As
thousands of General Motors workers await word on more U.S. plant
closures, reports that the company plans to import Chinese-made
vehicles to the U.S. have created a political problem for the automaker
and the White House.
The reports, which GM will neither confirm nor deny, could mean trouble
because GM is supported by $15.4 billion in U.S. government loans,
largely due to the Obama administration's desire to preserve the
company's 90,000 U.S. jobs.
The United Auto Workers charged last week that the Detroit automaker
intends to almost double over the next five years the number of
vehicles it imports to the U.S. from Mexico, South Korea, China and
Japan.
"GM should not be taking taxpayers' money simply to finance the
outsourcing of jobs to other countries," Alan Reuther, the union's
Washington lobbyist, wrote in a letter to U.S. lawmakers.
It's rare that I agree so much with a union lobbyist. But if you take that last sentence and put a period after "money" and change "taking" to "receiving" we're in perfect harmony. And of course, the government saved GM for the benefit of the American people—you know, all those spillover effects we were told would happen if they went bankrupt or even out of business. So I'm sure that the government will make sure these kind of decisions about where to produce the cars get made for the benefit of the American people. There's no way that some Americans might count more than others, is there?
Share
{ 50 comments }
Delicious irony.
Pity irony has such little nutritional value.
Very good
I heard another odd protectionist argument listening to C-SPAN the other day that I thought you all would like.
The Congressman was complaining about Chinese steel imports for a novel reason I've never heard before: He said that the safety inspections of Chinese steel aren't thorough enough, which is very dangerous for little school children in schools made from Chinese steel!
Apparently there's some Chinese-steel-school-building-collapse epidemic that I wasn't aware of!!! I mean – I'm perfectly fine with inspecting food imports for public safety reasons, and that sort of thing. You all know I'm not instinctively against inspection/regulation measures. But the idea that Chinese steel poses a threat to kindergartners was a little rich for my blood.
Or maybe I'm wrong… maybe Chinese steel has a habit of spontaneously disintegrating. Any steel experts here?
Actually, Vid, you may be onto a cure for the recession.
We all know that a good life is made up of G(ood Life) = F(ood) + H(umor)+L(eisure)
Since H = I(rony) + C(omedy)
We all know that a recession decreases our ability to purchase food, but one of the side effects is more leisure. So, all we have to do to is increase our Irony sufficiently to ensure that Leisure and Humor add up to 100, and we won't have to worry about work and food.
It's rare that I agree so much with a union lobbyist. But if you take that last sentence and put a period after "money" and change "taking" to "receiving" we're in perfect harmony.
So, if you completely change the meaning of what the lobbyist said, you totally agree with him. Russ, I just hope you didn't sprain anything reaching for that agreement
Methinks –
My thought at first too, but honestly I don't even think Russ's punctuation changes were necessary. After all, not taking money to finance the outsourcing of jobs doesn't exclude the possibility of not taking it for other reasons, right?
In my continual effort to convince people I'm not a socialist, I've thought these auto bailouts were ill-advised from the beginning. I can see a systemic risk justification for intervening in finance, but I see no reason why the death knells of a domestic car industry (much as I love the nostalgia of it), are a convincing reason to bail them out. It just doesn't pose the same kinds of risks. I don't mean to open the door to a debate over the finance industry with this statement – just wanted to say the auto bailouts always rubbed me the wrong way.
DK,
One of the reasons for your difficulty, particularly with me, is that you totally ignore, can't see, or blithely slide right past Russ's point……"After all, not taking money to finance the outsourcing of jobs doesn't exclude the possibility of not taking it for other reasons, right?
DK"; do you see the word taking, DK?
GM did not take money from the people, they received it.
The government "took" the money and "gave" it to GMC, which "received" it.
The government is the evil overlord in this little tale, not GMC.
I submit to the universe that the reason you totally ignore, can't see, and/or blithely slide by the point is that you're socialist indoctrinated and it is impossible for you to see government action in anything other a good light.
Hence, no matter how you try, you just aren't good enough to ride herd on your indoctrination and it shows through in your ideas and how you express them.
As is evident, I am not the only one who sees it in you. It isn't just a two person confrontation.
Dan,
You know as well as I that the lobbyist would be totally cool with robbing everyone blind in favour of his union. You can engage in hypotheticals all day, eventually one is forced to grapple with reality. That was my comment.
