Koch Ya!

[Master Shake]

Re: Koch Ya!

Taking Soros as an example, what nefarious ends do you really think he's working towards? I know I've seen some coverage about how he's been savaged by a smear campaign from the right as discussed here. I've also read most of his stuff and thought it was about as controversial as EJ's. Squinting hard I really just think they attack him because he proposes, quite well I think, an alternative, competing view to that of the far right. Is there anything substantial you've seen that would discredit him in your eyes?

Soros as least appeals to a long tradition of democratic thinking that culminated in Popper's "Open Society." This was what I was taught was the great virtue of a democratic society.

Here's an exercise: try and formulate an argument against say Mc Carthyism in America using only the words contained in the phrase "no new taxes."

So, it''s not the super wealthy funding programs and supporting causes that they agree with that you object to, just that they ought to spend their money on things that you agree with?

[oddlots]

Re: Koch Ya!

So, it''s not the super wealthy funding programs and supporting causes that they agree with that you object to, just that they ought to spend their money on things that you agree with?

My point was that all causes are not necessarily equally valid. I don't expect anyone to accept that proposition without argument, I'm just saying that one way of breaking out of the tit for tat of the right versus left argument is, in theory, to compare the validity of the arguments. (Not holding my breath on this of course.)

For example, I might be completely wrong but I find Soros's stated intentions at least fit in with my understanding of what's of value in having a democratic system (Popper etc.) That makes his actions appear less threatening to me than say the Koch's activities but I am very much less familiar with the Libertarian tradition that the Kochs fit into so I might be wrong simultaneously about Soros's real significance and intentions and the Koch brothers real significance and intentions.

The alternative seems to be accepting that, like protestants and catholics, all we can do is fire pot-shots at each other from our respective strongholds of (unsupported, unexamined and ultimately probably unsupportable) belief: fun at times, but ultimately kind of boring.

[oddlots]

Re: Koch Ya!

This underscores the paucity and one-dimensionality of the Rich-Mayer conspiracy theory, which posits that everything is about money: yes, money can help create a movement, but it cannot sustain it, or ensure its success. The Ron Paul campaign was pathetically underfunded, in the beginning, until the Ron Paul for President “money bomb” taught the rest of the political world how online fundraising is really done. It’s passion – ideological passion – that energizes political movements: money is an afterthought. The Frank Rich’s of this world think money determines everything: a curiously plutocratic idea for alleged liberals to hold, but there you have it. The truth, however, is that ideas rule the rule, not dollars – and the “Invisible Hands” are not the billionaires, but the ideologues and activist to whom they must inevitably turn.

This is a very interesting point.

[Master Shake]

Re: Koch Ya!

My point was that all causes are not necessarily equally valid. I don't expect anyone to accept that proposition without argument, I'm just saying that one way of breaking out of the tit for tat of the right versus left argument is, in theory, to compare the validity of the arguments. (Not holding my breath on this of course.)

For example, I might be completely wrong but I find Soros's stated intentions at least fit in with my understanding of what's of value in having a democratic system (Popper etc.) That makes his actions appear less threatening to me than say the Koch's activities but I am very much less familiar with the Libertarian tradition that the Kochs fit into so I might be wrong simultaneously about Soros's real significance and intentions and the Koch brothers real significance and intentions.

The alternative seems to be accepting that, like protestants and catholics, all we can do is fire pot-shots at each other from our respective strongholds of (unsupported, unexamined and ultimately probably unsupportable) belief: fun at times, but ultimately kind of boring.

Who determines what is "valid?" Essentially, it's what you believe is valid, no?

[flintlock]

Re: Koch Ya!

Taking Soros as an example, what nefarious ends do you really think he's working towards?]

I'm no Soros expert, but I'll take a wag at it. For one thing he donates copious amounts to groups like MoveOn.org. That along gives me pause. The guy made billions in the market yet he espouses all this anti-free market stuff. Classic, "I'm on the lifeboat, now pull up the ladder", limousine liberal behavior. I'm not saying he is the anti-Christ, only that these types often have ulterior motives. These types are always working an angle. It's just in their nature. They love control, and absolutely think that only a sucker gives anything away without getting something back in return. These are not selfless Mother Theresa types. He probably does believe what he says he does, at least to some degree. Of course that's easy once you have made billions off the system you are criticizing and are old and about to die. I do give him credit for getting involved. I'm just not naive enough to think people like Soros don't have ulterior motives. But like I said, I'm no expert on Soros.

