Originally Posted by Galen

Not necessarily, in the seventies the Boomers were all reading Marx and that tended to shape their view of the world.

No, most Boomers weren't reading Marx. I was. Most weren't. I was there. You were not, or were too young to judge matters well if you were there. I know. You don't. You are spouting stereotypes that have no basis in fact.

Even your characterization of me as a Marxist is wrong. I'm a socialist, but not a Marxist. Most Boomers, though, aren't even socialists. So with respect to most of the generation you're incredibly far off base. Actually, you'll find a lot more Millie socialists than Boomer socialists, which makes sense if you understand what Civic generations are about.

And the Soviet Union never had and still doesn't have anything to do with what I believe and advocate, and therefore its collapse is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Marx made sense on issues of right and wrong in capitalism.

Only sort of. He was off IMO on the labor theory of value and also he divided classes too strictly and absolutely. He was historically proven wrong in his failure to anticipate the possibility of significant reform. It was very good for a first attempt.

Originally Posted by Galen

Not necessarily, in the seventies the Boomers were all reading Marx and that tended to shape their view of the world. Brian is still spouting that crap after all of these years and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Now they are reading Mises, Hayek and Rothbard and it is unreasonable to think that there won't be similar effects. Given that both of the major parties are into big government and that it hasn't been working out so well lately. Given that Bernake keeps doing the same thing and giving it a new name it is only natural that they would look for a different direction.

Mises makes more sense than Marx or Keynes ever did.

Yes, LSAP would be just like QE. But, just like with the QEs, the Mises folks will get it wrong again - telling us that hyper-inflation is just around the corner. Mises folks remain clueless, still lost in the myth that fractional reserve lending actually exist. Here's a hint - except for the inflation hysteria Bernake moves cause in the clueless markets, his actions are actually DE-flationary in the real economy because QEs and LSAP REMOVE money circulating in the economy. That's because these actions remove interest payments and give it to the US Treasury as "profit" which returns the dollars to the ether from which it was issued - that is DE-flationary.

The 'success' that Mises crowd has had is in spreading their big govt idiocy to not only the Right but most all Americans in terms of aversion to federal govt. deficit spending. People actually now not only believe the federal deficit had something to do with the 2008 financial meltdown, but they also believe that the federal govt, the currency issuer, is just like a household or business that are currency users - that federal debt is like all other debt which is beyond stupidity. That is where there is little daylight between the two major parties, and it, by far, is the reason our economy remains mired.

You all should be proud of your 'accomplishment;' just know that history is not going to treat you well.

Originally Posted by Odin

Note the throat-cutting motion

From time to time, I think that maybe some of the posters here don't get out much. Then I think that I'm being too hard on them. Then one of them confirms it.

I hate you Mises to pieces.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Hmm ... not entirely "fair," because you can't put a dollar amount on being forced to carry a pregnancy in your body for nine months.
But I do see your point.

You talk as if the woman has no control over herself or her actions relating to sexual activity and access. I've yet to pry open a womans legs.

A long but fascinating article on the state of American politics in the German news magazine Der Spiegel

The End of Reason: What Potatoes Say about the State of US Democracy

Yep!

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

You talk as if the woman has no control over herself or her actions relating to sexual activity and access. I've yet to pry open a womans legs.

Does it actually matter whether she has control or not? Is there anything wrong with her desiring and having sex, that when unwanted results happen we should feel moved to say "It's her own damned fault, she should have kept her knees together"?

When the consequences are unavoidable, that's what we have to say. But we're not talking about unavoidable consequences now -- unless, by law, we MAKE them unavoidable -- and that brings the question around once more to "why should we?"

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Does it actually matter whether she has control or not? Is there anything wrong with her desiring and having sex, that when unwanted results happen we should feel moved to say "It's her own damned fault, she should have kept her knees together"?

When the consequences are unavoidable, that's what we have to say. But we're not talking about unavoidable consequences now -- unless, by law, we MAKE them unavoidable -- and that brings the question around once more to "why should we?"

Also, news flash -- contraception doesn't always work. Condoms break, even the pill isn't 100 percent effective.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Also, news flash -- contraception doesn't always work. Condoms break, even the pill isn't 100 percent effective.

But telling people to use birth control is far more effective than telling them not to have sex. The Evangelical Right don't care about practical measures to stop unplanned pregnancies, they want to turn it into a platform for moralizing. the "Deep Ecology" folks on our side are the same way with regards to reducing pollution and CO2 emissions, instead of practical measures all they care about is moralizing.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Does it actually matter whether she has control or not? Is there anything wrong with her desiring and having sex, that when unwanted results happen we should feel moved to say "It's her own damned fault, she should have kept her knees together"?

When the consequences are unavoidable, that's what we have to say. But we're not talking about unavoidable consequences now -- unless, by law, we MAKE them unavoidable -- and that brings the question around once more to "why should we?"

As far as I'm concerned, birth control and sexual freedom are both here to stay and we won't be going back to the 1950's. The question is, how many female welfare recipients and recipient children can the wealthier leftist males and females afford on their own without American assistance?

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

As far as I'm concerned, birth control and sexual freedom are both here to stay and we won't be going back to the 1950's. The question is, how many female welfare recipients and recipient children can the wealthier leftist males and females afford on their own without American assistance?

Hmm. Well, untangling that highly confused paragraph, we find:

1) A question about welfare following on a statement about birth control and sexual freedom, although the one has nothing to do with the other.

2) An apparent failure to recognize that "wealthier leftist males and females," in this country anyway, are Americans.

Perhaps you'd care to untangle these two knots for us?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Only sort of. He was off IMO on the labor theory of value and also he divided classes too strictly and absolutely. He was historically proven wrong in his failure to anticipate the possibility of significant reform. It was very good for a first attempt.

On the class divide -- small-scale entrepreneurs whose profit is their modest living are not exploiters as such. Marx failed to recognize the potential ascendancy of bureaucratic elites capable of exploiting workers without owning assets. The peasant farmer rarely has the means with which to exploit labor.

I associate Marx' failure to anticipate reform within capitalist systems with elected legislatures as a failure to predict conflicts within ownership classes.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Hmm. Well, untangling that highly confused paragraph, we find:

1) A question about welfare following on a statement about birth control and sexual freedom, although the one has nothing to do with the other.

2) An apparent failure to recognize that "wealthier leftist males and females," in this country anyway, are Americans.

Perhaps you'd care to untangle these two knots for us?

1) The welfare state and government funding are more directly related to the central issues of today than the no-issues involving birth control and sexual freedom.

2) Liberal ideals vs American ideals. Liberal belief vs American belief. Liberal values vs American values.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

1) The welfare state and government funding are more directly related to the central issues of today than the no-issues involving birth control and sexual freedom.

What welfare state? America is like the Sparta of the modern world.

When you cut already gutted schools, you save a few bucks in the short run, but you ensure another generation grows up ignorant, unable to get good jobs, and attracted to crime. When you shut down clinics for the poor, you save a few bucks in the short run, but you promote the spread of infectious diseases. Etc... etc...

Social welfare spending as a % of GDP:

2) Liberal ideals vs American ideals. Liberal belief vs American belief. Liberal values vs American values.

News flash: Americans like sex. The ones with the most hangups about it are old and dying off.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

What welfare state? America is like the Sparta of the modern world.

When you cut already gutted schools, you save a few bucks in the short run, but you ensure another generation grows up ignorant, unable to get good jobs, and attracted to crime. When you shut down clinics for the poor, you save a few bucks in the short run, but you promote the spread of infectious diseases. Etc... etc...

Social welfare spending as a % of GDP:

.

Are you saying the welfare state no longer exists? If so, I have to assume that you don't get out much or don't stray very far from home, so to speak. BTW, I assume the gray areas are actually the Sparta's of the new world as well.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

News flash: Americans like sex. The ones with the most hangups about it are old and dying off.

News flash. Slavery ended 150 years ago. But the liberals/Dems continue using the threat of its return for social control and their own political gains.

Let me guess, Exile thinks most people on public assistance are lazy welfare queens who drive Cadillacs?

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

News flash. Slavery ended 150 years ago. But the liberals/Dems continue using the threat of its return for social control and their own political gains.

I consider private prison labor to be a new form of slavery.

Originally Posted by Odin

Let me guess, Exile thinks most people on public assistance are lazy welfare queens who drive Cadillacs?

I think people most on public assistance have become accustomed to the idea of having government cake and eating it too.

Originally Posted by Odin

Let me guess, Exile thinks most people on public assistance are lazy welfare queens who drive Cadillacs?

What about the fifteen-year-old Cadillacs that nobody wants?

Originally Posted by Odin

I consider private prison labor to be a new form of slavery.

Private prison labor gets paid for their labor. How much does a prisoner/convict need to make a decent living in a prison?

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Are you saying the welfare state no longer exists? If so, I have to assume that you don't get out much or don't stray very far from home, so to speak.

There's a difference between inter-generational poverty and this mythical "welfare state" you speak of. No one chooses to get stuck in the ghetto or trailer park because the government benefits are so sweet. People get stuck because the Puritanically inspired American belief that children should pay for the financial sins of their parents.

"When you cut already gutted schools, you save a few bucks in the short run, but you ensure another generation grows up ignorant, unable to get good jobs, and attracted to crime."

Let me guess, their parents should have cared enough to send them to private schools? Or moved to a nicer district with nicer public schools? I hope it satisfies your sense of economic justice, because it does nothing but expand the poverty class you so loathe.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I think people most on public assistance have become accustomed to the idea of having government cake and eating it too.

KIA, you are the perfect example of why the top 1% can so easily manipulate about half the population into voting against their own self-interest.

Very similar to the poor ignorant Whites that fought in the Civil War to maintain slavery. The mythology of welfare queens is no less blinding than the mythology of the Antebellum South. Very powerful ju-ju, but fortunately, with inevitable demographics, you all are dying out as a political force - for me, that can't come soon enough.

Originally Posted by playwrite

KIA, you are the perfect example of why the top 1% can so easily manipulate about half the population into voting against their own self-interest.

Very similar to the poor ignorant Whites that fought in the Civil War to maintain slavery. The mythology of welfare queens is no less blinding than the mythology of the Antebellum South. Very powerful ju-ju, but fortunately, with inevitable demographics, you all are dying out as a political force - for me, that can't come soon enough.

Exactly; the sooner the better indeed!