Bush's supreme court pick

[JayB]

What would constitute a viable party for Leftists? Are we Talking Clinton/Blairite Third-Wayism or the old-school, England-in-the-70s model?

[mattp]

I'm sorry, but what was PP's last "rejoinder" -- a bunch of nonsense or was it supposed to mean something? I'm trying here .. really!

[mattp]

What would constitute a viable party for Leftists? Are we Talking Clinton/Blairite Third-Wayism or the old-school, England-in-the-70s model?

 

I don't know if "Leftists" is the lable I would ascribe to, but I would be very happy to see a party to the left of Atilla the hun (and George Bush) that could espouse some actual vision.

 

Perhaps the current liberal political model of striving to offend nobody while saying nothing is "viable" in the sense of how it plays in the polls (maybe it gets the "threshold percentage every time), but I don't think it gives anybody (me at least) anything to really fight for.

[JayB]

What would it stand for? Isolationism, protectionism, and more state intervention in the marketplace?

 

I have a hard time understanding what, exactly, would appeal to people who define themselves as left of center, and scorn the Democratic party as it's presently constituted.

[cj001f]

What would it stand for? Isolationism, protectionism, and more state intervention in the marketplace?

 

Fuck, man, those 3 have substantial constituencies in the Republican Party, which, last I checked, was right of center. Or are you conveniently choosing to ignore the party platform on which Bush was elected (no foreign intervention), several of his policy actions in office (steel&softwood tariffs, farm subsidies,...), and his administrations continued fetish for giving the oil industry every wet dream (state intervention)

[Fairweather]

If liberals admit who they really are pre-election day; they lose every time. The only way they attain office, is to misrepresent themselves ala Hillary Clinton.

[mattp]

Fairweather is vying for second place in the "whopppers" awards. Clearly, Bush with his "I'm a centrist and I will reach across the aisle" was the ultimate manipulator (liar) here... Go Fairweather!!!!

[mattp]

CJF is right.

 

Isolationism, protectionism, and more state intervention have become "Right" values more than "Left." Remember GW's campaign speaches about how he was not interested in "nation-building?" Remember five years' rhetoric about how homeland security is going to make you safer? Remember how "no-bid contracts" and changes in the law to favor oil development - were going to promote ecomoic growth --- this month?

[chucK]

Current govt.'s got some good state intervention and protectionism going on with respect to the drug industry. Medicare prescription drug company giveaway, protection of their monopoly rights, forbidding imports, and pressuring other nations to crackdown on the comptetion.

 

 

 

I consider myself left of center.

I previously posted what would appeal to me.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

All the Dems do is wait and hope that the Repubs fall apart on their own.

 

Gotta be decisive and make the kill.

 

Oh yeah, liberals don't hunt.

[JayB]

CJF is right.

 

Isolationism, protectionism, and more state intervention have become "Right" values more than "Left." Remember GW's campaign speaches about how he was not interested in "nation-building?" Remember five years' rhetoric about how homeland security is going to make you safer? Remember how "no-bid contracts" and changes in the law to favor oil development - were going to promote ecomoic growth --- this month?

 

So the people engaged in the anti-globalization movement in general, and those people rioting in Seattle in particular, were Republicans? The present administration is not perfect on free trade for sure, but that seems to have been more the result of spot-electioneering rather than something driven by a profound conviction that one can actually increase economic growth and real-wages with tarriff barriers and subsidies.

 

It would be interesting to see what would happen to a democratic candidate who made promoting free-trade one of the centerpieces of his presidential campaign these days. I suspect that such a candidate would have broad appeal, but would induce much auto-flagellation amonsgt those who think that the Democrats lost because the problem with their "best" candidates like Howard Dean, was that besides coming off like Rowdy Rody Piper giving geography lessons during the "Yearrrrrgh!" speech - even he wasn't "radical" enough. This might be true of the people who grow weepy with nostalgia when contemplating the 60's, and rue the cruel twist of fate that kept them from joining the Symbionese Liberation Army, but it's hard to see how such a stance would actually win elections.

