I'm Neither, Which Are You?
Which party represents you? Is there one? I wonder if more and more Americans are feeling rather unrepresented by their elected sleazy, pandering, expensively suited, supposed representatives.
As a fiscal conservative who's socially libertarian and a "personal responsibilitarian," I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican, and I'm disgusted with the sleaze brimming up to the top in both parties. Neither represents me.
And by the way, the Republicans are not the party of small government, they just say they are -- although they are the party of somewhat smaller government than the Keynes-loving Democrats.
And while the Republicans are the anti-science party, the Democratic president hasn't done much beyond moving his lips in favor of equal rights for gays. (And P.S. My thinking, if gays don't have full rights, including the ability to marry the person they love, they shouldn't have to pay full taxes.)
There's more, but I'll turn the floor over to Professor Bainbridge, who writes, "Let's tick off ten things that make this conservative embarrassed by the modern conservative movement":
1. A poorly educated ex-sportwriter who served half of one term of an minor state governorship is prominently featured as a -- if not the -- leading prospect for the GOP's 2012 Presidential nomination.2.Tom Tancredo calling President Obama "the greatest threat to the United States today" and arguing that he be impeached. Bad public policy is not a high crime nor a misdemeanor, and the casual assertion that pursuing liberal policies--however misguided--is an impeachable offense is just nuts.
3. Similar nonsense from former Ford-Reagan treasury department officials Ernest Christian and Gary Robbins, who IBD column was, as Doug Marconis observed, "a wildly exaggerated attack on President Obama's record in office." Actually, it's more foaming at the mouth.
4. As Doug also observed, "The GOP controlled Congress from 1994 to 2006: Combine neocon warfare spending with entitlements, farm subsidies, education, water projects and you end up with a GOP welfare/warfare state driving the federal spending machine." Indeed, "when the GOP took control of Congress in 1994, and the White House in 2000, the desire to use the levers of power to create "compassionate conservatism" won our over any semblance of fiscal conservatism. Instead of tax cuts and spending cuts, we got tax cuts along with a trillion dollar entitlement program, a massive expansion of the Federal Government's role in education, and two wars. That's not fiscal conservatism it is, as others have said, fiscal insanity." Yet, today's GOP still has not articulated a message of real fiscal conservatism.
5. Thanks to the Tea Party, the Nevada GOP has probably pissed away a historic chance to oust Harry Reid. See also Charlie Crist in Florida, Rand Paul in Kentucky, and so on. Whatever happened to not letting perfection be the enemy of the good?
6. The anti-science and anti-intellectualism that pervade the movement.
7. Trying to pretend Afghanistan is Obama's war.
8. Birthers.
9. Nativists.
10. The substitution of mouth-foaming, spittle-blasting, rabble-rousing talk radio for reasoned debate. Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Hugh Hewitt, and even Rush Limbaugh are not exactly putting on Firing Line. Whatever happened to smart, well-read, articulate leaders like Buckley, Neuhaus, Kirk, Jack Kent, Goldwater, and, yes, even Ronald Reagan?
(Bainbridge) Update: Patterico says the foregoing are "reasons that conservatives should not support the Republican party," not reasons for being embarrassed about being a conservative. Fair enough. I'd accept that as a friendly amendment, but we're not friends.
More from Patterico -- who is a friend and a great guy -- on the "snooze" of a piece that inspired Bainbridge's thoughts, "intelligent" design proponent Klinghoffer's op-ed in the LA Times.
And via Jonathan H. Adler at Volokh, it ain't so hot to be a liberal, either.
And now that you've run through all that, let me take your political temperature. (I won't ask you to bend over -- that's the government's game.) But, do please post your readings below.
Hard-core Libertarian. I've voted for every LP candidate for President since the party was formed in 1972, including those who had to be written in, and every other LP candidate who was on the ballot.
Rex Little at August 1, 2010 11:18 PM
I'm hoping for Republicans to take Congress and have their feet kept to the fire by the media forever and Obama to get a second term...if he had trouble passing legislation and had to buy votes from his own party when the Dems held 60 seats in the Senate...I don't think he'll be able to do anything with the Repubs actually holding by a majority...imagine, at least 2 years of the federal government not being able to do anything...
Red at August 1, 2010 11:41 PM
Like many others, I left the Democratic Party some years ago, or perhaps it left me. I cannot bring myself to join the Republican Party, for a variety of reasons. I am thus left adrift. Many of my friends see me as a flaming liberal, which I was many years ago. Others want to see me as a rock-ribbed conservative. Both are wrong. I can't be so easily labeled. Where do people like me, who see things to admire in both progressivism and conservatism go?
roadgeek at August 1, 2010 11:55 PM
> Whatever happened to smart, well-read,
> articulate leaders like Buckley, Neuhaus,
> Kirk, Jack Kent, Goldwater, and, yes, even
> Ronald Reagan?
First of all, PUHLEEZE: These men were loathed, often righteously. Second of all, PUHLEEZE: Limbaugh is horribly underrated as a rhetor and principled thinker... Especially by people who assume they disagree with him, but will shriek with murderous fury that they have NEVER listened to him. Thirdly, PUH-HUH-HUH-LEEZE: As noted in a nearby thread, the market for opinions both thoughtful and naive is absolutely boiling, with a depth, breadth and passion seen never before in human history. The youngest reader of this blog has seen in a short lifetime an enormous, indisputably wonderful diminution of the power of editorially corrupt, financially self-interested, and politically manipulative centralized media.
So, I'm all, like, Puh-leeze.
Seriously, friends: The ancient admonition to political sophisticates to resist criticizing bad press has never packed such a wallop. You should never, ever worry on the behalf of the little people. Your powers of discernment are not so much higher than theirs. You're not smarter, or nicer, or more experienced that the people you imagine to be at risk for deception by clever puppeteers... You just aren't, and I don't care what your politics are.
If there's a column or blog or book or magazine full of truth that you think the world needs to read, WRITE IT.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 2, 2010 12:19 AM
When the Republicans are in power, the media-academia-Hollywood complex goes over everything that they do with a fine-toothed comb.
Whereas with the Democrats in power, the gov't can get away with budget fraud, vote fraud, and who knows what else.
That in and of itself is sufficient reason to vote Republican.
Engineer at August 2, 2010 2:22 AM
It's dubious to assert that conservatives are any more "anti-science" than liberals.
Amy would no doubt agree that liberals are pretty clueless about health issues and use bad science to push their agenda on food and health care. Same thing with climate science.
Engineer at August 2, 2010 2:30 AM
I describe myself as a "little 'l' libertarian." I think some regulation is necessary. But my overarching view is that people need to be left alone and the federal government has to stop using money as a club to keep states in line.
Elle at August 2, 2010 4:09 AM
What Engineer said on "anti-science".
Also:
1. A poorly educated ex-sportwriter who served half of one term of an minor state governorship.... As opposed to an affirmative action Ivy League elitist community organizer who, by his voting record, was the most leftist member of both legislative bodies he served in; that is, when he wasn't avoiding getting his hands dirty doing the messy business of lawmaking.
The presence of people like Palin and Obama on the national scene is a telling testament to the fact that high office is not attracting the best and brightest. I suspect this is due to the prostitution of principles that one has to do to achieve office at that level. Most self-respecting people wouldn't stoop to that level to be elected.
9. Nativists....If by "nativist", he means those that want to see the immigration laws of the U.S. enforced, then I wear the label as a badge of honor.
Also, agree with Crid about Limbaugh. He's not the deepest thinker, but he puts talking points out there and he's a master entertainer and entrepreneur who knows how to push buttons. Most of his fiercest critics know nothing about him except what other people say about him. And so what if Limbaugh is not an intellectual? I haven't heard anyone on the left defend their agenda with an intellectual argument lately.
cpabroker at August 2, 2010 4:46 AM
Libertarian with conservative leanings. I tend to vote Republican, but have voted for Democrats on several occasions.
I tell people, I don't give a rat's ass what you do with your life, or who you do it with. Just don't touch my guns, or my bank account, and stay off my property.
I'm hoping as the internet plays a larger roll in politics, that we'll have greater diversity in the US Congress. I think the Tea Party is the beginning of this. It's certainly far from ideal, but it is a step forward (in my opinion) of making those in office wake up and see that they cannot just be lock step with the leadership and expect to float into the next term.
UW Girl at August 2, 2010 6:08 AM
We thought that Reagan had put the final stake in the heart of Socialism, but they just started calling themselves "Progressive".
And like everything else a leftist says, it's a lie. They aren't interested in progress.
The problem with the Republican party is that they too have become infected with progressives.
I have no party.
I am an anarcho-capitalist. The government's involvement in business should end with adjudicating a level playing field and preventing fraud. The government's role in society-managing laws ends when they are talking about regulating things that harm nobody but the person engaging in the behavior.
I have no party.
brian at August 2, 2010 6:18 AM
That's a 10 pt load of crap. Past that, I'm getting more and more conservative as I age, both socially and fiscally. I was a true liberal in college. Now I vote republican, but I call myself a tea partier.
momof4 at August 2, 2010 6:21 AM
I find it interesting that both sides in the "intelligent design" debate do not seem to know what they are talking about. By definition an omnipotent G0d would be able to create a universe at any point in its "natural" development whether 5 seconds, minutes, days, years, centuries, millenia, or eons ago. In fact, you (the reader) cannot prove that the universe was created with you looking at this comment, since all your memories could have been created with you. Similarly, by definition G0d would be able to create the "laws of nature" so that they would work perfectly. As a result there can never be any "proof" one way or the other. The only way that we could talk about "evidence" of creation would be if G0d deliberately introduced flaws into the creation so that it became obvious that the world was manufactured (or we find the URL sticker attached to the Earth). And, as Philip Jose Farmer pointed out in one of his science fiction novels, we would be unable to prove that it was not manufactured by an alien species.
Sabba Hillel at August 2, 2010 6:26 AM
I agree with brian, but as someone whos worked construction I think the government also has a legitimet role, a limited role, in saftey.
?Ensuring a level playing feild and preventing fraud ae great, but I dont want toxic waste winding up in my water table
lujlp at August 2, 2010 6:35 AM
Sabba,
Which is why Occam's Razor is a key component of the scientific method.
Astra at August 2, 2010 7:21 AM
I'm for the minimal government party.
For the most part, whoever wants to do the least, thereby interfering with my life, aka my wallet is who I'm for.
David M. at August 2, 2010 7:24 AM
I am an anarcho-liberal lightweight.
(And I believe in fun parties).
>>Limbaugh is horribly underrated as a rhetor and principled thinker...
Bullshit, Crid.
He has loads of fans who marvel both at his enduring talent and his take on life.
Some of us who are not fans have listened to him, agree he does what he does very skillfully indeed - but find he's not remotely to our taste.
