Uh oh, this can’t be good for any of us

[Ex-SD]

The ten most feared words in the english language are: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you”. Here’s a prime example. I always thought that she was a dyed in the wool, Socialist and to me, this is a prime example of why I believe this.

The New York Times
By DAVID LEONHARDT

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said that if she became president, the federal government would take a more active role in the economy to address what she called the excesses of the market and of the Bush administration.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/us/politics/21clinton.html?ei=5065&en=07b1c660076fe5b9&ex=1201582800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

[kewp]

Lets have a look at the top 15 countries in the UN’s Human Development Index:

“The Human Development Index (HDI) is the normalized measure of life expectancy, literacy, education, standard of living,and GDP per capita for countries worldwide. It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare. It is used to determine and indicate whether a country is a developed, developing, or underdeveloped country and also to measure the impact of economic policies on quality of life.”

Iceland 0.968
Norway 0.968
Australia 0.962
Canada 0.961
Ireland 0.959
Sweden 0.956
Switzerland 0.955
Japan 0.953
Netherlands 0.953
France 0.952
Finland 0.952
United States 0.951
Spain 0.949

Notice a trend? All the countries that are beating us are much more socialist than we are.

I used to be a big free-market wonk, but the current mess we are in is exclusively due to the ‘invisible hand’ grabbing as much as it can for itself. Damn the consequences.

Yeah, sure, the free market will ‘sort things out’. With a housing/market crash and ensuing mass unemployment. Is this really the best way to handle things?

[HereWeGo]

Oy. Hibby reveals her true colors, at last. She never met a price control she didn’t like.

[nostradamus]

Are you saying it’s bad for us or bad for her campaign or bad ‘cuz now she’ll get elected? I don’t follow.

Giuliani is ramping up and IMO will step in to take over the GOP as they have yet to display a clear leader. I think this election will be a piece of cake for him.

[nostradamus]

Are you saying it’s bad for us or bad for her campaign or bad ‘cuz now she’ll get elected? I don’t follow.

Giuliani is ramping up and IMO will step in to take over the GOP as they have yet to display a clear leader. I think this election will be a piece of cake for him.

[nostradamus]

Are you saying it’s bad for us or bad for her campaign or bad ‘cuz now she’ll get elected? I don’t follow.

Giuliani is ramping up and IMO will step in to take over the GOP as they have yet to display a clear leader. I think this election will be a piece of cake for him.

[nostradamus]

Are you saying it’s bad for us or bad for her campaign or bad ‘cuz now she’ll get elected? I don’t follow.

Giuliani is ramping up and IMO will step in to take over the GOP as they have yet to display a clear leader. I think this election will be a piece of cake for him.

[nostradamus]

Are you saying it’s bad for us or bad for her campaign or bad ‘cuz now she’ll get elected? I don’t follow.

Giuliani is ramping up and IMO will step in to take over the GOP as they have yet to display a clear leader. I think this election will be a piece of cake for him.

[HereWeGo]

Oy. Hibby reveals her true colors, at last. She never met a price control she didn’t like.

[HereWeGo]

Oy. Hibby reveals her true colors, at last. She never met a price control she didn’t like.

[HereWeGo]

Oy. Hibby reveals her true colors, at last. She never met a price control she didn’t like.

[HereWeGo]

Oy. Hibby reveals her true colors, at last. She never met a price control she didn’t like.

[TheBreeze]

That index is a joke. For one thing, the U.N. has a bias against the United States. John Stossel did an expose on this index and found that several of the factors were chosen in such a way as to make the United States purposely look bad.

For another thing, how many of those countries have to support a massive amount of illegal immigration from third-world countries? Maybe France and they are pretty close to us on that index.

And then you have the fact that several of the countries above us are no bigger than a single U.S. state. How can you possibly compare a tiny country against the entire United States? Last I heard, something like 99% of Icelanders are of Icelandic heritage. No way you can compare that to the melting pot of the United States. And where are the big socialist countries like China and Russia? Thought so.

The U.S. also supports a massive military. All those countries above us rely on the U.S. military to keep them safe.

When you factor in all that, the U.S. is doing pretty darn well on an index that was purposely designed to make us look bad.

As for making the U.S. more socialist, I would like to see the rich* get taxed more. The rich* are taking more and more of the pie and should get taxed more.

*The rich are defined as those making more than me.

[kewp]

TheBreeze,

Go ahead and pick your quality-of-life index, then. We always get beat by the more socialist countries.

I’ll agree about the immigration, however.

I think ultimately we are on the same page, however, as this really comes down to a question of wealth distribution. We did pretty good during the previous Clinton years, I would like to see us go back to that standard (regardless of who is in charge).

[ucodegen]

@kewp

We did pretty good during the previous Clinton years, I would like to see us go back to that standard (regardless of who is in charge).

Two comments here: It takes about 3 years to see the full and true effect of a president/gov decision.. The economy, like any ‘business’, takes a least 3 years for a change to be felt. I am not defending the current administration. They had things initially right until they allowed credit standards to loosen in 2003. I am surprised that Greenspan did not realize that loosening credit standards were the reason why increasing fed rates were not felt in the economy.

A quote from the article:
In one of her most extensive interviews about how she would approach the economy, Mrs. Clinton laid out a view of economic policy that differed in some ways from that of her husband, Bill Clinton. Mr. Clinton campaigned on his centrist views, and as president, he championed deficit reduction and trade agreements.

Notice a problem here? Any time a ‘one sided’ governmental view is in place; we, the people, are in trouble. Part of Bill Clinton’s success is that he took a ‘centrist’ path (unlike what the present admin has been doing, and what Hillary Clinton plans to do)

[ucodegen]

@kewp

We did pretty good during the previous Clinton years, I would like to see us go back to that standard (regardless of who is in charge).

Two comments here: It takes about 3 years to see the full and true effect of a president/gov decision.. The economy, like any ‘business’, takes a least 3 years for a change to be felt. I am not defending the current administration. They had things initially right until they allowed credit standards to loosen in 2003. I am surprised that Greenspan did not realize that loosening credit standards were the reason why increasing fed rates were not felt in the economy.

A quote from the article:
In one of her most extensive interviews about how she would approach the economy, Mrs. Clinton laid out a view of economic policy that differed in some ways from that of her husband, Bill Clinton. Mr. Clinton campaigned on his centrist views, and as president, he championed deficit reduction and trade agreements.

Notice a problem here? Any time a ‘one sided’ governmental view is in place; we, the people, are in trouble. Part of Bill Clinton’s success is that he took a ‘centrist’ path (unlike what the present admin has been doing, and what Hillary Clinton plans to do)

[ucodegen]

@kewp

We did pretty good during the previous Clinton years, I would like to see us go back to that standard (regardless of who is in charge).

Two comments here: It takes about 3 years to see the full and true effect of a president/gov decision.. The economy, like any ‘business’, takes a least 3 years for a change to be felt. I am not defending the current administration. They had things initially right until they allowed credit standards to loosen in 2003. I am surprised that Greenspan did not realize that loosening credit standards were the reason why increasing fed rates were not felt in the economy.

A quote from the article:
In one of her most extensive interviews about how she would approach the economy, Mrs. Clinton laid out a view of economic policy that differed in some ways from that of her husband, Bill Clinton. Mr. Clinton campaigned on his centrist views, and as president, he championed deficit reduction and trade agreements.

Notice a problem here? Any time a ‘one sided’ governmental view is in place; we, the people, are in trouble. Part of Bill Clinton’s success is that he took a ‘centrist’ path (unlike what the present admin has been doing, and what Hillary Clinton plans to do)

[ucodegen]

@kewp

We did pretty good during the previous Clinton years, I would like to see us go back to that standard (regardless of who is in charge).

Two comments here: It takes about 3 years to see the full and true effect of a president/gov decision.. The economy, like any ‘business’, takes a least 3 years for a change to be felt. I am not defending the current administration. They had things initially right until they allowed credit standards to loosen in 2003. I am surprised that Greenspan did not realize that loosening credit standards were the reason why increasing fed rates were not felt in the economy.

