Krugman discovers birth of FIRE!

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Krugman discovers birth of FIRE!

I don't think it is ever wrong to help the poor or to educate the ignorant no matter their class. We ...

Agreed, such is seldom if ever wrong.

But who should do this?

If by "we" we unthinkingly mean "the national government", then we endow that government with the power to provide for most or all of our needs, and hence to take from us most or all of what we have.

Power is corrupting. The essential tactic to counteract that is "division of power." States, local governments, churches, charities, neighbors, friends, relatives, ... to each of these falls some of the responsibility to further the well being of society and of its members.

When that fails, when the national government becomes too strong and too intrusive into our lives we lose our freedom. We all become slaves, bickering over whether or not we are well cared for slaves.

[sunskyfan]

Re: Krugman discovers birth of FIRE!

True ... but when political leaders argue over at what scale we act and nothing is done there is a breach in ethics. The energy should be put in the diligence to prevent the societal drift you speak of not in preventing the acts themselves whether at the National level or the personal level. Reagan and other conservatives (notice small c), whether intended or not, take advantage of your argument to politically appeal to people who really don't want to help anyone else but themselves but need cultural and political cover.

[c1ue]

Re: Krugman discovers birth of FIRE!

Sorry, but this discussion is too focused on Reagan.

1) MAD was a US policy starting right after WW II - initially as a way to keep the Russians from invading Europe by threatening massive attacks on Soviet population centers in that event. It was Jimmy Carter and Brown who modified the policy from bombing cities to targeting Soviet leadership - again before Reagan.

As for the Soviet threat - read some Dr. Michael Hudson.

The Soviet Union was invited to participate in the IMF and World Bank but was prevented from having a proportional representation due to the IMF's control structure (i.e. US and UK with de facto veto power).

Further examination of the historical record shows that the US was extremely worried about the Soviet Union economically - not militarily. The primary worry was that the Communist model would undercut the American economy via 'free labor' - since Communism completely changed the entire capital/labor structure in the Soviet Union and its dominions.

Thus a significant part of the friction was that the US leadership of that era was under constant bombardment by US business to protect American business interests against the 'Commies'.

As for Reagan - what he did certainly helped contribute to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The problem was that the precedent set by his unprecedented deficit spending was then taken up by ALL of the successors.

And here we are today: LBJ - II (Obama) with the 'Great Society' of Banks. In fact we'll probably get another Nixon...Obaminator will reprise both roles.

[Raz]

Re: Krugman discovers birth of FIRE!

First ... your views are obviously well thought out and defended. Its nice to have a good debate. Sorry it isn't over coffee.

I don't dispute the size of the Soviet Military nor its growth during that period. But growth or size is not an indication of intent. If it did we would be invading the entire world all of the time. Granted, it does seem like we are . The Soviet growth was due to the lack of another narrative for economic activity. If we had confidence in our own rhetoric about the problems with the communistic system we would have seen this as the cause of the large military.

There were lots on both sides who considered nuclear war winnable. The one fact that goes unconsidered in both the arms race debate as well as the SDI debate (in favor of SDI actually) is the probable fact that only 10% of the warheads would reach their target and detonate. The Soviet numbers were probably even worse. Only when nuclear winter concepts (even with a small percentage of weapons detonating) in the mid 80's were accepted as probable did the argument tilt to everyone accepting the nuclear war was unacceptable.

I agree that the Democratic congress would have had heartburn with Reagan being "honest" about SS and Medicare. But, he was President and he owed the America people the truth. I would be happy with the payroll tax if it did not end at $80k and went to infinity. I actually favor a national sales tax as I see income tax as unconstitutional.

I think that we can both agree the Harold Brown was one of the best SecDefs in history.

I agree that much of the Great Society was disfunctional but I think the caricature of it create or exploited by Reagan was wrong and increased the cynical divide that henders our politics today. I don't think it is ever wrong to help the poor or to educate the ignorant no matter their class. We justify a great many things that are very inefficient for the sake of goodness or spirit and common good will. Sometimes, even war.

