It looks like it’s gonna be Black Tuesday for the stock market. Foreign markets were roiling yesterday, the “stimulus” package is seen as a bandaid. Where it will go – who knows.
But we can be thankful at this point in time, anyway, that Social Security was not privatized, and that that program is shielded from the gyrations of the stock market. Senior citizens have some insulation.
Piece of Mindful 
O’ ye of little faith. You’re right though, stimulus packages don’t work.
But the market will be fine with Uncle Benny bailing out the banks (by screwing fixed income investors) and, if he keeps it up, the sub-prime mortgage borrowers too. Fiat money and inflation are wonderful things.
LikeLike
In Zimbabwe,your social sequirty monies comes in wheelbarrows.
LikeLike
How’s the weather on your planet?
LikeLike
Actually my “out of this world” comment has several meanings.
First of all when the government is all controlling and tries to “fix things” the results are often worse for its subjects, example, Zimbabwe.
Secoundly, I’m agreeing with Dave, that by the government messing with bailouts and printing money harms us more than helps us. Link
http://voanews.com/english/Africa/Zimbabwe/2008-01-22-voa64.cfm
And lastly, ecomnomic health should be our first pirority. For without it, SS and everything else becomes worthless.
PS. Bonus point. Zimbabwe’s problems can all be traced back to its leaders taking away private property, specifically farmland, which in turn has decimated its ag output, caused many thousands to starve, and generated many refugees. Govt Control at its finest.
LikeLike
I think sometimes, like at 5AM, that you guys should get your wish, that we have a private economy. You seem to think that government involvement came about by fiat, that things were going fine. Just the opposite – every government program we have today is in response to a crisis brought about by a failure of the private sector to function as you think it does.
Did you have to go through the whole alphabet before you found the Zimbabwe example?
LikeLike
Every program? But even if you’re right, which you’re not, you’ll have to explain to me whether the outcomes of those programs have been:
A) Moral
B) Effective
C) Efficient
I’ll be waiting.
LikeLike
“Did you have to go through the whole alphabet before you found the Zimbabwe example?”
Only the smart people have been following the Zimbabwe debacle. The entire nation is caught up in what I call “Rhodesia Dreaming.” That is, they long for the days when their government and economy were dominated by whites. Now they have what the western liberals wanted: central planning and black rule. And Zimbabwe, which was once the breadbasket of Africa, can no longer feed itself. The whole population is headed back into the bush from whence it came.
Hat tip to Paul Simon, Bono, Hollywood actors, and all other bleeding hearts and do-gooders wherever they may be.
LikeLike
We have unemployment compensation because of workers being let go and left with nothing except a hope for private charity to get by on. Companies did nothing. We have food stamps because a portion of the population could not afford to put food on their family and private charity was not enough. We have Social Security becuase our seniors were in dire poverty, and Medicare because they could not get decent health care through the private sector. And on and on.
Are the programs moral? Yes.
Are the programs effective and efficient? The people who benefit from these programs are in better shape than they were before, when they were left in the hands of the private sector.
Let’s have the efficiency debate some time. Can we? Can we? Because what I’ve seen with privatization efforts with government programs is extreme inefficiency and loss of effectiveness. I mean honestly, are you going to sit there and tell me that private insurance companies are more efficient than Medicare? Or that, speaking of morality, that they would even be there for seniors? That’s one little example.
LikeLike
Mark, another quite superficial argument.
First, let’s have the debate about efficiency. But not in the context of your babble about contemporary insurance companies, but in the context of the allocation of scarce resources. You know, things like the trade offs between equity and efficiency. And we can’t argue that in the context of the existing infrastructure either since nearly half of the health care market is a government monopsony. We also have to think about the adaptability of these programs in the light of future demographic and economic trends. We see all sorts of government programs that can’t adapt such as England’s health services. So don’t limit your rationale to ephemerality of today. Solutions need to be bigger.
Secondly, just because you say it’s moral doesn’t make it so. You have never made the moral argument for any of these programs and I wish you would.
Think a bit bigger, Mark. I know you can. I’m ready for the argument, especially the moral one, which, I’m assuming you’ll refuse.
LikeLike
You need to trim your nose hairs – that’s how it looks from down here.
England’s health care system is simply underfunded.
