Thought I'd pick on the Democrats a bit just to be fair. Someone posted this article in another forum but I think it's a bit interesting.

1. How many people believe Kerry's spokesman, that the boat is not in RI for purposes of avoiding taxes?

2. If it was for tax purposes that Kerry moved his boat, then should he not have done so or should he take whatever tax breaks he can find like anyone else might?

3. What do others think of rich democrats who seem to live the high life and rub shoulders with the very rich and yet the Democrats are typically seen as the party for "ordinary people". Hypocrisy? Contradiction? Or not so?



BOSTON (AP) -- Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry is docking his family's new $7 million yacht in neighboring Rhode Island, allowing him to avoid paying roughly $500,000 in taxes to the cash-strapped Bay State.

If the "Isabel" were kept at the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee's summer vacation home on Nantucket, or in Boston Harbor near his city residence, he would be liable for $437,500 in one-time sales tax. He would also have to pay $70,000 in annual excise taxes.

Rhode Island repealed those taxes in 1993. That has made the state something of a nautical tax haven.

Kerry spokesman David Wade said Friday the boat is being kept at Newport Shipyard not to evade taxes, but "for long-term maintenance, upkeep and charter purposes."

Wade noted the vessel was designed by Rhode Island boat designer Ted Fontaine and purchased in the state. It was built in New Zealand by Friendship Yachts.

A Department of Revenue spokesman said Kerry would be liable for Massachusetts taxes if he berthed the boat in the Bay State within six months of its purchase. If the "Isabel" were brought to Massachusetts after that period, the state would have to decide if it wanted to pursue the taxes.

Massachusetts, like most other states, has been grappling with plunging tax revenues. Last year's budget decifict was $600 million, and officials are bracing for a $1 billion deficit this year.

The 76-foot sloop has two cabins, a pilot house fitted with a wet bar and cold wine storage, according to the Boston Herald, which first reported its Rhode Island berthing. It derives its moniker from the middle name of Kerry's mother and the name his wife, Teresa Heinz, planned to give a daughter.

Instead, she had three sons.

Coast Guard registration records show the vessel is owned by Great Point LLC, a limited liability corporation based in Pittsburgh, Heinz's longtime home. The millionaire heiress to the Heinz ketchup fortune is a philanthropist and environmentalist.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/23/john-kerry-saves-500000-b_n_656985.html

We know Kerry is rich. He released his tax returns.

I don't think that America has a party "of the ordinary people". I think most nations don't, but particular so in America (at least within the Western world).

wasn't this from like, 3 years ago?

wasn't this from like, 3 years ago?


John Kerry Saves $500,000 By Docking 76-Foot Luxury Yacht Out Of State

First Posted: 07/23/10

Sorry, neglected to check the date. But when I saw it the questions I posted were the first things to come to mind. I'm still interested in others' reactions to the questions, though.

The Democrats ceased to be the party of 'ordinary Americans' with Carter. Just many people don't realize that yet. Kerry's not as bad as many of them. He's acceptable because he's at least partially a traitor to his class.

The Democrats ceased to be the party of 'ordinary Americans' with Carter. Just many people don't realize that yet. Kerry's not as bad as many of them. He's acceptable because he's at least partially a traitor to his class.

So would you say the Democrats are the lesser of two evils? Who do you think "ordinary Americans" should vote for in November? What about abstaining from voting? Do you think such an action is justifiable?

So would you say the Democrats are the lesser of two evils? Who do you think "ordinary Americans" should vote for in November? What about abstaining from voting? Do you think such an action is justifiable?



The core principle of the Republican party, something that almost no national Republicans at all can deviate from, is the extermination of the American middle class. They do not have a policy which is not either directly or indirectly designed to accomplish this. So for any 'ordinary American' to vote for a Republican is to choose to screw themselves and their children over as hard as possible.

Mitt vs Obama is a good bizzaro version of the old Kerry v Bush scenario. Weak incumbent who should lose gets challenged but an utterly out of touch rich guy with little personality and turns what should be a slam dunk into a struggle.

Cutlass, I can see how you could make the argument that Republican actions will lead to the extermination of the American middle class. I won't bother to argue that. But I would love to hear your explanation as to why you believe that this is an intentional action.

Cutlass, I can see how you could make the argument that Republican actions will lead to the extermination of the American middle class. I won't bother to argue that. But I would love to hear your explanation as to why you believe that this is an intentional action.


Back in the 60s and 70s the creation of the "market oriented" thinktanks and university programs that provide the intellectual justification for all that the Republicans have done since were created for the specific purpose of creating a justification for the radical redistribution of wealth away from the middle class to the wealthy. Places like Heritage and AEI are funded for the purpose of building the intellectual foundations of policies that take as much as possible from labor.