A quote from the article:
In one of her most extensive interviews about how she would approach the economy, Mrs. Clinton laid out a view of economic policy that differed in some ways from that of her husband, Bill Clinton. Mr. Clinton campaigned on his centrist views, and as president, he championed deficit reduction and trade agreements.

Notice a problem here? Any time a ‘one sided’ governmental view is in place; we, the people, are in trouble. Part of Bill Clinton’s success is that he took a ‘centrist’ path (unlike what the present admin has been doing, and what Hillary Clinton plans to do)

[ucodegen]

@kewp

We did pretty good during the previous Clinton years, I would like to see us go back to that standard (regardless of who is in charge).

Two comments here: It takes about 3 years to see the full and true effect of a president/gov decision.. The economy, like any ‘business’, takes a least 3 years for a change to be felt. I am not defending the current administration. They had things initially right until they allowed credit standards to loosen in 2003. I am surprised that Greenspan did not realize that loosening credit standards were the reason why increasing fed rates were not felt in the economy.

A quote from the article:
In one of her most extensive interviews about how she would approach the economy, Mrs. Clinton laid out a view of economic policy that differed in some ways from that of her husband, Bill Clinton. Mr. Clinton campaigned on his centrist views, and as president, he championed deficit reduction and trade agreements.

Notice a problem here? Any time a ‘one sided’ governmental view is in place; we, the people, are in trouble. Part of Bill Clinton’s success is that he took a ‘centrist’ path (unlike what the present admin has been doing, and what Hillary Clinton plans to do)

[kewp]

TheBreeze,

Go ahead and pick your quality-of-life index, then. We always get beat by the more socialist countries.

I’ll agree about the immigration, however.

I think ultimately we are on the same page, however, as this really comes down to a question of wealth distribution. We did pretty good during the previous Clinton years, I would like to see us go back to that standard (regardless of who is in charge).

[kewp]

TheBreeze,

Go ahead and pick your quality-of-life index, then. We always get beat by the more socialist countries.

I’ll agree about the immigration, however.

I think ultimately we are on the same page, however, as this really comes down to a question of wealth distribution. We did pretty good during the previous Clinton years, I would like to see us go back to that standard (regardless of who is in charge).

[kewp]

TheBreeze,

Go ahead and pick your quality-of-life index, then. We always get beat by the more socialist countries.

I’ll agree about the immigration, however.

I think ultimately we are on the same page, however, as this really comes down to a question of wealth distribution. We did pretty good during the previous Clinton years, I would like to see us go back to that standard (regardless of who is in charge).

[kewp]

TheBreeze,

Go ahead and pick your quality-of-life index, then. We always get beat by the more socialist countries.

I’ll agree about the immigration, however.

I think ultimately we are on the same page, however, as this really comes down to a question of wealth distribution. We did pretty good during the previous Clinton years, I would like to see us go back to that standard (regardless of who is in charge).

[TheBreeze]

That index is a joke. For one thing, the U.N. has a bias against the United States. John Stossel did an expose on this index and found that several of the factors were chosen in such a way as to make the United States purposely look bad.

For another thing, how many of those countries have to support a massive amount of illegal immigration from third-world countries? Maybe France and they are pretty close to us on that index.

And then you have the fact that several of the countries above us are no bigger than a single U.S. state. How can you possibly compare a tiny country against the entire United States? Last I heard, something like 99% of Icelanders are of Icelandic heritage. No way you can compare that to the melting pot of the United States. And where are the big socialist countries like China and Russia? Thought so.

The U.S. also supports a massive military. All those countries above us rely on the U.S. military to keep them safe.

When you factor in all that, the U.S. is doing pretty darn well on an index that was purposely designed to make us look bad.

As for making the U.S. more socialist, I would like to see the rich* get taxed more. The rich* are taking more and more of the pie and should get taxed more.

*The rich are defined as those making more than me.

[TheBreeze]

That index is a joke. For one thing, the U.N. has a bias against the United States. John Stossel did an expose on this index and found that several of the factors were chosen in such a way as to make the United States purposely look bad.

For another thing, how many of those countries have to support a massive amount of illegal immigration from third-world countries? Maybe France and they are pretty close to us on that index.

And then you have the fact that several of the countries above us are no bigger than a single U.S. state. How can you possibly compare a tiny country against the entire United States? Last I heard, something like 99% of Icelanders are of Icelandic heritage. No way you can compare that to the melting pot of the United States. And where are the big socialist countries like China and Russia? Thought so.

The U.S. also supports a massive military. All those countries above us rely on the U.S. military to keep them safe.

When you factor in all that, the U.S. is doing pretty darn well on an index that was purposely designed to make us look bad.

As for making the U.S. more socialist, I would like to see the rich* get taxed more. The rich* are taking more and more of the pie and should get taxed more.

*The rich are defined as those making more than me.

[TheBreeze]

That index is a joke. For one thing, the U.N. has a bias against the United States. John Stossel did an expose on this index and found that several of the factors were chosen in such a way as to make the United States purposely look bad.

For another thing, how many of those countries have to support a massive amount of illegal immigration from third-world countries? Maybe France and they are pretty close to us on that index.

And then you have the fact that several of the countries above us are no bigger than a single U.S. state. How can you possibly compare a tiny country against the entire United States? Last I heard, something like 99% of Icelanders are of Icelandic heritage. No way you can compare that to the melting pot of the United States. And where are the big socialist countries like China and Russia? Thought so.

The U.S. also supports a massive military. All those countries above us rely on the U.S. military to keep them safe.

When you factor in all that, the U.S. is doing pretty darn well on an index that was purposely designed to make us look bad.

As for making the U.S. more socialist, I would like to see the rich* get taxed more. The rich* are taking more and more of the pie and should get taxed more.

*The rich are defined as those making more than me.

[TheBreeze]

That index is a joke. For one thing, the U.N. has a bias against the United States. John Stossel did an expose on this index and found that several of the factors were chosen in such a way as to make the United States purposely look bad.

For another thing, how many of those countries have to support a massive amount of illegal immigration from third-world countries? Maybe France and they are pretty close to us on that index.

And then you have the fact that several of the countries above us are no bigger than a single U.S. state. How can you possibly compare a tiny country against the entire United States? Last I heard, something like 99% of Icelanders are of Icelandic heritage. No way you can compare that to the melting pot of the United States. And where are the big socialist countries like China and Russia? Thought so.

The U.S. also supports a massive military. All those countries above us rely on the U.S. military to keep them safe.

When you factor in all that, the U.S. is doing pretty darn well on an index that was purposely designed to make us look bad.

As for making the U.S. more socialist, I would like to see the rich* get taxed more. The rich* are taking more and more of the pie and should get taxed more.

*The rich are defined as those making more than me.

[stansd]

Hi Kewp,

Lets continue your train of thought, but since the U.S. is one of the most free countries on the planet, rather than cherry picking the top 10, lets look a the bottom.

167 (2) Burundi 0.413
168 (1) Democratic Republic of the Congo[4] 0.411
169 (1) Ethiopia 0.406
170 (1) Chad 0.388
171 (1) Central African Republic 0.384
172 (4) Mozambique 0.384
173 (2) Mali 0.380
174 (3) Niger 0.374
175 (2) Guinea-Bissau 0.374
176 (2) Burkina Faso 0.370

Now lets look at the top 20 and bottom 20 on the Heritage Foundations index of economic freedom:

Ranking Country 2008 Score
1 Hong Kong 90.3
2 Singapore 87.4
3 Ireland 82.4
4 Australia 82.0
5 United States 80.6
6 New Zealand 80.2
7 Canada 80.2
8 Chile 79.8
9 Switzerland 79.7
10 United Kingdom 79.5
11 Denmark 79.2
12 Estonia 77.8
13 Netherlands, The 76.8
14 Iceland 76.5
15 Luxembourg 75.2
16 Finland 74.8
17 Japan 72.5
18 Mauritius 72.3
19 Bahrain 72.2
20 Belgium 71.5

137 Laos 49.2
138 Haiti 48.9
139 Sierra Leone 48.9
140 Togo 48.8
141 Central African Republic 48.2
142 Chad 47.7
143 Angola 47.1
144 Syria 46.6
145 Burundi 46.3
146 Congo, Republic of 45.2
147 Guinea Bissau 45.1
148 Venezuela 45.0
149 Bangladesh 44.9
150 Belarus 44.7
151 Iran 44.0
152 Turkmenistan 43.4
153 Burma (Myanmar) 39.5
154 Libya 38.7
155 Zimbabwe 29.8
156 Cuba 27.5
157 Korea, North 3.0

Notice anything (it’s even more compelling if you look at the entire list)?

