World Politics

[Anonymous]

my god....why would anyone listen to scientists...especially those involved in the making of these things? ****wadme...that is crazy...it is like repugs saying crime has nothing to do with poverty...can't be true...this just can't be reality.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

my god....why would anyone listen to scientists...especially those involved in the making of these things? ****wadme...that is crazy...it is like repugs saying crime has nothing to do with poverty...can't be true...this just can't be reality.

Surely you are not saying that the wealthy cannot be criminals?

 

[Anonymous]

Surely you are not saying that the wealthy cannot be criminals?

let's just say i think they have a special gene...experience tells me they are douchbags...I will go from there...

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

Question: how much wealth is too much? Where should the cut off be?

Good question.

Wealth is never to much on itself. It is the fairness of the division of wealth we are talking about.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Good question.

Wealth is never to much on itself. It is the fairness of the division of wealth we are talking about.

Nice way to avoid the question by re-stating it in another form So what would be the equitable division of wealth?

 

[Bala Verde]

I would be happy to discuss your question but feel it would be fair to acknowledge and discuss what I posted. I get the feeling you are evading my question, perhaps as there are serious problems when they question is asked in defending the liberal viewpoint that capitalism is inherently evil and that socialism is inherently good.

For what is worth, I would be much more comfortable with socialism if it werre not for man's basic nature of selfishness in combination with a limitation on resources and an incredible increase in consumers.

I was merely anticipating a 'nirvana' or 'perfect solution' fallacy, by posting a rhetorical question in reply. I don't know the finite answer to either question, perhaps no one does, but that does not necessarily mean no upper or lower limits can be set.

Hence, if one can debate what the extent of the limits to ensure physical security, one can do so as well for how much wealth, health care, labor, is too little and how much is too much. Is 1 police officer and 1 marine per capita too much? Is a back log of cases for child molesters of 2 years too much, too little? Is a war in Iraq too much, or too little? Are 2 wars too much? Should there be a third one? Is

When it's snowed 40 inches, is 30F, and your children go outside, you want to dress them warmly, because of the environment they'll be in. How many layers do they need to wear. With some certainty you can come to some conclusions. Perhaps even more so when you talk to them and ask them if they were too warm or too cold.

What if economists showed that the concentration of wealth in the hands of too few is actually inefficient. Would that be enough reason to intervene?

Think about this for a moment:

-How many grains of sand make a mound. 2? 10? 20? 100? 250.000?
-when one takes a picture of a tadpole, every nanosecond, from its 'birth' to the point one identifies it as a frog, could one pick one picture and say 'this is the moment he has become a frog'

Even though a finite answer might be impossible, we can still identify frogs and mounds...

 

[Bala Verde]

Their legacy isn't capitalism or advocating of it. They tried to manipulate policy, the tax code and markets in ways they thought would work to specifics and favorites - usually large campaign donors, while punishing those who got in their way by making sure they were left out. This isn't capitalism, but some sort of plutocracy, or kleptocracy. But not just by the wealthy which is what plutocracy would imply, but by the wealthy who are connected who then act as thieves, and not just against the poor or working class, but by others who aren't in the circle of connections, regardless of their level of wealth.

The biggest problem in the US isn't health care, and it's not any ill-perceived left/right idiom, it's massive corruption and collusion between the government, and those who can afford to connect to them. Until there is total campaign finance reform and organized lobbying is made a crime, this will continue, regardless of which party is in control.

Good points.

Strongly recommend any and all watch this episode of Frontline on world health care and comparative systems.

I saw that episode a couple of weeks a go. I found Switzerland an interesting example for the US, because of the wealth and presence of big pharmaceutical companies. Pharmaceutical companies were morbidly against the idea of regulated health care, and argued that their viability would be affected. None of that happened, although they might have gotten more efficient since they can charge less for their products.

