Democrats & Liberals Archives

Republican Boom

Many economists say the economy is tanking. President George W. Bush says the economy is in good shape. For most of his tenure, Bush has been touting the great economic boom that he has brought about with sound Republican economic policies. A government report - by this administration - demonstrates the nature of the Republican boom.

The report, CBO's “Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates" comes to us via Paul Krugman:

Here’s what the numbers say about percentage gains in after-tax income from 2003 to 2005:

Bottom quintile: 2%

Next quintile: 2.4%

Middle quintile: 3.9%

Fourth quintile: 3.7%

Top quintile: 16%

Top 10%: 20.9%

Top 5%: 27.7%

Top 1%: 43.5%

In plain English, the report tells us that between 2003 and 2005 the increase in income of about 80% of Americans increased imperceptibly or were wiped out by inflation, but the top earners, especially the top 1%, made out like bandits. Yes, the super-rich had a boom, while the poor had a bust.

The Republican Party is the party of Big Business. Do not these facts prove it? In all pieces of legislation, Bush and the Republicans have favored Big Business, the wealthy, the fatcats. The poor would have to do with whatever crumbs they could find. But as it turned out, the "poor" disregarded by Republicans became 4/5 of the population.

Bush and his rich Republican buddies are in the midst of a boom; the vast marjority of us are in the midst of a bust - regardless of what happens to the stock market. If this is not reason enough for the bulk of disregarded Americans to vote for Democrats in the next election, I don't know what is.

Let's replace this Republican boom with an American boom!

Posted by Paul Siegel at December 19, 2007 8:30 PM
Comments
Comment #241077

Interesting history lesson, Paul… When the Depression was rebounding against the US in the mid 1930s, it was discovered that the primary reason for it was the agressive actions taken against ‘big business’ that was the culprit, and when the noose around their necks was lessoned as they were needed for the lend/lease program and other military buildups, only then did the economy rebound.

Perhaps there could be something to learn there, if one is willing to view it with an unpartisaned view, with the knowledge that we were entering a recession in the last year of Clinton’s administration and coupled with 9/11 could have very well entered into a depression…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 19, 2007 9:35 PM
Comment #241079

What were the % changes during the Clinton years?

Everybody got richer. Higher wage earners gained relatively more. This has been a worldwide trend for forty years.

Most of the change has to do with globalization and economies of scale. The larger the possible market, the higher the top earners can go.

Take the obvious case of celebritites. Somebody like Oprah makes big piles of cash each year because she appeals to a mass and international market. If her potential audience was limited to one state, she could not make as much. She might be doing exactly the same thing, but it would pay less.

There is also the deception of income. One of my co-workers surprised me only yesterday by telling me that he had an income from stock trading of $500,000 in 2000. This was a big problem because he reinvested all his money and in 2001 he lost most of it. He still owes taxes on the money he “made”. This happens to lots of people each year. The top quintile makes a lot of money, but the people in the top quintile changes every year.

Most people have been in more than one quintile over their careers. I have been in all five. My median yearly earnings (adjusted for inflation) are still a little below the inflation adjusted U.S. median. Paul Krugman always ignores this kind of dynamic.

It is especially dishonest to take a two year period at the beginning of an economic boom, when stock markets were recovering from a downturn. Krugman knows that income ineqaulity increased during the late Clinton Administration and then dropped in the first two years of Bush. This had nothing to do with policies and everything to do with changes in the economy, especially the stock market.

If you lost a million dollars in 2002 and then gained it back in 2003, your income jumped remarkably, but you really do not have any more money. In fact, after taxes you are around 25% poorer.

Posted by: Jack at December 20, 2007 12:05 AM
Comment #241081

Rhinehold,

Gee, that’s poignant. Too bad it’s myth. Got any facts to back it up?

What turned around the depression was what turns around any depression, increasing the money supply.

Hmmm….military build up, eh? So, Iraq is creating an economic boom? Who financed the military build up in WWII? Rockefellar? Ford? The Gold standard and free trade? Laissez Faire? Or was it the evil creators of the New Deal….You know that evil thing called monetary/fiscal policy? I know it was a latent effect of Herbert Hoover. Oh yeah, and that evil thing called taxpayers and war bonds?

This mythology is the biggest problem I have with Libertarians, they keep spewing the propaganda from the Austrian School of rewritten history. Damn Nazis.:)

Nice try, though.

Posted by: googlumpus at December 20, 2007 12:32 AM
Comment #241089

Nazis? You don’t think that’s a little personal there do you? You have read the Rules for Participation since you agree to them when you post, right?

This also means you may not criticize categories of people who visit and participate at WatchBlog (e.g. All Democrats are commies or, All Republicans are idiots). To be in compliance, critique of what other WatchBlog participants say, must be aimed at the points being made in their content.

But beyond the assinine wholesale accusation, it has nothing to do with rewriting history, it has to do with examining history and yes, I do have facts to back it up.

The Recession of 1937 was a sharp economic downturn in the United States in 1937-38. It was part of the Great Depression in the United States, and had serious political results, and helped strengthen the new Conservative Coalition led by Senators Robert A. Taft and Richard B. Russell. Economic historians have not agreed on the causes, but many of the causes show that because the New Deal involved spending money from the Federal budget, President Roosevelt had to end New Deal spendings, and thus programs, as a result.

The Roosevelt Administration reacted by launching a rhetorical campaign against monopoly power, which was cast as the cause of the depression, and appointing Thurman Arnold to act; Arnold was not effective, and the attack ended once World War II began and corporate energies had to be directed to winning the war.

The recession was short, and by 1939 the effects had disappeared.

The Administration’s main response to the 1937 recession was a $5 billion spending program in the spring of 1938, an effort to increase mass purchasing power. Business-oriented observers explained the recession and recovery in very different terms from the Keynesians. They argued the New Deal had been hostile to business expansion in 1935–37 and had encouraged massive strikes.

In other words, if you make it too hard for business to operate, they can’t keep the economy running well enough to provide jobs for people. Eventually the pendulum will swing and business owners will determine it is no longer profitable or enough of a possibility of profitability exist to be worth keeping the doors open and will cut staff, cut output and cut spending. They will put their money away in safer locations, ones that do not do as well at providing jobs and a means of earning a living for the workers.

In effect, the New New Deal went over the line and had to be pulled back, as it was in the late 1930s, to allow businesses to operate in a less hostile environment.

What turned around the depression was what turns around any depression, increasing the money supply.

But I was under the impression that increasing the money supply (through tax cuts) was a bad thing for progressives? Deficit spending much? Oh yeah, as I pointed out in the middle column, we have FDR to thank for that precident…

But remember, the government had been pumping more money into the system in the early 1930s, what changed from 1935 - 1937 that caused such a massive downturn in the slow rebounding the US was seeing at the time? Could it have had something to do with the National Recovery Administration? Or perhaps it’s successor, the ignanimous Wagner Act, a piece of legislation that removed the rule of law from labor disputes and encouraged wholesale strikes with the resolution being done not in a court of law but a friendly national agency?

