Smug Prius owners

[lindajdunn]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michae..._b_460354.html

The unhappy conclusion is that we have in Obama a President who is what we used to call a moderate Republican before the species became extinct. Moreover, someone who is very much a man of his times - those times being the 1980s and 1990s. That means suspicions of government programs (last week Obama declared that New Deal thinking wasn't applicable to day's problems), a strong belief that we should always give private interests the benefit of the doubt, an assumption that the rich deserve their riches, and an insensitivity to the plight of salaried Americans...

[jeff]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michae..._b_460354.html

You have to consider the source, but it's certainly the case that Obama isn't anywhere near the left wing of the Democratic party, let alone the socialist that the ignorant and demagogues try to smear him as being. Frankly, you could remove the party affiliation - he's what used to be called a "Moderate".

The other part of the quoted text does hold: there used to be a Moderate Republican, which is an endangered species if not totally extinct. As I pointed out previously, even Nixon - the very icon of Republican conservatism in the 1970s - would now be too liberal for today's party. Others have argued with me that he was no conservative at all, which I dispute - but whether that's true or not. RMN could not head the Republican party of 2010.

[jeff]

I have a few minutes, so I'll take a shot at part of this...

Does it make you at all uneasy that in the Boston Globe op ed, Davis, McCain's campaign manager, says that "We had no idea who made the phone calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made". But in the Nation article, Ann Banks, blogger and travel writer, confidently identifies usual suspect Karl Rove as the eminence grise behind the operation? Doesn't offer any proof of it, but says so unhesitatingly...

Insider doesn't know, outsider does?

It doesn't cause me any hesitation at all to think that the losing campaign manager might not have known at the time his campaign was under attack who was orchestrating the assault, or be willing to say so in public and jeopardize his future career as a Republican campaign manager by naming Rove even if he knew. Whereas, subsequent investigation might have made that quite clear.

According to Rove's Wikipedia entry, while Davis denied knowing at the time who planted the push polls, his colleague on the campaign, John Weaver said it came from the top of Bush's campaign: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_We..._consultant%29

So, a Republican campaign insider saying that racist innuendo was used against his candidate by another Republican candidate's team as part of the 2000 primary season. Now do you feel better?

Sure. But it's a BIT of a leap from that to "Republicans did a specific one using racist messages", much less to "The Republican Party uses racist messages all the time", don't you think?

The leap isn't that far... It's not a "one time" use of racism, it's a well-documented practice in many campaigns. The claim is also smaller - nobody is saying "uses racist messages all the time". They used it some of the time.

[Hauptman]

Note, the accusation wasn't that "most racists are on the conservative end of the political spectrum", it was that "most racists are Republicans". I can tell you that large numbers of really far-right conservatives are racists---but NOT Republicans. In fact they consider the Republican Party to be too wishy-washy and too apt to compromise with progressives to represent their fervor, and have almost as much contempt for Republicans as Democrats. They tend to call themselves libertarians or independents, if anything. They may vote ( IF they vote ) for Republicans as lesser evils, but they don't like the Party and don't identify with it...

I am talking about people even more fervent and strident than Chase. And for that matter, there are folks to the right of them: bat-**** crazies like---well, it's not wise to mention names, they tend to have enemies lists and they take them seriously. These see Republicans as appeasers at best and traitors to the Republic at worst.

And---do you think the most visible racists, such as the neo-Nazis, would stoop to self-identify with the Republican Party?

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but you are limiting your analysis to the most visible wacko racists. This discussion started regarding the not-so-visible, not-so-strident racists who DO use code-words, and are Republican.

And I would also submit that the wackos you describe do vote Republican, unless there is the rare case of a more right-wing independent candidate being available.

[jeff]

When you argue with as many people as extensively on as many threads simultaneously as I do, it's easy to fall behind or even lose some...or just get more interested in one than another. Jeff sometimes accuses me of "abandoning" arguments; frankly I don't know where he finds the time or energy to keep up with everything. I can't do it. Maybe because he's an actual writer, whereas I am just a cantankerous dabbler.

I do try to keep that in mind when you vanish from a thread, but I hope you understand how frustrating it can be when you disappear at the peak of the fray...

