[scoff0165]

An article in The Nation (linked below) got me to thinking about how political debate has been hijacked by the right (as the article calls them, Market Fundamentalists) in the past few decades. The right managed to pervert the definition of liberal and diminish the impact of the progressive agenda.

The author of the article, Fred Block, gives us the foundation for the new liberal paradigm in the form of the "moral economy" - a new vision of what progressives' goals should be in the current political and economic climate. The article is somewhat longish, but a must-read for those of us on the left looking for a way to regain the initiative in the fight for equitable economic progress and true social justice.

A Moral Economy (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060320/block)

[Jane of Arc]

Interesting article Scoff ... but it's based on real progressives winning elections. I strongly believe we no longer have honest American national elections. I fear the Democrats that are selected to run and win offices by the present power structure ... and Democrats will have wins in 2006 & 2008 ... will be from the same ilk as most Republicans.

Our new paradigm may have to be to not attempt to try to tear down conservatives, but help them see we share a real common problem. Our democracy just may be at stake. I don't think liberals can do this alone. We need honest, decent conservatives who love their country as much as we do.

They just need to see the proof about elections.

What do you think?

[scoff0165]

Interesting article Scoff ... but it's based on real progressives winning elections. I strongly believe we no longer have honest American national elections. I fear the Democrats that are selected to run and win offices by the present power structure ... and Democrats will have wins in 2006 & 2008 ... will be from the same ilk as most Republicans.

Our new paradigm may have to be to not attempt to try to tear down conservatives, but help them see we share a real common problem. Our democracy just may be at stake. I don't think liberals can do this alone. We need honest, decent conservatives who love their country as much as we do.

They just need to see the proof about elections.

What do you think?

I think true conservatives (at least the ones who have avoided drinking the kool-aid) are beginning to see the writing on the wall and have begun speaking out.

In reality, though, I think people won't accept for much longer a voting system which has no built-in protections against fraud. It doesn't take all that much brain power for the conservatives to see how the present system could, down the road, be a problem for them as well. (The same holds true for the neocon drive for an all-powerful, unitary executive.)

To me the only alternative would be to believe all conservatives are completely without honor or integrity. I just can't wrap my thoughts around that idea.

Incidentally, several states are working on the problem at the state level. New Mexico's Gov. Bill Richardson is trying to make optical scanners the only type machine to be used in his state's elections. Optical scanners are much more accurate than punch card machine, but have the advantage of providing a paper trail which touch screen machines don't.

[kyindy]

The article was right on the mark, Market Fund is the root cause of most issues with the US government and US Society. Fred Block also shows how fiscal conservatives have controlled the story Democrat and Republican alike. Because the only thing that has mattered over the last 50 years has been money.

www.corporateering.org

This book goes into great depth on how Corperations have taken over our life, schools, and government. Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is explained very well, and my favorite part of the book is the slippery slope that the Supreme Court was taken down to give Corperations rights.

[scoff0165]

The article was right on the mark, Market Fund is the root cause of most issues with the US government and US Society. Fred Block also shows how fiscal conservatives have controlled the story Democrat and Republican alike. Because the only thing that has mattered over the last 50 years has been money.

www.corporateering.org

This book goes into great depth on how Corperations have taken over our life, schools, and government. Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is explained very well, and my favorite part of the book is the slippery slope that the Supreme Court was taken down to give Corperations rights.

Thanks for the link. Interesting site indeed.

[FDRfollower]

Having looked at the article, I couldn't see much in the way of ideas that would cause something as radical as a paradigm shift.

I would argue that one: The Democrats are NOT capitalizing on the crisis.

and two: Clinton's only real attack on market fundies came in '98 when the entire global monetary system almost melted down and Clinton gave a speech calling (or threatening) for a new financial architecture, after which, the Lewinsky tapes were released and the impeachment was launched.

The health care debate never touched the issue that the HMO system itself is no damn good, and should be dumped for an updated Hill/Burton system.

Nor did he mention his capitulation on Gores insane Welfare Rights Bill in '96, which was an attack on the poor.

He failed to mention that the Democratic party didn't just loose it's collective memory of it's best period, it was driven out, by the DLC and DNC. Plus, the old guard New Dealers either died (like Henry Gonzales), were driven out in FBI frameup/sting operations (like Sen. Frank Thompson). Case in point, the DNC's recent directive, is telling candidates to stick to local issues! Suicide!

Mr. Block didn't seem to have a very good grasp of economics. If you're going to attack the insanity of Adam Smith, go to the source, Alexander Hamilton. After all, Henry Clay/John Quincy Adams, Abe Lincoln, and FDR all used his system to defeat the free trade fundies of their time. FDR in particular, brought a number of Republicans on his side with his economic programs.

Block should have been a little more blunt, also. Just say that the Dems have to grow some Balls! :agree:

[JamesP]

It's a bit of a departure for me to concern myself with "celebrity fluff", but I appreciated Clooney's remarks at the Oscar's (and they certainly were high profile). Here's more from him:

I Am a Liberal. There, I Said It!
READ MORE: Iraq, Saddam Hussein
I am a liberal. And I make no apologies for it. Hell, I'm proud of it.

Too many people run away from the label. They whisper it like you'd whisper "I'm a Nazi." Like it's dirty word. But turn away from saying "I'm a liberal" and it's like you're turning away from saying that blacks should be allowed to sit in the front of the bus, that women should be able to vote and get paid the same as a man, that McCarthy was wrong, that Vietnam was a mistake. And that Saddam Hussein had no ties to al-Qaeda and had nothing to do with 9/11.

This is an incredibly polarized time (wonder how that happened?). But I find that, more and more, people are trying to find things we can agree on. And, for me, one of the things we absolutely need to agree on is the idea that we're all allowed to question authority. We have to agree that it's not unpatriotic to hold our leaders accountable and to speak out.

