-identified Libertarian would want to kill off. Along with, oh, say, a family member with MS or ALS or Alzheimer’s or COPD or a traumatic brain or spinal cord injury from “taking care of themselves” on a Harley and going head-first sans helmet (Ride Free!) into a light pole. Who I guess ought to be taking care of themselves so we won’t have to.
Granted, I believe the human body politic has a terminal disease of its own free-will making. But where on a sliding scale of Ubermensch-to-mollycoddle would the mythical average mainstream Libertarian cut the string?
Again, just asking.
Where did we get this pull the cord reputation??? With all of the gov programs we pay huge taxes for, charities, and benevolent churches to keep the incapable and unwilling afloat, where’s the problem. If I take care of me, you don’t have to. What’s wrong with high expectations out of people and businesses. When did a welfare state ever give any incentive?? Why are folks seeking out private schools. I dunno, you show me some better idea, meanwhile, I’m working my butt off so you don’t have to!!
Where did we get this pull the cord reputation??? With all of the gov programs we pay huge taxes for, charities, and benevolent churches to keep the incapable and unwilling afloat, where’s the problem. If I take care of me, you don’t have to. What’s wrong with high expectations out of people and businesses. When did a welfare state ever give any incentive?? Why are folks seeking out private schools. I dunno, you show me some better idea, meanwhile, I’m working my butt off so you don’t have to!!
Where did we get this pull the cord reputation??? With all of the gov programs we pay huge taxes for, charities, and benevolent churches to keep the incapable and unwilling afloat, where’s the problem. If I take care of me, you don’t have to. What’s wrong with high expectations out of people and businesses. When did a welfare state ever give any incentive?? Why are folks seeking out private schools. I dunno, you show me some better idea, meanwhile, I’m working my butt off so you don’t have to!!
What I find interesting about all you anti WSJ loons is that you are surprisingly silent about the New York Times. You may not agree with the opinion of the Wall Street Journal, but at least it opinion are where it belongs — on the opinion pages.
When reading The New York Times on the other hand, it is impossible to separate fact from fiction, excuse me, I meant to say news from opinion.
And such is the hypocrisy of the left wing liberal. You guys are certainly entitled to your opinion. A rational discourse is necessary in a free society. But you guys think you are entitled to your own set of facts, and you will vilify anyone that says anything in disagreement.
And a word to the writer of this blog Taplin: you are a clueless douchebag. If you knew anything about Ayn Rand (which you don’t) you would know that she specifically rejected Libertarianism. Why? Because she felt that Libertarianism would lead to anarchy. A properly functioning government in her writing existed to protect the people, and establish a framework where people could succeed, or fail, based on their own merits and not through manipulation by government controls and mandates.
But I got a feeling that you believe in your time=tested mantra “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
Good luck in your liberal utopia. But after you vampires remove all capital from the productive sector in society, and bankrupt the government through trillion dollar bailouts, who are you going to feed off of?
What I find interesting about all you anti WSJ loons is that you are surprisingly silent about the New York Times. You may not agree with the opinion of the Wall Street Journal, but at least it opinion are where it belongs — on the opinion pages.
When reading The New York Times on the other hand, it is impossible to separate fact from fiction, excuse me, I meant to say news from opinion.
And such is the hypocrisy of the left wing liberal. You guys are certainly entitled to your opinion. A rational discourse is necessary in a free society. But you guys think you are entitled to your own set of facts, and you will vilify anyone that says anything in disagreement.
And a word to the writer of this blog Taplin: you are a clueless douchebag. If you knew anything about Ayn Rand (which you don’t) you would know that she specifically rejected Libertarianism. Why? Because she felt that Libertarianism would lead to anarchy. A properly functioning government in her writing existed to protect the people, and establish a framework where people could succeed, or fail, based on their own merits and not through manipulation by government controls and mandates.
But I got a feeling that you believe in your time=tested mantra “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
Good luck in your liberal utopia. But after you vampires remove all capital from the productive sector in society, and bankrupt the government through trillion dollar bailouts, who are you going to feed off of?
What I find interesting about all you anti WSJ loons is that you are surprisingly silent about the New York Times. You may not agree with the opinion of the Wall Street Journal, but at least it opinion are where it belongs — on the opinion pages.
When reading The New York Times on the other hand, it is impossible to separate fact from fiction, excuse me, I meant to say news from opinion.
And such is the hypocrisy of the left wing liberal. You guys are certainly entitled to your opinion. A rational discourse is necessary in a free society. But you guys think you are entitled to your own set of facts, and you will vilify anyone that says anything in disagreement.
And a word to the writer of this blog Taplin: you are a clueless douchebag. If you knew anything about Ayn Rand (which you don’t) you would know that she specifically rejected Libertarianism. Why? Because she felt that Libertarianism would lead to anarchy. A properly functioning government in her writing existed to protect the people, and establish a framework where people could succeed, or fail, based on their own merits and not through manipulation by government controls and mandates.
But I got a feeling that you believe in your time=tested mantra “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
Good luck in your liberal utopia. But after you vampires remove all capital from the productive sector in society, and bankrupt the government through trillion dollar bailouts, who are you going to feed off of?
One additional comment about Ayn Rand and Libertarianism.
Here is a direct quote from Rand’s writings on Libertarianism taken from a Q&A page on the Ayn Rand Institute web site:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians
Q: What do you think of the Libertarian movement? [FHF: “The Moratorium on Brains,” 1971]
AR: “All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement. ”
And for those of you who actually are in possession of an open mind, may I suggest the following YouTube video of an interview between Mike Wallace and Ayn Rand from 1959:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va2y2JLKF6Y
There are three parts; this link will take you to the first. I only saw a few minutes of it, so I cannot comment on its contents. But in the spirit of Rand’s philosophy, I will leave it to your own objective and rational mind to form your own conclusions.
