Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Saying No to a "Top-Down Command and Control" Economy
I missed Obama's interview with Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace, but skimming the transcript, this exchange caught my eye. I'm not sure how much confidence I have in Obama's sincerity here—and it‘s certainly a smart thing to emphasize when speaking to a Fox News crowd—but this is an encouraging answer:
WALLACE: Over the years, John McCain has broken with his party and risked his career on a number of issues - campaign finance, immigration reform, banning torture.
As a president, can you name a hot-button issue where you would be willing to buck the Democratic Party line and say, "You know what? Republicans have a better idea here?"
OBAMA: Well, I think there are a whole host of areas where Republicans in some cases may have a better idea.
WALLACE: Such as?
OBAMA: Well, on issues of regulation. I think that back in the '60s and '70s a lot of the way we regulated industry was top-down command and control, we're going to tell businesses exactly how to do things.
And you know, I think that the Republican Party and people who thought about the markets came up with the notion that, "You know what? If you simply set some guidelines, some rules and incentives, for businesses—let them figure out how they're going to, for example, reduce pollution," and a cap and trade system, for example is a smarter way of doing it, controlling pollution, than dictating every single rule that a company has to abide by, which creates a lot of bureaucracy and red tape and oftentimes is less efficient.
I think that on issues of education, I've been very clear about the fact - and sometimes I've gotten in trouble with the teachers' union on this - that we should be experimenting with charter schools. We should be experimenting with different ways of compensating teachers that...
Excepting the cap and trade example, Obama's renunciation of the "top-down command and control" economy is still pretty vague. This could simply mean that he has, say, no interest in returning to pre-1986 Tax Reform Act rates of corporate taxation (which topped out at 46 percent). Regardless, it couldn't possibly be worse than this story on that earmark-loving Senator from Chappaqua, Hillary Clinton. The Hill reports:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has requested nearly $2.3 billion in federal earmarks for 2009, almost three times the largest amount received by a single senator this year.
The Democratic presidential candidate's staggering request comes at a time when Congress remains engaged in a heated debate over spending federal dollars on parochial projects.
It also has gained traction on the campaign trail. Presumptive GOP nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), a longtime foe of earmarks, has called for eliminating what he dubs "wasteful Washington spending." Democratic front-runner Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) has spurned earmarks, seeking no funds for pet projects in the upcoming fiscal year.
Yet Clinton is continuing to request billions for earmarks, most of which will go to her home state.
Last month, anti-earmark crusader Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) stopped by the Reason DC HQ to talk with reason.tv about Cuba, freedom-and Flake's own failure to live by his self-imposed term limit pledge.
Invisible Finger|4.29.08 @ 3:38PM|#
Excepting the cap and trade example, Obama's renunciation of
the "top-down command and control" economy is still pretty
vague.
A cap-and-trade system is STILL a top-down approach.
|4.29.08 @ 3:38PM|#
Democratic front-runner Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) has spurned
earmarks, seeking no funds for pet projects in the upcoming fiscal
year.
"I'm Henry the VII I am ... Second verse! Same as the first!"
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|4.29.08 @ 3:41PM|#
If he is being sincere (I am dubious) he is more of a pragmatist than I thought. He may be more of a technocrat than an ideologue; again, this is assuming sincerity.
Bingo|4.29.08 @ 3:42PM|#
Doesn't Obama have contacts with a lot of people from U of Chicago's economics department?
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|4.29.08 @ 3:44PM|#
"Doesn't Obama have contacts with a lot of people from U of
Chicago's economics department?"
The group of people who claim to be capitalists but have more in
common with Keynes?
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|4.29.08 @ 3:46PM|#
For more info on the Chicago school:
http://mises.org/journals/scholar/jankovic2.pdf
|4.29.08 @ 3:47PM|#
A cap-and-trade system is STILL a top-down
approach.
Well, unfortunately you aren't going to be getting a choice between
interventionist and non-interventionist in this election. You get
to pick which one will be the least onerous interventionist.
I won't go so far as to endorse Obama, but he isn't the worst of
all possible choices, either.
ed|4.29.08 @ 3:49PM|#
We've never had a Soviet style "top-down command and control" economy, but we're perfectly happy to have a watered-down version of one, or what Obama calls "guidelines, some rules and incentives." So yeah, maybe we should be hopeful, the same way Russians were hopeful when Khrushchev took over.
Neil|4.29.08 @ 4:08PM|#
Obama is really imploding. Clinton is coming WAY up in Indiana
now in the latest polls!
Maybe the Reagan Democrats won't flush their party down the toilet
after all.
|4.29.08 @ 4:13PM|#
Well, on issues of regulation. I think that back in the '60s
and '70s a lot of the way we regulated industry was top-down
command and control, we're going to tell businesses exactly how to
do things.
