About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Wednesday, July 2, 2014 - 2:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The tea-party is a political party like any other party trying to find it's corner of power. Some of it may seem advantageous to you, even liberal, let's go so far to call it objectivist - but in the final analysis it is still a political party using whatever means it can to garner more followers and more power. We have a very similar party here in Germany called 'Die Grünen' (The Greens): started as an 'alternative party' with lots of highminded ideals about environment and society and garnering followers through outrage at the established parties for trampling those highminded ideals and now, 30 years later, they are the same as every other established party, trampling the same highminded ideals.

What struck me as even more true is the way governments get to that power: punish those who try to live as best as they can on their own abilities and resources and give incentives to those favoring hand-outs by large organisations and political parties (the tax-break on insurance being just one of many examples). And of course conveniently forget to tell them who is actually paying for those incentives: you the tax-payer.

As long as we have the masses rule, individuals will always have to pay double just to be able to live on their own means. The irony being that it would be cheaper to do so if everybody else also lived according to their abilities and resources. That's how you create even larger masses that are even easier controlled by big business (the controlling kind - no slur on capitalism intended) and by government.

Tea-party my great saviour from forced insurance? I certainly don't think so. A party with sound basic values? Most definitely not. Personally I think that is a contradiction in terms or at least in goals: a party is founded to gain political power, not to spread sound basic values.



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Wednesday, July 2, 2014 - 6:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

An earlier poll found that Tea Party people support Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.  The reason why may be that they tend to be old, and either receive or look forward to the payments.

PROGRAMS LIKE SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE WORTH IT? 

(among Tea Party supporters) 

Household receives Medicare or Soc. - Yes: 72%

All Tea Party - Yes: 62%

Just under half of Tea Partiers say someone in their household receives 

(THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT: WHO THEY ARE, April 5-12, 2010.   CBS NEWS/NEW YORK TIMES POLL (For release: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 

6:30 PM EDT). )

 

The Tea Partiers themselves likely would say that they are not at all like the Greens, whom they perceive as their political enemies, even more than the Democrats.  However, as you point out the overall growth and development of the Green Party can be a model for the Tea Party.  Moreover, as in the case of government-paid pensions and health insurance, some specific agenda items cross traditional party lines.  They both distrust central bankers; they both denounce the global capitalist ruling class.  They both oppose US military intervention in the Middle East, Persian Gulf, and southwest Asia.

VSD: "What struck me as even more true is the way governments get to that power: punish those who try to live as best as they can on their own abilities and resources and give incentives to those favoring hand-outs by large organisations and political parties (the tax-break on insurance being just one of many examples). And of course conveniently forget to tell them who is actually paying for those incentives: you the tax-payer."

 

Right. Actually, no business pays taxes, but always passes the burden on their customers.  It is the ultimate consumer who pays all the taxes.  

 VSD: I think that is a contradiction in terms or at least in goals: a party is founded to gain political power, not to spread sound basic values.

 

That is why the Libertarian Party will not win major elections soon.  They do have warmed-over Republicans for presidential candidates, but at the state and local levels, the LP stalwarts keep trying to convince and convert others to their views.  That educational effort can be helpful over time.  People need to hear libertarian ideas as part of the common political dialog.

 

A theoretician from back home, Joe Overton of the Mackinac Institute (final c is silent: "mackinaw"), now deceased, posited a "window" within which political proposals can be discussed as reasonable.  We argue more taxes versus fewer or less taxes; but we have no discussion on taxes, per se.  Now we do.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window



Post 2

Wednesday, July 2, 2014 - 9:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

We argue more taxes versus fewer or less taxes; but we have no discussion on taxes, per se.  Now we do. 

do we? certainly none I've heard of, except my laughed-at notions of abolishing all taxes and social security ... I'd say Overton places it somewhere between 'unthinkable' and 'outer fringe' ... sad enough as that is ...



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Wednesday, July 2, 2014 - 12:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Michael:

 

A TPer who advocated SS as a defined contribution plan would be scored as 'for SS' in such a poll, wouldn't they?

 

And yet, for sure, not the same TPer who advocated SS in its present defined benefit form.

 

Defined contribution SS would never go broke, would never have been a burden on Treasury.   Not that transition to would not also be a burden; just that transition to would be less of a burden on Treasury than maintianing it in its present politically arrived at benefits structure.    SS will be a burden precisely because of the way it was grossly mismanaged; there is no unringing that bell, it is a wreck long on rails.

 

It would also be a reduction in SS benefits, given the political nature of arriving at the current benefits structure.

 

So given all that, and my advocacy of transition to defined contribution, would I be scored as 'for SS' in that poll?

 

SS could have been intelligently managed.   It wasn't.   It was raided by idiots during a long standing period of demographic subsidy, which hid the raiding until it was too late to do anything positive about it.   That raiding not only accelerated spending and debt through hidden borrowing, it left a subsidy hole in the present budget.   The subsidy is long gone, the budget hole remains, demanding to be filled.  And that is before honoring the debt.   