[oddlots]

Re: Koch Ya!

Am I really being that unclear or am I confused? We all individually decide what's valid based on the information and arguments before us. I would like to think that if someone presents evidence and / or an argument that is both valid and that contradicts one of my beliefs my beliefs will change accordingly. If not, what's the point of any discussion.



Of course

[vanvaley1]

Re: Koch Ya!

Didn't the American Liberty League have a number of individuals and corporations that were mentioned in connection with the FDR 1933 Coup attempt?

[oddlots]

Re: Koch Ya!

I don't think his writings are anti-free market. They are just anti market-fundamentalism. As an example his notion of reflexivity is important to me because it models a world where markets are not self-righting. This is particularly important in a finacialised economy that is, by definition, already half way to being completely cut off from any real "price discovery" function.

I think this is also helpful in our present context because we've just lived through a period where regulation has become so de-legitimised that even the ex head of the NY fed can say he was never a regulator and no-one seems to bat an eye (it's his job description for f's sake.)

I think the acid test is whether someone has availed themselves of Fed protection (i.e., "liquidity" support.) In this context lumping hedge funds in with the major banks is a crucial failure of analysis: if they're flying on their own I generally don't care whether they succeed wildly or flame out. In fact some of the most trenchant critiques of our current set up come from wealthy individulas such as Einhorn or Hendry for example. Conversely, if they were covered by the fed (and wildly abused this cover obviously) then they've lost any legitimacy to discuss free market anything.

[Shakespear]

Re: Koch Ya!

Wanted to find out who is Mr. Cliff Yonce. Please look to see this happy face, the rest are having a good time also.

http://www.nysocialdiary.com/sociald...ry11_24_04.php

This was also fun reading on the same web page

Also that same night up at the New-York Historical Society on Central Park West and 77th Street, they were holding their “History Makers Gala 2004” honoring former Clinton Administration Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin for his extraordinary accomplishments as Secretary of the Treasury, in the New York financial world and for the part he so innovatively played in forging the global economy of today.

Robert Rubin

Mr. Rubin is one of those players rarely seen around social New York, except at special benefits usually related to a matter of gravity such as economics, foreign policy or history.

[BigBagel]

Re: Koch Ya!

Personally I don't get any of this.
If I had a multi-billion dollar family fortune I would want a strong and vibrant middle class to promote stability. I would want a Federal Government that would have some ability to protect me, my family and my wealth. Beyond deregulation and keeping taxes low they seem not to care if the government is turned into an empty husk.
Abortion and gay rights. Why should they care about such things one way or the other. If one of their women wants an abortion they will have a safe abortion no matter what the law is. Gay rights? Dick Cheney didn't throw is lesbian daughter out. He accepted her and her partner as part of the family. Those issues are red meat for the dupes.
I guess they don't think there is any possibility of civil insurrection in this country. History says otherwise.

[Shakespear]

Re: Koch Ya!

I would want a Federal Government that would have some ability to protect me, my family and my wealth.

They have it, don't worry :-)

[oddlots]

Re: Koch Ya!

Wow that's a weird development. Here's something weirder:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_658264.html

Get ready for "Goldman Sachs: The Movie."
That isn't a real movie title. But filmmaker Ric Burns, who created the PBS series "The Civil War" with his brother Ken, is shooting a documentary about the Wall Street firm. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. is paying for the film, has editorial control and is overseeing the project through its marketing department, a Goldman spokesman said.


Well at least, thanks to Barry Ritholtz, we already have the tagline for the poster: "Goldman Sachs: we put the douche in fiduciary."

[Shakespear]

Re: Koch Ya!

An old tried and tested method to SPIN ones point of view about events. This was also done with the last minute bail out of Wall Street by Paulson. Docu-drama that I watched for 2 minutes and changed the channel. :-)

[bpr]

Re: Koch Ya!

I really don't understand the angst being expressed, both in the article and in some of the thread comments. This is the age old system that has been in place for generations in our "democracies", and it is what sets our political/economic system apart from much of the rest of the world.

I just thought it odd that, by reading an article that has no mention of Soros, some immediately make the assumption that it was in support of him and his agenda.

You're right, and those posts (and the subsequent discussion) prove it. :-/