Pharyngula

Posted by: otrame | November 30, 2009 12:09 PM

"Socialist" is anyone left of them.

Posted by: Peptron | November 30, 2009 12:19 PM

Whenever I see things like that I cannot help but imagine that the Republican party is actually a Chinese or Soviet conspiracy to destroy the status of United States as a super power so that China can rise and become the new super power.

Posted by: Crystal Joyrider | November 30, 2009 12:24 PM

So their core conservative principles are, in short, "gay people suck," "we like guns," and "fuck Obama." There's a nice list of three; now if you could get 'em to agree on just two of those, you'd be set.

Alternatively, maybe the Repugnants could listen to their hero Ronnie's very own "big tent" ideology instead of, you know, selectively ignoring half of the things he said. Then maybe they'd start winning elections.

...oh wait, maybe they shouldn't do that then.

Posted by: RMH | November 30, 2009 12:27 PM

Vonnegut reference! Yay!

Posted by: idle.pip.verisignlabs.com | November 30, 2009 12:36 PM

Honestly, if they get their way, then american politics will actually turn into a single party system, as nobody will vote for their loony party. It is like the RNC is actively trying to create the political atmosphere they are so afraid of.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 30, 2009 12:37 PM

I think it's a splendid idea, frankly...

It should effectively trim off a good 40% of the republican base at the least.

"I say, let 'em crash!"

Posted by: Joffan | November 30, 2009 12:43 PM

It seems the Republicans are following Joe Stalin: If in doubt, purge.

Or they may be trying the old "purify with fire" recipe; but that only works if there is something other than dross in the feed material.

Posted by: Bruce the Canuck | November 30, 2009 12:56 PM

It's all well and good to have fun mocking the crazification of the US right - the latest mcarthyite + Nixon B&E style attack on climate scientists being a case point.

However, "liberals" are not better off with an incoherent, crazy opposition. Every ecosystem needs predators! A rational opposition driven by somewhat different values & ideology serves several important purposes. It keeps your side honest, cleans out the cruft, is willing to say the truths your friends won't, gives the voters an option if your party has mediocore leadership, and generally can improve the quality of legislation and the running of government.

The current state of the US republican party is not in anyone's best interests.

Posted by: Charles | November 30, 2009 1:02 PM

Geez, if anything is going to push a party schism, that certainly will.

Hmm. I'm FOR it!

Posted by: heff.myopenid.com | November 30, 2009 1:10 PM

As Keith Olbermann pointed-out: Ronnie would have failed this purity test, having violated four of the ten requirements. (Though Olbermann did cheat a bit. For instance, he used the fact that Reagan sold advanced weapons to Iran as an indicator that he would not work to "contain" Iran and N. Korea. Seems pretty fair, but not a 1:1)

Posted by: LtStorm | November 30, 2009 1:16 PM

I really wish we could bring Reagan back to life and back to sound mind today, to show him what the Republicans have become.

It'd probably end a lot like that episode of the Boondocks where Martin Luther King is just in a coma and wakes up in the new millenium to find out what came of all those "ass-whoopins" he endured.

(I'm not trying to play the race card or anything stupid like that, I'm just amused by the thought of Reagan getting up at the RNC convention and calling them all fucking idiots for what the GOP is doing.)

Posted by: blf | November 30, 2009 1:23 PM

Where can I buy some Bottled Thug Lunacy for squidmass? How much is a litre (or, since this is the Land of Unwashed Units, a quart)? Prices in a hard currency, such as €, preferred.

I understand it's pretty good for driving some other crackpots away (along with, unfortunately, Teh Gay and anything else with a brain), but does tend to attract bats (as in —shite insane). And if applied in large doses, messes up the environment and starts wars. So careful application is required.

Posted by: Becky | November 30, 2009 1:31 PM

I really like #1

"We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits"

Seeing as the last democrat (Clinton) had a surplus upon leaving office and the last republican (Shrub) not only blew the surplus but increased the deficit beyond a level never seen before. Obama only had to increase to deficit to clean up the mess shrub left in his wake. Where these a-holes during the rein of shrub?

Posted by: fishyfred | November 30, 2009 1:45 PM

To be fair, a public option is sort of socialist (though no more socialist than bank bailouts or the FDIC). I just don't think it's a problem at all. It's only a serious issue for people who are convinced that government is the enemy no matter what.

Posted by: Michelle R | November 30, 2009 1:47 PM

You know, I can't help but smirk at this. Anything to the left of these guys is a threat...

Here in Quebec, anything a bit to the right of the far left is considered extremist right-wings.

Posted by: Akiko | November 30, 2009 1:48 PM

jdhuey is right (post#20), the Republican party uses huge amounts of Orwellian methods to push their agenda. Say something ridiculous enough times it becomes fact. Rewrite history or even, rewrite the present. The architects hired by the corporations to push this group are brilliantly scary. They know the weaknesses of the easily led and hive minded. They know how to make those people feel threatened from an enemy that never existed. They know how to make those same people feel empowered by nothing but words. Hey, wait - they are a religion!

Posted by: Alverant | November 30, 2009 2:17 PM

Conservatives have principles? Who knew?

Posted by: jojame | November 30, 2009 2:26 PM

Obama a moderate to conservative centrist? Woah.
-He supports the public option (in the past he has said he supports universal healthcare).
-He supported the stimulus.
-He is for cap and trade.
-He wants to increase the minimum wage.
-He is pro-choice.

Where has he deviated from the left?

Posted by: jojame | November 30, 2009 2:44 PM

@Celtic #36
So tell me how one becomes liberal to moderate centrist? Where would their politics differ from Obama's. Where would blue dog democrats lie on PZ Myers' spectrum? Ultra-conservative centrist?

The fact is that Obama's positions are 180 degrees of that of conservatives'. There's a common line people refer to when they call people to the left or to the right. If PZ Myers meant what you said then he was just asking to be misinterpreted.

