WARNING: Voyeuristic Content

Comments

1. Michael Herdegen - August 19, 2005 @ 8:01 am

   Well, one would usually just provide a link.

   However, nobody on that thread has indicated that they want to protect their copyrights, so, even lacking permission from Orrin, it’s probably legal…

2. lonbud - August 19, 2005 @ 12:52 pm

   well, my purpose was twofold: one, to shield the privacy of posters over there, and two, to head off any onslaught of trolls that might be spurred by a link. i know juddworld gets a little frothy having to deal with more than a few at a time… 😉

3. Bubbles - August 24, 2005 @ 11:33 pm

   ok here’s a link for ya Michael

   http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=7090

4. Bubbles - August 26, 2005 @ 12:56 am

   So I have what I consider to be a fair-minded question for Michael or any other of the umm, (I hate labels) people who voted for Republicans in that last few election. I vividly recall those early years when taking back Congress from the Democrats was a huge accomplishment for the Republican Party. The rallying cry’s were, “Defeating the Special Interests”, “Ending Pork Barrel Politics”, “Privatizing Government Run Programs”, and “Running Government like a Business”. So here’s my question. Can one of you give me a recent example where the Republican Congress and the Republican Administration have not sided with a major corporate interest/lobby in the drafting of law or public policy? I can’t come up with one. Not in Broadcast or Print Communications, Energy, Defense, Environment, Technology, Telecommunications, Transportation, Agribusiness, Health Care or Banking. I can cite example after example in each of these areas where policy and legislation has greatly benefited huge corporate interests and it would seem like the Administration and Congress has not met a corporate interest or monopoly that it didn’t favor? For Republicans is the “business of Government” for government officials to collect as much money from businesses as possible? Is that what was meant by “Running Government like a Business”? What happened to Schumpeter’s concept of ‘Creative Destruction’? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction

5. Michael Herdegen - August 26, 2005 @ 9:25 pm

   It’s hard NOT to side with a major corporate interest when drafting national policy, since every position has winners and losers.

   Take dairy price supports, for instance.
   When you support them, big agribusinesses is happy.
   When you DON’T support them, big food producers are happy.

   The passage of CAFTA really torqued the U.S. sugar producers, who are used to getting prices far above the world market prices for sugar.

   In fact, all of the free trade agreements passed under Bush – with Chile, Australia, Singapore, and CAFTA – made domestic manufacturers unhappy.
   However, they made domestic RETAILERS happy, so I guess that Congress must be in thrall to the retailers’ lobby.

   Take telecommunications.
   If the FCC liberalizes rules, it benefits big cable companies.
   If they don’t, it benefits big phone companies.

   The bankruptcy bill was more about morality than any corporate interest, although it did benefit the credit card companies.

   The energy bill contains provisions for over ONE BILLION DOLLARS in alternative energy research.

   The only way to prevent “big business” from benefiting from ANY policy decision, regardless of what it is, is to eliminate big business.

   By the way, another word for “corporate interest” is “employer” – millions of jobs are aligned with the health of any sector of the economy.

   The U.S. defense policy is to CLOSE unnecessary bases – that certainly isn’t on any business’ wish list.
   Nor on many individual’s wish list.

   Another example of “big business” and “the little guy” being on the same side.

6. lonbud - August 27, 2005 @ 1:32 am

   i think your arguments here are facile, michael. it’s not just a choice between which big business interest or broad industry sector one must favor in setting policy. to the extent our society (empire?) is sufficient to produce conglomerate interests that will benefit no matter whose interests policy favors, it remains possible to make far better use of our resources and talent in this country than we do today with respect to the environment, public health, education, consumer protection, finance, taxation, did i mention education, oh, and foreign policy, too.

   “big business” drains “the little guy” of far more life than it betters for him.

7. Michael Herdegen - August 27, 2005 @ 11:40 am

   [I]t remains possible to make far better use of our resources and talent in this country than we do today with respect to the environment, public health, education, consumer protection, finance, taxation…

   Well, sure.

   I agree 100%.

   However, the problem with resource utilization doesn’t originate with the Federal government – the fault lies with “the people”, the vast aggregate of “little guys”.

