| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
Can the GOP Handle the Sweet and Flavorful Aroma of Free-Market Economics?
Submitted by Stephen Gordon on Wed, 02/11/2009 - 13:03
"The sense, from watching Republicans these past few weeks, is that they are finding being in the opposition liberating," notes Jeremy Lott at Politico. "Without a governing coalition to hold together, they don’t have to back bad legislation. Without Bush to hold them back, they can soar."
Whether the GOP will soar again remains to be seen. A key issue is whether Republicans will stick to a fiscally conservative message or "work with" Obama and the democratic Congress. As Lott writes, on Election Day, voters had the choice of "Bailout Party A or Bailout Party B."
He believes voters "picked the party they believed hadn’t gotten us into this mess," while I've argued:
Capitulating to President Obama on issues such as this won't provide people a reason to vote Republican. Why vote for the socialist-lite when you can get the real deal?
There a probably an element of truth to both statements. However, former Reagan senior policy analyst Doug Bandow notes:
Just when you hope the Republican politicians understand the urgent need to resist more wasteful spending, they lead the charge to put more money into the most inflated part of the economy, the housing market.
"We are living in a state of economic denial, which Senate Republicans are attempting to prolong," columnist Robert Stacy McCain adds on his personal blog.
This takes us back to the issues that Lott and I raise. If Republicans are going to be Bailout Party B (or Stimulus Party B, or S-CHIP Party B, or Pork Barrel Party B, etc.), why should voters elect people in 2010 or 2012 who maintain the same general argument (but differ on minor details) as the party which they soon will believe got "us into this mess?" Alternately, why would voters choose socialist-lite when they can vote for the real deal?
Some voters prefer the sharp, pungent flavor of socialistic Democratic policies. Other voters prefer the sweet and flavorful aroma of free-market economics. However, most voters have made it very clear that they don't like the watered-down taste and mushy consistency of Bush-era policies. They voted down baby food in 2006 and clearly rejected four additional years of political pablum in 2008.
If they wish to succeed, Republicans are going to have to learn how to put some free-market flavor and small-government spice back into GOP politics.
(6 votes)
- Stephen Gordon's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Promos
Recent blog posts
kmorrison
0 comments
Anita MonCrief
0 comments
Skip MacLure
4 comments
Einzige
2 comments
Wayne from Jere...
8 comments
Wayne from Jere...
37 comments
Conn Carroll
8 comments
lgm
1 comments
Skip MacLure
1 comments
Einzige
2 comments
Recent comments
-
classicliberal2
-
youth4ever
-
John Smith
-
SeanF
-
classicliberal2
Search
Links
The American Scene
Conservablogs
Election Projection
FiveThirtyEight.com
Jonathan Martin
Marc Ambinder
Megan McArdle
Patrick Ruffini
Pollster.com
The Foundry
Government Bytes
Race 4 2008
Real Clear Politics
RedState
Ross Douthat
Soren Dayton
Infrastructure
America's Future Foundation
Americans for Prosperity
Americans for Tax Reform
American Majority
Club for Growth
Election Journal
Heritage Foundation
ATR Blog
Leadership Institute
NewsBusters
Sam Adams Alliance
Republican National Lawyers Association
Republican Liberty Caucus
Washington Watch
National Taxpayers Union
NetRight Nation
Good Lefty Blogs
MyDD
Open Left
Swing State Project
Comments
housing and Republicans
I like the food analogies. That's cute. And I wholeheartedly agree with Lott's analysis of the election: it was a rejection of the perceived bunglers, not a wholesale repudiation of conservatism.
However I find it hard to fault Republicans for looking to housing as a strategy for stimulus. After all it's a populist thing to do, what with nearly everyone having a mortgage, and it's undoubtedly good politics. Sometimes I wonder if Republicans get conservatism and populism confused though.
they are true fiscal conservatives
they are just republicans who use big business for cash and social consertives for votes to get in power.
and complain as anyone may NO other type of republican coalition wins election. as long as the socons are the base these guys will play to them to get the votes, and cut taxes for big business to fund their campaigns.
these 3 groups all lose out if the republican party ever truly returns to consertive roots so why in the world will they ever want to change?
true free market principals will never be in the GOP untill this is resolved.
No mulligans
Do you think Americans will give Republicans mulligans -- do overs -- on every issue?
