1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice

Politics What did Romney and the GOP do wrong?

Discussion in 'Tilted Philosophy, Politics, and Economics' started by ASU2003, Nov 7, 2012.

  1. Joniemack

    Joniemack Beta brainwaves in session

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    If you're only considering yourself - be it for greed, defiance, sport, whatever, and do not consider the wider consequences of your actions, you are selfish. Sorry, but that's the deal. You despise the notion of being controlled yet you drink out of the same tainted well that would exploit you in a heartbeat. Your rationalizations are novel, at least.
     
  2. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    We are not in sync. Here is a brief synopsis of the context from my point of view.

    We exist in a hybrid socio-economic system that is neither true free market nor true centrally controlled. Our system has evolved in a manner to control the masses - control is held by those with economic and political power. These people seek to maintain their power. In order to maintain this power they use things like decption to give the masses the illusion of such things as freedom. In our system people have become more or less domesticated.

    The thing about domestication, for example a cow has no self-realization of being domesticated. There is the sense of security and well-being, even the perception of a certain freedom. I think we have a system that has managed to strike the balance needed to perpetuate domestication in people. I think some people have a sense that they are domesticated, I think roach fits into this category of knowing but is unwilling to risk doing anything about it. I fit into this category, but I rebel against it - I fight for real freedom, real choice, real control - but I do it within the system. The game is rigged, I know it is. My motivations have nothing to do with being selfish.
    --- merged: Jan 4, 2013 at 11:43 AM ---

    First, I don't believe there is a one dimensional continuum from true free market principles and communism. I think communism adds a political dimension and that the one dimensional connection would be more in line with centralized market control. Your assumption about my post does not reflect how I see the issue at all.

    Second, if there is a continuum linking one one side free market principles and on the other communism on the other, I think there would be a virtual infinite number of points in between the two that could make on neither a true free market supporter or a true communist. No person I know is a true free market supporter, anyone who says they are, are either wrong or are attempting to deceive. This would include Obama. When a politician touts their free market beliefs it is normally under a circumstance where they are promoting a political agenda - Obama does it more frequently and is more blatant about it than most.

    Third, it is not possible to be a functioning communist in the American socio-economic system - at best all you can do is say you have communist views. Perhaps you can get a membership or a decoder ring. I have no knowledge of Obama having such a ring.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 11, 2013
  3. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    This response is encouraging, and I agree with a lot of it. I suppose my problem was that your initial point was vague. It's true that Obama isn't a champion of free markets, but neither should he be. America is a mixed economy and for good reason. America's markets are regulated and for good reason. America has tariffs and quotas and for good reason. The list goes on. This isn't a question of free markets vs. regulation/intervention. It's a question of balanced and smart regulation/intervention.

    That said, I can see why a) people complain about Obama's positions, and b) why he won so much of the vote. Despite claims Obama is "anti-business" and despite complaints of "Obamacare," Obama was the best choice for president, and Obama's platform for this second term is likely the better choice as well. Why? The Republican alternatives are untrustworthy. The Republicans (including Romney during the campaign) go on about tax cuts and spending cuts and how this is the only thing that will get America back on track. The problem? Their math doesn't add up. Economists and many among the financial community alike have no idea how Republicans hope to achieve their goals. This, I think, was why Romney lost by the margin he did. They couldn't trust what he was saying. Not only did he keep changing views, he couldn't explain how the math added up.

    Obama? He had a track record. Even finance folks reluctantly admit that Obama deserves credit for helping avoid financial ruin during the recession. I think it's a tough argument to make to suggest Obama didn't do a passable job weathering the crisis. That is the legacy of his first term. His second term will test his ability to foster a recovery whilst tackling a deficit.

    All things considered, Obama was the right choice for the job. What he wants you to believe about the free market doesn't really matter that much.

    I think roachboy is right in terms of the failure of neoliberal policies. Americans have a lot to learn from what happened leading up to 2008. I don't think a lack of free market principles is the problem.
     
  4. Joniemack

    Joniemack Beta brainwaves in session

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    First of all, there is not much an individual can risk or do that will have an impact on the status quo. Whatever it is you think you're risking or doing will not impact anyone but yourself, Ace. Whatever risks you, me, roachboy or others might take is irrelevant. We live by our own principles and either choose to be part of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" crowd or not.

    I don't view you as a rebel fighting for anything, Ace. I see you more as an opportunist who, when the farmer has the field plowed and seeded, you are perfectly okay with taking as many seeds off the topsoil as your hands and pockets will hold. You rationalize that they would have blown or washed away anyway. Never mind the fact that the birds might count on them as a food source. Tough luck birds, Ace has worked the system and got his.

    Why are you talking communism? Look around. Just as there are no free market economies, there are no communist economies with the exception of Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos who are all moving in the same direction China has. And it is possible to be a socialist in the US economic system. There's a strong vein of socialism in US govt. policy. It expands and contracts in response to social need and the influence of whatever political party is in control but you would have to go back before FDR was in office to find less a less socialized US government. Socialism in America is in the mix. It's relevance and stability is borne out every time some asshole Tea Party type threatens Social Security.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2013
  5. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    I am not going to concede this point. I believe you made wild assumptions.

