Originally Posted by herbal tee

It has happened three times within our lifetimes Brian. Going backwards the GOP Senate class of 1994 saw many defeats in 2000. The same thing happened to the Reagan class of 1980 in 1986 when the Democrats retook the Senate. That Reagan class of 1980 was itself made possible because it replaced the strongly Democratic Watergate class of 1974.

I think what he's suggesting is that if the Republicans make big gains this year, there will be stiffer challenges posed to Republican Senate candidates in 2012 and 2014 as some sort of backlash. That will be very hard when most of the (R) seats up for election are in solidly "red states" like Wyoming and Alabama, and the number of (D) seats up for election outnumber them by 2-1. Senators like Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Scott Brown will always be vulnerable, but not as much as someone like...say...Al Franken...

If Obama continues on a downward trajectory and the Republican wins the presidency in 2012, I would say it's almost certain the Republicans will gain a significant number of Senate seats, while probably not gaining as many in the House.

I wasn't posing anything of the sort, I was just asking questions about the hypothesis. Herbal Tee answered them.

What really cuts through all this is that we're in Crisis. Certain changes to the way the nation does business are badly needed. The Democrats failed to enact those changes, partly because the Republicans blocked them from enacting anything but half-measures, partly because their own divisions enabled the Republicans to do so. As a result things have worsened and the voters are set to punish the Democrats for their failure to turn things around. All perfectly normal, right?

Except that the Republicans don't propose to do anything that will not make things even worse. So here's the thing. Let's suppose for the sake of argument (although I don't think this is certain by any stretch) that the Democrats continue taking the blame for the inaction of the divided government that may result from this year's election, and so the Republicans win the White House and Senate in 2012. As their program (such as they even have) is a failure out the starting gate in terms of making things any better, the public becomes even more furious in 2014 as things continue to go downhill. (We'll face oil price hikes through the ceiling by then, as well as continued economic doldrums.) Do they return control of Congress to the Democrats? But if they do, we still have a GOP president and nothing gets done. Elect a Democrat again in 2016? But if so, the Republicans will have access to the same obstructive tactics and the same impasse may result as we have right now. Of course, the same can be said immediately if the polls turn out to be wrong and the Democrats hold the line this year.

What we have here is a Constitutional crisis, or perhaps a crisis involving the outdated rules of the Senate. Plus excessive corporate influence on the government. Does anyone see a scenario for that to be resolved?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I wasn't posing anything of the sort, I was just asking questions about the hypothesis. Herbal Tee answered them.

What really cuts through all this is that we're in Crisis. Certain changes to the way the nation does business are badly needed. The Democrats failed to enact those changes, partly because the Republicans blocked them from enacting anything but half-measures, partly because their own divisions enabled the Republicans to do so. As a result things have worsened and the voters are set to punish the Democrats for their failure to turn things around. All perfectly normal, right?

Except that the Republicans don't propose to do anything that will not make things even worse. So here's the thing. Let's suppose for the sake of argument (although I don't think this is certain by any stretch) that the Democrats continue taking the blame for the inaction of the divided government that may result from this year's election, and so the Republicans win the White House and Senate in 2012. As their program (such as they even have) is a failure out the starting gate in terms of making things any better, the public becomes even more furious in 2014 as things continue to go downhill. (We'll face oil price hikes through the ceiling by then, as well as continued economic doldrums.) Do they return control of Congress to the Democrats? But if they do, we still have a GOP president and nothing gets done. Elect a Democrat again in 2016? But if so, the Republicans will have access to the same obstructive tactics and the same impasse may result as we have right now. Of course, the same can be said immediately if the polls turn out to be wrong and the Democrats hold the line this year.

What we have here is a Constitutional crisis, or perhaps a crisis involving the outdated rules of the Senate. Plus excessive corporate influence on the government. Does anyone see a scenario for that to be resolved?

