tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post7668445056904868671..comments2024-03-25T02:16:16.247-07:00Comments on Christ the Tao: RR Returns.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-55086544865888576942012-08-23T09:28:29.764-07:002012-08-23T09:28:29.764-07:00While we're looking at realities your media is...While we're looking at realities your media is probably not informing you about, take a look at what Obamacare is going to do to the poor: <br /><br />https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/309260/how-obamacare-harms-poor?pg=1David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-15119079781794895702012-08-22T08:35:38.607-07:002012-08-22T08:35:38.607-07:00Inland California is a Republican stronghold, no? ...Inland California is a Republican stronghold, no? :-)Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-73437258427452789592012-08-21T13:59:12.937-07:002012-08-21T13:59:12.937-07:00Just in: here's a darker view of California, a...Just in: here's a darker view of California, and what it is becoming: <br /><br />http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/314102/there-no-california-victor-davis-hanson<br /><br />Hanson frequently writes about his own experience living in inland California: this is not stuff he's making up. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-23640466655942592812012-08-20T09:13:51.907-07:002012-08-20T09:13:51.907-07:00Brian: You need to practice up on this old skeptic...Brian: You need to practice up on this old skeptical cliche, "correlation does not prove causation." There IS a correlation, I grant you. But the facts I mention above, undermine your naive attempt to prove causation. <br /><br />Amazon started here in Seattle because there were lots of software engineers here - because of Microsoft, no doubt. And why did Microsoft start here? Because Paul Allen and Bill Gates went to a preppy school in North Seattle together, as did the McCaw brothers, founders of McCaw cellular, who also contributed hi-tech synergy. <br /><br />Where exactly in this story do hippies and tatoo artists come in? There may be a relationship, but not likely one of direct causation. You need to pull back, and try to explain the relationship in causative terms. I know, for example, that Washington State LOST a bunch of Boeing jobs to South Carolina because of our union militancy. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-57419973224922747752012-08-20T08:58:32.342-07:002012-08-20T08:58:32.342-07:00David, as far as I can see the Bay Area of Califor...David, as far as I can see the Bay Area of California (including Silicon Valley) basically consists of the 6th through 18th Californian congressional districts and EVERY SINGLE ONE of these districts is held by a Democrat, including the 14th and 15th, which is where Silicon Valley is – according to Wikipedia the 14th and the 15th score a massive 88% and 94% on something called the “Progressive Test”, and a miniscule 17% and 13% on the “Conservative Test”.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California%27s_congressional_districts<br /><br />And a quick internet search reveals that Austin, Texas, where Apple have opened an operation along with many other innovative companies, is notoriously liberal - “Austin is known as an enclave of liberal politics in a generally conservative state” and recognised as “the most liberal, liveable, and fun city in Texas, or anywhere” and “a haven for hippies, tattoo artists, fratties, scenesters, coffee shops, and people who aren't sure what they're going to do with their life.” <br />Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-74316213281187412252012-08-20T08:37:56.638-07:002012-08-20T08:37:56.638-07:00Actually, the most liberal parts of the Bay Area a...Actually, the most liberal parts of the Bay Area are San Francisco, which is NOT synonymous with Silicon Valley OR innovation, and Oakland / Berkley. San Francisco coasts on its natural beauty and tourist attractions. As recently as 1980, three years after Apple Computer was founded, the Bay Area voted for Ronald Reagan. <br /><br />I don't think you're totally wrong, but you're being simplistic. The real cause and effect relations are more subtle. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-6344359261079591302012-08-20T08:23:26.148-07:002012-08-20T08:23:26.148-07:00The absolute epicentre of the Information Revoluti...The absolute epicentre of the Information Revolution (the most important technological revolution of recent times) is Silicon Valley, which is the most liberal place in the US, and possibly the world. Maybe the centre of innovation will move to Austin, Texas or some other place in the future, but if so I bet Austin will then simultaneously become very liberal – a bastion of liberalism - if it is not already so. Creativity and liberalism go together. Right-wing conservatism and backwardness go together.Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-11452771783072693272012-08-20T08:06:59.247-07:002012-08-20T08:06:59.247-07:00Brian: As I've pointed out to you before, the ...Brian: As I've pointed out to you before, the innovation came before the liberalism. California once elected Ronald Reagan as governor -- make that twice. Boeing began in WA state back when we were still electing Republicans (I used to live on Bill Boeing's old property -- the son, at least, seemed pretty conservative in lifestyle, whatever his politics were), and the state wasn't even that liberal when Microsoft got started. California is now bankrupt, thanks to its big government politics, and millions of refugees have fled to nearby states, even though it is one of the most beautiful places in the world, with so many advantages: <br /><br />http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/293412/texas-vs-california-chuck-devore<br /><br />Is that weird or what? People moving from California to that over-heated, flat, dust-pan of a red state, Texas! <br /><br />There's a difference between places liberals like, and places their policies create. Even Holland, once, was a capitalist superpower, and that's how it rose in the world. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-80685031036839404192012-08-20T07:51:43.534-07:002012-08-20T07:51:43.534-07:00Hi C. Andiron,
Regarding some of your other point...Hi C. Andiron,<br /><br />Regarding some of your other points: After WWII the non-American industrial centres of the world had destroyed themselves and the US had about 50% of the world’s GDP, so the absolute amount of government investment in R&D by the US dwarfed that of other countries, including the Soviet Union, which had suffered unimaginable destruction during WWII. Nearly all the areas where the US has a technological lead today stem ultimately from superior investment and funding in R&D by the US government in the decades after WWII. Even so, the Soviet Union, given the situation it started in, made considerable progress in purely technological terms (space programs etc.) and industrialisation when compared to other countries that started in similar positions (such as Brazil, for example, or much of Latin America) and whose governments did not invest in technology and industrialisation. None of this is a justification of the barbaric Soviet regime – but if your intention is to use the Soviet Union as an example of how government funded R&D does not lead to technological progress, I don’t think that is actually the case. To be sure most of the most important advances in the decades after WWII happened in the US, but that was largely because the US had 50% of the world’s GDP, and the amount its government invested was much more than anywhere else – it’s not like the US and the Soviet Union started off in more-or-less the same place – as I say, a more meaningful comparison would be the Soviet Union and Latin America.<br /><br />You seem to agree that many if not most recent technological advances come from government (i.e. taxpayer) funded investment and R&D. Your point is that much of that investment and R&D has been military related. On this basis are you against government investment in R&D, or do you support it, but only if it is military-related? My own view would be that the government should invest very large amounts in R&D and technology, and that, as much as possible, this should be related to civilian ends rather than military ends, with as much democratic accountability as possible. <br /><br />There isn’t actually any inconsistency or hypocrisy here. For example, I am not sure where I have advocated violating the US constitution. Maybe you can point out where I advocated violating the US constitution?<br />Nor am I in favour of chopping off everyone’s arms when they are children, since the disadvantages would outweigh the advantages.<br />Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-21589449543667059202012-08-20T07:49:10.789-07:002012-08-20T07:49:10.789-07:00Hi C. Andiron,
You don’t particularly like libera...Hi C. Andiron,<br /><br />You don’t particularly like liberals. Well, I would ask you this: why are the places in the US that are the most innovative in terms of technology (and everything else) all bastions of liberalism (e.g. coastal California, Massachusetts, Washington State, the great universities, the great cities and so on)? These are all the places in the US that vote Democrat and where liberals dominate completely, whereas the right-wing, anti-liberal places that vote for Ayn Rand style Republicanism do not nearly match the liberal areas in terms of innovation or technological creativity. Why do you think that is?<br /><br />The actual choice we face in the West is between Social Democracy (welfare states, high taxes, high levels of government spending and investment, in democracies where human rights are protected) and Ayn Rand style right-wing economics (little or no welfare, low taxes, little or no government investment in R&D) – the latter leads to greater inequality, as well as to less technological innovation and progress. Social Democracy helps individuals because it leads to stronger and better communities in more stable societies with, on average, less crime, less violence, less imprisonment, more social mobility, better physical health, less drug abuse, less obesity, less teenage pregnancy and less worker exploitation. All of this helps individuals, and gives them more concrete freedom. If you want concrete examples of how this is done, I would offer the example of the most advanced contemporary social democracies of the West.