Similarly— Maybe these people are desperate for drama. They're all old enough to have been shallowly educated in history, and perhaps eager to believe that something consequential has to be happening right this very moment, because this is the moment that they themselves are on the planet… And a righteous cosmos would not send them through a mundane lifetime without acknowledging their singular importance in ripples of intense meaning.

Also, 'coup' is French, and thus hard to spell, so it casts all these extra trickles of meaning.

But the guy's a game show host, a petty grifter. By intention, he couldn't materially affect the flow of events in this country during the course of his administration. How could anyone believe that he *now*, having lost an election, no matter how closely, could somehow command the resources of government to serve his nefarious needs?

Give him all the recounts he wants, as long as he pays for them as and where the law demands. And if convincing recounts say he won, let him serve.

But all this idiocy suggests only that none of these worriers have ever made meaningful study of how power is seized, or of the kind of person who can seize it.

"By intention, he couldn't materially affect the flow of events in this country during the course of his administration."

What a lovely evaluation!

1) You've just stated that the man didn't do anything to actually affect you - so, you're now one of those snowflakes insisting that "words hurt!"

2) You identified the number one reason to vote for him instead of Hillary: the lack of a mendacious political machine eager to seize more power to tell people what to do.

Out. Standing! (slow clap)

Now, you might have a problem with that whole "Make America Great Again" thing. Who is it that called people "deplorable"? Was that the better choice?

No.

-----

Meanwhile: sadly, the Pulitzer isn't all that. For a bit of schadenfreude, go look for "Sad Puppies" and "Larry Correia" to find out what happens when an awards committee gets "woke". Like the Nobel people.

But all this idiocy suggests only that none of these worriers have ever made meaningful study of how power is seized, or of the kind of person who can seize it. ~ Crid at November 19, 2020 11:32 PM

It's just sooo fashionable to call Trump "Hitler" and the Republicans "Nazis." One doesn't really have to understand either; all the "right people" will agree with you and think you insightful, maybe invite you to their parties.

The truth is that Trump never had the machinery in place that Hitler put into place on Day One. One can argue that he was too incompetent to put it into place or argue that he never wanted to be a dictator, that he just wanted to be president before he died. His was simply never the operation of a dictator-to-be.

Trump lacked the brutality of a Stalin or a Hitler; the monomaniacal focus needed to be a dictator. He fired the less-sycophantic in his administration, he didn't execute them. The ones he fired went on to write books critical of him and make appearances on talk shows; to be feted by the New York Times. Hardly the stuff of a tyrannical regime bent on takeover.

If the Proud Boys et al were to be Trump's secret police and street thugs, they did a lousy job of it. Tiki torches made them the objects of widespread derision. No business put a Proud Boys logo in its window out of fear of violence or in an attempt to stave off looting. No public figures feigned support for the Proud Boys to avoid being put on a list somewhere. They were denounced loudly and publicly - and often. Even Trump himself denounced them.

BLM, on the other hand....

Maybe these people are desperate for drama. They're all old enough to have been shallowly educated in history ~ Crid at November 19, 2020 11:32 PM

They want their moment of drama, their moment of import. They want to be Claudette, using her feminine wiles to sneak guns through the Nazi guardpost to the Resistance waiting in Cherbourg.

They see themselves as heroically resisting another brutal fascist takeover - never understanding that resistance without actual threat to life and limb is just political opposition, neither heroic nor dramatic.

Actually there is a fair amount of projection in there. As you say no business put up Proud Boys stickers to stave off violence. But many have BLM stickers for exactly that reason. Oates is intentionally dehumanizing his political opponents. An act Stalin and other dictators often used. He is pushing a blood libel to justify any action he takes against his opponents.

Let's be honest, the best part of the Trump administration is finding out that even people with PhDs screech like soiled toddlers.

Conan Says:

"No business put a Proud Boys logo in its window out of fear of violence or in an attempt to stave off looting. No public figures feigned support for the Proud Boys to avoid being put on a list somewhere. They were denounced loudly and publicly - and often. Even Trump himself denounced them."

No BLM members formed a militia to kidnap and murder a government official either... those were right wing criminals.

This whole notion that Trump "denounced" the the proud boys is also kind of weak.

He told them to "stand back" and "stand by" during a nationally televised debate.

That is the kind of rhetoric one uses when they are ordering people under their command... this shouldn't have even been a struggle for Trump.

The needle he is trying to thread is to telegraph to the racists in his base that he is really on their side while doing the absolute minimum to try and generate a plausible deniability narrative.

It would have been extremely easy for Trump to simple say that he doesn't agree with the proud boys and does not welcome the support of white nationalist groups.

But he cannot and will not do that.

He cannot even acknowledge that he lost the election and is instead trying to rile up his base with nonsense conspiracy theories.

The guy is a mentally deranged authoritarian who has captured the rapt attention of partisan loons.

Artemis thinks trump is an authoritarian. Every time a court has ruled against him (like on immigration) he obeyed the court. Not so authoritarian. Obama did more spying on reporters and jailed several.
The guys who were going to kidnap the Mich gov were not trump supporters nor right-wing, in spite of the media claims.
Trump did disavow white supremacists after Charlottesville.
So BLM didn't try to kidnap a gov official? I guess they were too busy burning stuff down and calling for socialism and for police to be defunded. You are comparing 2 crazy guys (not trump supporters) to thousands of BLM/Antifa rioters who caused billions in damage? Yeah, totally the same.

cc says:

"Every time a court has ruled against him (like on immigration) he obeyed the court. Not so authoritarian."

What planet are you living on cc?

https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/editorial/editorial-once-again-trump-thumbs-his-nose-at-the-supreme-court-where-does-it-end/article_7d0f1597-c81c-5f1d-8b52-ec26d4ee2b52.html

"The Supreme Court in June ruled that the administration hadn’t justified its moves to dismantle the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and ordered it to stop. The program provides two-year renewable reprieves from deportation for undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children through no fault of their own, and who meet conditions including finishing school and having no criminal record. Some 650,000 young people are protected under the program, which is strongly supported by both parties.

Despite the court’s ruling, the administration has continued undermining the program, rejecting all new applications and cutting the reprieve period to one year. Whatever position Americans take on the immigration issue, they should be uniformly outraged at any president who simply ignores a Supreme Court ruling. The implications are staggering."

He does ignore court orders.

He also ignores the law.

Conan Says: ~ Artemis at November 20, 2020 9:03 AM

Oh boy, Artie's back! Let the fun begin.

This whole notion that Trump "denounced" the the proud boys is also kind of weak. | It would have been extremely easy for Trump to simple [sic] say that he doesn't agree with the proud boys and does not welcome the support of white nationalist groups. | But he cannot and will not do that. ~ Artemis at November 20, 2020 9:03 AM

Weak? Cannot? Will not? Or are you being willfully obtuse?

He specifically denounced the Proud Boys in an interview with Sean Hannity after the debate.

"I've said it many times, let me be clear again, I condemn the KKK. I condemn all white supremacists. I condemn the Proud Boys." ~ Donald Trump

He's condemned white supremacy several other times in other settings, too. The Left's continued harping on Trump's "refusal to condemn white supremacists" is a partisan lie. There are many, many things on which to hang a valid criticism of Trump, but this ain't one of them.

That is the kind of rhetoric one uses when they are ordering people under their command... ~ Artemis at November 20, 2020 9:03 AM

Reuters reports that Trump the next day "walked back his remarks at the White House, telling reporters he was not familiar with the Proud Boys, but that the group should let law enforcement do its work."

Remember, it was Biden who brought up the Proud Boys at the debate, not Trump. When Trump asked Chris Wallace, "who would you like me to condemn, Biden interjected, "The Proud Boys." Until then, no one had mentioned the Proud Boys.

And please note, even Reuters labeled the Proud Boys "multiracial," so calling them "white nationalists" is a bit of a reach.

This is a typical tactic of the Left. The Left starts with the vocal accusation that right-wing voters and politicians are racist and demands they denounce racism for specific instances. That way, the denunciation is not applied in general and can be repeatedly demanded again. And the Left can say, "See, the right is racist. They haven't condemned this racism yet." Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.

You tried the same tired, vile tactics to label me a racist, Artie, and they didn't work.
__________________________________________________

No BLM members formed a militia to kidnap and murder a government official either... those were right wing criminals.

The plot to kidnap the Michigan governor was by an anti-government group know as the Wolverine Watchmen.

As for political affiliations, they really don't have one. Granted, hostility to a large and intrusive government is typically found on the far right of the political spectrum, however the Wolverine Watchmen are not affiliated with a particular part of the political spectrum, having rejected government in its entirety.

The state affidavit supporting the criminal charges "describes the Wolverine Watchmen as an "anti-government, anti-law enforcement, militia group."

At least one member of the plot was sympathetic to BLM in the George Floyd case and attended a rally to show support.

Leaders of both political parties in Michigan denounced the plot and the plotters. National figures in both parties did too.

Your attempt to implicate Trump supporters (both avid and lukewarm supporters) and right-wing voters in general as sympathetic to or in collaboration with the Wolverine Watchmen plot is hereby rejected as more of your partisan nonsense.

Your prior refusals to acknowledge or rebuke BLM's ongoing silence about the violence and extortion done it its name are also hereby noted.

Conan Says:

"Weak? Cannot? Will not? Or are you being willfully obtuse?

He specifically denounced the Proud Boys in an interview with Sean Hannity after the debate."

Right... so during the debate he instructed them to "standby"... and after the debate he "denounced" them.

This isn't an area where we can afford to send mixed messages Conan.

