Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThis just in from today's Wall Street Journal: "Pain From Free Trade Spurs Second Thoughts." Can you believe it? A "downer" story on globalization from the mother church of free-market capitalism. Who knew it was so bad? Actually, many millions of working Americans knew and have known for many years. They were regarded as mindless "protectionists." WSJ gave them the back of its hand.
Think of today's lengthy, revelatory story as a massive "correction." It led the newspaper's front page and recounted the heavy doubts accumulating among establishment free-traders about what they have wrought. The actual destruction from globalization is worse than anything they had imagined and it's going to get far worse.
The Journal is playing catch-up, to put it kindly. This is the bad news that newspaper was never willing to face frankly and publish. Now that it has, however, the impact will be truly significant--mainly by opening the way for other newspapers (think New York Times and Washington Post) whose editors and reporters have been similarly afraid to tell the whole truth about free-trade dogma's destructive impact on American prosperity. I look forward to many more confessional "corrections" from our leading media.
The WSJ reporters featured Princeton economist Alan Blinder as their influential truth-teller, now bravely breaking the news. Blinder was Federal Reserve vice chair and economic advisor to Bill Clinton, who participated directly in the facile promotion of unregulated, lopsided free trade with Mexico, China and other developing economies. Blinder was one of the credentialed "experts" cited to assure everyone that free trade is a blessing for all, pay no attention to those whining workers who lost their jobs.
So now he wants to warn us? I regard him as a "running dog" looking for a little absolution, after the fact.
I also have a bone to pick with David Wessel and Bob Davis, the two WSJ reporters who wrong the piece. Wessel and Davis have been preeminent cheerleaders for establishment line for many years, though I always suspected they knew better. We had an unpleasant encounter ten years ago, when my own book on the global economy was published – One World, Ready or Not: The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism. Davis and Wessel made a very public point of disparaging my analysis and predictions. Wrong, wrong, wrong, they said on a public affairs TV show where we both appeared. The thrust of my book's argument is what these two reported today as news.
I sent them an e-mail this morning congratulating their breakthrough in understanding things. "Time for an apology?" I asked. "Not holding my breath."
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Mr Grieder....did I miss it?
Despite all the new "anti-free trade" guys in Congress (Sherrod "Torture for a Senate Seat" Brown among them)...
where's the talk from Speaker Nancy or Harry Reid about....revoking NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, the WTO, etc.?
We got a minimum wage hike, but that was a piece of cake. We get a lot of talk about "job re-training programs". We get SOME talk of "quotas", "subsidies", "exhange rates".
But where's the call for TARIFFS from the Democratic Congress and Pelosi and Reid? (the only way to really cut imports) Or the call for the revocation of those treaties or US membership in those trade organizations?
???
Posted by Mask at 03/28/2007 @ 2:09pm
MASK
just wait...it seems to take the country as a whole a long time to develop a critical mass of voters to the point where lawmakers have no choice but to listen. but reaching that critical mass can be a long process.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/28/2007 @ 2:42pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/28/2007 @ 2:42pm
IBBLE, it must take a LONG time to reach that critical mass...given NAFTA was signed THIRTEEN YEARS AGO.
And the mass must not get THAT "critical", if one of the chief proponents of NAFTA (who actually went on Larry King and debated against Ross Perot, in favor of it)...
is now touted and pushed to run for a second stab at the Presidency, just because he talks "good" on global warming?
Seems you can be for free trade, if you're against SUVs and for carbon credits, huh?
Posted by Mask at 03/28/2007 @ 3:02pm
IBBLE, it must take a LONG time to reach that critical mass...given NAFTA was signed THIRTEEN YEARS AGO.
It's especially hard when the corporations that profit from the "free" trade control the media in the US and bankroll the campaigns of both parties.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/28/2007 @ 3:14pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/28/2007 @ 3:14pm
Just curious, MTSP....you DO know who I was talking about here (Posted by MASK 03/28/2007 @ 3:02pm).
Would you include HIM in that group of "bankrolled by corporations" politicians?
Posted by Mask at 03/28/2007 @ 3:19pm
Of course. How do you get to the nomination of either party without corporate approval? It's not gonna happen.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/28/2007 @ 3:27pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/28/2007 @ 3:27pm
So, where does that put you come Election Day? "lesser of two evils"?
Posted by Mask at 03/28/2007 @ 3:32pm
'The Journal is playing catch-up, to put it kindly. This is the bad news that newspaper was never willing to face frankly and publish. Now that it has, however, the impact will be truly significant--mainly by opening the way for other newspapers (think New York Times and Washington Post) whose editors and reporters have been similarly afraid to tell the whole truth about free-trade dogma's destructive impact on American prosperity. I look forward to many more confessional "corrections" from our leading media.'
Funny that WSJ and like minded publications didn't give much press to the anti-globalization protesters. Thats why I don't bother reading the WSJ.
Logical analysis would lead one to conclude that "free trade" without restrictions was going to end up benefiting emerging growth countries at the eventual expense of US. This is pretty basic economics. I know one thing that the US continues to enjoy a "comparative advantage" in and that is BS by the media. How about we export that overseas?
It will be fun to see the pro-globalization advocates squirm as our economy continues to suffer the totally predictable future that naysayers were preaching years ago. I wonder who the free traders are going to trade with once the US doesn't have anymore decent jobs to pay for their imported goods. We are on the brink, but you aren't going to get that spin from the WSJ or your stockbroker.