<br />Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-6670226927161686282012-08-17T10:35:35.105-07:002012-08-17T10:35:35.105-07:00Often when I read liberal comments, on HuffPo arti...Often when I read liberal comments, on HuffPo articles, etc. I get the impression they are not really helping individuals, but that they regard individuals as widgets, which they want to re-arrange into patterns that are demographically, aesthetically appealing to them. If anyone gets steamrolled unfairly in the process, who cares? As long as the overall pattern is appealing, that is all that matters. Any sort of deontological ethics is out of the question. Liberalism seems so Machiavellian: your idea of utopia will justify the means of stepping on individuals, regardless of the ethics of doing so. There are various rationalizations for doing this, I'm sure, but they remain rationalizations.<br /><br />I sometimes wonder if the ethical commitments of liberals and conservatives are so different that it might be a waste of time having discussions like this.<br /><br />As a last ditch at common ground at what I'm trying to say, let me give this analogy:<br /><br />You might eliminate all cases of assault and battery and traffic deaths by mandating that at birth, all humans have their arms chopped off.<br /><br />I as a conservative might say "That's too high a price to pay. you can't punish us all for the hypothetical actions of a few. There are proper ways for dealing with assault and driving. They might not be perfect, but we should stick to those".<br /><br />The liberal can always use compassion as a bludgeon against that. He can say. "You heartless person! You are condemning thousands to death because you refuse to allow this measure that amputates the arms of everyone! Don't you care that countless people will be beaten, shot and run over because of your callous desire to play volleyball!"<br /><br />I just humbly ask you liberals if you are possibly falling into this trap. This is what worries me. Of course it's a caricature. But what criteria do you have to set limits to make sure you are *NOT* falling into this trap.<br /><br />Can you guys even understand why this would worry me, given the course of 20th century left wing regimes? Don't you think you at least owe people an explanation of *HOW* you are doing things different and guarantees that you are not just mindlessly slipping into the same old same old? Geeze...C. Andironhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04850876481256430215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-9285690284626214762012-08-17T10:14:29.509-07:002012-08-17T10:14:29.509-07:00hi Brian. I've found a few inconsistencies in ...hi Brian. I've found a few inconsistencies in what you say above. You seem to be against increased military spending, yet you cite a lot of technological advances, most of which occurred during the Cold War, and you regard these very favorably. <br /><br />So, do you think defense spending is a good thing or a bad thing? <br /><br />You also seem to imply by this that government is the driver of technological advances.<br /><br />But if this is the case, why didn't the Soviet Union make any of the discoveries you list? Isn't that the ideal you are striving for? Where government can allocate as many resources as it wants towards whatever it wants, including technology.<br /><br />You bring this up in a context in order to imply that the private sector owes government.<br /><br />Yet you have no desire to quantify this or to apply this in a uniform way. Ie. if you were truly interested in paying back people for what they invested (as you imply when you say that the taxpayers invested in what private corporations profited from), you'd want to perhaps redistribute much of Bill Gates' and Apple Computers' wealth to Alan Kay, since he invented the GUI at PARC. But you don't seem to be interested in the ethics of this as you claim to. Are you just interested in inventing a blanket excuse to soak companies for whatever amount you want, by using government investment in technology as an excuse? You praise wikipedia and the inventor of the internet for just "giving away" their technology without profit, and then turn around and try to say that corporations are bound to be enslaved to government, because they may have benefited by some of it's research. There is no rigorous attempt to determine how such penalties are to be assessed (as in a copyright infringement case). You just seem to be using this as a blanket excuse. Or perhaps you can clarify what you are trying to say by bringing up this issue. I'm open to correction. But I think that in a number of areas you seem to be hypocritical and perhaps you should drop the justifications and just claim that perhaps you believe that individuals living under the government have no rights, and that the government can justify depriving people of whatever it feels like (life, liberty, property) in the name of the greater good. <br /><br />You may start out with noble ideals, but like most liberals, you end up gravitating towards Machiavellian shortcuts that have failed in the past. That never achieve their stated goals.<br /><br />I would hope that at this point that the sincere liberal who really wants to help people might be looking towards alternative means to solving these, instead of behaving as if they never read 1984 or heard of Josef Stalin's 5 year plans. But like lemmings, they seem to gravitate towards the simple minded solution, as always.