115 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  Cindy H on October 28 at 4:36 p.m.

  “Palin is so last year. Who will be the scary pol this year?”

  Who cares about pols? This year I'm going as pundit. Or a crazy cat lady.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Gary Crooks on October 28 at 4:39 p.m.

  That's redundant.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Arch_Druid on October 29 at 7:02 a.m.

  Paul G. Swanson should put on the scary “liberal” mask; given his angry frothing that looks exactly like something that GMorton would say. (And I am sure they aren't related.) Even though Mr. Swanson might just benefit from a public option in Health Care, he still calls it stealing.

  Let me inform you then about what stealing DOES mean. A credit card lending company receives a payment two days late. Instead of crediting the payment to your next billing statement and slapping you with late fees and over limit fees, they never do document the payment they in fact did receive. Then they want to over-charge you for the next two years and try to make you pay multiples of times for the payment they had received over two years before. But it takes them more than two years before they describe the basic outlines of bank fraud against your account. And using the payment they never documented as a justification for putting ginormous and punitive surcharges on your account…

  This is also a bank that did get TARP money.

  Why is it that Swanson can only froth when “the little people” may benefit from gvt activism and stand utterly silent when business interests blatantly steal from you? Using the definitions of theft that Swanson provided. Oh, only “liberals” steal?

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  lewis on October 29 at 9:06 a.m.

  Avista has a 8.1 million dollar profit, plus they just got 9+ million dollars from the stimulus plan to up date their equipment. isnt that the reason they give us when they raise our rates they need to update their equipment?

  the rich get richer and the poor freeze to death.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on October 29 at 9:14 a.m.

  How about the uninsured who 'steal' from everyone when the medical bills they can't pay are passed along to everyone else? How about the morality of the medical industry - including the insurers - who pass those costs along, taking from all of us and returning nothing except a continued healthy profit margin for them?

  Not that *reasonable* profits are wrong or that honest businesses don't have the right to pass along the *reasonable* costs of doing business. No more than it's 'wrong' or immoral for the government to tax its citizens in order to provide fundamental services - like basic health care. Because if a state doesn't have a valid interest in the health of its citizens, what valid interests does a state have? 'We will provide police and fire and an army to protect you. But if you get sick, hey - you're on your own. Osama bin Laden-yes. Cancer-no.' That's absurd upon its face.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  lewis on October 29 at 9:53 a.m.

  We will provide police and fire and an army to protect you.

  basically they provide two of those things to control us.

  It would be in their best interests to make sure we are healthy, we can work longer hours therefore paying more tax. and in a mini mart fight to the death we could put up more of a fight.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  richard on October 29 at 7:23 p.m.

  Druid, you object to the letter writer calling big liberal government polices “stealing,” by saying that it is the credit cards who “steal” from us, which is very true. However, you forgot one very important factor. When government raises taxes to pay for someone else’s needs, you don’t have any say in how those taxes are being raised.

  When you have a credit card that charges high interest or fees, I have only one suggestion; cut the card in half and they will never be able to charge you another penny. It is called freedom; it is called liberty. It is called choice.

  <<the rich get richer and the poor freeze to death>>

  No one freezes to death in this country Lewis, there are many, many, many ways to get assistance if you can’t pay for heat or food or housing or health care. I think you are exaggerating.

  Is there anyone who has posted on this thread who is not demanding socialist policies in this country? And if you object to that label, what do you call it?

  Military, police and fire protection are the things government can provide that no one can or does object to. Without those protections, not one of us in this country is safe. Agreed?

  If you demand that your next door neighbor pay for your health care, what will be next; your clothing, your food, your housing? At what point do those who earn large incomes and who steadily have those incomes diminished because you expand your definition of “basic needs;” at what point does that person decide it is not worth running a business and then their workforce is out of work? Multiply that a thousand times and where is the nation as a whole?

  I am sorry, but at some point, THAT kind of thinking becomes very self centered and selfish. This nation's wealth was not developed by punishing those who take risks and work hard to build something of value, and who, incidently, allow for thousands of people to earn middle income wages?

  Take the employers away and what is left? Government!

  “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H. L. Mencken

  “You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer.” - Winston Churchill

  The point to remember, as John Coleman said, “is that what the government gives, it must first take away.”

  And I would add to that last quote, that in order to justify more and more taking away, those who receive what is first taken away always defends it by defining it in “moral” terms.

  You look at the decline of every successful, wealthy and powerful nation and you will find that socialist type policies were always applied because of the mistaken belief that one can create a Utopian kind of society.

  It always results in the decline of that nation. Always!
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  gmorton on October 29 at 7:45 p.m.

  Arch_druid wrote,

  “Even though Mr. Swanson might just benefit from a public option in Health Care, he still calls it stealing.”

  Hmmm. If someone benefits from a theft, it is no longer “stealing?”

  Perhaps that will become a new courtroom defense strategy for thieves: “Look here, I got my teeth capped, bought this sharp suit and these Italian shoes, and hooked up with that foxy blond in the front row with the money I took from that bank. I definitely benefited. So you can't accuse me of stealing.”

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  gmorton on October 29 at 10:03 p.m.

  Richard wrote,

  “Is there anyone who has posted on this thread who is not demanding socialist policies in this country? And if you object to that label, what do you call it?”

  Isn't that funny, Richard? The left has a long history of re-labeling itself. As soon as their preferred term of the moment becomes associated in the public mind with the policies they promote, and thus acquires negative connotations, they adopt a new term and accuse critics who use the old one of “name-calling.”

  Thus “communist,” “socialist,” “collectivist,” and even “leftist” and “liberal” are now *verboten*. Their preferred term of the moment is “progressive.” That one is the boldest attempt at Newspeak yet, given that their policies are manifestly regressive. But it too will pass.
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  spokelooneh on October 29 at 11:12 p.m.

  The primary feature of socialism is that the government owns and operates virtually ALL means of production, distribution, and services. There are two or three, not more than a handful of countries that would fit that description, most of them basket-cases.

  The rest of the say, G-20 countries are hybrids to one degree or another, as is the United States.

  No one is proposing the the US government (or any other G-20) jettison their hybrid economies, and have the state take over all industry and commerce. You do realize that there's a London stock market, and a Japanese stock market, don't you, EVEN though they both have universal health care (of two different sorts)?

  A truly socialist healthcare system is what they have in the UK, largely funded on taxes, and almost all of the system owned and operated by the government.

  No one is proposing that the US government take over the entirety of the US health care system, buying up all the facilities, and turning all health care workers into government employees.

  And no amount of Libertarian Ayn Randian rhetoric about the long defeated concept of “enumerated powers” as why this country can't have universal health care is going to convince any intelligent citizens, although those who profit from sickness are desperate to hold on to it.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  gmorton on October 30 at 12:13 a.m.

  Spokalooneh wrote,

  “No one is proposing the the US government (or any other G-20) jettison their hybrid economies, and have the state take over all industry and commerce.”

  Of course not. That would not play well in Peoria, given socialism's dismal track record. The savvy socialist proceeds one step at a time – a takeover here, a mandate there, a subsidy over there. Wherever you can find an interest group hungry for a free lunch. And so now government consumes 45% of GDP, compared to 7% in 1900. Almost halfway to 100%. Be patient.

  “And no amount of Libertarian Ayn Randian rhetoric about the long defeated concept of “enumerated powers” . . .”

  Hmmm. I think Madison and Jefferson preceded Ayn Rand by a couple of centuries. Did you forget about them?

  How was that concept “defeated”? You mean by being ignored? Which constitutional provisions will be “defeated” next? Free speech? Due process? Equal protection of the law?

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  spokelooneh on October 30 at 1:53 a.m.

  “vHow was that concept “defeated”?”

  -gmorton

  By POTUS ruling. Step into the current century, Luddite.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  spokelooneh on October 30 at 2:00 a.m.

  Excuse me totally. My bad,

  By SCOTUS ruling.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on October 30 at 4:46 a.m.

  Setting aside the meaningless whines of 'Socialism!' for a moment, and though I still remain convinced that the need for a fundamental re-working of this nation's entire health care system is an absolute necessity…

  I'm becoming increasingly alarmed by what I see going on in D.C.

  The current House plan for reform runs to some 1500 or so pages. The Senate's proposal is another thousand pages, give or take. The Finance Committee's plan weighs in at something like 200 or 300 pages.

  Now the size of the legislation doesn't worry me. Our nation's health care system is a huge and hugely complex entity that has a profound effect on so much of our lives. I would expect any plans for reform to be equally huge and hugely complex.

  What worries me is this sudden break-neck dash to ram something through the Congress. By my tally and as I said above, the legislation currently runs to something like 3,000 pages of what I'm sure is very 'dense' and complicated legalese.

  And the Congressional powers that be have given our representatives 72 hours to study all that, understand it and then reach a hopefully informed decision that will have a profound impact on our nation and our lives.

  Why this hurry?

  Now please spare me more howls of 'Socialism!'. *I'm just not interested.* There simply isn't a sinister Bolshevik plot at the root of what's going on here. Therefore these endless partisan-parrot assertions that that's what's going on don't persuade me or frighten me in the least.

  What does increasingly alarm me and frustrate me - what I'm quite convinced *is* at the root of this looming disaster in the making - is the same old partisan business as usual. 'It's not important how we win. And it's not important what impact our win might have on those we represent. It's only important that we win. There's an election coming up pretty soon now you know. Time to protect our power and privilege!'

  That balanced against, 'It doesn't matter if what they're proposing is a good idea or not. We can't let them have a win because that will only make it harder for us to reclaim the power and privilege we've lost. All that matters is that they lose because there's an election coming up you know!'
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on October 30 at 5:01 a.m.

  –— Military, police and fire protection are the things government can provide that no one can or does object to. Without those protections, not one of us in this country is safe. Agreed? –—

  Agreed.

  Now, if we're dying from some preventable, treat-able disease, what's the point of a police department or a fire department or an army?

  Seriously, Richard - am I any less dead if I die from a treat-able cancer than if I die at the hands of a burglar or in a house fire or as the result of a nuclear attack?

  We are the only modern, industrialized nation that hasn't yet figured out that affordable, accessible health care is just as *fundamental* to the well-being of a nation and therefore the responsibility of the government as are police, fire and military.
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  lewis on October 30 at 9:22 a.m.

  Yes Richard I was exaggerating just like you do many times. And sadly people do freeze to death in this country we have many senior citizens die from lack of heat every year, like last year an old man died in our area because the power company put some type of limiting device on his power system and he did not know how to turn it off.

  Maybe in your world they don’t die, but in mine they do.

  I think our police have been taught to go beyond normal protection now they are taught how to control us because after 9/11 we are ALL suspected terrorists.
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Chip Jones on October 30 at 10:53 a.m.