The reason for this is that mixed messages will always be interpreted by right-wing white nationalists as support. They will interpret the message on Sean Hannity as Trump being forced to say something he doesn't really believe due to political pressure.

There is no room for sending mixed messages to neo-nazis in this country.

In case you weren't aware, standby has the following meaning when used as a verb:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/standby

"to be or to get ready to act"

That isn't condemnation by any stretch of the imagination.

This has always been the problem with Trump... he says opposite things on a regular basis.

At best all you can say is that Trump lacks a consistent message on white supremacy... sometimes he "condemns" them... other times he asks them to await further instructions.

That is a problem.

Fortunately we should in principal be done with this come January... except the guy doesn't respect the democratic process either and is trying to actively subvert the will of the electorate.

I will stick with my very fair and reasonable characterization of him as an authoritarian.

Conan Says:

"As for political affiliations, they really don't have one. Granted, hostility to a large and intrusive government is typically found on the far right of the political spectrum, however the Wolverine Watchmen are not affiliated with a particular part of the political spectrum, having rejected government in its entirety."

I suggest you read up a bit more on this one.

www.woodtv.com/news/michigan/boss-kidnapping-plot-suspect-is-anti-police-anti-government

"“He was anti-police, anti-government. He was afraid if he didn’t stand up for the Second Amendment and his rights that the country is going to go communism and socialism,” Titus said."

They are right wing libertarian extremists.

Folks who are looking to kidnap and murder people out of fear of communism, socialism, and that his second amendment rights are under threat are on the right side of the political spectrum.

This isn't that hard to acknowledge for people who are being objective.

Instead you are acting like they exist in some amorphous political state without shape or form.

Let's not be silly here.

Those who are so much in the habit of conflating Republicans with their polar opposite, Nazis, that they come to believe the absurdity have much larger problems than inability to write believable similes. They are mental cases and need to be committed to "safe spaces" with bars on the windows.

"The implications are staggering."

"Trump lacked the brutality of a Stalin or a Hitler; the monomaniacal focus needed to be a dictator."

I want to remind you that Nazis sent a delegation to U.S. to study how to discriminate minority in 1930s. The Nazis specially watched how the Southern US states treat blacks. Then, they simply changed the word "blacks" to "Jews" in their playbook.

You might argue that US did not send blacks to concentration camp. But, Japanese were sent to concentration camp instead (interment camp to my ass).

You might argue that US did not gas the Japanese. Please note that US was winning the war. What if atomic bombs were never invented and Japanese Navy just landed on the San Francisco bay? What do you think the retreating US guards would do to the Japanese campers?

Let's not pretend U.S. were not brutal and had clean hands in 1940s. Imperial capitalists, Racist Nazis and Japanese, and Delusional communists, all of them were brutal to some extent and all of their hands were dripping blood.

Let's not pretend U.S. were not brutal and had clean hands in 1940s. Imperial capitalists, Racist Nazis and Japanese, and Delusional communists, all of them were brutal to some extent and all of their hands were dripping blood. ~ Chang at November 20, 2020 2:07 PM

What does the 1940's treatment of minorities in the US have to do with Trump trying to be a dictator today? Bit of a stretch there, big guy.

> I want to remind you that

We've discussed this. You hate this place too much. You shouldn't live here. You should go someplace where you admire the people and their history and you can be happy.

> You've just stated that the
> man didn't do anything to
> actually affect you

Nope, I said nothing of the kind. Go back and look, it's the first comment. I said:

By intention, he couldn't materially affect the flow of events in this country during the course of his administration.

> one reason to vote for him
> instead of Hillary

Hillary!! Radwaste, it's 2020, and Trump lost. Do you get that?

In any case, 'He's not a craven monster' isn't my standard for public service, though I sincerely believe that it's your own. In the style of JC Oates as described by Amy, you love to think 'I had no choice but to vote for an illiterate, grifting game show host!' You're amused and flattered by the (illusory) drama.

"What does the 1940's treatment of minorities in the US have to do with Trump trying to be a dictator today? Bit of a stretch there, big guy."

Nothing. I got tired of you treating Nazis in 1940s the only evil back then.

Besides, there is nothing wrong with a dictatorship. I want to remind you that most of the progress in humanity were done under the King and Queen.

Nazis and Communists failed as it was a dictatorship with inefficient information system. The Berlin and Moscow dictated the price of bread 1,000 miles away. It did not reflect the local condition.

However, things have changed. With technology like google, we can have a dictatorship with efficient (correct) information system reflecting local condition.

This is far better than the system, which everyone of us has to figure out what is fake news and correct news without any guidance from the government.

The US style democracy has finally met its worthy opponent.

Are you speaking of the 'opponent' who has two millions Uyghurs in camps? You should live there. Maybe you do...

Enjoy! No tears, though. Don't come crying.

"We've discussed this. You hate this place too much. You shouldn't live here. You should go someplace where you admire the people and their history and you can be happy."

You just sound like Trump you admire so much. WTF.

> there is nothing wrong
> with a dictatorship.

Unemployed; no spending money; Mom's basement; no GF; swirling bitterness.

Have you met Orion?

"Are you speaking of the 'opponent' who has two millions Uyghurs in camps? You should live there. Maybe you do..."

Would please grow up?

What I am saying is that capitalist democracy needs to reinvent itself as it did in early 1900s by adopting some ideas from the book of Marx.

Our current system, where everyone of us wasting most of our time to separate the fake news from the facts is inefficient and will be destroyed by the system, which will do that for us.

You're disappointed with capitalism, a sorrow we're certain is sincere. It may not be any too impressed with you, either.

Nothing. I got tired of you treating Nazis in 1940s the only evil back then. ~ Chang at November 20, 2020 3:22 PM

Then you haven't been paying attention.

Nazis and Communists failed as it was a dictatorship with inefficient information system. The Berlin and Moscow dictated the price of bread 1,000 miles away. It did not reflect the local condition. ~ Chang at November 20, 2020 3:22 PM

That's what a centrally-controlled economy is, prices set by a government far-removed from local reality. Capitalism is local reality setting prices.

However, things have changed. With technology like google, we can have a dictatorship with efficient (correct) information system reflecting local condition. | This is far better than the system, which everyone of us has to figure out what is fake news and correct news without any guidance from the government. ~ Chang at November 20, 2020 3:22 PM

You won't have Google in a dictatorship. Open information exchange is the enemy of control and single-party rule. It's on Page 1 in the manual.

You're really not very bright.

It feels like my bitter impatience with undercooked thinkers has leached into Coney's reflective, studiously-interrogative bookishness. Mixed feelings about that.

"You won't have Google in a dictatorship. Open information exchange is the enemy of control and single-party rule. It's on Page 1 in the manual."

Correct. It is only available to the dictator.

The dictator will ignore the fake news that wearing mask will cause cancer.

The New system, which has access to the correct information, can give us a few options to choose from like McDonald menu.

All I am saying here is that our current system as it is no longer sustainable with changing environment. Covid 19 just exposed it.

The critical take away from this discussion for me remains that everyone appears to understand that Trump regularly flip flops on his response to white supremacy... and yet this apparently isn't considered a character flaw by some of the deeply partisan people here.

Furthermore, no conservative commenters thus far are willing to acknowledge that the folks who plotted to kidnap and murder a state governor are from the right wing.

They purport to take their actions due to strongly held right wing beliefs (such as small government, 2nd amendment defense, opposition to socialism, etc...) and yet their political leanings are considered mysterious or murky.

There is no philosophical consistency to be found here, but that too is not a surprise as we have seen time and time again the habit of the partisan right is to refuse to view reality when reality doesn't fit a narrative they would like to advance.

The critical take away from this discussion for me remains that everyone appears to understand that Trump regularly flip flops on his response to white supremacy.... ~ Artemis at November 20, 2020 6:20 PM

Let's face it, Artie. Trump could shoot a Klan member on the street and you'd still say he flip flops on white supremacy.

He's met the Left's demands to publicly condemn white supremacy several times, 30+ at last count. Yet, they still demand he condemn white supremacy and insist that he hasn't.

Like I said, there are a lot of valid points on which you can hang a criticism of Trump, but this ain't one of them.

And, Artie, not all people who support small government, worry about creeping socialism, and defend the Second Amendment support, advocate, or condone the kidnapping of government officials.

> Trump could shoot a Klan member
> on the street and you'd still say
> he flip flops on white supremacy.

Gently sarcastic… Precisely on point… Handsomely allusive…

An AGB Comment of the Month™ frontrunner.

Conan Says:

"Let's face it, Artie. Trump could shoot a Klan member on the street and you'd still say he flip flops on white supremacy."

I say he flip flops on white supremacy because he flip flops on white supremacy.

It is really that simple.

If one day you are telling white nationalists to "standby" and later say you "condemn" white supremacy... that is flip flopping.

This isn't all that complicated.

That you apparently see nothing disturbing about that at all is your own issue.

Furthermore, exactly why would Trump committing murder in the street change the fact that he is a flip flopper?

I don't advocate murder

"He's met the Left's demands to publicly condemn white supremacy several times, 30+ at last count. Yet, they still demand he condemn white supremacy and insist that he hasn't."

What you have said right here is the fundamental problem.

White supremacists view it exactly as you do... they don't view his condemnation as serious... they view it as him responding to public pressure.

It's not about Trump first saying something favorable about white nationalists... and then later walking it back under public pressure.

He shouldn't be flirting with their camp to begin with.

Going back and forth on this issue was always a disgusting way to operate.

You don't flip flop on your position about white nationalists if you want to be taken seriously by reasonable people.

