random off-topic thread

[Roxpert]

The better term for what TIR is describing is "privatization", not deregulation. The latter term is generally used to describe removal of onerous rules that affect the way industries can operate, often leading to rapid consolidation within that industry. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is a great example of dereg., in this case of the telecom industry. This led to heightened competition, excess capacity, numerous bankruptcies in the early part of this decade, and ultimately consolidation.

Media deregulation has led to fewer voices, and larger conglomerates. Radio dereg. in the early 90's allowed single companies to own far more stations, which led to Clear Channel's dominance of the airwaves around the country. The removal of the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1986 led to more partisan media (such as Fox News) since media outlets haven't had to give "equal time" to opposing viewpoints ever since that piece of deregulation.

There obviously haven't been any examples of the opposite of privatization since no industries have been nationalized going back to the start of the Reagan years. The real question in this regard is as follows: Are there any common vital needs not being addressed or filled by private industry that could be better suited to government control and/or government ownership? This is where the heathcare debate lies right now. The soaring costs of healthcare in the U.S., combined with inadequate coverages or total lack of coverage for too many Americans has led to the desire to nationalize this industry or, in the case of "Hillarycare 2.0", develop a "public/private" partnership that would guarantee coverage to all citizens while providing competition via a government-led alternative.

Without turning this into a debate on healthcare, I think it's a classic case of a common vital need of all citizens that is not being satisfactorily addressed by the private sector at this time. My personal view is that it is virtually obscene that "for-profit" medical and health care institutions exist in this country. Why should any entities be profiting off of the suffering and health problems of anyone? Really, I just think it's unethical that profits are made off of illness and injuries in the U.S., unlike any other westernized country that claims to value the lives of every individual in its society. Make healthcare in the U.S. non-profit (if not run by the government), and we'd be a more moral society. Or at least control those profits to keep them from being excessive. People should never be denied coverage or unable to gain access to a needed surgery in order to improve the profits of an HMO. As I said, it's just obscene.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by indianadrew

very good article JC, but you know that the clintons dont think they have to abide by the same rules as everybody else.

And this would be similar to Bush. Insert Bush wherever you see Clinton.

Under Bush the power of the executive has greatly increased. What do we have now? FISA? Warantless wiretaps. What is so hard about getting a warrrant? I never could figure that out, and so few of them were ever denied.

And how is Bush paying for HIS war? By borrowing money from Communist China and Saudi Arabia. $10B a month, with no end in sight. Is that the new RULE, Drew? Start a war by unitary executive RULE. Don't ask Congress. And then in the 6th year of the war, continue to fund it by something called "the emergency supplemental". Don't have to balance the budget that way. Just keep borrowing from Communist China. Why aren't Conservatives throughout the country OUTRAGED?!

[Newman]

Well stated last paragraph on healthcare in the USA, Roxpert. Which presidential candidate best supports what you said? Kucinich is the answer. And he has no shot to get elected.

But what are the issues that drive this election? I think I saw a CNN corporate graph, during This Week at War (repeated at 11am this morning) that in Michigan the issues were this:
1. Terrorism
2. The War in Iraq
3. It's the economy stupid (highest unemployment in the USA)
4. healthcare
5. illegal immigration

For ME the war in Iraq is the biggest issue. My son is over there with the Marines, "training the Iraqi police" in this the 6th year of Bush's war. CNN's Tom Foreman, who hosts This Week at War, says we've practically won the war. What government/corporate spin. Sure violence is down in Anbar province, where the Marines are. But anyone who studies the war knows it will take a political solution, not a military one, to end this civil war.

Bush is now allowing former Ba'ath party members to hold office in Iraq. So what was the war for? To get rid of Saddam and the Ba'ath Party? And now they're baaaaaaaaaaaccccccccckkkkkkkkkkkk?

What are Bush and Maliki doing to bring about a political settlement? Isn't violence down because Bush is erecting concrete walls, 30' high, in Baghdad, to keep Sunni's away from Shia? Is this success? Why not just divide the country into 3 like Biden said years ago and be done with it?

[Newman]

Spin. Did you all see the video of the recent confrontation between the Iranian Navy (5 speedboats) and the United States warships in the Gulf of Hormuz, recently? And Bush wanted to go to war over this? And this is a great threat to the United States?

Were we minutes away from a Cuban Missile Crisis type exchange that only luck helped us survive?

Fear. Ever since 9/11 the fear card has been constantly played by the Republicans and the corporate media, both of whom know that it sells. We are in the 6th year of our war with Iraq, a country that we waltzed thru in days, back in 2003, a country with no navy or air force, and certainly NOT a threat to us.

And now all this excitement about 5 speedboats? Dubbed heavily accented English threats from some Iranian speedboat captain? It's almost comical. It's like a bad SNL skit. "If you don't move your heavily fortified and armored American battleship we will destroy you with our speedboats!"