You read this statement and though about tax rates?
What is it about libertarians that causes them to read the word
"regulation" and leap immediately to "tax rates?"
Taxes aren't regulation.
|4.29.08 @ 4:17PM|#
Whoa, whoa - you can't cite something from Mises.org as support for a description of the Chicago School. That's like someone asking about the Yankees and being directed to a Red Sox site (or vice versa, if you prefer.)
|4.29.08 @ 4:20PM|#
I'm gonna start the dick parade and say sarcastically "Wow,
Obama eschews Communism!...whatta helluva guy!"
Whatevs, man.
The group of people who claim to be capitalists but have more
in common with Keynes?
Lemme guess...you just gobble up every piece of junk the VMI and
the Rockwellians put out, doncha?
Tell you what: List the positions of the Chicago school, line them
up withe Keynesians, and get back to us how they're more simliar
than they are differnt.
I predict a whole lot of FAIL.
javier|4.29.08 @ 4:22PM|#
We've never had a Soviet style "top-down command and
control" economy,
except for monetary policy.
and the mises institute calls the chicago school socialists for
agree with centralized control of money.
javier|4.29.08 @ 4:25PM|#
Ayn_Randian,
that is the main one that pisses th LvMI off. BOth keynes and the
chicago school view manipulating the money supply in order to
affect the economy as okie dokie.
|4.29.08 @ 4:28PM|#
Taxes aren't regulation.
You're right, but given all the costs of regulations on time,
compliance with dubiously beneficial (and oftentimes harmful) rules
and all those wonderful regulators we pay, they may as well be.
|4.29.08 @ 4:37PM|#
I thought Obama sounded really good on Fox News. He was vague but what politician isn't?
Yahoo Answerer: Now with Spell|4.29.08 @ 4:44PM|#
"and the mises institute calls the chicago school socialists for
agree with centralized control of money."
How is that not socialism? Socialism is an economic term. Money is
central to a discussion of any non-barter economy. How would this
NOT be a form of socialism?
|4.29.08 @ 4:57PM|#
Yet Clinton is continuing to request billions for earmarks,
most of which will go to her home state.
Show Me the MONEY!
Episiarch|4.29.08 @ 4:58PM|#
Is the election over yet?
Neil, say "comsymp" or "Op Chaos". I need some amusement.
BakedPenguin|4.29.08 @ 4:59PM|#
Erm... I thought the Monetarists wanted to increase the money supply in parallel with the growth in GDP.
|4.29.08 @ 5:01PM|#
Serious, if slightly OT question: Couldn't one of the two Dems
change the dynamic of the race significantly if they chose and/or
hinted at their respective VP candidates?
I mean, what if Hilldog hints that she's going to pick Mike
Easley?
|4.29.08 @ 5:03PM|#
I thought the Monetarists wanted to increase the money
supply in parallel with the growth in GDP.
But don't you get it, Penguin? To the yokeltarians, monetarism =
central control = Keynesianism = communist.
This is what happens when you approach a science and try to
pigeonhole it into axioms, instead of developing axioms from
observations.
ny looter|4.29.08 @ 5:03PM|#
woohoo, $128 for every man, woman and child in ny york
state!
i'm spending mine on gasoline!
Yahoo Answerer: Now with Spell|4.29.08 @ 5:12PM|#
"Erm... I thought the Monetarists wanted to increase the money
supply in parallel with the growth in GDP."
Penguin, the problem is that once you give government that tool
they can grow the size and scope of government without even
"raising taxes" by simply printing money to pay for expenses. This
is in effect a tax raise on any human on planet earth who has U.S.
Currency. As a side effect the USD becomes weaker in comparison to
other currencies.
BakedPenguin|4.29.08 @ 5:21PM|#
YA - I recognize the problems with giving the state control of
the money supply. I'm familiar with Germany 1923, Brazil 1980,
Zimbabwe 2003-present. However, the gold standard is not the
be-all, end-all it's supporters would claim.
While it would definitely cap the kind of meltdowns seen in SE Asia
in 1997-8, it also brings with it the prospect of deflation.
Deflation can be more destructive than inflation. Ironically, it
was the Fed who helped prove that by taking 1/3 of the money stock
out of circulation, greatly worsening the Depression.
Also, Japan was in a deflationary recession during the 1990's - for
pretty much the entire decade.
Neil|4.29.08 @ 5:21PM|#
LOL Clinton within 5 in North Carolina!!