That's one of the things that drew me to making a film about Murrow. When you hear Murrow say, "We mustn't confuse dissent with disloyalty" and "We can't defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home," it's like he's commenting on today's headlines.

The fear of been criticized can be paralyzing. Just look at the way so many Democrats caved in the run up to the war. In 2003, a lot of us were saying, where is the link between Saddam and bin Laden? What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? We knew it was bullshit. Which is why it drives me crazy to hear all these Democrats saying, "We were misled." It makes me want to shout, "**** you, you weren't misled. You were afraid of being called unpatriotic."

Bottom line: it's not merely our right to question our government, it's our duty. Whatever the consequences. We can't demand freedom of speech then turn around and say, But please don't say bad things about us. You gotta be a grown up and take your hits.

I am a liberal. Fire away.

-----------------------------------------------------------

More from me:
I think George's "you weren't misled" is a bit much. We were misled - we could not be absolutely sure at that time that our President was wreckless idealogue or corporate criminal.
Additionally, the Judith Miller stories in the NY Times (fed thru the Iran - Chalabi - Cheney misinformation pipeline cast further doubt on what many of us knew, but could not be certain of at the time: that Iraq was a threat to oil interests, not US security.

But the larger point, that liberals must "stand and deliver" is valid.

[scoff0165]

It's a bit of a departure for me to concern myself with "celebrity fluff", but I appreciated Clooney's remarks at the Oscar's (and they certainly were high profile). Here's more from him:

I Am a Liberal. There, I Said It!


There was another famous American who, over 40 years ago, made it clear he was unashamed of being 'Liberal' like us. In fact, he was quite proud of his political orientation. As I am, and as we all should be, with good reason because of what he had to say about being a 'Liberal.'

He had this to say about the subject (much more succinctly than I could have ever said it):

"I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies.

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label 'Liberal?' If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of 'Liberal.' But if by a 'Liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal,' then I'm proud to say I'm a 'Liberal.'"

President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

[sweetpea]

I think true conservatives (at least the ones who have avoided drinking the kool-aid) are beginning to see the writing on the wall and have begun speaking out.

In reality, though, I think people won't accept for much longer a voting system which has no built-in protections against fraud. It doesn't take all that much brain power for the conservatives to see how the present system could, down the road, be a problem for them as well. (The same holds true for the neocon drive for an all-powerful, unitary executive.)

To me the only alternative would be to believe all conservatives are completely without honor or integrity. I just can't wrap my thoughts around that idea.

Incidentally, several states are working on the problem at the state level. New Mexico's Gov. Bill Richardson is trying to make optical scanners the only type machine to be used in his state's elections. Optical scanners are much more accurate than punch card machine, but have the advantage of providing a paper trail which touch screen machines don't.
---------

What about a way to prevent peoplefrom voting more than once. Like maybe showing a picture ID. If you cannot afford one the state govt. will come and make one for you at your homw for free.

That sound resonable?

[tcnj_libertarian]

Labels are so silly.

[wimzkl]

It troubles me when a conservative labels liberals as "so silly."

It troubles me more when a liberal bashes Adam Smith and capitalism. When capitalism and democracy join the results are spectacular. The last 70 years have seen an enormous expansion and enrichment of the middle class, which now powers America and the world. It is not giant industry; it is the purchasing power and spending habits of the middle class that have fueled the unbelievable economic growth and prosperity we have seen over the last 75 years. You might ask why the dot-com bubble that burst on March 10, 2000 did not lead to a crash like 1929 and another Great Depression. There are at least two good reasons. First is that highlighted in bold text above! Second is the cushion under the economy provided by the huge entitlement programs, fixed income retirement plans and unemployment!

There is visual proof of the above claim in bold text. All you need do is drive through the vast new subdivisions found all around our great nation. You will see rows and rows of large, costly homes, all beautifully landscaped. Visit the lakes and country clubs surrounding our cities and towns. Go up into mountains only hours away from major cities. Ask yourself whom it is that can afford the seemingly endless number of luxurious homes, many of which are secondary vacation homes. Check out all the pricey yachts in marinas with access to larger bodies of water. Drive down the highways and make note of the abundance of the higher priced autos. Visit the local public and private airstrips and count those expensive toys. Go to the malls and be awed by the abundance. Perhaps, we even have an overabundance of malls. How else could we give rise to the expressions “luxury fever” and “conspicuous consumption?”

If that does not convince you, just look at the rental storage garages that are literally everywhere. We may actually store more belongings than most of the rest of the world own in total. All of this is primarily the result of taking political controls from the rich and powerful and in part the New Deal spreading the wealth. It is certainly a reflection of the growing importance of the middle class. With all of our privately owned homes, it is hard to believe that we don’t have enough attics, basements and garages.

I think the problem is that many liberals equate Adam Smith's capitalism with corporate America. Nothing could be further from the truth. Adam Smith himself opposed corporations. Corporate America and our managerial aristocracy have bought control of our government through the lobbyists system. They have used smart marketing and advertising to convince our conservatives that their brand of capitalism is making America great. Their puppet professional politicians have convinced the conservatives that they want a smaller more efficient government and lower taxes. Their actions belie their claims.

We need to change some basic laws to get a control over Corporate America and the concentration of wealth. There is a distinct inverse relationship between the concentration of wealth and the rate of growth of the GNP. The last seventy years of The Great Prosperity occurred under the most onerous governmental interference in business and the most steeply graduated income tax. The conclusion must be that those conditions moved wealth down the social ladder allowing the lower classes to invent, innovate and strive their way up the ladder. We must maintain those conditions.

