Yes we can !!!

[Wolter]

I'm proud of my home state of Virginia going to Obama.

I'm not so proud of my current state of California passing a proposition banning gay marriage.

I am so upset about that. I really don't get it...who are we to deny gay men the joy of registering for wedding gifts? Seriously though, it's sickening. I had a bit of an argument with my nana, who is a card-carrying socialist and mother of a gay man, btw, about gay marriage. She is dead-set against it, and when I asked her why, she said because marriage should be for procreation. So I said, well, then we should ban marriage for people over 50, infertile couples or people who just don't want kids. She still doesn't approve -- I guess it's a generational thing.

I know it sounds cliche, but I am very proud of my country right now.

I didn't realize that passed. Shit.

You and Ali are practically the same person, by the way.

[JennyB]

I'm proud of my home state of Virginia going to Obama.

I'm not so proud of my current state of California passing a proposition banning gay marriage.

I am so upset about that. I really don't get it...who are we to deny gay men the joy of registering for wedding gifts? Seriously though, it's sickening. I had a bit of an argument with my nana, who is a card-carrying socialist and mother of a gay man, btw, about gay marriage. She is dead-set against it, and when I asked her why, she said because marriage should be for procreation. So I said, well, then we should ban marriage for people over 50, infertile couples or people who just don't want kids. She still doesn't approve -- I guess it's a generational thing.

I know it sounds cliche, but I am very proud of my country right now.

I didn't realize that passed. Shit.

You and Ali are practically the same person, by the way.

Yeah, I've kind of sensed that over these past couple of years. If we meet one day, there may be a rip in the fabric of space-time continuum.

[Dr. Medulla]

It all goes back to Reagan, with his "get govt out of the way" and "govt is inefficient." Now, if you have the perspective, and supposedly that was one of the pillars of the modern GOP, are you inclined to prove that govt can be efficient, that it should be involved because it does things well? The kinds of people winning GOP primaries and then being elected are those who don't think govt works. It's just not in their nature to either try to fix govt (i.e., make it work) or to work to the best of their abilities to make govt work well.

I'm just not getting your rationale here--if you're for small gov't, you're going to work to make it smaller, not bigger.

Okay, to cherry pick a point ...I think he means that by cutting the size and budget of certain government agencies, they are instantly rendered ineffective. Which they then use to point out as an example of how government doesn't work.

Yup, that's what I meant. The Grover Norquist view that you can starve govt into irrelevance. The GOP went about things in a roundabout way, seeking to avoid blame for reduced services. Instead of just killing programs that people want, they made them more and more inefficient, allowing the public to think, "Damn, the Republicans are right—it doesn't work." Which "justifies" further erosions. Saw a documentary about ten years ago about how GM led a campaign to destroy public transportation in US cities to increase car ownership. The plan, basically, was to buy up bus and train companies thru other corps, then reduce routes and increase fares, thereby making automobile ownership more sensible. It's all about rigging the game.

Keep in mind they're really big into legislating morality, which is a rather anti-conservative idea more in common with liberals/progressives.

That's all part of the contradictory mix in the now-dead Republican coalition. Neither the Big Business wing, and certainly not the libertarian wing, were interested in that. That part if all the crazy movement conservatives.

[eumaas]

It all goes back to Reagan, with his "get govt out of the way" and "govt is inefficient." Now, if you have the perspective, and supposedly that was one of the pillars of the modern GOP, are you inclined to prove that govt can be efficient, that it should be involved because it does things well? The kinds of people winning GOP primaries and then being elected are those who don't think govt works. It's just not in their nature to either try to fix govt (i.e., make it work) or to work to the best of their abilities to make govt work well.

I'm just not getting your rationale here--if you're for small gov't, you're going to work to make it smaller, not bigger.

Okay, to cherry pick a point ...I think he means that by cutting the size and budget of certain government agencies, they are instantly rendered ineffective. Which they then use to point out as an example of how government doesn't work.

Frankly, I'm not a huge fan of a lot of government, but (as I've mentioned in the past) the idea of social democracy is relatively stable, so a lot of these programs can "work" if they are funded and administered properly (and I'm much closer to your politics than Neil's, so you know I'm not talking about my goals or ideals, just feasibility). But a half-supported program that is under the budget gun and faced with hostile oversight is BOUND to fail.

Ah, OK, now that's an explanation that makes sense.

I forget that politicians aren't for small gov't across the board, just small gov't for whatever restricts big biz and big gov't for the military-industrial complex, legislating morality, and whatever other boondoggles...

I'm pro-small gov't, but if you're going to do it, it has to be implemented intelligently--they just hack and slash willy-nilly. Deregulation and privatization are usually statist shams too. That's the thing though--they've always taken the rhetoric of genuine radicals and used it as the cover for the same old bullshit. Ultimately that's why I'll probably vote liberal more often than conservative--while liberal rhetoric and policies usually coincide (broadly speaking), anti-authoritarian conservative rhetoric is usually just cover for some other kind of coercive and rapacious venture.

[Wolter]

Ultimately that's why I'll probably vote liberal more often than conservative--while liberal rhetoric and policies usually coincide (broadly speaking), anti-authoritarian conservative rhetoric is usually just cover for some other kind of coercive and rapacious venture.

This. Again.

[eumaas]

Ultimately that's why I'll probably vote liberal more often than conservative--while liberal rhetoric and policies usually coincide (broadly speaking), anti-authoritarian conservative rhetoric is usually just cover for some other kind of coercive and rapacious venture.

This. Again.

It's basically down to the two farmers again.

[Wolter]

Ultimately that's why I'll probably vote liberal more often than conservative--while liberal rhetoric and policies usually coincide (broadly speaking), anti-authoritarian conservative rhetoric is usually just cover for some other kind of coercive and rapacious venture.

This. Again.

It's basically down to the two farmers again.

If I'm in a pen, I'd at least like a view.

[eumaas]

Ultimately that's why I'll probably vote liberal more often than conservative--while liberal rhetoric and policies usually coincide (broadly speaking), anti-authoritarian conservative rhetoric is usually just cover for some other kind of coercive and rapacious venture.

This. Again.

It's basically down to the two farmers again.

If I'm in a pen, I'd at least like a view.

I had a hard time last night. On the one hand, it was exciting. On the other, there was a mass of people chanting a name. That's unnerving to me.

[Spiff]

I know the "accepted" internet spelling is "chode" but I prefer mine.

Why don't you switch to the other "C" word then?

We all agree on how to spell that one, right?

[eumaas]

the idea of social democracy is relatively stable, so a lot of these programs can "work" if they are funded and administered properly

I'm wondering though about the economics of this... for one thing, you gotta pay for it all. It certainly has worked in other nations, but 1. is size a factor? and 2. is socdem's non-socdem context a factor?

Some economists think the Soviets got around the calculation problem by estimating against the prices (which reflected supply/demand interaction) in market economies, so they have an objective measure--likewise, though socdem is a market system and thus avoids the price calculation issue, does its non-socdem context affect those disincentives for saving, investment, and advancement usually attendant with high taxation? That's one of the things that concerns me about socdem's long term stability. There's also some question as to how much of business cycle regulation comes down to postponement rather than prevention. Of course, all market economies are mixed ones--really existing capitalism has always been statist--but the degree matters. And in the end, none of the services provided are really "free." So the question is, how can it be made sustainable? Is that even possible considering the internal logic of the economy? What distorting effects does state intervention have on knowledge distribution? etc...

[Dr. Medulla]

the idea of social democracy is relatively stable, so a lot of these programs can "work" if they are funded and administered properly

I'm wondering though about the economics of this... for one thing, you gotta pay for it all. It certainly has worked in other nations, but 1. is size a factor? and 2. is socdem's non-socdem context a factor?

Some economists think the Soviets got around the calculation problem by estimating against the prices (which reflected supply/demand interaction) in market economies, so they have an objective measure--likewise, though socdem is a market system and thus avoids the price calculation issue, does its non-socdem context affect those disincentives for saving, investment, and advancement usually attendant with high taxation? That's one of the things that concerns me about socdem's long term stability. There's also some question as to how much of business cycle regulation comes down to postponement rather than prevention. Of course, all market economies are mixed ones--really existing capitalism has always been statist--but the degree matters. And in the end, none of the services provided are really "free." So the question is, how can it be made sustainable? Is that even possible considering the internal logic of the economy? What distorting effects does state intervention have on knowledge distribution? etc...