And just for the record….I don't think you're a socialist. I think you suffer from "smart people disease". Growing up around professors at a large university, I've seen it a lot. You're smart. Smarter and more knowledgeable than the vast majority of the population. You believe that you can create policies that manipulate people like pieces on a chessboard to effect a more efficient outcome as calculated by your mathematical models.
This is a problem of economics. Mathematics doesn't easily lend itself to the study of humans. Incentives are extremely difficult to quantify and predict and central planners tend to become slaves to incentives rather than the other way around. The pieces move them rather than them moving the pieces. They are never really in control but they have the illusion that they can gain control – meanwhile, they impose their experiments on the public.
I don't think you're a socialist. I think – and I say this with all due respect – you're merely arrogant.
Cheers,
As long as we package it in environmentally friendly and biodegradable packaging, I am for it.
Methinks,
I believe you may have come ironically close to contradicting yourself here:
"And just for the record….I don't think you're a socialist……….
I think you suffer from "smart people disease". Growing up around professors at a large university, I've seen it a lot. You're smart. Smarter and more knowledgeable than the vast majority of the population. You believe that you can create policies that manipulate people like pieces on a chessboard to effect a more efficient outcome as calculated by your mathematical models.
Posted by: Methinks | May 14, 2009 12:41:54 PM
While not being a socialist, he just exhibits all the traits of the typical socialist? Maybe, but if that is the case how will we ever know the difference?
At least it is an admission that Chinese products are indeed junk on the larger scale.
Now what would be the argument if you removed the unions and still had the same action?
Posted by: Daniel Kuehn | May 14, 2009 11:57:34 AM
China hasn't been known for reporting things that dont save face.
But my view is that if you're going to bail out Wall Street, you bail out Main Street including Detroit's Big Three automakers. You don't let Wall Street pull a fast one while leaving Main Street out to dry. Their attempts to link Wall Street to Main Street are disingenuous at best when it only seems to happen at Wall Street's favor.
The spillover fallacy (as I will now call it) is a pernicious error, and repeated frequently in the popular media. The economic fallout will be felt regardless of whether companies like General Motors or Crysler are saved; the only difference will be whether General Motors and Crysler feel the cost, or it is redistributed more equitably.
It is a special form of the broken-window fallacy.
Markets are more powerful than governments. And the surprise here is what?
.
vidyohs -
RE: "do you see the word taking, DK"
I absolutely saw the word "taking", vidyohs, and I absolutely got Russ's point and agree with Russ that "receiving" is a better word. This is why I only suggested that Russ's punctuation change was unnecessary and not his word choice change.
So maybe it's my socialist indoctrination… or maybe it's the fact that you don't understand what I mean when I say "punctuation".
Jesus – I AGREE with Russ on auto bailout. Can't we cut the acrimony and enjoy this rare moment of comraderie?
For your benefit, vidyohs, I'll repost what I said to Methinks -
"but honestly I don't even think Russ's punctuation changes were necessary"
Methinks -
RE: "You believe that you can create policies that manipulate people like pieces on a chessboard to effect a more efficient outcome as calculated by your mathematical models."
::bangs head against the wall::
Am I REALLY doing this poorly at communicating with people here, or is it just a problem on the receiving end? Where is MnM??? He usually has a better sense of what I'm saying, even if he doesn't agree with me.
Markets are more powerful than governments.
Only if you let them.
Dan,
No acrimony here.
Vidyohs,
Central planning is a feature of socialism. Although in a slightly different form, it's also a feature of fascism. I don't think that Daniel embraces the most important pillars of either but embraces some of each. Although I don't know, I'm pretty confident that despite his statist tendencies, if given the choice between no intervention and full-fledged fascism or socialism, he would choose no intervention at all. Maybe Dan will answer that question.
Methinks -
Neat question! Ya, no doubt. It's really no contest between no intervention and full-fledged fascism or socialism. I would choose "no intervention". It does sound like a risky choice to make… where as I have a sense of how fascism and socialism look (and they don't look good), I don't really have any idea what no intervention would look like. But I'm confident it would look significantly better than fascism or socialism!!!!
No acrimony felt from you, Methinks.
vidyohs either deliberately misinterprets me, or completely misses the fact that I agree with Russ here!
Markets are more powerful than governments.
Only if you let them.
Markets are more powerful no matter what because they are the only thing that can produce the goods people want and need.
