Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well, the good 'ole Governor (Governess) of North Carolina certainly stuck her foot in her mouth with this one (audio here), suggesting that we should "suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover."

Obviously she's trying to back out of the comments, first saying that it was a joke, or sarcastic, or out of context. Given the audio is available, these don't really cut it.

Interestingly, former OMB director Peter Orszag (the guy who was in charge of administering the budget) published a piece recently arguing "Why we need less democracy."

The easy argument to make would be that these two, and their fellow travellers, are fundamentally adverse to our system and shouldn't be given serious consideration, and especially not given powerful positions as politicians or advisors. However, to an extent, I think that they're correct.

The problem with a centrally managed economy, or even a highly regulated economy like most countries have now, is that politicians are generally pretty poor at managing economic systems and doing "what's best for the country." Our current president, despite getting degrees in political science and jurisprudence, doesn't really know gak about economics, manufacturing, business, or pretty much anything about how to run an economy. Plus, his goal is to get reelected, and only do "what's best for the country" to the extent that it coincides with this goal (for example, even if he believes "what's best for the country" is to pull all of our soldiers out of Iraq today, he wouldn't do so if the political consequences were severe).

In addition to politicians now knowing anything about anything, the people who do know enough about economics, business, etc. are generally (a) highly specialized and (b) adverse to seeking political office. Therefore, if we were to have an efficient centrally run economy, the best thing to do would be to appoint a team of experts to manage certain areas of their own expertise who wouldn't be subject to political whims. Again by way of example, a tax expert could be appointed who might raise (or lower) taxes when it's in the country's best interests, but might be politically unpopular.

Given the trend towards more and more centralization, it seems that democracy is incompatable (or at least horribly inefficient) with large, intrusive government. However, where I would disagree with the Governor and Mr. Orszag is that the solution isn't to limit democracy to increase the efficiency of government, but rather that we should limit government to increase the efficiency of democracy.

Term limits on Congress Critters (yes, you would need an amendment to the Constitution to do so) could have the same effect that Gov Perdue wants, and I suspect because it would not be a one time deal the effect would have a shot at being long lasting.

If they don't need to worry about the next election then they can do what we fricking elect and pay them to do. They could also focus better on what is right for the US vice what pork they can get for their district/state.

I suspect the Founding Fathers never envisioned folks serving for decades as representatives or senators.

I don't think the founding father envisioned this government lasting as long as it has in it's current form. I'm personally a fan of the idea that we should stop paying the representatives and senators until they decide to do something.

CptJake wrote:Term limits on Congress Critters (yes, you would need an amendment to the Constitution to do so) could have the same effect that Gov Perdue wants, and I suspect because it would not be a one time deal the effect would have a shot at being long lasting.

I'm not sure that it would. Although Presidents are term-limited they still act pretty political in their second term. Arguably they get more politically attached to their party when they don't have to worry about reelection.

CptJake wrote:I suspect the Founding Fathers never envisioned folks serving for decades as representatives or senators.

Maybe not as representatives or senators, but the concept of career politicians was well known. John Adams was one example, he served through the first continental congress then worked his way through an ambassatorship and ended up as President over 20 years. Senator Samuel Smith entered office in 1803 and (with a short 6-year break) served until 1833. That's only 4 terms (24 years).

I would certaintly approve of a 1 term limit for Congressmen.

If the government leaves the economy, mostly, alone and lets the FED do its job then we would be in less of a mess. The FED regulates the economy, the Government protects us from outside influences(War, Imports, Immigration, Terrorism...)

Feels weird sort of agreeing with Biccat about something.

A good-willed team of experts would be great, but that sort of thing would be prone to nepotism; although if their friends/relatives were also experts, might not be so bad.

