Let's See, California Has No Money, and the Freeways Are Lousy and Clogged, So....

Matt Welch | June 16, 2009

... L.A. Times columnist Tim Rutten chooses this moment in time to warn against the evils of–shudder–congestion pricing. An idea whose limited and tardy application in Southern California Rutten calls "a policy that discriminates against the working poor in a particularly burdensome way, because our public agencies provide most neighborhoods with the sketchiest of public transit alternatives." His fantastical plastical argument:

Let's imagine the new lanes are built and the new tolls are in operation. You're a single mother working in a downtown law office part time because your hours have been cut as one of the firm's economy measures. Just about noon, you get a call from the day-care center, where your 3-year-old is running a high fever. You decide to give up two badly needed hours of work to pick her up early, hoping she won't need a visit to the pediatrician because the state no longer funds healthcare for the working poor. About the same time you leave, the firm's managing partner heads out for lunch and a round of golf at his club.

Despite the time of day, L.A.'s freeways are inexplicably clogged -- virtual gridlock for no apparent reason. The new toll lanes, however, are moving freely. For the senior partner, it's a no-brainer. He pays the $1.40-a-mile toll without a first, let alone a second, thought and arrives at his club early enough for a Bloody Mary before lunch. Our single mom, however, looks at the bumper-to-bumper traffic around her, glances over at the freely moving toll lane and has to do the mental math to decide whether getting to her child in less than 90 minutes is worth being late with this month's rent.

What the heck, she's already disadvantaged by the status quo, so what's another hour of anguish?

A society that can rationalize the imposition of such pain doesn't need to worry over how to define equity; it needs to worry about its soul.

You call that imagination, Rutten? First of all, the senior partner didn't even smoke a thousand-dollar bill for breakfast, fondle his Mexican maid for lunch, or shoot a street urchin for a nightcap.... More substantively, as the Reason Foundation's Ted Balaker has tirelessly pointed out in such obscure fora as the Los Angeles Times, the way that the crappy status quo hurts our single mom RIGHT NOW, every day, is that the child care center in question often charges by the minute or half-hour, at rates that rack up during rush hour quite a bit higher than an HOV toll lane ever will. Congestion, which political pundits love complaining about but rarely propose solving beyond the impossible dream of "getting people off the road," is just horrifyingly costly, inefficient, and polluting. (Also, I'd bet a fistful of daycare credits that most people for whom $10 represents a possible late rent payment are not likely to be driving alone on a freeway to a child care center; if anything, they tend take the bus.)

I love how public policy fix-it ideas like toll lanes get called "ideological" by the Tim Ruttens of the world, but the absolutely abysmal status quo, in which people pay more and more money while their highways and roads get worse and worse, is magically free of the ideological taint.

For instance, you want to talk about making things harder for the working poor? Getta load of how the dominant political party in California intends to fix the budget crisis:

Democrats yesterday proposed a $15 automobile license fee and said they may consider a 9.9 percent per-barrel levy on oil produced in the state.

Plus:

Democrats are also eyeing possible tax hikes on tobacco products and liquor, though they did not provide details.

Does our struggling single mom not pay for license fees or gas? Is it possible that she may be so bold as to enjoy an occasional alcoholic beverage or cigarette? And if the answer to any of those questions is "yes," how in hell does a couple of measly toll lanes require an entire society to search for its "soul," while a series of far more costly and impositional price-hikes isn't even considered "ideological"? Such, such are the joys of elite discourse in my native state.

Meanwhile, make sure to read Rutten's non-ideological examination of the "particularly American cesspool" of the "lunatic right, for whom the election of Barack Obama was much more than a political defeat: It was a racial and existential nightmare," leading directly to the recent slayings of an abortionist and Holocaust Museum guard, etc.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

Thelonious_Nick|6.16.09 @ 12:38PM|#

Oh, noes! Somebody with a little extra money to spend might do so in a way that makes their life more convenient, but a poorer person might have to forego that convenience!

hmm|6.16.09 @ 12:40PM|#

They should revert to gravel roads.

creech|6.16.09 @ 12:45PM|#

The way I heard it was the senior partner, not having an opportunity to use the congestion lane now that they were outlawed after pressure from the L.A. Times, got caught in traffic and missed a presentation to an important new client. Having lost said client, he returned to the office and had to lay off struggling single mother and a few other support personnel. But at least no one was allowed to use one's wealth to purchase a different class of service.

|6.16.09 @ 12:46PM|#

Call me stupid, but if the senior partner is in the toll lane, doesn't that mean he is not in the way of "our single mom," so the congestion for her is less?

Also, how is the single mom better off today, when both she and the senior partner are stuck in traffic, then in the future, when she is stuck and senior partner isn't? Because she enjoys seeing other people suffer? Maybe we should worry about her soul.

|6.16.09 @ 12:50PM|#

Actually, the most fantastical part of the whole piece was where the senior partner takes the afternoon off.

Alan Vanneman|6.16.09 @ 12:50PM|#

"First of all, the senior partner didn't even smoke a thousand-dollar bill for breakfast, fondle his Mexican maid for lunch, or shoot a street urchin for a nightcap...."

You forgot that his kids call the maid "Mommy" and the friendly Mexican gardener "Daddy."

The Angry Optimist|6.16.09 @ 12:52PM|#

what does Rutten want? A magic pony that's going to make the child's fever go away?

The Angry Optimist|6.16.09 @ 12:54PM|#

I also have to say that, having spent about three months in Los Angeles and surrounding area for business many moons ago, I never saw the highways gridlocked at noon.

|6.16.09 @ 1:00PM|#

I think Rutten has decided to try and snatch Andrew Sullivan's "Mr. Hysterical USA" crown. He's got a chance, I think. But he needs to make up a term like "Christianist". Maybe "Seniorpartnerist"?

Kyle Jordan|6.16.09 @ 1:02PM|#

Well, if the child dies from said fever then the single former mother can save on the costs of daycare, groceries, and several other necessities. So this gridlock could ultimately be a good thing for her.

After all, children are a renewable resource so it's really just a form of recycling. Liberals love to recycle.

Xeones|6.16.09 @ 1:03PM|#

Tim Rutten is kind of an idiot, huh?

Zeb|6.16.09 @ 1:03PM|#

He presents this as if the woman's situation is somehow made worse by the new lanes. It seems pretty clear that if anything, the new lanes will reduce congestion for everyone, and the poor single mom doesn't have to pay a cent for it.

