Text

Physicist, Startup Founder, Blogger, Dad

Friday, September 07, 2012

The choice


I liked Obama's speech last night -- especially that he actually called for shared sacrifice for the greater good. It didn't quite rise to the level of "Ask not ..." but I suppose that would have been cliche.
... This is the choice we now face. This is what the election comes down to. Over and over, we have been told by our opponents that bigger tax cuts and fewer regulations are the only way; that since government can't do everything, it should do almost nothing. If you can't afford health insurance, hope that you don't get sick. If a company releases toxic pollution into the air your children breathe, well, that's just the price of progress. If you can't afford to start a business or go to college, take my opponent's advice and "borrow money from your parents."

You know what? That's not who we are. That's not what this country's about. As Americans, we believe we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights— rights that no man or government can take away. We insist on personal responsibility and we celebrate individual initiative. We're not entitled to success. We have to earn it. We honor the strivers, the dreamers, the risk-takers who have always been the driving force behind our free enterprise system— the greatest engine of growth and prosperity the world has ever known.

But we also believe in something called citizenship— a word at the very heart of our founding, at the very essence of our democracy; the idea that this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another, and to future generations.

We believe that when a CEO pays his autoworkers enough to buy the cars that they build, the whole company does better.

We believe that when a family can no longer be tricked into signing a mortgage they can't afford, that family is protected, but so is the value of other people's homes, and so is the entire economy. [[ This was cheap and wrong. Individual families have to take responsibility for the housing bubble. ]]

We believe that a little girl who's offered an escape from poverty by a great teacher or a grant for college could become the founder of the next Google, or the scientist who cures cancer, or the President of the United States— and it's in our power to give her that chance.

We know that churches and charities can often make more of a difference than a poverty program alone. We don't want handouts for people who refuse to help themselves, and we don't want bailouts for banks that break the rules. We don't think government can solve all our problems. But we don't think that government is the source of all our problems— any more than are welfare recipients, or corporations, or unions, or immigrants, or gays, or any other group we're told to blame for our troubles.

Because we understand that this democracy is ours.

We, the people, recognize that we have responsibilities as well as rights; that our destinies are bound together; that a freedom which only asks what's in it for me, a freedom without a commitment to others, a freedom without love or charity or duty or patriotism, is unworthy of our founding ideals, and those who died in their defense.

As citizens, we understand that America is not about what can be done for us. It's about what can be done by us, together, through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self-government.

35 comments:

dwbudd said...

Personally, I thought that the speech was notable for just how vacuous it was.


He said he would hire 100,000 new maths and sciences teachers.


Given that the country and just about every state is broke, how is this going to happen?


He mentioned 600,000 new natural gas workers.


Interesting, given his base is opposed to hydraulic fracturing almost as a matter of religious dogma.


2 million new "trainees?" Training to do what?


I have a similar "vision:" One where you can live on Belgian chocolates, spend three hours every day surfing at the beach, have perfect, blemish-free skin.... Now, don't ask how I intend to make this happen, of course. Maybe there's a group of rich bankers I can put into a vise and squeeze Precious Bodily Fluids out of.



The whole DNC (with the exception of President Clinton) was like a campaign to be the President of Fantasyland. For that, President Obama can count on my support.

Bobdisqus said...

How does anything he says matter? He now has a record of achievement or in this case lack of such. There is only one thing anyone should need to know to see why he should go, the unemployment rate.



http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/09/07/five-key-takeaways-from-jobs-report/

Imagine Hillary had won the democratic nomination and won the election. Can anyone imagine she would have been nearly as disconnected and complacent on this issue? I might not have liked her solutions, but she would have her focus there.

Jeff said...

How about these things for shared sacrifice:

1. letting me run my factory to the standards that I set? 2. letting me manufacture products and peaceably trade them with other people without government interference? 3. letting me run my books the way that I see fit. 4. letting me hire whom I wish to work with, without any fear of government retaliation.
Show me some government "shared sacrifice" by removing the boot from my neck, and I will be more than happy to buy into the "shared sacrifice" tripe in our multicultural landscape. Of course, the notion that shared sacrifice can work in a multicultural setting where ostracism and all matter of norming behaviors are frowned upon, is complete and utter b.s. You like to point out how smart you are, and surely you are correct. Perhaps, however, your admiration for Obama demonstrates an inability to translate your intelligence into an understanding of social dynamics; the latter ability, perhaps, requiring some unique personality characteristics . Read Lew Rockwell's blog for one month. It is outrageous, but boy do those people understand what few others can conceive, namely just how f-ing terrible our government truly is. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/

Richard Seiter said...

"We believe that when a family can no longer be tricked into signing a mortgage they can't afford, that family is protected, but so is the value of other people's homes, and so is the entire economy. [[This was cheap and wrong. Individual families have to take responsibility for the housing bubble.]]" - Agreed. However, I think some responsibility should also go to the real estate boosters in business and the media who fanned the flames of "real estate always goes up" and did little to describe just how toxic some of those loans were.


Why can't we find a way of recognizing the importance of (and valuing/rewarding) ability, effort, and personal responsibility while also recognizing that (some semblance of) equality of opportunity is important and sometimes people have bad luck and finding a way to help those people (usually temporarily) while not creating too much moral hazard is worthwhile.


Why can't we find a way of recognizing that some level of regulation is helpful (would abolishing the EPA really be a good idea?, should my neighbor be free to use their land as a slaughterhouse in an urban area?) while excessive regulation is (to use another commenter's phrase) a boot on the neck of both businesses and individuals.

dwbudd said...

Yan -


great points, all.


I did not see anything that Mr Obama said to indicate any sort of sacrifice, other than his usual bromides about this or that person paying "his fair share" in taxes. What that is is, of course, never actually said out loud.


I would add only that your observation that politics, like so many other things, is about BS and self-promotion is too weak a claim. Given that Mr Obama rose to the presidency (and got my vote in 2008, I have to admit) based largely on nothing, made a speech yesterday hailed widely by some very bright people (Professor Hsu among them) in which he pretty much said nothing, and likely will get re-elected based upon a record containing nothing, shouldn't you say "especially politics."

reservoir_dogs said...

the truth is, a society is advanced, or even maintained by surprisingly few people with the brains, the drive and the determination to get things done. To me, it was not about shared sacrafices, as even our poorest people today live better than 90% of the world, or even vast majorities of the people in the U.S. who lived just a few decades before us. The problem is one of capital allocation. Smart and driven people do a better job with allocating their money, by leaving more money in the hands of people like Warren buffet and Bill Gates, that money is put to better use than if we leave it to the poor, who just blows it on the latest bling thing.
This country is increasingly bifercated. The whole Democratic Party line has been, how do we get more from the wealthy (better allocators of capital) give it to the poor (who blows it). All these calls of "investment" "job creation" "grow the middle class" has a sense of pink panther/ bugs bunny comedy feel to it. If you look into what they are calling for, at the end, it will do none of the good to the country that they say it will do.
The theology of the left is increasingly bankrupt. Unlike the old days during the depression(the real one in 1929), there is no one starving or living on the streets if one even half way tries. 99.9% of the people in this country are living a good life. The other 0.1% are either mentally ill or otherwise not helpable no matter the amount of money. We are already doing a pretty good job of educating those that want to be educated, more money does little to improve education. It allow students to live better while on campus, All these folks that cry about student loans should know that if you took general studies specializing in basket weaving, that you are not going to find a job. and the amount of the tuition is a real cost they spent just like they went down the street and bought a Porshe. They should know this before they took the loan, not after. How can you call this an "investment" when a guy spent all this money and is not even able to hold down a job. In the mean time, at McDonald's I am seeing people working there that don't even speak English.

Your Lying Eyes said...

We believe that a little girl who's offered an escape from poverty by a great teacher or a grant for college could become the founder of the next Google, or the scientist who cures cancer, or the President of the United States


Hey, 1 out of 3 ain't bad

A. Zarkov said...

This is not one of his better speeches as it presented nothing new. We got a recycled version of his prior speeches with the familiar platitudes. What does he offer besides more of the same-- borrow or create money in an attempt to stimulate the economy? We have no compelling evidence that this approach works. The Keynesian multiplier is not necessarily greater than one. I would like to have heard a road map for what his second-term policies will be and why he thinks they will work. Based on the past, I think all we will get is more speeches.

He invokes FDR. A president who didn't cope with the Great Depression very well, and basically copied Hoover's attempt at demand stimulus. Ironic because he ran against Hoover's budget deficits. Some economists assert that FDR actually made the Depression worse with his NIRA. One of FDR's principal advisers, Rexford Tugwell, did not believe that markets should set prices. He believed in the administrative state, and that's what Obama believes in as well. Obama's whole speech was intellectually vacant. Let's face it, this guy is simply another political trying to get elected with vote buying.

LondonYoung said...

I agree that the Obama administration seems to endorse a racial quota base approach to college admissions - as dear a theme to this blog as any theme. And I don't understand why Steve applauds a call for "shared sacrifice" here when the man calling for it never actually asks it. He wants to raise a few tens of billions of dollars with higher taxes on the top 2 or 3 percent of earners - and as one of them I can tell you that is hardly a sacrifice in this economy. But what is he asking for from anyone else? Is the sacrifice that we should tolerate the slowest economic recover in the post-war era to please one man's desire to remain as president? (sorry for sarcasm)


Steve - you normally avoid politics, but I would love to hear you critique Obama's performance during his first two years when he had complete control of D.C. After the midterms, I don't think there is much to judge given the divided government. If you wanna dive in, I would love to hear ...


P.S. thanks for making the point about who took who in the housing bubble ...

BlackRoseML said...

"

Why can't we find a way of recognizing the importance of (and
valuing/rewarding) ability, effort, and personal responsibility while
also recognizing that (some semblance of) equality of opportunity is
important and sometimes people have bad luck and finding a way to help
those people (usually temporarily) while not creating too much moral
hazard is worthwhile."
Haven't we all realized that American is already a meritocracy based on g:

"

" Blacks seem to naturally have an over abundance of self esteem. It doesn't seem to help them much."


That's because we live in a meritocracy where the SAT/ACT reveals
their intellectual deficiencies, and the meritocracy selects high-g
people who also possess the high self-esteem of blacks for value
transference activities such as working in politics and investment
banks. It seems economically that high self-esteem is only valuable when
one has sufficient g. Perhaps, that is the "g" threshold when "g"
starts having marginal returns and personality traits and specific
abilities (as the intercorrelation of those abilities starts breaking
down due to Spearman's law of diminishing returns) become more important
than "g". But to a low-g person, I don't see how high or low
self-esteem would enhance productivity or provide opportunities for
advancement in a menial job, especially if they use objective
performance evaluation and psychometric tests (even if it does not
directly test "g") are used as metrics for promotions. (And yes, "g" is
important at lower levels, from 70-90, but the high g HS commenters are
unlikely to know that from personal experience but rather from their
familiarity with the psychometric literature on individual differences.)

"


""When
people say that our culture is decadent, this is what they're talking
about. It seems that any society that's powerful enough not to fear
invasion begins to reward confidence more than competence, which never
works out well in the long term"




Do you have any evidence that this is true in developed countries? It
seems that education and credentials (and hence aptitude) takes
precedence over personality traits in the United States. For instance,
admission into colleges require decent standardized test scores (and the
HBD community regards them as hallowed , objective psychmometric
instruments that are difficult to game) and for elite colleges,
exceptional scores. The US is still mostly a meritocracy. It seems
reasonable to believe that when aptitude is controlled or above a
certain threshold, personality (such as confidence) predominates over g,
but generally, in explaining the variation in socioeconomic outcomes in
the general population encompassing the normal range of g, g becomes
the primary variable. After all, don't HBDers like to promulgate the
superior predictive power of g compared to other personality traits?


In general, competence is still valued over confidence. "

BlackRoseML said...

The money that the poor was given to buy consumer goods and houses was not in the form of wages, but in loans. How can that be indicative of a "capital allocation problem" when the financial elite were convinced that the best returns for their capital was in loaning consumers money? The elite had no moral or legal obligation to loan the consumers money to squander on frivolous purchases, but they did so because there was a dearth of opportunities to invest that money in innovative, Promethean technologies.

BTW, to the contrary, most students do not major in something that has practical value: http://www.halfsigma.com/2010/12/what-college-students-major-in.html

David Coughlin said...

I would be interested to know how [and how many ways] either of you interpret 'shared sacrifice'. Does 'shared sacrifice' [necessarily] affect social order?

reservoir_dogs said...

My bad, I thought we were talking about the Democratic/Obama platform here of transferring wealth from the wealthy, through the government, to the less well to do.