Jody Tresidder at August 2, 2010 8:06 AM
Is there any substantive difference any more between the two parties? The Obama's \ Clintons are no more in touch with the vanishing middle class than are the Bush's\Cheney's, in fact probably now less so. Public service has become supremely lucrative, and to be a part of the public service you must cooperate in the game. And what is the game other than to borrow and spend on those who keep you in the game?
As much as I disliked Dubya, I am outright insulted at how Obama is treating the White House as his personal crib. It disgusts me that while American's are dying on two active battlefields, ten's of millions unemployed, and hundreds of millions just scraping by, the White House and Congress are lavishing upon themselves luxury that is unprecedented in our history.
Eric at August 2, 2010 8:21 AM
Curious, not snarky - what luxuries are Congress and the White House enjoying that are unprecedented? I thought presidents and congressmen have pretty much alway enjoyed a good life?
Sam at August 2, 2010 8:46 AM
> - but find he's not remotely to our taste.
I feel the same way about Mozart. Decade after decade, sampling after disciplined sampling, I simply can't understand why people are impressed. He's dull as dirt.
Am I wrong? Or are we talking about something other than "taste"?
(See also, Beethoven.)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 2, 2010 8:55 AM
Re: anti-science and anti-intellectualism, global warming activism and all these nimrod Ivy League lawyers and economists are to be laughed at. If they represent science and intellect, then I'm against them, too.
t-bird at August 2, 2010 9:08 AM
Besides, Jody, that "loads of fans who marvel" is exactly what I was warning about earlier... It's naïve.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 2, 2010 9:12 AM
I want "them" to somehow clone Harry Browne and his way of thinking so I can vote for him again. I don't align myself with either donkeys or elephants. No matter what hopes or fears I've had, in the end there's been no President I was sad to see go.
Pricklypear at August 2, 2010 9:45 AM
>>I feel the same way about Mozart. Decade after decade, sampling after disciplined sampling, I simply can't understand why people are impressed. He's dull as dirt.Am I wrong? Or are we talking about something other than "taste"?
Crid,
Yes, we can still talk about "taste". 'Cos it's a wonderfully roomy term.
However, I'm not sure how useful it is to force further direct comparisons between a 59-year-old contemporary talk radio personality who isn't much known outside the US, and a composer whose works are still known & played the world over more than 200 years after his death at the age of 35.
But, sure, personal taste covers it.
Note, I most certainly did not say - as you do about Mozart -that I "simply can't understand why people are impressed" with Limbaugh. Nor did I say he was dull.
Clearly, I have far more generous ears than you.
Jody Tresidder at August 2, 2010 10:18 AM
I believe the best thing I've read recently regarding the current state of political discourse is from the "Margaret and Helen" blog at http://margaretandhelen.wordpress.com/. Two tart-tongued old ladies who have been best friends for over sixty years share their views with refreshing candor.
Steve H at August 2, 2010 10:28 AM
Jack Kemp is dead, just like the Constitution.
Does anyone seriously expect politicians of any stripe to work hard to gain power and then not use it? We'd be better off drafting our leaders from the disinterested, paying them for one term, and disallowing any further involvement with government for the rest of their lives.
MarkD at August 2, 2010 10:38 AM
imagine, at least 2 years of the federal government not being able to do anything...
Exactly! That's why things went as well as they did during Clinton's time--he and a Republican Congress kept each other in check. Likewise with Reagan and a Democratic Congress. Once Congress combined with a same-party President. . . well, we all know what happened.
Rex Little at August 2, 2010 11:25 AM
Most political quizzes place me as "moderate libertarian" but I just tell people I'm an independent.
If people want to convince me of some political point, the burden is on them.
lsomber at August 2, 2010 11:28 AM
The Republicans went with the media darlin' middle of the road kind guy the last time.
How'd that work out for ya?
Also: See also Charlie Crist in Florida
What about Orange Charlie? he had his cronies running the State GOP, he had the National Senate Campaign Committee give him the early endorsement and he still managed to lose the GOP nomination to Marco Rubio[*]. And yet, somehow this is what the GOP should be? a bunch of guys (and gals) putting their finger in the wind to see which way to go??
It is a good thing to know which way the wind is blowing, if you're sailing a sailing vessel. But you also need to know how to tack into the wind if you want to reach a destination other than where you'd go if you left yourself to the whims of the wind and waves.
[*] Yes, I know, the Florida primary is 3 weeks from tomorrow, and technically Rubio did not beat Christ. Christ simply saw Mene, Mene, Tekel u-Pharsin on the wall, and did what any good, self-serving politican would do: live to fight another day.
I R A Darth Aggie at August 2, 2010 12:01 PM
I'm with Isomber. Registered inde.
I'll vote Republican over Dems almost always (I am not adverse for voting dems in, but in the Bay Area, CA - there are no reasonably moderate or fiscally conservative dems).
If the election is local, I always choose Independent or Libertarian candidates over Republicans - but I try not to do it in major elections (For instances, Fiorina/Boxer - no. Way. In. Hell. will I choose to throw away a vote on anyone else than Fiorina against Boxer). But last election for Prez, I knew Obama would take the state so I voted for the Inde candidate. If it is remotely close between a R & a D next time, I'm voting Republican (unless of course we get some soggy-sandwich candidate - a la Huckabee).
I am hoping that Republicans become more (c)onservative in fiscal responsibility and less pushing of morality in public policies.
As far as science - in my humble opinion, the Left has been far more ignorant in terms of science than any one conservative I've seen. Someone said above - Global Warming, diets, Greenies, etc.... The majority of the Lefties rely on emotive arguments that are entirely absent of facts, evidence and reason. I see this more on the Left than on the Right.
As for the conservative radio hosts - I will listen to Levin and Savage *on occasion*, but Savage is more interesting to me when he's not talking politics. As far as Glenn Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly - I don't watch them. I'd rather put a cigarette out in my eye.
Feebie at August 2, 2010 12:12 PM
And what exactly constitutes "well educated" to the folks making these judgements?
Based on elitist demands that presidents be "well-educated" (to be considered intellectual), at least half of the group of "smart, well-read, articulate [GOP] leaders" fails.
Reagan graduated from Whittier College. Judging from the sneering condescension from the other side of the aisle during his presidency, you'd think he'd graduated from clown college. (BTW, he was also a sportscaster).
Barry Goldwater matriculated for only one year at the University of Arizona and, as far as I know, never obtained a degree.
Jack Kemp graduated from Occidental College with a degree in physical education. He pursued post-graduate studies in economics at Long Beach State and California Western, but never finished.
Richard John Neuhaus graduated from the Concordia Theological Seminary.
Conan the Grammarian at August 2, 2010 12:22 PM
Neither.
As to the anti science, the way I've been seeing it playing out is they are both anti the science which disagrees/disproves what their core constituants want.
With the right it is global warming, economic falacies and evolution.
With the left it is anti-global warming, how gun laws effect crime, economic falacies, social blinders (single motherhood is a problem), wage gap.
And the general blindness that if we do X and it makes things worse, then X can't be what's wrong it just means we didn't do enough X.
Joe at August 2, 2010 12:54 PM
> I'm not sure how useful it is to force further
> direct comparisons
Not a problem, the work was done. Sometimes you're like a cat that's just fallen off a sofa, projecting through body language: I MEANT to do that....
> Clearly, I have far more generous
> ears than you.
If you wear the right hairstyle, people won't laugh.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 2, 2010 1:29 PM
Conan: " Reagan graduated from Whittier College"
No, Reagan graduated from Eureka College in Illinois. Nixon graduated from Whittier College. But I take your point, which is that being well educated does not guarantee success. Look at our presidents beginning after Reagan: George H. W. Bush - Yale; Clinton - Georgetown and Yale; George W. Bush - Yale and Harvard; Obama - Columbia and Harvard.
Being really, really smart does not mean that you can lead.
Nick at August 2, 2010 1:37 PM
What I find amazing more and more these days is that practically NO ONE is happy with either party -- and yet our entire government is controlled by these divisive same-but-different career politicians.
I would not lobby for the even-more-divisive and non-functioning multiparty systems of some European countries -- but can anyone argue that our two-party system is either satisfactory or efficient?
Does anyone think they are fairly represented by their elected officials?
Paul Worthington at August 2, 2010 1:54 PM
This article sums up most of my political thinking these days. It's long, but well worth the read. To sum up: It's a class war -- but not the sort of class war that most people think of. I don't agree with absolutely thing the article says (in particular, the author almost gets himself derailed on the creation/evolution thing), but it hits pretty close to the mark.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I see things evolving the way SF writer James Hogan described in the Giants' Trilogy. Except for the bit about the bad guys being semi-aliens under the influence of an evil supercomputer... well, as far as we know...
Cousin Dave at August 2, 2010 2:21 PM
I register as a republican for their primaries and the register as a democrat for theirs
lujlp at August 2, 2010 2:25 PM
Oops. My bad.
Agreed.
The point is that being "well-educated" is exactly what the chattering classes are demanding of any and all presidential candidates - with special scorn heaped upon any conservative candidate who does not have a degree from an acceptable school on his/her resume.
Yet, these chattering classes give no value to the things that actual experience may have taught a candidate or revealed in a candidate.
This is why we have a president who is "well-educated" but who actually knows very little.
====================
What's more, the chattering classes have notoriously short memories.
They'll throw out names of dead or retired conservatives to lament the old days when conservatives were "articulate and well-read," conveniently forgetting the scorn that the chattering classes of the day heaped upon those very same "articulate and well-read" conservatives when they were alive and active in politics.
Which makes me tremble for the future when the chattering classes will lament the ignorance of the conservatives in their midst and yearn for the crisp articulation and rapier intellect of Sarah Palin.
Conan the Grammarian at August 2, 2010 2:26 PM
"Being really, really smart does not mean that you can lead."
This may be a huge assumption on my part, but all those Ivy Leaguer's mentioned (Bush(es), Clinton, Obama) well, sans maybe Clinton - aren't exactly brilliant because of where they went. Their degrees appear to be more about window dressing than ability. Getting into these prestigious schools is more about nepotism and deal-cutting (diversity programs) than abilities or intellect.
I would prefer to see the self-made/self-sufficient rubes with the obscure educations (Palin, Reagan, etc) in charge of the free world than a Haaavahd grad. Their life experiences give me the impression that looting the treasury and dishing out social entitlements would be one of the last options they would ever consider. I think that matters a hell of a lot more than an Ivy League diploma.
Feebie at August 2, 2010 2:35 PM
Okay, read Conan's post. He said it better.
Feebie at August 2, 2010 2:38 PM
I agree with what Feebie said, except that, y'know, by definition, NOBODY is supposed to be "in charge of the free world". That's one way you know it's free.