I am having a hard time deciding if this is as stupid as the people a few years ago similarly griping about the people who paid for extra private fire protection in Malibu or wherever it was.

When does the LA times start writing about how unfair it is that rich people get to live in bigger houses? All houses clearly should be no larger than what the poorest single mother can afford.

Invisible Finger|6.16.09 @ 1:05PM|#

If Rutten takes the bus, he should be charged double for taking up 2 seats.

Also, every time there's a public transit budget crisis, which is every year, one of the proposals is ALWAYS.... congestion pricing. Why is congestion pricing OK for the bus and train but not for cars?

|6.16.09 @ 1:06PM|#

Tao, well duh, he wants the senior partner to pay employees like the mom a wage with bennies that allows her to afford the small toll charges without scuttling her monthly budget. He maybe could use his "pissing it away on golf" money. But since he didn't, now Big Gubmint is gonna make that decision for him.

Kyle Jordan|6.16.09 @ 1:06PM|#

"When does the LA times start writing about how unfair it is that rich people get to live in bigger houses? All houses clearly should be no larger than what the poorest single mother can afford."

3 years I'd say. After all, I think it's Norway that has a limit on the size of house you can buy and Norway is doing fantastic, right?

I assume Obama's Stimulator initiative is not working in this scenario?

Otherwise, I would be assuming the mom's GM-sourced, union-built, rainbow-powered-with-a-windmill-on-top Chevy Volt awaits in the parking lot. It was a free car for mom, what how it was conjured from the Stimulator and all.

Plus, the Chevy Volt has access to all these new roads and expressways that are Stimulating into existence as we speak. Congestion solved!

And her job will be better, what working a union-Green Collar job in the solar-power-clean-coal industry or whatever with soon-to-be-free healthcare, AND soon-to-be-free daycare. If she's late for the pediatrician, she can sue his ass anyways because it was his fault. Maybe she wants to be late!

Tim Rutten doesn't realize his Team already "solved" all the problems he reflected on or is "solving" them as we speak. Pretty soon he won't even have to worry about pesky state governments going bankrupt. Soon all the states will be provinces and the Feds will run everything, that way nothing can EVER, EVER go bankrupt...fiscal problems solved! God, fixing the world is easy.

Cal Lipigian|6.16.09 @ 1:08PM|#

TAO,

LA is a pretty big place. There are highways that are clogged at lunch time. Check out http://www.sigalert.com/Map.asp?Region=Greater+Los+Angeles in a couple of hours, you'll see.

To me, the greater question is what kind of loser senior partner can't get a morning tee time at his country club?

Rich|6.16.09 @ 1:09PM|#

The obvious solution is to tax each car owner on the amount of time its car spends on the road.

Matthew Modine|6.16.09 @ 1:09PM|#

There would be no congestion in the first place if everyone* was forced to ride a bicycle! It would liberate the unwashed masses!

*except really important people, such as Hollywood actors, for whom limousines are a necessity.

|6.16.09 @ 1:11PM|#

Mr. Modine, after a bike ride on hot, dirty LA streets, the masses will need a good washing more than ever. And you know what? I bet Mrs. Seniorpartner uses WAY nicer body wash than our poor, stinky Single Mom.

Tricky Prickears|6.16.09 @ 1:12PM|#

Sounds like a job for:
E-Z Pass

|6.16.09 @ 1:12PM|#

He maybe could use his "pissing it away on golf" money. But since he didn't, now Big Gubmint is gonna make that decision for him.

You're a surprising lover of force, aren't you, ben. I'd love to see you get your "pissing it away on booze/smokes/cable tv/internet" money taken away and watch you squeal like a pig.

Kyle Jordan|6.16.09 @ 1:13PM|#

Dagny,

Poor people don't use bodywash! Those fuckers still use bars of soap.

Joel|6.16.09 @ 1:14PM|#

what does Rutten want? A magic pony that's going to make the child's fever go away?

No, no. He's already got Obama, so that's handled.

Nooge|6.16.09 @ 1:15PM|#

And while standing around weighing her options, a thunderstorm appears out of nowhere and our single mother is struck by lightening. She survives, but now must pay out of pocket for all her medical expenses because she doesn't have health insurance. Meanwhile, little Timmy catches trichinosis at daycare because the children were served illegal bacon-wrapped hot dogs for lunch.

Little Timmy has no relatives and nobody will take him in, so he must sleep on the floor of the hospital's waiting room and eat crumbs out of the vending machine until his mother is released. Unfortunately, she develops brain cancer while in hospital, and her only visitor is her boss, who stops by to fire her for missing work because of the lightening strike. He takes this opportunity to spit in her face and feel her up, and he of course does this while guzzling Henri IV Dudognon Heritage straight from the bottle and feeding $100 bills to his pitbull.

Meanwhile, little Timmy is thrown in debtor's prison because he is unable to pay his mother's hospital bills, what with his being four years old, and there he is sodomized by an HIV positive guard who works for a private security company owned by his late mother's boss.

Fascitis Necrotizante|6.16.09 @ 1:15PM|#

The obvious solution is to tax each car owner on the amount of time its car spends on the road.

Er... roughly the way we do by taxing gasoline?

Mister DNA|6.16.09 @ 1:17PM|#

Christ, could he be any more condescending?

I like how Rutten creates a mythical universe in which the choices offered to the working poor are simplistic either/or scenarios.

Libertarians are often viewed as being hostile to the poor, but Rutten's article treats the poor like they're retards incapable of abstract thought.

Some hypothetical single mom can't get to her sick kid in time, so we need to pass another fucking law.

From the article:

In other words, those hurt the worst will be people who already are at the bottom of the economic pecking order.

Don't the people at "the bottom of the economic pecking order" have to take the bus, anyway?

Joel|6.16.09 @ 1:17PM|#

Er... roughly the way we do by taxing gasoline?

No, better than that. Well...yeah, that too. But also better than that.

Just trust us; we're the government.

|6.16.09 @ 1:19PM|#

Kyle,

Now Rutten has his next cause. The great bath products injustice should keep him busy until he can start agitating for nationalization of Malibu Beach mansions.

The Full Lenin|6.16.09 @ 1:23PM|#

"Er... roughly the way we do by taxing gasoline?"

No. Right now, big SUV gas guzzlers pay far more gas taxes than say a Prius. And paying taxes is patriotic. Which raises the question, "Why do Prius owners hate America?"

The Angry Optimist|6.16.09 @ 1:23PM|#

brotherben - I'm mystified at your recent tack. Are you seriously suggesting that any and all funds spent on luxuries should be redirected to the "working poor"?