Posted by OneVote at 03/28/2007 @ 3:34pm
I'm not going to participate and legitimize the process.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/28/2007 @ 3:34pm
I'm not going to participate and legitimize the process.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/28/2007 @ 3:34pm
So if you're not participating...why do you discuss politics?
Posted by Mask at 03/28/2007 @ 3:57pm
The bummer is that there's no satisfaction in having been right, now that the horses are long gone from the barn. The damage is irreparable. It's just like the Iraq war: the MSM has shit all over its nose, the same guys as ever took the money and ran, and millions suffered. Barbara Tuchman in her must-read book "The March of Folly" defined a great historical folly as an incredibly stupid mistake whose sine qua non is that before the mistake was made, people were screaming "No! Don't! This is a mistake!" Well, it's safe to say that Globalisation would have rated its own chapter in Tuchman's book.
Posted by bookmanjb at 03/28/2007 @ 3:57pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/28/2007 @ 3:27pm
So, where does that put you come Election Day? "lesser of two evils"?
Posted by MASK 03/28/2007 @ 3:32pm | ignore this person
Isn't that exactly where YOU will be Mask? Didn't you just declare your intent to 'hold your nose' and vote for "She who must be obeyed"?
Why try to slam Spence for possibly doing something you've already proclaimed you intend to do?
Posted by Lillian at 03/28/2007 @ 4:11pm
Posted by LILLIAN 03/28/2007 @ 4:11pm
Why is it a "slam" to ask, LIL?
If MTSP had asked, I'd be happy (as I was to HMAN on the other thread, who actually ASKED me...unlike some person I could name) to tell him that I'll be voting for the Democratic nominee (90% sure, barring some miracle on the GOP side)...even if it's Her Majesty.
And given your predilictions, once again, you and I will be on the same side of the voting booth!
hehe
Posted by Mask at 03/28/2007 @ 4:32pm
Globalization is an extremely difficult topic. Both liberals (i.e. The New York Times) and conservatives (i.e. The Wall Street Journal) tend to support it. Greider's assertion that "The Journal is playing catch-up" is a little harsh. While Greider's language certainly gets his readers' attentions, his style is like that of a spiteful child. Doesn't he realize that it's a good thing that the The Journal, unlike other newspapers, has realized the problems with globalization?
Posted by edimegl at 03/28/2007 @ 4:41pm
Posted by MASK 03/28/2007 @ 4:32pm | ignore this person
Mask, are you now pretending as if your comment wasn't meant as a slam? Why couch your question in the "lesser of two evils" language?
If you really meant it as some kind of innocent question, like you really 'cared' about hearing who he was planning to vote for, you've got a LOT of work to do on your communications skills.
Posted by Lillian at 03/28/2007 @ 4:45pm
So if you're not participating...why do you discuss politics?
Posted by MASK
It's what interests me. It's not just politics. This is my country. I will not vote because casting a ballot (if I have only a choice between a Repub or Dem) legitimizes the system. The government is bought and paid for by corporate interests; it is illegitimate.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/28/2007 @ 4:45pm
And given your predilictions, once again, you and I will be on the same side of the voting booth!
hehe
Posted by MASK 03/28/2007 @ 4:32pm | ignore this person
Mask, you've never asked who I support. On what are you basing your ASSumption about who I'll be voting for? (The whole 'gather information' first, then 'reach conclusions' thing really is tough for you to understand, isn't it.)
hehe!
Posted by Lillian at 03/28/2007 @ 4:49pm
the critical mass needed for all sorts of things for us jaded americans is coming due now...the iraq war kind of speeded it up, but a critical ass of people not living as well as their parents is also being reached.
part of this is only natural. the astronomical economic growth of our country in the post ww2 period was incredibly UNNATURAL, unsustainable in ANY way...
and not one, but 2 foolish, unnecessary, bloody, expensive, wars in less than half a century, as well as some wrongheaded policy decisions based more on ideology than econimic science, and a generation trying to live as well as their parents by running up absurd debts PARTLY because good paying middle class jobs are getting stretched thin LARGELY as a result of such jobs getting shipped overseas as a result of lowering tarriff rates to countries that pay/treat their workers like shit.
so corporate america makes a big killing. some from smoke and mirrors, some from all the money they have saved by outsourcing manufacturing and service jobs to places that pay and treat their average schmuk workers like shit.
and then corporate america gets its bullshitty wuss ass butt all up in the air when someone suggests SOME OF THIS EXTRA MONEY THEY HAVE MADE FROM FIRING WELL PAID AMERICAN WORKERS GET REDISTRIBUTED SOMEHOW. oh - commernist!
bullshit.
but with all this supply side obsession, one thing is getting ignored...the demand side, of course. people must keep spending and spending and spending at such a rate that in order to keep it all rolling they must endebt themselves further.
and when fair to middlin' resigning ceo's get $180 million dollar severence deals (FOR WHAT!?!?)while schmuk joe contemplates taking out a car title loan to get his kid's teeth fixed because he lost his good job when it got outsourced...sooner or later schmuk joe starts figuring it out.
no child left behind? har har har! the LAST thing randian economic nihilists want is to have a pack of highly educated, under employed, underpaid malcontents who actually think critically, see things as they are, and decide to take back a slice of the pie.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/28/2007 @ 5:43pm
lol - "critical ass" - preview, ibble, preview...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/28/2007 @ 5:44pm
There must be a complete accumulation of power before there can be a total accumulation of wealth --paraphrasing Hanna Arendt.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/28/2007 @ 6:00pm
The WSJ actually reads like two totally different publications. The folks on the editorial page are the Rush Limbaugh of newspapers; they often say things that are contradicted by the news stories on their front page, which are pretty non-ideological.