The most centralized economic control happened in the Soviet Union. When the system collapsed and western economists finally had a chance to take a look, they discovered an enormous black market operating alongside the official economy. Some suspect that this is how the Soviet Union survived so long as state enterprises destroyed wealth for decades. Even in the official economy, Soviet central planners couldn't escape market forces either. The drug market is another example. That market has been slated for elimination for decades and it still thrives.
Markets are like weeds. They can pretty much find a way to grow anywhere.
Markets are more powerful than governments.
"Only if you let them."
-SS
Black markets exist even in N. Korea.
"Markets are more powerful than governments."
This is why prohibition doesn't work.
Governments can only react, they cannot prevent.
They try, but always fail.
Dan,
Vidyoh's is a freedom loving Texan. He's in his 60's and time, like any other commodity in short supply, is becoming more precious to him. Give him liberty or he'll give you death.
"I would choose "no intervention""
You do understand that I mean no economic intervention? I'm not saying government, the court system, military and rule of law should disappear too. For an example of something close you need only go back a century in American history. I'll take that.
"where as I have a sense of how fascism and socialism look (and they don't look good)"
You have a sense and I have practical experience. Let me help you. Imagine hell. Okay, now you correctly imagine socialism and fascism.
Incidentally, for an example of a country living under no central government, you could look at Somalia and compare Somalia now to Somalia under a dictator. I think it's pretty amazing how people can negotiate for themselves without the interference of any central government at all.
Methinks -
RE: "You do understand that I mean no economic intervention? I'm not saying government, the court system, military and rule of law should disappear too. For an example of something close you need only go back a century in American history. I'll take that."
Ya, I get that. Perhaps I should have said "I don't know what that would look like in the context of today's economy". I'm not completely terrified of it or anything – which is why I'd easily choose it over socialism and fascism. I'm just sure there would be problems and can't really comprehend how bad those problems will be because an economy like ours has never been so unregulated. (and of course, we're dealing with our own problems FROM the interventions now anyway).
RE: "Incidentally, for an example of a country living under no central government, you could look at Somalia and compare Somalia now to Somalia under a dictator. I think it's pretty amazing how people can negotiate for themselves without the interference of any central government at all."
It's certainly true – but Somalia isn't exactly a paradise right now (something about pirates in the news recently, I think!). I know most of those problems have nothing to do with non-intervention, but my point is that I don't see the choice as being between a Somali dictator and a Somali anarchy. Thankfully we have a workable middle ground in this country – and that's usually what I compare other options to, because that's the most relevant alternative. It's easy to be a libertarian when you live under a dictatorship. The argument is a lot less convincing (to me at least) in other environments.
Nice post, thank you
DK,
I don't misinterpret or misunderstand, I just read your words.
"After all, not taking money to finance the outsourcing of jobs doesn't exclude the possibility of not taking it for other reasons, right?
Posted by: Daniel Kuehn | May 14, 2009 12:17:58 PM"
I personally think you're being a little bit of the weasel here when you say you agreed with Russ that Taking was a poor choice of words and that receiving would be better; because you then turn right around and use taking exactly as those who Russ was criticizing.
you write 'em, I just read 'em. If you're being misunderstood tis your fault not mine.
Methinks,
Tis a shame when those one basically admires misrepresents what one has said countless time.
Freedom for the individual to me means a burden of self assumed responsibility that one must acknowledge and act upon as a matter of choice, or else it isn't freedom it is license. The hinge there is the word choice.
Having freedom to me would mean then turning around and negotiating an agreement that would permit me to interact with others and still retain my freedom of choice. Typically that would be through some sort of contract.
I have absolutely said time and time again that as a free man I recognize that some functions/relations, very few, need a central organizing and administrating authority. I have said that I am willing to sit down and negotiate my relationship to that authority.
Anything other than that deprives me of my freedom.
I ask no more than Thomas, George, Ben, Sam, James, et.al. asked for, and have as much right to it as they did.
I would choose "no intervention". It does sound like a risky choice to make.
Of course it's risky – everything has risk. What's confusing is how you don't see that its much lower than the risk associated with government intervention. IMO, it is pure foolishness to believe that politicians in DC will do anything but make things worse overall. You have to completely ignore reality and human nature to believe otherwise.
vidyohs -
RE: "I personally think you're being a little bit of the weasel here when you say you agreed with Russ that Taking was a poor choice of words and that receiving would be better; because you then turn right around and use taking exactly as those who Russ was criticizing."
