| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| An Agenda in Shambles ...The ‘New Foundation' collapses. |
| 2010-01-31 |
| Posted by:Chomoth Cloluse7787 |
| #12 Cat, I don't think I'm being alarmist in pointing out aspects of right-of-center politics that I find problematic. The rest of my original comment stated that proper economic regulation was "a fine and often shifting balance." If that balance was easy to find and execute, we wouldn't have much need for this discussion. That said, I think we have more beliefs in common than you might suspect - your comments on the evil and destructive philosophical influences driving Obama and his administration are spot on. |
| Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2010-01-31 19:14 |
| #11 Ricky the bit you cite from Rand does not support the alarmism in which you're engaging. That quote includes the concept of a "state" which implies regulation as what the heck else is the function of the state? I'm not a student of Rand's philosophy but I don't recall her calling for the abolition of all laws & government and I do very much recall her stating that she did NOT set forth her philosophy in Atlas Shrugged as a model to be implemented. It is, as you noted merely a philosophical ideal. That some Republicans would hold that ideal as one from which they might draw ideas is not at all alarming to me; particularly given that even our very imperfect implementation of the laissez-faire capitalism Rand so passionately defends once made us the freest and wealthiest nation our world has ever known. There exist infinitely more alarming philosophies from which those governing us draw their ideals. Consider, for example, Frank Marshall Davis a self-described "friend" and "mentor" of our current President who while such was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA. That our President may have been heavily influenced by Marxist philosophy is far more alarming to me given that such has brought misery, poverty, genocide, repression & collapse wherever it has greatly influenced events. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2010-01-31 18:27 |
| #10 So AH9418 is part of the solution. I can tell because he has nothing to say. Perhaps the Won is visiting the 'burg. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2010-01-31 17:26 |
| #9 Seriously, is there such a thing as a no-regulation Republican? I've encountered none & heard of none of any consequence. AzCat's certainly right in that there are few Republican legislators who believe that a true zero-regs environment is practically possible. But it's not a lefty canard to state that there are some on our side of the aisle who believe in zero-regs as at least a philosophical ideal: "When I say 'capitalism,' I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church." - Ayn Rand |
| Posted by: RIcky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2010-01-31 17:25 |
| #8 #6, #7, you guys are part of the problem. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-01-31 17:17 |
| #7 I may not be a Republican, but I have a hard time thinking of any regulation or regulatory agency I would retain. Regulators are inevitably captured by the industries they are intended to regulate and become mechanisms to erect barriers to entry and reduce competition to the detriment of everyone and the benefit of the few "regulated" enterprises and the regulators and legislators they reward with lucrative post-government employment and campaign contributions. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2010-01-31 16:54 |
| #6 The Republicans need to purge themselves of the idea that real capitalism requires a zero-regulations environment. Methinks that occured, in spades, a century or so ago. Seriously, is there such a thing as a no-regulation Republican? I've encountered none & heard of none of any consequence. Laws ar epassed by the hundred, regulations by the thousands and the federal register grows by many tens of thousands of pages each and every year no matter which party is in power. The mistaken notion that Republicans favor "no regulation" is a lefty canard & straw-man that's too oft-repeated across the entire political spectrum; there is not the slightest grain of reality there. That said, zero regulation would very likely lead, at least for a while, to a far healthier economy than we have today. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2010-01-31 16:38 |
| #5 Thank you Ricky. The problem with our regulatory environment is that there is a nexus between each pair of regulations, 2 regs one nexus, 4 regs 6, and so on. Each nexus is a potential loophole or special interest pressure point. When you have a virtual infinity of regulations you have an infinity of opportunities for corruption and incompetence. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2010-01-31 15:44 |
| #4 Regulations should be there to enforce openness & honesty. Capitalism thrives on a free flow of true information. We get a stagnant swamp of lies, distortions and half truths instead. That isn't capitalism. Dittos re what Alan said. The Republicans need to purge themselves of the idea that real capitalism requires a zero-regulations environment. There's a fine and often shifting balance: too much regulation, and only the big players can afford to meet the regulatory burden and remain profitable. Too little, and the biggies run amok, forming cartels and crushing smaller competitors. Uncle Sam shouldn't be the economy's quarterback, but it's absolutely necessary to have him as a referee. |
| Posted by: RIcky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2010-01-31 15:22 |
| #3 “Democrats blame the president’s troubles solely on unemployment—get more people working, they say, and his agenda would pass.” In other words: “Our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. ” |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2010-01-31 12:00 |
| #2 One of the things in this article high-lights a particular pet peeve of mine. You always hear the pundits and pols, particularly the left, scream that it is "unregulated" capitalism and "we need more regulations" are the problems. When the problem is that the crony part of crony capitalism has insured that the sensible regulations WERE NEVER ENFORCED! Can they honestly say that Govt Sachs, Citi Inc., Fannie & Freddie were following the rules? Government should be the watchdog that has a few Very Large, Sharp teeth. Instead we have a mass of chichuahuas that have little tiny teeth that have been all filed down. Let's pick the top 5 issues that need watching and watch them. Regulations should be there to enforce openness & honesty. Capitalism thrives on a free flow of true information. We get a stagnant swamp of lies, distortions and half truths instead. That isn't capitalism. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2010-01-31 11:32 |
| #1 It is remarkable just how out of step the White House became. "Remarkable" to some perhaps. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-01-31 11:15 |