For myself, the nature of my work is such that I'm in front of a computer damn near all hours of the day, and wasting time on this forum is my sole vice in an otherwise utterly blameless existence And I touch-type. Even so, I spend too much time on this, and sometimes I'm simply tired of it. So, keep up the entertainment value, will ya?

However, I am having knee surgery Monday and will be on sick leave all next week; so perhaps I may be able to catch up somewhat then.

Man, that sucks. Fencers over 50 (or in your case, 500...), and knees. Good luck with the procedure and give yourself time to recuperate. PM me if you need transport.




BTW, while we're having this little chat: One of the things I find inexplicable among the devotees of unfettered free markets is be belief that it's the Grand Solution to all problems, and that the Invisible Hand Solves All. That's ideology rather than science or good economics.

Saying "this is a fundamental fact of economics" is unacceptable as an argument, since it's not the case that there's a consensus among economists, eg: that unions and regulations are awful, and that it's okay to wait for the (perhaps mythical) free market solution to safety and social justice issues. It's counterfactual to claim so. Perhaps if you accepted "Global Warming is accepted as the consensus of climate experts", and "universal healthcare improves population healths" (both IMO far better substantiated) we could work a swap, but since you reject that argument, or anything else that looks like an "everybody knows" claim, it's impossible for me to accept such a claim about economics.

Look, we all understand that in a buyer-seller relationship where there is symmetric knowledge (and a basket of other qualifying requirements), the "selfish interests" of buyer and seller lead to better prices and quality - the virtuous cycle. But the examples in this thread about product safety and pollutants, and in other threads about prejudice - lack those qualifiers. There's asymmetry of knowledge, where manufacturers covered up their health risks (tobacco), secretly made products more addictive (tobacco again), or hid safety risks (PInto, Corvair), fired whistleblowers. A gentlemen's agreement among car manufacturers, say, to not provide seat belts. Or not hire minorities, or pay them at parity. Not to mention our human ability to weight long-term risks against immediate actions . Or, where the consumer of a product wasn't the victim of the environmental damage.

In these cases, the virtuous cycle of the Invisible Hand simply has no bearing, and the selfish interests of these companies was aligned with the dangerous, harmful, or bigoted policy. Why pay that minority more and increase my costs? Or clean the waste water or smoke I'm emitting? Or admit in public that my products cause cancer?

So it's tedious to hear that the market will eventually make everything well, and it's mere petulant impatience to not want to die now. That's a frivolous argument, and I don't think pays respect to the concrete issues that have been brought to the debate here by multiple participants.

So, at the very least - how about explaining (while you're laid up, you'll have a chance to reflect) specifically how the market is supposed to address these issues. Frankly, it seems to be close to completely ineffective for this category, and I flatly don't believe it. But it would be more convincing if you at least outlined the mechanism by which this wonderful outcome is supposed to happen.

There, that will give you something to work on while you're laid up!

[downunder]

and when you've dealt with assymetric information and externalities then you can cover other market failures such as imperfect competition, demand inducement, moral hazard, adverse selection, transaction/enforcement costs etc

Always happy to have an economics discussion, as I'm completing my economics degree in the summer.

[Inquartata]

Okay, among the people who voted in the 2008 presidential election, Obama won at least the plurality in all educational demographic groups, not merely the least educated. Better?

Yes.

In fact I should think that he probably got larger percentages of the educated than of the uneducated ( however you want to define those ).

Your right, maybe it wasn't Republicans. I bet it was the person that killed Nicole Brown Simpson, Ron Goldman, Jean-Binet Rammsey, and Gary Condit's intern. Then they injected Barry Bonds with steroids without his knowledge.

I love sarcasm myself. But it's not really much of an argument, nor a refutation of one.

But I realize that you don't feel the need to stoop either to argument or refutation, because the fact that you are you imbues you with omniscience. All that you believe is self-evident, so why bother arguing with those foolish enough to disagree?

Or to quote George Thoroughgood, "Oh, yes, dear. You're right, dear. You're ALWAYS right."

it's certainly the case that Obama isn't anywhere near the left wing of the Democratic party,

Thanks, Jeff, I needed a good laugh.

he's what used to be called a "Moderate".