Conan Says:

"And, Artie, not all people who support small government, worry about creeping socialism, and defend the Second Amendment support, advocate, or condone the kidnapping of government officials."

I also wanted to address this specifically.

Of course not all folks from the political right wing condone the kidnapping of government officials.

All I am saying is that those particular folks who did plot to kidnap and murder a government official happened to be from the right wing.

I'm not even saying they are representative of the right wing as a whole.

Just that they are right wing.

It shouldn't be a challenge for you or anyone else to agree with that point.

Those guys certainly weren't from the political left or from the center.

The fundamental problem is that there is a false right wing narrative that the left is violent and the right is just a bunch of peaceful folks who want peace and freedom.

Unfortunately for you life isn't that simple. There are lots and lots of violent right wing people out there.

The problem is extremism... and the right wing has no scarcity of extremists.

Just wait a little while for Trump to start calling on folks who he's had on "standby" when it becomes clear that he cannot weasel his way out of his election loss and somehow remain president anyway.

Trump is not the kind of guy to just leave office peacefully... he is going to salt the earth any way he can on the way out... we can already see evidence of this behavior now and It is reasonable to expect that it is only going to get worse.

> It is really that simple.

> This isn't all that complicated.

> Trump to start calling on folks
> who he's had on "standby"

Worry about it as much as you can. Talk it up, put your money in a mattress. Be like Joyce Carol Oates.



The intersection of human spirits and the authority of law confounds you— You're terrified of a game show host seizing executive power, but a rampaging drunk in an airliner worries you not at all. I just can't believe you're from the United States… Abjectly humorless, with no enthusiasm for nuance, idiom, or irony… Unless you were raised in a Skinner box, it doesn't make sense.

Kiss girls.

Crid,

There is a wide world out there... and in that world the overwhelming majority of accomplished people don't think the way you do.

"You're terrified of a game show host seizing executive power, but a rampaging drunk in an airliner worries you not at all."

Many well-informed people are concerned that we have an unhinged toddler-minded moron in the executive office currently throwing a tantrum.

It's not that I think he will succeed in seizing executive power... I am concerned about the damage he will cause in his pursuit of this goal.

It takes careful planning and intellect to construct something of worth and value... all it takes to cause damage to a thing of worth is a petulant attitude and a complete lack of discipline.

As for "rampaging drunks"... I too would be concerned about a rampaging drunk anywhere... but you seem to lose your mind at the very thought instead of trying to deal with the situation calmly and rationally.

I get it, you don't know how to handle a crisis situation.

You are a lost cause at this point, you'll never really amount to anything at this stage. What really bothers you is that somewhere deep inside you thought you were special and it turns out you never really amounted to anything.

> I am concerned about the damage
> he will cause in his pursuit of
> this goal.

Don't worry your pretty little head about it.

> somewhere deep inside

You never struck me as an "interior life" kind of person… More of a 'live and let live' type.

Crid Says:

"You never struck me as an "interior life" kind of person… More of a 'live and let live' type."

People are complex Crid. This is something you've obviously never managed to pick up. Everyone to you falls neatly into some category you can dismiss if if suits your immediate purpose.

Despite your lack of imagination it is possible for something to have a laissez faire attitude when it comes to other peoples personal business while also being thoughtful and introspective.

Why don't you tell the group why it is you are divorced?... I have my own suspicions but I'd rather hear it from the horses mouth.

> Why don't you tell the group
> why it is you are divorced?...

You're enchanted, but give it up... You've got no shot.

“ What I am saying is that capitalist democracy needs to reinvent itself as it did in early 1900s by adopting some ideas from the book of Marx.”

Wrong fucking country.

Chang, with a hat tip to de Tocqueville, you and your fellow travelers are so enamored of equality that you would rather have us equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

Marxism is slavery. Any collectivist system is, whether it be communism, socialism, or fascism. We need not borrow from any of them.

Crid,

I'm just giving you the opportunity to talk about what you love most... yourself.

And yet when given the opportunity you shrink back into your shell.

It's almost as if you are ashamed of who you are.

Conan Says:

"Marxism is slavery. Any collectivist system is, whether it be communism, socialism, or fascism. We need not borrow from any of them."

We've already borrowed from collectivist philosophy.

As I've explained to you several times already, no modern economy or society is some pure version of anything.

We are a mixed economy with both free market forces, private enterprise, government regulation, and government ownership of certain segments of societal infrastructure.

The actual discussion at this point is how to iron out the details... not in whether or not to incorporate any elements of collectivism at all... that discussion was settled ages ago.

The post office, the municipal fire departments and police departments, public education, the public library, social security... all of these and more are examples of collectivism at work for the betterment of society.

Our job as rational thinking members of this society is to determine which parts of society are best served by private funds and which parts are best served by public funds.

If someone believes this is an all or nothing proposition either way then they are not a serious thinker.

The post office, the municipal fire departments and police departments, public education, the public library, social security... all of these and more are examples of collectivism at work for the betterment of society.

Artie, I never said any system was pure. But I stand by my comment that collectivism is slavery.

Collectivism is defined as "The theory and practice of the ownership of land and the means of production by the people or the state." Notice that it is not simply "people working together for mutual benefit.

And, as I've explained to you several times already, capitalism has mechanisms for citizens to work together for mutual benefit through an agency. The USPS, the police, the fire department, etc. are not examples of collectivism, but of citizens working together for mutual benefit. It makes sense to have these departments trained, staffed, and equipped in advance; just like the logic of having a standing military. Not socialism, mutual protection and benefit.

A fire department has nothing to do with collective ownership of the means of production; and to say it is an example of socialism is disingenuous as well as factually incorrect and economically illiterate.

Despite what Bernie says, socialism is not simply a society with a high degree of social services - i.e., any of the existing Scandinavian systems. It is not the collective effort of people in a common cause. It is the collective ownership and control of the means of production and distribution of goods under a centrally-planned economy. It is the elimination of individualism and private ownership.

Now, Artie, my comment was a reply to Chang's comment. Chang has had an obsession on this blog for years that communism (specifically Communist China) provides a better economic model than any form of capitalism to date. You're welcome to chime in, but if you side with him, you're backing the wrong horse.

What's more, Artie, I thought you only commented on fields in which you have expertise. So you've claimed on numerous threads. Obviously, you don't have any in economics, yet you commented. Hmmm.

Conan Says:

"Collectivism is defined as "The theory and practice of the ownership of land and the means of production by the people or the state." Notice that it is not simply "people working together for mutual benefit."

Unfortunately the dictionary does not agree with you (I find that it usually doesn't):

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collectivism

"1: a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution
also : a system marked by such control
2: emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity"

Collectivism just means we all band together and decide as a group how to best allocate some resources.

That is all there is to it.

The United States has always had some element of collectivism incorporated into it... all societies have.

Despite what you may wish to believe, you are not the authority on the definitions of words... the dictionary is.

Again that is a collectivist mindset I suppose... that we all agree to standard usage of words.

That you appear to enjoy having your own personal and unusual definitions for words is not something the rest of us need be concerned with.

Conan,

Just to reinforce my point... here is the definition from another authoritative source:

https://www.lexico.com/definition/collectivism

"1 - The practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.

1.1 - The ownership of land and the means of production by the people or the state, as a political principle or system."

It seems to me you based your definition on the less common usage and then presented it as if it were the one we should all presume... and then didn't bother to even link to where you got it from.

Aren't you the guy who constantly complained about "cherry picking"?

In general if you are using the less common version of a word and someone else is using the most common version it makes no sense for you to "correct" them and compel them to adhere to your less usual usage.

If you are the expert in language you purport to be you should have very well known that I was using the very standard and common usage as described in definition 1.

Instead you conveniently skipped over that part, went straight to definition 1.1 and presented it without reference, which would have made it very clear what you had just done.

That is dishonest.

"Chang, with a hat tip to de Tocqueville, you and your fellow travelers are so enamored of equality that you would rather have us equal in slavery than unequal in freedom."

What you are missing is this. I have a freedom to give up my freedom.

Dogs voluntarily gave up their freedom for food years ago.

Do I have a freedom to give up my freedom in exchange for equality?

Did you recently check the gap between the rich and the poor in US recently? How long do you think we can keep this up without risking violent revolution?

Artie, as usual your understanding of economics is an inch wide and an inch deep. Collectivism does not mean collective activity.

Not one of the definitions you provided disputed that collectivism is the collective ownership of the capital and property - i.e., the means of production. Not one said it was collective effort for mutual or individual benefit.

Despite what you may wish to believe, Artie, dictionary definitions mean what they mean, not what you want them to mean.

Capitalism is the private ownerships of property and capital, as well as the ability for the private owner to make decisions about the uses to which those assets are put. Government exists to protect the downstream owners of property and capital, but the individual's ownership and disposition rights are protected as well.

Collectivism is the ownership and control of property and capital in the name of a collective entity - the people, the religion, the party, the state, etc. The individual is subordinate to the collective entity has little-to-no say in the disposition of property and capital, even if he's to be harmed in that disposition - it's all done for the good of the collective and he's expected to accept that and conform his behavior to that.

Dress it up however much you and Chang want to, collectivism is slavery and will never be anything else.

Conan Says:

"Not one of the definitions you provided disputed that collectivism is the collective ownership of the capital and property - i.e., the means of production. Not one said it was collective effort for mutual or individual benefit."

That isn't how dictionaries work Conan.

No dictionary definition explains what a word "doesn't" mean... they explain what it means.

There is a reason you didn't provide a reference to where your definition came from.

That reason is because definition 1 said the following:

"The practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it."

There is nothing there about "collective ownership" of anything.

That is the most common usage of the term, the most widely accepted.