Six months after the NRA went into effect industrial production dropped twenty-five percent. According to some economists, the NRA increased the cost of doing business by forty percent.

Nevermind the other attempts by FDR to move money around, including:

* A tax on corporate retained earnings, called the ‘undistributed profits tax’ was levied on businesses

* Raised top level income tax from 63 to 79 percent, then to 90 percent and even suggested a 99.5 percent tax

* Signed an executive order to tax all income over 25,000 at 100% and lowered the personal exemption to just $600. (The 100% tax was overriden by congress but the lower personal exemption stayed, meaning that for the first time most American families had to pay some income tax).

* From the summer of 1936 to the spring of 1937 the Federal Reserver doubled reserve requirements on the national banks.

Oh, and in a period of two months in 1937 when the demand of steel - a key economic barometer - dropped from 83 percent of capacity to 35 percent of capacity. FDR’s answer was to take a 9 day fishing trip as the news hit the headlines.

The New York Times-Tribune wrote while imploring him to stop fishing and get back to work was that the country needed a reversal of FDR’s policy “of bitterness and hate, of setting class against class and punishing all who disagree with him”.

Business-oriented observers explained the recession and recovery in very different terms from the Keynesians. They argued that the New Deal had been very hostile to business expansion in 1935-37, had encouraged massive strikes which had a negative impact on major industries such as automobiles, and had threatened massive anti-trust legal attacks on big corporations. All those threats diminished sharply after 1938. For example, the antitrust efforts fizzled out without major cases. The CIO and AFL unions started battling each other more than corporations, and tax policy became more favorable to long-term growth.

Lawrence Reed notes that “when a nationally representative poll by the American Institute of Public Opinion in the spring of 1939 asked, “Do you think the attitude of the Roosevelt administration toward business is delaying business recovery?” the American people responded “yes” by a margin of more than two-to-one. The business community felt even more strongly so”[15] Roosevelt’s Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, said in May 1939: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and now if I am wrong somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosper. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started. And enormous debt to boot.”

Deficit spending was a help, but I’ve never understood why it is almost a crime to point out that it is business that makes the economy run, not government. Government can shield the economy from the largest swings (good and bad) that come along in an effort to make it a more stable curve, but it does not CREATE the jobs or the marketplace, only protect it. And when you come down too hard on business too fast, as FDR did, you find that it has a very negative effect on the marketplace.

Of course, that’s just my opinion…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 20, 2007 2:48 AM
Comment #241105

Rhinehold said: “but I’ve never understood why it is almost a crime to point out that it is business that makes the economy run, not government.”

The reason you don’t understand is because what you are saying is woefully inadequate. It poses a fantasy choice that doesn’t exist, government over business or vice versa. In reality it is a balance of government, consumer health and well being, and business working in concert to keep this 3 legged stool’s legs healthy and strong against the myopic termites who see one leg and say that is the feast, the only feast, and no other feast exists.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 20, 2007 9:30 AM
Comment #241115

Rhinehold:

Business does not make the economy run. What would business do without workers? What would business do without banks? What would business do without the rule of law supplied by government? What would business do without an educational system that trains workers of all kinds?

Business does not act alone. The purpose of business is to provide goods and services to people. Each individual has or should have his or her say.

The business of America is not business, but the prosperity and happiness of all citizens.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at December 20, 2007 12:47 PM
Comment #241118

Rhineold:

A: I never called you a Nazi. It frankly didn’t occur to me the name Rhinehold has Teutonic origins (if it does). I’ve always envisioned an independent RHINO or perhaps a RINO, this being a political column.

B: There was a reference to the AUSTRIAN SCHOOL of ECONOMICS, a common source for Libertarians. A smiley face was added after the reference. I find their rhetoric as based in fact as Goebbels ramblings. That was sarcasm.

C: Taking that reference personally seems a bit weird to me, unless you are an alum of said school and overly attached.

Was there division in FDR’s Cabinet? Yes.
Was the Wagner act dumb. Yes.
Does an opinion poll prove economic theory? No.

You demonstrated why WWII brought us out of the depression…. MASSIVE deficit spending. This is exactly why a gold standard does not work in Macro Economics. It stagnates money supply. Thank God Keynes figured that out, and the Fed has understood that since the 40’s. Notice we haven’t had the recurrence of the 18th and 19th century depressions.

Hey, you want to believe that breaking up monopolies and requiring Corporations to be responsible and pay reasonable salaries and profits rather than skewing the monetary system to pour money into their minute and stagnate cofffers is what caused the Depression. I can’t stop you.

Where are your quotes from Rhinehold? They appear to be one source.

Posted by: googlumpus at December 20, 2007 1:35 PM
Comment #241119

DR
Good job

RH
I had no idea you had such easily damaged feelings.BTW, The sources you sight are only from business owned, biased,opinion outlets are they not?
It seems that it is very hard for the Right to give any credit to FDR however that charicter defect should not blind you to the fact that he fulfilled his great historical task,he kept the country intact. Revolutions and their reactions were tearing the world apart. The US was teetering on the brink. If not for FDR programs and the renewed sense of hope they gave working people here we may well have gone considerably to the left or furthur into the depths of anarchy.Many US business leaders opposed these programs,of course. Many of them were admttably fascist,(notably Ford,Prescott Bush) and openly financed fascist political groups.We came together in WW2 to fight global fascism here and abroad.Seems we may have to do it again.

Posted by: BillS at December 20, 2007 1:54 PM
Comment #241120
Hey, you want to believe that breaking up monopolies and requiring Corporations to be responsible and pay reasonable salaries and profits rather than skewing the monetary system to pour money into their minute and stagnate cofffers is what caused the Depression. I can’t stop you.

I never said it caused the depression, I said it prevented the recovery and helped cause the 1937 recession. Had FDR not been as openly hostile to businesses and the middle class (I shared a few of the key examples, 100% taxation? Openly taxing the middle class for the first time?) the US would not have needed a war and its end to create an atmosphere of renewed investment opportunities that brought us out of it.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 20, 2007 2:24 PM
Comment #241121
Many of them were admttably fascist,(notably Ford,Prescott Bush) and openly financed fascist political groups.

And many supporters of FDR were openly facist and/or communist as well. That doesn’t change at all the facts of the situation.

I’m sorry if I don’t repeat the oft used mythology that FDR was our greatest president or that he could do not wrong, he did a LOT of things wrong. And as I quoted, his own Treasury Secretary finally ended up breaking ranks with the policies he was using and pointed out that they just did not work. Initially, people did feel like they had hope, but they were realizing in the late 1900s that they were sold a bill of goods and had the county not had a common enemy to fight to bring them together, it is with little doubt that we would not have pulled ourselves from the teetering brink.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 20, 2007 2:30 PM
Comment #241122
Taking that reference personally seems a bit weird to me, unless you are an alum of said school and overly attached.

Let’s see, you attempted to invalidate my arguments by associating me with nazis simply because I’m a libertarian and you have some perverted opinions about libertarians, I’m not sure why you think using such tactics to shout down someone you disagree with shouldn’t be taken personally.