If and when I make senior partner, I can tell you that I will have fucking earned that nice car and that day off. And if I can do it, so can anybody.

The Full Lenin|6.16.09 @ 1:24PM|#

"
Libertarians are often viewed as being hostile to the poor, but Rutten's article treats the poor like they're retards incapable of abstract thought."

They're poor for a reason, you know.

|6.16.09 @ 1:24PM|#

Epi, I've made no bones about my ideas for how things should work. Force, imo, is a necessary evil to rectify societal problems resulting in part from the wealthy ignoring the needs of the poor. Yes, it's their money and their choice. But it's like the old motor oil commercial said, "you can pay now, or pay a lot more later."

You don't have to take my pissin away money to make me squeal like a pig ya hillbilly.

|6.16.09 @ 1:25PM|#

Uh, guys, the way I read it, brotherben was employing a lil' tool called sarcasm.

The Full Lenin|6.16.09 @ 1:26PM|#

"the wealthy ignoring the needs of the poor. "

Utter bullshit.

|6.16.09 @ 1:26PM|#

Oops. Guess not. Shit, ben.

Kyle Jordan|6.16.09 @ 1:27PM|#

"No. Right now, big SUV gas guzzlers pay far more gas taxes than say a Prius. And paying taxes is patriotic. Which raises the question, "Why do Prius owners hate America?"

THANK YOU! I am so using this on someone. It's great.

Some Guy|6.16.09 @ 1:28PM|#

You call that imagination, Rutten? First of all, the senior partner didn't even smoke a thousand-dollar bill for breakfast, fondle his Mexican maid for lunch, or shoot a street urchin for a nightcap

I think that was just implied.

The Angry Optimist|6.16.09 @ 1:29PM|#

Unbelievable! I am currently working three jobs to help pay my way through law school, reading stuff that would bore you to fucking tears, and you have to audacity to say that when said hard work finally pays off, you can just come take whatever you feel because I somehow "ignored the poor"?

Fucking unbelievable.

Fascitis Necrotizante|6.16.09 @ 1:30PM|#

"No. Right now, big SUV gas guzzlers pay far more gas taxes than say a Prius. And paying taxes is patriotic. Which raises the question, "Why do Prius owners hate America?"

Maybe they can just add a little button on the gas pump: Hybrid Owners Punch Here to Mitigate Tax Revenue Shortage. Just so long as it says "Good for you!" when it charges the card.

|6.16.09 @ 1:31PM|#

Tao, it isn't a recent tack on my part. The problems we have with the poor are twofold. Folks have to realize that education, hard work and fiscal responsibilty lead to jobs like your senior partnership. Business owners have to realize that if employees are payed lesser wages with no bennies in the interest of larger profits, the government will use force to make up the difference through social welfare programs.

The balance has tipped to the point that the working poor have voted for a man that promises to even things up by nearly whatever means.

The Full Lenin|6.16.09 @ 1:31PM|#

"Unbelievable! I am currently working three jobs to help pay my way through law school, reading stuff that would bore you to fucking tears, and you have to audacity to say that when said hard work finally pays off, you can just come take whatever you feel because I somehow "ignored the poor"?

Fucking unbelievable."

I don't see any volunteer social work on your above resume'.

The Full Lenin|6.16.09 @ 1:33PM|#

"Business owners have to realize that if employees are payed lesser wages with no bennies in the interest of larger profits, the government will use force to make up the difference through social welfare programs."

And that's the roll of government how?

Rich|6.16.09 @ 1:34PM|#

> Er... roughly the way we do by taxing gasoline?

Joel beat me to the punch.

>> No, better than that. Well...yeah, that too. But also better than that.

Well said. And of course we'll make even more revenue by catching all the new speeders this'll precipitate.

Franklin Harris|6.16.09 @ 1:34PM|#

I wonder if Mr. Rutten was sobbing uncontrollably into his latte while typing this little bit of solidarity with the working class on his MacBook Pro.

Paul|6.16.09 @ 1:36PM|#

For the senior partner, it's a no-brainer. He pays the $1.40-a-mile toll without a first, let alone a second, thought and arrives at his club early enough for a Bloody Mary before lunch

Thus taking one more car off the clogged "public" freeways. Wow, rich people paying money to reduce the congestion I have to drive in. The horror.

The Angry Optimist|6.16.09 @ 1:38PM|#

brotherben - are you basically saying that the wealthy, in the ultimate cynical move, should support a welfare state to keep the pitchforks at bay and keep the masses in line?

|6.16.09 @ 1:42PM|#

The balance has tipped to the point that the working poor have voted for a man that promises to even things up by nearly whatever means.

So if the working poor elected a man who promised to kill the rich and take their money outright, that would be cool too, right?

You let poor people walk into your house and take stuff you don't "really" need, I assume. Right?

The big question is this: how do you get all those poor folks to work as hard as Tao to better their situation in life? How do we as a nation address their medical needs? Or do we just ignore them? Ignoring them comes at a cost. You end up with a president and a congeress that will dole out money like they have their own printing press in exchange for votes.

|6.16.09 @ 1:43PM|#

Let me guess--the boss is Snidely Whiplash? Sheesh. I see they're sticking with Envy Envy Envy.

But I suppose there's no reason to change a winning formula, eh?

Solanum|6.16.09 @ 1:44PM|#

Does Mr Rutten possess a neck or did the gravitational pull of his neutron-star-like-abdomen absorb it?

|6.16.09 @ 1:45PM|#

In other words, those hurt the worst will be people who already are at the bottom of the economic pecking order.

From the NYT Manual of Style. "LA freeways congested, women, minorities hit hardest."

Folks have to realize that education, hard work and fiscal responsibilty lead to jobs like your senior partnership. Business owners have to realize that if employees are payed lesser wages with no bennies in the interest of larger profits, the government will use force to make up the difference through social welfare programs.

Of course, the more we penalize education, hard work, and fiscal responsibility with wealth redistribution (whether gussied up as social welfare programs or otherwise), the less reason we give people to engage in these activities, and the more wealth distribution will be "needed."

See, also, circling the drain.

The Angry Optimist|6.16.09 @ 1:47PM|#

brotherben - R C is right. The system of social welfare encumbers capital. Increased regulation entrenches the currently wealthy and big business interests. Workplace regulations, antidiscrimination laws, minimum-wage laws...all of these things contribute to entrenching the older, already-wealthy worker at the expense of someone who is trying to change his status in life.

