Did the author of this book have any comment on the fact that unemployment in Kansas is 6.6% vs. a national rate of about three percent higher? Assuming as he seems to do (I haven’t read the book) that economic conditions in Kansas are a result of how they vote.
Regards,
Shodan
Oh, I don’t. But when someone claims that somebody else must be wrong because they don’t understand “basic economics”, I get suspicious.
Frankly, I have my doubts about any appeal to economics as a source for certainty. Do two Physics PHD’s disagree over the atomic number of oxygen? No. Do two medical Ph. D.s disagree over the cause of typhoid fever? No. Basic physics, basic medicine.
But do two economics Ph.D’s disagree over “basic economics”? You bet they do.
So I agree with Sam, appeals to authority are cute as the Dickens, especially when no such authority exists. But since he knows for a solid and irrefutable fact that my economists are wrong and his are right, mine is a logical fallacy of appeal to authority, whereas his are simply a statement of fact.
But in the words of the philosopher Sportin’ Life, “It ain’t necessarily so…”
Depends on what you mean by “basic economics”. The two political parties have certain stances on government fiscal policy as well as government economic policy (in terms of setting trade agreements; that sort of thing). On fiscal policy, you’re going to get some differing views among economists, especially ones like Krugman who are now more political analysts/advocates than economists anyway. On economic policy, I think you’d be surprised how much the likes of Krugman and Friedman would agree.
When Democrats (or Republicans, for that matter) rant and rave about outsourcing and offshoring, they’re going against the advice of both of those economists, was well as most of the others out there. When politicians tlak about how best to “stimulate the economy”, then you’re going to find a lot of debate among economists on what the best way to act is.
No doubt. But then, only those portions of economics upon which both Krugman and Friedman and all the rest agreed could be considered “basic economics”. A slender volume, at best.
At any rate, dismissing someone’s opinions by alluding to the authority of “basic economics” is facile reasoning without a solid foundation, it can hardly be anything more substantial than “This fellow does not agree with me, therefore he does not understand the essential facts of the matter”.
Which was the only point I was trying to make with that.
Kansans, if I know my smalltown, hardscrabble midwesterners, are values voters right down to - and past - the roots. Even their sense of the economy is rooted in values. As far as they know - and care - they are only here because of backbreaking toil, those of their ancestors as well as their own.
You might say God is work to these people - and their God is a damned hard master, as is their work. Anything that lightens our burdens - however unfair that burden might be - is not of God, and will lower them in God’s eyes. If children sicken and die, if old people starve, you mourn, but you do not question it - it is God’s doing. You work at whatever will provide for you and yours in a godly way - through toil and obedience - and you ask nothing more, nor do you look towards those who promise a kinder way, because if your God is a hard master, then they are not His servants.
See, elucidator’s economist is a political analyst/economist, whereas Mace’s economists are economist/economists. A simple and unfair distinction.
When Lenin said that politics was nothing more than a superstructure built upon the foundation of economics, I think he was exaggerating the truth. But not by much. Not enough, at any rate.
I’ve voted for both parties in the past, and most likely will in the future. So I dunno if you call that consistently voting republican or not. Due to my wife’s disability, I am definitely in the income group you ask about at least.
Democrats then to view the government as the solution to problems. Republicans tend to view the government as the cause of problems. Which side I’ll generally agree on depends on, after examining the problems, if I think government could help or not. Through much of my life, I felt government was the problem. As a result, I have tended more towards republicans or third parties when repubs were being too big government for my taste. Although through Bush’s era I did get rather pissed at Republicans because while I supported traditional republican ideals of smaller government, the Republicans did not.
However, I do acknowledge there are times the government can help. Now is one of those times, so at the moment I tend slightly Democrat. I wanted Democrats to spend the last several years working on using government to fix the problems that lead to the current economy through real regulation reforms and to expand social safety nets to cover things until the economy recovers. Both of those are things the government could have done to help people in the short term and the long term. Instead of that, all the country got was a requirement to buy insurance or get fined. Just what people unemployed who are having problems meeting the bills need, yet another bill. So while I currently support the traditional democrat ideas of tight regulation and social safety nets, I’m rather pissed off at the Democrat party right now because they do not.
All of this is general of course. Show me a choice between an inept republican and a competent democrat, and I’ll vote dem. Show me a choice between an inept democrat and a competent republican, and I’ll vote repub. The specific politician and their ideas matter more to me than if they put a R or D behind their name.
Do not post direct insults of other posters in Great Debates, (or anywhere outside the BBQ Pit).
[ /Moderating ]
You and your kind are the only ones who actually matter in elections.
Which makes you the ones who tick me off.
An attempt at a serious question (tho it likely will either be ignored, or assumed to be “leftist claptrap”, as has already happened to me in this thread): why is government “meddling” so odious, but private enterprise meddling in your lives is something to be proud of? Why is goverment meddling in your healthcare (by mandates, or whatever) something to be avoided, but meddling by say insurance companies (by denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, or whatever) is simply no big deal? I have yet to see someone who espouses conservative viewpoints here answer this question-isn’t meddling by any entity outside of you something to be avoided and decried?
This is just more of the common fiscal liberal position that you know how someone should run their lives better than they do themselves.
tips hat
Glad to be of service.