This is not to suggest the U.S. would wind up like one of the lowest if government intervention increased. However,studies have shown time and time again that there is a strong correlation between economic well being and economic freedom.

We ignore this fact at our own peril.

Stan

[kewp]

Notice anything (it’s even more compelling if you look at the entire list)?

Sure do, most of the bottom ones don’t have governments at all. Just puppets put in place by the controlling private interests.

Kind of like where this country is heading.

[kewp]

Notice anything (it’s even more compelling if you look at the entire list)?

Sure do, most of the bottom ones don’t have governments at all. Just puppets put in place by the controlling private interests.

Kind of like where this country is heading.

[kewp]

Notice anything (it’s even more compelling if you look at the entire list)?

Sure do, most of the bottom ones don’t have governments at all. Just puppets put in place by the controlling private interests.

Kind of like where this country is heading.

[kewp]

Notice anything (it’s even more compelling if you look at the entire list)?

Sure do, most of the bottom ones don’t have governments at all. Just puppets put in place by the controlling private interests.

Kind of like where this country is heading.

[kewp]

Notice anything (it’s even more compelling if you look at the entire list)?

Sure do, most of the bottom ones don’t have governments at all. Just puppets put in place by the controlling private interests.

Kind of like where this country is heading.

[stansd]

Hi Kewp,

Lets continue your train of thought, but since the U.S. is one of the most free countries on the planet, rather than cherry picking the top 10, lets look a the bottom.

167 (2) Burundi 0.413
168 (1) Democratic Republic of the Congo[4] 0.411
169 (1) Ethiopia 0.406
170 (1) Chad 0.388
171 (1) Central African Republic 0.384
172 (4) Mozambique 0.384
173 (2) Mali 0.380
174 (3) Niger 0.374
175 (2) Guinea-Bissau 0.374
176 (2) Burkina Faso 0.370

Now lets look at the top 20 and bottom 20 on the Heritage Foundations index of economic freedom:

Ranking Country 2008 Score
1 Hong Kong 90.3
2 Singapore 87.4
3 Ireland 82.4
4 Australia 82.0
5 United States 80.6
6 New Zealand 80.2
7 Canada 80.2
8 Chile 79.8
9 Switzerland 79.7
10 United Kingdom 79.5
11 Denmark 79.2
12 Estonia 77.8
13 Netherlands, The 76.8
14 Iceland 76.5
15 Luxembourg 75.2
16 Finland 74.8
17 Japan 72.5
18 Mauritius 72.3
19 Bahrain 72.2
20 Belgium 71.5

137 Laos 49.2
138 Haiti 48.9
139 Sierra Leone 48.9
140 Togo 48.8
141 Central African Republic 48.2
142 Chad 47.7
143 Angola 47.1
144 Syria 46.6
145 Burundi 46.3
146 Congo, Republic of 45.2
147 Guinea Bissau 45.1
148 Venezuela 45.0
149 Bangladesh 44.9
150 Belarus 44.7
151 Iran 44.0
152 Turkmenistan 43.4
153 Burma (Myanmar) 39.5
154 Libya 38.7
155 Zimbabwe 29.8
156 Cuba 27.5
157 Korea, North 3.0

Notice anything (it’s even more compelling if you look at the entire list)?

This is not to suggest the U.S. would wind up like one of the lowest if government intervention increased. However,studies have shown time and time again that there is a strong correlation between economic well being and economic freedom.

We ignore this fact at our own peril.

Stan

[stansd]

Hi Kewp,

Lets continue your train of thought, but since the U.S. is one of the most free countries on the planet, rather than cherry picking the top 10, lets look a the bottom.

167 (2) Burundi 0.413
168 (1) Democratic Republic of the Congo[4] 0.411
169 (1) Ethiopia 0.406
170 (1) Chad 0.388
171 (1) Central African Republic 0.384
172 (4) Mozambique 0.384
173 (2) Mali 0.380
174 (3) Niger 0.374
175 (2) Guinea-Bissau 0.374
176 (2) Burkina Faso 0.370

Now lets look at the top 20 and bottom 20 on the Heritage Foundations index of economic freedom:

Ranking Country 2008 Score
1 Hong Kong 90.3
2 Singapore 87.4
3 Ireland 82.4
4 Australia 82.0
5 United States 80.6
6 New Zealand 80.2
7 Canada 80.2
8 Chile 79.8
9 Switzerland 79.7
10 United Kingdom 79.5
11 Denmark 79.2
12 Estonia 77.8
13 Netherlands, The 76.8
14 Iceland 76.5
15 Luxembourg 75.2
16 Finland 74.8
17 Japan 72.5
18 Mauritius 72.3
19 Bahrain 72.2
20 Belgium 71.5

137 Laos 49.2
138 Haiti 48.9
139 Sierra Leone 48.9
140 Togo 48.8
141 Central African Republic 48.2
142 Chad 47.7
143 Angola 47.1
144 Syria 46.6
145 Burundi 46.3
146 Congo, Republic of 45.2
147 Guinea Bissau 45.1
148 Venezuela 45.0
149 Bangladesh 44.9
150 Belarus 44.7
151 Iran 44.0
152 Turkmenistan 43.4
153 Burma (Myanmar) 39.5
154 Libya 38.7
155 Zimbabwe 29.8
156 Cuba 27.5
157 Korea, North 3.0

Notice anything (it’s even more compelling if you look at the entire list)?

This is not to suggest the U.S. would wind up like one of the lowest if government intervention increased. However,studies have shown time and time again that there is a strong correlation between economic well being and economic freedom.

We ignore this fact at our own peril.

Stan

[stansd]

Hi Kewp,

Lets continue your train of thought, but since the U.S. is one of the most free countries on the planet, rather than cherry picking the top 10, lets look a the bottom.

167 (2) Burundi 0.413
168 (1) Democratic Republic of the Congo[4] 0.411
169 (1) Ethiopia 0.406
170 (1) Chad 0.388
171 (1) Central African Republic 0.384
172 (4) Mozambique 0.384
173 (2) Mali 0.380
174 (3) Niger 0.374
175 (2) Guinea-Bissau 0.374
176 (2) Burkina Faso 0.370

Now lets look at the top 20 and bottom 20 on the Heritage Foundations index of economic freedom:

Ranking Country 2008 Score
1 Hong Kong 90.3
2 Singapore 87.4
3 Ireland 82.4
4 Australia 82.0
5 United States 80.6
6 New Zealand 80.2
7 Canada 80.2
8 Chile 79.8
9 Switzerland 79.7
10 United Kingdom 79.5
11 Denmark 79.2
12 Estonia 77.8
13 Netherlands, The 76.8
14 Iceland 76.5
15 Luxembourg 75.2
16 Finland 74.8
17 Japan 72.5
18 Mauritius 72.3
19 Bahrain 72.2
20 Belgium 71.5

137 Laos 49.2
138 Haiti 48.9
139 Sierra Leone 48.9
140 Togo 48.8
141 Central African Republic 48.2
142 Chad 47.7
143 Angola 47.1
144 Syria 46.6
145 Burundi 46.3
146 Congo, Republic of 45.2
147 Guinea Bissau 45.1
148 Venezuela 45.0
149 Bangladesh 44.9
150 Belarus 44.7
151 Iran 44.0
152 Turkmenistan 43.4
153 Burma (Myanmar) 39.5
154 Libya 38.7
155 Zimbabwe 29.8
156 Cuba 27.5
157 Korea, North 3.0

Notice anything (it’s even more compelling if you look at the entire list)?

