I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 14:40:50

All these people going on about the founding fathers as if they were Hayekian free marketers should realize that the dominant economic theory of the day was mercantilism, and Alexander Hamilton was a leading proponent. Lots of government involvement in the economy, primarily through the use of tariffs that would encourage the development of a domestic manufacturing base and discourage imports. Agricultural interests tended to oppose this,but they really weren't then (and of course still aren't now) free marketers.

Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations came out in 1776, but it did not instantly win many converts. They certainly would not have equate freedom with free markets the way so many of today's sophists do.

by **Barry Jive** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 15:18:20

The Dude wrote:if people like their job it's not bad for them. you just keep making blanket statements about the irish and people who work

by **Werthless** » Thu Jul 05, 2012 14:00:33

TenuredVulture wrote:All these people going on about the founding fathers as if they were Hayekian free marketers should realize that the dominant economic theory of the day was mercantilism, and Alexander Hamilton was a leading proponent. Lots of government involvement in the economy, primarily through the use of tariffs that would encourage the development of a domestic manufacturing base and discourage imports. Agricultural interests tended to oppose this,but they really weren't then (and of course still aren't now) free marketers.

Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations came out in 1776, but it did not instantly win many converts. They certainly would not have equate freedom with free markets the way so many of today's sophists do.

And these taxes brought in revenue of less than 3% of GDP. Let's not pretend that because they didnt understand the not-yet-discovered theories of comparative advantage that they were not free marketers who believed in minimal federal authority.

Or, we can look at the string of Federalist Presidents as evidence of their widespread popularity.

by **td11** » Thu Jul 05, 2012 17:29:23

Bucky wrote:
Houshphandzadeh wrote:won't Mitt go back to liking this plan if he gets elected?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski ... -exchanges

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... atism.html

"When they show up at the hospital, they get care, they get free care, paid for by you and me. If that's not a form of socialism, I don't know what is. So my plan did something quite different. It said, you know what, if people can afford to buy insurance, if they can afford to buy insurance, or if they can pay their own way, then they either buy that insurance or pay their own way, but they no longer look to government to hand out free care. And that, in my opinion, is ultimate conservatism. That's why the Heritage Foundation worked with us and was at the celebration of the signing. The Heritage Foundation, as you know, a quintessentially conservative group, recognized that the principles of free enterprise and personal responsibility were at work. And I'm proud to talk about what we did. We did not need to raise taxes. We did not need to have the government take over health care. Instead, we rely on private market dynamics to get people in our state insured and for individuals to finally take responsibility for some portion of their health care rather than expecting government to give them a free ride."

by **drsmooth** » Thu Jul 05, 2012 18:14:15

Werthless wrote: Let's not pretend that because they didnt understand the not-yet-discovered theories of comparative advantage that they were not free marketers who believed in minimal federal authority.

Werthless wrote:Let's not pretend that because they didnt understand the not-yet-discovered theories of comparative advantage that they were not free marketers who believed in minimal federal authority.

Or, we can look at the string of Federalist Presidents as evidence of their widespread popularity.

smh

So persuade us what we should pretend, and none of your fancy-schmancy triple-negative with reverse-twisting not-yet-discovereds thrown in. Slavery was pretty popular among the anti-Federalists - the Democratic-Republicans. Maybe it's more complicated than what concepts were popular amongst which groups.

by **Werthless** » Fri Jul 06, 2012 09:20:31

So persuade us what we should pretend, and none of your fancy-schmancy triple-negative with reverse-twisting not-yet-discovereds thrown in. Slavery was pretty popular among the anti-Federalists - the Democratic-Republicans. Maybe it's more complicated than what concepts were popular amongst which groups.

I think I was clear; their support of mercantilism over free trade isn't necessarily reflective of what they would support today, just like their slave ownership wouldn't necessarily mean they'd all be part of the KKK if they were transported to today. If we wish to play the silly/fruitless game "What would the founders likely support," we should look at the principles they codified into law and into our government structures, and how they compare to the standards of the time.

I cant wait for TV to tell me that would have been against TARP because he overturned the money tables in the temple, or that Aristotle would support Intelligent Design today just because he believed that intellectual purposes guided natural processes.

by **drsmooth** » Fri Jul 06, 2012 10:10:55

Werthless wrote:... we should look at the principles they codified into law and into our government structures, and how they compare to the standards of the time....

If I understand you, your process will help us understand what was going on in minds, in their time, rather than whether they could in any fashion be described as free markets adherents we might recognize today.

by **dajafi** » Fri Jul 06, 2012 10:11:18

Werthless wrote:
If we wish to play the silly/fruitless game "What would the founders likely support," we should look at the principles they codified into law and into our government structures, and how they compare to the standards of the time.