 

That isn't a double whammy, it is actual a quadruple whammy, as follows:   the Boomers were surcharge taxed an additional 10% of earnings for their entire working lives.  That was long ago taxed and spent, reducing their ability to self-plan for their own retirement needs by exactly that extra 10%.  That is whammy 3.   Has been hidden until now.

 

Whammy #4: the Boomer kids, one way or the other,  be it via currency destruction as the gov't implements the Moynihan Solution("we can always just print the money and give them worthless dollars") or actual direct taxation, will be taxed a -second- time to fund the -same- asset that their Boomer parents were surcharge taxed the -first- time to 'create.'   

 

And, this is before paying for their current generational needs, and planning for their own retirement needs.

 

What felt oh so good during all the downhill spending because of the compounding of all those effects is going to feel oh so bad during the Pay the Piper part of the festivities.   It is truly difficult to grasp the magnitude of government's mismanagement of this program, but that future is here.   Clark put it in writing in 1979, its not like this was a big secret.   Just a fringe fact, now coming home to roost. 

 

Moynihan on the floor of the Senate way back when, on the topic of SS, referring to 'today.'  :  "God help us when they realize what we did to them."

 

They is us; when is now, and we is here.

 

Do 'we' realize what 'they' did to 'us' and do we understand who 'we' 'they' and 'us' all are?

 

regards,

Fred



Post 4

Wednesday, July 2, 2014 - 3:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Vera,

 

The Tea Party is acually not a political party.  The name came from a historical event: the Boston Tea Party and that is not a political party such as the Libertarian, Republican, or Democrat parties.  The Tea Party has no party organization or structure.  It isn't on a single ballot - local, state or national. Candidates for office who share the beliefs common to the Tea Party and self-identify as a Tea Party person, still have to run as a Democrat, a Republican, a Libertarian, or an Independent. It is more of a label, like Neo-con or Progressive.

 

There are some organizations who have popped up and claim to be speaking for the "Tea Party" people. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't and they are really little more than fund collecting entities and would-be organizers.  The fact that the Tea Party has a kind of organizational glass ceiling in structure that is both a source of strength and a weakness.  It means they retain much of their grass roots integrity - uncorrupted by an established structure with its own agenda, but at the same time they never evolve much in the way of established power or some kind of structure to effectively further their views.

 

The Tea Party people are people who share similar political beliefs and having been labeled, and had a degreee of organizing done around the label, are slightly more unified... well, unified it a bit of an exaggeration, let's say a degree of a shared identity - as individuals they are somewhat empowered by the recognition that there are lots of them.  (This is psychologically important because the liberal media would like to give the impression that the whole country, apart from a few cranks and nutjobs, have seen the light and become progressives.)

 

The mass media, being leftist, have worked hard to demean the Tea Party movement (and "movement" is a better category than the category of "political party").  

 

As to Marotta's point about most Tea Party people 'supporting' Social Security and Medicare, it is because most of them see it as getting back what they paid in. He likes to look at them as voting greed without principle. Not true - take a look at the number of Tea Party people that qualify for means tested welfare (what someone has not paid into) but don't apply for it, and don't vote for it. That tells us that their ideology is driving them.  The average Tea Party person believes that government should be much smaller, not focused on redistribution of wealth, be constitutionally restrained, and operate with a balanced budget.  They tend to love their country, and grew up, mostly as optimistic about the future, and they liked the idea that their children would most likely have a better life than they did.  They believe in being productive and working for what they get.  They don't necessarily agree on much else.  Those are the core common beliefs.

 

Marotta said, "They both distrust central bankers; they both denounce the global capitalist ruling class. They both oppose US military intervention in the Middle East, Persian Gulf, and southwest Asia." Actually most of the Tea Party people's distrust of central bankers comes from their opposition to crony capitalism and not to an opposition to capitalism or to banking or to large corporations as such. And "global capitalist ruling class"? Has Marotta gone totally far-left? That kind of rhetoric could have been lifted from Pravda before the collapse of the USSR.

 

Some Tea Party people believe that it is an act of patriotism to support those wars that they see as fighting tyranny.  Others believe our leaders have led us into wars that America should not have been in.  They aren't all on the same page at all regarding military intervention in the Middle East or Asia.  



Post 5

Thursday, July 3, 2014 - 4:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Thanx for the explanations Steve,

 

just two thoughts:

 

if they aren't even 'a party', then I find it even more ridiculous, that 'The Tea-Party' has held America ransom for two debt-ceilings already (which isn't a bad thing, no complaint there, but surprise that they have that much influence) - I understand, that it's individuals in established parties, but that's not what's reported in the news (not that I'd trust any of them) - in the public eye they are treated not only as a movement, but also as 'a party' (which is probably why they chose that misnomer) with actual political power (again via their real individual political affiliations)

 

the greens started much the same way: some idealists banding together, vying for political favors with established parties, then founding their own political party (which got split twice along the way because of the grassroots idealists defecting from the political realists) and they have become what they are now: another established party

The average Tea Party person believes that government should be much smaller, not focused on redistribution of wealth, be constitutionally restrained, and operate with a balanced budget.  They tend to love their country, and grew up, mostly as optimistic about the future, and they liked the idea that their children would most likely have a better life than they did.  They believe in being productive and working for what they get.

if they manage to transform that belief into some kind of social/political reality best of luck to them - and hopefully they can avoid the pitfalls every other party seems to have walked into as if it were some law of politics that 'it has to be so'

 

would you see them as a precursor to your minarchist government?



