Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Gurn Blanston]

Surely your exclusion of old age pension is accidental.  That's the biggest program of all. 

Then you have feeding the hungry.  That seems defensible.  Agricultural subsidies can help there, while also helping farmers.  So there's another defensible program.  Protecting jobs via more subsidies paired with protectionist laws, which further boost prices for end consumers, who can argue with that?  How are we going to provide fuel for all this?  Well, then some energy subsidies seem like a good idea.  Let's offer a credit here, and direct payment there.  And the Fifth Fleet, too.  And shouldn't everyone be able to own their own home?  Isn't that part of the American Dream?  Better offer up a subsidy for that.  What could go wrong?

Screw the American Dream. I'm tired of it. Pie in the Sky.

[Todd]

Mmmmm, pie.

[Gurn Blanston]

Mmmmm, pie.

And donuts, Homer... 

[San Antone]

... who the hell needs government anyway?

It depends on what government?  One large federal/national government or thousands of local governments.  I prefer hardly any power at the federal (and state) levels and most governing done at the local level.

[Todd]

The Man with the Most Presidential Hair is in.  Hooray!!! 

(This is exactly what the nation needed after the disgraceful 'do sported by Chafee in his announcement yesterday.)

[Florestan]

For you, Florestan, to help you understand the American Way a little better. A tweet I made quoting my favorite author (next to Mark Twain), Kurt Vonnegut:

If you can just get your mind around that, your troubles will be over.

Well, if supporting or advocating governmental regulation and supervision of, or intervention in, anything else than protecting life (from direct physical threats only), liberty and property, is Socialism, then yes, I am a Socialist --- but then again so is everybody else except followers of the "chirping sect" (if you know what I mean; I´m sure Ken does.) 

[Karl Henning]

Screw the American Dream. I'm tired of it. Pie in the Sky.

http://www.youtube.com/v/f-pT-w7qFl4

[Ken B]

Socialism wishes to create a utopia where all people receive a good education (for free), fantastic health care (at no cost), a nice place to live (for next to nothing), all the food they want, a job they like; in short, the perfect society.  Trouble is, this is an unrealizable dream.  There is not enough money in our universe to create this world, and what they end up doing with the available resources is mandating mediocrity for everyone.

Less than, for once you remove incentives we all suffer. Which is why market economies with a decent safety net/welfare state are the way to go.
(I oppose the nanny state, not the welfare state. People confuse them. We can have a welfare state much less intrusively with a negative income tax than with a self serving beauacracy. )

[Pat B]

Mark
I think we broadly agree on both trans and Huckabee. But in this case the face Palm is unearned. That your answer on the 14 year old is qualified proves Huckabee makes a point. I don't think he is or needs to imagine much beyond a boy asserting.the point is we do not automatically accede. You agree with that.
I object to wallowing in confirmation bias and misrepresenting arguments, both of which I think the other poster was guilty of.

You asked a good question, and I agree: the answer is not easy.

Huckabee did not ask that question. He certainly did not provide any leadership on answering it in any way but "we should reject the notion of transgender." His comments (link) did little more than score him some cheap political points with people who wish they didn't have to think about your question.

[Florestan]

market economies with a decent safety net/welfare state are the way to go.
I oppose the nanny state, not the welfare state.

We are in perfect agreement then --- as we have always been. 

[Florestan]

Socialism wishes to create a utopia where all people receive a good education (for free), fantastic health care (at no cost), a nice place to live (for next to nothing), all the food they want, a job they like; in short, the perfect society.  Trouble is, this is an unrealizable dream.  There is not enough money in our universe to create this world,

You''re quite wrong, actually. It is feasible, at least for a (rather long) while, and the highest price to be paid for it is not money.

Case in point: Romania, 1955 - 1989.

Education: ranging from serviceable to excellent at all levels. Free (if you don't count taxes)

Healthcare: ranging from serviceable to excellent. Free (if you don't count taxes and tipping the doctors and nurses)

A place to live: not nice, as they consisted of range after range of blocks of flats, resulting in quite ugly neighborhoods, but at least everybody had a home, and at quite affordable credit rates too. For instance, if you were employed by a huge factory (and they were ubiquitous back then) you were guaranteed that in a few years you'll be able to have your own apartment and not pay your arms and a leg for it.

