Joseph Stiglitz (Nobel Prize winner) on the banks
-
You are quoting a review of a book he wrote 15 years ago on a different subject!!! Good move. Pay no attention to the argument. In particular 1. Ignore any concern for the effectiveness of government policy, 2. Don't bother to make a case that what he proposes represents a new or qualitatively different level of intervention from that which the country already has. Just paint with broad strokes, letting lazy ideology trump everything else.
John Carson
So no time for grand constitutional questions. OK, got it. Of course, constutional concerns were of utmost importatance when Bush was in office. Now, not so much... Just as I predicted...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Actually, John it's not just "me", but thanks for coming out. If you were truly familiar with "Joe" on a professional level, you would know what Rogoff has to say about him.
You are being silly. "Truly familiar". What the hell is that? I don't claim to be Stiglitz's biographer. I do know enough of his work to know that he is both brilliant and prolific.
73Zeppelin wrote:
I'm quite familiar with Stiglitz's body of work
Then your comment that: "I never did quite figure out how he managed to win the Economics prize" must remain a mystery.
73Zeppelin wrote:
for the last several years he hasn't spoken or written a single interesting word.
Now you are being silly again.
John Carson
Okay, to not be silly, I don't disagree that at one point Stiglitz was a prolific economist. Even Rogoff would agree with that. Fine. However, post-Prize, he has become a rather insufferable, arrogant man. I also think his policy recommendations are just plain wrong. He may have been a good academic, but he is a poor, poor policy maker. So I make it a point to take everything he says at less than face value. This is why I don't like the article you linked to. He is repeating the ideas of other economists and I am sure those ideas are not his own. That's why I labelled him a "talking head". The reason I question his winning of the prize is because I believe his policy stance at the IMF did damage to several countries and so I question just how much he truly earned it. I realize it's difficult to award such a prize for economic work while his practical (i.e. policy) work caused harm. I insist, however, that his contributions post-prize have been of little value. On this I must side with Rogoff. He has been dishonest in his writings and seems to be lacking in moral integrity. You are right in that I cannot take away from him the brilliance of his early work. I concede that point.
-
So no time for grand constitutional questions. OK, got it. Of course, constutional concerns were of utmost importatance when Bush was in office. Now, not so much... Just as I predicted...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
So no time for grand constitutional questions. OK, got it. Of course, constutional concerns were of utmost importatance when Bush was in office. Now, not so much... Just as I predicted...
Your sense of timing is curious. The proposals Stiglitz is making would break no new ground constitutionally.
John Carson
-
Okay, then try Mankiw's "Principles of Macroeconomics" (ISBN-10: 0324236956). It's more suited as an introduction and has less focus on mathematical models. Overall, however, the best thing to do is to read a newspaper (or accompanying website) like the Financial Times and their commentaries on economics. The FT requires a subscription service in some cases, but their basic electronic access is very cheap and I can't recommend them highly enough. Another good source is Paul Krugman's articles in the New York Times. I make a point to read his columns. I think a few economists have blogs that you can participate in. For example, Mankiw's blog is here[^]. And I like his commentary. I wouldn't dive right into econometric models because they are very heavy on stats, math, etc... and, unless you're doing academic research, not very useful as a source of economics, but rather a source of economic methodology. I don't think you'd be too interested in asymptotic behaviour of statistical tests. And that's what you're going to find in books on econometric modeling. ADDED: For quick economic and financial definitions, there is also Investopedia.com[^]. There you can look up things like "yield curve" and "term structure". They will also send a daily email to you with the Term of the Day, if you like. Wikipedia's articles on inflation and deflation are quite good. You can also look up introductory books on monetary policy or search Wikipedia for a start. I don't have recommendations for introductory monetary policy, but I can ask my wife. She may know a good book.
modified on Monday, March 9, 2009 6:46 AM
-
Thank you John. Although I have an understanding of what you might call "economics 101", I will always make time to expand my knowledge and understanding.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Thank you John. Although I have an understanding of what you might call "economics 101", I will always make time to expand my knowledge and understanding.