I’m going to address your points one by one. (Without the coffee. Ha!)

“I don’t dispute the size of the Soviet Military nor its growth during that period. But growth or size is not an indication of intent. If it did we would be invading the entire world all of the time. Granted, it does seem like we are . The Soviet growth was due to the lack of another narrative for economic activity. If we had confidence in our own rhetoric about the problems with the communistic system we would have seen this as the cause of the large military.”

Beyond a certain point growth in size very strongly implies intentions.
It was a Democrat who said he believed in the “Tiger Theory” - Harry S. Truman. Of the Soviets he said, “If it looks like a tiger, if it roars like a tiger, if it eats like a tiger, then a reasonable man must assume it is a tiger.” The massive size of the Soviet military implied at the very least that they intended to “Finlandize” Europe, and they were funding and assisting Communist Parties in France and Italy to bring the level of agitation to a point of political paralysis. Combine this with what we actually KNEW about their military doctrine, and only the willfully blind would say that we couldn’t really know their intentions. I would appreciate you pointing out who exactly among the highest levels of our government actually proposed that a full-scale thermonuclear war was winnable.

With all due respect, (and I’m not looking to start a fight), your assertion that the growth of their military was partly a result in the lack of another narrative for economic alternative is ridiculous.
Confidence in our own “rhetoric”? How about taking their ideology and their actions at face value. In the 1930s people who shared your mindset said that Hitler couldn’t possibly mean what he said in Mein Kampf. History proves that he did indeed mean exactly what he said.

“I agree that much of the Great Society was disfunctional but I think the caricature of it create or exploited by Reagan was wrong and increased the cynical divide that henders our politics today. I don’t think it is ever wrong to help the poor or to educate the ignorant no matter their class.”

Those who objected to the huge socialistic turn during the Johnson years were derided at every turn. Reagan created a caricature? Reagan increased the cynical divide? The cynical divide originated within the pseudo-intellectual circles of the Democratic Party where everyone who wished to discuss the proven drawbacks to socialism were politely labeled as “uncaring” or “regressive” while those who wanted to show their compassion by spending other peoples money were “compassionate” and “progressive”. It reached a gutteral low during the Clinton years.
If you are looking for confirmation of the “cynical divide” then contrast how Liberal candidates for the Supreme Court are treated by conservatives compared with the treatment received by Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. The latter was one of the most disgraceful episodes in all of American political history.

“I agree that the Democratic congress would have had heartburn with Reagan being “honest” about SS and Medicare. But, he was President and he owed the America people the truth.”

Let’s be honest about Reagan: he had an intensly strong anti-communist core, and he was repulsed by those whom I call “bed wetting liberals” - the “blame America first” crowd. But in the final analysis Reagan was a politician: some good, some bad. And I agree that he owed the American people the truth. The problem was, at that time (the 1980s) the Democrats only believed they owed the American people someone else’s money, and the media was TOTALLY DOMINATED by those who sympathized with the Democrats. So to insist that the American people accept the hard truth would have meant political suicide. Reagan chose to live.
And what did “Tip” O’Neil owe the American people? He was the third highest ranking official in the United States government.
(As an aside, take a good look at Nancy Pelosi and we can all see how far America has fallen.)

“I think that we can both agree the Harold Brown was one of the best SecDefs in history.”

Yes, we do agree about this.

[Master Shake]

Re: Krugman discovers birth of FIRE!

I’m going to address your points one by one. (Without the coffee. Ha!)

“I don’t dispute the size of the Soviet Military nor its growth during that period. But growth or size is not an indication of intent. If it did we would be invading the entire world all of the time. Granted, it does seem like we are . The Soviet growth was due to the lack of another narrative for economic activity. If we had confidence in our own rhetoric about the problems with the communistic system we would have seen this as the cause of the large military.”

