Frank Rich is the best opinion writer in the US. He has the perfect background for analyzing Washington politics. He was formerly a theatre critic. Actually, he still is - it's just a different type of playhouse that he writes about. Too bad the Oregonian rarely (if ever?) includes his columns.

In the early years of the Bush administration my favorite columnist was Maureen Dowd, but her tone was sort of overwhelmed by the sheer ugliness that followed. It's hard to be witty about war crimes.

 That's when Frank Rich took over as the best columnist in America - in my opinion. His ability to write lengthy pieces that tie vast amounts of information together is unmatched. In addition, he's a great radio guest displaying humor and decency.

  On the conservative side, there's an emerging  columnist named Kathleen Parker who has the gift. Her column about Sarah Palin during the last campaign was beyond brilliant including the line, "If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself."

  Keep up the good work, Carla. You're emerging as Blue Oregon's new star as well. "I Have a Crush on Frank Rich Today" is a great headline. Who isn't going to be drawn in by that?

"The more disturbing problem is that the party has zero leaders and zero ideas."

Lessee, a stimulus program where we give away tons of money, oh by the way, it is filled with pork. Am I talking about the great TARP plan? No, the current stimulus plan. Very original.

Face it, neither side has an idea.

The problem with Republicans is this:

1. Rigid political orthodoxy that forces a Republican candidate in California to run on the same platform and values that a Republican from the South runs on.

2. Complete capture by their interest groups that enforces that rigid political orthodoxy.

3. They have lost a whole generation of voters due to their political orthodoxy that does not compromise on abortion, unionization, big business, foreign policy, etc.

First, Democrats know that a Democrat in California is inherently different than a Democrat in Ohio, Oregon, Washington and on. Democrats run regional campaigns, while someone like Jason Atkinson (if he runs for Governor in 2010) will run on the same values and positions of Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions. Until Republicans learn to differentiate by state and region, they will continue running losing campaigns based on Southern values.

Second, it is no surprise to any observer that both parties are captured by their funders who happen to be interest groups. The difference is that the Democrats learned in the 1990s, that you do not put these groups at the fore in formulating the party platform and policy positions. Republicans will learn with losses in 2010 and 2012 that their interest groups are hurting more than helping.

Finally, Republicans and social conservatives in general have failed to craft their message to those 18 to 24 year old voters like me. They tend to think that Rush Limbaugh is the "Truth" and that we should all accept his malarky without question. Well, that may be the case with some, but them College Republicans have a tenth of the number of students that College Democrats have. Unless, Republicans can connect to the younger voters through a good message consistent with today's ever changing values and the latest technology, then I portend more massive losses beyond 2012 for Republicans.

"that you do not put these groups at the fore in formulating the party platform and policy positions."

YOu do realize that Daschle is being nominated for Secty of Health and Human Services? Let's overlook the fact he got $300K as a lobbyist for medical and health insurance companies.

My contention still remains - Neither party has a clue.

This essay by Frank Rich on Karl Rove is another of his perceptive winners

Steve,

Neither party may have a clue, but Republicans are not in power and are in the perfect position to get a clue because it ain't their agenda.

I'll overlook Daschle if you can overlook the fact that a platform of "limited government, deregulation, and a laissez faire approach to business" from 1994 until 2006 was one of the key reasons why we are in this economic mess (along with derivatives, free trade, the outsourcing of our manufacturing base, and Alan Greenspan promoting inflation at the Fed).

My contention with unabashed free traders and those who think Reagan is a demi-god remains.

I'll overlook Daschle...

That would take a lot over overlooking.

Here's what's infuriating me right now:

The Bush administration left America badly wounded. There's even a possibility that the dollar is finished and that we will collapse.

  So we are all sitting in the same lifeboat and we're trying to bail it out. But there's one loud person in the boat saying that he hopes our efforts fail. And a percentage of the boat is actually agreeing with him. And it's extra-aggravating because the loud person is also one of the reasons we ended up here in the lifeboat.

  Our situation is so dire the GOP and Rush should say,"Look, we screwed up bad and America is on the brink. We don't like what you're trying to do, but after the giant mess we made, the last thing we want to do is bring about your failure out of spite." Of course, if they did that, they wouldn't be who they are.

  Is anyone else annoyed that the people who did so much harm to this country while in power, are now trying to sabotage what's left?

"I'll overlook Daschle if you can overlook the fact that a platform of "limited government, deregulation"

Ok, I can't overlook either, are you going to also?

Is anyone else annoyed that the people who did so much harm to this country while in power, are now trying to sabotage what's left?