There are means of allocation of scarce resources. In areas like health care and hunger, I find government to be a better arbiter. In the current private sector, which covers about half of our population, allocation is based on 1) ability to pay, and 2) current health. Absent either of these, private insurers walk. In a government system, a pool is set up that includes the entire population, and then the allocation is done based on immediate need. People with more resources don’t get the immediate benefits they want, but overall, we are better off – the use of resources to benefit the most people in the most efficient manner.
That’s also a good definition of morality – the most good for the most people. I know you’ll come back and say that we do this by stealing resources from some people and giving them to others. This is the short-sighted agument – it assumes that we’re not all in this together, and that those who have the most resources have no debt to society as a whole. Wrong on both counts.
I see allocation of resource arguments by means of private sector decisions only essentially short sighted. Surely you can do better.
LikeLike
Plotz! Get serious. I’ll argue when get past your tired platitudes.
You argue like a high schools student.
LikeLike
O c’mon. You’re posing. You meant to pose and run. That, and not information, is your point here. You came to score some arrogance points. Maybe you’re getting even for some imagined offense.
You ain’t that hard to figure out. It’s even a little high-schooly.
LikeLike
Here’s what’s “high-schooly”:
If it’s short sighted, why? Because we’re “all in it together?” In what? “They have a debt to society?” How much and for what? You see, it’s just platitudinous bullshit.
The most resources for the most people? How do you define how that comes about? Where is there an example that a government can and did make that happen? I didn’t come here to score any points and god knows that I don;t care about peoples opinion of me (just ask my wife) but you keep putting up arguments that are nothing but feel good talking points and you can’t – or won’t – back them up. I don’t care from where your arguments come, the bible, the Ghita, Marx, Rawls, Chomsky, Jefferson, Hegel, your mother, your fat little cousin or yourself. You haven’t made a defensible argument in your socialist prattling ever.
Don;t accuse me of being sophistic when it’s you that doesn’t seem to have a grounding in what you believe other than some feel-good nonsense.
LikeLike
Dave, it is pretty much the venue of the Sophist to claim the need for opposition to defend morality when no such necessity appears to exist. If we argue about whether or not it is more efficient and effective to void one’s bladder while standing up, wouldn’t it be sophistry to petulantly demand that I provide moral proof of that claim? (Hey, my ass don’t get cold hitting a frigid toilet seat is a perfect moral argument as far as I’m concerned.) Still, what have you presented that requires such a philosophical effort on Mark’s part, save that you can degrade him for not providing you with your desire?
You might want to be rethinking that supposed high ground, David.
LikeLike
I don’t think so. Why isn’t is necessary to make a moral moral case? You’ve said this before. Aren’t you approaching nihilism? Is it not sophistic to make such a claim?
That said, he hasn’t make the case for efficiency or effectiveness either.
And by the way, your pissing doesn’t have anything to do with my property unless, of course, you piss on it.
LikeLike
Dave, your asserting need for morality without any justification. Why would it be necessary to make such an argument? That’s not nihilist … it’s Socratic.
And pissing on your property? If it’s efficient or effective … why not?
😉
LikeLike
And one more point. When someone is telling someone else what should be done it’s incumbent upon them to make the case. This debate has gone on for, as far as I recollect, a few years now and Mark (and others on the left) continue to instruct us on our obligations. I’m rather tired of being told what’s right and what’s wrong by dictate. In fact, I want to know why, if I am, wrong in thinking that do-goodery needs to be justified.
LikeLike
You’re being silly and incoherent. Let me help you. What is the moral justification in forcibly taking property for A and giving it to B? Don’t be a smart ass (and yes, I know I’m being Socratic – not that there’s anything wrong with that.)
LikeLike
Morality is a human construct, not given us from without. It is how we decide is good for us, what is not. Some say it’s evolutionary – maybe so. But the greater good is the whole point of moral systems. So some things seem right to individuals – to accumulate without purpose, to refuse to take care of the commons, to refuse to pay a share over for the common welfare. For the greater good we say these people are selfish and short-sighted, and we set our rules in spite of them. (Yes, I’m talking about you.)
I leave it to you to explain to me how private greed is really a moral good. I leave it to you to explain to me how personal freedom, in a society where we each depend on the labor of others to survive, can exist without limits.