Beyond a certain point growth in size very strongly implies intentions.
It was a Democrat who said he believed in the “Tiger Theory” - Harry S. Truman. Of the Soviets he said, “If it looks like a tiger, if it roars like a tiger, if it eats like a tiger, then a reasonable man must assume it is a tiger.” The massive size of the Soviet military implied at the very least that they intended to “Finlandize” Europe, and they were funding and assisting Communist Parties in France and Italy to bring the level of agitation to a point of political paralysis. Combine this with what we actually KNEW about their military doctrine, and only the willfully blind would say that we couldn’t really know their intentions. I would appreciate you pointing out who exactly among the highest levels of our government actually proposed that a full-scale thermonuclear war was winnable.

With all due respect, (and I’m not looking to start a fight), your assertion that the growth of their military was partly a result in the lack of another narrative for economic alternative is ridiculous.
Confidence in our own “rhetoric”? How about taking their ideology and their actions at face value. In the 1930s people who shared your mindset said that Hitler couldn’t possibly mean what he said in Mein Kampf. History proves that he did indeed mean exactly what he said.

“I agree that much of the Great Society was disfunctional but I think the caricature of it create or exploited by Reagan was wrong and increased the cynical divide that henders our politics today. I don’t think it is ever wrong to help the poor or to educate the ignorant no matter their class.”

Those who objected to the huge socialistic turn during the Johnson years were derided at every turn. Reagan created a caricature? Reagan increased the cynical divide? The cynical divide originated within the pseudo-intellectual circles of the Democratic Party where everyone who wished to discuss the proven drawbacks to socialism were politely labeled as “uncaring” or “regressive” while those who wanted to show their compassion by spending other peoples money were “compassionate” and “progressive”. It reached a a gutteral low during the Clinton years.
If you are looking for confirmation of the “cynical divide” then contrast how Liberal candidates for the Supreme Court are treated by conservatives compared with the treatment received by Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. The latter was one of the most disgraceful episodes in all of American political history.

“I agree that the Democratic congress would have had heartburn with Reagan being “honest” about SS and Medicare. But, he was President and he owed the America people the truth.”

Let’s be honest about Reagan: he had an intensly strong anti-communist core, and he was repulsed by those whom I call “bed wetting liberals” - the “blame America first” crowd. But in the final analysis Reagan was a politician: some good, some bad. And I agree that he owed the American people the truth. The problem was, at that time (the 1980s) the Democrats only believed they owed the American people someone else’s money, and the media was TOTALLY DOMINATED by those who sympathized with the Democrats. So to insist that the American people accept the hard truth would have meant political suicide. Reagan chose to live.
And what did “Tip” O’Neil owe the American people? He was the third highest ranking official in the United States government.
(As an aside, take a good look at Nancy Pelosi and we can all see how far America has fallen.)

“I think that we can both agree the Harold Brown was one of the best SecDefs in history.”

Yes, we doagree about this.

Great posts, Raz.

[Raz]

Re: Krugman discovers birth of FIRE!

True ... but when political leaders argue over at what scale we act and nothing is done there is a breach in ethics. The energy should be put in the diligence to prevent the societal drift you speak of not in preventing the acts themselves whether at the National level or the personal level. Reagan and other conservatives (notice small c), whether intended or not, take advantage of your argument to politically appeal to people who really don't want to help anyone else but themselves but need cultural and political cover.

sunskyfan, how do you know the intentions of so many Americans?

If you are accurate in your assertion then you are indicting Liberals, for they give less to charity that Conservatives. Remember Al Gore's 1996, 1997 and 1998 Federal tax returns? With an annual income averaging over $600,000 he gave not one red cent to charity! *

And whether intended or not, Liberals appeal to the slothful who always expect someone else to pick up the check at the cafe.

*Correction: The Gores gave $353.00 to charity in 1998 out of an Adjusted Gross Income of $197,729.00.
Additional information shows that the Gores were provided free housing, domestic help, medical care, travel expenses, and other amenities in view of his office as Vice-President of the United States.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Krugman discovers birth of FIRE!

Reagan and other conservatives (notice small c), whether intended or not, take advantage of your argument to politically appeal to people who really don't want to help anyone else but themselves but need cultural and political cover.