I'm curious about your notion of stability—or at least what you mean by it. Human beings, being adaptable fucks, can make any system stable if there's a critical mass that is satisfied with the system. So it gets down to expectations of what your life should amount to and whether the economic, political, and social systems are delivering it to enough people. So questions of stability are dependent on the expectations of the citizenry not the actual system employed, no?

[eumaas]

Just posted this other thought on another board:
"I don't think we'll have social-democracy nor will we rein in speculation (which is the best thing we could do) by either (paradoxically) more regulation or total deregulation. The bailout was a signal that the paper economy is A-OK with both parties."

I'm curious about your notion of stability—or at least what you mean by it. Human beings, being adaptable fucks, can make any system stable if there's a critical mass that is satisfied with the system. So it gets down to expectations of what your life should amount to and whether the economic, political, and social systems are delivering it to enough people. So questions of stability are dependent on the expectations of the citizenry not the actual system employed, no?

Stability vis-a-vis other systems. I agree that people can make things work for a time (which is why the USSR lasted as long as it did, although I'll note part of that was the black market economy), but at the same time there are tensions in societies that produce systemic change or even collapse. This is more an economic argument than anything. I'll have to put a disclaimer here that I'm about to make some extreme simplifications here since this isn't a specialist board. OK so as I said, these services need to be paid for. But people behave in relatively predictable ways--if you create disincentives to investment, they're less likely to invest. That in turn means less growth and less overall economic activity which makes it harder to pay for those services and in turn makes the burden of paying for those services harder to bear, and it sort of amplifies from there. Eventually you will end up with rather major pressures to roll back the services and deregulate the market. Like I said, this is just a simple example and just one component of it. The economic sustainability just seems questionable to me since it will tend towards stagnation.

[Wolter]

I had a hard time last night. On the one hand, it was exciting. On the other, there was a mass of people chanting a name. That's unnerving to me.

I understand completely. if it's any consolation, the Republicans looked a lot more like Nuremberg than Grant Park did. There is still a sense of joy and spontaneity in the Obamaniacs. The other side is just bloodthirsty and paranoid.

On the other topic:

Remember, when I talk of stability, it's in the game theory sense where a system falls into a niche where it balances the competing factors that move it to new places on the left/right & liberarian/authoritarian axes.* And it's also taking minor tinkering into account to keep it alive and kicking past it's due date if left alone. Social Democracy seems to be quite stable as long as massive economic or military crises do not occur - as long as the various plates are kept spinning.


* (1) - I mean, of course, small "l" libertarinism. (2) Like some others, I prefer to use a cartesian plane instead of a single line spectrum to explicate political leanings - that way I can draw the distinction between a leftist of the Lenin mold and one more attuned to Kropotkin, and vice versa for the Right. Of course, this is still an oversimplification, but it's certainly better than "left wing = nationalization/right wing = privitization"

[Wolter]

Oh, by the way, I just physically backed into David Axelrod in our lobby while talking to another resident. I managed to spit out an apology (he's clearly packed to travel, and he was taking his wife with him), but...I hope the Obama administration doesn't purge me...

[eumaas]

I understand completely. if it's any consolation, the Republicans looked a lot more like Nuremberg than Grant Park did. There is still a sense of joy and spontaneity in the Obamaniacs. The other side is just bloodthirsty and paranoid.

Oh, yeah. When I see Bushies chanting a name, I fear for our safety and liberty. When I see Obamaniacs chanting, I fear for our wisdom. There's a marked difference.

Remember, when I talk of stability, it's in the game theory sense where a system falls into a niche where it balances the competing factors that move it to new places on the left/right & liberarian/authoritarian axes.* And it's also taking minor tinkering into account to keep it alive and kicking past it's due date if left alone. Social Democracy seems to be quite stable as long as massive economic or military crises do not occur - as long as the various plates are kept spinning.

I agree with this. But I wonder if the underlined portion is reliant on a non-socdem context as I've pondered above.