Dear Reader, do not scoff; do not instantly assume that your correspondent's being simple-minded about the quintessence of governance; again, you are not so bright and you are not so decent that you can afford to be loose with words as Nick was (though I agree with him):
> Being really, really smart does not mean
> that you can lead.
That's true... But who needs to be lead?
I've been hammering my liberal friends on this pretty heavily lately. When they sit in dark rooms and masturbate and mumble about how great it is for Obama to be in the White House because he's a leader in the tradition Gandhi or whomever, I like to interrupt, pass them a moist towelette in foil, and ask how much leadership they need in their own lives.
How much direction do THEY need about right and wrong? How much do THEY want to be told about the career choices they can make? How much constraint do THEY want on their financial freedoms, or the mileage of the cars they drive, or any of the rest of it?
Turns out that people don't want leadership at all. At the core of their rhetoric is an addled daydream from childhood, the idea that magical things happen when super-wonderful people show up and take over. This childhood daydream needs to be pulled out into the schoolyard and beaten, then taken out for drinks and sex and put to work somewhere doing something difficult in the hot sun. For a moderate wage.
We don't need leaders, we need public servants.
Obama's had 8 vacations in 19 months, during which he's spent ten trillion of your dollars. Michelle and the girls have had at least 9 vacations.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 2, 2010 2:59 PM
Word.
Conan the Grammarian at August 2, 2010 3:18 PM
Well, Crid, someone's gonna have to take that phone call at 3am and push the red button!
Perhaps "leader" is the wrong word, but there needs to be a elected Chief of the peeps (not some boy-queen whose balls have been ensnared in his wife's clutch).
Feebie at August 2, 2010 3:26 PM
Crid's response seems to confuse leadership with supervision. A leader doesn't tell you what career choice to make or what mileage your car is allowed to have. A leader makes you want to become a doctor or drive a low-mileage car, either through rhetoric or example...or both.
Patton's example still stands. A leader doesn't try to push a wet spaghetti noodle up a hill. He gets out front and pulls it up the hill.
Too many of our "leaders" in Washington want to push that spaghetti noodle up the hill. They want us to accept "universal health care" while they keep their private program. They'll make us use low-watt light bulbs while they carve a special exemption in the law for themselves so they can continue to use bulbs that actually put out light. Making laws for others and exceptions for yourselves is not leadership; it's dictatorship.
We need public servants; people who view government jobs as a chance to serve the public rather than a chance to boss someone around.
There was a president (I forget which one) who, upon retiring from office, was asked how he felt about being demoted to being an ordinary citizen again. He replied that since the president is a public servant, he viewed his retirement as a promotion.
Conan the Grammarian at August 2, 2010 3:50 PM
I agree with Palin, Obama has no cojones. Republicans have become the democrats ot the 40'3. 50's, while the democrats have gone off the lefty chart. Intelligence has nothing to do with education, but with the ability to learn and store knowledge. As far as I can tell, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are morons, my dogs are smarter than these idiots. Was a republican but the neocons burnt me out, now non aligned
ron at August 2, 2010 3:53 PM
"Patton's example still stands. A leader doesn't try to push a wet spaghetti noodle up a hill. He gets out front and pulls it up the hill."
Hey, I like that one.
One could only hope that those criminal-noodle-pushers would be destined to the same fate as Sisyphus!
Feebie at August 2, 2010 4:00 PM
> He gets out front and pulls it up the hill.
When I want to be tugged, I'll ask: Patton was paid by taxpayers, too. You're simply wrong... There's just no sense in which I want the President or any civil servant to tell me how this is supposed to go.
It's one of the many kinds of sophistication that doesn't happen in contemporary America. Sure, there's a time in childhood when it's fun and maybe even helpful to admire authorities and special talents in a blind way. But a better culture would help people extinguish these illusions as kids grow, so that misty, indistinct, comforting fantasies of childhood –with doe-eyed mutterings about saviors and heroes and leadership– don't grow into the gnarled political principles of an adult voter.
The proper response to mention of a political "leader" should be a raised eyebrow and an "Oh, yeah?"
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 2, 2010 4:06 PM
You're confusing leadership with worship.
Let's say I believe in a certain issue. However, I don't have time or the know-how to start a campaign and try to change public opinion. If I sign on with a candidate who believes the same way I do and is willing to lead a campaign, it doesn't mean I'm a doey-eyed sap with no free will just waiting for a hero to lead me to the promised land.
Not everyone who laments a lack of leadership abilities in our current political classes is looking for "dear leader" to come and save them from the real world and from their own mistakes.
Patton's point was not that his officers should "tug" their men. It was that they should be out in front of them, leading by example and encouragement. Officers, in George's view, should not be behind the lines in a comfortable chalet while their soldiers were at the front paying the rent on that chalet. And, yes, George was an imperfect practitioner of his own avowed philosophy.
Applying that to politics means that congressmen (and presidents) should not making laws that apply to the rest of us, but not to them.
Presidents should not view their time in office as a chance to take vacations, sit for portraits, and visit foreign lands. When we hire a president, we hire him to work. And we the people do hire the president.
A US president is both a manager and a figurehead. The United States is a rarity in the democratic world in that we combine the head of state and the head of government into a single position, the presidency. Most other democracies split the jobs (king/queen and prime minister, president and chancellor, etc.).
It's easy for a president to forget that, while he's entertaining foreign dignitaries, riding on Air Force One, and having "Hail to the Chief" played for him everywhere, he's also supposed to get down to the pedestrian task of managing the country's affairs.
And a president should on occasion take a leadership role on issues, persuading people of the rightness of his position, building coalitions among lawmakers, and shepherding bills through Congress (not partisanly shoving bills through with no regard for public opinion).
Conan the Grammarian at August 2, 2010 4:43 PM
> However, I don't have time or the know-how
> to start a campaign and try to change
> public opinion.
It's entirely possible that there's a reason that you can't find the words to move your golden notion forward, and that the best move is to sit quietly and let it pass.
> If I sign on with a candidate who believes the
> same way I do and is willing to lead a
> campaign, it doesn't mean I'm a doey-eyed
> sap with no free will just waiting for a hero to
> lead me to the promised land.
Great, so don't talk like one. (Besides, I think candidates "ride" campaigns more than they lead them.)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 2, 2010 4:53 PM
That is true.
Perhaps my position on this particular issue has failed to gain traction for a reason.
On the other hand, perhaps the opposition is simply better organized and financed.
In most cases, I would agree with that. And by "most cases," I mean "almost all cases."
Politicians are by nature followers and opportunists.
Conan the Grammarian at August 2, 2010 5:17 PM
Okay! Right! So we're done!
Don't think of them as leaders. Don't talk about them that way, even out of habit.
Other people are listening, and will be confused. They'll think you mean it. Little people, I mean.... Like Hillary. She wants to take people's profits... Not just tax them, or even just regulate the context in which they're generated, but simply "take" them... Because she "knows what needs to be done."
That's leadership.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 2, 2010 5:36 PM
"A leader doesn't try to push a wet spaghetti noodle up a hill. He gets out front and pulls it up the hill."
What if I have no desire whatsoever to go up that hill?
momof4 at August 2, 2010 5:50 PM
If you're a soldier and ordered to go up that hill, too bad.
If you're a person in the American body politic, then you get to research the issue, listen to the debates, discuss the issue, and, finally, decide for yourself whether the country should be going up that hill and vote accordingly.
But, if someone else wants you to go up that hill and they're behind you pushing, you should question why they want you to go up that hill but are not willing to go up there themselves.
Conan the Grammarian at August 2, 2010 5:55 PM
No, that's dictatorship.
Conan the Grammarian at August 2, 2010 5:58 PM
I've lost faith in most of our elected officials. Sadly I think many start out with honest intentions. Its the political machine that corrupts them. Washington DC is like watching the political version of "Mean Girls." Both parties are equally guilty of doing the same crap and then pointing the finger at the other. We need an overhaul of our two party system because the people who vote Libertarian or Independent will never see their candidate win. In this country you must be Democrat or Republican to see your candidate in office and then you can't always be sure who those politicians are really working for.
Kristen at August 2, 2010 6:50 PM
The original article assumes that voter anger will have ebbed by November.
He also is automatically assuming that the independents are going to lose.
This also assumes that we are going to vote for DeceptiCon's or RINO's again.
I have a feeling that the even the Dimocrats are going to revolt.
Jim P. at August 2, 2010 7:10 PM
>> That's leadership.
> No, that's dictatorship.
List the differences.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 2, 2010 9:31 PM
If there's one thing I despise more than leftists, it's elitists and there are far too many of them on both sides of the aisle. I'd rather vote for someone who has owned a business and had a life outside politics than someone who has spent their life studying policy.
Sarah at August 2, 2010 10:00 PM
Here's a pretty little girl, kinda like the last one only more productive, and with better grooming.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 2, 2010 10:20 PM
But also, I admire Sarah's distrust of "policy". It's terribly overrated.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 2, 2010 10:21 PM
>>> That's leadership.
>> No, that's dictatorship.
>List the differences.
Maybe...votes?
Jody Tresidder at August 3, 2010 7:13 AM
The difference?
You only voluntarily follow a dictator because he'll have you killed if you don't.
brian at August 3, 2010 9:41 AM
- Force
- Dissent
- Succession
- Due process
- Source of authority (top down vs bottom up)
Taking a company's profits without due process because you know better how to apply them for the "common good" is not leadership, no matter how many times Hillary tells herself it is.
A politician calling himself a leader doesn't make it so.
In reality, the bulk of the job of a lawmaker or even a president doesn't involve leadership. It involves management, policy formulation, and the other minutiae of office.
One of the criteria I apply to each presidential election is whether the candidate has any executive-level experience in the "real world."
In the last election, only Palin had ever run anything (albeit only in government). She did co-manage her husband's fishing business, so there's some business experience there.
McCain had been a squadron leader in the US Navy, (equivalent to middle management - implements someone else's strategy). He was also a VP (of Publicity) for his father-in-law's beverage business.
Biden has been in Congress almost all his career. He was a public defender and a private practice lawyer for a brief period before entering Congress.
Obama has been a professor (who never went for tenure), a lawyer (who never managed a case), a community organizer (like a middle manager - implements someone else's strategy), and an elected representative (who never stuck his neck out and who voted "present" a record 129 times).
Executive-level experience in the "real world" does not guarantee someone will be a good president (or governor), but it does indicate that the candidate has at least been in a position in which he/she cannot vote "present" to avoid making a decision.
Conan the Grammarian at August 3, 2010 9:53 AM
Oh. Well, as long as y'all are cool with it....
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 3, 2010 10:56 AM
Shit Fuck, people, what is the case you guys hear yourselves making?
