Andrew, I can tell you, and you can accept my honesty on it or not, but I am not paraphrasing anyone's work. I posted the link on Sowell because I thought it was an interesting article that summed some of this up pretty well. Can you find writers that say similar things that I am? Of course! Because this stuff is pretty common knowledge to those not wearing ideological blinders. There's a fairly new book out by a NY Times columnist about the cause of the economic crisis.  You can google it.

I hesitated including Hitler in that passage as it might muddy things. The better examples are the Communist ones, which you conveniently skip over. But the Nazis did engage in their own brand of control and planning. Millions of Soviet peasants starved under government planning. Modern North Koreans are starving. Man, what I shame I have to waste words on this. History is worth studying.

There is simply no serious question that government meddling in housing created this mess. No question. And it involved squeezing banks to lend to people that were not qualified.

In all seriousness, compare your arguments to mine, and tell me who's ranting. You talk about wagging dicks and tackling greed. One is juvenile nonsense, the other is some kind of meaningless slogan. Nothing you say approaches an argument, a theory, even a coherent thought. Cite one example of a coherent thought in your posts above?

Your positions are about feeling. Emotional reactions to things I say that you don't agree with, but can't refute. You offer no alternative ideas. You snicker and spit out half a$$ Left wing bumper slogans about greed. What else you got? Make love not war? Bush lied people died? Seriously, snickering does not constitute an argument, or even a thought. Stick to your bumper stickers.

You're right, I am being lightweight on detail. Deliberately. Why? Kev, to debate with you would be to halfway legitimise your ludicrous views put forth. I'll get 'coherent'. I'll reiterate the questions you missed:

Which government spending? What was your alternative to the stimulus? Or do you simply think the funds were misapplied? Where would you have invested them?

You wanted me to reply to the mention of Communism? What's the correlation with the Obama government? I skipped it because it's a silly, silly comparison. Like I said, I have no idea what you are talking about with most of this tripe.

In terms of policy prescriptions, I'll happily lay out and substantiate if I think the audience is willing to engage, and/or broaden my own understanding. I truly believe it's a waste of my time in trying to do so with you. You simply churn out arbitrary terms like "government programs" which have been lifted directly from the likes of Sarah Palin and Blll O'Reilly.

But, you want to get serious, then answer the following, please:

- What programs do you talk of?
- Why is Obama's government so big?
- What % of the deficit is owing to these programs?
- What % is owing to tax breaks for the top 1%, war and the financial meltdown?
- How do low taxation rates for the top 1% trickle down to the rest of us?
- If the tax breaks stimulate the economy, how do they?
- Who are the real drivers of the economy? The consumer or the innovator?
- How do Bill Gates and Warren Buffet justify their views?
- Why do these innovators believe tax breaks are not just irresponsible, but economically imprudent?
- How have these government programs exacerbated the deficit?
- If we're to take your word for it and government programs are indeed so rife and dangerous, what do you propose doing?
- How do we cut the increasing gap between those at the top and those at the bottom?
- How do your prescriptions simultaneously 'grow the economy' whilst addressing the income gap?  
- What's more important?
- What do we do to ensure growth is not misappropriated and shared equally?
- Do you concede that sticking to the current trajectory will leave the rich richer and the poor poorer?
- If not, why not? History shows the opposite. Explain why history and trends are wrong.
- If the economy does grow, how do we avoid 'excessive regulation' messing it all up again, even though inconveniently it was lax regulation?
- Explain to me why stimulating the economy your way improves schooling when you're advocating mass spending cuts that directly impact on education whilst protecting the defence budget?
- Do you concede that your hawkish views on Islam beget this desire to protect defence spending at all costs, even if it directly impinges on the schooling of the many, many poor children in your country (and mine)?
- How many of the richest in the USA (individuals, not organisations) lost their homes, their incomes and their financial futures as a consequence of the true cause of the crash in 2008?
- Why are banks posting record profits?
- Define greed; and please define what you've extrapolated my definition to be?

Usury. I was thinking today about usury.

For a thousand years in Europe lending money for interest or fees was considered a sin, and in most times and in most countries in Europe was considered illegal. A thousand years.