Since Reagan, Republicans have been the party of fiscal irresponsibility -- debt financed tax cuts for the rich. Are people going to believe now that "true" Republicans are against deficits?
Bush was the darling of the Republican party. You chose him, rallied around him, insisted that people criticizing him were unpartiotic. I remember an earlier moment in history when the followers of a great leader claimed not to know him when he fell on hard times.
Obama walked through an open door.
Igm has it pegged. The GOP is in dire straights from self inflicted wounds, You can't rally behind a high functioning moron for four years and expect people to forget all that.
I remember back when the presidential field was a cattle call on both sides. I took a look at the dozen possible D's and thought, any of these guys can beat any of the dozen possible R's. And it was all because Bush and Co. had poisoned the well.
Obama's great accomplishment is being the first Black leader of a non-majority Black country. As far as being a Democrat who beat a Republican in 2008...Mike Gravel could have done as much.
maybe.
gravel was a card.
and Kucinich couldn't have won. he's a dramaqueen and basically incompetent.
The GOP and Free Market Econcomics
Stephen Gordon makes some very good points. He posits: "A key issue is whether Republicans will stick to a fiscally conservative message or 'work with' Obama and the democratic Congress." The answer does not have to be either or. In theory, Republicans should be able to "work with" Obama to achieve some constructive results while at the same time articulate very clearly a fiscally conservative, free market message. The problems is that the current generation of Republicans has no background or experience articulating a fiscally conservative, free market, limited government message. All of that ended with the departure of Newt Gingrich from the House. Since then, the focus and "expertise" of the GOP shifted almost entirely to cultural, social and religious-centric issues as part of an effort to animate that portion of "the base." This is the legacy of the Bush years and the political strategy of Karl Rove & Co. The GOP became quite good at supervising our personal lives and our relationship to God but lousy at understanding and explaining why freedom is a better solution that collectivism or "social democracy."
Simply saying "no" to Obama and the Democrats will not cut it. Republicans must articulate why free market and fiscally conservative solutions are superior to the collectivist-socialist initiatives coming from the Democrats. To do so, they are going to have to re-learn (or learn) the principles of Hayek, Friedman, et.al. that inspired the conservative revolution of a previous era.
Unfortunately, the intellectual and philosophical recapitalization of the GOP will take time, and the organizational and operational principles that were effectively utilized by the conservative minority of the 1970's will have to be re-learned.
Word
Stephan and Chris L. both make good points - I'm as socially conservative as most of the so-called base in the GOP, but at the same time I have zero interest in having the government getting involved in that aspect of my life, and I can definitely understand how that could turn off a large number of voters. A government that interferes in order to support socially conservative ideals is just as intrusive as one that works against those ideals, and in my mind, equally as un-American.
I would love to see a resurrected GOP that focused almost entirely on economic issues, working on drastically cutting government spending and slashing the overall size of the government, and then enacting sweeping tax cuts. These are the arguments that the GOP should be making to the base as well as to the centrists. Forget about social issues for the time being, the base is not going to desert the GOP for liberals, as long as the GOP doesn't betray the base (again) on taxes and spending.
It will be an easy case to make in the next election cycle, after a few years of ridiculous Dem government spending and tax increases and the accompanying decline in functionality in America. People will see that they are getting less for their money, that their retirement and savings are worth much less, and that they are much less free to boot. The GOP just needs to stick to their guns and not get sucked into "compromise." Let the Dems own their spending and their taxes and their waste, and then hammer them on it in the next election.
An unrelated response to a point from chemjeff - yes, there are plenty of people out there with mortgages who are hurting, and I can understand the point of the GOP's appeals to help them, but at the same time, there are still tons of people out there, particularly young people, who are renting and are unable to (responsibly) afford a home, largely because of the over-inflated home prices that the GOP has helped to prop up with mortgage bailouts.
I have never been more disgusted and angry at the GOP then when they supported bailouts and relief for people defaulting on their mortgages. Owning a home is not a right, and it's not for everyone. I've spent and saved responsibly for my whole adult life (I'm 29), I have virtually perfect credit, a decent job, no debt, but I cannot afford a decent home of my own at any point in the near future, and I place the blame for this on McCain and Co, who refused to force people to take responsibility for their bad decisions, and instead passed the burden on to everyone else.