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=d4d1bc7e-32d4-438e-8143-75c8b25b3435
Riots in Denver! Op Chaos is working.
|4.29.08 @ 5:21PM|#
Given that Obama has also said that he'll stop imports of all Chinese-made toys, that he wants to raise the capital gains tax in the name of "fairness," even if it brings in less revenue, that he believes in the Second Amendment except that localities ought to be able to have blanket bans on guns, how much weight should anyone give these vague statements? I'd say little to none.
Yahoo Answerer: Now with Spell|4.29.08 @ 5:22PM|#
"This is what happens when you approach a science and try to
pigeonhole it into axioms, instead of developing axioms from
observations."
How many times do you need to observe gravity before it becomes an
"axiom" that if I let go of a golf ball while I am standing on
planet Earth it will fall to the ground?
|4.29.08 @ 5:23PM|#
the problem is that once you give government that tool they
can grow the size and scope of government without even "raising
taxes" by simply printing money to pay for expenses.
What? What in the world does the printing of currency have to do
with the money supply?
You mean that they can lend more bonds or something?
|4.29.08 @ 5:24PM|#
Yahoo Answerer: Now with SpellCheck©,
Could you please argue against the actual monetarist position
rather than a strawman version?
The monetarists would have a long and detailed Constitutional
Amendment describe exactly how much money should be added into
circulation depending on a number of metrics.
Now you might think that unworkable, problematic, or otherwise
idiotic, but it is exactly not an allowance to "grow the
size and scope of government without even 'raising taxes' by simply
printing money to pay for expenses."
Episiarch|4.29.08 @ 5:27PM|#
Riots in Denver! Op Chaos is working.
Thanks Neil, now just "comsymp" please.
Yahoo Answerer: Now with Spell|4.29.08 @ 5:28PM|#
"While it would definitely cap the kind of meltdowns seen in SE
Asia in 1997-8, it also brings with it the prospect of deflation.
Deflation can be more destructive than inflation."
What I would like to see are competing currencies. If people loose
confidence in one currency they can begin to use another. Some may
choose to back their currency in gold, others may prefer silver,
and still others may choose cattle futures. There can be infinite
experimentation in a free market of currency.
Yahoo Answerer: Now with Spell|4.29.08 @ 5:30PM|#
"What? What in the world does the printing of currency have to
do with the money supply?"
What in the world does iPod manufacturing have to do with the
supply of iPods?
Tim Cavanaugh|4.29.08 @ 5:32PM|#
We had both of the Tiresome Twosome in for L.A. Times
endorsement interviews within a day or two of each other. Obama
easily clinched it right there, and the split was exactly as
Moynihan lays out in his post.
To wit: On all economic topics you got vague-but-encouraging,
generally New Democrat pro-market stuff out of Obama, and you got
straight-up socialism out of Clinton. That was true for free trade,
for punishment of the "CEOs who have caused this mess," for making
sure "the workers who created the wealth get their fair share," for
the bailout of sub-prime deadbeats, for everything. This was not
exactly a Fox-News-type crowd they were addressing either: With a
handful of exceptions, everybody in the room was quite eager to
hear hang-the-rich, protect-the-people-from-themselves
claptrap.
I'm not exaggerating when I say Clinton's rhetoric was openly
socialist and Obama's at least showed familiarity with the basic
notion of a free market. That doesn't mean Clinton will rule that
way or that she's legislated that way, and it doesn't mean Obama
won't suck. But just counting their comments on economics, Obama
was orders of magnitude less objectionable than Clinton.
|4.29.08 @ 5:34PM|#
YA:NWS,
First of all, banks create money, not the Federal Reserve. The Fed
limits how much money banks can create, in order to control
inflation.
Currency is printed as a function of demand...that's why I am
confused as to what in the world the Treasury Dept's function of
printing currency has to do with money supply.
Loathe though I am to say "Take Econ 101..." you're getting me
there.
Yahoo Answerer: Now with Spell|4.29.08 @ 5:35PM|#
"The monetarists would have a long and detailed Constitutional
Amendment describe exactly how much money should be added into
circulation depending on a number of metrics.
Now you might think that unworkable, problematic, or otherwise
idiotic, but it is exactly not an allowance to "grow the size and
scope of government without even 'raising taxes' by simply printing
money to pay for expenses.""
Yes, it is, when is the last time that we actually followed the
constitution? The problem is in trusting the government with
powers. If the monetarists wanted to form a private currency
company that functioned according to their views I would have no
problem with that. What I want are competing currencies. May the
best currency win.
Kolohe|4.29.08 @ 5:36PM|#
What I would like to see are competing currencies. If people
loose confidence in one currency they can begin to use
another.
You mean like the Euro, Pound, Yen, etc.?
