But it's really non-partisan, I swear.

Confused (0.00 / 0)

by the title/point of this post...

I don't see anything in the diary about political parties. I'm sure there's at least some Libertarians and Republicans involved in the Tea Party Movement (or whatever it's called), and as far as I know the Tea Parties are not affiliated with any political party. Dosn't that make them non-patisan? Not that I'm saying I agree with them in any way...Groups/efforts can be non-partison and still be wrong.

---

by: jjem @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 00:27:11 AM CDT

What tombuch said below... (0.00 / 0)

is what I'm referring to. Reading back over the many teabagger discussions on here, one particular proponent keeps insisting that we're supposed to believe these are non-partisan (read: not right wing), all evidence to the contrary.  Without a doubt, there is a lot of support from GOPer's and right libertarians with these things. Dems, Greens, socialists and anarchists? Uh-uh.

You can read more of JD Ryan at five before chaos. But why would you want to?

---

by: JDRyan @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 07:08:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're right... (3.00 / 1)

... neo-Nazi / white supremacist groups like Stormfront aren't partisan, they're ideologically-based. They organize and recruit around issues, not political parties. Just a few decades ago they were nibbling around the edges of the Democratic Party in the South; now they take bigger bites out of the Republican Party. But generally, these groups have little use for either major party. The Tea Party movement is a nice one for them because it has a high quotient of rightwing nutjobs associated with it, that's all.

---

by: Bokweb @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 07:12:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

not "nibbling around the edges" (3.00 / 1)

Until LBJ and the 1960s, white racists were the core demographic of the Democratic Party in the south (and, since Democrats from FDR to JFK could not get elected without the support of racists in the south, it can be fairly argued that white racists were a very important constituency for national Democrats.  HHH lost in 1968 because he only took Texas in the south, Nixon and Wallace split the white racists).   Democratic Party Senators like Stennis, Bilbo, Eastland, Russell, Thurmond (before he turned GOP) etc., could be counted on to carry the water for white racists, obviating the need for wite soopremasist organizations.  

Since Nixon, the GOP has been the water-carrier for white racists.   The wite soopremasist organizations are after the core demographic of the GOP - white racists.  

Now, the Southern Strategery has accreted some other kinds of hatreds and phobias to the original core of white racism (and developed code-wording, of course) - xenophobia was always more popular in the North than the South,  since most of the (non-slave) immigration occurred there (until Reagan). (And (to odum), white racism has a strong following in the North, too, witness Wallace's success in Wisconsin in 1972, burning crosses in the NEK, torching school buses in Roxbury, etc., etc. etc.).  And ooogedy-boogedy fundamnentalism has been the bane of intellectual thought and social development in the United States since the founders, both North and South (and the South does have the Southern Baptists and Southern Methodists, both splinter groups that split from the main bodies just to support slavery).  So-called "Family Values"  are predominantly re-packaged screed; base, infantile drivel centered around femiphobia and homophobia.  

Like the Southern Democrats, the GOP has become just a smiley-face version of a wite soopremasist organization.  Fox News is little more than an on-air lynch mob (the teabaggers are their public personnas, crawling out from under their rocks and off their couches every so often to regale us with their catch-phrasey signage).  The "main-stream" (as in majority of) evangelical churches and their leaders are no different from the Southern Baptists of slavery and Jim Crow days, spouting neo-kkkonservative and neo-kkkonfederate propaganda from the pulpit, and providing religious cover for cruel stupidity.

Anyhow, while this 4th we will be subjected to the jingoistic rantings and ravings of the teabaggers, remember there are a lot of people getting rich off their gullibility and fear, (and, the question still is unanswered, where were all these folks when we had a white President?) but also, while we watch their circus of infantile rage and silliness, our economy still needs to be rescued from the toilet of greed, avarice and criminality that has dominated our economic lives since Reagan.  

---

by: Undamned Yankee @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 09:04:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Corporatists benefitting from the Tea Parties? (0.00 / 0)

This is something that has come up a few times, that Corporate America is cheering the Tea Parties because they want folks fighting for lower taxes on Big Business and less regulation.  As a legitimate card-carrying TeaBagger, meaning I was involved in the Ron Paul campaign during the 2008 Primary elections and helped organize this year's April 15 event and was pissed off to see Take Back Vermont signs there, I can tell you that I do not work for the benefit of Corporate America and in fact the original intention behind the Tea Parties is the opposite of what big business would want.  

Let's consider for a moment something simple, the fact that lobbyists don't even bother talking to Ron Paul any more because he is unbribeable.  While all your precious Democratic congressmen and women (and of course the other Republicans too) take bribes left and right to pass legislation to favor one business over another, Dr. Paul works to maintain a 'free market,' something we have not had in this country for a long long time.

Let's go further now... Monetary Policy.  All us original VT Teabagging Teabaggers are the ones who hounded Peter Welch to sign HR1207 entitled 'The Federal Reserve Transparancy Act.'  Ron Paul introduced this a couple months ago and it now has 245 co-sponsors while it waits to be reviewed in the House Finance Committee.  Peter Welch co-sponsored a bill introduced by a Republican because it seems to make sense that the Federal Reserve, which currently is immune from a real audit, should be audited, that congress should be able to see how much money they're printing behind closed doors, which foreign countries and banks they're doing favors for, how much of our debt they are liquidating by simply inflating/destroying our currency.  In fact, our own Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders wrote and introduced the sister bill in the Senate entitled the Federal Reserve Sunshine Act of 2009, which has 3 co-sponsors, all of whom are Republican!  OMG!!!

As long as GM, Phizer, Monsanto, Goldman Sachs, etc. have congress in their back pockets and a nontransparent Fed then tax brackets are inconsequential, because they can get easy credit during the booms and bailouts during the busts.  HR1207 will severly impair that because it goes to the heart of the matter.

