patrick.net

Marcus, actually you are right - I have studied the liberal "point of view" vs. the conservative or libertarian point of view.

In evaluating the differences I have considered the concepts of: freedom, liberty, private property, self-ownership, privacy, altruism, collectivism, autonomy, dependency, the golden rule, distributive "justice", ethics, individualism, injustice, social order, liberalism, morality, natural rights, personality disorders, socialism, projection, transference, personal responsibility, double standards, political correctness, government endorsed reverse discrimination, manipulation, the invisible hand, supply and demand, the law of unintended consequences, fiat currency, sound money, abortion, inflation, The Fed, price fixing of interest rates, centralized government, government over-regulation, predatory unions, waste - fraud - mismanagement - misallocation of resources, tyranny, opportunity, playing the race card, free choice, free markets, disorders of logic, parental deprivation, spoiled child syndrome, denial, irresponsibility, psychotic delusions, intellectual malpractice, economic irresponsibility, deficit spending, the desire to manipulate and control others, trial and error, the redistribution of wealth, the IRS, etc.

In ALL CASES, the liberal "point of view" is destructive. And pllleeease don't say "BUT WE NEED TEACHERS, AND POLICE, AND FIREFIGHTERS. AND WE NEED ROADS AND AIRPORTS TOO !!!" Of course we do...just not to the point where we all lose our freedom and all of us become slaves to the state in order to provide everything to everyone (Utopia). Money always runs out before compassion does. And who gets to decide who deserves the compassion? Our trusted public "servants"? Hahaha.

P.S. I enjoy my 'discussions' with you. Abe

I like the term progressive. Implied with that term is the concept of progress.

All one has to do is look at recent history to observe that things are changing incredibly fast. Hell, a little over 100 years ago there was horse shit in the streets, no planes, no TV, no mass media, not to even mention all of the technology of the last 30 years.

Now it's a small interconnected world. Since WW2 or so we have felt that we are what, the worlds police force, fighting political injustice, and growth of forms of government we don't like. Much of this has been truly benevolent and in the interest of the whole world. Other times it has been more about the interest of global capitalism, or even specifically our own corporate self interest. So we now have by far the biggest military. It is a dangerous situation in the sense that there is a risk that we might possibly misuse our power, or even if not, we might be misunderstood and feared for the power we wield.

This military and this global role we play is very expensive. Any economic benefits that come from it are not necessarily well perceived by the rest of the world.

Now as for socialism. Calling it sick is absurd. It is just defining the line, of what government will and will not do for the people A LITTLE differently. Nobody is shooting for utopia (not having to work for a living), or for shirking personal resonsibility.

(not saying I am for extreme socialism - just a bit more than we now have)

Here is the question:

We know that what you call socialism works in Canada and some European countries. MY question is this. Is the real reason that we can't do it, the expensive Military and global role that we play ? Or is there some other reason ?

But your talk of sociopath tendencies, psychiatric disorders, and so on that are behind liberalism isn't even bad propaganda, and you insult yourself to even waste your time spreading that bs. Go to some right wing tea partiy site, where all of the lunatics hang out to spread that crap. It's not worthy of being addressed. It's like asking to not be taken seriously. People can't even take me seriously for responding to such insanity.

Yes, I think the military expenses, fraud, misallocation of resources, a fiat currency, The Fed, and our unfunded liabilities are a large part of whats going to continue to financially punish all Americans. Like I stated before...money always runs out before compassion.

I have unsuccessfully attempted to get liberals to see what was wrong with their position(s) with a belief people could be brought to reason with enough common sense, logic and fact. But one of the KEY INSIGHTS from the literature on personality disorders is that liberals know best themselves exactly what they are doing. What's missing is the moral compass. And people with aggressive kinds of clinical personality disorders don't change.

Whats surprising is how pervasive the symptoms of these destructive personality disorders has become in our society, especially in politics. Its clear that modern politicians have learned that the response to increasingly obvious destructive behavior (and policy) is to become even better at it.

Honest Abe says

personality disorders

I feel bad for you Abe, because there must be reasons why you have felt compelled to learn so much about personality disorders. I'm pretty sure the original reasons were not that you were trying to understand people you disagree with about politics.