This is not to suggest the U.S. would wind up like one of the lowest if government intervention increased. However,studies have shown time and time again that there is a strong correlation between economic well being and economic freedom.

We ignore this fact at our own peril.

Stan

[stansd]

Hi Kewp,

Lets continue your train of thought, but since the U.S. is one of the most free countries on the planet, rather than cherry picking the top 10, lets look a the bottom.

167 (2) Burundi 0.413
168 (1) Democratic Republic of the Congo[4] 0.411
169 (1) Ethiopia 0.406
170 (1) Chad 0.388
171 (1) Central African Republic 0.384
172 (4) Mozambique 0.384
173 (2) Mali 0.380
174 (3) Niger 0.374
175 (2) Guinea-Bissau 0.374
176 (2) Burkina Faso 0.370

Now lets look at the top 20 and bottom 20 on the Heritage Foundations index of economic freedom:

Ranking Country 2008 Score
1 Hong Kong 90.3
2 Singapore 87.4
3 Ireland 82.4
4 Australia 82.0
5 United States 80.6
6 New Zealand 80.2
7 Canada 80.2
8 Chile 79.8
9 Switzerland 79.7
10 United Kingdom 79.5
11 Denmark 79.2
12 Estonia 77.8
13 Netherlands, The 76.8
14 Iceland 76.5
15 Luxembourg 75.2
16 Finland 74.8
17 Japan 72.5
18 Mauritius 72.3
19 Bahrain 72.2
20 Belgium 71.5

137 Laos 49.2
138 Haiti 48.9
139 Sierra Leone 48.9
140 Togo 48.8
141 Central African Republic 48.2
142 Chad 47.7
143 Angola 47.1
144 Syria 46.6
145 Burundi 46.3
146 Congo, Republic of 45.2
147 Guinea Bissau 45.1
148 Venezuela 45.0
149 Bangladesh 44.9
150 Belarus 44.7
151 Iran 44.0
152 Turkmenistan 43.4
153 Burma (Myanmar) 39.5
154 Libya 38.7
155 Zimbabwe 29.8
156 Cuba 27.5
157 Korea, North 3.0

Notice anything (it’s even more compelling if you look at the entire list)?

This is not to suggest the U.S. would wind up like one of the lowest if government intervention increased. However,studies have shown time and time again that there is a strong correlation between economic well being and economic freedom.

We ignore this fact at our own peril.

Stan

[ucodegen]

@kewp

Notice a trend? All the countries that are beating us are much more socialist than we are.

Not all those countries on that list are that socialist. Some of them are. By the way, I am surprised that France is that high considering the unemployment rate for young workers.

If you also notice the numbers, they are not that far apart.

Considering some of the UN’s historical selections, I don’t put much trust in anything they come up with anymore.

[kewp]

Considering some of the UN’s historical selections, I don’t put much trust in anything they come up with anymore.

Do some research on the index. It’s very mathematical and objective. Other quality-of-life indexes return similar results.

All the countries above us offer universal health care, btw.

Re: Presidential fiscal policy; the only big issue I have with GW is that he started a war while cutting taxes for the wealthy. Leaving the lower classes to shoulder the burden (and the dead).

[ucodegen]

@kewp
Re: Presidential fiscal policy; the only big issue I have with GW is that he started a war while cutting taxes for the wealthy. Leaving the lower classes to shoulder the burden (and the dead).

You might want to double check the cutting the taxes on the wealthy. This claim was generally made in response to cutting the capital gains tax. If you look at what happened, you will find that instead of 20%, there was 5%, 10% and 15% LTCG tax points. The 5% and 10% rates are for lower income brackets. Where they once had to pay a higher tax rate than their income tax rate, they now pay a lower. 15% kicked in above that.. but before you say “But it also dropped the LTCG rate on high income from 20% to 15%” realize that AMT was not changed. Any income above $146,000 is subject to a 26% AMT override for single taxpayers (I would need to check the schedule for filing joint/separate). This override makes the reduction to 15% on LTCG moot because AMT forces total tax back up to 26% on fed. LTCG is taxed as income in CA.. so its at full rate.

The only real ‘rich’ gimmie that he gave was on Real Estate (being able to roll out an amount LTCG tax free).

[ucodegen]

@kewp
Re: Presidential fiscal policy; the only big issue I have with GW is that he started a war while cutting taxes for the wealthy. Leaving the lower classes to shoulder the burden (and the dead).

You might want to double check the cutting the taxes on the wealthy. This claim was generally made in response to cutting the capital gains tax. If you look at what happened, you will find that instead of 20%, there was 5%, 10% and 15% LTCG tax points. The 5% and 10% rates are for lower income brackets. Where they once had to pay a higher tax rate than their income tax rate, they now pay a lower. 15% kicked in above that.. but before you say “But it also dropped the LTCG rate on high income from 20% to 15%” realize that AMT was not changed. Any income above $146,000 is subject to a 26% AMT override for single taxpayers (I would need to check the schedule for filing joint/separate). This override makes the reduction to 15% on LTCG moot because AMT forces total tax back up to 26% on fed. LTCG is taxed as income in CA.. so its at full rate.

The only real ‘rich’ gimmie that he gave was on Real Estate (being able to roll out an amount LTCG tax free).

[ucodegen]

@kewp
Re: Presidential fiscal policy; the only big issue I have with GW is that he started a war while cutting taxes for the wealthy. Leaving the lower classes to shoulder the burden (and the dead).

You might want to double check the cutting the taxes on the wealthy. This claim was generally made in response to cutting the capital gains tax. If you look at what happened, you will find that instead of 20%, there was 5%, 10% and 15% LTCG tax points. The 5% and 10% rates are for lower income brackets. Where they once had to pay a higher tax rate than their income tax rate, they now pay a lower. 15% kicked in above that.. but before you say “But it also dropped the LTCG rate on high income from 20% to 15%” realize that AMT was not changed. Any income above $146,000 is subject to a 26% AMT override for single taxpayers (I would need to check the schedule for filing joint/separate). This override makes the reduction to 15% on LTCG moot because AMT forces total tax back up to 26% on fed. LTCG is taxed as income in CA.. so its at full rate.

The only real ‘rich’ gimmie that he gave was on Real Estate (being able to roll out an amount LTCG tax free).

[ucodegen]

@kewp
Re: Presidential fiscal policy; the only big issue I have with GW is that he started a war while cutting taxes for the wealthy. Leaving the lower classes to shoulder the burden (and the dead).

You might want to double check the cutting the taxes on the wealthy. This claim was generally made in response to cutting the capital gains tax. If you look at what happened, you will find that instead of 20%, there was 5%, 10% and 15% LTCG tax points. The 5% and 10% rates are for lower income brackets. Where they once had to pay a higher tax rate than their income tax rate, they now pay a lower. 15% kicked in above that.. but before you say “But it also dropped the LTCG rate on high income from 20% to 15%” realize that AMT was not changed. Any income above $146,000 is subject to a 26% AMT override for single taxpayers (I would need to check the schedule for filing joint/separate). This override makes the reduction to 15% on LTCG moot because AMT forces total tax back up to 26% on fed. LTCG is taxed as income in CA.. so its at full rate.

The only real ‘rich’ gimmie that he gave was on Real Estate (being able to roll out an amount LTCG tax free).

[ucodegen]

@kewp
Re: Presidential fiscal policy; the only big issue I have with GW is that he started a war while cutting taxes for the wealthy. Leaving the lower classes to shoulder the burden (and the dead).