Posted by: Desert Son, OM | November 30, 2009 2:49 PM

Where has he deviated from the left?

Try this thought experiment:

Imagine that, instead of a political spectrum that runs from "right" to "left" (which labels I've always found unsatisfying), that the perspective runs from "far-far-right" to "center." It spans the same "distance," just that the labels have changed.

In that case, someone who occupies a political opinion that is far-far-right (or even just "right") looks over the spectrum and sees "the left" occupying the ground that's actually labeled "center."

The actual "left" may be further than the eye of the very-far "right" can see.

With regard to the republican purity thing, it strikes me as a variation on a theme (a theme often seen in religious circles, as well):

Republican A: "Hello, Republican B. I'm glad you're here; we need to talk. I'm concerned about Republican C."

Republican B: "Really? Why?"

Repub A: "I'm concerned Repub C isn't really a Republican."

Repub B: "Really? But Repub C is a staunch supporter! He's passed all the purity requirements! He's been nothing but a loyal Republican for as long as I can remember!"

Repub A: "Yes, but have you seen his haircut?"

That's one of the dangers of being a True Believer^TM: there's always someone else who's even more True Believer^TM than you, and how long until they decide you're no longer up to par?

Still learning,

Robert

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 30, 2009 2:56 PM

The fact is that...

Pay close attention, all you newcomers... this is a tell... a clear sign that what is to follow is nearly always opinion...

Let's see if we can confirm this hypothesis...

... Obama's positions are 180 degrees of that of conservatives

.

There you have it... hypothesis confirmed. We need a name for this phenomenon...

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 30, 2009 3:06 PM

So tell me how one becomes liberal to moderate centrist?

Obama never was that liberal. You idjits think anybody who doesn't agree with you must be a socialist. Those of us here are aware, unlike you, of the real definition and political babble of socialists, know how wrong you are. And our President doesn't sound anything like a real socialist. Your lies like this just makes you sound stoopid. So do yourself a favor and quit sounding so stoopid.

Posted by: jojame | November 30, 2009 3:14 PM

@Celtic #41
You just ignored my post. I don't see how Obama disagreeing with the majority of conservative positions could be construed as an opinion. When presented with a piece of legislation, where Obama goes yay conservative go nay. To me that is 180 degrees.

@Desert #39
Sure, the spectrum isn't set in stone and there is no precise definiton what exactly is centrist versus leaning to the right. But, I think we all agree that there is a position on the left of an issue and there is a position on the right. No need to fudge words.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 30, 2009 3:32 PM

You just ignored my post.

Slander! I did no such thing... you prefaced a statement as a fact, then proceeded to espouse an opinion. I called you on it.

I don't see how Obama disagreeing with the majority of conservative positions could be construed as an opinion.

First of all, I don't think you have demonstrated that he disagrees with a "majority of conservative positions"... I'm not stating that he does or does not... but you have not demonstrated that he does, nor could you in point of fact, I don't think... thus making your statement one of opinion.

Second of all, even if he did... that hardly disqualifies him from being labeled as "centrist" for reasons pointed out already by numerous other posters. Disagreeing with the majority of republican platforms merely makes him a democrat.

When presented with a piece of legislation, where Obama goes yay conservative go nay.

Come now... are you really going to make the argument that negative conservative reaction to all things Obama does defines HIS POLITICS you moron? No! It defines theirs.

Posted by: Frank | November 30, 2009 3:36 PM

Fun fact: Reagan supported stimulus in 1981 and bailouts in 1986. He pulled troops out of Lebanon against the suggestions of the military to conduct a troop surge and Syria ended up controlling the area for twenty years. And of course, he shipped arms to Iran.

So Reagan fails 3 of the points on the Reagan commemorative test and would be ineligible for Republican funding. Bravo sirs!

Posted by: Desert Son, OM | November 30, 2009 3:38 PM

jojame at #45,

Sure, the spectrum isn't set in stone and there is no precise definiton what exactly is centrist versus leaning to the right. But, I think we all agree that there is a position on the left of an issue and there is a position on the right. No need to fudge words.

I see that I was unclear in my post, and I apologize that I did not explain in better detail.

What I was trying to do was point out what David Marjanović, OM said better than I at post #42.

Your initial characterization of Obama as "left" requires two political affiliations on the spectrum: "rightwing" and "not-rightwing," where values of "not-rightwing" accrue the label "left." What David pointed out (and what I failed to elucidate more clearly) is that what seems "left" to those on the "rightwing" is actually more centrist, especially relative to the spectrum of the "left" in the broader world beyond the borders of the United States (I realize that for some residents of the United States, there is no world beyond the borders of the U.S., and I'll leave it to you to decide whether you fall in that category or not).

Socialists, and other liberals, outside the U.S. (and many within the U.S.) are more likely to shake their heads at the characterization of Obama as socialist. Just because Obama's policy stance disagrees with your concept of "right" does not mean that his policy is, in fact, "left." Those of a more liberal mind recognize Obama as occupying a more centrist position.

Hope that clears up what I was trying to say. If not, I recommend going back and reading David Marjanović, OM's post at #42.

Still learning,

Robert

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 30, 2009 3:53 PM

Obama is accused of having a socialist agenda because he is advocating the socialization of healthcare.

In order to quit lying to us, you have to quit lying to yourself. If Obama was a socialist, only a single payer system financed by the government would be on the table. This is the type of distortion lies you idjits tell. And it is time to quit telling them.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | November 30, 2009 4:00 PM

@jojame #35: I'm going to use the words "Republican" and "Democrat", since you are obviously using party platforms instead of the actual definitions of "conservative" and "liberal".

-He supports the public option

Republicans don't? I didn't see any calling to the elimination of Medicare during the last election cycle. In fact, they were trying to terrify senior citizens by claiming they might have to make do with less public medical insurance.