It could be even worse. The GOP is increasingly becoming a cadre party, and I can easily see it (remember the insistence upon 100% loyalty, as shown in internal purges of Bob Bennett and Lisa Murkowski) frustrating any effort to defeat its candidates, perhaps even rigging elections to protect its embattled public figures. Unable to jettison any candidate in the face of a scandal (take note of the inability of Republicans to suggest that Senator John Ensign or David Vitter step down due to personal scandals) and entwined with economic elites who have so far shown no desire to sacrifice any class privilege, and perhaps having links to politicized militias, it could evolve into a dictatorial dominant party that refuses to lose or even concede.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Uh...no. I'm recoiling from it because it makes no sense. You cannot simultaneously claim to be an individualist and a collectivist. And you most definitely cannot explain how such a system would actually work, without either having central planning or reverting to a pre-modern economy.

I don't claim to be a collectivist, you are claiming that I am. Rather, I'm pointing out that you endorse and accept certain powers of the state which clearly abridge individual liberty and then maintain that this is "individualism." Moreover, when I (quite grudgingly) endorse corrective measures by the state to compensate for the damage done by these suppressions of liberty, you call this "collectivism."

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

I don't claim to be a collectivist, you are claiming that I am. Rather, I'm pointing out that you endorse and accept certain powers of the state which clearly abridge individual liberty and then maintain that this is "individualism." Moreover, when I (quite grudgingly) endorse corrective measures by the state to compensate for the damage done by these suppressions of liberty, you call this "collectivism."

Please specifically name the powers of the state you're talking about, explain how they abridge individual liberty, and describe what measures you would support to correct them. Maybe it wasn't clear to me.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

And that, of course, far understates the actual concentration of stock ownership in most publicly-traded companies. Which is why the mutual fund argument that you are making is so utterly bogus.

Not to mention the fact that JPTs tiny pinch of ownership in Microsoft has no impact at all on the company's internal operations. Now, the bank that runs the mutual fund that he has purchased may exert control over Microsoft from time-to-time but they could give two shits about what any of their investors think other than how it relates to a general impetus to keep the company paying dividends, and their investors buying. And that bank that controls a group of mutual funds has a tiny amount of owners and managers who make all of the important decisions for that company and have influence on publicly traded companies whose shares they own in bulk through those funds. So, in reality there is a tiny financial elite, numbering maybe 10,000 people (and probably fewer than that) making 90% of the decisions involving publicly traded companies.

Notice also that I mentioned managers. Even ignoring executive stock options, the upper management of a large firm has vastly more power over the company that the "owners." This is especially true due to hostile takeover and insider trading laws that came about in the 80s. It is very difficult now to wrest control of a company from its managers. The "ownership" of stockholders can only manifest in cases where huge institutional investors (i.e. bankers, trained in the same Ivy-league educational circles as the CEOs and CFOs, I might add) get concerned about the raw bottom line and demand changes to boost profits. Such exertions are increasingly rare. The top managers often feel no sense of obligation to the company.* They don't "own" the company either. They just steer a giant bureaucracy and hope that yachts and mansions get spit out for their benefit.

Now, here's the clincher:

Exactly how is the above situation an expression of individualism? Seriously what, other than suits and dollar signs, makes the above structure notably different from a command economy? This isn't as bad as the Soviet system since the price mechanism at least allows for competitive allocation of resources between firms. But within firms, and sometimes between firms that are too closely tied in the financial sphere, this is a command economy. The structure is political, not economic.


* The founders of large companies usually do feel pride of ownership, but their successors often do not. They are merely caretakers of a self-sustaining mass of capital.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Not to mention the fact that JPTs tiny pinch of ownership in Microsoft has no impact at all on the company's internal operations. Now, the bank that runs the mutual fund that he has purchased may exert control over Microsoft from time-to-time but they could give two shits about what any of their investors think other than how it relates to a general impetus to keep the company paying dividends, and their investors buying. And that bank that controls a group of mutual funds has a tiny amount of owners and managers who make all of the important decisions for that company and have influence on publicly traded companies whose shares they own in bulk through those funds. So, in reality there is a tiny financial elite, numbering maybe 10,000 people (and probably fewer than that) making 90% of the decisions involving publicly traded companies.