You might want to double check the cutting the taxes on the wealthy. This claim was generally made in response to cutting the capital gains tax. If you look at what happened, you will find that instead of 20%, there was 5%, 10% and 15% LTCG tax points. The 5% and 10% rates are for lower income brackets. Where they once had to pay a higher tax rate than their income tax rate, they now pay a lower. 15% kicked in above that.. but before you say “But it also dropped the LTCG rate on high income from 20% to 15%” realize that AMT was not changed. Any income above $146,000 is subject to a 26% AMT override for single taxpayers (I would need to check the schedule for filing joint/separate). This override makes the reduction to 15% on LTCG moot because AMT forces total tax back up to 26% on fed. LTCG is taxed as income in CA.. so its at full rate.

The only real ‘rich’ gimmie that he gave was on Real Estate (being able to roll out an amount LTCG tax free).

[ucodegen]

The IRS used to publish the full schedule within the 1040 instruction booklet, but now they only post it for over $100,000 in income. It was located at the end of the tax table and would show the split points for the income tax. It is possible to calculate what the split points on the income below $100,000 buy running regressions on the table. This is from a 2005 tax table for single.

0 – 7299 10% marginal rate, 10% total.
7300 – 29699 15% marginal rate (additional dollars over 7300 taxed at 15% on top of the 10% on under 7300)
29700 – 71949 25% marginal rate.
71950 – 150149 28% marginal rate.
150150 – 326449 33% marginal rate
326450+ 35% marginal rate.

Add in the fact that deductions start being eliminated for incomes over 146000(single)… so where is it that the rich are getting a break? 35% of your income gone to fed taxes? Add in CA state and you are looking at 44% of your income gone to taxes. Take a look at where the money is being spent. The portion of gov spending for social programs is greater than defense spending.

[kewp]

Ok, cut taxes in general and started a war.

Bad ju-ju and we are all gonna pay for it.

[ucodegen]

@kwep

Ok, cut taxes in general and started a war.

It was needed, remember what were were going through on the initial term of his presidency. On the other hand, cutting RE long term capital gains was stupid and only help fuel the speculators. Nothing like being able to hid up to $250,000 by just owning a house for 1 year and selling for more later. Sounds like a flippers mating song…

Starting a war: I go both ways on this. I am more upset as how the war was executed as opposed to the war itself. Typical group grope management wise. If you look into what Saddam was doing to his own people: It had to change. The “shock and awe” stuff was absolutely stupid. The real “shock and awe” would be the US troops waving “hi” behind that Baghdad TV reporter as he was stating that US troops were loosing their will to fight and were no where near the capital.

[Eugene]

If you look into what Saddam was doing to his own people: It had to change.

It may sound extremely cynical but … Saddam was the only person who knew how to maintain order in Iraq without extreme bloodshed.

Saddam’ regime was successful at managing the country at the cost of 15-20 thousand civilian deaths per year. Since we got there, an estimated 600 thousand people have died, either killed by Americans or their fellow Iraqis. No guarantee that the situation will stabilize if we withdraw.

Some countries just don’t seem to be ready for democracy.

[surveyor]

600k

That 600k figure of people who have died in Iraq has been proven to be extremely wrong.

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm

The more correct number is around 48k.

Do agree with you though that some countries aren’t ready for democracy.

[Eugene]

http://www.iraqbodycount.org

80k confirmed violent civilian deaths which have been recorded by appropriate witnesses. Add non-violent deaths (hunger, disease, etc.), deaths that weren’t properly witnessed – maybe 600k is an exagerration but 150k seems very probable.

[Eugene]

http://www.iraqbodycount.org

80k confirmed violent civilian deaths which have been recorded by appropriate witnesses. Add non-violent deaths (hunger, disease, etc.), deaths that weren’t properly witnessed – maybe 600k is an exagerration but 150k seems very probable.

[Eugene]

http://www.iraqbodycount.org

80k confirmed violent civilian deaths which have been recorded by appropriate witnesses. Add non-violent deaths (hunger, disease, etc.), deaths that weren’t properly witnessed – maybe 600k is an exagerration but 150k seems very probable.

[Eugene]

http://www.iraqbodycount.org

80k confirmed violent civilian deaths which have been recorded by appropriate witnesses. Add non-violent deaths (hunger, disease, etc.), deaths that weren’t properly witnessed – maybe 600k is an exagerration but 150k seems very probable.

[Eugene]

http://www.iraqbodycount.org

80k confirmed violent civilian deaths which have been recorded by appropriate witnesses. Add non-violent deaths (hunger, disease, etc.), deaths that weren’t properly witnessed – maybe 600k is an exagerration but 150k seems very probable.

[surveyor]

600k

That 600k figure of people who have died in Iraq has been proven to be extremely wrong.

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm

The more correct number is around 48k.

Do agree with you though that some countries aren’t ready for democracy.

[surveyor]

600k

That 600k figure of people who have died in Iraq has been proven to be extremely wrong.

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm

The more correct number is around 48k.

Do agree with you though that some countries aren’t ready for democracy.

[surveyor]

600k

That 600k figure of people who have died in Iraq has been proven to be extremely wrong.

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm

The more correct number is around 48k.

Do agree with you though that some countries aren’t ready for democracy.

[surveyor]

600k

That 600k figure of people who have died in Iraq has been proven to be extremely wrong.

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm

The more correct number is around 48k.

Do agree with you though that some countries aren’t ready for democracy.

[kewp]

Some countries just don’t seem to be ready for democracy.

I’ll second that. Countries get the leaders they deserve. Including ours. 🙁

[kewp]

Some countries just don’t seem to be ready for democracy.

I’ll second that. Countries get the leaders they deserve. Including ours. 🙁

[kewp]

Some countries just don’t seem to be ready for democracy.

I’ll second that. Countries get the leaders they deserve. Including ours. 🙁

[kewp]

Some countries just don’t seem to be ready for democracy.

I’ll second that. Countries get the leaders they deserve. Including ours. 🙁

[kewp]

Some countries just don’t seem to be ready for democracy.

I’ll second that. Countries get the leaders they deserve. Including ours. 🙁

[Eugene]

If you look into what Saddam was doing to his own people: It had to change.

It may sound extremely cynical but … Saddam was the only person who knew how to maintain order in Iraq without extreme bloodshed.

Saddam’ regime was successful at managing the country at the cost of 15-20 thousand civilian deaths per year. Since we got there, an estimated 600 thousand people have died, either killed by Americans or their fellow Iraqis. No guarantee that the situation will stabilize if we withdraw.

Some countries just don’t seem to be ready for democracy.

[Eugene]

If you look into what Saddam was doing to his own people: It had to change.

It may sound extremely cynical but … Saddam was the only person who knew how to maintain order in Iraq without extreme bloodshed.

Saddam’ regime was successful at managing the country at the cost of 15-20 thousand civilian deaths per year. Since we got there, an estimated 600 thousand people have died, either killed by Americans or their fellow Iraqis. No guarantee that the situation will stabilize if we withdraw.

Some countries just don’t seem to be ready for democracy.

[Eugene]

If you look into what Saddam was doing to his own people: It had to change.

It may sound extremely cynical but … Saddam was the only person who knew how to maintain order in Iraq without extreme bloodshed.

Saddam’ regime was successful at managing the country at the cost of 15-20 thousand civilian deaths per year. Since we got there, an estimated 600 thousand people have died, either killed by Americans or their fellow Iraqis. No guarantee that the situation will stabilize if we withdraw.

Some countries just don’t seem to be ready for democracy.

[Eugene]

If you look into what Saddam was doing to his own people: It had to change.

It may sound extremely cynical but … Saddam was the only person who knew how to maintain order in Iraq without extreme bloodshed.

Saddam’ regime was successful at managing the country at the cost of 15-20 thousand civilian deaths per year. Since we got there, an estimated 600 thousand people have died, either killed by Americans or their fellow Iraqis. No guarantee that the situation will stabilize if we withdraw.

Some countries just don’t seem to be ready for democracy.

[ucodegen]

@kwep

Ok, cut taxes in general and started a war.