Posted by green2006 at 03/28/2007 @ 6:27pm
'Free Trade' is the treasonous giveaway of America's industry to our number one nuclear threat, China. China has had nuclear weapons for decades and is now testing ballistic missiles to use against us and other free countries like Taiwan, while the traitors in the White House and Congress holler about pipsqueak nations Iran and North Korea. These are the same traitors who are getting American soldiers killed in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, as a smokescreen for their treasonous appeasement of the real culprits, the Saudis. Now that voters have figured out that the Iraq war is a betrayal of our country and our soldiers, it's time for the other shoe to drop: who are America's real enemies, and why do America's enemies have such close friends in D.C.?
Posted by samcrossett at 03/28/2007 @ 7:16pm
Posted by LILLIAN 03/28/2007 @ 4:49pm
Okay LIL....you still debating whether or not to vote Democratic or Republican in the 2008 Presidential election?
Also, I think I could get a pretty good concensus here (except for WILL) that voting for Hillary over the GOP candidate is the "lesser of two evils".
Posted by Mask at 03/28/2007 @ 7:39pm
This is my country. I will not vote because casting a ballot (if I have only a choice between a Repub or Dem) legitimizes the system. The government is bought and paid for by corporate interests; it is illegitimate.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/28/2007 @ 4:45pm
Okay, if this is your country...don't you care about changing it?
If so...how do you plan to do so outside "the system"?
Posted by Mask at 03/28/2007 @ 7:40pm
NUCLEAR WAR IMMINENT – BEGINS FRIDAY
You don't know what you don't know.
The STORY about British Sailors held captive by IRAN is a LIE. Remember the LIE about Israeli soldiers held captive by Lebanon to justify Israel's raping of Lebanon? Same game, different name. It's all BULLSHIT!
Think WAY outside the box.
Ahmadinejad works for Israel, they INSTALLED HIM the same way they installed Bush in the US. That's why every word Iran's leader says and every move he makes appears to be provocative toward Israel and the US. He's no mad man…he's a tool of Israel and US. He says and does precisely what we tell him to do – in order to present the APPEARANCE that we are somehow justified in launching an OFFENSIVE NUCLEAR STRIKE AGAINST IRAN ON FRIDAY.
WAKE THE FUCK UP!!!!!!!!!!!
World War III Starts on Friday – unless PATRIOTS ARREST CHENEY RIGHT NOW.
If the military Generals and Admirals want war, there will be more war than they ever imagined. If they choose to uphold their oath and defend the Constitution, they've got 36 hours to make a difference.
Time is up. World War III starts Friday – and it will coincide with conditions inside the US that lead to Martial Law, through either an Anthrax attack or a phony Bird Flu Outbreak. They are doing this to SAVE THEIR OWN HIDES from the imminent disclosure of their own criminality, including their direct role in 9/11 to serve as the pretext for everything that has resulted.
STOP THEM!
TODAY!
Posted by plunger at 03/28/2007 @ 7:45pm
Posted by SAMCROSSETT 03/28/2007 @ 7:16pm
Yep.
At the same time they decry the communist influence on the evil left. Hypocrites of the lowest type. I won't let them in my hypocrite club they are so bad.
Big sign on the door "NO TALIBAN"
Posted by crabwalk at 03/28/2007 @ 7:50pm
Mask is right, choke,. Where are the dems on this? MTis right. Locked at the change-purse with corporat-tochracy.
Posted by crabwalk at 03/28/2007 @ 7:53pm
Mask is right, choke,.
Posted by CRABWALK 03/28/2007 @ 7:53pm
I know that was tough for you, CRAB.
Tell you what...when we get Federal universal health care, and the bureaucrats come to pull the plug on your Grandma...I'll stop them!
Posted by Mask at 03/28/2007 @ 7:54pm
Mask-The idea of bureaucrats pulling the plug on Grandma is just moronic right wing propaganda.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/29/2007 @ 09:30am
If so...how do you plan to do so outside "the system"?
Posted by MASK
There is no changing it, at least not now, anyway. I've done my share of civil disobedience. It's like punching water: The system co-opts whatever movements develop. Nothing really changes. Those on top stay on top. There are far too many people out there with mortgages, kids in college, car payments just trying to hang on; they are ignorant of how the system works; as long as there are enough people managing to hold on there will be no support for fundamental changes.
Choosing between two candidates that others chose for me is not going to change a damn thing.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/29/2007 @ 09:42am
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/29/2007 @ 09:30am
In the vain attempt to educate you once again....why not ASK CRAB about his plan to take "Grandma off the life support", and WHO he ULTIMATELY would want that responsibility to fall on.
You might be surprised.
Posted by Mask at 03/29/2007 @ 09:48am
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/29/2007 @ 09:42am
So, let me understand.