All the food you want: let's put it "all the food you needed". (until 1980)

A job you like: I don't know how likeable were the jobs for everybody, but at least everybody had one. For instance, upon graduation each and every college graduate was assigned a job. If you graduated in the top ranks, they were better and in more comfortable geographical areas than if you graduated in the median or, worst of all, low ranks --- but at least you were guaranteed to have a job. The most numerous and best paid jobs were in the engineering field, as there were literally hundreds of huge factories, construction sites and research / design institutes scattered all across the country.

I could add more:

Affordable holidays for everybody, twice a year (summer and winter).

Cheap prices for concert, theater, opera and cinema tickets; a sustained program of translating all the masterpieces and less than masterpieces of world literature (of course, those which were not overtly contrary to the official party line) printed in cheap paperback editions and collections (eg, Shakespeare, Balzac, Poe, Maupassant, Tolstoy, Dostoievsky, Gogol, Dickens etc) - sold not only in bookstores but also in factories and institutes, at very affordable prices.

(Almost free) summer and winter camps for primary, secondary and high school pupils.

Etc etc etc.

Looks rather great, ain't it?

Well, the price to be paid for all that was first and foremost human lives.

Between 1948 and 1962 hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of people labeled bourgeois or kulaks were expropriated, imprisoned, deported or killed, together with their families. They were all "enemies of the people" that had to be done away with. And if one was born into such a family, he was labeled "unhealthy social element" and denied access to good education or good jobs. (this policy ended in 1965, though)

And then, the price in freedom.

Everything was controlled by the Party. The slightest deviation from the official line could have cost you your job (degraded to low work), your liberty (imprisoned) or even your life. You could have not traveled abroad without official approval. You could have not said, write or print whatever you wanted. (Between 1965 and 1975, though, there was a more relaxed policy regarding these issues).

And then since 1980 you were subjected to a pharaonic cult of personality of the both the leader, who was the providential man sent by history to raise Romania on "the highest tops of civlization" (official slogan) and his wife, an "internationally famed scientist" (he being a former shoemaker journeyman, she being a former nobody knows what, they both being barely literate).

And all the social paradise described above began to crumble as Ceausescu took the decision to pay all Romania's debts in advance. The result was severe shortage of even the basic necessities of life (from basic food to toilet papers and razors), severe power, heating and gas shortage and a general orwellian atmosphere which rendered life almost unbearable.

So, bottom line: it's either freedom or socialism. Tertium non datur.

[mc ukrneal]

You''re quite wrong, actually. It is feasible, at least for a (rather long) while, and the highest price to be paid for it is not money.

Case in point: Romania, 1955 - 1989.

Education: ranging from serviceable to excellent at all levels. Free (if you don't count taxes)

Healthcare: ranging from serviceable to excellent. Free (if you don't count taxes and tipping the doctors and nurses)

A place to live: not nice, as they consisted of range after range of blocks of flats, resulting in quite ugly neighborhoods, but at least everybody had a home, and at quite affordable credit rates too. For instance, if you were employed by a huge factory (and they were ubiquitous back then) you were guaranteed that in a few years you'll be able to have your own apartment and not pay your arms and a leg for it.

All the food you want: let's put it "all the food you needed". (until 1980)

A job you like: I don't know how likeable were the jobs for everybody, but at least everybody had one. For instance, upon graduation each and every college graduate was assigned a job. If you graduated in the top ranks, they were better and in more comfortable geographical areas than if you graduated in the median or, worst of all, low ranks --- but at least you were guaranteed to have a job. The most numerous and best paid jobs were in the engineering field, as there were literally hundreds of huge factories, construction sites and research / design institutes scattered all across the country.

I could add more:

Affordable holidays for everybody, twice a year (summer and winter).

Cheap prices for concert, theater, opera and cinema tickets; a sustained program of translating all the masterpieces and less than masterpieces of world literature (of course, those which were not overtly contrary to the official party line) printed in cheap paperback editions and collections (eg, Shakespeare, Balzac, Poe, Maupassant, Tolstoy, Dostoievsky, Gogol, Dickens etc) - sold not only in bookstores but also in factories and institutes, at very affordable prices.

(Almost free) summer and winter camps for primary, secondary and high school pupils.

Etc etc etc.

Looks rather great, ain't it?

Well, the price to be paid for all that was first and foremost human lives.

Between 1948 and 1962 hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of people labeled bourgeois or kulaks were expropriated, imprisoned, deported or killed, together with their families. They were all "enemies of the people" that had to be done away with. And if one was born into such a family, he was labeled "unhealthy social element" and denied access to good education or good jobs. (this policy ended in 1965, though)

And then, the price in freedom.