We argue about the limits on private freedom, that’s all. Some of us have taken a gander at the kind of world that exists without government intervention, and decided for ourselves that we are better off with it. You’ve constructed your entire philosophical existence on the premise that government is a force for ill, yet you’ve never show how our society is worse off for government having stepped in to recitify the shortcomings of society when private greed is the ruling force. You don’t even acknowledge that we ever had a problem – seniors were always wealthy and healthy, kids always had insurance, educational opportunities were always available to everyone. I really think you believe things like that.
I define a system that seeks equitable distribution of necessary resources for all – necessary resources. I don’t care about TV’s and Twinkies – only health care, education, transportation, basic foodstuffs and utilities. I seek to use government to manage these necessities and see that all have access. A system that only rewards private greed usually leads to a few select getting to best and the majority being ill served. This yields societies as we see in Latin America with enormous poverty and opulent wealth, side by side, no middle.
I’ve seen your system at work, and I see that it fails. Constantly. I also see that whenever it fails, you blame too much government. You can’t see that a society without government is dog-eat-dog, that the natural result of such a system is a few with an overwhelming claim on resources, and the majority with not enough. That’s natural, maybe you think it is good and moral becuase it comes about naturally, but I think it is immoral.
And for what it is worth, you can hide away if you want, but we are all in it together, we do owe a debt to one another. I would not have what I have without public support in the form of laws and roads, libraries and public services, and schools – I owe a debt. Call it platitudinous, but it’s a simple fact. Societies that recognize that fact, and tax and set policy accordingly, are healthier and happier than us.
LikeLike
Efficiency – I’m not much concerned about efficiency – that’s a green eye shade problem. It is certainly more efficient to have our fruits and vegetables grown by low-wage peons. It saves us money. But it is not moral. Efficiency can conflict with morality. It should not be an end in itself. And need I point out to you yet again those areas where the private sector is not even efficient?
Effectiveness – there are some things best left to the private sector, such as new video games or production and distribution of oil. I don’t diss it entirely. My world is mostly private, but enough government to take the rough edges off, to eliminate the bizarre extremes we see in pure capitalist societies. But I do understand how the private sector creates wealth. But there are some things it’s just not very good at, where government is more effective (and moral, if greater good equals morality). I won’t list them again.
LikeLike
Mark, if it’s OK with you I’ll re-post your morality argument at my site later. Secondly, it seems funny that you refer to efficiency as a “green eye shade” problem” and dismiss it as simply saving money. have you forgotten you Adam Smith and the theories of comparative advantage? (That’s what I mean when I say your arguments are superficial.)
LikeLike
Post away. I’ll stop by.
I’ve never read Smith, never will. Prose is too dense. I would like to read someone who has read Smith and can translate for me. If what Chomsky says is true, he’s not the bag of chips libertarians think he is. I just don’t know.
But I have thought about efficiency, and I suggest you don’t see the down side. Sweatshops are efficient and yield a comparative advantage to some.
LikeLike
No wonder you have such a hard time arguing economics. You don’t have the vocabulary.
Chomsky obviously would doubt him being the (fake) anarcho-syndicalist that he is. But then again, Chomsky doesn’t really know shit about economics.
LikeLike
I took the requisite courses in the dismal science in college, but it never made much of an impression on me. I could see, from Friedman’s viewpoint, how economic policy impacted human freedom, but I gave up Freidman during Midlife One. I began to see the bigger picture.
You never fail to take a shot a Chomsky, usually from a high perch. Perhaps it’s because Chomsky does believe in labor unions, and you believe that freedom stops at the doorstep of organization? During Midlife One I found the transition from Friedman to Chomsky quite easy.
Perhaps you have such a low opinion of poor old Noam because he sees the world from below, while you see it through the eyes of those on top? That would indeed make you incompatible and hostile.
Just guessing.
LikeLike
Funny that, I went from Chomsky to Freedman. But during mid-life I discovered that Chomsky was a fraud.
But you’re wrong about me looking at the world from above. In fact, my guess is that you are significantly wealthier than me (actually I’d bet on it) – but that’s a long sordid story.
LikeLike
Then we are both men of modest means. I was careful in my wording – I said “through the eyes” of those on top.