Those of you who ask why no one Teabagged during the Bush years pose a reasonable question, my answer is twofold: that there was not the catalyst of an enormous financial collapse to wake people up to monetary issues, and that Ron Paul had not made his Presidential Bid.  I waited for three hours in the rain in Ohio in 2004 to vote for Kerry because of a concern for the middle and lower classes, but that was before I understood anything about Free Market Austrian Economics.  A big government can create more social programs and give out more money everyday, but it won't come close to supporting the little guy as much as Sound Money does, when a private bank (the Fed) doesn't have exclusive access to the printing press and congress oversees the money supply (or gold can too).  Foreign wars without a declaration from congress target the little guys too, as they tend to enlist before wealthy kids do.  Luckily we have people like Dr. Paul who have always voted against all these undeclared wars, can't say the same about our current President.  

---

by: Marek Hirsch @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 10:18:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here's the problem (4.00 / 2)

As a legitimate card-carrying TeaBagger, meaning I was involved in the Ron Paul campaign during the 2008 Primary elections and helped organize this year's April 15 event and was pissed off to see Take Back Vermont signs there, I can tell you that I do not work for the benefit of Corporate America and in fact the original intention behind the Tea Parties is the opposite of what big business would want.

I don't really care what your intent is; I care what the effect is.  You can be pissed that Take Back Vermont signs were at the April 15 event, but that doesn't change the fact of your events being associated with an openly homophobic organization.

Furthermore, you may not intend to work for the benefit of corporate America, but a great deal of the publicity for the teabagging events was provided by it.  They have their own agenda, and they're actively trying to co-op yours.  If you guys don't really fight them hard on this, you're part of that agenda of theirs.

juliewaters.com

---

by: JulieWaters @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 11:02:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

there's the rub... (3.50 / 2)

Paul has always been cozy with neo-confederates and therefore, white racists.

Anti-federalism would have a whole different meaning if the most prominent states' rights that anti-federalists fought for were the rights of some people to own other people, and then 100 years of Jim Crow laws when that didn't work.  

Paul and his movement are too tainted with some of the ugliest facts of our nation's history.

---

by: Undamned Yankee @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 11:16:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here's the beginnings of something good from all this (4.00 / 1)

I'm not going to get into the specifics of your post because I seem to be the universal lightning rod this week - but I will say that the key philosophical-perceptual distinction between the farthest right-libertarian crowd in this country and the farthest-left-marxist (distinguishing from left-libertarian-anarchists) crowd has been an oddly mirrored view of institutions.

To the left, all big institutions (corporate, churches, etc) are not to be trusted - with the exception of government (if freed from these other bad-institutions' control). The right flips that around - all huge institutions are wonderful - even extensions of the individual - except for government.

Both are fairly arbitrary when you think about it.

Gen X far-lefties have a fair amount of anti-government skepticism, and you've seen them collectively growing out of their myopia since the mid-90s. The one thing I'll say about your rhetoric is that I see the same type of thing starting to happen on the far-right, only in a mirrored way. This is a good thing.

But it also brings out the core (intractable?) points of disagreement. We all agree that government should exist to protect our basic rights. We also all agree that government should be as small and unobtrusive as possible, and should be as free from external influences as possible. What we disagree on is what constitutes a basic right. Your list would be almost non-existent, ours would be larger and with an eye towards society as well as the individual.

A bigger list of basic rights simply requires a bigger government to guarantee them. It's not about one side having an inherent affection for larger government, its simply about having the right tool for the right job.

What we disagree on is what that job is.

undercaffeinated

---

by: odum @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 12:05:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

good points (4.00 / 2)

especially near the end; the idea that the role of gov't. is as protector of individual "rights" is way too 18th century

the premise made sense then but we're way beyond that now; it's more than expanding the list of rights or those eligible (both important); rather, it's a move away from the very foundation -- individualism; for the old white guys (founding fathers), that was the key; the marriage of "freedom" and capitalism was self-evident but there was no way they could imagine the destructiveness of our economic engine

unfortunately, the very idea of a "free market" excludes any consideration of the commons (air, water, land, trees, other living things, etc.); without gov't. acting on behalf of the commons and all those left out, the "market" will inevitably destroy the commons and with it our very existence (to say nothing of the gross inequalities among people); to imagine that the market can deal with pollution and global warming is naive at best

to me, this is where the libertarians and the "free marketers" lose all credibility; we are all co-dependent and any Ayn Rand crap about individualism is simply a reaction to the need for more community and less of what they consider "freedom"

at base, I find the whole thing terribly selfish

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Sat Jul 04, 2009 at 06:08:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here's what I find odd (0.00 / 0)

I don't get how anyone who supports a true "free market" and "individualism" can see any place for corporations in their universe.

juliewaters.com

---

by: JulieWaters @ Sat Jul 04, 2009 at 06:13:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't know eactly what you're getting at here (0.00 / 0)

but Coase has an influential paper describing the economic reasons for the development of a firm (here's the paper if you're interested; it's really short: http://web.archive.org/web/200...

Basically, firms improve economic efficiency by reducing transaction costs.  

upsetpatterns.wordpress.com

---

by: diggs @ Sat Jul 04, 2009 at 12:01:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I wasn't getting at anything (0.00 / 0)

I was saying it outright.

If you believe in a truly free market, you believe in one which is free from the structure of corporations.  Individuals can enter contracts which provide them with obligations to one another that assume characteristics similar to corporations, but without any governmental influence on how that contract is manifested or structured.  The minute you get into corporations, you're actively seeking government involvement in the structure of your business.  You may like that, and want it, but it's not a free market and it's not individualism.

juliewaters.com

---

by: JulieWaters @ Sat Jul 04, 2009 at 12:20:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

OK (0.00 / 0)

then I guess most people who generally consider themselves to be "free market" oriented would not endorse your definition of a true free market.  Seems like a semantic issue rather than any kind of real contradiction (not that you were necessarily saying it was a contradiction).  

upsetpatterns.wordpress.com

---

by: diggs @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 01:28:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's completely a contradiction (4.00 / 1)

Every pro-corporate libertarian I know refuses to acknowledge the contradiction between libertarianism and government giving special status to corporations.  You can call it semantics, but corporations exist under a different tax structure and have different obligations than individuals, even individuals working together for a common cause.  

juliewaters.com

---

by: JulieWaters @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 04:16:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fair enough (0.00 / 0)

You originally said this:

I don't get how anyone who supports a true "free market" and "individualism" can see any place for corporations in their universe.