Post 6

Thursday, July 3, 2014 - 8:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Steve is correct: "There are some organizations who have popped up and claim to be speaking for the "Tea Party" people. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't and they are really little more than fund collecting entities...  "  We had this here in Texas where the incumbant Lt. Governor David Dewhurst had the support of another "Tea Party" different from the Tea Party fake-tea-party-mailer-front.  The mailer he sent out included other actual Tea Party candidates.  See also http://www.teapartyexpress.org/4920/open-letter-to-david-dewhurst

 

Here is the "Clear Lake Tea Party" endorsement of Lt. Gov. Dewhurst.

http://www.daviddewhurst.com/news/press-releases/lt-gov-dewhurst-announces-clear-lake-tea-party-endorsement

 

In a fundamental paradox, although Ron Paul is widely credited as the engine behind the launch of the Tea Party, if you look at that poll, you will see that most Tea Party affliliates have no idea who he is or have no opinion of his support for their issues.  Back in 2010, I worked the Libertarian Party tent at the Ann Arbor Art Fair, a huge event, now over 50 years. old.  The LP got a double-wide space which they shared with a Ron Paul campaign to "audit the Fed" i.e., the Federal Reserve Banks.  The LP did well enough, but the Ron Paul folks were a hit.  Lots of people signed their petitions because Ann Arbor lefties feel the same way.  While this was going on, one of the younger Ron Paul people declared that Federal Reserve Notes are Unconstitutional - and that only Congress has the right to create money. That kind of traditionalist anti-capitalism is common across the right wing from organizations such as Spotlight, Birchers, and others who have a nationalist orientation.  

 

And that speaks to Vera's point about political parties being coalitions.  Whether or not the Tea Party is a party is moot. They act like one, in the same tradition as the Grangers, Free Soilers, and even Vegitarians, all of whom engaged the political process in America.

 

As for the subject at hand...  

 

Everyone has some to many "pre-existing conditions." The only question that the actuaries care about is whether you will pay enough in premiums to make the policy profitable.  It is not personal.  

 

I also appreciate Joseph's identifying the tax code as the true source of the problem.  We have had a related discussion here also on the explosion in "consultants" who work for years at the same desk on a client site and are never "employees" of the client.  It is what I do for a living - though weeks, not years at those desks.  I often hear that "contractors are cheaper than employees because you don't have to pay their benefits."  That is total nonsense.  You pay for all that plus the profit margin of the agency.  It is where in your books the contractors are entered.  Again, the culprit is the tax code.

 

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 7/03, 8:03am)



Post 7

Thursday, July 3, 2014 - 8:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

VSD booted a fly in the outfield:  "... but also as 'a party' (which is probably why they chose that misnomer) ..."

 

Vera pretty much knows her American English and American culture.  A few days back, when she refered to "here in Germany" I read her bio page.  I just thought that she is an American.  But here we found a Shibboleth.

 

And Steve did point out to her that "the name came from a historical event: the Boston Tea Party..."  It was an iconic event in American history, right there with the Alamo, and Edison's lightbulb.



Post 8

Thursday, July 3, 2014 - 9:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Thanx for the compliment Michael,

however I don't mind having obvious points explained properly - often enough they are right, as Steve was right to point out that the tea-party is not a political party - wouldn't have suspected that (and am not interested enough in politics to dig too deep), so I learned sth that is probably very obvious to native Americans (if there is such a thing ;)

 

as for the freelance consultants:

I don't think the tax code covers that completely - at least not in Europe where I'm working primarily (only one project in the states so far) - in Europe the biggest cut is social security: employers have to pay 50% of health, unemployment and pension insurance in Germany which totals up to 25% of an employees wage - plus the other 25% that the employee has to pay ... plus the rigid hiring (and firing) laws: my brother just 'got laid off' (with his consent), but to get that consent they had to pay him 6 months wages up front plus keeping him fully ensured for those six months, and he could leave immediately - talk about a paid holiday ;)

compared to that I found the firing process in America almost harsh: during the four month I was there one employee was fired ... no notice up front - he was called into the office by his boss and left it with a security guard who took him to his desk to remove what little personal items he had stored there and escorted him out the building ... at first I thought he had done sth criminal (the whole office was quiet as a tomb, which added to that effect), until a colleague explained to me that he just got fired ... sheesh: talk about trust and loyalty - are they at war with the world again? what could that employee have taken with him that would validate such treatment?

even as a freelancer who can legally get fired each and every day (happened twice due to project cancellation), no customer ever escorted me off the premises with armed guards ...