Skip the 'free market'
I think with Bush the 'free-market' or 'conservatism' ideological slogans finally saw their death. Thank God. Republican as a party are not fiscal conservatives. You have to go back a mightly long way to find one that is. Republicans are not small government either. Find the instance where that has proven itself. And there's no such thing as a 'free' market. We moved away from unrestrained capitalism with the breakup of standard oil.
So what is the Republican version of a 'free market'? I don't think at the national level republicans will have a leg to stand on for years. But maybe on a local level 'practice what you preach' is doable for a long term strategy.
And let go of the social issues, and Dem bashing. Dems never mention socialism. They don't have defined plank so attacking a plank that isn't there looks like a marketing ploy.
Also, remember that Dems tend toward collectivest answer because they're more urban. A more dense, complex system requires more control. The Dem answer isn't socialist, it's urban.
many dem answers are urban.
but the important part is to see when those are REALLY wrong for rural areas (like gun control. something needs to be done, but it can't cripple those who rely on guns for food)
right and . . .
Guns is a good point to talk about. Rural and urban america approach the issue from very different perspectives. Where I grew up, guns were fun. So conservative approach to the issue is a 'why do they want to take away my fun and way of life from me' kind of way. For where I live now, there's nothing fun about guns. Urbanists approach it from a 'why do they want to make life more dangerous than it already is?'
The NRA has taken an all or nothing, here there and everywhere approach to the issue. Let's take DC. Most people in DC don't want guns sold in DC. However, the supreme court just mandated that they do. Question is, should DC get self determination just as . . . countrytown USA should. State rights vs. Federal. There will always be a fight over this.
The liberals I know aren't against hunting rifles, they're against cheap and easily accesable hand guns. The majority anyway. I believe if the NRA/Pro gun group helped solved the urban problem, the urban people would skip this as an issue. The extremes on both ends ruin the compromise for the majority. This is why I generally don't like ideological arguements. They rarely allow for local, pragmatic problem solving.
I knew someone who grew up in WV.
good sharpshooter, in the 4H club, that sort of thing. so I know what you mean.
My problem isn't cheap and available handguns, it's blackmarket handguns that rural/exurban folks dump in the cities without any of the controls of legal stores. Without some way of tracking down who's dumping weapons, we can't fix the problem.
Oh, and I've got a problem with gunrunners too.
here's a less crazy version of the NRA: http://www.huntersandshooters.com/
DC is a singular problem. "no taxation without representation"
Yeah . .
Problem is cheap and easily available hand guns end up on the black market. Ideoligically, guns should be available to all; however, all are not responsible. I don't mind hurdles. If you really want something, you'll work toward making it happen. Right now, it's a completely open avenue.
I'm not from WV (but not far); vacation in Berkely Springs occasionally. I like sharp shooting though. More than pistol. It's very cerebral and zen at the same time. Now my wife won't even let me have my BB gun to shoot at the rats in the ally. How much fun would that be on a summer evening? Big city rat hunting! I'd love it.
I think the most realistic boundary is licenses.
as in you need a shooting license like you need a blasting license for fireworks, or a drivers license for cars.
People get that, and it would provide a way for police to enforce the "you don't get guns without some work" thingummy.
I was bikeriding in Berkely Springs over thanksgiving. lovely terrain!
You'd have to block off the alley from pedestrians, but otherwise it sounds like a pretty good idea. Use some birdseed to attract them!
Talking point alert.
Have you ever attempted to purchase a handgun? The idea that "it's a completely open avenue" is utterly preposterous, and the stringency of existing controls on handguns is the very reason there's a thriving black market for them. Hint: black or grey markets don't spring up in the absence of unlawful demand.
what's the best way to eliminate the black/grey market?
I've read studies of teh underground economy. they've proven interesting reads.
The single most useful thing
The single most useful thing we could do in combating the "illegal arms trade" and the urban violence to which it contributes is stopping our modern Prohibition: end the War on Some Drugs. Prohibitionary policies vis-a-vis narcotics create enormous profit incentives for drug gangsters, to the point they're willing to kill and die over product and turf. Hence, they arm themselves and their followers, and turn urban neighborhoods into war zones. In other words, the black/grey market in guns is largely an incident of other government policies that push otherwise-legitimate commerce underground; end those policies and you'll significantly reduce the dynamics that fuel black- and grey-market demand for firearms.
AHSA isn't a "less crazy
AHSA isn't a "less crazy version of the NRA". It's a gun control front group.
