If I were President

[Gorefiend]

American education isn't among the worst in the world. Remember many nations have little to no public education. However, I think a more fair comparison would be that American education is among the worst in the first world, or that Americans tend to do worse than people of other nations of similar socio-economic background (with respect to their nations of origin). Still pretty shameful, but one is far too loaded with hyperbole.

Originally Posted by TheSpacePope

[B]Public opinion Poll: Check: The people decide on the issues, the representatives are there for oversight.

Everything else was gotten fairly well, so I thought I'd get this one: it'd cost too much for us to go Switzerland and let everything be voted for directly. Unless you want to fragment the US into its states, or the counties within those, even. American society is NOT like Swiss society, and that's the only level at which truly meaningful desicions would easily get made. I mean, Switzerland is fairly small, too. I bet if they were our size, and had regions with such vastly different interests the people there may actually be hurting the nation at large to look out for themselves (which happens, unfortunately, in the US at times), they'd be forced to create a stronger central government. Though, I do agree with the principle behind this, and I feel that deserves mention. You may be interested in Justice Stephen Breyer's Active Liberty, which talks about the same sort of thing, as well.

Originally Posted by adamark

This is the worst article I have ever read. Instead of attacking the ideas, the author merely picks fun at Friedman's corny terminology. Yeah, no kidding it was written in a democratic prose. No kidding it is extremely corny. Can you refute any of the ideas of the book? No? Then stfu and move on. Way to go, shmuck!

I actually got the same vibe from the article as I began it. Now that I finished it, I have to agree. The only meaningful bit was this, I suppose:

Originally Posted by Matt Taibbi

Things are true because you say they are. The only thing that matters is how sure you sound when you say it. In politics, this allows America to invade a castrated Iraq in self-defense. In the intellectual world, Friedman is now probing the outer limits of this trick's potential, and it's absolutely perfect, a stroke of genius, that he's choosing to argue that the world is flat. The only thing that would have been better would be if he had chosen to argue that the moon was made of cheese.

So, Friedman is a good (if corny, which makes sense, since I'm using the word "good" somewhat loosely to include the word "catchy") writer, and this is bad? Because... the reviewer in this case refuses to be drawn in by Friedman's word choice? In truth, that article really doesn't refute anything Friedman said in that book, and doesn't begin to cover his speech from the video. It IS true, though, that business is very different today than it was even 50 years ago, and that competition is much more cutthroat than it was 50 years ago, with corporations running on single-digit profit margins (Wal-Mart, for instance) and perfectly functioning companies going down due more to competition than to any internal problem (largely, funnily enough, due to Wal-Mart), and that the Western market now not only serves the traditional first world countries, but many consumers in developing countries as well, which makes offshoring of products needed to get costs as low as possible without major sacrifices of quality. All of this is true. Its also true that smarter jobs are far harder to outsource, such as engineering (and more often than not, manufacturing) more efficient locomotive engines, or microwaves, or refrigerators, or washing machines, or dryers, or cars, or a lot of other such products, many of which are being made much smarter nowadays. So, yah.

Also, on education, I tend to disagree with this path, being generally pro-union, but I thought I'd throw it out there, as some generally liberal people have proposed it: somehow end or hamper the power of teacher's unions. I can see some sense in it (about as much as I saw in, say, Zeitgeist or the like), and I'd like to see it debated, but, as I said, I tend to be in favor of (reasonable) unions.

[TheSpacePope]

Everything else was gotten fairly well, so I thought I'd get this one: it'd cost too much for us to go Switzerland and let everything be voted for directly. Unless you want to fragment the US into its states, or the counties within those, even. American society is NOT like Swiss society, and that's the only level at which truly meaningful desicions would easily get made. I mean, Switzerland is fairly small, too. I bet if they were our size, and had regions with such vastly different interests the people there may actually be hurting the nation at large to look out for themselves (which happens, unfortunately, in the US at times), they'd be forced to create a stronger central government. Though, I do agree with the principle behind this, and I feel that deserves mention. You may be interested in Justice Stephen Breyer's Active Liberty, which talks about the same sort of thing, as well.

The public opinion poll is not us voting on each issue it is moreso a tool that the legislators can use to find out what the people think about an issue instead of giving a vote swayed by lobbyists, special interests groups, and the like. It gives us a ruler onto which we can measure accountability.

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Ryanderman

Do you really believe that? I mean seriously?

The short version is, yes, absolutely.

The less-short version is that I don't so much "believe" it as consider it the only explanation that fits the observable facts.

The longer version is that in most cases my standing assumption about politics is that when someone in a position to know better* advocates "fixing" a problem that doesn't exist, with a "solution" that wouldn't solve the problem even if it did exist, and which would result in changes of massive consequence that are entirely removed from if not directly antithetical to his stated goals, then he is self-evidently trying to bring about the aforementioned consequences, via the nakedly dishonest method of selling them as a solution to a non-existent problem.

So yes, when we have a totally great program for keeping old people from starving, that is in no way in danger, and a number of people dishonestly pretend that said program is in danger in order to sell solutions whose uniform effect would be to make said program less good at keeping old people from starving, then pretty much the only rational explanation that I can see is that said people want more old people to starve, and I'm not really sure how anyone can conclude otherwise.

*Noted to say that this is a pretty important distinction I make; as any ordinary layperson can just be plain-old misinformed, but any major political or media figure who actually speaks from any kind of position of authority must either know better or is some mix of willfully ignorant and deliberately negligent.