LarryA|4.29.08 @ 5:43PM|#
Taxes aren't regulation.
Al Capone disagrees.
Voter's poll tax? Sin tax? "Windfall profits" tax? Carbon tax?
Import/export tariffs? Prohibition (i.e. marijuana) taxes? Tax
incentives?
"The power to tax is the power to destroy."
|4.29.08 @ 5:43PM|#
Yes, it is, when is the last time that we actually followed
the constitution? The problem is in trusting the government with
powers. If the monetarists wanted to form a private currency
company that functioned according to their views I would have no
problem with that. What I want are competing currencies. May the
best currency win.
And when the government passes a law that says that it can print as
much of any of these private currencies as it wishes in order to
pay its expenses, then what?
Yahoo Answerer: Now with Spell|4.29.08 @ 5:45PM|#
"First of all, banks create money, not the Federal Reserve. The
Fed limits how much money banks can create, in order to control
inflation.
Currency is printed as a function of demand...that's why I am
confused as to what in the world the Treasury Dept's function of
printing currency has to do with money supply."
The Federal Reserve is itself a Bank. And the Federal Government is
a huge customer both in terms of borrowing and spending. There is
also a huge network of "Federal Credit Unions". Make no mistake;
the federal government has control over the money supply.
You are also giving trust where no trust should be given.
robc|4.29.08 @ 5:50PM|#
Well, unfortunately you aren't going to be getting a choice
between interventionist and non-interventionist in this
election.
Not true. Depending on who the LP puts on the ballot, I may have a
non-interventionist choice.
Yahoo Answerer: Now with Spell|4.29.08 @ 5:51PM|#
"You mean like the Euro, Pound, Yen, etc.?"
These are not competing currencies within the same geographic area.
If I opened a store in South Florida I would not have the freedom
to have a "No U.S. Dollar" policy. In fact, one man is being
prosecuted for promioting a competing currency.
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2007/nov/17/libertydollar-headanticipates-his-arrest/
Neil|4.29.08 @ 5:54PM|#
If Obama can't make the decision whether to cute Wright loose or not, how can he make decisive Presidential decisions about the economy?
Yahoo Answerer: Now with Spell|4.29.08 @ 5:55PM|#
"And when the government passes a law that says that it can
print as much of any of these private currencies as it wishes in
order to pay its expenses, then what?"
If they are printed by the government they are not private
currencies.
Geotpf|4.29.08 @ 5:57PM|#
PapayaSF | April 29, 2008, 5:21pm | #
Given that Obama has also said that he'll stop imports of all
Chinese-made toys, that he wants to raise the capital gains tax in
the name of "fairness," even if it brings in less revenue, that he
believes in the Second Amendment except that localities ought to be
able to have blanket bans on guns, how much weight should anyone
give these vague statements? I'd say little to none.
You are going to have to provide direct quotes to where Obama said
those things for me to believe you. Somehow, I doubt he actually
said what you are saying he said (maybe on the second amendment
issue).
Invisible Finger|4.29.08 @ 6:00PM|#
Taxes aren't regulation.
You're right, they're even worse than that. They're
manipulation.
|4.29.08 @ 6:00PM|#
If they are printed by the government they are not private
currencies.
That's your rebuttal? A semantic observation?
Say the government allows private currencies and gets rid of the
Federal Reserve Note. Private currencies happily fill the monetary
ecosystem, and the economy hums along just fine.
Then the government passes a law such that it can demand any
private currency provider print off any amount the government
desires for the government to fill its own coffers with.
What then?
|4.29.08 @ 6:02PM|#
If they are printed by the government they are not private
currencies.
Perhaps the point would be better made like this:
If the government increases the monetary supply without regard to
the Monetary Supply Constitutional Amendment, then that is not
monetarism.
|4.29.08 @ 6:05PM|#
A cap-and-trade system is STILL a top-down
approach.
Yes it is like putting a bottle around the economy and allowing it
to work so long as you do not go outside the bottle.
Congratulations Obama you have just come right enough to support
the free market reforms of Communist China........
....from 20 years ago.
Russ 2000|4.29.08 @ 6:09PM|#
We had both of the Tiresome Twosome in for L.A. Times
endorsement interviews within a day or two of each
other.
Geez, Tim, I thought you were going to improve the LA Times. The
paper is still spending valuable money on valueless exercises like
endorsement interviews?
Yahoo Answerer: Now with Spell|4.29.08 @ 6:09PM|#
"Then the government passes a law such that it can demand any
private currency provider print off any amount the government
desires for the government to fill its own coffers with.
What then?"