Cities tried this years back, with mixed results I would have to assume, but it never quite took off like I would think it would. There's still one out in Oregon where there is no mayor, no real head of the city, instead various leaders in economics, agriculture and other specialized fields come together in order to make future decisions that affect the whole with the most benefits and least ricks/downturns. I'm-a look for what this is called and post a link on it as I've always thought it'd be a glorious idea

biccat wrote:
The problem with a centrally managed economy, or even a highly regulated economy like most countries have now, is that politicians are generally pretty poor at managing economic systems and doing "what's best for the country." Our current president, despite getting degrees in political science and jurisprudence, doesn't really know gak about economics, manufacturing, business, or pretty much anything about how to run an economy.

Presidents run economies now? That's new.

biccat wrote:
Plus, his goal is to get reelected, and only do "what's best for the country" to the extent that it coincides with this goal (for example, even if he believes "what's best for the country" is to pull all of our soldiers out of Iraq today, he wouldn't do so if the political consequences were severe).

Well, the purpose of democracy is to act according to the will of the people, and the people rarely know what is in their collective best interest. They know what they want though.

biccat wrote:
In addition to politicians now knowing anything about anything...

Well, the good ones generally know quite a few things about law and politics, so you're clearly just making an empty statement based on emotion. Basically the same sort of statement most voters make when they proclaim preference for one politician or another.

biccat wrote:
...the people who do know enough about economics, business, etc. are generally (a) highly specialized and (b) adverse to seeking political office.

They also tend to advise politicians.

biccat wrote:
Therefore, if we were to have an efficient centrally run economy, the best thing to do would be to appoint a team of experts to manage certain areas of their own expertise who wouldn't be subject to political whims.

So, the Federal Reserve, which is, of course, subject to political whims.

biccat wrote:
Again by way of example, a tax expert could be appointed who might raise (or lower) taxes when it's in the country's best interests, but might be politically unpopular.

Fun fact: political capacity is generally not determined by official authority. Note the ongoing battle between the branches of our own government.

biccat wrote:
Given the trend towards more and more centralization, it seems that democracy is incompatable (or at least horribly inefficient) with large, intrusive government. However, where I would disagree with the Governor and Mr. Orszag is that the solution isn't to limit democracy to increase the efficiency of government, but rather that we should limit government to increase the efficiency of democracy.

Interestingly, there are several democratic nations that not only weathered the recession well, but have systems that are more democratic than ours. Belgium is a good example, so is Canada, and all of them have systems that are far more socialist than the one in the United States.

Also, if you think the US federal government is intrusive, then you've clearly never paid attention to places like Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Sweden, or really any other democratic nation on the planet.

CptJake wrote:Term limits on Congress Critters (yes, you would need an amendment to the Constitution to do so) could have the same effect that Gov Perdue wants, and I suspect because it would not be a one time deal the effect would have a shot at being long lasting.

Probably not. In every country in which term limits exist in the legislature the effect is to strengthen political parties, which means the people elected to Congress may be different, but their platform tends to be whatever the party wants.

CptJake wrote:
I suspect the Founding Fathers never envisioned folks serving for decades as representatives or senators.

And yet most of them did exactly that. Well, at least served politically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
I'm not sure that it would. Although Presidents are term-limited they still act pretty political in their second term. Arguably they get more politically attached to their party when they don't have to worry about reelection.

Yeah, parties are powerful networks that you generally want on your side.

dogma wrote:Presidents run economies now? That's new.

No, the President, as Chief Executive of the U.S. Government is the...well...chief executive. I'm not sure I need to go into civics 101 here, I'm sure you understand that the administrative agencies that propagate rules, particularly the FEC, FDA, EPA, etc. are under the control of the President.

Like I said, it's a regulated economy.

dogma wrote:Well, the purpose of democracy is to act according to the will of the people, and the people rarely know what is in their collective best interest. They know what they want though.

Politicians excel at appealing to specific elements that are important to people. These people will value certain things higher than others - for example a pro-life, anti-war person may favor withdrawing from Iraq (Democrat position) more than they do anti-abortion (Republican position). When the government is large, politicians only have to appeal to a majority of voters on issues they find most important, they don't have to show any particular competence.

dogma wrote:Well, the good ones generally know quite a few things about law and politics, so you're clearly just making an empty statement based on emotion. Basically the same sort of statement most voters make when they proclaim preference for one politician or another.

Um, no. Knowing anything about law is not a necessary precursor to being a good politician. I'm not sure why you would make such an elementary and obviously false statement.

dogma wrote:They also tend to advise politicians.

Again, not necessarily. Politicians don't choose advisers based on competence, they choose them when they advance their goals (usually reelection).

dogma wrote:So, the Federal Reserve, which is, of course, subject to political whims.

You just argued against central control of the economy. However, the Federal Reserve doesn't control the economy. Again, an elementary mistake.

dogma wrote:Fun fact: political capacity is generally not determined by official authority. Note the ongoing battle between the branches of our own government.

What battle? I'm not seeing it.

dogma wrote:Also, if you think the US federal government is intrusive, then you've clearly never paid attention to places like Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Sweden, or really any other democratic nation on the planet.

I'm pretty sure you're not understanding the argument. Given that you've already expressed support for tyranny, I'm not sure productive conversation can follow here.

biccat wrote:
No, the President, as Chief Executive of the U.S. Government is the...well...chief executive. I'm not sure I need to go into civics 101 here, I'm sure you understand that the administrative agencies that propagate rules, particularly the FEC, FDA, EPA, etc. are under the control of the President.

Like I said, it's a regulated economy.

They are? This isn't a settled question. Newt Gingrich actually wrote a Foreign Affairs article about how the State Department didn't promulgate Presidential policy (and he was right, it didn't), legal authority doesn't mean practical authority.

biccat wrote:
Politicians excel at appealing to specific elements that are important to people. These people will value certain things higher than others - for example a pro-life, anti-war person may favor withdrawing from Iraq (Democrat position) more than they do anti-abortion (Republican position). When the government is large, politicians only have to appeal to a majority of voters on issues they find most important, they don't have to show any particular competence.

That is a demonstration of particular competence in itself, and has nothing to do with government size. Small government (whatever that is) politicians have to do exactly the same thing.

biccat wrote:
Um, no. Knowing anything about law is not a necessary precursor to being a good politician. I'm not sure why you would make such an elementary and obviously false statement.

I didn't say "precursor" now did I? Perhaps you should stop arguing against strawmen.

biccat wrote:
Again, not necessarily. Politicians don't choose advisers based on competence, they choose them when they advance their goals (usually reelection).

Did I say anything about necessity? I could have sworn I used the word "tend".

And since when did expertise denote a thing which is not related to political convenience? Paul Krugman is an expert on economics, only an idiot would claim otherwise, but he isn't going to be an advisor to any Republican. Expert knowledge doesn't usually reflect on the way the expert interprets that knowledge.

biccat wrote:
You just argued against central control of the economy. However, the Federal Reserve doesn't control the economy. Again, an elementary mistake.

I did? Are you under the impression that any body that controls the economy, that is also subject to political will, is bad? That seems childish given that economies, as we presently understand them, only exist because of political will.

If the Federal Reserve doesn't control the economy via its manipulation of money supply, then what sort of intrusive government does control the economy?

biccat wrote:
What battle? I'm not seeing it.

Really? You didn't see the outcry regarding Cheney's use of Executive power? You don't see, and participate in, the outcry regarding "judicial activism"?

You're deflecting, and whining because I called you on it.

biccat wrote:
I'm pretty sure you're not understanding the argument. Given that you've already expressed support for tyranny, I'm not sure productive conversation can follow here.

No, I understand the argument, but the argument is crap. You're whining because you can't get your way, and attempting to dissemble at the expense of anyone that disagrees. You're clearly satirizing what you consider an appeal to tyranny (wrongly), and further painting anyone who speaks to contrary as supporting what you're railing against.