Obviously, the old adage that high prices and high profits are justified to do good and cure the world was thrown in. However, it's good to know that most of the these Pharmaceutical companies spend more on legal fees for the protection of their patents. They know how valuable technological/scientific monopolies are, but in order to exploit that as much as possible, they need some darn good lawyers. How's that for efficiency...\

First, research and development (R&D) is a relatively small part of the budgets of the big drug companies—dwarfed by their vast expenditures on marketing and administration, and smaller even than profits. In fact, year after year, for over two decades, this industry has been far and away the most profitable in the United States. (In 2003, for the first time, the industry lost its first-place position, coming in third, behind "mining, crude oil production," and "commercial banks.") The prices drug companies charge have little relationship to the costs of making the drugs and could be cut dramatically without coming anywhere close to threatening R&D.

Second, the pharmaceutical industry is not especially innovative. As hard as it is to believe, only a handful of truly important drugs have been brought to market in recent years, and they were mostly based on taxpayer-funded research at academic institutions, small biotechnology companies, or the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The great majority of "new" drugs are not new at all but merely variations of older drugs already on the market. These are called "me-too" drugs. The idea is to grab a share of an established, lucrative market by producing something very similar to a top-selling drug

[...]

And there is nothing peculiarly American about this industry. It is the very essence of a global enterprise. Roughly half of the largest drug companies are based in Europe. (The exact count shifts because of mergers.) In 2002, the top ten were the American companies Pfizer, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Wyeth (formerly American Home Products); the British companies GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca; the Swiss companies Novartis and Roche; and the French company Aventis (which in 2004 merged with another French company, Sanafi Synthelabo, putting it in third place).[5] All are much alike in their operations. All price their drugs much higher here than in other markets

Source

One other element that recurred, was that public or private institutions under government regulations still remained exceedingly competitive and continued to offering better services, expanding their client base, controlling costs. Many reduced overhead, ie had very enhanced integrated client databases (see Taiwan?), no to low paperwork. Based on their contributions to health care, they were rewarded. The better they did (quality/quantity) the more they could earn...

 

[Cobblestones]

yeah...am I reading you wrong via irony? It was the socialistic governments who invested...in belgie, they have so much power, they light things all day long and people don't pay **** for thier electricity...and yet it is terribly clean....My god, did socialism do this? it just can't be...and no way would health care work like that right?

No irony. Nuclear power has been subsidized heavily in all those countries in which it plays a major role. Either directly, or by cheap credit for the upfront costs, or by assurances of earnings, or by paying for most of the R&D or whatnot.

No private company will find credit for construction of a nuclear power plant. Never has, never will. Not with massive involvement of government. Capitalism killed nuclear power.

CentralCaliBike: California regulations? Don't make me laugh. First of all, it's regulated federally, by the NRC. Second, don't tell me that a multi billion dollar investment, concerning power, in California, the state of rolling blackouts, would be derailed by some local regulations? When so much money is involved, there's always a way to be found. Anyway, the problem is not limited to California. I wasn't aware that California regulations disallow the construction of a nuclear power plant in, say, Texas or Alabama.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

I was merely anticipating a 'nirvana' or 'perfect solution' fallacy, by posting a rhetorical question in reply. I don't know the finite answer to either question, perhaps no one does, but that does not necessarily mean no upper or lower limits can be set.

Hence, if one can debate what the extent of the limits to ensure physical security, one can do so as well for how much wealth, health care, labor, is too little and how much is too much. Is 1 police officer and 1 marine per capita too much? Is a back log of cases for child molesters of 2 years too much, too little? Is a war in Iraq too much, or too little? Are 2 wars too much? Should there be a third one? Is

When it's snowed 40 inches, is 30F, and your children go outside, you want to dress them warmly, because of the environment they'll be in. How many layers do they need to wear. With some certainty you can come to some conclusions. Perhaps even more so when you talk to them and ask them if they were too warm or too cold.

What if economists showed that the concentration of wealth in the hands of too few is actually inefficient. Would that be enough reason to intervene?

Think about this for a moment:

-How many grains of sand make a mound. 2? 10? 20? 100? 250.000?
-when one takes a picture of a tadpole, every nanosecond, from its 'birth' to the point one identifies it as a frog, could one pick one picture and say 'this is the moment he has become a frog'

Even though a finite answer might be impossible, we can still identify frogs and mounds...