[tcnj_libertarian]

Jesus Christ. I said "labels", not "liberals". I should mention that I didn't even bother reading the rest of your post, since you didn't even read mine, which totalled a mere four words.

[FDRfollower]

tcnj_libertarian, there was no need to snap at Wimzkl :nono:

Hi wimzkl. I'll try to answer as much of your post in the time I have.

I hate to burst your "bubble" ;) , but there has been no real economic growth in the last 35 years. All you need do is drive through the vast new subdivisions found all around our great nation. You will see rows and rows of large, costly homes, all beautifully landscaped , a good case of "Don't judge a book by it's cover" what's the difference between those subdivisions and Ptomkins village? Houses that are cardboard, staples, & tinfoil, with fancy plastic covers, and gold faucets. Constructed by what? Imported slave labor from Mexico and South America. Financed by what, the greatest money pumping operation and speculative bubble in history, depending on Japans Zero interest rate policy. Greenspan just replaced one bubble with a bigger one. The "spending" is only happening from people stupidly borrowing off inflated values, not thinking of what happens after the value of their house crashes.

My view is, that if you're a patriotic american, you should attack Adam Smith, conservative or liberal. You should attack Marx too. Study more about the American System of political economy, which means starting from Alexander Hamilton, then Henry C. Carey, and implemented by the presidents Monroe, John Q Adams, Lincoln, Grant, Garfield, McKinley, FDR, & Kennedy, along with political leaders like Henry Clay, & James G. Blaine. Adam Smith was correctly viewed as the system of the British Empire and universal slavery. Today, it's called globalization, and the results are sending us over the cliff.

You're right, some laws have to be changed. Go back to re-regulation of everything deregulated in the last 30 years, tax the hell out of harmfull aspects of the economy (like all forms of gambling), and encourage those that are benificial, high tariffs to protect areas of the economy connected with national security, and the creation of low interest credit to spur needed repair and construction of national infrastructure. When those basic conditions are met, then [COLOR="Orange"]The Great Prosperity occurred under the most onerous governmental interference in business and the most steeply graduated income tax. The conclusion must be that those conditions moved wealth down the social ladder allowing the lower classes to invent, innovate and strive their way up the ladder. We must maintain those conditions.

We'll continue later.

[tcnj_libertarian]

Don't wag your finger at me -- I'll snap at whom I want.

Please explain why some things, such as gambling, should be highly taxed, and please list some things that are good for the economy that you want the government to back off of and why. People advocating government intervention into the economy perplexes me.

[Jane of Arc]

Maybe we can return kids to child labor? Hell, all those kids are wasting time and tax money in school when they could be earning a wage. Way back in the good ol' days before labor laws ... those little brats had to carry their weight! :p

And let's return the corporate pay check instead of cash! Let's pay American workers with company store checks that can only be cashed to buy crap from the store. That was before the freaky government made it illegal. Wal*marts would do this in a nano-second.

And then why not bring back the whips. Come on American labor has gotten soft. We all need a good trashing now and again. The government made this illegal too! Can't beat your workers? Babies.

And those silly laws to protect workers body parts. Miners don't need breathing protection. All these safety measures are hurting production! Hell, there's always more workers. They're flooding the border for a job. Those guys will work without protective gear. They're tough!



(As a Libertarian reference point - although I love Ayn Rand, one of my favorite authors, I realize her stories are based on her communist Russian experiences with a State that's very different than the American State born out of a desire for a capitalistic democracy. Two different animals.)

In America ... We The People are SUPPOSE to be the government. And we need this collective to protect The People's general welfare. The founding fathers could of created a system of government for and by the elite. That's pretty much all they knew coming from a monarchy. But they were rebels.

The bottom line is this: profit-driven corporates cannot be trusted not to abuse workers on a multitude of levels. They absolutely will and absolutely do abuse for profit. Only the penalty of law stops them. BUT alas, the government, which is suppose to the collective instrument of the will of The People, is now in the hands of the corporate elite. Those robber barons are back!

How about a 'Libertarian' Democracy ... with the government a teeny-weeny, itsy-bitsy group of elected paper pushers to take care of the shared commons and protect the law. I'd like the small militia described in the Constitution in case were attacked. All the lobbyist ... poof ... gone. The common air waves and TV opened free for elections ... poof ... no more election costs. Department after department closed down or minimized.

Anyway, I can dream.

[wimzkl]

FDRfollower

Adam Smith was the "father of capitalism." If you don't believe in capitalism,show me a system in history that has come anywhere close to matching the creation of wealth seen in capitalistic societies. That is not an advocation of our system dominated by corporate America - I do not believe that is capitalism and neither did Adam Smith.

The Great Prosperity from 1935 to 1981 showed significant growth. It has slowed since then because of the detrimental effects of supply-side economics. The imported labor from Mexico is not slave labor. Ask any one of them. They are allowed to come here illegally because the rich and powerful need them to keep wages down. It is not right, but if you deport all of them, we will have about 4 million jobs going begging and the resultant inflationary pressures would create havoc with our economy. I am not saying it is right and proper, I am just saying it is so.

tcnj libertarian.

I apologize for misreading you post. However, I have the distinct impression that you use slurring labels often. I seem to remember one about a booklet and others about liberals.

[tcnj_libertarian]

tcnj libertarian.

I apologize for misreading you post. However, I have the distinct impression that you use slurring labels often. I seem to remember one about a booklet and others about liberals.
I have no idea what the use of "slurring labels" is. Once again, I never "slurred" your booklet, just your constant quotation of it. And I never made a slur against liberals, although I often attack certain aspects of liberal philosophy. So basically, I have no idea what you are referring to.