That you want to tack on the additional requirement for "collective ownership" isn't justified.

You also know and understand this. Like usual you are playing stupid rhetorical games to avoid being honest and having a conversation about facts.

That you felt it necessary not to include definition 1 and skip to a subordinate definition to try and make your case demonstrates that you knew the most common usage wasn't going to serve your purposes.

This statement here for example is just hogwash:

"Despite what Bernie says, socialism is not simply a society with a high degree of social services - i.e., any of the existing Scandinavian systems. It is not the collective effort of people in a common cause. It is the collective ownership and control of the means of production and distribution of goods under a centrally-planned economy. It is the elimination of individualism and private ownership."

There is nothing in the common usage of the term collectivism that requires the elimination of individualism and private ownership.

The practice of giving priority to the group over the individual doesn't require the "elimination of individualism" and doesn't require the elimination of "private ownership".

Let's use words as they are defined shall we?

Conan,

None of the definitions invoke the word "slavery" either... you are just using rhetorical boogeymen instead of having a honest discourse.

The United States was founded on collectivist principals... I think you would have preferred the Confederate constitution:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Confederate_States#Comparison_with_U.S._Constitution

"The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.""

"The Preamble to the Confederate Constitution: "We, the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God — do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.""

Note how the United States of American wants to form a "more perfect Union" and wants to "promote the General welfare".

By contrast the Confederacy wanted "each state acting in its sovereign and independent character", cut out the whole thing about the General welfare of the people, and then invoked "the favor and guidance of Almighty God".

Let's face it Conan... the modern conservative agenda is well aligned with the confederacy... not so much with the United States of America.

It's time for you to either recognize that you are actually a confederate... or align with the ideals set forth by our Constitution.

"Dress it up however much you and Chang want to, collectivism is slavery and will never be anything else."

There are one million employees in Amazon. Jeff Bezos can give $100,000 bonus to each single employee and he will still have the same wealth as of 01/01/2020.

We both know that Jeff Bezos will not do that even Jesus himself personally explained to him about camel and eye of the needle thing.

However his employees worked under the threat of Covid 19 for 15 dollars an hour to make his wealth happen. I would call that slavery.

You might say that his employees have freedom to quit, freedom not able to find a job under this economy, freedom to starve and freedom to kill himself.

What is the point of having freedom unable to do anything as everything is out of price ranges?

I think you would have preferred the Confederate constitution:

I know I would not have.

The US was not founded on collectivist principles, Artie. Private property and individual rights were very important to our Founding Fathers. We even have a Bill of Rights enshrining specific individual rights in our code of laws and enjoining the government from infringing them.

The Confederate Constitution was founded on the principles of the Articles of Confederation, the precursor to the US Constitution and a system of government already revealed as weak an ineffective. The resulting weakness of the Confederacy's federal government doomed the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War.

The idea that society can function without government is fantasy and I've never advocated that. I have advocated for a smaller government and minimal government regulation of private endeavors.

...the modern conservative agenda is well aligned with the confederacy [sic]... not so much with the United States of America. ~ Artemis at November 22, 2020 4:52 PM

That only shows how little you understand about conservatives; you falsely conflate social conservatives with all conservatives and condemn them en masse. You believe your own propaganda that Trump is a conservative.

Note how the United States of American wants to form a "more perfect Union" and wants to "promote the General welfare". ~ Artemis at November 22, 2020 4:52 PM

Note how the United States of America wants to "promote the General Welfare," not regulate the general welfare. Note how it wants to "form a more perfect Union," not to enforce a perfect one.

An argument that laws are best set locally is not an argument that we should return to the Articles of Confederation, it's an argument that we should return to the Constitution, albeit with requisite accommodations to modernity. The federal government was never intended to have the power with which you and Chang want to invest it.

We are not a homogenous nation or culture, Artie. One-size laws do not fit all. Pretending that laws made in Washington will be made with perfect information about and have an equal impact in distant places (Chang's Google), is fantasy.

“I have advocated for a smaller government and minimal government regulation of private endeavors.”

Conan, why do you think government regulation exists?

Conan, do you consider people who live on a kibbutz to be slaves?

“We, the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves...”

Slaves: ‘What’s that about the “blessings of liberty”?’

Everyone is not a Nazi.

If real Nazis show up one day, the term will have lost all its meaning.

Conan Says:

"The US was not founded on collectivist principles"

The US wasn't *only* founded on collectivist principles... but it did incorporate collectivist principles.

That is the reality you seem unwilling to accept.

The entire section of the preamble where the founders discuss promoting "the general Welfare" is a collectivist one based on the most standard usage of the word collectivist to give the "group priority over each individual in it".

In other words, the founders wanted to be able to create laws providing for public sanitation even if some loon wanted to cover his property in their own excrement. His personal desire for public filth would be weighed against the communities desire for public health and the group would be given priority.

There are other times we give the individual priority.

The United States is a mix... it doesn't land at either extreme.

Our form of government sometimes prioritizes the individual and sometimes prioritizes the group.

When it prioritizes the group we are indeed borrowing from collectivist ideology as defined by the dictionaries most standard usage.

"That only shows how little you understand about conservatives; you falsely conflate social conservatives with all conservatives and condemn them en masse."

I do no such thing Conan.

Unfortunately for you, 70+ million votes seem to indicate that social conservatives are the majority of the Republican party... or at the very least, so-called fiscal conservatives will just follow along with whatever the social conservatives do regardless of what Trump has done to the budget.

I've said it before and I will say it again... fiscal conservatives go completely silent when social conservatives have the reigns of the government... they will wake up the instant Biden is in office.

The only question is if they will start screaming and yelling about the debt on January 21st or if they will hold their tongue for a little while before breaking out the drums again.

At this stage the fiscal conservatives have just become useful idiots for the social conservatives... you need to keep your mouth shut when they are in power and they only trot you out when they need sick you on the opposition.

You are on a short leash Conan, I hope you realize that.

NicoleK,

While the term Nazi is certainly overused, it is certainly appropriate to use it in reference to people who wave flags with swastika's on them, declare their intent to purge the nation of Jewish people, embrace eugenic ideology when it comes to comparing different groups of people, etc...

It is an embarrassment that the present day United States even has people who think this way, but comparisons to the Nazis in such instances is reasonable.

On more general note... we presently have some conservatives comparing Democrats and liberals to demons and saying they work for satan. If the goal is to ratchet down political rhetoric then the conversation needs to include the ridiculousness of these kinds of statements.

It is not reasonable to demand one side be civil, proper, and show extreme care with their rhetoric while the other refers to them as pedophiles and devil spawn.

As you might recall these folks called Obama a terrorist, said he wasn't a US citizen, and called him the anti-christ... they are not in a particular good position to argue that they need to be treated nicely.

Conan Says:

"An argument that laws are best set locally is not an argument that we should return to the Articles of Confederation, it's an argument that we should return to the Constitution, albeit with requisite accommodations to modernity."

As far as I am concerned "an argument that laws are best set locally" isn't actually an argument at all.

It is just fluff... a quaint sentiment without context or real meaning.

The reason is because whether or not a law is best set locally or at the federal level depends entirely upon what kind of laws we are talking about.

I have zero interest for example in allowing 7 year old's to work the factories Kansas because the locals have decided that second graders are suitable for hard labor and bringing home a paycheck.

I believe it has also been demonstrated that allowing local areas to try and contain a viral pandemic without tangible federal oversight and coordination hasn't worked out so well.

We have just run your little experiment Conan... we let the laws regarding containing this pandemic be set locally... and it has been a MASSIVE failure.

People should have recognized that a national crisis required a federal response, but folks who think as you do insisted that "one-size laws" couldn't possibly take into account all of the local nuance... and hence many localities chose in their infinite ignorance to do absolutely nothing at all.

I don't want the federal government setting the speed limit on the road that runs by my home... but as should be painfully obvious at this point, they should have been the ones coordinating the response to the viral pandemic instead of hoping each locality would design a perfectly customized response for their community.

The idea that local government can perfectly customize all laws for the needs of their community despite having vastly fewer resources than the federal government to collect and study the relevant information is also a fantasy.

I'm arguing for a middle of the road approach... you appear to want to argue that we are either at one extreme or the other.

The real discussion to be had about whether or not a law is best handled locally or at the federal level all depends on that the law is intended to deal with.

That is also the discussion many folks refuse to have or even acknowledge needs to take place.

Conan, why do you think government regulation exists? ~ JD at November 22, 2020 10:45 PM

Why do you think it exists, JD?

Conan, do you consider people who live on a kibbutz to be slaves? ~ JD at November 22, 2020 10:47 PM

Do you consider them to be free, JD? That is, free to make a decision that runs counter to the collective opinion and still remain a member of the kibbutzim?

If real Nazis show up one day, the term will have lost all its meaning. ~ NicoleK at November 23, 2020 3:51 AM

I go along with Huey Long, who is reported to have said, "Sure, we’ll have fascism in this country, and we’ll call it anti-fascism."

Conan,

If you believe it is hyperbole to compare anything at all in the United States to Nazism... you sure don't appear to have any qualms about comparing things to slavery.

JD gave a great example... comparing people who live on a kibbutz to slaves is ridiculous.

For example they are free to associate with and have relationships with the people they want to... no one dictates their relationships for them.

Furthermore, no one takes away their children and puts them up for sale.

As I was telling NicoleK, there is no scarcity of hyperbolic rhetoric from the political right... they only complain about rhetoric from the left and yet refuse to practice what they preach.

Based upon recent and continued behavior of the political right... these complaints are going to fall on deaf ears. They have become like the proverbial boy who cried wolf... no one takes these cries seriously anymore.