Ahahahaha!

there used to be a Moderate Republican, which is an endangered species if not totally extinct.

Yes, too true.

Heck, there are barely any Goldwater Republicans left...

Whereas, subsequent investigation might have made that quite clear.

You're really going with nothing more than "might have"?

So, a Republican campaign insider saying that racist innuendo was used against his candidate by another Republican candidate's team as part of the 2000 primary season.

He doesn't sound very confident. "I believe I know". Sounds like a guess to me.

But yes, his guess is slightly better than a blogger's guess.

It's not a "one time" use of racism, it's a well-documented practice in many campaigns.

You keep employing language calculated to instill confidence that the things you say are just common knowledge; that to doubt them is ridiculous, because they're established fact; that all the right people knew these things all along; that there's no room for doubt.

And yet, phrasing is no substitute for proof...

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but you are limiting your analysis to the most visible wacko racists. This discussion started regarding the not-so-visible, not-so-strident racists who DO use code-words, and are Republican.

Oh, let's be honest: When progressives talk about "some Republicans who", it's just "code" for "all Republicans, those racist neanderthals". ( wink )

I do try to keep that in mind when you vanish from a thread, but I hope you understand how frustrating it can be when you disappear at the peak of the fray...

Yes.

[quote[wasting time on this forum is my sole vice in an otherwise utterly blameless existence [/quote]

Bah. I know that you fence foil! ( prohibited smily )

Man, that sucks. Fencers over 50 (or in your case, 500...), and knees. Good luck with the procedure and give yourself time to recuperate. PM me if you need transport.

Thanks, I've got it all handled, though.

I guess I should be glad that it has waited this long. I mean, I could have played football in high school or something and had effed up knees since my teens, like some guys I know.

I've got a co-worker who had his first knee surgery at 13, another at 25, and 8 more since. He's putting off replacement ( both knees ) hoping for technological advances to extend the life of the things. As it is he might get 20 years out of them, and after that he's screwed. And he's just 35 now.

Mine is just an arthroscopy. Snip off a bit of loose cartilage that keeps impinging like a pebble in a shoe. Hopefully no complications. But I'm not sure I'm going to be able to go 4-6 weeks without fencing...

Saying "this is a fundamental fact of economics" is unacceptable as an argument, since it's not the case that there's a consensus among economists, eg: that unions and regulations are awful, and that it's okay to wait for the (perhaps mythical) free market solution to safety and social justice issues.

Economists are people. Some have opinions which are stronger than their beliefs in economics. So they find ways to bring theory into conformity with the way they think things should be. Others are the products of their times or circumstances, and just can't get past them in the end.

But the dustbin of history is filled with "better ways" than the market, developed by quite good economists who wanted to make a difference. The market, though, survives, and keeps demonstrating it's staying power as the substitutes keep falling by the wayside...

The fact that this economist or that thinks "unions are great" or "government must intervene" doesn't lead to the conclusion that you advance. Any more than the fact that a few geologists believed in abiogenic petroleum origin calls the general conclusions of geology into question.

All of the examples of business practices you mention are short-run phenomena. In the long run, the market self-corrects them. For those which do not, there IS indeed a role for government. But that role is not the production of results by statute, because unless the law acts to work with market processes it can only end up doing harm---setting up conflicts between what lawmakers and bureaucrats ( and yes, some economists ) want and what impersonal market forces are acting to bring about. And because so often lawmakers either do not understand economics or discern political benefits in ignoring it, statutes and regulations seldom end up working in concert with market forces. Instead they end up pushing against them. At best this is a waste of resources---seldom those of the lawmakers---and at worst it causes more problems than it solves.

I cannot of course make you believe any of this. Many of the precepts of economics are in conflict with your view of the way things are and the way things should be. In the battle between beliefs and economics, beliefs will always win out.

Which describes, unfortunately, the relationship between most lawmakers and economics as well...

So it's tedious to hear that the market will eventually make everything well, and it's mere petulant impatience to not want to die now.

Many truths are unpleasant. That is unfortunate. But that they are unpalatable does not make them other than they are. We do not live in a fairy tale, where we can wish unpleasant things away. We cannot alter natural processes by refusing to believe in them.