Just as bad and perhaps more dangerous is the fact that some people who helped to put the country on the road to its current economic mess and other disasters and are now playing key roles in the Obama administration - Rubin, Summers, Geithner, Clinton, Biden, etc. - were in league with similarly venal Republicans.

Steve speaks for me. Daschle is the tip of the right-of-center iceberg.

"In disc golf, there's a shot known as "an Obama" -- it's a drive that you expect to veer to the left but keeps hooking right."

I have been a fan of Frank Rich since listening to the audio book of his excellent THE GREATEST STORY EVER SOLD about the Bush years, read by the excellent voice of Grover Gardner, which is a perfect match for the book.

Steve, if you have a better plan for fixing this country (something other than "just apply untargeted tax cuts and everything will be fine") let us know what it is.

At least the stimulus plan is an attempt to do something beyond rhetoric.

Thanks to Bill B. for the Taibbi article. I just read, The Great Derangement (available at our public library, although it will probably get you on the Bush-Obama terrorist list), and it was simultaneously hilarious and terrifying.

"'Out of all the bought-off Washington whores who could have been given this job, Daschle is the best one. His fake reform will go the farthest in its approximation of actual action than the fake reform of any other possible whore-candidate.' Actually that probably sums up the ideological profile of Obama quite well generally — but that's another story." (Matt Taibbi, The Whore Factor)

Of course, those that have been saying for 80 years that the Republicans (started more as Dems, but by FDR was a Rep thing) are actually trying to cause an economic collapse, as an excuse for a more totalitarian State, are still regarded as conspiracy theorists.

That does leave one to wonder how such bright people can be stupid and unable to accomplish anything. I'm glad liberals believe in the better angels of human nature. It would be too much to bear to think that these people were actually competent, that they are getting exactly what they have set out for and that we are laughing as they eat our lunch.

The Republican Party is definitely lost in the wilderness. I'm not sure the Democrats are in much better shape, aside from being in power in both political branches. Maybe it will emerge that they really do have better ideas. We'll see.

I'd really like to see two viable parties contending in the arena. That's the only way to preserve and protect democracy

That does leave one to wonder how such bright people can be stupid and unable to accomplish anything.

There is a difference between knowledge (brightness) and intelligence. When David Halberstam wrote about the "best and the brightest" he was referring to Robert McNamara and his "whiz kids" who got the United States into the Vietnam quagmire. Without ethical and moral compasses bright people can become human disasters. However, a lack of these direction pointers is no disbarment from higher office or employment as a pundit. To the contrary, ethical and moral debasement is often essential for "success" in this modern world as it has been from time immemorial.

If you like Frank Rich (as I do) you may also admire (as I do) Robert Fisk, Uri Avnery, Gideon Levy and Amira Hass. Then, again, maybe you won't.

Steve,

Just testing you out there. Damn it! I wanted you to be a Republican troll :p

The thing you have to do is keep everything in perspective. I cannot stand Timothy Geithner, Larry Summers and other "sell out America" free trading failures from the 1990s whose economic philosophy contributed to this current economic calamity, but then again I ain't in Obama's shoes where picking darkhorse candidates will bring derision on one side and picking sellouts will bring criticism from others like me.

Keynes economics had its day back during the New Deal and the Great Society. Milton Friedman's economics were practiced by Volcker, Greenspan and on up through GW Bush.

Neither Keynes nor Friedman has the answer. We are in the dark and will have to create our own light.

"I wanted you to be a Republican troll"

Even if I am how does that change the argument. I do honestly hope Pres Obama does well. However, when I see half the Clinton cabinet already in force (at least the ones not in toruble like Richardson), I am kind of wondering what's changed.

Then I see the same people running the Senate and House and where exactly are we going to get new ideas from? Certainly not the lobbyist who give Congress marching orders.

YOu might call me a troll, if I object to spending half this blog calling Repubs idiots and then having people defend Bush's tactics with TARP except calling it economic stimulus.

And no - Just because the Repubs do it and its wrong doesn't allow Demos a make-up wrong.

Hell, if Rush is stupid enough to play into the hands of the Dimocrat party, the Republicons may never get the moderates back.

Jack, if you want to run for higher office (as some are saying), you will need to be more precise in your language. It was, after all, Dan Lavey who first said "the fastest growing party is no party at all". Many elections are not decided by straight party voting on one side or the other, but by ticket splitting and voters not allied with major parties.

Do you really mean to say that every registered Republican is individually liable for the action of any other Republican and likewise for Democrats? If you don't like Bush, don't vote for a Republican legislator?