Oh.

I must admit, the theme, and the book, as a money making idea, are brilliant. Countless idiots can feel self righteous about their opinions, in spite of their severely lacking intelligence.

I don't believe in hell, but if it is real, they must have a special place saved for Rush, Glenn, this guy and all the others who cater to that crowd.

I define one aspect of intelligence as being able to see the future consequences of one's actions (or inaction).

This is hard.

8 years after Bush took office, the national debt (not counting the intra-government debt) rose by $3T, with household debt having cleanly doubled from $7T to $14T.

Either this was an intentional overjuicing of the nation's fisc -- a classic pump & dump -- or simple mismanagement of the grossest scale in history.

Oddly, the eight years of Reagan featured household debt rising from $1.4T to $3.1T, but over these eight years the baby boomers moved from age 15~35 to age 23~43, with the baby boomer peak moving from age 26 to 34, demographically the age to borrow more (and be good for it).

i don't think we had this demographic borrowing effect this cycle. Just a lot of stupid loans to insane people, while the gov't enforcers sat on their ass with their fingers up their butt, probably surfing for porn no doubt.

Nomograph says

Abe isn’t an independent thinker; he’s just another follower.

Question: are you so pompous and full of yourself that you actually expect us to believe that YOU are an "independent thinker" that does not need to learn from others? The fact of the matter is, we all learn from someone else. Some of us are just humble enough to admit, others aren't.

Ray, liberals can't stand the truth anymore than Dracula can stand bright sunlight. The fact's are that the liberal agenda's collective causes have undermined individual rights and freedom and have severely damaged America.

It has undermined the growth of individuals to adult competence. Undermined the family. Undermined the proper function of modern society. Undermined the concept of personal responsibility. It has weakened the obligations of promises, contracts, ownership and property rights. It has disconnected rewards from merit. It has polarized the population (some animals are more equal than others) into warring classes...old v. young (socialized insecurity), wealthy v. poor (soak the "rich" and make them pay their "fair" share), race v. race (look whats happening in Arizona). It has created an idealized parental and administrative state and endowed it with vast managerial, caretaking, and regulatory powers. It has created a massive burden of business regulation.

The liberal (do-gooder, bleeding heart and "progressive") agenda has fostered government dependency instead of self-reliance, government "assistance" instead of self-determination, coercive collectivism instead of cooperation, indentured servitude instead of genuine altruism. In other words, liberalism has succeeded in displacing the individual form his rightful place as the primary economic, social and political unit of society. Why? Because our "wise", "trusted", political "leaders" know whats best for us.

However, history records the inevitable result of such expansions of government power: individual liberty and peaceful coordination of human activity are severely compromised or lost altogether. In other instances, tens of millions of deaths due to psychotic political "leadership" of "centralized" government. For a chilling glimpse into the future, read (or re-read) George Orwell's '1984'.

"And the reason for liberal madness? Psychopathology". Lyle H. Rossiter, M.D.

A lot of broad generalized statements.

"Hey I saw them in a book, and coincidently they are exactly what I would like to believe. Cool, I can use these as a substitute for comprehending more nuanced points of view. "

Honest Abe says

And pllleeease don’t say “BUT WE NEED TEACHERS, AND POLICE, AND FIREFIGHTERS. AND WE NEED ROADS AND AIRPORTS TOO !!!” Of course we do…just not to the point where we all lose our freedom and all of us become slaves to the state in order to provide everything to everyone (Utopia)

Okay, so you understand we are talking a slight difference in where we draw the line. My progressive point of view is just on the other side of the line from you. So I argue that the line needs to move a little that way. I am not arguing for Utopia.

You don't hear me saying that just because you argue for the line being in a slightly different (let's call it to the right), that therefore you are a fascist, corporatist, selfish greedy pig that won't be happy until 95% of the wealth is owned by the top .005 of the population. (which by the way, your supposed common sense should tell you would destroy us much faster than a little redistribution would).