Give me more! Give me more! What do you make of the phrase "consent of the governed"?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 3, 2010 12:06 PM
"One of the criteria I apply to each presidential election is whether the candidate has any executive-level experience in the "real world.""
Your theory does not work in "real world."
Did you know that Adam Smith never ran a business in the "real world"? Not even a butcher shop. But he correctly stated that "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest....."
Also, Marx never worked a single day in a factory in the "real world" But he correctly predicted that "The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable." And this is precisely happened during the 20th century throughout the world.
This guy never kicked a ball in his life but he is considered as one of the best coach for NFL kickers.
http://www.dougblevinskicking.com/
Chang at August 3, 2010 12:40 PM
Hey, Changster! Chang-ifier! Chang-a-saures! Big birthday comin' up, right?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 3, 2010 1:01 PM
And our friendly, neighborhood communist is back!
Chang, your examples are crap.
Executive experience doesn't mean knowing the theory. It means making the decision without anyone to blame if it all goes wrong. It's about being at the top of the pyramid.
Adam Smith was never hired to run a business, much less a country. Therefore his lack of executive experience is a non-issue. If he runs for president, it will be (that and his English birth and the fact that he's been dead for 400 years).
Nor does Marx's lack of factory experience have any bearing on whether a president should have executive experience. Marx was a theorist...and a bad one. His theories have been proven to be faulty everywhere they've been tried.
Take a look around, Chang. The bourgeoisie are still going strong.
The bourgeoisie in the modern Western world are the capital-owning classes. Based on stock market participation, the bourgeoisie has expanded and swallowed the proletariat.
The modern proletarian isn't reading Marx and Engels; he's reading the Wall Street Journal and logging into e-Trade. He's watching his 401K and juggling mutual funds.
Again, put down the Party-approved reading list and actually read Adam Smith.
Conan the Grammarian at August 3, 2010 1:11 PM
How do you get expansion of the welfare state from an expressed desire that the political class show some leadership skills and management ability?
A Congressional representative is expected to represent his constituents' best interests while in Washington. That entails using judgement. If he comes running home every week to ask how to vote, he's useless.
If you're a factory owner, you don't hire a manager and expect that he'll come back to you for instructions with every single issue that arises. You expect him to exhibit judgement, analytical abilities, problem solving, management skills, and leadership. Else why hire him? Just run the damned thing yourself.
It's your responsibility to conduct the interview in such a way that you hire a manager with those skills. Same thing with an election.
When we hire a president and a Congress and consent to be governed by them, we expect that our government won't need to hold a plebescite every time their printers run out of ink or whenever Putin burps.
The problems Obama and the Democrats are having right now are due to their forgetting that it is the consent of the governed by which they hold their offices. They forgot themselves. They forced through legislation that people didn't want and got frustrated when the people didn't act like sheep and accept the judgement of their "betters." They mistook authority for leadership.
Demonstrating leadership in this case would have entailed listening to the people's concerns and addressing them (either by changing the legislation or convincing the people to change their minds). Instead, they forced their healthcare overhaul through and told the people to be happy with whatever crumbs fall their way.
Conan the Grammarian at August 3, 2010 1:30 PM
"Chang, your examples are crap."
So are yours. See Patton above.
Here is the point I am trying to make it to you. Our founding fathers did not require anything but at least 35 years old person, who was born in the U.S.A. to be a head "servant" of this country. The "executive level experience" is not necessary to be a "servant" and you are making a big deal out of it for no reason.
I brought up Adam Smith and Marx to point it out that you don't need the "real world" field experience to be good at playing a role in that particular field.
"The bourgeoisie in the modern Western world are the capital-owning classes. Based on stock market participation, the bourgeoisie has expanded and swallowed the proletariat."
Man, you are smoking. Miss, I will have what Conan is eating. The bottom 80 percent owns 7 percent of US financial wealth as of 2007. The bottom 80 percent is called the proletariat. And that means YOU.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Chang at August 3, 2010 1:36 PM
Fairly new reader here (3 months or so) and first time commentor . . .
There is a fiscally conservative social libertarian who ran for the GOP nomination in '08 and may run again in '12. He also started a PAC to support similar candidates and legislation. He has gained support across the political spectrum.
He is ex-military and ran his own OB/GYN practice for many years. He's currently a congressman from Texas whose son is running for the Kentucky senate. His nickname in Congress is "Dr. No" - Ron Paul. The GOP leadership is wary of him, which I think is a wonderful endorsement.
I think there are still good Reagan/Goldwater conservatives out there, they are just finding it difficult to gain mainstream traction in this era of media-driven, two-party, one-or-no-choice politics.
BrianB at August 3, 2010 2:19 PM
Smith and Marx played the roles of academics; of theorists. Not presidents! Not managers! They didn't play a role in the "real world!" They stayed in their ivory towers and studied things.
The founding fathers also limited the vote to property-owning males and governed a bucolic agricultural country.
And I didn't say the founding fathers required executive experience. I said it was a yardstick I myself use in presidential elections. Not the only one, but an important one...to me.
I said "stock market participation." Your 7% example shows value of liquid (easily converted to cash) wealth and indicates that the poor have been hit harder by the recession than the rich (that's news?).
In 1998, 49% of Americans owned stock; whether through mutual funds, IRAs, 401Ks, directly, etc. The number was 40% in 1990 and 36% in 1989. I'll look for a later figure to see if it continued to climb.
In addition, most pensions (on which many who have opted not to participate in the stock market rely for retirement income) are heavily invested in the stock market, driving the overall participate even rate higher.
Conan the Grammarian at August 3, 2010 2:36 PM
> How do you get expansion of the welfare
> state from an expressed desire that the
> political class show some leadership
> skills and management ability?
Well, for fuck's sake, look around. What do you see?
> When we hire a president and a Congress
> and consent to be governed by them
Speak for yourself, you submissive little punk! I consent only to be served.
(The yolks were a little runny this morning, weren't they, Senator? Well [chuckle]... I'm sure it WON'T be a problem tomorrow....)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 3, 2010 3:49 PM
"They didn't play a role in the "real world!" They stayed in their ivory towers and studied things."
So, the academics are not a part of the "real world". They live in Avatar and they don't eat or get horny. They do not interact or make any impact on the "real world". Does this make sense to you?
"And I didn't say the founding fathers required executive experience. I said it was a yardstick I myself use in presidential elections. Not the only one, but an important one...to me."
Why didn't you say so earlier? The humanity will move on with a head "servant" without the executive experience. It already has.
"In 1998, 49% of Americans owned stock; whether through mutual funds, IRAs, 401Ks, directly, etc. The number was 40% in 1990 and 36% in 1989. I'll look for a later figure to see if it continued to climb."
That does not mean a thing to me. But this means something to me. "According to Business Week, the average CEO of a major corporation made 42 times the average hourly worker's pay in 1980. By 1990 that had almost doubled to 85 times. In 2000, the average CEO salary reached an unbelievable 531 times that of the average hourly worker." 531 times. This happened because good old boys took care of each other. CEOs and the board of directors, they golf together and sleep in the same bed. Also, people like you helped who fiercely defending their right to take a lion's share of the kill. Of course, you are hoping to get a piece of choice cut they could not finish at the end of the orgy. Keep dreaming.
http://management.about.com/cs/generalmanagement/a/CEOsOverpaid.htm
Chang at August 3, 2010 4:05 PM
I cheer on all conservatives working to turn the GOP back into the party of fiscal responsibility and fiscal conservatism. I sometimes think they're tilting at windmills, but I cheer them on, nonetheless. And I understand the importance some operatives place on the biggest lie in GOP politics, that the GOP has been fiscally responsible and fiscally conservative in recent decades, instead of owning up to the GOP spending money like drunken sailors on any two-bit hoodlum corporation claiming to advance defense and enhance national security.
Sometimes you've got to tell lies to win votes. The biggest one this autumn is that the GOP has been fiscally responsible in the past and will be fiscally responsible in the future. Anyone who believes that should contact this Brooklyn boy. I've got some never-used B-1 bomber toilet seats and a local bridge for sale.
Andre Friedmann at August 3, 2010 4:21 PM
Sadly, I know where you're coming from on that one ... and agree with your sentiments.
We have too many rules and not enough freedom (and freedom includes the freedom to fail).
And we have too many people who want an even bigger security blanket...as long as it's paid for with someone else's money...and someone else's freedom.
Oh, I see. I gotcha now. You won't be governed.
You drive whatever speed you want on the freeway and ignore any marked cars with flashing lights chasing you because the police are public servants and exist to serve you, not govern you.
If you drive the posted speed limit, it's only because you want to. Not because you've live in a civilization(?) and, by living there, have tacitly agreed to abide by the rules posted therein.
And you don't pay property taxes, income taxes, or sales taxes either. Right? Unless you want to. 'cause you won't be governed...only served.
You won't be filed, stamped, sorted, or numbered.
Let me know how that works out for you...and watch out for the floating ball, Number 6.
Conan the Grammarian at August 3, 2010 4:42 PM
"Hey, Changster! Chang-ifier! Chang-a-saures! Big birthday comin' up, right?"
Yep. My 51st. Let's make that to 52nd to be safe. Of course, you are invited. Dress up nice. "I will not be seen in the company of slobs."
Chang at August 3, 2010 4:55 PM
> You won't be filed, stamped, sorted, or numbered.
Vote with your heart, Disney child! The masses are with you on this one, aren't they?
"leadership"
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 3, 2010 4:57 PM
You should get a job at a movie theater...cause you're really good at projecting.
I agree CEOs are overpaid. But I also think A-Rod and LeBron are overpaid. I think Denzel and Julia and Speilberg are overpaid.
Why is it no one railing against high CEO pay wants to cut the pay of their favorite sports heroes or pop singers or movie stars? A stellar CEO can make as positive an impact on his company as LeBron can on his team; can bring as much buzz and box office to his company as Denzel or Speilberg can to a movie. The trick is knowing which one is stellar and which one isn't.
Railing against CEO pay is nothing more than another version of class warfare.
And you're trying to make sure no one gets a piece of that choice cut...except you when the revolution comes...cause you won't be one of the ones lined up against the wall and shot, will you?
Just ask Robespierre or Danton or Trotsky how that kind of thinking worked out for them.
And it will get screwed. Wait...it already has.
Nope.
Academics do not suffer the consquences of their theories being disasterously wrong.
Marx was not lined up against the wall and shot when his "dictatorship of the proletariat" turned into a bloodbath; the already long-suffering Russian and Chinese peasants were.
Conan the Grammarian at August 3, 2010 5:00 PM
I hate Disney. The rat that ate Florida.
And I vote with my head.