Eh
Cr - per my comment above, I agree with you on letting go of the social issues, for the time being anyway - but I definitely don't agree with your point on "Dem bashing" and socialism. The Democrats don't mention socialism as part of their platform because they know that if they did so explicitly they would be dead in the water. Their policies are definitely socialist, but to call them by that name would be suicide, so they cloak them behind nice, safe, child-friendly names (i.e. Fairness Doctrine - as socialists tend to do), counting on the stupidity and ignorance of the common voter. And it works.
But that hardly means that the Republicans should shy away from trying to expose these policies for exactly what they are and call them by their true names. The Democrats are doing their best to turn this country into another failed socialist state. Why should the Republicans not try to exploit that?
And your final point just doesn't make any sense. Even if their policies aren't "socialist" (which I obviously disagree with) but rather, are "urban," why should the rest of the country have to suffer under those same (failed) policies? And why would any city want to enact these same "urban" policies that have utterly failed in every city, state and country in which they've been enacted? Anyone feel like ending up like Detroit? Or California? The single-most prosperous, blessed state in the richest country in the history of the world, and the place is bankrupt. Gee, let's copy what they've done!
FIRE caused cali bankruptcy.
and FIRE was caused by George W Bush and Alan Greenspan.
geez, it's like you never read Stiglitz!
You're right, I forgot, everything gets blamed on Bush. Sorry.
I can't imagine what I was thinking - it couldn't have had anything to do with the over-regulation, high taxes, massive illegal immigration, runaway social welfare spending and ridiculous union and government pensions...
whose fault
Don't forget, it's Cheney's fault too.
alan greenspan's fault
themessthatgreenspanmade
it ain't the cheney is evil blog, yaknow?
NINJA and LIAR loans are NOT overregulation
puchela, you need to grow up before the little foxes eat you.
You have no earthly idea what
You have no earthly idea what you're talking about.
Nothing caused California's bankruptcy except unrestrained spending growth resulting from one-party control of the state legislature and a "compassionate conservative" governor who refused to exercise his veto in a financially responsible manner. The state budget crisis could be solved today merely by using the FY2004 state budget in place of the FY2009 state budget.
a taxbase built on sand supports nothing.
sorry.
there is no way a double bubble toil and trouble economy could support ANYTHING like the required amount of services when the Inland Empire collapses.
I will look forward to
I will look forward to hearing how providing "the required amount of services" necessitated a doubling of the state budget in just five years.
Again: you have no earthly clue what you're talking about. Go back to your coloring book.
Inland Empire.
not that I'm saying that it was all necessary, by any stretch. But when you have extensive development, in most cases paid for by taxpayers who install sewer systems on the govmint dime... and then need to supply police, and fire, etc.
I think you can see where i'm going with this.
Yes, I can. Directly into
Yes, I can. Directly into fantasy-land, where the clouds are made of cotton candy, unicorns frolic in bright green fields, and California's fiscal crisis is chiefly the result of "extensive development" in just two (Riverside and San Bernadino) of the state's 58 counties.
You have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
silicon valley ring a bell?
seriously, folks, the bubbles were bigger, and yes i did just say plural. ;-)
Inasmuch as I live in Silicon
Inasmuch as I live in Silicon Valley, I would hope so.
So now we've moved 400 miles north to Santa Clara and San Mateo counties in our quest for the chimerical "extensive development" that's, according to you, principally the cause of California's economic crisis?
Really, darlin', quit while you're behind. The idea that the state's budgetary crisis is being driven by the expansion of public services in places like the Inland Empire and Silicon Valley is the opposite of correct.
We'll we're in complete disagreement, no arguements needed
I have a friend, a good friend. Here he'd be called socialist. He's vegan, would never ever think of picking up a gun, public transportation all the way, PETA supporting, Dem to the end . . . and he would never think about supporting socialism. Over beers, I've never heard him say 'socialism'. He believes in the free market, but also believes that the government has a roll in regulating for the public good/safety. And I find it competely bunk that his goal is to turn the US into a "failed state". Or any other Dem. Seriously, think about what you're saying.
