Politics Versus Reality

nobull

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
402
It is hard to understand politics if you are hung up on reality. Politicians leave reality to others. What matters in politics is what you can get the voters to believe, whether it bears any resemblance to reality or not.

Not only among politicians, but also among much of the media, and even among some of the public, the quest is not for truth about reality but for talking points that fit a vision or advance an agenda. Some seem to see it as a personal contest about who is best at fencing with words.

The current controversy over whether to deal with our massive national debt by cutting spending, or whether instead to raise tax rates on "the rich," is a classic example of talking points versus reality.

Most of those who favor simply raising tax rates on "the rich" -- or who say that we cannot afford to allow the Bush "tax cuts for the rich" to continue -- show not the slightest interest in the history of what has actually happened when tax rates were raised to high levels on "the rich," as compared to what has actually happened when there have been "tax cuts for the rich."

As far as such people are concerned, those questions have already been settled by their talking points. Why confuse the issue by digging into empirical evidence about what has actually happened when one policy or the other was followed?

The political battles about whether to have high tax rates on people in high income brackets or to instead have "tax cuts for the rich" have been fought out in at least four different administrations in the 20th century -- under Presidents Calvin Coolidge, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

The empirical facts are there, but they mean nothing if people don't look at them, and instead rely on talking points.

The first time this political battle was fought, during the Coolidge administration, the tax-cutters won. The data show that "the rich" supplied less tax revenue to the government when the top income tax rate was 73 percent in 1921 than they supplied after the income tax rate was reduced to 24 percent in 1925.

Because high tax rates can easily be avoided, both then and now, "the rich" were much less affected by high tax rates than was the economy and the people who were looking for jobs. After the Coolidge tax cuts, the increased economic activity led to unemployment rates that ranged from a high of 4.2 percent to a low of 1.8 percent. But that is only a fact about reality -- and, for many, reality has no such appeal as talking points.

The same preference for talking points, and the same lack of interest in digging into the facts about realities, prevails today in discussions of whether to have a government-controlled medical system.

Since there are various countries, such as Canada and Britain, that have the kind of government-controlled medical systems that some Americans advocate, you might think that there would be great interest in the quality of medical care in these countries.

The data are readily available as to how many weeks or months people have to wait to see a primary care physician in such countries, and how many additional weeks or months they have to wait after they are referred to a surgeon or other specialist. There are data on how often their governments allow patients to receive the latest pharmaceutical drugs, as compared to how often Americans use such advanced medications.

But supporters of government medical care show virtually no interest in such realities. Their big talking point is that the life expectancy in the United States is not as long as in those other countries. End of discussion, as far as they are concerned.

They have no interest in the reality that medical care has much less effect on death rates from homicide, obesity, and narcotics addiction than it has on death rates from cancer or other conditions that doctors can do something about. Americans survive various cancers better than people anywhere else. Americans also get to see doctors much sooner for medical treatment in general.

Talking points trump reality in political discussions of many other issues, from gun control to rent control. Reality simply does not have the pizzazz of clever talking points.

No one is more of a master of political talking points than President Barack Obama. Remember "shovel-ready projects"? These were construction projects where the shovels were supposed to start digging the moment the government gave them the "stimulus" money.

Two years later, Obama can joke about the fact that the shovels were not as ready as he thought. In reality, the shovels were never ready. It can take forever to get all the environmental approvals to build anything in today's political and legal climate.

If Obama didn't know that, his advisers surely did. He can treat it as a joke today but it is no joke for those who are saddled with the debts produced by his runaway spending in the name of "shovel-ready projects." Nor is it a joke to the unemployed, who remain unemployed despite all the "stimulus" spending.

The talk about the many "green jobs" created by the government is likewise no joke. Since the government creates no wealth, it can only transfer the wealth required to hire people. Even if the government creates a million jobs, that is not a net increase in jobs, when the money that pays for those jobs is taken from the private sector, which loses that much ability to create private jobs.

Back in the 1930s, Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration hired more young men in the Civilian Conservation Corps than there were in the U.S. Army. But that never brought unemployment down into single digits at any point during that entire decade. As late as the spring of 1939, the unemployment rate was 20 percent.

Government-created jobs did not mean a net increase in jobs then -- or now. But this is only mundane reality. What makes a great political talking point is government coming to the rescue of the unemployed by creating jobs. That talking point helps politicians get reelected, even if it does nothing for the economy in general or for the unemployment rate.

Among the biggest triumphs of talking points over reality are political discussions of rent control and gun control. Rent control supposedly rescues helpless tenants from the high rents charged by "greedy" landlords -- at least in political rhetoric.

But the two cities which have the oldest and strongest rent control laws in the country also have the highest rents -- New York and San Francisco. Yet that plain reality has not made a dent in the thinking, or lack of thinking, of those who support rent control.

Nor are they at all interested in other realities about rent control, whether in these two cities or in other cities around the world. These realities include housing shortages and a reduced supply of maintenance and other auxiliary services, such as heat and hot water.

Other forms of price control likewise lead to shortages, and have for literally thousands of years. But such plain realities do not affect the heady social vision conjured up by talking points.

Far from being discouraged by such realities, those who believe in price control for housing often think price control for medicines and medical care is a great idea too.

We need not speculate as to what effects price controls can have on medicines and medical care because there are already shortages of both in countries where a government-controlled medical system includes price controls.

The talking points about gun control are as far removed from reality as the talking points about rent control. But on this issue, at least, the advocates cite some highly selective statistics to go along with their rhetoric.

Gun control advocates often point out countries like Britain that have stronger gun control laws than ours and lower murder rates. But they totally ignore countries that have stronger gun control laws than ours and higher murder rates than ours.

One such country is right on our border -- Mexico. But there are others farther away, such as Brazil and Russia. There are also countries with higher rates of gun ownership than in the United States -- Switzerland and Israel, for example -- that have much lower murder rates than ours. But none of this has the slightest effect on the talking points of gun control zealots.

to be continued..
 
Werbung:
Gosh, I am not interested in pursuing these points item by item, but in general these statements seem written to make a specific point, and do not necessarily reflect the truth of the situation described.

The comment that government produces no wealth is just wrong-headed, and appears to mate with other comments that leave the reader misinformed.

Just to be clear, yes, the government produces quite a lot of wealth in America.

Wouldn't the Interstate Highway System be a form of national wealth which serves as a multiplier of personal energies? Where would America's orange growers be without a highway system to get fresh orange juice to every store in America?

Wouldn't the school system in America be a huge producer of wealth? Leastways, I consider an educated public to be a huge wealth for a nation.

The national and state parks certainly add dramatically to the standard of living of all Americans. That is wealth that is tough to put a price tag on, but it certainly is wealth.

Public libraries, museums, beaches, airports, seaports, hydro dams, and rail beds are other examples of immense wealth created by government.

My point is that point after point that you have made can be discussed in a like manner.

Government quite often is the solution, and a very good solution at that.
 
Gosh, I am not interested in pursuing these points item by item, but in general these statements seem written to make a specific point, and do not necessarily reflect the truth of the situation described.

The comment that government produces no wealth is just wrong-headed, and appears to mate with other comments that leave the reader misinformed.

Just to be clear, yes, the government produces quite a lot of wealth in America.

Wouldn't the Interstate Highway System be a form of national wealth which serves as a multiplier of personal energies? Where would America's orange growers be without a highway system to get fresh orange juice to every store in America?

Wouldn't the school system in America be a huge producer of wealth? Leastways, I consider an educated public to be a huge wealth for a nation.

The national and state parks certainly add dramatically to the standard of living of all Americans. That is wealth that is tough to put a price tag on, but it certainly is wealth.

Public libraries, museums, beaches, airports, seaports, hydro dams, and rail beds are other examples of immense wealth created by government.

My point is that point after point that you have made can be discussed in a like manner.

Government quite often is the solution, and a very good solution at that.

Not one that couldn't be better managed by the private sector..even the parks..IMO of course..

regards
doug
 
Not one that couldn't be better managed by the private sector..even the parks..IMO of course..

regards
doug


That is highly questionnable. Private sector does go bankrupt too, you know.
There are project so large that they can't be handle solely by private sector. It needs the coordination of a stable organization that will carry the project over many years, and take into account the interests of the people, not just the interests of the stock holders.

I would say that many of the roads that go across countries would never have been built if it wasn't for the government. And there is room for private sector involvement in EVERY government project.
 
Maybe you should have gone to Yosemite when the Japanese had the retail rights to the park. Medicare, medicade both compare favorably with the private sector in service, cost and efficiency. Also, fraud prevention. I doubt anyone wants privately controlled military. If Social Security were privitized in 2007 a lot of seniors would be starving right now. Please pick out the private company that would have built the Hoover Dam or the Tennessee Valley Authority? How about the Rural Electrification program? The CDC? The Pentagon? Truth is, only when private interests interfere in these programs do graft and corruption rear their heads. It is easy to cherry pick those Gov programs that have failed or underachieved, point out those wasted dollars in projects gone wrong. Look at wall street, seen any companies that have failed? Maybe you should look at the national business failure rate before you hastily make these decisions. as in all institutions, government and private, humans with their follies intervene. The difference? Private companies must wait for market conditions to force change or litigation to redress grievances. Government has elected officials appointing accountable individuals, accountable to us. For health care, utilities, security, national interests and civil rights I would count on the government.
 
Exactly! We are discovering that our Charter schools are not any cheaper to run, and the results are no better. Private prisons are turning into warehouses of young men being turned into hardened criminals. Privatized military contractors have turned into savage, vengeful, and vicious forces who rape, pillage, and loot at will. Private theme parks are money machines offering great entertainment with little to no educational or social content. Those highways that are privatized have toll booths every 22 miles; if the entire system had toll booths everywhere who could afford to go anywhere? We do have a privatized food supply, and look what it has done to us! As a nation we are morbidly obese, and buying more Whoppers with bacon every day, and proud of it! (No, I am not advocating a National Food Agency.)


Private enterprise is not the panacea that is imagined to be by so many.
 
That is highly questionnable. Private sector does go bankrupt too, you know.
There are project so large that they can't be handle solely by private sector. It needs the coordination of a stable organization that will carry the project over many years, and take into account the interests of the people, not just the interests of the stock holders.

I would say that many of the roads that go across countries would never have been built if it wasn't for the government. And there is room for private sector involvement in EVERY government project.

For the record..Cutting taxes and wasteful spending will help an economy because of the disincentive effect caused by taxation. Cutting taxes and useful programs may or may not benefit the economy.That is another subject..

A certain amount of government spending is required on the military, the police, and the court system. A country which does not spend an adequate amount of money in these areas will have a depressed economy. Too much spending in these areas is wasteful.

A country also needs infrastructure to have a high level of economic activity. Much of this infrastructure cannot be adequately provided by the private sector, so governments must spend money in this area to ensure economic growth. However too much spending, or spending on the wrong infrastructure can be wasteful and slow economic growth.

If people are naturally inclined to spend their own money on education and health care, then taxation used for social programs is likely to slow economic growth. Social spending which targets low income families is much better for the economy than universal programs.

If people are not inclined to spend towards their own education and health care, then there can be a benefit to suppling these goods, as society as a whole benefits from a healthy and educated workforce.

I am not suggesting that the government end all social programs. There can be many benefits to these programs which are not measured in economic growth. A slowdown of economic growth is likely to occur as these programs are expanded, however, so that should always be kept in mind. If the program has enough other benefits, society as a whole may wish to have lower economic growth in return for more social programs.
Admittedly this will oversimplified some very important issues. However that is usually necessary in a first look at an economic problem. I plan on dealing with some of these specific issues in more depth in the future.
 
For the record..Cutting taxes and wasteful spending will help an economy because of the disincentive effect caused by taxation. Cutting taxes and useful programs may or may not benefit the economy.That is another subject..

A certain amount of government spending is required on the military, the police, and the court system. A country which does not spend an adequate amount of money in these areas will have a depressed economy. Too much spending in these areas is wasteful.

A country also needs infrastructure to have a high level of economic activity. Much of this infrastructure cannot be adequately provided by the private sector, so governments must spend money in this area to ensure economic growth. However too much spending, or spending on the wrong infrastructure can be wasteful and slow economic growth.

If people are naturally inclined to spend their own money on education and health care, then taxation used for social programs is likely to slow economic growth. Social spending which targets low income families is much better for the economy than universal programs.

If people are not inclined to spend towards their own education and health care, then there can be a benefit to suppling these goods, as society as a whole benefits from a healthy and educated workforce.

I am not suggesting that the government end all social programs. There can be many benefits to these programs which are not measured in economic growth. A slowdown of economic growth is likely to occur as these programs are expanded, however, so that should always be kept in mind. If the program has enough other benefits, society as a whole may wish to have lower economic growth in return for more social programs.
Admittedly this will oversimplified some very important issues. However that is usually necessary in a first look at an economic problem. I plan on dealing with some of these specific issues in more depth in the future.


That's why Europe is doing soooo much worse than we are right now?

Is that why the Euro is trusted soooo much more than the dollars and the dollars continues to sink?

It's all those "safety nets" including universal health care, and long term unemployment benefits, and child benefits and, of courses, the high taxes that have kept Germany at the bottom of the barrel in terms of economic growth and industrial development, right?

Let's face it. What we have been doing, heralding the God Capitalism, with very little social conscience to soften the blow has NOT worked.

While a balance between restrained, smart Capitalism AND the building of a strong safety net has propelled much smaller nations to the forefront of economic growth.

Europe, even today with their "cost of safety net" issues, has a greater GDP than the US.

And, they do have enough of a safety net program that it is possible to look at making cuts that (even if painful) will not bring the European Population back to Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" time.

We don't have enough of a social safety net to make significant cuts without really hurting the "little people!"
We need to make our cuts first and foremost in CORPORATE welfare.

But, that is so far out of the realm of possibility for anyone who so admire the people who REALLY RULE AMERICA, that the GOP will never let it happen.
It would be just as unthinkable as raising tax for the top 2%!
 
Just so you know where I stand on most issues..
IMO the founding fathers believed in private ownership of property and in limited government, but I don't see where it was written that there can not be a public interest that is served by the government intervening in certain transactions. Granted, they would turn over in their graves to know what a fascist, totalitarian state we have become, but that doesn't mean they would have been opposed to any and all government regulation of certain markets.

I think it's kind of ridiculous to think in terms of "rights" to an "open market," the way some free-market capitalists and some of my fellow conservatives do. Does anyone seriously think that God is a free-market capitalist? I sure don't. I think it's crazy even to think that God believes in private ownership of property. That kind of thinking is motivated by the most mindless and shallow of political thinking (which, I suppose, is redundant), and by the total confusion of the ontic with the ontological, for which all organized religions are notorious. Hey, I believe in God, and I believe in capitalism, but I don't believe that God believes in capitalism - that's just too silly for words. There is no spiritual path that is predicated on private ownership of property.

So, that being the case, there is no God-given "right" to a free market. That is just something that we (i.e. humankind) made up. It's all made up. So, there's no "morality" to it. There is nothing immoral about communism - in theory. In practice, communist governments have been brutal, oppressive and racist/prejudiced in one way or another, but that's not a result of the public ownership of property. The big problem with communism was not that it was immoral; the problem was that, on a large scale, it just didn't work, because it ran contrary to human behavior.

But, on a small scale, it can work. Isn't that essentially the kind of economy that the Amish in PA have? On a small scale, where there is a sense of community, it is possible for people to feel a sense of responsibility to one another, and to act in ways that further the common good, even at the price of foregone profits to the individual.

For the most part, I think that the kind of lust-driven hyper-capitalism that we have today is a by-product of the anonymity created by a very large economy. It's a lot harder to rape and plunder in your own community, because someone is liable to kill you. But, if you do it to people thousands of miles away, you can get away with it.

As far as schools go..I learned evolution in school, and it didn't kill me, even though it's as meaningless as anything else, when you get right down to it.

What I do care strongly about is the idea that some federal judge can decide he knows how the universe began.

So, that's the issue for me. It's not about intelligent design vs. evolution; it's about private vs. public schools. I think all public schools should be shut down. I think the federal Dept. of Education should be abolished, and the taxes that pay for it returned to their rightful owners. Then, parents can send their kids to whatever private school they want. That way, the parents get to decide what b.s. their kids will be brainwashed/indoctrinated with, rather than giving that power to the state and to the NEA. Right now, the state/NEA have a virtual monopoly on their social relativist, secular humanist, multicultural, politically correct, "outcome based," self-esteem focused, gender-biased, race-biased, anti-intellectual, Orwellian Newspeak brand of mind-numbing indoctrination.

What I believe in is the right of people in local communities to organize their lives in ways that work for them. But, even that is not really a "god-given" right; that is also something that is "made up." But, I believe in it, because I believe that the local community is the most important economic and political unit in the human experience and in human history. I think it creates the most emotional and spiritual stability that the whole (i.e., society) can provide the one. So, for that reason, I defend the "right" of the Amish to live in a communal economy.


regards
doug
 
My point is ..please stop bringing God into it.....ck your post..tia


Not sure whom you are addressing your post to. If I'm correct, you mention God in your last post more than most of us ever do.

I did mention (sarcastically) the "God of Capitalism," which was in no way referring to a deity, just in case it escaped you.

Otherwise, I mostly agree with what you say.

The only thing is, you seem to link "morality" with "God."

I don't believe that one has to believe in any God, and certainly not in a Christian God only to have a moral fiber.
 
Werbung:
Back
Top