<br /><br />We are not living in the 19th century England, and leftists should stop acting as if we were still living in that milieu. There are more degrees of freedom now, and perhaps they should think out of the box in order to implement a solution that doesn't involve the Federal government violating the Constitution and making slaves of us all. C. Andironhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04850876481256430215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-12178875438924485272012-08-16T11:02:51.553-07:002012-08-16T11:02:51.553-07:00Rudy: Can't say I blame you. Don't worry,...Rudy: Can't say I blame you. Don't worry, I won't post on politics, very often. <br /><br />Let me just point out one important fact you are overlooking, though. Federal revenue in 1950, when Eisenhower was in office, was just 14.4% of GDP. Now of course, by Brian's logic, nothing of consequence was accomplished during the 1950s, America being a wild and uncivilized place. But I do seem to remember a Cold War, and something about Interstate highways. We are now managing to do much, much less, with much, much more. And that is a sin against our children, who will have to pay for it. Money does not, whatever Brian might think, grow on trees, unless you're a lumberjack. Isn't that a valid moral issue? <br /><br />And higher official tax rates generally does not mean more tax revenue: <br /><br />"All this nostalgia about the good old days of 70% tax rates makes it sound as though only the highest incomes would face higher tax rates. In reality, there were a dozen tax rates between 48% and 70% during the 1970s. Moreover—and this is what Mr. Reich and his friends always fail to mention—the individual income tax actually brought in less revenue when the highest tax rate was 70% to 91% than it did when the highest tax rate was 28%.<br /> <br />"When the highest tax rate ranged from 91% to 92% (1951-63), even the lowest rate was quite high—20% or 22%. As the nearby chart shows, however, those super-high tax rates at all income levels brought in revenue of only 7.7% of GDP, according to U.S. budget historical data.<br /> <br />"President John F. Kennedy's across-the-board tax cuts reduced the lowest and highest tax rates to 14% and 70% respectively after 1964, yet revenues (after excluding the 5%-10% surtaxes of 1969-70) rose to 8% of GDP. President Reagan's across-the-board tax cuts further reduced the lowest and highest tax rates to 11% and 50%, yet revenues rose again to 8.3% of GDP. The 1986 tax reform slashed the top tax rate to 28%, yet revenues dipped trivially to 8.1% of GDP."<br /><br />Clearly, high official rates do not equal high actual payments. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-66083107691948638342012-08-16T10:37:56.992-07:002012-08-16T10:37:56.992-07:00Well, David, I may not *sound* like I'm in hig...Well, David, I may not *sound* like I'm in high dudgeon mode, but I agree with everything Brian says, so just multiply this thread by two!<br /><br />We need way more government spending (our infrastructure is a shambles, and as a sovereign state we can print all the money we need to do it; most of our debt would go away if we got the economy out of stagnation and stopped spending on the military, and brought taxes back to Republican President Eisenhower's levels (top tax rate of 90%). We can borrow money at close to zero interest. But I think I'll have to bow out of this thread, I'm a lot more interested in what you have to say about theology and Christianity. So I'll drop back into those posts instead.Rudyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04691715150100698476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-40932447612007755212012-08-16T08:07:45.331-07:002012-08-16T08:07:45.331-07:00The Ryan budget would take a meat-cleaver to healt...The Ryan budget would take a meat-cleaver to health care for the poor, food stamps, support for child care, the environment, and the rest of government other than the military, Social Security, and Medicare (that is, until 2022, when the slashing would begin on Medicare coverage as well). Under Ryan’s budget, almost all discretionary spending would need to be eliminated - brought down to 1.5% of GDP under his plan. That means getting rid of most of the following spending: veterans’ programmes, mandatory spending on federal civilian and military retirement, unemployment compensation, earned income and child tax credits, scientific research. Meanwhile, tax rates for the ultra-wealthy would be slashed (Ryan is very specific about that), but that money would apparently be made back via the usual bogeyman, “closing loopholes” (no specification about which “loopholes”). <br /><br />Ryan is an out and out fraud.<br /><br />What’s really destroying families in modern society is the lack of reliable middle class jobs, especially for men – it makes it almost impossible to be good husbands and fathers, even though that is what most of men would like to be. But they can’t fulfill that role if they are in massive debt and have no reliable jobs. And the destruction of those jobs has been deliberately carried out by corporations and plutocrats, with the assistance of Romney and his friends. These are deeply anti-conservative people, blinded by an abstract and pernicious ideology. I agree that the Democrats are not much better, they are only slightly less extreme, slightly less vicious. But the Democrats are still better – they are more authenctically conservative - they realise that if the Republicans implement their program it will lead to serious societal instablity in the US. If the Republicans had control of all the branches of government I tremble to think at the destruction they will unleash on the fabric of American civil society<br />Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-3750021913694704492012-08-16T07:43:00.916-07:002012-08-16T07:43:00.916-07:00Rudy: It's a mix, as Brian would probably admi...Rudy: It's a mix, as Brian would probably admit if he weren't in high dungeon mode. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-73508391938649339922012-08-16T07:37:43.558-07:002012-08-16T07:37:43.558-07:00Brian: Your comments are so overwrought, I'm m...Brian: Your comments are so overwrought, I'm more inclined to laugh than cry. Again, 20% federal spending, after years of (hoped for) growth thanks to more realistic policies, added to local and state spending (which does a lot of the caring for the poor stuff) has nothing whatsoever in common with the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Furthermore, if you bothered to check Romney's personal record, you'll find he (like most religious conservatives) has been FAR more generous with charity than Obama or Biden. How does Romney's record jibe with the alleged "greed and selfishness" and "hatred of community" you ascribe to Republicans? <br /><br />Meanwhile, who votes for Democrats? Unmarried and divorced people, mostly. And well they should: the Democrats defend their right to kill the unborn, up to the moment of birth. Great community value: knock off the next generation before they emerge, then saddle them with $16 trillion in debt if they do make it out. <br /><br />So Democrats don't care much for families (stooping to the level of analysis you seem to favor, here). Corporations aren't people, you say -- but they are "community," not the kind Democrats favor, either. (Except when hitting up for campaign contributions, or various incestuous government-private partnerships, perhaps of the kind Barney Frank pioneered.) So what does "community" mean for Democrats, exactly - aside from consolidating trillions of dollars in wealth and power in the hands of themselves and a few cronies, at the expense of the country at large? <br /><br />Again, when federal debt leaves my family owing $200,000 to debtors we have never met, and never asked for money from -- money we don't have -- how is that supposed to exhibit the "love your neighbor as yourself" values that I think (at least) we can agree upon? <br /><br />Darn right I'll be voting Republican this fall, and doing my best to encourage other people to do so, as well. To speak frankly think it would be immoral, or at best very short-sighted and naive, to vote for Barack Obama. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-25079651805759547832012-08-16T07:15:02.235-07:002012-08-16T07:15:02.235-07:00David, the automobile and the airplane are good co...David, the automobile and the airplane are good counterexamples, but it's hard to find others in modern times (and much of the advanced development of the airplane is government funded, at least since WWI. The Wright brothers patent greed prevented any progress is aviation until their patents were suspended by the US government during WW1. As for the automobile, no, as far as know that development was mostly private, though it was symbiotic with government civil engineering of bridges and roads.)<br /><br />Brian is right WRT to nearly every novel technology after WW2; even all the stuff (like Unix) that came out of Bell Labs was created because the government gave AT&T a monopoly position in telephony, a kind of subsidy.Rudyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04691715150100698476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-91187634525429515212012-08-16T07:10:26.830-07:002012-08-16T07:10:26.830-07:00Regarding Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand, here he is talki...Regarding Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand, here he is talking about her: “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand.”. Maybe you can find a quote where Obama says that the reason he got into public service was because of Karl Marx? Here is Ryan on Rand again: "I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are and what my beliefs are. It's inspired me so much that it's required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff." Required reading, eh? He has tried to backpeddle a bit on this recently in order to try not to alienate religious voters, but this man has Ayn Rand coming out of his backside.<br /><br />But then that is hardly surprising since Ayn Rand is THE philosopher of contemporary Republicanism – she embodies the greed and selfishness that they stand for, and the hatred of community. And why not? This is someone who described the poor and weak as "refuse" and "parasites" and who believed there should be no social security, no public health or education, no public infrastructure or transport, no fire service, no regulations, no income tax. The Ryan budget would annhiliate all discretionary expenditure, so it seems to be in line with Ayn Rand's theories.