Basically, you told me that since I’m a libertarian and libertarians subscribe to the ‘Austrian school of economics’ (whatever this is) and further call them nazis… that my opinion should just be discarded and not worth the time to actually debate on its merits.

Yes, I take offense at people who attempt to debate in this tactic and I really take being belittled that way very personally. Which is why I choose to comment here, because for some reason thought it out of bounds in this forum and something I wouldn’t have to put with.

I had no idea you had such easily damaged feelings.

And if I compared you to nazis because you are a progressive, BillS? You wouldn’t get upset? I’ll remember that for future debates…

For remembering what was actually said:

This mythology is the biggest problem I have with Libertarians, they keep spewing the propaganda from the Austrian School of rewritten history. Damn Nazis.:)

Yeah, see there’s the smiley, of COURSE I should laught it off, being called a Nazi is just so FUNNY.

Posted by: Rhinehol at December 20, 2007 2:38 PM
Comment #241132

googlumpus
The Wagner Act dumb. To the contrary. What it did was legalize unions. It kept the government businesses from hireing thugs to break strikes and provided a legal, peaceful means to reach agreement.Of course it led to several overdue strikes. The fascist have been after it since the beginning. The Taft-Hartly amendments passed under a fascist congress dispite the veto of another great Dem president,Truman.Those amendment have been used ever since to weaken the barginning power of workers. The Bush perversion of the NLRB has led to absurdly anti-union decisions. The weakening of workers rights is a major cause of the disparity Pauls shows so clearly.You hear a lot from the Right about reduceing government intrusion. I’ll go with that. The government should take the handcuffs off the labor movement imposed by the Taft-Hartly amendments and we will straiten things out.


Underlaying the the major economic problems we face is the fact that wages for working people have not kept up with productivity or prices. Right now there is concern that we are not spending as much on Christmas gifts. This effects the economy.Think if we had more money we might spend more?The savings rate for Americans is low. Think if we had more money we might save more?The morgage crises growing. Think if we had more money we would have quailfied for better terms? Pretty soon now the credit card debt fiasco is going to hit the fan. Think if we got paid more we would not use them as much? The short sighted greed of the fascist ownning class is about to come home to roost. We have a consumer economy. For that to work consumers must have money to spend.Economics is not an exact science but it is not rocket science either.

Posted by: BillS at December 20, 2007 6:54 PM
Comment #241139
What it did was legalize unions

Well, legalize is an interesting term since it actually took the whole issue of unions outside of the rule of law, so I’m not sure how it matches the definition of ‘legalize’.

It brought labor disputes out of the courts and under the board who acted as prosecutor, judge and jury. It gave labor unions power they never wielded before, much more than they should have had, and incited violence and intimidation.

(And before you go there, I fully support unions, as a consolidation of laborists, but do not support every action they take. And I especially do not support anyone operating outside of the ‘rule of law’.)

And your assertion that unions weren’t ‘legal’ before is a mistake like many others that fall in this area, including thinking that Hoover was a ‘free marketer’ who took a hands off approach to running the country when that is entirely not the case. In fact, Roosevelt railed against Hoover for sticking his hand too much into the market and then proceeded to take what Hoover did and expand upon it.

Think if we had more money we might spend more?The savings rate for Americans is low. Think if we had more money we might save more?The morgage crises growing. Think if we had more money we would have quailfied for better terms? Pretty soon now the credit card debt fiasco is going to hit the fan. Think if we got paid more we would not use them as much?

Ah yes, too bad the communists controlling class has not figure out yet that they are the ones exacerbating this problem, taking 47% of all income out of the economy and placing it in Washington… Just imagine if we were able to keep just HALF of that amount!

And we could, but it would require cutting back on ‘government’, instead I see nothing but people demainding more increases, such as free healthcare.

Just think…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 20, 2007 8:02 PM
Comment #241147

Rhinehold,

Interesting tactic. Be insulted and therefore no response is necessary. I made a comment about the Autrian School of Economics, not you. That is a fact.

You have made unsupported restatements of history like the Austrian School has done. I’m simply trying to grasp your bizarre statements about Economics. IF you choose to not respond, that tells me you probably cannot support your ideas.

Accusing me of a fictitious Rules Violation could I suppose, be considered an insult. I think it’s just a poor argument technique.

Your later statements are more reasonable. You acknowledge deficit spending had “something” to do with recovery.

I agree Roosevelt had men like Henry Wallace who had social agendas rather than economic backgrounds to deal with the Depression. The New Deal was neither perfect nor was it the cause of delay of the recovery, as you suggest. You made Roosevelt the Hitler of the Economy in your statements which seem to be based on bias rather than reality. Keynes ideas worked and haven’t been repealed.

The belief that whining monopolies who had horrendous rise in costs delayed recovery is strange as well. Both Government Policy and Laissez Faire caused the Depression. Many seem to advocate, as you often do, that it is ALL governments doing. And poor innocent businessmen who only are saintly entrepreneurs, would have made the thing work if they had been allowed.

This serves Libertarian ideals of small government, but doesn’t match history or reality, IMO. This is the myth you offered and I challenged.

It is proffered by the ASE and Ron Paul seems to agree with it. I like Ron Paul and will likely vote for him if he continues in the General Election. I think he offers an alternative to the corrupt Dem and Rep. Parties. I think he discusses serious subjects seriously. This is what I want to see in an election.

I think his Libertarian ideals are just that ideals and not pragmatic.

Rhinehold, I see you as one of the most intelligent and resourceful debators on this site. I challenge your ideas not you, personally.

Posted by: googlumpugus at December 20, 2007 10:55 PM
Comment #241148

Bill S,

You are right and I mistook the Wagner Act as something else.

It was an attempt to equalize the bargaining power of workers, as the Taft Harly act was.
It did not delay the Recovery as Rhinehold and others have stated. In fact, it was ignored until 1937 when the Supreme Court upheld it. I’m not sure why Rhinehold sees this as outside law. ( Here comes the court stacking accusation.)

Frankly, I would prefer something besides Unions to equalize this. Jurisprudence, for example, that wasn’t dependent on expensive legalities.
Slap a few Monopolist in Jail, perhaps a few corporate officers of companies that systematically hire illegals for example, and take away their monies much like we do drug dealers. The market would then resovle itself, much to Rhinehold’s satisfaction, and Justice would be served.

Then perhaps he, too, could blame the saintly Monopolists rather than FDR. Of course the economic imbalance they create has nothing to do with what he percieves as overreaction.

Thanks for catching my error.

Posted by: googlumpugus at December 20, 2007 11:21 PM
Comment #241152
Interesting tactic. Be insulted and therefore no response is necessary. I made a comment about the Autrian School of Economics, not you. That is a fact.

First, I did respond, in fact I think I posted quite a lot of information to back up my point. FDR was decidedly anti-business and it was those over the line anti-business policies, some of which I described, that caused the 1937 recession. I have yet to hear your explanation for the 1937 recession, if we were deficit spending, and all you have to do to get out of a recession/depression, is to pump imaginary money into the system like a credit card, why did the recession occur?