I can tell you desperately want me to disagree with Russ, but I'm going to have to disappoint you. I agree with him. I agree on the word "take". It's why I only suggested he change the punctuation. You're just going to have to live with the harmony of opinion on this post.
"Perhaps I should have said I don't know what that would look like in the context of today's economy."
I think the U.S. economy HAS been that unregulated in the past. But, you have generations of people who don't know what that looks like, so the fact that it has been is largely irrelevant to the current population. Did I read you correctly? I agree with that.
"I'm just sure there would be problems and can't really comprehend how bad those problems will be because an economy like ours has never been so unregulated."
Sure. If we suddenly deregulate everything, I think there would be a big problem. America has reared several generations of dependents who look to government to suckle them and tuck them in at night. Pulling intervention out would take time to allow people to adjust and we would have to limit the ability of government to reinstate the nanny state. I'm not even sure that's doable because there won't be the political will until we have a Japan or at least a 1970's scenario again. Even then….
However, we can start by simply not EXPANDING the intervention – which is occurring on an hourly basis right now. We're well on our way to fascism.
"Somalia isn't exactly a paradise right now (something about pirates in the news recently, I think!)."
Why does non-intervention have to meet the "paradise" standard? Last I checked, we don't have paradise here either.
"Thankfully we have a workable middle ground in this country"
Do we? I hadn't noticed.
yet another Dave -
RE: "Of course it's risky – everything has risk. What's confusing is how you don't see that its much lower than the risk associated with government intervention. IMO, it is pure foolishness to believe that politicians in DC will do anything but make things worse overall."
I agreed with Russ's response to the UAW, and I agree with Methinks on the choice (that I thankfully will never have to make in real life) between non-intervention and fascism. I'm going to leave it at that because I like the temporary tranquility I've achieved with the hosts and the commenters.
Incidentally, while the Pirates may be a problem for passing ships, I don't think the Somali pirates are a problem for Somalia.
Vidyohs,
So my attempts at humour were neither funny nor appreciated? I know exactly what you mean and always have. You don't mince words and that's sort of what I was getting at.
Methinks -
RE: "I think the U.S. economy HAS been that unregulated in the past. But, you have generations of people who don't know what that looks like, so the fact that it has been is largely irrelevant to the current population. Did I read you correctly? I agree with that."
Well, I'd agree with that too, but that wasn't exactly what I was saying. My point was that when it was unregulated in the past it was a lot less complex, less crowded, less interrelated and just plain very different from what it is now. If I were alive in the early 19th century I think I would find the low degree of intervention very, very appropriate to that economy. I don't think we can cut and paste what happened then to what will happen now. Indeed – I think the reason why we've intervened more is in response to these changes in the economy, not out of some underlying nefarious special interests.
RE: "Why does non-intervention have to meet the "paradise" standard? Last I checked, we don't have paradise here either."
It doesn't have to at all, and no we don't have one either. Sorry if that came across like I was insisting on one. The point is I think we're a lot closer here. In fact, places that I've felt more "in paradise" than in the U.S. (the bahamas comes to mind) have more to do with their physical beauty than their economic policy.
RE: "Do we? I hadn't noticed."
vidyohs: "The government "took" the money and "gave" it to GMC, which "received" it.
The government is the evil overlord in this little tale, not GMC."
Absolutely.
GM executives reresent the shareholders of GM. If they determine the shareholders interests are best served by asking Washington for handouts, then they are just doing their job by asking for handouts.
Elected officials are supposed to represent the interests of all the electorate. When they saddle the electorate with billions more debt in order to temporarily save union jobs, they are no longer representing the electorate. They are no longer doing their jobs.
Dan,
"My point was that when it was unregulated in the past it was a lot less complex, less crowded, less interrelated".
Uh-huh. So, lent itself better to central planning because now that it is so complex and crowded the task of the central planner becomes impossible. If that weren't true, all these regulations would actually produce the intended result, wouldn't they?
The idea that a central body can oversee such complexity is laughable. Think of the amount of knowledge this small group of overseer would have to have – more than the combined knowledge of all the people it regulates. But it doesn't and the regulated regularly out-run and outsmart these wise and powerful regulators. That suggests that people don't actually need the regulator to make the best decisions for them, that the market is dynamic and find its own solutions and that regulators merely create distortions.
""workable" may be generous, but it certainly hasn't condemned us to squalor either"
Yet.