Disagree with a proposed solution to a problem, but every time I hear the "socialist", I think:
1. The person making the charge lives is some cave of conservatism and needs to get out more.
2. What does it accomplish? What specific arguement have you furthered? What problem have you just solved?
Detroit failed because it was a one industry town. Other cities went under because they did what other individuals did (rural and urban), count on continuing income and overspent. And no, you shouldn't necessarily copy what they've done. The problem is that we have a disparity of problems tied to geograpy, but a federal goverment that can't be sensitive to geographic area.
That's why I prefer a smaller federal government, and give rights to the states. Then California can better solve probelms unique for its contituency. It's not that federal government is necessarily bad, it's just bad for our country given given size and demographics. However, there is a roll for the fed. And that depends on the particular problem. If we had to round up the state militia everytime we were threatened militarily, then . . .. our wars would be different. And try taking medicare/ social security away from people now! Those are very socialist programs. You can disagree with what they've become, but noone is talking about getting rid of them.
You say, "The problem is
You say,
"The problem is that we have a disparity of problems tied to geograpy, but a federal goverment that can't be sensitive to geographic area."
I ask why a federal government can't be sensitive to a geographic area. I thought a president is CEO of the whole country. We live in a globalized world. No state can compete with 1 billion Chinese and 1 billion Indians, and the Japanese. We have seen the Japanese take away most of the steel, textiles, electronics, and autos. And the same is being done with China and India taking our jobs. It is a worldwide problem and we have not prepared for that. It has only been tax cuts and laissez-faire by the republicans. And total ignorance to the problems of globalization and free trade. Cities and states are going broke, especially in the manufacturing states where industry is leaving. It means people without jobs, less pay, less healthcare, less in pensions. It means less in tax revenue as our budgets bulge. It means we are less competitive in the world. It means tax cuts don't work if you don't solve problems.
We have heard all the talking points that this is going to be an information society. Well, I don't know what that means in the MIdwest. This is manufacturing. The nerds on Wall Street and Washington come up with these ideas and they have no answer for the damage that they have caused. Having said that, market forces will dictate that jobs will go to third world countries. But again our country has done nothing to alleviate the problem.
Bush has talked of "free trade is good" and we have seen our factories close. So this is a Washington problem. 8 years of "stay the course" with no action. And years of seeing our money going to Iraq, and our jobs going overseas. The manufacturing states voted for Obama with good reason. The republicans abandoned the middle class.
What I'm saying is . .
A federal answer to a local problem is a bad answer, and vice versa. A large federal answer most likely has unintended consequences on a local level. On the local level, urban problems are different than rural problems.
That is why there is so much disagreement between Reps (generally a rural crowd) and Dems (an urban crowed). And no matter what, for every policy local or federal, there are consequences intended and not.
In my original posting I said 'forget free trade'. There's no such thing. It's only a matter of how and how much regulation. You want total free trade, then you have market place instability. You want total regulation? Then it's been shown to stagnate growth.
This is why we discuss. There are few clear answers in large complex societies. And even my above comments don't even take into account the people problem. People tend to say one thing, then ask for something quite different depending on the situation. Reps are against socialism, but all for medicade or social security. Given a choice between second amendment rights or medicade, I'd know where I put my money which one we'd choose as a nation.
I say forget the slogans, 'socialist', 'conservative', 'liberal' or the ideological b.s like 'free-trade', or 'fiscal conservative' . . . and focus on the problems at hand. They are fluid and complex, and simple jargon is a waste of time.
"The reps have been abondoning the middle class." You think they have a plan? They sit around and decided that's what they'd do? No. But certianly the Reps under Bush have run the country dismally; but bitching about Bush will not guarantee that the Dems will do any better.
And one other thing, politcians from both parties fuck it up for everyone because they persue short term goals at the expense of long term results because short term goals win elections. That and they make policies (or taxes) that aim to solve problems, but the policies (or taxes) stay long after the problem is gone. It would be nice if they could put expiration dates on those things. Again, they get elected to solve problems, not prevent them. Generally speaking.
yeah, let's screw ideology up the wazoo.
and get to fixing the problems. federal gov't is best at fixing things that need consistency. not everything does *(health care, welfare, medicaid)
.
Your friend can avoid saying the word "socialist" all he wants, that doesn't change the fact that the policies that the Dems in power right now are trying to implement are undeniably socialist. Socialized Medicine? That's pretty socialist. A nationalized banking industry? That's socialist. Capping the pay of company executives is socialist. Increasing taxes so that the federal government has control over what industries receive funds for what projects? That's socialist. Belief in a free market means that the federal government stays out of it. A truly free market regulates itself. What we are seeing now is not some kind of small governmental oversight, just to make sure things don't get out of hand. This is nationalization.