Let's have WWIII over this!

In history you have that phrase "do times make the men or men make the times?" Well, we are stuck in this time with George W. Bush as president. If the Repubs have their way we will get Grandpa McCain or Rotten Rudy next. God help us all.

[indianadrew]

Originally Posted by Newman

And this would be similar to Bush. Insert Bush wherever you see Clinton.

Under Bush the power of the executive has greatly increased. What do we have now? FISA? Warantless wiretaps. What is so hard about getting a warrrant? I never could figure that out, and so few of them were ever denied.

And how is Bush paying for HIS war? By borrowing money from Communist China and Saudi Arabia. $10B a month, with no end in sight. Is that the new RULE, Drew? Start a war by unitary executive RULE. Don't ask Congress. And then in the 6th year of the war, continue to fund it by something called "the emergency supplemental". Don't have to balance the budget that way. Just keep borrowing from Communist China. Why aren't Conservatives throughout the country OUTRAGED?!

neman....when have i ever said that i was conservative? i think the war has gone horribly bad, and i, like alot of others, thought that mission acomplished meant we were close to being done.

i do not think the war is a good idea.

as far as my comment about the clintons not being accountable, i was talking about bill clinton lying to congress and the american people about that intern he did with his cigar. other than that i think that he was a pretty good president. i dont think that i have ever said i was conservative.

newman i have noticed that you can be quite reactionary at times. i think(hope) that obama will get the nomination. if he does not get it and it goes to hillary, i think the republican will win. i think the country has seen enough "political dynasties" such as the bush family and the clintons. my vote could go eithor way newman. my guess is that you will be voting for whatever democrat that runs.

[Newman]

Your last sentence is true, Drew.

Sorry about calling you a Conservative, if I did, but glancing at the blue above I don't see that. I do assume that most Repubs are conservatives. You don't hear the phrase "liberal Republican" anymore or even moderate Repub. Although if you check in on Rush during this time you will find that he breaks the Ronald Reagan rule about attacking other REpubs. Limbaugh can't stand Mike Huckabee. He's not fond of Grandpa McCain either.

Again, all the Repubs except for Ron Paul want to continue this perpetual war in Iraq indefinitely. They all support Bush on this.

Where's the threat? $10B/month in Iraq for what? 400 al qaeda? Does that make sense to anyone? There were NO al qaeda there before Bush started HIS war.

So why are we still there? To justify HIS war to begin with?

151,000 Iraqi civilians died in this war, in the first 3 years of it, according to NPR. We are now in the 6th year of the war. do you think THEY think the war was worth it, or that they are better off without Saddam?

[TheIncredibleRox]

The better term for what TIR is describing is "privatization", not deregulation.

No, I was correct. The airlines and rail companies were already private, but were dictated by the government (ie where you can fly, when, how much you can charge, who can enter the market). Removing that is a deregulation.

Privatization refers to a transfer in ownership from the government to the free market. Thats why Bush's Social Security plan, for example, was referred to as 'privitization' (because now individuals, not the government, would own at least a portion of their Social Security savings).

This led to heightened competition, excess capacity, numerous bankruptcies in the early part of this decade, and ultimately consolidation

Of course it did; bankruptcies are a hallmark of a successful, free economy. Inefficient or inept models are replaced by better ones, resulting in lower prices and new/better products/services for the consumer. And the best grow larger by replacing less efficient models, thus increasing their market share and the superior goods/services/prices they provide to the consumer.

There obviously haven't been any examples of the opposite of privatization since no industries have been nationalized going back to the start of the Reagan years.

Don't limit it in this country; feel free to look around the globe.

The lesson is obvious, and any sophmore economics major can tell you; the free market is a far more efficient purveyor of any enterprise than any national government.

The late Milton Friedman, perhaps the most distinguished economist of all known history (and upon who's work modern civilization bases 90% of it's economic textbooks) is the most ardent supporter of this theory, and did wonders to bring it to public consciousness. It's really not a terribly arguable matter. Government ownership/dictation = inefficiency.

That doesn't mean all government spending is wrong (indeed there are times where degrees of inefficiency must be tolerated), simply that the government is horribly misused by owning or overly regulating large industry.

People should never be denied coverage or unable to gain access to a needed surgery in order to improve the profits of an HMO.

Ahh, you touch on indeed the best argument AGAINST government health care.

You know why we have co-pay? (I'm not saying modern insurance policies are the best, just stick with me). Because it provides an economic disincentive to go to the doctor. If co-pay did not exist, and healthcare was totally free, you'd see a professional everytime you had a palpitation, headache, rash of uncertain origin, etc. This is what economists refer to as the "free rider" effect, and it takes place to a high degree in the UK (and other nationalized health care nations), which is why waits are so long to get an appointment or receive care. (The free rider effect is why public toilets always suck--no one (spare the owner) has a vested interest--economic or otherwise--in keeping that toilet tidy, so it gets abused).