Of course, many kings and councils knew this was folly. That was why Jews became money lenders. Rulers knew their kingdoms needed money lending, so they found a way around the ban by allowing non Christians to perform the job. But this was never a very effective solution, especially as sooner or later kings tended to pillage the Jews and take all their money.

But the relevant point is this: wise people knew that money lending was needed. Not just to lend to the crown, but for the essential economic activity of the kingdom, on which the strength of the crown was built. If someone wanted to start a business as a baker, a miller, a sign maker, where would they get the money? So all this activity was suppressed for centuries.

Why could the rulers not allow what they knew was so needed? Because the prevailing meme said that this activity was sinful. It was greedy to profit from your neighbors need. If your neighbor needs money to start a business, lend it to him at no profit to yourself. It's the Christian thing to do.

In England, finally under Henry the VIII, near the end of the sixteenth century, lending with interest was made legal. Of course, it took the breaking with Rome for this to happen. In the following decades businesses flourished, including those involving the settlement of America...not by exploiters, like the Spanish, but by individuals and small groups looking to build lives.

This example from history illustrates the problem of ideas and memes that sound right to our ear but might not be. The idea that usury was a sin was meant to protect people from exploitation. It had the exact opposite effect, and resulted in a situation where for centuries it was all but impossible to climb from the bondage and desperation in which most people lived.

When I was in high school, I took AP History with a professor who was a great teacher at that level in that he encouraged thinking about history in terms beyond dates and figures. But I reflected later in life on some of his teaching, and it is illustrative. At the beginning of the semester, we were given a book by the historian Richard Hoftstader, who did most of his work in the 1930s. We were told, literally, that this book should be treated as the bible for his class. I now know that that statement alone indicates a problem.

The history we were taught, the Hoftstader history, told us that historical events and trends could only be understood in economic terms. Our first topic was the colonization of North America. Most kids had been taught that liberty and religious freedom were big factors in the settling of this world. Not so, said Hoftstader. The driving force was, and always is, economic considerations. People came for money, or at least to make a living.

I didn't know at the time, none of us did, that this was Marxist history. In fact, when I was older I researched Hoftstader. Brilliant writer, maybe the best historical writing I've ever read, from the pure writing perspective. But his theories, like many of his era, were heavily Marxist. It was the big intellectual trend in that day, and especially where he was, NYU I think(yes, even bigger than now). Later in life, Hoftstader took a slight turn to the right, and recanted some of his earlier thinking, but it was that earlier thinking that we were taught. Under this MArxist/materialist view, everything that happens does so because of money.

This kind of thinking has currents that penetrate deep within our subconscious today. Think about these expressions: "It's all about the money", "or "follow the money". But it's important to know that we didn't always think this way. This is what a meme is, and memes have deep roots in our minds, and we take them for granted.  That is not to say that money is not important. What I'm saying is that this notion that everything that happens is attributed to money is part of our modern thinking, but it was not always part of our conventional thought.

So when someone says it's all about greed, most people just go "Amen, brother, I hear ya". That's the meme at work. Everyone thinks they understand, and no one really questions or looks closely. But we don't even really know that is even meant. Are we talking about the greed of rich people? Of unions? Of pensioners? Of lenders...sinful lenders?

What many call greed, economists call incentive. Incentive is what drives economic behavior. When someone says they want to "tackle greed", to most of our ears, influenced by the prevailing meme which says money is the root of all problems, it sounds right. Just like it sounded right to the medieval ear that lending at interest was a sin, and sin was the root of all evil in their world. It took them a thousand years to overcome their prevailing meme. Hopefully we will not suffer the same fate.

EDIT: Another thing to think about is Potemkin villages. Google if you can't recall what they are.

In the 1930s, the intellectual community in the US was still in love with the Soviet Union. Many of these progressive people filled the FDR administration, including the socialist VP Wallace(I forget his first name, maybe Henry). The Soviet experiment had been ongoing for about 2 decades, and even though information was tightly controlled within the Soviet Union, it could not be completely contained, and the tragic disaster unfolding there was becoming somewhat clear. Central planning resulted in the starvation of millions, not to mention all the other horrible crimes committed under the notion that a powerful central government can make society a better place.