Notice also that I mentioned managers. Even ignoring executive stock options, the upper management of a large firm has vastly more power over the company that the "owners." This is especially true due to hostile takeover and insider trading laws that came about in the 80s. It is very difficult now to wrest control of a company from its managers. The "ownership" of stockholders can only manifest in cases where huge institutional investors (i.e. bankers, trained in the same Ivy-league educational circles as the CEOs and CFOs, I might add) get concerned about the raw bottom line and demand changes to boost profits. Such exertions are increasingly rare. The top managers often feel no sense of obligation to the company.* They don't "own" the company either. They just steer a giant bureaucracy and hope that yachts and mansions get spit out for their benefit.

Now, here's the clincher:

Exactly how is the above situation an expression of individualism? Seriously what, other than suits and dollar signs, makes the above structure notably different from a command economy? This isn't as bad as the Soviet system since the price mechanism at least allows for competitive allocation of resources between firms. But within firms, and sometimes between firms that are too closely tied in the financial sphere, this is a command economy. The structure is political, not economic.


* The founders of large companies usually do feel pride of ownership, but their successors often do not. They are merely caretakers of a self-sustaining mass of capital.

It seems the goal posts are shifting. The assertion that is made by the left (as far as I can tell) is that the nation's wealth is owned by a tiny handful of people thanks to capitalism and corporations. I demonstrated why that is false. It is true that a large portion of it is managed by a relatively small number of people. And when they screw up, it can be bad.

There are certainly plenty of arguments to be made about corporate governance, but regardless of the superstitions of leftists, corporations are a democratic means of allocating capital, which operate in a similar way to government, but with a very clear set of incentives and benchmarks. Having a multitude of publicly traded corporations is certainly preferable to having all of that capital under the control of government.

If someone can explain to me an alternative means of organizing the economic activity and investment of a $14.6 trillion modern economy that is neither the current system nor state capitalism, I'm all ears. I've never heard of it.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Please specifically name the powers of the state you're talking about, explain how they abridge individual liberty, and describe what measures you would support to correct them. Maybe it wasn't clear to me.

Here are a few examples:
1) Patents grant a monopoly to the holder. Abolition is the best option, but a reduction in terms would be a great improvement.
2) Bank capital requirements make it extremely difficult for a community to pool credit, thus limiting entry into the financial sector. Abolition is best, but reductions would help.
3) Transportation subsidies shift the cost of goods shipment from producer to consumer, thus increasing economies of scale. Abolition would be best, but scaling maintenance costs to use of the transport infrastructure (like charging trucks more than cars for using roads) would help alleviate the effect.
4) Tariffs and other trade barriers insulate large domestic firms from competition. They especially make large domestic firms that engage in international trade artificially more competitive versus small local domestic firms. Again abolition is best.
5) Rental or controlled disbursement of public lands allows the state to pick winners by preventing the occupation and use a natural resources until an approved occupant comes along. The state also often retains ownership and then rents access to land on the cheap, distorting resource use in favor of politically connected interests. One solution would be to have public lands be free to homestead, with occupants assuming the full responsibilities of ownership. (Note that I am not advocating an auction. It is illegitimate for the state to profit from the conversion of unowned land into owned land.)

All of the above types of interventions, and many more, go way back. Capitalism rests upon numerous policies which contribute to concentration of wealth. Reforms sufficient to counteract these features are no simple task to achieve. To the extent changes can be made to the ground rules that do not end industrial life, we should make them. To the extent we can't, we should mitigate the impact by having the state pay restitution for this theft from the people. To the extent that these reforms take time to enact, restitution should continue in the meantime. This is why I (conditionally) accept the welfare state. I do not think it is necessary, but it is just in the present context. This is not "robbing" the rich to subsidize the poor, this is the state compensating the poor for facilitating the rich in accumulating a greater share of the wealth than they otherwise would. Your error arises from viewing inequalities of wealth as the natural state in need of defense, rather than an anomaly resulting from privilege.

(As an aside, my primary quibble with the average liberal or progressive is their tendency to view fundamental reform as impossible or inimical to industrial civilization. Thus, they are overly focused on compensatory policies like Social Security, rather than deeper policies like patent or liability reform.)

