Werthless wrote:

dajafi wrote:Now the Republicans have to start finding ways to resolve their big glaring contradiction: a seemingly bottomless appetite for use of force abroad and moral compulsion at home, especially but not exclusively around sex, coupled with an absolute hands-off view toward the economy and contempt for redistributive social welfare in almost all its forms. This set of positions makes no sense, and doesn't appeal to anyone but the true believers. It also tees up wrenching contradictions like the one I once posed to Vox: when you go totally laissez-faire on the economy, middle- and low-skilled workers get squeezed the hardest, and that in turn puts unbearable pressures on their families--so you have more divorce, more unwanted pregnancies (and abortions), more crime. It's pretty much impossible to have 1950s family values without 1950s economic policies.

I really liked your post, and agreed with almost all of it. But I strongly disagree with what you put in bold. Now, I know that it's probably just your opinion, but it is often presented as fact by political commentators. Economic freedoms are strongly correlated with large growth rates in GDP, and changes in economic freedom are even greater predictors of growth rates.

Now, what you're talking about has to do with inequality, which is a slightly different issue. Republicans generally concern themselves with growing the economic pie. Democrats generally concern themselves with how the pie is distributed, and don't worry too much about how fast the pie is growing, as long as it's getting bigger. This explains many (but not all, obviously) policy differences. Free trade (R issue) vs. fair trade or protectionism (D), lower taxes (R) vs. higher taxes (D), less welfare (R) vs. more welfare (D), environmentalism as a cost/benefit analysis (R) vs. conservation at all costs (D), etc. I'm obviously exaggerating the differences between R and D, but I did that because their actual policy differences are sometimes laughably similar.

Do you have some information on crime rates or divorce rates that have to do with the amount of government regulations, to back up your claim that raising government regulations lowers the crime and divorce rate? You might say "that's not what I meant," but when you claim that laissez-faire policies lead to high crime and divorce, that leads me to believe that the opposite of laissez-faire (ie. government regulation) has the opposite effect.

dajafi wrote:

Werthless wrote:

dajafi wrote:Now the Republicans have to start finding ways to resolve their big glaring contradiction: a seemingly bottomless appetite for use of force abroad and moral compulsion at home, especially but not exclusively around sex, coupled with an absolute hands-off view toward the economy and contempt for redistributive social welfare in almost all its forms. This set of positions makes no sense, and doesn't appeal to anyone but the true believers. It also tees up wrenching contradictions like the one I once posed to Vox: when you go totally laissez-faire on the economy, middle- and low-skilled workers get squeezed the hardest, and that in turn puts unbearable pressures on their families--so you have more divorce, more unwanted pregnancies (and abortions), more crime. It's pretty much impossible to have 1950s family values without 1950s economic policies.

I really liked your post, and agreed with almost all of it. But I strongly disagree with what you put in bold. Now, I know that it's probably just your opinion, but it is often presented as fact by political commentators. Economic freedoms are strongly correlated with large growth rates in GDP, and changes in economic freedom are even greater predictors of growth rates.

Now, what you're talking about has to do with inequality, which is a slightly different issue. Republicans generally concern themselves with growing the economic pie. Democrats generally concern themselves with how the pie is distributed, and don't worry too much about how fast the pie is growing, as long as it's getting bigger. This explains many (but not all, obviously) policy differences. Free trade (R issue) vs. fair trade or protectionism (D), lower taxes (R) vs. higher taxes (D), less welfare (R) vs. more welfare (D), environmentalism as a cost/benefit analysis (R) vs. conservation at all costs (D), etc. I'm obviously exaggerating the differences between R and D, but I did that because their actual policy differences are sometimes laughably similar.

Do you have some information on crime rates or divorce rates that have to do with the amount of government regulations, to back up your claim that raising government regulations lowers the crime and divorce rate? You might say "that's not what I meant," but when you claim that laissez-faire policies lead to high crime and divorce, that leads me to believe that the opposite of laissez-faire (ie. government regulation) has the opposite effect.

Yes, I'm talking about inequality. Given the characteristic distortions and blase yet obnoxious tone of your post, it's probably best to leave it at that.

dajafi wrote:

Werthless wrote:I really liked your post, and agreed with almost all of it. But I strongly disagree with what you put in bold. Now, I know that it's probably just your opinion, but it is often presented as fact by political commentators. Economic freedoms are strongly correlated with large growth rates in GDP, and changes in economic freedom are even greater predictors of growth rates.

Now, what you're talking about has to do with inequality, which is a slightly different issue. Republicans generally concern themselves with growing the economic pie. Democrats generally concern themselves with how the pie is distributed, and don't worry too much about how fast the pie is growing, as long as it's getting bigger. This explains many (but not all, obviously) policy differences. Free trade (R issue) vs. fair trade or protectionism (D), lower taxes (R) vs. higher taxes (D), less welfare (R) vs. more welfare (D), environmentalism as a cost/benefit analysis (R) vs. conservation at all costs (D), etc. I'm obviously exaggerating the differences between R and D, but I did that because their actual policy differences are sometimes laughably similar.

Do you have some information on crime rates or divorce rates that have to do with the amount of government regulations, to back up your claim that raising government regulations lowers the crime and divorce rate? You might say "that's not what I meant," but when you claim that laissez-faire policies lead to high crime and divorce, that leads me to believe that the opposite of laissez-faire (ie. government regulation) has the opposite effect.

Yes, I'm talking about inequality. Given the characteristic distortions and blase yet obnoxious tone of your post, it's probably best to leave it at that.

FTN wrote:Has this "Buy American" clause been discussed here?

What a train wreck of an idea.

Shot:

Obama: "My children's school was canceled today, because of what? Some ice," he said, according to the pool report. "As my children pointed out, in Chicago school is never canceled."

"When it comes to the weather, folks in Washington don't seem to be able to handle things."

(ed note: He's completely correct about that.)

Chaser:

The capital flew into a bit of a tizzy when, on his first full day in the White House, President Obama was photographed in the Oval Office without his suit jacket. There was, however, a logical explanation: Mr. Obama, who hates the cold, had cranked up the thermostat.

“He’s from Hawaii, O.K.?” said Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, who occupies the small but strategically located office next door to his boss. “He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there.”

FTN wrote:Has this "Buy American" clause been discussed here?

What a train wreck of an idea.

jerseyhoya wrote:So Daschle butchered his taxes too?

Maybe Obama's cabinet will start championing the flat tax.

dajafi wrote:Sen. Gregg of New Hampshire is likely to be nominated as the next Secretary of Commerce. He'd be the third Republican in Obama's candidate.

New Hampshire's governor is a Democrat, so in theory Gregg's replacement plus Franken would get the Democrats to 60. But it sounds like Lynch, the NH governor, might appoint a Republican to fill out Gregg's term. Nate Silver points out here and here that this probably isn't a huge deal either way; myself, I sort of hope he does, particularly if it's Rudman or the woman Nate writes about in the second link.

jerseyhoya wrote:I like Judd Gregg a lot, and it's going to piss me off a whole lot if he takes Commerce. He's way too young to bail on the Senate. I guess he wants to go make money or something in a few years.

dajafi wrote:Okay, I'm convinced: Tom Daschle's a scumbag

dajafi wrote:Okay, I'm convinced: Tom Daschle's a scumbag