backtocrappie

[J.C.Allin]

"Anytime you want to take your pickaxe down to the local interstate on-ramp I would be happy to join you,  “

I don’t have a clue about that comment. Wonder if some Psilocybin mushrooms are talking here.

Perhaps I have you confused with other in this forum that claim to believe the federal government should essentially play no role in the creation of infrastructure beyond the military. (And yes, I realize that the interstate highway system does serve to benefit our security)

“, you seem to be clinging to the idea that everything the government has touched is a pile of s***(sorry about that) and is worth of being abolished “

I don’t think I have ever said such a thing but I do have strong views on Federal Government encroachments on our liberties as they try to operate outside the bounds of it fundamental obligations in the protection of individual rights. I don’t have a problem with the police the courts and the military or the interstate highway system or public roads or toll roads.

Then you have a serious problem with how the economy has been structured for the past 100 years, a period of time that has seen the greatest advancements in terms of technology and standard of living the world has ever seen. It all seems vary arbitrary.

I do have problems with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 both great and wonderful things that would even out market cycles keeping us on a forever onward and upwards cycle of economic nirvana of utopian prosperity. Looking at the situation today and I don’t think the economics wizards of today are any smarter than the economic wizards of yesterday.

How I see it with all the rules regulation and legislation imposed on the market place is that it tries to eliminate the unalterable links between cause and effect in reality and the rules tend to anesthetize the judgments of the players in the market place because they think the government has these rules in place which will protect them from the consequences of their own actions.

Its funny that the economic wizards, starting around the time of the oil crisis in the 70s and into the 80s, embraced to a much greater extent the laissez-faire approach to capitalism which you propose as the only solution worth exploring. In the years dominated by Greenspan, once an ardent proponent of laissez-faire, a shift occurred in his thinking (or approach at least) and he began to compromise these ideals, insofar as they were minimally implemented, as a reaction to a faltering economy. Remember, the consequences of cause and effect are only predictable within closed systems that lack real complexity -- this does not describe an economy as gargantuan our own, and it certainly wouldn't describe an economy entirely divorced from regulation.

I, with no formal education in economics, tend to think market cycles are inevitable, due the unalterable nature of man, and that only with omniscience would it be possible to manipulate the infinite elements of the market place, and keep a forever upwards curve in the market cycle. The market cycle is the one and only definitive link to reality for easily telling the player that he is wrong or right in his actions and with that information he can make the proper adjustments.

I don't know what "the unalterable nature of man" means in this context. Actually I do know what it means -- very little. Humans are the most adaptable, complex, organism on a planet defined by complexity. It goes without saying that unpredictable fluctuations will arise within complex systems. Thus, insofar as your statement about using the market place as the sole metric for determining whether a person "is right or wrong in his actions", I would suggest that this presents a fundamental paradox in your line of reasoning. If upward and downward curves are entirely beyond our predictive capacities, then how how can we be persuaded to use this as "definitive link to reality", and how can we maintain a sense of agency? If markets are so irredeemably erratic, why not just start tossing bones around and consulting mystics? Capitalism does not exist in the ether as a clearly definable "law of nature", and I get the impression that many people, under the influence of certain economic persuasions, tend to believe it is. If you accept the nature of capitalism as an anthropocentric construct, I would argue that we must therefore allow it to be submitted for subjective consideration. It is highly unlikely that we will, in the foreseeable future at least, be able to map a geography as chaotic as our economy, however, the fact that it is difficult and unclear shouldn't dissuade us from trying -- within any realm of scientific inquiry.

Now the market place is telling General Motors that they are failing and that they should be in Bankruptcy courts and reallocating their resources in the market place in a more proper and prosperous manner which would be good for the economy. But no BO thinks taxpayer monies is needed to bail them out when the market place says GM’s resources are being misused and damaging to the over all economy. Is continuing to misuse those resources really going to help the economy when they could be reallocated somewhere else into the market place for a profitable outcome which would help the economy? No I guess not since there are plenty of ivy league economic graduates with the hubris to step forwards and help out our statist progressive collectivist thug president with his awful agenda. I’m sure all very similar to how easy it was for say Stalin, Hitler or Mao to have toady economic advisors fawning around them.

Stalin and Hitler had mustaches, perhaps that had something to do with it and Mao was an anomaly.