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Here are a few examples:
1) Patents grant a monopoly to the holder. Abolition is the best option, but a reduction in terms would be a great improvement.
2) Bank capital requirements make it extremely difficult for a community to pool credit, thus limiting entry into the financial sector. Abolition is best, but reductions would help.
3) Transportation subsidies shift the cost of goods shipment from producer to consumer, thus increasing economies of scale. Abolition would be best, but scaling maintenance costs to use of the transport infrastructure (like charging trucks more than cars for using roads) would help alleviate the effect.
4) Tariffs and other trade barriers insulate large domestic firms from competition. They especially make large domestic firms that engage in international trade artificially more competitive versus small local domestic firms. Again abolition is best.
5) Rental or controlled disbursement of public lands allows the state to pick winners by preventing the occupation and use a natural resources until an approved occupant comes along. The state also often retains ownership and then rents access to land on the cheap, distorting resource use in favor of politically connected interests. One solution would be to have public lands be free to homestead, with occupants assuming the full responsibilities of ownership. (Note that I am not advocating an auction. It is illegitimate for the state to profit from the conversion of unowned land into owned land.)

I don't disagree with any of those, except patents, which I think are necessary to encourage innovation.

All of the above types of interventions, and many more, go way back. Capitalism rests upon numerous policies which contribute to concentration of wealth. Reforms sufficient to counteract these features are no simple task to achieve. To the extent changes can be made to the ground rules that do not end industrial life, we should make them. To the extent we can't, we should mitigate the impact by having the state pay restitution for this theft from the people. To the extent that these reforms take time to enact, restitution should continue in the meantime. This is why I (conditionally) accept the welfare state. I do not think it is necessary, but it is just in the present context. This is not "robbing" the rich to subsidize the poor, this is the state compensating the poor for facilitating the rich in accumulating a greater share of the wealth than they otherwise would. Your error arises from viewing inequalities of wealth as the natural state in need of defense, rather than an anomaly resulting from privilege.

It appears to me that your error arises from viewing wealth as a finite resource, rather than one that is created by human beings, and assuming that if someone has more, by definition they stole it from someone else.

In any event, it remains as clear as mud what you actually advocate. Except that I strongly suspect your ideal is in fact some sort of stone age agricultural commune.

(As an aside, my primary quibble with the average liberal or progressive is their tendency to view fundamental reform as impossible or inimical to industrial civilization. Thus, they are overly focused on compensatory policies like Social Security, rather than deeper policies like patent or liability reform.)

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Having a multitude of publicly traded corporations is certainly preferable to having all of that capital under the control of government.

Sure, but practically no one on the left advocates that anymore (and most of them never did). The choice is not between plutocracy and Stalinism. The immediate choice is between corporatism without compensation to those disadvantaged by it, or one where there is compensation. The long term choice is about whether we attempt to dismantle corporatism and move toward a more equitable socio-economic system. But as long as the attempt to "dismantle" the present system starts by removing the compensatory measures and leaving the lower and middle class to bear the full brunt of state capitalism then this will always leave the poor powerless and desperate, causing them to lobby solely for renewed compensatory measures and never striking at the root of the problem. This is why libertarianism allied with the current political right is simply an apology for power.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

If someone can explain to me an alternative means of organizing the economic activity and investment of a $14.6 trillion modern economy that is neither the current system nor state capitalism, I'm all ears. I've never heard of it.

The current system is state capitalism, or more simply capitalism, as the "state" part is a redundancy. There is no capitalism without the state. The key is to recognize that the ways that the state reinforces concentrations of wealth is far more pernicious than any "redistribution" it could ever reasonably undertake and certainly more pernicious than any redistribution that has ever occurred in the Western democracies.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Sure, but practically no one on the left advocates that anymore (and most of them never did). The choice is not between plutocracy and Stalinism. The immediate choice is between corporatism without compensation to those disadvantaged by it, or one where there is compensation. The long term choice is about whether we attempt to dismantle corporatism and move toward a more equitable socio-economic system. But as long as the attempt to "dismantle" the present system starts by removing the compensatory measures and leaving the lower and middle class to bear the full brunt of state capitalism then this will always leave the poor powerless and desperate, causing them to lobby solely for renewed compensatory measures and never striking at the root of the problem. This is why libertarianism allied with the current political right is simply an apology for power.