If we really want to "help the poor", we'll get the hell out of the way of capitalism. It fosters the greatest income mobility, permitting anyone to make himself better than before.

|6.16.09 @ 1:49PM|#

Tao, no, I am saying that the wealthy are being forced to support a welfare state partly due to low wages and no bennies.

The rich can do whatever they wish with their money. It is theirs. But if that comes from profits derived from low wages and no bennies, those employees are gonna make ends meet with taxpayer funded welfare programs.

|6.16.09 @ 1:52PM|#

Monty Python paraphrase for ben:

Yes, well, of course, this is just the sort blinkered philistine pig ignorance I've come to expect from you rich garbage. You sit there on your loathsome, spotty behinds squeezing blackheads, not caring a tinker's cuss about the struggling poor. (shouting) You excrement! You lousy hypocritical whining toadies with your lousy colour TV sets and your Tony Jacklin golf clubs and your bleeding senior partner handshakes! You wouldn't let me join, would you, you blackballing bastards. Well I wouldn't become a partner now if you went down on your lousy, stinking, purulent knees and begged me!

|6.16.09 @ 1:54PM|#

A tax on oil production? Not consumption? Are they mad?

Two Foot Stools|6.16.09 @ 1:55PM|#

"The big question is this: how do you get all those poor folks to work as hard as Tao to better their situation in life?"

You take their fucking welfare away. A growling belly is one hell of a motivator.

Heartless Conservative|6.16.09 @ 1:56PM|#

Well, if she hadn't got pregnant from her loser boyfriend while a teen she wouldn't have this problem. Or maybe she just married some guy for the hell of it, had a few kids, and they broke up. So now, to solve the problem, she lives in one of the most expensive cities in the country, with the worst traffic, and decides to work downtown. And we're suppose to feel sorry for her?

|6.16.09 @ 1:56PM|#

You get what you pay for. Only net tax contributors get to vote. Problem solved.

Two Foot Stools|6.16.09 @ 1:58PM|#

" It is theirs. But if that comes from profits derived from low wages and no bennies, those employees are gonna make ends meet with taxpayer funded welfare programs."

And what of the millions of Americans who by choice, do not work? Are the rich exploiting them as well?

Two Foot Stools|6.16.09 @ 1:59PM|#

" But if that comes from profits derived from low wages and no bennies, those employees are gonna make ends meet with taxpayer funded welfare programs."

You've yet to answer my question: And that is the role of government how?

Naga Sadow|6.16.09 @ 2:00PM|#

*slaps forehead*

BrotherBen! Damn your fat, unemployed, socialist hide!

Gimlet|6.16.09 @ 2:01PM|#

" But if that comes from profits derived from low wages and no bennies, those employees are gonna make ends meet with taxpayer funded welfare programs."

That's where card check comes in.

Some Guy|6.16.09 @ 2:01PM|#

A tax on oil production? Not consumption? Are they mad?

I prefer to call it a subsidy on imports. But that line works better when used nationally.

Matt Welch|6.16.09 @ 2:02PM|#

When does the LA times start writing about how unfair it is that rich people get to live in bigger houses?

Ha ha: Los Angeles limits 'mansionization'.

|6.16.09 @ 2:04PM|#

TAO,

I have been practicing for seventeen years, am a partner at a successful law firm, and can assure you you still won't have time to be taking long lunches and playing golf in the afternoon when you get there.

I love how this tool of a writer magically assumes that the partner is screwing off not working when the reality is that he works til 7 or 8 every night, spends most of his weekends in the office, and probably doesn't know his kids very well.

To the extent he gets to spend an afternoon playing golf once in a while, it is hardly "pissing away his money on golf." It is a brief respite from the tremendous pressure of helping people with important decisions every day, worrying about generating enough fees to pay your associates and staff a decent wage, and hoping that at the end of the day you actually make enough money to spend your limited spare time in some amount of comfort.

God, this guy is a dick.

Gimlet|6.16.09 @ 2:07PM|#

slumpbuster,

Hey! Quit fuckin' with my stereotypes. It hurts.

The Angry Optimist|6.16.09 @ 2:07PM|#

slumpbuster - I suppose I should rush to add that I have zero interest in becoming anything approaching partner anywhere, for precisely the reasons you mention.

However, I know you're right about not having any time. I was just assuming that portion of the hypothetical.

Anyway, the only thing to which I aspire is a District Court, bona-fide Article III judgeship.

|6.16.09 @ 2:07PM|#

2footstools, those who choose not to work are exploiting the rich.

The government, in their infinite wisdom, made it their role.

The rich are shirking their social responsibility by maximizing profit through low wages and no benefits.

The poor are shirking their social responsibilty by requiring a higher lifestyle than their decisions on education, employment and child bearing will support.

In the last election, more poor people and knobheads like me voted.

Two Foot Stools|6.16.09 @ 2:08PM|#

"To the extent he gets to spend an afternoon playing golf once in a while, it is hardly "pissing away his money on golf." It is a brief respite from the tremendous pressure of helping people with important decisions every day"

More often than not he's having to play with some client.

T|6.16.09 @ 2:09PM|#

Force, imo, is a necessary evil to rectify societal problems resulting in part from the wealthy ignoring the needs of the poor.

Brotherben, have you noticed that when society goes wrong in a big messy ways that the National Guard isn't out shooting looters in Beverly Hills? They're down in Watts and Compton, using force to rectify societal problems. The use of force by the government only further entrenches the existing power groups. Force doesn't empower the homeless and disenfranchised. It steps on their heads to keep them in line.

Fascitis Necrotizante|6.16.09 @ 2:11PM|#

From Matt's link...

Mark Lipis of Westwood brought council members poster-size photos of his neighbor's house, which he described as a 6,500-square-foot behemoth with a roof deck and an elevator.

I work with the beautiful, inspiring public (god love 'em) all the time in land use related public meetings, and in spite of all the retarded asshole shit I've seen neighbors pull on one another, I think this has to take the cake. Fuck that guy with rusty metal stake in his neighbor's elevator.

Two Foot Stools|6.16.09 @ 2:11PM|#

"2footstools, those who choose not to work are exploiting the rich.

The government, in their infinite wisdom, made it their role."

Agree on both.

"The rich are shirking their social responsibility by maximizing profit through low wages and no benefits." [citation needed]

"The poor are shirking their social responsibilty by requiring a higher lifestyle than their decisions on education, employment and child bearing will support.

In the last election, more poor people and knobheads like me voted."

Makes the whole idea of only enfranchising white male land-owners seem pretty smart.

