Predictions for Obama admin

[Road Guy]

you sounding it out wrong its "P-Nut"

 

[FLBuff PE]

Jeff Dunham

Wait...wrong thread

Edit: Since it seems to be my research place of choice, I decided to look at Wikipedia's entry on the subject. This is the last thing posted in the entry. I move that from now on, peanuts be called monkey nuts. And peanut butter is from now on known as monkey nut butter.

Peanuts are also known as earthnuts, goobers, goober peas, pindas, jack nuts, pinders, manila nuts, and monkey nuts. (The last of these is often used to mean the entire pod.)

 

[Dleg]

Can I join with an emoticon sentiment, too?

:jerkit:

I'd love to join in, but it's Saturday.

I live in a place that has the closest thing to an unregulated free market that I have ever lived in. now, granted, it's an island and therefore a totally un-free market, but we got the stamp of approval from Tom Delay as being the "perfect petri dish of capitalism" back in the late 1990s when he visted with Jack Abramoff, while fixing it for us in congress to assure that we could continue to import foreign labor at less than US minimum wage.

So what we ended up with was an economy where all the private sector jobs - including engineers - went to foreign workers who were willing to work for the minimum wage - $3.05 an hour until last year - and the local US citizens were left with no other choice than to work in the government, where many of them augmented their income with bribes from the foreign businesses, which were paid to additionally get out of other taxes and fees.

Once the Chinese garment copmanies discvoered this place, we went from a potentially high-profit tourist destination to a third world hell hole in the span of about 2 years (1995 to 1997). Now things have shifted glbally, and the garment manufacturers have left, and left behind their mess, and a totally corrupted system. A near-complete lack of government oversight is to blame for most of it, as anyone familiar with the situation will tell you.

Now, once again, i realize that this is a strange case, we're on an island, the market wasn't entirely free, etc. But I have personally observed that the "free market" will, if left to it's own devices, seek out what is good for itself, and itself only. The last of the garment factories (once over 30) will be leaving in the net few months, and what we are left with now is a completely uglified island that no tourist is interested in, tens of thousands of out-of-work immigrant workers (rapidly turning to theft, drug sales, and prostitution to make a living), a trashed infrastructure that the "free market" folks refuse to pay for, and an indigenous population who were left behind throughout the whole process.

Not perfect, like I said, but enough for me to believe it couldn't possibly ever work - businesses are always after what's best for them, and unless carefully regulated, they will methodically remove all obstacles to their growth, and you'll just end up with a series of geographic monopolies. It would, in short time I think, revert back to some sort of medeival society, where businesses control individual cities or even whole countries. And yes, that would ultimately be bad for them, but businesses don't look that far into the future. it goes against the basic principals.

(gee, I thought I didn't have any time for that - I'm out)

 

[DVINNY]

when he visted with Jack Abramoff,

Visited Jack who off?

 

[wilheldp_PE]

It sounds like there is a perfect opportunity in DLeg's neck of the woods to buy some land for cheap, develop it into a nice resort, and make big money from tourists. Seriously...it sounds like you have everything to make a very profitable resort town; tropical climate, no shortage of beaches/ocean views, local workforce willing to work for relatively cheap, and an abundance of abandoned (cheap) land. I'm surprised the free market hasn't adjusted to tourism on its own, and something tells me that the governmental corruption is keeping that from happening (i.e. the market isn't free not just because of location).

 

[Chucktown PE]

Dleg, you'll have to remind me where exactly you live. I though I remembered you saying Guam, and I also thought that there were very weak private property rights. In fact, I thought you said that you weren't allowed to own property. If that is the case then 1. Tom Delay is an even bigger dumbass than I originally thought and 2. That was not even close to a free market. One of the hallmarks of a capitalistic free market are strong private property rights.

 

[Dleg]

I'm in the Northern Mariana Islands. I've been Googling to try to find a nice, concise article that touches on the free-market success of our economy (and subsequent collapse), but unfortunately the best I can find right now is from Ms. Magazine, so please excuse the source. I'm surprised no one has taken the opportunity to write up an analysis of what has happened here, in terms of free-market theory, etc. Some good thesis material, for sure.

Here's the DeLay stuff from the Ms. Article:

Among the visitors were DeLay, his wife and daughter, and six of his aides. During his 1998 New Year’s holiday trip, he told Saipan officials, as was later reported in The Dallas Observer, "When one of my closest and dearest friends, Jack Abramoff, your most able representative in Washington, D.C., invited me to the islands, I wanted to see firsthand the free-market success and the progress and reform you have made.” At a New Year’s Eve dinner on Saipan, DeLay lavishly praised the governor—in a moment caught on camera and later shown by ABC’s 20/20—“You are a shining light for what is happening in the Republican Party, and you represent everything that is good about what we’re trying to do in America, in leading the world in the free-market system.”
Two years later, DeLay still saw the islands through rose-colored lenses, as he told The Washington Post: “[The CNMI] is a perfect petri dish of capitalism. …It’s like my Galapagos Island.”

DeLay and his successors were able to keep federal immigration and labor law out until last year, but the garment industry moved on anyway, in response to global market conditions (lifting of quotas for imports from China and other countries, I believe). They left behind a huge mess, ruined infrastructure, and thousands of illegal aliens who refuse to leave. Now the island is so ugly from all the uncontrolled development that occurred during the garment build-up (I am a witness to that), and the crime and prostitution that remains with the unemployed foreigners, that the tourists just aren't interested anymore.

So yes, as I said, this is not a perfect example. But it was a lot closer to an unregulated free market than anything in the mainland US. And my point in bringing this up is just to state my opinion, based on my experience, that a so-called "free market" will be just a corrupted and un-free as any government-controlled scheme, and actually, a lot worse. The biggest flaw, in my opinion, of the free-market / anarcho-capitalism ideas is the assumption that, somehow, human weaknesses won't come into play, or that the "market" will somehow cancel them out. To the contrary, the "market" (if left unregulated or poorly regulated) will allow the corrupt and selfish to run rampant. There's always going to be someone who is bold enough to just keep grabbing more money, more power, etc., and supressing others to get their way. The "good of all" that the economic theory predicts would never be realized.

Wilheld - I hope the above answered your question why tourism hasn't stepped in to fill the void - the cheap workforce is foreign labor willing to do anything for minimum wage - including engineering (watch out - this is the future for the US if they ever adopt a "guest worker" program, which Bush proposed to model after ours.) No private sector employer in his/her right mind would hire anyone for more than minimum wage with all these cheap, skilled workers available to them. The local/US citizenry work almost exclusively for the government, because only government pays wages that will support a reasonable quality of life. The market has not adjusted to promote tourism because the garment industry trashed the island (third-world ugly) and the tourists don't want to come. You could say that the free market just kind of burned through here and left us in ashes. A "petri dish" indeed - one that, I think, tells us a lot of what could happen in the US, if the market was left to run itself unregulated.

Oh- Chucktown - the property rights thing: yes, only "locals" can own land, but outsiders can lease land for up to 55 years. Judging by the number of big hotels (all built prior to the garment explosion), that hasn't been too much of an obstacle, but an obstacle nonetheless, I agree.

 

[Chucktown PE]

PLEASE UNDERSTAND THIS:

What has been going on there is not the free market. Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff wouldn't know the free market if it kicked them both in the nuts. My definition of the free market (and I suppose Willheld's) is when the government protects our lives, liberty, and property. Without knowing the specifics, I can almost certainly say that if those two knuckleheads were involved, there was corruption. As such, the government was not protecting someone's life, liberty, and property, and more than likely rewarding certain companies with special favors in return for hefty campaign contributions, special trips to Northern Mariana islands, etc. My guess is that the government was picking winners and losers in the Norther Marian islands, just like they are picking winners and losers with that pesky little $700 billion.

People who advocate for more government involvement typically concede that, if people are left to their own vices, they will "run rampant." My question is, what is the government made of. The answer to that is more people. So the corollary is, wouldn't government officials "run rampant" in the same style. When the government is simply the arbiter, and is simply enforcing the very simple rules of law, they can't pick winners and losers, and corruption is much less likely. So ask yourself, would you rather trust your future to a beuracrat, who has the potential to be just as corrupt as Tom DeLay, or trust yourself to choose your own destiny provided it does not infringe on anyone else's right to life, liberty, and property.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

My definition of a free market wouldn't include the word government, but you are right, if the government meddles or regulates the market in any way, it is not free. I believe the corruption that you describe now was caused by all kinds of shady dealings that led to the textile plants locating on your island. Those dealings probably led to other industries facing artificial barriers to entry (i.e. the tourism industry couldn't get a foothold because of the deals being offered to textile companies). Then again, this is pure speculation on my part based on your description of the aftermath. If/when I have some free time, I might research the situation for my own amusement.

 

[Dleg]

(in response to Chucktown) Well, that was my whole point - you seem to think that with a minimalist government, we will be somehow immune from human corruption because "the market" is somehow free from it. That's simply never going to happen - as long as humans are involved, they will corrupt any organization, including the "market".