But this was not what the intellectuals in the West wanted to hear. So they simply closed their eyes and went "na na na na, I can't hear you." And the human disaster continued, uncommented on by the West. In fact, the US government remained literally filled spies who were generally intellectuals on Left who sympathized with the Soviets. Look it up. We now know this(see Venona Cables).

I think it was 1938, and Wallace visited the Soviet Union(I could have year wrong). Before his visit, the Soviets created fake villages for him to visit, to show him how great things were in Soviet society. It's extraordinary how intelligent, educated people fell for that, but they bought it hook, line and sinker. Why? Because it fit perfectly into the image they had in their heads what a planned society would look like.

That would NEVER happen today, right? Well, look at how progressives loves Hugo Chavez. They adore him. Sean Penn hangs out all the time. And yet, despite having the world's largest oil reserves, Venezuelans have trouble keeping the electricity on. Silencing opposition is the only thing they are efficient at. Central planning.

What does this have to do with 'greed tackling'? Income redistribution is the key tenet and promise of central planning. Soon to come to a theater near you, perhaps.

Memes are powerful, and sometimes dangerous things. And there's no shortage of people willing to take advantage of their power. Two words: hope and change.

Kev, in your head that response may have sounded scholarly; to me it was pidgin, home taught history never investigated or debated beyond the confines of your computer. This aimless summary of history bore no relation to the direct questions I asked you. Why did you not answer the questions? You stated that the deficit is the consequence of inept governance (I've softened your actual quote to create a resemblance of reality); that the Left have never made history; that Reagan was the doyen of American recovery from selfish little Carter, etc, etc.

I simply asked you to qualify various statements of yours with facts or reasoned thinking. You relinquished any self-held superiority with this curious response. If I'm a fully-paid up member of the Left who doesn't tread on serious, fact-based ground, then I don't understand why you cannot pummel me into the ground when I tread the substantive ground of the Right.  The point and lesson here is that you need to move beyond the Right and the Left. It's hampering your thinking and clouding you to the realities of the world today. Historical context is crucial in understanding what's been and gone as well as assessing the precedents we deal with today, but you must learn the lessons of it - not simply apply it to a preconceived framework of thinking based on mistrust. I don't mind evasive, intelligent responses to questions that are designed to ultimately challenge the recipient. Your response doesn't fall into that bracket - not even close. You simply put together a lot of nonsense to avoid answering questions that you do not know the answers to.

You accused me of being whimsical, so I asked you questions to challenge your political leaning and to quantify some of the ludicrous accusations towards a government you dislike simply for its political stripes. I'm not trying to catch you out with stats you don't (or could not) know.

I'm supposedly emotive, and yet you cannot answer simple questions that should be easily answerable. In lieu of any solid evidence of conceptual thinking in your politics, it's clear it is you that is politically emotive. The one question that I keep asking myself is: What government programs, Kev? If you could even answer the simplest question, I'd be impressed, but you haven't had the memo yet via the television mouthpieces who provide the words for you to parrot.

To be honest, I lost a huge deal of respect for you when you blindly and ignorantly stated that Islam was an evil faith. But this continued diatribe against a 'Left' - which is simply a construct of ill-educated bigots (just like the equivalents who attack the 'Right') - demonstrates you do not have a possession of facts/reasoned thinking; instead, you have a disturbing dislike for a non-entity: the 'Left'.

A fundamental tenet of my political thinking is: how do we bring ourselves closer together? How do we reconcile our differences? How do create equality? How do we make a world that we want to pass onto the next generation? How do we look at children cut adrift from the harbour of opportunity and continue to close our eyes to this greatest of crimes? How do we create a true meritocracy? These are core elements of my philosophy that I convey emotively because I am passionate about them. This doesn't mean I am unable to deal with 'practicalities' or 'fact' or whatever term you want to use. It simply means I have conviction, belief. But when you're discussing important issues with someone refusing to open their mind, you're simply wasting your time.

Honestly Andrew, take this how you will, but I really did not read your last post. I guess I will waste a little time and do so now. You haven't up to this point offered anything interesting. You re-quote parts of my posts and then snicker. You make no counter points. It reminds me of college, when Lefties used to make hissing noises when someone said something in class they don't like.

One thing you are managing to annoy me with is assumptions about the source of any of my knowledge. I have a degree in history and have been interested in history a long time. Long before the internet.