[tcnj_libertarian]

Maybe we can return kids to child labor? Hell, all those kids are wasting time and tax money in school when they could be earning a wage. Way back in the good ol' days before labor laws ... those little brats had to carry their weight! :p
Child labor is a topic I have not thought much about. Here's a bit from the top of my head. The occurance of child labor in a country generally declines as the country's wealth grows. In America, an incredibly wealthy country there would be litte or no child labor in the absence of child labor laws. Some economists argue that poor countries require child labor (after all, this is why Africa's population is so out of control); perhaps, but that does not necessarily make it permissible. So we still must deal with the issue. Child Labor Laws are usually enacted because governments view child labor as a human rights violation. In a libertarian society, natural law reigns superem -- that is, natural human rights are fiercely protected. It is concievable, then, that in a libertarian, free-market state, child labor may still be impermissible. Or it may be permissible but non-occuring. I'm sure there are several other scenarios which I am not listing at the moment. In either case, it is easy to think of non-governmental solutions to such issues.

And let's return the corporate pay check instead of cash! Let's pay American workers with company store checks that can only be cashed to buy crap from the store. That was before the freaky government made it illegal. Wal*marts would do this in a nano-second.
[NB: I must admit, I've never heard of this occuring in history. Would you mind providing me with a link to read up on it?]
Anyways, if people are willing to work for these checks-for-crap, then they would surely be enacted. However, if people refused to work for such wages, companies would be forced to pay with money. It doesn't even make sense -- why would somebody be willing to work for only Walmart goods when they have bills to pay to non-Walmart companies? How can somebody pay for a car or for utilities or for their house? You may be saying, Exactly why such payments need to be made illegal! I say, why the hell would anybody sign such a contact? Even if such work was the only work available, it wouldn't make sense to take it if it wouldn't be providing you with even subsistence-level wages. It would probably be more profitable to become a prostitute.

And then why not bring back the whips. Come on American labor has gotten soft. We all need a good trashing now and again. The government made this illegal too! Can't beat your workers? Babies.
Clearly, this is a human rights issue, not an economic issue.

And those silly laws to protect workers body parts. Miners don't need breathing protection. All these safety measures are hurting production! Hell, there's always more workers. They're flooding the border for a job. Those guys will work without protective gear. They're tough!
Ditto.

In America ... We The People are SUPPOSE to be the government. And we need this collective to protect The People's general welfare. The founding fathers could of created a system of government for and by the elite. That's pretty much all they knew coming from a monarchy. But they were rebels.
The collective can exist without an institutionalized, over-powered, interventionist government. None of these things you've named need a government to regulate them. I mean, all of my responses basically echo your statement that the people are the "government. You claim that all of the above issues were solved by the government. What is the government? The people, apparently, and so the people should be able to take care of such issues. If the government that eradicating this issues is something more than the people, then we have a problem! Somebody stole your government by the people and replaced it with something much bigger and stronger and, apparently, contrary to your values!

The bottom line is this: profit-driven corporates cannot be trusted not to abuse workers on a multitude of levels. They absolutely will and absolutely do abuse for profit. Only the penalty of law stops them. BUT alas, the government, which is suppose to the collective instrument of the will of The People, is now in the hands of the corporate elite. Those robber barons are back!
And physical abuses -- whips and such -- would still be addressed by law. The free-market economy would take care of the rest of the abuses.

I'm very confused by your claim that the corporate elite are cntrolling our government. If this is true, then why have not all of the terrible plagues you listed above fallen upon our land?

[QUOTE]How about a 'Libertarian' Democracy ... with the government a teeny-weeny, itsy-bitsy group of elected paper pushers to take care of the shared commons and protect the law. I'd like the small militia described in the Constitution in case were attacked. All the lobbyist ... poof ... gone. The common air waves and TV opened free for elections ... poof ... no more election costs. Department after department closed down or minimized.
[QUOTE]
I like it, as long as you can come up with a fairer way than democracy to elect the paper pushers.

[Jane of Arc]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, tcnj.

Here's an example of a present day "company store". The company store was a prominent feature of turn of the century sweatshops ... still going on today.http://www.flacoalitionhomeless.com/advocacy/lpsvc.htm

What's fairer than democracy? I want more democracy ... throw out the electoral college. Seeing that we all share the earth together? One person. One vote. I like democracy in the framework of the present Constitution that protects the rights of the individual at the same time. A guarantee for life (cool) ... liberty (cool ... freedom rocks) and the pursuit of happiness (awesome).

How would you elect the paper pushers?

[haus]

I must admit, I've never heard of this occuring in history. Would you mind providing me with a link to read up on it?

Variations on this theme were prevalent in Coal towns up to WWII. The one I'm most familiar with is where a fee would be charged for cashing a check, while "scrip" would be redeemed at face value at the company store. The tricky bit was that the company store usually artificially inflated prices, while the next store was miles away, and few people had cars.

The Southern Illinois Coal Wars are an interesting study. Similar in nature to "The Jungle." Tangentially, I've been through a number of "company towns" in the last few years from the Philipines to Bangladesh.

Anyway, here are a couple of background links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_store
http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/article/boyd.company.town
http://wbcc-online.com/tokens/us_tokens/uscoal.htm

[FDRfollower]

Adam Smith was the "father of capitalism." If you don't believe in capitalism,show me a system in history that has come anywhere close to matching the creation of wealth seen in capitalistic societies. That is not an advocation of our system dominated by corporate America - I do not believe that is capitalism and neither did Adam Smith.

