There have been plenty of times I've been called a communist in the blogsphere. Marxy is nick name that has never really bothered me. In fact, nearly all of the derisive comments online don't really bother me. And I've had students call me just about every name name in the book so my skin is pretty thick.
But Katie accusing me of being a communist really hit a nerve with me. Not so much personally but from the point of view of an educator. Doesn't she know what happens when we go down this path? I think it was her tone and the blind rage that I saw in her eyes. That never leads to anything good.
This is why I could never support a dictator even if he or she held my exact ideology. I don't want anyone forced into my vision of the world nor am I that certain that all of my ideas are valid. She was and that's what really scared me. Generally, I know what works and what doesn't based on events and experience. I am not so blind in any thing I believe in that I would use my fear, anger and hate to justify a total authoritarian regime.
I haven't asked her yet what she would do but I have to admit that after the other day, I'm frightened to know the answer.
45 comments:
then tell us one nation that taxed itself into prosperity.
Uh...the United States? Ever take a look at how our economy has done when we had higher taxes? There are many countries in Europe that have higher taxes than we do and are doing very well. Germany and Sweden come to mind.
But, as I have said many times, taxes won't solve it all. Adjustments in spending have to be made across the board including defense, medicare, and social security. Of course, if you are the 1 yard line to the right of the field on spending looking at me on the 45 yard line (just to the right of the 50) that I guess that makes me a communist:)
High taxes make our economy do great?
Nah, here is what happens when you and blk get your wish for higher capital gains taxes...
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/12/oregons-millionaires-tax-drives-millionaires-out-of-state.html
Mark, we may not know what ideas are right, but we have a pretty good idea of what ideas are wring.
Your playing the "Doesn't she know what happens when we go down this path?" card is really rich. I wouldn't call you a small "c" communist, let alone a Communist, but you're sure as shit a small "s" socialist and an economic fascist. "Welfare capitalist" is about as kooky a term as "socialist libertarian".
Preview is your friend. I forgot to add:
It's really rich considering how freely you throw around the word "fascist".
The fact that you educate children scares me, too, but more because you're such an economic ignoranus.
Perhaps she called you a communist because you talked about "false consciousness"?
Uh...the United States? Ever take a look at how our economy has done when we had higher taxes?
Uh-oh, someone forgot what he learned reading Manzi.
I don't want anyone forced into my vision of the world nor am I that certain that all of my ideas are valid.
Which squares with "One view (mine) saves the economy." how exactly?
Larry, you are wrong. I firmly believe in capitalism. Just because I don't support the insane plutocracy that we have now doesn't make me a socialist. I don't know how many more times I can explain where I stand to you. The problem is your delusional perception.
Juris, my view isn't based on belief. It's based on ideas and what has been successful in the past. So, that's why I find it perplexing that you and Larry think I'm an ignoramus. I'm not. It's not my fault that both of you refuse to see failure and ignore the success that we have achieved over the years before the problems started.
Funny, because Larry's thoughts are accurate but more in favor of my continued protestations. I know what ideas are wrong because conservative economic policies have so clearly caused one disaster after another. And I'm a socialist because I accept reality? Why you both of you continue to support these folks will always be one of the great mysteries of the universe.
Yeah, right, Mark, high top individual tax rates caused prosperity in the 1950's. Now what was the actual tax rate paid after all the deductions and exemptions that were allowed?
And was the US's economic power back then caused by high top individual tax rates, or was it because every other industrial economy had been anywhere from severely damaged to effectively obliterated in WWII?
Great Britain had even higher tax rates and even more of the policies so beloved by you. What's been the result?
So, that's why I find it perplexing that you and Larry think I'm an ignoramus.
Well when the choice is stupid or dishonest, which would you prefer?
Juris, my view isn't based on belief.
You might be able to convince yourself of that, but I'm not buying - particularly when you are so averse to facts. It seemed you had really learned that high taxes didn't cause the prosperity of the post war years (courtesy of Manzi) - but you just can't resist the thought of taking money away from other people, especially people with so much more money than you.
...before the problems started.
Problems which are imaginary. Or are you finally going to explain how Warren Buffett got rich by fucking people over? Or how his wealth is so bad for the country? Not based on beliefs? HA!
[Camera close up: Mark sits at his monitor, looking confused]
{cue laugh track}
"Annnnnnnnnnnd Cut!"
{as the credits end}
"From decrees of the Senate and from ordinances of the people, crimes are practiced. As formerly we suffered from our vices, so now we suffer from our laws."