You might enjoy the little video clip Why are Conservatives So Mean? . It casts the selfishness you ascribe to conservatives in a different light.

[Mashuri]

Re: Krugman discovers birth of FIRE!

I think it's time to put to rest this "'dog eat dog' = capitalism" fallacy. What this suggests is that competition (survival of the fittest, per se) only exists in a free market when, in truth, it exists in the human condition and cannot be done away with. The difference between a free market economy and our current system of powerful government intervention is in what we end up competing for. In the former, competition manifests itself in the facts that the sellers must outdo one another by offering better or cheaper goods and services and that the buyers must outdo one another by offering higher prices. In the latter, competition manifests itself in the endeavors of people to court the favor of those in power. In other words, it's "dog eat dog" regardless, so which system do you think would most efficiently allocate our scarce resources?

Looking for someone or something to blame? How about blaming the Judeo/Christian Moral Ethic and the Capitalist/Free Market dichotomy? Meaning that while capital has no morals, we as a nation are supposed to. The free market essentially means survival of the fittest. In one sense this is ok with me. I've been blessed with enough ability to be successfully self-employed since 1979. In dog eat dog I usually get to do the eating. On the other hand I was taught by my parents at an early age that we all have a responsibility to help those who cannot help themselves, and all my life I've taken that responsibility to heart.

The bottom line is that, when applied on a macro scale, Free Market Capitalism and the Judeo/Christian Moral Ethic are simply incompatible. It is the effort to make them so that has caused all the problems.

The reality is that there never was and never will be a "Free Market" for anything legal. (You want free market look at the illegal drug trade or prostitution that's true free market) Every legal transaction that takes place in the world, from buying a loaf of bread to the restructuring of General Motors, is taxed and regulated in one form or another. Once the transaction is taxed or regulated it is thereby influenced by something other than the "free market"

Ronald Regan, God Bless Him, (I loved him as the host of the Twenty Mule Team Borax Show or was that the GE Theater, I never can remember) and all the other politicians who drink the free market Kool-Aid never seem to understand this relatively simple concept. The less you regulate the more you open the door to dog eat dog capitalism and thereby imperil the Moral Ethic to which we as a civilization ascribe.

On the other hand, the liberals who believe that we can have a chicken in every pot and still live in a capitalist society are kidding themselves as well.

I take no position at this time on socialism, communisim, feudalism, fascisim or any alternate economic system. I simply point out that trying to put square pegs in round holes fucks up both the pegs and the holes. And what we have now are a lot of broken pegs and misshapen holes. We've propped up our supposed middle class with easy credit for the past few decades to fulfill our moral/ethical duty and now we find out that those efforts are completely antagnostic to our capitalistic economic system. So its good bye Ozzie and Harriet USA. It was good while it lasted.

[allenjs]

Re: Krugman discovers birth of FIRE!

I think it's time to put to rest this "'dog eat dog' = capitalism" fallacy. What this suggests is that competition (survival of the fittest, per se) only exists in a free market when, in truth, it exists in the human condition and cannot be done away with.

YES! In fact, Confucianism is far more of a "dog eat dog" system, and this isn't a slander -- Chinese people will agree. Confucianism tells people that society is a hierarchy, and that you can, at best, only advance one level during your lifetime. Because of your obligation to your ancestors, you must fight as hard as possible to advance within your level.

Likewise, the idea that capitalism is "survival of the fittest" is a modern invention. Capitalism is as much about specialization and cooperation via property rights as it is about raw unfettered competition.

[sunskyfan]

Re: Krugman discovers birth of FIRE!