It was needed, remember what were were going through on the initial term of his presidency. On the other hand, cutting RE long term capital gains was stupid and only help fuel the speculators. Nothing like being able to hid up to $250,000 by just owning a house for 1 year and selling for more later. Sounds like a flippers mating song…

Starting a war: I go both ways on this. I am more upset as how the war was executed as opposed to the war itself. Typical group grope management wise. If you look into what Saddam was doing to his own people: It had to change. The “shock and awe” stuff was absolutely stupid. The real “shock and awe” would be the US troops waving “hi” behind that Baghdad TV reporter as he was stating that US troops were loosing their will to fight and were no where near the capital.

[ucodegen]

@kwep

Ok, cut taxes in general and started a war.

It was needed, remember what were were going through on the initial term of his presidency. On the other hand, cutting RE long term capital gains was stupid and only help fuel the speculators. Nothing like being able to hid up to $250,000 by just owning a house for 1 year and selling for more later. Sounds like a flippers mating song…

Starting a war: I go both ways on this. I am more upset as how the war was executed as opposed to the war itself. Typical group grope management wise. If you look into what Saddam was doing to his own people: It had to change. The “shock and awe” stuff was absolutely stupid. The real “shock and awe” would be the US troops waving “hi” behind that Baghdad TV reporter as he was stating that US troops were loosing their will to fight and were no where near the capital.

[ucodegen]

@kwep

Ok, cut taxes in general and started a war.

It was needed, remember what were were going through on the initial term of his presidency. On the other hand, cutting RE long term capital gains was stupid and only help fuel the speculators. Nothing like being able to hid up to $250,000 by just owning a house for 1 year and selling for more later. Sounds like a flippers mating song…

Starting a war: I go both ways on this. I am more upset as how the war was executed as opposed to the war itself. Typical group grope management wise. If you look into what Saddam was doing to his own people: It had to change. The “shock and awe” stuff was absolutely stupid. The real “shock and awe” would be the US troops waving “hi” behind that Baghdad TV reporter as he was stating that US troops were loosing their will to fight and were no where near the capital.

[ucodegen]

@kwep

Ok, cut taxes in general and started a war.

It was needed, remember what were were going through on the initial term of his presidency. On the other hand, cutting RE long term capital gains was stupid and only help fuel the speculators. Nothing like being able to hid up to $250,000 by just owning a house for 1 year and selling for more later. Sounds like a flippers mating song…

Starting a war: I go both ways on this. I am more upset as how the war was executed as opposed to the war itself. Typical group grope management wise. If you look into what Saddam was doing to his own people: It had to change. The “shock and awe” stuff was absolutely stupid. The real “shock and awe” would be the US troops waving “hi” behind that Baghdad TV reporter as he was stating that US troops were loosing their will to fight and were no where near the capital.

[kewp]

Ok, cut taxes in general and started a war.

Bad ju-ju and we are all gonna pay for it.

[kewp]

Ok, cut taxes in general and started a war.

Bad ju-ju and we are all gonna pay for it.

[kewp]

Ok, cut taxes in general and started a war.

Bad ju-ju and we are all gonna pay for it.

[kewp]

Ok, cut taxes in general and started a war.

Bad ju-ju and we are all gonna pay for it.

[ucodegen]

The IRS used to publish the full schedule within the 1040 instruction booklet, but now they only post it for over $100,000 in income. It was located at the end of the tax table and would show the split points for the income tax. It is possible to calculate what the split points on the income below $100,000 buy running regressions on the table. This is from a 2005 tax table for single.

0 – 7299 10% marginal rate, 10% total.
7300 – 29699 15% marginal rate (additional dollars over 7300 taxed at 15% on top of the 10% on under 7300)
29700 – 71949 25% marginal rate.
71950 – 150149 28% marginal rate.
150150 – 326449 33% marginal rate
326450+ 35% marginal rate.

Add in the fact that deductions start being eliminated for incomes over 146000(single)… so where is it that the rich are getting a break? 35% of your income gone to fed taxes? Add in CA state and you are looking at 44% of your income gone to taxes. Take a look at where the money is being spent. The portion of gov spending for social programs is greater than defense spending.

[ucodegen]

The IRS used to publish the full schedule within the 1040 instruction booklet, but now they only post it for over $100,000 in income. It was located at the end of the tax table and would show the split points for the income tax. It is possible to calculate what the split points on the income below $100,000 buy running regressions on the table. This is from a 2005 tax table for single.

0 – 7299 10% marginal rate, 10% total.
7300 – 29699 15% marginal rate (additional dollars over 7300 taxed at 15% on top of the 10% on under 7300)
29700 – 71949 25% marginal rate.
71950 – 150149 28% marginal rate.
150150 – 326449 33% marginal rate
326450+ 35% marginal rate.

Add in the fact that deductions start being eliminated for incomes over 146000(single)… so where is it that the rich are getting a break? 35% of your income gone to fed taxes? Add in CA state and you are looking at 44% of your income gone to taxes. Take a look at where the money is being spent. The portion of gov spending for social programs is greater than defense spending.

[ucodegen]

The IRS used to publish the full schedule within the 1040 instruction booklet, but now they only post it for over $100,000 in income. It was located at the end of the tax table and would show the split points for the income tax. It is possible to calculate what the split points on the income below $100,000 buy running regressions on the table. This is from a 2005 tax table for single.

0 – 7299 10% marginal rate, 10% total.
7300 – 29699 15% marginal rate (additional dollars over 7300 taxed at 15% on top of the 10% on under 7300)
29700 – 71949 25% marginal rate.
71950 – 150149 28% marginal rate.
150150 – 326449 33% marginal rate
326450+ 35% marginal rate.

Add in the fact that deductions start being eliminated for incomes over 146000(single)… so where is it that the rich are getting a break? 35% of your income gone to fed taxes? Add in CA state and you are looking at 44% of your income gone to taxes. Take a look at where the money is being spent. The portion of gov spending for social programs is greater than defense spending.

[ucodegen]

The IRS used to publish the full schedule within the 1040 instruction booklet, but now they only post it for over $100,000 in income. It was located at the end of the tax table and would show the split points for the income tax. It is possible to calculate what the split points on the income below $100,000 buy running regressions on the table. This is from a 2005 tax table for single.

0 – 7299 10% marginal rate, 10% total.
7300 – 29699 15% marginal rate (additional dollars over 7300 taxed at 15% on top of the 10% on under 7300)
29700 – 71949 25% marginal rate.
71950 – 150149 28% marginal rate.
150150 – 326449 33% marginal rate
326450+ 35% marginal rate.

Add in the fact that deductions start being eliminated for incomes over 146000(single)… so where is it that the rich are getting a break? 35% of your income gone to fed taxes? Add in CA state and you are looking at 44% of your income gone to taxes. Take a look at where the money is being spent. The portion of gov spending for social programs is greater than defense spending.

[kewp]

Considering some of the UN’s historical selections, I don’t put much trust in anything they come up with anymore.

Do some research on the index. It’s very mathematical and objective. Other quality-of-life indexes return similar results.

All the countries above us offer universal health care, btw.

Re: Presidential fiscal policy; the only big issue I have with GW is that he started a war while cutting taxes for the wealthy. Leaving the lower classes to shoulder the burden (and the dead).

[kewp]

Considering some of the UN’s historical selections, I don’t put much trust in anything they come up with anymore.

Do some research on the index. It’s very mathematical and objective. Other quality-of-life indexes return similar results.

All the countries above us offer universal health care, btw.

Re: Presidential fiscal policy; the only big issue I have with GW is that he started a war while cutting taxes for the wealthy. Leaving the lower classes to shoulder the burden (and the dead).

[kewp]

Considering some of the UN’s historical selections, I don’t put much trust in anything they come up with anymore.

Do some research on the index. It’s very mathematical and objective. Other quality-of-life indexes return similar results.

All the countries above us offer universal health care, btw.

Re: Presidential fiscal policy; the only big issue I have with GW is that he started a war while cutting taxes for the wealthy. Leaving the lower classes to shoulder the burden (and the dead).