Conan the Grammarian at August 3, 2010 5:01 PM
"Why is it no one railing against high CEO pay wants to cut the pay of their favorite sports heroes or pop singers or movie stars? "
Because they earned it. Do you think this is really good time to discuss all of these fancy CEOs' compensation package designed by their friends, board of directors, while they push through their companies through bankruptcy?
"cause you won't be one of the ones lined up against the wall and shot, will you?"
Maybe or Maybe not. Let's hope for the best. But I refuse to be the bull guarding the Burger King which you are doing. The game is rigged.
"Just ask Robespierre or Danton or Trotsky how that kind of thinking worked out for them."
Why don't you ask Mao, Lenin or Deng?
"And it will get screwed. Wait...it already has."
For you. We, 52%, are having a time of our life. Thank you, Democracy!!!.
"Marx was not lined up against the wall and shot when his "dictatorship of the proletariat" turned into a bloodbath; the already long-suffering Russian and Chinese peasants were."
You are blaming Jesus for not knowing the earth goes around the sun. Marx simply did not know better. Yes, it did not exactly work as he predicted. But the impact he made on the humanity including Western capitalist society is enormous. If Marx saw what happened to the Western Europe, he would call it a draw.
Chang at August 3, 2010 5:47 PM
"In 2000, the average CEO salary reached an unbelievable 531 times that of the average hourly worker." 531 times. This happened because good old boys took care of each other."
No, Chang I'll tell you why it happened. Because Business Week is spouting bullshit, made-up propaganda and like a good little commie, you fell for it. Do the math, damn it. I looked up the compensation for the CEO of the company I worked for at Forbes.com. It ain't no 531 times my salary. It's not even in the ballpark. In order for it to be so, I'd have to be a part-time, minimum-wage worker putting in about 25 hours a week. This is what Business Week (which is every bit as lefty a rag as Newsweek) passes off as the "typical hourly wage worker". Bullshit. I don't know if the company I work for even employs anyone who fits that description.
You and a lot of other people are passing off the multi-hundred-million dollar salaries made by a few bank CEOs as being typical of all corporations. Again, bullshit. Go check the numbers at Forbes. Do you know why those Goldman Sachs guys are pulling down that kind of money? Because they have deep political connections inside the Democratic Party. They're making that kind of money because of patronage, and then useful idiots like you call out everyone except them, in order to deflect attention from what's really going on. Where was Jamie Gorelick working when she pulled down $25M for a no-work job? Well, it damn sure wasn't Exxon, Wal-Mart, or Monsanto. Where was it? Here's a hint: when Democrats complain about executive compensation, they never, ever bring up Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.
So the answer to your question is that the presumption behind your question is false on its face. It's a complete lie. And you are helping to spread that lie.
Cousin Dave at August 3, 2010 6:15 PM
I'm not blaming Marx. I defending calling him an academic.
And Marx could have refuted the dictatorship of the proletariat after he saw what happened with the French Revolution and the Paris Commune. But he didn't.
What 52%? Obama's approval rating is barely hovering above 40%.
Pelosi's and the Democratic Congress' is even lower...lowest ever for Congress actually.
Really? A-Rod is worth more than the GDP of some countries? And how many times the average peanut vendor's salary does A-Rod make?
And rookies getting multi-year multi-million dollar contracts before even playing one minute in the pros "deserve" those pay packages?
But Steven Jobs pulling Apple back from the brink didn't "earn" his pay? Lee Iacocca putting Chrysler back in business didn't earn his pay? How about the head of Ford, whose pre-TARP decisions to divest assets kept his company alive without government bailouts. I guess he didn't earn his pay either.
I like that one. I may use it sometime.
But it's the wrong metaphor here. I'm the hungry guy who wants a cheap burger defending the Burger King.
I'll defend capitalism to my dying day. It has lifted more people out of misery than any other ism. Ask anyone who lived the former workers' paradise of East Germany how they liked driving their Trabants. Then ask someone in West Germany how they liked driving their Volkswagens, BMWs, Opels, Porsches, Mercedes, Fords etc. Ask each of them how long it took to get the car delivered and what percentage of their pay it cost them.
Ask the East Germans how much shorter their lives are from breathing in the toxic exhaust fumes (nine times the hyrdocarbon emissions and five times the carbon monoxide emissions of comparable capitalist-produced cars).
Can I ask Mao's wife?
How about the millions killed under Mao or their families who were charged for the bullet? Can I ask them how the revolution worked out for them?
Conan the Grammarian at August 3, 2010 6:28 PM
"And Marx could have refuted the dictatorship of the proletariat after he saw what happened with the French Revolution and the Paris Commune. But he didn't."
He believed that the dictatorship of the proletariat was the temporary pit stop on the way to the Utopia. He "didn't" because he couldn't. Again, you are blaming Marx for not knowing how to text.
"Really? A-Rod is worth more than the GDP of some countries?"
Yes. A-Rod got his contract from George Steinbrenner. And Mr. Steinbrenner was not exactly friendly to anyone including George Costanza. Do you remember an episode which George Costanza could not get a salary raise from Mr. Steinbrenner? Well, A-Rod did. Why?. Because he earned it. There was no other way around to get money out of Mr. Steinbrenner's live warm hand.
"What 52%? Obama's approval rating is barely hovering above 40%."
Well, 52% of us voted for him in 2008. And the honeymoon is over. Still 40% is not bad.
"How about the millions killed under Mao or their families who were charged for the bullet? Can I ask them how the revolution worked out for them?"
You see a dead caterpillar and I see a butterfly. After all that struggle, the China just passed Japan as the second biggest economy in the world and on the way to challenge the U.S.A. for the championship title. You and I, we the people, have the same goal no matter you believe or not. To remain on the top at least during our life time. And if we must, we can steal some game plan from their play book.
Chang at August 3, 2010 7:23 PM
> I agree CEOs are overpaid. But I
> also think A-Rod and LeBron are
> overpaid. I think Denzel and
> Julia and Speilberg are overpaid.
What on Earth makes you think this? I mean, like, tell us more about the invisible metrics that sing to you when someone's making too much money! Please... Tell!
I sense in you a very special spirit... A nearly-magical attunement to ethereal truths too subtle for detection by lesser men... A sorcerous awareness of unseen forces from realms of the dead, the undead, and that Star Trek parallel universe where the woman with green skin dances in a bikini. You know things that other men don't know! They have no idea!
You're a seriously special guy, Conan! You know what people are supposed to be paid, EVEN WHEN YOU AREN'T INVOLVED with the industry which prices their talent!
In all of human creation, there's really no better insight a person can have than to know the correct price of something. (Marx was right about that and essentially nothing else.) And for a couple centuries now, the smartest guys on the globe have convened in a pitiless arena to test each other's judgment without sentiment or favoritism.
But it turns out, that's all been a wasted exercise! Because YOU'VE known the truth all along, Conan! You remind me of a girl I dated years ago. (But only in some respects: Her legs were incredible, breathtaking. Princess Diana once wrote to her to ask how she could look so cool slipping into and out of my car. But my date held the secrets of her allure closely, and Di went to her grave as an also-ran.)
I'd returned from a scuba trip to news that a suspect in the Unabomber attacks had been arrested. As we perused photos and details of his capture in the papers, my date said 'You can just tell from his face that he's the guy'. And I was all, like, 'What the fuck? You had the power to spot him all along? Why didn't you tell us twenty years ago, before all those college professors had their fingers blown off?' Like her, you've chosen to hide your genius. Even today I'm dumbfounded by California's Megan's Law website: The mug-shot faces of sex offenders hold no clues. (Though it's good to be in a particularly clean neighborhood, and thank you for your concern.)
But maybe that was just simple-minded ol' me being naive again. Because I lack your voodoo superpowers! For example, take Hollywood. I've lived here for twenty years! And I've been to a few movies! But I've never financed one. So I've never had to fire up a copy of Microsoft Excel to try and decide which movie starlet will do the best job of seating butts in the theater for an opening weekend, or which face-on-a-box will sell the most cutout DVD's to lonely Filipino shoe salesmen three months later. I'd always figured there were a few wizards in this town who could do that math; people who could look at Julia Roberts' resume and know whether she was a good risk, or whether Demi Moore was a better way to go, or whether this was the summer to move towards a Knightly or a Hathaway. But apparently not!
So I envy you.
Unless you're bullshitting... And I can imagine two reasons why that might be so, and they're not unrelated.
First, you might simply resent the fact that other carbon-unit humanoids make more money than you do, and choose to express your hurt in the plainest, most impulsive way: You'll complain not that you've failed to hone your best talent, or that you've marketed yourself too timidly, but that others are simply paid too much! The problem isn't you— Couldn't be! You, Conan, have created all the value the world should expect you to create. No! The problem is THEM! A-rod's the one who doesn't produce enough fungible wealth, no matter how many $200 seats he fills in Fenway! (Or Wrigley! Or wherever! I don't do baseball.)
Secondly, the warm reception of your ideas in casual fora like this one fills you with hope that in the Obamanian Economy of Tomorrow, the sheer righteousness of your moral authority will earn you a seat at the Big Table... Where you and the others with your cosmic gift will tell the movie stars and athletes and automakers what their assets are worth, Goddammit! And it won't matter whether they like it or not! Because you'll be ON THE COMMITTEE! You'll clean up this real estate thing, and that will be that! You know what all those houses are worth!
_____________________
You're correct to consider the insane amount of capital the middle class has moved into risky investments in the past thirty years. "Financial services" has become the largest sector of the American economy, and it's mostly frogwash. The people paying for all that "service" have made no study of the assets they've purchased, or even the credentials of their salesman. Failures on this scale can't happen merely because perp-walk scoundrels in corporate boardrooms weave tales of magic that you, Conan, are able to disregard.
No. People who really, truly know what the price of something ought to be don't complain about twisted market forces or the mispricings of the crippled popular heart: They're paying attention to people's needs with better insight than yours, and positioning their assets in front of the wave.
You don't have the power. If you actually did, why the fuck didn't you short the 'Street in 2006?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 3, 2010 7:36 PM
Damn. Busted link... Sorry about that. I feel bad. Here's Hathway.
And here's Lewis discussing the first good book about the tiny number of people who really DID know something had gone wrong.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 3, 2010 7:48 PM
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) will screw any chance for us to break the Dimocrat - Repubican parties in congress.
Read about it -- and realize how screwed we are as long as they are in charge.
Jim P. at August 3, 2010 7:50 PM
Conan asks: "How about the millions killed under Mao or their families who were charged for the bullet? Can I ask them how the revolution worked out for them?" To which Chang replies: "You see a dead caterpillar and I see a butterfly. "
Gotta break a few eggs, huh? Chang, you do realize you just outed yourself as a Stalinist. Then again, judging from your statements here, you're probably OK with that. Either that, or you're just trolling. Either way, I refuse to take you seriously any further.