 

 

The swing vote?

[Stonehead]

Ok, maybe nothing that follows logically leads from what you say. I don’t know.

 

It’s weird to think though that people on different sides are actually coming from the basis of good intentions and I mean in reference to those actually thinking individuals, not your Skinner's subjects. It seems merely a factor of upbringing whether you are one or the other. There is no inherent right or wrong. Otherwise, why would these two almost diametrically opposed viewpoints persist? I realize that a truer picture is one where there is a mixture of varying amounts of political beliefs yet yielding a dominant identification with one party or the other.

 

Ok. Why not try this on for size. Maybe the people have something there. Maybe there is a fragment of truth in what they are saying. They’re wrong about their conclusion but isn’t it important that they recognize that something is wrong? Isn’t something wrong?

 

But I think you have something there. Let’s see…Rowdy Rody Piper, Sonny Bono, Gopher, Arnold, that wrestler dude in Michigan (?). Seems we’re filling the void left by the absence of men or women of substance and substituting it with fluff. Ok, maybe these are reasonably intelligent people but where are their convictions? Do they strive to grapple with issues or are they simply resigned to instant policy positions based on prepackaged condensations of the issues? Has it always been like this? Then again, maybe the world has become too difficult to deal with?

 

I'm looking for a third way or an alternative that is a resolution of the two.

[mattp]

I'm not sure that the "free trade" agenda is at the root of it about reducing government intervention so much as it is about increasing corporate power. We shall see.

 

Certainly, the Repubs have sought to relax environmental regulations over the last several years and they tout this as "decreasing government intervention," but in other areas like tort reform or birth control they actually want to impose MORE intervention. Here again, I'm not sure that reducing government intervention is much more than a campaign slogan swallowed by those who want to believe or, as KK says, have partaken of the koolaid. Those who say they are for it would cry socialism if some damn liberals made significant moves toward reducing corporate welfare.

[JayB]

So how would reducing subisidies for domestic production and eliminating tarriffs against products produced in the world's poorest regions and promoting greater competition result in increased corporate power? State sanctioned monopolies reduce corporate power?

 

Are GM and Ford more powerful as a result of Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai's entrance into the American marketplace? Are people in India and China less free and more destitute as a result of economic liberalization?

 

If anything, free trade constrains corporate power, if we are talking in concrete terms that involve actual corporations, and the goal is to understand and address reality. If one's intention is to invoke and chant incantations about the grand, quasi-mystical nebulosity known as "corporate power," then speaking in concrete terms is really beside the point.

[mattp]

I can't dispute the idea that Toyota and Honda have effectively competed with GM and Ford, Jay, and indeed there may have been an increase in the economic prosperity or civil rights enjoyed by the common Chinese or Indian citizen as a result(do you have any actual information on this or did you simply make that up? ) but I remain skeptical that "reduced government intervention" is really the goal here so much as increased freedom for business.

 

You bristle at my mention of a suspicion for “corporate power,” and I have to admit I throw the term about rather lightly without really even knowing exactly what it is that I am suspicious of, but your unbridled support for George W. Bush’s economic policies and Adam Smith’s invisible hand smacks of an equally naïve world view.

[cj001f]

If anything, free trade constrains corporate power,

Bullshit. Freetrade may reduce the power of one corporation in one market; to say it redcues their overall influence is farcical. That would only be true if it didn't benefit them. One need only look at the global influence of a companies like GE, Boeing and Exxon to see the long arm of globalism. Yes, it can and does benefit people. It doesn't always.

 

As for you Republicans are all about free trade rant JayB - spend more time looking into the Pat Buchanan wing of the party, the "minutemen" now patrolling our borders, and the xenophobic rural wing of the party. Your disgust at the latte sipping liberals may have blinded you to the nearer enemy.