If what you're saying is that if "true free market" is defined the way you define it (specifically, not allowing for the existence of corporations), then most libertarians would not be supporters of a true free market, then I think you are correct.

upsetpatterns.wordpress.com

---

by: diggs @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 20:39:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Defending the market (0.00 / 0)

unfortunately, the very idea of a "free market" excludes any consideration of the commons (air, water, land, trees, other living things, etc.)

I don't think this is true at all.  One of the most crucial elements of a free market system is the allocation of strict property rights, which is an explicit solution to the tragedy of the commons.  With well-defined private property rights, the market most definitely will not "inevitably destroy the commons".  In fact, I'd argue that this is one of the most successful methods we know of for protecting the commons (you should check out some Coase: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

Now, there are market failures for which assigning property rights isn't a workable solution, and global warming is certainly one of those cases, so there's a good argument for government intervention there (although with the whole international collective action problem, I'm not optimistic about its success).  In spite of this though, I think that the idea of a "free market" doesn't exclude considerations for the commons anywhere near as much as you seem to thing.

And as a final note, I'll just add that there are many "free marketers" who recognize our co-dependency and do not accept Ayn Rand's brand of individualistic selfishness.

upsetpatterns.wordpress.com

---

by: diggs @ Sat Jul 04, 2009 at 11:50:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

if you (4.00 / 2)

acknowledge the inability of the market to prevent global warming, then you have admitted the failure of markets; the commons includes air and water; the market has treated them both like endless sinks for pollution; and, sadly, that is exactly what Garrett Hardin was talking about; logically, there is no advantage for a business not to pollute because all of her competitors will do so; why should a business take on the added cost of avoiding polluting the commons if it will increase prices? (same goes for livable wages); unless and until the gov't. (on behalf of the people and the commons) regulates pollution (or makes it a criminal offense), the market will fail to protect the commons - thus destroying it; which is exactly what has happened

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Sat Jul 04, 2009 at 17:46:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Global warming (0.00 / 0)

is a special kind of commons problem because it is impossible to enforce property rights in the earth's atmosphere.  Most other "tragedy of the commons" situations do have free market solutions involving well-enforced property rights.  I agree that businesses (and most individuals, for that matter) will not voluntarily cut down on behavior that causes negative externalities like pollution.  But with a system of property rights, externalities such as pollution are internalized, since the polluter has to compensate whoever owns the natural resource that is being polluted.  

Of course, assigning property rights is in a way a form of regulation; the government has to set and enforce the rules.  But I would say that it's a "free market" solution in the sense it's an institutional reform rather than a direct government intervention into the market.  Just want to make sure we're not getting caught up on semantic misunderstandings.

upsetpatterns.wordpress.com

---

by: diggs @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 01:20:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

nice try (4.00 / 3)

the whole idea of property rights is a fiction; at what point does the game begin? today? if so, all those whose property was obtained through non-free market, dishonest or oppressive means are priveleged (and protected) while all those who have nothing are screwed

example: is all of the property owned by descendents of the robber barons legitimate? how about the property of those who benefitted from insider trading (and who were never caught)? what about those whose fortunes were built (at least in part) on gov't. contracts obtained through shady political deals (e.g., Halliburton & KBR)? or those firms that have done lucrative business with foreign dictators? or companies that have gotten rich from resources on lands held by Native Americans? or companies that have polluted the earth but have been rewarded by a system that does not yet internalize such costs? hell, go back to our beginnings - is property granted by the King of England considered a baseline? or wealth obtained with the use of slaves?

the point is we're not starting from zero; how can you justify the current distribution of wealth as worthy of protection?

moreover, global warming is not unique; who owns the ocean? Lake Ontario? how do you parse the property rights of the air polluted by coal plants?

and finally, your concern about semantics is a dodge; to say that gov't. regulation is not interferring in the market is ludicrous; if a "free market" cannot account for its destructive ends and requires regulation, that is direct intervention in the market; calling it "institutional reform" is just a way to avoid the truth - markets have never been "free" and never will be; the idea that markets will of themselves usher in an age of freedom & liberty is the worst sort of intellectual dishonesty

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 06:15:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Property rights are awesome! (0.00 / 0)

OK, I think it's important to separate out property rights as an institution and the issue of justice in initial property acquisition, which is an undeniably complex philosophical issue.  I'm not trying to dodge this, but I will sidestep it for now because I don't think it's directly related to what I was initially arguing and I already have a lot to respond to.  So anyway, I was referencing the institution of property rights as a way of internalizing market externalities such as pollution.  Here's what you originally wrote that motivated my response:  

unfortunately, the very idea of a "free market" excludes any consideration of the commons (air, water, land, trees, other living things, etc.)

So I am arguing, just so we're clear, that the free market can protect the commons as long as there's a well-defined system of property rights.  Just to make sure you understand the concept that I'm talking about, I'll give you an example.  Suppose there's a factory that's dumping waste into a river.  If that river is not privately owned, then the factory is imposing the cost of that polluting activity on the rest of society (in the form of a polluted river) and polluting above the socially optimal level.  One way to deal with this externality is the government regulating how much waste the factory can dump into the river.  Another way to deal with it (and this is what I would call the free market solution) is by assigning private property rights to the river.  Now, if the factory dumps waste into the river, the river owners' property is being damaged (kind of like how your property would be damaged if I drove to your house and dumped my garbage in your yard).  The owner(s) of the river can then set a price on the pollution of the river.  Now the factory will have to pay that price for each unit of pollution it dumps into the river, which gives it incentives to reduce its pollution (like how a carbon tax incentivizes reduction of carbon emissions) and internalizes the externality that caused the market failure in the first place.

