Osler's Razor

What is that sculpture made out of? (I am secretly hoping that the answer is cash).
 

I should hang out with your dad more.
 

True, Lane.
 

Didn't IPLawGuy say the same thing a few months ago?
 

Lane - you would definitely like Mark's dad.

Hi Mr. Osler! Your comments are right on point.
 

It's true-- even the French like my dad, and they don't like anyone.
 

Some thoughts:

I think there's a role for business to play, even big business, but unfettered markets are dangerous. Profit as a motive is fine with some things (even desirable, as laborers must make a profit to see a return on their investment of time). But on other things, why should profit be a motive? For instance, why should any "health care for-profit industry" exist? Health care isn't like a TV or a luxury car. Markets that have healthy competition are good, but markets unfairly influenced by large and powerful players that can buy off politicians are fair to no one but the large and powerful.

We want business and industry to reinvest in the people and the country: build factories here, hire here, etc. We are lead to believe that they don't because our regulations and tax scheme make the cost of doing business too high here, and the examples of Iceland, Ireland, India and China are given for business-friendly environments... but at what cost? Iceland and Ireland are in dire economic straits, and India and China are polluted environmental disasters. China's Foxconn plant makes the news weekly for worker suicide. Although it costs more in terms of overhead to comply with regulations, provide living wages, and create a safe and comfortable workspace, there should be some American pride is foregoing some profit to provide a stellar work environment for the worker.

Some of the world's strongest and pro-business economies (like Germany) have worker conditions far beyond what the US has, and consequently, they have happier workers and better unemployment rates. The "me-first" attitude of the 1980s and its "management society" really represent a shift in US thinking away from the attitudes that lead to economic growth following the Second World War. I don't mind giving tax breaks or tax incentives to large companies... if they use the money saved by those breaks to open up more factories here, to modernize their technology to reduce pollutants, and to pay their workers better. That's a fair use a tax incentive.

Instead, we see a no-strings attached tax break being given with no consequences for failure to re-invest that money in the US, meaning those at the top get more, while blaming everyone else's troubles on the government that just gave them a tax break, and the "burdensome" regulations that they worked so hard to get out from under that would have acted as a safety net.
 

While I certainly don't disagree with some of the sentiments expressed by OD. But there is certainly no evidence to back up many of the claims. For instance, it was noted in a recent article I read that the Dems were outspending all of the conservative groups during the last election. And while that still may mean that the wealthiest people "spoke" for us, I think the implication was that it was the "wealthiest conservatives" in the post. Also, I would argue that it wasn't Ike's tax policies that brought the growth, rather the developments/innovations that occurred during the war and the lack of waste that was learned during the rationing of our "wants" during the wars. Much like I credit the developments/innovations during the 90s and reduction of spending on entitlements that brought such great growth.

What I don't like about OD's post is compartmentalizing the "thought" or "theme" of the people who voted last month. I certainly would be in the "tea party" category, but I don't believe I stand for a govt that is without regulation, taxes, pollution controls etc. I happen to think that conservatism = conservation when it comes to our environment and that rule of just law applies equally to making sure companies treat their workers well and not "game" any systems. And I definitely understand the need to tax to pay for things like roads and our armed forces, but not to pay for the academic study of "genital washing in Africa." Extreme as the examples may be they obviously set the mood for the country and I think that people on the whole applied what they do in their lives to the government.
When people are hurting they go without (cut back on the lates, cable TV, car, going out to eat etc. etc) it's not hard to explain why they want the government to cut back when the government can't pay its bills. Explaining to an ignorant idividual that somehow their life will be better if the government spends more will never work. And because of all the inequities in the system, I don't believe that the theory does acutally work other than creating more we have to pay for down the line.

As for not having to worry about job security is exactly the opposite of capitalism. It's that force that drives our system and I'm not one to change it having lived in a place where people had universal health care and were free from job security worries. I've seen the other side and it isn't pretty. Lines, waiting lists for surgeries, and a lazy and inefficient work force with no drive to innovate or increase productivity. I've been to the countries listed by many as happy socialist dreams and wouldn't trade it for what I have here.

Maybe I'm just as selfish as the rest of America, but I don't like to think that I should be paying for anyone else to go to the doctor when I never go and I see the abuses of such systems by the lazy. Thus, I don't want universal health care. And I do see it as a capitalistic enterprise. It's never been efficient otherwise.
Basically I find that on the whole, Americans are lazier than most anywhere else (due in large part to the size of the population, lack of education, poverty etc. etc.). Because of that, if we create systems where that laziness is rewarded, we will be far worse off than any other place.
 

While I certainly don't disagree with some of the sentiments expressed by OD. But there is certainly no evidence to back up many of the claims. For instance, it was noted in a recent article I read that the Dems were outspending all of the conservative groups during the last election. And while that still may mean that the wealthiest people "spoke" for us, I think the implication was that it was the "wealthiest conservatives" in the post. Also, I would argue that it wasn't Ike's tax policies that brought the growth, rather the developments/innovations that occurred during the war and the lack of waste that was learned during the rationing of our "wants" during the wars. Much like I credit the developments/innovations during the 90s and reduction of spending on entitlements that brought such great growth.