It is fething hilarious.

dogma wrote:They are? This isn't a settled question. Newt Gingrich actually wrote a Foreign Affairs article about how the State Department didn't promulgate Presidential policy (and he was right, it didn't), legal authority doesn't mean practical authority.

Yes, actually it is a settled question. The Secretary of State serves at the President's discretion. Those directly under the Secretary serve at her (or his) discretion.

This is like asking whether the CEO of a corporation controls the manufacturing division.

dogma wrote:That is a demonstration of particular competence in itself, and has nothing to do with government size. Small government (whatever that is) politicians have to do exactly the same thing.

Yes, but it's not as important when there's a small government. Which is my point.

dogma wrote:I didn't say "precursor" now did I? Perhaps you should stop arguing against strawmen.

I'm not. Your exact quote was "the good [politicians] generally know quite a few things about law and politics." That was either a strawman argument (arguing against a point I didn't make) or an on-topic point that good politicians know something about law and politics.

I simply gave you the benefit of doubt, apparently I was wrong to do so.

dogma wrote:Did I say anything about necessity? I could have sworn I used the word "tend".

Then your point is irrelevant.

dogma wrote:And since when did expertise denote a thing which is not related to political convenience? Paul Krugman is an expert on economics, only an idiot would claim otherwise, but he isn't going to be an advisor to any Republican. Expert knowledge doesn't usually reflect on the way the expert interprets that knowledge.

Which raises the second issue: even if we acknowledge the legitimacy of experts, who decides which experts to appoint? Regardless of whether you think experts are good stewards of the economy or not, electing one based on his political popularity is a terrible idea. At the worst it creates wide swings in political philosophies that may contradict one another.

dogma wrote:I did?

You did. I'm pretty sure you're capable of recognizing your own sarcasm.

dogma wrote:If the Federal Reserve doesn't control the economy via its manipulation of money supply, then what sort of intrusive government does control the economy?

Regulatory agencies.

dogma wrote:Really? You didn't see the outcry regarding Cheney's use of Executive power? You don't see, and participate in, the outcry regarding "judicial activism"?

You're deflecting, and whining because I called you on it.

First of all, a deflection, call on the deflection, and whining would require more than 1 back-and-forth response. This would be the post where I would "whine". But as usual, you seem to have a problem with the forum rules.

However, since I'm feeling magnanimous, there's really no "battle" between the branches of the government. The "outcry" against Cheney wasn't from Congress or the Judiciary, it was from the electorate. The "outcry" against Congressional overreaching (Obamacare, immigration reform) is coming from the electorate, not the President or Judiciary. The outcries against "Judicial Activism" likewise aren't coming from the Executive or Congress, it's coming from the people. A 'battle' between two parties requires them to set aside standard discourse and rules, and none of the branches of government has done so.

Congress and the Judiciary bow to Executive overreach. Congress and the Executive adhere to Judicial decisions. The Judiciary and Executive tend to defer to Congressional rules. Although, if you're looking for executive overreach, the best place to look would be the present administration, not the previous one.

dogma wrote:No, I understand the argument, but the argument is crap. You're whining because you can't get your way, and attempting to dissemble at the expense of anyone that disagrees. You're clearly satirizing what you consider an appeal to tyranny (wrongly), and further painting anyone who speaks to contrary as supporting what you're railing against.

It is fething hilarious.

Actually, I'm not "satirizing against an appeal to tyranny." I'm questioning the basis of the argument that when there's a conflict between democracy and large government that it's democracy that has to step aside.

Also, see above. Like, way above.

The Foot wrote:I don't think the founding father envisioned this government lasting as long as it has in it's current form. I'm personally a fan of the idea that we should stop paying the representatives and senators until they decide to do something.

The problem with not paying congress members is that if you do so, then the only people who will run for office will be the ones who are wealthy enough that they can afford to not work.


But that's the theory; most members of congress already fit the definition above.

The Foot wrote:I don't think the founding father envisioned this government lasting as long as it has in it's current form. I'm personally a fan of the idea that we should stop paying the representatives and senators until they decide to do something.