Naga Sadow|6.16.09 @ 2:11PM|#

brotherben,

Social responsibility? What's mine? Yours? Does it depend on income, ability, occupation, etc? Fucktard.

Warty|6.16.09 @ 2:11PM|#

Tim Rutten? I love his self-defense videos.

|6.16.09 @ 2:12PM|#

The rich are shirking their social responsibility by maximizing profit through low wages and no benefits.

The poor are shirking their social responsibilty by requiring a higher lifestyle than their decisions on education, employment and child bearing will support.

Please define "social responsibility". Show your work.

|6.16.09 @ 2:13PM|#

Naga, do we have no responsibility toward the society we live in?

The Full Lenin|6.16.09 @ 2:14PM|#

"Social responsibility? What's mine? Yours? Does it depend on income, ability, occupation, etc? Fucktard."

From Each According To His Ability, To Each According to His Need.

|6.16.09 @ 2:14PM|#

The government, in their infinite wisdom, made it their role.

Well, there's your problem right there. You're assuming something of human beings that just ain't true. Especially when it comes to government human beings.

|6.16.09 @ 2:15PM|#

From Matt's mansionization link:

"When certain neighborhoods have homes on steroids and others no longer have a place for the poor to sleep, the social fabric is torn," said City Council President Eric Garcetti, citing the need for the ordinances.

OMG he solved teh homeless! These mansions have extra bedrooms, or potting sheds, surely? That social problem was too easy! Gimme a harder one next time.

Fascitis Necrotizante|6.16.09 @ 2:19PM|#

"When certain neighborhoods have homes on steroids and others no longer have a place for the poor to sleep, the social fabric is torn," said City Council President Eric Garcetti, citing the need for the ordinances.

I trust L.A. doesn't have public homeless shelters funded by property taxes, right?

T|6.16.09 @ 2:19PM|#

others no longer have a place for the poor to sleep

What, they get rid of the sidewalks?

Mister DNA|6.16.09 @ 2:20PM|#

Warty, Rutten also ruled in Grand Theft Auto IV.

Naga Sadow|6.16.09 @ 2:22PM|#

No! A society is just word meaning a narrowly defined group of individuals. A collection of individuals who pursue their own self-interests and end up creating a "society".

The Full Lenin|6.16.09 @ 2:23PM|#

"When certain neighborhoods have homes on steroids and others no longer have a place for the poor to sleep, the social fabric is torn"

When McMansions are outlawed, only outlaws will live in McMansions.

|6.16.09 @ 2:26PM|#

This scenario isn't even realistic. A managing partner taking time off for an afternoon of golf should be in a position to hire more reliable help.

Kyle Jordan|6.16.09 @ 2:26PM|#

"When McMansions are outlawed, only outlaws will live in McMansions."

No, outlaws have real mansions. They can afford them with their drug and gun running money.

Jordan|6.16.09 @ 2:28PM|#

Don't use force or fraud against anyone else. That's it.

|6.16.09 @ 2:28PM|#

Epi, I haven't forgotten your question. I'm just pouring over my dictionary so I don't cause the weebly local pedants to wobble.

Two Foot Stools|6.16.09 @ 2:29PM|#

"This scenario isn't even realistic."

I agree. In the real world, he'd have a car and driver.

|6.16.09 @ 2:29PM|#

To those asking "Why do Prius owners hate America?"

My impression is that the truly sanctimonious drive Honda Accord hybrids. That way they're not associated with Toyota and those gas guzzling Land Cruisers and Tundras.

And completely off topic, I really love it when I go to Whole Foods and and see all the SUVs in the parking lot. :)

Two Foot Stools|6.16.09 @ 2:30PM|#

"Don't use force or fraud against anyone else. That's it."

Roger that.

Fascitis Necrotizante|6.16.09 @ 2:36PM|#

"Don't use force or fraud against anyone else. That's it."

Indeed. And if you want to go the extra mile and be kind, rewind, whatever, by all means do so. People will appreciate it and likely reward you in small but significant ways. If you don't feel like it, be an asshole, fine, just leave me be.

That's really as far as it goes.

Kyle Jordan|6.16.09 @ 2:38PM|#

"My impression is that the truly sanctimonious drive Honda Accord hybrids. That way they're not associated with Toyota and those gas guzzling Land Cruisers and Tundras."

I'll give them this, at least Honda's gonna bust out a diesel Accord. It'd be nice if Toyota would stop fucking around and pull out a diesel Tundra finally or at least import a HiLux.

|6.16.09 @ 2:39PM|#

Epi, the full lenin said this:

"From Each According To His Ability, To Each According to His Need."

That's a pretty good summary. Problem is, folks at both ends of the economic spectrum have disregarded the first part and the definition of "need"has gotten way outta control.

The Angry Optimist|6.16.09 @ 2:41PM|#

just to play with the hypothetical a bit, if the child has a fever but isn't dying or anything, why is the mother rushing back anyway? If it's bad enough that the child belongs in the hospital, then the daycare should have already taken the three-year-old to the hospital. No respectable daycare is just going to call the mother and go "oh, your child has a temp of 103. Now it's your problem."

Two Foot Stools|6.16.09 @ 2:42PM|#

""From Each According To His Ability, To Each According to His Need."

That's a pretty good summary."

So you're a Marxist, then?

Jordan|6.16.09 @ 2:43PM|#

That's a pretty good summary. Problem is, folks at both ends of the economic spectrum have disregarded the first part and the definition of "need"has gotten way outta control.

I presume you live in a mud hut and drink rainwater then? You don't really need electricity. Also, if someone voluntarily agrees to pay me $1000/hr to sit on my ass and do nothing, then my sitting on my ass is by definition worth $1000/hr and it's none of your damn business.

|6.16.09 @ 2:43PM|#

"From Each According To His Ability, To Each According to His Need."

Define every person's abilities, and every person's needs. Show your work.

Harpoon|6.16.09 @ 2:49PM|#

The working poor are that why because they made stupid decisions. Our hypothetical single mother made the decisions that led to her single-mother-ness, therefore she should have to live with the consequences. If you fuck up you have to work extra hard and make sacrifices to recover, not foist those sacrifices off on other people. For all of you who think this is heartless, you support the losers with your own money.