I think both you and Raz miss my point here. The question is not whether conservatives help those around them the question is whether conservatism as politically practiced the last 25 years gave cover to those who really didn't believe in contributing to the common good (at least economically). In many ways this is parallel to arguments about addressing racial issues. I do not think there was a racist bone in Ronald Reagan or Bill Buckley or even Pat Buchanan's body but much of the political translation of the coservative philosophy about states rights and such, though valid phlisophical points, provided cover for racist political movements and motivations for these types of people to vote Republican. True that there is a simular phenomena on the left with the stealing of wealth by "socialization" through taxation. However, even if both sides have good philisophical points here the fact is that Reagan Conservatism has domminated the political landscape for 30 years and as we dump the data on the failures of the last few years it is the conservative side that has more to answer for than the liberal side.

[sunskyfan]

Re: Krugman discovers birth of FIRE!

No coffee? How about scotch ;).

Using the time period of Harry Truman to defend the time period of Ronald Reagan won't wash. They are completely different in facts and tone. Communism as a plausible economic alternative only lasted for a short period of time and then only to move a third world economy to a second world economy. By the time that RR was President it was clear that the West was a better economic model for production the only question was whether it was producing an ethical, healthy, and fair outcome. Remember that the "decodence" of the West was really the only argument from the East that wasn't laughable even in the Eastern bloc after about 1970.

Winnable nuclear war. I didn't assert that anybody thought a full scale nuclear exchange was winnable. Winning a limited nuclear war was very much part of the US doctrine for defending Europe. Even in Truman times.
It was avidly discussed during the Reagan first term as we deployed Pershing IIs in Europe and the justification for SDI was happening.

Comparing my position to appeasers of Hitler isn't justified whether we are having coffee or scotch. Mao, Stalin, and Hitler were the three mass murders of their own people of the 20th century. Hitler managed to kill a whole lot of people that were not Germans. Despicable men from any measure. The question was not about whether to defend the world from those men but how much resources did we needed and how to utilize those resources. By the time RR was President all three men were dead and any system left over by Stalin or Mao were starting to implode under their own weight. RR rhetoric was mcuh more powerfull of a weapon that any other weapon we bought and paid for during that time for contributing the end of the communist system as a viable alternative.

Tip O'Neal and Nancy Pelosi dream about having the influence that RR had. I think maybe we can both agree that neither "government" nor "the market" can create wealth: only productive people who honestly produce create wealth.

[Raz]

Re: Krugman discovers birth of FIRE!

I think both you and Raz miss my point here. The question is not whether conservatives help those around them the question is whether conservatism as politically practiced the last 25 years gave cover to those who really didn't believe in contributing to the common good (at least economically). In many ways this is parallel to arguments about addressing racial issues. I do not think there was a racist bone in Ronald Reagan or Bill Buckley or even Pat Buchanan's body but much of the political translation of the coservative philosophy about states rights and such, though valid phlisophical points, provided cover for racist political movements and motivations for these types of people to vote Republican. True that there is a simular phenomena on the left with the stealing of wealth by "socialization" through taxation. However, even if both sides have good philisophical points here the fact is that Reagan Conservatism has domminated the political landscape for 30 years and as we dump the data on the failures of the last few years it is the conservative side that has more to answer for than the liberal side.

Valid points, sunskyfan.

Now I would like to make one of my own.

Liberals complain that Conservatives are "selfish", "uncaring" and "out of touch with the problems of working families".
These were the very words of our President back when he sought the office which he now holds.
His giving for most years wasn't much better than "Algore", and Gore and John Kerry were far harsher in their criticism.

Don't you think they should at least lead by example if they are going to continuously make such accusations?
Shouldn't they "eat their own cooking"?

[Raz]

Re: Krugman discovers birth of FIRE!

sunskyfan wrote:

"No coffee? How about scotch" ;).

Actually, sunskyfan, I'm a "coffeeholic". And I'm pretty sure that I would enjoy conversation with you over several cups of coffee.;)

"Using the time period of Harry Truman to defend the time period of Ronald Reagan won't wash. They are completely different in facts and tone. Communism as a plausible economic alternative only lasted for a short period of time and then only to move a third world economy to a second world economy. By the time that RR was President it was clear that the West was a better economic model for production the only question was whether it was producing an ethical, healthy, and fair outcome. Remember that the "decodence" of the West was really the only argument from the East that wasn't laughable even in the Eastern bloc after about 1970."