If it matters any, I did not vote this year. The local races were foregone conclusions and the state race was between a mongoloid retard and a pinheaded moron. Neither party put forward someone who had more brain functions than Terri Schiavo. I’m not even asking for outsmarting Terri Shiavo when she was in a coma a few years ago, I’d be happy if there was a choice who could out think Terri Schiavo as she is now, dead and half decayed. So I said screw it and didn’t vote at all.
How is government meddling in healthcare any different than insurance companies meddling in health care? After all, the Democrat solution to insurance companies being scumbags was to reward them for it by guaranteeing them customers.
Sorry, of all the reasons to endorse government meddling, going “The insurance companies screw over people, so Democrats decided to require that they screw over EVERYONE” isn’t exactly the best argument to put forward.
If this is such a marvelous gift to the insurance companies, how come they spent about 30 Godzillabucks trying to kill it?
Because I can choose between corporations.
Look, forget health insurance for a moment. There are several competing supermarkets quite near me; I shop at Giant, paying what I consider a reasonable price for the groceries I choose. If that company starts acting like a dick, tripling all the prices while taking my favorite stuff off the shelves, I’d shrug and switch to Food Lion, or Kroger, or whatever – but, of course, the company hasn’t yet started acting like a dick, presumably because its competitors keep it honest. But never mind that now; the point is, I could tell 'em to go to hell, taking my business elsewhere.
And, of course, that’s also how I shop for each product; if my chosen brand of pasta or pastrami or peanut butter ever tripled in price while sharply declining in quality, I’d shrug and switch to a competitor – which my store of choice helpfully stocks right there on the same shelf (and if they ever stopped, I’d presumably switch to a store that kept on keeping on). I therefore don’t give a crap that any given corporation could start ‘meddling’ like that, because, hey, what do I care? They’re free to do as they please, and so am I – and I keep buying what they’re selling just as long as I find it satisfactory, and I switch whenever I find a better deal elsewhere. I could tell any of 'em to go to hell when taking my business elsewhere.
So, coming back around to health insurance – well, I’m one of the 80-plus percent who was happy with his payments and coverage before this latest round of government meddling, so it of course didn’t much bother me that any such corporation was free to do as they please, for the same reason that I’ve never minded when Burger King starts doing as it pleases, sure as there’s a McDonald’s right next door to the Wendy’s; what the hell do I care? Burger King can do what it wants, and so will I. If they pitch it right, I’ll agree to their terms. If they don’t, I won’t.
But the government – man, that’s like the biggest and scariest corporation of 'em all, because you can’t tell ‘em to go to hell. It’s not about whether you agree to their terms; the government is basically a corporation that can dictate terms. So, y’know, apply whatever left-wing concerns bubble up for you against mean ol’ corporations – and intensify 'em like crazy for the only one who can make you buy their products.
Any corporation can dictate terms, businesses that can’t dictate terms are Ma and Pa businesses. Welcome to the real world.
Feel free to address the examples in the post you quoted. I currently shop at Grocery Store A; if that corporation ever starts ‘dictating’ terms I don’t like, I’ll shrug and head over to Grocery Store B, or Grocery Store C. I buy Peanut Butter Brand D; if that corporation ever starts ‘dictating’ terms I don’t like, I’ll shrug and start buying Brand E or Brand F. I eat at Restaurant G; if that corporation ever starts ‘dictating’ terms I don’t like, I’ll shrug and head over to Restaurant H or Restaurant I.
Likewise for clothing. Likewise for television programming. Likewise for – oh, rather a lot of things, really; that’s life in the real world, a multinational is as powerless as a mom-and-pop when it comes to ‘dictating’ terms, so long as each one has competitors keeping 'em honest. Speaking as a consumer, I’ve shrugged and walked away from corporations just as easily regardless of whether they’re a dinky mom-and-pop; has your experience been different?
You’ve got to be fucking kidding me. Agreements between corporations over set prices is so commonplace you’d have to have been frozen in ice when capitalism first happened and thawed out today not to notice it.
As for different stores, very common for the very same network to operate different brands to give a false sense of choice. I suppose you prefer to drink some Sprite to show how much of a rebel you are to Coca-Cola?
Personally if I have limited choice I prefer that the entity making the calls is one that I can vote for or against, not some remote corporate board who wouldnt give a damn fuck about whether I lived or not.
Voters will always count more than consumers.
Then you should have no trouble listing a whole bunch of examples.
How about switching to Snapple? Or water? Who cares how many products one company has, so long as there are alternatives? I drink Coke - because it tastes damned good. The minute the Coca Cola company changes the recipe so that I no longer prefer it to alternatives, I’ll stop drinking it. They have ZERO power over me.
I used to drive Chevrolets. Then Chevy screwed me over with quality, so I switched to Ford and Nissan. If they screw me over, I’ll go somewhere else.
I work for one of the biggest companies in the world. If I find a better job, I can quit tomorrow without having to worry about the company police hauling me off for having the temerity to leave.
With the U.S. government, your choice is limited to one of two parties. And your vote is only one of hundreds of millions. And the politicians often do things no one voted for. And they use the power of force to make you comply with their choices.
With the market, you get to ‘vote’ with every choice you make. Every dollar you spend is a vote for one company over another. The only way companies grow and gain market share is if they pick up ‘voters’. And no matter how many voters they have, if they stop providing exactly what those voters want, they will lose them fast. Because unlike government, there are many alternatives, and they are easy to switch to whenever you please and not just every four years.