Originally Posted by Ryanderman

If we penalize wealth, it reduces the incentive to accumlate it, fewer people will try to become rich, and the economy will stagnate (and before you say "Well what's it doing now" It'll do so more than it is now)

That conclusion would be fallaciously presumptuous even if it were not the case that, for example, the longest economic expansion in American history had not occurred in an era in which top marginal tax rates were fully ninety percent of taxable income.

If it wasn't for those of us who are working to get rich, this economy wouldn't function. We wouldn't have start up businesses that grow into huge corporations and employ thousands of people, we wouldn't have inventors creating new inovative products, investors would not be funding said start up companies and new inventions, our techonology would not be increasing at the rate it is, and our live would - on the whole- be a lot suckier than they are now.

See above. Three decades of progressive taxation and a strong social safety net gave us the world's strongest industrialized economy, the moon landing, and the invention of the first electronic computer, the semiconductor, the personal computer, and the technology which predicated to the modern Internet. Personally I would say that's a pretty darn good record of innovation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

competition is much more cutthroat than it was 50 years ago

Except that isn't true, because massive corporations with local monopolies don't actually compete with anybody

corporations running on single-digit profit margins (Wal-Mart, for instance)

Except retail has never been a high-margin business

and perfectly functioning companies going down due more to competition than to any internal problem (largely, funnily enough, due to Wal-Mart)

Except that it's not remotely competition, except inasmuch as "competition" means "functioning businesses getting stomped out by massive organizations with grossly disproportionate resources and the ability to bribe and coerce local authorities into giving them preferential treatment"

and that the Western market now not only serves the traditional first world countries, but many consumers in developing countries as well which makes offshoring of products needed to get costs as low as possible without major sacrifices of quality.

Except that the first part of that has nothing whatsoever to do with the second part of that. Oh, and that offsourcing as likely as not does mean sacrifices in quality.

All of this is true.

Except that it's not.

Its also true that smarter jobs are far harder to outsource

Except that they aren't.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the worst article I have ever read. Instead of attacking the ideas, the author merely picks fun at Friedman's corny terminology. Yeah, no kidding it was written in a democratic prose. No kidding it is extremely corny. Can you refute any of the ideas of the book? No? Then stfu and move on. Way to go, shmuck!

"Democratic prose?"

Tom, is that you hijacking adamark's account?

[Mannix]

Fifthfiend, would you like to be my vice president? I'll even let you shoot old men in the face. I think between the two of us we could ruin some Washington shit.

[Fifthfiend]

There should be ample evidence by now that nothing good whatsoever puts me in a position of authority.

Let's face it on my first day on the job I'd like, launch ICBMs at Canada, just because it would be too screamingly hilarious not to launch ICBMs at Canada.

[Telephalsion]

I'm a little out of the loop, being European and all, but does the President have absolute power? I thought that the Senate and House of Representatives were supposed to be a counterbalance to the power of the president, preventing powermongering?

Enlighten me?

[Lady Cygnet]

Originally Posted by Telephalsion

I'm a little out of the loop, being European and all, but does the President have absolute power? I thought that the Senate and House of Representatives were supposed to be a counterbalance to the power of the president, preventing powermongering?

Enlighten me?

The US government was created with three branches of power so that no one person could have absolute power over the country. The colonists did not want another king--they had enough of King George III to know that a king wasn't the kind of leader they wanted (although there was some talk of making George Washington king, according to my former history professor). Each branch had designated duties, and checks and balances were created to make sure that no one branch could have dominion over the others. If there is a way for the president to grant himself absolute power without getting smacked down by Congress and the Supreme Court, I must have missed it in government class.

Also, if I were president, I would do whatever I could to give more legislative power back to the states. I would also get myself a cabinet full of advisors who understand the problems of our nation better than I do and could help me come up with feasible solutions.

[Telephalsion]

Originally Posted by Lady Cygnet

The US government was created with three branches of power so that no one person could have absolute power over the country. The colonists did not want another king--they had enough of King George III to know that a king wasn't the kind of leader they wanted (although there was some talk of making George Washington king, according to my former history professor). Each branch had designated duties, and checks and balances were created to make sure that no one branch could have dominion over the others. If there is a way for the president to grant himself absolute power without getting smacked down by Congress and the Supreme Court, I must have missed it in government class.

Yes, I know of the history surrounding the U.S. Constitutional government, but still, it seems that, at least during theese days, the president is almost unchallenged, many bills have been vetoed from what little news I have heard.

And for what it's worth, if I was the president, I would probably go to great means to make sure that all the tiny branches of government actually work.

[Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

There should be ample evidence by now that nothing good whatsoever puts me in a position of authority.

Let's face it on my first day on the job I'd like, launch ICBMs at Canada, just because it would be too screamingly hilarious not to launch ICBMs at Canada.

Umm, is that even possible?

[Althane]

Originally Posted by Telephalsion

Yes, I know of the history surrounding the U.S. Constitutional government, but still, it seems that, at least during theese days, the president is almost unchallenged, many bills have been vetoed from what little news I have heard.

And for what it's worth, if I was the president, I would probably go to great means to make sure that all the tiny branches of government actually work.

Well, the way that it goes is that you have to have 3/4's vote (or is it 2/3'rds? I can never keep straight on "Which thing needs which fraction") to override a veto, and thus neither party has enough power to override a veto, since it's split pretty evenly.

Now, the Presidential office probably seems to have the most power since it's all focused on one individual, but really, I'd say the most power lies in the Supreme Court, since it's decisions really are sort of "Final", and they can change a lot of stuff with a simple majority.