Second, *IF* your nazi line was strictly about the ASE, which can be taken either way based off of how you wrote it, you still accused me of spewing Nazi propaganda then, didn’t you? Not me personally by name, but by association as a libertarian. I’ve quoted the section of the Rules for Participation dealing with that and thought it quite clear personally. And that you refuse to even admit it and offer the slightest of apology, instead using my heartfelt indignance with being associated with Nazis as a backhand attack against me again.

BTW, it was the monkeying around with the national bank that caused the depression more than anything else, in what way did Laissez Faire cause the Depression? You’ve made the accusation (and suprising admission that Government Policy had at least something to do with it) and yet offer nothing to back it up? But I’m expected to write a dissertation to be taken the slightest bit seriously?

I’m trying to explain how it works in the business community. The notion that ‘business is just about the bottom line and will screw over everyone who gets in their way’ is a simple and completely invalid statement. There are many businesses that are run much differently than that, especially more in this day and age than in the early 1900s when monopolies were allowed to exist. They should never exist in a true free market, otherwise the market is never free, this is one major disagreement I have with the libertarian party’s platform and will be addressing soon in my ongoing series.

However, it has to be obvious that the days of the robber baron have been gone for a century. No longer do most business owners have a desire to build corporate towns, in fact most business owners are either small business owners who are just trying to provide a living for themselves and are more often than not very caring of their employees or they are large corporations that are not run by individuals but my thousands or millions of individuals who own stock in them. When you attack corporations you are attacking all of the people who own them, most of them are very caring people in their own right. The fact that even in crushing taxation (47% is TOO MUCH) we still give such huge sums of money to charity in this country, we are NOT the same country we were in 1900.

No one at all has forced most large companies to create retirement plans and more recently 401k plans to their workers. They have been made more appealing by tax breaks, but the tax breaks themselves do not pay 100% or more for them. So the only explanation is that the businesses are trying to do better for their employees by offering benefits instead of straight pay to get more qualified people working for them and a longer turnover rate. Health insurance programs are offered, not because they HAVE to, not because they make the company money in the short run, but because they are for the most part trying to look out for their employees AND are looking at ways to get beteter qualified employees and longer turnover rate. The advisarial vision that progressives have of the business vs the workers is not only 70 years old but exist for the most part in their own minds. The few cases were this does exist is the abhorration, not the normal order of things.

And of course labor unions have their place too, when they are in place to serve the workers. But just as with any group of people who obtain power they misuse it. Let’s go back and look at the WPA for example.

In Kentucky, WPA workers catalogued 350 different ways to cook spinach. The agency employed 6,0000 “actors” though the nation’s actors’ union claimed only 4,500 members. Hundreds of WPA workers were used to collect campaign contributions for Democratic Party candidates. In Tennessee, WPA workers were fired if they refused to donate two percent of their wages to the incumbent governor. By 1940, only 59 percent of the WPA budget went to paying workers anything at all; the rest was sucked up in administration and overhead, just like the way government works. The editors of The New Republic asked, “Has Roosevelt the moral stature to admit now that the WPA was a hasty and grandiose political gesture, that it is a wretched failure and should be abolished?” The last project was eliminated in July of 1943… In fact, the WPA is a prime example of where the word Boondoggle came from.

Boondoggle, in the sense of a term for a project that wastes time and money, first appeared during the Great Depression in the 1930s, referring to the millions of jobs given to unemployed men and women to try to get the economy moving again, as part of the New Deal. It came into common usage after a 1935 New York Times headline claimed that over $3 million had been spent teaching the jobless how to make boon doggles.

Link to NY Times Article

You have made unsupported restatements of history like the Austrian School has done.

I have backed up everything I’ve stated with factual information. What exactly have I said that is not ‘backed up’ with evidence that I’ve provided? To simply label what I say as being invalid because it my resemble arguments made by another group, who’s arguments you haven’t attempted to counter either, is not much of a way to convince anyone to your view of thinking.

All you’ve said is ‘The depression was ended by deficit spending’ which I’ve already shows was invalid, it only brought temporary relief, very temporary and very sporadic, until true recovery was able to be brought on by a good business investment atmosphere that was decidedly lacking under FDR who saw big buisness as the enemy and attempted to confiscate, not just some, but ALL of their wealth.

So, if you want to get into specifics, lets. If you want to continue telling me my views are myths without countering the long comments with many details that I’ve provided (and have many more if you want to continue) you’re going to get a lukewarm response going forward. If you want to go back to telling me my views are invalid because I’m spewing Nazi propoganda, you’re going to find a very chilling reception indeed.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 20, 2007 11:52 PM
Comment #241154
I’m not sure why Rhinehold sees this as outside law.

Well, let’s see. When, during a union dispute, was the law ever involved? What did they appear before a judge? When was a jury of peer ever convened?

In fact, it took all disputes to a board who listened to the case and rules on it with no way to appeal or even ensure a fair hearing at all.

Gee, that sounds like somewhere much different than what the US judicial system offers.

Then perhaps he, too, could blame the saintly Monopolists rather than FDR.

Monopolies should be allowed to exist and should never ever be supported by government (as we do now in this country). So… your assumption is invalid. FDR’s policies were still a main reason for the length of the depression recovery and specifically the 1937 recession. Sorry but I don’t see any other way to explain it.

Could you please explain what caused the 1937 recession as we were already in full deficit spending mode? Remembering of course you have to somehow ignore all of the specific changes made during that time, and public perception of what the cause was…

I will be happy to be given a proper economics lesson!

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 21, 2007 12:00 AM
Comment #241155

Erm, that should be “Monopolies should never be allowed to exist”

It decidely changes the whole meaning of the sentence… Sorry.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 21, 2007 12:03 AM
Comment #241158

RH
FYI The Wagner Act is a “law”. Before it unions were treated as criminal conspiricies. The police and troops were sometimes used as strikebreakers. Private goons were seldom prosecuted.
Labor disputes end up in court all the time. You must love the current NLRB. In violation of their charge they have moved entirely anti-union. One recent ruling says that when an employer sues a union, the union must pay the legal expenses even is the employer loses or the case is dismissed as with out merit.Is that fair in your book?
Without some recourse the huge labor disputes of the time in question could have easily sparked a revolution.FDR deserves credit for maintainning stability.

Posted by: BillS at December 21, 2007 12:28 AM
Comment #241159

RH
The WPA built the retainning wall around my daughters public school in 1939. They also built countless bridges still in use throughout the country,adding greatly to the economy even today.
How much good is the money we are throwing away in Iraq going to do Americans in fifty years?Why is it OK to build hospitals and pay for national healthcare for Iraqis and not Americans?

Posted by: BillS at December 21, 2007 12:39 AM
Comment #241160
FYI The Wagner Act is a “law”. Before it unions were treated as criminal conspiricies. The police and troops were sometimes used as strikebreakers. Private goons were seldom prosecuted.

The answer was not to take the court system and appeal processes out of the equation though. It was, as usual, to enforce the laws on the books (something that is the perview of the executive branch) and put the nonsense down. FDR did not have to create a board that did not use the courts to enforce their bad rulings.