There were individual Democrats who voted in ways that now look stupid. But "you guys"? It's true, you guys did help Bush pass his tax cuts and go into Iraq, but I don't think that obligates us to return the favor.

The days of "team sport" partisan politics should be over. I would suggest reading Lincoln Chaffee's book about how upset he was that Cheney laid down the law and said Republicans were just supposed to take orders.

If a Democrat tried that (you really think every registered Democrat is willing to support doubling the car registration fee because Kulongoski proposed it??) they would see a backlash.

Jackie Winters and Dave Nelson voted for the Senate-passed stimulus package. Other Republicans are just attacking the proposal, saying we need more tax cuts, not saying how to pay for anything. This is how they expect to win elections in 2010?

I had thought you were smarter than that--maybe I was wrong.

Carla said, So your preference is for your party to be AWOL on the single largest problem we're facing?"

"AWOL"?

I wouldn't call being opposed to the biggest pork laden, nanny state, phony stimulus, big government spending bill in history. Obviously Republicans disagree with you that this stimulus is "facing the problem".

Quite the contrary most of us are sure it will make the problem worse.

And you've obviously heard alternative proposals from Republicans. You just don't like them.

That makes your use of "AWOL" nothing but inaccurate partisan rhetoric. Surprise surprise.

Just like the Congressional plan the Oregon plan is a lesson in outright delirium by Democrats. Borrowing and spending $170 million on anything is not good. It matters where money is spent. But it appears you Ds have no other ideas available because so many of your constituents object to everything.

And it's like the only thing you view as waste and pork is people and businesses keeping more of their own money. Can't have that. How will it be paid for?

Spend for the sake of spending is not a remedy, a stimulus or wise.

Bill M,

I know you like to think Republicans and Bush brought on our current calamity. But it aint so. Our bi-partisan Congress and mission creeping massive government has.

In our State and country we are witnessing what happens when government swells beyond it's ability to perform basic, core responsibilities.

It's just too big, with too much to manage, with too many things to watch and too many people who are dependent and entitled. All the while expanding and running thinner and thinner the means to sustain itself.

I know ya'll will disagree but Katrina is a good example. It wasn't just Bush who screwed up the response. It was the massive bureaucracies at all levels. The higher the level the more dysfunctional they get when it matters the most.

I don't know what Carla is thinking now with her AWOL suggestion. Does she just want Rep votes on the junk so as to spread the blame later? Or is she hoping they provide ideas? Now that's a joke. Especially since she has been such an outspoken Democrat during the no-more-Republicans frenzy.

Well you got exactly what you wanted. Now have a good time trying to maintain the massive government you insisted we needed to grow all these years. And with your deferred wish list of additional government I can see the crash coming as you try to grow government as a way to fix our swelling government. Gas on the fire that is.

Of course I anticipate more Bush bashing rhetoric to lay blame for the deeper mess. Hmm Democrats must have been AWOL all these past years.

You'll be trying to get rid of more Republicans, trash corporations and hobble small businesses.

Then wonder why the green economy didn't fill the void.

Back to Oregon. The $170 million or so about to be wasted is money that will soon be desperately needed when another couple billion fail to arrive in state coffers. That $170 million will be needed to pay the most basic expenses.
If there were ever a time to defer maintenance and pork it is now. Nothing outside of true job creation and absolute necessity should be funded at this juncture.
Sweeping cuts in payroll and other cost across the board need to start now to avoid a deeper pitfall.

Are you blues aware of what is ahead for Oregon?

It's easy to imagine 14% unemployment and a $2 to $3 Billion shortfall in State funding this time next year.
Better start cutting government now.

The Obama administration and Democrat Congress are not going to rescue Oregon from you.

Maybe if I had spent the last 8 years on another planet, I could accept it when people say the GOP isn't to blame for the way things are going. The problem is that we just had a president and vice president who seized authoritarian rule and got away with being - not just above the law - but the law itself. It's cute now when GOP supporters try and suggest Bush and Cheney were just ambling by the White House one day and dropped in for tea. Oh, I can definitely understand why you'd want to distance yourself from their sorry deeds, but to try and pretend they shared power with other branches, etc, is a joke. They demanded all of the power, they got it, and then they screwed everything up. The only thing that went well were those T-ball tournaments President Bush used to throw on the White House lawn.

  Maybe I would believe you that Bush and Cheney aren't responsible for our current condition,  but, like I say,  I happened to be living here on Planet Earth the last 8 years.