The older generation was scarred by the left / right polarization back in the days of the Vietnam war and hippies (not that hippies were all so asinine) spitting on soldiers coming back. You need to get over it. Let is go man. Those particular hippies didn't speak for me, any more than you should let that jerkwad Savage speak for you.

Abe .... your last post is probably the best that has ever appeared on Patrick.net. I honestly can't think of one that is better. It says it all. No one that has even a remote amount of honesty and objectivity can effectively argue with your statement. Radical leftist liberalism is intent on destroying and then remaking America. We are heading towards totalitarianism that is heavily steeped in egalitarianism that will punish any and all that refuse to "fall into line." This is precisely what happened in the good old USSR, which just so happens to be the radical leftists' ideal state that just needed a little tweaking. What they fail to see is that the Bolsheviks simply lied about setting up the workers’ paradise, and instead, created a peasant slave class that was ruled viciously by the ruling elite. Lenin/Stalin murdered up to 60 Million people. To this, the radical leftists shrug their shoulders and whimper out a “ho hum.” The warnings of history are there for all to see.

If I said that everything that is wrong with our country can be traced to greed and more specifically the ideology of republicans, I would hope that no republican would dignify it with an argument. It's too general, and no proof is given.

Someone would have to be a complete and total moron to think that it was even an argument, let alone a good one.

Honest Abe says

Ray, liberals can’t stand the truth anymore than Dracula can stand bright sunlight.

Sure I can stand sunlight. Oops!

RayAmerica says

Abe …. your last post is probably the best that has ever appeared on Patrick.net. I honestly can’t think of one that is better

It's not surprising that you like his post, since you wrote it...

Ray, thanks for your response - yea, lib's refuse, or deny history with a "it can't happen here" mentality. They deny cause and effect. They reject the thought that history can repeat itself. Mental illness is doing the same thing but expecting a different result.

Marcus, I'm sorry but you appear to be in denial. Who do you think is responsible for: legislation forwarding collectivist causes? Social programs? Replacing our society's safety net with a hammock? Building a Nanny State? Authoring a blizzard of laws and a flood of oppressive and business strangling regulation? Providing government handouts in exchange for votes? Encouraging bondage through dependency? Rewarding failure and punishing success?

Virtually all of the California Senate and Assembly bills which: expand employer liability, hamper employment, increase government regulation, implement unlimited fees and taxes, drive up costs, make litigation the only dispute resolution, increase business costs and threaten jobs...are sponsored by liberal democrats. And if you want the identifying SB and AB numbers I'll be happy to provide them to you.

So Marcus, this isn't my "argument", its fact. Denial is willful and deliberate ignorance.

Honest Abe says

Mental illness is doing the same thing but expecting a different result...

If you're going to quote something from 12-Step meetings then do it properly. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. It's one of my favorite ways of explaining what is meant in the 2nd step by including the word "sanity" implying that we are practicing insanity by engaging in compulsion. (Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.) It refers to compulsion and not to mental illness. Compulsion can be part of a mental illness, but compulsion and insanity isn't in and of itself a mental illness. Try again, Rayray/Abebabe.

Honest Abe says

So Marcus, this isn’t my “argument”, its fact...

Must I remind you of the definition of the word "fact?" Ah, but doing that again and expecting you to understand it is the very definition of insanity. So, I'll pass.

Honest Abe says

...Denial is willful and deliberate ignorance.

No it's not. Again you fail Psychology 101 and 12-Step 101, Rayray/Abebabe. Denial is being in a state of ignorance that you are ignorant. That seems to define all wing nuts quite nicely. I have to believe that you wing nuts are in denial so that I don't fall into the trap of believing that you wing nuts are all willful and maliscious liars, as you so plainly believe about people you consider to be "liberal."

Now, go call your sponsor!

Honest Abe says

Providing government handouts in exchange for votes?

If it weren't for "tax cuts" which could be viewed as paying for votes, I don't see that republicans would have had any presidents in the last 22 years.

Honest Abe says

Virtually all of the California Senate and Assembly bills which: expand employer liability, hamper employment, increase government regulation, implement unlimited fees and taxes, drive up costs, make litigation the only dispute resolution, increase business costs and threaten jobs…are sponsored by liberal democrats.