I have no problem with the analogy - as far as the clothing goes when dealing with the military, it is fairly sound in that you want to be certain that your children are not going to get cold and eventually sick for lack of clothing.

The problem is that human nature tends to be envious of what they think someone else has that is better than what they possess, so I am not sure the analogy will work for wealth. And, since there are limited resources, willingness to work, and desire for wealth, we will always have some with more than others which will leave those with less thinking that life is not fair to them.

If we decide to tax the wealthy more because they already have to much there will never come a point where society thinks they have taxed the wealthy too much, regardless of the effect on society as a whole.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

CentralCaliBike: California regulations? Don't make me laugh. First of all, it's regulated federally, by the NRC. Second, don't tell me that a multi billion dollar investment, concerning power, in California, the state of rolling blackouts, would be derailed by some local regulations? When so much money is involved, there's always a way to be found. Anyway, the problem is not limited to California. I wasn't aware that California regulations disallow the construction of a nuclear power plant in, say, Texas or Alabama.

I was not limiting my comments to nuclear power when it comes to regulations. There have been several attempts to start high dollar enterprises locally in the form of dairies. The last couple have been delayed nearly a decade because of the public hearings (not so bad except the people attending have not been from the area generally) and the law suits which start in the state courts then move the the federal courts regarding environmental concerns.

I also remember decades ago when nuclear power was actually a consideration: it was the law suits and public perception that killed it as a viable alternative - it was not lack of funding but concern over the damage to the environment and the law suits that went along with the concern.

 

[rhubroma]

Tocqueville said that democracy only works if you have an informed (and intelligent) electoral body. That it was supposed to put the interests of collective society, before those of the rich and powerful, makes me think that American democracy is not composed of an informed and intelligent people.

The question in a healthy democracy is never how much is too much wealth for the individual, but whether or not the basic needs of the collective are being met within a free and empowered society. In America "freedom" has been exclusively linked to allowing "wealth" to be unencombered of any "social responsibilty." We thus have made little improvment upon what was had before in the 3 estate system, despite much talk to the contrary. Amrican capitalism is much to blame in this failure. Remembering that "democracy" and "capitalism" are not synonomous terms, the one being a political philosophy, the other an economic ideology.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Tocqueville said that democracy only works if you have an informed (and intelligent) electoral body. That it was supposed to put the interests of collective society, before those of the rich and powerful, makes me think that American democracy is not composed of an informed and intelligent people.

Name me a society where even 50% plus one fits this "informed and intelligent" ideal?

 

[Anonymous]

Name me a society where even 50% plus one fits this "informed and intelligent" ideal?

Japan comes to mind. http://www.google.com/search?client...ese+literacy&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

[Cobblestones]

I was not limiting my comments to nuclear power when it comes to regulations. There have been several attempts to start high dollar enterprises locally in the form of dairies. The last couple have been delayed nearly a decade because of the public hearings (not so bad except the people attending have not been from the area generally) and the law suits which start in the state courts then move the the federal courts regarding environmental concerns.

I also remember decades ago when nuclear power was actually a consideration: it was the law suits and public perception that killed it as a viable alternative - it was not lack of funding but concern over the damage to the environment and the law suits that went along with the concern.

No, it was lack of financing in every case. Usually you start the regulatory process as early as possible with only the plan in hands so it doesn't delay the project unduly. At one point, usually the funding falls through and then the failure is blamed on the environmentalists. But that's not the truth. Nuclear power is just not a viable investment in our capitalist system. The two are incompatible. It requires government guarantees to make nuclear power work. Just look at Price Anderson. I'm sorry to burst your ideological bubble. Nuclear power is in essence a socialist technology. If you're pro-nuclear you have to be pro-socialism if you're intellectually honest.