I think we should use this kind of solution more often to protect natural resources.  You, however, may (and I expect do) disagree.  You might think, for example, that it's wrong to privatize things like rivers.  However, all I'm doing is refuting your claim that "the very idea of a "free market" excludes any consideration of the commons".  

Now, to respond to this, which you wrote about my property rights reform proposal:

to say that gov't. regulation is not interferring in the market is ludicrous; if a "free market" cannot account for its destructive ends and requires regulation, that is direct intervention in the market; calling it "institutional reform" is just a way to avoid the truth

Obviously, "institutional reform", such as assigning property rights, does involve government establishing and enforcing those property rights.  In general economic parlance, this would be considered a free market solution, as opposed to, for example, a government imposed cap on pollution.  However, the free market obviously does require the government to enforce contracts and laws in order to work.  So if this doesn't jibe with your definition of free market, then we're just using the term "free market" to mean different things, and it becomes a semantic debate.  If you're defining "free market" as a system that does not  
protect the commons because even property rights reforms don't count as free market reforms, then I certainly won't argue with that (other than to say that it's not how "free market" is used in common linguistic practice).


upsetpatterns.wordpress.com

---

by: diggs @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 20:26:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

See... (4.00 / 1)

To chime in here for a second, first off, as said before, there is no "free market'. And the many wonders and purported benefits of the so-called free market are articles of faith, nothing more. I don't think the market is "entitled' to handle anything, especially in matters regarding the public good, nor does it say anywhere that they are, yet this seems to be the default position that people work from.

You can read more of JD Ryan at five before chaos. But why would you want to?

---

by: JDRyan @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 21:20:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If when you say (0.00 / 0)

"there is no 'free market'" you mean that a market economy depends on government to create and enforce a system of stable rules that allow the market to function, then I agree.  I don't think the market is "entitled" to handle anything, but I think that a lot of times more market liberal policies lead to better outcomes than less market liberal policies.  I care about results, not about any kind of inherent "rightness" of free markets.

And I'm curious what you mean when you say this:

the many wonders and purported benefits of the so-called free market are articles of faith, nothing more.

Can you give some examples?  I think that the numerous advantages of free markets are pretty well documented in economic theory and empirical research.  That's part of the reason why professional economists tend to favor free market policies more than the average person.  I'm not saying that market failures don't exist (they do), but as somebody who broadly identifies as a liberal, I do think that free markets are generally underappreciated by liberals.

upsetpatterns.wordpress.com

---

by: diggs @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 22:12:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

not sure (4.00 / 1)

what kind of "general parlance" you're referring to but direct intervention in the market by gov't. means the market is no longer "free"; did I miss something? "free markets" involve voluntary agreements between (supposedly) co-equal parties without coercion of any kind; what we're talking about is MUCH more than enforcing contracts - we're talking about coercion

you've already admitted that markets tend to externalize costs at the expense of the commons; as a result, they are not optimal or in the best interests of people or the planet; so why are you hung up on an idea that is demonstrably flawed?

you want to assign ownership to air, land, trees, rivers, and the ocean; absurd; they are the commons and, therefore, the shared wealth of ALL people (or, better yet, worthy of protection for their intrinsic value, to say nothing of the need to preseve them for our survival)

thus, the only way to protect them is for the community (through gov't.) to limit the behavior of private parties and/or to tax the behavior of private parties; if you don't see this as intervention then - as I said before - you are being intellectually dishonest; if gov't. must set prices for pollution than the market is no longer "free"

furthermore, why stop with the commons? markets tend to produce gross inequalities (with huge quantifiable costs, often in terribly dehumanizing ways and that stifle self-determination); are these OK or is this another externality that needs to be addressed? and if it's the latter, is gov't. intervention justified? if so, how far from "free markets" are we now? if not, then you're just a heartless creep (not trying to be personal here)

as for the question of justice, here too you choose to sidestep this critical issue; you said you're "not trying to dodge this, but [you] will sidestep it for now"

gosh, when will you come back to it?
you can fantasize about hypotheticals all you want, but the reality is a much tougher nut; if we cannot consider "original property acquisition", then the game is lost because we will consign billions to poverty

face it, your premise is built on a fiction and requires repeated efforts to define problems away; moreover, and more importantly, your "awesome" construct is based on an historical vanity; it should be obvious that the planet requires new ideas and new ways for people to organize themselves; this is not to say that people should not retain rights to property; only that there are limits and that our task is to keep what we need from the old system and not be afraid to craft new rules; in my opinion, the view you present is not forward thinking and is almost a fetish - and a dangerous one at that

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 21:59:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

First of all (0.00 / 0)

I just want to give you props for this line:

is gov't. intervention justified? if so, how far from "free markets" are we now? if not, then you're just a heartless creep (not trying to be personal here)

Seriously, that was hilarious.

Anyway, moving on... every econ professor I ever had referred to the establishment of property rights for natural resources as a free market solution.  Once the property rights have been established, the government's only role is the enforcement of contracts and tort claims.  The Wikipedia entry on free market environmentalism concurs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...  But if you disagree that these are true free market reforms, then fine.  At this point, I think we're talking past each other, and I don't know how much we'll accomplish by continuing to press this particular issue.

you've already admitted that markets tend to externalize costs at the expense of the commons

I've admitted that this is true in the absence of well defined property rights.  You're taking a very strange track against me here.  There is widespread agreement among economists that, in theory, well defined property rights will internalize market externalities and protect the environment.  Usually the counter argument is that, while this works in theory, in reality transaction costs are too high and property rights are too impractical to establish for the theory to have many practical applications.  The way you've been arguing makes it seem like you don't accept, or not understand, the theory.  Obviously, this isn't necessarily the wrong approach, but it's definitely unusual.  For more on the theory, I linked to Coase above.  Seriously, check him out.  He won the Nobel Prize for his work on this.

you want to assign ownership to air, land, trees, rivers, and the ocean; absurd; they are the commons and, therefore, the shared wealth of ALL people