It's uncanny how often this leads to the conclusion that the Founders would have supported precisely what the present speaker/writer happens to believe. (This is a general comment, not necessarily an indictment of Werthless; I've done this too...)

Silly/fruitless are good descriptors, though I'd add disingenuous and (unfortunately) irresistible.

by **dajafi** » Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:48:48

The internet helps Mitt Romney with Venn diagrams

by **traderdave** » Fri Jul 06, 2012 12:23:36

dajafi wrote:The internet helps Mitt Romney with Venn diagrams

Good stuff. The good news for the Romney campaign is that 90% of the population, and maybe 99% of likely voters, have never even heard of a Venn Diagram, let alone know the campaign is screwing them up.

by **Werthless** » Fri Jul 06, 2012 12:28:54

dajafi wrote:
Werthless wrote:
If we wish to play the silly/fruitless game "What would the founders likely support," we should look at the principles they codified into law and into our government structures, and how they compare to the standards of the time.

It's uncanny how often this leads to the conclusion that the Founders would have supported precisely what the present speaker/writer happens to believe. (This is a general comment, not necessarily an indictment of Werthless; I've done this too...)

Silly/fruitless are good descriptors, though I'd add disingenuous and (unfortunately) irresistible.

Yup, but unfortunately, it can be like a siren call.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Fri Jul 06, 2012 12:44:17

dajafi wrote:The internet helps Mitt Romney with Venn diagrams

Wait, Mittens has a car elevator like Batman? Holy shit, HE REALLY DOES!

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Jul 06, 2012 15:51:03

Third straight crappy jobs report. Whatever momentum there was in a labor market recovery appears to have died.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Jul 06, 2012 16:03:07

Owner of restaurant dies following Obama visit - If more Obama supporters die after meeting him, Romney's electoral college path should get easier

by **TenuredVulture** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 00:14:41

Werthless wrote:
dajafi wrote:
Werthless wrote:
If we wish to play the silly/fruitless game "What would the founders likely support," we should look at the principles they codified into law and into our government structures, and how they compare to the standards of the time.

It's uncanny how often this leads to the conclusion that the Founders would have supported precisely what the present speaker/writer happens to believe. (This is a general comment, not necessarily an indictment of Werthless; I've done this too...)

Silly/fruitless are good descriptors, though I'd add disingenuous and (unfortunately) irresistible.

Yup, but unfortunately, it can be like a siren call.

Actually, you know, the point of my original post wasn't to support anything--it was more a complaint about people going on about the Founders shaking their heads at the Supreme Court Decisions upholding Obamacare. In fact, I believe that you simply can't translate 18th c. political views to the 21st century, and you shouldn't try. I mean, I spent a good part of my professional life studying 17th and 18th century views on religious liberty and toleration. And yet, I cannot tell you with any great confidence how Madison would have responded to contemporary debates regarding church and state issues. The context is just entirely different. When the First Amendment passed, nearly everyone in the colonies was Protestant, with a smattering of Catholics, a tiny number of Jews and "miscellaneous." There weren't even really any evangelicals yet--that wouldn't come until the second great awakening.

by **drsmooth** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 10:24:42

In a year when a SF Giant has the most hits in ML baseball - and his name is Melky Cabrera; when the game's winningest pitcher throws a knuckleball; when a team with one of the game's priciest starting pitching can't pitch for crap - this lurid story illustrating how everything you imagine about how the world works - whether in the 'society' of high-stakes baseball or the society of high-stakes politics - is probably wrong, or at least leaves out a lot of useful eccentric detail, could not be more timely:

The Worst Marriage in Georgetown

by **Wheels Tupay** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 18:01:07

by **Swiggers** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 18:01:13

That thing drsmooth posted was a crazy read. Gives credence to the belief that Washington "elites" are a lot dumber than they'd have us believe.

by **drsmooth** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 23:52:04

Swiggers wrote:That thing drsmooth posted was a crazy read. Gives credence to the belief that Washington "elites" are a lot dumber than they'd have us believe.

Maybe just more human?

Glad you liked the story. Thing is, I doubt tales like that are as unusual as they are unspoken of, or merely undocumented.

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Jul 12, 2012 02:10:08

Romney should announce his VP pick next week. This shit is getting boring.

Personal preference ranking: Christie, Ryan, Jindal, Portman, Rubio, Pawlenty, Ayotte, Thune

Archived

I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread