Ted, I think some clarity is lost when too much revolves around labels that are interpreted differently by different people. "Liberal", classically meant supporting a greater degree of freedom, but not calls for less
taxes and regulation are not just "conservative", but "reactionary". "Liberal" is used as an attack phrase by some conservatives, and "reactionary" is used as an attack by some liberals.
That's why I made the point that it was not an attack....that I meant reactionary in its original context.....wanting to go back to a former social and economic order. Apparently, overtime, reactionary has grown into being another word for "ultraconservative". That's not the way I meant it.
Less taxes and regulation is from another time...it worked to some degree then but its unlikely to work now.
>>>>>
The fact that something was done at another time should not be considered a strike against it.
Didn't say that...what I said is that its not likely to work. Sometimes simple ideas/concepts continue to work as things become more complex, and sometimes they don't.
Even the most radical slashing of taxes and regulation would work in the sense that it could be implemented, some good would come of it and life would go on, the question is would it be a net benefit or basically a bad thing.
That's the difference between you and I...to me there is not point making the statement "that it will work" until its determined whether the impact is positive or negative. For me a negative outcome means it doesn't work..plain and simple.
The US is one of the most free countries in the world. The fact that I complain about it not being free enough doesn't mean I want to emigrate to a country where things are even less free.
That's fine...I suspect that overtime the US may become less free and that might prove to be frustrating to you. That's why I brought the point up. No one or no country can be all things to all people.
or that they just don't have the complex problems found
in dense, urban environments with many diverse cultures.
>>>>>
If things are so complex that is a good argument for less regulation because the people making the regulations are not omniscient fonts of infinite wisdom, but instead flawed individuals like the rest of us.
You would think so but complexity brings many different people together that have very different views, morals, goals, customs etc. Without a standard that is expressed through regulations, things have a tendency to run amok.
They can not have detailed real time information about such a complex system and they are subject to the same biases and emotions that we are all subject to. Have you ever read any Hayek, or anything about Public Choice Economics?
Hayek, I think, when I was in school.
>>>>>
The US still has great mineral wealth. We have more extractable mineral wealth (using today's technology and measured either in dollars or tons) today then we did before the "robber barons" got to it.
Not where it really counts....as in oil and natural gas. From my understanding, alot of natural gas was burned off in our attempts to get at the oil. While many would contend we didn't use a lot of natural gas a hundred years ago and so that was to be expected, I think its another example of us making a resource fit our current needs rather that trying to build around the resource. To often we expect our surroundings to accommodate us and our current trends rather that trying to fit in. An example is the recent trend that every kid had to have one of those low riding scooters. Just looking at them you knew they were stupid....small wheels, low to the ground...they had to be killer to get moving. But every kid had to have one...they were on every corner. Look around now...the fad has died and there are hardly any around anymore. In fact, it was mentioned in a Time article last week. In the meantime, a ton of resources were used to produced this useless and ridiculous toy that will take up surplus room in peoples' garages for the next 50 years. Stupid is as stupid does is my only reaction.
Bottomline...we could really use that natural gas now.
The gain from extracting the resources back in the 19th century was the development of our country, and America as a whole gained enormously. Even many of the individuals that you say where "abused", and "enslaved" benefited. Sure their jobs stunk by today's standards but they wanted them because it led to a better life then say being a sharecropper or farm laborer.
My comments were not based on the fact their jobs stunk, that they were not exciting enough but rather that the conditions in which the people worked were hazardous to life and limb. They and that included children worked 18 hour days, breathing in noxious fumes and working with the most rudimentary of machines. The quality of those working conditions depended almost solely on the largesse of the owners.....and unfortunately, most were not very generous. That's why we now have so many regulations governing how much light and air a room must have and what proportion of the wall space must be devoted to windows. They are the norm now, but that wasn't true just 75 years ago.
It would be nice to get rid of those regs. but trust me, soon after, people would resort back to their old ways very quickly. Left to our own devices we tend to be piglets...and that's why there is a need for so many regs. And even with that we have building disasters where the inspectors were paid off and the work not done to code.
ted
Enter symbols or keywords for search:
QuotesStock TalkChartsNewsPeople Symbol Lookup
Subject Titles Only Full Text Go to Top
Terms of Use |