“civilization will continue its march toward increasingly colossal destruction of my rights and your rights and the rights of indigenous people and the rights of our planet's varied biota.   “

As for our indigenous populations the concept of individual rights was not part of their culture. They generally speaking were usually at war with other tribes. Tribalism is just a subset of the concept of collectivism where the non-quantifiable indefinable and vague idea of ‘the good of the society’ comes first and foremost over the good and or the rights of the individual.

This is mere speculation on your part with regard to tribalism, nevertheless it does describe quite succinctly the right-wing approach to promoting the "good of society" through it's attempt to legislate morality.

I’m glad that the warring tribal collectivists ended up losing their struggles with ones that eventually recognized and holds the rights of the individual and values of freedom.

In essence I agree with you here, but this says more about my aversion to sitting around a campfire worshiping a sun god than revealing any sense that humans should dissolve all notions of collectivism. Such a dissolution would be contrary to established historical patterns that have defined human existence throughout all of history,  and stretch as far back into prehistory as we can reasonable ascertain, and manifest within the United States since it was conceived.

Secondly to ascribe or connect with plants and fungi the concept of rights indicates a total incomprehension of the meaning of rights.

What it suggests LBM, is that I was employing hyperbole. And for the record, primates, including humans, are part of the planet's biota, not just plants and fungi. The boitic systems we rely upon is composed of a complex web of symbiotic interdependence. To destroy biotic systems ultimately implies a fundamental disregard for the rights of humans, whether or not you impart the concept of legals "rights" to other organisms within this system is moot if we recognize a core interdependence.

“Do you believe that we will ever return to the days of quotidian agrarianism that informed the ideals of our founding fathers?  Do you truly believe it is possible for a country the size of the US to regress to such a state and survive as a nation? And is that even desirable?”

No and no and no. What have I ever said that indicates that I want this country to return to a daily agrarian life? All my rants center about leaving people alone and free to choose.

There is a correlation between harnessing tides within an economy and the productivity of said economy. Abandoning the wheel would be like abandoning a shipping freight at sea and expecting it to reach harbor without the guiding intervention of man; of course, steering into a reef is not the answer. You like to offer hypotheses regarding free market ideals, however I would much rather see evidence in the form of demonstrable results, and for better or worse, an absence of government intervention in the economy hasn't been seen in the United States for a very, very long time. 

“Any political party that would deny scientific fact for the purpose of pleasing moneyed interests is my enemy and the enemy of democracy.  ”

I’ll need some help here as to just which ‘facts’ and ‘moneyed interests’ you are referring to.  At the moment I’m thinking of the absolutely distorted scientific facts that came out in a UN report on global warming. All facts that if accepted would help out Al Gore, the moneyed interest, and if those distorted facts were acted upon as the distorters wanted to it would definitely result with world wide totalitarianism – which I can agree is the enemy of democracy. Do we finally agree on something here?

There seems to be a distorted perception among most laymen that scientists are few in number and wildly rich. Joe Schmo climatologist at the local university doesn't stand to reap great financial rewards by cooking the books regarding climate data, that isn't how it works. This is in stark opposition to the moneyed interests that seek to deny scientific consensus.

So in the absence of financial rewards, why do the majority of scientists in pertinent fields agree that this is a real phenomenon? Do they, out of the goodness of their hearts, want to make Al Gore rich? If you are going use a "follow the money" approach to sort fact from fiction you might have a rude awakening. By the same token, the much maligned Al Gore didn't offer a true account of the scientific consensus in his movie, I would agree with you there.

Furthermore, LBM, the composition of our atmosphere is the result of biological processes, The birth of our oxygen rich atmosphere was mostly precipitated by lowly single celled organisms such as cyanobacteria. So, creepy crawly bacteria could produce an atmosphere and climate capable of sustaining life, yet humans, for all our techne and enterprise, are incapable of altering it in anyway? I think you are underestimating the industriousness of our species.

“ Any political party that would seek to appease pagans, mystics, and conspiracists for the sole purpose of securing votes is my enemy and the enemy of democracy. One side promotes more or less amounts to an open acceptance of the fact that humans, intrinsically imperfect as they may be, tend to construct hierarchical social orderings that reflect their makers [imperfections and all] -- the left. Whilst the other seeks to deny the basic fact of human nature in words only, but behind closed doors it's a different story.   “

I’m not sure what you said here but it does sound similar to one of my complaints about both parties which I have said before and that is where the democrats think that the voters are ignorant and incompetent and need legislation to help them live and the republicans think they need to pass legislation to help the voters get through the pearly gates.  Maybe we agree on something else here.

Yeah we agree here in principle -- I would also agree with you that that was one hell of an awkward paragraph.