You enjoy discussing politics, but feel it's (like educating I'M on topics he's leaped into) a useless folly to try to CHANGE the system through politics?
Posted by Mask at 03/29/2007 @ 09:50am
Mask-The idea of bureaucrats pulling the plug on Grandma is just moronic right wing propaganda.
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/29/2007 @ 09:30am
which ironically would not happen in a randian's dream world since grandma would just die and get out of the way if she could not afford treatment...
hmmm...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/29/2007 @ 09:54am
To show my altruism....a little starter research for I'M NOBODY---
BLOG | Posted 03/24/2007 @ 8:54pm Edwards Stands Out On Health Care Debate Marc Cooper
NATION STAFF: how about a story on wether or not Oregons system is working? This trial ranks procedures by efficacy and cost/benefit. It leads to.. (gasp) rationing, which is what we need in some form. Paying out hundreds of thousands to keep Grandma alive for a few more weeks is not a sustainable system.
Posted by CRABWALK 03/25/2007 @ 05:09am
Posted by Mask at 03/29/2007 @ 10:00am
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/29/2007 @ 09:54am
Well, IBBLE...what's the solution? Nobody wants to keep the present system (which would keep Granny on the tubes, I suppose).
Too much "randian" and she gets wacked by the providers.
Too much socialized medicine and CRAB's rationing and she gets wacked by the Federal Health Dept.
Posted by Mask at 03/29/2007 @ 10:01am
Mask-You don't know enough to educate anyone.You can't figure out the difference between socialist and progressive despite the fact that the definitions are quite clear and easy to understand.Basically,all you have is something an anonymous poster said to back up your right wing propaganda concerning Grandma.Wow.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/29/2007 @ 10:12am
Posted by MASK
You can have incremental changes, but fundamentally the system is unaltered. (Why did FDR, a rich man from a rich, well founded family do what he did in the 30's? Something had to be done to ameliorate the suffering caused by the Great Depression; if not the country was going to go fascists and big money would have risked losing its position of power.) Like I said, it's similar to punching water: it gives here and there. As you pointed out with the story about Stern, big money buys out everything, including labor leadership (and big money used the gov to make sure unions are organized along lines that make them susceptible to co-option). It requires power--real power--to change an entrenched system. The choice between candidate A and candidate B provides no fundamental change.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/29/2007 @ 10:14am
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/29/2007 @ 10:12am
I'M, again....ASK CRABWALK. First tell him he's "backing up right wing propaganda" (he'll LOVE that...hehe), then ask some direct questions about WHO pulls the plug on Granny.
Remember, "the doctor" doesn't cut it, since that does no good to save money if the MD says "Keep Maw-maw on the machines" and keeps costing us moola....it HAS to be "somebody else".
Posted by Mask at 03/29/2007 @ 10:20am
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/29/2007 @ 10:14am
I think I get it. You're KIND OF hoping for ....another "Depression".
Or some other major crises, where by the only alternative is "fundamental change"....hmmm?
Posted by Mask at 03/29/2007 @ 10:21am
Choosing between two candidates that others chose for me is not going to change a damn thing.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/29/2007 @ 09:42am
What about primaries?
Posted by Hman23 at 03/29/2007 @ 10:23am
There must be a complete accumulation of power before there can be a total accumulation of wealth --paraphrasing Hanna Arendt.
Posted by MTSPENCE05
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/29/2007 @ 10:24am
Posted by HMAN23
What about them?
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/29/2007 @ 10:25am
Posted by MASK
Some sort of calamity is necessary before any "change" is possible. A war, natural catastrophe, economic meltdown...
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/29/2007 @ 10:27am
Mask-Again,crab has nothing to do with it and since that was all you have then it appears you were wrong,again.The idea is for people to have living wills and decisions are based on those.Stop sounding like Rio Bravo.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/29/2007 @ 10:34am
"We got a minimum wage hike, but that was a piece of cake."
Posted by MASK 03/28/2007 @ 2:09pm
TBTB threw progressives and the American working class a minimum wage hike bone not because of Democratic activism but because they know that the specter of spiraling inflation (Helicopter Ben Benarke and the Fed increasing the money supply at 10% or better per annum, a collapsing dollar, and declining fossil fuel production raising energy prices feeding into higher prices for everything else) will make the meager and much overdue minimum wage hike virtually inconsequential to the bottom line.
Besides, a small wage hike is not going to shift the balance of power given that the elites have many tools to discipline their serfs. Even today when the future of the economy looks bleak plans are being hatched to open the floodgates for mass immigration.
Those who believe that we can fundamentally change the system by participating in it are not seeing the forest for the trees and, for starters, should read essays by Catherine Austin Fitts about her experiences as a high level government official and what she terms the economic tapeworm. If you follow the breadcrumbs and do the research you will find the the ties of government and big business are considerably more intertwined and longstanding than we have been lead to believe and the MSM is their smoke and mirrors machine.
While I think it is a good idea to frequently contact your representative in congress and even support third party anti-corporate presidential candidates (e.g. Ralph Nader or Ron Paul), IMO aggressive grassroots organization, building strong community ties, and educating others is the best shot we have at reclaiming something that resembles representave government.
Posted by synapse at 03/29/2007 @ 10:52am
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/29/2007 @ 10:27am
Okay....I know where you're coming from now.