BeesInTheBrain|6.16.09 @ 2:52PM|#

He forgot to mention that a few years earlier, while hanging out at a party with her current boyfriend, she had looked around at her friends and realized they were living their lives in a cycle of becoming pregnant by one man after another. It was on that night that she realized that that was not the life she wanted for her or her child and had decided to night school to get her law degree. Despite her current frustration, she knew she had taken the job at the law firm to get her foot in the door for when she graduated and just had to hold on a while longer. While driving down the road, blissfully unaware that people like Tim Rutten were holding her up as an excuse to take aware the befits of her hard work and determination that she soon hoped to receive, she allowed herself to dream of and feel pride in the new life she was going to be able to provide.

|6.16.09 @ 2:52PM|#

"So you're a Marxist, then?"

That label fits as well as any I suppose. His is an apt description of the struggle in this country being championed by the current administrationon on the side of the workers.

Epi, now you're just being silly.

|6.16.09 @ 2:56PM|#

harpoon, agreed. But what do you do when the tens of millions that you dropped on their asses come charging in your house to take what they need? Is that when you call the government for assistance?

The Angry Optimist|6.16.09 @ 2:58PM|#

wow, an real unreconstructed Marxist. Been a long time since I heard anyone straightfacedly reference the "class struggle".

How does common ownership of many major corporations play into the "class struggle"? Seems to me that the proletariat already, by and large, own the means of production.

|6.16.09 @ 3:02PM|#

Epi, now you're just being silly.

Not even remotely. Who decides what your abilities are? Who decides what NutraSweet's needs are? If you can't answer those questions, your entire premise is laughable.

Oh wait, Marxism has been so utterly and thoroughly refuted that it's laughable. So you're already there.

The Angry Optimist|6.16.09 @ 3:03PM|#

But what do you do when the tens of millions that you dropped on their asses come charging in your house to take what they need?

Who dropped who again? How did *I* have anything to do with it?

this is what happens when you let the reductio of Christianity infect your brain.

Jordan|6.16.09 @ 3:03PM|#

I don't think you quite understand causality. If you're a poor slob, it's not my fault because I chose to develop a marketable skill. I owe you the exact same consideration that the bum on the subway owes you.

Is that when you call the government for assistance?

Yes. Is this supposed to be difficult?

Paul|6.16.09 @ 3:06PM|#

If I didn't pay any taxes, I would owe something to the state. Ie, I would have a responsibility to "give back". On the other hand...

That is all.

|6.16.09 @ 3:07PM|#

If the lazy poor have the energy and drive to raid my house because I won't be their slave, then why can't they use a portion of that energy and get a fucking job?

Class revolutions don't come from the poor, they come from the children of the middle class and upper class that have educated themselves all the way around and back to stupidity.

|6.16.09 @ 3:11PM|#

Tao, common ownership and management are 2 different things.

Before ya'll write me off as a complete whackaloon, I try to understand your thinking. I realize that businesses here operate within a system where the government from the city to the feds have a finger in every damn part of the business. The owner is out a ton of money for the luxury of being the owner. I can't predict the behaviour of the owner in a government free business climate. I like to think that with more money available, the owner would give more to the employees.

|6.16.09 @ 3:23PM|#

Warty|6.16.09 @ 3:24PM|#

Before ya'll write me off as a complete whackaloon,

You're slightly less sane than the pus oozing out from under my toenail. No offense or nuffin'.

The Angry Optimist|6.16.09 @ 3:26PM|#

So, it's the wealthy guy's fault that government is the way it is, because he didn't sacrifice the luxuries he earned.

you're too late on me writing you off, dude. peace.

|6.16.09 @ 3:27PM|#

We simply disagree on the process of change.

I say, if the owner did more for the worker, the government could require less from the owner.

You say, if the government would leave the owner alone, he could do more for the worker.

Jordan|6.16.09 @ 3:29PM|#

You say, if the government would leave the owner alone, he could do more for the worker.

No. I say the government is morally and legally obligated (per the Constitution) to leave the owner alone.

The Angry Optimist|6.16.09 @ 3:30PM|#

it's not simple disagreement. it's your categorical lack of respect for private property rights and free choice. under your formulation, it's either "do more for the 'worker'" or "be made to do more for the worker".

Some fucking choice that is.

|6.16.09 @ 3:33PM|#

Only net tax contributors get to vote. Problem solved.

Thus reducing the number of voters by 80%

I like to think that with more money available, the owner would give more to the employees.

The law of suply and demand ensures it. But rather than actually enact policies that would allow this to occurr, people such as yourself continue on to say something like the following ", but im afraid that they are all going to somehow collude (contrary to their own interests) and conspire to keep the poor man miserable just to be dicks."

The world doesn't work that way, dude. they will compete for labor.

Here's another way it doesn't work: If you are trying to tell me that I have to contribute to the best of my ability for a minimally satisfactory lifestyle, meanwhile some stupid jackass who needs 24-7 care because of whatever "need" his special interest group determined he has - then fuck off and die. srsly. I would rather be stupid, and will do everything in my power to be treated as such - reserving my efforts for more satisfying activities such as drinking, and carousing.

Fluffy|6.16.09 @ 3:34PM|#

SugarFree, a lot of those poor have a fucking job. It pays a shit wage while the owner spends millions on a fishing boat. Is that his choice. yup. Can they find a different job? yup. They also get food stamps and medicaid. If the owner used the boat money for wages and insurance for the employee, he could justify less government. He, like the working poor, is dealing with the consequences of poor decision making.

Wait a second.

No one can lower wages below the wage that would be acceptable to the next guy in line for the job.

In other words, if I'm the mean business owner, I can only "lower" your wage to the wage at which another qualified worker would be willing to take the job.

So you are saying that I should demonstrate "social responsibility" by paying a higher wage to Employee A than Guy on Street B would be willing to accept to do the job.

Isn't that completely and totally unfair to Guy on Street B?

|6.16.09 @ 3:35PM|#

I say, if the owner did more for the worker, the government could require less from the owner.

So then why are we punishing businesses that actually provide healthcare by taxing them more. Doesn't sound like the government WANTS owners to do more for their employess - it sounds like they want the people to be dependant on it and it alone.

|6.16.09 @ 3:38PM|#

Tao, 300 million folks require x number of dollars to survive. Be it private dollars or govt dollars. If it is all private dollars, the government has no need to convert the private dollars into government dollars.

We can decide to cut off the govt dollars completely. Then we have to decide to fill the gap privately or deal with the consequences.

|6.16.09 @ 3:39PM|#

Class revolutions don't come from the poor, they come from the children of the middle class and upper class that have educated themselves all the way around and back to stupidity.

Well said SugarFree. They promise the poor all the things they want (the middle class thinks they "need" them), and the poor are generally too dumb to realize that the system wont work if everything is given away for free.