<br /><br />Regarding technology, I was merely pointing out what is demonstrably true: that nearly all the big technological discoveries of recent times were funded by government (i.e. by the taxpayer). Big technological discoveries, even when they do not come from government funding, rarely come from the corporate profit-maximising sector. Think, for example, of the World Wide Web, which was invented by Tim Berners Lee who then given away for free. He could be the richest man in the world now if he had wanted to be. Or think of Wikipedia – one of the best things about the Internet, and a non-profit organisation created by Jimmy Wales. <br /><br />Technological progress drives real economic growth, and it’s a myth to say, as contemporary Republicans do, that it is private profit-maximising corporations that drive that progress. Corporations are legally obliged to maximise rofits, which means they are legally obliged to act like psychopaths – firing whoever gets in their way (as Romney once said, “I like being able to fire people who provide services to me”), outsourcing when it suits them. All with the full support of Mitt “Corporations Are People My Friend” Romney.<br /><br />Well, David, if you want to vote for a weirdo who thinks that “corporations are people”, knock yourself out!<br />Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-61823517295253280672012-08-16T06:40:34.538-07:002012-08-16T06:40:34.538-07:00Brian: If you're going to make a wild, derisiv...Brian: If you're going to make a wild, derisive claim here, at least one I don't like, you're going to be asked to back it up. <br /><br />Again, what is your evidence that Romney and Ryan are part of the alleged "Ayn Rand mob?" Have you looked at R / R's budgets, and said, "Oh, they only want $9 trillion (or whatever) in social spending over the next ten years -- exactly what Ayn Rand would propose when we have a $16 trillion deficit?" Yessiree: capping federal spending at 20%, 1.8 percent higher than in the last year under Clinton -- that's exactly what Ayn Rand was after." Are you trying to be as breathtakingly ludicrous as possible?<br /><br />If we're going to go that route, let's just call Reid and Pelosi and Obama "Karl Marx's mob," and have done with it. I bet Barack Obama once read Communist Manifesto, and probably liked a lot of what he read. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if you did. <br /><br />As for inventions, baloney. Is the automobile not an example of a "technology you take for granted?" The airplane? The invention and development of computers has been entirely led by government bureaucrats? I don't know what your point is, anyway, since no one is proposing an end to the federal government or, say, research grants for state universities. But one cannot stand on empty air forever. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-45883334655216513922012-08-16T05:29:15.374-07:002012-08-16T05:29:15.374-07:00Rudy,
You are quite right that it was government i...Rudy,<br />You are quite right that it was government investment in R&D which created the basis for nearly all the technologies we now take for granted. The private sector won’t engage in that kind of risky investement and research. What happens is: the government (i.e. the taxpayer) takes all the risks of the initial investment and research, and then, if something works, it is handed over to private interests so that they can make a profit out of it, despite the fact that it was the public rather than the corporations that took on all the initial investment risks.<br /><br />Examples of technologies developed almost entirely with government funding include the microchip (making possible computers), satellites, GPS, the Internet, the bar code, the accelerometer (making possible hand held devices like iphones and Wii’s for example – the lithium-ion batteries, liquid crystal displays, signal compression, and magnetic storage drives also were developed with government funding). Pretty much everything of any significance. Google’s search engine algorithm came from a government grant for a Stanford University digital library project.<br /><br />Of course, one of the big myths of the Ayn Rand mob (i.e. people like Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney) is that it is the brave private sector that takes all the risks developing new technologies – this view is so at odds with reality it’s actually funny, except that so many people actually seem to believe it because of relentless rightwing propaganda.<br />Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-79848178087799365392012-08-16T04:48:41.278-07:002012-08-16T04:48:41.278-07:00@Crude,
I'm not trying to spite you, I just d...@Crude,<br /><br />I'm not trying to spite you, I just don't think our conversation is going to be very useful to either you or me, since you don't trust me. If you don't see why what you said is offensive (not to mention your followup, where you say I can't have known that my teachers weren't qualified or that my textbooks were poor), I think we'll be talking past each other.<br /><br />I agree with you about the homeschooling + library by the way (I had to teach myself at the public library, except for Spanish and chemistry).<br />Rudyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04691715150100698476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-1157788543114629432012-08-16T02:17:11.172-07:002012-08-16T02:17:11.172-07:00“By 1900, the US was already the world's leadi...“By 1900, the US was already the world's leading economic power, overtaking Germany. FDR had nothing whatsoever to do with that.”<br /><br />One needs to make a distinction between a country’s relative power and the absolute quality of life its people enjoy.<br /><br />For example, in 1890 Europe basically ruled the world with its huge empires and so on – but life for the average person who lived in Europe was not very good compared to what it is now. The second half of the 20th century saw rapid decline in Europe’s relative power. But the absolute standard of living and the quality of life of the people who actually live in Europe did not decline – in fact it increased rapidly from 1950 onward. Europe is less powerful than it was but it is also healthier, safer, wealthier, more long-lived, with higher literacy and education levels, lower levels of infant mortality etc. than has ever before been the case.<br /><br />There can be a tension here between what elites want for a country (i.e. maximise relative power) and what the ordinary citizens need (i.e. a decent quality of life for them and their families)<br /><br />FDR had a lot to do with making the US a good place to live and raise a family – the social contract he instituted did a lot to make the US such a relatively good place to live for ordinary people in the 1950s and 1960s, when social indicators improved rapidly and a large middle class emerged. FDR also played a significant role in increasing America’s relative power and making it the global power, by helping to defeat the Germans and the Japanese. After WWII the other major Eurasian industrial centres had destroyed themselves, so about 50% of world economic output was in the US – the moment of its maximum relative power. Whatever way you look at it, FDR was by far America’s greatest president in the 20th century.<br /><br />Since Reagan the Republicans have done their best to destroy the social contract created by FDR, dismantle the middle class, turn the US into a plutocracy, and replace the social contract of FDR with the philosophy of Ayn Rand. In a way, the next presidential election offers Americans a clear choice – FDR or Ayn Rand. Obama, a true conservative, wants to preserve and where possible expand FDR’s legacy. The Republicans are radicals and extremists who want to destroy that legacy in the name of the abstract ideology propounded by Ayn Rand.<br />Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-23076120576129509072012-08-15T21:41:09.440-07:002012-08-15T21:41:09.440-07:00As far as data to back up my opinions on the gener...<i>As far as data to back up my opinions on the generalities of private vs. public, I don't think I owe it to you to work that hard until you and I have actually started a good faith conversation on the matter.</i><br /><br />Look, your "good faith conversation" was asserting broad truths about the entire public/private school system, based on your own experiences as a kid - which I thought was odd, because you were pronouncing on a comparison between two school systems while informing me you spent the entirety of your education in one.<br /><br />It's not a question about owing me anything: fine, don't back up anything you say. Believe me, I won't lose sleep. But if you make claims with support, and if I notice and care to comment, I'm going to say "Well, I'd like to see you support that." If you say "Well no, because I find you rude, sir!", go for it. I hope you're not intending to persuade anyone in that case. (It's not even 'hard work'. It's 'googling for maybe a minute' nowadays.)<br /><br />Further, you didn't just say, "Well, look, here's the experience I had in my school system, this is what it was like for me." I wouldn't have batted an eye at that. Instead you claimed certain knowledge ('my school was worse than these schools! I know this. Even though I only went to the one.') Yeah, that didn't add up.<br /><br />I mean, look at what you're telling me. As a teenager you were not only assessing comparative quality of textbooks between your school and others, but literally researching qualifications of your teachers, while in high school. Okay, possible I assume. Pardon me if I express some skepticism.<br /><br />And keep in mind, very little is riding on this and I know it. In the end, it's - again - an anecdotal experience. There's that old saying that you don't prove that women are on average taller than men by producing a 6' woman and a 5' man. And I would hope you'd at least recognize why your story could seem funny to a detached observer who was paying attention.<br /><br />Mind you, I didn't enter into this conversation in favor or against public or private schools. To be dead honest, I dislike both systems. I consider the gold standard to be a mix of home schooling when possible, a hefty amount of autodidactism, and school systems when those are utterly unavailable for serious reasons. See, I happen to think that giving students the ability and drive to teach themselves - at a public library for example - is the best outcome possible. Both public and private systems leave much to be desired in terms of ideal.<br /><br /><i>Questioning my ability to evaluate my own education, or my honesty, I'm not sure which, wasn't the way to start that conversation.</i><br /><br />I do not care. I made a reasonable observation and a fair criticism. If it deeply offends you, so be it. If your response is 'I'm not going to support any of my claims with data - to spite you!', I'll just shrug my shoulders. I'd find that to be an interesting reaction.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-68388199192364543672012-08-15T20:42:35.041-07:002012-08-15T20:42:35.041-07:00@David, you are quite right, I misread you and my ...@David, you are quite right, I misread you and my remarks didn't speak to your point. I'm still right though :)Rudyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04691715150100698476noreply@blogger.com