Do you think Newsweek just ran the cover story "We're All Socialists Now" just for kicks?
And I don't believe that the Dems are purposefully trying to turn the U.S. into a failed state, but if they proceed down the path upon which they've started, it will quickly become one. Every other country that has pursued socialism has done so.
And then you really lose me with this "And try taking medicare/ social security away from people now! Those are very socialist programs. You can disagree with what they've become, but noone is talking about getting rid of them."
Are you suddenly taking my side? I don't get it. You're making the case that there are already socialist programs in existence, that are apparently impossible to get rid of, sooo, what? We should allow more? Do you think the health care system and social security system are working in this country? Would you want the rest of our service industries run in the same way? And actually, yes, there are people talking about getting rid of them, or at least cutting them back drastically. Come out of your liberal cave every once in a while and you'll hear about it.
according to you, an 8 hour workday is socialism.
also child labor laws (i'll bitch about those some other day, eh?)
READ Krugman. Nobody is seriously talking about leaving the banking industry nationalized. Just dealing with the NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE rather than ... BEING HELD HOSTAGE BY TERRORISTS.
I thought republicans were all for national security? Pity that, the CDC needs funding too. Also Detroit (light infantry vehicles are a national security issue, yes indeedy!)
.
Huh? What are you babbling about? Child labor laws and eight hour work days and light infantry vehicles?
Caps Lock and ellipses do not an argument make.
And if you actually believe that the federal government under the Dems will ever fully relinquish control of any industry that is nationalized, you're dreaming.
Socialism. I remember the term well...
In New York City we were all communists you see
Until the miracle of 1947
when we, horrified, weren't.
If you need to ask about socialistic ideas, then I'll explain to you what Socialism has done for america. And so I have.
In terms of socialized medicine, If it can save 6% of our GDP a year, ain't that a damn fine piece of change? Or are you so addicted to your freedom that you fail to plan for the predicted disasters? http://www.fluwikie.com/ 95% immunization grants herd immunity. We don't have near that capacity. So why not do what we do know how to do, and increase the overall health of the populace. The weak are often the first to fall, and serve as resevoirs for the disease.
If they do not, then I'll vote republican! (or break the entire republican party apart, and forge a new coalition, if necessary) See? problem solved!
socialism and efficiency
Not in terms of the liberty that would be lost.
The problem is that your arguments could be used to justify nationalizing any industry. After all, whenever you have multiple competitors in the same marketplace, you are going to have duplication of services - multiple stores selling the same products, multiple inventory warehouses storing the same items, multiple supply chains delivering the exact same thing. Wouldn't it be more efficient if government simply ran everything?
down with wallmart too?
I hate multinational corporations, and I hate monopolies. this socialized medicine does not represent a monopoly, more like a union leveraging our combined purchasing power.
Ever noticed how two mcdonalds aren't closer than X distance? company rules.
Wendys and McDonalds aren't clones.
Most things sold aren't commodities (and even when they are, there are grades. grade f meat is pretty skeezy)
McWendy's
No, McDonald's and Wendy's aren't clones. One serves round burgers, the other serves square burgers. But they both serve french fries, sodas, salads, and lots of other things that are almost identical. So, using your reasoning, wouldn't it be more efficient if government simply nationalized McDonald's and Wendy's, to get rid of all that duplication? It could even offer both round burgers and square burgers.
LMAO
at the McWendy's analogy.
[snark]Perhaps we should nationalize gas stations, too. That way, all stations can have shortages or "gouge" prices all at the same time.[/snark]
Absolutely - nationalize it all!
Well yeah, it seems silly when you actually make the argument clear. I still do not fully understand the "We should nationalize medicine because it will make it more EFFICIENT" crowd. Either they have never bothered to give their argument any serious thought whatsoever, or they simply are dead-set on nationalizing health care regardless and are trying to conjure up bogus reasons in order to trick a few dim-witted moderates into supporting them. Not sure yet.
here's part of the thing:
that argument says that there are better things to be spending our economic investment on. Which I agree with. We get X trillion in GDP. Where do we put our money? If we use it to finance more and more denials of care... ayiyi, that just seems insane. Why not invest in productivity research?? That actually has the potential to increase our GDP, eventually.