Everything I have said is basic history, and easy enough for you to research. I'm not doing your homework for you.

Let me go back and see if there's any question you really need answered. Back in a moment.

As an appendage (if you will), I would like to touch on pragmatism. This is the one skill we all (irrespective of our level of idealism) should look to extend in our 'reality vocabulary'. There are compromises that must be made, and we must accept that this plays a pivotal role in the world of politics. It's important to consider your principles in a cost-based analysis when dealing in political currency. The Liberal Democrats in England failed to do so in the recent debate regards tuition fees for university education. Whilst we must ensure that the universities of England remain competitive, cutting edge and financially sure-footed, we must not do this at the expense of a generation of poor children already fighting against the cycle of perpetuity that was the legacy of Margaret Thatcher and her reckless, incomprehensibly unfair government in the 1980s.  

Reconciling the chasms inherent in politically tribal persons (on 'both sides' of the debate) depends on compromise and common sense but must be grounded in a humanistic desire to bring us all on a fair footing; and that's where greed comes into play. It's that decision (consciously or not) to put one's own goals, dreams and comfort ahead of those with the least. It's that decision to retain taxation levels that create more wealth for the richest, whilst suffocating those with the least with gargantuan spending cuts that worsen existing inefficient public services. This is simultaneously a double blow when you deprive these people of opportunity in the wider economy. How are these tax cuts driving more money in a consumerist economy? The irony is that it is those who lecture on responsibility the most or constantly shrink from it themselves. And therein lies the crux of this current economic debate.

One last point. Innovation is crucial. It's the grease which has allowed our wheels to turn throughout history. Red tape and blocks to small business should be dealt with, I agree. To contextualise that problem within an argument of government intervention and excessive regulation is flawed thinking. There's simply no substance to it. It's this odd thinking that allows workers' rights to be sliced to shreds. To think that corporations should be governed (internally) by a code of conduct that puts its worker, its products and its innovations at the forefront of its strategy is not anti-capitalist. It's humanist. Profits are important. Of course they are. However, we need an international debate on what's more important: record profits and inefficiency savings or the welfare of those who produce the bounty? If we cut a swathe through the cosmetic differences that most of us share in politics, we'll share a centre ground that can be the cornerstone of a fairer society. And that's what I want. When it comes down to it, we're all one big family sharing this earth, so let's compromise and do what we can to make life so much easier for everyone. Let's not demonise people. Let's not obfuscate one another.

Quoted from leitskev Everything I have said is basic history, and easy enough for you to research. I'm not doing your homework for you.

You keep saying this. I don't need a lesson in history. I read it constantly. Perhaps with this knowledge you won't feel the need to impart your own inaccurate history to develop ill-judged polemics.

Stimulus: this one is easy. Lower basic tax rates. It has always worked. Look it up.

Why is the Obama government big: the government has been expanding for decades, under all Presidents. He has expanded it. There are different ways to measure size of government. We can talk about number of employees. We can talk about as percentage of GDP, which is tricky. And we should separate discretionary spending from entitlements. Entitlements are the big problem, and they have nothing to do with Obama. However, though addressing entitlements will be extremely hard with either party, there is no chance with the Democrats. They don't really see entitlements as a problem, or they think we simply addressing them by taxing those in higher income brackets. They don't understand the effect this has on the economy. And it serves their purpose: bigger government adds to their power, through unions, and through voters who are looking to the government for "stuff".

the financial meltdown is the biggest problem with the deficit. And growth is the best way out of it. The only way, actually. That was how Clinton achieved a surplus, something he did not anticipate.

War is a separate economic argument. They are national security issues. I did not support the war in Iraq, I thought the idea behind it, that we could make a stable democracy there, was wrongheaded. You know that.

Taxes: I have addressed this above, will touch briefly. What do people do with that money? What will happen to if if the government takes it? If they keep the money: they invest it, they spend it, they put in the bank. All of which stimulates growth. If the government takes it and spends it, this also stimulates growth. But the growth it stimulates is weak, and does not justify borrowing from the future(deficits) to do. It does not encourage wise investing, like the market does. It is politically determined. Often, it encourages behavior that is corrupt, and inefficient. But most important, and completely proven(you look it up) is that it changes incentives for what the rich do with their money. They start moving it around. So you raise the rate, you don't collect what you thought you would, and you are encouraging inefficient economic activity.