YoungOregonMoonbat:

a platform of "limited government, deregulation, and a laissez faire approach to business" from 1994 until 2006 was one of the key reasons why we are in this economic mess...Milton Friedman's economics were practiced by Volcker, Greenspan and on up through GW Bush.

Bob T:

Hey, I don't mind you trashing laissez-faire, but ya gotta be able to recognize it first. Nothing even close to Friedman's economics has been around since many years before World War One. You can't point to a 3% decrease in regulations or taxes and cry out, "Oh no, it's laissez-faire!"

There's far too many anti-laissez-faire policies, agencies and what-not all these years for anyone to claim that it's been tried even partially. Whatever it is, it was awful, no doubt. It was more like mercantalism.

Anyway, let me know when you have an idea of what laissez-faire is. Right now, you wouldn't know it if it had a big sign on its head and bites you in the ass.

Bob Tiernan Mult Co.

Hey all you guys and gals at BlewOregon! Readin' all of your intelligent comments and opinions makes me wanna go out and get educated. So that I too can be full of myself and have boring retread ideas that I can espouse to the choir.

Hey all you guys and gals at BlewOregon! Readin' all of your intelligent comments and opinions makes me wanna go out and get educated. So that I too can be full of myself and have boring retread ideas that I can espouse to the choir.

First of all, what's wrong with people of similar opinions expressing their approval of those opinions at a site dedicated to a certain political point of view? Second, even if there was something wrong with it, or the way it's being done, what is to be gained by simply antagonizing rather than presenting a counter argument? Third, do you think you do your position credit by resorting to vulgarity?

Come on Bill. Isn't it obvious I had meant all are to blame? I've never read anyone say the GOP isn't to blame for the way things are going. But Congress, including democrats, along with the past administrations are to blame. The president and vice president were provided authority by congress. It's not so cute when you embellish the Bush administration's White House tea.

Unfortunatley it is you who is distancing yourself from the sorry deeds of the collective in Washington DC. You must imagine your democrats were on another planet the whole time, indluding the past two years while they controlled Congress?

You should believe that Bush, Cheney, Reed, Pelosi and our
massive dysfunctional government are responsible for our current condition.

Instead of your fantasy that things would be so much better had Gore or Kerry been at the helm.

That's why I used Katrina as the example of dysfunctional goverment. Any objective review of that quagmire has to agree with my assessment.

Any look at the last 8 years along with the prior 16 reveals a trend that is ugly on all fronts.
And all are to blame. Your frinds anmd mine.

You're right about Pelois and Reid and the Democratic Congress since 2006. They should have tried to remove Bush and Cheney.

  The mantra of the GOP appears to be that there was plenty of blame to go around and that in 50 years we'll all see how terrific Bush and Cheney were.

  I watched them rewrite the Reagan years and we shouldn't let them try here.

  The last 8 years were a textbook on how  to use fear to shape public opinion to accomplish an agenda.

  One difference between the Conservatives and the Dems is the Conservatives were dead set on proving government doesn't work, and with them in charge, it didn't.

I don't hink you were watching close enough. Bush abandoned much of the Reagan conservatism and he got a lot of heat from Republicans. Especially with his expanded goverment runaway spending.

NCLB, prescription drug entitlement and never any spending vetoes etc.

What agenda was accomplished by fear?

There's no need for Conservatives to prove government doesn't work. It does that all on it's own. The electeds are no longer able to provide adequate oversight and management for the massive size it has become. Your comparison doesn't hold up in the slightest as Democrat strongholds (California) are as dysfunctional as any. Congress is dysfuntional no matter who runs it.

Pelosi and Reid would not have helped anything by attempting to prosecute Bush and Chaney.

Unless you have other impressions influencing you, such as a belief that Bush perpetrated 911, there is no basis for thinking Bush and Chaney's "agenda" caused this global economic calamity.

As for your government doesn't work or does work view?

Goverment does work when constrained and avoids swelling far beyond core functions.

You have to admit at some point that it can't be all things to all people and still "work".

Carla, Pls give us your opinion on the specific state and federal spending points on these stimulus packages. You agree with money to ACORN, or 7 billion to redue federal buildings, or millions for deferred maintenance for state projects that were actually supposed to be done in existing or previous budgets?? You actually think any of this will help anyone? C'Mon, this is the transparent, no earmark, totally righteous new government, right?

But after this TARP debacle, the repubs in Congress now look like idiots now that all of a sudden they have found their balls. Even tho opposing this pork roll is the correct choice, the GOP are only on the correct side of this one by circumstances. Kinda like a broke clock being right twice a day.