The Angry Optimist|6.16.09 @ 3:43PM|#

So, Person A's need trumps what I've earned?

Like I said, brotherben, you're rapidly falling into "write-off" category. If you're just going to go "Ho-kay, so, this nation needs X, and if you don't cough it up, fuck you, Jack, even if you did earn it" I don't see the conversation going much further.

|6.16.09 @ 3:43PM|#

the government has no need to convert the private dollars into government dollars.

The government doesn't CONVERT anything. They enact new programs in addition to private efforts already in place - usually providing worse service at higher costs. They end up displacing those efforts, cause it would be stupid to donate money to a charity if you are already being forced to "donate" through your taxes. I, for one, refuse to donate to charity in any year I have the top rate. I donate enough already. And phasing out charitable deductions is just more of the same. The explicit aim is to eliminate private charity, and consolidate the influence that handing out money gives one into the hands of the government - to perpetuate the welfare state.

"So then why are we punishing businesses that actually provide healthcare by taxing them more. Doesn't sound like the government WANTS owners to do more for their employess - it sounds like they want the people to be dependant on it and it alone."

Actually it sounds like they have spent too much money and need a source of taxes that plays well with the shallow end of the gene pool at the next election.

|6.16.09 @ 3:45PM|#

If the owner used the boat money for wages and insurance for the employee, he could justify less government.

Here's where you reveal a complete lack of economic acumen... not all jobs are worth a living wage. It's not some conspiracy that the janitor gets paid far less than the CEO who's office he cleans. A clean office generates less objective worth than the CEO, and the CEO reaps the benefits.

You don't like your job? Get a better job. Don't think you get paid enough at your job? Get a different job.

There's a reason that 21 years after high school I'm not still working as a valet at a horse track.

|6.16.09 @ 3:50PM|#

Tao, 300 million folks require x number of dollars to survive.

Define "survive." The vast majority of government transfer payments subsidize a lifestyle well above mere survival.

If the owner used the boat money for wages and insurance for the employee, he could justify less government.

Well, the people he just threw out of work by not having a boat will presumably need whatever government is not needed by those he gave an uneconomically justifiable raise to.

Naga Sadow|6.16.09 @ 3:50PM|#

Guys, come on. This is the same brotherben who is unemployed and claims he can't find a job. The same brotherben who claims he's fat and unhealthy because food is cheap. The same brotherben who thinks goverment programs are what keep a revolution from happening.

Where has everyone been?

|6.16.09 @ 3:51PM|#

Actually it sounds like they have spent too much money and need a source of taxes that plays well with the shallow end of the gene pool at the next election.

But we should nevertheless base national policy on the irrational dreams of these very same shallow-enders. Because, you know, there are more of them.

We can decide to cut off the govt dollars completely. Then we have to decide to fill the gap privately or deal with the consequences.

I vote for cutting off government transfer payments completely, cutting taxes to match, and then seeing what consequences we need to deal with, in our newly revived economy and new culture of personal responsibility.

|6.16.09 @ 3:56PM|#

I said this months ago. If libertarians will produce a viable candidate, the country should be ready by the end of Obama for exactly the type of small government you believe in.

SugarFree, There's a reason why I, 29 years after high school, am sitting at home with horribly wrecked back and no marketable skills.

Tao, I am not trying to alienate anyone, just putting in my 2 cents worth.

It is my opinion that society has an obligation to help the poor. But I agree with Steinbeck that the poor themselves are more willing to fulfill that obligation than are the wealthy.

|6.16.09 @ 3:58PM|#

But I agree with Steinbeck that the poor themselves are more willing to fulfill that obligation than are the wealthy.

Steinbeck never had to run medicare.

|6.16.09 @ 4:00PM|#

Naga, I said I was fat and unhealthy because food is cheap? I thought it was from loving food and having a slight lazy streak?

some guy|6.16.09 @ 4:01PM|#

"There's a reason why I, 29 years after high school, am sitting at home with horribly wrecked back and no marketable skills."

Constantly blowing yourself?

|6.16.09 @ 4:02PM|#

some guy,

ouch!

Naga Sadow|6.16.09 @ 4:04PM|#

I believe that was your synopsis. You claimed you weren't going to suddenly start jogging due to depression. You claimed that if the worst food wasn't so cheap through agricultural subsidies . . . etc. I barely remember it myself. Maybe back in September is when this comment was uttered.

Abner MacGillicuddy|6.16.09 @ 4:14PM|#

But I agree with Steinbeck that the poor themselves are more willing to fulfill that obligation than are the wealthy.

Steinbeck obviously didn't look to closely at poor people. Of course anyone would allready know that from the way he romanticised them in his stories.

|6.16.09 @ 4:17PM|#

Naga, I will look for it. I don't remember saying some of that but sometimes, when I get a little too far from my meds, I am not particularly coherent.

Jordan|6.16.09 @ 4:17PM|#

Aye Carumba. This just gets better and better.

Abner MacGillicuddy|6.16.09 @ 4:26PM|#

If you look at any of the great (that is expensive) welfare programs in the world, Social Security and Medicare (USA), Medicare (Canada), any of Sweden's programs etc the first thing you will notice is that they are not there for the "poor", they are for the solidly middle class.

The politicos and social workers who are behind these schemes will try to tell you they prevent poverty. But travel to any country and no matter how well they try to hide them (in Europe check the highrise housing in the "suburbs" if you're willing to take the chance) you will find them. And the other thing you'll find is that the benefits of their vaunted welfare state are passing them by.

No, these are not in the least "compassionate" societies. They are places where the political elites have figured out how to buy off enough of the electorate with handouts to keep them quiet.

Sean W. Malone|6.16.09 @ 4:39PM|#

brotherben confusing anyone else besides me?

All the best Marxists do (and ps. I have met 1 other, very committed, unreconstructed marxist in my life... I spent days trying to get his brain to work right, and eventually gave up in exhaustion)

|6.16.09 @ 5:01PM|#

Sean W. Malone. I have some of Marx's writings laying around, but have not read any of them that I recall. I wiki'd marxism about 2 hours ago. The opinion I was spewing forth was my own. It is based on personal observation. Obviously, I have no formal Econ training other than the required semester in high school near 30 years ago.

Granite26|6.16.09 @ 5:03PM|#

Man... I would be all about paying for 10x10x10 concrete cubes with a drain in the center and an all you can eat bread line for every block of these things. No budget, no management, no nothing. If you are content to live in a cube, feel free to move in. If you are content to live on (unlimited) bread and water, no problem, all yours at the 24 hour bread and water cafeteria up front.