Regardless of your beliefs, I will say one thing: Check your premises.
One additional comment about Ayn Rand and Libertarianism.
Here is a direct quote from Rand’s writings on Libertarianism taken from a Q&A page on the Ayn Rand Institute web site:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians
Q: What do you think of the Libertarian movement? [FHF: “The Moratorium on Brains,” 1971]
AR: “All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement. ”
And for those of you who actually are in possession of an open mind, may I suggest the following YouTube video of an interview between Mike Wallace and Ayn Rand from 1959:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va2y2JLKF6Y
There are three parts; this link will take you to the first. I only saw a few minutes of it, so I cannot comment on its contents. But in the spirit of Rand’s philosophy, I will leave it to your own objective and rational mind to form your own conclusions.
Regardless of your beliefs, I will say one thing: Check your premises.
I am amazed that Stephen Moore wants to go back to Reagen style conservatism.
Reagen turned our country from the worlds biggest debtor to the worlds biggest debtee.
He tripled the National Debt. And we had nothing to show for it when he left office.
I am amazed that Stephen Moore wants to go back to Reagen style conservatism.
Reagen turned our country from the worlds biggest debtor to the worlds biggest debtee.
He tripled the National Debt. And we had nothing to show for it when he left office.
Steven Moore is on CSPAN this morning, he’s still on, and on and on and on and on. And he’s still as full of crap as the proverbial goose. He spent 20 minutes on how he’d run the State of California. That squirrel couldn’t flush his own john without worrying about how much money it would take to wash down his floaters, let alone run anything.
Steven Moore is on CSPAN this morning, he’s still on, and on and on and on and on. And he’s still as full of crap as the proverbial goose. He spent 20 minutes on how he’d run the State of California. That squirrel couldn’t flush his own john without worrying about how much money it would take to wash down his floaters, let alone run anything.
The only idiots that I see are those attacking Stephen Moore who apparently do not understand what is really going on.
The “Republican Trickle Down Economy” failed to work because of one simple idea that left the rich, richer and the poor left out. That idea fostered by industry and accepted by Republicans was Capital over Labor that presented that Capital always trumps Labor because of the ease in which capital can be shifted to cheaper economies. The result is that the rich got richer and the middle class suffered.
What these high priced idiots failed to realize was that they still needed the US market to sell goods at higher prices that they made for less. By slowly consuming this market and their offshoring they left a vacuum that collapsed. that is why this was called the last market upsurge, the “jobless recovery”. Americans that buy stocks and products from companies that offshored workers further exacerbated the issues and that is why consumers share the blame.
In the new deal with Obama, we have simply changed our Overlords. Now instead of rich fat bastards receiving our monies, we’re sending it to the bloated policies of our savior who would be King of America. Either way, our pockets are lightened and little is done for the middle class. Hugo Chavez comes up with so many reasons to federalize private companies, exert greater governmental control and like the Obama administration would never let a good crisis go to waste. Maybe the Obama administration should travel to Venezuela, to get more tips on how to promote Fascism.
The only idiots that I see are those attacking Stephen Moore who apparently do not understand what is really going on.
The “Republican Trickle Down Economy” failed to work because of one simple idea that left the rich, richer and the poor left out. That idea fostered by industry and accepted by Republicans was Capital over Labor that presented that Capital always trumps Labor because of the ease in which capital can be shifted to cheaper economies. The result is that the rich got richer and the middle class suffered.
What these high priced idiots failed to realize was that they still needed the US market to sell goods at higher prices that they made for less. By slowly consuming this market and their offshoring they left a vacuum that collapsed. that is why this was called the last market upsurge, the “jobless recovery”. Americans that buy stocks and products from companies that offshored workers further exacerbated the issues and that is why consumers share the blame.
In the new deal with Obama, we have simply changed our Overlords. Now instead of rich fat bastards receiving our monies, we’re sending it to the bloated policies of our savior who would be King of America. Either way, our pockets are lightened and little is done for the middle class. Hugo Chavez comes up with so many reasons to federalize private companies, exert greater governmental control and like the Obama administration would never let a good crisis go to waste. Maybe the Obama administration should travel to Venezuela, to get more tips on how to promote Fascism.
The only idiots that I see are those attacking Stephen Moore who apparently do not understand what is really going on.
The “Republican Trickle Down Economy” failed to work because of one simple idea that left the rich, richer and the poor left out. That idea fostered by industry and accepted by Republicans was Capital over Labor that presented that Capital always trumps Labor because of the ease in which capital can be shifted to cheaper economies. The result is that the rich got richer and the middle class suffered.
What these high priced idiots failed to realize was that they still needed the US market to sell goods at higher prices that they made for less. By slowly consuming this market and their offshoring they left a vacuum that collapsed. that is why this was called the last market upsurge, the “jobless recovery”. Americans that buy stocks and products from companies that offshored workers further exacerbated the issues and that is why consumers share the blame.
In the new deal with Obama, we have simply changed our Overlords. Now instead of rich fat bastards receiving our monies, we’re sending it to the bloated policies of our savior who would be King of America. Either way, our pockets are lightened and little is done for the middle class. Hugo Chavez comes up with so many reasons to federalize private companies, exert greater governmental control and like the Obama administration would never let a good crisis go to waste. Maybe the Obama administration should travel to Venezuela, to get more tips on how to promote Fascism.