Democratic Presidential Primaries 2008

[calculoso]

Looking back: How different groups voted
(based on Exit Polls)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/margins.swf

Very interesting conclusions that can be drawn from this tool... too bad we'll never know if the actual voting followed these same trends.

[HelloHockeyFans]

LOL I don't know if any one is watching CNN out there right now, but McCain just quoted Chairman Mao of all people... LOL. Hilarious, 'cause he totally paused after he finished the sentence as if he were shocked at what he just read off the teleprompter...

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Honestly, I don't. The way I understand the Gilded age is that a few people accrued a vast amount of wealth (robber barons), which - while leading to
1. a great discrepancy in classes -

2. was the proverbial tide that raised all boats.

Not meaning any offense, but how can both 1 and 2 be true? It seems to me that they're exactly contradictory, and the widespread problems of the great depression fell mostly on the shoulders of those on the wrong side of that "discrepancy." A fundamentally sound economy has a strong middle class. The middle class was squeezed out of existence during the Gilded Age, and it's probable that this was a major factor in how the ill effects of the depression were distributed.

But more tellingly--the economic policies of the Gilded Age DIDN'T lead to wealth and prosperity, or a rising tide that lifts all boats. They led to economic disaster, a Great Depression that was only ended by the New Deal and the Great War occasioning huge amounts of government spending. Again--the circumstantial evidence is telling a different story here.

Earlier you took me to task for having a more nuanced view of the types of polities that are possible--namely because I refuse to describe a successful social democracy (Sweden) as "socialist." Well, here's why: the twentieth century has left us two examples of failed economic models: one is socialism. The other is unregulated laissez-faire capitalism. I don't think it's that outlandish to be in favor of the free market but also believe that government has a role in regulating it and protecting the poor and weak from penury and destitution.

Generally the laissez-faire argument goes something like this: those who don't succeed under that model either don't exist (a rising tide lifts all boats) or don't deserve to succeed (poverty is a moral failing). That would be nice if it were that simple--but the facts don't support it. Don't kid yourself--the playing field is not equal, and while it is not government's job to guarantee equality, it is up to government to build a polity that means that everyone CAN succeed regardless of the circumstances of their birth.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Not meaning any offense, but how can both 1 and 2 be true? It seems to me that they're exactly contradictory, and the widespread problems of the great depression fell mostly on the shoulders of those on the wrong side of that "discrepancy."

I don't have a firm grasp on American history.

The robber barons are easy to vilify, but would America be better off never having them?

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Generally the laissez-faire argument goes something like this: those who don't succeed under that model either don't exist (a rising tide lifts all boats) or don't deserve to succeed (poverty is a moral failing). That would be nice if it were that simple--but the facts don't support it. Don't kid yourself--the playing field is not equal, and while it is not government's job to guarantee equality, it is up to government to build a polity that means that everyone CAN succeed regardless of the circumstances of their birth.

I disagree with that. The laissez-faire argument that I abide by says that a group is collectively better off with incentive. Some will not succeed, be it by luck, drive, health, and countless other factors, but the more equality is imposed on people the less incentive there is to improve one's condition. Ten selfish hunters will end up with more food than a pack of ten hunters.

Now, I might argue that North America doesn't need to improve our standard of living much further (the hunters have more food than they know what to do with) - but that's still my political ideology.

[badnarik]

The real robber barons were rent-seeking political entrepreneurs who relied on government subsidies, not market entrepreneurs.

Laissez-faire is not compatible with central banking, which along with Herbert Hoover are mostly responsible for the Great Depression. Hoover was an interventionist, and was not in any way laissez-faire.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Ten selfish hunters will end up with more food than a pack of ten hunters.

Wolves hunt in packs. Lions too.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Ten selfish hunters will end up with more food than a pack of ten hunters.

Eh? Groups of hunters are more efficient than single hunters when hunting big game, there sure as hell weren't any lone hunters taking down elephants back in the days of yore. They are also more efficient when hunting herd animals. Your generalization is simply not true.

Certain tasks are better done by individuals. Other tasks are done better by small groups, and still others by big groups. Socialism denies the individual in favor of large groups, and ungoverned capitalism denies the large group in favor of the individual. Neither works well because of their limited understanding of human nature.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by jammies

Eh? Groups of hunters are more efficient than single hunters when hunting big game, there sure as hell weren't any lone hunters taking down elephants back in the days of yore. They are also more efficient when hunting herd animals. Your generalization is simply not true.

Selfish does not equal lone.

[Calgaryborn]

The hungry hunters are by far the most effective.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by jammies

Eh? Groups of hunters are more efficient than single hunters when hunting big game, there sure as hell weren't any lone hunters taking down elephants back in the days of yore. They are also more efficient when hunting herd animals. Your generalization is simply not true.

Certain tasks are better done by individuals. Other tasks are done better by small groups, and still others by big groups. Socialism denies the individual in favor of large groups, and ungoverned capitalism denies the large group in favor of the individual. Neither works well because of their limited understanding of human nature.

I don't think you really know the effects of enlightened self-interest. A group of hunters may cooperate to bring down a bigger kill, but they only have their own stomachs in mind.

Nothing is black and white, but what we know for certain is that the individual is the most effective means of society. That's why markets are so effective, they culminate the various actions of different individuals to create beneficial outcomes.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by peter12

enlightened self-interest.

There's my buzzword!