This free rider effect, coupled with the fact that government-run institutions fail to 'compete' as private enterprise does, bloats the "natural" cost of health care services. As such, the government seeks other areas to cut back.

There are many ways that they do this. But one of the most ugly, and immediately tangential to your post, Roxpert, is this; patients of state-owned health care exist on a cost-benefit equation.

This is why countries like the UK have far lower cancer survival rates (and survival spans) than the US.

1. If my 86 year-old grandmother were diagnosed with a severe bone cancer today (heaven forbid), she would not be treated in the UK, though she would be here. Basically, the state realizes that the cost of treatment would be high, and the most likely outcome would be that the treatment would only briefly extend her life. This is well documented fact, not hyperbole.

2. If the cancer were deemed worthwhile to treat, she would be less likely to survive due to dramatically longer waits to receive care in those nations.

[TheIncredibleRox]

Two quick plugs, unrelated to anything;

I've always felt that a failure of classical liberalism (not the modern political defintion, but rather the social use referring to free societies) is that there exists a nexus at which a society almost becomes so free that it engulfs itself in fascism.

I know that sounds counterintuitive; let me state it another way. An overarching desire to be politically correct and inclusive must at some point adopt fascism to enforce that. That's what's happening right now within the borders of our neighbor to the north, and these videos of the trial of a very articulate, very spot-on, very special man named Ezra Levant show a prime example of that going on and the most wonderful response to it.

This is not a right or left thing; it is something we all must be conscious of and willing to combat.

The first three videos he posted can be found here (each about 5-6 mins):

lgf: Outrage of the Week: Canadian Publisher Persecuted for Mindcrime

The first and especially the second are my favorite.

The final two videos are here:

lgf: Another Canadian Mindcrime Video

lgf: Ezra Levant's Blog

That final one regards the limits of free speach, and is another gem.

Second, I've been re-reading a wonderful book, "The Case for Democracy" by Natan Sharansky. Critics and general approvers of our current foreign policy alike can appreciate this great work by a great civil rights icon of our time.

Published near the onset of the Iraq war, it is literally jaw-dropping how Sharansky is the Nostradomus of 2000's foreign policy. His theories predicted the successes as well as failures (democracy doesn't begin with elections) of Iraq, the admonishment that even somewhat stable, like-minded dictatorship nations (he specifically mentions Pakistan) are more of a threat to our security than even the most fervently anti-American free societies, the continuing meddling of Saudi and Iran (and how and why they are doing what they're doing), and much more. I highly suggest a pickup.

[indianadrew]

Originally Posted by Newman

all the Repubs except for Ron Paul want to continue this perpetual war in Iraq indefinitely.

ron paul is the only repub i would vote for, but he does not stand a chance at getting the nomination. what would happen if he stays in the republican race until the very end, then runs as a libertarian?

would that hurt the repubs or the demos more?

[Newman]

It would take votes away from the Repub candidate. I heard it speculated on Air America radio tonite that The Repubs could have 5 different winners in the first 5 different states. Apparently they are not even going to try to run in Nevada, for some odd reason. Ron Paul should win that state. The Huckster won Iowa. Grandpa McCain took NH. Mitt might take Michigan. Rudy could take Florida. It's wide open on that side.

Incredible, do you feel more threatened by Muslims or Communists, I wonder?

Also if this war is a perpetual war or a 50 year war, and the Republican plan is to pay for the war by borrowing money from Communist China (no new taxes) how long will it take for Bush's war of choice to bankrupt America?

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by TheIncredibleRox

No, I was correct. The airlines and rail companies were already private, but were dictated by the government (ie where you can fly, when, how much you can charge, who can enter the market). Removing that is a deregulation.

In those examples, you are describing deregulation.

The lesson is obvious, and any sophmore economics major can tell you; the free market is a far more efficient purveyor of any enterprise than any national government.

Then how about state or local government? BTW, we liberals think the free market is a fine system, and even liberals believe in capitalism, believe it or not. We are not socialists (at least most of us aren't).

What we do believe, however, is a more expansive vision of the vital functions of "national" government. The "feds" are best suited to....

1. regulate capital markets and the financial system to prevent fraud and abuse, and protect investors. Hence, the SEC.

2. protect consumers via laws that regulate product safety and fraudulent or misleading advertising and marketing practices. Hence, the FTC, FDA, etc.

3. protect the environment from pollutors by regulating things like auto emissions, thus improving our collective health. Hence, the EPA.

4. protect labor from unfair management practices and poor working conditions, while providing labor laws to enable collective bargaining and federal mediation where needed. Hence, the NLRB.