Posted by Mask at 03/29/2007 @ 10:52am
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/29/2007 @ 10:34am
I'M.... I know you're never wrong, and I'm always wrong, but...
the WHOLE POINT of this little conversation was on something I said to....CRABWALK, that you decided you needed to "join in on".
So, if I prove my point about something I said to CRABWALK, concerning something that CRABWALK said, by quoting CRABWALK....that's pretty sufficient to dispute your intrusive post.
Again, show some spine and put a post to CRABWALK ASKING him WHO he thinks will pull the plug on Granny....
or even more courageous YOU EXPLAIN why in a Federally run health care system that will be FORCED to curtail expenses, likely through "rationing", why eventually we won't reach what has happened in Europe....the need to end life-support for those who are terminal, and if "the doctors" refuse to do it....an "administrator" will make the decision.
Posted by Mask at 03/29/2007 @ 10:57am
Posted by MTSPENCE05
The two candidates that "others" choose for you come from primaries. Do you participate?
Posted by Hman23 at 03/29/2007 @ 10:57am
IMO aggressive grassroots organization, building strong community ties, and educating others is the best shot we have at reclaiming something that resembles representave government.
Posted by SYNAPSE 03/29/2007 @ 10:52am
SYNAPSE, that's not what MTSPENCE is saying. He's not saying "We can change things with grassroots and education".
He's saying that the system is so broken, that only a national CATASTROPHE would allow for the "fundamental change" he thinks is necessary.
Posted by Mask at 03/29/2007 @ 10:59am
Posted by HMAN23
Yes. What's your point? Have you not noticed the correlation between the money a candidate raises and the candidate that wins? It's not rocket science.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/29/2007 @ 11:00am
Don't start trying to twist, Mask. I've stated many times that I favor a balance of power among the competing economic interests in the country.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/29/2007 @ 11:03am
Mask-You love to take a sentence (usually out of context) that someone on the left wrote and claim it is the view of the left and then repeat it.There are plans out there like the one Edwards just proposed.Could you show me the bureaucrats decide if Grandma lives or dies part of those plans,please?
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/29/2007 @ 11:04am
Posted by MASK 03/29/2007 @ 10:01am |
well i and my redneck buddhist friend have promised to sneak up behind whichever of the other becomes a drooling idiot first and shoot him in the back of the head, so i'm not so sure the randian nihilist solution is so terrible after all, at least personally...still hoping to die in a flaming, decapitating car crash, myself, but not all can be so lucky i suppose...lol
but this brave new world now dawning comes with some interesting conumdrums, does it not?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/29/2007 @ 11:27am
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/29/2007 @ 11:00am
Just curious given your earlier posts on the general election. Glad to see you take part in at least the primaries. I wish more people disillusioned with the candidates in the general took part in primary process instead of sitting on the sidelines.
Re: the money - Yes, I agree that fundraising plays a huge part; probably too huge. However, I do not not necessarily believe that merely having the most funds guarantees victory - otherwise Perot would have won in '92. For most candidates (unless independently rich), they have to RAISE those funds. And in order to do that, they need to show that they are a good enough candidate to make someone choose to write a check. Thus, there a correlation between being able to raise money and being a candidate with a following. Does a guy like David Duke lose simply because he could not raise enough money? Or could he not raise enough money because he could not garner support?
Posted by Hman23 at 03/29/2007 @ 11:29am
Posted by HMAN23
Perot was a third party candidate.
Where does that money come from? Why are business people going to give money away? It's an investment; and, yes, they invest in what they believe will be the winner (often they hedge their bets). The interests of corporate America are inimical to mine. Corporate America owns both parties; corporate America owns the media.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/29/2007 @ 11:46am
Does a guy like David Duke lose simply because he could not raise enough money? Or could he not raise enough money because he could not garner support?
Posted by HMAN23
Citing extremes does not invalidate my point.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/29/2007 @ 11:50am
I am sure we could find less extreme examples than David Duke.
And I am not trying to invalidate your point or claim that money is not a problem; I just do not think the money guarantees victory. To some extent in presdiential elections, money and electoral success is like a chicken and egg. You do well in Iowa and NH (in some cases you do not even have to win), and people are more willing to contribute. Why do you think Richardson and Dodd are still in the race? You think a lot of people are opening up their checkbooks for these guys at this point, even if they SUPPORT them? They do not have the money NOW to compete or even last until the general, but if they show they can generate a following in NH and Iowa, the funds from other places will follow.
Posted by Hman23 at 03/29/2007 @ 12:07pm
I am sure we could find less extreme examples than David Duke.
Yes, and I'm sure you could find exceptions, as well.
Look at the numbers and the correlation between who has the most money and who wins. Look at the numbers on incumbents retaining their seats, too. This is not a true democratic system.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/29/2007 @ 12:38pm
Don't start trying to twist, Mask. I've stated many times that I favor a balance of power among the competing economic interests in the country.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/29/2007 @ 11:03am
What did I "twist", MTSP....I said---
He's saying that the system is so broken, that only a national CATASTROPHE would allow for the "fundamental change" he thinks is necessary.
Posted by MASK 03/29/2007 @ 10:59am
You said---
Some sort of calamity is necessary before any "change" is possible. A war, natural catastrophe, economic meltdown...