- Cicero (106 BC – 43 BC)
"When he ignores the truth by which he is made free, it is expedient that he be deceived." - St. Augustine
"You just kinda wasted my precious time, but don't think twice it's alright." - Robert Zimmerman
The economy boomed in the 1950's because every other competing economy just got done being bombed. I've said that on this blog several times and Manzi even said it as well.
Hell why don't we tax everybody and everything 70% - the economy will boom!
The government does not control the economy in this country.
Perhaps SW meant to ask if there was an example out there of a country who successfully taxed itself out of a deficit it was running.
my view isn't based on belief. It's based on ideas and what has been successful in the past. So, that's why I find it perplexing that you and Larry think I'm an ignoramus.
This made me laugh. I don't know how many times we can point out your economic deficiencies before you would actually go try and learn something. I think it is more of a "can't see the forest for the trees" type of ignorance where you can latch on to one thing and then draw the wrong conclusions. Kind of like seeing one birch tree in a forest of firs and stating that it is a birch forest because you see one.
Almost all of your posts do this whether economic, social, or political, where you find an example to match your ideology and pin that outlook onto an entire group/idea and never look back. THAT is why you get ripped on your posts. There! Now you aren't so perplexed.
Other than the success that Warren Harding had immediately following WWI, show me where conservative economic policies have worked. Show me where Reagan did a good job with the economy. Show me where Bush did. Show me where Hoover did. Show me where laissez faire, Friedman, Hayek, and the Austrians were right. Time and again, we take that path and it ends in disaster.
They have all been somewhere between completely incompetent and catastrophe. Yet you still cling to the belief that they work. Isn't that the very definition of insanity? Or, it's as I say, you can't admit when you are wrong.
Show me where Reagan did a good job with the economy.
The President does not command/control the economy - any more than he does the weather. But it doesn't surprise me that you insist that he does - a turn on the myth of the rightful ruler. Oh, you aren't alone in this - the right-wing believes the President is the country's moral guardian, which is equally stupid.
Show me where laissez faire, Friedman, Hayek, and the Austrians were right.
Now this is an entirely different question, yet you don't even realize it. If you would like to explore the actual economics - as opposed to myths about Presidential powers, just say so.
A debate about economic policies? I'd love to get a piece of that. But what are the odds that an honest debate will happen here?
In hopes that all will learn something by the time it ends, I say...
Let's talk about economic policies, Mark!
yeah let us know if welfare has solved poverty yet markadelphia
Social security has reduced poverty in the elderly by over 40 percent. Do you dispute this fact?
Social security has reduced poverty in the elderly by over 40 percent. Do you dispute this fact?
Hmm, does that mean that 60% don't need it? Great - let's means test SS benefits so the non-needy don't get it!
Regarding an economic discussion, let's begin with Iceland, shall we?
You obviously don't want to talk about Obamas economic policies and how they are doing these days.
Sure, Iceland... go ahead.
Yeah, because the US is so much like Iceland. Sure, start there.
hahahahahahahahahahahaha
Juris, I asked for you guys to provide me with examples of how conservative economic theory works. Generally, it sucks. Iceland is a great example as we saw what pure deregulation can do to a country. No doubt our country is different from theirs but it's still an excellent case study which proves how disastrous free market reforms can be. Look no further than the banks in Iceland and their aggressive expansion once they were deregulated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Icelandic_financial_crisis#Causes
Scroll down to examine the fallout. See, this is what happens when you allow this insane mentality (largely originating from greed) to flourish. People's lives are ruined. These same criminals-and that's exactly what they fucking are-have made people believe that they are really just trying to adhere to Adam Smith's model of markets. What a load of shit.
So, I'm ready to hear about how it's all the government's fault. Or more personal insults. Or both. I won't be holding my breath for marcro examples of how deregulation works even though that's what I asked for and do not see.
RLD, again, not sure what blog you are reading but I talk about President Obama's policies all the time. He's doing the best he can given the gigantic load of shit he was left with when, once again, we erroneously believed in extreme deregulation. Besides, weren't you guys just telling me that the president doesn't have an effect on the economy? Make up your mind.
Oops. Forgot. Specific examples of wrongdoing in Iceland.
-Almost half of all the loans made by Icelandic banks were to holdings companies, many of which are connected to those same Icelandic banks.
-Money was allegedly lent by the banks to their employees and associates so they could buy shares in those same banks while simply using those same shares as collateral for the loans. Borrowers were then allowed to defer paying interest on the loan until the end of the period, when the whole amount plus interest accrued was due. These same loans were then allegedly written off days before the banks collapsed.