Post 9

Thursday, July 3, 2014 - 4:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Vera,

"...if they aren't even 'a party', then I find it even more ridiculous, that 'The Tea-Party' has held America ransom for two debt-ceilings already"

The function of a party is to collect the most important views for sizable portions of the voting populace. They have to be a kind of coalition for a representative type of government as opposed to direct democatic form of government.

 

And the reason becomes clearer if you look at what would happen without a party. Candidates would not have a central theme but rather just a mish mash of what is most important to them (to the degree they are ideological) or they spout adopted talking points they believe will induce the most votes (if they abandon principles of their own to become 100% poll responders). Both of those approaches by indiviual politicians, or the giant political stew of a full spectrum of mixtures of the two approaches, would create a field that could never evolve purposely towards or away from political ends. That would result in a large political engine that would fall prey to parasites, cronys, power grabbers, and corruption. (True, that's what we see today - but without parties it would happen faster and it would not offer a mechanism for correction.)  A party is a lense through which voters can better focus their soviergnty.

 

It is the central theme that is defined by the logical or historical compatibiliity of the main principles from which a party is defined that generates a degree of life (from the base who are passionate about that theme). The GOP has a long history of mixing conservative principles, religious principles, and a "me-too" approach and that engenders far less excitement per capita. When the Democrats became progressives, they became better integrated around central themes that played well (granted, it's easier to do when you are willing to make dishonesty a key characteristic regarding theyour actual ends.)

 

The Tea Party has a much more tightly organized set of principles that speak to a large portion of the populace. AND it has no serpents head to cut off.  That's important.  This makes it a threat to both parties. That is part of the answer to why the GOP can't find a way to deal with it. To the Democrats, because is is a passionate set of principles that oppose progressive goals, they have no way to suck it in with identity politics, so they have to demonize it.  Obama's administration has played almost every single issue, not to win on a position or to achieve a concrete goal, but to demonize any opposition, and THEN, when opposition is inadequate, do what they want.  And the Tea Party is a threat to the GOP because it's passion and focus aim at power over the GOP from the grassroots - which is why the establishment tries to do end runs - like co-op the primary elections, and control campaign money. They need them as voters, they want their passion as a base in the general elections, but don't want to give them any power, and that puts the GOP in an ackward position.  I can't imagine it lasting like this.  Either the GOP moves to the right so that they become Tea Party in their establishment, or they go with the Democrats and demonize the Tea Party, which will result in the end of the GOP as an effective party.  Either way, the progressives may have already sewed up the next few decades... maybe not, people can learn and they do have choices, and future events can change perspectives radically.

 

The Libertarian party doesn't really factor into this equation for two closely related reasons: 1) It is more of an ideological movement that is acting like a political party. This added function (being a party) to what would otherwise only be an intellectual movement gives educational advantages, media exposure, and more of a sense of realness - people can see that maybe some of these ideas could work in the real world. In this sense it is really more of an incubator and exposer of new political concepts then a functional political party (at this point in history). 2.) Because libertarians focus on idealistic end states, and while doing so, are not always focused on what can be achieved in a short time frame... i.e., because they ignore, on purpose, the time-requirements of the Overton window, they are self-marginalized to a degree in practical politics. I don't think this is bad, just the nature of politics. It is good that we have this experimental Libertarian party, to come up with ideas, to help shift the Overton window, and to grow till such a time that it simply replaces the GOP (which can't happen till the GOP is almost, but not quite libertarian on its own.)

 

The Tea Party is like common folks (i.e., not intellectuals or devotees of political science issues), who happen to be Overton window sensitive (by accident), and happen to be focused on taking the next step in the direction of libertarian goals, but they don't give a damn about the specific end states - not now. For now, they just want to move in the right direction on those things that make them Tea Party people (smaller government, less taxes, fewer regulations, balanced budget, and move towards living within the constitution.) That's very different from the libertarians who are arguing, for example, about the specific details of financing the ultimate minarchy. The Tea Party doesn't want to argue about the end states, or theoretical nuances, just about the direction and getting a good bite out of going that way.

 

The Tea Party movement is just one of the political forces that are opposing the otherwise unfettered march of progressives to completing their transformaton into socialism. The real opponent of socialism is Objectivism's strong ethical stand for individualism and the attendent Capitalistic system - which requires a constitutional government limited by explicit statements of individual rights that form the basis for all laws. I.e., minarchy.