[kewp]

Considering some of the UN’s historical selections, I don’t put much trust in anything they come up with anymore.

Do some research on the index. It’s very mathematical and objective. Other quality-of-life indexes return similar results.

All the countries above us offer universal health care, btw.

Re: Presidential fiscal policy; the only big issue I have with GW is that he started a war while cutting taxes for the wealthy. Leaving the lower classes to shoulder the burden (and the dead).

[ucodegen]

@kewp

Notice a trend? All the countries that are beating us are much more socialist than we are.

Not all those countries on that list are that socialist. Some of them are. By the way, I am surprised that France is that high considering the unemployment rate for young workers.

If you also notice the numbers, they are not that far apart.

Considering some of the UN’s historical selections, I don’t put much trust in anything they come up with anymore.

[ucodegen]

@kewp

Notice a trend? All the countries that are beating us are much more socialist than we are.

Not all those countries on that list are that socialist. Some of them are. By the way, I am surprised that France is that high considering the unemployment rate for young workers.

If you also notice the numbers, they are not that far apart.

Considering some of the UN’s historical selections, I don’t put much trust in anything they come up with anymore.

[ucodegen]

@kewp

Notice a trend? All the countries that are beating us are much more socialist than we are.

Not all those countries on that list are that socialist. Some of them are. By the way, I am surprised that France is that high considering the unemployment rate for young workers.

If you also notice the numbers, they are not that far apart.

Considering some of the UN’s historical selections, I don’t put much trust in anything they come up with anymore.

[ucodegen]

@kewp

Notice a trend? All the countries that are beating us are much more socialist than we are.

Not all those countries on that list are that socialist. Some of them are. By the way, I am surprised that France is that high considering the unemployment rate for young workers.

If you also notice the numbers, they are not that far apart.

Considering some of the UN’s historical selections, I don’t put much trust in anything they come up with anymore.

[XBoxBoy]

Free market problems,

Kewp wrote:
“I used to be a big free-market wonk, but the current mess we are in is exclusively due to the ‘invisible hand’ grabbing as much as it can for itself. Damn the consequences.”

One thing that always gets over looked is what happens when you transition from a heavy hand of government to a free market. As you relax the rules and regulations, there are always those that take advantage or forget the consequences that the market will slap them with. We saw this in the deregulation of electricity big time. Now we are seeing what happens when you deregulate mortgages, and allow unregulated products like default swaps to proliferate.

Yes, the free market will work, but their is always a rough spot as you transition from a regulated environment to a non-regulated environment. The players need to learn the new/changed rules, and there are usually painful lessons involved in learning new rules.

The unfortunate aspect is that most people don’t understand the costs of these transitions, and that means most people are going to be supporting a return to more government regulation in these areas. Which is exactly what Hilary is counting on. And for what it’s worth, I have the sneaking suspicion that this talk is gonna make her more popular with the average voter.

[XBoxBoy]

Free market problems,

Kewp wrote:
“I used to be a big free-market wonk, but the current mess we are in is exclusively due to the ‘invisible hand’ grabbing as much as it can for itself. Damn the consequences.”

One thing that always gets over looked is what happens when you transition from a heavy hand of government to a free market. As you relax the rules and regulations, there are always those that take advantage or forget the consequences that the market will slap them with. We saw this in the deregulation of electricity big time. Now we are seeing what happens when you deregulate mortgages, and allow unregulated products like default swaps to proliferate.

Yes, the free market will work, but their is always a rough spot as you transition from a regulated environment to a non-regulated environment. The players need to learn the new/changed rules, and there are usually painful lessons involved in learning new rules.

The unfortunate aspect is that most people don’t understand the costs of these transitions, and that means most people are going to be supporting a return to more government regulation in these areas. Which is exactly what Hilary is counting on. And for what it’s worth, I have the sneaking suspicion that this talk is gonna make her more popular with the average voter.

[XBoxBoy]

Free market problems,

Kewp wrote:
“I used to be a big free-market wonk, but the current mess we are in is exclusively due to the ‘invisible hand’ grabbing as much as it can for itself. Damn the consequences.”

One thing that always gets over looked is what happens when you transition from a heavy hand of government to a free market. As you relax the rules and regulations, there are always those that take advantage or forget the consequences that the market will slap them with. We saw this in the deregulation of electricity big time. Now we are seeing what happens when you deregulate mortgages, and allow unregulated products like default swaps to proliferate.

Yes, the free market will work, but their is always a rough spot as you transition from a regulated environment to a non-regulated environment. The players need to learn the new/changed rules, and there are usually painful lessons involved in learning new rules.

The unfortunate aspect is that most people don’t understand the costs of these transitions, and that means most people are going to be supporting a return to more government regulation in these areas. Which is exactly what Hilary is counting on. And for what it’s worth, I have the sneaking suspicion that this talk is gonna make her more popular with the average voter.

[XBoxBoy]

Free market problems,

Kewp wrote:
“I used to be a big free-market wonk, but the current mess we are in is exclusively due to the ‘invisible hand’ grabbing as much as it can for itself. Damn the consequences.”

One thing that always gets over looked is what happens when you transition from a heavy hand of government to a free market. As you relax the rules and regulations, there are always those that take advantage or forget the consequences that the market will slap them with. We saw this in the deregulation of electricity big time. Now we are seeing what happens when you deregulate mortgages, and allow unregulated products like default swaps to proliferate.

Yes, the free market will work, but their is always a rough spot as you transition from a regulated environment to a non-regulated environment. The players need to learn the new/changed rules, and there are usually painful lessons involved in learning new rules.

The unfortunate aspect is that most people don’t understand the costs of these transitions, and that means most people are going to be supporting a return to more government regulation in these areas. Which is exactly what Hilary is counting on. And for what it’s worth, I have the sneaking suspicion that this talk is gonna make her more popular with the average voter.

[XBoxBoy]

Free market problems,

Kewp wrote:
“I used to be a big free-market wonk, but the current mess we are in is exclusively due to the ‘invisible hand’ grabbing as much as it can for itself. Damn the consequences.”

One thing that always gets over looked is what happens when you transition from a heavy hand of government to a free market. As you relax the rules and regulations, there are always those that take advantage or forget the consequences that the market will slap them with. We saw this in the deregulation of electricity big time. Now we are seeing what happens when you deregulate mortgages, and allow unregulated products like default swaps to proliferate.

Yes, the free market will work, but their is always a rough spot as you transition from a regulated environment to a non-regulated environment. The players need to learn the new/changed rules, and there are usually painful lessons involved in learning new rules.

The unfortunate aspect is that most people don’t understand the costs of these transitions, and that means most people are going to be supporting a return to more government regulation in these areas. Which is exactly what Hilary is counting on. And for what it’s worth, I have the sneaking suspicion that this talk is gonna make her more popular with the average voter.

[maybe]

Notice a trend? All the countries that are beating us are much more socialist than we are.

I used to be a big free-market wonk, but the current mess we are in is exclusively due to the ‘invisible hand’ grabbing as much as it can for itself. Damn the consequences.

Yeah, sure, the free market will ‘sort things out’. With a housing/market crash and ensuing mass unemployment. Is this really the best way to handle things?

Don’t worry– the capitalists on wall street are all being nationalized, albeit by a bunch of kings, socialists, and communists.

Those governments can spend their money keeping our inefficient companies afloat…

[maybe]

Notice a trend? All the countries that are beating us are much more socialist than we are.

I used to be a big free-market wonk, but the current mess we are in is exclusively due to the ‘invisible hand’ grabbing as much as it can for itself. Damn the consequences.

Yeah, sure, the free market will ‘sort things out’. With a housing/market crash and ensuing mass unemployment. Is this really the best way to handle things?

Don’t worry– the capitalists on wall street are all being nationalized, albeit by a bunch of kings, socialists, and communists.

Those governments can spend their money keeping our inefficient companies afloat…

[maybe]

Notice a trend? All the countries that are beating us are much more socialist than we are.