-Kaupthing allowed a Qatari investor to purchase 5% of its shares. It was later revealled that the Qatari investor “bought” the stake using a loan from Kaupthing itself and a holding company associated with one of its employees (i.e. the bank was, in effect, buying its own shares).
Smells an awful lot like what happened here.
From what I understand, Iceland was always much more of a European social democracy than the U.S. and Ireland managed a real estate bubble to rival our own. You might want to look into what New Zealand has done the last few years - liberalizing (deregulating) their economy without inflating real estate.
Since you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the real estate bubble is what drove the financial problems (and not vice versa) any discussion with you is pointless - you've got a "narrative" (or more accurately a morality tale) and nothing is going to shake that from you.
Maybe some day Manzi will write about this and you can have another [temporary] epiphany.
In the meantime, I will point out that "conservative economic policy" of deregulation was initiated under Carter (with a Dem controlled Congress) and the financial dereg that stresses you so was signed off by Clinton. So much for tying the policy to the general political stance of the President.
And you do stumble across one cogent observation...
...have made people believe that they are really just trying to adhere to Adam Smith's model of markets.
There is indeed a world of difference between pretending you are in the world of Smith's markets and actually being in them. No doubt, many players and analysts sing the praises of markets while scheming to avoid the disciplines inherent in them. I would suggest to you that if you learned to stop listening to the sweet words said and judge instead the deeds you might discern such differences. Then you might even see that the "free" market in question was not really free at all. But I'm sure that is probably asking too much of you.
But juris, the "deeds" were done as result of a failure of regulation and I am certainly judging them. I'm well aware that it started under Carter and continues even with Obama. At least our current president has made a small effort to put the failsafes back into the system that FDR had in place.
The thing about Smith and his relevance today is that when he wrote Wealth the word "economics" was barely in use. Fundamentally, his ideas are sound but, like the Bible and the Constitution, are certainly trapped by their own history. I don't think he could have possibly foreseen the unregulated derivative. Or the notion that, not only the homeowner, but scores of other people can buy insurance on a house and play casino with it. Had he known this, would he have altered his theory?
the "deeds" were done as result of a failure of regulation
We've discussed this example before - CA utility deregulation. Which it wasn't really; what it did was create a crippled market. And then everyone with your political bent screamed about how the market failed - well no shit Sherlock, it was designed to fail by geniuses just like you. As long as you insist that the superior liberal intellect can arrive at a better result, you will always get things with failure built right in. You think you can design a system where no one can fail, not realizing that failing is a key signal about behavior and irreplaceable facet of the market. True, you might eliminate failure for one participant - but only by transferring it to all.
I don't think he could have possibly foreseen the unregulated derivative.
Wrong, he did. He would've said, take your losses and don't look for a bailout. That is precisely the discipline of the market (and yes, people will avoid that if they can) - foolish risks and other bad decisions cost people money. The point is don't make it everyone's - but only the money of the fool(s) who gambled. You did not lose money on CDSs, nor did your granny - you lost money (a paper loss only I imagine) due to the general market and the govt specific response.
Or the notion that, not only the homeowner, but scores of other people can buy insurance on a house and play casino with it.
I can't even begin to fathom what you are saying here - there wasn't anything like that. What are you talking about?
Iceland has finally emerged from deep recession after allowing its currency to plunge and washing its hands of private bank debt, prompting an intense debate over whether Ireland might suffer less damage if adopted the same strategy.
Iceland's budget deficit will be 6.3pc this year, and soon in surplus: Ireland's will be 12pc (32pc with bank bail-outs) and not much better next year.
The pain has been distributed very differently. Irish unemployment has reached 14.1pc, and is still rising. Iceland's peaked at 9.7pc and has since fallen to 7.3pc.
Iceland's president, Olafur Grimsson, irritated EU officials last month when he said his country was recovering faster because it had refused to bail out creditors – mostly foreigners.
"The difference is that in Iceland we allowed the banks to fail. These were private banks and we didn't pump money into them in order to keep them going; the state should not shoulder the responsibility," he said.
------------
Now, rather than quibble about the economic leadership of POTUS, let me just say I blame Bush II and Obama for the bank bail outs.
As long as you insist that the superior liberal intellect can arrive at a better result
Oh, I don't think I have a superior intellect. It doesn't take a genius to see what works and what doesn't.
due to the general market and the govt specific response.
Juris, what does someone have to do to commit fraud in your eyes? If you are saying that the government gave no response and that was the problem, then I am with you. Otherwise, we're back to free market worship and carrying water for the financial sector again.
there wasn't anything like that. What are you talking about?