The litigation one might be somewhat correct. But otherwise, all of these consequences are only the negative side of legislation that had other intentions and other (hopefully) positive consequences. So it doesn't prove anything. It would be like me pointing out the trillion plus part of the deficit increase and the thousands killed that comes from our recent wars, as if that was all that happened. I know you weren't necessarily for the wars, but you may be capable of understanding that just focusing on negative doesn't really prove anything.

You may have heard about how sometimes people consider the "pros and the cons" when making a decision. Sometimes with a tough decision someone might say "make a list of the pros and the cons." I guess it might be easy afterwards to look at the "cons" side only or the "pros" side only. But many of us are smarter than that.

Didn't I say I was going to stop, like 10 comments ago ?

marcus says

Didn’t I say I was going to stop, like 10 comments ago ?

LOL! Yeah, you better watch it, you might be slipping into insanity. However, it can be kind of fun sometimes...

Marcus makes some good points after all, and has a positive way of disagreeing without sounding like an elitist snob who argues in circles.

Thanks Abe. I appreciate that, and it makes me want to give further consideration to some of your criticisms of the liberal mind set.

this post is suposed to be about the fed's mandate to keep inflation low, and why. Not about the relative merits of Liberal vs Conservative idiology. Every thread degenerates into this culture war BS.

Inflation is a tax on the rich, unless the printed money is given back to the rich, which in this case it was, which is cronyism not socialism.

marcus says

Thanks Abe. I appreciate that, and it makes me want to give further consideration to some of your criticisms of the liberal mind set.

Admirable that you would consider thinking about something objectively simply because someone compliments you. 'Honest Abe' has actually used you to directly demonstrate his earlier assertions about your psychological underpinnings.

No, I think he meant it. And if you were paying attention, I was just talking about how there are two sides to every issue. Even us non-sociopaths like to be heard and understood, when we make an effort to converse. My comment was meant as much as anything as an attempt to set an example. Showing some respect back.

You also might want to note I said "consider further." Meaning putting more time, sorting through and filling in a lot of the details and context and other side to what is a litany of perceived negatives.

But yeah, he meant it, it wasn't a trap. Worst case, he was being polite, and helping that back and forth come to a graceful finish. But as the kids say, you killed it.

Still, nice try. I know it's not easy to be as misinformed (or uninformed ) as you are about the Federal Reserve.

Who cares if he meant it? That only strengthens my point.

You have clearly demonstrated that your logic is closely intertwined with your emotions. Both via your last exchange with Abe, and your last sentence to me (making assertions about something of which you have no specific knowledge, simply because you want it to be true).

You are a patent example of what Abe has described.

NastySlapper says

making assertions about something of which you have no specific knowledge, simply because you want it to be true

wtf ?

I spent hours discussing this, arguing this with you. And yes, I usually try as best as I can to listen to and understand the point of view who I am arguing with. That is where I got my "specific knowledge."

I fully expected Abe to be as closed minded as you or Ray have been when I argued with you. He surprised me, what can I tell you, even if he didn't mean it.

The ironic thing is that after we actually for once end a conversation on a nice note, you come in, what, with supposed logic, basically with only one message,... a message of hate,...attacking my psychological disposition. I wish you had the logic and lack of emotion to appreciate what you did there.

Happy Sunday to you too.

marcus says

know it’s not easy to be as misinformed (or uninformed ) as you are about the Federal Reserve.

Nice example of a dismissive comment without any substance. Marcus, fully explain exactly the reasons "Nasty" is "misinformed (or uninformed)." If you do, you'll separate yourself from other Libs on this (Hi ellie) site that just make blanket statements without feeling the necessity to explain your position.

You obviously not only didn't read the thread, you didn't read my response to Nasty trying to say the same.

See your Ford thread, and read it to understand why I know you never even consider what I write.