Yes, I do want to assign ownership, when possible, to these things.  I understand that you find this idea to be repugnant; many people do.  I can only say to you that I hold this opinion for purely consequentialist reasons;  I think that assigning ownership to natural resources will do a better job of protecting those resources and promoting human welfare than any other system.  This is complicated, controversial, and  itself worthy of an entire discussion.  You can disagree with this stance, but I think calling it absurd is unfairly dismissive of an idea that you may not accept, but should at least understand.

the only way to protect them is for the community (through gov't.) to limit the behavior of private parties and/or to tax the behavior of private parties

When it's not possible to assign property rights to natural resources, I agree.  I support taxation as a means to address market failures (like a carbon tax).  I am under no illusion that this is a free market solution, and as long as it leads to better outcomes, I don't care.

markets tend to produce gross inequalities.... are these OK or is this another externality that needs to be addressed? and if it's the latter, is gov't. intervention justified?  

As a philosophically Rawlsian liberal, I have no problem with redistribution per se.  I believe that the general goal of social and economic policies should be to improve the condition of the least well off in society.  I'm sure that I have very different ideas about how this is best accomplished than you do. I will say that I support a social safety net that is designed with an eye towards preserving economic efficiency.  So yes, to answer your question, government intervention is justified.  Does that help to alleviate the "heartless creep" concerns?

upsetpatterns.wordpress.com

---

by: diggs @ Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 00:50:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

as I said (4.00 / 2)

your continung fixation on the idea of "free markets" while admitting significant deviations in the real world reinforces the sense that you are desparate to carry the tattered banner at all costs

but hanging on to the terminology while ever more fixes are required ("assignment" of rights, taxes, safety nets, etc.) bespeaks an unwillingness to admit the depth of the flaws or to imagine something new

furthermore, setting aside the critical issue of the distribution of property that is to be protected is a whopper; you claim to want "to improve the condition of the least well off in society" but don't seem to understand that many (most?) are less well off because they have no property or economic rights of any kind; and how are they to acquire any under your system? a social safety net will not redistribute property / wealth; only offer crumbs and keep them dependent; and by definition it protects the wealth of the priveleged and let's them feel good by supporting a safety net; the "free market" will not move us toward more economic democracy as long as the rights of large property owners are given special status over the welfare of the community

as for assigning rights to natural resources, I read "Should Trees Have Standing" 30 years ago and cheered; it's usful as a method of reigning in the excesses of the market, but how many fixes does it take before you will acknowledge that we're way past anything resembling a "free market"?

at some point we need to stop fixing a bad system and move on

BTW - invoking the views of "most economists" is not likely to win you any converts because they rarely see beyond the models and espouse ideas about "economic efficiency" that have brought us to the brink of disaster

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 07:51:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

This... (0.00 / 0)

BTW - invoking the views of "most economists" is not likely to win you any converts because they rarely see beyond the models and espouse ideas about "economic efficiency" that have brought us to the brink of disaster

is what I meant about much of this free market nonsense being "articles of faith".

You can read more of JD Ryan at five before chaos. But why would you want to?

---

by: JDRyan @ Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 09:30:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I see (0.00 / 0)

So you're rejecting the validity of the majority of the thought that comprises an entire academic discipline.  I assume that you must have a pretty in depth understanding of mainstream economic theory to be comfortable boldly declaring that it is "nonsense" and "articles of faith" (and I assume you would hold me to the same standard if I made similar claims about, say, biology).  I'm curious; what insights do you have into economic theory that make you so feel so secure in making this kind of claim?

upsetpatterns.wordpress.com

---

by: diggs @ Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 18:55:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's pretty simple, actually (4.00 / 1)

I'm no economist, I'm merely basing my opinion on the fact that people who tout "market solutions" for every societal ill tend to be full of shit when the results come in, and we end up with more pollution and a higher gap between rich and poor. That and I'm strongly philosophically opposed to handing the public good over to "the market". Some things are just too important to be left to the whims of the profit motive. It's called economic "theory", not economic "law" for a reason.

You can read more of JD Ryan at five before chaos. But why would you want to?

---

by: JDRyan @ Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 21:27:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not so simple (0.00 / 0)

It's called economic "theory", not economic "law" for a reason.

Would this apply to evolutionary theory?

I'm no economist, I'm merely basing my opinion on the fact that people who tout "market solutions" for every societal ill tend to be full of shit when the results come in, and we end up with more pollution and a higher gap between rich and poor.

OK, but for somebody who writes for a website that professes to offer "reality-based commentary", it seems like this kind of reasoning probably shouldn't be enough to reject an entire body of knowledge without even bothering to try to understand it.

upsetpatterns.wordpress.com

---

by: diggs @ Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 23:35:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There's government in my markets! (0.00 / 0)

Any economy is necessarily some mixture of markets (that is to say, people voluntarily interacting with each other) and government.  You weirdly assert that "we're way past anything resembling a 'free market'" as if I were trying to deny that, which I never did, because it's obviously true.  The American economy is a convoluted amalgam of market and government institutions.  

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're arguing that market failures exist, therefore "we need to stop fixing a bad system and move on." (move on to what?  Some economy that doesn't have market institutions?  I don't see how that can even exist).  Would it be convincing to you if I said, "government failures exist (take ethanol subsidies as an example).  Therefore, we need to stop fixing a bad system and abandon government"?  Of course not.  I don't know what you think I'm defending, but what I'm actually defending is the general idea of market-based institutions (which I would normally call "free markets", but I am trying to avoid that term because it seems to be causing a lot of strange misunderstandings).

I was avoiding the acquisition of property issue because my other posts were getting unworkably long, but I'll try to address it a little bit now.  I think that the very existence of a workable system of property rights is more important than how precisely they are distributed.  Let me explain what I mean.  Development economists pretty much agree that establishing property rights is one of the essential first steps towards lifting a nation of people out of poverty.  It is really hard to spark economic growth without them.  If a system of property rights is distributed unequally, even the people who got less property than their fair share will be better off (because of economic growth) than they were before property rights were established.  Now obviously it would be better if the property rights were distributed more fairly than if they were distributed less fairly.  But even if the distribution is not totally fair, it still results in a net gain for everybody.  So even if I can't say exactly how the property should be fairly distributed, I believe that I am justified in claiming that establishing property rights is still better than not establishing them at all.  This is a complicated issue that I'll need to think more about.