Everything was controlled by the Party. The slightest deviation from the official line could have cost you your job (degraded to low work), your liberty (imprisoned) or even your life. You could have not traveled abroad without official approval. You could have not said, write or print whatever you wanted. (Between 1965 and 1975, though, there was a more relaxed policy regarding these issues).

And then since 1980 you were subjected to a pharaonic cult of personality of the both the leader, who was the providential man sent by history to raise Romania on "the highest tops of civlization" (official slogan) and his wife, an "internationally famed scientist" (he being a former shoemaker journeyman, she being a former nobody knows what, they both being barely literate).

And all the social paradise described above began to crumble as Ceausescu took the decision to pay all Romania's debts in advance. The result was severe shortage of even the basic necessities of life (from basic food to toilet papers and razors), severe power, heating and gas shortage and a general orwellian atmosphere which rendered life almost unbearable.

So, bottom line: it's either freedom or socialism. Tertium non datur.

You must admit that the Swedes have one of the more advanced/strongest Socialist models and it has generally worked well for them (in general terms).

[Florestan]

You must admit that the Swedes have one of the more advanced/strongest Socialist models and it has generally worked well for them (in general terms).

Socialism for me is what was practiced in the Socialist Republic of Romania. The Swedish "Socialism" is not even remotely similar.

[North Star]

Communism and social democracy aren't quite the same thing, of course.

[Ken B]

You must admit that the Swedes have one of the more advanced/strongest Socialist models and it has generally worked well for them (in general terms).

And Sweden has benefited in recent years from becoming more market oriented.

I am always reluctant to use one country as an example for another, because culture matters so much, but more general conclusions can be drawn. I think Sweden shows you can make a generous welfare state work on top of a capitalist economy, and that recent years have shown the wisdom of letting markets do their thing, and having the governemtn not try to set economic goals but provide infrastructure and the safety net.
I think Greece shows you cannot always do this quite so easily. For one thing you need a culture where people pay their taxes.
One size does not fit all. But two conclusions are pretty clear I think: Markets work, but they don't work perfectly.

[Florestan]

Communism and social democracy aren't quite the same thing, of course.

Of course. The  Communist uprisings in Bavaria and other regions of the German Empire in 1918 - 19 were mercilessly crushed by the Social-Democrats. Friedrich Ebert was a monarchist, and only reluctantly accepted the republic. Comrade Lenin branded Social Democracy as some sort of fascism.

TBH and tell the whole truth, my own political position is to be found at the intersection of Classical Liberalism, Christian Democracy and Social Democracy --- in European terms, I mean. I have given up any hope of matching European politics with US one.

Much to the contrary of what I have been accused of in this very thread, I emphatically am not an ideologue. My only guiding principle is "as much liberty as possible, as much constraint as necessary", being acutely aware of the fact that "possible" and "necessary" are culturally and ethnically (sic!) conditioned --- what works wonders in US or Switzerland might spell ruin in Spain (google First Spanish Republic) or Romania (never tried, but please take my word for it)...

One thing I know for sure: welfare state yes, nanny state no!

[Florestan]

I am always reluctant to use one country as an example for another, because culture matters so much

Exactly.

I think Sweden shows you can make a generous welfare state work on top of a capitalist economy, and that recent years have shown the wisdom of letting markets do their thing, and having the governemtn not try to set economic goals but provide infrastructure and the safety net.

Ditto.

I think Greece shows you cannot always do this quite so easily. For one thing you need a culture where people pay their taxes.

Correction: a culture where people pay their taxes knwoing for sure that they will receive in return quality healthcare, education and infrastructure.

One size does not fit all.

The Golden Rule in geopolitics.

But two conclusions are pretty clear I think: Markets work, but they don't work perfectly.

Just as true as "governments work, but they don´t work perfectly." That´s why we need both.

[Pat B]

Much to the contrary of what I have been accused of in this very thread, I emphatically am not an ideologue. My only guiding principle is "as much liberty as possible, as much constraint as necessary"

Well, five posts before that, you wrote "bottom line: it's either freedom or socialism. Tertium non datur."

[Florestan]

Well, five posts before that, you wrote "bottom line: it's either freedom or socialism. Tertium non datur."

And I qualified it: by Socialism I mean what was practiced in the Socialist Republic of Romania. I safely presume you have not the slightest idea about  what it means, other than what I have written.

[Todd]

Back on topic: The Gray Lady maintains its high journalistic standards.