tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6615158207991140558.post1793595483208823741..comments2023-10-28T02:10:29.103-07:00Comments on Something You Might Like: Would You Take “Investment Advice” from This Man? Or, Is This Our “Sputnik Moment?”Eddie Howellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18179867281158581924noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6615158207991140558.post-31610620639229121422011-02-03T11:55:48.867-08:002011-02-03T11:55:48.867-08:00We can agree that the golden age of capitalism was...We can agree that the golden age of capitalism was in fact the history of government market intervention, a status quo which you admit to accepting. And we can also agree that market distortions that have arisen in the past few decades have undermined capitalism. For example, Ronald Reagan's was perhaps the most protectionist U.S. administration ever.<br /><br />With taxes at their lowest in decades it's inaccurate to claim that the tax burden is responsible for the lagging economy. Perhaps higher taxes on the rich would help to provide more effective social services for the poor and middle class in order to address the sincere grievances of the American majority. It would be wonderful to return to the democratically distributed growth of the fifties when taxes on the rich were high and unions were more influential.<br /><br />I agree that Obama's economy is ineffective and unacceptable. The private sector may be growing jobs but the persistently high unemployment rate should be addressed aggressively. Perhaps this could be accomplished more effectively by the Fed than it could by Obama signing legislation passed by elected representatives though. But it should be noted that a conservative like you should be okay with a growing private sector and a shrinking public sector, which is indisputably occurring under Obama, or at least you presumably prefer that scenario to the Bush economy in which private sector growth was anemic or nonexistent but compensated for by a growing public sector.<br /><br />In any case, I'm more concerned with Obama's foreign policy approach of adopting and recycling the Bush anti-terror policies. This is where you should be looking if you want to speak out against government intrusion on our personal liberties, rather than decrying a stable Social Security fund that real human beings rely on to live or a dysfunctional health care system that is the laughing-stock of truly liberal democracies that have long surpassed us in that area.Andrew Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00398844108547664989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6615158207991140558.post-40211182709052010502011-02-02T12:37:07.086-08:002011-02-02T12:37:07.086-08:00Obama seems to admire China's accomplishments ...Obama seems to admire China's accomplishments and doesn't mind saying that in some ways they exceed ours. His treatment of Mr. Hu should tell us something.<br /><br />All Americans (basically) disapprove of human rights abuses. Liberals' dislike of abuses, that you mention goes back to the Progressive movement of the 1920's, when they got some serious reforms accomplished.<br /><br />Liberals rightly disapprove of China's abuses, but some are quite tolerant of Islamist abuses, to the point that Obama's administration is forbidden from verbally linking terrorist acts to Islam in any way. <br /><br />Of course you are correct that the Internet began with government-created technology. I am somewhat familiar with technology from military and space programs (produced by private companies under government contracts) finding their way to commercial applications. I worked in the aerospace industry for several years, after serving four years in the Air Force. Many of these production processes have close government involvement at every step, since Uncle Sam is shelling our billions for these products.<br /><br />There have been benefits, but these relationships also have their drawbacks, in what too often ends up as corporate welfare, i.e., transfer of wealth from taxpayers to corporations via government through open-ended cost-plus-type contracts. Corporate welfare happens in various industries, not just space and defense, and at many levels of government.<br /><br />This kind of large-scale government-industry relationship dates back at least to World War I<br />and has grown much over time and with each war. Ideally, this would not be the case, but it is so entrenched that it cannot be readily changed. So "conservatives" have accepted this much "state capitalism" in defense and space. <br /><br />Also we are deeply involved in socialistic programs like Social Security, which likely will not be substantially changed until they are forcibly discontinued due to financial collapse.<br /><br />Anyway, I would much rather see a trend toward much less government involvement in the economy, and a deep cutback of the bureaucratic structure, eliminating several agencies and some government departments. <br /><br />The Obama Administration has made so many moves to take control of so many things, I have to view them as special interest group in themselves, whose main goal is to accumulate power and control over the American people. <br /><br />Thus I tend to see taxes and regulations (which used properly are justified) as an end rather than a means (referring to another of your comments) for this particular group. But even before Obama, we were seriously over-regulated and over-taxed.<br /><br />Thank you for the comments.Eddie Howellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18179867281158581924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6615158207991140558.post-20951197928450971132011-01-29T01:14:15.890-08:002011-01-29T01:14:15.890-08:00It's inaccurate to label China a nation much a...It's inaccurate to label China a nation much admired by Obama. You point out that their economic success depends largely on terrible worker conditions, child labor, and environmental destruction. Are these not precisely the things liberals in America have struggled against while conservatives have fought to maintain the status quo? China more or less embodies everything that liberals disdain: GDP growth at the expense of human rights and the natural environment.<br /><br />You say that the government did nothing to create Facebook or Google, but it was the government that created the technology that led to the internet. Same goes for gps, the computer, the jet plane, radar, and on and on and on. I'm not saying I approve of this state capitalism as it exists today; I think it leaves open the possibility of rent-seeking and corruption. But nevertheless you're wrong in your views that the world would be bustling with more innovation and inventions were it not for government investments in technology.Andrew Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00398844108547664989noreply@blogger.com