And you know who knows this? Now anyway. Barack Obama. I doubt he knew when he ran for office. But his economists have told him. That's why HE argued to extend the Bush tax cuts. Look it up.

consumer vs innovator: it's a false argument. But you wouldn't want an economy without innovators.

Bill Gates, Warren Buffet: they are liberals. What can I say? Bill Gates is a computer geek, most of them are liberal. Doesn't mean he knows anything about the economy. Buffet is a good man. But he's from the Depression era, and was raised under certain liberal assumptions that he's never shed. God bless him. He is worth listening to, a bright guy. doesn't make him right. They are exceptions in that they don't get it. You can throw Soros in there too, though not sure he's a good guy.

Ok, you have a ton of questions, not really fair in that you don't answer any. Let me take a quick sweep through the rest:

Gap between the rich and the poor: revealing question that you ask it. Lefties always bring it up. And it's silly. How do you measure it? Let's say we raise the income of everyone on our block 10%. That's a good thing right? Well the guy who makes 100k a year is going to have his income go up more than the guy who makes 50k. So very bad. We've just increased the gap between the rich and the poor. This is just a little example, but this gap is a strange thing. Are people poor because of their behavior? Or because of luck? Or oppression? Why is it someone's right or responsibility to address this "problem"? But the worse thing is, when people take it on themselves to address it, they only succeed in making everyone poor. Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea...and Western Europe. Look at youth unemployment in Spain, or France. What a travesty socialism has created.

Do you have any conceivable idea what we spend on education in this country? In my state we spend 11 k per pupil!  Think about that. Do the math. And oh, BTW, that does not count the cost of the buildings, facilities. That's just the education budget. Unfreaking believable!

And there isn't enough money for books!

Think about a small school, 4 classes of 25 kids each. so 100 kids, times 11k...per year! Where does the money go? Democrats, socialists, Leftists don't like those questions.

Next generation: You will be passing on a terrible world, where youth have no opportunity...like Europe. It will evolve into a feudal world, already has. You want to open a small business? Good luck! You will have to navigate a small maze of regulations and licenses put up by big government types. Trust me, I dealt with them all the time in my business. And who is behind these regulatory barriers, besides bureaucrats and other government types? Well, who benefits? Big Business, and unions. Big business, unions and big government. That's what progressivism quickly evolves into. It's not a world of liberty, and it's not a world with opportunity for the poor.

You casually pass off the tax rates question as though you're communicating fact. You're not. The onus is on you to provide evidence to support your argument. If such a quote was such a clear fact, we wouldn't be discussing it. You're not educating me by supporting your argument.

11k per head spend? Where is this money going? A topline figure doesn't disqualify concerns about educational spend. I'd like to see the source, please. What do you propose is the problem if not monetary? Could it be a social/cultural thing? Please enlighten me.

What do you spend per head on defence? And to simply brush over that is to miss the point. It's a case of real threat versus perceived threat. You believe that Islam is an evil religion. This view of yours hasn't changed, has it? Carrying this fundamental (and incorrect belief) ratchets up the need for defence spending. It's a shame that questioning the profits of what Eisenhower correctly prophesied as the MIC has become the base of irrational conspiracy theorists and thus delegitimised very legitimate questions. To be called a conspiracy theorist is to become an intellectual pariah in the mainstream. The point being that to raise the level of fear/ignorance creates a demand (need) to spend on defence against this 'enemy'. It's a crude insinuation but something to think of. You really need to reassess your thoughts on Islam.

You're not asking questions, which is why I'm not answering them.

More than a tad condescending towards Buffet. You believe you're right - doesn't make it so.

Quoted from Kev Next generation: You will be passing on a terrible world, where youth have no opportunity...like Europe.

Not quite sure what you mean with that, but thought it was perplexing and quote-worthy.

But it's a good point to stop for now. I'll be back Sunday.

http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/ppx.aspx

Chew on those numbers.

Look at youth unemployment rates in Spain, or France. Horrible. Lost generations. And I don't think it includes full time students, and many just stay in school indefinitely. I don't have time to research it.

