Instead of fretting about the isolationist menace, John McCain should consider listening to Jim Manzi.
« The Wrong War | Main | Under The Weather »
A More Equal Capitalism
18 Feb 2008 03:16 pm
Comments (19)
Umm, I realize you have an agenda, but please get your "facts" straight. Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist:
"Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not we that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations."
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst121806.htm
Manzi's article is just another attempt - like "compassionate conservatism" - to concoct a lie which says the GOP cares about ordinary people after all. I'm sure there will come a day when this lie will work again, but it won't happen in 2008. Dumbya and his pack of incompetent, murderous greedheads accomplished at least one thing - they made it clear that they never really gave a damn about anyone but themselves and their wealthy, amoral pals.
Moe, What's wrong with you? Why are you committed to derailing every single line of inquiry on this blog? It's obnoxious.
Chris complains: "Moe, What's wrong with you? Why are you committed to derailing every single line of inquiry on this blog?"
I'm expressing my opinion, chuckles. If you want unanimity, go to freerepublic.com.
And I didn't derail anything. You're perfectly free to make an observation about the topic, but you didn't even bother. So who's actually guilty of "derailing"?
tick tick tick....
Moe won't be around much longer...the Feds are almost to his cabin...they've narrowed down the location to 4 counties now. They'll find him cowering in a corner, clutching his copy of "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" and mumbling something about Halliburton and Madigascar.
tick tick tick....
It's "Madagascar" and I didn't even have to look it up. Meanwhile I live in a nice Victorian in a nice Boston urban burb. There aren;t many Republicans here and I like it that way.
So here we have our current economic situation: We are rich and economically successful, but increasingly unequal. If we give up the market-based reforms that allow us to prosper, we will lose by eventually allowing international competitors to defeat us;
One Question: Who is us?
The biggest difference in this case is the presence of the extremely powerful teachers unions. Ultimately, political leaders will have to break them as decisively as Thatcher broke the coal-miners union in Britain.
In the name of equality we should destroy the last standing & functioning Union in the country because it's their fault that our educational system is substandard not the fault of the Administrators, the crappy curriculum, the Parents, the crappy Financing schemes, the total disrespect education gets in popular culture.
Manzi is right in locating the main causes of inequality as education and family structure and trying to find reasonable public policy ways of addressing these issues. McCain would indeed be wise to pay attention to this. Manzi's ideas are far more chiseled than Bush's compassionate conservatism.
Manzi is, also, right that much of the left's policy to reduce inequality has to do with wealth redistribution that harms U.S. global competitiveness, which in the long run creates wealth in all classes. Currently the U.S. ranks #1 in global competitiveness.
J.Manzi's article is great. Even if you dont like the ideas, its refreshing to hear either conservative or liberal policy that doesn't sound 1960s (Goldwater v. Civil rights).
Yeah, it sounds like the 1970s.
The neoconservative economic policy that Manzi calls for has a history dating back precisely into those 1960s debates. It was an attempt at finding a middle ground, it was tried with some successes (EITC) some failures ("benign neglect" of cities) and a lot of mixed bags (education policy).
A debate between a neoconservative and a moderate liberal on economic policy would be interesting. Given that McCain has apparently signed up for cuckooville (massive tax cuts! marginal spending cuts! war!) instead, not much to say here.
Thanks for the comments. Some quick replies:
Don Quijote:
In that sentence, "us" = the United States of America.
I tried, and maybe failed, to make clear in the article that parents and popular culture are key detrminants of educational and other life outcomes, and that therefore there is only so much schools can do. I consider administrators and resulting curricula to be part of the unionized schools system that needs to be changed.
DivGuy:
I was trying to make the point that the Reagan revolution was a response to a change in objective circumstances (namely increased international competiton) that became acute in the 1970s. That situation has only gotten more severe since then. So, if we try to undo those policies, we are likely to find ourselves with the same problem of declining competitiveness that they were meant to address. In effect, leading Democratic politicians are trying to repeal the 1980s. That's why I think this part of the debate does sound like deja vu.