Then the government would once again be ruining the economy. I am
not going to advise a man with a broken arm to avoid seeing a
doctor because his cast might one day have a broken leg. I want the
government out of the economy period.
Yahoo Answerer: Now with Spell|4.29.08 @ 6:13PM|#
"If the government increases the monetary supply without regard
to the Monetary Supply Constitutional Amendment, then that is not
monetarism."
The biggest danger is not monetarism qua monetarism. The biggest
danger is government control.
|4.29.08 @ 6:15PM|#
The biggest danger is not monetarism qua monetarism. The
biggest danger is government control.
If you allow that the government will stay out of your monetary
proposal, then please allow monetarists the same courtesy.
Yahoo Answerer: Now with Synta|4.29.08 @ 6:15PM|#
"because his cast might one day have a broken leg."
Because his cast might one day through a long series of events
cause a broken leg.
Yahoo Answerer: Now with Spell|4.29.08 @ 6:19PM|#
"If you allow that the government will stay out of your monetary
proposal, then please allow monetarists the same courtesy."
They put their trust in government behaving itself. I do not. My
proposal does not even require the existence of a government. In
fact, my proposal would function even better in a stateless
society.
|4.29.08 @ 6:19PM|#
The biggest danger is not monetarism qua monetarism. The
biggest danger is government control.
By the way, what keeps private currency provider A from printing
off private currency provider B's notes?
Invisible Finger|4.29.08 @ 6:28PM|#
By the way, what keeps private currency provider A from
printing off private currency provider B's notes?
Vengeance.
Yahoo Answerer: Now with Spell|4.29.08 @ 6:35PM|#
"By the way, what keeps private currency provider A from
printing off private currency provider B's notes?"
Customer sanctions and social sanctions. When customers found out,
and they eventually would, there would be a lack of trust in that
company and they would suffer as a result. There would probably
also be a greater use of precious metals that are verifiable via
simple tests.
|4.29.08 @ 6:37PM|#
They put their trust in government behaving itself. I do
not.
Actually, we have already established that you put your trust in
the semantic meaning of the word "private".
In fact, my proposal would function even better in a stateless
society.
Your proposal would be required in a stateless society.
That has no bearing on the fact that, in a stateful society, your
proposal is open to government interference just as monetarist or
centralized commodity standard proposals are.
Yahoo Answerer: Now with Spell|4.29.08 @ 6:42PM|#
"Actually, we have already established that you put your trust
in the semantic meaning of the word "private"."
In other words, I actually know the meaning of the word.
"That has no bearing on the fact that, in a stateful society, your
proposal is open to government interference just as monetarist or
centralized commodity standard proposals are."
Which is why I advocate a stateless society.
|4.29.08 @ 6:59PM|#
Very well. Let's go back to my original comment...
Now you might think [monetarism] unworkable, problematic, or
otherwise idiotic, but it is exactly not an
allowance to "grow the size and scope of government without even
'raising taxes' by simply printing money to pay for
expenses."
Can we now agree that your issue is with government not
with monetarism? That an extant government can mess up
your private currencies proposal just as it can mess up the
monetarist currency proposal and that therefore your above quoted
complaint is inaccurate?
Yahoo Answerer: Now with Spell|4.29.08 @ 7:09PM|#
"Can we now agree that your issue is with government not with
monetarism? That an extant government can mess up your private
currencies proposal just as it can mess up the monetarist currency
proposal and that therefore your above quoted complaint is
inaccurate?"
As an anarcho-capitalist, I would not interfere with a Hippie-Style
Commune that was entirely consensual even though I think that it
would be inefficient. So long as people are free to leave and no
one is compelled to join they should be free to organize themselves
in that manner.
In the same way, I would not interfere with a group of private
individuals who wanted to organize a private community or currency
around the principles of monetarism.
My problem is indeed with government. Which complaint are you
saying is inaccurate?
|4.29.08 @ 7:20PM|#
Which complaint are you saying is inaccurate?
Your complaint of 5:12pm...
"Erm... I thought the Monetarists wanted to increase the money supply in parallel with the growth in GDP."
Penguin, the problem is that once you give government that tool they can grow the size and scope of government without even "raising taxes" by simply printing money to pay for expenses. This is in effect a tax raise on any human on planet earth who has U.S. Currency. As a side effect the USD becomes weaker in comparison to other currencies.
Monetarists specifically want to restrict "that tool", using every
means possible to guarantee the monetary supply grows only with
growth in economic output.
Can government muck that up? Of course. Can government muck up
private currencies? Of course.
Yahoo Answerer: Now with Spell|4.29.08 @ 7:31PM|#
"Monetarists specifically want to restrict "that tool", using
every means possible to guarantee the monetary supply grows only
with growth in economic output.