What I don't like about OD's post is compartmentalizing the "thought" or "theme" of the people who voted last month. I certainly would be in the "tea party" category, but I don't believe I stand for a govt that is without regulation, taxes, pollution controls etc. I happen to think that conservatism = conservation when it comes to our environment and that rule of just law applies equally to making sure companies treat their workers well and not "game" any systems. And I definitely understand the need to tax to pay for things like roads and our armed forces, but not to pay for the academic study of "genital washing in Africa." Extreme as the examples may be they obviously set the mood for the country and I think that people on the whole applied what they do in their lives to the government.
When people are hurting they go without (cut back on the lates, cable TV, car, going out to eat etc. etc) it's not hard to explain why they want the government to cut back when the government can't pay its bills. Explaining to an ignorant idividual that somehow their life will be better if the government spends more will never work. And because of all the inequities in the system, I don't believe that the theory does acutally work other than creating more we have to pay for down the line.

As for not having to worry about job security is exactly the opposite of capitalism. It's that force that drives our system and I'm not one to change it having lived in a place where people had universal health care and were free from job security worries. I've seen the other side and it isn't pretty. Lines, waiting lists for surgeries, and a lazy and inefficient work force with no drive to innovate or increase productivity. I've been to the countries listed by many as happy socialist dreams and wouldn't trade it for what I have here.

Maybe I'm just as selfish as the rest of America, but I don't like to think that I should be paying for anyone else to go to the doctor when I never go and I see the abuses of such systems by the lazy. Thus, I don't want universal health care. And I do see it as a capitalistic enterprise. It's never been efficient otherwise.
Basically I find that on the whole, Americans are lazier than most anywhere else (due in large part to the size of the population, lack of education, poverty etc. etc.). Because of that, if we create systems where that laziness is rewarded, we will be far worse off than any other place.
 

Well, I'm not a Keynesian, but I think I can explain their position on deficit spending.

Macroeconomics is different than personal economics. While you and I, in lean times, may cut back on our discretionary spending (lattes, cable, happy hour) and in doing so increase our available revenue for non-discretionary spending (electric bills, rent/mortgage), that doesn't hold true on a larger scale. In one sense, yes, the government does need to cut out wasteful spending, and I don't think there's a dyed-in-the-wool, Krugman-reading Keynesian liberal one that couldn't find stuff in the budget to cut, but the Republican focus on "spending" generally is bad, because (at least according to Keynes) government spending is key to injecting money in the economy to stabilize markets and spur growth. So something like TARP becomes necessary as a "stimulus," and government spending on things like infrastructure creates enough work to get us through lean times. And in that sense it is OK for the government to run a deficit because they have a greater period for a return on the investment, meaning no one hires obnoxious debt collectors to call the US Senate and harass them at mealtimes.

So it really comes down to where people think we're being wasteful. Republicans tend to see waste in entitlement programs (not without some justification) whereas Democrats see it more in subsidies to business, defense spending, etc. Both have valid points, but simply saying "spend less," especially while ignoring revenue in the form of tax cuts and loopholes, is counterproductive.

As for laziness being rewarded, I think there's a difference between a liberal welfare system (which is, at least in the ways that matter, capitalist and an outgrowth of capitalist theory) and a socialistic system. Socialistic systems do not work without sufficient infrastructure and public works to support a mostly-public system (see: Central Asia, the former USSR; c.f. Scandinavia, continental Europe). Something like a universal health care plan is essentially the same thing as an insurance policy: risk is mitigated by spreading the costs over a group. But whereas a private insurance company only spreads that risk over its clients, a national system would spread it over taxpayers generally. This is essentially "what we all do" right now, and I would say that given where I work, the taxpayers of the State of Texas do pay for my healthcare, since I'm in a state worker health insurance pool.

The difference is that a public option does not have to turn a profit (though, arguably, neither does Blue Cross, although any "profit" they make does go to paying their employees and reinvesting in their own infrastructure), whereas someone like Humana has to make a profit to justify their continued existence to shareholders. A private insurance company is not directly answerable to the people or their clients (at least, not except as so far as the legal system allows), but to their shareholders. A federal or state agency is directly answerable to our representatives and so affords a greater amount of democratic control.

The exact nature of the public versus private debate is going to shift and change with each issue. Lenin famously wrote a very nice piece on how to ensure a strong desire to work in the absence of the profit motive which is available at Marxists.org for those interested, but it speaks (from over a century ago) to many of these same issues we face today. Ultimately it comes down to this: we live in a world where everything we need to survive (resources) are limited, and we have to have some way of distribution. The private model (capitalism) seems to be not meeting the needs of a sizable portion, and has other injustices built in. No one likes inequity or injustice, but the question is how structural are these problems?
 

Where is RRL? I know he is very busy (as an associate at a large law firm), but he is also very conservative.

And there is a birdhouse on his head.
 