 

The war won't be won by political forces that are battling. It has to be won at a cultural level where some critical mass is achieved of individuals intellectually aware of individual rights (of Objectivist views). That means generations of educational reform. So, the Tea Party - in tactical terms - are trying to hold some of the key bridges till the main forces arrive.
-------------

 

Marotta says, "...only Congress has the right to create money. That kind of traditionalist anti-capitalism is common across the right wing from organizations such as Spotlight, Birchers, and others who have a nationalist orientation."  But there is nothing anti-capitalism about suggesting a move from a quasi-independent, but monopolistic agency printing money, to the more constitutional approach of having it in the hands of congress who, in theory and to a degree, are more in the hands of the voters.  I like seeing a progression of steps from auditing the fed, leading to reducing the power of the fed, then getting to elimnating the fed, and to rules against fiat currency (gold standard?), and to legalizing private currencies, and finally to ending all government participation in money creation.  And the steps are just to satisfy the psychological requirements of a kind of gradualism that is revealed in watching that Overton Window.  If the media were supportive, and the events seemed to suggest it, then skipping a bunch of step would be great.



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Friday, July 4, 2014 - 1:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Steve,

The function of a party is to collect the most important views for sizable portions of the voting populace.

that may be the function of a party, but not the way a party functions ;)

instead of subsuming the majority of the voters, they push their own agenda onto that majority ... with fewer alternatives to vote for (Reps and Dems have become virtually the same) they simply accept it - or start another tea-party ... which is the counter-argument that can be made to your 'mish mash' of political goals: the lack of variety - of course valid variety, not the various 'but I wanna' weaners ...

a 'purposeful evolution' would best be served by an elitist government, not a democratic one (see also below)

because it's passion and focus aim at power over the GOP from the grassroots

I apologize beforehand for nitpicking, but isn't that how democracy should work: from the grassroots? otherwise it would be elitism which can be an Athenian democracy (misnamed in my opinion) or a dictatorship depending on the elite getting to power ... an example of true democracy would be Switzerland - not that I'm much in favor of their system - it only works because they have a small populace and a historically high standard of political involvement in their Kanton ... plus low immigration rates which they restricted again for work-migrants

Because libertarians focus on idealistic end states, and while doing so, are not always focused on what can be achieved in a short time frame

one of my pet peeves, too - to get to a functional form of government you have to clean out the mess of your predecessors first - and not only the political mess of 100 years, but the intellectual and moral mess of 1.000 years ... you'd need two branches in such a party: one to clean up and deal with current problems and one that holds true to the final end state ... guess which branch I'd grow on ;)

taking the next step in the direction of libertarian goals, but they don't give a damn about the specific end states - not now

then I correct my impression that they are more like the new AfD (Alternative für Deutschland - alternative for Germany) who also have no plan for a future state, but (rightly so) oppose the overbearing European legislation and regulation, and want out of the European Union (some) or at least out of the Euro as common currency

The war won't be won by political forces that are battling. It has to be won at a cultural level

fully agreed :)

that's the reason I only see political parties as a (mediocre) tool to reach that goal - and why I have so little hope that it is actually reachable with 7,2 billion mutant monkeys (and rising by the second) ... governments are at best a tool to stem the tide of rampant 'I wanna' and at worst (which it is more often) the tool to facilitate just that

That means generations of educational reform. So, the Tea Party - in tactical terms - are trying to hold some of the key bridges till the main forces arrive.

love the analogy :D let's see where this battle leads ... they won the first after the infamous tea party but regressed again from there - probably because the intellectual forces withdrew and only the populace main forces arrived?

to rules against fiat currency (gold standard?)

or to link it directly to production and destruction/consumption of production? closer to capitalism ;)

that's one of the reasons I have a 20 American Dollars gold coin from 1876 with me all the time - to remind me that I don't get paid in bits-and-bytes for my work but that I can trade those for actual value (decreasing value, but still value) - that coin was not only real currency, but actual value at the time it was in circulation



Post 11

Friday, July 4, 2014 - 7:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Vera:

 

There was certainly sexism in Athenian Democracy, and that could be fixed(like the Israeli model of the Ephebes)but where was the elitism?

 

Voting eligible Citizenry by way of Ephebes/military service.   Continued eligibility dependent on not being judged an idiot.   Idiocy included, debt to the state.

 

Those who fight and bleed and die in the wars -should- be the only citizens eligible to vote themselves into harms way.   There would be no such cancer as Ike's MIC if we had that system of democracy. 

 

We have part of our tribe making billions on manipulating another part into costly expeditions that put those others into VA hospitals; not satisfied with taxing those in 'The Districts" beyond The Capitol, they have freshly found ways to simply print money by issueing bonds with zeros on them, never to be repaid.   The symbol of American Democracy these days are Ivy League weasels in three piece suits making deals in Georgetown Bistros that further their political careers, line their pockes, and send young men from rural Tennessee into the hurt locker.

 

That is what 'elitism' looks like in practice, and we are pasty chin deep in it.