Can government muck that up? Of course. Can government muck up
private currencies? Of course."
It would be much more difficult for governments to muck up a
private currency. Compare the control governments have over "public
schools" (in the U.S. sense of this word) vs. the control they have
over "private schools" (again, in the U.S. sense of this word).
Governments have far more control over the curriculum, what
subjects are taboo, the school lunch, who is admitted etc. than
they do over private schools. Might that change? Perhaps but it
needs to go through another set of hoops before it can reach that
stage. Some states have "charter schools" that are actually run by
the government. These charter schools can be changed far more
easily than a private school - some have already found this
out.
javier|4.29.08 @ 7:41PM|#
Ayn_Randian,
uhhhh...what?? When the Fed buys treasuries in the open market
committee, they use money they just created to do so. I will grant
you that through reserve requirements banks end up creating a lot
more. But when the gov't starts running deficits and throws out
masses of treasuries it fucks up the Fed's funds rate thus they
need to create a lot of money in order to take those treasuries off
the market so they can achieve their target rate.
Secondly, in the depression the fed didn't cause the deflation they
were desperately trying to inflate but it is hard to do so when no
banks are lending and everything seizes up. Bernanke promised
milton friedman on his 90th birthday that they would never let this
happen again and now we see bernanke coming up with very creative
ways of inflating credit even though a lot of the lending
institutions have tightened up.
|4.29.08 @ 7:41PM|#
It does seem odd to have spent all this time debating someone with whom I pretty much agree on this issue. But if you are going to call monetarists socialists because they believe in government-monopolized money, then you'll have to call all varieties of minarchists socialists because they believe in government-monopolized defense, police, and courts.
|4.29.08 @ 7:57PM|#
Geotpf:
Obama on capital gains taxes for "fairness"
"I would stop the import of all toys from China."
Obama's Second Amendment dance.
Edward|4.29.08 @ 8:05PM|#
"uplifting" animals to human-level intelligence"...and running one as a libertarian candidate? It's worth a try.
Yahoo Answerer: Now with Spell|4.29.08 @ 8:06PM|#
"I would stop the import of all toys from China." - Obama
Speaking of the Great Depression, it seems some have not learned
from the Smoot-Holly Tariffs Act.
Yahoo Answerer: Now with Spell|4.29.08 @ 8:10PM|#
"But if you are going to call monetarists socialists because
they believe in government-monopolized money, then you'll have to
call all varieties of minarchists socialists because they believe
in government-monopolized defense, police, and courts."
They are indeed mildly socialistic. But while defense, police and
courts are mere services within a larger economy the concept of
currency is the very essence of any non-barter economy.
|4.29.08 @ 8:47PM|#
People who have the same answer to every question are people who don't know what they're talking about.
Bob Goodman|4.29.08 @ 9:20PM|#
Bloggers still making a BFD of earmarks? They're just amendments to a spending bill that attach greater specificity to how some of the money is spent, rather than leaving it to the discretion of bureaucrats.
ian|4.29.08 @ 9:21PM|#
Neil: "If Obama can't make the decision whether to cute Wright
loose or not, how can he make decisive Presidential decisions about
the economy?"
decisive decision making like GWB and Iraq? I'll take non-decisive
decision making please.
|4.29.08 @ 9:40PM|#
MY FELLOW "BITTER", STUPID, WORKING CLASS PEOPLE :-)
If you think like Barack Obama, that WORKING CLASS PEOPLE are just
a bunch of "BITTER"!, STUPID, PEASANTS, Cash COWS!, and CANNON
FODDER. :-(
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be
better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on
the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-)
husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and
prosperity in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal
health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who
anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and
fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal
health care for all the American people.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us
out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband
(Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he
absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time
against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE
AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment
is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton)
left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and
protections in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is
better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made
higher education affordable for every American. And created higher
job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or
since.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than
Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President
Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest
Presidents in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that you can change the way Washington works with
pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and
political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like
Hillary and Bill Clinton..
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the
Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think
he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton.
:-)
Best regards
jacksmith... Working Class :-)
p.s. You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you don't know that the huge amounts of money funding the Obama
campaign to try and defeat Hillary Clinton is coming in from the
insurance, and medical industry, that has been ripping you off, and
killing you and your children. And denying you, and your loved ones
the life saving medical care you needed. All just so they can make
more huge immoral profits for them-selves off of your
suffering...
You see, back in 1993 Hillary Clinton had the audacity, and nerve
to try and get quality, affordable universal health care for
everyone to prevent the suffering and needless deaths of hundreds
of thousands of you each year. :-)
Approx. 100,000 of you die each year from medical accidents from a
rush to profit by the insurance, and medical industry. Another
120,000 of you die each year from treatable illness that people in
other developed countries don't die from. And I could go on, and
on...