I'd rather take the money and stuff it into scientific research (or into practically anything that isn't financials -- i'm a tad peeved at them right now).
fallacy of collectivist thinking
To even ask the question "Where do we put our money?" implies that it is possible for us collectively to make a conscious decision on how resources should be allocated in a rational, fair, and just manner. It isn't. That is the fallacy of collectivist thinking. Read Hayek. The bottom line is that: (a) government agencies do not have any better information about the needs of consumers and producers than the market; (b) government bureaucrats are not angels, and the bad actors that will inevitably appear will corrupt the system; and (c) the amount of arbitrary power required to enforce the government agency's directives is intolerable for a free society.
hayek's incorrect.
1. the FED is able to get information far quicker than transparency regulations require the corporations to submit the data to the public eye. So of course they'd have better information.
2. Yeah, yeah, government agencies are bad. What is to stop corporations from becoming bad actors? As far as I can tell, there have been no effective restraints put on corporations. In this multinational world it is possible that there will be no way to do so. Shall I put you down on the side of the corporations who engage in white slavery? There is apparently a market for that, as well...
3. Nice to know that England is no longer a free society. Yawn.
I don't know about all this rationalism, by the way. I'm an empiricist, and when you tell me that the United States spends more on their health care than socialistic health care states, to insure fewer people, and underinsure dramatically more people. I don't find Hayek's abstractions terribly convincing.
If there's someone whose ideas I am interested in, it's Mises. ;-)
On a tangent (see? labeling is good!) are you for more FDA inspections of food producing places? 5000 deaths in the past year from food related poisonings. It strikes me that this is just as much of a problem in terms of "life liberty and happiness" as having a police force.
Maybe you should actually read Hayek.
Really? So the Fed knows what kind of health care I require and how much it "should" cost? Wow, they are damn near omniscient! The bottom line is that while the Fed or the government in general may have timely information, they don't have better information about what individuals need.
Nothing. We right-libertarians don't believe anyone is an angel, which is why we don't want to give immense amounts of power to only a small handful of people. But corporations that screw up, in a competitive marketplace, go out of business and their services are replaced by their competitors. It doesn't crash the entire health care industry. When a government agency in charge of planning an industry screws up, there is no competitive marketplace, so the entire industry is screwed, and all of us along with it.
Blah blah, white slavery...spare us your strawmen.
When it comes to health care, decisively so.
But are you not an empiricist with principles and ethics? If I told you that having a free market in human organs for transplant would make more organs available for needy patients (which is actually true), would you suddenly become in favor of buying and selling human hearts and livers? Or would your ethics remind you that maybe there is something troubling about selling human body parts? Would not your principles tell you that creating a market for human organs would lead to perverse incentives which simply aren't healthy? While you're at it, read some Burke. He had some rather scathing things to say about people who attempt to rely purely on empirical facts and reason in order to arrive at their conclusions.
on your points
1. point taken. what odds do you give your bank for surviving? the opacity of the system violates hayek's every tenent. Down with level three assets!
2. So the health care corporation which denies all coverage over a certain dollar value is suddenly a good actor, because it has not gone out of business yet? How... tautological.
Nothing about strawmen there, I bring up white slavery because you tend to start to sound utilitarian about the whole free market thing. And I'm decidely more Kantian than you, I suspect, about this one thing.
3. There's nothing rational about principles and ethics. Remind me to explain to you about how America is God, sometime (as the most persuasive entity extant). ;-)
I'll grab some Burke when I get the time(thanks!). As I know people who have been gifted with children (who were intended as child brides, in that culture), I may not exactly be the person to ask about organ transplant auctions. I think I must say that in a society where it is impossible to afford most children and where abortions are either unavailable or unaffordable, then yes, I think the organ auctions would be a good idea. Still Kantian, but I feel like a very compromising Kantian (and I do feel dirty for even endorsing this, as much sense as it seems to make. weird).
interestingly enough, they were all slashing their own throats
just a few months ago, with the high oil prices. anything to keep demand up...
but that's individual decisions writ large.
glarmph. hoist by me own petard.
I don't think there's much duplication there. each place provides a radius of control, wherein folks are more likely to attend that one than another one. when places prove less profitable, they get closed down.
(most chains get their food from suppliers, so i wouldn't be surprised if the lettuce and stuff was absolutely identical.)