 

regards,

Fred



Post 12

Friday, July 4, 2014 - 8:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Fred,

any system that bases it's participation on specific rare values is elitist in the sense that only those few having those values are allowed to participate, not the broad majority of the people. Be that the right gender (can be fixed these days ;) not to mention women being admitted to military service), or military service (what if I'm a genius in a wheelchair - there were some generals like that in those days), or idiocy - and how exactly did they define idiocy apart from debt to state - did some of them vote or verbally expose someone as an idiot? The latter would most certainly exclude some of your presidents ;)

Don't get me wrong: I think Athenian democracy was much better than the democracies we have today, but not because 'demos' ruled, but because a small elite defended participation in government. Letting every nincompoop vote on matters affecting an entire state is suicide!

If it were only military campaigns we're voting on I might agree with you - with the tiny exception, that those campaigns never remain limited to military engagements, which is why in many Indian tribes the women got to vote, too, as they provided food, care, a family where to grow the next great warrior. But again that would be a small elite voting, and voting with a vested interest. Or would you have any trigger happy yokel from rural out-of-the-woods vote on the next war, just because killing and destroying is all he's capable of?

Can we agree that elitist voting should be restricted to those impacted by that vote and capable of understanding it's consequences? That would easily take care of your Ivy League weasels in Georgetown, though I'd be hard pressed to find an objective measuring of 'understanding'.

As for sad old reality: yes we are pasty chin deep in such practices - just as we are sheep deep in the demos voting on topics they have absolutely no idea about. What's the solution? More demos or more sense (according to whom)? The latter making it elitist again since sense seems to be a dying attribute ...



Post 13

Friday, July 4, 2014 - 8:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Vera:

 

"...if they aren't even 'a party', then I find it even more ridiculous, that 'The Tea-Party' has held America ransom for two debt-ceilings already"

 

That is an odd characterization of folks against the mere printing of money.

 

Entities have finite credit and the ability to acumulate debt and carry debt service.   America's current capacity to carry debt service is totally dependent on record low interest rates.   When average interest rises from .25% to 1.25%, debt service increases by a factor of  x5, and so on.

 

Normally, bonds are paid back, and so, do not represent the mere printing of money(secretary at Treasury prints 12 zeros on a piece of paper, and voila; a trillion is spendable cash from thin air.)    So in theory (this was sometimes painted as their actual theory), we print the money in the recession, the economies 'grow' and circulate new value, and then, when the economies are growing, we claw back the funny money via taxation and repay the bonds.

 

But that is not what happened, and that is not what ever happens, ever since WWII.

 

Those bonds aren't even backed by a promise -- 'the full faith and credit of the US Treasury and its power to tax a future nation' -- to actually tax and payback the bonds.    Those bonds are backed only by a promise by Congress to raise the debt ceiling and payoff old bonds with new pieces of paper with even more zeros printed on them.

 

IOW, the process is exactly equivalent to simply running the printing presses.   And the -really- bad news is, what would make it not like running the presses would be for the US Treasury to enact now massive tax increased on the nation.     That sounds like it would be 'worse' than simply running the presses, but iltimately, one way or the other, both represent a massive tax on actual -value- on the nation that creates the value and fights and dies in the wars.     This ... flow of money from the printing presses benefits those close to the presses and bleeds those farther away from the presses by stealing actual value from them, when they accept payment in US dollars.

 

So reconsider, who is it that was holding America 'hostage for ransom' over two debt ceiling crises.

 

Our football playing English major (Paulson) and Asian Studies mavens (Geithner) and the rest of these Masters of the Economic Universe have led the nation into a debt trap; a cul de sac in which the only solution for them (as long as they want to cling to the present gig in DC) is the boundless printing of money by way of meaningless bonds.   They can't actually go out and find brand new willing debt holders because the SS Trust fund used to the the #1 willing debt holder, and to try and find actual debt holders would spike interest rates and overwhelm the federal budget with debt service.   And so, they do the only thing they can do in 2014, 2015, ... which is to endlessly print money and borrow it from itself, backed by nothing but zeros on paper.   This is -still- a tax on the value producing nation, just harder to see, if not feel.

 

The solution?   There is no solution other than to crash the pig and severely cut the size of the federal government spending.  An unwinding of all the funny money needs to occur one way or the other.   If we count on re-invigorated economies at this point to suddenly come alive, that unwinding will show up as massive inflation and continued displacement of value in the economies.   The latest free for some, a shedding of risk and pain from a connected some onto unconnected others.    We can default on our own bonds held by us(translated: stiff current and future SS benefits), but if this nation ever wants to borrow from other nations again, it must make good on the bonds held by China and others.   Or else, tear up the credit card, and fund all future government spending from current taxes only. Which, one way or the other, is going to be the ultimate terminus of all this insanity.     Cut the federal pig down to JFK era levels of spending.  (Which today, accounting for population and government caused inflation, would be about $1450B/yr, not the present near $4000B/yr).

 

That would require a now crushing adjustment of the federal government, which is why it is decades past ever going to be -deliberately- done by mere politicians who, in their calculus of pain now on present voters vs. greater pain in the future for merely hypothetical voters, don't hesitate for 20 milliseconds with that calculation.

 

So, circumstances will grind out a solution.

 

20 yrs ago, the required adjustment would have been far less.