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by peter12

enlightened self-interest

You could also fill in "enlightened selfishness" and I think solely basing economic policy on such an ideal would create a horrible existence. By definition capitalism has to have an impoverished class, should we embrace a laissez faire attitude towards that class it would result in negligent genocide. The theory of socialism is definitely a more attractive option, unfortunately there are selfish and evil people in the world. So it takes a good balance of right and left to buoy up an economy. Everytime we have a president who subscribes to trickle down economics it seems to result in economic downturn. Reagan leading us into a mild recession in the early 90's being the most recent example with Bush Jr. also leaning quite a bit that way and Hoover being the most catastrophic example. I don't understand how those who argue for laissez faire economic policy embrace the policies of corporate welfare on the right. That isn't laissez faire it is giving more the haves who don't need the help. The haves generally don't have the interest of the people as a top concern thus it does nothing but make the rich richer and the poor poorer. If we are to give money to a particular group than I don't understand why it wouldn't be the group that needs it most.
Communism actually did breed quite a bit of innovation including but not limited to their space program. I would say the decline of the Soviet Union not lie in the principle of socialism, but instead to limited natural resources vs. the vast resources of the USA which was played masterfully by Reagan and the lack of innovation created by discontent amongst the masses by living under a totalitarian regime.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Sowa

You could also fill in "enlightened selfishness" and I think solely basing economic policy on such an ideal would create a horrible existence. By definition capitalism has to have an impoverished class, should we embrace a laissez faire attitude towards that class it would result in negligent genocide. The theory of socialism is definitely a more attractive option, unfortunately there are selfish and evil people in the world. So it takes a good balance of right and left to buoy up an economy. Everytime we have a president who subscribes to trickle down economics it seems to result in economic downturn. Reagan leading us into a mild recession in the early 90's being the most recent example with Bush Jr. also leaning quite a bit that way and Hoover being the most catastrophic example. I don't understand how those who argue for laissez faire economic policy embrace the policies of corporate welfare on the right. That isn't laissez faire it is giving more the haves who don't need the help. The haves generally don't have the interest of the people as a top concern thus it does nothing but make the rich richer and the poor poorer. If we are to give money to a particular group than I don't understand why it wouldn't be the group that needs it most.
Communism actually did breed quite a bit of innovation including but not limited to their space program. I would say the decline of the Soviet Union not lie in the principle of socialism, but instead to limited natural resources vs. the vast resources of the USA which was played masterfully by Reagan and the lack of innovation created by discontent amongst the masses by living under a totalitarian regime.

Certainly the Soviet Union was very good at some things. Planned societies do a remarkable job at focusing the energies of a society on a few large goals. However, they do a terrible job of managing the millions of little things that take place with the interactions of millions of individuals. That's why you have a great sports/military/space achievements, but cannot maintain a steady food supply or manage even the minimum of consumer goods.

I think you misunderstand the principle of self-interest and how it can be harnessed towards the betterment of the common good. Socialism may be an attractive theory to some (not to me, I'm not a serf), but it is simply impossible given the universal nature of humans given to us by our genetics.

The balance of right and left is a ridiculous simplification of politics. It's useless to characterize real world realities through political constructs such as left and right. But you're right, a real free-market proponent should NOT support ridiculous policy such as corporate subsidies and should embrace some sort of government regulation that maintains contracts etc...

The impoverished class is an assumption and your characterization of it is almost certainly Marxist in nature. I won't deny that a hierarchy of classes exists, but I would say that it's natural. However, instead of state subsidies there should be as many opportunities provided by both the public/private spheres.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The hungry hunters are by far the most effective.

So by taxing them more and having the government take some of their revenue it only increases their thirst for profit?

Excellent Idea.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

So by taxing them more and having the government take some of their revenue it only increases their thirst for profit?

Excellent Idea.

Or provide them with an incentive to hunt even more, which in turn equals more food.

On the other hand, why hunt if the leader of the pack is going to provide you with your food?

[Azure]

Thread going to be closed?

Should probably be....since Driveway started a general election thread.

If it is....I nominate it to be placed in the HOF. Over 60 pages, 1,000 posts....of politics, and the mods didn't close it. Certainly that should make it HOF material.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

So by taxing them more and having the government take some of their revenue it only increases their thirst for profit?

Excellent Idea.

In a certain sense, that's called serfdom.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

If it is....I nominate it to be placed in the HOF. Over 60 pages, 1,000 posts....of politics, and the mods didn't close it. Certainly that should make it HOF material.

Seconded--this has been a great thread. It has remained very civil, with people expressing disagreement in a civil manner without resorting to attacks, and a great discussion on a shockingly wide array of issues.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Selfish does not equal lone.

What does it equal then? Are you saying that a group of hunters where the hunters are selfish magically get more prey than a group where they aren't selfish? How exactly does that work? Are the prey sensitive to attitude somehow?

Selfishness does not promote cohesive group tactics. Imagine an army where every soldier hung back and let the other guy take all the risks - except there would BE no other guy, and they would all get their asses kicked. The idea that selfishness - or any other behaviour - is always appropriate is a great flaw in any ideology that purports such an idea to be true.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by peter12

I don't think you really know the effects of enlightened self-interest. A group of hunters may cooperate to bring down a bigger kill, but they only have their own stomachs in mind.

Well, I'm not sure where I said anything about enlightened self-interest, but whatever. As far as each hunter having "only their own stomachs in mind", I'm pretty sure feeding the family was the ultimate goal, and families are not individuals. They are small groups. Modern times are undoubtedly the era in which by far more people live singly than ever have, and even now the majority of people live in and work for their families, not strictly themselves.

Originally Posted by peter12

Nothing is black and white, but what we know for certain is that the individual is the most effective means of society. That's why markets are so effective, they culminate the various actions of different individuals to create beneficial outcomes.

Economics is merely one part of a society's fabric, not all of it. Basing the entirety of a civilization's functions on economics is no more likely to succeed in the long term than basing it on the military. Or on the State. Not everything can be reduced down to questions of economics, and the idea that it can be was originally Marxist, which is ironic considering it is a favorite argument of those who violently reject Marxism in favor of unfettered capitalism.