 

[Cobblestones]

Tocqueville said that democracy only works if you have an informed (and intelligent) electoral body. That it was supposed to put the interests of collective society, before those of the rich and powerful, makes me think that American democracy is not composed of an informed and intelligent people.

The question in a healthy democracy is never how much is too much wealth for the individual, but whether or not the basic needs of the collective are being met within a free and empowered society. In America "freedom" has been exclusively linked to allowing "wealth" to be unencombered of any "social responsibilty." We thus have made little improvment upon what was had before in the 3 estate system, despite much talk to the contrary. Amrican capitalism is much to blame in this failure. Remembering that "democracy" and "capitalism" are not synonomous terms, the one being a political philosophy, the other an economic ideology.

Right on target. Twenty years ago, I was very much concerned with the level of democracy here and around the world. Not any more. I think the greatest, most astounding political process in the last two decades has happened on the question of European integration. Common currency, common market for goods and labor, the extension toward the east, and all in such a short time. It is truly a wonder to behold. Now, there were a few glitches, mostly due to popular votes rejecting one or the other proposal. This led me to believe that direct democracy does not work. Unfortunately, the US system, while it is representative in nature, is fairly direct in that the representation is derived by direct popular vote in the districts. Even most of the primaries are. Most European system are less direct in that political parties play a stronger role. The European commission/government is probably one of the least direct forms of democratic governance, so far removed from the public vote that it is hardly democratic at all, and look at what they managed!

Now, about the economic system. I said in an earlier post (many pages ago) that unregulated capitalism doesn't work. My main objection is that there's no proven theory that individual greed or selfishness helps to better everyone's situation. In some cases, due to lack of information, or faulty models, people will even act against their own interests. This has to be acted against with the help of regulations. Moreover, the capitalist system fails to take into account essential parts of human nature such as altruism. Some problems such as climate change cannot be tackled at all by our democratic/capitalist system. It's too long term, it requires global cooperation, and, because it hits some nations more than other, one motivation to solve it is altruism which is not built into our system.

I do acknowledge the benefits of democracy and capitalism, but I also see the limitations. I believe that in the present age of complex, global problems of both political and economical type, we cannot find answers in 18th century political and economic thought. We need a third way, and the solution likely is a much more professional political/bureaucratic class (as opposed to current populism, especially on the right) and a much more regulated economic system with global targets of consumption and pollution.

ETA: And let me just add that I think the worst idea the right has come up with is the idea of local government=good, federal government=bad. A lot of decisions are NIMBY issues (where to put a nuclear reactor, for instance). With more and more decentralized decision making, do you really think we'll ever get any new nuclear reactor (just to make one example)? Fortunately, the right pays only lip-service to that thought.

 

[titan_90]

Right on target. Twenty years ago, I was very much concerned with the level of democracy here and around the world. Not any more. I think the greatest, most astounding political process in the last two decades has happened on the question of European integration. Common currency, common market for goods and labor, the extension toward the east, and all in such a short time. It is truly a wonder to behold. Now, there were a few glitches, mostly due to popular votes rejecting one or the other proposal. This led me to believe that direct democracy does not work. Unfortunately, the US system, while it is representative in nature, is fairly direct in that the representation is derived by direct popular vote in the districts. Even most of the primaries are. Most European system are less direct in that political parties play a stronger role. The European commission/government is probably one of the least direct forms of democratic governance, so far removed from the public vote that it is hardly democratic at all, and look at what they managed!

Now, about the economic system. I said in an earlier post (many pages ago) that unregulated capitalism doesn't work. My main objection is that there's no proven theory that individual greed or selfishness helps to better everyone's situation. In some case, due to lack of information, or faulty models, people will even act against their own interests. This has to be acted against with the help of regulations. Moreover, the capitalist system fails to take into account essential parts of human nature such as altruism. Some problems such as climate change cannot be tackled at all by our democratic/capitalist system. It's too long term, it requires global cooperation, and, because it hits some nations more than other, one motivation to solve it is altruism which is not built into our system.

I do acknowledge the benefits of democracy and capitalism, but I also see the limitations. I believe that in the present age of complex, global problems of both political and economical type, we cannot find answers in 18th century political and economical thought. We need a third way, and the solution likely is a much more professional political/bureaucratic class (as opposed to current populism, especially on the right) and a much more regulated economic system with global targets of consumption and pollution.

You're going to give the conservatives a heart-attack

Seriously though, I think you are correct on you assessment. Lack of regulation is what got us in our current situation yet you have people on both sides of the isle that haven't learned this lesson.

 

[Cobblestones]

You're going to give the conservatives a heart-attack

Seriously though, I think you are correct on you assessment. Lack of regulation is what got us in our current situation yet you have people on both sides of the isle that haven't learned this lesson.

Hope they have health care then. To make the point clear, I think we eventually need targets for global consumption of non-renewable resources.

 

[scribe]

I am another left-winger that supports Nuclear power(something else we agree on).

I am too. Storage of waste material is a problem, but a worthy one considering the by-product of fossil fuels.

However, what happened at Chernobyl should be part of the discussion.

 

[Cobblestones]

I am too. Storage of waste material is a problem, but a worthy one considering the by-product of fossil fuels.

However, what happened at Chernobyl should be part of the discussion.

Chernobyl, like TMI, was the slaughtering of a reactor by an incompetent crew. Safety concerns about running a power reactor are minimal nowadays. I agree that waste is an issue. The solution is likely to use a combination of reprocessing and transmutation in fast reactors. Alternatively, accelerator based waste transmutation might work. It's mostly an engineering problem, since most of the science is pretty much known.

Waste transmutation will reduce half-life of radioactive waste down to a few hundred years (from tens of thousand as we have now). Very safe for deposition in geological formation. Unfortunately, it's again a NIMBY issue. Yucca mountain is likely fine except it's incredibly unpopular as a local issue. With Reid as the majority whip, Yucca mountain is a non-starter. Democracy in (in-)action.

 

[scribe]

Yes. But human error is the factor that needs to be considered.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

No, it was lack of financing in every case. Usually you start the regulatory process as early as possible with only the plan in hands so it doesn't delay the project unduly. At one point, usually the funding falls through and then the failure is blamed on the environmentalists. But that's not the truth. Nuclear power is just not a viable investment in our capitalist system. The two are incompatible. It requires government guarantees to make nuclear power work. Just look at Price Anderson. I'm sorry to burst your ideological bubble. Nuclear power is in essence a socialist technology. If you're pro-nuclear you have to be pro-socialism if you're intellectually honest.

For some reason I thought that Nuclear power was a firmly established source of electricity in the United States - I know that others were involved but it seemed that the US was the leader into the late 60s/early 70s (and the birth of the environmental movement).

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/nuclear-power/history.html

 

[zhumin]

Should wear cycling shorts

Should wear cycling shorts
Currently do trade a lot of professional cycling apparel manufacturers, brand there are many, of course, quality is also quite a mixed bag, foreign trade things this way, the good thing indeed but not a lot, to see you have a pair of eye; course, there are domestic own brand, currently the largest is jaggad, product line is very wide. Said the two ads, I have been doing is jaggad the brand, is responsible for quality and good to say, the price is high.

riding suit are generally within the pad will not be very difficult to be elliptic, and if there is estimated to be riding posture or position of center of gravity of the wrong place, I am riding in three days of Qingdao, the buttocks to nothing, to the shoulders (old injury), wrist, waist hurt's. Should not feel a bit short, our current day is 80 - 100KM, wearing a very comfortable riding shorts, mainly remember half an hour in the car Tai Tai buttocks, preferably an hour off to rest 5 -- 10 minutes

I have one that is more concerned about the comfort level - though I am also poor, but this thing riding shorts, buy good estimate on the White bought, so the wound to his buttocks should also buy a good point.