Again Carla, Pls let us know how this spending helps us so much?!?!?!

ddave--OK, ACORN should get no money. Federal buildings should not be weatherized or otherwise upgraded. You probably agree with Ferrioli that "deferred maintenance" isn't due to lack of funding, it just was never that important.

OK. All that said, how do you, ddave, intend to restart the economy and employ all the currently unemployed? Tax cuts? Or just wait until they find jobs on their own or someone writes a 21st century version of Grapes of Wrath? (Great book, so is In Dubious Battle, lesser known but a shorter book from the same time frame.)

I'm guessing you are an ideologue who thinks all Republicans are wise and all Democrats are foolish. I wonder if you have a secure job or are independently wealthy and thus not worried about this economy. You don't seem to know much early 20th century American history.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/30/AR2009013003116.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

is the Robt. Reich column on all this.

Bob T:

Hey, I don't mind you trashing laissez-faire, but ya gotta be able to recognize it first.

One definition: ...in economics and politics, doctrine that an economic system functions best when there is no interference by government. It is based on the belief that the natural economic order tends, when undisturbed by artificial stimulus or regulation, to secure the maximum well-being for the individual and therefore for the community as a whole.

The question is whether any sort of financial deregulation (in the name of one of Quayle's favorite words, "competitiveness" ?) allowed bubbles that burst, shoddy lending, complex things like derivatives which no one really understood actually did anything to "secure the maximum well-being for the individual and therefore for the community as a whole".

Or is it really about ideological debates, not how things work in real life?

Carla Axtman:

ACORN isn't getting any of this money. Check your research or turn off FOX, I don't care which.

Bob T:

That's correct -- the money it might get actually goes to a program which might give some to ACORN, but is not obligated to.

Bob Tiernan

Bob Tiernan: Anyway, let me know when you have an idea of what laissez-faire is. Right now, you wouldn't know it if it had a big sign on its head and bites you in the ass.

As someone of apparently Irish descent you should be more skeptical of laissez-faire. When the Irish famine began the British government decided that the market and laissez-faire would resolve the problem. Instead, hundreds of thousands of Irish men, women and children died and many more were forced to emigrate from their homeland.

Perhaps Oregonians In Action can get a few million to help usher along the "express" M49 claims through the bureaucracy so that 1000s of Oregonians can build their own homes on their own property with their own money? They'll put a lot of people back to work, including at planning departments, and generate new revenue for taxing jurisdictions.

Wouldn't that be swell?

Bill Bodden:

As someone of apparently Irish descent you should be more skeptical of laissez-faire. When the Irish famine began the British government decided that the market and laissez-faire would resolve the problem. Instead, hundreds of thousands of Irish men, women and children died and many more were forced to emigrate from their homeland.

Bob T:

Congratulations for displaying your incredible ignorance.

Note the key words: British government decided. Yes, after very anti-laissez-faire policies created an economic model and mindset that by that time made Ireland pretty much a basket case. To say that laissez-faire then failed to solve the problem reveals complete ignorance. You see, this would be like preventing people from learning how to swim, and then throwing them in the ocean a mile from shore and then suddenly announcing that swimming lessons are now available on the free market.

Bob Tiernan Mult Co.

LT:

The question is whether any sort of financial deregulation (in the name of one of Quayle's favorite words, "competitiveness" ?) allowed bubbles that burst, shoddy lending, complex things like derivatives which no one really understood actually did anything to "secure the maximum well-being for the individual and therefore for the community as a whole".

Or is it really about ideological debates, not how things work in real life?

Bob T:

The great economist George Reisman wrote something a few months back that I can use here. Essentially, if you et al. want to describe what we've had under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II as laissez-faire, by that logic that's what you "would have to describe the policy of Brezhnev and his successors of allowing workers on collective farms to cultivate plots of land of up to one acre in size on their own account and sell the produce in farmers' markets in Soviet cities. According to the logic of the media, that too would be 'laissez faire'-at least compared to the time of Stalin."

Bob Tiernan Mult Co.

Bob T:

Bob T:

Congratulations for displaying your incredible ignorance.

Note the key words: British government decided. Yes, after very anti-laissez-faire policies created an economic model and mindset that by that time made Ireland pretty much a basket case. To say that laissez-faire then failed to solve the problem reveals complete ignorance. You see, this would be like preventing people from learning how to swim, and then throwing them in the ocean a mile from shore and then suddenly announcing that swimming lessons are now available on the free market.