 

5 yrs from now, it will be far worse.    The nature of modern American politics since WWII is to kick the can down the road and make it far worse on the next generation.

 

This isn't a crisis in America; broad America is flat on its back, crushed by what has been long going on in DC.  This is a current crisis in those trendy Georgetown Bistros, and that is where the panic is.  They are clinging to the gig until their fingers and the nation's butt bleeds.

 

But look, the sun is still shining.   Maybe they can keep this low interest rate thing going forever.   Maybe they can keep economies flat on their ass enough to subdue runaway inflation for another 4 years.   Maybe the balance of flyover nation in misery while DC and the coasts party is the new norm; we'll wake up flyover country when it is time to fight and die and bleed in the next war, and then we'll find a way to make them make the stuff they use to fight the wars and also die and bleed in them.   Order another round of Grey Goose at those Geoergetown Bistros while there is still plenty of not so maggoty carcass on the once beast.

 

regards,

Fred



Post 14

Friday, July 4, 2014 - 8:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Vera:

 

If it were only military campaigns we're voting on I might agree with you

 

 

If it were only military campaigns that a national layer of government concerned itself with, it would finally be right sized.

 

 

But I'd settle for JFK's America version of right sized; over half of JFK's $100B was for defense at the peak of the Cold War.     Historically, from the beginning of America until JFK's era, defense was the primary reason for being for the national government.   It was largely FDR and LBJ and Nixon on forward who unfettered the national government and set it loose on everything.

 

We are at 72% of JFK's adjusted defense spending.  We are at +250% of his adjusted overall spending.  Detroit looks worse, not better, after +50yrs of this nonense..

 

How has that worked out for America since JFK's era?

 

regards,

Fred



Post 15

Friday, July 4, 2014 - 8:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Vera:

 

By the way, just so we understand how 'interest' paid on those bonds held by the FED works;   when the FED collects interest on the bonds it holds-- from any source -- , that isn't recycled as cuirrent accounts the next time someone shows up with a new bond.  (That is what a properly functioning central bank would do; we don't have one of those.)   All that interest -- from any source, including Treasury -- is handed over to the US Treasury to spend.   This is dutifully reported every quarter as 'profits' by the FED handed over to the US Treasury.

 

Nobody seems to mind much; it represents additional printing of money from nothing, spent by the US treasury.   They walk into the US economies with it and demand stuff from the people who actually make stuff.    THose aren't 'profits'.  They didn't fall from 'the interest tree.'  Those are a hidden tax on -value-.

 

The complete lack of economic/accounting sophistication in 99% of the electorate lets them get away with this in broad daylight.   You could spell it out with a giant crayon and folks eyes would still gloss over.   And that is the dross we are tied to.   20% of that 99% votes, and that is enough to pretend we have a choice in this nation.

 

So as far as interest paid to the FED on those bonds...it all comes back to US Treasury.   This 'works' as long as the balance of the value producing nation doesn't mind that our federal government is simply printing money and spending it, accepting it as a hidden tax on -value-.    Now, all you value creators out there, go bust a gut, take risk, put your skin in the game in pursuit of federal dollars, falling from the sky like rain.   Convert them to something of actual value as fast as possible, and stiff whover made that actual value by handing them worthless dollars, before they catch on.   Yes, that would normally result in runaway inflation, as people caught on...except in economies flat on their back because of record low utilization/high unemployment/high under-employment and suppresses wages.   We can keep this new form of serfdom bubbling along, skimming off the top, for as long as it takes for the many more schleps to figure it out.

 

Hey, 4th of July.   Freedom.  Independence.  Liberty.  Red, White, and Blue.  Hot Dogs.  Fireworks.    Back to sleep...

 

regards,

Fred 



Post 16

Friday, July 4, 2014 - 8:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Think about that process...Americans think they are just being 'taxed.'

 

Some of us work for our dollars, create value, and generate revenue creating value.  Then, we are taxed on our profits for having created value.

 

Some of us print zeros on bonds, and tax others for creating value.   Either way, those some are taxing -value- from those who create value.

 

Do we wonder why 'public service' results in defined benefit pensions, while private sector struggles along with defined contribution?    The private sector first funds the public pension defined benefit programs then, with what is left, funds its own defined contribution plans.   And as well, creates the value consumed by all of the above.

 

This incentive trap has done what it only could have done given human nature; grown out of all control to the breaking point.

 

 

The only remaining question is, what is the breaking point?   Because it is not going to be fixed by our political process.  It was our poltiical process that created it.

 

regards,

Fred



Post 17

Friday, July 4, 2014 - 10:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Fred,

That is an odd characterization of folks against the mere printing of money.

Sorry for the misunderstanding - I think it's a good thing they postponed the 'printing of zeros' for a few months - I was just surprised that they had so much political power to do it. In an unjust state criminal action is the only rational choice - so ransom would about cover it. Not to mention that the current government felt like being blackmailed by a tiny minority, which is not a bad thing.