In the State of New Hampshire, Representatives get $200 and a free license plate. Thats it. They are there because they want to govern, not because it is a job.

On a funny side note, it is also the third largest legislative branch in the world, behind the US House of Representatives and British Parliament if I remember correctly.

Many Congressmen, Senators anyway, are independently wealthy and really don't need the pay. Its more of a hangover from earlier times, when you couldn't go and participate in congress and then go back home to Colorado for recess. you actually moved to D.C. and spent the next few years of your life there, including living accomidations for you and possably family. and depending on how many times you got reelected you could be there a long time.

biccat wrote:
Yes, actually it is a settled question. The Secretary of State serves at the President's discretion. Those directly under the Secretary serve at her (or his) discretion.

You are incredibly naive if you really believe that.

biccat wrote:
Yes, but it's not as important when there's a small government. Which is my point.

I still don't know what small government is, other than a talking point which means, essentially, not what we have.

biccat wrote:
I'm not. Your exact quote was "the good [politicians] generally know quite a few things about law and politics." That was either a strawman argument (arguing against a point I didn't make) or an on-topic point that good politicians know something about law and politics.

Which you attempted to counter by saying that a knowledge of law was a qualification of politicians in general, which is a strawman because that isn't what I said.

Try again.

biccat wrote:
I simply gave you the benefit of doubt, apparently I was wrong to do so.

You didn't give me the benefit of anything, you tried to be clever and failed.

biccat wrote:
Then your point is irrelevant.

No, not really. Points regarding tendencies are entirely relevant in politics.

biccat wrote:
Which raises the second issue: even if we acknowledge the legitimacy of experts, who decides which experts to appoint? Regardless of whether you think experts are good stewards of the economy or not, electing one based on his political popularity is a terrible idea. At the worst it creates wide swings in political philosophies that may contradict one another.

I don't know if you've been paying attention or not, but democratic systems are probably the least prone to wide swings of policy.

Just look at Obama vis a vis Bush, a wider gap in terms of rhetoric will be difficult to find. Gitmo is still open, we're still in Iraq, we sent more troops to Afghanistan, and we bailed out the economy again.

biccat wrote:
You did. I'm pretty sure you're capable of recognizing your own sarcasm.

Nope, you'll have to point it out to me.

biccat wrote:
Regulatory agencies.

They, suddenly, have a greater impact on the economy than the body which controls the amount of money in it?

biccat wrote:
First of all, a deflection, call on the deflection, and whining would require more than 1 back-and-forth response.

Only deflection requires that, and there have been multiple such exchanges.

Note your supposedly satirical thread about double standards, to name one.

biccat wrote:
This would be the post where I would "whine". But as usual, you seem to have a problem with the forum rules.

Says the guy who has a history of posting troll threads.

Please.

biccat wrote:
However, since I'm feeling magnanimous, there's really no "battle" between the branches of the government. The "outcry" against Cheney wasn't from Congress or the Judiciary, it was from the electorate.

Is that so?

biccat wrote:
The "outcry" against Congressional overreaching (Obamacare, immigration reform) is coming from the electorate, not the President or Judiciary.

Is that why so many Republicans voted against Obamacare, because there was no outcry? Is that why so many Republicans have run on platforms of "Repeal Obamacare"?

biccat wrote:
The outcries against "Judicial Activism" likewise aren't coming from the Executive or Congress, it's coming from the people. A 'battle' between two parties requires them to set aside standard discourse and rules, and none of the branches of government has done so.

No, that isn't what is required for battle. Note that, even regarding war, there are rules and conventions. If we have rules and conventions in wars, which are composed of battles, then the presence of rules and conventions in other affairs which might be considered analogical to wars does negate their comparability to battles.

biccat wrote:
Actually, I'm not "satirizing against an appeal to tyranny." I'm questioning the basis of the argument that when there's a conflict between democracy and large government that it's democracy that has to step aside.