Cousin Dave at August 4, 2010 6:40 AM
>>I'd always figured there were a few wizards in this town who could do that math; people who could look at Julia Roberts' resume and know whether she was a good risk, or whether Demi Moore was a better way to go, or whether this was the summer to move towards a Knightly or a Hathaway. But apparently not!
Crid,
I thoroughly enjoyed your response to Conan (above).
(Though I wonder if you're in danger of flogging to death references to that long-ago exotic "scuba trip"? You've mentioned it in passing so very often, I feel I was there with you! Please feel free to correct me if, in fact, you're frequently plumbing the briny depths in your macho flippers!).
I enjoyed your comment even though Conan is, of course, perfectly correct.
You don't need to be in the biz to know that the A-list stars are ludicrously overpaid, that the tinseltown math wizards are best at creating their own Oz-like PR & that Hollywood accounting is a corrupt joke.
You can be a red-blooded booster of capitalism - as Conan is - and still have a perfectly legitimate beef with certain eye-watering celebrity salaries.
Jody Tresidder at August 4, 2010 8:20 AM
> I wonder if you're in danger of
> flogging to death
When you're bored, stop reading.
> references to that long-ago
> exotic "scuba trip"?
There were many, many trips consuming many, many thousands of dollars. I did it right, both in traveling style and athletic ambition, flying the greatest distances from both America and modernity. Each venture was a long and glorious book, and we've not yet started the chapters with fish. I've seen shit underwater that I couldn't describe and you wouldn't believe, exotic bizarreness that mocks science fiction and roaring color that beggars the psychedelia of Peter Max. It was probably the formative experience of adult life: My last dream under this very dawn was a dive. (There was some sex, too, but the important thing is that there were bubbles and surge.)
> You don't need to be in the biz
What • On • Earth • Makes You • Think • So?> to know that the A-list stars
> are ludicrously overpaid
Your whine collapses under the expression "A-list"; it's a very small number of people who can command the kind of investment which offends you. And these are people who tend to be fascinating to look at anyway: That's the point. They're notoriously fuckable. The whole damn enterprise is about dressing up novel contexts in which fuckable people can be photographed.
Hollywood is famous for expropriating these dressings from other ventures without shame. They make movies from TV shows, they make movies from board games, they make movies from children's catchphrases. Hollywood's also famous for butchering the meats of lesser industry to feed its machinery; many a small businessman from Kansas has taken his HVAC-control fortune to Lotusland in order to get even richer and have sex with Natalie Wood. It almost never works out. (For him, I mean: Hollywood itself thanks him for his best effort and rolls merrily along.)
But thing is: All these companies are publicly owned. Get it? Their dealings are as open as anybody's, certainly as accessible as those of, say, BP or General Motors. Maybe there's a little extra mud in there, but not much. Certainly no more "corrupt" than the books of Enron or WorldCom, which were mopped up after a few years. These stocks –of Warner and Disney and Sony and all the other companies who write checks to Miss Roberts– are traded without shame (or great interest from the SEC) by the retirement funds of Poughkeepsie schoolteachers and Akron trash collectors and all the rest. This is not organized crime. All players are welcome.
Webster says "ludicrous" is "1: amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity."
Well, golly! If it's "obvious" –perhaps only to you, Jody– that Johnny Depp gets too much money, then come on out here! If you can save someone a few million bucks getting the movie made, they'll certainly be happy to cut off a slice for you! Try and understand that. You'll get rich by knowing where to find hidden value. The A-list is small because it's pruned with ferocity and bloodthir$t every hour of the day.
Conan's complaint with "CEOs" is the whine of the same Kansas businessman who took his eagerness to Wall Street. The guy didn't read the prospectus: If he didn't want the company to pass out so many golden parachutes, he shouldn't have been investing in it.
Listen, I sympathize with poverty. M'kay? I don't come from wealth, and am having some bad years m'self. But the haircut now being given to the middle-class capitalist investor needed to happen, even under the risk of Obama's socialist scythe. People were investing stupidly, and that's not tolerable. They were making bad movies....
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 4, 2010 10:09 AM
>>There were many, many trips consuming many, many thousands of dollars. I did it right, both in traveling style and athletic ambition, flying the greatest dist...
Cute.
So -just the once, eh? (But - oh - the evergreen memory of those tide-stirred fronds!)
>>Well, golly! If it's "obvious" –perhaps only to you, Jody– that Johnny Depp gets too much money, then come on out here!
Nah, it was Kevin Costner - for, like, about twenty fucking YEARS. (And don't get me started on Mel Gibson's last check - before the other shoe finally dropped...this shit keeps me awake, damnit!)
Jody Tresidder at August 4, 2010 10:23 AM
How do you know mine aren't? You've never seen my legs.
I've argued many times against committees and revolutions and centalized economic planning.
I may think A-Rod or Julia are overpaid, but I'm not advocating government regulation of their pay...or of anyone else's.
If A-Rod can get that kind of money for his services on the open market, more power to him.
If someone making a movie thinks Denzel or Julia is worth the asking price, more power to Denzel and Julia.
And Crid, I was really just using A-Rod and Julia's salaries as a counterpoint to attack the boilerplate "CEOs are overpaid" arguments Chang made.
See, leftists like to rant that CEOs are overpaid, but those same self-righteous guardians of salary propriety don't argue that sports stars, actors, or singers (people with whom they identify) are overpaid. Because those folks are fellow workers in the class struggle against the man.
And the "CEOs are overpaid" crowd never considers the true worth of CEOs who have done and are doing a good job (I pointed out a few in the part of my argument you ignored).
See, these guys think the CEO job is so easy that any worker lifted from the factory floor could do it...and better than the current CEO. Like a beer-soaked football fan thinking he can coach his favorite team better than the idiot that's doing it now. Maybe he could. Chances are, not.
Not at all.
And I don't feel I'm special because I make more than other carbon-unit humanoids either.
I sell my skills, experience, and education on the open market just like everyone else. And if want to make more money, I can get more skills, get better at the skills I have, or start knocking over banks.
You keep telling yourself that.
However, the ubiquity of bankrupt and near-bankrupt movie studios and production companies would argue that math is not exactly an over-utilized skill in Hollywood.
Conan the Grammarian at August 4, 2010 10:32 AM
> However, the ubiquity of bankrupt and near-bankrupt
> movie studios and production companies would
> argue that math is not exactly an over-utilized
> skill in Hollywood.
Oh, for fuck's sake, is that where your head's at? An economy isn't righteous until those who play in it can NEVER LOSE?
Dear sugar-child! If you want to be afraid, you've come to the right town! You can lose here, and lose big! Hollywood churns! It grinds with sharp, bloody teeth! But we've populated a mountain range with people who've done OK at it. It you want to cluck at their math, you'll be expected to explain their property values.
No tears.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 4, 2010 11:09 AM
> So -just the once, eh?
What? Didn't we just cover this?
> ...this shit keeps me awake, damnit!
This sleeplessness, and Conan's too, isn't about concern for the poor, OK? It ain't about righteousness.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 4, 2010 11:12 AM
For crying out loud, Crid! Of course I don't expect everyone to win all the time. That's not life, that's fantasy.
[Also, see my earlier comment about freedom including the freedom to fail.]
And economies are never righteous. The virtuous don't always triumph and the wicked don't always fall. Even economies intended to be righteous (i.e., communism) never are.
But if your business fails, your math was probably flawed. Perhaps not fatally, but there was a variable for which you failed to account or an assumption in your base model that should be revisited.
I did business projections and mathematical modeling for a living at one time. It's tricky enough in a relatively stable business. I can only imagine how tough it must be in turbulent business like Hollywood.
If your studio's going bankrupt due to paying exhorbitant salaries to big name directors and stars, someone's not doing the math correctly. Even if, due to limited liability laws, you're personally walking away with a huge golden parachute and a mansion on the hill.
Conan the Grammarian at August 4, 2010 11:24 AM
>>If you want to be afraid, you've come to the right town! You can lose here, and lose big! Hollywood churns! It grinds with sharp, bloody teeth! But we've populated a mountain range with people who've done OK at it. It you want to cluck at their math, you'll be expected to explain their property values.
I am free to resent whatever I wish, Crid.
I attach no moral value to many of them.
By the same token, there is no virtue to being a laissez-faire lick-spittle on the jolly topic of A-list star salaries.
And if the infamous avoidance of Hollywood accounting was the norm, there wouldn't be a single US company showing a manufacturing profit on its books - ever!
Jody Tresidder at August 4, 2010 11:34 AM
> And economies are never righteous.
Don't get mouthy. Some economies are so very much better than most that their relative righteousness ought not be ridiculed through petty grudges.
> I am free to resent whatever I wish
Absolutely! Just don't tell us those resentments are an expression of your best self. And if you do tell us that, pray we don't believe you.
And again, Jody, if you could do better in Hollywood, it's reasonable to assume that you would.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 4, 2010 12:31 PM
> if the infamous avoidance of Hollywood
> accounting
The mafia would kill for such books.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 4, 2010 12:49 PM
>>Just don't tell us those resentments are an expression of your best self.
Which I haven't.
As ever, Crid, you wag a warning finger at words never uttered.
>>And again, Jody, if you could do better in Hollywood, it's reasonable to assume that you would.
You what?
Jody Tresidder at August 4, 2010 1:16 PM
Long ago in ancient China there was a general who would win battles in the following way:
He would order 300 men to charge a position, and if they failed, he would execute them out of hand. He would then order the next 300 to charge the position, with the same result if they failed. Prior to any battle, he would strictly observe any rules and execute men for the smallest violation, laughing as their blood spilled on the ground. In this way he enforced absolute discipline and won many battles.
In another time in ancient China, there was a general who won a great victory in the following way:
He went before his army and asked who would risk their lives with him. Having recieved 800 volunteers, he ate his meal with them, trained with them, shared the same quarters and hardships as themselves, and then he lead the charge from the front and struck his much more numerous foes in a surprise attack. The battle was said to last for some time before he and his men began to withdraw, but when this happened, a small number of his men became trapped and surrounded by his rivals, and when they called for help and asked, "Will you abandon us?!" he rushed back into the fray, with the rest of his soldiers with him, and broke his men out of the trap. When they had made good their escape, the story of the general who shared the danger spread, and there was not one of his men not willing to follow him into battle. Shortly thereafter, they utterly crushed their enemies.
Now Crid, you tell me, who was the dictator, and who was the LEADER?
-----------------
And Chang, if you don't like what a CEO makes, you are free to get on the board of directors as a shareholder and vote a reduced salary, and hire the best CEO that salary can get. Guys like Bill Gates & Steve Jobs are RARE. The perception of scarcity has a great deal to do with it. If being a CEO was so easy, why don't you do it? You've fallen prey to the common notion that things you don't know how to do are easy. Its a very "dilbert Pointy Haired Boss" thing to do.
