Good points and all, but how is one refreshed by non-partisan commentary?

We need fewer interventions.

The most recent seemingly non-partisan sentiment I've seen is this:

American culture is still strong, but our democracy is broken.

We'll never have a responsible government until identifiable people have the responsibility to get things done and can be fired if they don't.

Did any of you ever have this experience in your personal life, maybe in your romantic life? Some attention from someone who you simply didn't care for? So you finally respond gruffly to a mewling stream of cheerful greetings. The next day, they start chattering gruffly, because "You like gruff, right?" They think every response you make, no matter how clear or mechanical or plainly interruptive, is just another lesson in protocol that they need to master.

Government is a STALKER. He's got a boner. He's got a belly full of nutritious food, and warm clothes, and some Starbucks, and fresh batteries for his Ipod, and he's sitting outside your place in his car, just waiting for you to need or even want something. ANYTHING. Game on.

YES. I feel the same way Crid. Get out, get out, get out. People are afraid, and they should be. But I am fairly sick of talking about government like it's some random force, it is people making these decisions about our legislation, about what is considered a crime, about how legislation can be used to ruin people and opportunity. It is people doing these things. The whole thing is broken.

So I'm thinkin we could just frame that last paragraph and stick it on the masthead. As ugly as the image is, it's dead on, Cridster. It also applies in the other thread about the farmer and the zoning board. The are other citizens who are more than happy to use the govt. as a cudgel against you. Especially if they covet your land.

"Rational thought"

Amy. Amerz, Ame-a-saures. Alkon. Alky, Big Red A, the Alkaloid.... Do you suppose there's any human being who ever thought of his his opinions as less rational than those of others?

Truth is not bipartisan, and it's a "refreshing" as a funeral. It has favorites, and it loves them from the cradle to the grave.

By the way, can we all now agree that Randy Travis is weird to look at, even fully clothed?

>>Government is a STALKER. He's got a boner. He's got a belly full of nutritious food, and warm clothes, and some Starbucks, and fresh batteries for his Ipod, and he's sitting outside your place in his car, just waiting for you to need or even want something. ANYTHING. Game on.

Love it. Throw in a little psychopathic killer and you have a total win.

"De Rugy, one of the refreshingly non-partisan economists who blogs, writes:"

Yeah sure she's non-partisan. She writes for a place who's webpage headline boasts:

Conservative commentary on American politics, news and culture.

Listening to fiscal conservatives deny basic economic principles reminds me of listening to religious conservatives deny evolution. The proof is there, backed by massive quantities of empirical data. That's why all serious economists' including Greg Mankiw (president Romneys economic adviser) agree that "Keynesian Economics" known in other places as simply "Economics" works, and that the stimulus was a good idea.

I'm not going to argue with the posters here; even though I could, I have a major in Finance and Applied Economics. The fact is they don't care about the truth. If they did they might do something crazy like go take a class in Basic Macroeconomics at their local community college to educate themselves. Or if you're worried about 'liberal bias in higher ed' just buy the: "Brief Principals of Macroeconomics" textbook by N. Gregory Mankiw (yes that's Romenys chief economic adviser). God forbid you actually know anything about what you're opining on. Apparently that's asking too much.

> That's why all serious economists' including
> Greg Mankiw (president Romneys economic
> adviser) agree that "Keynesian Economics"
> known in other places as simply "Economics"
> works, and that the stimulus was a good idea.

Tell us about the atmosphere of your planet; Tell us about the flora and fauna, and how your species extracts nutrients from the surrounding environment. You've apparently got a whole new scheme of cause & effect cooking over there, and it will be fun to learn the novel details of this fascinating and distant realm. Do you have gravity? Are your oceans wet?

> I'm not going to argue with the posters here

Fuck.

> I have a major in Finance and Applied Economics.

No foolin'?... And yet it gave you strength only for vapid, unsubstantiated condescension. With every passing year, it seems like the Left is good for nothing else. (McCarthyite stuff, at that: "I hold in my hand a list of 200 known Communist infiltrators...")

> makes no rational sense.

Incorrigible. Also, silly. Even as you're correct about Keynesians in this context, you never actually talk about the years of research in dusty stacks and the seasons of calculation on massively parallel mainframe computers that brought you, alone, to this condition of incontrovertible rationality.