I did, I cited what is known as "The American System of Political Economy" as coined by Henry Clay who was synonymous with that policy, and what Abe Lincoln believed in all his life and campaigned for especially as a Whig. The designing of the policy came from Alexander Hamiltons three reports to Congress as Treasury Secretary, the Report on Manufactures, Credit, and national banking. The trouble you might be having, is that it has been written out of most history books. There really has been only two rival systems in the recent few centuries, The British System and the American system. As I know it, Smith is not the father of free trade, just promoted as such. His report was mostly plagerized from the Physiocrats, who plagerized from the School of Salamanca, i.e. Empire forever, global slavery, etc. etc. Kind of an updated Roman Empire. So from the beginning, that has been the fight in the US over those two currents, the nation builders under the banner of the American System with variations, and the pro-empire, pro-slavery faction of Southern slave owners, New York financiers, and Boston dope running families, allied with the British. When the American System faction has been in power, we've seen intense periods of nation building, first through canals, then railroads. And under free trade administrations, usually speculation and financial crisis.

Something to think about, when you say wealth, what do you mean? Money? Or the means of human beings to be more productive? As an answer to Tcnj also, I would assert, that money has NO inherent value. None. That the only source of "wealth" is the human mind. Hamilton, in his Report on Manufactures, in particular emphasizes the importance of developing the population through universal education, to increase the development of technological advancement. The British gained wealth simply by looting and stealing and keeping subject populations at starvation levels. You see the two differences, right?


The Great Prosperity from 1935 to 1981 showed significant growth. It has slowed since then because of the detrimental effects of supply-side economics. The imported labor from Mexico is not slave labor. Ask any one of them. They are allowed to come here illegally because the rich and powerful need them to keep wages down. It is not right, but if you deport all of them, we will have about 4 million jobs going begging and the resultant inflationary pressures would create havoc with our economy. I am not saying it is right and proper, I am just saying it is so.

Ok, the Mexicans are not kept in chains, true, so it's not "slavery" in sense of the negro slavery of the 'ol confederacy, but it's pretty close. As long as you underpay someone, it has an effect on the entire economy, besides being simply immoral. But, keep in mind, it took destroying the Mexican economy, in order to create a sufficient pool of cheap labor. If Mexico was allowed to develop normally, they would have a severe labor shortage, and would require a lot of people to return. Boy, would our country be in a pickle! The service economy especially, would be wiped out!! Ha ha!

Be right back

[wimzkl]

Merle Travis (1917-1977)

"Sixteen Tons"

Some people say a man is made out of mud
A poor man's made out of muscle and blood
Muscle and blood, skin and bones...
A mind that's weak and a back that's strong

You load sixteen tons, and what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt
St. Peter, don't you call me, 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store.

There are industries whose basic businesses are so closely intertwined with the public interest that suitable controls by the public are demanded. The justification for this can be found in our Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

In our modern society, the public utilities and the insurance, power, medical and drug industries can and do directly affect our right to life and our pursuit of happiness. When their pursuit of profits has a detrimental effect on the public, we have the right and the duty to institute controls. This is the case right now.

We are seeing the hardship foisted on many by excessively high fuel and heating costs, and on some by excessively high drug and medical costs. We are seeing the drug and insurance industries using their political clout to foist an excessively burdensome health care system on the American public. Other countries have proved their national health care systems not only work better than ours, they cost less. Our political system of “Separation of Powers” is breaking down because The RAP and the religious right with their extensive system of lobbyists are dominating all three branches in addition to our state governments.

This is not an avocation of public ownership; it is an avocation of the necessity of closer public control. It is not a condemnation of certain segments of our capitalist system; it is an avocation of the supremacy of the public interest in all aspects of our American system. Corporations and huge family fortunes may last for centuries, but the public interest will last as long as free humans last.
In history, whenever private interests reigned supreme, it could be maintained only through the suppression of personal liberty. “Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end...liberty is the only object which benefits all alike, and provokes no sincere opposition...The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern...Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Lord Acton.

[FDRfollower]

Please explain why some things, such as gambling, should be highly taxed, and please list some things that are good for the economy that you want the government to back off of and why. People advocating government intervention into the economy perplexes me.

Hmm, if you had tapeworms in your intestines, would you consider that beneficial to the functioning of your body? :puke:

There are aspects of the economy that function like parasites do to a host. Gambling, usery, & speculation have an entropic effect on the economy as a whole. Are you telling me that you don't know that gambling has been the domain of organized crime? What's so great about that? Can you see the difference between a group of communities forming a company, in order to construct a dam, that will provide flood control, irrigation, cheap electricity, and recreation. The return on the initial investment for the area effected will be much greater, and benefits lasts a few generations long. I think Wimzkl and Jane D'arc would agree (since they're in the area), that the Tennessee Valley Authority is a perfect example of beneficial government intervention when private enterprise is unable or unwilling to "step up to the plate". That, versus a hedge fund that simply buys up (through hostile takeovers) existing companies, in order to loot pensions, asset strip it, and sell it off for a quick profit. Or in the past, the British Empire would dump cheap goods on our county, in order to destroy native industries. The response from Henry Clay from the Congress, was protective tarriffs to protect industries, and cheap credit in order to carry out the building of the canal system and other improvements, to make the population more productive and the nation stronger. Now what's wrong with that? Why let a bunch of degenerate British Oligarchs get wealthy at the expense of most of the population?

People advocating government intervention into the economy perplexes me WHY? Why do you have such a horrible opinion about your fellow man? Just because of some books, you're going to condemn mankind. That I don't get. A couple of years ago, I DISTICTLY remember the effect the Enron and other energy pirates were having on California (living here after all) when by shutting down power plants, there were rolling blackouts that harmed a lot of people. In a situation like that, who would a citizen have to turn to, but the government? My friends and I told Gov. Davis he should have sent in the National Gaurd in and physically take over the plants.

[wimzkl]

Right on FDRfollower.

