<p>mini, I do, in fact, “get it.” I don’t think that you do. Have you ever lived outside the US? If not, I don’t think you can really appreciate the benefits of living in our Capitalist, free market society.</p>
<p>…and Sjmom, I don’t think you “get” Mini’s quite pertinent observation that America isn’t a “free market society.”</p>
<p>mini:
First of all, there is no such thing as “staying the course.” </p>
<p>Second, what’s wrong with hearings? Isn’t that what “checks and balances” are about - accountability? I think the voters deserve nothing less. </p>
<p>Although, I suppose most will probably blindly pull that Republican lever anyway - in spite of the fact that they have been so blatantly misled by their leaders - such is the partisan hatred at this point…</p>
<p>Or worse yet, a few idealists will feel good and holy voting for, I don’t know, Pat Paulsen for Senator perhaps… ;)</p>
<p>So, Kluge, is there a society that is more “free market” than the US? And the determination on this site about whether or not the US IS a free market is an opinion. I don’t recall mini being appointed the arbiter of all things. Hence, I do object to the comment that I don’t “get it.” You or he may disagree with me, but that doesn’t make you correct.</p>
<p>Well, I’m sure there are societies that are more “free market” than the US, but they’re probable pretty primitive, and I personally wouldn’t want to live there. But Mini’s point is well taken. Government’s job, at all levels, is to make things go well for American business. All the whining about regulation tends to obscure that fact. Our “market” has a certain amount of freedom, but not really that much. From copyright to patents to zoning laws to the Federal Reserve to a big part of the court’s workload which is occupied with making sure that the fine print in the big guy’s contracts is obeyed, business and government are symbiotically intertwined to an extent that few people recognize. The revolving door between the top levels of business and government is not surprising - when one hand spends that much time washing the other it’s easy to forget which one you are.</p>
<p>Captialsim yes. Free markets, in limited instances.</p>
<p>kluge, that’s just nonsense. The US is clearly the most capitalistic society in history – that’s what the Islamic terrorists hold against us. As far as mini’s point about economic socialists owning the means of production, what is preferable? State owned business? There’s no such thing as a totally free market system – unless you want to go back to the days of the robber barrons. But what we have now is a reasonably capitalist system – as opposed to fascist or socialist – and to say otherwise is just silly, imo.</p>
<p>With all the faults of the United States - and they are many - it’s still the best place to live. I’ve seen multi-millionaire fugitives return to the US, knowing they’ll go to jail, because they know they will eventually get out or win at trial (unless they get a Presidential Pardon from Bill Clinton, first).</p>
<p>sjmom, actually the robber barons were deeply involved with the government - they never would have been able to build their economic empires without government intervention and subsidy. And although I doubt that either you or I have a sophisticated understanding of “what the Islamic terrorists hold against us” I doubt that it’s the fine points of our economic system, which aren’t very different from the ones in their countries (sort of Mini’s point, actually.) I think Mini is just trying to open your eyes to the reality of the American economic system: it’s not a free market, it’s rigged to benefit the haves. He’s saying the American economic system is a lot closer to the fascist “national socialism” than you realize. (Sorry if I’m putting words in your mouth here, Mini.) Would I prefer that it were even more along the “national socialist” model - no. Would I prefer that our economic model wasn’t tilted quite so far toward increasing the wealth of the wealthy? Yes. As to how that could be done I can think of lots of little parts of the puzzle, but the multifarous ways in which the economic system is designed to make the rich richer and keep the poor in the same place are beyond the scope of this thread.</p>
<p>NPR had a spot on that subject this am. The author suggested that this underclass situation actually started in the 1970s, when many factory jobs were lost to globalization. In sum, the more education you have the better off you are. Those who drop out are in a baaaad spot. Technological skills are essential.</p>
<p>The author also noted that certain industry leaders are making more now than before. I don’t recall him explaining why. Even as a conservative I am interested in learning more about that particular aspect. However, those with ideas that are in demand should not be chilled out due to confiscatory taxes. That flat does not work.</p>
<p>“So, Kluge, is there a society that is more “free market” than the US?”</p>