Now to address one more thing:

many (most?) are less well off because they have no property or economic rights of any kind; and how are they to acquire any under your system? a social safety net will not redistribute property / wealth

First of all, a state provided social safety net does, by definition, redistribute wealth.  My favorite kind of basic redistributive safety net is the negative income tax.  This takes wealth in the form of taxes from richer people and gives it to poorer people.  I have no problem with the government ensuring that socioeconomically disadvantaged people have their basic needs met and have access to basic services (in fact, I think the government should do this).  However, I generally think that more market-based institutions do a better job of providing these things effectively and efficiently than more government-based institutions.  

So no, I will not abandon my "fixation on the idea" of markets.  I will, however, disavow any commitment to an economic system that consists only of free markets, which is a position that, despite your accusations to the contrary, I never held in the first place.

 

upsetpatterns.wordpress.com

---

by: diggs @ Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 20:52:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

noblesse oblige (4.00 / 1)

you say "wealth" is redistributed through tax based social programs; this is very telling; wealth is an asset that produces a stream of income; with few exceptions, social programs do not provide "wealth", just a few crumbs; such programs do not empower people or redistribute income-producing wealth; having failed to make the distinction, you expose yourself to my earlier claim that your entire property rights fixation is nothing more than a way to maintain existing power relationships

You said "I have no problem with the government ensuring that socioeconomically disadvantaged people have their basic needs met and have access to basic services (in fact, I think the government should do this).  However, I generally think that more market-based institutions do a better job of providing these things effectively and efficiently than more government-based institutions."

How noble of you. But meeting basic needs is not the same as redistributing wealth. Your "net gain for everybody" calculus is worthy of Dr. Pangloss.

You're right, we are talking past each other.  

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 22:56:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

our currency is not the real problem (4.00 / 2)

William Jennings Bryan notwithstanding, the gold/silver or "sound money" standard won't solve our problems here in the US.  Printing gazillions of Franklins may have exacerbated the problem, or hid it longer, but I'm sure the great minds of Wall Street would have found a way to manipulate any currency.

The underlying problem is the lack of jobs.  If there are no jobs, workers don't get paid anything, not even monopoly money.  

Why there are fewer and fewer jobs here has little to do with government regulation and almost everything to do with cheaper workforces elsewhere.  Environmental and labor regulations might hasten the process of job flight, but it is an inevitable process as long as there are people willing to work for subsistence or less, which there are in a global economy.

---

by: Undamned Yankee @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 12:52:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

agreed (0.00 / 0)

This currency stuff is a goofy canard. What's inherently valuable about gold or silver?

Currency has always been about a shared illusion. You want a meaningful standard, how about water? Air?

And no, I'm not serious. The point is that the things that are meaningful are fundamental - so fundamental that we all (should) consider them off limits to such crude commodification (which, of course, they're apparently not - given the commodification of water).

Sorry. Getting off topic.

undercaffeinated

---

by: odum @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 14:37:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's a crucial topic though (0.00 / 0)

Let's get real here for a moment, money talks, in the words of Mayer Amschel Rothschild "Give me control of a Nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws."  

Control does not mean who has hoarded the most, it means who gets to denominate it's value and regulate it's production.  The Federal Reserve Note, which we currently use as "money" is a commodity like anything else, people want them because they have the value of common and acceptable exchange, so you do what you have to do to get a bunch of them, but if there is more of them in existence then they have less value.  

1971 is when this Federal Reserve Note became entirely de-linked from gold, instilling in the Chair of the Fed the ability to expand and contract the money supply as they see fit.  Unfortunately, no human or group of humans has a crystal ball that shows them the exact spending behavior of every person in possesion of Federal Reserve Notes, so they often make mistakes in their monetary policy.  I will be generous and not mention the fact that maybe some of their decisions are based on friendships on Wall Street.

You ask what is inherently valuable about gold?  Well there is a relatively stable amount in the world because very little is mined each year, and it lasts a long time.  If you have a gold coin made in Spain in 1550, setting numismatic value aside, you can trade that in for whatever the spot price of gold is today.  Water, Air, Oil you ask?  There happens to be oceans full of water so it's not really worth a whole lot on a global scale, but feel free to try and introduce it to the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.  The supply of oil is far too volatile to provide a sustainable commodity backing, and if air ever becomes a commodity then we're in more trouble than worrying about currency issues.  

When the US started minting $20 gold coins in the earlier 1900s they were 1 ounce and had that name because they were in fact exchangeable for $20.  That ounce of gold as of today at 3:58pm, is worth $932.75, or 667.44 euros if you like.  

For a nice read on gold and fractional reserve banking, I recommend the 2 page essay "Gold and Economic Freedom" written by Alan Greenspan in 1966.  Here is a link  

http://www.uvm.edu/~riskmgmt/?...

---

by: Marek Hirsch @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 15:06:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

sorry wrong link on my clip board (0.00 / 0)

here's the one I meant

http://www.321gold.com/fed/gre...

---

by: Marek Hirsch @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 15:07:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Your post is problematic on a lot of counts (0.00 / 0)

First of all, you state a couple characteristics of gold (which are debatable, such as supply), but you haven't indicated what is inherently valuable about it. There are literally thousands of other compounds and elements that would meet your limited criteria. It's value is clearly cultural and not inherent. In that, it is no different than virtual currency.

And there is not enough fresh water to go around. It's actually a global crisis projected to get far worse very quickly.