If that's what you're doing, then perhaps you should stop presuming that anyone who criticizes your argument is endorsing tyranny.

biccat wrote:
Also, see above. Like, way above.

Indeed.

Comments like "childish" "whining"; and "fething hilarious" are clearly violative of Rule #1, especially when they're endlessly thrown at ones opponent. Any argument or debate can be made without the cheap and demeaning personal attacks.

So please don't do it.

dogma wrote:Presidents run economies now? That's new.

Presidents run the economy when there's a Democrat in charge and the economy is performing poorly. Or when there's a Republican in charge and things are going well. The rest of the time of course they don't.



In the meantime, biccat's claim that the US economy is increasingly centrally controlled is silly, and everything else falls apart rom there.

I do agree with his point that economic decision making is left to people without expert knowledge, made for political reasons, relying on advice that itself is politically compromised. The number of governments around the world attempting austerity measures in the midst of recession speak to that reality.

I mean, here is honest, plain economic advice from Dean Baker from the Center for Economic Policy and Research;
"We know how to get out of this mess, we have known how for 70 years. We just need the government to generate demand. That means spending money. Ideally it would spend money on useful things like education, health care, and infrastructure, but even if it spent money in wasteful ways it would still create jobs and put people to work.

In the 30s we got much of the way back to full employment with the Works Progress Administration and other programs. Much of what was done was useful -- look around, you won't have to go far to find infrastructure built by depression-era programs. However, it took the massive spending associated with World War II to get the economy back to full employment. There is no magic associated with war that makes military spending more effective in creating jobs. The only difference was that the threat to the nation from the Axis powers removed the political obstacles to the necessary spending."


That last sentence is the key. The way out of this is well known, the only resistance is political in nature, from people basing their opposition entirely in ideology, and not in economics.

sebster wrote:
I do agree with his point that economic decision making is left to people without expert knowledge, made for political reasons, relying on advice that itself is politically compromised. The number of governments around the world attempting austerity measures in the midst of recession speak to that reality.

That's true, of course, but the decisions in question aren't definitive of economies as a whole.

Except, of course, when the body politic wants to blame someone; as you noted.

sebster wrote:Presidents run the economy when there's a Democrat in charge and the economy is performing poorly. Or when there's a Republican in charge and things are going well. The rest of the time of course they don't.

Indeed.


Actually, Presidents do not "control" the economy (the US isn't a centrally managed state), but they do have a substantial impact on the economy, in part through their efforts to influence Congress in matters of taxation and laws. However, the way they influence the economy the most is through administrative agencies and the rules that they create. EPA regulations have a huge impact on the economy, same goes for the FDA, FCC, and just about every administrative agency. The President, as chief executive, bears the burden of responsibility for his subordinates.

Yes, Bush had an influence on the economy as well, his drive to increase home ownership was a precipitator of the '08 crisis. Fortunatly for him, the current President has taken his failure to whole new depths of absurdity.

sebster wrote:I mean, here is honest, plain economic advice from Dean Baker from the Center for Economic Policy and Research;
...
That last sentence is the key. The way out of this is well known, the only resistance is political in nature, from people basing their opposition entirely in ideology, and not in economics.

There's an important issue the author you quoted is missing: why didn't it work last time? The other important question is: why should we trust someone from the Center for Economic Policy and Research (a progressive think tank) over, for example, the American Enterprise Institute (a conservative think tank)?

Even if you eliminate the problem of politics and experts, you also have the problem of who chooses the experts. Which eventually leads back to politics.

biccat wrote:and their fellow travellers

Pardon me for being paranoid, but this kind of language kinda makes me nervous. That's the kind of language the people who did that failure communist witch hunt used ("fellow traveler" being a code word in their eyes for communists) that did little more than ruin the lives of many, many people... let's not start THAT kind of crap here, shall we? McCarthy wasn't a hero to be emulated...

Less democracy != communism. The two are neither exclusive nor inclusive of eachother...

biccat wrote:The President, as chief executive, bears the burden of responsibility for his subordinates.