5. protect the traveling public from unsafe conditions. Hence, the FAA, NTSB, etc.

6. regulate the use and allocation of the electromagnetic spectrum while setting and adjusting rules affecting the communications and media industries. Hence, the FCC.

and a whole host of other functions. You see, TIR, the federal government has made modern society AND the free market far more trustworthy and efficient through various regulations and protections that enhance this trust. In essense, ONLY federal government can create the "ecosystem" in which capitalism can flourish. It does so by creating the "rules of the game" that allow workers, investors, and consumers to go forward with more confidence than would exist under laissez-fair rule. Think of the federal government as a sort of political "operating system", not unlike Microsoft Windows for computers!

Extreme conservatives and libertarians don't really get this. Instead, they believe that government that governs least, governs best. As long as we have a strong military and spend gazillions on national defense, that is.

I know all about Milton Frideman and monetary theory. His theories are fine, but do not address the types of needs as I've addressed above.

[TheIncredibleRox]

Roxpert, you didn't respond to anything I was speaking of.

I don't disagree with regulatory bodies that provide cheques on industry; capitalism needs that (to a small degree), and I said that in my post.

What I disagree with is the Federal government either aboslutely dictating or owning an industry, which is what private health care would be.

Incredible, do you feel more threatened by Muslims or Communists, I wonder?

Also if this war is a perpetual war or a 50 year war, and the Republican plan is to pay for the war by borrowing money from Communist China (no new taxes) how long will it take for Bush's war of choice to bankrupt America?

Way to completely throw out the subject, Newman, while slipping in a nice little ad hominem at me. Really demonstrates the lack of any substantive rebuttal.

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by TheIncredibleRox

What I disagree with is the Federal government either aboslutely dictating or owning an industry, which is what private health care would be.

No, private health care would be what we have now. I think you mean "socialized health care".

In actual fact, Hillary is not proposing that government own this industry. Read her plan here....

HillaryClinton.com - American's Health Choices Plan

Now, her plan may not be the best plan out there, but it's really a "public/private partnership". There would still be profit-making by private healthcare insurers, HMOs, hospitals, and by pharmaceutical companies. The government would provide competition to reduce the costs to the health care consumer. At least, that's how I interpret her proposal.

Others may go further than Hillary and propose total government-owned universal health care.

This is a very complex problem, and thus has no easy solutions. The main thing, though, is that whatever solution is chosen addresses the vital needs of every citizen. The private, "for-profit" healthcare industry is good for me and other people who have economic advantages, but is not filling the needs of a great many Americans. This should change to bring us up to par with what a nation of our wealth should provide its citizens. In the end, if that's accomplished, we will have a healthier and more productive society that will generate economic output in excess of the incremental costs, hopefully. Even if not, it's the right thing to do in a modern civil society.

BTW, why do you fear more federal control of health care, as if it can't be done? The VA and Medicare prove it CAN be done, and remarkably efficiently as well. Yes, costs are out of control, but they are in the private sector heathcare industry, one of the most inefficient and yet grossly profitable industries in America. (Gross as in obscene profits. Check out health care stocks to see.)

[Newman]

Originally Posted by TheIncredibleRox

Roxpert, you didn't respond to anything I was speaking of.

I don't disagree with regulatory bodies that provide cheques on industry; capitalism needs that (to a small degree), and I said that in my post.

What I disagree with is the Federal government either aboslutely dictating or owning an industry, which is what private health care would be.




Way to completely throw out the subject, Newman, while slipping in a nice little ad hominem at me. Really demonstrates the lack of any substantive rebuttal.

Where did I throw out a subject? What's the subject? The Iraq War? You belong to that small club that supports it, Incredible, and I'm trying to figure out why.

How about answering some of my questions for a change?

Q: if you are so gungho about this war why don't you join the military and go kill some Muslims and make our world safer here in America <sarcasm>?

Q: You obviously buy the Bush program, which is FEAR. How many al qaeda do you think there are in Iraq now? How many coalition, errrrrrrr American forces are there now? You talk about us winning over there. What is winning? When we kill one terrorist, do we make two more?

Q: Do you view it as a civil war over there?

Q: Did you ever study the Vietnam War in school? From your studies do you think that was a good war, a war we should have won? Do you see the similarities between this war and that one? Which goes back to my original question. Do you think the Muslims are trying to take over the world, like the Commies were, back in the domino theory days of Vietnam? Do you fear the Iranian Navy and their 5 speedboats?

If you have a specific question for me, ask it, and I'll answer it. How 'bout answering mine.

[TheIncredibleRox]

Newman, I've answered all of those for you; what my beliefs are regarding Iraq, my right to choose whether or not to serve at this time, and we've also had Vietnam discussions.

Quit attacking me personally; it makes you look desperate and weak.