[J.C.Allin]

Well well well.  Somebody's been pretty diligent with their word of the day calendar haven't they.

A couple of sentiments I'd like to address:

1) How would it feel for interlopers to get free socialist healthcare on the sweat of a man's labor?

Well, it'd kind of feel like it does now here in this country I suppose when the illegals get free healthcare off my tax dime.

I would probably regard them the same as those who send their children to public schools.

2) How would Wannabe feel about getting his ankle fixed in a socialist healthcare system?

Just dandy.  It's the brain cancer, liver transplant, open heart surgery and hip replacement at 60 that worries me.  I'd also have no problems with a flu shot in Norway either.

How would wannabe feel about the prospect of facing the loss of everything he worked for when confronted with catastrophic illness?

3) And how would I feel about "the man" using the sweat of my brow to contribute to a campaign?

Well, I should be told to shut up and get back to work as, you see, I have already been compensated for the sweat of my brow and what happens to the excess of company revenue I should have no say over provided I'm not a stockholder and if I am, well, I'd have the right to vote how I want in the next stockholder's election.  And while I'm at it, how can you make this point when the unions have none of the same restrictions under McCain Feingold and yet, they are stealing the fruits of the working man's labor?  Geez, that was a bush league argument.

I didn't say anything about unions.... or churches.

But on the other hand, I'm pretty, so you've got that to look forward to.

Wannabe...

What are you suggesting? I didn't realize you were a woman.

[LBM]

Then you have a serious problem with how the economy has been structured for the past 100 years, a period of time that has seen the greatest advancements in terms of technology and standard of living the world has ever seen.

Yes I do have problems with the structure of the economy and yes I totally agree with the advancements in technology and standards of living. The problems I have with the economy is that it has always been a mixed economy with elements of control and elements of freedom a mixture of tyranny and liberty a mixture of socialism and capitalism. With that mixture I submit that it was the free elements that accounted for the here to forth unimagined advancements possible for mankind and if it wasn't the free elements that accounted for that growth why didn't the more controlled and repressed countries achieve that level of advanced prosperity?

Through out our history with that mixture at every problem or downturn in the economy the progressive statist have attributed the elements of freedom in the economy as the cause of all the problems and then propose replacing the free elements with more controls. With the imposition of more restrictions on our liberties they have always said this will eliminate and lessen these problems caused by swings in the economy as though they, the statist, with their omniscience can in fact keep the markets on a forever upward slope to their Utopian ideal. The progressive statist have given us things like The Sherman Antitrust Act, The FED, Social Security, The Great Society, Medicare, Medicaid, Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac,  and much more where each was given as a solution that would protect us going forward and low and behold a housing crisis develops threatening to destroy the worlds economy. Now the progressive statist economic wizards are salivating over which elements of freedom they find as responsible and in need of replacement with more controls with would take us forwards protecting us from future downturns. I really think the statist can put us on a economic curve that will never decline and I think you will find that economic curve equivalent to the curves for North Korea or Bangladesh or Haiti and their abject poverty.

It all seems vary arbitrary.

You are in a very large group at seeing it as a very 'arbitrary' situation. That attitude is held by a very large group of Marxist statist progressives and the current US President. You all have opened your eyes and looked around and have seen the magnificent pie and how the pieces are distributed and you don't find it equitably distributed to your satisfaction and think you know better just how it should be distributed. You have no concerns as to just what the individuals went through to produce pie and you seem to think the pie will always be a given and in existence and it will always be there regardless of what hurdles are put in place for the pie makers to go over in its production.

I really think the statist should concern themselves more how to make it more possible and more easy for individuals to produce more pie and not to concern themselves solely with how the pie should be distributed.

Its funny that the economic wizards, starting around the time of the oil crisis in the 70s and into the 80s, embraced to a much greater extent the laissez-faire approach to capitalism which you propose as the only solution worth exploring.

So far from all I have seen the laissez-faire approach to capitalism seems to have been the most successful at supplying and taking care of the human condition yet some folks seem to still think that the collectivists Marxist likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao could and would work only if it was done properly like how the current crop of statist progressives thinks it should be done.

In the years dominated by Greenspan, once an ardent proponent of laissez-faire, a shift occurred in his thinking (or approach at least) and he began to compromise these ideals, insofar as they were minimally implemented, as a reaction to a faltering economy.

I'll just let this be my answer about Greenspan.
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-winter/alan-greenspan.asp

Remember, the consequences of cause and effect are only predictable within closed systems that lack real complexity -- this does not describe an economy as gargantuan our own, and it certainly wouldn't describe an economy entirely divorced from regulation.