A more equal capitalism which makes no mention of imposing taxes on golden parachutes of bad managers and profits of hedge fund managers.
In that sentence, "us" = the United States of America.
Reminds me of GM, the company is losing money like it's going out of style, the first people to get blamed for the poor performance of the company, the UAW (they get too much money), the first people to get laid off the UAW, the people with the least responsibility for the state of the company the UAW, The people with the most responsibility for the state of the company, for not investing in good engineering, design, Quality Assurance, etc.., the executives getting the nice paychecks, bonuses and golden parachutes.
When you're working at McDonald's serving burgers and fries, saving GM is the least of your problems despite the fact that you spent twenty on the line assembling the crap that the designers and engineers came up with.
Don Quijote writes: "Reminds me of GM, the company is losing money like it's going out of style, the first people to get blamed for the poor performance of the company, the UAW (they get too much money), the first people to get laid off the UAW, the people with the least responsibility for the state of the company the UAW, The people with the most responsibility for the state of the company, for not investing in good engineering, design, Quality Assurance, etc.., the executives getting the nice paychecks, bonuses and golden parachutes."
Exactly. Somehow the super-patriotic cons never point out that the super-wealthy have no real allegiance to this country - they're willing to sell it out any time in order to make a larger profit. Halliburton moving to Dubai is the signature event of the Bushpig Era - it really dots the i in "pig."
One can easily point out some excesses in a free economy, though they pale compared to any command economy due both to inefficiency and excessive and sclerotic state power.
Also, no one on this thread has addressed Jim Manzi's main point that the predominant causes of inequality are related to poor family structure and public schools. He, like Ross, wants, to the extent possible, to deal with these problems through some governmental policy initiatives.
This simplistic anti-capitalist drivel grows wearisome.
Also, no one on this thread has addressed Jim Manzi's main point that the predominant causes of inequality are related to poor family structure and public schools.
Since the most common source of divorce and family dissolution is bad finances, the fastest and easiest way of resolving those problems are good secure jobs that pay a good wage and offer a nice benefit package .
He, like Ross, wants, to the extent possible, to deal with these problems through some governmental policy initiatives.
Good Luck, since most of these problems were created by unregulated markets and the unending search for lower wages and lower taxes.
Don Quixote, well then just how would you solve the problem of poverty other than tilting at windmills by railing at the free economy. Take a close look at Jim Manzi's specific proposals and let us know if you can do better.
While undoubtedly we can do better, the fact is that America is among the wealthiest nations in the world. Our "poor" people enjoy a standard of living undreamed of in most parts of the world.
Don Quixote, well then just how would you solve the problem of poverty other than tilting at windmills by railing at the free economy.
We can start with the obvious,
1) A single payer health-care system that guarantees a minimal level of care with an option for people who can afford more to buy supplemental insurance.
2) Stop borrowing trillions of Dollars from the Chinese and Arabs so that we can piss them away in the sands of Iraq & Afghanistan.
3) An Industrial Policy that stop exporting jobs.
4) An immigration policy that does not bring in half a million qualified professionals every year to do jobs that Americans can be trained to do.
5) An Immigration policy that does not turn a blind eye to employers who employ illegal aliens.
6) An enforcement of labor laws and policies that encourage unionization.
7) Stop bailing out corporation, if they can't compete in the market nationalize them.
8) Stop letting corporations merge willy-nilly so that we actually have competition instead of a set of oligopolies controlling every market.
| 
Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream
Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class
Good promo.
J.Manzi's article is great. Even if you dont like the ideas, its refreshing to hear either conservative or liberal policy that doesn't sound 1960s (Goldwater v. Civil rights).
I'd like to see conservative policy on energy and education as he points out. Add center-left policy on health care (but not nationalized).
Note that doing nothing or returning to the 1960s policy books are not accomplishments.
Lets move forward, its a new century. Thx Ross, Jim.
Posted by Kim | February 18, 2008 3:44 PM