<p>Oh, yes, lots! or there used to be. All kinds of remote African, Latin American, and southeast Asian markets operated in a much more free fashion, and free of government or global intervention. American corporatism was not fond of this, and saw opportunity. Hence the Clinton legacy of neo-liberalism, which makes it impossible for Africans to sell their fish or vegetables, Indonesians to sell their rice, Latin Americans to sell their textiles. The death of these markets in southern Mexico is why we have “immigration problems” as folks are thrown off their land. But I can take you to see some if you’d like to come with me to southeastern India on my next trip.</p>
<p>As the former President of Archer-Daniels Midland has said, “There isn’t a grain of wheat sold in a free market anywhere in the world, and won’t be if I have anything to do with it.”</p>
<p>Corporate socialists HATE free markets - that’s why, as the good socialists they are, they collaborate - often through government entities - to subvert them wherever they might appear.</p>
<p>There seem to be about 3 or 4 different concepts on this thread that have become intermingled. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Captialism vs socialism - is a matter of who owns the means of production and who is entitled to profits generated by such.</p></li>
<li><p>Free market - refers to certain conditions revolving around easy of entry as a supplier of goods and services and is characterized by the free flow of information. Each good and service can be evaluated seperately as to whether it meets these conditions. The self-employed operate under free market conditions, but manykey goods are offered in restricted markets. The robber barons were the example of restricted markets. They were captialists that looked to restrict markets with the goal of monopoly pricing.</p></li>
<li><p>The consumer benefits from competition, not the producer.</p></li>
<li><p>A captialist society does not, in and of itself, guarantee civil liberities.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
OK, but don’t you need guaranteed civil liberties in order to have a capitalist society? Chicken/egg question, I realize.</p>
<p>Well, you need those civil liberties which relate to property, certainly. A lot of the other things we consider to be “civil liberties” might be considered optional.</p>
<p>I don’t know why a society with slavery couldn’t also be a capitalist society. Under pure laissez-faire capitalism, indentured servitude would clearly be permitted (but the 13th Amendment takes that option off the table for us). So, no, capitalism doesn’t require civil liberties. I’m not certain it even actually requires full legal protection of private property rights, although the less of that there is the more inefficient the market gets.</p>
<p>Markets: I disagree that all those remote African, etc. bazaars are more “free markets” than U.S. markets. Free markets require free markets in capital, full dissemination of relevant information at low cost, enough competitors to produce actual competition, and no barriers to entry. I don’t believe there’s a market in the world that truly satisfies those conditions, but the U.S. public stock trading markets and semi-public government debt and foreign exchange trading markets come awfully close in their normal operations.</p>
<p>
Mini is entitled to his opinion, as am I. I don’t need him to open my eyes. Frankly, I prefer the WSJ analysis of the impact of a Democratic congress to that of a somewhat anonymous poster on CC. Once again, mini’s comments represent an OPINION, not fact. I happen to disagree with him. (on just about everything, it seems.)</p>
<p>"I prefer the WSJ analysis of the impact of a Democratic congress "</p>
<p>I don’t know, I used to read the WSJ fairly often. Recently I saw one of the editorial board on HBO’s political commentary program offered by that stand up guy, name escapes me right now. He used to be on ABC. </p>
<p>The WSJ guy was a mess. When you are that rigid politically, don’t try to do comedy, it just doesn’t work. Every snappy peppy answer he offered up was just sad. He was there with Barney Frank and Jason Alexander. I actually felt sorry for him fish out of water. Everytime he uddered an untruth (quite a few) Barney Frank stopped and dealt with the question. It was brutal, never seen such nervous laughter, twitching and embarassing behavor in a while. </p>
<p>Anyway, the WSJ fell very far that night as if they can pay him for editiorial comment tells me he either has pictures of somebody or is related to someone else in ownership.</p>
<p>I should only wish for Nancy Pelosi & Co. to have the powers the WSJ in its yellow journalism ascribes to them, and that they should have the gumption to use 'em.</p>
<p>But the WSJ knows a heck of a lot better than that.</p>
<p>Has the WSJ unilaterally disclosed any national security information? I think other, more liberal-leaning newspapers have. I thought you had to have permission to release secrets that could well get Americans and others killed and cost millions of taxpayer dollars.</p>
<p>It could be a federal crime to disclose such sensitive information. There should be an investigation!</p>
<p>If Nancy Pelosi becomes Speaker - will she request and support an investigation into this potential conspiracy?</p>
<p>Well, if the Republican liars and hacks have been so asleep at the wheel that they snoozed through the crimes of the liberal media, I hardly see how you could fault Nancy Pelosi.</p>
<p>Stay the course.</p>