  People in this country do freeze to death in their own homes.
  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,4…

  Many people die every year during heat waves as well, mainly the elderly poor.

  Why is it OK for the federal government to tax us huge amounts for the Dept. of Defense, but not for social services? Is it stealing when I am taxed for the War in Iraq because I never thought that we should have invaded?

  The U.S. income tax system was designed to redistribute wealth, and to have the wealthy pay more than the poor. That doesn’t make it socialism. Remember that in 1980 the top marginal tax rate was 70%, now it is 35%.
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  gmorton on October 30 at 2:09 p.m.

  Spokalooneh wrote,

  “By SCOTUS ruling. Step into the current century, Luddite.”

  I'm hip deep into it, I assure you, and sinking fast. As are we all.

  Wonder how you would respond to this fictional, but altogether plausible, SCOTUS ruling:

  –––––––-
  The petitioners in the present case are charged with violations of the Defense of Democracy and Orderly Debate Act of 2012 (DDODA), by distributing leaflets, posting essays and comments on various Internet sites, and organizing rallies in opposition to the Human Rights Enforcement Act (HREA) then under deliberation in Congress. Defendants petitioned the trial court to dismiss the charges on grounds that the First Amendment protects their right to free speech and peaceable assembly. That court dismissed the petition; the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal.

  The Defense of Democracy and Orderly Debate Act attempts to ensure that public debate of enacted or proposed legislation proceeds in an orderly, civil manner, and does not thwart or hamper the ability of the government to enact or enforce legislation which it has reason to believe reflects the will of the public. The government contends that the actions of the petitioners complained of in the indictment provoked public opposition to the HREA and to the government generally, interfered with Congressional consideration of the bill and delayed action thereon, and has inspired widespread defiance of several of the Act's provisions since its passage. As authorized by the DDODA, the government issued cease-and-desist orders to the defendants herein and to several other persons, ordering them to halt distribition of the the objectionable leaflets, remove specific postings from various Internet servers, and barred them from gathering in groups larger than two persons “for the purpose of inciting public sentiment hostile to the bills herein referenced.” The orders also advised the recipients that continued violations of DDODA would result in fines of $5000, or imprisonment for 5 years, or both, for each specific count in violation. While many of the enjoinees complied with those orders, the petitioners publicly refused, and per their own admission not only continued but “redoubled” their violations of the order.

  We have held in a number of previous cases that the provisions of the Constitution are subject to a balancing test. We have also held that acts of Congress must be presumed to be constitutional if they are reasonably related to one or more of the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution, and have a “rational basis:” if the record includes evidence and findings that the measures proposed are likely to accomplish the Constitutional purposes at which they aim.

  Clearly, a measure to expand and enforce human rights, such as the HREA, which requires all landlords, merchants, providers of professional services, self-employed artists and craftsmen, and others, to adopt means-tested pricing for their goods and services in accordance with a schedule prepared annually by the Office of Management and Budget, and which forbids any provider of an “essential good or service” as defined in the Act to refuse to provide such “esstential good or service” to any person on grounds of inability to pay, is reasonably related to the Congress's Constitutional power to provide for the general welfare.

  (cont'd)

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  gmorton on October 30 at 2:11 p.m.

  In addition to legislation reasonably related to the the powers granted to Congress, the Constitition also authorizes Congress to enact any measure “necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.” We hold that the DDODA, which aims in part to prevent delays and deter obstructions to enactment of Constitutional legislation which can result from concerted, widespread, intemperate (and often disorderly and even violent) public opposition thereto, which opposition can also undermine compliance with the legislation once it has passed and even arouse public emnity toward the government in general, is a necessary and proper measure for assuring that the legislation in question can be enacted and enforced.

  This Court does not take petitioners' invocation of the First Amendment lightly. We have always held that the rights of free speech, press, religion, and assembly are to be accorded the highest level of judicial protection, and that legislation credibly alleged to infringe those rights requires the most diligent scrutiny by this Court.

  No one can argue, however, that protection of First Amendment rights is the only obligation of government. The First Amendment cannot be construed so broadly (or so narrowly, depending upon one's point of view), that it frustrates other important functions of government. The aims of the First Amendment must therefore be balanced in each case against those other important governmental aims. One of those latter is surely to provide for the general welfare; another is to enact the wishes of the public in law. We know of no way to weigh those competing objectives except by measuring their relative importance to the public. The government has placed evidence in the record that the HREA enjoys the support of between 65 and 80 percent of registered voters, depending upon the poll and the time it was conducted. Petitioners do not challenge those poll results.

  The First Amendment's phrase “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech” can only be understood to mean, “Congress shall make no law *unreasonably* abridging the freedom of speech.” We hold today that a law clearly aimed at a permissible governmental objective, and clearly reflecting the desires of a majority of the public, cannot be deemed unreasonable.

  The judgments of the courts below are AFFIRMED.
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  spokelooneh on October 30 at 3:11 p.m.

  “Wonder how you would respond to this fictional, but altogether plausible, SCOTUS ruling:”
  -gmorton

  I don't consider it plausible in the least.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  gmorton on October 30 at 3:54 p.m.

  Chip Jones wrote,

  “Why is it OK for the federal government to tax us huge amounts for the Dept. of Defense, but not for social services? Is it stealing when I am taxed for the War in Iraq because I never thought that we should have invaded?”

  Well, that's a complex question (one which asks several questions at once). It is not “OK” for the government to tax “a huge amount” for defense, i.e., an amount greater than needed to actually provide an effective defense.

  It is not OK for the government to tax anyone to provide most “social services” because that latter term is a euphemism for free lunches. The US Constitution authorizes taxes for defense, but not for free lunches. Government must provide defense because it is a *public good* (Google for that term if you don't know what it means). Free lunches (health care, housing, food, clothing, cell phones, big screen teevees, vacations in Hawaii, etc.) are *private goods*.

  All persons benefit from bonafide public goods, hence everyone has a duty to pay for them, in proportion to the benefits they gain from them. Only specific persons benefit from private goods. Seizing wealth from certain specific persons in order to confer benefits on other specific persons is *theft*.

  Does that clear things up any?
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Chip Jones on October 31 at 11:58 a.m.

  No, but it is good and concise explanation of your social philosophy. Thanks.
  K-12 education is a social service that the country has decided is a right for all citizens, and one that serves the greater good. Some us see health care in the same way. We simple have a different social philosophy, a difference that will be resolved by our elected representatives and executives.
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  gmorton on October 31 at 3:02 p.m.

  Whose good would that “greater good” be, Chip? How do you decide whether a good for some persons is greater than a good for other persons?

  Just curious.
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  spokelooneh on October 31 at 9:59 p.m.

  “a difference that will be resolved by our elected representatives and executives.”
  -Chip

  Exactly. But you see, zealots such as gmorton are blind to modern (1800 forward) history. They envision a world, a country that doesn't exist. gmorton and his ilk will always be nothing but fringe.

  Thankfully, as Republican President Dwight Eisenhower said:

  “This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon “moderation” in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid. ”

  http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/pre…

  Negligible and stupid.

  Ike nails it.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  gmorton on November 01 at 12:37 p.m.

  Spokalooneh wrote,

  “Exactly. But you see, zealots such as gmorton are blind to modern (1800 forward) history. They envision a world, a country that doesn't exist.”

  So did the drafters of the Declaration of Independence. So did Harriet Beecher Stowe, Frederick Douglass, and Martin Luther King. Any world envisioned or imagined will not exist, else it would not be envisioned but observed. Are you proposing the abolition of imagination?

  What a strange comment.

  The real question, Looneh, is what *kind* of nonexistent society does your imagination conjure up? Or, if several, which most appeals to you – a free society, or a slave society?
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  spokelooneh on November 01 at 1:00 p.m.

  “Or, if several, which most appeals to you – a free society, or a slave society?”
  -gmorton

  False choice.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  gmorton on November 01 at 1:36 p.m.

  Sorry, Looneh, but those two choices exhaust the possibilities, and are mutually exclusive. They are logical contradictories.

  Free society: Each person is free to pursue the good as he or she defines it, without interference from others, and enjoy the fruits of his or her labor, as long as he or she violates no one else's rights.

  Slave society: Some people are permitted to define the good for others, compel others to pursue it, and seize the fruits of their labor.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  spokelooneh on November 01 at 7:45 p.m.

  So gmorton, is it your contention then, that the US a slave society?

  If so, in what year(s) and by what action(s) did the US become such?

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  gmorton on November 01 at 11:19 p.m.

  Spokalooneh wrote,

  “So gmorton, is it your contention then, that the US a slave society?”

  Yes, of course it is. All societies since since advent of civilization have been slave societies, with the remarkable exception of the USA between 1776 and 1915 or so. All were ruled by a defined class of despots able to impose their will on everyone else by force. They differed, of course, in how extensive and oppressive the subjugation they imposed, and how membership in the ruling class was determined.

  America's founders hoped to change the course of that dismal history (foolish fellows, envisioning a world which had never existed). They succeeded for a while.
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on November 02 at 7:09 a.m.

  –— All societies since since advent of civilization have been slave societies, with the remarkable exception of the USA between 1776 and 1915 or so. All were ruled by a defined class of despots able to impose their will on everyone else by force. –—

  This myth of a by-gone America as the shining Libertarian Utopia is just that - a myth. From the moment of its inception, America was always a nation of laws imposed and duties owed.

  It has to be because that's the only workable basis for a human civilization.

  A human society built upon 'doing your own thing', fully invested with rights and free from any responsibility to the greater whole is a lovely, juvenile dream. But it's not something that's possible in the real world. Human nature simply doesn't work in a way that would make such a Utopia possible.

  For proof of that, I challenge gmorton to cite one example of a workable civilization, either now existent or in the past, that has made a go of 'do as ye will, provided ye do no harm.'
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Chip Jones on November 02 at 8:47 a.m.

  Well said, Jeffrey – seems like gmorton prefers the robber baron, laissez-faire capitalism and the literal slave society of the 19th century (opposed to Ayn Rand’s metaphorical slave society) to modern U.S. society.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Gary Crooks on November 02 at 10:06 a.m.

  <<Yes, of course it is. All societies since since advent of civilization have been slave societies, with the remarkable exception of the USA between 1776 and 1915 or so. All were ruled by a defined class of despots able to impose their will on everyone else by force. They differed, of course, in how extensive and oppressive the subjugation they imposed, and how membership in the ruling class was determined.

  America's founders hoped to change the course of that dismal history (foolish fellows, envisioning a world which had never existed). They succeeded for a while.>>

  Pretty sure that response to the Whiskey Rebellion involved force. And who was that man on the white horse? That would the father of our country.