Symbolic logic? Advanced calculus? Linear programming? Years of contemplative silence and fasting in a frigid Himalayan monastery? What's your secret?

Someday, I too hope to present a "fact-based" posture! Gonna be great

The dig-a-hole/fill-a-hole of Keynesian economics makes no rational sense. She writes for venues that appreciate a rational approach to economics. Reason.com is one of them.

Keep sticking your head in the sand Amy. You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.

> You can have your own opinions, but you
> can't have your own facts.

I dunno... If don't want to share any of yours ("I'm not going to argue") why shouldn't we trust hers?

Richly educated people don't fear that discussion will devolve into argument, or that it will be a problem if it does.

so Mike...
I dun have degrees in that stuff, can you use some basics to explain it to me...

as I understand it, this idea is that if the government takes a dollar from me, takes it's administrative cut, and gives you .75 cents... somehow that is BETTER than if I just give you .75 cents.

fit it into simple terms like that, so I can run simple numbers to see if it's a FACT.

Britz

"agree that "Keynesian Economics" known in other places as simply "Economics" works, and that the stimulus was a good idea."

So what the hell happened? If it was such a great idea, why didn't it work? And don't use that lame excuse that $2 trillion wasn't enough money. It's more money than has ever been spent on any project in human history, ever. And not a damn thing happened. If $2T isn't enough, how much is enough? Maybe $500 quadrillion? We'll get the Fed started on it right away. First thing they need is a design for the new $1 billion dollar bill. We'll show that punk-ass Mugabe how hyperinflation's done!

"I have a major in Finance and Applied Economics."

Well, there's your problem right there!

Mike Hunter:

That's why all serious economists' including Greg Mankiw (president Romneys economic adviser) agree that "Keynesian Economics" known in other places as simply "Economics" works, and that the stimulus was a good idea.

If you claim to know economics, then you should know that you can't get 2 economists to agree on anything. So for "all serious economists" to "agree", there's something wrong. In this case, apparently, your definition of "serious".

I don't even care what the "serious economists" say. I can look for myself and see what was the result of the 1.4 Trillion Dollars we spent? And how long will it take to pay it back? Oh, So we're talking 3 Trillion after interest? Assuming we pay for the money we borrowed for on time?

OK. When have we paid off our debt in the past? Oh. We haven't. We're still paying for WWII expansion. We just keep opening new lines of credit and rolling the old debt onto the new LoC.

I'm not going to argue with the posters here; even though I could, I have a major in Finance and Applied Economics.

Apparently you can't, despite your credentials.

The fact is they don't care about the truth. If they did they might do something crazy like go take a class in Basic Macroeconomics at their local community college to educate themselves.

Funny thing, in my studies, I found that while microeconomics was pretty easily modeled, once you hit macro, it was "what the economist feels like stating."

My father, with a PhD in Economics, told me that was absurd. So I asked him for his macro study research that contradicted his initial thoughts. It's been about 20 years, and we Don't Discuss That Anymore.

Or if you're worried about 'liberal bias in higher ed' just buy the: "Brief Principals of Macroeconomics" textbook by N. Gregory Mankiw (yes that's Romenys chief economic adviser). God forbid you actually know anything about what you're opining on. Apparently that's asking too much.

Romney is the Republican nominee. He's the only viable counter to the Democrat nominee, who (presumably) will be Barack Obama.

That doesn't mean he's a good choice, the best choice, or his choice in advisors means anything. Mankiw has blathered a lot, and I don't trust anything he says without checking, due to his historical issues.

Bush and his team proposed the initial "stimulus", and Mankiw was part of the cheerleaders for that. He's kind of required now to keep that up, or admit error. (And we know how often that's gonna happen in politics.)

But Mike, if you're gonna wave your paper in our face?

"Keynesian Economics" known in other places as simply "Economics" works, and that the stimulus was a good idea.

You might want to admit that the Stimulus wasn't even freaking Keynesian. Or, you know, we might think that paper ain't worth much. (It was far more than Keynes suggested would be good, and Keynes ideas presumed that once the crisis was over, the borrowed money would be paid off posthaste. But you knew that, right?)