For example:

It aimed at crushing all employer resistance to labor unions. Anything an employer might do in self-defense became an “unfair labor practice” punishable by the Board. The law not only abliged employers to deal and bargain with the unions designated as the employees’ representative; later Board decisions also made it unlawful to resist the demands of labor union leaders.

Do you think it was remotely ‘lawful’ to make it unlawful to resist the demands of labor union leaders? Simply saying no to the AFL or CIO was a crime? With no way to appeal the process or ensure that the hearings were fair?

Labor disputes end up in court all the time.

Now they do, yes. Thankfully.

You must love the current NLRB. In violation of their charge they have moved entirely anti-union. One recent ruling says that when an employer sues a union, the union must pay the legal expenses even is the employer loses or the case is dismissed as with out merit.Is that fair in your book?

Nope. Do I get a cookie because I’m not an anti-union whackjob?

Without some recourse the huge labor disputes of the time in question could have easily sparked a revolution.FDR deserves credit for maintainning stability.

Possibly, but I think his responses were over the line. There is no way of telling if they made things the best they could have been if other tactics had been tried, like I suggested, actually treating both sides fairly. There were still major riots, fighting, intimidation (this time on the side of the unions, not the monopolies) but it’s sort of the same argument as ‘our current anti-terrorist policies are preventing terrorism since we haven’t been attacked’ argument. I hate our current anti-terrorism policies and think they are an affront to our liberties. Of course, I feel the same way about the RICO statues that googlumpus lauds.

The way I see it, being unfair, on either side, is wrong, no matter how you slice it. Making the simple action of saying no to a union illegal was just as bad as forcing any winning side in any court case to pay the court costs of that case.

But that’s just how I see it.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 21, 2007 12:51 AM
Comment #241161
How much good is the money we are throwing away in Iraq going to do Americans in fifty years?Why is it OK to build hospitals and pay for national healthcare for Iraqis and not Americans?

Who is saying it is? Not me…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 21, 2007 12:52 AM
Comment #241162

Enron
Robber Barrons
Monopolies
The Great Train companies
Slave labor
Child labor
Ghettos
Industrial wastelands
Ohio River on Fire
Super fund sites
Toxic waste dumps
Savings and Loan debacle under Reagan
The above are the legacy of unfettered business (i.e. hands off) approach — Yea, real benefit to society.
Again, I always love how the libertarians forget that when left alone, the rats come out to play.
If you look into the background of most government regulations, you will find that it began with the hands off approach, until the slimy side of life got too out of hand, and so when people start getting hurt, killed, and scammed, the federal government usually has to step in to protect its citizens from these greedy creeps.
And then the whinning starts up and all the complaining about how it would be better if they were just left alone, cause they know how to do the job right.
Bah!!

Posted by: Russ at December 21, 2007 2:11 AM
Comment #241169

It is a given that every once in a while someone will come along and complain about libertarianism without understanding the simple truth:

Libertarianism IS NOT Anarchy

Now, having said that, let’s go through your list here Russ…

Enron

The deregulation plan in California was a debacle. I wonder how it would have fared if Enron wasn’t given a government backed monopoly? In any case, I would think that part of the acceptance of being able to operate a government backed monopoly would be acceptance of proper regulation from the government, which certainly screwed up here, no doubt.

Monopolies

You can’t have a free market with monopolies. And even though I have stated several times that they should never be allowed to exist, you still come on and spout that?

The Great Train companies

Not sure what you are railing about here, could you be more specific?

Slave labor

Yes, all libertarians think people should be slaves!

What a complete pock. It was accepted as legitimate, in law and by full agreement of government, who enforced it. Where is the libertarian philosphy, which states that it would be outright illegal, immoral and unconsciounable, to violate another individual’s right to freedom, that caused this to occur exactly?

Child labor

Again, do you just ignore the ‘individual liberties’ part of the Libertarian philosophy or do you actually think that the libertarian view is to allow business to do what it wants and disband government?

Ghettos

Now Libertarians are responsible for creating Ghettos? Pretty cool, we aren’t in power and yet there they are… Imagine that.

Ghettos are in place because the economy is not functioning the best that it can, which may or may not be because of too strong of a stranglehold on business by the government or too little, it depends. But they are by no means a result of a ‘hands off approach’.

And I haven’t seen government interaction get rid of them yet… In reality they are a social ill that needs to be addressed through education and assistance, both government based and through charity, but can not be eliminated without the help of those people who live in them.

Which sadly means they will most likely always exist to some extent or another, hopefully at the smallest of levels.

Industrial wastelands

I’ll give you a bit of a glimpse at the Libertarian party platform here: “The federal government shall be held as liable as any individual for pollution or other transgression against property or resources.”

Not only do Libertarians call for individuals being liable for pollution, they want to hold the federal government accountable as well. Yeah, we’re all for industrial dumping…

Ohio River on Fire

Let’s see, I’ll assume you’re talking about the Cuyahoga River as I’ve never seen the Ohio River on fire…

The condition of the river was abysmyl, but it was not as a result of ‘hands off views’ as the river was in fact helped into creation by the government. But rather the lack of understanding that what was happening to the river was as bad as was thought it to be. It took more understanding and technological advances to understand the full extent of the pollution that was occuring there and eventually was the subject of a major cleanup, which was a good thing. The problem is that it took how long for it to be cleaned up? What bureacratic red tape and the need to education a majority of voters to do something before it was resolved? How much longer would it have taken had TIME magazine not ran a cover story on it and Randy Newman write a great song about it in the 1970s?

Now, imagine if the river was under the control of a private organization that was dedicated to maintaining it and supported by both private and public money? An organiztion not subject to the rules of politics and used as a way to gain or maintain power by political paries? An organiztion that’s sole purpose was to ensure that the river was taken care of?

Oh yeah, government intervention is best… :P

Super fund sites

Again, this makes no sense… Superfund was an appropriate action put in place to clean up toxic areas when there was no legitimate person to charge for the cleanup of those sites. Sites likes this can, for example, be a gas station that was abandoned and the owner cannot be found or is incapable of incurring the cost of cleaning up the land for other uses so that the toxic materials can make it to the water table, etc.

How is libertarian philosophies responsible for creating these exactly?

Toxic waste dumps

Again, I’ll refer to above, polluting a land, even your own private land, with the knowledge that that pollution can cause the ruination of other private lands, is a direct violation of libertarian philosophies. Their existence is a violation of individual rights and laws, not anything libertarians ideals put into place…

Savings and Loan debacle under Reagan

Again, it was a bad implementation that caused this issue, are you even sure what this was about? It was a mistake to give the S&L’s as much power as banks, but not operate under the same regulations as banks. But this started before Reagan took office, his answer to deregulate the banks was done very badly, IMO, by giving the S&L’s the power to draw upon the federal reserve but not making them purchase FDIC insurance. However, laying this all at the feet of Reagin seems silly when it passed overwhelmingly in congress, 272-91 and was cosponsered by the likes of Charles Schumer..

It was a bad idea, implemented badly and used by some as a means to break the laws that did exist. But it was not a response to libertarian philosophies.

federal government usually has to step in to protect its citizens from these greedy creeps.