Why is such a thing even possible ?
I thought our tax laws are messed up and complicated, but at least they're the same for the whole country.

What kind of idiot doesn't move his boat, an object almost defined by it's mobility, to save 500 big ones?

Wade noted the vessel was designed by Rhode Island boat designer Ted Fontaine and purchased in the state.

So the boat was already there.

Yeah I'm a bit confused. If he bought it in Rhode Island then he should pay Rhode Island taxes, not Mass taxes, right? I understand that bringing it in to Mass within 6 months triggers Mass sales taxes. I'm not sure why this is an issue? He bought it in RI to save money on sales taxes, yeah, but I don't see how that's different from someone who lives in Staten Island traveling to New Jersey to fill up with petrol, thus avoiding the higher New York taxes on petrol. Same with anyone else who lives on the border between two states. I mean, he's buying it in the USA and paying taxes to an American state government -- it's not like he's hiding his income in the Cayman Islands or Bahamas.

Why you buy something online in the USA from a company operating in a different state, you don't have to pay sales tax at point of sale, right? Correct me if I'm wrong. How is that any different??

^Bingo. There is a big difference between avoiding individual US state taxes, and evading federal taxes. If Kerry was running for Gov, I can see how this could be a legitimate issue for Mass voters.

For what it's worth though, Kerry's wealth and inability to relate to regular people was one of the reasons he lost the 2004 election!

Why is such a thing even possible ?
I thought our tax laws are messed up and complicated, but at least they're the same for the whole country.

It is state taxes, they are decided by individual state governments. As such they aren't standardized.

Yeah I'm a bit confused. If he bought it in Rhode Island then he should pay Rhode Island taxes, not Mass taxes, right? I understand that bringing it in to Mass within 6 months triggers Mass sales taxes. I'm not sure why this is an issue? He bought it in RI to save money on sales taxes, yeah, but I don't see how that's different from someone who lives in Staten Island traveling to New Jersey to fill up with petrol, thus avoiding the higher New York taxes on petrol. Same with anyone else who lives on the border between two states. I mean, he's buying it in the USA and paying taxes to an American state government -- it's not like he's hiding his income in the Cayman Islands or Bahamas.

Why you buy something online in the USA from a company operating in a different state, you don't have to pay sales tax at point of sale, right? Correct me if I'm wrong. How is that any different??

Also, it isn't even really clear that he bought it in RI because he wanted to save money on taxes. It might also be that his preferred designer/company just happened to be sited there. Which is not unlikely, I guess RI will have a relatively good boat industry because boats are cheaper in RI.

Yeah, that's a good point.

wasn't this from like, 3 years ago?

Aren't you complaining about Romney's taxes from TEN years ago?

Kerry isn't running for President right now. Had he done this in 2002, it would have been fair game.

Yep, no particularly good party of note to choose from. We need William Jennings Bryan back. Rwar.

Aren't you complaining about Romney's taxes from TEN years ago?
Getting the ones due a little more than 3 months ago would be nice.

Mitt vs Obama is a good bizzaro version of the old Kerry v Bush scenario. Weak incumbent who should lose gets challenged but an utterly out of touch rich guy with little personality and turns what should be a slam dunk into a struggle.

Indeed, in 2004, americans had a choice between George W. Bush and not George W. Bush. In 2012, they’ll have to choose between Barack Obama and not Barack Obama.

Also, Kerry and Romney have the same kind of bland charisma : they both look smart and competent, but they seem to be missing something required to be a head of state.

The key difference from 2004 and 2012 being: the economy is much more quantitatively accessible than foreign policy issues. Hence, an incumbent vulnerable because of the economy is much more desperate than one for foreign policy issues.

So don't you think that'd exacerbate the "out of touch rich guy" problem?

The key difference from 2004 and 2012 being: the economy is much more quantitatively accessible than foreign policy issues. Hence, an incumbent vulnerable because of the economy is much more desperate than one for foreign policy issues.
Nope, the key difference is that Bush hit his ceiling by winning by one state. Obama's ceiling is bigger.

Nope, the key difference is that Bush hit his ceiling by winning by one state. Obama's ceiling is bigger.

Bush won more states in 2004 than he did in 2000.

The key difference from 2004 and 2012 being: the economy is much more quantitatively accessible than foreign policy issues. Hence, an incumbent vulnerable because of the economy is much more desperate than one for foreign policy issues.Foreign policy issues is such a lacking term for dead American soldiers and going into war under false pretences.

Bush won more states in 2004 than he did in 2000.
Let's see if history repeats itself then ;)

Bush won more states in 2004 than he did in 2000.
He won by one swing state both years.