OBAMA AIDE: "WORKING-CLASS VOTERS NOT KEY FOR DEMOCRATS" :o
DEBATE! DEBATE!! DEBATE!!!...
|4.29.08 @ 9:41PM|#
DEBATE! DEBATE!! DEBATE!!!
It's time for everyone to face the truth. Barack Obama has no real
chance of winning the national election in November at this time.
His crushing defeat in Pennsylvania makes that fact crystal clear.
His best, and only real chance of winning in November is on a
ticket with Hillary Clinton as her VP.
Hillary Clinton seemed almost somber at her Pennsylvania victory
speech. As if part of her was hoping Obama could have proved he had
some chance of winning against the republican attack machine, and
their unlimited money, and resources.
But it is absolutely essential that the democrats take back the
Whitehouse in November. America, and the American people are in a
very desperate condition now. And the whole World has been doing
all that they can to help keep us propped up.
Hillary Clinton say's that the heat, and decisions in the
Whitehouse are much tougher than the ones on the campaign trail.
But I think Mr. Obama faces a test of whether he has what it takes
to be a commander and chief by facing the difficult facts, and the
truth before him. And by doing what is best for the American people
by dropping out of the race, and offering his whole hearted
assistance to Hillary Clinton to help her take back the Whitehouse
for the American people, and the World.
Mr. Obama is a great speaker. And I am confident he can explain to
the American people the need, and wisdom of such a personal
sacrifice for them. It should be clear to everyone by now that
Hillary Clinton is fighting her heart out for the American people.
She has known for a long time that Mr. Obama can not win this
November. You have to remember that the Clinton's have won the
Whitehouse twice before. They know what it takes.
If Mr. Obama fails his test of commander and chief we can only hope
that Hillary Clinton can continue her heroic fight for the American
people. And that she prevails. She will need all the continual
support and help we can give her. She may fight like a superhuman.
But she is only human.
Sen. Hillary Clinton: "You know, more people have now voted for me
than have voted for my opponent. In fact, I now have more votes
than anybody has ever had in a primary contest for a nomination.
And it's also clear that we've got nine more important contests to
go."
Sincerely
Jacksmith... Working Class :-)
Naga Sadow|4.29.08 @ 9:42PM|#
This story reminds me vaguely of certain key elements of political grandstanding. "For the children", "For the common good", " . . . or the terrorists win", and my favorite " . . . so that everything will be a fair and level playing field".
|4.29.08 @ 9:51PM|#
Can someone please ban this jacksmith jackass? All he's doing in spamming threads with the same cut-and-paste Hillary ads. This is at least the fourth time he's posted the exact same "You Might Be An Idiot! :-)" screed; we get it already - he's an idiot....
Pendulum|4.29.08 @ 10:10PM|#
Unbelievable. That's some of the most free-market rhetoric heard
from a major party candidate (and definitely from a Democrat) in,
what, forever? But only a handful of people here bother to comment
on it, if only to debate whether he's sincere or not.
Everyone else is more interested in discussing whether monetarism
is socialism, minarchism, and stateless societies.
And that's why I'm not a libertarian!
|4.29.08 @ 10:14PM|#
"But only a handful of people here bother to comment on it, if
only to debate whether he's sincere or not."
Yeah, it sure is wacky debating whether or not a Democrat (or
Republican, or anyone running for office for that matter) is
sincere in their campaign rhetoric.
"And that's why I'm not a libertarian!"
And what a terrible loss for libertarianism that is. Really. Just
crushing. OK, bye now.
KingHarvest|4.29.08 @ 10:39PM|#
It's nice to see a not-so-partisan partisan! At least he's able to approach a topic objectively, even if it means not walking the party line.
Elemenope|4.29.08 @ 10:57PM|#
Mr. (or Mrs.) Pendulum above may be being slightly shrill, but
(s)he does have a point. I thought this was going to be an
interesting thread, but it took a fifth-dimensional turn into
retarded money-policy land like 60 posts ago.
Republican candidates worship at the altar of Reagan and yet can
barely restrain themselves from giving corporations welfare and
spending money they don't have on giant military boondoggles, while
treating the Laffer Curve like a ski slope. Democrats are just
mainly economics-retarded ("the Laffer what?").
That Obama is saying he'll ease up on punitive regulation is at
least *notable* and worthy of discussion.
|4.29.08 @ 11:31PM|#
Substantively, what Obama is saying is consistent with one of the most successful policy initiatives of the Clinton administration, the recasting of the role of regulatory agencies and the industries they govern. The replacement of regulatory micromanagement with standards and compliance assistance was a big part of the agenda at departments like Energy, EPA, and OSHA.