They have the "right" to whatever salary their talents command. It doesn't fall to anyone but private enterprise to decide the worth of those THEY HIRE. You are totally irrelavent, because they are not answerable to other citizens for the amount they are paid. They are NOT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.
-------------
And Chang, the game is not "rigged" the game simply has rules. If you refuse to learn them, don't bitch when you lose. I don't make alot of money, but I take the time to learn how to use what I make, far far better than those around me, under me, or over me. I make more money than people with ten years more experience, higher rank, and therefore, higher salary. "I" save huge chunks of cash because I refrain from needless purchases, and as a result I've increased my worth by 7 times what it was 7 years ago. And I'm probably going to increase it by a similar proportion next year, or more. I'm breaking no laws, reporting my income, and managing my resources to benefit my future. I'll never need to work again by the time I'm 50 at the latest.
--------------
I don't know who A-Rod is or what he makes. I've heard his name, but I'm not really a sports guy. But here is the thing. The peanut vendor does not pack the seats. Nobody comes to see him. If millions of people are willing to see A-Rod play however, then he does indeed "earn it" not because his work is socially valuable, but because millions of people will pay to see him do what he does. That means people buy products he endorses, that means people are watching the channel his game is on, which means more commercial sales, that means he packs the stadium where he's playing. That means billions in business revolve around this man's activity. The peanut vendor is making peanuts by comparison because his work has so little value to the organization that employs him. When people will pay in large numbers to watch him work, his salary will go up accordingly. THE MARKET sets the price. If you want to cut A-Rod's pay, just convince people to stop ponying up cash to see him.
----------------
Lastly: *applauds crid* Well said on multiple points!
Robert at August 4, 2010 1:49 PM
> You what?
You'd make better movies at lower prices... Isn't that what you're saying? If only Hollywood weren't so terribly corrupt... I just don't get it. You and Conan complain when people succeed, and you complain when they fail. What DO you want?
> you wag a warning finger at words
> never uttered.
The first finger wagged at movie stars and baseball players and chief executive officers who make too much money.
> you tell me, who was the dictator, and who
> was the LEADER?
As folklore goes, it ain't exactly Hansel and Gretel. I guess I don't see the CHALLENGE. Who's the leader of North Korea?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 4, 2010 1:59 PM
Robert, I think you missed my point (I know Crid did). I used entertainment and sports figure salaries to show the class warfare filter through which Chang was challenging salary levels of CEOs.
In response, Chang said that A-Rod deserved his pay because he "earned it." He argued that CEOs did not deserve to be paid such a high multiple of the average worker's salary. So, I asked, what is the multiple of A-Rod's "earned" salary to that of the peanut vendor's? This is simply not a legitimate way to measure a CEO's salary. Nor is it a legitimate way to measure A-Rod's salary.
Of course, no one pays $200 to see the peanut vendor. And the minimum wage Customer Service Rep at the call center in Boise, Idaho does not have the impact on the bottom line of a major corporation that the choice of CEO has. No one buys stock in the company because "Bob" is manning the phones in Boise.
By the way, overpaid or not, A-Rod is really working to earn his salary. He just hit his 600th career home run. That'll put a few more butts into the seats at Yankee Stadium and sell a few more licensed replica jerseys.
Conan the Grammarian at August 4, 2010 2:27 PM
>>By the way, overpaid or not, A-Rod is really working to earn his salary.
Unlike Kevin Costner. Or M. Night Shyamalan. Or...
>>You'd make better movies at lower prices... Isn't that what you're saying?
Crid,
If that's what I was saying, I would have said it.
I've never pretended to be more than a paying consumer with strong opinions.
Jody Tresidder at August 4, 2010 2:48 PM
And further to Conan's comment earlier:
"However, the ubiquity of bankrupt and near-bankrupt movie studios and production companies would argue that math is not exactly an over-utilized skill in Hollywood".
Here's an extract from a recent posting by a successful screenwriter (from Metafilter).
So much for your "wizards", Crid!
"This summer has been a fucking disaster for the studios. They've had a few hits but so many 'sure things' have crashed and burned. Studio heads have been reduced to touring round the agencies trying to get some ideas. The model is not working, and no wonder.
You have to understand the guys and gals who run the studios are not stupid or craven or idiots. I know several of them and they are mostly terrific people who care just as much about making good movies as anyone else. But they are working within the constraints of their corporate owners.
Screenwriting is as bad as it's ever been. I pity anyone trying to break in right now. There are no spec sales. But... things always turn around. I know one head of production of one of the major studios who would *love* to do a massive family melodrama. They are desperate to find a way to do classic love stories. The massive over-emphasis on $100m + movies means there is a gap in the market for much lower budget material. Someone will exploit that..."
http://www.metafilter.com/93407/INT-HOMELESS-SHELTER-WRITERS-ROOM-NIGHT#3166739
Jody Tresidder at August 4, 2010 2:57 PM
> Here's an extract from a recent
> posting by a successful screenwriter
> (from Metafilter). So much for
> your "wizards"
If the wizards were wrong, how did this guy get to be "successful"? Again, what do you want? You loathe success and you loathe failure. Apparently you and Conan think that when a film company loses money, the owners and their families are taken into the Valley and shot. It's not really like that! Some projects make money and some don't. Some companies exist only for a single piece of film. If Jodestar Enterprises loses money with the summer beach musical, maybe Tresstar Ventures will do better in the fall with the football melodrama.
> I pity anyone trying to break
> in right now.
There's probably no been a year of life where I didn't read a screenwriter saying almost the exact same thing... Usually it's a guy who's taste is being supplanted by something new, as are his relationships with formerly remunerative producers.
There are a lot of new things. There's internet and satellite and everything else. Video games have been making more money than Hollywood for years. Yesterday Newsweek sold for a dollar. No, I mean NEWSWEEK sold for dollar! Really! That's more than 83% off the newsstand price, if you act now! My congressman's husband bought it.
Media channels are in transition, but more people are consuming more Hollywood-y STUFF than ever before. The distribution enterprise I work for passes a lot of material to latin America. Lately we've seen a truckload of murder mysteries... Low budgets, obvious plots, ham actors, rote scripts... But they shoot them in HighDef and are careful with lighting, so they look moody and great. The "exploit" your screenwriter seeks has already been found.
It's hard to call this the death of Hollywood, no matter what it means to Disney or Universal or Sony. Hollywood values and Hollywood elegance mean so much to people that they've created tools to do it themselves. The swift-response, short-term team composition model from Hollywood has been instructive to a LOT of industries lately.
I think you and Conan need to read some Postrel. The way to economic success is not to decide what people want (or should be paid) from distant shores: it's to FIND OUT. Let people try things and get feedback.
After all, Costner and Shyamalan never got any of your money, right? And Randy Travis never got any of mine. Does that mean his earnings should have been taken from him and given to children with cancer?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 4, 2010 4:28 PM
Ahh Crid, I thought you could do better than complaining that they don't sound challenging. What does that have to do with it? You didn't ask what was hard, you asked what they were. If you'd prefer to duck the question rather than state your answer...well frankly I think you know your reply was tin eared. You and I both know you got the point and know the answer. Salright, most people can't handle it when the question they thought couldn't be easily answered, is. I still have to say you made a good number of excellent points in other postings on these subjects, to many actually, for me to conveniently state them all.
--------------
I think I see what you mean Conan. Chang is indeed caught up in his class warfare viewpoint, and it is skewed or outright blind. There is no such thing really as "class warfare" in the U.S., except that which is waged on have nots who don't want to work to become the haves. They just want wealth redistributed from those who earned it to those who didn't. (themselves)
Guys like me would never engage in class warfare. The reason for that is that I focus upon class MOBILITY. I want to be able to RAISE MY standard of living, increase my personal fortune, enhance the inheritance I leave to my heirs, and otherwise increase my social "class". And I will do so, I am doing so, by the work, financial management, and education that I pursue.
I don't want to impoverish A-Rod, Diddy, or Gates, I want to join their ranks myself.
To do that, I save carefully, invest wisely, I continue my education, I work daily, and yes, I even tinker in my man cave with invention ideas to solve problems. Came up with a good one last year, with any luck, I'll have a good mock up ready in a month or two, and a patent application submitted a few months later. (Patent processes are such a bitch, can't believe how much it costs)
I also network regularly, keep in touch with property managers, investors, and persons of interest in my favorite industries. Getting ahead is a game with rules, if Chang doesn't want to play, he's welcome to make minimum wage flipping burgers and grumbling about the proletariat and bitching that he's not making as much money as the guy who is responsible for bringing the Ipad into millions of homes, until the day he dies. He has that choice, I definitely act to counter him when he casts his vote for somebody who wants to take my hard earned resources and provide it to him.
The only wealth redistribution I favor takes place cash register style. Goods and services in trade for a market value price of one's wealth.
----------------
Shyamalan got a little of my money a few years back, and DAMN but that was a WASTE. Otherwise, again well said Crid.
Robert at August 4, 2010 5:08 PM
I don't see the CHALLENGE of your CAPITAL LETTERS in the word LEADER.
There are a lot of people who lead (excuse me, LEAD) without representing the will of those compelled to follow.
Sixth sense was OK.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 4, 2010 5:30 PM
>>After all, Costner and Shyamalan never got any of your money, right?
Of course those bastards did.
And they're not the only ones...
>>There are a lot of new things. There's internet and satellite and everything else...
You also made some other nifty points in there, Crid.
(The screenwriter I quoted is actually - surprisingly - not remotely a whiner. He's doing very well for himself. I only add that because yes, many come across as personally disgruntled when they do the "whither Hollywood?" speech, and it's a change when they do not.)
Jody Tresidder at August 4, 2010 5:41 PM
Caps just for emphasis Crid. ;)
I never saw Sixth Sense, I heard it was good, saw a few minutes of it, but just didn't care for what I saw, so I switched it off.
------------
You know, I can't help but think it would be one helluva good time talking politics at a bar or restaurant with a number of y'all. Makes me miss being stateside.
Impassioned opinion and a better than fair amount of knowledge are hard to come by, but I see it pretty regularly around here.
Robert at August 4, 2010 5:52 PM
Robert, the late Louis Rukeyser had a comment on social mobility in one of his books. "The hordes of immigrants were not drawn to America by the misapprehension that this country's millionaires would soon be dissolving their estates and passing out the proceeds to all comers. What lured our ancestors here was the chance to build a better, freer life through their own efforts."
=========================
You need to stop saying that I advocate regulating anyone's career choices, salaries, earnings, or success. I've made it quite clear that I am opposed to that kind of intervention in the economic process.