In some systems the tendency you exhibit here is used a medium of control.

"It was that guy's fault!" is a powerful tool.

biccat wrote:
There's an important issue the author you quoted is missing: why didn't it work last time?

It didn't?

biccat wrote:
The other important question is: why should we trust someone from the Center for Economic Policy and Research (a progressive think tank) over, for example, the American Enterprise Institute (a conservative think tank)?

Even if you eliminate the problem of politics and experts, you also have the problem of who chooses the experts. Which eventually leads back to politics.

So?

I mean, I won't lie (well, I will, because if I didn't I would be banned) but the real crux of your issue seems to be an inherent disregard for having to deal with other people (ie. be political). That's fine, I guess, but pontificating on how much you hate politicians (and thereby becoming one) serves no purpose other than to irritate yourself.

Melissia wrote:Less democracy != communism. The two are neither exclusive nor inclusive of eachother...

While the term has been applied to communists, it has a wider meaning as used in Russia during the revolution, particularly Trotsky. Those who share similar ideals, but are not party members.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
There's an important issue the author you quoted is missing: why didn't it work last time?

It didn't?

It didn't. The proposition that we need to do the same thing again should be sufficient evidence of that. However:

biccat wrote:
It didn't. The proposition that we need to do the same thing again should be sufficient evidence of that.

Are you under the impression that there is such a thing as a permanent solution?

biccat wrote:
However:

Looks like it worked.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
It didn't. The proposition that we need to do the same thing again should be sufficient evidence of that.

Are you under the impression that there is such a thing as a permanent solution?

Not necessarily, but I am under the impression that there is such a thing as a sustainable solution. In fact, if it's not sustainable, it's really not a solution.

dogma wrote:Looks like it worked.

The blue lines were those put out by the administration - light blue was what the unemployment rate would do if there wasn't a bill passed, dark blue was the track that the unemployment rate was supposed to follow with the recovery plan (ARRA). The red dots show actual unemployment rate.

I'm not sure what definition of "worked" you're looking at here.

Everyone should have voted for michael munger the libertarian candidate. lol

biccat wrote:
Not necessarily, but I am under the impression that there is such a thing as a sustainable solution. In fact, if it's not sustainable, it's really not a solution.

Now this is hilarious, because this is the question I generally ask of my more liberal friends: What do you mean by "sustainable*"?

*There's a Viagra joke in there**.

**This leads to sex jokes.

biccat wrote:
The blue lines were those put out by the administration - light blue was what the unemployment rate would do if there wasn't a bill passed, dark blue was the track that the unemployment rate was supposed to follow with the recovery plan (ARRA). The red dots show actual unemployment rate.

I'm not sure what definition of "worked" you're looking at here.

Just by eye, the dots look closer per curve to the dark blue than the light blue, looks like a failure of estimation (though only regarding a y shift) not a formula.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Not necessarily, but I am under the impression that there is such a thing as a sustainable solution. In fact, if it's not sustainable, it's really not a solution.

Now this is hilarious, because this is the question I generally ask of my more liberal friends: What do you mean by "sustainable*"?

Sustainable means self-financing, or at least not expanding beyond the ability to support it. We can't, for example, support the debt load of an additional $10 trillion. We can probably support an additional trillion per year. But we're already at that point.

Simply because some people attach a specific definition to a word doesn't mean that the original meaning of the word is changed. Simply using your comment as an example, liberal has meanings far beyond their political context. I might describe myself as liberal beacuse I support liberty, but wouldn't describe myself as politically liberal.

dogma wrote:Just by eye, the dots look closer per curve to the dark blue than the light blue, looks like a failure of estimation (though only regarding a y shift) not a formula.

There's certainly a failure of estimation, both in magnitude and formula, because instead of levelling off from 2009 Q1-Q3 the unemployment rate continued to grow. The dark blue line also shows a drop of 1% from Q3 '09 - Q4 '10, while in reality unemployment was relatively stagnant (9.5-10%).