Again the hostility towards Chomsky. I think it has to do with the prophet aspect – never respected in their own time and all.
LikeLike
I can only see through my eyes (an Objectivist notion).
As for Chomsky being a prophet. Nope, just a fraud. Just a guy who helps victims feel that they’ve been screwed – while sitting in the lap of luxury himself. A guy with clean hands telling the lowly proletariat that they collectively need to work the dirt that they cannot own. I guy who says that his peasant followers want him to keep his spoils from working in a capitalist society because he needs them to keep up the “good fight.” A paranoid little man who is convinced that there’s a conclave of rulers who conspire to screw the world while denying exactly that characteristics of the communist elite.
LikeLike
That is extremely revealing! Must be late in your day. A “prophet” is merely someone who speaks against the existing power structure. They are normally exorcised from proper society – outcasts. And indeed, Chomsky is a pariah, never asked to appear in mainstream media, never referenced except with contempt and disdain. Look at you – he can’t just be wrong, you can’t merely disagree with him. You’ve demonized him.
“A guy who helps victims feel that they’ve been screwed”? Wanna check your wording there? Maybe you meant “perceived” victims? There are powerful people, and they take advantage of weak people. All day, every day. That one in a position of privilege chooses to identify with the lower castes speaks of an odd psychological profile. I’ll grant you that. I’m sure there’s something in his upbringing that brings it about. But to hold him in contempt for doing it means, to me anyway, that you see through the eyes of those on top. You identify with wealth and privilege, even though you are not one of them.
Chomsky makes no bones about his privileged position, speaks of it often, about how doing what he does entails no real risk, while others in less open societies are really in peril, are tortured, murdered, disappeared. Places dominated by the US, where our leaders and proxies can operate without constraint. In the US, Chomsky is merely shunned. If he lived in El Salvador in the 1980’s, we would have found his rotting corpse in a ditch along with others who spoke out against that US-backed regime. He points out criminal behavior by our most exalted – that’s not proper, and not allowed.
If he was less prominent, of foreign birth, he might well be dead. He’d certainly be denied a visa. “Speaking truth to power” is the trite way of saying it. It’s dangerous, and only a person of power can gain a public forum and get away with it. You hold him in contempt for that very reason. Odd.
“Peasant followers”? This is most revealing! Am I sensing contempt for the lower classes?
LikeLike
A prophet is usually taken as someone who is a visionary and/or speaks for God. I seem him as neither. As for me having contempt for the lower class? Nonsense. Are you so politically correct that any mention of class makes someone a bigot?
LikeLike
“Peasant followers” is an odd construct. And I think you’re confusing prophet with seer.
LikeLike
Why don’t you look the word up. I did and it confirmed my understanding.
LikeLike
“Prophet just means intellectual. They were people giving geopolitical analysis, moral lessons, that sort of thing. We call them intellectuals today. There were the people we honor as prophets, there were the people we condemn as false prophets. But if you look at the biblical record, at the time, it was the other way around. The flatterers of the Court of King Ahab were the ones who were honored. The ones we call prophets were driven into the desert and imprisoned.”
(Noam Chomsky / born in 1928 / Interview by Harry Kreisler March 22, 2002)
I suppose that’s where I got my contrarian meaning.
LikeLike
Yeah, well it helps if you speak English.
LikeLike
Me, or him? I kind of like his definition – it makes more sense than Counselor Deanna Troi advising the king.
LikeLike
Him, I’m assuming he was using the Hebrew context of the word in a particular period. But, you know, you don’t have to think of it in such obscure terms. Moses will do.
LikeLike
Just like him, eh?
Personally, I find Chomsky intriguing, but a downer. I take him in small doses, much preferring his interviews with David Barsamiam over his books, where he makes long circuitous arguments. A chapter might start with Iran, and by the time he is done he has taken you to Timor and Central America – he is especially prone to go off on Reagan’s wars down there in the 1980’s. Eventually he come back to the question, but by that time, I’ve forgotten what it was.
Anyway, there’s a better word than prophet. It’s not coming to me right now, though.
LikeLike
How about “leftist intellectual”?
LikeLike
Well, he is that, but I’m looking for the word that encompasses that and his ostracism from proper society. Prophet was working till you came along.
LikeLike