Tight and loose on the issue, in addition to the comfort and beauty, is not it right there, tights trousers also take advantage of it (of course, right leg)?
On the first question, wearing so many is not too troublesome 呀?
On the second question, I choose pant.
Personal feeling a little better, or riding pants shorts, cycling shorts and pants can reduce the resistance? Is a drop, riding shorts and pants is good, as long as the body is good or cycling shorts and trousers, to reduce air resistance. Of course, it is pure riding a bicycle and if coupled with outdoor activities, it would not know.

*** is grinding out, first of all to choose the size of the frame suited to their body, another by adjusting the seat height and riding position, often riding to adjust the beginning of riding must wear their bottoms to adapt to a fine.

The advantages of riding wear tight-fitting, not a drive to reduce air resistance, quick-drying fabric breathable sweat, inner mat is commonly used coolmax, for me personally difficult to distinguish between true and false, then no matter how thick mats even if the sweat will damp , but does dry fast.

 

[rhubroma]

Name me a society where even 50% plus one fits this "informed and intelligent" ideal?

Somehow I expected that to be your response. Well in terms of what I call "political intelligence," European society, in general, has got it over America's.

The serious problem democracy at the global level faces today, is that the corporate world with its economic interests pretty much controls the mass media and thus information. And in the US since students aren't being taught to think critically anymore, nor have they been exposed the history of ideological thought with any seriousness (or at least that which goes beyond market ideology) and are being bred pretty much on pure materialism, one there doesn't know how to sift through the mountians of propaganda to support this system and get to a more comprehensive view of reality in the world we live in today. Which is a huge problem for the wellbeing of democracy.

Tocqueville had hoped that the infant US democracy would lead to a better prepared electoral body, as a result of the institutions of pubblic schooling and a free press. But this has not happened. The school system has been made to surpress any form of ideological debate in the areas of political and economic thought, apart from that which doesn't affirm the virtue of pure capitalism-deregulated market theory in the name of patriotism and so-called "political correctness." Whereas the so-called free press (but also the cinemagraphic industry) had been systematically brutalized during the McCarthy era, continued to be undermined during the Iran-contra scandal, right down to the lies that were not dutifully exposed in the build-up to the war in Iraq. The victory for justice against corruption that was Watergate, had simply been a parenthases in what has been otherwise a scandalously manipulated information system, which misinforms the AMerican public on many important issues mystifying reality, on the part of sometimes obscure, yet extremely powerful, poltitical, economic, secret service and military forces. For all these reasons the evolution of American democracy, from the perspective of the noble hopes placed upon it by the early XIX century French philosopher, has been a complete and utter failure. But one, in the name of anti-democratic principles and social injustice, could also site the violent and extremely anti-deomocratic repressions of the early XX century workers' movements, the most tragic consequence of which had been the State ordered executions of two innocent Italian imigrant Californian union leaders, Sacco and Vanzetti, in the 20's who were barbarously killed in the electric chair for crimes they didn't commit, but just for having challanged the local capitalist establishment. While US children are not being informed about such dark moments of the history of US democracy at school, there has been a revival recently in the learning environment of those terrible materialist theories of that ultra-conservative demagogue Anne Rand, which simply put amount to "Greed is Good" and society doesn't count but only the pursuit of wealth for the "free" individual.

This opinion I hold has been based on my personal experience working with US students in a foreign study aboad progaram and from living in Europe (confronting collegues, freinds and aquaintances) for the last 15 years. But everybody sees the world with their own set of eyes.

 

[rhubroma]

Right on target. Twenty years ago, I was very much concerned with the level of democracy here and around the world. Not any more. I think the greatest, most astounding political process in the last two decades has happened on the question of European integration. Common currency, common market for goods and labor, the extension toward the east, and all in such a short time. It is truly a wonder to behold. Now, there were a few glitches, mostly due to popular votes rejecting one or the other proposal. This led me to believe that direct democracy does not work. Unfortunately, the US system, while it is representative in nature, is fairly direct in that the representation is derived by direct popular vote in the districts. Even most of the primaries are. Most European system are less direct in that political parties play a stronger role. The European commission/government is probably one of the least direct forms of democratic governance, so far removed from the public vote that it is hardly democratic at all, and look at what they managed!