As an ecologist, I have seen how in nature, over time balance is always restored. This is going to hold true for the human animal as well of course. The reason things get out of balance is people try to intervene to uphold some ideal. For example, we think housing should be more affordable so we establish rent controls. This has the effect of reducing the available amount of housing as landlords often find they cannot make a desired return on investment and thus quit maintaining their property. The intervention was worse than the "disease." This is especially true since when it comes to rents people are totally limited by what they earn. There is no need to intervene in the rent market, if people can't afford it, landlords will be FORCED by the wage market to reduce their rent prices.

Central planning fails, and will continue to fail. We best quit fooling ourselves into thinking that government can solve the problems of scarcity in our world. More often than not as governments grow, through wasteful spending, misallocation of resources and needless wars they cause more scarcity than they prevent.

jljoshlee3 says

this post is suposed to be about the fed’s mandate to keep inflation low

The FED is the cause of inflation.

speaking of The Deceptions of Price Stabilization, here's a real Fairytale as told by the HUD Secretary and is reported in today's Las Vegas Sun

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/11/hud-secretary-says-vegas-housing-market-stabilizin/

Well, then, the world is all flowers & sunshine. We should all move to Vegas because the market is stablizing.

Should we tell the oodles of people out of work and the miles of homes in foreclosure that they're out of the woods? I don't think they can afford the paper and lost their internet access, choosing to buy food instead...

AdHo - your comment above is very clear and well stated. Its the 'invisible hand' at work. Unfortunately "the others" don't understand that simple concept.

AdHominem says

For example, we think housing should be more affordable so we establish rent controls. This has the effect of reducing the available amount of housing as landlords often find they cannot make a desired return on investment and thus quit maintaining their property

This makes some sense. But what you call balance wouldn't be pretty. Consider this.

Say you have an entire region of a major city with escalating rents, up to a price that 65% of the households can afford. Say the supply is such that 65% of the people that work in the area are enough to rent all of these units.

But among the 35% are people who are unemployed, underemployed or otherwise in VERY low paying jobs. How does letting balance occur address their needs? They were and are the reason for subsidized housing. Say their wages don't even support the cost of construction10 miles away?

Leaving the market to figure things out, you would eventually have huge ghetto areas with little better than shacks. In cold winter climates you would have to have public housing of some kind because the corrugated metal roofed shack doesn't work in New York or Chicago.

So you want supply and demand to determine the wage of the lowest skill jobs. And likewise for housing. It's not like this doesn't exist in many places in the world already.

Actually, I don't consider this balance. But if you do, please note that the balancing act isn't through there. If we go there, then crime including violent crime would be much worse, requiring government to spend much more on police and prisons. If you think about it, that would be just another way of injecting our government in to the "natural balancing process."

Oh, but this is something that Abe isn't willing to understand.

Well, someone's got to be the contrarian. If it weren't Abe & his merry men, it would be someone else. They seem to be bogged down in semantics.

I was reacting to:

Honest Abe says

Its the ‘invisible hand’ at work. Unfortunately “the others” don’t understand that simple concept.

But also I was hoping that he might even consider what I wrote and that the "simple concept" of the invisible hand, is too simple.

Marcus, I agree with you on many points, and also disagree with you on others. But I truly don't believe that anyone is standing behind the curtain. That concept is too "out there" for me.

What ? Maybe when you disagree, it is only that you don't understand, or that I'm not being clear enough.

Please elaborate about the guy behind the curtain. I have no clue what you mean. Is that a reference to wizard of Oz ?

Honest Abe says

AdHo - your comment above is very clear and well stated. Its the ‘invisible hand’ at work. Unfortunately “the others” don’t understand that simple concept.

Yes, it was a Wizard of Oz reference to his statement that there's an invisible hand at work. Abe states that "the others" don't understand that simple concept, but it seems to me that he's a bit paranoid in his belief that someone is pulling the strings on just about everything.

marcus says

What ? Maybe when you disagree, it is only that you don’t understand, or that I’m not being clear enough.

It could be either, or it could be that we simply disagree. But I don't - nor do you - appear to believe that we are at the mercy of some guy who directs us all with an invisible hand. That's crazy talk.

I have a friend who plays the obscure reference game with me. We leave messages for each other that take a while to figure out. Sometimes it gets away from us - sorry.