That's a frivolous argument, and I don't think pays respect to the concrete issues that have been brought to the debate here by multiple participants.

I can but shrug and lift my palms there, I am afraid.

So, at the very least - how about explaining (while you're laid up, you'll have a chance to reflect) specifically how the market is supposed to address these issues.

Certainly.

Take the issue of the lead in Chinese products, for example.

The typical government response to this sort of thing is to exercise the muscles of its bureaucracies to intervene and produce by main force a given result. That is, to ban import of a product, or to seize supplies, or to force recalls. But these expend resources and enable bureaucratic growth and the expansion of government. They are also unnecessary.

What should the government do? Disseminate information. Empower the public. Tell them of the problem. Tell them of the danger. Warn them not to use these products.

If people, in full awareness of the facts, choose to use them anyway, that is their now-informed choice. It is then no different from smoking, or bungee jumping. It is a risk accepted willingly. This is the right of the consumer.

It is no part of the government's business to protect people from their own bad choices or their own foolhardiness.

and when you've dealt with assymetric information and externalities then you can cover other market failures such as imperfect competition, demand inducement, moral hazard, adverse selection, transaction/enforcement costs etc

Always happy to have an economics discussion, as I'm completing my economics degree in the summer.

Heh. I am not teaching an econ class here, you know!

And don't think I don't see right through your cunning plan to keep me too busy expounding on economics to argue with you about fencing! ( forbidden smily )

[I_luv_saber]

No.

He certainly is not far left wing, and I'd call him reasonably moderate in general - but he is definitely not remotely Republican in any remotely recent (last few decades) sense of the title.

[Bayou Bum]

No.

He certainly is not far left wing, and I'd call him reasonably moderate in general - but he is definitely not remotely Republican in any remotely recent (last few decades) sense of the title.

In 2007, Obama was rated as the most Liberal Senator based on his voting record.

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/voteratings/

[Guided by Wire]

In 2007, Obama was rated as the most Liberal Senator based on his voting record.

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/voteratings/

According to one source, and for one year.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...k-obama-lower/
http://innovation.cq.com/multimedia/cqvotestudies08
http://voteview.ucsd.edu/Clinton_and_Obama.htm
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...31/625886.aspx

[Bayou Bum]

According to one source, and for one year.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...k-obama-lower/
http://innovation.cq.com/multimedia/cqvotestudies08
http://voteview.ucsd.edu/Clinton_and_Obama.htm
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...31/625886.aspx

Even your own references show that Obama is not a moderate.

[Guided by Wire]

Even your own references show that Obama is not a moderate.

I never said he was a moderate. I was pointing out that he was by no means the "most liberal member of the Senate". Fairly liberal, sure. Most liberal, not a chance.

[Inquartata]

That I will buy, but "not the most liberal" does not mean "in the middle". Some people seem to be peddling the view that if you are not Pol Pot or Fidel Castro you are a "moderate"...

[jessicasimpson]

I love sarcasm myself. But it's not really much of an argument, nor a refutation of one.

But I realize that you don't feel the need to stoop either to argument or refutation, because the fact that you are you imbues you with omniscience. All that you believe is self-evident, so why bother arguing with those foolish enough to disagree?

If Carl Rove admitted he did it, and admitted he learned the tactic from Atwater, you might say he was just trying to get a future book deal and would not constitute "proof" The only reason left to argue with you is self entertainment.

Or to quote George Thoroughgood, "Oh, yes, dear. You're right, dear. You're ALWAYS right."

This is the absolute best way to get in the last word.(Unless you are Gav and can close the thread)

[Bayou Bum]

I never said he was a moderate. I was pointing out that he was by no means the "most liberal member of the Senate". Fairly liberal, sure. Most liberal, not a chance.

Others here claim Obama is a moderate, and besides, there isn't many years of voting records in the Senate to prove otherwise. Based on his voting record and his associations, he was extremely liberal before becoming President. I believe he still has very liberal views but has moved more to center in an effort to keep his job. Just look at all the promises he made to get elected and is now backtracking on.

[Hauptman]

That I will buy, but "not the most liberal" does not mean "in the middle". Some people seem to be peddling the view that if you are not Pol Pot or Fidel Castro you are a "moderate"...