The key difference from 2004 and 2012 being: the economy is much more quantitatively accessible than foreign policy issues. Hence, an incumbent vulnerable because of the economy is much more desperate than one for foreign policy issues.


If that were true people would not have such conflicting opinions on economics.

The key difference from 2004 and 2012 being: the economy is much more quantitatively accessible than foreign policy issues. Hence, an incumbent vulnerable because of the economy is much more desperate than one for foreign policy issues.

I think you are overstating how complicated the Iraq situation was. Americans, who at the time were still pretty terrified of terrorist attacks, were told there were all sorts of nasty WMDs in Iraq and even worse Saddam was associating with our terrorist enemies. By 2004 that had been widely accepted as false and the war was not going fantastic, relatively simple and not a complicated geopolitical issue like the south china sea or anything.

What is terribly complicated about an expanding power muscling out neighboring states? :mischief:

For the record, Kerry isn't rich. His wife is rich. He's merely a successful gigolo.

^Bingo. There is a big difference between avoiding individual US state taxes, and evading federal taxes. If Kerry was running for Gov, I can see how this could be a legitimate issue for Mass voters.

For what it's worth though, Kerry's wealth and inability to relate to regular people was one of the reasons he lost the 2004 election!

That and the election fraud in Ohio.

http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=2319:new-court-filing-reveals-how-the-2004-ohio-presidential-election-was-hacked

For the record, Kerry isn't rich. His wife is rich. He's merely a successful gigolo.
Living the dream...

He works hard for his money.

I think you are overstating how complicated the Iraq situation was. Americans, who at the time were still pretty terrified of terrorist attacks, were told there were all sorts of nasty WMDs in Iraq and even worse Saddam was associating with our terrorist enemies. By 2004 that had been widely accepted as false and the war was not going fantastic, relatively simple and not a complicated geopolitical issue like the south china sea or anything.

2006. Maybe 2005.

The Iraq was not yet an unpopular war by the time of the 2004 election. The big problem with Kerry being a flip flopper ("I actually did vote for [it] ... before I voted against it") was that he changed his mind before the majority of Americans did.

Yes, the change of opinion that Kerry underwent wasn't really about being in favour of or being opposed to the invasion, but that's how it was presented to Americans in the run up to the election.

There's a lot of rich ex-pats who made their money in the USA and took off, if we want to just harp on wealth, civic duty, and what-not. It's a character issue to some extent, but not unique to any political party and it is actually a-political.

For the record, Kerry isn't rich. His wife is rich. He's merely a successful gigolo.

Kerry's family was related to money before he got married. John McCain on the other hand....

Yep, no particularly good party of note to choose from. We need William Jennings Bryan back. Rwar.

Eh... I'm not too big a fan of the WJB due to his stance in the monkey trial. But at least one successful angry populist would be appreciated.

Bush won more states in 2004 than he did in 2000.

Most incumbents winning re-election increase their margins in the electoral college, so this isn't surprising. Jackson is the notable exception, as well as between FDR's 2nd and 3rd term but that's also an exception for obvious reasons.

Eh... I'm not too big a fan of the WJB due to his stance in the monkey trial. But at least one successful angry populist would be appreciated.
Huey Long? If we ignore the fact that one of his major supports was a vocal anti-semite he doesn't come off too badly.

Huey Long? If we ignore the fact that one of his major supports was a vocal anti-semite he doesn't come off too badly.

We'd have more entertaining mistercooper threads if Huey Long was around today, that's for sure.

Back in the 60s and 70s the creation of the "market oriented" thinktanks and university programs that provide the intellectual justification for all that the Republicans have done since were created for the specific purpose of creating a justification for the radical redistribution of wealth away from the middle class to the wealthy. Places like Heritage and AEI are funded for the purpose of building the intellectual foundations of policies that take as much as possible from labor.

A lot of thinking in republican ideas were around long before the 60s and 70s. Did we rediscover these ideas at that time? What proof do you have for this? I'll even take just a couple of links to articles about this. I am in no way trying to disagree with you I am honestly at this point attempting to understand where you are coming from because we have disagreed so often.

A lot of thinking in republican ideas were around long before the 60s and 70s. Did we rediscover these ideas at that time? What proof do you have for this? I'll even take just a couple of links to articles about this. I am in no way trying to disagree with you I am honestly at this point attempting to understand where you are coming from because we have disagreed so often.
Not really. During the fifties to the seventies the dominant economic theory was Keynesianism. Classical economic fell apart during the depression and the other schools couldn't really put forward a convincing argument for their school of thought that didn't rely on fearmongering about inflation or trotting out Hayek's abominable 'Road to Serfdom' rhetoric.
However, during the seventies Keynesianism was running up against economic problems, such as stagflation, it was sure how to handle. The existing fiscal tools couldn't fix the problems. At the time Friedman's Monetarist school began making strides both due to refinements of his ideas and the problems in contemporary Keynesianism. Thus, the same groups that had been banging on about inflation (it must be noted that the rampant inflation in the seventies was primarily due to outside influences, not domestic policies) and Hayek's 'Road to Serfdom' nuttery found an ideology that appeared to counter Keynesianism and- when they ignored the fiscal aspects of monetarism- fit neatly into their rehashing of classical economics.