> You are on a short leash Conan,
> I hope you realize that.

That may be the single weirdest comment here in the last sixteen years.

Crid,

If Conan wants to pretend that there are vast differences between the social conservatives and the fiscal conservatives then it is up to him to explain why the fiscal conservatives always vote as a block with the social conservatives despite them never engaging any policies that fit with their fiscal agenda.

They are just the subservient component of the party that is along for the ride. They have their heads hanging out the window with their tongues in the wind as the social conservatives drive the car.

They are only let out to play when the social conservatives tell them it is okay... and they only bark when the social conservatives command them to.

If that isn't true then one needs to provide a coherent explanation for why fiscal conservatives have been so remarkably silent for the last 4 years... it seems to me they have been muzzled by their owners... but maybe there is a different reason.

What do you suppose the odds are of them staying so quiet about the debt and the deficit over the next ~6 months?

They will bark when the social conservatives tell them to bark and not one minute before.

I'm arguing for a middle of the road approach... you appear to want to argue that we are either at one extreme or the other. ~ Artemis at November 23, 2020 6:21 AM

Do you deliberately misread and misconstrue my arguments, Artie? I've been arguing for a middle of the road approach with limited federal guidelines and local lawmaking all along. Yet here you are, saying I'm an extremist - and not for the first time.

I've never advocated the dissolution or neutering of the federal government, despite what you and JD may think.

As for a federally-mandated specific pandemic response, that works only if the infection rates, transmission nodes, etc. are uniform. They're not. Fargo, SD has a much different situation than New York, NY. Local factors play a role - population density, number of visitors from out of town, commute distance, infection rates, etc. And while the federal government should provide guidance, assistance, and standards, each locale should set its own specific regulations.

Local politicians are also more tuned into how the local population will respond to regulations and can tailor an approach designed to maximize compliance and minimize resistance.

Local politicians can also respond more quickly if the local situation changes.

The federal government does have more resources and those resources should be brought to bear - for the benefit to local lawmakers.

The speed limit is a good example. You may be too young to remember this, Artie, but the National Maximum Speed Law was passed in 1974 and mandated a maximum speed of 55mph. Since speed limits had traditionally been a state lawmaking concern, the federal government tied compliance with the federal mandate to the release of federal highway subsidies.

Some states blatantly disregarded it, posting a 55mph speed limit to keep their federal highway money, but never enforcing it or reducing the fines to minuscule amounts, thus promulgating a casual disregard for speed limit laws.

As for the pandemic response being a "massive failure," that depends on the belief that any other response would have been miraculously effective. The truth is that we don't absolutely know that it would have been. We just hate Trump so much that we tell ourselves that even a rabid monkey could have done a better job.

And what cost are we wiling to bear. Shutting down the economy, the response you and your ilk prefer, has been a disaster - unemployment, despair, hunger, alcoholism, etc. are all on the rise, mostly due to a mandated lockdown. And Joe Biden's proposed response? More lockdown!

Some places don't need to be locked down. Some do. A federally mandated nationwide lockdown is going to create the same casual disregard that the NMSL did. Already several sheriffs on Southern California have said they will not have their departments enforce Gavin Newsom's proposed curfew and lockdown.

Even the New York Times has admitted that Trump was right, schools should be open with children in physical attendance. Poor and disadvantaged children are suffering with distance learning - both from a lack of teacher guidance and from being trapped in home situations from which teacher observation and regular school attendance might have provided them some relief (e.g., abusive parents, alcoholic parents, etc.).

What do you suppose the odds are of them staying so quiet about the debt and the deficit over the next ~6 months? ~ Artemis at November 23, 2020 7:33 AM

Who would you have them vote with? Big Spending, High Regulation Democrats or Big Spending, Low Regulation Trump?

With Trump they get somewhat smaller government. With the Biden / Pelosi / Schumer / AOC crowd, they get big government and heavy regulation.

Keep in mind that Trump did not run on cutting the deficit in 2016. Few Republicans did. Ted Cruz has been active in campaigning to rein in government spending, as have others who didn't get much air time when put up against the media's latest Trump outrage. There's a whole group over at National Review who have been pretty vocal in their fiscal concerns.

The fact that you think fiscal conservatives have been silent indicates you have not been paying attention to what people on the right outside of the social conservatives are saying. You are comfortable inside your little bubble and don't bother exposing yourself to opinions not provided by "approved" media.

The voting public's taste for deficit concerns has all but disappeared since Ross Perot made it the central point of his 1992 campaign. It's just not a winning political issue these days. Fiscal conservatives are selling sobriety at a fraternity party.

That may change. Once Biden and a big-spending, big-government crowd are in power, people may again wake up to deficit issues and buy what the fiscals are selling. We'll see.

You are on a short leash Conan, I hope you realize that. ~ Artemis at November 23, 2020 5:45 AM

You presumptuous little twit. You have no authority, neither actual nor moral, to put anyone on a short leash.

Conan Says:

"Do you deliberately misread and misconstrue my arguments, Artie? I've been arguing for a middle of the road approach with limited federal guidelines and local lawmaking all along. Yet here you are, saying I'm an extremist - and not for the first time."

If you have been arguing for a middle of the road approach you should never have been in conflict with anything I've said here.

The only reason to argue against my very middle of the road approach is if you are fundamentally at odds with optimizing ones approach to governance on an issue by issue basis.

The core issue with your position is that it is nebulous and ill defined. Just saying you want "limited federal guidelines" is not a useful position.

I've certainly never advocated for "unlimited federal guidelines"... I don't know if anyone has.

When you argue against someone else's position by saying that you are for "limited" government... when they have never asserted they are for "unlimited" government... what you are doing is rhetorically dishonest.

Let's go back to the very beginning here, shall we?

This was my statement:

"Our job as rational thinking members of this society is to determine which parts of society are best served by private funds and which parts are best served by public funds.

If someone believes this is an all or nothing proposition either way then they are not a serious thinker."

To argue against this position is to say that we shouldn't be making rational case by case decisions on how to address societies problems.

It is to argue that your "limited government" stance in some sense precludes my very reasonable argument that we need to look at each situation and then decide if we need to address it at the federal or local level.

To place yourself in opposition to this position is to assert that we don't need to look at each situation... but that in general local decisions are best and no case by case scrutiny is required... you already know what the best solution is ahead of time, and that best solution is the local one.

It never made any sense for you to argue with my position if you agreed that we need to look at each situation and then make a rational decision.

"As for a federally-mandated specific pandemic response, that works only if the infection rates, transmission nodes, etc. are uniform. They're not."

Wrong Conan... you're not an epidemiologist or a scientist.

The experts wanted a national response... ideological political hacks were the ones arguing against a national response and to leave it at the local level.

We've run your little experiment... it has been a complete and unmitigated disaster.

I cannot put it any more bluntly than just saying the position you are advocating was/is completely and utterly wrong.

The data is in... your philosophical approach to governance is broken.

"As for the pandemic response being a "massive failure," that depends on the belief that any other response would have been miraculously effective. The truth is that we don't absolutely know that it would have been. We just hate Trump so much that we tell ourselves that even a rabid monkey could have done a better job."

No Conan... we don't have to live in this delusional land where everything is unknown or unknowable.

The pandemic response was a massive failure in comparison to other similarly situated nations that did follow the recommendations of health and science experts. They are doing significantly better than we are.

A great example is New Zealand... they acted promptly, followed social distancing and mask recommendations... and they are doing great.

The US just decided to take a hands off approach to public health and we have one of the worse outcomes on the entire planet.

Your argument is akin to saying that if you have a lifetime smoker who shows up with lung cancer that no one knows for sure that if they didn't smoke that they wouldn't have ended up with lung cancer anyway.

Scientists understand causation by looking for statistical correlations associated with behavior and an understanding of mechanisms of action.

In so far as it is possible to say anything with any degree of certainty at all, it is a VERY reasonable scientific claim to say the United States would have done much better with a coordinated federal response.

"You presumptuous little twit. You have no authority, neither actual nor moral, to put anyone on a short leash."

For goodness sake Conan, get yourself together.

I'm not the one who put you on a leash.

The social conservatives are the ones who put you on a leash.

If you have an issue with being subordinate to them politically take it up with them and leave me out of it.

I'm just observing that all of the policy positions put forth over the last 4 years catered to social conservatives and left the fiscal conservatives such as yourself out to dry... and yet none of you made much of a sound.

You just do as they say... and it has been sad and eye opening to watch.

The conservative movement is now owned by a lunatic base that answers to a conman. You're just along for the ride Conan, and you'll do as they tell you when they tell you.

The only reason to argue against my very middle of the road approach is if you are fundamentally at odds with optimizing ones approach to governance on an issue by issue basis. ~ Artemis at November 23, 2020 8:50 AM

Massive government regulation is not middle-of-the-road.

For goodness sake Conan, get yourself together. | I'm not the one who put you on a leash. ~ Artemis at November 23, 2020 8:50 AM

What leash? Who is it you think is holding this leash?

Even as one of your convoluted metaphors, this makes no sense.

I don't think you understand what "on a short leash" means. It means, "With strict, overbearing control that limit's one's independence or autonomy."

So, Artie, who is it you believe to be limiting my independence or autonomy? Who is it you think can snap this leash back if I "misbehave?" 'cause, you're right, it sure as hell ain't you.

" I do not think it means what you think it means." ~ Inigo Montoya,

Conan Says:

"Keep in mind that Trump did not run on cutting the deficit in 2016."

Conan, I don't have the slightest idea where you get your information from, but what you are saying is completely wrong.

Not only did he run on cutting the deficit, he ran on the proposition that he would eliminate the federal debt entirely within 8 years.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-deficit-debt-cbo-data-obama-1463802

"During the last election, Trump said he could clear America's $19 trillion of gross federal debt within eight years. To do that would mean eliminating the federal deficit, the negative difference between income and expenditure which keeps adding to the debt pile. It is now $22 trillion."

These were the numbers prior to the pandemic so he already increase the debt by 3 trillion dollars in 3 years. This means he was running an average deficit of 1 trillion dollars per year *before* the pandemic.

You can even watch reporters debunking Trumps ridiculous campaign promises back in 2016:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QslY7J-SO5s

It's not just that he ran on reducing the deficit... he ran on eliminating the debt... which as a small first step requires eliminating the deficit.

He them proceeded to increase the deficit and the debt over his entire term.

Now that it is all over folks such as yourself insist he never mentioned doing anything about the debt or deficit during his campaign.

I wish I could say I was shocked, but deeply partisan conservatives don't shock me anymore.

Conan Says:

"Massive government regulation is not middle-of-the-road."

You are using very subjective terms Conan.

I've never said I want "massive" government regulation.

The only examples I have even given thus far are child labor laws.

Was my example of not wanting 7 year old's in factories an example of "massive" regulation to you?

"I don't think you understand what "on a short leash" means. It means, "With strict, overbearing control that limit's one's independence or autonomy.""

Yes... that is exactly what I mean Conan.

Social conservatives who make up Trump's base have had folks like you on a short lease.

If you had any independence you would have been saying something about Trump running up the deficit over the last 4 years.

Either you are fine with the deficits and the debt (in which case I should not expect you to say anything about it at all over the next 4 years)... or you were limited in your independence to talk about it for the last 4 years.

Those are the only logical options.

The republican party is struggling to even acknowledge that Trump lost the election because he refuses to accept the reality of his situation.

You're on a short leash Conan... I'm not the one who put it on you... I'm just letting you know its there and that I've noticed.

You're on a short leash Conan... I'm not the one who put it on you... I'm just letting you know its there and that I've noticed. ~ Artemis at November 23, 2020 9:18 AM

You have yet to demonstrate the you actually know and understand the meaning of that phrase.

Social conservatives who make up Trump's base have had folks like you on a short lease [sic]. ~ Artemis at November 23, 2020 9:18 AM

And what exactly do you imagine will be the consequences if these social conservatives snap this alleged "short leash?"

If your metaphor holds true for the Republican Party, a similar metaphor would hold true for the Democratic Party - the far-left has the Democrats' moderates on a short leash. The election of a new Speaker will be a bellwether on how much control the leftists have gained over the party.

If you had any independence you would have been saying something about Trump running up the deficit over the last 4 years. ~ Artemis at November 23, 2020 9:18 AM

You haven't been paying attention. I've said on many threads and many occasions that Trump is a spendthrift president and, in that regard, not a solid alternative to Biden. It was in other ways, I said, that I preferred Trump to Biden if those were to be my only two viable choices.

As for Trump running on reducing the deficit in 2016, he ran in 2016 on reducing it in eight years, not four, making deficit reduction effectively his 2020 campaign promise. His main promise in 2016 was to jump-start the then-moribund economy. To appease the deficit hawks, he promised that this jump-start would take care of the deficit. To do that he'd have needed to reach 4% GDP growth, which he didn't.

Below you can see what the year-over-year GDP growth was and under which president and budget the economy was operating. The US fiscal year runs Oct to Sep and the growth rates are by calendar year (Jan to Dec) and presidents are inaugurated in mid-Jan:

2019 ==> 2.33% - Trump
2018 ==> 3.18% - Trump
2017 ==> 2.22% - Obama/Trump
2016 ==> 1.57% - Obama
2015 ==> 2.88% - Obama
2014 ==> 2.45% - Obama
2013 ==> 1.84% - Obama
2012 ==> 2.25% - Obama
2011 ==> 1.55% - Obama
2010 ==> 2.56% - Obama

As you can see, Trump never got near the 4% growth rates economists concur could have enabled him to fulfill his deficit promise. Part of that failure was due to uncertainty over his trade policies. Part of that was the personnel chaos in his administration. A rational president with some political savvy might have achieved the 4%. Biden will not be that president either.

Trump did, however, manage to top 3% for one year, a rate which many economists said the US would likely never see again.

In fairness to Obama, he did post some strong quarterly numbers. And, in fairness to Trump, he was hit with a pandemic that tanked his quarterly numbers in 2020. Nevertheless, his 33% in the third quarter of 2020 was nearly double the previous best, 16.7% in the first quarter of 1950, missing the double by only 10 points.

How much credit do presidents deserve for strong economic growth? Some, but other factors also come into play. The mortgage crisis of 2008 started Obama off in a deep hole, but gave him good growth over the crisis years. The pandemic tanked Trump's numbers in late 2019 and early 2020. The fantastic growth rates of the 1950s were due more to post-war recovery than to tax policy.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-45827430

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/gdp-growth-rate

Was my example of not wanting 7 year old's [sic] in factories an example of "massive" regulation to you? ~ Artemis at November 23, 2020 9:18 AM

No, it was ridiculous hyperbole. Reductio ad absurdum.

No one was saying child labor laws were massive government overreach. That we don't want children doing dangerous factory work is not dependent upon local conditions.

That the federal government insists on a nationwide minimum wage of $15 an hour is onerous over-regulation. Local market conditions will set the labor rate.

See the difference, Artie?

Conan Says:

"You have yet to demonstrate the you actually know and understand the meaning of that phrase."

You've yet to demonstrate that you are literate when it comes to this part of the conversation.

Here is what I said Conan:

"At this stage the fiscal conservatives have just become useful idiots for the social conservatives... you need to keep your mouth shut when they are in power and they only trot you out when they need sick you on the opposition.

You are on a short leash Conan, I hope you realize that."

You proceeded to quote the last sentence and then rant and rave about how I personally have some gall to try and put a leash on you.

If you actually were capable of understanding the written word you would have understood that the preceding paragraph was directly related to that statement.

In that preceding paragraph I described in detail that folks like you keep your mouth shut until the social conservatives permit you to speak.

That is a perfectly reasonable usage of the term "on a short leash".

How do you manage to constantly be wrong about everything and yet still have this gigantic ego?

I cannot think of a single thing you have been correct about when it comes to predicting future events over the last several years... on the other hand I have repeatedly been correct and yet you adamantly refuse to properly understand what I've written.

Please pay attention.

"As for Trump running on reducing the deficit in 2016, he ran in 2016 on reducing it in eight years, not four, making deficit reduction effectively his 2020 campaign promise."

Good grief Conan... do you really believe this nonsense?

So according to you Trump's plan was to first increase the debt by over 3 trillion dollars in the first term... increase the deficit as well... leave a total debt of close to 25 trillion going into his second term... and then during the next 4 years not only eliminate the deficit but create an average surplus of ~6 trillion per year?

Are you seriously saying that 73+ million conservative voters opted to vote for Trump under the idea that he was going to miraculously generate a ~6 trillion dollar surplus for 4 years straight?

You must thing his voters are less intelligent than I do.

I simply believe they don't actually care about the debt and the deficit so long as the Republicans are in power... you are acting as if they really believed that campaign promise could possibly materialize.

Your rhetoric is weak and your logic is non-existent on this point.

Your only out here is that the entire Republican base is totally nuts.

Out of curiosity Conan... since you purport to have some economic expertise... how exactly do you suppose Trump planned on eliminating a 25 trillion dollar debt in the next 4 years?

There is nothing about conservative economic planning that ever makes any sense... it is all wishful thinking and magic while they confidently declare that they are the ones who understand the economy and everyone else is foolish.

The only fools I see are anyone who thought it was part of Trumps grand plan to knock down 25 trillion dollars in debt in a second term after increasing both the deficit and the debt during his first 4 years.

Come on Conan... please have a shred of dignity here and acknowledge that it was always a con and the conservative base fell for it.

Conan,

With regard to your commentary about "massive government regulation"... you still haven't provided a single example I provided here that would have justified your claim that I support such a proposition.

The only thing I mentioned in terms of government regulation was child labor laws... you then said I supported "massive" government regulation.

You've now said that child labor laws are reasonable.

So exactly what evidence did you use to conclude that I am in favor of "massive" government regulation?

Furthermore, I've already brought up the point that this is an entirely subjective way of phrasing things.

That you might consider something "massive" doesn't actually make it massive... that's just your opinion.

Everyone else is entitled to their opinion as well. You are not in a position of any authority to objectively determine what constitutes massive regulation versus reasonable regulation by fiat.

"That the federal government insists on a nationwide minimum wage of $15 an hour is onerous over-regulation. Local market conditions will set the labor rate."

That is your opinion Conan... lots of people disagree with you.

There are good reasons for the federal government to set a minimum threshold for wages. The reason for this is that we don't actually have a free market economy when it comes to labor.

A free market requires free access to information, but companies keep wages a secret from both consumers and prospective employees.

If you want to get rid of minimum wage laws, then one would need complete transparency for wages to actually create a free labor market.

When employers actively try and keep wages a secret then by definition there is no free market.

That is your opinion Conan... lots of people disagree with you. ~ Artemis at November 23, 2020 11:45 AM

And they're wrong.

A nationwide minimum wage does not factor in the local cost of living - i.e., groceries, utilities, housing, and transportation.

$15 an hour in Des Moines, Iowa will go a lot farther than $15 in San Francisco, California. It will also cost the Des Moines employer a lot more since what he can charge for a product will be determined by what the local market will bear, but his labor costs are now dictated by Washington, over 1,000 miles away.