If people would educate themselves on the history of corporations, they would find that the earliest corporations were all chartered with the express purpose of accomplishing some public work program. In America, the first were the companies that settled the colonies themselves - such as The Virginia Company. These feudal corporations had specific tasks to accomplish and a defined term of existence. They were closely supervised by the British government that chartered them. Our early corporations were similar. Many of our Founding Fathers were opposed to corporations and both Jefferson and Madison wanted an article in the Bill of Rights limiting corporations to just such public projects.

Gambling, usury and speculation are the result of lobbyists corrupting public officials to gain business advantage over common man. In the past, there were strict limitations. We, as a people, have fallen for the "laissez faire" deception and allowed these kinds of special advantage to emerge. Laissez faire implies complete hands off, but reason says that is impossible. There must be law and order written in the public interest, just as there are projects that will benefit our populous that will not be addressed by the rich and powerful.

[FDRfollower]

Right on FDRfollower.
Gambling, usury and speculation are the result of lobbyists corrupting public officials to gain business advantage over common man. In the past, there were strict limitations. We, as a people, have fallen for the "laissez faire" deception and allowed these kinds of special advantage to emerge. Laissez faire implies complete hands off, but reason says that is impossible. There must be law and order written in the public interest, just as there are projects that will benefit our populous that will not be addressed by the rich and powerful.

Lobbyists are just professional sophists, hired to argue for a narrow interest. Some are hired by Unions, others by corporations, etc. So like any tool, they are used by people with an intention. The problem is more with legislators who fall for sophistry. Not many people who visit legislators have any serious discussion of issues from a national scope, sadly.:(

[wimzkl]

FDRfollower

Unfortunately, the lobbyists back up their sophistry with an enormous amount of cash that the legislators need to insure their incumbency. All lobbyists are looking for specific favors for their clients. These are narrow and work contrary to the overall national interest.

When I say wealth, I am referring to all the things we own including the means of production. I understand that our total wealth now is about 42 trillion dollars. Our national debt is around 20% of that and rising. This is an unsustainable trend that needs to be reversed. Unfortunately, a budget surplus would work contrary to the interests of the rich and powerful. Perhaps, we should consider a "wealth" tax to solve that problem.

I site Adam Smith as the father of capitalism because that is common among historians. I am aware that he used some ideas from predecessors. I happen to feel that his "unseen hand" metaphor is well founded.

[FDRfollower]

FDRfollower

Unfortunately, the lobbyists back up their sophistry with an enormous amount of cash that the legislators need to insure their incumbency. All lobbyists are looking for specific favors for their clients. These are narrow and work contrary to the overall national interest.

When I say wealth, I am referring to all the things we own including the means of production. I understand that our total wealth now is about 42 trillion dollars. Our national debt is around 20% of that and rising. This is an unsustainable trend that needs to be reversed. Unfortunately, a budget surplus would work contrary to the interests of the rich and powerful. Perhaps, we should consider a "wealth" tax to solve that problem.

I site Adam Smith as the father of capitalism because that is common among historians. I am aware that he used some ideas from predecessors. I happen to feel that his "unseen hand" metaphor is well founded.

Ok, maybe he's promoted as the father, but, in reality, he just plagerized a lot. There really is, a very sharp difference between American capitalism and British capitalism. You see that when you read Hamilton, and Henry C. Carey, and those statesmen who made policy from their writings. National banking and credit are the key, when a nation has sovereignty over those two, the amount of wealth "created", made us the most powerfull in the world, which, in the last few decades, is being flushed down the toilet. In order to reconstruct the infrastructure nationwide (dams, locks, bridges, highways, passenger and freight rail) for example, a tax, would be insufficient. Dirigistic or directed credit from the national government would be required. FDR's use of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation had that effect.

I'd be wary in the use of $42 Trillion as a measure. Most real estate has been inflated to insane levels. :crazy2: Money is a bad way to measure anything real. Especially when you're in a hyperinflational period.

[FDRfollower]

Tcnj_lib, when you get back, Ben Franklin has some advice for you.:solution: He's writing to John Morris, attacking the the wretched bully, John Locke.

"The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets..."

"All property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seem to me to be the creature of public convention. Hence the public has the right of regulating descents, and all other conveyances of property, and even of limiting the quantity and uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all property superfluous to such purposes is the property of the public, who, by their laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the welfare of the public shall demand such disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Saveges. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

[FDRfollower]

Hi Wimzkl, I found a site with PDFs of Henry Carey's writings on economy and economists.

click (http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/careyhenry/) for your enlightenment :solution:

[wimzkl]

FDRfollower,

I am familiar with Henry's Carey's writings on credit and in general agreement. As with most economic theories, the problem lies with those trying to implement the theories. Some of the differences in application can be seen in our system contrasted with the British system. The British do not have near the degree of lobbyists political pressure on the bureaucrats that we have.

Many conservative economists (read Libertarian) blame the Great Depression on government interference - first the loose money policies of the Federal Reserve in the mid and late 1920's and then the tight money policies during the early 1930's. There is no question these policies damaged our economy. What is forgotten is that the Federal Reserve is an independent agency and, in those years, it was controlled by New York bankers appointed to the board by conservative Republican administrations. Their policies reflected banking interests and not necessarily the best interests of the economy.

Money is indeed a bad measure, especially now that it has only subjective value. It is, however, the only practical measure available to us. If we are going to make political decisions, we need information to judge current trends. Hamilton argued for a strong federal government with a central bank. He is among my least favorite of the Founding Fathers because of his Calvinist leanings.

[FDRfollower]

Hi Wimzkl. I'm surprised that you're against Hamilton!

Henry Clay went very quickly from being a free trader to a Hamiltonian due to the neccesity of building the nation to deal with the British Empire. Have you read his three reports on Credit, Banking, and Industry? We have a project where we're reading his reports, and it's not too hard to know (well, actually, it does take some work to work through the reports, especially the one on banking :) ) the difference between a european style CENTRAL bank and a NATIONAL bank. There's a big difference.

You're the first person I know to dislike Hamilton for being a Calvinist! :laughing:

[wimzkl]

Hi FDRfollower.

It's not so much that I'm against Hamilton, Adams and the Federalists as it is that I am for Jefferson, Madison and the Republican-Democrats. They disagreed in fundamental ways.

Alexander Hamilton warned of the danger of people having full “natural rights. He warned Jefferson of the risks in such idealism in the Federalist Papers: “Reflections of this kind may have trifling weight with men [like you] who hope to see realized in America the halcyon scenes of the poetic or fabulous age; but to those [among us Federalists] who believe we are likely to experience a common portion of the vicissitudes and calamities which have fallen to the lot of other nations, they must appear entitled to serious attention. Such men [as those of us who would lead this nation] must behold the actual situation of their country with painful solicitude, and depreciate the evils which ambition or revenge might, with too much facility, inflict upon it.”

Jefferson and Madison feared the concentration of wealth, while Hamilton, Adams and the Federalists feared the crowd would combine to use their political power to take private property from the wealthy as had been seen in the French Revolution.

Madison and Jefferson worked together to draft the Bill of Rights and it was passed through Congress. Their fear was that the government would take for itself our “natural rights.” The first ten amendments to the Constitution were designed to prevent that. Jefferson’s view that people come first and institutions second is reflected in his well document view of the “three threats” to human
natural rights. The three threats were: Governments, organized religions and commercial monopolies. These institutions must be subordinate to the “natural rights” of humans.

The fear of governments included fear of the elitism of the Federalists and kingdoms. The Federalists led by John Adams were wary of the common person, and they generally accepted the Calvinist notion that wealth was a sign of a blessing from above and involved a built-in morality – a concept contradicted by Machiavelli’s “audacious doctrine.” Because the Senate was elected by state legislatures, it was comprised mainly of wealthy men, mostly Federalist. The Republican-Democrats opposed this system but it was not until1913 (the 17th Amendment) before the Senate became elected by the public.

Jefferson wrote to Adams: “The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent its ascendancy. On the question, what is the best provision, you and I differ; but we differ as rational friends, using the free exercise of our own reason, and mutually indulging its errors. You think it best to put the pseudo-aristoi into a separate chamber of legislation [the Senate], where they may be hindered from doing mischief by their coordinate branches, and where, also, they may be a protection to wealth against the agrarian and plundering enterprises of the majority of the people. I think that to give them power in order to prevent them from doing mischief, is arming them for it, and increasing instead of remedying the evil.”

I keep going back to Jefferson because of his position on the Separation of Powers. Unfortunately, we now have a situation where the Separation of Powers is threatened by the concentration of wealth in few hands- our corporate aristocracy. Madison and Jefferson wanted an Amendment in the Bill of Rights limiting the power of corporations. Adams and Hamilton opposed it. That is why I prefer Jefferson.

[FDRfollower]

That's what I love about this country! Here, we can sit, and have a discussion about burning issues like "are you Federalist or Republican-Democrat". :lol: It's amazing these ideas still have the power to reach out of the past and grip us. But, let us be cautious, we have 230 years of hindsight in which to argue the fine points of what position Jefferson or Hamilton took then. Try to put yourself in the shoes of the people who had the IMMENSE task of creating a nation out of nothing, alone, with hostile Empires around you, waiting to have the chance to rip you to pieces. And not just any country, the first constitutional republic in the history of mankind, or as JQA put it "A Temple of Hope and a Beacon of Liberty for all Mankind"

It's hard to imagine, had you been there, what you would have said in order to shape the framing of the Constitution. I think we can agree, that with all their differences, and standpoints, that they did the right thing in framing the Constitution the way they did, being as it's such a durable document.

As I said, my friends and I are going through Hamiltons reports, to understand how he led our infant nation into becoming the strongest Agro-Industrial nation in the world. Even Jefferson came around later in his life to Hamiltons view (somewhat) of how best to develop the nation. I'm not sure how you view Hamilton as an elitist, maybe due to the slanders from the Burr-Jefferson press, but in his reports, he is pretty explicit in the need for developing the whole population in Sciences and Mechanical arts, which is true foundation of real security in order to prevent runaway governments.

I find, that Jefferson went through some divergent changes over his lifetime, some good, some bad. He was best when under the influence of Ben Franklin. I think we went a little degenerate after he had been in France awhile, and under the influence of Burr and Gallatin. The trick is to support him when he was better. At least Hamilton had the courage to break from the Federalists when they became degenerate.

[FDRfollower]

Looks like I'm not the only one looking to Hamilton for answers Wimzkl! :lol: This is the kind of discussion we need in the Democratic party!!

Source: [www.prospect.org http://yaleglobal.yale.edu]

`WE NEED ALEXANDER HAMILTON,' SAYS FORMER SEN. ERNEST HOLLINGS. Former Democratic Senator Hollings, a champion of public infrastructure and protection who represented South Carolina for 38 years until his 2004 retirement, has written a powerful contribution toward the "Hamilton revival" now occurring in the Democratic Party, in the March 30, 2006 American Prospect Online.
Hollings says the Dubai ports flap could have a good effect, as people can see, "The government didn't think twice about the security" of the ports; "It thought what was good for the transnationals, for globalization, was good for the country."
America was built by protection, Hollings says. Alexander Hamilton started a "trade war" with Great Britain: "The first bill to pass Congress on July 4, 1789 was for the seal of the United States. The second bill was a 50% tariff on numerous articles." From a mighty powerhouse of production at the beginning of the 20th century, today, "the country is going out of business." When Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush '41 vetoed protection bills, "Corporate America got the message: Our standard of living and domestic production were not to be protected -- head offshore." Hollings attacks Clinton's support for NAFTA, "The Democratic Party abandoned labor for corporate America," and he singles out the Democratic Leadership Council in particular.
Now, with everything -- manufacturing, service jobs, high-education jobs like engineers -- out-sourced, "Two and one-half trillion dollars have been added to the national debt in the last five years. Foreigners have been financing a majority of this debt. Now, these dollars flow back in, as foreigners gobble up the production of the United States. Eighty-six hundred American companies, at a cost of $1.3 trillion, have been lost to foreign control in the last 10 years."
Instead of business hounding politicans to protect U.S. production, the "Big Banks, the Business Round Table, the Conference Board, the NAM..." want to protect their production in China and India. "The Big Bank crowd, the Business Roundtable, and the rest, are a `fifth column' in today's `trade war,' while the President and Congress are AWOL," Hollings says.
"The government will have to protect the economy. Unfortunately, both the Republican and Democratic parties in Congress are in a race for campaign contributions. The `fifth column' has the money," says Hollings.
As solutions, Hollings says the U.S. must stop the elimination of jobs. Tax benefits for offshore production must end; royalty deductions for offshore activites must be eliminated; and offshore tax havens must be closed down. He advocates an Assistant Attorney General to enforce trade agreements; trade policy should be consolidated in a Department of Trade and Commmerce; the U.S. should drop out of the WTO. The U.S. must have more funding in mathematical sciences and engineering.

[wimzkl]

Hamilton's fiscal expertise was great. On the other hand, he feared the crowd would take property from the rich. Jefferson's humanity was great. He feared political and economic power in few hands. They had a friendly disagreement just as in this blog. Hamilton wanted a strong central government, Jefferson wanted a weaker version to protect "natural rights."

Neither could anticipate the enormous growth of the nation nor of the industrial complex. Hamilton, I think would have welcomed it. Jefferson would have fought against the power of corporations as dangerous.

I am trying to get others to believe that the size and power of corporate America today presents a genuine threat to our system. Corporations are judged solely on the basis of success and they need to be held to a higher standard. That is a new conservative paradigm.

[proud conservative]

Interesting article Scoff ... but it's based on real progressives winning elections. I strongly believe we no longer have honest American national elections. I fear the Democrats that are selected to run and win offices by the present power structure ... and Democrats will have wins in 2006 & 2008 ... will be from the same ilk as most Republicans.

Our new paradigm may have to be to not attempt to try to tear down conservatives, but help them see we share a real common problem. Our democracy just may be at stake. I don't think liberals can do this alone. We need honest, decent conservatives who love their country as much as we do.

They just need to see the proof about elections.

What do you think?


Why do you believe we no longer have "honest" elections? Perhaps because liberals lose them?
Whenever Dems won elections, the left chanted how the people have spoken and how smart they are
Now, when they lose, they scream how the elction was stolen and how stupid the people are.

[FDRfollower]

Hey Wimzkl, did you see the cover of the Wall St. Urinal?

Alexander Hamilton! :rolling: Treasury Sec. John Snow-job is attacking Robert Rubin and the Hamilton Project. It's good to see a rag like that forced to talk about Hamilton. This subject is going to grow, you just wait!

Oh, and I found a quote from Jefferson about his shift towards a Hamiltonian thinking later in his life.

"Experience has taught me that manufactures are now as neccessary to our independence as to our comfort; and if those who quote me as of a different opinion, will keep pace with me in purchasing nothing foreign where an equivalent of domestic fabric can be obtained, without regard to difference of price, it will not be our fault if we do not soon have a supply at home equal to our demand, and wrest that weapon of distress from the hand which has weilded it."

[FDRfollower]

Hi Wimzkl. I have to thank you very much. You spurred me to go and read what Hamilton said during the Constitutional Convention. I've read his notes and the different versions of his main speech as noted by Madison, Yates, & King.

I'm glad to have the proof that the charges of being a "monarchist" are pure slander and lies by the Burr/Jefferson press. :)

Are you aware of his emphasis on VOX POPULI VOX DEI? Historically, that is? I think you might be confusing that part.

[wimzkl]

FDRFollower:

Alexander Hamilton warned of the danger of people having full “natural rights. He warned Jefferson of the risks in such idealism in the Federalist Papers: “Reflections of this kind may have trifling weight with men [like you] who hope to see realized in America the halcyon scenes of the poetic or fabulous age; but to those [among us Federalists] who believe we are likely to experience a common portion of the vicissitudes and calamities which have fallen to the lot of other nations, they must appear entitled to serious attention. Such men [as those of us who would lead this nation] must behold the actual situation of their country with painful solicitude, and depreciate the evils which ambition or revenge might, with too much facility, inflict upon it.”

You have to remember what was going on in France at the time where their Revolution was being corrupted by tyranny, murdering the aristocracy and seizing their property. The monarchy had not been replaced by a republican system with "Separation of Powers" and checks and balances. It was replaced by a unicameral parliament with no constraints on the leadership. That is what Hamilton feared. Jefferson felt, rightly, that you must not restrain human natural rights and you must restrain the powers of the aristocracy - to him that was the Federalists.

There is no question that Jefferson mellowed with age. The same can be said also of Madison, Adams and Hamilton. However, while Jefferson welcomed the benefits of American industrialism, he still opposed corporations and advocated a Constitutional Amendment to restrain their power. He could not anticipate the extent of the Industrial Revolution.