From Don Boudreaux at
Cafe Hayek:
Deirdre
McCloskey is right and correct to point out that one of the biggest
steps we humans ever took toward being truly civilized was when a
sufficient number of us began to regard bourgeois pursuits as virtuous.
Perhaps our next big step forward toward being even more civilized – a
step that has yet to be taken by a minimally sufficient number of
people – will be when we come to regard those who lust to hold political
power as being ethically indistinguishable from pickpockets,
shoplifters, and card sharks.
That's been one of the themes here at this blog. Governments, warlords, and marauding bandits have a lot in common and the difference between shepherds and wolves is fairly minor as far as the sheep are concerned.
241 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 241 of 241AOG:
I confess I had only the first number in my head, 0.9 trillion in 10 years, or 90 billons per year, justifying my first affirmation.
I would take the number to be not the 2.6 trillion, but 1.8 trillion.
It is no longer "meager billions", I agree. Still, I would like to know where were you when your pal Bush gave away 700 Billion, approved from day to night, with far less discussion and public scrutiny. Were you at least half as outraged?
Blaming and bashing Bush is fool's game. Bush's "loans" were, if I am not mistaken, paid back almost entirely and the money was not redistributed to his crony capitalists to be redistributed back to him and his pals.
Sorry to be repetitious, but everything you think you know about what's happening here and in the rest of the world is wrong because the propaganda machine has made it deliberately so.
Erp,
Maybe, maybe I am completely fool indeed. But then I am a fool delighted by your double standards.
Clovis;
I'll answer that after you point where I called former President Bush my "pal". Feel free to look through my online writings for quotes.
Also, I was paying attention when the TARP issue came up and the idea that there was "far less discussion and public scrutiny" is laughable. Again, let me remind you the Speaker of the House said, and I quote, "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it" about Obamacare.
What double standard? You may disagree with Bush's actions, but not with his methods which were strictly according to Hoyle.
AOG:
At no moment I've said you called him your "pal". As a cultural curiosity, am I only allowed to say he is your pal after you explicitely declare he is your pal? If yes, is this the standard within your culture, or is this a personal procedure restricted to yourself?
Erp:
Hoyle? Who is Hoyle?
On double standards, it is simple: you are against big governemnt, until you are not anymore. The best predictor to when you are in favor of Big Government is if the incumbent is your pal (although I may be doing a mistake by saying he is your pal without you declaring so before, depending on AOG's answer).
AOG:
---
Also, I was paying attention when the TARP issue came up and the idea that there was "far less discussion and public scrutiny" is laughable. Again, let me remind you the Speaker of the House said, and I quote, "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it" about Obamacare.
---
I do not get your meaning here. You imply both TARP and Obamacare where not discussed fairly, or that both were exhaustively discussed?
I can not claim I was watching your politicians on TV, nor paying attention to congress schedules, but I can tell you I've heard a blip about TARP and then it was gone. Now, Obamacare is this boring and all encompassing topic that never, never goes away - I would say that the last has been subjected to orders of magnitude of more "public scrutiny" by my own distant point of view, but it may well be a fool's opinion again, if I believe Erp.
What makes you think I approved of every one of Bush's actions? I only said he's the most decent man ever to be president and he always did what HE, not I, thought best. I would be glad to call him a friend (I don't demand that my friends agree with every single position I have ever taken) and calling someone a pal may be taken as sarcasm or might be thought as slightly pejorative.
On the language front: Fool's Errand and According to Hoyle.
Clovis, FYI a fool's errand isn't calling someone a fool.
Erp:
So, if I say "that guy who is your friend has done this", it is OK, but if I say "that guy who is your pal has done this", it is pejorative?
Oh boy, synonims are never really synonims.
Unfortunately, yes. Also, I forgot to chalk up another instance of you making my/our case for us: but I can tell you I've heard a blip about TARP and then it was gone.
Didn't you wonder why, if this would be a black eye for Bush, it wasn't shouted from the rooftops??? The reason it was gone so fast is because it worked as advertised and made Bush look good.
Ya gotta learn to read between the lines and connect the dots if you want to find out what's really happening.
Bret, is this the longest of the post Judder string?
Clovis;
I think you should wait until I at least mention someone before calling them my pal. Would it be OK if I responded to one of your arguments with "your pal, Harry Reid", despite you having never brought him up?
I think it's a reasonable rule implied by honest discussion. It's not just a rhetorical issue for you, as you wrote "The best predictor to when you are in favor of Big Government is if the incumbent is your pal". You are making an unsubstantiated claim, then using it for a logical inference. That's the root of why it's a dishonest technique.