A lot of thinking in republican ideas were around long before the 60s and 70s. Did we rediscover these ideas at that time? What proof do you have for this? I'll even take just a couple of links to articles about this. I am in no way trying to disagree with you I am honestly at this point attempting to understand where you are coming from because we have disagreed so often.


Certainly all of these ideas were around for a long time earlier. They were just utterly, completely, nearly universally, and rightfully, discredited as utter crap economic policy.

The thing is, we know these policies are wrong, because we've watched them crush economy after economy. But there's just so much political and financial support behind the ideas that they remain politically dominant.

Source (among others) "Land of Promise" Lind. pages 376-378.

The Heritage Foundation was created in 1973 to "formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense"

CATO was created in 1974 "to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace. The Institute will use the most effective means to originate, advocate, promote, and disseminate applicable policy proposals that create free, open, and civil societies in the United States and throughout the world."

So I am right in assuming you adhere to Keynes theory? I have read bits and pieces of Milton Friedman and was curious as to how you feel about his later economic ideas. He was certainly Keynesian in his earlier writing but he seems to have moved away from that later in his life.

I am under the impression that you don't think the government spent enough money to get us out of the recession. Is there a hard number that is enough? If that impression is wrong tell me I am wrong and don't bother with the rest of the question.

I would be curious as to an example economy that Heritage Foundation economics crushed?

Heritage didn't crush anything, because they're pretty much always wrong. But they've been wrong in a very influential manner.

Yes, I'm a Keynesian. The basic economic principles that have produced superior actual real world results than any other economic theory. As for how much, above and beyond the cost of running the government as is (which goes way up when unemployment does) the estimate is that instead of a 1 time $700billion stimulus over several years (which in the real world was 0 actual stimulus, because there was no actual increase in government spending) it should have been $1.5trillion per year (of actually increased government spending).


Now you may claim that that is too much money. But here's the thing: We are spending it anyways because the economy cannot recover so long as the government keeps cutting spending. And so we pay for it in lost economic production and the resulting deficits.

A lot of thinking in republican ideas were around long before the 60s and 70s. Did we rediscover these ideas at that time? What proof do you have for this? I'll even take just a couple of links to articles about this. I am in no way trying to disagree with you I am honestly at this point attempting to understand where you are coming from because we have disagreed so often.

My answer to this is that it depends heavily on what you mean by "thinking on Republican ideas". Cutlass is under the impression you are talking about the current Republican party, one with a base of Southern and Western evangelicals, business interests, small-government advocates, and followers of all strains of neoclassical economics. That peculiar blend is mostly the invention of Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and others, and can be dated to the 60s and 70s.

Unless you meant the concepts divorced from any particular political party, allowing for the fact that the Republicans used to be the left-leaning party and the Democrats the right-leaning party back at the turn of the 20th century. But even then, both political parties were more interventionist or at least unspecified on the issue. Both sought to appeal to labor voters, who were much more of a swing demographic back then than they are today, and both saw government as a tool for building a better society. They may have disagreed on the specifics, but you will be hard-pressed to find anything similar to the modern Republican stances in the record then. Maybe the Know-Nothings or some other third parties were closer, I'd have to go look. Eisenhower was the last of the Keynesian-type Republicans; he was responsible in part for the interstate highway system, a massive publicly-funded infrastructure project.

Keynes himself was a self-identified conservative and thought his theories were profoundly conservative in the sense that they maintained the status quo relationship between the people, businesses, and the government.

So I am right in assuming you adhere to Keynes theory? I have read bits and pieces of Milton Friedman and was curious as to how you feel about his later economic ideas. He was certainly Keynesian in his earlier writing but he seems to have moved away from that later in his life.

I am under the impression that you don't think the government spent enough money to get us out of the recession. Is there a hard number that is enough? If that impression is wrong tell me I am wrong and don't bother with the rest of the question.

I would be curious as to an example economy that Heritage Foundation economics crushed?

Don't make the mistake of assuming modern Keynesian thought excludes Milton Friedman's work. Arch-Keynesian Paul Krugman's blog refers repeatedly to monetarist concepts, especially with regards to quantitative easing. Integral or another trained economist could probably speak more clearly on these issues.