I can say, that in my personal opinion, I think someone is overpaid; but I'm not advocating giving any kind of regulatory bureaucracy control over people's economic activities. That always ends badly.
People put themselves out on the market and earn what the market will bear for their skills and work habits. People try new ideas and succeed or fail on their ability to meet demand at the price the market will bear. That's the way it should be.
=========================
As for reading Postrel, already have. Crid, I've never in any way maintained that the future can be controlled or regulated. Nor should any government agency attempt to do so.
Refer back to my earlier example about the government-built Trabant of East Germany versus the myriad choices West Germans had in purchasing cars. The average delivery time after ordering a Trabant was 15 years...years. You could drive off in a new Volkswagen or Opel or BMW as soon as you finished the paperwork and your check cleared. When the two Germanies were united, scores of Trabants were simply abandoned on the side of the road by their owners. The two-stroke engined, pollution-bellowing Trabant is what you get when you let the government plan and control technology.
I was listening to the radio this morning and a guy was talking about urban planning and the new models of high density living spaces with transportation hubs and how they would revolutionize how people live in the future. After listening to him expound on this vision for a few minutes, all I could think of was "what if no one wants to live in a human habitrail?"
And he wasn't proposing building one or two developments to see if people share his grand vision or to see where such a development may fall short of meeting people's needs and desires and correcting those shortfalls for future developments.
No, in his hubris, he already knew what was best for people. It never crossed his mind that people might want not want to live in his version of paradise.
This kind of vision of urban control is the same kind of thinking that got us into the Cabrini Green-style housing projects mess of the 70s and the Paris ring of slums mess today. It never ushers in the urban paradise its backers promise.
I like letting the market rather than the government decide whether BetaMax or VHS will be the standard. I like having a choice between cable, DSL, satellite, or streaming video. It's confusing, chaotic, dynamic, and ensures that I can choose the product or service package that works best for me. And it means the service providers have to work hard to keep up with their existing and future competition. And, yes, rapidly changing technology does mean that sometimes you get stuck with a BetaMax.
I bought a smart phone when I had no need for one. Now, I can't live without it. I call, text, check e-mails, read e-books, keep my calendar and contact list, and watch movies on it. If the a government bureaucrat had been allowed to decide, all we'd be able to do with our cell phones is make phone calls.
=========================
How in the hell did you come up with that load of crap?
Conan the Grammarian at August 4, 2010 5:53 PM
> I can say, that in my personal opinion, I think
> someone is overpaid; but I'm not advocating
> giving any kind of regulatory bureaucracy
> control over people's economic activities.
Great. So what do you mean? Your heart is disquieted by Seyfried's wages.... What would sooth you?
> How in the hell did you come up
> with that load of crap?
Something about "the ubiquity of bankrupt and near-bankrupt movie studios and production companies"...
So now you're saying you have NO COMPASSION???!?!??
AHA!!!!!!!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 4, 2010 6:10 PM
"The only wealth redistribution I favor takes place cash register style. Goods and services in trade for a market value price of one's wealth."
Exactly.
So, what did you get in exchange for 700 billion dollars of your money? What do you have to show for except your foreclosed homes? Why Chris Dodd's home is not in foreclosure? Why Henry Paulson and his fuck buddies in Wall Street are not losing their homes?
Frankly I do not understand why they are not losing their heads. These mother lovers never made any money by producing goods or providing valuable services. They did it to majority of overweight and unsuspecting Americans with "predatory lending". The CEOs of banks actually seek the borrowers, who had no means to pay back. The Americans were given the complex loan terms of 20 pages and derivatives, which no one would understand. And the CEOs did this legally with the blessing of the U.S. Government working for the Wall Street. Also, they could always rely on people like you suffering Stockholm Syndrome.
The system is rigged for the Wall Street, which will do anything to make bucks.
Chang at August 4, 2010 6:25 PM
No. My heart is neither overjoyed nor disquieted by anyone's wages but my own. And not in relation to anyone else's wages either.
I'm just not emotionally invested in how much someone else gets paid.
There are a lot of Hollywood studios and production companies that have gone through or are going through bankruptcies. Last I read, MGM is on the brink right now.
The prevalance of bankruptcies in the movie business could indicate that the underlying business model is flawed, no matter how many people have gotten rich off of it.
On the other hand, bankruptcy could simply be a smart tax avoidance strategy for a healthy business model. Or not.
I don't.
If you get into a business as cut-throat and turbulent as the movie business, you take your chances. So, you get to hang around stars and act important and take calls "from the coast." Enjoy.
But if you lose your shirt, it ain't my fault and it ain't my problem.
And if you make millions, good for you. I won't expect you to cut me a check for any of it.
Conan the Grammarian at August 4, 2010 6:27 PM
> I don't.
So what, um, what do you, y'know, MEAN when you say someone makes too much? What wealth is lost? Whose?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 4, 2010 7:09 PM
Chang you are not making any sense.
Our founding fathers had 3 million citizens and 13 colonies with independent economies and they still have a rough time of it. They had weeks and months of communication lag time and almost all their neighboring "nations" lacked either a large population or a strong technological basis on which to oppose their will. I'm not saying it was easy for them to run things, but compare that to 50 states, 300 million+, and a world that moves at the speed of a microprocessor instead of the plow. Its two different worlds between then and now.
And as to Marx versus Smith, how do you know they might have been good at either job outside of their theorizing if they never did them. Both were idea men primarily, Marx was pretty bad, a.k.a. godawful at it. Smith pretty brilliant as far as it goes, but both of them might have made horrible factory managers, there is no way to know.
------------------
And the bottom 80% Chang, can get rich just like anyone else. I'm growing wealthier every single month. Who am I stealing from? No one. If things go well next year, hell never mind, I'll announce it if it happens. Bottom line is that the guy in the bottom 80 working out of his garage on sunday can IPO on Monday and be Bill Gates neighbor by the end of the month by developing a good product and bringing it to the mass market effectively. We have no class warfare because we have CLASS MOBILITY. It isn't easy of course, but it shouldn't be either.
------------------
And no, Academics are no more part of the real world than a player of Ghost Recon by Tom Clancy is part of the military. Those who play at gaames and theories do not deal in consequences, they do not suffer them, they do not experience them, they are removed from their activity and so, not active participants. If you want to theorize about business, but never experience running one, chances are your theories will go ever farther off the mark, until you are so far removed from problems you have no idea that they exist, since you cannot see them.
----------------
I haven't heard that quote Conan...but damned I DO like it.
---------------
Chang, I lost some money in the market when the housing market crashed, and I do favor some reforms to prevent some of the more egregious abuses. But alot of the fault lies squarely on the morons taking out loans they had to know they couldn't afford. A stockboy at walmart should know better than to buy a quarter million dollar home. The bank should have known better than to lend it to him. A few simple rules are all it would take to keep that from happening. "All home loans require 10% down and proof of income." BOOM, I've just solved almost all of the problems in one sentence.
But since that happened "Comrade" I've been making bank left and right because I took the time to study my mistakes, learn what the right moves to make were and why I failed, and now I'm more successful than I ever was before. The system isn't rigged my good man, it just has rules. You say it only benefits wallstreet, but that simply isn't so. I know this because "I" am benefiting EVERY SINGLE MONTH. I've bumped up my monthly income again and again, and I'm "giving myself a raise" this month too. (that is what I call it when I find a way to reliably boost my income through investing)
And anyone who signs something they do not understand, deserves exactly what happens to them. I don't have Stockholm syndrome, I have a healthy sense of self interest. The system is working for me just fine. 8, maybe 9 years max, and I'll be retired. Maybe sooner if next year goes really well.
The economy is not a 0 sum game Chang, wealth is created daily, me making more doesn't make your checking account any smaller. You remind me of an old Dilbert comic I read as a boy-
People who talk about things they don't understand:
Man1: So I read that the FED increased the money supply.
Man2: Really?
Man1: Yes, but I checked my bank balance and its the SAME as before.
Man2: That isn't fair.
Robert at August 5, 2010 12:50 AM
I like to tease Chang about how old he is.
But the truth is, it doesn't matter. He's apparently sincere.
I think the big problem with Islam is that it's what every 11-year-old boy would think of as paradise... Subservient women, lockstep conformity, etc.
And I loathe Europe for its imperial heritage. In every squabble with Tressider, there's evidence of that old-time servility to king and queen, or at least the dream of being a princess.
I don't actually know where Chang is from Asia. And again, I don't know how old he he is....
But I was going through through a favorite old video, and this guy really touched a nerve.
Everything I've read from China and recent months has made it clear that yet another huge cluster of humanity is completely unable to fathom the power of individual freedom and experimentation.... They'd rather squeal like schoolgirls about how "The system is rigged for the Wall Street".
That's not one, nor two, but THREE big sectors of the human project who need to be taught how human progress works, who can't believe there isn't a Daddy figure out there who makes things happen.
And the only light comes from the United States, presently in the grip of a ten-trillion dollar socialist from Chicago, the most corrupt political machine the world has ever known.
Things do not look good.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 5, 2010 4:57 PM
Awright, I bungled the link to the guy. Here it is....
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/ID/97855&start=3205&end=3335
Some people will just never believe in leading their own lives.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 5, 2010 8:23 PM
"They'd rather squeal like schoolgirls about how "The system is rigged for the Wall Street"."
They will not do it again. The last time they did in 1989, it ended it really badly for them.
That is the difference between China and America. We, Americans, have the ability to right the ship without really killing anyone. That's why we have socialist in charge of the White House.
The current head "servant" is guaranteed to lose his job within 6 years or so. When that happens, we are going to have someone in the White House who shares the same view as Virginia Postrel to right the ship.
By the way, why all these libertarian crazy girls are pretty? It just breaks my heart....
Chang at August 6, 2010 5:57 AM
Simply desire to say your article is as astounding. The clearness in your post is just great and i could assume you're an expert on this subject. Fine with your permission let me to grab your RSS feed to keep updated with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please carry on the rewarding work.
malwarebytes at March 21, 2011 12:24 AM
Locking in a great interest rate now when purchasing a new home is the ideal way to secure a better future for yourself and your loved ones. Even if you decide not to live there more than 2 years, you can still come out ahead than where you would be if you had rented a place.
Marita Rivena at August 12, 2011 12:12 PM
Oh for crying out loud! I just read the rest of the comments. YOU GOT ME.
helploseweight at September 16, 2011 9:42 AM
Waiting for your next post!!
Sue Worthen at November 29, 2011 12:18 AM
Just wish to say your article is as amazing. The clearness on your publish is simply spectacular and i can think
you are knowledgeable in this subject. Fine with your permission allow me to snatch your feed to
keep up to date with approaching post. Thank you a million and please continue the rewarding
work.
new products ideas student at August 15, 2013 6:50 AM
Leave a comment