I think you have a pretty good understanding. It is hard to find a good, synthesized summary on macroeconomics and monetary policy. I will try and trawl Amazon and see if I can find anything. Like I said, my wife may know something - she's heavy into monetary policy and the economy - and may have a good reference.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Thank you John. Although I have an understanding of what you might call "economics 101", I will always make time to expand my knowledge and understanding.
I think you have a pretty good understanding. It is hard to find a good, synthesized summary on macroeconomics and monetary policy. I will try and trawl Amazon and see if I can find anything. Like I said, my wife may know something - she's heavy into monetary policy and the economy - and may have a good reference.
-
Okay, to not be silly, I don't disagree that at one point Stiglitz was a prolific economist. Even Rogoff would agree with that. Fine. However, post-Prize, he has become a rather insufferable, arrogant man. I also think his policy recommendations are just plain wrong. He may have been a good academic, but he is a poor, poor policy maker. So I make it a point to take everything he says at less than face value. This is why I don't like the article you linked to. He is repeating the ideas of other economists and I am sure those ideas are not his own. That's why I labelled him a "talking head". The reason I question his winning of the prize is because I believe his policy stance at the IMF did damage to several countries and so I question just how much he truly earned it. I realize it's difficult to award such a prize for economic work while his practical (i.e. policy) work caused harm. I insist, however, that his contributions post-prize have been of little value. On this I must side with Rogoff. He has been dishonest in his writings and seems to be lacking in moral integrity. You are right in that I cannot take away from him the brilliance of his early work. I concede that point.
73Zeppelin wrote:
However, post-Prize, he has become a rather insufferable, arrogant man.
I doubt that he was ever humble.
73Zeppelin wrote:
I also think his policy recommendations are just plain wrong. He may have been a good academic, but he is a poor, poor policy maker.
Though you seem to agree with his conclusions on banks.
73Zeppelin wrote:
He is repeating the ideas of other economists and I am sure those ideas are not his own. That's why I labelled him a "talking head".
I completely disagree. Stiglitz has been writing about the role of banking in financial crises and the dangers of deregulation for about 20 years. He doesn't need to get his ideas from anyone. They are much more likely to be getting them from him.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So no time for grand constitutional questions. OK, got it. Of course, constutional concerns were of utmost importatance when Bush was in office. Now, not so much... Just as I predicted...
Your sense of timing is curious. The proposals Stiglitz is making would break no new ground constitutionally.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
The proposals Stiglitz is making would break no new ground constitutionally.
Frankly, I don't believe for one minute that you have a clue what this guy is even saying, John. Zepp might, but I strongly doubt anyone else here does. All you hear is 'bank nationalization' which you support because to control the banks is to control the economy and to control the economy is to control the social agenda. And its the social agenda that you care about. Second, if bank nationalization does not break constitutional ground, than we are in the midst of the greatest constitutional crisis in American history. The federal government of the United States of America does not have the actual legal authority to nationalize anything. Banks, schools, health care, nuttin... The entire legal justification for any of it is nothing more than the penumbra of a shadow and if the states ever decide to stand up and challange it, it will all vanish in the light of a new dawn.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
But he really provides very little real-world support for his own proposals other than, for instances, assuring us that even if a bank has the same employees, once it is nationalised we will "have every reason to believe" that they will act more honestly and with greater concern for the impact of their decisions. Apparently, having been a government employee, he has a very different view of their probity. One really only has to look at Fannie Mae or Amtrak to see what happens to employees once their ultimate boss is a faceless bureacrat working in Washington.
Government owned companies can and often do work quite satisfactorily given reasonable "marching orders" from on top. Australia had a couple of government owned banks operating alongside the private banks for decades. They were eventually privatised in the 90s as part of an ideology-driven wave of privatisation, but they operated throughout their life with comparable levels of profitability and customer service to the private banks. The current financial crisis is because the banks have had the wrong "marching orders". In any case, the proposal is only that the government take over the banks on a short term basis in order to get them to act sensibly for the benefit of the economy, something that other countries have done successfully. To quote Stiglitz:
What is required is not rocket science. Banks simply need to get back to what they were supposed to do: lending money, on a prudent basis, to businesses and households, based not just on collateral but on a good assessment of the use to which borrowers will put the money and their ability to repay it.