As far as exact numbers with regards to the stimulus program, recall that something like 40% of it was AMT adjustments and direct tax cuts, something like 30% of it was state debt relief for educators, police, and the like, and the remainder was "shovel-ready" projects, of which several weren't. The state relief is essentially tax relief as well due to state balanced budget amendments--they would either have to lay off teachers, firefighters, police and the like, or raise taxes. So be careful what you call Keynesian stimulus here.

My answer to this is that it depends heavily on what you mean by "thinking on Republican ideas". Cutlass is under the impression you are talking about the current Republican party, one with a base of Southern and Western evangelicals, business interests, small-government advocates, and followers of all strains of neoclassical economics. That peculiar blend is mostly the invention of Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and others, and can be dated to the 60s and 70s.

Unless you meant the concepts divorced from any particular political party, allowing for the fact that the Republicans used to be the left-leaning party and the Democrats the right-leaning party back at the turn of the 20th century. But even then, both political parties were more interventionist or at least unspecified on the issue. Both sought to appeal to labor voters, who were much more of a swing demographic back then than they are today, and both saw government as a tool for building a better society. They may have disagreed on the specifics, but you will be hard-pressed to find anything similar to the modern Republican stances in the record then. Maybe the Know-Nothings or some other third parties were closer, I'd have to go look. Eisenhower was the last of the Keynesian-type Republicans; he was responsible in part for the interstate highway system, a massive publicly-funded infrastructure project.

Keynes himself was a self-identified conservative and thought his theories were profoundly conservative in the sense that they maintained the status quo relationship between the people, businesses, and the government.


Actually, the Democratic party before Woodrow Wilson was to a large extent the anti-interventionist party. (Though hardly pure on the matter). They largely opposed any government spending on internal improvements and government intervention in the economy. The change came early in the 20th century when Northern politicians who tried to follow the progressive line found that in conflict with the business wing domination of the Republican party, and so worked to get elected as Democrats. Then until the 1980s both parties had full spectrum membership, which only began to clarify again as conservative Democrats moved to the Republican party in the post Civil Rights backlash.

To get the absolute opposition to having the government do anything at all, you have to go back to the slavers. They wanted a government to do nothing because it maximized the power of the slavers to keep everyone else poor and powerless. Just another way in which the current Republicans are closer to the Confederates than they are to any loyal American in history.


Don't make the mistake of assuming modern Keynesian thought excludes Milton Friedman's work. Arch-Keynesian Paul Krugman's blog refers repeatedly to monetarist concepts, especially with regards to quantitative easing. Integral or another trained economist could probably speak more clearly on these issues.

As far as exact numbers with regards to the stimulus program, recall that something like 40% of it was AMT adjustments and direct tax cuts, something like 30% of it was state debt relief for educators, police, and the like, and the remainder was "shovel-ready" projects, of which several weren't. The state relief is essentially tax relief as well due to state balanced budget amendments--they would either have to lay off teachers, firefighters, police and the like, or raise taxes. So be careful what you call Keynesian stimulus here.


Friedman had actually dedicated his career to being the anti-Keynes. Friedman wanted to eliminate Keynesian economics altogether. Unfortunately for him, his theories generally weren't all that good. And the things he was most known for are really failures. Unfortunately for us, politicians don't learn enough economics to understand why they are failures, and so try them anyways.

So on the one hand, Monetarism is a failure. The real world does not work that way. But on the other hand one of the flaws of Keynesian theory is that the post Keynes Keynesians failed to develop monetary theory, and so when monetary issues became a problem they were unprepared to deal with them. And so Monetarism was given a try, despite being critically flawed due to the fact that the Monetarists had no actual understanding of money.

For the record, Kerry isn't rich. His wife is rich. He's merely a successful gigolo.

Does this make Romney's wife a whore ?

...as conservative Democrats moved to the Republican party in the post Civil Rights backlash.

To get the absolute opposition to having the government do anything at all, you have to go back to the slavers. They wanted a government to do nothing because it maximized the power of the slavers to keep everyone else poor and powerless. Just another way in which the current Republicans are closer to the Confederates than they are to any loyal American in history.

Heheh. You are really going to label conservative party drift in the 80s, a lull in the civil rights movement over 10 years after the last major steps forward, on "post Civil Rights backlash" and continue into a tortured comparison of Republicans to slavers? I don't like that political party either man, but come on.

This thread is another excellent example why sales taxes shouldn't be computed at the state level at all. If there were a federal "VAT" this wouldn't even be an issue.

If you look at a map it is quite clear why so many yachts are based in Rhode Island, especially the larger and more expensive ones. It has far better harbors than Massachusetts does, and it is quite accessible from the general Boston area.