Mike Laursen|4.30.08 @ 12:26AM|#
What is it about libertarians that causes them to read the
word "regulation" and leap immediately to "tax rates?"
What is it about joe that always makes him take what one
libertarian said, often the most unreasonable one with which he can
strike up an argument, and leap immediately to putting that guy's
words in every libertarian's mouth?
|4.30.08 @ 12:34AM|#
Everyone else is more interested in discussing whether
monetarism is socialism, minarchism, and stateless
societies.
But how else will we know whether Obama's libertarian-leaning
rhetoric is more Chicago School libertarian or Mises Institute
libertarian?
But only a handful of people here bother to comment on it, if
only to debate whether he's sincere or not.
I'll serve my penance...
Whether or not Obama previously believed or now believes the more
pro-market positions he expounds, he chose advisers with those
positions. I think that Obama's is an intentional strategy to
capture the middle ground that the Republicans have stupidly
abandoned. In Democratic terms, it is an anti-Two Americas play and
a return to the "the era of big government is over" rhetoric of
Bill Clinton -- just as Hillary Clinton runs directly in the
opposite direction.
Obama is at least getting an education in economics from his
advisers and his positions. Whether he would observe those
principals in his governing remains to be seen.
|4.30.08 @ 1:36AM|#
But only a handful of people here bother to comment on it,
if only to debate whether he's sincere or not.
This just in: Politician says things; libertarians are
skeptical!
Hacha Cha|4.30.08 @ 2:07AM|#
the reason libertarians jump at the word regulation isn't because it means taxes it means FORCE.
forever young|4.30.08 @ 3:45AM|#
Obama threw Wright under the truck today. Doesn't that say everything we need to know about his sincerity. Just another politician who'll do anything to get elected, and once elected rather than emerge from stealth cover will continue espousing bullshit to get reelected so he can continue 'changing' Washington. What a pathetic human being. There's more hope in just about anything else. Exasperating!
forever young|4.30.08 @ 3:52AM|#
Clarification:
Had Obama stood by Wright on certain defensible issues
(imperialism, war on drugs), while denouncing the silly (AIDS is a
white-man Andromeda strai unleashed on darkies) he would have shown
some modicum of leadership. I am devastated! How could such a
well-educated man fall and fail so miserably. Instead he has shown
pure kow-tow to the media/press.
Another one bites the dust! Ouch!
Obama|4.30.08 @ 4:17AM|#
000H bama, can this really be the end, to be stuck inside of Mobile with the Memphis blues again.
Queen Jane|4.30.08 @ 4:23AM|#
When all your advisers heave their plastic at your feet to convince you of your pain, trying to prove that your conclusions should be more drastic...won't you?
Easy Chair|4.30.08 @ 4:34AM|#
I don't care how many letters they sent (morning came, morning went) pick up your money pick up your tent...You ain't goin' nowhere
|4.30.08 @ 4:51AM|#
Obama threw Wright under the truck today. Doesn't that say
everything we need to know about his sincerity. Just another
politician who'll do anything to get elected, and once elected
rather than emerge from stealth cover will continue espousing
bullshit to get reelected so he can continue 'changing'
Washington.
Considering how long it took Bush to throw clowns like Alberto
Gonzales, Scooter Libby and Donald Rumsfeld under the bus, a
president who's quick with the ax would be refreshing. How long do
you think a Rumsfeld would be around in an Obama
administration.
|4.30.08 @ 9:18AM|#
the reason libertarians jump at the word regulation isn't
because it means taxes it means FORCE.
That's it, exactly.
They don't/can't/won't talk about government operations and how to
make them better in a technocratic sense, even at the level of
"taxes are different from regulation." What matters to them isn't
how the government operates, whether it is more or less efficient
at its mission, or whether something works better than something
else.
You might as well ask a pacifist about which beaches to storm on
D-Day.
|4.30.08 @ 10:30AM|#
woohoo, $128 for every man, woman and child in ny york
state!
i'm spending mine on gasoline!
For Molotov Cocktails. I hope.
|4.30.08 @ 10:40AM|#
Edward | April 29, 2008, 8:06pm | #
Oops, wrong thread.
As if it makes a difference...
TallDave|4.30.08 @ 12:22PM|#
Yeah, I was really impressed with this interview too, especially
considering the primary isn't even over yet. I can't wait to hear
how he campaigns in the general.
Honestly, I feel better about McCain and Obama than any other
Presidential candidates in my lifetime. These guys are both
sounding like centrists.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245