On a more humorous note, with some valid points: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/07/bill-mahers-ode-to-govern_n_172724.html[^]
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
The current financial crisis is because the banks have had the wrong "marching orders".
You've never said anything I agreed with more. And since they received those orders via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, you'll forgive me for not understanding why you think the same people being in charge in both the public and private sectors (Geitner helped cause the problem, for pete's sake. For that matter Stiglitz was part of the government when it was determined that people who had their cars repo'd deserved to be able to buy a house. Maher doesn't need to tell the people they are part of the government; he needs to tell the aristocrats in government that they are just people. He's right when he says that Park Rangers work for the government - but please ask Nancy Pelosi why the people are supposed to work to pay for her government supplied jumbo-jet that she uses to fly home every weekend.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
I agree with nationalization as a solution to rescue near-to-insolvent banks, but I can't stand Stiglitz. Is it me, or does this guy always just quote textbook economic history? Either that or he proposes solutions that have already been discussed months ago by other, better, economists. In particular, I find his academic writings devoid of significant content and arrogant. I never did quite figure out how he managed to win the Economics prize. Stiglitz is a talking sock-puppet.
Yeah, it is you. Stiglitz filled economic journals for decades with innovative work on the economics of information and incentives (plus work on capital theory, public finance and many other subjects). He has one of the most fertile minds that economics has seen in the last hundred years. Perhaps you should have a look at his CV: http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/download/Stiglitz_CV.pdf[^]
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Stiglitz filled economic journals for decades with innovative work on the economics of information and incentives
Aren't you the guy who dismissed Stan because he was talking about books written 15 years ago? Though I have far less knowledge of the man's career, it is obvious from the list of his publications and their dates, that his heyday was a quarter of a century ago.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
John Carson wrote:
The proposals Stiglitz is making would break no new ground constitutionally.
Frankly, I don't believe for one minute that you have a clue what this guy is even saying, John. Zepp might, but I strongly doubt anyone else here does. All you hear is 'bank nationalization' which you support because to control the banks is to control the economy and to control the economy is to control the social agenda. And its the social agenda that you care about. Second, if bank nationalization does not break constitutional ground, than we are in the midst of the greatest constitutional crisis in American history. The federal government of the United States of America does not have the actual legal authority to nationalize anything. Banks, schools, health care, nuttin... The entire legal justification for any of it is nothing more than the penumbra of a shadow and if the states ever decide to stand up and challange it, it will all vanish in the light of a new dawn.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Frankly, I don't believe for one minute that you have a clue what this guy is even saying, John.
I tremble in fear before your assessment of people's economic understanding.
Stan Shannon wrote:
All you hear is 'bank nationalization' which you support because to control the banks is to control the economy and to control the economy is to control the social agenda. And its the social agenda that you care about.
Actually, I care more about the economic agenda than the social agenda. I'm old fashioned. I was economically left wing long before I developed any sympathy for the left wing social agenda.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Second, if bank nationalization does not break constitutional ground, than we are in the midst of the greatest constitutional crisis in American history. The federal government of the United States of America does not have the actual legal authority to nationalize anything.
What Stiglitz is proposing is just a variation on normal bankruptcy proceedings and one that has occurred before. Read the first few paragraphs of page 3 again. For the government to take over failed companies is nothing new.
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
Stiglitz filled economic journals for decades with innovative work on the economics of information and incentives
Aren't you the guy who dismissed Stan because he was talking about books written 15 years ago? Though I have far less knowledge of the man's career, it is obvious from the list of his publications and their dates, that his heyday was a quarter of a century ago.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
Aren't you the guy who dismissed Stan because he was talking about books written 15 years ago?
15 years ago on a different subject. Stan was just looking for an ideologically congenial quote and hunted around for one wherever he could find it.
Oakman wrote:
Though I have far less knowledge of the man's career, it is obvious from the list of his publications and their dates, that his heyday was a quarter of a century ago.