A nationwide minimum wage law also does not take into account local labor laws. For instance, in California overtime is earned for every hour over 8 in a workday and for every hour worked on the seventh consecutive workday. Whereas in other jurisdictions it is earned for every hour over 40 in a workweek. That difference makes managing labor costs in California more complicated (and expensive) than managing them in, say, Des Moines, Iowa - and means more time spent by management personnel on creating the weekly schedule and monitoring hours.

A free market requires free access to information, but companies keep wages a secret from both consumers and prospective employees. ~ Artemis at November 23, 2020 11:45 AM

Ever Googled average wages? You can get a pretty good idea of what your skill set is worth in your market with a few keystrokes on the inter-webs.

BLS, recruiters, and even employers are literally giving this information away. It's to their benefit to do so. HR departments use the information to create salary ranges by job.

If you're going into wage negotiations complaining that you don't know what to ask for, you're not doing your homework.

When employers actively try and keep wages a secret then by definition there is no free market. ~ Artemis at November 23, 2020 11:45 AM

Employers can actively try all they want. Information will not be constrained.

If you're working minimum wage jobs, you know how much to expect from an employer in your area. You talk to friends, coworkers, and former coworkers to see what everybody's paying. The grapevine will tell you which companies pay well and which ones do not. The ones that pay well will be public with it, too, in order to attract the best candidates.

Conan Says:

"And they're wrong."

No Conan... these are people who disagree with you on policy.

When I tell you that you are wrong about something it is because the data clearly shows that you are in error or there is historical evidence demonstrating that what you said was incorrect.

This isn't one of those situations. You have a deeply held personal belief about how the economy should function. This is just an opinion you happen to have. Others are entitled to disagree with you on such things without you dismissing them out of hand.

"A nationwide minimum wage does not factor in the local cost of living - i.e., groceries, utilities, housing, and transportation."

It is just a national minimum wage Conan... localities are welcome to generate minimum wages that are higher than the national.

All it does is it sets a floor. Nothing precludes states to set a higher floor, they just cannot set a lower floor.

None of this seems all that unreasonable.

It certainly isn't something I would call a "massive" amount of government regulation. That is just 1 regulation and doesn't seem to be particularly onerous.

"Ever Googled average wages? You can get a pretty good idea of what your skill set is worth in your market with a few keystrokes on the inter-webs."

That isn't a free market.

In a free market information should be freely available and very specific. The stock market is a good example. When I am researching a stock purchase I can get detailed historical information regarding pricing and trends full with charts going back decades.

I don't get a "pretty good idea" about the going stock price... or a "pretty good idea" about various options prices... I get very specific and accurate data that allows me to make extremely well informed decisions.

The labor market isn't even close to this.

Once we have an actual free market for labor then I'd be willing to talk about backing off on government regulations for salary. A free market would involve something like going to the website for the company and having free access to all of the salary data that internal human resources has available (minus any personal details like SSNs, names, etc...).

A free market does not admit "guess work" when it comes to up to date pricing information.

Furthermore, corporations continue to engage in anti-competitive labor practices such as non-compete arrangements and so-called anti-poaching agreements.

All of those things seek to eliminate competition for labor and hence get rid of the free market for labor.

I'm simply not buying this "free market" economics argument for salary when we don't couple it with a true free market for the employees.

A one-sided "free market" is actually a rigged market.

It is just a national minimum wage Conan... localities are welcome to generate minimum wages that are higher than the national.

But not lower ones. Pay attention, Artie.

It is unreasonable if the higher floor set by the federal government distorts the labor market in that locale. It is unreasonable if that higher floor set by the federal government distorts the value of an hour's work in that market.

In addition, most union contracts are indexed to the minimum wage. So, any hike in the floor set by the federal government will mandate an increase in labor costs across the board.

Furthermore, most employees who had been making more than minimum wage will not want to find out they're now making minimum wage or close to it As such, they will demand a raise or seek out employment elsewhere if their employer cannot simply bump their wages up a corresponding amount.

The ripple effects of a minimum wage hike that distorts labor costs in a market are considerable. Your anti-corporate bias and lack of economic literacy are blinding you to the downstream impact of raising the minimum wage.

In a free market information should be freely available and very specific. The stock market is a good example. When I am researching a stock purchase I can get detailed historical information regarding pricing and trends full with charts going back decades.

Yes, you can get specific stock information, but you can't get information on how many shares I own, what I paid for them, or for how much I sold them. You can find average wage information by market, but you cannot Google specific coworkers' salaries. That's by design; you don't want them Googling yours.

If you're smart, that average is enough to negotiate a fair salary for yourself.

You sound like an academic worried that a despised rival professor or researcher might be making more than you are.

BTW, Artie, you can get salary trend information for most job categories in most markets from the BLS. Trends in salary mean little, however, when it comes to negotiating salary. Unlike stock prices, which fluctuate constantly, your wage at a company will remain fairly static and any changes in it will be mostly predictable.

People generally keep their salaries in line with changing market conditions by changing jobs. According to MarketWatch:

Consistently remaining employed at a company for longer than two years will decrease your lifetime earnings by 50%, according to CPA and tax expert Cameron Keng.

While employees who stick at the same company can generally expect a 3% annual raise, changing jobs will generally get you a 10% to 20% increase in your salary, Keng estimates.

Yes, there are non-complete clauses and anti-poaching agreements. They exist to prevent the transfer of trade secrets and proprietary information, not to keep employees under heel. Most cannot prevent an employee from leaving the company and taking a job in an unrelated industry or with a non-competing company.

Each state regards non-compete clauses differently. Some are openly hostile to them (e.g., Minnesota) while others enforce them stringently. The courts, in general, have taken a dim view of blanket non-complete clauses. Again, local conditions set the standard, as I've argued they should.

Artie, I took a class in college that bashed capitalism and glorified Marxism. We dubbed it Marxism 101. You sound just like my old professor, a Rasputin-bearded firebrand who would make Bernie Sanders look like the reincarnation of Jesse Helms. If I still had my old textbook from that class, I could pull your anti-employer arguments straight from its pages.

Conan Says:

"It is unreasonable if the higher floor set by the federal government distorts the labor market in that locale."

Once again, I would have more sympathy for any of your objections regarding minimum wage laws and how you view them as a "distortion" to labor markets if you coupled your objections with all of the myriad ways the labor markets are already distorted from any reasonable approximation of a free market by the corporations themselves.

The fundamental point is that neither you nor corporations are actually arguing for universal policies that promote a free market... just for policies that skew things in favor of one side of the market.

"You can find average wage information by market, but you cannot Google specific coworkers' salaries. That's by design; you don't want them Googling yours."

We don't need that Conan.

In a true free market for labor you would be able to see the full distribution of salaries for any employer. That distribution would be anonymized.

Just to make things clear, there is a reason I never see "free market" advocates ever complain about the massive numbers of regulations associated with SEC filings and financial disclosures that are required to accommodate Wall Street.

I can go through the quarterly financial reports of any publicly owned company I like, whether or not I own any shares. There are massive legal consequences for falsifying these reports as well.

I've never seen you or anyone else argue how "massive" these regulations are and that instead we should just rely on google to try and figure things out based on random disclosures from employees that you hope might give you a "pretty good idea" of what is going on.

We all get quarterly statements with up to date and accurate financial information. This is required by law.

That is what a free market actually requires to operate.

What you are advocating for in terms of the labor market is known as information asymmetry. Such things are known to pervert and distort markets in ways that make them decidedly not free markets.

James A. Mirrlees and William Vickrey were awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics back in the 90's for their discoveries in this area.

I recommend your familiarize yourself with your work before continuing this discussion.

Needless to say, you are not actually advocating for a free market in labor. You are advocating for a distorted labor market with information asymmetry that disproportionately benefits the employer at the expense of the employee.

As a result I cannot take any discussion with you about minimum wage laws seriously because you aren't actually following any justifiable economic principles.

"Yes, there are non-complete clauses and anti-poaching agreements. They exist to prevent the transfer of trade secrets and proprietary information, not to keep employees under heel."

Nonsense. Non-disclosure agreements already make such things illegal.

One cannot justify preventing someone from working for a competitor because there is the possibility they might break the law... that is a perversion of the free market.

If they break the law you hold them accountable. You do not penalize them preemptively.

This is anti free market propaganda you are spewing.

In a true free market for labor you would be able to see the full distribution of salaries for any employer. That distribution would be anonymized. ~ Artemis at November 24, 2020 11:06 AM

Any employer? Any?

Full distribution? Anonymized?

Artie, a free market for labor is you selling your labor for a cost the market will bear. This "perfect information" you seek is fantasy.

A "full distribution of salaries for any employer" will not include non-salary compensation. In addition, if it does not break down the salary ranges by job and location, it will be useless; if it does, it will not be anonymous.

What exactly do you propose someone could do with this "full distribution of salaries for any employer?" As a job negotiation tool, it's useless. If you're at the level where you're negotiating your compensation, you already know what you're worth. If you're not, you're gonna get offered, and you're gonna accept, what the market will bear - i.e., the aforementioned information readily available from the BLS.

I can go through the quarterly financial reports of any publicly owned company I like, whether or not I own any shares. ~ Artemis at November 24, 2020 11:06 AM

The operative phrase there is "publicly owned." Until a company is publicly traded, the public has no right to peek under its skirts (with some exceptions, of course).