Massachusetts spends zero on defense. Unless perhaps National Guard. Not sure if that comes out of federal budget. I think it does.

We need taxes. We need a defense, a legal system, meat inspectors. I support a safety net, such as types of welfare, and social security. But we need to be careful when mixing democracy with the idea that government can be used to take things from others to give to yourself. It's pretty easy for everyone on the block to vote that the guy with more stuff gives you stuff.

Buffet's one guy.

Ok: my one question for you. How do you wish to 'tackle' greed? And since you were the one who used the word greed, how do you define it? To me, it's irrelevant, as I made clear in all my posts. If your greed helps me, I'm ok with it. If you're greed makes you invent the light bulb, it helps everyone. This was a big part of the point I made in discussing usury, though once again, you brush off without argument or counter point. The idea that lending for interest is a sin held sway for a thousand years. And it wreaked incalculable harm on society. Focusing on greed as a sin is the same as focusing on usury. To the medieval ear, it made sense to see usury as a sin and "bad". To the modern progressive ear it makes sense to see greed in the same way. What harm shall we allow them to do? Will it last a thousand years too.

EDIT: You do know that 20% of a million dollar a year income is quite a bit more than 20% of 50k a year? Just making sure, not trying to be provoking. A lot of liberals insist the rich pay higher rates because "it's fair that the rich pay more". They often don't get that the same rate is still more.

If you are going to be born poor in a part of the world, what you want there is an economy that provides you opportunity to advance your standing. It's economic opportunity that matters, not some gap between the rich and poor. That's what you want to create and measure: opportunity.

If higher tax rates don't damage economic opportunity, then that's one thing. But there is a point when they do damage it, and at that point they harm the poor.

Reagan lowered the rates across the board, and reduced regulations. The economy expanded for two decades as a result. I started high school in 1980, when he took office. Believe me, I've witnessed the difference in opportunity.

Liberals will tell you until they're blue in the face that Reagan hurt the poor. They have absolutely no clue. They point to evidence of the gap between the rich and the poor. But that is foolish and impossible to measure. And the measurements are not meaningful. For one thing, most of those below the poverty line were the result of exploding birth rates among certain communities. That was not caused by Reagan. The fact is that minorities moved in the middle class at record numbers. Look it up. If birth rates had remained unchanged, the poverty numbers would look very different.

Also keep in mind those collecting the numbers are those with an agenda. An agenda you would recognize.

I suspect things in Britain were similar under Thatcher. My understanding is Thatcher turned a declining, moribund economy around. Liberals will never accept that, just like they're fooled by Potemkin villages. They believe what they want to believe.

My wife lost her job.

I lost my company.

We lost our home.

My community is crippled.

Everyone is leaving.

But where are they going?

You two talk alot.

This is how it is where I live.

And America is not alone.

I'm sincerely sorry for your situation, Nester. I lost my business as well, and the building, and my home. I know what you're going through.

Don't know what to say beyond that, except when you lose your business, you suddenly have time for things like talking on the internet.

I can't speculate what happened in your community or with you personally. I do know what caused the housing collapse, which caused the financial collapse. And it's not my theory, but something very well established with several good books. The link below is an article about one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/burning-down-the-house/2011/06/30/AGeRSGuH_story.html

If you read the article, you'll see the Democratic political operative made CEO of FANNY MAE made 100 million dollars in compensation from that quasi government agency, and he manipulated the hell out of the market. As I've said, government intervention created this mess. It's very well established.

I lost my job and lost my house as well.  Lost over $100,000 in the sale of another house, due to all the shit that went down.

I understand and agree with your position, Kevin.

I'm sorry for yours as well leitskev. And Dreamscale, I am sorry that you lost so much.

This is where we are in history.

I see the word TRILLION over and over again as though it were change from a twenty.

I see the flipid mannor in which those we charge to see over us abuse our rights and get rich.

But I also see a resolve deep in the hearts of those still alive who have been through much worse (great depression/WW2) and I see hope.

I'm imspired!

What scares me, is I dont see any of these traits in the youth of today. I see a goverment who knows just what to say and the young simply acceept it with no questions.

Thanks for sharing, the two of you.