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/29/2007 @ 10:27am
Posted by Mask at 03/29/2007 @ 12:46pm
Here's a little something you bloggers might want to chew on for awhile...
Reuters Updated: 7:35 a.m. ET March 29, 2007
HAVANA - Cuba's convalescing leader Fidel Castro wrote a scathing article on U.S. biofuel plans published in Thursday's edition of state newspaper Granma, the 80-year-old revolutionary's first editorial since his July surgery.
Government officials say Castro is recovering well from his emergency stomach operation and could soon take a more active role in government. But Castro has so far only been seen in photographs and video recordings or heard on the radio.
In Thursday's article Castro said more than 3 billion people in the world were condemned to die prematurely of hunger or thirst from plans by his ideological foe, the United States, to convert foodstuffs like corn into fuel for cars.
"This is not an exaggerated figure, it's more likely cautious," Castro wrote in the ruling Communist Party's daily newspaper. "I've been meditating quite a bit since President Bush's meeting with North American automobile makers." Castro said nothing about his state of health or whether he intends to participate more actively in the government, after handing over day-to-day power to Raul Castro eight months ago. On Wednesday, Castro's elder brother Ramon Castro said the recovering leader was in good shape, but shed no light on whether he could soon make a live public appearance.
Posted by ACook at 03/29/2007 @ 12:46pm
Could you show me the bureaucrats decide if Grandma lives or dies part of those plans,please?
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/29/2007 @ 11:04am
See, I'M, I know if it SOUNDS "good" to you, that means it is and WILL REMAIN so into the future. But like "Mission Accomplished"....sometimes things get a little "messed up" AFTER the proclamations from the politicians.
Why don't YOU show me how we curtail excessive spending in Federally-run health care, without oppressive taxation that NO politician would support or be able to pass, and not end up with "rationing"....and why that doesn't lead to the "regretable, but necessary" decision to let ol' Mi-maw pass away since she "ain't gettin' no better, no how"?
Posted by Mask at 03/29/2007 @ 12:49pm
Posted by ACOOK 03/29/2007 @ 12:46pm
Standby for some MGLESNE or ALBERTO Cuban apologist to step up and say "Well, Castro is right"....
probably (except not now that I'm posting it) forgetting as El Presidente did, that a push for bio-fuels is coming from THE AMERICAN LEFT...not Bush.
Posted by Mask at 03/29/2007 @ 12:52pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05
You are correct of course. I am sure there is a lot we agree on.
Posted by Hman23 at 03/29/2007 @ 12:53pm
Mask-In other words,it isn't in any plan and you're just doing right wing propaganda by nonsensical speculation.Get informed about countries that have socialized medicine instead of spewing right wing rhetoric.ALBERTO put down Cuba and Castro.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/29/2007 @ 1:05pm
Some sort of calamity is necessary before any "change" is possible. A war, natural catastrophe, economic meltdown...
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/29/2007 @ 10:27am
Posted by MASK
"Fundamental" change. Balance of power would not provide fundamental changes; it could, however, provide the vast majority of the electorate with power, influence, and--maybe--representation in our government that does more than give lip service and a few small bones to those that work for a living. Organization, solidarity, education--it's all vital for any kind of influence on the part of labor and low level white collar workers.
As long as the short sighted, greedy capitalists ally themselves with the religious right, nationalists crowds I can't forsee the working classes coming together. Things will only get worse. That's what the "total acccumulation of power" posts are about.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/29/2007 @ 1:18pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/29/2007 @ 1:05pm
I'M....nobody PLANS on their plan becoming flawed or prone to disaster...it just happens. Again, ask Bush on Iraq.
But by looking at the FACTS and the likely outcome of "plans", we can make suppositions about the future....some correct, some inccorect.
Now, one thing you MIGHT want to keep in mind is...that when a politician (even a "good honest Democrat") tells you he's going to do something for you and it's going to be perfect, cheap, and not hurt anybody....that he MIGHT be wanting something from you...like a "vote".
Posted by Mask at 03/29/2007 @ 1:52pm
they are ignorant of how the system works; as long as there are enough people managing to hold on there will be no support for fundamental changes.
Choosing between two candidates that others chose for me is not going to change a damn thing.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/29/2007 @ 09:42am
"Fundamental" change. Balance of power would not provide fundamental changes; it could, however, provide the vast majority of the electorate with power, influence, and--maybe--representation in our government that does more than give lip service and a few small bones to those that work for a living. Organization, solidarity, education--
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/29/2007 @ 1:18pm
Okay, so you don't think we can get fundamental change...just balance of power of competiting economic interests....but none of the present candidates for political office will do either?
Well, if only a "calamity" will cause fundamental change...
what will cause "balance of power"?
Posted by Mask at 03/29/2007 @ 2:00pm
Mask-I'm quite aware of what politicians want,but I'm also aware that you're doing your usual right wing propaganda and have nothing that exists in reality to back up your propaganda.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/29/2007 @ 2:03pm
I'M....nobody PLANS on their plan becoming flawed or prone to disaster...it just happens. Again, ask Bush on Iraq.
But by looking at the FACTS and the likely outcome of "plans", we can make suppositions about the future....some correct, some inccorect.
Posted by MASK
You have educated guesses and you have blind stabs. Whenever you start a war you never know what you're gonna get; more often than not it is not the intended outcome. That's why you don't start wars! People die, get cripped, disfigured; it costs billions of dollars.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/29/2007 @ 2:03pm
what will cause "balance of power"?