Anyway, if you were actually following the healthcare story, you'd know that Obama only mouths support for the public option. Behind the scenes, he has been twisting the arms of Democrats who really do support it in order to get them to vote for a bill without one.

-He supported the stimulus.

In what way is "handing money to corporate interests" not a Republican value?

The only reason the Republicans did not support the stimulus was because the Democrats had the majority and an election was approaching; in other words, they wanted to posture while knowing full well the bill would pass without them. Bush didn't veto it, either.

Most of the outrage over the stimulus wasn't about giving money to banks, it was the possibility that there might be strings attached in the form of audits and regulation. Funny how that never happened even with those supposed liberals running both the White House and Congress.

-He wants to increase the minimum wage.

You may be right here. See my previous point about free money and corporate interests.

-He is pro-choice.

Abortion has been a legal choice for around 35 years; that's two generations now. Obama is being conservative by supporting abortion choice. It wasn't an issue for Republicans until Reagan added it to attract religious zealots to vote for him. Radical theocrats who want to overturn established secular law in favor of their religious proclivities are not "conservatives".

Posted by: truthspeaker | November 30, 2009 4:06 PM

Posted by: Becky | November 30, 2009 1:31 PM

I really like #1

"We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits"

Seeing as the last democrat (Clinton) had a surplus upon leaving office and the last republican (Shrub) not only blew the surplus but increased the deficit beyond a level never seen before. Obama only had to increase to deficit to clean up the mess shrub left in his wake. Where these a-holes during the rein of shrub?

Reagan ran up huge deficits too. They have short memories.

Posted by: gr8hands | November 30, 2009 4:21 PM

jojame, let's take your first example: gun control.

Should convicted murders who killed using guns be allowed to purchase as many guns as they want? Obama - no. Conservatives - ? (my guess is also 'no') Anything that prevents anyone from purchasing any weapon -- including nukes -- is a form of gun control. You're only quibbling about the extent. You are all for gun control of some kind.

Should workers be allowed to unionize? Obama - yes. Conservatives - yes also. Again, the disagreement is in the details.

Try the exercise yourself on the affirmative action question. You'll find that you only disagree on the extent.

You're wrong about your comment "If democrats are centrists then the spectrum is useless since it should describe the philosophy of each side." You act as if the choices are black versus white, when really it's one shade of gray versus another shade of gray -- this has been pointed out to you by others. Each side is not necessarily extreme, although I believe the "right" tends to be more extreme than the "left."

You are also wrong on your last point. Conservatives have been against Obama even when he agrees with them. Even when he uses their exact words.

Posted by: gr8hands | November 30, 2009 4:27 PM

jojame, please list the names of all Senators and Congresspersons who "want to remove" Social Security, and the source. I think you will find that list remarkably short, and instructive.

Also, please list the roll call vote for all the "conservatives" who "disliked the stimulus" and voted against it during the bush administration. That would also be instructive.

Then list all the conservatives who voted against all the bush budgets, as a demonstration of "fiscal conservatism". That should be instructive.

Then list all the conservatives who voted against all the bush administration expansion of the size of government bills. That should be particularly instructive.

I think you are confused about those who claim to be conservative, holding to some romantic notion about what a conservative is, and what those same conservatives actually do in office. The word 'hypocrisy' comes to mind . . .

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 30, 2009 4:41 PM

There are a good number of people who want to go in the direction of where the U.S. is at. Canada is currently debating giving the private sector more room in healthcare. They are all ultra-right-wings now?

as a matter of fact, yes. no centrist politician in Europe would even consider shrinking the extent of universal healthcare; some conservatives are mumbling about "streamlining"; only the ultra-conservatives are actually suggesting limiting it. And if any ruling political party ever suggested scrapping Universal Healthcare altogether as a serious policy proposal, there'd be riots in the streets, and the party would crash in the next elections.

American Republicans are FAR to the right of the right wing European parties; what's considered "left" in the rest of the world doesn't even make a blip on the radar in the US (right to free college education for example; a state in Germany declared tuition unconstitutional)

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 30, 2009 4:46 PM

There is no way it [single payer] would be more efficient than existing private insurance options

You know this how? The administrator of Medicare makes $137,000 per year. The CEO of CIGNA made over $12.2 million last year. Having a civil service administrator replace just this one CEO would be a savings of $12 million.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | November 30, 2009 4:51 PM

Alternatively, maybe the Repugnants could listen to their hero Ronnie's very own "big tent" ideology instead of, you know, selectively ignoring half of the things he said.

Would that be Ronnie "Let the faggots die" Reagan? He'd sure be with them on the "teh gays suck" platform item.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 30, 2009 5:00 PM

The public option is a stepping stone in that direction. Many in the house and senate explicitly stated that it is. The public option itself is socialist tool. There is no way it would be more efficient than existing private insurance options and it would effectively provide subsidies for health insurance.

The ideologue lies again. DUH. The old stepping stone business. Far from it. A lie. The public option being less efficient. Another lie. Guess what? Getting rid of the necessity of profits drops health care costs. Then going to uniform system for reimbursement drops costs at hospitals and doctors, as they don't require fiddling with many different and confusing forms. This allows for reduction in staffing, as not as many people are needed to get reimbursement. If you could really think your way through a problem, instead of spounting ideology, you would be taken more seriously. But right now, we just see you as a bigotted crank.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 30, 2009 5:13 PM

Everyone else is doing it so it must be good? Sorry if I don't believe that.

the point is not that everybody is doing it, but that it's working. the US is consistently at the bottom of pretty much all social health indicators when compared to other developed nations.

That you'd like to keep it that way is disturbing and despicable.

When does a color become either red or yellow? In the orange area it's hard to tell but their is a general agreement to when it is red and when it is yellow. That is the divide between the left and right (speaking of the U.S. here).

there are real socialists even in the US. measuring from there to the ultra-right-wing (the libertarians and the fundies), Obama falls somewhere in the middle. fucking live with it and stop whining about Obama the leftist.

Posted by: Nominal Egg | November 30, 2009 5:28 PM

I prefer it that we don't follow the route Europe has taken.

Better health care, higher standards of living, lower crime...yeah, who the hell would want that?

Posted by: Lynna | November 30, 2009 6:04 PM

@#4

The Republican Party is not conservative; it's radical. The best description is that the Republican party has become the "White Nationalist Party"; I think that is accurate.

I think you might be right about that description of the Republicans as the "White Nationalist Party."

[On November 16, 2009] the Anti-Defamation League released a report warning of the paranoia and stridency that increasingly define the conservative grass roots. It echoed an April report issued by the Department of Homeland Security, but unlike the DHS report, the ADL named names, and fingered [Glenn] Beck as the figure most responsible for the unhinging of the right.
     "Beck has acted as a 'fearmonger-in-chief,' raising anxiety about and distrust towards the government [which] if it continues to grow in intensity and scope, may result in an increase in anti-government extremists and the potential for a rise of violent anti-government acts."

I know that Beck is loved by his fellow conservative mormons, by most republicans, by the resurgent nazi's in northern Idaho, and by the Sutherland Institute. Palin likes him too.

Amazingly, just after the ADL report's release, Sarah Palin responded to a question about a possible Palin-Beck ticket by refusing to rule out Beck as a running mate. She praised him effusively, describing him as "bold, clever, and very, very, very effective."

Glenn Beck has invited white supremacists to speak on his show, including Michael Hill on October 4, 2007:

Hill's League of the South (LOS) group is a decidedly white supremacist organization, arguing that the "Anglo-Celtic" culture of the South must be protected and insisting that "white men" must "shed the guilt heaped upon them by their opponents and defend their interests." The group has questioned "what sort of ammunition is being given to black 'racists' by the media's skewed coverage of interracial crimes." Hill himself has been quoted as saying, "Let us not flinch when our enemies call us, 'Racists;' rather, just reply with, 'So, what's your point?'''

Larry Pratt appeared on February 16, 2009. Roy Beck (no relation), the founder of NumbersUSA has appeared three times.

Posted by: jojame | November 30, 2009 6:18 PM

Okay
@Tis #65
"The administrator of Medicare makes $137,000 per year. The CEO of CIGNA made over $12.2 million last year. Having a civil service administrator replace just this one CEO would be a savings of $12 million."

Ask yourself why he makes 12.2 million. He doesn't sit around all day doing nothing. His expenditure has to be worthwhile. His job, like other CEO's are charged with coordinating the company to reduce costs and finding new markets. By the laws of economics, by not having the CEO around the company would operate at a net loss.

When you reduce the pay to 137 thousand, you're limiting who you can hire. I doubt the administrator of Medicare is sweating over job security.

@Nerd #69
Why are there forms and administrative staff to begin with? If they're so useless then the insurance companies would've cut them out themselves. What can the public option do to prevent that from happening?

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | November 30, 2009 6:31 PM

Ask yourself why he makes 12.2 million.

because he's a parasite.

Posted by: Alverant | November 30, 2009 6:38 PM

jojame #77 "His expenditure has to be worthwhile."

No it doesn't. The upper management of companies operates under different rules than the rest of us. Every company has waste. There's a sense of entitlement in management. How many companies who laid people off this year are going to have a Christmas party next month? How many of those are going to spend enough that would have kept at least one employee there? Remember how the big 3 automakers took private jets to DC to beg for money. They acted like it such a luxury was their divine right. I understand the logic of taking different planes but that shouldn't prevent them from flying different airlines at different times.

We're in an age were even severance packages for CEOs are more than what a good employee can make in a lifetime. Just because the market can bare something doesn't mean it should. And doesn't taking a cut in excessive pay fall under "company to reduce costs"?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 30, 2009 6:51 PM

Then why stop at insurance companies? Why not a public option for everything?

Now you're talking real socialism. And why not? Compared to greedy ideological fools like you, it can't do any worse, and administrative compensation would be at more acceptable levels.

Jojame, you are convince nobody here of your ideological driven nonsense. And is nonsense.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 30, 2009 6:59 PM

Dang it all, the typo cooties struck. #83, last sentence, Jojame, you aren't convincing anybody...

Posted by: bcoppola | November 30, 2009 7:17 PM

jojome: Cap and trade in the US was first proposed and then implemented as a "market-based" solution to the problem of acid rain caused by smokestack SO₂ emissions, mainly from coal-fired powerplants as part of the Clean Air Act of 1990.

It was supported and signed into law by that fucking lefty socialist President George H. W. Bush (aka #41).

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | November 30, 2009 7:46 PM

. . . must agree with at least eight of ten bullet points . . .

Why not cut the number of bullets to eight and demand total loyalty? Any two points could be lost without diluting the shrill insistence that everybody think alike (like me!) and the adjustment would have precedents.

*certainty is poor authority; considered doubt is frequently superior *

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | November 30, 2009 10:06 PM

jojame,

You keep talking about right vs. left and you even mention the USA. I'm a citizen of the USA (natural born!). I want universal, government-run health care. I want heavy regulation of industry, particularly financial institutions. I am pro-choice, pro-LGBT rights, pro-civil liberties even if it slightly increases danger of terrorism, pro-action on climate change (cap and trade is way too conservative for me), pro-deposits on all recyclable materials, pro-expanded government food inspections, pro-disbanding of monopolies and trusts, pro-expanding the welfare-state, pro-union, pro-Superfund reinstatement, pro-National Parks, pro-extensive environmental regulation and real penalties for violating those regulations, pro-higher mileage requirements for all vehicles, pro-government subsidized mass-transit including Amtrak, pro-top marginal tax rate of at least 50% preferably higher, pro-wealth tax, pro-expanding WIC benefits, pro-universal dental care.

Obama is significantly to the right of me. He is at best a centrist. You really don't get it. Obama has not proposed any significant re-regulation of the financial industry. He hasn't done anything significant to address climate change. He doesn't support a wealth tax or a significant increase in the highest marginal tax rate. He's against universal single-payer health care. He doesn't support universal dental care. He has done nothing to address the underfunding of USDA inspections nor to expand the scope of those inspections. In short, he's not a lefty.

Does President Obama support government ownership of the means of production? Does he support significant expansion of the welfare state (outside of health care)? Has he made any move to dissolve the trusts and monopolies that enable our huge corporations to abuse both consumers and employees? In short, no. You pick a handful of issues and say that not agreeing with the Republican platform is a left-wing position. This is a false dichotomy.

Take cap-and-trade as an example. You present two options, for or against. Conservatives are for, liberals against. This ignores the significant area to the left of the "liberals." That ground is occupied by people, like me, who don't support cap-and-trade because it is too conservative. It doesn't do enough. That is the true "liberal" position. Pro-cap-and-trade is a centrist position. It sits between "do a whole lot to address the huge threat of climate change" and "do nothing." It's a luke-warm position, neither hot nor cold.

This luke-warm position is the center and it also happens to be where the Democratic Party currently resides. Plenty of us are to the left of the Dems.

Posted by: jolly | November 30, 2009 10:40 PM

Reagan was a racist and an idiot, so he is the perfect Republican. It is the party of the hypocrite, they will say whatever to get the vote and then expand government more than Dems ever did. Cap and trade should be a conservative ideal but not a libertarian's. Cap and trade is similar to pay for what you use. Why have a false economy that redistributes the wealth based on political forces? I would like to see gas tax go up high enough to pay for the highways and bridges but instead people who don't use them have to pay for them. How is that conservative? Nixon was an extreme liberal based on Faux news, he signed all sorts of environmental laws, like the clean water act and the clean air act. Reagonomics is what we are trying to survive through now, let the wealthy keep all the money they can get, cut back on education, so you don't need to share the wealth with others. Republicans have been rewriting Reagan since the beginning, his ratings were very low when he left office and he was so stupid. I, speaking as a liberal, would like to see a fair system where everyone has the same chance to make it, education is number one.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | November 30, 2009 11:47 PM

worst thing is I don't think jobs have been created or saved by this government money shifting and might have like FDR spread out the pain of this economic set back rather then let it work itself out.

Oh, revisionist economic history, how I have missed you! Yes, when Roosevelt scaled back the New Deal because of conservatives, the result was the Recession of 1937. As I said in a previous post, Obama has done nothing to re-regulate the financial sector. Without re-regulation, we will see more frequent and more severe recessions.

To big to fail? More like to big to bail!

You have heard of The Great Depression, haven't you? The massive number of mergers in the financial sector has created entities that are so intricately woven into so much of the economy that their failure poses a huge risk of massive, global DEPRESSION! That you don't seem to accept this as the most likely outcome of letting these companies fail shows that you have no idea how the economy works.

Posted by: Levi in NY | December 1, 2009 12:38 AM

The Republican purity test is a reaction to the hubbub that occurred up here in New York's 23rd congressional district. The candidate chosen by the local Republican Party, Dede Scozzafava, was too reasonable for the teabagging crazies, so whackjob Doug Hoffman entered the race as the Conservative Party candidate, attracting endorsements from many prominent wingnuts like Sarah Palin and Glen Beck. They attracted enough donations to Hoffman and created enough attention for him that Scozzafava dropped out of the race and endorsed the Democrat, Bill Owens, who thankfully we elected by a small margin. He is the first Democrat to represent my county in over 130 years.

This purity test is the Republicans' way of trying to ensure that doesn't happen again. And it is also part of a wider trend of what I call the "Republican death spiral". The Bush years put off most of the nation's moderates, and gave conservatism a really, really bad name. As a consequence, the Republican Party shrank to its hardcore conservative base, losing a lot of moderate voters. Perhaps more importantly, they lost most of their moderates in Congress too, who were replaced by Democrats.

Now the Republican Party has to pander to its teabagging Limbaugh-listening base, and its remaining representatives in Congress are more than happy to do that. The rest of the country, however, is by and large put off by their ignorance and vitriol, as well as their record of governing. Electorally speaking, their purity test is a stunningly moronic move. If they follow through, they will almost certainly lose races by running wingnuts in places where moderates could win, or worse, they could end up creating intense intra-party conflict like we had here in upstate New York on a larger scale.

Posted by: Aquaria | December 1, 2009 2:38 AM

Well, I said it here, just a few days ago:

Exclusionary politics can work, but only for the short term and under rather narrow conditions; eventually, ideological purity drives out majorities of people, and results in the destruction of the political group that employs it.

The Republicans are a prime example. For decades, they've supported policies that de facto excluded ever more people until it's come back to bite them on the ass. The problem with exclusionary ideological groups is that they can't seem to stop bickering over who's one of 'em and who isn't.

And here comes a story like this to back me up...

Posted by: Walton | December 1, 2009 7:11 AM

If I were an American, I'd be fairly depressed about politics. The Republicans are rapidly becoming a joke party of religious wingnuts, and celebrating ignorance and stupidity. I can't see any viable GOP presidential candidate for 2012 who I could honestly support.

At the same time, Obama is taking America (and, to some extent, the world) in the wrong direction on several vital issues. Firstly, his stance on trade is utter bullshit. He listens far too much to the unions and the protectionist lobby. In the end, the only moral and economically efficient path is to move towards complete worldwide free trade, with unlimited movement of goods, capital and labour across national boundaries; I could never support a politician who doesn't wholeheartedly agree with this. Secondly, he's been pathetically weak on civil liberties, and has continued many of the abuses of the Bush era. And he's done nothing whatsoever for gay rights (his administration is even defending DOMA in the courts).

If I were American, I might have to shift my allegiance to the Libertarian Party. Unfortunately, they're entirely unelectable, and they also contain their fair share of idiots and wingnuts. It's embarrassing that Bob Barr (the author of DOMA) was their presidential candidate in 2008.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | December 1, 2009 8:15 AM

Walton,

You say this:

In the end, the only moral and economically efficient path is to move towards complete worldwide free trade, with unlimited movement of goods, capital and labour across national boundaries

But what I hear is this: "I'm crazy."

There is a labor glut on the global scale. Free trade is a sure route to destroying the middle and working classes in the entire developed world. The price of labor in countries like China and India is so low partially because their standards and costs of living are significantly lower than ours. Perhaps you meant "Fair Trade?" There are very few jobs that someone in India cannot do. Anything that doesn't require them to actually be physically present to interact with the consumer or the environment, basically. So, with your "free trade," you will have doctors and other medical personnel, service personnel, sample collectors, teachers, firefighters, police, construction crews, agriculture, etc. What you will not have are manufacturing including R&D, computer related fields, accountants, radiologists, and any other job that doesn't have to be done in the same physical space that the consumer or environment happen to occupy.

In the end, the result with be a very small, very wealthy overclass and a very large, very poor global underclass. That's what happens when you do nothing to regulate economies.

BTW what do you mean by economically efficient? The purpose of the economy is to sustain the lives of people in societies. That's it. The profit making and the job making and all of that is just icing on the cake. The economy is first and foremost the means of feeding, clothing, and housing the people. If it is failing to do this, the profits at corporations are irrelevant, the number of jobs created is irrelevant, the price of a share of Wal-mart is irrelevant. All of this is irrelevant if the economy is either not producing enough food to feed everyone or not distributing that food to everyone. Somewhere around 1 billion people went to bed hungry last night even though there's enough food produced to feed everyone. Even in the USA, the world's number one exporter of food, people went to bed hungry because the means of distribution prevent them from getting enough food. That's a big problem.

Posted by: Natalie | December 1, 2009 9:43 AM

To[o] big to fail? More like to[o] big to bail!

Considering that Madison ends their rant about Obama with this adorable little slogan, they have apparently forgotten that most of the bailouts happened... drumroll... during the Bush presidency.

Think about this for a second - Madison can't remember a pretty big detail (who was president) about something that happened just a little more than a year ago. And they're not alone.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | December 1, 2009 10:08 AM

Walton,

I don't think American jobs or British jobs should necessarily be protected if the playing field were level, but the severe economic straits of the developing world and the labor glut in many places means that a huge portion of people in the currently developed world would be unable to sustain their lives (even at a subsistence level) if global market forces were to determine labor prices. The end result of the policy you propose is a global class restructuring that would result, as I said before, in a very large, very poor underclass and a very small, very wealthy overclass.

Why should the market be allowed to dictate the price of labor? As I said before, the purpose of the economy is to manufacture and distribute the necessities of life to the population. A global free market system wouldn't do that. It would serve to impoverish even more people.

As for agricultural tariffs and subsidies, there are merits to arguments on both sides. However, many developing countries that have the capacity, in terms of arable land and available labor, to feed their populations don't manage to do that. One of the chief reasons for this is that the upper class controls the land resources and chooses to grow cash crops rather than food for the people. Ethiopia was exporting cash crops like cotton while food aid was being flown in from other countries during famine in order to feed millions of starving people. That's the result of free markets.

If I wanted to be really cold about it, I could simply say that many developing countries' populations have exceeded the carrying capacity of the land. Starvation is simply a natural means of controlling the population. Why should I care if people in other places (for instance, Las Vegas) can't grow enough food to feed themselves, or can't get enough water to support the population without major water transportation projects.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | December 1, 2009 11:25 AM

and the job should go to the worker who can do it best for the least money,

do it best for the least money.
do it best for the least money.

workers should be paid like shit, right Walton?

Fuck people trying to survive, it's all about the profits of the corporate owner. And you have the gall to call others morally bankrupt.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | December 1, 2009 11:50 AM

It's really scary to think there are people with real power who advocate just this thing because it will drive down labor prices all over the world.

And who can also get those with no power to go along with them. Welcome to the Republican Party! (And the corporatist Democratic Party!)

Posted by: Your Name's Not Bruce? | December 1, 2009 11:54 AM

A couple of quotes from socialist president Eisenhower:

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

"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. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron."

And his warning against the military-industrial complex goes without saying. Where did Republicans like this go? I'd rather have a sane Republican party than the pack of lunatics they have now.

Posted by: Walton | December 1, 2009 12:36 PM

Of course the economy is about profits! There is no minimal value for someone's labor. If you're willing to plow my field for $1.00/hr. because you're starving and the $12.00 you could make today will keep your child from dying, though you won't be able to provide health care, shelter, or clothing, I should be able to hire you for that much even if it means that over-all labor prices drop so that everyone who works at plowing fields is making $1.00/hr and they're all now desperately poor. Next thing you know, some desperately poor guy will come along, and be willing to plow my field for $.95/hr, and he's willing to work 13 hrs/day instead of only 12. Look at all the money I'll save, and he does it just as well as you only faster!

OK. So let's say you're employed to plough a field for 12 hours a day at $1.00/hour. Then a well-meaning leftist government comes to power and mandates that every farm worker must be paid at least $4.00/hour. Your employer, faced with higher wage bills, may well decide it's no longer worth his while to employ you, and lay you off - leaving you unemployed and starving.

You're correct that there is no inherent minimum value to someone's labour. But there is a maximum value to someone's labour; if the cost of your wages to the employer exceeds the amount of profit he makes from your labour, then he will fire you, because it's no longer profitable for him to employ you.

You say that you don't want the global market to decide the cost of labour. So who should be deciding the cost of labour? The government? If so, how do you propose to force employers to hire people at the wage rates you think are appropriate? In the real world, you can't just magically provide everyone with a fair wage by legislative decree. People will only produce stuff, and employ others to produce stuff, if it's profitable for them to do so. Take away the profit motive, and you plunge the entire world into abject poverty.

Posted by: Desert Son, OM | December 1, 2009 1:13 PM

Your Name's Not Bruce?,

Where did Republicans like this go?

I think the last one was . . . Eisenhower.

Of course, Eisenhower was also the President during the administration that ok'd the CIA (in league with Britain's MI6) to help overthrow the popularly elected Prime Minister of Iran and replace him with the Shah.

I have a lot of admiration for Eisenhower on a number of fronts, but that was a bad, bad move in a lot of ways, with far reaching implications for that and other regions of the world.

Still learning,

Robert

Posted by: phantomreader42 | December 1, 2009 1:39 PM

jojame @ #80:

Yet none of those statistics relate to healthcare.

The statistics jojame made that remark about:

UNICEF index of child well-being: 19/22
percentage of people with mental illnesses: 12/12
illegal drug use: 19/22
life expectancy: 20/23
obesity and childhood obesity: 22/22
Math and literacy scores of 15 year olds: 17/22
teenage birth rates: 21/21
homicide rates: 23/23
imprisonment rates: 23/23

So, in jojame's delusions, mental illness, life expectancy, and obesity have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with healthcare!? Really, MENTAL ILLNESS has no relevance to healthcare at all? What color is the sky on this nut's planet?

Jojame is incapable of comprehending the English language. There is no hope of ever reaching this nutcase.

Though I guess since jojame is so proud of his own mental illness, it's not surprising that he is incapable of recognizing mental illness as a health problem.

Posted by: phantomreader42 | December 1, 2009 1:44 PM

Natalie @ #105:

Think about this for a second - Madison can't remember a pretty big detail (who was president) about something that happened just a little more than a year ago. And they're not alone.

Well, Faux Noise channel seems to have forgotten some pretty big details of recent history too. Apparently there was not a single terrorist attack in the US from January 20, 2001 to 2009. Yep, 9/11 never happened, nor all those anthrax attacks, the D.C. sniper, nope none of that was real, all hallucinations brought on by a vast socialist conspiracy to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.

Posted by: Nominal Egg | December 1, 2009 3:26 PM

OK. So let's say you're employed to plough a field for 12 hours a day at $1.00/hour. Then a well-meaning leftist government comes to power and mandates that every farm worker must be paid at least $4.00/hour. Your employer, faced with higher wage bills, may well decide it's no longer worth his while to employ you, and lay you off - leaving you unemployed and starving.

And leaving you with no one to plow your fucking field. Why fire someone if you're just going to have to replace them with someone else at the same rate? Or are you going to change the game by proposing the hypothetical farmhand is part of an oversized team of farmhands?

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | December 1, 2009 5:09 PM

OK. So let's say you're employed to plough a field for 12 hours a day at $1.00/hour. Then a well-meaning leftist government comes to power and mandates that every farm worker must be paid at least $4.00/hour. Your employer, faced with higher wage bills, may well decide it's no longer worth his while to employ you, and lay you off - leaving you unemployed and starving.

except of course that is rarely the case, since profit margins in these situations are never that small. that's a libertarian myth, nothing more.

however, I agree that there is such a thing as maximum value for labor; and the labor of a CEO is NOT in the multimillion dollar range, despite what they'd like to believe. universal caps on management wages would do more to increase profit margins for companies than abolishing the minimum wage would.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | December 1, 2009 6:27 PM

I wonder how many libertarians have ever experienced extended periods of rank poverty without a social safety net.

Posted by: jdhuey | December 1, 2009 6:37 PM

Walton @124

"jdhuey: I don't want a "world government"; that's a caricature of my position."

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that that was your position. It is simply my position that the type of economic globalization you seem to be advocating would only be practical/desirable only if there was such a 'world government'. The type of economic policies you are advocating would probably result in much greater economic efficiencies but much greater social risks. I think we are better off maintaining a system that, while economically sub-optimal, is systemically more robust.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | December 1, 2009 6:43 PM

But what minimum wage legislation can't do is force employers to hire workers.

and yet, they get hired.

also, for the umpteenth time: most of the industrialized world (and large chunks of the developing world) doesn't need more jobs, merely better paid ones. and that's precisely what minimum wages do.

Posted by: Bobber | December 1, 2009 6:53 PM

Pygmy Loris said:

Certainly there is a minimum value for someone's labor: food, clothing and shelter. No one should ever be forced to labor for less than what the necessities of life cost. If you cannot pay employees that much, then your business is not actually profitable. It costs society more than it contributes.

One of the reasons I read through Pharyngula is to obtain wonderful comments to steal for my own (not really nefarious) purposes. This is an excellent way to approach the subject of wages.

(Steal, steal, steal...)

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | December 1, 2009 7:03 PM

Bobber,

Steal away :)

Posted by: Walton | December 1, 2009 7:22 PM

also, for the umpteenth time: most of the industrialized world (and large chunks of the developing world) doesn't need more jobs, merely better paid ones.

But what about those workers who don't have the skills to get a well-paid job? Are you happy for them to be relegated to lifelong unemployment? If more people have to take welfare, and fewer people are paying taxes, where's the money going to come from to cover higher public spending?

The job market is bad at the moment. I myself am going to struggle to find a job after I graduate next summer. So I would argue that we do, fairly urgently, need more jobs. It would be nice, in theory, if everyone could have a well-paid and fulfilling job. But in a world of 6 billion people (and more being produced all the time) and limited resources, it isn't going to happen.*

*I'm personally doing my best to ameliorate this situation, by pledging to refrain from having children. Unfortunately, too few other people share my socially-responsible stance on this issue.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | December 1, 2009 7:34 PM

What happens when an unskilled laborer can get more money from welfare than they can from working because unregulated wages have dropped precipitously?

The inherent goodness of the capitalist class will overtake their profit orientation? After all, no more nation-state and no governance other than enforcing contracts. So, dependence on the goodness of Rupert Murdoch.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | December 1, 2009 7:54 PM

Or perhaps indentured servitude will make a big comeback outside the illegal immigration trade.

Posted by: Walton | December 1, 2009 8:07 PM

MAJeff: I don't advocate "getting rid of the nation-state", nor do I advocate abolishing all governance beyond the enforcement of contracts. I am not an anarchocapitalist. And as I've made clear, I'm also not a hardcore Nozickian libertarian.

I just happen to be generally pro-immigration and pro-free trade, because I would argue that a person's rights and opportunities shouldn't be decided by his or her nationality of birth, and that mutually beneficial commerce shouldn't be arbitrarily limited by national boundaries. Is that such an evil position to take?

Posted by: Walton | December 1, 2009 9:18 PM

In either case, society doesn't need you, and you are a drain on it.

Whether society "needs" anyone is of no concern whatsoever. "Society" is not a person's master; individuals do not exist to serve their communities. Rather, the freedom of individual human beings to pursue their own happiness is a moral end in itself.

If person A manufactures and sells a product, and person B wants to buy it, then both benefit from the transaction. If persons C, D and E are unemployed, and A hires them, then they, too, benefit from the transaction. This is true ex hypothesi; if C, D and E did not prefer working for A to being unemployed, they would not have taken the job.

But let's say you are elected to legislative office, and you enact a law which requires C, D and E to be paid double their current wage. A can't afford to pay the higher rate, so he is forced to shut down his business. C, D and E lose their jobs, and return to being unemployed. B is no longer able to buy the product he wants. Everybody loses.

You may well say that, if C, D and E are guaranteed to get generous welfare payments while unemployed, it shouldn't matter too much. But then, with A and his fellow entrepreneurs going out of business, who pays the taxes to fund the growing welfare budget?

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | December 1, 2009 10:12 PM

Walton,

You're missing the point completely. If A can't sell his product for enough money to pay C, D, and E a wage that will cover the basic expenses of life, then A's product is not worthwhile to produce. Just because A can produce a product that B will buy at price less than or equal to x doesn't mean that the product is worth producing. C, D, and E would be better served by the closure of A's business so that other businesses that make products for which people are willing to pay enough to cover the real cost of the product (i.e. providing a living wage to C, D, and E) can open their doors.

There is no real point in producing crap that won't sell well enough to provide the workers with a living wage except to force wages down and to gratify consumers' desires to buy cheap stuff. That cheap stuff sucks up resources like raw materials and energy that could be better spent providing jobs that result in living wages for employees. Unfortunately, for reasons I have repeatedly pointed out, in an unregulated labor market, there are always people willing to work for less. C, D, and E may have children at home who are hungry or perhaps they have no home at all and will work for very little just so they can eat ramen noodles instead of going hungry. This is an essentially never ending spiral where the bottom wage simply gets lower and lower, which depresses wages farther up the spectrum. End result: a very small, very wealthy overclass and a very large, very poor underlass.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | December 1, 2009 10:17 PM

I can't believe you wrote this, Walton. You're supposed to be intelligent*.

*citation needed.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | December 1, 2009 11:50 PM

But what about those workers who don't have the skills to get a well-paid job? Are you happy for them to be relegated to lifelong unemployment? If more people have to take welfare, and fewer people are paying taxes, where's the money going to come from to cover higher public spending?

Oh for fucks sake.

Walton, have you ever actually met a person who is so unskilled/inept that they suck at all possible jobs? That' snot a rhetorical question, they really do exist. and they're fucking miserable to be forced into the cycle of looking for work --> finding work --> getting fired from work --> looking for work. Allowing these people not to work, even at a higher initial cost, benefits everyone (if only because it just might prevent these people from hanging themselves; just sayin'), including the businesses who lose a lot of money over having these utterly unskilled individuals cycle through their businesses. And, hell, maybe some of these individuals lack marketable skills, but are good at other things that aren't measured in money.

And as for the rest of "unskilled labor"... has it ever occurred to you that these people wouldn't be unskilled if their parents/spouses made enough money for them to be able to postpone entering the work-force and acquire the skills that are needed?
you do know that most places in the industrial world have, for example, a severe nurse shortage?

I repeat once more; more jobs are not necessary (oh and btw, I guarantee you you could find a job, just not the sort you'd like to do); imagine if income to living expenses ratio returned to the point where most people could support a family on a single income (or, similarly, have single people or working couples be able to work half-time and still make a living); the need for jobs would instantly halve, while at the same time freeing people non-job related activities, like volunteering for example. In the U.S., the need for jobs would drop off even more dramatically, what with at least 5% of the population working more than one job, old people who can't retire holding jobs until they drop dead, students having to have jobs while going to school, etc. None of those jobs would be needed any longer if the jobs that remained were significantly better paid.

Posted by: Carlie | December 2, 2009 8:20 AM

But substantially increasing the minimum wage would be a bad idea, for clear economic reasons.

That's been said every single time the minimum wage has been raised. And every single time, economic calamity has failed to follow.

Posted by: Lynna | December 2, 2009 10:31 AM

I posted this on the endless thread, but it really belongs here.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/12/leaving-the-right.html

But there has to come a point at which a movement or party so abandons core principles or degenerates into such a rhetorical septic system that you have to take a stand.

Right you are, Mr. Sullivan.
Sullivan linked to another blog that detailed why another conservative was running away from his more fanatical brethren. Maybe the Republican Party won't have to bother with that purity test. There will be no impure (translation: no thinking) members of the party left. Here's Charles Johnson's manifesto:

Why I Parted Ways With The Right
OPINION | Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:49:45 pm PST
1. Support for fascists, both in America (see: Pat Buchanan, Robert Stacy McCain, etc.) and in Europe (see: Vlaams Belang, BNP, SIOE, Pat Buchanan, etc.)
2. Support for bigotry, hatred, and white supremacism (see: Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Robert Stacy McCain, