On Sun, 11 May 2008 07:26:56 -0700, Stray Dog wrote:
> On May 10, 8:31 pm, retrogro...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 16:07:33 -0700 (PDT), Stray Dog
>>
>> <straydog2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >So, why are these guys dancing in the streets over a small number of
>> >relatively minor problems in the US
>>
>> Wow, small problems?
>
> From my recollection of material covered in the WSJ over more than 20
> years, the Enron-Andersen-etc problem was the worst I ever saw.
>
> People are asking if this recession is going to
>> be more like the 230s or the 70s. Neither of those choices is small
>> potatoes.and totally ignoring the positive
>
> When I can read across a range of content in the media, including
> business media, and there is a mixture of good and bad news that is
> about equal, then we are not headed into a major disaster.
>
> And, I quoted from one issue of WSJ several examples.
>
>> The trade deficit is down because we're buying less oil at these
>> exorbitant prices and the recession sees us buying less.
>
> You forgot two specific items: i) ex****ts are up and rising, and ii)
> tourism _to_ the USA is up significantly.
>
> It's a sign
>> of bad things. Not good. Read.
>
> I probably read more than you do.
>
>> >news? Are they mentally unbalanced? Or, incompetant? Or, just backing
>> >up their prejudice and bias with propaganda?
The Libertarian/Austrian/Neoclassical position is
that by staying out of the way of the greedy you allow them to "develop"
all the resources in a manner that provides lollipops to the society and
that lollipops are good because people want lollipops.
Other "economists" conclude that Malthus was inevitably correct: There
are limits to this "development" past which it is counterproductive or, at
least, unproductive. And neither of these aggregate theories say anything
about distribution of the lollipops.
And it is the latter concern (the distribution) where the ideology of the
two American political parties is predominant. The development or
preservation of a caste society has always been the hallmark of the
Republicans. They are convinced that the nobility (in league with
the church) should direct the morality of the society and they will
constantly fight against such notions as democracy and populism. For
them, the caste system is the im****tant factor above all else (leader****p,
nationalism, religious orthodoxy, "the fight against
eeeeeeeevvviiiiilll"). Trickle down economics (a total farce as far as
equal op****tunity and utility maximization) is merely a reflection of the
goals sought by the Republicans.
The Democrats OTOH were historically the party of democracy. They are
today still more democratic than are the latter day republicans. They
have historically promoted the idea that the common people should have
sufficient control to prevent despotism. Democracy will inevitably take on
the appearance of socialism in that strong government is necessary to the
prevention of the caste system or the control of it. But the "party"
system itself raises a "nobility". And the latter day Democratic party
has become rudderless and farcical due to their supposed need for
solidarity in the face of the Republicans. Such lock stepped organization
is unnecessary to the realization of representative government. And it
deserves the label of "leftist" in that it is control by "the central
committee".
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
Any, so called, democrat that is not actively promoting the expansion of
the member****p of the House of Representatives is a Republican dressed in
a Democrat suit.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
|