Exactly what Libertarians say, as they see one of the legitimate uses of government to protect the rights of individuals from other individuals, government or foreign countries.

Again, you seem to equate libertarianism with no government, which just isn’t accurate or reasonable. Perhaps you should read up a bit more on what the LP says about all of this, or ask some questions of a Libertarian who isn’t a anarcho-capitalist in disguise?

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 21, 2007 3:31 AM
Comment #241172


The Roosevelt Recession

Having won the 1936 presidential election by the biggest margin up to that time, it seemed that everything was going well for Roosevelt and the New Deal. In 1937, the president, in fact, believed that the nation had recovered its economic health and he tried to balance the federal budged by cutting back on New Deal programs. Roosevelt, for example, reduced funding for the WPA by half. Such policies, however, proved disastrous for the American economy. As a result of such cuts, unemployment rose by 1.5 million by July 1937. With farm subsidies cut, farm prices also fell, and by August an additional 4 million Americans were out of work. The economy would not recover fully from the Roosevelt Recession until the United States entered World War II.
Keynesian Economics

Roosevelt brought about the Recession of 1937 because he refused to follow the advice of his economic aides and turned away from Keynesian (KAYN-zee-uhn) economics. John Maynard Keynes (KAYNZ) (1883-1946) was a British economist who rejected classical economics and traditional theories of the free market. He claimed that there was a direct correlation between government spending and the welfare of the private sector economy. In addition, he advocated vast government spending—even deficit spending—in times of recession…

Quoted from us.history.wisc.edu

Rhinehold

Given your history/inability to interpret the citations you list, I am interested from what source you took your quotes from? I noticed you conveniently left that piece of information out?

Posted by: Cube at December 21, 2007 4:20 AM
Comment #241173
Uncertainty caused markets to freeze in fear; so did investment—the old New Yorker cartoons of the plutocrats in the salon were true. Yet Roosevelt counterattacked by compiling lists of the wealthy to prosecute—his administration prosecuted the Alan Greenspan of the day, Andrew Mellon, until Mellon died. Roosevelt’s administration pushed a plan for an undistributed profits tax to eat the essence out of companies. Policies like this caused the most unnecessary part of the Depression: the Depression within the Depression of the late 1930s.
At some points Roosevelt seemed to understand the need to counter deflation. But his method for doing so generated a whole new set of uncertainties. Roosevelt personally experimented with the currency—one day, in bed, he raised the gold price by 21 cents. When Henry Morgenthau, who would shortly become Treasury Secretary, asked him why, Roosevelt said that “it’s a lucky number, because it’s three times seven.” Morgenthau wrote later: “If anybody ever knew how we set the gold price through a combination of lucky numbers, etc., I think they would be frightened.”
Posted by: Rhinehold at December 21, 2007 4:21 AM
Comment #241175

Rhinehold,

My intent was to challenge your contention that FDR caused the Depression. The technicalities of the 1937 “recession” are not significant in my mind. I’ve accomplished this. Cube and Bill S have responded to this, as well.

I will not apologize for something I did not do, irregardless of your attempts to derail this discussion.

I have stated my personal attitude toward your general posts.

There now exists a more balanced discussion of the Depression in this thread.

You yourself provide the answer as to why minor, belated deficit spending did not increase money supply enough to counter the contraction until the massive deficits of pre WWII.

FDR made mistakes and I do not believe that business is evil in nature nor do I believe bears eat people because they hate them. Greed is in human nature and must be countered by vigilance and fairness in markets. Markets do not provide that themselves. They tend toward monopolies and Mercantilism. There are proper roles for both capitalism and governance as Adam Smith pointed out years ago.

It was a lack of governmental oversite AND at some points interference that allowed the distortions that created the Depression. This is counter to Libertarian ideals which of course you nor I support.

I suspect we don’t differ that much in our views on this. What we do differ on is the bias that exits in media and politics. I am disturbed by the current trend to blame the Depression on Government and discredit Keynes. I reject the notion that business is overly taxed or restricted by oversite.

We agree that government is too big. and that taxation is distorted, but it doesn’t, in general, overburden the business economy.

Posted by: googlumpus at December 21, 2007 8:06 AM
Comment #241176

For the record, I do not and never meant to imply that FDR caused the Depression. It was my intention to point out that it was his actions vs business that prolonged the Depression longer than necessary and caused the 1937 recession.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 21, 2007 8:13 AM
Comment #241198

RH
No cookies for you…Perhaps our differences have to do with a fundemental difference in perspective. A business,to me,is not a physical property nor some natural object like a stalagtite or a palm tree,but rather an organization of human time and endeaver. The business proprietor or investors deserve a fair return on on their investment in physical plant. Beyond that any profit,any success the business enjoys is a direct result of labor,workers investment of time and skills necessary to bring the physical plant into production.Without labor the investment of capital is so much dirt or metal,of no intrinsic value. The converse is not true unless one believes that human life has no intrinsic value outside of the market place.The economic system springing from the latter belief is called slavery.
Labor is at least as important to the economy as capital and should be rewarded at least as well.This is regardless of the fact that most comsumers work for wages and their buying power is fundemental to the market.The balance between labor and capital is out of wac at this point,as it was in the 20’s-30’s. To bring the balance closer to equlibribrium a measure of power needs be given to labor in negotiations.For that matter the negotiation itself needs to be assured. This is a legitament function of government. The alternative is violence and instability. The eventual outcome of such disruption is slavery. Depending on which faction wins it is either slavery from communism or slavery from fascism.The Wagner Act was a largely successful attempt to navigate between these too treacherious shoals and the largely successful atempts to weaken it need to be turned back for the good of the country or we shall reap the whirlwind.

Posted by: Bills at December 21, 2007 12:37 PM
Comment #241243

Rhinehold, While I suppose it is useful for a rightie to argue that the greatest president of the past century prolonged the great depression and caused a recession in 1936 whilst the country had still not recovered from the depression, I think it would be more useful to ask what caused the great depression and what would the repubs have done better. AS you know from 1897 until Roosevelt took office in 1933, yes 1933 there was only 1 dem president. Since in your view the presidents can only cause the economy to recover or not it must be assumed that only presidents can get into a depression, right? Well then the repubs and their policies of the past, well since 1869 until 1933 there was 11 repubs and 3 dems presidents, 61 years caused the depression. Yet you would criticize the man who came into office 4 years after the depression started because he did not fix it immediately? Then you would find fault with him for a recession only 4 years after he took office in the midst of the great depression. Where is all your anger and blame for the repubs and their policies that caused this problem?
Roosevelt dealt with the depression, world war 2 and set the stage to create a mass middle class in this country in less than 12 years while dealing with polio. No other president in the 20th century came close to this effort including the repub god Reagan. I would consider it a miracle after so many years of predominatly repub rule that anyone could have saved the country especially in such a short time frame. Certainly no repub of the time was up to the task.
All of us that grew up in the 50’s and beyond owe this truely great man and his ideas and policies more than we could ever repay. This petty nit picking by the source of your information and those on the right that use his name in vain is demeaning to all of us. It shows just how far we have slid as a people.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 22, 2007 3:13 AM
Comment #241258
Rhinehold, While I suppose it is useful for a rightie

Except I’m not a ‘rightie’ and you know it, which is pretty disgenuous of you, don’t you think?