I used to be a big free-market wonk, but the current mess we are in is exclusively due to the ‘invisible hand’ grabbing as much as it can for itself. Damn the consequences.

Yeah, sure, the free market will ‘sort things out’. With a housing/market crash and ensuing mass unemployment. Is this really the best way to handle things?

Don’t worry– the capitalists on wall street are all being nationalized, albeit by a bunch of kings, socialists, and communists.

Those governments can spend their money keeping our inefficient companies afloat…

[maybe]

Notice a trend? All the countries that are beating us are much more socialist than we are.

I used to be a big free-market wonk, but the current mess we are in is exclusively due to the ‘invisible hand’ grabbing as much as it can for itself. Damn the consequences.

Yeah, sure, the free market will ‘sort things out’. With a housing/market crash and ensuing mass unemployment. Is this really the best way to handle things?

Don’t worry– the capitalists on wall street are all being nationalized, albeit by a bunch of kings, socialists, and communists.

Those governments can spend their money keeping our inefficient companies afloat…

[maybe]

Notice a trend? All the countries that are beating us are much more socialist than we are.

I used to be a big free-market wonk, but the current mess we are in is exclusively due to the ‘invisible hand’ grabbing as much as it can for itself. Damn the consequences.

Yeah, sure, the free market will ‘sort things out’. With a housing/market crash and ensuing mass unemployment. Is this really the best way to handle things?

Don’t worry– the capitalists on wall street are all being nationalized, albeit by a bunch of kings, socialists, and communists.

Those governments can spend their money keeping our inefficient companies afloat…

[kewp]

Lets have a look at the top 15 countries in the UN’s Human Development Index:

“The Human Development Index (HDI) is the normalized measure of life expectancy, literacy, education, standard of living,and GDP per capita for countries worldwide. It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare. It is used to determine and indicate whether a country is a developed, developing, or underdeveloped country and also to measure the impact of economic policies on quality of life.”

Iceland 0.968
Norway 0.968
Australia 0.962
Canada 0.961
Ireland 0.959
Sweden 0.956
Switzerland 0.955
Japan 0.953
Netherlands 0.953
France 0.952
Finland 0.952
United States 0.951
Spain 0.949

Notice a trend? All the countries that are beating us are much more socialist than we are.

I used to be a big free-market wonk, but the current mess we are in is exclusively due to the ‘invisible hand’ grabbing as much as it can for itself. Damn the consequences.

Yeah, sure, the free market will ‘sort things out’. With a housing/market crash and ensuing mass unemployment. Is this really the best way to handle things?

[kewp]

Lets have a look at the top 15 countries in the UN’s Human Development Index:

“The Human Development Index (HDI) is the normalized measure of life expectancy, literacy, education, standard of living,and GDP per capita for countries worldwide. It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare. It is used to determine and indicate whether a country is a developed, developing, or underdeveloped country and also to measure the impact of economic policies on quality of life.”

Iceland 0.968
Norway 0.968
Australia 0.962
Canada 0.961
Ireland 0.959
Sweden 0.956
Switzerland 0.955
Japan 0.953
Netherlands 0.953
France 0.952
Finland 0.952
United States 0.951
Spain 0.949

Notice a trend? All the countries that are beating us are much more socialist than we are.

I used to be a big free-market wonk, but the current mess we are in is exclusively due to the ‘invisible hand’ grabbing as much as it can for itself. Damn the consequences.

Yeah, sure, the free market will ‘sort things out’. With a housing/market crash and ensuing mass unemployment. Is this really the best way to handle things?

[kewp]

Lets have a look at the top 15 countries in the UN’s Human Development Index:

“The Human Development Index (HDI) is the normalized measure of life expectancy, literacy, education, standard of living,and GDP per capita for countries worldwide. It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare. It is used to determine and indicate whether a country is a developed, developing, or underdeveloped country and also to measure the impact of economic policies on quality of life.”

Iceland 0.968
Norway 0.968
Australia 0.962
Canada 0.961
Ireland 0.959
Sweden 0.956
Switzerland 0.955
Japan 0.953
Netherlands 0.953
France 0.952
Finland 0.952
United States 0.951
Spain 0.949

Notice a trend? All the countries that are beating us are much more socialist than we are.

I used to be a big free-market wonk, but the current mess we are in is exclusively due to the ‘invisible hand’ grabbing as much as it can for itself. Damn the consequences.

Yeah, sure, the free market will ‘sort things out’. With a housing/market crash and ensuing mass unemployment. Is this really the best way to handle things?

[kewp]

Lets have a look at the top 15 countries in the UN’s Human Development Index:

“The Human Development Index (HDI) is the normalized measure of life expectancy, literacy, education, standard of living,and GDP per capita for countries worldwide. It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare. It is used to determine and indicate whether a country is a developed, developing, or underdeveloped country and also to measure the impact of economic policies on quality of life.”

Iceland 0.968
Norway 0.968
Australia 0.962
Canada 0.961
Ireland 0.959
Sweden 0.956
Switzerland 0.955
Japan 0.953
Netherlands 0.953
France 0.952
Finland 0.952
United States 0.951
Spain 0.949

Notice a trend? All the countries that are beating us are much more socialist than we are.

I used to be a big free-market wonk, but the current mess we are in is exclusively due to the ‘invisible hand’ grabbing as much as it can for itself. Damn the consequences.

Yeah, sure, the free market will ‘sort things out’. With a housing/market crash and ensuing mass unemployment. Is this really the best way to handle things?

[gold_dredger_phd]

At least we’ll see 5 seconds of real opposition by Republicans if she does get in office.

We don’t have a “free market” in this country. We have a mixed economy like most other countries on planet Earth. There’s capitalism, a little fascism, some anarchy and a big heap of socialism (read welfare).

We have a fiat currency, massive regulations, huge middle class welfare entitlements and transfer payments, and regulation of political speech.

Liberals and closet socialists try to say, “free market” but know that most of the “problems” that occur in the economy are either due to human nature or are caused by government interference.

[gold_dredger_phd]

At least we’ll see 5 seconds of real opposition by Republicans if she does get in office.

We don’t have a “free market” in this country. We have a mixed economy like most other countries on planet Earth. There’s capitalism, a little fascism, some anarchy and a big heap of socialism (read welfare).

We have a fiat currency, massive regulations, huge middle class welfare entitlements and transfer payments, and regulation of political speech.

Liberals and closet socialists try to say, “free market” but know that most of the “problems” that occur in the economy are either due to human nature or are caused by government interference.

[gold_dredger_phd]

At least we’ll see 5 seconds of real opposition by Republicans if she does get in office.

We don’t have a “free market” in this country. We have a mixed economy like most other countries on planet Earth. There’s capitalism, a little fascism, some anarchy and a big heap of socialism (read welfare).

We have a fiat currency, massive regulations, huge middle class welfare entitlements and transfer payments, and regulation of political speech.

Liberals and closet socialists try to say, “free market” but know that most of the “problems” that occur in the economy are either due to human nature or are caused by government interference.

[gold_dredger_phd]

At least we’ll see 5 seconds of real opposition by Republicans if she does get in office.

We don’t have a “free market” in this country. We have a mixed economy like most other countries on planet Earth. There’s capitalism, a little fascism, some anarchy and a big heap of socialism (read welfare).

We have a fiat currency, massive regulations, huge middle class welfare entitlements and transfer payments, and regulation of political speech.

Liberals and closet socialists try to say, “free market” but know that most of the “problems” that occur in the economy are either due to human nature or are caused by government interference.

[gold_dredger_phd]

At least we’ll see 5 seconds of real opposition by Republicans if she does get in office.

We don’t have a “free market” in this country. We have a mixed economy like most other countries on planet Earth. There’s capitalism, a little fascism, some anarchy and a big heap of socialism (read welfare).

We have a fiat currency, massive regulations, huge middle class welfare entitlements and transfer payments, and regulation of political speech.

Liberals and closet socialists try to say, “free market” but know that most of the “problems” that occur in the economy are either due to human nature or are caused by government interference.

[Author]

Posts