The current system is state capitalism, or more simply capitalism, as the "state" part is a redundancy. There is no capitalism without the state. The key is to recognize that the ways that the state reinforces concentrations of wealth is far more pernicious than any "redistribution" it could ever reasonably undertake and certainly more pernicious than any redistribution that has ever occurred in the Western democracies.

Learn the meaning of terms:

1) Corporatism
2) State capitalism

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I don't disagree with any of those, except patents, which I think are necessary to encourage innovation.

Whether they encourage innovation or suppress it is debatable, but that's actually irrelevant to my point. The point is that patents do provide a monopoly backed by state power, and this does mean that new technological fields can be dominated right from the start by a single firm (or given the usual cluster of patents around a new field, and some patent sharing) a small group of large firms. Patents mean that gigantic companies are built into the economy at the root.

Shouldn't the state compensate the public for this immense privilege?

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

It appears to me that your error arises from viewing wealth as a finite resource, rather than one that is created by human beings, and assuming that if someone has more, by definition they stole it from someone else.

I am not assuming that at all. You're neglecting the impact of time on economic events. If the flow of resources to ten people is adjusted from 10% each to one person having 19% and the others having 9% each, the people getting 9% might tolerate it, but the guy getting 19% will end up considerably richer in a short period of time. The guy getting the 19% may not have, and probably did not, choose this arrangement or even lie or cheat to get that distribution, but the rules of the game are tilted in his favor nonetheless. Moreover, the above example is way too simple. In practice, these problems are subtle enough that its often impossible to say who precisely loses as a result of the rules, just that many people do. But we do know that the state facilitates this distribution of the gains. Thus, if the state cannot be made to cease these policies, it should at least compensate for their effects. Thus, the welfare state.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

In any event, it remains as clear as mud what you actually advocate. Except that I strongly suspect your ideal is in fact some sort of stone age agricultural commune.

No, I desire a industrial economy with a vastly smaller average firm size -- where large firms only form where specifically necessary for the venture based on considerations of physics. My dispute with Brian and other liberals would be in the degree to which this could be achieved without retarding technological and economic development. I suspect that there is no significant limit to this and that we could live without the need of a welfare state at all, with nearly all people either being self-employed or working in cooperatives or small businesses with very shallow hierarchies. However, we are not anywhere near that world, so, in the meantime, I accept "redistribution" as a tolerable work-around.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

It has happened three times within our lifetimes Brian. Going backwards the GOP Senate class of 1994 saw many defeats in 2000. The same thing happened to the Reagan class of 1980 in 1986 when the Democrats retook the Senate. That Reagan class of 1980 was itself made possible because it replaced the strongly Democratic Watergate class of 1974.

You may see many 2006 candidates lose in '12 also....and weak 08 candidates like Al Frankenputz

Originally Posted by Weave

You may see many 2006 candidates lose in '12 also....and weak 08 candidates like Al Frankenputz

Right now you guys are as cocky as any Obama supporter circa Nov. 2008.
Just keep in mind that the f*ck up factor in office holders seems to be very high now.
And it may very well whipsaw back against you in 2012. In fact, if your group follows the Gingrich-Morris plan to shut down the government I pretty much expect that it will in 2012.

I am totally down with closing the Federal Government again. Just make sure it is permanent this time by encouraging your states to issue their own currency. To be honest, that might be the quickest and least painful way of fixing a lot of daunting social and financial problems.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Right now you guys are as cocky as any Obama supporter circa Nov. 2008.
Just keep in mind that the f*ck up factor in office holders seems to be very high now.
And it may very well whipsaw back against you in 2012. In fact, if your group follows the Gingrich-Morris plan to shut down the government I pretty much expect that it will in 2012.

Im trying to avoid any cockiness and know very well from prior elections that 30 days is a long time. The game could still switch and the Repubs, while making gains, may not win the House. And I agree that things could whipsaw back in the right conditions in '12.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Right now you guys are as cocky as any Obama supporter circa Nov. 2008.
Just keep in mind that the f*ck up factor in office holders seems to be very high now.
And it may very well whipsaw back against you in 2012. In fact, if your group follows the Gingrich-Morris plan to shut down the government I pretty much expect that it will in 2012.