I don't know about a quarter of a century, but as an economic theorist doing pathbreaking work, his best years are certainly behind him. Creativity declines with age, most dramatically with pure mathematicians who are "old" at age 30. However, knowledge, judgement and wisdom can improve until late in life (I'm getting better all the time :) ). That is why many people follow the path of being theorists in their youth and policy analysts and administrators in later life.
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
The current financial crisis is because the banks have had the wrong "marching orders".
You've never said anything I agreed with more. And since they received those orders via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, you'll forgive me for not understanding why you think the same people being in charge in both the public and private sectors (Geitner helped cause the problem, for pete's sake. For that matter Stiglitz was part of the government when it was determined that people who had their cars repo'd deserved to be able to buy a house. Maher doesn't need to tell the people they are part of the government; he needs to tell the aristocrats in government that they are just people. He's right when he says that Park Rangers work for the government - but please ask Nancy Pelosi why the people are supposed to work to pay for her government supplied jumbo-jet that she uses to fly home every weekend.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
And since they received those orders via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
The problems were system wide.
Oakman wrote:
you'll forgive me for not understanding why you think the same people being in charge in both the public and private sectors (Geitner helped cause the problem, for pete's sake. For that matter Stiglitz was part of the government when it was determined that people who had their cars repo'd deserved to be able to buy a house.
It is silly to hold everyone in the government accountable for everything that the government did. But I agree that there are people in government that bear some responsibility for what went wrong, and that appears to include both Geitner and Summers (for example, Summers, I believe, supported the erasing of the distinction between investment banks and regular banks, which promoted high risk behaviour). But I don't see it principally as a government vs private sector issue. I see it principally as a sensible people in government vs not-so-sensible people in government issue. I think that the tepid policies from Geitner and Sumners are a continuation of the deregulatory mindset they have carried all along and which is at the heart of the problem. Fundamentally, the banking system is in diabolical trouble and I want the government to act decisively to fix it. Whatever screwups have taken place in the past, I want people to step up and acknowledge the full extent of the mess created and take decisive action to set the economy on the path to recovery. I think that, absent that, things could get very bad.
John Carson
-
Oakman wrote:
Aren't you the guy who dismissed Stan because he was talking about books written 15 years ago?
15 years ago on a different subject. Stan was just looking for an ideologically congenial quote and hunted around for one wherever he could find it.
Oakman wrote:
Though I have far less knowledge of the man's career, it is obvious from the list of his publications and their dates, that his heyday was a quarter of a century ago.
I don't know about a quarter of a century, but as an economic theorist doing pathbreaking work, his best years are certainly behind him. Creativity declines with age, most dramatically with pure mathematicians who are "old" at age 30. However, knowledge, judgement and wisdom can improve until late in life (I'm getting better all the time :) ). That is why many people follow the path of being theorists in their youth and policy analysts and administrators in later life.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Stan was just looking for an ideologically congenial quote and hunted around for one wherever he could find it.
Possibly. But I, too, was looking at other examples of his work to get a handle on his point-of-view. There are very few sciences where that is more important a consideration than in economics.
John Carson wrote:
I'm getting better all the time
Me, too. ;)
John Carson wrote:
That is why many people follow the path of being theorists in their youth and policy analysts and administrators in later life.
Besides, it pays better. Management always votes itself a raise before considering those who actually work for a living.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Oakman wrote:
And since they received those orders via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
The problems were system wide.
Oakman wrote:
you'll forgive me for not understanding why you think the same people being in charge in both the public and private sectors (Geitner helped cause the problem, for pete's sake. For that matter Stiglitz was part of the government when it was determined that people who had their cars repo'd deserved to be able to buy a house.
It is silly to hold everyone in the government accountable for everything that the government did. But I agree that there are people in government that bear some responsibility for what went wrong, and that appears to include both Geitner and Summers (for example, Summers, I believe, supported the erasing of the distinction between investment banks and regular banks, which promoted high risk behaviour). But I don't see it principally as a government vs private sector issue. I see it principally as a sensible people in government vs not-so-sensible people in government issue. I think that the tepid policies from Geitner and Sumners are a continuation of the deregulatory mindset they have carried all along and which is at the heart of the problem. Fundamentally, the banking system is in diabolical trouble and I want the government to act decisively to fix it. Whatever screwups have taken place in the past, I want people to step up and acknowledge the full extent of the mess created and take decisive action to set the economy on the path to recovery. I think that, absent that, things could get very bad.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
The problems were system wide.
Granted. But Fannie and Freddie, those quasi-governmental organizations, were in the forefront and leading by example.
John Carson wrote:
It is silly to hold everyone in the government accountable for everything that the government did.
Of course it is. Just as silly as it is to give Nancy Pelosi credit because some Park Ranger scares off a pedophile, as Maher did.
John Carson wrote:
I see it principally as a sensible people in government vs not-so-sensible people in government issue.
Of course and my experience suggests that there are some of each in every branch of goevrenment. However, in the bureacracy, it appears that a fair amount of promotion by attrition goes on. It doesn't matter if you are barely competent, those better qualified for your job are likely to go elsewhere leaving your career path clear of obstacles. This is true, to some extent, in any large company where responsibilities are blurred, but it seems especially true in the government.
John Carson wrote:
Whatever screwups have taken place in the past, I want people to step up and acknowledge the full extent of the mess created and take decisive action to set the economy on the path to recovery.
Me, too. I am sick and tired of both the left and the right jockying for position or having ideological food fights. But I think there needs to be a plan for what should be done, with easily quantifiable goals, milestones, and a clear path to a defined outcome. To the best of my knowledge, no-one has come up with that. "Throw money on the fire until we smother it" is no more a plan than "do a raindance and hope." Yet these seem to be the choices most often embraced by those whom we would hope have the country's best interest at heart.
John Carson wrote:
I think that, absent that, things could get very bad.
I suppose, it ultimates comes to - is there anything that can be done?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Frankly, I don't believe for one minute that you have a clue what this guy is even saying, John.
I tremble in fear before your assessment of people's economic understanding.
Stan Shannon wrote:
All you hear is 'bank nationalization' which you support because to control the banks is to control the economy and to control the economy is to control the social agenda. And its the social agenda that you care about.
Actually, I care more about the economic agenda than the social agenda. I'm old fashioned. I was economically left wing long before I developed any sympathy for the left wing social agenda.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Second, if bank nationalization does not break constitutional ground, than we are in the midst of the greatest constitutional crisis in American history. The federal government of the United States of America does not have the actual legal authority to nationalize anything.
What Stiglitz is proposing is just a variation on normal bankruptcy proceedings and one that has occurred before. Read the first few paragraphs of page 3 again. For the government to take over failed companies is nothing new.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Frankly, I don't believe for one minute that you have a clue what this guy is even saying, John.
I tremble in fear before your assessment of people's economic understanding.
Stan Shannon wrote:
All you hear is 'bank nationalization' which you support because to control the banks is to control the economy and to control the economy is to control the social agenda. And its the social agenda that you care about.
Actually, I care more about the economic agenda than the social agenda. I'm old fashioned. I was economically left wing long before I developed any sympathy for the left wing social agenda.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Second, if bank nationalization does not break constitutional ground, than we are in the midst of the greatest constitutional crisis in American history. The federal government of the United States of America does not have the actual legal authority to nationalize anything.
What Stiglitz is proposing is just a variation on normal bankruptcy proceedings and one that has occurred before. Read the first few paragraphs of page 3 again. For the government to take over failed companies is nothing new.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
What Stiglitz is proposing is just a variation on normal bankruptcy proceedings and one that has occurred before. Read the first few paragraphs of page 3 again. For the government to take over failed companies is nothing new.