But the fact is, you're not making the case. You're stating facts about the current economic value of gold, but not why it is the ultimate objective currency that our economy will collapse without. Your argument seems just arbitrary.

undercaffeinated

---

by: odum @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 15:21:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Then you define inherent value (0.00 / 0)

Because in this case 'inherent' to me means something that is stable, sustainable, and restricts the ability of a small group of humans to control it completely.  Gold has been used for thousands of years by humans as currency, you may see our innate fascination with the shiny metal as ridiculous, but you know what, for some reason we love it.  I would go so far as to say that even some GMD bloggers have a piece of gold on their body right now as decoration and kissed their loved one when it was bestowed upon them.  There is less of a supply of it than copper, aluminum and iron, it's durable, can be transported relatively efficiently and is not as useful as those other metals are industrially.  

The main argument for de-linking from gold is that it restricts growth because of an almost fixed money supply (a little more is mined each year).  But if your idea of currency sustainability is the unbridled growth of housing markets, tech markets and banks, then we have some fundamental disagreements.

A fresh water based currency?  I suppose that even better than an inanimate object such as gold, free of emotion, obligation and greed and of finite supply, regulating our money supply, that GOD would be even better!  When we need a recession He'll cause a drought and when we need a boost there'll be a flood!  Hey, it's raining right now, everyone go get your collection buckets!!  Who ever said money couldn't fall from the sky!!!!

 

---

by: Marek Hirsch @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 16:10:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

How? (4.00 / 1)

$100 oz in 1973
almost 700 in 1980
300 in 2001
700 in 2006
now it's $933 an ounce.

How is gold "stable"? Or is it, like Naylor's Neo-Nazi buddies, something you just ignore because it doesn't fit the narrative you'd like?

You can read more of JD Ryan at five before chaos. But why would you want to?

---

by: JDRyan @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 16:19:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

there's a difference (0.00 / 0)

between gold only as a commodity and it as the commodity backing our currency.  It was set at $20 an ounce in 1913, until Roosevelt bumped it up to $35 an ounce to liquidate massive amounts of debt.  It stayed there at $35 until roughly 1971, when we de-linked the dollar from gold.  At that point the price jumped enormously because the Fed now had free reign over the printing press.

Check the facts.  I believe it is you creating narrative for the sake of flippant argument.

---

by: Marek Hirsch @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 16:37:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, not at all. (0.00 / 0)

The price of gold is not stable, period. Do you honestly think we'd have a price for gold as a commodity and not have that affect our currency?

Actually, greenbacks were a great idea. Seriously.

You can read more of JD Ryan at five before chaos. But why would you want to?

---

by: JDRyan @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 20:13:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

stability. (4.00 / 1)

$100 oz in 1973
almost 700 in 1980
300 in 2001
700 in 2006
now it's $933 an ounce.

I'm not sure if that's evidence of the instability of gold or the instability of the dollar.

-M

---

by: Mike Eldred @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 22:51:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Inherent (4.00 / 1)

Is from the root inhere, which means from within itself. There is nothing within gold itself that gives it value. Its value derives from the culture's decision to declare that it has value and that a given quantity of it should be used as the measuring stick for the values of other things.

Any other commodity could be used in exactly the same way. We could, for example, decide to settle on a platinum standard, a silver standard, an iron standard - or any other item. What makes gold (or any similarly finite commodity) more stable than paper currencies isn't the gold itself, but its limited quantity. You can't just go print up more.

The choice to settle on paper currency, breaking away from the gold standard, was made to prevent a certain type of speculative currency manipulation by those who had the ability to control the disposition of large stores of gold. The gold standard made it very difficult for the US to have any real control over fiscal policy, because speculators could buy or dump gold in vast quantities, causing drastic swings in the value of the dollar. As a result, the government was forced into reactive, instead of proactive monetary policy.

Switching away from the gold standard took power away from those who enjoyed that manipulative power, but it also helped to make it possible to have sane, somewhat predictable, proactive monetary policy (not that those in power have always deigned to follow such policy: witness the collapse of 2007).

Right now, the dollar plays the equivalent role to the one gold used to play. Unlike gold or any other physical commodity, only one entity can choose how the market will value it: the Federal Reserve. It would probably have been better to put that power into the hands of the federal government, but I imagine there was significant sturm and drang from those in the right wing regarding "communism" when the decision was made. It's one of those compromise positions that has led us to a difficult quandry, today, because those in the Fed have a bit of a conflict of interest regarding monetary policy - one which the government would be less likely to have.

Beware the Everyday Brutality of the Averted Gaze

---

by: mataliandy @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 17:27:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What she said. (0.00 / 0)

I'm just using the dictionary definition. Inherent. Innate. Hardwired. Part of its nature.

Gold's value is defined from without - from human culture. It is not inherent.

undercaffeinated

---

by: odum @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 20:11:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Plus... (4.00 / 1)

when we were on the gold standard, we had a lot of really painful deflationary periods because the money supply was basically fixed.  

upsetpatterns.wordpress.com

---

by: diggs @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 15:43:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

currency manipulation (4.00 / 1)

was going on when there was a gold standard, too, then, and there were recessions and depressions, then, too.  

---

by: Undamned Yankee @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 16:56:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're right. (4.00 / 1)

The gold standard is ridiculous due to its fluctuations., What we need is for the government itself to be the only issuers of money, not the Fed, which is really a collection of private banks.

You can read more of JD Ryan at five before chaos. But why would you want to?

---

by: JDRyan @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 15:37:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

the currency stuff (0.00 / 0)

is BS, I agree.  But this is just totally wrong:

Why there are fewer and fewer jobs here has little to do with government regulation and almost everything to do with cheaper workforces elsewhere.

Yeah, a bunch of American jobs get shipped overseas when there's cheap labor in other countries.  But a bunch of new American jobs also get created in the process.  For example, from 1993 to 2002, 309,911 jobs were lost, but this was outweighed by the 327,673 jobs that were gained.  In the past two decades, net payroll employment has grown by 36 million, and this was accompanied by a hue increase in imports.  