Heheh. You are really going to label conservative party drift in the 80s, a lull in the civil rights movement over 10 years after the last major steps forward, on "post Civil Rights backlash" and continue into a tortured comparison of Republicans to slavers? I don't like that political party either man, but come on.


Well, :p you're wrong. :mischief:

The reality is that it was the Civil Rights movement that broke up the old Democratic coalition between Northern liberals and Southern conservatives. And as these Southern conservatives drifted out of the Democratic camp and into the Republican camp they were rejecting not just social liberalism, but economic liberalism as well. This tipped the balance in the Republican party away from the economic moderates. And began the process of pushing those moderates out of the Republican party. The Republican coalition now is the social conservatives, who provide the votes, and the economic conservatives, who provide the money, and ultimately get the policies they want.

Now the biggest mistake you make is in not seeing the parallels, and the heredity, from the slavers to the current Republican party. These social conservatives now are the direct decedents, and in some cases the same people, as the Jim Crow Democrats. Whom themselves were the decedents, and in many cases the same people, as the slavers.

What has changed is that they have more limits on what they can say and do. Not what they would choose to say and do.

But look at current policy debates: The idea that the government should do nothing. The idea that the government can do nothing within the Constitution.

These are the slaver's arguments.

The slaver does not want the government to take actions because the slaver wants no one other than themselves to be free or prosperous. The "free marketer" does not want the government to take actions because the "free marketer" wants no one other than themselves to be free or prosperous.

The same people, or the decedents of the same people, want the same policies. For the same reasons.

All the rest is window dressing.

The Goldwater-Reagan economic backlash that piggybacked the social backlash to get in to office wants one thing: To take back all of the gains to labor and the middle class that had been won in the New Deal era. But this can only be done by an anti-growth policy. And it can only be done with enough pandering to the social conservatives to keep them co-opted.

All this "neo-liberalism" economics, libertarian economics, all of these "free market" think tanks, all of that is just window dressing to build a narrative that can be used to keep the issues confused enough in the public mind so that they don't see what is going on until it is too late.

You know, you really shouldn't assume malevolence when simple incompetance is just as good of an explanation.

That's... quite a stretch. And I don't buy all of it. Blue doggers were still nicely entrenched and pivotal swing votes that enabled, sometimes, a degree of compromise until the last couple of election cycles. Those weren't kicked out of office by conservatives, Democratic primary voters punted them quite happily. Which is quite a shame. Economically sensible policies might actually make headway one of these decades if the people who support them weren't equally beholden to their own special interest groups on social issues. Republicans keep some of their social voting bloc based on the merits of the Republican platform, sure. They keep a larger portion of it because people don't like how Democratic special interests screw with them instead. Even unionized labor isn't always the benign social force we would like it to be. Talk to somebody who cares about the rights of immigrants, a petty entrepreneur attempting to navigate byzantine business regulations, or heck even a small scale farmer attempting to figure out inheritance issues for his/her family and you will find a lot of "free-state" Republican voters that detest Romneyesque Republicans but hate even more deeply Chicago style Democrats. And they don't even have the sins of slaver great-great-great-grandfathers on their shoulders for you to pick at.

But sure, if it helps you moralize economics by drawing comparisons to 150 year old atrocities, by all means, have at it. :)

Certainly all of these ideas were around for a long time earlier. They were just utterly, completely, nearly universally, and rightfully, discredited as utter crap economic policy.

The thing is, we know these policies are wrong, because we've watched them crush economy after economy. But there's just so much political and financial support behind the ideas that they remain politically dominant.


Sorry Cutlass this is what i was referring to. What specific economies has these ideas crushed?


Anti-logic. That is part of what i am going for is I am trying to understand what policies and examples of these policies failing.

Cutlass. Is there a specific economy you can point to that has been "crushed" and if you want tell me why you think it was crushed. The second part isn't necessary I can be a big boy and research for myself. I just want to a starting point.

You know, you really shouldn't assume malevolence when simple incompetance is just as good of an explanation.

That's... quite a stretch. And I don't buy all of it. Blue doggers were still nicely entrenched and pivotal swing votes that enabled, sometimes, a degree of compromise until the last couple of election cycles. Those weren't kicked out of office by conservatives, Democratic primary voters punted them quite happily. Which is quite a shame. Economically sensible policies might actually make headway one of these decades if the people who support them weren't equally beholden to their own special interest groups on social issues. Republicans keep some of their social voting bloc based on the merits of the Republican platform, sure. They keep a larger portion of it because people don't like how Democratic special interests screw with them instead. Even unionized labor isn't always the benign social force we would like it to be. Talk to somebody who cares about the rights of immigrants, a petty entrepreneur attempting to navigate byzantine business regulations, or heck even a small scale farmer attempting to figure out inheritance issues for his/her family and you will find a lot of "free-state" Republican voters that detest Romneyesque Republicans but hate even more deeply Chicago style Democrats. And they don't even have the sins of slaver great-great-great-grandfathers on their shoulders for you to pick at.