Bill B

I believe my source, the scholarly Cecil Woodham-Smith's "The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-1849," trumps your ideological bias. You apparently didn't notice that you shot down your own bias for laissez-faire with "very anti-laissez-faire policies created an economic model and mindset that by that time made Ireland pretty much a basket case."

This is a commentary on Cecil Woodham-Smith's book, "The Great Hunger": (my emphasis in bold)

The Irish potato famine of the 1840s, perhaps the most appalling event of the Victorian era, killed over a million people and drove as many more to emigrate to America. It may not have been the result of deliberate government policy, yet British 'obtuseness, short-sightedness and ignorance' - and stubborn commitment to laissez-faire 'solutions' - largely caused the disaster and prevented any serious efforts to relieve suffering. The continuing impact on Anglo-Irish relations was incalculable, the immediate human cost almost inconceivable. In this vivid and disturbing book, Cecil Woodham-Smith provides the definitive account. 'A moving and terrible book. It combines great literary power with great learning. It explains much in modern Ireland - and in modern America' - D.W. Brogan.

Bill Bodden:

I believe my source, the scholarly Cecil Woodham-Smith's "The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-1849," trumps your ideological bias. You apparently didn't notice that you shot down your own bias for laissez-faire with "very anti-laissez-faire policies created an economic model and mindset that by that time made Ireland pretty much a basket case."

Bob T:

I don't see how it was shot down. My point is that Britain imposed very anti-free market policies on the Irish who then had very, very little room for opportunities. When the shit hit the fan, it's kinda too late to "pull back" (and the anti-free market overlay was still there). Woodham-Smith seems to think that just doing nothing equals laissaiz-faire, when much needs to be repealed (and earlier), not just a bit (after the shit hits the fan). See my earlier comment about free market swimming lessons after people prevented from learning how to swim are thrown into the ocean.

Bob Tiernan, Great-great-grandson of Martin Tiernan who arrived in Boston in 1848.

Laissez-unfair gets charcterized that way, MultBob, because it's usually talked about in the abstract. Applied it always happens within a context, and if the playing field isn't level, it doesn't deliver. It delivers to whoever is dominant, which just coincidentally is when/who it is brought up by, so if you're sincere, you need to qualify your entry conditions up front. Without that people have every right to have a go at it.

Posted by: Bill Bodden | Feb 1, 2009 3:36:51 PM

That does leave one to wonder how such bright people can be stupid and unable to accomplish anything.

There is a difference between knowledge (brightness) and intelligence. When David Halberstam wrote about the "best and the brightest" he was referring to Robert McNamara and his "whiz kids" who got the United States into the Vietnam quagmire. Without ethical and moral compasses bright people can become human disasters. However, a lack of these direction pointers is no disbarment from higher office or employment as a pundit. To the contrary, ethical and moral debasement is often essential for "success" in this modern world as it has been from time immemorial.

Yeah, well, I'm arguing for parsimony. Doesn't "they accomplished exactly what they wanted to" account for the data better, and with only one term in the equation? I'm saying, it seems we can't bear to consider that.

Bob T:

I don't see how it was shot down. My point is that Britain imposed very anti-free market policies on the Irish who then had very, very little room for opportunities. When the shit hit the fan, it's kinda too late to "pull back" (and the anti-free market overlay was still there). Woodham-Smith seems to think that just doing nothing equals laissaiz-faire, when much needs to be repealed (and earlier), not just a bit (after the shit hits the fan). See my earlier comment about free market swimming lessons after people prevented from learning how to swim are thrown into the ocean.

Bob Tiernan, Great-great-grandson of Martin Tiernan who arrived in Boston in 1848.

That was just a piece of it and was confounded with the whole issue of the "corn laws". An equivalent today would be that while the US is promoting free-trade, we have huge sugar subsidies. The Irish took the brunt of it, so to them it's the focus of the policy, but it was really only a side-effect of a domestic untouchable. To complicate matters, the politicians that were pro-corn law, which is anti-free trade, which is anti-laissez-faire, mostly changed sides later, as did those that had opposed them. The "Irish Question" was considered the second hardest political nut to crack, after the Corn Laws and before "expanding the franchise".

On a positive note, that situation gave us Irish Stouts, such as Guiness. The Corn Laws where expanded into a tax on malted barley. The Irish, to decrease the tax burden, started substituting large amounts of roasted, unmalted barley to avoid the tax. The result is Irish Stout. Stout, BTW, refers to it's heavy use of hops. It's not apparent due to the high mineral content of the water, about 450 ppm, carbonates. It does show the Corn Laws were already dated, though, because historically hops had been the heavily taxed bit, and shows there was already less support for protectionism. The Corn Laws hung on another 50 years, and it was their repeal that began the age of "British Free Trade", that the LaRouchies like to talk about. As an answer to Bob I know what you meant, though.