I'll continue to suggest that the very fact that a economy is complex and gargantuan is more reason for it to be left free to function since by it's very complexity it can't be properly managed by a deluded statist thinking they are omniscient.

I don't know what "the unalterable nature of man" means in this context. Actually I do know what it means -- very little.

I would say the nature of man has not changed from the Roman times and and before and up to today's times. That man has always been capable of errors in the prevalent and fundamental philosophies they hold with in their culture and with in themselves which ultimately determines their eventual success or failure on both a societal or individual level. With that human failing always a possibility I think it is better leaving people free to interact amongst themselves in pairs or groups towards finding and taking care of their individual needs and wants. If that group fails in their efforts only they would be affected by their own failures. The statist with their delusions of omniscience what to universally impose their plans on all regardless what the individuals might think of those plans.  

 Thus, insofar as your statement about using the market place as the sole metric for determining whether a person "is right or wrong in his actions", I would suggest that this presents a fundamental paradox in your line of reasoning. If upward and downward curves are entirely beyond our predictive capacities, then how how can we be persuaded to use this as "definitive link to reality",

To go into business and the business goes into bankruptcy seems to me reality has let it be known that failure has occurred. That appears to be a very definitive link to reality. As far as the predictive capacities I would suggest seeing what has worked in the past as a very good source for a best solution to attempt.  

and how can we maintain a sense of agency?

If your desires for the maintenance of a sense of agency is defined as 1. an organization, company, or bureau that provides some service for another: a welfare agency then you won't find me siding with or supporting your view. I just don't find it moral or right to force one individual to exist for the sake of another.

 I would agree with these agency definitions 2.    a company having a franchise to represent another. 3.    the place of business of an agent. 4.    the duty or function of an agent. 5.    the relationship between a principal and his or her agent.

Capitalism does not exist in the ether as a clearly definable "law of nature", and I get the impression that many people, under the influence of certain economic persuasions, tend to believe it is. If you accept the nature of capitalism as an anthropocentric construct, I would argue that we must therefore allow it to be submitted for subjective consideration.

I definitely accept capitalism as as an anthropocentric construct and think it should be submitted for objective consideration.

[LBM]

There is a correlation between harnessing tides within an economy and the productivity of said economy.

I haven't expressed any opposition to any company wanting to harness the tides if they thought it would be a profitable venture for that company. I would be apposed to government subsidies to that company for that venture.

Abandoning the wheel would be like abandoning a shipping freight at sea and expecting it to reach harbor without the guiding intervention of man; of course, steering into a reef is not the answer.

? Now talk about something out of no were relating to nothing I've ever said.

You like to offer hypotheses regarding free market ideals, however I would much rather see evidence in the form of demonstrable results,

 
Would you consider your own words from your post as any evidence?

....... how the economy has been structured for the past 100 years, a period of time that has seen the greatest advancements in terms of technology and standard of living the world has ever seen.

 

and for better or worse, an absence of government intervention in the economy hasn't been seen in the United States for a very, very long time. 

True

There seems to be a distorted perception among most laymen that scientists are few in number and wildly rich.

Certainly not a perception held or expressed by me.

Joe Schmo climatologist at the local university doesn't stand to reap great financial rewards by cooking the books regarding climate data, that isn't how it works. This is in stark opposition to the moneyed interests that seek to deny scientific consensus. 

If ol Joe Schmo climatologist has been operating with his government grants for the last couple years and puts out a sound well reasoned report that shows findings that are completely in opposition to the governments view that it all is settled science in respect to global warming. I just don't think he would find any federal grants available for him for his next couple years.

So in the absence of financial rewards, why do the majority of scientists in pertinent fields agree that this is a real phenomenon? Do they, out of the goodness of their hearts, want to make Al Gore rich? If you are going use a "follow the money" approach to sort fact from fiction you might have a rude awakening.

I will say follow the money since the majority of their money it is out of the public coffers.
 

Furthermore, LBM, the composition of our atmosphere is the result of biological processes, The birth of our oxygen rich atmosphere was mostly precipitated by lowly single celled organisms such as cyanobacteria. So, creepy crawly bacteria could produce an atmosphere and climate capable of sustaining life, yet humans, for all our techne and enterprise, are incapable of altering it in anyway? I think you are underestimating the industriousness of our species.

I think you are underestimating the complexities involved with and understanding the causes of global warming.