But sure, if it helps you moralize economics by drawing comparisons to 150 year old atrocities, by all means, have at it. :)


The core premise of the book linked in my sig, "Why Nations Fail", is that nations do not fail because they do not understand better economic policies. They make a consious choice to not adopt better economic policies. And the reason that they do that is they are actually maximizing the wealth and power of the elite of the country at the expense of maximizing the wealth and power of the country as a whole.

Just as the Republicans are doing now.


Sorry Cutlass this is what i was referring to. What specific economies has these ideas crushed?


Anti-logic. That is part of what i am going for is I am trying to understand what policies and examples of these policies failing.

Cutlass. Is there a specific economy you can point to that has been "crushed" and if you want tell me why you think it was crushed. The second part isn't necessary I can be a big boy and research for myself. I just want to a starting point.

They repeatedly pushed the US into depressions before WWII.

Now that's not fair. Am I going with Democrats as the conservatives or Republicans. and are Whigs democrat or conservative or are they all just conservative?

Some people would argue that recessions/depressions like that weren't a bad thing.

Some people would argue that recessions/depressions like that weren't a bad thing.

Some people would argue that losing a war isn't a bad thing. Pay them equal attention.

The core premise of the book linked in my sig, "Why Nations Fail", is that nations do not fail because they do not understand better economic policies. They make a consious choice to not adopt better economic policies. And the reason that they do that is they are actually maximizing the wealth and power of the elite of the country at the expense of maximizing the wealth and power of the country as a whole.

Just as the Republicans are doing now.
It still doesn't mean they are doing it intentionaly.
(Plus, I would be leery about assigning specific things to the collapse of nations. The collapse of the USSR and the Eastern Bloc was primarily due to political changes. The collapse of the Soviet economy certiantly helped the disintigration but the root cause was still political.)

But the collapse of the Soviet economy made political change all but inevitable.

The core premise of the book linked in my sig, "Why Nations Fail", is that nations do not fail because they do not understand better economic policies. They make a consious choice to not adopt better economic policies. And the reason that they do that is they are actually maximizing the wealth and power of the elite of the country at the expense of maximizing the wealth and power of the country as a whole.

Just as the Republicans are doing now.
I can't think of a whole lot of states that 'failed' because of that. Seems like more tired old AJR single-issue stuff.

I always thought that the collapse of the Soviet Union was mainly economic. It seems to me that the regular people will handle a lot of political issues as long as the economy is working...

I could easily be wrong with that assumption though. Wouldn't have a problem admitting it if someone showed me otherwise.

As for losing a war we are talking about for long term good then losing the American Civil war was probably a good thing, I'm sure there are one or two wars where the people who lost ended up better because of it. Long term leading to changes that led to major improvements obviously those involved in the war in the front line are much different than the country. Just like short term there are people in recessions who have a lot of problems part of the need for a safety net that people eventually get off... but at times a recession could lead to good removing the fat...

I always thought that the collapse of the Soviet Union was mainly economic. It seems to me that the regular people will handle a lot of political issues as long as the economy is working...

I could easily be wrong with that assumption though. Wouldn't have a problem admitting it if someone showed me otherwise.
It's complicated. When Gorby took office the USSR was really starting to suffer from the Brezhnev Stagnation. While in office Gorby faced heavy opposition of the hard liners and the old guard, as a result, Gorby had to do some house cleaning and brought in alot of younger party members that weren't hard liners and, for the most part, shared his Social Democrat ideas. Politicaly, this was seen in perestroika and glasnost. Unfortunately for Gorby, numerous outside factors caused perestroika to exacerbate the problems in the Soviet economy, rather than fix them as he had hoped.
However, if the Supreme Soviet and Communist Party had retained the level of authority and censorship it had during Brezhnev (and even Kruschev to an extent) the populance would not have known just how bad everything was and to what extent their leaders were to blame. Remember, Brezhnev placed a huge emphasis on consensus and the Soviet government was constantly telling people that despite individual failure, the Soviet system was funamentally sound. Then along comes Gorby and the people were starting to understand how poorly managed the Soviet economy actually was and how much of it was the fault of their leaders. It is important to highlight that they were hearing this essentialy, for the first time. As a result, the Soviet political system began collapsing.

Certainly all of these ideas were around for a long time earlier. They were just utterly, completely, nearly universally, and rightfully, discredited as utter crap economic policy.