I'm not sure that there's enough information to show that the formula is correct or not.

biccat wrote:
Simply because some people attach a specific definition to a word doesn't mean that the original meaning of the word is changed. Simply using your comment as an example, liberal has meanings far beyond their political context. I might describe myself as liberal beacuse I support liberty, but wouldn't describe myself as politically liberal.

You misunderstand, the word "sustainable" is akin to, per your example, the word "liberal". I merely wanted to know how you were using it, "sustainable" I mean.

Granted, I don't believe your definition is accurate (plenty of things that are not self-financing are sustainable, children for example). I also would contend that sustainable things tend to expand beyond the capacity of an existential support structure (pretty much the history of all nations that expand).

biccat wrote:
There's certainly a failure of estimation, both in magnitude and formula, because instead of levelling off from 2009 Q1-Q3 the unemployment rate continued to grow. The dark blue line also shows a drop of 1% from Q3 '09 - Q4 '10, while in reality unemployment was relatively stagnant (9.5-10%).

I'm not sure the formula is wrong, but yeah, it is off by an order of magnitude.

It is difficult to really criticize without the equation itself. I'd guess OLS of some sort.

biccat wrote:
I'm not sure that there's enough information to show that the formula is correct or not.

It could be tracked down, but I'm too lazy.

biccat wrote:Well, the good 'ole Governor (Governess) of North Carolina certainly stuck her foot in her mouth with this one (audio here), suggesting that we should "suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover."

Obviously she's trying to back out of the comments, first saying that it was a joke, or sarcastic, or out of context. Given the audio is available, these don't really cut it.

Interestingly, former OMB director Peter Orszag (the guy who was in charge of administering the budget) published a piece recently arguing "Why we need less democracy."

The easy argument to make would be that these two, and their fellow travellers, are fundamentally adverse to our system and shouldn't be given serious consideration, and especially not given powerful positions as politicians or advisors. However, to an extent, I think that they're correct.

The problem with a centrally managed economy, or even a highly regulated economy like most countries have now, is that politicians are generally pretty poor at managing economic systems and doing "what's best for the country." Our current president, despite getting degrees in political science and jurisprudence, doesn't really know gak about economics, manufacturing, business, or pretty much anything about how to run an economy. Plus, his goal is to get reelected, and only do "what's best for the country" to the extent that it coincides with this goal (for example, even if he believes "what's best for the country" is to pull all of our soldiers out of Iraq today, he wouldn't do so if the political consequences were severe).

In addition to politicians now knowing anything about anything, the people who do know enough about economics, business, etc. are generally (a) highly specialized and (b) adverse to seeking political office. Therefore, if we were to have an efficient centrally run economy, the best thing to do would be to appoint a team of experts to manage certain areas of their own expertise who wouldn't be subject to political whims. Again by way of example, a tax expert could be appointed who might raise (or lower) taxes when it's in the country's best interests, but might be politically unpopular.

Given the trend towards more and more centralization, it seems that democracy is incompatable (or at least horribly inefficient) with large, intrusive government. However, where I would disagree with the Governor and Mr. Orszag is that the solution isn't to limit democracy to increase the efficiency of government, but rather that we should limit government to increase the efficiency of democracy.

The military's oath requires protection against all enemies foreign and domestic. If the politicians tried this, it would last about 24 hours.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

daedalus-templarius wrote:Feels weird sort of agreeing with Biccat about something.

A good-willed team of experts would be great, but that sort of thing would be prone to nepotism; although if their friends/relatives were also experts, might not be so bad.

Thats what the Soviets thought too.

Frazzled wrote:
The military's oath requires protection against all enemies foreign and domestic. If the politicians tried this, it would last about 24 hours.

Oaths matter now?

The military would do whatever they could be convinced to do, same as any other state.

Frazzled wrote:
Thats what the Soviets thought too.

And that's the criticism Hitler rendered.