   For instance, we could lower air pollution, increase the pace of economic growth, lower traffic deaths, and have a less aggressive foreign policy if SUVs were only driven by those who live in rural areas. For urban dwellers, a minivan or station wagon would fulfill their needs, and use 30% less gasoline.

   The government isn’t forcing anyone to drive an SUV; it’s the free choice of individuals, and their combined decisions result in a far worse than optimal use of our resources and talent with respect to the environment, public health, finance, and foreign policy.

   It isn’t the government that is retarding the efficient use of resources in education; the Federal government and many state governments favor educational vouchers.
   It’s the LITTLE GUY, who threatens to replace any elected official that implements a voucher system, who is making American education worse than it could be, abetted by the teachers’ unions, who rightly fear free competition for educational excellence.

   Social Security is another excellent example of a case where the government is prevented from doing the prudent thing by “the little guy”, who would rather face a catastrophe later on, than endure a little pain now.

   The paradigm of the virtuous little guy vs. the corrupt and oppressive Federal government is just not universally true, although instances of such do occur – as do instances where the Feds fight the corrupt and oppressive little guy, as in the cases of RICO and civil rights.

   “big business” drains “the little guy” of far more life than it betters for him.

   You’ll have to offer some examples.
   Sans such, I disagree.

   In the first place, you’re arguing that “the little guy” was better off in the Nineteenth century, before big corporations became the norm in the American economy.
   By every conceivable standard, that is not the case, whether you want to talk about real mean wages, healthcare, nutrition, lifestyles, or even political influence.

   Secondly, big corporations are big because the “little guy” CHOSE THEM over their competitors.
   There used to be hundreds of American auto manufacturers; now there are two, and a couple of dozen American auto plants of foreign manufacturers.

   How did those two companies get to be such behemoths, the largest and fourth largest auto manufacturers in the world ?
   Where did the other two hundred manufacturers go, and why ?

   It’s simple; the “little guy” preferred to buy autos from the companies that eventually came to dominate the industry, and the others went out of business, or were absorbed by the giants.

   Why is Wal~Mart the largest retailer in the world ?
   Not by government fiat; because the “little guy” CHOOSES them over their competitors.

   I could give you literally a hundred more examples, but you get the point.

   America’s “little guys” DO NOT AGREE that they’d be better off without “big business”, or “big business” would go out of business.

8. lonbud - August 27, 2005 @ 2:25 pm

   no, you’re right, michael, the government isn’t forcing anyone to drive suvs, but a smarter government would create incentives for the 2 big manufacturers (as well as foreign ones) to market vehicles that would be better for the environment, public safety, and the economy, and penalties for doing otherwise.

   the little guy doesn’t choose big corporations over their competitors, the government (or, in our case lack of same) fails to police the marketplace in such a way that smaller, more creative, more humane, less environmentally abusive companies can compete (or avoid hostile takeovers), and the little guy is left with cheaply manufacured, marginally utilitarian schlock like that found on the shelves of wall mart.

   i also disagree that we must either choose between the primitivism and deprivation of nineteenth century life, and modern life in all its toxic comfort and convenience.

   as the industrial revolution began to make improvements in tools accessible to more people and to give birth to industries that created more employment and higher wages and higher standards of living for many more people than ever before possible, we could have, as a society, chosen to regulate corporate activity and manage corporate growth in such a way as to better preserve the environment and allocate the resources and benefits of industrialization more equitably.

   instead, the current administration is moving in exactly the opposite direction a smart government would move. less regulation, less consumer protection, fewer occupational, health, and safety regulations, fewer environmental safeguards, less antitrust oversight and enforcement, is not good for the little guy in the long run.

   it is, good, however, for the investing classes and for corporate management, your so-called demi gods of the future, though even their benefits, given the current course and priorities, promise to be short-lived.

9. Michael Herdegen - August 27, 2005 @ 8:46 pm

   the little guy doesn’t choose big corporations over their competitors, the government (or, in our case lack of same) fails to police the marketplace in such a way that smaller, more creative, more humane, less environmentally abusive companies can compete (or avoid hostile takeovers)

   Rubbish.

   That is a religious statement, one of blind faith, not one of fact and logic.
   You LIKE small companies, and so you therefore imagine that they’re “more creative, more humane”.

   Amazon started as a small company. Apple started as a small company. Wal~Mart had only one store, at the beginning. McDonald’s started as one store, as did KFC.

   Do you imagine that before them, there was NO ONE selling books, computers, household goods, fried chicken, or burgers ?

   They COMPETED against the big, evil companies that came before, and WON, thereby becoming large themselves, and the object of your benighted scorn.

   I mean, seriously, one might think that you lived in a Communist country, and got to choose between two brands of anything. Go to a mall or department store, and look around.
   Small companies compete with large ones every minute of every day, and the prize for winning is getting big.

   Subway started with one store, founded by a guy who’d never made a hoagie before his first customer ordered one.
   They didn’t get crushed by “big food”.

   the little guy is left with cheaply manufacured, marginally utilitarian schlock like that found on the shelves of wall mart.

   You might want to stop into a Wal~Mart some time.
   The stuff on their shelves is indeed cheaply manufactured, but it’s well made, and of maximal utility and value.

   Once again, your prejudice against the average person comes through loud and clear.
   Americans have made Wal~Mart the world’s largest retailer because…
   They’re too stupid to buy well made stuff ?

   Wal~Mart competes oppressively and unfairly, so consumers don’t have the choice of going to K-Mart, Target, Sears, Costco, JC Penney, Walgreens, Lane Bryant, the late Montgomery Ward, Toys R Us, Bed, Bath & Beyond, etc., etc. ?

   No.
   People freely choose to go to Wal~Mart, and often.
   There is TREMENDOUS competition in almost every industry.

   Even Microsoft and Wal~Mart get beaten in some areas – Wal~Mart was forced out of the DVD rental business by NetFlix, and Target is taking some of Wal~Mart’s more well-heeled customers; Microsoft has Unix and Linux breathing down their necks.

   as the industrial revolution began to […] give birth to industries that created more employment and higher wages and higher standards of living for many more people than ever before possible, we could have, as a society, chosen to […] allocate the resources and benefits of industrialization more equitably.

   What are you talking about ?

   Over half of all Americans own stocks, including many of those that might be called the “working poor”.
   The American middle class lives in historically huge homes, two out of three American households own AT LEAST one home, and most middle class families have AT LEAST two vehicles.
   Very few people don’t have access to world-class health care.
   ONE out of every THIRTY American households has a net worth of ONE MILLION DOLLARS or more.

   How much more “equitably” do you want to spread the weath, and how do you propose to do so ?

   the current administration is moving in exactly the opposite direction a smart government would move. less regulation, less consumer protection, fewer occupational, health, and safety regulations, fewer environmental safeguards, less antitrust oversight and enforcement…

   Examples, please.

   Simply naming a long list of things that you believe to be true, does not make them so.

   it is, good, however, for the investing classes and for corporate management, your so-called demi gods of the future, though even their benefits, given the current course and priorities, promise to be short-lived.

   I did not say that “the investing classes and corporate management” would be the demigods of the future, YOU are saying that.

   What I have repeatedly said, (links on request), is that by the middle of the 21st century, ALL Americans, as well as the citizens of all other advanced nations, including nations that are not now “advanced”, will have the opportunity to live like demigods.

   “Short-lived benefits” my spleen.

   Advances in power generation, transmission, and storage, in data processing and storage, in communications, in agriculture, in transportation, in medicine, in composite materials, in robotics, and in manufacturing techniques and practices will make the 21st century as much better than the 20th, as the 20th was better than the 18th.

   Why do you see progress stopping and reversing ?

10. Bubbles - August 28, 2005 @ 3:52 am

    Michael you’re a fine rhetoritician but you’re dodging my point. The point is they say one thing but deliver something very different and what they do deliver benefits the largest political contributors the most, period. I’ve worked with Bechtel, trust me they are one of the few if not only entities that are ‘winning the war on terror’. There’s no such thing as deregulation, smaller government, and promoting economic development with tax cuts that stimulate entrepreneurial activity. That’s a load of crap. To the contrary, Republican policies have reinforced the status quo rather than challenged it. The Republicans are playing ‘Three Card Monte’ with public policy and while its been effective as distraction or obfuscation, it’s been hugely destructive to many Americans personally –and to American competitiveness globally.

    I for one can tell you in greater detail than I care to type tonight how the corruption in Congress and the FCC, as well as the lack of effective Securities and Anti-Trust regulation has taken America from the Country that invented the Internet to number 16 in the world in broadband penetration, and a place where we are severely handicapped by constraints on new software applications and infrastructure modernity. Lets just get real. Your beloved Republican Congress and Administration is an open sewer of corruption. To describe it as something else keeps you squarely between white wash and delusion. The epitome of this dysfunctional septic system is the war in Iraq. Which it appears has finally piled this dung to such a fantastic height that the slew of shit cannot be prevented from burying its primary pumps. If you ask me, it’s about damn time.

11. Michael Herdegen - August 28, 2005 @ 8:42 pm

    [T]hey say one thing but deliver something very different and what they do deliver benefits the largest political contributors the most, period.

    What about the free trade agreements ?
    What about the base closures ?
    What about the Medicare drug benefit ?
    What about tort reform ?
    What about potential SS reforms ?
    What about doubling, and making permanent, the child tax credit ?

    Are you arguing that there was some special-interest super-contributor who stands to benefit from any of these ?
    There will certainly be people and interests that benefit from all of the above, but they aren’t especially large contributors to Congressional campaigns.

    There’s no such thing as […] promoting economic development with tax cuts that stimulate entrepreneurial activity.

    Alan Greenspan disagrees, and I will trust his judgement over yours, unless you’d like to spell out your counter-argument, using some facts to reinforce your case.

    The Republicans are playing ‘Three Card Monte’ with public policy and while its been effective as distraction or obfuscation, it’s been hugely destructive to many Americans personally –and to American competitiveness globally.

    To which Americans has it been “hugely destructive” ?
    Name some classes or groups of people to whom such applies, and provide some statistics, or at least some anecdotes, to back it up.

    My guess is that you simply BELIEVE that many people must have been negatively affected by policies that you disagree with, and you’ve never done any fact-checking of your assumption.

    The bit about “reduced global competitiveness” is hilarious.
    On the contrary, China and Japan have taken huge positions in long-term American gov’t debt, because they trust that the American economy will perform very well over the next thirty years, relative to the rest of the world.
    Why do you think that long-term interest rates have stayed so low ?
    The U.S. is soaking up about 2/3 of the entire world’s excess savings.

    If foreigners did NOT have huge long-term confidence in the American economy, they’d be buying EU or even Chinese bonds.

    Your beloved Republican Congress…

    I’m at best lukewarm towards the Republican Congress.

    …and Administration is an open sewer of corruption. To describe it as something else keeps you squarely between white wash and delusion. The epitome of this dysfunctional septic system is the war in Iraq. Which it appears has finally piled this dung to such a fantastic height that the slew of shit cannot be prevented from burying its primary pumps.

    We are in complete agreement: One of us must be delusional, since the universe that you describe, and the one that I see, cannot co-exist.

    Therefore, one of us is nuts.

12. Bubbles - August 30, 2005 @ 12:24 am

    What about the free trade agreements ?

    You must be joking. Completely structured to benefit the largest corporate interests rather than stimulate new or competitive business strategies.

    What about the base closures?

    I don’t have a truly strong opinion about this accept to say that, like everything this Administration does, there are likely highly political motives behind many of these choices rather than best practices. But having said that, if you want to save some Defense dollars, how about scrapping the missile defense system since there isn’t a serious analyst who thinks it is a reasonable strategy. Except – that it’s a windfall giveaway for a handful of huge defense contractor/special interests.

    What about the Medicare drug benefit ?

    This is a counter example? Its a perfect example of what I’m talking about, it’s a piss poor way to accomplish reducing peoples drug costs, although it sounds just the opposite. In reality, it creates a whole new bureaucracy that benefits the pharmaceutical industry by reducing competitive government purchasing and competitive distribution modalities.

    What about tort reform ?

    90% Red Herring 10% issue.

    What about potential SS reforms ?

    Ohh, you mean the ‘Wall Street Subsidy’. Hardly a reform there, more like a benefit repeal (potentially releasing political contributors of Tax and benefit obligations) feeding Wall Street mouths and simultaneously a dodge for dealing with the true fiscal crises.

    What about doubling, and making permanent, the child tax credit?

    Now we’re really down to the minutia.

    How about the ‘Death Tax’ Estate Tax Repeal? Do you know there is not a single instance (NOT ONE) of a family farm in American being sold to pay taxes but we should provide a 75 Billion Dollar benefit to the wealthiest families in America?

    I’m not sure what you are saying about Greenspan except dropping his name. The facts are that the econometric correlations between tax reductions and stimulating the economy are not nearly as strong as the correlation between government spending and the stimulation to the economy. You never hear the Administration say that. They don’t say we’ve been spending more money we don’t have than we ever imagined we could get away with. No, they say “the tax reforms are working”. Again – get real.

    So one might argue what’s the difference between Democrat and Republican government spending or Tax Relief? Ok sure, there will always be winners and losers in any political result. Yet, we’re left asking ourselves what do we expect from government in the 1st place? The answer is we expect some structural choices that set directions, which advance the goals we all share. This is precisely what we see none of from this Administration and Congress. No energy independence, no technological or industrial policy, no serious healthcare reform, no workable approach to anti-terrorism, no serious approach to climate change, environmental protection, fiscal responsibility etc.. etc.. etc.. just an unending list of solicitations and political favors wrapped in exploitation of political differences and indifference.

    Name some classes or groups of people to whom such applies, and provide some statistics, or at least some anecdotes, to back it up.

    Ok. I’ve been building Internet infrastructure since there was an AUP on the Internet. When the Internet backbone was subsidized by the federal government, there was an ‘Acceptable Use Policy”. Selling services was prohibited. It’s perhaps the greatest example of how a ‘Government Subsidized Program’ can create an entire industry. However, the power of creative destruction and the law of unintended consequences suddenly took over when commercial services were allowed and the government subsidy was removed.

    Simultaniously, Telecommunications deregulation was taking hold and was buttressed by the 1996 Act, which extended the rules which evolved deregulating switched circuit (in effect Voice) services to data services (ie Internet). Suddenly 10s of 1000’s of service providers began to truly challenge the means through which telecommunications and entertainment services were being distributed. This became an enormously disruptive situation for the telecommunications and cable monopolies. Fast forward to this Administration, where the ‘unbundling’ of these monopolies’ networks such that they must make the network elements available to their competitors on a ‘fair and non-discriminatory basis’ has been repealed.

    To further illustrate my point that the Bush Administration at its cronies have ‘never met a monopoly they didn’t like’, we now have an FCC and Federal Court system that has decreed the absurd. Comcast doesn’t have to share its network because its selling of VOIP phone service accoss its cable infrastructure is “not telecommunications”. Thus we call it deregulation, but in effect 97% of all the customers still buy from the incumbents. Contrast this with say Korea which had Korea Telecom the dominate monopoly and now has a vibrant competitive market with 6 strong players for local telecommunications and the 2nd highest broadband penetration in the world. Who loses? We all do.

    China is providing customer financiing, pure and simple. Only thing is they’re getting equity for the debt and using the US Tax payers to carry the interest.

    I’m not nuts. I’m pissed.

13. lonbud - August 30, 2005 @ 12:09 pm

    Well, I think Bubbles did a fine enough job making the case for which of you may have the nuttier perception of what is gong on in the world today, but I thought I would add my own two cents:

    To which Americans has it been “hugely destructive” ?
    Name some classes or groups of people to whom such applies, and provide some statistics, or at least some anecdotes, to back it up.

    My guess is that you simply BELIEVE that many people must have been negatively affected by policies that you disagree with, and you’ve never done any fact-checking of your assumption.

    From today’s NYT report on new Census Bureau data:

    The nation’s poverty rate rose in 2004 for the fourth consecutive year, and stands now at 12.7%. 37 million people in the world’s most technologically advanced nation live in poverty, up by more than 1 million since 2003.

    But wait, you say. What about the 2.2 million jobs the Dubya Economy has created? What about all the economic growth stimulated by the Bush Tax Cuts? Yeah, well, it went exactly where one would have expected it to go (and where the Bush administration intended it to go): to higher income people in the form of capital gains, interest, rents, and dividends.

    It’s not a matter of belief that the Bush administration is rigging the game to benefit the wealthiest among us, it’s a FACT –and you don’t have to dig too deep to find plenty of evidence and anecdotes to illustrate it.