    He (and now you) has never been specific about these alleged failures. Perhaps everything is working exactly the way it is intended - so in addition, from what point of view are you folks defining failure?
     
  6. roachboy

    roachboy Very Tilted

    o bullshit ace.

    we've rehearsed again and again the problems created by the deregulation of the financial sector, the relaxation of older rules on mortgage creation, the refusal of greenspan etal to even require that the derivatives trade have a central clearinghouse/market, the result of all this in a balance-sheet recession, a type that is, historically, not responsive to monetarist solutions---which is all the neo-liberalism has to offer. there's been abundant documentation posted over the past couple years about all of it.

    there has been post after post about the failure of neo-liberalism not only to live up to its utilitarian justifications.

    it was never a coherent approach to thinking about economic activity at all.
     
  7. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    Not true at all. For example: Education

    In life a child is born. the child is socialized. If deemed worthy the child will get the benefit of higher education or specialized training. If the child is born in the power class (economic or political) they automatically qualify. To be deemed worthy the child has to make sure they jump through the right hoops, they have to "play the game" to perfection - or they won't be able to afford the costs or simply won't get the consideration. The myth of any child being able to do or be whatever they want based on educational opportunity is not real. A child attending a Chicago public school does not have that freedom - it is not in their control - they are a victim of circumstance. I fight the system. I fight for real school choice. I fight for real freedom for all children. This fight has no direct benefit to me or my son. You fight for the status-quo in the system further restricting freedom. I think that is selfish, why don't you want children to have real opportunity, real choice, real freedom?
    --- merged: Jan 4, 2013 at 2:52 PM ---
    I see. You are under the delusion that there was deregulation. The deregulation deception. How can you conclude the financial sector was deregulated. In fact big banks and big government got exactly what the wanted - there was no system failure. there are fewer banks today than yesterday, with more economic and political power - competition has been restricted. Consumers have less choice, less freedom in the market.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 11, 2013
  8. roachboy

    roachboy Very Tilted

    ace, there are so many problems with this latest, laughable attempt from you to protect your absurd metaphysical system from reality that i would have trouble knowing where to start. you have retreated into a private little world. it has almost no relationship to the empirical world that other people know about.

    i do of course see what you'd prefer others to believe: that according to some arbitrary markety-market standard that only you and maybe a couple other sad little metaphysicians like you know about, there was no deregulation of the financial sector, there were no problems of the derivatives trade, and the outcomes were ordained from the beginning.

    funny stuff. not even worth discussion.
     
  9. Alistair Eurotrash

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    I'm delighted to hear it, and pleasantly surprised. So, to clarify, you would be in favour of raising taxes from those who can afford it to fund further education for those who can't afford it? Me too.
     
  10. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    I guess you talk in terms of failure but for those who control economic and political power, there was no failure. Making matters worse is the financial markets changed materially and most don't know and don't care - so how can you say the system failed them? I clearly see how it has failed me - I have less choice, I know it and I don't like it and I will work to alter these conditions. I have a goal, you don't.
     
  11. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    By deregulation, we mean "the process or removing or reducing government regulations," not "the absence of government regulations," which may be referred to as anarcho-capitalism.
     
  12. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    I will never favor waste and inefficiency. I think some school systems, in terms of cost per student, the costs are too high and the results are too poor, worse children/parents have no choice. I prefer lower costs per student with strong results and making sure children/parents have real choice. Not choice simply in terms of school vouchers, but choice in making sure the education received matches the needs of each individual child - in the US more and more schools are about singular methods for everyone. Even in terms of school lunches, it is becoming a joke because teenage boys are close to revolt because the offerings do not satisfy their hunger - all because some skinny bureaucrat somewhere in Washington thinks she knows best, regarding what an active teenage boy needs to eat. Again, freedoms being restricted. Our system is broken in this context.
    --- merged: Jan 4, 2013 at 4:21 PM ---
    If we say a speed limit is a regulation, and it is currently set at 65 and we increase it to 70 - have we deregulated? I would say no. We changed the regulation. If we increase the limit to 70 and we add that every car must achieve 30 mpg - I say we increased regulation. Regulations in the financial sector have been increasing over time. Many argue the mortgage crisis was the result of regulations that forced banks to lend to high risk individuals - an increase in regulation.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 11, 2013
  13. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    Let's leave traffic out of this.

    We're talking about things like repealing parts of Glass-Steagall and other acts before that, giving banks more freedom in how they conduct their business.

    Though some of the blame can be pinned on certain regulatory rules, I think what you're pointing out was actually only a minor factor. There were far more significant factors that pushed housing to the brink. Consider predatory lending, existing easy credit conditions (unlike those in Canada, btw), and speculation. Pile on top of that the other aspects of the financial crisis, and suddenly this story isn't about regulation, unless you consider this: existing regulatory frameworks failed to keep up with the changes in the financial industry.

    The problem wasn't too much regulation, as you might suggest. If regulation was a factor, the problem was a lack of it.
     
  14. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    Ironic to say the least...
    No matter what side of the aisle you sit on...or what context you originally took the statement, it stuck like glue.