  The Civil War involved no coercion or force by the government?

  Why is the subjugation and forceful removal of Native Americans given a pass? Was that a natural right? Pretty hard to do that without the government pitching in.

  This statist thing seems conveniently situational.
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  spokelooneh on November 02 at 10:35 a.m.

  “Free society: Each person is free to pursue the good as he or she defines it, without interference from others, and enjoy the fruits of his or her labor, as long as he or she violates no one else's rights.”
  -gmorton

  So up until Emancipation, each (slave) person was free to pursue the good as he or she defined it? How did the slaves in your free society enjoy the fruits of their labor? Buckets of gruel from their Masters?

  Really?

  I don't you have the foggiest idea of what a free society is.

  So, as I asked before, what happened in 1915 to cause the US to no longer be a free society?

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Chip Jones on November 02 at 10:40 a.m.

  Could that be the 16th amendment, ratified in 1913?

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Gary Crooks on November 02 at 11:57 a.m.

  Or was it ratified?

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  spokelooneh on November 02 at 12:46 p.m.

  /cue scary music

  –––––––––––––––
  I'd like an answer to the question, gmorton.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Chip Jones on November 02 at 12:58 p.m.

  Oh nooooo!!! now there will have to be a 16th amendment “not really ratified” thread.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Gary Crooks on November 02 at 1:12 p.m.

  <<America's founders hoped to change the course of that dismal history (foolish fellows, envisioning a world which had never existed). They succeeded for a while.>>

  Up until the time they realized those slaves came in handy or that it might make their slave-holding buds angry if they tried to reverse that dismal history.

  Also, during 1776-1915, it was white males who pretty much decided how things would go for everyone else.

  Liberty and justice for some. Those were the days.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  gmorton on November 02 at 2:47 p.m.

  Wow, poked a stick into the wasp nest there, eh?

  Jeffrey wrote,

  “America was always a nation of laws imposed and duties owed.”

  Of course. The laws forbade citizens to kill, rape, assault, or cheat one another, or steal or destroy one another's property, and required them to honor their contracts (civil law). The duties obliged them to support the machinery for enforcing those laws by paying their fair shares of the costs of such public goods as police, courts, defense, roads, and parks. The laws did not presume to dictate how they could earn a living, with whom they could or must do business or on what terms, what they must pay others for their goods or services or what they could charge for their own. The laws did not command them to practice or finance any religion, support any politician's favorite charity, or to subsidize wheat farmers, sheep ranchers, widget manufacturers, municipal transit, water, or sewer systems, homebuyers, horse or buggy buyers, inventors, biologists investigating the mating habits of earthworms, archeologists searching for Atlantis, ballet companies, football stadiums, baseball museums, failing businesses, political advocacy groups, performance artists, alcoholics, drug addicts and their custodians, peanut festivals, turkey hunters, and everyone else from whom some politician hoped to score a few votes.

  “For proof of that, I challenge gmorton to cite one example of a workable civilization, either now existent or in the past, that has made a go of 'do as ye will, provided ye do no harm.'”

  I already gave one.
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  gmorton on November 02 at 2:47 p.m.

  Chip Jones wrote,

  “…seems like gmorton prefers the robber baron, laissez-faire capitalism and the literal slave society of the 19th century . . .”

  America inherited chattel slavery. It had been a feature of virtually every culture in history. Like Britain, where the ideal of liberty had also taken root, it abolished it.

  You need to jettison the “robber baron” dogma, Chip. It is pseudo-history. By 1900, at the height of the “robber baron” era, American workers were already the highest paid, not only in the world, but in history. Incomes of nonfarm workers – most of whom worked for the “robber barons” – were 3 times higher than those of farm workers. Hundreds of thousands of workers from all over the world emigrated to the US in the last half of the 19th century to be “exploited” by those “robber barons.”

  http://www.adnaschools.org/~ramirezt/…

  Re: US Steel's Homestead plant:

  “Yet Homestead jobs—at least Homestead jobs taken by native-born Americans—were good jobs by the standards of the United States. As historian Ray Ginger put it:

  “'their expectations were not ours. A man who grew up on a Southern farm did not think it cruel that his sons had to work as bobbin boys [collecting spun thread in a textile mill]. An immigrant living in a tenement and working in a sweatshop yet knew that for the first time in his life he was wearing shoes seven days a week…'

  “And Homestead, Pennsylvania jobs paid well both by the standards of the United States and much more so by the standards of the world economy of the time. White households could make around $900 (of 1910 value) a year, placing them well the upper third of the U.S. population in terms of income per household in 1910. Relative to what could be earned by people of similar skill levels anywhere else in the world, a job in the Homestead mill was a very attractive job. Even the unequal America at the turn of the century was a very attractive place compared to the rest of the world. America was exceptional. In spite of the hours, in spite of the risk of death or injury, in spite of the working conditions, these were very good jobs by international standards: jobs worth moving 7,000 miles for, from Hungary or Lithuania to suburban Pittsburgh. For the economy of the late nineteeth century was for the first time in human history a truly global economy, filled with long-distance trade and migration, so people could take advantage of the opportunities opened up by industrialization.”

  http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/08…
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  gmorton on November 02 at 3:09 p.m.

  Gary Crooks wrote,

  “Pretty sure that response to the Whiskey Rebellion involved force. And who was that man on the white horse? That would the father of our country.

  “The Civil War involved no coercion or force by the government?”

  You raised those points in another thread, Gary. I responded.

  “Why is the subjugation and forceful removal of Native Americans given a pass? Was that a natural right? ”

  Certainly not. Though that happened much less often than you probably suppose (there were only about 500,000 natives in N. America north of Mexico in 1800, which means most the continent was uninhabited), it did occur. The American colonists were by no means angels. Some of them murdered, robbed, and beat their wives too. Most of them shared Madison and Jefferson's view of the role of government in social life, however.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on November 02 at 3:28 p.m.

  –— “For proof of that, I challenge gmorton to cite one example of a workable civilization, either now existent or in the past, that has made a go of 'do as ye will, provided ye do no harm.'”

  I already gave one. –—

  Then I must have missed it. Could you repeat it one more time?

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  gmorton on November 02 at 3:44 p.m.

  Spokalooneh wrote,

  “So up until Emancipation, each (slave) person was free to pursue the good as he or she defined it?”

  See responses above. America did not invent slavery. Along with Great Britain, it ended it.

  Below is response of mine from a couple of years ago, during a discussion in which another participant, a Brit, had apologized for his country's role in the slave trade:

  –––––––––-

  If you had any real understanding of your ancestors you would realize that no apologies are necessary. And if you imagine yourself worthy of representing them, it would be the world's gratitude you would be honored to accept on their behalf.

  That is because the British did not invent slavery. They ended it. By the time the British Empire reached its height, and for millennia before, slavery was a customary and ubiquitous practice throughout most of the world – in Asia, the Middle East, in Africa, and in much of Europe. It was practiced by the Vikings, by American Indians, in ancient Egypt and Persia, and most notably in ancient Greece, where it was accepted without a second thought, barely attracting the attention of such enlightened minds as those of Plato and Aristotle. It was widespread in the Roman Empire, and accepted later by both Christianity and Islam.
  
  The British Empire inherited slavery as part of the common culture of the world. And, being the world's first global economic power, they commercialized it. But while inventing and putting into practice the principles of modern economics, those industrious Brits were busy laying the foundations for the modern consciousness in other areas, such as law, political theory, and ethics. Some of these radicals, such as Hobbes and Locke, advanced the startling idea that “all men are created equal,” and that each of them has “inalienable rights.” They rejected the doctrines of “natural classes” and “the divine right of Kings.” They argued instead that all men have “natural liberties,” and may only be governed by another with their consent.
  
  By the end of the 18th Century these radical ideas had inspired revolutions in America, France, and in Great Britain itself. One of the offshoots of this revolution in Britain was the appearance of a free press, which was premised upon another radical idea, that everyone had a right to free speech. Newsletters and tracts circulated freely, and in many of them, pundits, preachers, and rabble-rousers called attention to the obvious inconsistency between the idea that all men are created equal, and the institution of slavery. The issue became a staple of conversation in pubs and coffee houses.
  
  (more)

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  gmorton on November 02 at 3:45 p.m.

  Abolitionist arguments first began to be made in Parliament in the early to mid-18th century. The issue rose to the forefront because Britain had become the world's foremost maritime power, and thus the world's greatest slave trader. Locke- and Puritan-inspired Whigs were appalled at their nation's role in that “execrable commerce.” But economically, it was a hugely important trade, and defended tooth and claw by many influential bankers, tycoons, and wealthy nobles.
  
  Slavery was outlawed in Britain itself in 1772, by the ruling of a Royal judge, William Murray, Earl of Mansfield. He wrote, “the air of England is too pure for a slave to breathe, and so everyone who breathes it becomes free. Everyone who comes to this island is entitled to the protection of English law, whatever oppression he may have suffered and whatever may be the colour of his skin.”
  
  But the world slave trade continued to be dominated by British merchants. In 1789 William Wilberforce introduced the first bill in Parliament to abolish the transport of slaves on ships flying the British flag. At the beginning, those bills died quietly. But each year, a new bill seemed to get more votes. Street demonstrations occurred. One abolitionist MP was assassinated. But in 1807, the bill passed – British merchant seamen were forbidden to transport slaves.

  Finally, in 1833, Britain abolished slavery outright, throughout the Empire. Parliament appropriated 20 million pounds Sterling – an incredible sum – to compensate slave owners. The story of the abolition of slavery is perhaps the most remarkable in all of moral history. It happened amazingly rapidly, for changes of that kind – in less than 100 years. Almost all of the debate occurred in Britain. It was a triumph of moral philosophy and a free press.

  Your ancestors changed the world, sir, and for the better. They abolished slavery, at a time when, elsewhere, it was not even seen as an issue.

  You may take a bow on their behalf.
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Chip Jones on November 02 at 3:56 p.m.

  gmorton “there were only about 500,000 natives in N. America north of Mexico in 1800”
  That is because most Indians had died from epidemic diseases by 1800. The first documented epidemic was in 1521, the second in 1540, and they killed people far from European settlement. Some studies indicate that 95% of all Indians in North America were killed by disease. Recent studies in the lower Mississippi Valley indicate that the population there alone in A.D. 1400 was one million. A population estimate of ten million for North America in 1491 is in the middle of most estimates (north of Mexico). In 1491, all areas of North America were inhabited.
  Even in the late 1800s, people were still taking Indian land. Look at the history of Indian allotments in Washington and of reservations like the Moses Reservation (which no longer exists)

  Sure, children liked working 7 days a week. The Chinese railroad workers had it great as well. gmorton, it is you who harbors a delusion of pseudo history.
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  gmorton on November 02 at 4:26 p.m.

  Chip Jones wrote,

  “That is because most Indians had died from epidemic diseases by 1800. The first documented epidemic was in 1521, the second in 1540, and they killed people far from European settlement. Some studies indicate that 95% of all Indians in North America were killed by disease.”

  Yes. But unintentional transmission of diseases to persons unknown by anyone to have no resistance to them does not qualify as genocide. The fact remains that by 1800 most of N. America was uninhabited, and the pioneers of the American West had nothing to do with epidemics which decimated the native population 300 years earlier.

  “Sure, children liked working 7 days a week. The Chinese railroad workers had it great as well . . .”

  Yes, they do, when the alternative is working 7 days a week on a farm for less money (or starving), as did kids all over the world, for the previous 1000 years. The Chinese workers traveled 6000 miles to work on the railroads. We may assume they considered it an improvement over working in subsistence rice paddies in China.

  Simply put, Chip, your methodology is fallacious. You need to judge the conditions of 19th century workers, not against 21st century standards, but against the alternatives available to them at the time, and against the conditions of workers preceding them. And American workers in 1910 enjoyed a standard of living unprecedented in history.
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Chip Jones on November 02 at 5:13 p.m.

  I never said death by disease was genocide. North America was far from uninhabited in 1800, however. Some areas may have had low population densities, but they were not uninhabited. Your statement shows a misunderstanding of Indian land use and is in error.

  I understand that advances in standards of living occur incrementally, just as they are now with globalization and industrialization of third world countries. Regulated capitalism works well, and is by far a superior economic system to any other in the world right now. But unregulated, laissez faire capitalism is not good for most people, as the examples above.
  That is why U.S. society decided long ago to regulate markets and industry, and to make manufactures pay the true costs of production, rather than passing on some costs to others, like pollution and injury of employees. Even Alan Greenspan admitted that his belief that markets would self regulate was wrong. They don’t self regulate, and they hurt many people in process of their collapse.
  I am not “judging” 19th century capitalism by today's standards, I am saying that most people in the U.S. do not want to go back to it because it was flawed.
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  spokelooneh on November 02 at 8:58 p.m.

  Wow, gmorton is citing an elementary school textbook and the blog of (admittedly well known) economist as source data.

  The schoolboy chart showed that the earnings of non-farm workers were about 2.75 times that of farm workers, however that INCLUDED housing and food for the farm worker.

  Non farm workers likely had housing costs and food costs totaling 90% or more of their income, (and paid this to the company store and paid rent to company-owned housing; my grandfather lived in a US Steel owned house) so who was really ahead? Both probably worked 12 hour days, disease was more rampant in the cities, and working in these factory hell holes was god-awful and very dangerous work.

  The Sherman Act was passed in 1890 which at least put the robber-barons, monopolists, and oligarchs on notice, then the speculator banksters overextended credit to the railroads in another greedy bubble that came crashing down, the Panic of 1893, virtually wiping out the middle class of the time, one of numerous severe economic crashes that happened regularly in the post Civil War period. But hey, a least it was free society, where women and minorities knew their place.

  What event happened in 1915 that turned the US into a slave society, gmorton?

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  gmorton on November 02 at 10:07 p.m.

  Spokalooneh wrote,

  “The schoolboy chart showed that the earnings of non-farm workers were about 2.75 times that of farm workers, however that INCLUDED housing and food for the farm worker.”

  Methinks you've misunderstood what that means. Better think that through some more.

  “… . so who was really ahead? Both probably worked 12 hour days, disease was more rampant in the cities, and working in these factory hell holes was god-awful and very dangerous work.”

  The demographics tell you who was ahead. Workers migrated from farms to factories, not the other way around. They emigrated long distances to work in factories. *Because they improved their situation by doing so*.

  “What event happened in 1915 that turned the US into a slave society, gmorton?”

  There was no single event. Nor was there a specific date. As I said before, the transition occurred incrementally. Two events in 1913, however, gave Woodrow Wilson's government unprecedented control over the economy, the Federal Reserve Act and the income tax. They gave the government the tools for the massive interventions of the 1930s, and the transition to the post-Constitutional Era.

  The percentage of a nation's GDP consumed by government (at all levels) is a good proxy for its position along the free-slave spectrum. In the US it has increased from about 7% in 1900 to 45% today.

  http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/u…

  I.e., about 45 cents of every dollar you earn is spent by politicians and bureaucrats, not by you.
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  spokelooneh on November 02 at 11:53 p.m.

  You numbers for (white) farm workers pay concur with what I've seen elsewhere, and they almost always got free room and board.

  Blacks farm workers got free room and board and usually no pay.

  The wage levels in your schoolbook example are not in anyway comparable, since they don't take into account the (significant) cost of room and board for non-farm workers.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  gmorton on November 03 at 12:51 a.m.

  The figures for farmers shown *include* the room and board, Looneh. You're trying to add them to those figures.
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on November 03 at 7:08 a.m.

  –— The percentage of a nation's GDP consumed by government (at all levels) is a good proxy for its position along the free-slave spectrum. In the US it has increased from about 7% in 1900 to 45% today. –—

  But what is it spent on? That's the question you don't address.

  gmorton, it's not that I can't find some agreement with some of what you say. Smaller government is better than bigger government - at least as a general principle. I think most people would agree with that. But in and of itself, that's simply too broad a generalization to be the basis for any meaningful action. That's only the starting point. It's not and can't be the ultimate goal.

  It can't be the goal because once again - the devil is in the details.

  –— Free society: Each person is free to pursue the good as he or she defines it, without interference from others… –— becomes, 'Well, of course there have to be laws and taxes to pay for necessary government services.' The amorphous generality fails when it meets specifics. The shining beacon of a libertarian utopia that was America before it was ruined by 'statists' falls apart under close scrutiny as the challenges above prove. Slavery… The Civil War… The treatment of Natives… Upton Sinclair's rebuttal to the illusion of a pre-1900's industrialism worker's paradise… And no, it's not completely revisionist to point those things out. The only revisionism is reflexively branding anything that would challenge the dogma as 'lies, lies, damnable, revisionist lies!'

  Returning to the percent of GDP consumed by government spending and the real question that has to be asked…

  Literacy is up. Life expectancy is up. America went from a third-world military spectator on the sidelines to the sole remaining global super-power.

  Hell, the GDP itself is up.

  It's therefore indisputably clear that at least some of the spending was to the good. You simply can't argue that. So what was good and what was not? **That's a case-by-case enquiry that you simply can't resolve with broad generalizations and labels of 'slavery!'**

  You can't brand us all as 'enslaved' just because you don't like every spending decision made by *those we elect*. The issues behind those decisions are *far* too complex to submit to your anti-statist, libertarian utopia dogma.

  Now it's certainly true that not every decision is going to be the right one. And it's certainly true that there will be waste and corruption and pork-barrel politics - just as there *ALWAYS* have been. This is so because fallible, corruptable humans are in control. And they'll still be in control no matter how high above the muck and mire of the real world your sublime utopian vision soars.

  Smaller government ought to be the ideal that an informed electorate strives toward.

  But trying to achieve that goal by demanding a return to an utterly mythical by-gone utopia by asserting a hopelessly over-generalized, absolutist dogma is nothing more than a pernicious distraction.
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Gary Crooks on November 03 at 10:46 a.m.

  Just aspire to be like Ayn Rand, and you get to die lonely and happy, without the “lice” and “parasites” in your midst.

  http://www.slate.com/id/2233966/?from…

  High tariffs — say, isn't that government intervention in the economy? — protected U.S. businesses from foreign competition, which also protected the higher U.S. wages from the pressure of lower wages in Europe.
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Gary Crooks on November 03 at 11:19 a.m.

  Since Brad DeLong was invoked.

  http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/macr…

  “Throughout the nineteenth and the first three quarters of the twentieth century the measured pace of economic growth continued to accelerate. The measured growth rate of
  output per worker rose from perhaps 0.5 percent per year from 1800 to 1870 to perhaps 1.6 percent per year from 1870 to 1929, on the eve of the Great Depression, as is shown
  in Figure 5.5. Growth slowed slightly over the Great Depression and World War II decades—a measured growth rate of 1.4 percent per year from 1929 to 1950. But then it
  accelerated: the growth rate of output per worker between 1950 and 1973 in the United States was 2.1 percent per year.
  Moreover, it is likely that true output per worker growth since 1890 has been even faster.

  “Many economists believe that official estimates overstate inflation and understate real economic growth by 1.0 percent per year, in large part because national income
  accountants have a very hard time valuing the boost to productivity and standards of living generated by the invention of new goods and services, and new types of goods and
  services. So instead of 1.5 percent per year, perhaps we should be thinking of 2.0 to 2.5 percent per year for the rate of output per worker growth since 1870.

  “If so, then those of us living in the United States today have a level of productivity—a material standard of living— somewhere between 14 and 25 times that of our counterparts
  back in the late nineteenth century. For middle-class and richer consumers today such an estimate does not seem at all unreasonable.

  “It takes only 1/8 as much time to earn the money to buy a hairbrush, 1/12 as much time to earn the money to buy a chair, 1/35 as much time to earn the money to buy a book today as in 1895.

  “And in 1895, no matter how long you worked, you couldn't earn enough money to buy a plane ticket, or a TV, or
  a portable CD player, or a laptop computer, or an automatic washing machine, or an electric blender, or a microwave oven.”

  ––––––––––––––––-

  In short, these are the good-old days.
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  gmorton on November 03 at 11:49 a.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  “But what is it spent on? That's the question you don't address.”

  I gave some examples of what it is spent on. Obviously I can't list them all; that would take far more than the 4000 words allowed.

  “gmorton, it's not that I can't find some agreement with some of what you say. Smaller government is better than bigger government - at least as a general principle. I think most people would agree with that.”

  Yes, they would. But there is a fundamental problem, you see – concrete results always trump general principles. That is the principle behind the “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” homily, and why, in science, an experimental result trumps theory. In political economy, it translates to, “Reduce government spending, but don't take away my (fill in the blank).” In public choice economics, the principle is called, “Concentrate benefits, disperse costs.” So you collect a small amount of tax from each person to pay for Free Lunch X, then deliver that free lunch to a small number of beneficiaries. The payees don't protest because the costs to them are trivial. But the beneficiaries will defend that free lunch vigorously, and support the pol who promises to continue and perhaps enlarge it. Then you do the same thing with Free Lunch Y, which slops a different claque of hogs, and with Z, and so on. All of the hogs concentrate on their particular free lunches, and never grasp the cost the entire scheme imposes on them. Since there is no limit to the demand for free lunches, the process is inexorable; the government consumes an ever greater portion of everyone's productive efforts (see the table linked in the post above).

  “–— Free society: Each person is free to pursue the good as he or she defines it, without interference from others… –— becomes, 'Well, of course there have to be laws and taxes to pay for necessary government services.'”

  Not sure what your point is there. There is no conflict between those two claims. A (stable) free society does require a rule of law, and a mechanism for enforcing the law. Otherwise, the “without interference from others” proviso can't be satisfied. And I have no idea why you think the slavery and Native American issues somehow justify an unlimited government. In fact, they illustrate its risks.

  “Literacy is up. Life expectancy is up. America went from a third-world military spectator on the sidelines to the sole remaining global super-power.”

  And you are crediting government for the first two? And boasting of the third? You are aware that literacy in America was already > 90% (excluding slaves) at the time of the Revolution (a fact commented upon by Toqueville, among others)?

  “There is hardly a pioneer's hut which does not contain a few odd volumes of Shakespeare. I remember reading the feudal drama of
  Henry V for the first time in a log cabin.”
  -– Alexis de Tocqueville (1844)

  “By the time the Founding Fathers signed the Constitution, 90% of white males who signed documents were signing their names.”

  *Literacy in the United States: Readers and Reading Since 1880*
  –Carl F. Kaestle, Helen Damon-Moore, Katherine Tinsley (1993)

  And that when the first compulsory school law was enacted, in Massachussetts, that 90% of the school-age kids in that state were already in school? The fact is that US literacy rates have not improved significantly in 200 years!

  Literacy, and education generally, are among the first gains from prosperity. And no government intervention is necessary to produce that result.
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  gmorton on November 03 at 1:35 p.m.

  Gary Crooks wrote,

  “In short, these are the good-old days… .”

  Tsk, tsk. Same mistake Looneh was making – judging conditions in a given era by the standards of an era 100 years later. There is no question that the 20th Century was the “Greatest Century There Ever Was”:

  http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa364.pdf

  But what was the source of the improvement – government, or free markets? Who invented and developed the technologies which characterized that century – steam power, electric power, telephones, aircraft, antibiotics, anesthetics, radio and television, photography, the transistor, computers, et al?

  Hint: it was not governments.
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Gary Crooks on November 03 at 2:43 p.m.

  It's not government or free markets. It's always been a hybrid. Acts of government in concert with individual acts.

  As for literacy in colonial times:

  http://www.able.state.pa.us/able/lib/…

  “In most studies of the history of literacy in the early United States, the term literacy has been more or less understood as the ability to read or write. Studies of the prevalence of literacy among adults during Colonial and Revolutionary times have used indicators such as signatures on wills, marriage licenses, military records, or other legal documents to infer the prevalence of literacy (Long,
  1975; Lockridge, 1974; Gubb, 1990).

  “During the 1800s, U.S. Census enumerators asked respondents about the number of adults unable to read or write, and in 1870 they asked, “Can you read and can you write?” (Soltow & Stevens, 1981).

  “From 1900 to 1930, the Census asked people whether they could read or write in their native language (reading was always considered the less difficult of the two literacy skills, and those taught to read were often not taught to write) (Long, 1975). After 1930 questions about literacy were dropped and people were instead asked to give the highest grade in school they had completed (Cook,
  1977).

  “At different times during this thirty-year period adults with less than
  three, four, five, or eight years of education were considered “functionally illiterate:’ a higher standard of literacy than that indicated by signatures or the simple ability to read or write (Cook, 1977).”

  “By today's measure, literacy was much lower than 90 percent in colonial times. Only about 6 percent of people had a high school education in 1900.”

  Government has had a strong role in educating the people, whether K-12 or in colleges, to meet the needs of commerce.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Gary Crooks on November 03 at 2:47 p.m.

  This graf is mine (should not have quotes)

  By today's measure, literacy was much lower than 90 percent in colonial times. Only about 6 percent of people had a high school education in 1900.

  So, literacy has most certainly improved over the history of our country.

  <<The fact is that US literacy rates have not improved significantly in 200 years! >>

  Tsk! Tsk! When literacy is defined as being able to sign one's name vs. years of education, then that is statistical illiteracy.
  .
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  gmorton on November 03 at 4:03 p.m.

  Sorry, Gary, but the number of years of schooling completed (“today's measure”) has nothing to do with literacy. That is a case of mistaking a contemporary fashion for a Law of Nature. Until the mid-19th century parents taught their kids to read and write, handed them over to a friend or relative who was better at it, or brought in a tutor. Most of them never received any formal schooling as we think of it today. But most parents understood the importance of literacy, and made sure their kids got it. Once literate, people can self-educate.

  Nor does school attendance guarantee literacy. According to the NCES, of the 14% of adults in 2003 whose literacy skills were “below basic,” 45% had completed high school.

  http://nces.ed.gov/naal/kf_demographi…

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Gary Crooks on November 03 at 5:06 p.m.

  You miss the point. Saying that literacy rates have gone nowhere is meaningless when there is a stricter measure now.

  Signing one's name isn't much to write home about.

  <<Nor does school attendance guarantee literacy. According to the NCES, of the 14% of adults in 2003 whose literacy skills were “below basic,” 45% had completed high school. >>

  Yeah, but if 9 out of 10 can sign their name, they meet that 19th century standard. Huzzah!
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  gmorton on November 03 at 9:45 p.m.

  Gary Crooks wrote,

  “You miss the point. Saying that literacy rates have gone nowhere is meaningless when there is a stricter measure now.”

  “Signing one's name isn't much to write home about.”

  Being able to sign one's name is not a *criterion* of literacy, but only proxy for measuring it. No one was conducting formal literacy tests in 1800. Other proxies include the prevalence of newspapers and other periodicals, and books. Thomas Paine's *Common Sense* sold 120,000 copies to a population of 3 million. Noah Webster's *Spelling Bee* sold five million copies to a population of less than twenty million in 1818.

  Don't forget that most colonial Americans were Protestants who believed it their duty to assure their kids could read the Bible.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  spokelooneh on November 03 at 10:36 p.m.

  Most of the people who could actually vote in that “free” society, white, male, and propertied were well read. The government heavily subsidized postal distribution of newspapers and pamphlets and such, for good reason.

  Half the literate had probably never read anything but the Bible or more rarely, a Hymnal.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Arch_Druid on November 03 at 11:24 p.m.

  I seem to have raised a fire storm when posting last week about a certain credit issuing bank. In subsequent posts, and this is a major gut busting LOL!, I am thinking that “Richard” could have described the bank that I once did business with and am now settling the debt that I had charged to the card. It can't really be called stealing if they use their punitive demands for money AFTER they had already been paid in full up to and including even exceeding the original credit limit IF they can claim that the 2,800 or more can be used to pay back TARP and grant them some profits. I haven't been using this card, “Richard” ever since this bank has been seriously screwing around with the accounts. And yes, they continue to keep increasing their demands for money by continually increasing the credit card balance. Then arguing that the “card isn't closed until the balance is 'paid off.'” And then increase the balance again. GMorton has probably not met the reality of trying to deal with this bank. Or he'd change his pseudo-Randian philosophy in a heart beat.

  For some things, the gvt does come in handy. I have since sent a complaint about this bank to the Federal Trade Commission.

  And on my part, because of where I work that I understand payment methods where it involves credit cards. If you pay to the original balance that the bank had originally loaned, if you had charged to the original limit of the card itself, if you then pay off in its entirety all that you had originally charged to the card; the account is closed. That is how it normally happens. That is not how this bank wishes to do business. It no longer does business with me beyond my settling debt. Because it had through fraudulent practices “breeched contract” I am under no legal obligation to pay anything that they demand after already having paid all that I owed. And am in the process of closing the remaining accounts in the same manner.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  ilk_of_gmorton on November 04 at 7:04 a.m.

  Arch Druid, it is now up to you to exercise your right as a member of the free market and tell us the name of this big bad bank that took advantage of you so they are encouraged to either change their behavior or go out of business. Let us help you instead of turning it over to the government who you say already is in cahoots with the bank to rob us lowly citizens.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Gary Crooks on November 04 at 10:24 a.m.

  <<Being able to sign one's name is not a *criterion* of literacy, but only proxy for measuring it. No one was conducting formal literacy tests in 1800. Other proxies include the prevalence of newspapers and other periodicals, and books. Thomas Paine's *Common Sense* sold 120,000 copies to a population of 3 million. Noah Webster's *Spelling Bee* sold five million copies to a population of less than twenty million in 1818.

  Don't forget that most colonial Americans were Protestants who believed it their duty to assure their kids could read the Bible.>>

  By the same token, today's literacy rate is not measured as you've noted above. So you can't show that literacy rates have gone nowhere in 200 years.

  <<The percentage of a nation's GDP consumed by government (at all levels) is a good proxy for its position along the free-slave spectrum. In the US it has increased from about 7% in 1900 to 45% today.

  I.e., about 45 cents of every dollar you earn is spent by politicians and bureaucrats, not by you. >>

  Thought you said the U.S. eradicated slavery. By this measure, I guess not.

  Here are the free nations (comparatively speaking) in 2007:

  Afghanistan, 9.2 percent
  Turkmenistan, 9.6 percent
  Cambodia, 13.3

  At the other end of the scale,

  Iraq, 87.3
  Cuba, 81.4
  Slovakia, 66.2

  None of those look appealing to me. So, maybe that's not the best barometer.

  As to the statement that 45 cents of every dollar I earn is spent by government, how can that be when I don't give the government close to that amount? Or, is this merely a prediction that one day I will by folding in debt?

  Plus, does this include payroll taxes, which I will get back because the government is spending it on me?
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  gmorton on November 04 at 4:12 p.m.

  Gary Crooks wrote,

  “By the same token, today's literacy rate is not measured as you've noted above. So you can't show that literacy rates have gone nowhere in 200 years.”

  Tsk, did it again. The burden of proof rests with he who holds the affirmative. My comment was a response to Jeffey, who claimed, “Literacy is up.” There is no evidence for that. The evidence available (which is certainly not conclusive) is that there has been little if any change.

  “Thought you said the U.S. eradicated slavery. By this measure, I guess not.”

  It abolished private chattel slavery. But within a few decades began to replace it with state slavery. I take a slave to be someone subject to another's will and forced to toil for another's benefit. A person forced to work for another's benefit only half of each day, when the master may change that ratio at its pleasure, is still a slave.

  “Here are the free nations (comparatively speaking) in 2007:

  “Afghanistan, 9.2 percent
  Turkmenistan, 9.6 percent
  Cambodia, 13.3”

  Well, no, Gary. We don't count countries with no functioning government (where there is no rule of law effectively enforced), or undeveloped countries (because governments are limited in what they can seize when the GDP is barely above subsistence level).

  (You need to give sources for that kind of info).

  Here are some qualifying low-end examples (second figure is per capita GDP):

  Hong Kong 15.4% $39,062
  Singapore 14.4% 44,708
  Australia 34.5% 35,547
  Ireland 34.2% 40,268
  USA 36.7% 43,968

  (figures are for 2006-2007).

  http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking…

  “As to the statement that 45 cents of every dollar I earn is spent by government, how can that be when I don't give the government close to that amount?”

  A sizable portion of it is built into the prices of things you buy. All the taxes paid by manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers are ultimately paid by you.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Arch_Druid on November 04 at 9:22 p.m.

  To the post from ilk of GMorton, the big bad bank is called Capital One. And it had been engaging in highly destructive and dangerous behavior since long before it got TARP from the GW administration. Of course, it hasn't treated EVERYONE this way, yet. But this bank seems to have burned enough people that anyone not signed on to the card is warned not to even do so.

  So, fair warning to anyone considering a credit card from this bank, they don't keep their advertised promises.

  And incidentally, they were supposed to have benefited from the GOP engineered bankruptcy reform bill. Make that, sought to take advantage of it. Some “free market” principle, huh?

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Gary Crooks on November 05 at 10:36 a.m.

  <<The burden of proof rests with he who holds the affirmative. My comment was a response to Jeffey, who claimed, “Literacy is up.” There is no evidence for that. The evidence available (which is certainly not conclusive) is that there has been little if any change.>>

  The evidence available in colonial times is laughable. It's like saying I have a car, therefore everyone in the house knows how to drive it.

  << Hong Kong 15.4% $39,062
  Singapore 14.4% 44,708
  Australia 34.5% 35,547
  Ireland 34.2% 40,268
  USA 36.7% 43,968 >>

  So comparatively, we're free. Are you suggesting we return to 7 percent, as in 1900? What is the correct number?

  Apparently, voters want it to be the way it is. They see value in the services or they would elect Libertarians. So how is that tantamount to slavery? Did slaves get to vote on their fate?

  <<A sizable portion of it is built into the prices of things you buy. All the taxes paid by manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers are ultimately paid by you. >>

  Ditto, those high tariffs and government tolerance of monopolies in the 19th century. The government back then “removed obstacles” to natural resources and allowed industry to push the costs of extraction and pollution onto future generations. That isn't factored into the accounting.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  ilk_of_gmorton on November 05 at 4:07 p.m.

  Once we citizens realize that it doesn't matter who's name is attached to the legislation or what letter is next to that name we can really start to get things accomplished. To point out that it was GW's administration that enabled this bank to continue its bad behavior is laughable. It's that type of victimology that perpetuates these “free lunch” programs that gmorton is always talking about. Its like the equations being debated on another post- “if he gets X I want X+Y!” When we quite acting as individuals responsible for or own lives is when slavery sets in.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Arch_Druid on November 05 at 6:35 p.m.

  That has absolutely nothing to do with what was discussed in prior posts Ilk of GMorton. “Victimology” you say? You ask what is the name of this bank and you are supplied with an answer. You are informed that this bank got TARP under the GW administration. But you were also informed that the bank prior to TARP started doing some serious screwing around with a great many of its account holders. No, there is absolutely nothing “laughable” that this bank that got a large chunk of change from the taxpayers then went on to sue the very people from whom they also got TARP. And after they got TARP, they really started screwing around with my accounts in particular where by they currently demand that I pay over a thousand dollars to bring the “account balance” back down to 5,000. Oh and by the way, they already received to this account over 4,500 over the in the last two years and 10 months. Instead of dismissing and laughing off this “victimology” Ilk, consider yourself lucky if you aren't dealing with this bank. As for “slavery,” how about a bank that doesn't want you to pay off account balances according to its company policies and creative interpretations of credit card terms and conditions that would force you to part with your money into perpetuity? And by the way, the GOP were all about the sorts of reforms and deregulations that pushed this greed in the first place. Which is why we suffered an all around economic collapse.

  So do us all a favor and do some thinking.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  ilk_of_gmorton on November 05 at 10:19 p.m.

  What a perfectly predictable answer from AD! You managed to wrap this whole thing up and put a bow on it and a tag that says “Don't blame me! It's big business in cahoots with republicans!”

  I actually have two accounts with Cap One, I also pay my bills on time. OK, I know, low blow. Let me try to clarify my “laughable” point.

  Don't make it about the person or party or even the system. It's the current players manipulating the system. Business wants a free lunch just as much as the individual. And when government has the largest budget it makes for good business to try to sign them up as a customer. However its quid pro quo with politicians.
  This is pretty basic stuff if you still believe in the Constitution. I guess the best way to illustrate my point is to say that my next car will be a Ford. Why? because they didn't take any money from the feds.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  gmorton on November 05 at 11:02 p.m.

  Gary Crooks wrote,

  “So comparatively, we're free. Are you suggesting we return to 7 percent, as in 1900? What is the correct number?”

  Between 1800 and 1900 federal spending held fairly constant at about 2% of GDP, except for the Civil War period when it jumped to 13% (by 1875 it was back down to <4%, and 2.6% by 1885). State and local governments spent another 5% or so of GDP. During that century the government largely adhered to the Constitution. So 2% looks like a sufficient and stable peacetime fraction (for federal spending).

  http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/y…

  “Apparently, voters want it to be the way it is. They see value in the services or they would elect Libertarians.”

  Well, no. They see value in the particular free lunch they are getting (of course!) Polls consistently show large majorities favoring lower taxes and lower government spending. But of course they are hypocrites. They want to drive some other hogs away from the trough, but retain their own places. They haven't grasped that their free lunch is costing them 3-4 times what it is worth (because they are also paying for thousands of other free lunches from which they derive no benefit).

  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publi…

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  spokelooneh on November 05 at 11:19 p.m.

  Well, blame it all on Jefferson, when he jettisoned his “enumerated powers” bogus rhetoric when presented with the opportunity to pick up the Louisiana Purchase for pennies a square mile. I mean who could reject that sweet plum, Constitution be dammed. We have a future Manifest Destiny to fulfill!

  It was the beginning of the end of the “free society”. The center of this country should have been, strictly Constitutionally, occupied be cheese-eating surrender monkey frogs.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  gmorton on November 06 at 12:47 a.m.

  Spokalooneh wrote,

  “Well, blame it all on Jefferson, when he jettisoned his “enumerated powers” bogus rhetoric when presented with the opportunity to pick up the Louisiana Purchase for pennies a square mile.”

  You disappoint, Looneh. I thought you had a better grasp of history than that. Jefferson's original aim was to negotiate a treaty with France (which was about to assume control of Lousiana from Spain) to allow American access to the port of New Orleans. His negotiator, James Monroe, reported that Napoleon had offered to sell the entire territory. Jefferson doubted that the Constitution authorized such a purchase. But his advisors convinced him that it fell well within the treaty power – an opinion affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1828 and written by John Marshall:

  “The Constitution confers absolutely on the government of the Union the powers of making war and of making treaties; consequently that government possesses the power of acquiring territory either by conquest or by treaty.”

  http://supreme.justia.com/us/26/511/c…

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Gary Crooks on November 06 at 10:07 a.m.

  <<So 2% looks like a sufficient and stable peacetime fraction (for federal spending).>>

  Good lord.

  Afghanistan is the lowest in the world, at 9 percent. So what you're saying is there is nowhere on the planet that is doing it right.

  This is all just pipedream stuff.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  gmorton on November 06 at 2:47 p.m.

  Gary Crooks wrote,

  “This is all just pipedream stuff.”

  Pipedreams do not have a century-long historical record attesting to their reality. During that “2% century,” the US rose from a rabble of small colonies to the most prosperous nation in the world.
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  ilk_of_gmorton on November 06 at 4:38 p.m.

  There is a great example of government distribution of money in this weeks Inlander. Local “community” radio station gets $190,000 from the FCC. This money has to come from somewhere so my guess is the money trail looks like this:

  Consumers buy products from business.
  Business buys ads on commercial stations.
  Stations pay “licensing” fees to FCC.
  FCC gives money to KYRS.

  Is this an indirect tax?
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  gmorton on November 06 at 5:23 p.m.

  Just another free lunch, ilk. With this one, the gummint buys itself a network of propaganda outlets – all enthusiastic fans and admirers of the government's penetrating wisdom and boundless generosity.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Arch_Druid on November 06 at 6:49 p.m.

  Ilk of GMorton, I just happen to pay my bills on time too. So? So did a lot of other people pay their bills on time. Between 2007 and 2009 Capital One also just happened to screw with a lot of people who just happened to pay their bills on time. Glad to know that you weren't screwed with. But, it isn't a “laughable moment” for those of us who paid our bills on time and got screwed with. After all, a credit card company that suddenly slaps a “late fee” on a payment that arrives by the due date, slaps a late fee on a payment that arrives before the due date, slaps a late fee that arrives a week before the due date, and waits two months before notifying myself that they are going to slap such late fees on the account as long as it doesn't arrive a week before the due date and still slaps such a fee on the payment even when it arrived a week before the due date. All this ahead of the September change in credit card lending laws. Not only is the credit card company acting deceptively at this point, it is also committing fraud.

  So, I am afraid that I have to dismiss your particular delusions of free market cures for all ills. And yes, the GOP did do a lot to help this current mess along, THEY wanted the deregulation that made it all possible. So, a little suggestion here, Ilk; do a little actual historical research and quit going into denial every time someone counters your delusions with the facts.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  ilk_of_gmorton on November 07 at 8:05 a.m.

  gmorton said- “Just another free lunch, ilk. With this one, the gummint buys itself a network of propaganda outlets – all enthusiastic fans and admirers of the government's penetrating wisdom and boundless generosity.”

  I know its a free lunch but what I was hoping to illustrate is how relatively isolated movements of money (buying radio advertising) raises prices for consumers. The higher price due to licensing fees is just a pass through to the government to flex its bureaucratic muscle. It's also an example of federal government getting involved in local issues. Gary Crooks seems to believe that if the feds aren't spending money, local and state governments aren't either. While that might currently be the case, it is not how it should be or how it was 100 years ago. A local example is warming shelters. I would vote yes on a bond issue to increase funds to allow shelters to open at 30 degrees instead of the current 17. And if the feds came to Spokane and said here's the money, I'd say no thanks we take care of our own.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  ilk_of_gmorton on November 07 at 8:32 a.m.

  Arch Druid said- “So, I am afraid that I have to dismiss your particular delusions of free market cures for all ills. And yes, the GOP did do a lot to help this current mess along, THEY wanted the deregulation that made it all possible.”

  My particular delusions of free market cures enable me to not blame others for my particular problems. My life is pretty good based on this delusion regardless of outside influences. Id rather say I shouldn't do business with Cap One and transfer my balance then say if it wasn't for the Republicans my life would be better.

  Thanks for playing Spokesman Showdown.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Arch_Druid on November 07 at 9:58 a.m.

  However, LOL! Ilk of GMorton, Capital One supposedly ran into financial trouble from 2007 forward AND demanded its account holders to assist the bank in recouping its losses or else. Capital One gets TARP a percentage of which came from its account holders and in presumably paying back TARP to the feds, demanded that the account holders pony up. Capital One didn't have a problem blaming ME and other account holders for its problems and decided that my limited wherewithal (as well as that of others) was a sure cure for its financial ailments.

  So excuse me, but you are as always, way off base.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  ilk_of_gmorton on November 07 at 10:44 a.m.

  Arch Druid said- “Let me inform you then about what stealing DOES mean. A credit card lending company receives a payment two days late”

  Then later said- “Ilk of GMorton, I just happen to pay my bills on time too.”

  I prefer being way off base to your arbitrary base. If you want the government to protect you from Cap One you will also be prohibited from selling bean seeds at farmers markets. It's a package deal.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Arch_Druid on November 07 at 11:01 a.m.

  Ilk, nit pick, nit pick. How often do you get paid? Weekly? Twice a week? Twice a month? Monthly? What's your wages? Hundreds of dollars? Thousands of dollars?

  How about a credit card company that decides to mail a bill at a time when you only get a 1 or 2 week opportunity to actually pay it and it ARRIVES in the mail box in between your paydays. It may get paid closer to the due date depending on WHEN your next paycheck arrives before the payment gets sent. Yeah, you can in fact pay on time, before the due date, but when it ARRIVES is another matter. Only with the September change in the laws on credit card lending practices was Capital One then forced to extend WHEN it mailed its bills to account for a 21 day mail time as opposed to a 1 or 2 week (at most) arrival to actual mail in time. And given the fact that I mostly pay by money order, then the payments I send may arrive closer to the due date and on a later month, arrive well before the due date. And since I get paid on a Friday, that may be a Friday closer to the due date and at a later month, farther from the due date.

  I don't set such arbitrary requirements, Ilk. That “free market” you are in such love with does. And by the way, Capital One got protections by way of gvt, back when that bankruptcy reform bill was passed. And is there something wrong about reporting fraud and other abuse by the bank against its account holders to the right legal entities? In which case, I think you shouldn't opportune a cop the next time you get robbed. After all, you'd be “blaming someone else for all your problems,” right, Ilk? LOL!

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  gmorton on November 07 at 5:02 p.m.

  “I know its a free lunch but what I was hoping to illustrate is how relatively isolated movements of money (buying radio advertising) raises prices for consumers.”

  Sure. That sort of thing distorts the entire economy. It's called the “regulatory cost burden” (as distinguished from the tax burden). “Free lunches” include not only monetary handouts to favored constituencies from taxes collected from someone else, but also regulatory mandates designed to benefit some favored constituency (e.g., occupational licensing), or force someone else to hand them out as a condition for doing business (e.g., forcing builders to subsidize rents on some of their units or be denied building permits). All of those costs are, of course, passed on to the consumers of those goods and services.

  Broadcast licensing is especially interesting (and amusing) because government actually invented a physical fiction to justify it (“public airwaves”).

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  spokelooneh on November 07 at 9:14 p.m.

  “”Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital.
  Capital is only the fruit of labor,
  and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed.
  Labor is superior to capital,
  and deserves much the higher consideration.”
  — Abraham Lincoln —

  “Work is the basis for all well-being, while monopoly and cartels are obstacles for the beneficial processes.”
  — Adam Smith —

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Arch_Druid on November 08 at 7:02 a.m.

  How about that, Adam Smith would be regarded as “socialist” for recognizing the well-being of labor in industry. And Abraham Lincoln would have looked to the bible for where he stood on the well-being of labor as well. The bible just as “socialist” for what it advices as to how employers should treat their employees.

  Which is where GMorton is ultimately wrong. Divorcing the utopian “free market” from moral considerations is exactly why the economy tanked in 2008 and the GOP were ushered out of office in droves.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  ilk_of_gmorton on November 08 at 11:56 a.m.

  Arch Druid said- “What's your wages? Hundreds of dollars? Thousands of dollars?”

  Fortunately I am self employed and don't make wages, I make profits! That gives me a unique perspective on the two historical quotes from spokelooneh.

  The capital I have is based on my previous labor. Once I acquired enough capital to hire employees to produce for me I worked out a mutually beneficial agreement with said employees. So if labor is superior to capital how much more higher a consideration should my labor get because it translated to an unskilled person being able to earn a living? There's another side to this that is sometimes overlooked. The unskilled person is now skilled. And he can take these skills with him when he wants to leave, thus increasing his human capital. If you're not familiar with the term human capital you should check it out. You'll feel better about yourself.

  I am not really sure how arch druid is interpreting the Adam Smith quote but she has noted on other posts how she is a victim of big agriculture cartels/monopolies, thus decreasing the value of her labor and limiting her well-being.
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  gmorton on November 08 at 12:56 p.m.

  Arch_druid wrote,

  “Which is where GMorton is ultimately wrong. Divorcing the utopian “free market” from moral considerations is exactly why the economy tanked in 2008 and the GOP were ushered out of office in droves.”

  From which moral considerations do you think the free market is divorced, Arch?

  And which ones were responsible for the bursting of the housing bubble? Where do you think that bubble came from?

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Arch_Druid on November 10 at 10:16 a.m.

  Did I say I was a “victim” of big agriculture? Or did GMorton LOL! try to put words in my mouth? I present the facts, Morton that “free market” ideals simply do not exist BECAUSE business interests seek out gvt when they find it convenient to put rules and regs in place that are advantageous to themselves. And only cry “victim” of rules and regs when it may be of NO advantage to themselves but may instead be of advantage to labor and consumers.

  Oh yeah, Morton, employees who become skilled could theoretically increase their own capital when they leave and take the skills they have earned somewhere else. But that was long before business interests suddenly decided that hiring Americans was no longer profitable. And went to shipping jobs over seas or hiring illegal aliens instead. So, WHAT human capital?

  At what time, Morton did I proclaim I was a “victim?” I live in the real world of business, of being self-employed a percentage of the time and working at a day job a percentage of the time. I fully understand what you don't seem to. Yeah, you have a business, yeah you make profits, yeah you actually have employeed people! Wonderful! Now what exactly have you run up against in the world of business, Morton where you confront rules and regs, taxes and etc. that at some point help the bigger guys and are not at advantage to yourself? You are the one posting a victimology all the time. Don't assume I cry the same thing because I do not.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  gmorton on November 10 at 2:59 p.m.

  Arch_druid wrote,

  “I present the facts, Morton that “free market” ideals simply do not exist BECAUSE business interests seek out gvt when they find it convenient to put rules and regs in place that are advantageous to themselves.”

  You are confused, Arch. Ideals don't cease to exist because someone fails to live up to them. That is why they are called “ideals.”

  “Oh yeah, Morton, employees who become skilled could theoretically increase their own capital when they leave . . .”

  You've gotta work on your reading skills, Arch. You are confusing two different posters. Your comment above is misdirected.
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  ilk_of_gmorton on November 10 at 3:17 p.m.

  Sorry I confused you Arch. I was enjoying being someones ilk. I think I'll change my name to Morton Pool Salt just to clear things up. Now for the real fun!

  Arch Druid said- “But that was long before business interests suddenly decided that hiring Americans was no longer profitable. And went to shipping jobs over seas or hiring illegal aliens instead.”

  If this isn't you being a victim it's you enabling unemployable people to be victims. Instead of telling those people who's jobs were shipped over seas to upgrade their skills you are telling them it's not their fault. That is victimology.

  My next post will be under Morton Pool Salt because I have been totally disinfected and require less maintenance.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Arch_Druid on November 11 at 9:57 a.m.

  Leaving people unemployed BY shipping THEIR jobs overseas, Ilk or however you want to next express your “name” by your next post manages to VICTIMIZE the following: state and local gvt tax base. OTHER members of the market place including those in retail. Those to whom you may owe something in debt and you can not then meet the payments because of unemployment. When you get past the “ideals” that are radicalized as to their intent, the both of you, the FACTS are that the free market does not exist. It never did exist and never will exist.

  There is not a “just you” argument. The market is completely dependent upon many factors, labor, capital, product, consumption and therefore demand. If any one of these factors is disrupted, then it produces the economic collapse of 2008. And therefore to reduce if not eliminate any of these disruptions, then the gvt DOES step in to regulate it.

  So, sorry about that Morton and Ilk, ideals need to be based on reality.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on November 11 at 10:34 a.m.

  “unemployable people”??!!

  So anybody who loses their job when its shipped overseas to someone who'll work for one-quarter of the U.S.'s minimum wage - that person is presumed to be 'unemployable'?

  The Detroit master machinist who just got the axe because he was dumb enough to go to work in the auto industry should up-grade his skills to… what? What would this nation be better off having besides master machinists?

  I guess he could always learn to be a mortgage banker. Now there's a really solid foundation for our nation's economy.
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Morton_Pool_Salt on November 11 at 11:54 a.m.

  I was going to quote spokelooneh and say step into the current century Luddite but since Arch is not familiar with online banking I would bet she wouldn't be able to google Luddite either.

  So let me get this straight… It's a business mans responsibility to have a business so he can employee people so they can pay their taxes and buy televisions? I am wondering where to go with this? Should I try and explain to you the theory of proper allocation of resources? or maybe that the next step in your “right to a job” argument is the “right to reproduce” and the government should force a women to breed in order to produce a tax paying, television buying citizen?

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Morton_Pool_Salt on November 11 at 12:03 p.m.

  Quick response to Jeffery Grey-

  Step into the current century Luddite. This is why it's my self sufficiency doctrine verses you & AD's victimology.

  I'll explain more after I get back from my lunch at Spencers Steak House.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Arch_Druid on November 11 at 12:05 p.m.

  Actually, Morton, here I thought that anti-abortionists were going to just have the gvt force women to breed in order to produce the next taxpaying citizen, let alone be a TV buyer. LOL! So, there you are talking to the wrong individual.

  As for the allocation of resources, as I had already said I OWN a business. As a BUSINESS OWNER, I live with a lot of rules and regs that without question a percentage of which has been to the advantage of the bigger guy.

  As for THEIR allocation of resources, apparently they can regard SOME resources as highly expendable if they can “get it on the cheap” somewhere else. On the other hand, when they try to SELL their products, the demand side simply doesn't seem to exist if individual labor/consumers don't have the resources to buy. You love to throw out a lot of theory, Morton, but you still aren't dealing with reality.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on November 11 at 12:16 p.m.

  Pool salt,

  Nice dodge. Thirty-seven words consisting of two ad hominem, one undefined social doctrine and nothing in any way responsive to my rebuttal.

  Seriously… 'unemployable'?

  And this 'Doctrine of Self Sufficiency' - I simply can't wait to hear how something with a name like that is served by shipping all our skilled jobs somewhere else.
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  gmorton on November 11 at 1:02 p.m.

  Arch_druid wrote,

  “Leaving people unemployed BY shipping THEIR jobs overseas . . .”

  Er, no. The jobs in question are not the employee's property. You are playing games with the dual meanings of possessive terms. Those terms (ours, mine, yours, etc.) can denote property or mere possession. I.e., if I rent a house from you, I can refer to it as “my house.” That is the *possessive* sense. But you may also refer to it as “my house.” That is the *property* sense.

  Employees do not have a *proprietary interest* in their jobs. They only have possession of them, for as long as that employment relationship serves the interests of both employer and employee. Either party may end that relationship whenever it no longer best serves their interests.

  The employer is shipping HIS OWN work overseas. Which, having the *proprietary interest* in it, he is perfectly entitled to do.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Morton_Pool_Salt on November 11 at 2:21 p.m.

  I'm a little sleepy from that T-bone I ate at lunch but I'll try my best here.

  Jeffery_Grey said “And this 'Doctrine of Self Sufficiency' - I simply can't wait to hear how something with a name like that is served by shipping all our skilled jobs somewhere else.”

  You combine three words that don't work together- “our skilled jobs”. See the original gmortons response above.

  I hear a lot of people say “I lost my job.” The word lost has a few meanings. Am I supposed to hear that as “I can not find the job I once had,” or, “I had a job that someone beat me out of”? In either case you should “get” a new job or “win” back your old job.
  In the Detroit master machinist case he has rendered himself unemployable by saying hey I'm a machinist and they “took” all the jobs.

  My electric blanket is warmed up now so I am going to take a nap. I will cover my personal Doctrine when I wake up.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on November 11 at 2:56 p.m.

  Pool Salt,

  – In either case you should “get” a new job or “win” back your old job. –

  What 'new' job do you suggest our hypothetical master machinist get? What does this country need more than a trained master machinist? Why should this country bear the expense of training that master machinist for some new job just so some corporation can inflate its profit margin by shipping *OUR* skilled jobs overseas? And if it might be a better idea to keep *OUR* skilled jobs here, how do you suggest that the master machinist 'win' back his old job?
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Gary Crooks on November 11 at 3:08 p.m.

  <<During that “2% century,” the US rose from a rabble of small colonies to the most prosperous nation in the world.>>

  No nation is near 2 percent now. Singapore is considered a free-market model, but by your definition, it still has 7 to 8 times too much government.

  In short, no nation is close to your pipedream.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  gmorton on November 11 at 3:43 p.m.

  Gary Crooks wrote,

  “In short, no nation is close to your pipedream.”

  A pipedream is something impossible. Since the US not only survived but prospered for over 100 years with a 2% government, it is demonstrably possible, and therefore not a pipedream. Unless, of course, some fundamental change in human nature or the laws of nature has occurred which renders examples from the recent past inapplicable in the present.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Morton_Pool_Salt on November 11 at 4:36 p.m.

  I had my man servant wake me when a reasonable response was posted. I fired him. But since I am awake…

  Jeffery_Grey said- “Why should this country bear the expense of training that master machinist for some new job just so some corporation can inflate its profit margin by shipping *OUR* skilled jobs overseas?”

  I hope you don't have kids. Because when they can't even figure out how to make toast, you'll just sue the toaster manufacturer. Or cry to the government that if the toaster manufacturer wasn't so greedy they would have just provided you with toast.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on November 13 at 8:04 a.m.

  Answer the question: Why should this nation accept the loss of vital skilled jobs and the burden of retraining the once productive workers that held them simply so some corporation can boost its bottom line? Why isn't that a dreaded 'free lunch' for the corporations?
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Arch_Druid on November 13 at 9:14 a.m.

  Morton, LOL! Jobs ARE the property of the employer if HE designates who gets them. The only person nitpicking this is yourself. If Microsoft as an example would rather employ foreign labor legally here in this country OVER AND ABOVE Americans who are indeed knowledgeable, skilled and well educated because foreign labor is in fact so much cheaper; then those jobs are his property to be doled out as Gates chooses.

  The same thing with DELL computers, or Compaq, Brother and etc. that sells you equipment that may cost initially over 200 or 300 dollars but cost DELL, Compaq and etc. little in actual production costs, inclusive of labor. But if you, in a span of a few years see the most expensive photo capable printer selling for less than 100 dollars, then that is because there is not an existing demand to drive that price up to a more comfortable profit margin for either the store or the producer. That is why the very people who turn to cheap labor ultimately do the most to hurt their own bottom lines.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  gmorton on November 13 at 10:10 a.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  “Answer the question: Why should this nation accept the loss of vital skilled jobs and the burden of retraining the once productive workers that held them simply so some corporation can boost its bottom line? Why isn't that a dreaded 'free lunch' for the corporations?”

  It shouldn't accept that burden. The nation (i.e., the government) has no duty whatsoever, no constitutional authority, and no business retraining anybody. If you lose your job because an employer has found someone else with whom he'd rather do business, then retraining yourself (if that is required for you to continue to provide for yourself) is up to you.

  The government is not your mother, Jeffrey. It is not responsible for educating you, feeding you, housing you, providing for your health care, or taking you in if you lose your job. It has no constitutional authority to play that role, and it has no means of doing so, other than seizing those means from me. And I'm not interested in being your surrogate mother. Neither are corporations.

  Your life is your responsibility, Jeffrey. Assuming you are an adult.
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on November 13 at 11:27 a.m.

  gmorton,

  I'll make the same offer to you that I recently made to AD: Let's make both our lives easy.

  I simply reject what I consider to be the radically libertarian doctrine you continually push.

  Some of your ideas might be good. Some of them might indeed indicate a direction that this country needs to consider. There are serious problems in this country that need to be addressed *now*. Good ideas need to be put forward.

  But for the most part, I don't see your ideas as good because they simply don't relate in any *meaningful*, *workable* way to the world *as it really is* or as you could ever change it to be. I find many of your underlying principles to be far too 'convenient' for an out of control capitalism and often logically inconsistent on their face - in those rare cases when any hard and fast meaning can actually be pinned down.

  As I have said too many times now, it's all simply too Utopian to ever persuade me.

  You disagree with my assessment. Fine. You have the right to disagree.

  So do I.

  Let others decide for themselves.
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  gmorton on November 13 at 11:43 a.m.

  Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

  “But for the most part, I don't see your ideas as good because they simply don't relate in any *meaningful*, *workable* way to the world *as it really is* or as you could ever change it to be.”

  We certainly wouldn't want to change the way it really is, would we? Give up those free lunches?

  No way! If you have money and I have (political) power, watch out! I'm coming for you . . .

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Morton_Pool_Salt on November 14 at 9:05 a.m.

  Thanks for picking up this thread again guys. I was afraid I was going to have to take my skills to some low level sports blog.

  Would you rather live in a society that is based on the points in section A or B:

  A:
  - I deserve what I want.
  - The fruits of technology are the society's to enjoy.
  - Cost burdens should be absorbed by the society regardless of how much a person values individual products.

  B:
  - I deserve what I can earn.
  - Innovation through competition is the best way to elevate the entire society's base standard of living.
  - Everything has value and trading value for value is the ultimate sign of respect.

  Section B, combined with a religious upbringing, is the base of my Doctrine of Self Sufficiency.

  I know you agreed to disagree earlier so I'll make a few final points and then hit up the sports blog.

  Not only do I not want to subsidize your health insurance but I don't want mine subsidized by anyone else. Why? It will enable me to engage in risky behavior. I am one of the many self-employed uninsured. I abstain from engaging in one of my favorite activities, playing hockey, because the risk of blowing out a knee weighs to heavily against satisfying my personal desire. I have not earned the right to engage in risky activities because I refuse to pay the cost. How is that Utopian? My feeling is that gmorton and I are the only ones willing to accept reality.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on November 14 at 9:27 a.m.

  I always find it revealing when the demand for an answer to a simple, direct question causes an abrupt change of subject.
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Arch_Druid on November 14 at 9:28 a.m.

  Morton, I tend to think that risky behavior is decided by the individual regardless of your opinions. And that if a person, for example, can pay his own way on health insurance, will regardless make the choice of “risky behavior.” And if a person can indeed be subsidized as to health costs, may or may not engage in “risky behavior.”

  And most of us “earn” where we have jobs. And most of us who have jobs pay for what ever technology is out there. At the same time, (and I suggest you read my letter published in the S-R this morning) gvt DOES subsidize corporations out of my wallet in one way or another. That being the case, “risky behavior” then becomes exactly why banks collapsed and are still collapsing, mortgage cos such as Countrywide could suddenly cease to exist as entities in the marketplace and the economy could still remain relatively unstable despite the assistance of gvt in the last year.

  Just because you represent YOUR ideal and no doubt this is an acceptable standard to live by as far as YOU are concerned, doesn't mean it is a FACT where the rest of society including corporations are concerned. Would corporations be LESS likely to engage in “risky behavior” if they couldn't rely on gvt hand outs? Probably not. Because they would reserve cash flow TO gvt to assure gvt assistance. But that the rest of us ought not have that providence from gvt ourselves or it would be regarded as a “free lunch.”

  Of course we earn, and we also subsidize everyone else. Sorry.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Morton_Pool_Salt on November 14 at 5:53 p.m.

  Jeffery_Grey said- “I always find it revealing when the demand for an answer to a simple, direct question causes an abrupt change of subject.”

  I find that even though life is not complicated there are no simple answers. You are a simpleton who thinks that the government is the answer to all your problems so I could see why you think you asked a simple question.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Arch_Druid on November 17 at 8:28 a.m.

  At some point, Morton, even the gvt has an answer for YOU! LOL!

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Arch_Druid on November 18 at 8:19 a.m.

  As an addendum to Morton Pool Salt. Saw this on “The Daily Show” last night. Veep Joe Biden visited the set and produced this little gem: “Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.” That is no less than correct.

  Flag as inappropriate

« Back to A Matter Of Opinion