Just as an aside, I was NOT cocky in early November 2008. I was a nervous wreck. Gained a few pounds, chewed my nails to a stubble. I was relieved when the whole thing was over...

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Just as an aside, I was NOT cocky in early November 2008. I was a nervous wreck. Gained a few pounds, chewed my nails to a stubble. I was relieved when the whole thing was over...

Yeah, I guess that I should have specified that not all of us Obama voters were cocky,
but when your responding in the tounge in cheek style, generalities often prevail. :

Let me add that I'm not convinced that there will be a wave this year. However, the data that I've seen overall suggests an above average pick up for the opposition party.
I get infomation from many sources, but I've got to give Nate Silver and his partners at 538.com mention. And that is because as one who will modestly call himself a math person, I trust their numbers the most.

After all, they nailed 2008. :

The best outcome for Obama would be for the Republicans to win the House and the Senate. If the Democrats retain the Senate (which is highly likely, but by no means guaranteed), they will continue to hold full responsibility for the economy. And if it doesn't turn around in a big way by 2012, they will lose the Senate and the presidency.

The New York Post says the the New York Times is about to spring a story to the effect that John Boehner is having an affair with a female lobbyist.

For the record, I could not care less who John Boehner is sleeping with, I've said going back to Gary Hart that this is none of the press's or the public's business, and I hope Americans can find better reasons to vote against him and his fellow Republicans this November.

What ? Being in bed with a lobbyist isn't enough? Oh, that's right, everybody's doing it. Only not quite so literally.

We do have the best Congress money can buy, don't we?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

For the record, I could not care less who John Boehner is sleeping with, I've said going back to Gary Hart that this is none of the press's or the public's business, and I hope Americans can find better reasons to vote against him and his fellow Republicans this November.

I agree completely. What's more, at worst this reflects badly only on Boehner himself, not on his party. It's all because people are irrational and prone to associational thinking. Boehner is an adulterer, Boehner is a Republican, therefore adultery and Republicans are linked. Nonsense, of course.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I agree completely. What's more, at worst this reflects badly only on Boehner himself, not on his party. It's all because people are irrational and prone to associational thinking. Boehner is an adulterer, Boehner is a Republican, therefore adultery and Republicans are linked. Nonsense, of course.

There is often a greater outcry when Republicans are caught in the act then with Democrats, I think, because Republicans have positioned themselves as the party of traditional family values. When they fall short of the ideal, it reeks of hypocracy more than when Democrats do.

I'm not saying that is the way it should be, just the way it is perceived by many.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

There is often a greater outcry when Republicans are caught in the act then with Democrats, I think, because Republicans have positioned themselves as the party of traditional family values. When they fall short of the ideal, it reeks of hypocracy more than when Democrats do.

I'm not saying that is the way it should be, just the way it is perceived by many.

Oh, I understand that. But (and I realize I'm not arguing against your position here) let's be clear on something. If a politician wants the government snooping around in my bedroom, enforcing a moral code I don't agree with from the start, it is not any better if said politician lives up to said moral code himself, than if he is a hypocrite. I find it equally offensive either way. I vote against "family values" Republicans because I disagree with those political positions, not because I find that their advocates don't practice as they preach.

I just don't think it's any of the government's business, and by the same token I also don't think it's any of my business as a voter. Boehner is not in my district and so it's moot anyway, but I would never vote against him because he had an affair with an intern. Mind you, I probably would vote against him -- just not for that.

His wife, now, his wife might have something to say about it. It's arguably her business. Also, if sexual harassment occurred, then it could be the business of a court of law. But it's none of mine.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

The New York Post says the the New York Times is about to spring a story to the effect that John Boehner is having an affair with a female lobbyist.

For the record, I could not care less who John Boehner is sleeping with, I've said going back to Gary Hart that this is none of the press's or the public's business, and I hope Americans can find better reasons to vote against him and his fellow Republicans this November.

As far as I am concerned, a would-be Speaker of the House with a female lobbyist troubles me far more than a situation in which the would-be Speaker of the House has an affair with a male mechanic. The issue isn't so much sex as it is the potential for corruption.

Far better reasons exist for voting against incumbent and challenging Republicans this year than some affair.