Yes, there was. That's what deregulation did and how much of this mess happened. Satyijat Das detailed this in "Inside Job" and his book "Traders, Guns, and Money."
"Oh, I don't think I have a superior intellect."
Then why in the Hell should I listen to your ideas? Why should I let you decide what I have to do?
If you admit to your stupidity, are you just that much more well informed, or is just your incredible self-reflection that makes you think you have such great ideas?
It sucks that your vote cancels mine out. But that's the system, I guess.
Who says that I'm deciding what you do? Good grief, the paranoia that people have about anyone left of the 25 yard line on the right side of the field...
So, my choice is either superior intellect or stupidity? How about a choose neither?
Juris, what does someone have to do to commit fraud in your eyes?
Who defrauded you of money in what transaction?
That's what deregulation did and how much of this mess happened.
Well if that is what "Inside Job" said, then it is a fraud. Again, given that you can't wrap your brain around the real estate bubble being the fundamental issue, there isn't much point.
Good grief, the paranoia that people have about anyone left of the 25 yard line on the right side of the field...
Fucking wake up. The left and the right both have big time proponents of "telling you what to do". You constantly lie about the left doing this while howling about the right. That junior is projection and hypocrisy.
Marxy,
Every dollar that I earn, when I don't get to decide where to spend it, is "telling me what to do". If Jerry Falwell or Jeremiah Wright forcibly took my 10% tithe, I assume you would consider that contrary to liberty and rule of law.
The policies you espouse so consistantly require a larger and larger government to provide the equality of outcome you desire. So when your vote (+1 other who thinks the same way) takes my earnings, and gives it away to someone who didn't earn it, you (via government force) are making me do something I don't want to do.
Now would be a good time for you to drag out the wanna-be anarchist canard that you can't seem to shake.
Various excuses that you like to use to justify looting my wealth, like 'The rich can spare it', or 'They need to pay their fair share' may make you feel like you are conforming to a higher calling, but essentially your version of government is theft writ large.
Since we have already shown that the top 1% of earners pay 39% of the cost of government, I find it difficult to imagine how much more progressive you'd like to get.
Although it is an interesting mental exercise to envision the top 1% moving to Belize en masse and the hilarity that would ensue.
gives it away to someone who didn't earn it
Yeah, that's right wing propaganda. And it's quite childish when you consider that the money you spend in the private sector also goes to people who don't earn it. Think about it for a minute.
we have already shown that the top 1% of earners pay 39% of the cost of government
No, you haven't. What was shown was the part of the story that fits your propaganda. You have to take into account ALL of the data regarding the wealthy and they are doing extremely well these days. So well, that I don't think they will be moving to Belize anytime soon. Just as an aside, why would they want to move to a place that is under the control of Queen Elizabeth? A constitutional monarchy? I thought Tea Party types were against that sort of thing. And an ongoing border dispute with Guatemala? Yeah, I don't think our one percent will take to that too kindly.
In addition, I think you fail to accurately characterize "the wealthy." It's quite a fantasy that you have about them, I'd imagine, but we're starting to see signs that the wealthy in this country are willing to be a lot more generous both publicly and privately. What's interesting about your comment here is how illustrative it is of the Steinbeck quote I put up the other day. Just a temporarily embarrassed millionaire, eh?
Until you are willing to take the anti-socialist pledge that I put up a while back, I suggest that you stop beating the "fruits of my labor drum" because it's really a load of hypocritical shit.
And it's quite childish when you consider that the money you spend in the private sector also goes to people who don't earn it.
And again you are unable to distinguish between voluntarily giving and forcefully taking....
It's quite a fantasy that you have about them, I'd imagine
Projection, torments my heart
Projection, keeps us apart
Projection why torture me
[with apologies to Terry Stafford]
Wait, if I voluntarily purchase something with my money, the seller doesn't deserve my money? What? I'm assuming you didn't write that as clearly as you imagined it.
Mark, the top 1% pays for 39% of the government. If you want to dispute that number, go for it right now or just accept it.
Yeah... Belize strawman... whatever... pretend I said Outer Mongolia, and refuse to consider it.
I "fail to accurately characterize the wealthy"?
What in the Hell does that even mean? You don't argue against anything specific I've said, nor give your 'accurate' characterization, so I'm forced to ignore your whole statement as meaningless tripe.
Oh yeah, a Socialist pledge. Only an Anarchist could possible want limited government. At least you don't disappoint with your consistant willing ignorance.
Marty, it may be impossible to have a discussion with you about this because you are so rooted in right wing idealism. But, I guess we will try anyway...