An argument can be made that Obama has moved to the right since being president. If he wasn't "most liberal" before then he could be seen as moderately liberal now.

Remember, being a moderate doesn't mean falling dead-center; you can be left of center and still be a moderate.

I consider myself a left of center centrist, a moderate liberal; meaning that I'm still obviously more liberal than conservative, but more conservative than most liberals.

In the end it's all semantics, and fairly meaningless.

[jeff]

Thanks, Jeff, I needed a good laugh.

Ahahahaha!

Lay off the nitrous oxide till tomorrow!

You once upbraided me for saying what was or wasn't conservative - only one such as yourself could do that. Now you tell me that you know what is or is not Moderate or Liberal. Does your rule not apply to you?

Obama usedthe financial crisis to nationalize the banks and GM, withdrew all troops from the Middle East, gave the bankers a big haircut, and returned tax rates to pre-Reagan levels. Wait - none of that happened.

You're really going with nothing more than "might have"?

Sure. I wasn't the one betting the farm on Davis's quote and didn't claim more than evidence would bear. It's a habit.

His "We had no idea who made the phone calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made", is exactly the right tense for expressing "we didn't know at the time". If you take that to mean he didn't know later, then you are saying something not supported by his actual words. Inq - surely I don't have to explain pluperfect tense to you.

He doesn't sound very confident. "I believe I know". Sounds like a guess to me.

But yes, his guess is slightly better than a blogger's guess.

He explicitly said "I believe I know" - a direct declarative statement of belief. To convert that to a "guess" is to distort his words.

You keep employing language calculated to instill confidence that the things you say are just common knowledge(snip)
And yet, phrasing is no substitute for proof...

Which is why I've provided proof. You continue to disregard it. For the Nth time - just what do you think Atwater was apologizing for?

Oh, let's be honest: When progressives talk about "some Republicans who", it's just "code" for "all Republicans, those racist neanderthals". ( wink )

"I love sarcasm myself. But it's not really much of an argument, nor a refutation of one." (Inq, 2010)

Thanks, I've got it all handled, though.(snip)

Yeah, that's really bad. Replacements wear out like you said, and then it gets worse if you go back again. Best to postpone unless the pain is too severe. This guy is in a rough situation

Mine is just an arthroscopy...

You should just get a little scar. I declined knee surgery many years ago, since my injuries cause only episodic pain. I'm glad you're not going to hobble in next Sunday, though you can ref if you're masochistic.

Economists are people. Some have opinions which are stronger than their beliefs in economics. So they find ways to bring theory into conformity with the way they think things should be. Others are the products of their times or circumstances, and just can't get past them in the end.

A statement that applies to free market adherents - such as Miltie - just as much as those who oppose it.

But the dustbin of history is filled with "better ways" than the market, developed by quite good economists who wanted to make a difference. The market, though, survives, and keeps demonstrating it's staying power as the substitutes keep falling by the wayside...

By your above statement, there is no unanimity among even "quite good" economists. We should not pretend that they have one accepted "truth".

The market continues, but not only (or ever) as "completely free" markets without government intervention. Markets with regulation, unions, and social safety nets have not fallen by the wayside.

The fact that this economist or that thinks "unions are great" or "government must intervene" doesn't lead to the conclusion that you advance

The opposite is also true and it doesn't disprove either. One must actually put up arguments rather than name drop or recite platitudes, which is why I keep pressing you. To the extent that an argument is based on "So-and-so says so", it is not science.

All of the examples of business practices you mention are short-run phenomena. In the long run, the market self-corrects them.

Proof? Evidence? Mechanism of how this is accomplished? Just what market mechanism would curtail tobacco's selling addictive substances while hiding its effects? When would this ever come to fruition? Why should a polity wait for some perhaps mythical good outcome?

You're merely reciting a belief system. You believe that the market would someday solve these issues - but don't even suggest how that might have happened in the cases cited.

For those which do not, there IS indeed a role for government.

Hooray at last. But this contradicts everything you just said. There's no role for government except where there is. Well, that's helpful.

But that role is not the production of results by statute, because unless the law acts to work with market processes it can only end up doing harm

This is a vast claim. Proof? Evidence?