I am not saying that the banksters are blameless for the last financial crisis, but we should view it for what it is, a few years, maybe a decade of financial insanity. The capital system evolved over time. We once had Robber Barons who extracted large sums of money from the public through monopolies. Then we had the anti-trust laws. This last problem we saw was another phase of the evolution. As a price for failing, many of these bankers are out of their lucrative jobs and the companies reduced to a shadow of their former selves. Many of these companies went out of business. As Steve mentioned, a lot of people, not the least the people taking these loans, are responsible for getting us into this mess.

The financial system at least learn the lesson and moves on. What about the government? California had the tech bubble in 2002, it caused the governor of California at the time, Grey Davis to fall and Arnold took the job. Five years later, the real estate bubble bursted, and we are in the same old jam because the system never learned.

If you went to school and came out and you have trouble getting a job to paying back the student loans, then by definition, the "education" did not add any value, at least financially. If you are OK with it, we don't have a problem, but if you then go and complain about it, I say you have a responsibility for your own actions, in this case taking a student loan in the first place. It does not matter how useful your major is, if you came out with all F's you are not going to find a job.

BlackRoseML said...

It appears the topic in the blog post was the merit of Obama's speech about value of shared sacrifice, not any particular political platform or policy, particularly one that is a strawman of actual leftist political philosophies. (Sophisticated leftists do not ascribe to the simplistic view that the redistribution of wealth/monetary transfers would rectify all economic injustices or allow the economically disenfranchised to flourish in a meritocratic economy; but the primary cause of the adversity, alienation, poverty, insecurity, and discontentment of the poor are structural injustices that exploit them and the solution would to be reform or abolish the institutions that perpetuate social/economic inequality. Redistribution is merely a palliate measure that does not address the root cause of the problem.)

I am sorry, but I am autistic, thus I tend to focus on a specific (yet critical and germane) point that is tangentially related to the topic.. Moreover, I am not interested in discussing the platforms of the Democratic Party since I have no desire to be an apologist for the Obama Administration as I am a Marxist-Leninist, nor do I have any desire to participate in this election.

Still, I only assailed your point about the alleged problem of capital allocation in a political neutral tone, while your tone mordantly execrates the "the theology of the left". I tersely replied that wealthy intentionally allowed the consumers to indulge in their whimsical desires (and they saw that lending money to fund unproductive purchases of consumers as an opportunity for higher returns on their capital). Also, I am a technological stagnationist from the Peter Thiel school, therefore, I do not believe there are many opportunities for those with capital to allocate their resources to innovative projects and companies because the so-called low-hanging fruit as already been harvested. Thus, in order to pursue high returns, the wealthy had to leverage their money in speculative real estate and loans, because they could not fund any promising entrepreneurial endeavors in the "real economy".

I must add that I am quite sympathetic to your view that "capital allocators" (whether financiers or socialist central planners) have the potential to contribute significantly to a economy, contrary to the usual populist, producerist view that only economic activity that is "tangible" (such as repairing cars or manufacturing) has any real value.

BlackRoseML said...

It appears the topic in the blog post was the merit of Obama's speech about value of shared sacrifice, not any particular political platform or policy, particularly one that is a strawman of actual leftist political philosophies. (Sophisticated leftists do not ascribe to the simplistic view that the redistribution of wealth/monetary transfers would rectify all economic injustices or allow the economically disenfranchised to flourish in a meritocratic economy; but the primary cause of the adversity, alienation, poverty, insecurity, and discontentment of the poor are structural injustices that exploit them and the solution would to be reform or abolish the institutions that perpetuate social/economic inequality. Redistribution is merely a palliative measure that does not address the root cause of the problem.)

I am sorry, but I am autistic, thus I tend to focus on a specific (yet critical and germane) point that is tangentially related to the topic.. Moreover, I am not interested in discussing the platforms of the Democratic Party since I have no desire to be an apologist for the Obama Administration as I am a Marxist-Leninist, nor do I have any desire to participate in this election.

Still, I only assailed your point about the alleged problem of capital allocation in a political neutral tone, while your tone mordantly execrates the "the theology of the left". I tersely replied that wealthy intentionally allowed the consumers to indulge in their whimsical desires (and they saw that lending money to fund unproductive purchases of consumers as an opportunity for higher returns on their capital). Also, I am a technological stagnationist from the Peter Thiel school, therefore, I do not believe there are many opportunities for those with capital to allocate their resources to innovative projects and companies because the so-called low-hanging fruit as already been harvested. Thus, in order to pursue high returns, the wealthy had to leverage their money in speculative real estate and loans, because they could not fund any promising entrepreneurial endeavors in the "real economy".