Methinks -
RE: "Uh-huh. So, lent itself better to central planning because now that it is so complex and crowded the task of the central planner becomes impossible. If that weren't true, all these regulations would actually produce the intended result, wouldn't they?"
I'm not sure what you mean by this – I'm not suggesting we plan the economy.
RE: "The idea that a central body can oversee such complexity is laughable."
I agree… I really think you misunderstand what I argue sometimes.
RE: """workable" may be generous, but it certainly hasn't condemned us to squalor either"
Yet."
233 years and going strong
Dan,
We haven't had 233 years of Obama stomping on contract law, Bush using the regulator to threaten banks to take TARP funds "or else", nationalized health care, corporate welfare, etc. It doesn't take that much to destroy a country.
"I agree… I really think you misunderstand what I argue sometimes."
You argue that the "oversight" and "regulation" IF DONE WELL will produce a better result than leaving such a complex monster of an economy to amble along (God forbid!). Alas, you don't agree with so much of what government does, but you're willing to keep experimenting at other people's expense anyway. You close your eyes to your underlying assumption that government is omniscient has perfect control over market participants because that is what is required for regulation to "work". Having closed your eyes to that, you are free to declare that this is not what you're saying. But you keep repeating it.
Methinks -
Even if you think about poorly implemented regulation and some of the most egregious regulations we've had (wage and price controls, for example), it is worlds away from "planning" the economy, and it was very quickly repealed and resoundedly rejected by everyone.
I know you've had bad experiences in your past, but that's no reason to sensationalize the arguments of others.
There's no point in debating with you if you keep raising the specter of central planning.
RE: "You close your eyes to your underlying assumption that government is omniscient has perfect control over market participants because that is what is required for regulation to "work"."
Like this… give me a break! Nothing I've said depends on this. I've never denied there are risks and problems with intervention.
you bail out Main Street including Detroit's Big Three automakers. You don't let Wall Street pull a fast one while leaving Main Street out to dry. Their attempts to link Wall Street to Main Street are disingenuous at best when it only seems to happen at Wall Street's favor.
Sound economic reasoning. /sarcasm
The idea that a central body can oversee such complexity is laughable.
If you have any experience with committees, then that should give you an idea of how our government functions.
Then you have to consider the type of people who seek political office and are successful at attaining political office
Consider the personality type involved here.
Now put hundreds of them on a giant committee with control of hundreds of billions of dollars, nay, trillions of dollars, and pretty much all they have to do to maintain their position is be great bullshitters.
Dan,
Thing about central planning an economy is it's actually impossible. So, even the attempt at planning is "worlds away from planning". You can't actually achieve a planned economy
All you can do is create distortions.
I haven't any reason to sensationalize your arguments. I don't see much benefit in doing that. Incidentally, I'm not the only one to recognize the similarities and it's insane to believe that we have to open our first Gulag before we should get worried.
"Like this… give me a break! Nothing I've said depends on this. I've never denied there are risks and problems with intervention."
There are risks and problems, but I assume you must think regulation and other interventions basically work because you are in favour of both (not in EVERY case, but that means you know in which case they would and wouldn't and that implies knowledge beyond what you're capable of acquiring). So, you must assume that the cost outweighs the benefit. If you that's not your assumption, how do you justify such control? How a small, less informed group of people is supposed to achieve such a large benefit is beyond me. I watch my regulator struggle to achieve this every day (because, you KNOW they can't go one day without sending us a communique) – fruitlessly, I might add. It eats into my team's productive time and makes everyone less efficient and still the party the regulator means to protect gets screwed worse than if the regulator didn't exist at all. We've had this discussion before.
Speaking of eating into productive time….I have to go gather a bunch of stuff the regulator demanded. This has turned into the Methinks & Kuehn Show anyway and I'm sure we've scared off really good comments by getting on this merry-go-round again.
Sayonara!
Oh Daniel K.,
"I can tell you desperately want me to disagree with Russ, but I'm going to have to disappoint you. I agree with him. I agree on the word "take". It's why I only suggested he change the punctuation. You're just going to have to live with the harmony of opinion on this post.
Posted by: Daniel Kuehn | May 14, 2009 2:21:16 PM"
I don't care if you do or don't, except that in we get the truth straight. You can say the above quote, but as I pointed out also previously say this (which I rightfully criticized).
"Methinks –
My thought at first too, but honestly I don't even think Russ's punctuation changes were necessary………… After all, not taking money to finance the outsourcing of jobs doesn't exclude the possibility of not taking it for other reasons, right?