As for TARP, I am stating it was massively and very pointedly discussed, with some very intense controversy. I am also stating that the Democratic Party made a strong effort to avoid discussion on OBamacare by passing the legislation so hurriedly no one, not even the legislators, actually knew what was in it. President Obama had promised open discussions on C-Span, instead legislation passed by deceit, trickery, and active efforts at not informing the public.
P.S. You could try reading more widely, I still get stuff about TARP going across my browser. At the time it generated truly massive amounts of commentary, at least on the conservative and libertarian side (with many arguments both ways).
Additionally, TARP is over, it's done, in some sense it's beating a dead horse. Obamacare, in contrast, is screwing things up on almost a daily basis, and far more of it is to come than has gone past, so it's far more relevant and significant.
The un-Michael Moore version of Bush and the Iraq War.
erp,
At 215 comments it's certainly the longest greatguys comment string. The Daily Duck had some really long ones, but I never counted, so I don't know.
I've really been enjoying the debates. I keep trying to jump in, but it moves so fast that I have trouble jumping in.
Clovis' English has improved impressively since he's started commenting here - almost to the point of having the feel of a native writer. Maybe it's a new way to learn languages - debating in the comments' section of a blog! :-)
Yes Clovis’ English has improved and even though I’m swamped right now, I really think he’s smart enough and straight enough to want to learn, so I can’t pass up an opportunity to make a point.
Clovis, this this guy will never get a Nobel prize because he actually knows what he's talkng about.
Erp,
Well, thanks again for the English lessons then.
Now, on TARP, did you notice I did not say, at any moment, that it was a failure?
That because I consider it was a mildly sucessful intervention of the government on markets. Quite the opposite of your supposed Libertarian views. The fact that you agree is, this time, you making my case for myself, thanks :-)
On your Telegraph link, I confess I am surprised. I had this image that Conservative Americans would fight to the death for domestical politics, but would always show a united face for the rest of the world. To see you thriving on this Obama's debacle shows that, either I had the wrong image, or even the conservative Americans are changing.
AOG:
---
Would it be OK if I responded to one of your arguments with "your pal, Harry Reid", despite you having never brought him up?
---
If I at least knew who thas this Reid guy, sure I would be OK. After googling up him, I am convinced it would not reflect anything wrong about my character to be called his friend. Now, within my cultural upbringing, I would naturally interpret that you think it is a hurdle to have Bush as friend.
---
"The best predictor to when you are in favor of Big Government is if the incumbent is your pal". You are making an unsubstantiated claim, then using it for a logical inference. That's the root of why it's a dishonest technique.
---
Now you are being unfair, AOG, for that phrase was directed to Erp, who explicitely declared love for Bush many times here.
---
Additionally, TARP is over, it's done, in some sense it's beating a dead horse.
---
Sure it is. I did not want to discuss its merit, but only to check up the coherence of your positions on the matter. The fact that you keep beating around the Bush instead of giving me a straight answer is... rather interesting.
Bret,
About my English, that was very kind of you. When I stop to read waht I've ust posted (usually with a little hurry), I keep finding many basic mistakes of conjugation, or words that do not even exist.
So, with the exception of good souls like Erp who continually do not give up on my English lessons, I would say the Blog Method of Learnig has many drawbacks. Still, it is way more fun than reading English grammar and texbooks...
Ironic that I've made so many misprints in a sentence while discussing English correctness. Another drawback of Blog Learning: the damn keyboard factor.
Clovis;
did you notice I did not say, at any moment, that it [TARP] was a failure?
It was designed as a loan program. You wrote "the Too-Big-to-Fail-Corporations pulled off a Trillion from you from one day to the other?" If that's true, then it was spending, not loans, and therefore a failure.
I'm not directly answering on this for two reasons - it's a very complex subject that would just be another rat hole in this string, and I'm providing you with rope to hang yourself instead of making the effort myself, as in the previous paragraph. In fact, one wonders why you consider both a success and massive rip off of the taxpayers by "Too-Big-to-Fail-Corporations"? Although, that's consistent with your view on health care - as long as the corporations are doing well, it's all good.
Clovis, one more lesson: You made typos (typographical errors), not misprints which has a slightly different connotation.
There must be something wrong with my prose since I've repeatedly said what you “know” is mostly wrong.
I never said I supported all or any of Bush's policies or actions. In fact, I have violently disagreed with some (allowing DHS employees to join the union was a biggie), I said he did what he thought best for the country, not what he thought best for his own political future.
As for the TARP, I would have let everyone sink or swim without tax payer dollar intervention, but that doesn't change the matter of the outcome which was positive with most of the loans repaid in a timely manner.
Conservatives: We are all individuals and don’t march in lock step like the Borg as do the fascists which with the advent of crony capitalism is now the proper name for the left.