My gr...grandfather came to Boston in 1648. What's that got to do with it?

Re: "There's no need for Conservatives to prove government doesn't work. It does that all on it's own."

When Democrats and Republicans fail, as they clearly have, that's not proof that "government doesn't work". All illegitimate power systems, i.e., all that are anti-democratic, will and should fail in a country committed to democracy. Let's get rid of both corporate dominated parties and then see what we can accomplish with and without government.

And when the economy completely tanks, let's encourage the poor to eat their children, Swift's laissez faire solution for the Irish famine.

Zarathustra:

Laissez-unfair gets charcterized that way, MultBob, because it's usually talked about in the abstract.

BobT:

Some of it is, just as there are discussions of other systems in the abstract. That's no excuse for defining laissez faire or free enterprise incorrectly to suit one's needs. Anyone who thinks that we've been operating in anything even close to free enterprise needs to read this.

Zarathustra:

On a positive note, that situation gave us Irish Stouts, such as Guiness. The Corn Laws where expanded into a tax on malted barley. The Irish, to decrease the tax burden, started substituting large amounts of roasted, unmalted barley to avoid the tax. The result is Irish Stout.

Bob T:

Here in the early years of the Republic, the Whiskey Rebellion came about because many farmers out in the boonies had to covert left-over grain into alcoholic beverages in order to keep it from rotting, and this saw the tax as an unnecessary hit on them.

As for the Corn Laws, an aggressive lobbying effort was still needed to get rid of them, and once that took place the organization disbanded. I like that method of dealing with laws that need to be repealed, as opposed to tying positions to membership in one political party or another. That's usually a good way to turn off otherwise interested people.

Zarathustra:

My gr...grandfather came to Boston in 1648. What's that got to do with it?

Bob T:

Just my way of congratulating Bill Bodden on his linking of my name with the PF - closer then he realized.

Bob Tiernan

Zarathustra:

Laissez-unfair gets charcterized that way, MultBob, because it's usually talked about in the abstract. Applied it always happens within a context, and if the playing field isn't level, it doesn't deliver.

Bob T:

Again, you can't everything you don't like in an economy an example of "laissez faire". It doesn't work that way, abstract or not.

The mixed, managed economy is not laissez faire whether you like that fact or not. For example, you probably think that the taxi cartel system in Portland is an example of laissez faire, but applied within a context. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. And if anyone didn't think so, they were also incorrect in claiming that laissez faire taxi service was introduced in this city when the city council changed the four-company cartel into a six-company cartel when they allowed two other companies to be included. It was still and remains a highly regulated and exclusionary system. Like with so many other parts of the skewed market, it's an example of the managed and regulated market that was sold to us under the guise of making commercial activity "fair", and free of the bust cycle as often as possible. That has all been a failed system itself.

We have the highly managed and politicized economy in ways most people don't even realize. At the state level, for example, were you aware that for many, many decades (until a recent court decision), the State of Tennessee mandated that only lcensed funeral directors could sell caskets? The result was that a cartel controlled the casket market and customers (few of whom had much time to shop around) had to pay over 500 percent over cost. This cartel was seriously challenged when an African-American Reverend named Nathaniel Craigmiles began to sell discount caskets even though he was not a licensed funeral director. He was then ordered to shut down by the state's Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers (seven people, six of whom were--surprise, surprise!--licensed funeral directors), threatening him with fines and possible jail time. He went to court, and won. Had the law requiring that no funeral director's licence be required, all we'd hear about would be how dreaded "deregulation" in the business would lead to toothpick-quality caskets, and poisonous materials being used, and all of the scare story stuff that the people controlling a given market spew to the populace knowing that their ignorance of the details will get most of them to defend the regulations. That's how so many of these remain. The people who benefit the most are the only ones who are motivated to fight hard on the issue. Everyone else doesn't know enough and this could care less, and the few who try to break in are lone challengers who are easily beaten down. But not Rev. Craigmiles. Just multiply his story by the thousands, in thousands of different types of businesses, and you see a lot of squashed opportunities. Just don't call it laissez faire or free enterprise. Sadly, people like you wouldn't lift a finger to help the Craigmiles of this country.

Zarathustra:

It delivers to whoever is dominant, which just coincidentally is when/who it is brought up by, so if you're sincere, you need to qualify your entry conditions up front. Without that people have every right to have a go at it.