Lane I understand how deficit spending works and the need for it at times. However, things that hold true for both personal spending and government spending is that it doesn't work unless you start paying the money back. Eventually you just can't borrow anymore without guarantees you'll pay it back (see Greece and Ireland).
My point was that the average Joe doesn't get that. THAT person is who goes to a rally because they think 1) the politicians could do with more personal spending rules and 2) they think it patriotic to participate in government, even if in a mob sense.
All characterizations by the left to the contrary, it is much differnet than the mobs of "protesters" in Greece burning shit down because they don't like the idea that they might get one week less of vacation or that they might actually have to retire a year later.
You are also correct in thinking that general views in these "joe six-pack" mobs tends to focus on one issue...spending on entitlements. But my whole point is that the group of people also includes people like me who know you also have to cut spending across the board.
The politicians don't have the will to wield the axe, though my guess is if they all banded together and just did a 2-10% cut across the board. You would see the country rejoice that they made the right decision (after a week or so of bitching). The key is that they do it now so that it's forgotten come election time in 2 years.
 

I heard a great interview on NPR with David Eisenhower and Julie Nixon Eisenhower the other day; it was absolutely fabulous. I should like to think that I too would have been an Eisenhower Republican if I had been around at that time. I admire Nelson Rockefeller too, but that is a whole other discussion. Simply said, John makes a lot of sense.

There is merit to small government arguments. Absolutely, there is waste (and sometimes gross waste) in government. Nontheless, there is a place for government and the services it can provide to make our lives better.

Yes, we need roads and an effective military. We also need better schools, not merely K-12, but birth-12. We also need to ensure that our community colleges, public colleges, and public universities are top notch. That's all "Big Government" and I am all for it.

To keep government, and one another accountable, what we need is an engaged citizenry who through their vigilance and dedication will do the heavy lifting.

We are the people, we have been waiting for.

Some say extremity in the defence of liberty is no vice, and there is a kernel of truth in that statement. The kernel being that an engaged citizen is an individual who shall defend her liberties and freedoms and those of her neighbor because all human beings are endowed by their Creator.

It is not about me, myself, and I, if you will, but all of us.

President Reagan said, government is not the solution to our problems, but government is the problem.

He was a giant of a man and a very good President in many ways, but he was and is wrong about this one.

There is a place for government. Government is far from perfect, but there is a place for it.

Nelson knew this and certainly so did General Eisenhower.

Thanks OD.
 

Scott Davis--

Wow! This is the exact interview (with David Eisenhower) that prompted OD to write this in the first place-- that's how he first described it to me.
 

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
 

War may not be popular but it is necessary. I watched the series about the Third Reich on the History channel this week and found it horrid that the US waited so long to intervene. That may have been a current criticism if we had not invaded Iraq and Afghanistan when we did.
 

Do we have to invoke Godwin's Law after the last post? I'm going to need a ruling from the judges.
 

Sounds like a major misinterpretation of Reagan's famous quote when the first part of the sentence is left out: "in this present crisis...." And is there really much dispute that the solution to Carter's stagflation was to reduce tax rates and not double down on the welfare state? It also seems like libs favorite republicans are the dead ones...except Nixon (who was good ol' Dwight's VP). And were Nixon and Eisenhower's economic policies much different? I guess Eisenhower did have that whole "Operation Wetback" thing, though. Reminds me of all the postmortem media coverage of Bill Buckley's "civility" compared to current commentators.

Other Kendall
 

Dallas ADA, I respect you, but I have to take issue with you saying that Americans are lazier than people in other countries. You criticize Mr. Osler for not presenting evidence, but where's your evidence for that statement? That's a mighty big generalization. We are a big messy optimistic country and sure, there are lazy people who take advantage of things, but there are people like that everywhere.
 

And I like the sculpture--it certainly gets the point across!
 

I'm guessing RRL deferred comment on this one out of respect for Mr. Osler.
Unfortunately, that leaves me with nothing to second.
I, too, will stand peacefully on the sidelines, content in the knowledge that Christmas is near...
 

You mean YULE. Remember, Odin is the reason for the season!
 

I think Lane may be getting a little cocky without RRL to check him...
 

Nah, RRL's my bud. It's all in good fun.

I'm just speaking up for the cultural appropriation of Germanic traditions for this Johnny-come-lately Christmas holiday. I don't understand why everyone is waging a war on Yule.
 

Swiss, the opinion of many people in this country being lazy is based on my travels and in growing up in a society where laziness was the norm. That is, I know it when I see it. I can't quote you any studies on productivity. I will point out however that when it comes to professionals and a good number of blue collar jobs, it seems to me, Americans work much more than any other countries with "progressive" work laws.

Most of my family back home could be characterized as lazy and I don't sugar-coat that. I blame it on the entitlements they get for not working hard.

Wouldn't you agree that there is a culture of entitlement in this country these days? People thinking they are entitled to their 15 minutes of fame, not haivng to wait in line at starbucks, a free college education, extended welfare, not letting the other car merge, nto getting less than a 50 as a grade????

To go back to the original point, it also seems to me that the people who are "speaking" are the ones who want to work hard and change that culture.

I'm sure my argument is made by every preceding generation, but it seems to be getting worse from where I'm standing.

However, I still think this is the best place in the world. I don't want to move, and like Lane, I think brisket is a big part of that feeling.