AOG:
Up to now all I could get from you, at any topic whatsoever, was your lemma in life: "government only makes it worse". Suddenly, I could find an example where you can give me a "it's a very complex subject". I am thrilled. Since you look tired of the string, I will file this one, together with that anti-monopoly challenge, as a win for me. This string is not only in record of length, but of AOGs reversals (I am aware that you will not agree).
Erp:
---
[...] but that doesn't change the matter of the outcome which was positive with most of the loans repaid in a timely manner.
---
So I learn only now that you are of opinion that government can do interventions in the economy with positive results.
I am under the impresson that, were you living in Massachusets during Romney's reign, you could even be dealing very well with his establishment of Romneycare.
I do not think you really mean some things you state about policy, Erp. What you have are trust issues - you mostly can live very well with big governments if they are led by people you trust. In this sense, you are indeed following the conservative mantrum - or the conservative borg, if you allow me this little jab.
I guess you really can't comprehend my sentences or you choose not to:
a. I said that I would have chosen the sink or swim, i.e., no government intervention and let whatever happened happen, method rather than the TARP, but that doesn't change the fact that is was successful.
b. My feelings about a president are irrelevant. I only mentioned Bush because I fear you have an advanced case of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) and it's based on faulty data as are many, if not all, of your statements.
c. I do have trust issues that's why I prefer to live by the law, i.e., the Constitution rather than the cult of personality.
This really is my last word.
Sorry, I forgot. I don't know why you think I lived in Massachusetts while Romney was governor. I have never have lived in Massachusetts (another instance of non-comprehension?). My daughter and her husband were taken to hospitals in Boston because the accident took place near there. They have excellent private health insurance which is taking care of their bills, so I have no experience with Romneycare.
Dear Erp,
My commentary was generic, I did not imply you lived there. I try to not take personal history in account when doing any political discussion, so when I give these kind of examples, they are only for the sake of argument.
BTW, to tell you the truth, I did not even remember Boston was in Massachusets.
Three comments up:
I am under the impresson that, were you living in Massachusets during Romney's reign, you could even be dealing very well with his establishment of Romneycare.
You're too young for dementia, so what is it?
Erp,
I believe the construction "were you" means a conditional sentence. Am I wrong?
It is only an affirmation that, if a Republican implements public health care, you could well be OK with it. In analogy to TARP with Bush.
BTW, do you believe that, had Romney won the last election, he would cancel Obamacare? Or just rebrand it for Bigger-Romenycare-Better-Than-Obamacare?
Sorry, it is I who has dementia. I misread it. I have no idea what Romney would have done if elected, however, I'm pretty sure crony capitalism would not have been part of the mix.
Erp,
The funny thing is, as much as I believe both parties are corrupted by Too-Big-To-Fail-Corps, I am under the impression the problem is much bigger with the Republicans. So I have no idea why you think Romney would not be one more Crony In Chief.
Check his background.
Erp,
What do you mean? Do you really believe we have conditions to decide if someone is corrupt or not, only by reading superficial info out there?
How much can we possibly know about the shadow agreements those people make to reach power?
And I thought you were experienced enough to not be that naive.
Romney has had a lifetime of successes and is open about his past. Obama has hidden everything about his past and has had no successes. That's a big clue.
Erp,
That because your definition of success is only "economic success". You assume the qualities that make someone good at making money are the same that make someone good at governing. I do not believe they are related.
I took time to read your link above on investors.com. Quite a lot of unsubstantiated arguments.
The accusation that govt. is to blame is an old one, Erp, and if you do the math, you would see that it does not add up. But I know it is a "fool's errand" to enter in this discussion with you, so I will pass.
You keep repeating how I am misinformed for getting my info in the wrong places, Erp. But here you are linking a piece by a "researcher" of the Discovery Institute. It is the single most fraudulent institute I've seen in the last decade, promoting all that non sense of "intelligent design" which is, ironically, not intelligent at all.
How do you know how I measure success? I said Romney'a life is an open book and has had a lifetime of successes. You are the one projected your own values and assumed I meant only financially... and you didn't answer the question about Obama. What are his successes?
Erp,
To tell you the truth, I find your question pointless. Many people have done great things without having what you would describe as a successful and shiny development. I hear Abraham Lincoln was barely schooled. Gandhi was a failed lawyer. Einstein uncovered Relativity while being a patents office employee banished from academic aspirations.
I barely know much about Obama, and I am not even interested in defending him. I just wanted to point out that I do not agree with your measure of a man's value.
You don't agree with my measure of man's value? Amazing! Since you know nothing about how I measure men or women.
Heh. I would count every unanswered question of mine as a win except I would be accused of running up the score.
AOG:
As you show signs of weariness, I do not think it makes much sense for me to go back and answer any question I did not before.
Your are after all an Old Guy, and stamina is lacking for you these days ;-)
Post a Comment