Those words of Truman were timeless in their truthfullness - and their application as well. So we'll just have to disagree on this point.

Leonid Brezhnev was a Stalinist thug. I've read volumes upon volumes of history on the Bolshevik Revolution and the entire period of the Soviet Union's existence. I also have four Russian friends who confirm what I learned by reading Khrushchev, Churchill, Solzhenitzen, Bullock, Hatter and others. The credibility of their economic model had no bearing on the situation in Western Europe had the Soviets been able to blackmail those governments, or worse - overwhelm them militarily. By 1981 the Soviet military advantage in Central Europe was overwhelming - in every category - including theater nuclear weapons. We will have to disagree here as well.

"Winnable nuclear war. I didn't assert that anybody thought a full scale nuclear exchange was winnable. Winning a limited nuclear war was very much part of the US doctrine for defending Europe. Even in Truman times.
It was avidly discussed during the Reagan first term as we deployed Pershing IIs in Europe and the justification for SDI was happening."

You are correct on this point as to the US government.
Sorry if I misrepresented your position.

"Comparing my position to appeasers of Hitler isn't justified whether we are having coffee or scotch. Mao, Stalin, and Hitler were the three mass murders of their own people of the 20th century. Hitler managed to kill a whole lot of people that were not Germans. Despicable men from any measure. The question was not about whether to defend the world from those men but how much resources did we needed and how to utilize those resources. By the time RR was President all three men were dead and any system left over by Stalin or Mao were starting to implode under their own weight. RR rhetoric was mcuh more powerfull of a weapon that any other weapon we bought and paid for during that time for contributing the end of the communist system as a viable alternative."

I wasn't comparing your position to the appeasement lobby personified in Chamberlain. I was pointing out that many people in the 1930s simply didn't take Hitler as seriously as they should have. They weren't cowards - they were reasonable men who chose to believe that Hitler would be reasonable now that he was in a position of real power. They were wrong. Dead wrong.
Reagan's "rhetoric" would have meant absolutely NOTHING to the Soviets had he not backed up his words with real action, i.e., the restoration of the strategic nuclear balance together with sufficient improvement in conventional forces to make those thugs re-evaluate their military plans for Central Europe.

"Tip O'Neal and Nancy Pelosi dream about having the influence that RR had. I think maybe we can both agree that neither "government" nor "the market" can create wealth: only productive people who honestly produce create wealth."

Yes, we can agree that government doesn't create "wealth", although honest, limited government can create and sustain the legal and necessary regulatory atmosphere that protects property rights, contract law, and fair labor standards, all of which help enable an economy to thrive. It should be obvious to all of us that the Obama administration fails miserably on the first two that I mentioned.

I'm not sure that Nancy Pelosi has sufficient gray matter to dream.
She's in the running to make "W" look and sound intelligent.

PS. I suppose we should both apologize to Chomsky for "highjacking" his thread.

[sunskyfan]

Re: Krugman discovers birth of FIRE!

You defend your positions well. Coffee it is. And,
yes, apologies to Chomsky .... and thanks for the spirited conversation .

[Scot]

Re: Krugman discovers birth of FIRE!

By the time that RR was President it was clear that the West was a better economic model for production the only question was whether it was producing an ethical, healthy, and fair outcome. Remember that the "decodence" of the West was really the only argument from the East that wasn't laughable even in the Eastern bloc after about 1970.

Why do so many uninformed people keep saying this? It was not clear at all -- certainly not to sovietologists and not against the backdrop of the economic conditions of the 70's in the United States.

You even had John Kenneth Galbraith saying, (in 1984!) that “the Soviet system has made great material progress in recent years is evident both from the statistics and from the general urban scene.... One sees it in the appearance of well-being of the people on the streets.... and the general aspect of restaurants, theaters, and shops.... Partly, the Russian system succeeds because, in contrast with the Western industrial economies, it makes full use of its manpower..."