[JayB]

This might be the semantic pedant coming out in me again, but I still am not quite sure what you mean when you use the expression "Corporate Power."

 

I am certain that governments placing artificial restrictions on trade, and subsidizing selected producers ofgoods and services is both unfair and harmful to the interests of both consumers and producers, some of whom are corporations, many of whom are sole proprietorships, partnerships, etc as well. Free-trade certainly increases consumer power, by enabling them to buy from whomever they decide is providing the best value. Producers who make the best product for the price will benefit, so perhaps this is the increased power and influence that you are referring to. However, its hard to see how this power means anything other than the freedom to continue producing things that satisfy consumer's wants better than any other market participant's products. Producers who have to compete for consumers are at the mercy of consumers. The only corporations that this is not true of are those whom the government favors and shields from protection with subsidies, tarriffs, and other measures - in which case securing government patronage becomes a primary business goal.

 

Speaking of powerful entities - it's rather amazing to me that most of the people who oppose free trade and harbor deep suspicions of something that they refer to as "Corporate Power" presumably have no problem whatsoever with the activities of the Longshoremen, who currently excercise a power over the US economy that no single corporation enjoys. This is a private, unelected, unaccountable organization who uses force and coercion to secure a monopoly over the operation of critical public facilities - and has proven time and again that they are willing to use it to the detriment of everyone in the country who depends on imports and exports for their livelihood. If a corporation had the same monopoly and exercised it in the same fashion I can hardly imagine that it would recieve the same level of adulation reserved for the union - but perhaps someone can explain the functional difference to me.

 

 

 

 

[mattp]

Jay, take the example of air-quality. No company has ever cleaned up their act due to market forces or consumer demand in any substantial way, as far as I can recall (I'm sure you could find an example or two, but these would be exceptions that prove the rule), and I wouldn’t think it a step in the right direction simply to have all refineries, smelters, etc. move off-shore to some country where there is little or no environmental regulation. I am for government intervention, and even international regulation here.

 

Take another area: antitrust law. There is a reason we try to limit the growth and power of monopolies in this country. Critics of the modern law appear to me to have forgotten their history lessons.

 

Or another example: public safety. As I understand it, market forces would not have resulted in the standardization of even seat belts in American cars because, from the manufacturers' standpoint, the cost of installing them did not yield sufficient profit. I suppose you could say that if the African consumer doesn’t want to be subject to our modern safety standards, we shouldn't force them, but I think this would be wrong.

 

How about workers' safety? OSHA is a joke, but without it we'd have miners dying of black lung, industrial accidents would be much more common, and public health would be substantially less. And I believe it is wrong, too, to the extent that through advocating free trade we encourage laborers in distant lands to be subject to unsafe working conditions. Again, I am for government intervention and at least some measure of international regulation when it comes to public safety - for both consumers and workers.

 

I believe you are right that the free market is often good at encouraging efficiency, but there are many important costs and benefits that do not get taken into account in any marketplace. I agree that some subsidies or tariffs may be ill advised and many may involve some nationalistic or romantic affection for an outdated or inefficient way of life, while others may simply be a special brand of pork, but I think it is both naive and ignores history to suggest that we should discontinue the entire concept.

[JayB]

I'm not against rules and regulations for businesses any more than I would be opposed to them for individuals, but I think that rules which favor a particular business or industry are just as ill-advised as those which favor one set of individuals over another.

 

With respect to the manner in which other nations elect to regulate their work-places, I think that ultimately they should be free to draft and implement their own policies. The reality is that for some nations, cheap labor is one of the few comparative advantages they have, and it's often not a choice between working long-hours in a factory and writing code in an air-conditioned office, but between long hours in a factory and prostitution, starvation, begging, sifting through garbage-dumps and who knows what else. When coupled with other reforms, these conditions tend to be more transient (Korea, Taiwan, etc) than those that arise from variants of protectionism.

 

I think that there are methods for addressing the problems associated with such things that don't involve tarriffs, however.

[mattp]

In some cases, tariffs and other restrictions on foreign trade are intended to address these kinds of regulatory issues. Other reasons include a desire to shore up a home-grown industrty for any number of purposes including "preserving the traditional way of life," or pork, as I noted already, but also to maintain a viable industry that is deemed necessary for military or public defense purposes, or to encourage/discourage certain allocations of resources that have been determined desireable for any number of reasons good and bad.

[Peter_Puget]

ChucK -

The administration’s argument is controversial and radical. I believe that to the extent the specific claims about Iraq are proven not true or the result of an explicit program to mislead the world they will serve to weaken their argument. After all if it should be “legal” to engage in a preemptive act against a country based only on the theory that they will pose a threat in the future the analysis had better be good. Absent a fabulously accurate threat forecasting system there would be no way to judge the legality of any preemptive act. The ultimate defense would always be “well we thought the threat was true.” Of course out and out lies would make the action illegal. Given this I do not see how your comment (“Are they meant to in some way minimize the more and more obvious deceptive marketing practices used by the Bush adminstration to lead us into a disastrous foreign-policy blunder?”) has any merit. Any deceptive marketing practices utterly destroy the administration ‘s new theory of pre-emptive action.

 

Stefan –

 

Fairweather pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter. I would add that it was a member of the Pakistani nuclear program who was selling “nuclear secrets on the open market. The full fallout form that remains to be seem.

 

Matt –

 

In your reply to my first post you simply state how I am spouting nonsense. No argument just an assertion. In your second paragraph you echo Chuck’s belief that the whole imminent issue is just away to distract public attention from the administration lying. To that I say see my comments to Chuck above. You clearly do not understand the issue. I then respond by equating your lack of argument with a simple attack. I still believe that is the case. I then add that the administration had many arguments supporting its decision to invade Iraq and clarify that my posts here only relate to the "imminent" issue. Immediately after I post a quote and a link to a document prepared by the Whitehouse supporting my position. To that you reply:

 

I'm sorry, but what was PP's last "rejoinder" -- a bunch of nonsense or was it supposed to mean something? I'm trying here .. really!

 

To that I can only reply:

 

Cheers,

[cj001f]

Producers who have to compete for consumers are at the mercy of consumers. The only corporations that this is not true of are those whom the government favors and shields from protection with subsidies, tarriffs, and other measures - in which case securing government patronage becomes a primary business goal.

Jay-As all freemarket disciples you assume that the ultimate goal of every corporation is selfperpetuation, and the means by which they wish to accomplish this is legal and ethical conduct. That is patently false on both counts. As a good first world citizens you also assume that ultimate market control resides in the consumer. It doesn't.

 

Over long time frames (how long is debatable) your suppositions are probably correct but they ignore the very real problems that can occur in the short term. But those are after all just problems for poor people, and we shouldn't concern ourselves with the losers

[Peter_Puget]

As all freemarket disciples you assume that the ultimate goal of every corporation is selfperpetuation, and the means by which they wish to accomplish this is legal and ethical conduct

 

Why do you believe this?

Edited November 7, 2005 by Peter_Puget

[JayB]

I think that the ultimate goal of every well-managed corporation is profitability, actually. Self-perpetuation follows logically from that, but the desire to perpetuate oneself is in this case contingent upon the ability to produce goods or services that you can sell for more than it costs you to generate them, which in turn requires producing things that people want to buy. Stop doing that, and self-preservation is impossible - unless, that is, you can induce the government to enact legislation on your behalf that shields you from competition. In which case - it's correct to say that, market control no longer resides with the consumer.

 

Which problems and poor people are you referring to BTW?

[Peter_Puget]

JayB - Suppose a corporation is formed for the specific purpose of buying and developing a parcel of land. Does it follow that "it" (the ghost in the machine?) would have a desire to perpetuate itself after accomplishing that goal? Why no mention of shareholders?

 

Are corporations required for being free market?