I think it would be more useful to ask what caused the great depression and what would the repubs have done better

It would be useful, perhaps, but more useful? Why on earth would it not be useful to know what happened, the real truth and not the rose-colored truth that our government controlled educational institutions tell us?

The fact is, while running for re-election in 1936 Roosevelt went on the attack of big business, accusing them of trying to prolonge the depression by creating a ‘capital strike’. Basically saying that they were purposely not investing in the economy, the one that FDR was monkeying with in a way that caused no to be able to determine what a good investment would be and trying to confiscate ALL wealth (100% tax via a signing statement?), all in order to cost him the election. Nixon is the only other recent president I can think that was THAT paranoid. It is also pretty clear that his ‘second new deal’ programs led directly to the recession of 1937, an event that you apparently don’t think happened? Again, got to love those government run schools…

Since in your view the presidents can only cause the economy to recover or not it must be assumed that only presidents can get into a depression, right?

Uh, what? This is one of the most asinine statements I’ve ever seen and has nothing to do with anything I’ve been saying.

It is pretty clear what caused the Great Depression and it is also pretty clear what caused the 1937 Recession and prolonging of the Depression. I’m not sure what you’re even attempting to argue what I’ve been saying…?

Yet you would criticize the man who came into office 4 years after the depression started because he did not fix it immediately?

First, why do you think I do not critize the people who got us into the Depression? I don’t think I have one time ‘praised Hoover’ or the Smoot Harley Act, have I?

Just because other people screw up doesn’t mean that FDR is above criticism. What kind of mentality does someone have to have to say that someone can’t be criticized when he did wrong? Is FDR some mythical omnipotent being? FDR did tons wrong, much more in regards to his answers to the Depression than the war, mind you, but to assume he didn’t do ANYTHING wrong at a time when we all were dealing with things we have never dealt with before, is incredulous, IMO.

If we don’t examine and identify the mistakes, we are going to keep making them…

Where is all your anger and blame for the repubs and their policies that caused this problem?

Right where they should be, but I don’t think we were TALKING about them, because the subject was FDR’s mistakes in his answers to the situation. You make assumptions and then argue those assumptions? When you are done debating yourself, let me know and we can debate each other…

This petty nit picking by the source of your information and those on the right that use his name in vain is demeaning to all of us. It shows just how far we have slid as a people.

Excuse me, but we are a lessor people for examining and criticizing mistakes of the great FDR? It is only through LEARNING from mistakes of the past that we can move forward as a people, and that means even the mistakes of Roosevelt. You seriously think that FDR made no mistakes? If he did make them shouldn’t we be talking about them?

….?

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 22, 2007 2:46 PM
Comment #241269

“Again, you seem to equate libertarianism with no government, which just isn’t accurate or reasonable. Perhaps you should read up a bit more on what the LP says about all of this, or ask some questions of a Libertarian who isn’t a anarcho-capitalist in disguise?”

Rhinehold,

I have. I need look no further than the 2000 and 2002 Libertarian Party Platforms:

http://www.dehnbase.org/lpus/library/platform/

A few examples:

* “We call for an end to “hate crime” laws that punish people for their thoughts and speech, distract us from real crimes, and foster resentment by giving some individuals special status under the law.”

* “We advocate an end to the spending of tax money for any program of psychiatric, psychological, or behavioral research or treatment.”

* “We oppose laws infringing on children’s rights to work or learn, such as child labor laws and compulsory education laws.”

* “We oppose all direct and indirect government participation in the nuclear energy industry, including subsidies, research and development funds, guaranteed loans, waste disposal subsidies, and federal uranium enrichment facilities.”

* “We … call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns.”

* “We support repeal of all laws that impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws, so-called “protective” labor legislation for women and children”

* “We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”

* “We also advocate the privatization of government and quasi-government water supply systems. The construction of government dams and other water projects should cease, and existing government water projects should be transferred to private ownership. We favor the abolition of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers’ civilian functions. We also favor the abolition of all local water districts and their power to tax. Only the complete separation of water and the State will prevent future water crises.”

Need I go on?

Posted by: KansasDem at December 22, 2007 4:30 PM
Comment #241270
Need I go on?

I guess, because so far you’ve not shown me anything that says the Libertarian Party is for no government.

The LP *is* against over-government and infringement of liberty by government, so perhaps that is where you, as a progressive, are finding your confusion?

Also, if you really want to look at the LP platform, I’ll be continuing my series this weekend, or you could go to the source at http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml. It is a bit more up to date (2006), though since we haven’t had the 2008 convention yet it is still subject to change for the 2008 election cycle…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 22, 2007 4:51 PM
Comment #241273

“so far you’ve not shown me anything that says the Libertarian Party is for no government.”

True enough, just poor governance. No regulation regarding child labor. No guarantee regarding wages or safe working conditions. No social “safety net”.

That all spells out “RAW DEAL” to me.

To go further the LP’s position on the development of nuclear energy is insane. We’re talking ZERO regulation when it comes to waste, etc!!!!!!!!!!! WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!

History is the enemy of the LP. How many of this nations early oil producers dumped whatever crap they wanted wherever they wanted and had NO resources to pay for a “clean up”? Then who pays?

Please, please, just show me an example of one successful government that’s sustained a Libertarian agenda for even a few decades!

Or does Democracy always get in the way? Maybe people decide that government is the best way to address the needs of the masses?

Posted by: KansasDem at December 22, 2007 5:45 PM
Comment #241274
Maybe people decide that government is the best way to address the needs of the masses?

Strike ‘best’ and replace with ‘easiest’ and you may have a point.

It is true that a libertarian agenda would be harder work for people but they would (re)gain many liberties. I think it is clear that the majority of people in the US like to give lip service to liberty but just don’t really care to maintain it…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 22, 2007 5:56 PM
Comment #241279

Rhinehold,

The best way should also be easy and vice-versa.

In todays world we’re dealing with incredible complexity. Just to imagine that a group of people must form a union and pursue their own civil agenda to accomplish a goal is one thing, but when you consider that the result would be thousands of unions trying to attain different goals is mind boggling.

I think the bottom line is that we live in a Democratic Republic. As long as we are a democracy there’s a chance that the underdog will rise up and vote for a fairer distribution of resources. People are not fond of starvation when they’re the ones starving.

When folks find their own backyard polluted with waste they want to call 1-800-UNCLE SAM rather than have to find the resources to contact everyone else thats been affected from San Diego to Delaware.

When your child is ill you want medical treatment NOW! No one should die because they’re too poor to afford medical care.

The bottom line is that we live in a democracy.

Once you convince enough people to follow the Libertarian principles then you’ll be able to put your grand experiment to the test.

And, IMO, we will fall into anarchy very quickly.

But, just for the heck of it, point out that great nation that’s followed libertarian principles for a few decades and is still solid as a rock.