Now, about the economic system. I said in an earlier post (many pages ago) that unregulated capitalism doesn't work. My main objection is that there's no proven theory that individual greed or selfishness helps to better everyone's situation. In some cases, due to lack of information, or faulty models, people will even act against their own interests. This has to be acted against with the help of regulations. Moreover, the capitalist system fails to take into account essential parts of human nature such as altruism. Some problems such as climate change cannot be tackled at all by our democratic/capitalist system. It's too long term, it requires global cooperation, and, because it hits some nations more than other, one motivation to solve it is altruism which is not built into our system.

I do acknowledge the benefits of democracy and capitalism, but I also see the limitations. I believe that in the present age of complex, global problems of both political and economical type, we cannot find answers in 18th century political and economic thought. We need a third way, and the solution likely is a much more professional political/bureaucratic class (as opposed to current populism, especially on the right) and a much more regulated economic system with global targets of consumption and pollution.

ETA: And let me just add that I think the worst idea the right has come up with is the idea of local government=good, federal government=bad. A lot of decisions are NIMBY issues (where to put a nuclear reactor, for instance). With more and more decentralized decision making, do you really think we'll ever get any new nuclear reactor (just to make one example)? Fortunately, the right pays only lip-service to that thought.

Dear Cobblestones,

I wish I could give an adequite response to the important issues you point out, but time does not permit. Suffice it to say, there does exist a third way (as you suggest) and it is to be found in adapting capitalism (which allows for the pursuit of wealth by the individual) within the democratic state, to accomodate also for some basic social needs like healthcare and education (among others) of the middle and lower classes, through public spending. Placing some regulations over the market, in the common interst, and taking industrial lobbies out of political campaign financing and clamping down on military spending.

In short, what in Europe is called a "social-democracy." Not that the Europeans have perfected it, far from it. However it forms the basic model for the Union members, and I think that America, especially the US over the past three decades has something to gain from this model.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Re. Regulation - One of the prime problems isn't so much that we didn't regulate Wall Street enough, as it is that common people who know little about investing were told this is how to make wealth. As working people have learned over the last quarter century or so that the idiom of hard work pays isn't true much anymore, and there were books and books and informercials and such on "investing" to get rich, people dumped their money into stocks, mortgages, etc. and got burned.

If we decide to tax the wealthy more because they already have too much there will never come a point where society thinks they have taxed the wealthy too much, regardless of the effect on society as a whole.

But doesn't that argument cut the other way as well? That the wealthy and their supporters will think they pay too much taxes, even if it's an infinitesimal amount?

Tocqueville said that democracy only works if you have an informed (and intelligent) electoral body. That it was supposed to put the interests of collective society, before those of the rich and powerful, makes me think that American democracy is not composed of an informed and intelligent people.

Well, last year was a "huge" turnout, and only something like 56% of all registered voters actually voted. Some off-years, in many places it's down to less than 20% turnout. Again, only registered voters. So these numbers are more like 44% and 14%.

There was the claim from the left that Bush got a lot of the "dumb like me" vote.

I'm sorry to burst your ideological bubble. Nuclear power is in essence a socialist technology. If you're pro-nuclear you have to be pro-socialism if you're intellectually honest.

True, or neoconservative. Like I said before, if we look at what has made up the majority of the Republican party for the last two decades or so, spending large amounts federal dollars to specific causes, if the ends justify the means, or something of perceived importance (war in Iraq), is acceptable to them both by spending and tax manipulation, often under the guise of supply side economics. Nuclear power would fall into this category. The neocons hate the very utterance of the word Socialism, but this type of political manipulation is what's dominates in the Republican party. This goes for the leadership in legislation advocated by anyone from Paul Wolfowitz, Christopher Hitchins, William Kristol, to John Boener to Mitch McConnell to Mitt Romney, to Rupert Murdoch and Fox for that matter, to the AEI and New American Century, to mouths like Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh.

It should also be known that this policy, including targeted tax manipulation and supply-side economics, are by and large also adopted by the majority of Democrats as well.