I must add that I am quite sympathetic to your view that "capital allocators" (whether financiers or socialist central planners) have the potential to contribute beneficially and significantly to a economy, contrary to the usual populist, producerist view that only economic activity that is "tangible" (such as repairing cars or manufacturing) has any real value.

LondonYoung said...

I think of shared sacrifice as a lot of us collectively putting off consumption/freedom today in order that, as a group, we'll enjoy more consumption/freedom in the future. I don't think it need affect "social order", but it may - e.g. my personal view is that Obama doesn't have any desire for shared sacrifice, he simply wants a more level society, i.e. "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

yulva said...

From the Presidents speech:


"And I will — I will never turn Medicare into a voucher."
"No American should ever have to spend their golden years at the mercy
of insurance companies. They should retire with the care and the
dignity they have earned. Yes, we will reform and strengthen Medicare
for the long haul, but we’ll do it by reducing the cost of health care,
not by asking seniors to pay thousands of dollars more. And we will keep
the promise of Social Security by taking the responsible steps to
strengthen it, not by turning it over to Wall Street."
The podium hadn't even cooled off and the American people are being told this:
Health and Human Services Department is launching a pilot program that would shift up to 2 million of
the poorest and most-vulnerable seniors out of the federal Medicare
program and into private health insurance plans overseen by the states.
http://nationaljournal.com/healthcare/obama-more-flexible-on-medicare-than-rhetoric-suggests-20120908?page=1
Shifted from Medicare to private health insurance plans--the poorest and most vulnerable.
Enough said.
"President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the
American people,” [Clint] Eastwood

LondonYoung said...

Hey Guy, to answer your P.S. question, Kerry's income tax rate was lower than Romney's and lower than Bush's. You may imagine that if Obama's rate had been similarly low, it would have been as noteworthy as Kerry's was.

Richard Seiter said...

That is interesting. I had missed (or forgotten) Kerry's tax rate being that low. Any thoughts on explanations as to why that was not news (were his rate and GWB's close, or is it just the obvious "Republican much more vulnerable to this attack")? From this and your other post I think you come at political issues from a substantially different place than most people I interact with (I live in CA). Can you offer any recommendations for sources of thoughtful information from a "conservative" point of view? I can't stomach the rhetoric of most mainstream Republicans (not that Democrats are much, if any, better), but there are important concepts that I think need to be reconciled with similarly important (IMHO) "liberal" concepts, and I am trying to better understand both points of view. Thanks for any thoughts you have to offer.

LondonYoung said...

I can only offer you one thought - buy a nice bottle of wine, probably italian, and read any book written by Ayn Rand. When the bottle is empty and the book is finished you will feel much better. But in the morning, the Tea Party will still want to outlaw abortion and evolution teaching, and the dem party will still be a front for marxists and occupiers. We are incredibly lucky to be associated with the U.S., the greatest engine of human well-being the world has ever known. But we have to be real and realize that mean reversion awaits every "great" society.

Iamexpert said...

Even though republicans pay lip service to creationism, their survival of the fittest policies make them the party of Darwinism, so of course a lot of HBD folks support them

Richard Seiter said...

Thanks ;-) I just wonder if the observations we are making about the mainstream parties are similar to observations contemporaries would have made even during the "greatest" of times? During the political season I find myself wondering what exactly it is that makes the U.S. great (because that is not what I see on display).

LondonYoung said...

The president grew up, in good part, in Indonesia. His father was a Kenyan. Mitt Romney's dad was born in Mexico. If I were to throw you into the genetic/soul lottery in the year of your birth, would you prefer to have been born in the USA, Indonesia, Kenya, or Mexico? That is what I mean by saying the USA is great. Americans aren't illegally flocking into Indonesia, Kenya or Mexico. But Obama's Kenya relatives sure are flocking to the U.S. as are Mitt's dad's birthmates ... Also note that the occupiers aren't focussed on the fact that they are in the global 1%, they are just greedy that they aren't in the US top 1% ...

Richard Seiter said...

Sorry if my reply came off as questioning your "great" comment--that was not my intent. I also agree with your immigration comments. I was more musing on how the (dysfunctional IMHO) political process we are watching unfold right now can result in a country which (while not perfect) has so many good things about it that much of the world has moved or wants to move here. I like your perspective on occupiers as part of the global 1%. That had not occurred to me and makes clear some of the hypocrisy of people who only advocate redistribution as long as it flows to them.