One cannot justify preventing someone from working for a competitor because there is the possibility they might break the law... that is a perversion of the free market. ~ Artemis at November 24, 2020 11:06 AM

Not all trade secrets are copyrighted, patented or otherwise legally protected. Companies, like people, have a right to protect their work products and intellectual capital.

You really have no clue what you're talking about. When it come to finance and economics, your illiteracy is bottomless.

That you think you're going to explain market economics to me is priceless. Thank you, Artie. I needed a good laugh.

Conan,

A free market cannot exist in the presence of asymmetrical information between the parties involved.

If you want to advocate for a free market solution to the labor market them actually advocate for one.

As it stands you are not advocating free market principles or libertarian principles... you are advocating corporatist principles.

No one should take a corporatist seriously when they complain about minimum wage laws and falsely claim they are concerned about "distorted" markets.

Corporatists such as yourself are in favor of market distortions... those distortions just need to result in decreased wagers and higher corporate profits.

"If you're at the level where you're negotiating your compensation, you already know what you're worth."

The analogous argument for the stock market would be there should be no SEC filings or regulations and that when you at the level where you're ready to purchase a stock, you should already know what it is worth.

No one believes this with regard to the stock market, and it is foolish to believe it with regard to any other market.

The free availability of information is at the heart of any free market.

Information asymmetry results in labor market distortions.

Either you are for labor market distortions or you are against them.

You don't get to cherry pick distortions based on the ones you happen to like and then pretend that "distorted markets" are actually a concern you take seriously.

"Not all trade secrets are copyrighted, patented or otherwise legally protected. Companies, like people, have a right to protect their work products and intellectual capital."

As I already explained, they are protected by NDA's (non-disclosure agreements).

NDA's protect these assets from a legal perspective without distorting the labor market.

Non-compete agreements and non-poaching agreements distort the free market in labor by making it illegal for a person to "sell their labor for a cost the market will bear".

Again, your claims that you are promoting free market ideology here are fictitious.

The market solution if an employee gets a better offer at a competitor is to match or exceed that offer.

Artificial legal constraints to competition depress wages in a manner inconsistent with free market principles.

Conan,

Additionally, quarterly labor information filings by publicly owned companies along side their quarterly financial filings would be sufficient to address the information asymmetry issues I've been discussing.

No need to "peek under the skirt" of the mom and pop shop down the road.

If you are truly a free market advocate none of this should ruffle your feathers.

Additionally, quarterly labor information filings by publicly owned companies along side their quarterly financial filings would be sufficient to address the information asymmetry issues I've been discussing.

Companies file labor information with the BLS regularly. The BLS then aggregates it and makes it public. No asymmetry.

To be honest, Artie, I'm not exactly sure what you're asking for. You seem to be asking for a complete break down of salaries by specific job for every company.

You seem to want to lock down a standard salary for each job by company. That's a bit constraining and does not consider that all skillsets and employees are not equal, even when they have the same credentials. All companies are not alike, either.

Such filings, as I've already pointed out, would not include non-salary compensation - i.e., vacation days, sick days, benefits, expense accounts, allowances, stock ownership, holidays observed, on-site day care, company culture, education reimbursement, parking allowance, etc. Some of those things are as important to people as salary.

You argue this is in the name of free labor markets, to enable employees to bargain for better compensation. Yet, in the same vein of free market advocacy, you don't advocate that companies in turn to have access to a potential hire's or current employee's financial information. What's good for the goose, Artie.

You seem to place a great deal of faith in the quarterly filings or publicly-traded companies as a comparative. That faith in the complete openness of such filings may be misplaced.

The regulations about disclosures of information for publicly traded companies are due to the fact that buyers of a stock will be owners of that company and should be able to do a proper due diligence before making the purchase.

I've spent half my career working on and with financial statements, Artie. They are as much artifice as honesty. As such, there are things that take a bit of savvy to glean from those filings. That's why stock analysts exist - along with CNBC, FBC, Bloomberg, etc. That's why CFOs and CEOs have regular analyst calls with Wall Street. I've not been a Wall Street analyst, but I have helped to prep the CEO for those calls and for meetings with the board of directors.

I've also spent time analyzing competitor financial filings for as much information as could be gleaned from them and reported the findings to the CFO. Those filings can tell you a lot, but you have to know where to look and how to interpret what you find.

You can do a proper salary due diligence with the information that is currently made public from the BLS, recruiting and staffing companies, etc. That information, by the way, is how HR departments set salary ranges.

So, in any negotiation, you basically have the same data the company does. What you do with it is up to you.

Aggregated salary information by job classification and geography are publicly available. It's not by company, but if you're in that area, you generally know which companies pay well and which ones don't. And that information is enough for someone who knows his own worth to make a good deal for himself. In the interview, you ask what the responsibilities are and price yourself accordingly.

As for minimum wage salary information, a minimum wage person is not likely to be able to negotiate a salary. It's a take what's offered kind of role. If you want more, you go somewhere else, if they'll hire you. That's the main reason you go out and obtain skills and experience, to put yourself in a better negotiating position.

Conan Says:

"Companies file labor information with the BLS regularly. The BLS then aggregates it and makes it public. No asymmetry.

To be honest, Artie, I'm not exactly sure what you're asking for. You seem to be asking for a complete break down of salaries by specific job for every company."

This is the kind of information made available in financial disclosures to the SEC for the purposes of generating an information even playing field within the stock market.

If an insider acts on that knowledge prior to disclosure they are criminally liable for insider trading.

My expectation for any discussion surrounding a free market for labor is parity with my expectations for a free market for stocks.

The labor disclosures should be in as great detail with complete breakdowns based on job title/role.

This is how free markets are developed.

Your argument about aggregated information from BLS is insufficient... no one would accept such crude and coarse information for any financial market.

You know and understand this though, so your objection to actually forming a free market for labor isn't related to a misunderstanding of what it takes to actually form a free market... your objection appears to be related to your philosophical opposition to a free market for labor in general.

"Such filings, as I've already pointed out, would not include non-salary compensation - i.e., vacation days, sick days, benefits, expense accounts, allowances, stock ownership, holidays observed, on-site day care, company culture, education reimbursement, parking allowance, etc. Some of those things are as important to people as salary."

These items would be included in a comprehensive labor disclosure as I have described.

I mentioned salary as but one example. Companies would be well advised to include any and all such information for comparative review amongst those operating within the free labor market.

I'm not sure why this is so confusing for you. Filings with the SEC and quarterly financial statements don't just report revenue.

I assume you've actually read a quarterly report at some time in your life. They are very detailed as required by law.

If you actually want a free market for labor, similar detail would be required for quarterly disclosures for all of the relevant metrics. Salary is but one component... This isn't even all that challenging, HR departments do this all the time when they extend job offers.

All I am saying is that in a free market for labor this information would be publicly available.

"You argue this is in the name of free labor markets, to enable employees to bargain for better compensation. Yet, in the same vein of free market advocacy, you don't advocate that companies in turn to have access to a potential hire's or current employee's financial information. What's good for the goose, Artie."

Why on earth would they need to look under the skirt of a particular potential hire?

You objected to such specific information being available to anyone.

All a potential employer would be entitled to is the compensation distribution from the places that employee has worked.

That is an even playing field.

Providing the potential employer with very specific and targeted information about an individual while only providing the potential employee with general information about a distribution of compensation profiles at a company retains information asymmetry skewed toward the business.

I am literally advocating for an even playing field in a free labor market and you cannot accept it as even unless it is actually skewed.

Additionally, your objections that such labor disclosures will be "confusing" are unconvincing.

If you are capable of understanding a financial statement, people in general should be capable of understanding a labor report.

It makes no sense that disclosing such information would make people in any sense *less* informed.

"I've also spent time analyzing competitor financial filings for as much information as could be gleaned from them and reported the findings to the CFO. Those filings can tell you a lot, but you have to know where to look and how to interpret what you find."

Great... then you agree that the disclosures I am suggesting would also tell people a lot. That people might need to learn how to interpret the information what I like to call a good problem to have.

If an insider acts on that knowledge prior to disclosure they are criminally liable for insider trading.

Yes, Artie, I know that all too well. As a member of several finance departments, I've been an insider with several employers, subject to scrutiny for insider trading.

An old boss of mine went to prison for insider trading and fraud. That was after both of us had left our mutual company for different employers. No one who'd worked with him was surprised when the news came out.

My expectation for any discussion surrounding a free market for labor is parity with my expectations for a free market for stocks.

Completely different contexts, Artie. As a potential stock buyer, you are a potential owner of the company and, as such, you have a right to do a proper due diligence and review financial information.

Being able to look up a coworker's salary is nothing more than an invasion of privacy.

The labor disclosures should be in as great detail with complete breakdowns based on job title/role.

Again, you're ignoring privacy concerns.

Additionally, your objections that such labor disclosures will be "confusing" are unconvincing.

No, Artie, I said there are privacy concerns. I said nothing about confusion. I'm not confused, but I get the sense you are.

I assume you've actually read a quarterly report at some time in your life. They are very detailed as required by law.

What part of, "I've spent half my career working on and with financial statements, Artie." confused you?

Artie, your faith in quarterly and annual reports is greater than merited. As I said, they're as much art as science. They're as much a sales document as they are a financial report.

And, Artie, you don't get the level of detail you seem to think you get. You certainly don't get the level of detail that you're asking for in salary data in a quarterly report.

Artie, have you ever actually read a 10Q? Really read it? Have you ever actually broken one down and done a detailed financial analysis of the information in it? 'cause from your comments, it seems you haven't.

You seem to think that, because the government mandates something, compliance is immediate and complete. And that the threat of prison is enough to compel honesty. It's not. Just ask my old boss. He should be getting out soon.