Market processes would not have ended child labor, nor put an end to companies poisoning ground water making goods that are sold elsewhere. Legal statutes - working against market forces, thank goodness - were the sole remedy.

setting up conflicts between what lawmakers and bureaucrats ( and yes, some economists ) want and what impersonal market forces are acting to bring about.

Which is entirely proper and appropriate. We are not slaves to what Mammon's "impersonal market forces" might bring about. Maybe. Some Day.

A few weeks ago you opined that market forces would put bigoted companies out of business, and were going to think of examples. Thought of any yet? Must we depend on such an ineffective (or imaginary) process?

so often lawmakers either do not understand economics (snip)At best this is a waste of resources---seldom those of the lawmakers---and at worst it causes more problems than it solves.

You say that economists often ignore economics principles, but that's an unsubstantiated claim. Rather, they disregard some versions of economics.

You say "pushing against" market forces as if it's a bad thing. That's a normative value judgment, not a fact.

Proof that this wastes resources? Evidence? Assertion is not a substitute for reasoned argument. How did legislation on tobacco, auto safety, or environmental safety cause more problems than they solved?

I cannot of course make you believe any of this.

Not this way, but I gave you a fair shot.

(snip) In the battle between beliefs and economics, beliefs will always win out.

And the problem with this is? Who decided that economics trumped all else?

Which describes, unfortunately, the relationship between most lawmakers and economics as well...

You state a value judgment that policies should submit to a particular image of economics. That's mere opinion.

Many truths are unpleasant(snip).

Many things called "truths" are merely handwaving. Repeating the same assertions over and over again without any substantiation does not elevate them to fact.

I can but shrug and lift my palms there, I am afraid.

That's definitely not the case. You could respond to well-known examples of some of the largest regulatory interventions of government interventions into the private sector, and explain why they were harmful, and how in those specific instances the market would have provided superior results. Without that, it just comes as a cop-out, I'm afraid.

Certainly.

Take the issue of the lead in Chinese products, for example.

Why? Several of us laid out perfectly good examples. Don't disregard them - they are entirely appropriate. Ms. Palin responds to the discussion she'd like to have, not the one in front of her. We have higher standards here.

The typical government response to this sort of thing is to exercise the muscles of its bureaucracies to intervene and produce by main force a given result. That is, to ban import of a product, or to seize supplies, or to force recalls. But these expend resources and enable bureaucratic growth and the expansion of government. They are also unnecessary.

What resources are expended?
Why is it unnecessary to halt dangerous products when the goal is to save lives?

What should the government do? Disseminate information. Empower the public. Tell them of the problem. Tell them of the danger. Warn them not to use these products.

Here's your fairy tale. How is the government to even have this information without regulatory disclosure requirements? Do you imagine for a moment that government information would not be drowned out by corporate secrets, lies and disinformation? Actual history shows the reverse is true.

If people, in full awareness of the facts, choose to use them...(snip) It is no part of the government's business to protect people from their own bad choices or their own foolhardiness

A big If, and a normative statement. Those are policies you may wish, but they are not "facts"

EDIT: this doesn't even begin to apply when the consumer isn't the victim, for example, with child labor or manufacturing pollution.

[downunder]

Heh. I am not teaching an econ class here, you know!

And don't think I don't see right through your cunning plan to keep me too busy expounding on economics to argue with you about fencing! ( forbidden smily )

My point was that a lassez-faire attitude to markets is misguided if you don't understand market failure and what is needed to address costs that are not reflected in the supply-demand curves.

Remember in the long run, we're all dead.

[erik_blank]

My point was that a lassez-faire attitude to markets is misguided if you don't understand market failure and what is needed to address costs that are not reflected in the supply-demand curves.

Remember in the long run, we're all dead.

And I, personally, would like to make that run as long as possible while still feeling like a young kid....

[I_luv_saber]

I rather dislike the "long run" quote. It seems to encourage short-term thinking, and while it is good to think of that as well, it's very bad to ignore the long run.

Keynesian bubble inflations and re-inflations in order to support "short term" is a good example of that (the real estate bubble was just a re-inflation of the dot-com bubble) and how silly it can be. See the Krugman link I posted in the other thread as an example of that.