We're losing jobs right now because of the economic recession, which has very little to do with the fact that there is cheap labor in developing countries.

upsetpatterns.wordpress.com

---

by: diggs @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 15:10:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

well.. (4.00 / 1)

the population of the US grew about 30M in the decade of the 1990s.  Nets out at about 8K new jobs for 10-15M new workers.  

And, the downward trend for US real wages started in the early 1970s, went up for awhile during early Clinton years, trending down again ever since.  

The 70s saw a dramatic increase in imports, 1973 being the last year the US had a positive balance of trade.

---

by: Undamned Yankee @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 15:55:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Correction (0.00 / 0)

Whoops, so first of all, those job numbers I listed were supposed to be in thousands, so from 1993 to 2002, 309,911,000 jobs were lost and 327,673,000 jobs were gained.  So if the population grew by about 30 million, that's more than 17,000,000 new jobs for 10-15 million new workers, using your number. Sorry I got the numbers wrong in my post (should've proof read it), but the bottom line is that globalization didn't cause job loss in the '90s (which shouldn't be a surprise, since unemployment rates were historically low during this period).  Now that unemployment is high, there's just no reason to blame it on globalization.

upsetpatterns.wordpress.com

---

by: diggs @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 23:59:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The economic recession has everything to do (4.00 / 1)

With the outsourcing of jobs. The downward pressure on US wages ensured that people seeking to keep up their standard of living used debt to do so.

Couple "Bubbles" Greenspan's monetary policy with people's desperation to not lose ground despite stagnant incomes and ever-increasing costs for basics (car prices, home prices, insurance premiums, medical care, child care, groceries, gasoline, tuition, etc.), and we were pretty much guaranteed that something had to break - the only real question was which debt bubble would pop first: mortgages or credit cards. We now know the answer.

If wages had tracked productivity in that period, there would have been much less interest in acquiring so much debt.

Beware the Everyday Brutality of the Averted Gaze

---

by: mataliandy @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 17:33:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Fed's monetary policy (0.00 / 0)

pretty clearly played a big role in creating the asset bubble that caused the recession .  But blaming globalization for the recession is just bizarre and wrong.  You say that reduced wages plus increased costs of "basics" caused people to take on debt they couldn't pay back.  I think it's dubious that this was a main cause of the increase in private debt, but I'll put that aside and focus on trade.

First of all, globalization drives down the costs of "basics"; if trade were less liberalized, those goods would have cost even more.  

Second, although increased globalization has overwhelming welfare benefits for the country as a whole, it is true that some workers in some sectors of the economy (mostly unskilled workers) do experience some wage depression.  However, research shows that technological change causes most of the wage depression for unskilled jobs, with trade having a relatively small effect.

So to whatever extent that wages not tracking productivity caused an increase in private debt (which, like I said, I'm skeptical of), this downward pressure on wages was for the most part not caused by globalization.  And to the extent that it was caused by globalization, whatever negative effects globalization may have had were almost certainly outweighed by its massive benefits. There are a lot of things that may have helped cause the recession, but trade isn't one of them.

upsetpatterns.wordpress.com

---

by: diggs @ Sat Jul 04, 2009 at 01:33:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The thing is... (0.00 / 0)

...white supremacist groups are technically not affiliated with any given party, they rarely even try to get a foot in the door with Democrats, which is far from the case with Republicans.

juliewaters.com

---

by: JulieWaters @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 07:36:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

In some places (0.00 / 0)

They are the veritable bouncers standing guard at the door for the Republicans. In those places, if you don't blow the right dog whistles, and don't kiss up to the "right" people, you've got no candidacy.

Beware the Everyday Brutality of the Averted Gaze

---

by: mataliandy @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 17:36:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Defining "Non-Partisan" (4.00 / 1)

The terms "partisan" and "non-partisan" have been misused recently to mean without single party affiliation, generally as a means of insulating the Republicans or Democrats from harsh rhetoric expressed by supporters outside of official party communication.

The Random House College Dictionary defines "partisan" as "an adherent or supporter of a person, party, or cause." Other dictionaries offer similar definitions. By these definitions most of the major political groups on both the right and left are clearly partisan.

We should probably try to be careful about identifying "cause" based groups as non-partisan, and reserve the term for public interest groups that work to improve understanding of an issue, rather than advocate from one side or another.

---

by: tombuch @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 06:09:41 AM CDT

The proof will be... (4.00 / 1)

...in the 'tone' of the event.  Here, and all over the country.  So, Flyswatter, we shall see.

---

by: PeteySweety @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 09:55:17 AM CDT

CIA/Teabaggers/Salvation Army/Elderly Scam (4.00 / 1)

Perhaps Tea Parties are another covert CIA operation.  Fuck, let's just say this:  Americans have political parties, political action groups, etc. up the gazoo to work with--if they need a group--on war, injustice, economy, health care, education, taxes, and all the rest.  This NEW Tea Party, you'll note, is saying that all/some? 'contributions' they collect will go to the Salvation Army in the spirit that old fashioned charity is better than government charity.  Well, I suggest that donations to the Tea Party are funds being sucked away from better causes.  The elderly might be a target of the Tea Party people.  When you suck up donations, in the name of fighting big government, for an new organization that is clearly on the side of rich Americans, you thereby disempower somewhat those organizations truly fighting for economic and social justice.

As far as I can see, Tea Parties are just part of a new Gingrich 'revolution'--like the one he organized against Clinton in the 1994 Congressional elections.  They will be used to suck up the TIME, RESOURCES (GMD, ETC.) and money of the left.  They are the new Front Line of the Corporate Reich and the Rich.  What to do about them?  Ignore and ridicule?  Discredit would be the answer--and soon, I hope.  

---

by: PeteySweety @ Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 11:08:24 AM CDT

Difference (0.00 / 0)

between now and '94... other than a bunch of derision and ridicule, the left isn't really expending much on the tea parties, as, like most people, we don't take them seriously to begin with.

You can read more of JD Ryan at five before chaos. But why would you want to?

---

by: JDRyan @ Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 11:23:32 AM CDT

[ Parent ]