The thing is, we know these policies are wrong, because we've watched them crush economy after economy.
I thought that you were a Keynesian? Keynes, remember, argued that economic crisis was inherent in capitalism, and could only be mitigated by policy, not that it was actually produced by it.

I can't think of a whole lot of states that 'failed' because of that. Seems like more tired old AJR single-issue stuff.

Their premise isn't failed state as in Somalia or Afghanistan, but rather failed development and prosperity. By that standard most nations rate as failed.


I thought that you were a Keynesian? Keynes, remember, argued that economic crisis was inherent in capitalism, and could only be mitigated by policy, not that it was actually produced by it.


Economic crises are an inherent part of capitalism. Policies can moderate and mitigate that. No policy can end it altogether. What the Republicans have done is make a policy of putting an end to the policy of moderating and mitigating the natural instability of the market. There has also been policies to make the situation worse, by rewarding recklessness. They justify this on the theory, not a theory long discredited, but rather a theory that they just pulled out of their asses, that the economy was actually inherently stable unless government interfered.

It's complicated. When Gorby took office the USSR was really starting to suffer from the Brezhnev Stagnation. While in office Gorby faced heavy opposition of the hard liners and the old guard, as a result, Gorby had to do some house cleaning and brought in alot of younger party members that weren't hard liners and, for the most part, shared his Social Democrat ideas. Politicaly, this was seen in perestroika and glasnost. Unfortunately for Gorby, numerous outside factors caused perestroika to exacerbate the problems in the Soviet economy, rather than fix them as he had hoped.
However, if the Supreme Soviet and Communist Party had retained the level of authority and censorship it had during Brezhnev (and even Kruschev to an extent) the populance would not have known just how bad everything was and to what extent their leaders were to blame. Remember, Brezhnev placed a huge emphasis on consensus and the Soviet government was constantly telling people that despite individual failure, the Soviet system was funamentally sound. Then along comes Gorby and the people were starting to understand how poorly managed the Soviet economy actually was and how much of it was the fault of their leaders. It is important to highlight that they were hearing this essentialy, for the first time. As a result, the Soviet political system began collapsing.

Sorry I think I understand but I just want to verify. At the bottom was economic. But that could have been buried by ways such as blaming outside forces or internal enemies(AKA what all countries use) if political issues hadn't surfaced with Gorby taking control.

Sorry I think I understand but I just want to verify. At the bottom was economic. But that could have been buried by ways such as blaming outside forces or internal enemies(AKA what all countries use) if political issues hadn't surfaced with Gorby taking control.


They could have just clamped down on everyone. Poland, Germany, their own people. But they no longer had any money to pay for that. So something else would have had to give. The price they would have paid for it would have been huge. And they could no longer hide from their people how far behind they were falling.

They could have just clamped down on everyone. Poland, Germany, their own people. But they no longer had any money to pay for that. So something else would have had to give. The price they would have paid for it would have been huge. And they could no longer hide from their people how far behind they were falling.
Plus Gorby wasn't an old-school Communist. Such a clamp-down would have been anathema to him. I feel that was a bigger factor for Gorby than the economic situation. IIRC Gorby felt that the Soviet Union was fundamentally sound and that by allowing people greater freedom they would choose to willingly support the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, that backfired on him rather badly.

Ahh so he was more of a true believer Communist who felt people would see how the Soviet Union was the best.

I was fairly young during this time and never had it covered in any schooling I have ever had in more that a 5 minute lecture so it really is not something I knew much about.

I'm not entirely sure to what degree Gorby can be called a 'true believer' Communist. That label might work better for Kruschev. Gorby's policies and rationale seems to follow a more mainstream version of conservative Social Democracy.

I was fairly young during this time and never had it covered in any schooling I have ever had in more that a 5 minute lecture so it really is not something I knew much about.
You are in a better shape than me, I was born two years after the Soviet Union went the way of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Ahh so he was more of a true believer Communist who felt people would see how the Soviet Union was the best.

I was fairly young during this time and never had it covered in any schooling I have ever had in more that a 5 minute lecture so it really is not something I knew much about.


I think it's also fair to say that, like information on just about everything else, the Soviets, and then Russians, are good at concealing or at least obscuring information about what really happened. So information gets out, but in bits and pieces, and it takes a while to assemble the whole.

On the other hand you have the standard western view of the USSR as this black and white concrete hell where there is more barbed wire than people:dunno:

Their premise isn't failed state as in Somalia or Afghanistan, but rather failed development and prosperity. By that standard most nations rate as failed.
Then it's not a very useful metric for international power political purposes, is it?

Then it's not a very useful metric for international power political purposes, is it?


It's a useful metric for the resources a nation has to engage in power politics.