Maybe they can keep this low interest rate thing going forever.   Maybe they can keep economies flat on their ass enough to subdue runaway inflation for another 4 years.

Funny that the European Union has the opposite problem (too little inflation) and using the same remedy (lower interest rates) :D I'm sure there's some logical explanation for both sides - at least one the Georgetownies can agree on with the Brussel sprouts ;)

just so we understand how 'interest' paid on those bonds held by the FED work

There's a nice quilting pattern that's very similar to that: 'robbing Peter to pay Paul' :D but thanx for explaining in more technical terms :)

The actual value is what I've been missing in just about any economy in the world. Everything seems to exist in fantasy numbers: in bonds (can't even buy bondage with those), in loans (with no interest - the rational kind, not only the financial rate), in stocks (which used to mean physical wares) and shares (which is just as illogical: how can you share sth you don't even have), in bits and bytes in computers that can become zeros in more ways than one.

The only remaining question is, what is the breaking point?   Because it is not going to be fixed by our political process.

Agreed - however it does not matter what or when or where the breaking point will be. HomoSaSa has survived several such breaking points at high cost. Currently that cost will be political and social - lets see what the next wave brings after the breaking point. I think it was some university professor (don't remember the details) who argued, that mankind needs disasters / breaking points, to evolve, so we should actually strive for those so humanity can evolve faster. If I look at history I cannot deny a certain grain of truth in that - which makes me shudder at a species that requires self-destruction to evolve.



Post 18

Friday, July 4, 2014 - 11:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Vera:

 

I think you are right; we for sure tend to be at our best when things are at their worst, and vice-versa.   

 

Not all of us; I'm thinking of sinking lifeboat behavior, and the urge by some to crawl over the backs of others-- whatever it takes to survive.  The kind of reptilian behavior driven by pure existential terror.

 

Like what we saw in DC and Wall Street in 2008.

 

Like what we see today in DC.

 

regards,

Fred



Post 19

Friday, July 4, 2014 - 12:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Vera,

 

When I spoke of the function of a political party I meant the PROPER function of a political party. I'm well aware of the failings of the various parties (which should be apparent from what I've written).

 

As a side note, you mention that the Republicans and the Democrats have become virtually the same. There still is a great deal of truth in that, but it has been changing and the dynamic of the change is important. This idea of them both being the same is such a striking and important observation that we are tempted to keep focusing on it even after its expiration date - it is an idea that is starting to disappear - and that's happening just as most people are becoming aware of it.

 

Once there was a significant difference between the parties and then the GOP me-too'ed its way into becoming Democrat-lites.  But now, the Democrats of old are gone and we have Progressives which moves them into a new category and only some of the GOP have followed to keep alive the RINO (Republicans In Name Only) segment of the party.  At the same, reacting to progressivism the libertarian conservatives wing of the GOPs formed, and they have pulled the rest of the GOP a little bit towards liberty.

 

So, they aren't exactly the same any more - especially in direction. Direction is important because when they are both just the same party, the only difference is how fast they move towards an erosion of liberty. The gridlock we have now is, at least partially, evidence of each side trying to move in opposite directions. It a large, messy collection of mixed motives and mixed ideologies and always in motion - changing - and for those reasons it is important to pick out the different principles at work.
-------

"...isn't that how democracy should work: from the grassroots?"

Yes.  And, with the Tea Party pushing at the GOP representatives it is how a representative government should work. It is the politicians that don't like that and want to pretend they are serving democratically while the facts show that they talk one way and act another.
--------

 

you'd need two branches in such a party: one to clean up and deal with current problems and one that holds true to the final end state ...

Good point.  Maybe the Libertarian party will develop in that way.... over time.  But I don't think so, it has too many internal issues to deal with. And because politicians respond to what activates their voters, I'd see the libertarian conservatives  of the GOP being the first of the mainstream politicians to drag the GOP in that direction, because their voters will be the most responsive to hearing the intellectual roots of good politics.  Currently the progressives are the most effective at 'cleaning up the mess' left by capitalists - they attack it on their altruistic moral grounds, pragmatic social (collectivist) grounds, revisionist history, etc. - it is one of the reasons why they have been winning.

----------

 

Here is one of the problems with having anything other than a minarchy for a government - the political parties end up, of necessity, trying to decide what to do on a massive number of issues and this results in a government that attempts to micromanage the world.  Think about that.  It is a situation where individual voters are thinking that part of their political role is to make decisions regarding what percent of a budget should go to NASA, what should the government to in the area of health care, should we take in unaccompanied minors that arrive at the border, how long should the be held, should the federal government fund ethanol in the fuel, etc., etc., etc.  No organization would survive that kind micromanagement on that scale.  Once elected the officials can't implement their constituent’s wishes because there are too many and they are too confused.  Gridlock is almost a blessing since each side can point at the other.  The more a culture becomes Objectivist in it's primary principles, the smaller the government it will have and that government will be easier to manage, but what would especially melt away in size would be the influence of political parties.



Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.