So you ask which I would trust, but you name only government or myself. That's not an honest choice. You're leaving out "business" or "the market" or whichever. As long as anyone is making more money than most other people, or controlling more resources, there will be no such thing as answering only to yourself as an individual. Whoever or whatever has control of the resources will have the power, and will use it. History has not once contradicted this basic principle of human behavior.

So if I had my choice, I'd choose something very simlar to what we have in America today - a carefully regulated free market, and a democratic government. Nothing's perfect, but at least there are checks on the power of both parties in our current system - neither can run out of control, but you should expect occasional see-saws between the rule of the market, and the rule of government: Once in a while the market gets a break, until enough people begin to feel like they're getting the shaft, then regulation and "re-distribution of wealth" gets a turn. It goes back and forth, and that's unavoidable in a situation where every single person has a say in what happens. Hence my belief that you could never have a truly free market unless under a dicatatorship - it would never make it past the polling booth in a democracy, because once people's wages begin to adjust to the market - which for us over-paid Americans would mean an adjsutment downward (in a global market) - the majority woud vote to put restrictions back onto it.

 

[Flyer_PE]

I don't mind the regulation part so much. I think government is needed to set the ground rules (enforce contracts etc.). I don't think the government should be competing directly in the marketplace against private industry. When the government offers something for "free" or at least for less than it costs to produce, they are engaging in a practice that would bankrupt a normal company that cannot accept the losses. Once the private companies are gone since they can't compete, there is no incentive for the government to improve efficiency or service. Any time government puts is hand on the supply/demand scale to favor one group or industry, there's another group that gets screwed. The difference between the favored group and the one getting screwed can usually be found in who has the better lobbying effort in DC.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

The biggest flaw, in my opinion, of the free-market / anarcho-capitalism ideas is the assumption that, somehow, human weaknesses won't come into play, or that the "market" will somehow cancel them out.

I meant to address this point earlier, but forgot. "Power corrupts" sums up my response to this statement. When you put people in government, where they can make decisions that affect anywhere from hundreds to billions of people, not only are they still human (possessing human weaknesses), but now those weaknesses are amplified. The influence of lobbyists in this country, and flat-out bribes in other countries, to influence the decision making of government officials -- decisions which are implemented at the point of a bayonet -- is far worse than any corporate greed/corruption that I have ever seen. When a CEO is found out to be corrupt, he loses everything; his business, his money, his stuff, usually his family, and often his freedom. When a politician is exposed as being corrupt, he usually gets re-elected (see Ted Stevens and Marion Barry).

 

[Chucktown PE]

A couple of other points I have been meaning to discuss here.

I know everyone says that this is “pie in the sky” stuff that I’m talking about but it isn’t. I have seen some write that this “has never existed”. By any objective standard, early 19th century America experienced the greatest increase in standard of living and increase in wealth as has ever been seen in recorded history. Look it up if you doubt. This was done with very little government interference. The state governments were much more powerful than the federal government and the economy flourished. Yes, slavery existed in the southern states and this is an ill which I do not think I will ever understand how it made it into the US. However, look at the northern states as well.

Also, we are obviously participants in a global economy and what I propose doesn’t work very well if some nations are free and others are not. With central banks, fiat money, currency manipulation, control of the money supply, tariffs, trade restrictions, burdensome regulations, discrepancies in patent laws, bribery, corruption, etc. (all tools by which governments, not the free market, manipulate the economy and their citizens), we do not have anything close to a free market as Adam Smith defined it. Again, I go back to the fact that bureaucrats are people. The thing that makes a bureaucrat more dangerous than the free market is the fact that they can force their citizenry to do essentially anything at the point of a gun. At least with the free market, we have choices and coercion is not possible.

 

[benbo]

A couple of other points I have been meaning to discuss here.
I know everyone says that this is “pie in the sky” stuff that I’m talking about but it isn’t. I have seen some write that this “has never existed”.

Okay, I don't want to get involved deeply in this, but since my quote was mentioned I need to repeat what I was talking about so people don't mischaracterize it. There is a difference between a balance of power shifted between a weak federal government and stronger state governments, and a system with absolutely NO government. That is what I said never existed. Obviously, in the early 19th century I don't think anybody would claim we had NO government, or even NO federal government. This federalism / anti-federalism argument has been going on since the country was founded. I think that was in large part what the Civil War was about (in addition to slavery) and the federal government grew more powerful after the Civil War, and all those amendments after the Civil War that were an outgrowth of the war. I beleive it grew more powerful with the New Deal. I know all this.

And again, I know nobody is arguing explicitly for no government, and I am not even saying a completely government-less system would work or wouldn't work. I have no way of knowing. But with the results of the last election it doesn't look like we're going to find out any time soon.

 

[Dleg]

Chucktown, I think you and I are converging on the same conclusions, it's just that we're on slightly different sides of the midpoint in the government vs. free market balance. I agree with benbo, the US was a very different place in the early 19th century, and the civil war, and countless other things have changed it since then (and continue to change it). But bottom line is we are still Americans, and operating under the same basic system, and it seems to be working pretty well so far.

Adam Smith, as I recall, always pointed out the necessity of government regulation on his free market.

Wilheld, unless you are arguing that some government is sitll required in an anarcho-capitalist scheme, at least in the form of a police force/army, then I think you are still deluding yourself that CEO corruption would not be as harmful as government corruption. Please tell me honestly - do you really believe that , in the absence of a strong, independent police force - corporations would not arm themselves and become their own security forces, and eventually abuse the power of those arms to subjugate their customers and wipe out their competitors? Of course they would, because if they didn't, the organized criminal class (which will always exist) would do it to them. And the same goes for a privately fundede security/police force - it would be just as subject to corruption and abuse of power.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

Wilheld, unless you are arguing that some government is sitll required in an anarcho-capitalist scheme, at least in the form of a police force/army, then I think you are still deluding yourself that CEO corruption would not be as harmful as government corruption. Please tell me honestly - do you really believe that , in the absence of a strong, independent police force - corporations would not arm themselves and become their own security forces, and eventually abuse the power of those arms to subjugate their customers and wipe out their competitors? Of course they would, because if they didn't, the organized criminal class (which will always exist) would do it to them. And the same goes for a privately fundede security/police force - it would be just as subject to corruption and abuse of power.

A strong independent police force does not exist in today's society, but yes, I do agree that one would be required to enforce basic laws (like murder, assault, etc.). I really don't want to get into the whole Dispute Resolution Organization discussion on here because it would consume more time than I am willing to devote to it. But you can independently research DROs if you are interested in how an anarcho-capitalist society could exist.

 

[Wolverine]

Redirecting the thread:

News Story:

[SIZE=12pt]Obama Urges Bush to Help Auto Industry[/SIZE]

Administration aides say President Bush is unhappy that his discussion Monday with President-elect Barack Obama was leaked and cast as a horse trade between signing a second economic stimulus bill in exchange for congressional passage of the Colombia Free Trade deal.

Under the Obama Administration (or the O-ministration as it shall now be called), get ready for a lot more leaks, er... I mean "transparency in government."

One criticism that's been made about Bush is the lack of transparency, but I will contend that opaqueness(?) is a good thing. How many times has Jimmy Carter revealed classified information that could help our enemies? The world does not need to know how many nukes Israel has, or why our missiles are so accurate, or where we keep captured bad guys.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

Redirecting the thread:
News Story:

[SIZE=12pt]Obama Urges Bush to Help Auto Industry[/SIZE]

Administration aides say President Bush is unhappy that his discussion Monday with President-elect Barack Obama was leaked and cast as a horse trade between signing a second economic stimulus bill in exchange for congressional passage of the Colombia Free Trade deal.

Under the Obama Administration (or the O-ministration as it shall now be called), get ready for a lot more leaks, er... I mean "transparency in government."

One criticism that's been made about Bush is the lack of transparency, but I will contend that opaqueness(?) is a good thing. How many times has Jimmy Carter revealed classified information that could help our enemies? The world does not need to know how many nukes Israel has, or why our missiles are so accurate, or where we keep captured bad guys.

This whole "bailout" of the auto industry pisses me off to no end. There are Japanese car-makers that are making cars in factories IN THIS COUNTRY, that aren't having the same profitability issues as the Big 3. Why should my tax dollars go to bail out a company that has obviously inefficient and ineffective leadership and business practices? I've heard that the government will take ownership stakes in the companies as collateral for the bailout "loans". I have two problems with this: 1) I don't want stock in these failing companies, and 2) If they are having trouble staying afloat, and have needed bailouts in the past, what makes the government think that these bailouts are going to have any positive effect whatsoever?

 

[Enginnneeer]

Whats it all about calling it the O-ministration?

 

[Road Guy]

the japanese car countries probably dont have unions?

if we bailout the auto industry, why not Circuit City?