Posted by MASK
Organization, solidarity, education--it's all vital for any kind of influence on the part of labor and low level white collar workers.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/29/2007 @ 2:05pm
Now, one thing you MIGHT want to keep in mind is...that when a politician (even a "good honest Democrat") tells you he's going to do something for you and it's going to be perfect, cheap, and not hurt anybody....that he MIGHT be wanting something from you...like a "vote".
Posted by MASK
Public policy is a very tricky thing and can have all sorts of unintended consequences.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/29/2007 @ 2:05pm
Posted by MASK
Always trying to make something out of nothing in a pathetic effort to discredit the opposition.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/29/2007 @ 2:06pm
Mask-All you have to do is list the countries that have socialized medicine where bureaucrats are killing Grandma and your point is made,otherwise you have no point.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/29/2007 @ 2:10pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY
Good point.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/29/2007 @ 2:12pm
"The doctors who help set Dutch euthanasia policies are aware that euthanasia is basically out of control in the Netherlands. They admitted this to me privately. Yet in their public statements and articles they maintain there are no serious problems...." p. 14
"The experience of the Dutch people makes it clear that legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia is not the answer to the problems of people who are terminally ill. The Netherlands has moved from assisted suicide to euthanasia, from euthanasia for people who are terminally ill to euthanasia for those who are chronically ill, from euthanasia for physical illneses to euthanasai for psychological distress, and from voluntary euthanasia to involuntary euthanasia (called "termination of the patient without explicit request"). The Dutch government's own commissioned research has documented that in more than one thousand cases a year, doctors actively cause or hasten death without the patient's request." p. 23
"Virtually every guideline established by the Dutch to regulate euthanasia has been modified or violated with impunity." [emphasis added] p. 23
"In the selling of assisted suicide and euthanasia, words like "empowerment" and "dignity" are associated only with the choice for dying. But who is being empowered? The more one knows about individual cases, the more apparent it becomes that needs other than those of the patient often prevail. Empowerment flows toward the relatives, the doctor who offers a speedy way out if he cannot offer a cure, or the activists who have found in death a cause the gives meaning to their own lives. The patient, who may have asked to die in the hope of receiving emotional reasusurance that all around her want her to live, may find that like Louise she has set in motion a process whose momentum she cannot control. p. 43-44
"Euthanasia advocates are arguing that if there are ten cases in which euthanasia might be appropriate, we should legalize a practice that may wrongly kill thousands." p. 44
" The alarming statistics in the Remmelink Report indicate that in thousands of cases, decisions that might or were intended to end a fully competent patient's life were made without consulting the patient." p. 77
"The Dutch seem reluctant to acknowledge that the doctor's role in euthanasia is more than that of a neutral observer responding to a patient's needs. This is particularly evident when families pressure patients to request euthanasia .... more requests for euthanasia came from families than from patients themselves." [emphasis added] p. 93
Speaking about how doctors make decisions to implement euthanasia, even when the patient does not request it himself,
"The Dutch courts have implicitly encouraged physicians to make such value decisions. Originally the courts interpreted force majeure as applying if virtually anyone in the doctor's situation would have acted as he did, essentially saying that basic human decency and compassion compelled such action. Subsequently the courts have interepreted it as applying if merely any other member of the medical profession would have acted as did the doctor, which is quite a different standard. Jos Welie, an ethicist formerly at the University of Nijmegen, points out that this ruling elevates physicians to a superior moral status, making their judgments on life and death always just." [emphasis added] p. 94
That is an extremely relevant observation, when considering so-called safeguards some suggest to put in place to prevent abuse of euthanasia and/or physician assisted suicide. A physician advocate of euthanasia, when working with a prospective euthanasia candidate, could refer the patient to a known physician supporter of euthanasia for a second opinion, and both being advocates of euthanasia, would of course come to the conclusion that euthanasia was appropriate, even if many other physicians would strongly disagree. This type of reasoning has resulted in the medical killings of depressed patients, chronically ill and others.
"Dr. Richard Fenigsen, ... was a strong critic of involuntary euthanasia, which he considers to be widespread. [in the Netherlands] ...his contentions concerning the prevalence of involuntary euthanasia, ... were supported by the Remmelink Report." p. 100
"Chris Rutenfrans, a strong secular critic of euthanasia in the Netherlands, has a doctorate in law and criminology. Together with Caterina Dessaur, writer and professor of criminology at the University of Nijmegen, he had written a book suggesting the ambivalence of most requests for euthanasia, stressing the coercion of the patient that often accompanied the decision to perform it, and indicating how frequently it took place without the consent of patients." [emphasis added] p. 106
www.hospicepatients.org
(Before you jump on "no,it's the doctors"...look who's TELLING the doctors it's "okay")
Posted by Mask at 03/29/2007 @ 2:29pm
Public policy is a very tricky thing and can have all sorts of unintended consequences.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/29/2007 @ 2:05pm
You're absolutely right.....Ref: Posted by MASK 03/29/2007 @ 2:29pm
Posted by Mask at 03/29/2007 @ 2:30pm
I'm writing in Stetson Kennedy...or Dennis Kucinich.
Posted by rzs at 03/29/2007 @ 2:42pm
Mask-Assisted suicide and euthanasia have nothing to do with socialized medicine since either could be legalized under our present system or any other form of health care system.Each system is just as prone to legalizing those than any other system so neither would apply to socialized medicine anymore than any other system.You are aware,aren't you,that doctors here have done similar things?Grandma is just as likely to get killed off if she is costing the family or insurance company too much than if she was costing the state too much.Just look at how insurance companies have refused to pay for expensive treatment on those deemed unworthy to live.Of course,the insurance company gives a different excuse for not paying,but the results are the same.Abuse can exist in any system.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/29/2007 @ 2:48pm
"The doctors who help set Dutch euthanasia policies are aware that euthanasia is basically out of control in the Netherlands. They admitted this to me privately. Yet in their public statements and articles they maintain there are no serious problems...." p. 14
Posted by MASK
More apples and oranges. The Dutch have an euthanasia policy. Not all nations with socialized medicine have euthanasia policies. Euthanasia is not an automatic with socialized medicine.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/29/2007 @ 3:37pm
I guess hindsight sucks but what can you do? I think that with the advent of the internet and other technologies the US would have taken part in globalization regardless of political policies. People would have connected with one another all across the globe. Economically, we import so much more than we export. We depend on globalization as much as any other country; if not more. In addition, there is plenty of protectionist policy even though globalization is prominent.
Posted by dooey at 03/29/2007 @ 10:06pm
I'M...you're a pip...hehe-
Mask-All you have to do is list the countries that have socialized medicine where bureaucrats are killing Grandma and your point is made,otherwise you have no point.
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/29/2007 @ 2:10pm
Then I provide an example and you say..."So what?"
Again, I think I could say "The Sun came up in the East" and show you pictures of it coming up over the Atlantic and a compass....and you'd debate that "Everybody doesn't agree that THAT is 'east'!!!"
LOL!
Posted by Mask at 03/30/2007 @ 07:24am
Euthanasia is not an automatic with socialized medicine.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/29/2007 @ 3:37pm
No, not "automatic"...but "possible", right?
Posted by Mask at 03/30/2007 @ 07:24am
I am a proud protectionist. I want to restore America to a manufacturing place again. I believe in tariffs. The U.S. government used to rely on tariffs for a major source of revenue. The problem is too many Democrats in Congress have sold out to the transnational corporations( meaning the Demo leadership). I say protect U.S. jobs. I am willing to pay more for products NOT made in China.
Posted by philbq at 03/30/2007 @ 09:07am
Mask-You didn't provide an example of bureaucrats killing Grandma.You mentioned something that many Americans are trying to legalize under our system.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/30/2007 @ 09:15am
You mentioned something that many Americans are trying to legalize under our system.
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/30/2007 @ 09:15am
many Americans are trying to legalize this? "The doctors who help set Dutch euthanasia policies are aware that euthanasia is basically out of control in the Netherlands."?!?!?!
Posted by Mask at 03/30/2007 @ 10:27am
I am willing to pay more for products NOT made in China.
Posted by PHILBQ 03/30/2007 @ 09:07am
PHIL, do a little experiment. Take a Saturday and spend it at a card table in front of your local Wal-mart with a sign saying "Petition to impose tariffs and raise prices at Wal-mart....We need $15 a pack underwear and $90 plushy Spiderman toys to save American jobs"....
and see how many of the shoppers sign up.
Posted by Mask at 03/30/2007 @ 10:31am
It's nice to see the whole "free trade is good" mantra finally starting its death sprial (given the fact that the WSJ is begining to have doubts I think we can say the death spiral has indeed begun). Years ago, when I was a graduate student in economics, I challenged my fellow economists to tell me what country in the world that is considered "wealthy" or "well-off" developed their economies through free trade. Nobody could really come up with an answer. The fact is the wealthy countries like the US, UK, Japan, etc. actually had high protective tariffs while they developed. It was only after they were well off that they started to practice "free trade" in order to make it easier for their elites to move capital to cheaper labor locations and ease the re-importation of finished goods back to the mother country and also make it easier to extract natural resources from the underdeveloped countries and import them into the developed ones. The record of "free trade" speaks for itself. All I can say it that "I TOLD YOU SO". With the WSJ it's better late than never.
Posted by lams712 at 03/30/2007 @ 11:20am
Mask-Oregon voted in favor of assisted suicide and other states have had enough support to get it on their ballots.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/30/2007 @ 12:44pm
"Logical analysis would lead one to conclude that "free trade" without restrictions was going to end up benefiting emerging growth countries at the eventual expense of US."
Logical analysis may lead to one conclusion, but the beauty of an evidentiary analysis, an ability lacking among the right wing, is that the logical analysis is wrong because emerging countries are also taking it in the neck. The only beneficiaries are the stockholders and management honchos of multinational corporations. You can argue that China is benefitting, but the majority of Chinese workers would beg to disagree. They don't like being forced to work under slavelike conditions anymore than workers anywhere else. Other emerging countries are also being damaged, particularly Latin America, which accounts for much of the undocumented US immigration. I would bet that countries in other parts of the world are suffering as much as Mexico and Central America, but aren't migrating to the US because it is more difficult to cross the Atlantic or Pacific than el Rio Bravo.
Posted by danmiller at 03/30/2007 @ 11:19pm