BlackRoseML said...

Do you have any evidence that the Democratic Party is a front for bona
fide "Marxists", as opposed to merely those who are called the epithet
"Marxist" by Fox News and Talk Radio hosts?

As for me, I wouldn't mind living in East Germany.

dwbudd said...

Amen, and pass the ammo.

dwbudd said...

Wow; speaking of "hocus-pocus."

Looking at the tendentious chart cribbed from "Think Progress," I note that the growth (in fact, a decline) curve of the first years of the private sector for Bush vs Obama look remarkably parallel. Did Mr Bush (admittedly a TERRIBLE president in virtually every way IMHO) inherit a "shitty" economy from Bill Clinton? I thought Bill was terrific on economic issues.


The great recession and implosion of 2007-2012, the credit crisis, the bubbles. Are these not the direct consequence of the economy that was so swell with Mr Clinton? It's lost in the ether now, but I think it's worth pointing out that Enron's misdeeds happened with the Democrats in control of the Justice Department and SEC; the prosecution of Enron happened with Republicans in control of both.


Furthermore, of the famous (infamous) 42 million jobs that "one party has created," tell me - how exactly did Bill Clinton or Barack Obama (or Kennedy or whoever else) "create" a single job in the private sector?


Finally, all of this would matter if Obama were running against George W Bush - he isn't. Isn't it damned well about time that President Obama actually started to talk about what he's done as opposed to blaming every single ill on W?


Oh, and by the way, "economic patriotism" is a re-hashed tag line. Only, in the old days, it was called "fascism."

David Coughlin said...

The current style of redistribution is to divert money flows by way of taxes on them. It's a control to first order on the economy. It looks like Marxism when that money just gets dumped into pork popular, social projects. Real Marxists would advocate zeroth order control, straight confiscation of assets to the same ends. I'm not sure that we have a language to describe paramarxist policies.

reservoir_dogs said...

"but the primary cause of the adversity, alienation, poverty, insecurity,
and discontentment of the poor are structural injustices that exploit
them and the solution would to be reform or abolish the institutions
that perpetuate social/economic inequality."

The world always have social/economic inequalities. The best we can hope for is that it is at least merit based. The only thing that government is capable of doing is wealth transfer. That is why when Obama talked about citizenship and shared responsibility, he was talking just about wealth transfer.

If you were king for a day, how would you fix all these "structural injustices"?

BlackRoseML said...

"Also note that the occupiers aren't focussed on the fact that they are
in the global 1%, they are just greedy that they aren't in the US top 1%
..."

You can't even do math, perhaps you got less than a < 500 SAT-M, or use are merely using an inventory of "talking points" to appeal disingenuously to those people ... The US alone has 300 million people and Europe has 700 million people, so if we assume that half of Europeans live in "developed countries" with an extensive welfare state, that is an additional 350 million. So the sum is 650 million people and the denominator, total world population is 7 billion. That is about 9 percent (and I excluded Japan too). Even if we take the United States alone, by assuming dubiously that it has the highest standard of living and no other country approaches it, then you must show that the Occupiers are in the top quartile of the US,

MtMoru said...

It's all just dancing on a sinking ship.

Brazil IS the country of the future...for the US.

MtMoru said...

Oh dear god.

Is it the low V high M, LY?

Better advice for you Seiter. Read REAL philosophy.

Try: Sein und Zeit or The German Ideology or Thus Spake Zarathustra or even some analytic bullshit.

Rand is a JOKE.

MtMoru said...

Proudhon said, "Property is theft." By this he meant income producing property rather than personal property. There are many countries where partial state ownership over the largest enterprises is common.

The Dems are the hand maidens of the rich just like the GOP. They want as little state ownership of the means of production as possible.

MtMoru said...

Brazil is the country of the future...for the US. And it won't be the result of big government.

Arminio Fraga observed the obvious www.charlierose.com/view/content/11755. Scandinavia has big government and is a much less shitty place to live than the US.

Why this is is obvious, but it isn't dreamt of in your philosophy Horatio.

BlackRoseML said...

Judging about his comment about the one percent, he doesn't have high M either. I am a high V, low M person, BTW.

Blog Archive

Labels