If you want to put down a rug or get heating past 50F or electricity to power a radio... Good luck, get a job.

I would pay (my equal share) for that, and everyone that wanted to live there would be welcome to it.

Sean W. Malone|6.16.09 @ 5:20PM|#

brotherben;

I'm prepared to take you seriously... on one condition.

Read this:

Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt - it's not all that long, it covers most of the basic fallacies in logic that are plaguing your arguments right now, and most of the fallacies that are so widely propagated by the press, by Obama, and by virtually everyone with a microphone who fits Hazlitt's definition of the "bad economist":

"In this lies the whole difference between good economics and bad. The bad economist sees only what immediately strikes the eye; the good economist also looks beyond. The bad economist sees only the direct consequences of a proposed course; the good economist looks also at the longer and indirect consequences. The bad economist sees only what the effect of a given policy has been or will be on one particular group; the good economist inquires also what the effect of the policy will be on all groups."

Read the book... Let me know then if you still believe in the same things you've been saying around here.

|6.16.09 @ 5:24PM|#

The real scenario is, without the toll lane, the single mother would have no options, and would be stuck in traffic. With the toll lane, she has the option to quickly attend to the health of her child, and she can choose to work overtime, or skimp a little on something else, to pay for the toll. At least she has the option with the toll lane.

Sean W. Malone|6.16.09 @ 5:35PM|#

Andy;

Haven't you learned by now? The poor should only have one option in life. Suckle at the government's bloated, festering teat, or fuck off.

|6.16.09 @ 5:41PM|#

Sean W. Malone, I will read what you linked to. In deferrance to the damage I may have done to my sterling reputation, I won't post again on the subject till I have completed the reading. Fair enough?

Sean W. Malone|6.16.09 @ 6:05PM|#

You can post whenever you want, I just think you need to read that... I think everyone should read it.

The first one in there is about the Broken Window Fallacy, which Bastiat explored 200 years ago almost, but which is basically the foundation for a lot of people's belief in the stimulus. It's insane.

|6.16.09 @ 6:05PM|#

Andy, I've long suspected that people like Tim Rutten have nothing but contempt for "the poor".

To him a person like this hypothetical single mother is so inferior intellectually that she is absolutely incapable of making correct decisions like those you describe. The best she can hope for is the paternalism of her betters like Rutten.

His feelings toward the senior partner seem to be motivated by a kind of snobbishness. The SP is obviously the intellectual inferior of Tim Rutten the great writer, so his superior economic position is obviously due to underhanded practices and mistreatment of underlings.

MNG|6.16.09 @ 6:43PM|#

"Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt - it's not all that long, it covers most of the basic fallacies in logic that are plaguing your arguments right now, and most of the fallacies that are so widely propagated by the press, by Obama, and by virtually everyone with a microphone who fits Hazlitt's definition of the "bad economist":"

I'm betting that if you walked down to your local university's econ department and talked with them they would think of Hazlitt's work as pretty incomplete and naive...

Sean W. Malone|6.16.09 @ 6:48PM|#

MNG... You are the last person in the universe I would go to for any kind of economic advice or opinions. Shut the fuck up.

Sean W. Malone|6.16.09 @ 6:50PM|#

And in fact - perhaps, you (MNG) should consider reading that book as well, while we're at it.

hmm|6.16.09 @ 6:51PM|#

Why do people live in that shithole of a state? It's the 21st century, fucking cyber commute or hell dig a ditch. There is no way in hell I would live there.

Sean W. Malone|6.16.09 @ 6:53PM|#

I work in Entertainment... If you can find me a better location to work in that industry at the level I prefer working at, let me know. I would move there as soon as I can afford it.

|6.16.09 @ 7:12PM|#

Sean W. Malone,

this is from the book"Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt"- you cited above.

"Government-guaranteed home mortgages, especially when a negligible down payment or no down payment whatever is required, inevitably mean more bad loans than otherwise. They force the general taxpayer to subsidize the bad risks and to defray the losses. They encourage people to "buy" houses that they cannot really afford. They tend eventually to bring about an oversupply of houses as compared with other things. They temporarily overstimulate building, raise the cost of building for everybody (including the buyers of the homes with the guaranteed mortgages), and may mislead the building industry into an eventually costly overexpansion. In brief in the long run they do not increase overall national production but encourage malinvestment."

This prediction reminds me of something...

Sean W. Malone|6.16.09 @ 7:21PM|#

Indeed. And it should... That, btw, is the prime reason why all of the Austrian school economists predicted all this stuff right (see: Peter Schiff) and few others did.

The Angry Optimist|6.16.09 @ 7:34PM|#

not to put a damper on the good work Austrian economists do, but many of them continually predict disaster.

Sean W. Malone|6.16.09 @ 7:56PM|#

Yeah... but the policies are continually the same, and we've had a major recession in every decade since 1970. One might say, two booms/busts alone in this decade... And guess what predated each - Federal Reserve floating rafts of cash into the ether in "response" to the previous Fed-induced expansion. The numbers continue to look bad, the Austrians continue to point it out.

|6.17.09 @ 1:43AM|#

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, that's possibly because the policies politicos have pursued have been disastrous.

Which of course is something like what Sean said. But I'm such an egotist I had to say it my own way.

|6.17.09 @ 1:47AM|#

The fact of the matter is that the disasters that the Austrians have predicted have only been averted, for the most part, by interventions, that the Austrians predict will lead to disaster.

This leads me to suspect that at some point time is going to run out.

What do you think?

Sean W. Malone|6.17.09 @ 1:08PM|#

Yeah - I mean, the Austrians never make a specific time-prediction on this stuff, there's a lot of variables in play, and it's hard telling how long exactly the various interventions can keep propping up bubbles and duping the American people into thinking they're on any kind of stable economic footing.

But when you're printing money to cover your own debts, it's nothing but a ponzi scheme - and when the music stops, it's going to be/already is the American people who are without a chair.

Also: my advice for the US Gov for today.

|6.17.09 @ 2:21PM|#

I love how the last post is usually several points away from the first post. It's like playing telephone, you just can't help get off topic. Annnnyway, I didn't enjoy how he portrayed the single mom as this defenseless creature. I'm sure she's a tough lady trying to make ends meet. She maybe be struggling at the hands of more wealthy people but she isn't helpless. She's probably doing the best she can.
http://www.newsy.com/videos/california_s_collapse_whose_problem_is_it

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements