USSA 2009: Another Step Towards Statism

[SDW2001]

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

It's so amusing to see all of the dyed-in-the-wool neo-cons grasping for some kind of "new truth" here. The roots of Libertarian economic philosophy are the only salve for getting your collective bums spanked in this last election. The house of cards collapsed and now the Rush Limbaugh fascists all run for cover under the banner of the tea parties, still pushing for a pseudo-Christian militaristic comeback. It's sad and it's sick. I can only hope we get the full measure of Obama for eight years to destroy our economy, scare off the upper class so there will be no one left to steal from and make everyone equally poor. Only then might America be good and ready to embrace the full measure of the "traditional liberal" view, what some call Libertarianism, or as I would call it, "freedom from government". Let's just see if there are enough nuts in the nutsack that are willing to reject militarism, corporatism, an unholy mixture of religion and politics and embrace real peace and freedom.

I see where you're going here, but I have to take issue with a few points. First, the term "Neo-Con" is one that really is almost meaningless anymore--at least beyond foreign policy.

Secondly, religion and politics are only "unholy" if religion is used a wedge issue, like it was in 2004. The fact is that there are millions of people "of faith" that feel their country is being stolen from them. They know that our founding fathers considered religion/God a cornerstone of our society. Now, they see God being kicked out of every civil institution. These people aren't wack-jobs...they are everyday Americans.

I don't know what you mean by "militaristic comeback." We've never been "militaristic" per se, though it does seem our current President and Congress are almost openly hostile towards the military and incapable of making a decision. If you mean the true Neo-Con's (again...I don't like the term) agenda of spreading Democracy through the military, then frankly..those people don't seem to be in control or in the public domain much lately.

I do agree that we need to get the federal government the hell our of our lives and wallets. This is why I agree with a lot of what Ron Paul says (I recall you liking him so much you might have let him "touch it" if you were in the same room with him). I just think he goes to far, especially with regard to national security.

[jimmac]

Originally Posted by SDW2001

I am asking YOUR opinion. In other words, if you disagree with what I posted as to the cause(s) of our current "crisis," then please say so...and explain why.

You chose to take part in a larger discussion. This isn't a chat room! What's the matter afraid to look at something?

[dmz]

Well it just gets better and better...

From Bloomberg: The Audacity of Regulatory Capture

[SpamSandwich]

Originally Posted by SDW2001

I see where you're going here, but I have to take issue with a few points. First, the term "Neo-Con" is one that really is almost meaningless anymore--at least beyond foreign policy.

Secondly, religion and politics are only "unholy" if religion is used a wedge issue, like it was in 2004. The fact is that there are millions of people "of faith" that feel their country is being stolen from them. They know that our founding fathers considered religion/God a cornerstone of our society. Now, they see God being kicked out of every civil institution. These people aren't wack-jobs...they are everyday Americans.

I don't know what you mean by "militaristic comeback." We've never been "militaristic" per se, though it does seem our current President and Congress are almost openly hostile towards the military and incapable of making a decision. If you mean the true Neo-Con's (again...I don't like the term) agenda of spreading Democracy through the military, then frankly..those people don't seem to be in control or in the public domain much lately.

I do agree that we need to get the federal government the hell our of our lives and wallets. This is why I agree with a lot of what Ron Paul says (I recall you liking him so much you might have let him "touch it" if you were in the same room with him). I just think he goes to far, especially with regard to national security.

Regarding the neo-conservative term, I'll refer to the Wikipedia definition in the absence of any common definition:

Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, and which supports using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries. In economics, unlike traditionalist conservatives, neoconservatives are generally comfortable with a welfare state; and, while rhetorically supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes.

That definition seems pretty fair and inclusive to me.

Now, as to the US being some kind of "Christian Nation", you might actually be interested to discover that our modern interpretation of "Christianity" has a solidly occult basis, as told in the book, Occult America.*

It is well known and understood that the Founding Fathers were deists, strictly speaking, not what you and I would consider "Christians".

http://www.earlyamericanhistory.net/...ng_fathers.htm

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html

Regarding the misguided foreign policies of our country, it is the policy of interference and misuse of our military that causes us to attract the "evildoers" who make it their life's mission to destroy us. It is the Federal government's job to provide for the common defense, not invade other countries whose oil interests coincide with ours, as incredible as that may seem.

Incidentally, the term neo-conservative (aka neoconservative) was readily adopted by so-called conservatives years ago, so you may just have to learn to live with that.

The first major neoconservative to embrace the term, Irving Kristol, was considered a founder of the neoconservative movement. Kristol wrote of his neoconservative views in the 1979 article "Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed 'Neoconservative.'"[5] His ideas have been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine.[12] Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled "The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan's Foreign Policy".[13][14] Kristol's son, William Kristol, founded the neoconservative Project for the New American Century.

*(In the spirit of full disclosure, I do not own Amazon.com stock...)

[SDW2001]

Originally Posted by jimmac

You chose to take part in a larger discussion. This isn't a chat room! What's the matter afraid to look at something?

You know, that kind of flippant response is exactly what I've come to expect from you. I asked your opinion, simply and honestly. You respond by going on the attack. Well, that's fine. Have a nice day.

[SDW2001]

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

Regarding the neo-conservative term, I'll refer to the Wikipedia definition in the absence of any common definition:


That definition seems pretty fair and inclusive to me.

I don't agree with it, particularly as it references the tolerance/acceptance of a welfare state. It's clearly been perverted into a curse word. To the left, it seems as if its a label for any person with whom they disagree.

Now, as to the US being some kind of "Christian Nation", you might actually be interested to discover that our modern interpretation of "Christianity" has a solidly occult basis, as told in the book, Occult America.*

It is well known and understood that the Founding Fathers were deists, strictly speaking, not what you and I would consider "Christians".

http://www.earlyamericanhistory.net/...ng_fathers.htm

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html

Thanks for the history lesson, professor. I never claimed that the founding fathers were all Christian or that we were a "Christian nation." The point was that our founding fathers considered religion/faith am integral part of our society and were themselves generally believers. The evidence of this is positively overwhelming.

Regarding the misguided foreign policies of our country, it is the policy of interference and misuse of our military that causes us to attract the "evildoers" who make it their life's mission to destroy us. It is the Federal government's job to provide for the common defense, not invade other countries whose oil interests coincide with ours, as incredible as that may seem.

Well, I can't disagree with that. That said, we do need to secure oil--it's just a reality. It would be pretty hard to change our ways on that now, unless we first dedicate ourselves to energy independence.

Incidentally, the term neo-conservative (aka neoconservative) was readily adopted by so-called conservatives years ago, so you may just have to learn to live with that.

The first major neoconservative to embrace the term, Irving Kristol, was considered a founder of the neoconservative movement. Kristol wrote of his neoconservative views in the 1979 article "Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed 'Neoconservative.'"[5] His ideas have been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine.[12] Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled "The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan's Foreign Policy".[13][14] Kristol's son, William Kristol, founded the neoconservative Project for the New American Century.

*(In the spirit of full disclosure, I do not own Amazon.com stock...)

I don't agree that it's been accepted, no matter what wikipedia says. Certain conservatives called/call themselves that...that doesn't mean that the term has been "accepted." Moreover, the current use of the term doesn't necessarily fit the original definition from say, the 1980s.

[involuntary_serf]

Originally Posted by SDW2001

That said, we do need to secure oil--it's just a reality.

Perhaps, but it does not then follow that it must be secured militarily.

[SDW2001]

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

Perhaps, but it does not then follow that it must be secured militarily.

Get real, dude. That's what "secure" means in this case.

[involuntary_serf]

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Get real, dude. That's what "secure" means in this case.

OK, then no...we don't have to.

[Taskiss]

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

OK, then no...we don't have to.

Imagine gasoline at $5.00 a gallon - what would the economy be like?

[involuntary_serf]

Originally Posted by Taskiss

Imagine gasoline at $5.00 a gallon - what would the economy be like?

Prove to me that would happen, then I will work on imagining it.

[Taskiss]

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

Prove to me that would happen, then I will work on imagining it.

It already has, and will again.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0...-_n_90223.html

[involuntary_serf]

Originally Posted by Taskiss

It already has, and will again.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0...-_n_90223.html

Let me see if I have this right:

1. Someone claims we need to "secure" (militarily of course) oil.

2. I say I don't think we need to do so militarily.

3. You ask me what the economy would be like with $5 per gallon gasoline (I infer your question to mean that if we don't "secure" oil, militarily, that we will have $5 per gallon gasoline).

4. I ask you to prove to me that one would lead to the other.

5. You provide a single article (from 18 months ago) about a single gas station (without any local competition) in a state with some of the highest gasolines taxes in the country that is selling gasoline for $5 (or more) per gallon.

So some questions:

1. Is my inference in #3 above correct or were you asking this question for some other reason?

2. Is it your contention that if we do not "secure" oil militarily we will have widespread gasoline prices of $5 (or more per gallon)?

3. How does the article you provided, in any way whatsoever, support this contention?

[jimmac]

Originally Posted by SDW2001

You know, that kind of flippant response is exactly what I've come to expect from you. I asked your opinion, simply and honestly. You respond by going on the attack. Well, that's fine. Have a nice day.

This is exactly what I've come to expect from you!


You ask a question I answer by giving you a link provided by someone else as an answer and you don't want to look at it. Do you know why I think you don't? Because then you'd have to reinterpret the material in SDWese so it fit your world view or so you could discredit it.

[Taskiss]

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

Let me see if I have this right:

1. Someone claims we need to "secure" (militarily of course) oil.

2. I say I don't think we need to do so militarily.

3. You ask me what the economy would be like with $5 per gallon gasoline (I infer your question to mean that if we don't "secure" oil, militarily, that we will have $5 per gallon gasoline).

4. I ask you to prove to me that one would lead to the other.

5. You provide a single article (from 18 months ago) about a single gas station (without any local competition) in a state with some of the highest gasolines taxes in the country that is selling gasoline for $5 (or more) per gallon.

So some questions:

1. Is my inference in #3 above correct or were you asking this question for some other reason?

2. Is it your contention that if we do not "secure" oil militarily we will have widespread gasoline prices of $5 (or more per gallon)?

3. How does the article you provided, in any way whatsoever, support this contention?

I didn't suggest a method of securing oil, I'm just absolutely sure that prices will rise if a source isn't secured (I believe another poster suggest that a military solution was required, but whatever, it wasn't me). Drilling in places that are presently off-limits is also a method of securing oil. I've read where a huge reserve was discovered in the Gulf of Mexico, for instance.

And yes, given the pressure supply and demand present on prices, you'll see $5.00 a gallon oil again, my guess is early next decade.

As for the article providing support, once a price point is established, it's just a matter of time before it gets there again. It's been established that people will pay that amount, so companies will charge that amount.

[involuntary_serf]

Originally Posted by Taskiss

I didn't suggest a method of securing oil, I'm just absolutely sure that prices will rise if a source isn't secured. Drilling in places that are presently off-limits is also a method of securing oil.

Thanks for clarifying. In the context of the thread (or at least a cluster of posts) the implication of "securing" oil was by military means*.

Perhaps a better word is obtain. I agree that we (whoever we is) need to obtain oil as a source of fuel or prices will rise. However, I do not agree that it must be obtained by military means.


*At least that what SDW2001 claims when he says: "Get real, dude. That's what "secure" means in this case."

Originally Posted by Taskiss

As for the article providing support, once a price point is established, it's just a matter of time before it gets there again.

I'm not aware of any theoretical economic basis or evidence or reasoning to support this claim.

Originally Posted by Taskiss

It's been established that people will pay that amount, so companies will charge that amount.

This suggests that the only ones who have any say in the pricing are the companies selling the good. That's incorrect.

[SpamSandwich]

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

Prove to me that would happen, then I will work on imagining it.

[SDW2001]

Originally Posted by jimmac

This is exactly what I've come to expect from you!


You ask a question I answer by giving you a link provided by someone else as an answer and you don't want to look at it. Do you know why I think you don't? Because then you'd have to reinterpret the material in SDWese so it fit your world view or so you could discredit it.

I asked your opinion. If you're saying that you agree that derivatives were the primary problem, fine. Don't speak for dmz.

As for me, I looked at both links, actually. The first doesn't show that dmz would disagree at all. The second link (the frontline piece) is just that...a piece on Greenspan and his views/history. Clearly, Greenspan now believes that more regulation is needed. That doesn't mean he's right, just as it doesn't mean he was right with his previous policies of cheap money when things were good.

The point is that it wasn't the derivatives themselves that were the problem...it was the underlying toxic assets. Nothing in your links (or dmz's) shows otherwise.

[jimmac]

Originally Posted by SDW2001

I asked your opinion. If you're saying that you agree that derivatives were the primary problem, fine. Don't speak for dmz.

As for me, I looked at both links, actually. The first doesn't show that dmz would disagree at all. The second link (the frontline piece) is just that...a piece on Greenspan and his views/history. Clearly, Greenspan now believes that more regulation is needed. That doesn't mean he's right, just as it doesn't mean he was right with his previous policies of cheap money when things were good.

The point is that it wasn't the derivatives themselves that were the problem...it was the underlying toxic assets. Nothing in your links (or dmz's) shows otherwise.

Regulation is what the video was all about. So if you disagree with it you disagree with dmz. But I knew those blinders would just cover up everything.


Earlier from dmz :

Regulatory capture _is_ a big part of this -- but let's not forget: this is an argument about whether to blame the pimps, the johns, or the whores.

None of us is as stupid as all of us.

Wow. Just wow!

[SDW2001]

Originally Posted by jimmac

Regulation is what the video was all about. So if you disagree with it you disagree with dmz. But I knew those blinders would just cover up everything.


Earlier from dmz :
Wow. Just wow!

I am not disagreeing with "the video" exactly. I am saying that derivatives themselves did not cause the financial sector meltdown. It was the bubble bursting in the underlying assets...that which the derivatives were based upon. To the extent that the Frontline piece portrays the crisis as being caused by the derivatives, yes..I disagree.

The second point the video gets into is Alan Greenspan's views. My point was only that I've never worshipped Greenspan. I didn't take his word as law in 1990s, and I don't take it as law now. Greenspan pushed full speed ahead in the 1990s, almost with blinders on. He did this until we had a market meltdown, which was bound to happen to the housing bubble...derivatives or no derivatives. Now, he is doubting free market capitalism itself. Of course, "deregulation" was not the problem. It was government and Fed intervention that spurred the problem, from sub-prime loans to endless cheap money to bullying the banks into making bad loans. If Greenspan's position is that more regulation alone would have prevented the crisis, then yes..I am in firm disagreement with that.

[jimmac]

Originally Posted by SDW2001

I am not disagreeing with "the video" exactly. I am saying that derivatives themselves did not cause the financial sector meltdown. It was the bubble bursting in the underlying assets...that which the derivatives were based upon. To the extent that the Frontline piece portrays the crisis as being caused by the derivatives, yes..I disagree.

The second point the video gets into is Alan Greenspan's views. My point was only that I've never worshipped Greenspan. I didn't take his word as law in 1990s, and I don't take it as law now. Greenspan pushed full speed ahead in the 1990s, almost with blinders on. He did this until we had a market meltdown, which was bound to happen to the housing bubble...derivatives or no derivatives. Now, he is doubting free market capitalism itself. Of course, "deregulation" was not the problem. It was government and Fed intervention that spurred the problem, from sub-prime loans to endless cheap money to bullying the banks into making bad loans. If Greenspan's position is that more regulation alone would have prevented the crisis, then yes..I am in firm disagreement with that.

I am not disagreeing with "the video" exactly.