Posted by: Daniel Kuehn | May 14, 2009 12:17:58 PM"
am I wrong or do I not see the same word "taking" appearing in your denials that the people Russ was criticizing used?
Please DK, I am confused, do I not recognize the same English words, or am I just going blind?
Were my criticism of your comments valid? Yes, I think so. Do you not go directly to the same socialist mind-set in wording your thoughts that you typically use? Yes, I think so.
Your words, DK, not mine, I just read them as you write them. If you're misunderstood, tis your fault not mine.
Okay, you agree with Russ, now learn to express that agreement in words that indicate that agreement.
I rarely disagree with Methinks, but on you I do, I do believe that you would go with intervention if it came down to a choice, because everything, and I mean everything, you've written on this blog since appearing leads directly to that conclusion. you trust the state more than you trust me, and you trust it more than you trust yourself.
I rarely disagree with Methinks, but on you I do, I do believe that you would go with intervention if it came down to a choice, because everything, and I mean everything, you've written on this blog since appearing leads directly to that conclusion. you trust the state more than you trust me, and you trust it more than you trust yourself.
Dan believes in the middle course, that it can be found and that it can be maintained.
"Give him liberty or he'll give you death."
I rather like that.
Give me liberty, or I'll give you death.
Yeah, I like that :p
"Dan believes in the middle course, that it can be found and that it can be maintained.
Posted by: Sam Grove | May 14, 2009 9:57:57 PM"
Rarely disagree with you either, Sam, and in this case I realize you were talking basically with tongue in cheek, because we know that in life, politics in particualr, there is no middle course.
However, I don't read DK that way. In spite of how he crafts his posts to present that middle of the course facade, no matter what the hosts post, DK is right there with some argument to show his superior wisdom about another way that just happens when ran out to the natural conclusion of his ideas, will result in more government, intrusive government. As a matter of fact that is the essence of all his arguments with everyone, run them out in an enlightened imagination and you come to more government, more intrusive government.
But Dan does believe that he seeks the middle course.
He believes it because he has economic training and can conceive it somehow. He then does what a lot of people do, which is to suppose that his reasonableness in asserting a middle course will naturally persuade people that they should go to the polls and vote the middle course.
I don't think a middle course will be found, and even if ever found, cannot be maintained, for surely, if people buy into the delusion that they can manage a huge, powerful government and all the special interests that pertain, they will soon find that their belief in a manageable middle-course government is their biggest mistake.
An incomprehensibly large and powerful government will not, and cannot, be managed by the people, it will manage the people.
Always.
Vid,
I don't think Dan subscribes to enough of the egalitarian and or nationalistic arguments to be called a socialist or fascist. But, my choice was full-fledged socialism or fascism or no intervention at all – not intervention or no intervention. He would choose no intervention at all, but he prefers intervention without a complete slide into one of those two.
Dan believes that he can come up with a policy that surgically removes only the best parts and implants them into the patient to achieve a better result.
It has never happened that way before, there's no reason to think it will happen that way ever and even if there's a some reason, the probability is too low and the cost of failure is to high to try it.
My take is that Dan is very smart and solution oriented and for people like that, it's hard to believe that they can't find a solution. I think that way too, as I'm sure you do. But, we restrict that thinking to things directly under our control – our businesses, our lives. I seem to remember Dan's job is policy analysis. It's sort of his job to find solutions, but he seems to ignore the incentives of those who implement these solutions and those who are subject to them.
I don't think Dan is a weasel so much as holds an unrestrained view of the world which is in direct conflict with our restrained view.
vidyohs -
RE: "am I wrong or do I not see the same word "taking" appearing in your denials that the people Russ was criticizing used?
Please DK, I am confused, do I not recognize the same English words, or am I just going blind?"
Oh my goodness! vidyohs! i seem to have copy and pasted from Russ's original post, which includes the "take" word! I didn't once disagree with his change, but my cut-and-paste short cut was clearly the paragon of irresponsibility!!!!
Give me a break. I only disagreed with him on one point. Stop trying to flare up a fight.
And if you really care that much, how about this as my response:
ooops… typo.
Happy?
Sam -
RE: "Dan believes in the middle course, that it can be found and that it can be maintained."
Very fair assessment. But I think it's also an issue that I don't see the state (at least our democratic state) as being the "other" that everybody seems to think here. I seek a middle ground because I think there are some areas where an institutionalized collective action can be good (because collective action from scratch can be hard to maintain). So yes I seek a middle ground, but not between some rent-seeking corrupt state and the people. What I seek is a middle ground between some sort of reasonable democratic republic and the people. So a slightly different twist – but a difference that I think matters. If we lived in a country with a state that had less respect for enumerated powers and individual rights, I probably would find the middle option way too risky.
vidyohs -
RE: "DK is right there with some argument to show his superior wisdom about another way that just happens when ran out to the natural conclusion of his ideas, will result in more government, intrusive government"
Why do you reach for this? Can anyone disagree with you without you thinking they're trying to "show of superior wisdom". I'm not qualified to evaluate you personally, but this kind of reaction merely to my disagreement seems to be symptomatic of some sort of inferiority complex.
RE: "As a matter of fact that is the essence of all his arguments with everyone, run them out in an enlightened imagination and you come to more government, more intrusive government"
No, not with everyone. That's how it comes across when I argue with people who think that the state is always doomed to failure. Don't make the mistake of thinking your position is everyone's opinion. When I argue with leftists I run them in the other direction because of their irrational distrust of the free market.
Sam -
RE: "An incomprehensibly large and powerful government will not, and cannot, be managed by the people, it will manage the people."
I agree with this statement compeltely. It's why we should never let government get incomprehensibly large and powerful. It's why we should have a Constitution of enumerated powers with all other rights reserved to the people or the several states.
Methinks -
RE: "for people like that, it's hard to believe that they can't find a solution.:
You don't have to be under the delusion that your result will be perfect to believe that you can do a decent job that's still worth doing.
RE: "It's sort of his job to find solutions, but he seems to ignore the incentives of those who implement these solutions and those who are subject to them. "
Of course not! These incentives are probably the single most important things to keep in mind! Why in the world would I ignore them????
Oh DK,
"No, not with everyone. That's how it comes across when I argue with people who think that the state is always doomed to failure. Don't make the mistake of thinking your position is everyone's opinion."
My bad, I didn't restrict my use of everyone to this blog, so let me correct that. My use of everyone was intended to be restricted to this Cafe. I do not know or care that you comment on other blogs.
LOL, trust me, I am fully aware that my opinion is not shared by everyone, on this Cafe or in the wider wonderful world beyond the Cafe.
But, I can, and do, read what you write here on the Cafe, and my evaluation expressed above is not that difficult to defend. That could be done by simply going back and pulling every single comment you've ever made and stacking them up one after another as looking at the evidence.
Even the tribute to his father that Don posted was greeted with your knee jerk response in opposition.
Oh yes, you realized you'd screwed up, but the knee jerk was there memorialized for all to see. So, let's take a look at it:
—–
"A nice tribute to the unheralded many.
I live right outside Washington, D.C., where you can find many marble statues. Some of these men deserve it more than others, but off the top of my head I can't think of any that I would apply the labels "conquerors, tyrants, arrogant pretenders, and buffoons" to. This is especially driven home for me as I consider the next statue scheduled to grace the National Mall – Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.. A tyrant? A buffoon? A pretender? No.
No, I think this sentiment is too pessimistic, Don. Certainly some undeserving tyrants have won their statues – but usually those tyrants order the statues to be built themselves. The leaders who have statues built for them by future generations, without requesting one, I find to be generally fallable and imperfect – but still quite deserving of honor.
Posted by: Daniel Kuehn | May 13, 2009 9:30:45 AM"
Sorry – didn't realize this was a tribute to your dad at first. I hope my post didn't detract from that. Sorry for your loss, Don – and while I do hold those thoughts, they certainly don't diminish the contributions of the "unheralded many".
Posted by: Daniel Kuehn | May 13, 2009 9:48:28 AM
——-
Knee jerk opposition argumentative. Frankly, you have habitually seemed to read primarily to argue, therefore, as in the above, you miss the essence and only see the points where your superior wisdom can correct us all.
I am grateful for the opportunity to read different points of opinion here, yet it is a nuisance to have to sift through those who are expert on everything and seem to argue just to argue.
DK, you seem to be a very bright guy, and I'd love to read your speculative and imaginative thoughts on how capitalism came to be. No quotes from famous economical philosopers or theorists, just your own personal view of the historical progression and development of capitalism, markets, and trade.
That would fit in with the basic theme of the Cafe and probably wouldn't piss off the owners that much.