Right now, gas prices are ridiculous, right? Do you honestly think that ALL Americans have a choice regarding buying gas? Or commercial industry? Trucking companies, for example, can't choose to bike their goods to their destination. And they certainly can ship them as well by rail because of the anti choo choo BS on the right. Who do you think is reaping the benefits right now for high gas prices? My point is that you may like to tell yourself little stories that you have a choice when it comes to the buying the things that you do but you really don't. This is where the veil of private sector worship comes fully into play.
Regarding the "share" rag, that number means nothing when you look at it in a vacuum as you are. in fact, it's completely dishonest when you consider that the top one percent are making more money than they ever have and paying less taxes thanks to a lower rate and the cap gains deal.
I gave you specific facts about Belize and you call it a strawman? And say I don't point out specifics? I guess I'm wondering why you are thinking that the wealthy in this country will leave. It makes no sense whatsoever and sounds like more of the same Randian fantasies. Ah well...
And they certainly can ship them as well by rail because of the anti choo choo BS on the right.
What the hell are you talking about Mark? They most certainly can and do ship by rail. The 'anti choo choo' stuff you spout has nothing - let me repeat - not a thing to do with shipping freight. Unless you are under the impression that the MagLev is a freight train.
Actually Marxy, it is impossible to have a discussion with you because you are intellectually dishonest and willfully ignorant.
Perhaps you should elaborate exactly what you are referring to as right wing idealism.
Idealism that I am not a slave to a commerercial on TV like you are, and you imagine all people to be?
Idealism when I believe the vast majority (99.9%) of the population is capable of taking care of themselves?
Idealism when I decry the enormous national debt that my grandchildren will never be able to pay off?
The top 1% earn ~17% of the income and pay for 39% of the government. Those are the facts. As facts, they can exist in a vacuum assuredly, but perhaps you will elaborate on what other facts you want to fill that void with.
And yes, your willful ignorance regarding a Belize-ian strawman. Let's say they all move to Mars. Now toss out some wikipedia facts regarding why they wouldn't want to move to Mars and consider yourself 'reflective'.
Well, anon, John Waxey (an all too rare poster here and my best friend of 32 years) owns a railroad parts company in addition to being an archeologist and teacher. I'll see if I can get him to put up a post about how and why the GOP hates trains in more detail. But for now, yes they do hate them because they are oil company shills. They want people driving their cars and businesses shipping by trucks which both use gasoline.
Elaborate on right wing idealism? Look no further than the comments on this blog. In fact, this comment is a perfect one
Idealism when I believe the vast majority (99.9%) of the population is capable of taking care of themselves?
I think you might want to think that one through a little more. Does the 0.1 percent include injured (physically or mentally) veterans? How about people with disabilities? Or the old and infirm? These are a pretty substantial part of our population and this is just off the top of my head.
And what does "taking care of yourself" mean exactly? Are we all to supply our own water now? Internet services? No more libraries? Is it up to me to tell the manufacturing plant to stop dumping waste in the pond by my house?
Did I also miss the debt we paid down when we ran 125 percent of GDP after WWII? Or the 14 trillion dollar economy we currently have? Or the 65 trillion dollars of wealth we have in this nation? The only thing that worries me about my not yet in existence grandchildren is continued belief that classically liberal economic theory is fault free...even after we have seen repeated evidence in the last 30 years that, when embraced so fully, it is disastrous.
Marty, it may be impossible to have a discussion with you about this because you are so rooted in right wing idealism.
When you say that M, I have such an urge to kick you square in the ass.
I'll see if I can get him to put up a post about how and why the GOP hates trains in more detail.
Somehow I doubt we will ever hear about how the GOP hates freight rail service. I trust Mr. Waxey has enough functioning braincells to demur on that.
Look no further than the comments on this blog.
You utter piece of shit. You refuse to read and comprehend the arguments put forth by many here (and well beyond on my own contributions) and then you dare say THAT? You miserable fucking cowardly idiot. I only wish that you lived someplace where you could get the govt you so richly fucking deserve and I didn't have to suffer for it as well.
OK, now you are being more than ridiculous. Juris, you are officially and totally irrational. I suggest a nap or a massage to calm you down. I hope you realize that this comment is an excellent example of the paranoia that Mark talks about all the time. In fact, I think his problem is not that doesn't read and comprehend your arguments. He reads them too much and is borderline obsessive with them.
Sure Santa, sure. I can trust someone identifying as Santa to tell me all about rationality.
Anger should not be confused with mental illness. Perhaps you have trouble distinguishing such things? Too bad, that could cause you some problems one day.
Post a Comment