Posted by: KansasDem at December 22, 2007 8:09 PM
Comment #241287

Rinehold
Once again you purposely play stupid
I never said you were for NO Gov’t however
You always (as do the libertarian list provided above) show that while you say you are for some government, it is extremely hard to find how you plan that
If we do away with all these “restrictive laws” (and what laws are not restrictive in some ways) what do you have left??
My list is an indictment of what happens when restrictive laws are lifted (or non-existant)
Good ol private business is not your friend.

You might want to avail yourself of how Halliburton is availing themselves in Iraq now, especially in the cases where their employees rape other employees, and the Fed gov’t IS doing the Libertarian thing — keeping a hands off approach (when a report was filed with the State AND Justice Dept — they said it was a “contractor issue” — RAPE is a contractor issue??)
Anywho, private business did what you would expect — they fired the woman for filing a rape charge.

anywho
back to the list — let Corps have a free hand, and my list is the outcome.

Interesting you spend time claiming to want to get rid of “restrictive laws” — but then for most of my list you claim that those items should be illegal??

I also find it interesting — you want to do away with most laws (be honest now) but claim to not want nor endorse Anarchy????
can’t have it both ways dude, but nice try

Posted by: Russ at December 23, 2007 1:01 AM
Comment #241288

Rinehold I could not leave one of your BIG LIES left unanswered
You made the ridiculous statement that:
No one at all has forced most large companies to create retirement plans and more recently 401k plans to their workers. They have been made more appealing by tax breaks, but the tax breaks themselves do not pay 100% or more for them. So the only explanation is that the businesses are trying to do better for their employees by offering benefits instead of straight pay to get more qualified people working for them and a longer turnover rate. Health insurance programs are offered, not because they HAVE to, not because they make the company money in the short run, but because they are for the most part trying to look out for their employees AND are looking at ways to get beteter qualified employees and longer turnover rate. The advisarial vision that progressives have of the business vs the workers is not only 70 years old but exist for the most part in their own minds. The few cases were this does exist is the abhorration, not the normal order of things.


I beg to differ with you big time
Retirement WAS forced on business by LABOR — labor unions struck and fought for those rights.
I was among the first engineers to Strike to maintain our retirement rights just a few years ago!!
the 401(K) as a business Idea?? get real,
and as far as the ludicrous statment that it is the advesarial relationship between management and workers is only a figment of Progressive’s imagination?? and is 70 years out of date??
My friend, you have not been working as a worker lately have you?? —
The company I work for is flagrantly hostile to labor and the unions, and resort to hostile union busting activites all the time, and they are not alone.
You might want to peddle your snakeoil somewhere else, it ain’t selling too good here!

Posted by: Russ at December 23, 2007 1:07 AM
Comment #241292
The best way should also be easy and vice-versa

This is one of the most ignorant things I’ve read in a long time.

Once you convince enough people to follow the Libertarian principles then you’ll be able to put your grand experiment to the test.

Yes, we will. BTW, you know that the free state project is moving into New Hampshire, the most libertarian state already, to move forward with that plan, right? You know, that anarchist haven New Hampshire where they *gasp* don’t have seat belt laws! All those people dying because of no seat belt laws, it’s such a sad state of affairs…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 23, 2007 2:37 AM
Comment #241293
You always (as do the libertarian list provided above) show that while you say you are for some government, it is extremely hard to find how you plan that

Not really, you just have to a) read the LP party platform or b) ask me. I will answer any legitimate question you have of libertarian policies as best as I can. Just don’t expect me to force that on you if you don’t want to read it because it would be just a waste of time.

My list is an indictment of what happens when restrictive laws are lifted (or non-existant)

No, it is a list of what YOU say will happen, just as the republicans say that if they can’t give you an anal probe before you get on an airplane we will all be killed by terrorists. That doesn’t mean it’s a reality.

the Fed gov’t IS doing the Libertarian thing — keeping a hands off approach

Again, you have NO idea what a ‘libertarian’ approach is if you think that sitting back while rape occurs is part of it.

Let me make it PAINFULLY clear, ‘Letting business do what it wants to’ is not the libertarian philosophy, this is the libertarian philosophy:

“libertarians define liberty as being completely free in action, whilst not initiating force or fraud against the life, liberty or property of another human being. Or as Thomas Jefferson stated, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.” “

In other worse, we, as individuals, should be free to do what we want to do with our own lives as long as we allow the same rights of other individuals. Government’s job should be to protect those individual rights, protect us from outside aggression and be the arbitor of individual interaction. If two people make an agreement, for example, via a contract, the government should be the ones to enforce that contract as they are the only ones who have the ability to use force on individual citizens. We give that power to the government so we should limit when and how they can use that force.

That’s pretty much it in a nutshell. Allowing ANYONE, including a business, to hard or damage someone is a direct violation of libertarian principles. The problem is that too many anarcho-conservatives/libertarians jumped on the bandwagon and called themselves libertarians and gave the term a bad name, when in fact a government needs to exist to enforce those rights we hold dear.

Anywho, private business did what you would expect — they fired the woman for filing a rape charge.

And the business should be sued for that action. Again, you just don’t understand what libertarian means, you buy into the myths that are put forth by partisan hatchetmen.

back to the list — let Corps have a free hand, and my list is the outcome.

Whether it is nor not, who is saying that corporations should have a ‘free hand’?

you want to do away with most laws (be honest now) but claim to not want nor endorse Anarchy???? can’t have it both ways dude, but nice try

You attempt to build a straw man and argue against it, (be honest now). Nice try.

Unfortunately it is completely not valid. *IF* you want to talk specifics, please do so. If you want to scare people and attempt to convince others that libertarians are anarchists when, at least this one (who has run for office) isn’t, I’ll continue to state the same thing, you are simply wrong.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 23, 2007 2:51 AM
Comment #241294
Retirement WAS forced on business by LABOR — labor unions struck and fought for those rights.

1) No, they were not forced. No one, other than the government, can legally force anyone to do anything. They made it too painful not to, but don’t get confused with the differences in those two different things, it is an important distinction. The company cannot make you work for them or buy their product, the union cannot make the company do anything either. You work for your employer because you both agree that the price (salary, benefits, etc) is good enough for both of you. If one or the other is no longer acceptable, they can stop paying you or you can leave. You are not a slave.

2) I find it funny that I’ve never worked within a union and only rarely worked at a company that hired union workers, but I’ve had nothing but the best benefits… How is that possible if they only do it when forced?

The company I work for is flagrantly hostile to labor and the unions

Maybe try working somewhere else? As I said, I’ve worked for 25 years and haven’t had a need for a union, I always select the company I work for by how they treat their employees. I now work at a company that is listed in the top 5 of best places to work for and, guess what, no union…

I guess I’m just lucky (not).

BTW, my father worked for unions all his life, so does my brother now. They work in the construction industry. I have *NEVER* said they were not needed or good for workers. In the right industries and the right cases. But to claim that your experiences are ‘normal’ doesn’t make sense, how many strikes are going on compared to how many companies there are employing workers? It just doesn’t add up, Russ. You are the one who is out of touch I’m afraid.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 23, 2007 3:03 AM
Post a comment