Bob T:

No, it doesn't deliver to "whoever is dominant". Too many other factors are in the mix. The proof of that can be seen in the record of business in the latter half of the 19th Century when major industries were not doing as well as many people believe they were, with the result being that many of the leaders of various industries lobbied for regulations because they were finding it harder to compete and maintain their business levels. In a sense, they wanted regulations so they could stabilize their businesses. If it was supposed to be great without the wave of regulations we associate with that long era (going well into the 1900s), then you need to explain why they wanted regulations. The railroads are a good example of an industry that wanted regulations in the worst way. The myth is that all of these industries fought regulations tooth and nail, such as the meatpackers, to name another. But anyway, those who wish to define the economic model we've had since Reagan (and earlier) need to read this.

By the way, since the mixed, managed economy is not the same thing as laissez faire (it isn't, and I assume you acknowledge this), then tell me when it becomes the managed economy and no longer laissez faire.

Oh, next thing ya know and you're probably gonna tell me that Jim Crow laws were examples of free enterprise, too. You have a lot to learn.

Bob Tiernan Mult Co

Zarathustra:

Laissez-unfair gets charcterized that way, MultBob, because it's usually talked about in the abstract. Applied it always happens within a context, and if the playing field isn't level, it doesn't deliver.

Bob T:

Again, you can't everything you don't like in an economy an example of "laissez faire". It doesn't work that way, abstract or not.

The mixed, managed economy is not laissez faire whether you like that fact or not. For example, you probably think that the taxi cartel system in Portland is an example of laissez faire, but applied within a context. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. And if anyone didn't think so, they were also incorrect in claiming that laissez faire taxi service was introduced in this city when the city council changed the four-company cartel into a six-company cartel when they allowed two other companies to be included. It was still and remains a highly regulated and exclusionary system. Like with so many other parts of the skewed market, it's an example of the managed and regulated market that was sold to us under the guise of making commercial activity "fair", and free of the bust cycle as often as possible. That has all been a failed system itself.

We have the highly managed and politicized economy in ways most people don't even realize. At the state level, for example, were you aware that for many, many decades (until a recent court decision), the State of Tennessee mandated that only lcensed funeral directors could sell caskets? The result was that a cartel controlled the casket market and customers (few of whom had much time to shop around) had to pay over 500 percent over cost. This cartel was seriously challenged when an African-American Reverend named Nathaniel Craigmiles began to sell discount caskets even though he was not a licensed funeral director. He was then ordered to shut down by the state's Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers (seven people, six of whom were--surprise, surprise!--licensed funeral directors), threatening him with fines and possible jail time. He went to court, and won. Had the law requiring that no funeral director's licence be required, all we'd hear about would be how dreaded "deregulation" in the business would lead to toothpick-quality caskets, and poisonous materials being used, and all of the scare story stuff that the people controlling a given market spew to the populace knowing that their ignorance of the details will get most of them to defend the regulations. That's how so many of these remain. The people who benefit the most are the only ones who are motivated to fight hard on the issue. Everyone else doesn't know enough and this could care less, and the few who try to break in are lone challengers who are easily beaten down. But not Rev. Craigmiles. Just multiply his story by the thousands, in thousands of different types of businesses, and you see a lot of squashed opportunities. Just don't call it laissez faire or free enterprise. Sadly, people like you wouldn't lift a finger to help the Craigmiles of this country.

Zarathustra:

It delivers to whoever is dominant, which just coincidentally is when/who it is brought up by, so if you're sincere, you need to qualify your entry conditions up front. Without that people have every right to have a go at it.

Bob T:

No, it doesn't deliver to "whoever is dominant". Too many other factors are in the mix. The proof of that can be seen in the record of business in the latter half of the 19th Century when major industries were not doing as well as many people believe they were, with the result being that many of the leaders of various industries lobbied for regulations because they were finding it harder to compete and maintain their business levels. In a sense, they wanted regulations so they could stabilize their businesses. If it was supposed to be great without the wave of regulations we associate with that long era (going well into the 1900s), then you need to explain why they wanted regulations. The railroads are a good example of an industry that wanted regulations in the worst way. The myth is that all of these industries fought regulations tooth and nail, such as the meatpackers, to name another. But anyway, those who wish to define the economic model we've had since Reagan (and earlier) need to read this.

By the way, since the mixed, managed economy is not the same thing as laissez faire (it isn't, and I assume you acknowledge this), then tell me when it becomes the managed economy and no longer laissez faire.

Bob Tiernan Mult Co

<hr/>