Taking over the bulk of the banking industry is hardly the same as taking over some arbitrary failed company, which in and of itself is of questionable constitutional validity. Frankly, I think a if serious coalition of states and/or citizens were to sue on the basis of being required to pay taxes for any such activity they would probably win. There is nothing in the constituion that empowers the federal government to force me to pay for someone else's failed business. It ain't there - judicial review or no judicial review.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
John Carson wrote:
What Stiglitz is proposing is just a variation on normal bankruptcy proceedings and one that has occurred before. Read the first few paragraphs of page 3 again. For the government to take over failed companies is nothing new.
Taking over the bulk of the banking industry is hardly the same as taking over some arbitrary failed company, which in and of itself is of questionable constitutional validity. Frankly, I think a if serious coalition of states and/or citizens were to sue on the basis of being required to pay taxes for any such activity they would probably win. There is nothing in the constituion that empowers the federal government to force me to pay for someone else's failed business. It ain't there - judicial review or no judicial review.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is nothing in the constituion
Is there anything in your constitution that defines how the Federal Government needs to act in some National Emergency? Consider this, this crisis could be considered in the same light as a National Emergency. After all if the banks were allowed to fail, how many multi-nationals, nationwide businesses, independent businesses and private individual funds (savings, 401K's, insurances of all kinds etc) would also vanish, let alone the processing of safe as well as unsound mortgages. And if the banking system as it does now exists then did not exist, how would the Federal Government distribute the fail-safe compensation for such savers. So causing the banks to be saved, even part/full Nationalized (albeit howsoever temporary) is a price that has to be paid especially when national and international interests depends so much on it. A judicial review as well as any criminal investigations can indeed take place, but I would have thought the best time for that would be when things have normalized and thus quiet.
-
John Carson wrote:
I was economically left wing
Alright, I'm interested in what that means?
led mike wrote:
Alright, I'm interested in what that means?
I'm now 50. When I was 20, I was gung ho for full blown socialism --- government ownership of all major industry. These days my views are complicated and more pragmatic. I favour redistributive taxation and believe in effective government regulation. I also reject the view that the government always does things worse than the private sector. On the other hand, I am sensitive to the fact that government regulations often don't achieve what is claimed for them, either because those promoting them don't understand economics or because those promoting them have a real agenda different from their claimed agenda. Moreover (and this was true even when I was 20), I think that just handing over welfare and demanding nothing in return is damaging both economically and morally. I am more concerned with outcomes than with ideological purity.
John Carson
-
led mike wrote:
Alright, I'm interested in what that means?
I'm now 50. When I was 20, I was gung ho for full blown socialism --- government ownership of all major industry. These days my views are complicated and more pragmatic. I favour redistributive taxation and believe in effective government regulation. I also reject the view that the government always does things worse than the private sector. On the other hand, I am sensitive to the fact that government regulations often don't achieve what is claimed for them, either because those promoting them don't understand economics or because those promoting them have a real agenda different from their claimed agenda. Moreover (and this was true even when I was 20), I think that just handing over welfare and demanding nothing in return is damaging both economically and morally. I am more concerned with outcomes than with ideological purity.
John Carson
Yes yes and
John Carson wrote:
I am more concerned with outcomes than with ideological purity.
Fracking right fracking on brother!!!!! Thanks for taking the time to respond. I found that a very enjoyable read. What you might find interesting is that I have arrived at the same place as you however my journey started at the other end of the spectrum, that being conservative. In the same vain as your somewhat summarized post I would say the following. When I was 20 I was a gung ho conservative -- government should stay out of everyone's business. I still believe that conservative logic is pragmatic, but not at the cost of not actually solving problems. Every problem that needs solving, needs to be solved as best we can and as fiscally conservative as we can (my definition of pragmatic). The lowest cost solution to the government is for private industry to solve the problem without any government funding. From there all other potential solutions elevate the cost to the government to varying degrees. So we always try to find a lowest cost solution, but not by sacrificing quality. Currently of course washington does not work anything like this. Changing the subject to your last post to stan. You suggest the current problem might be classified as an emergency. Many people seem to agree with that. That does cast things in a different light, however washington (the system) seems to be approaching this in the same old fashion with everyone getting in their own earmarks. During an emergency seems in very bad taste to put it mildly. I am interested to see what Stan's reply is.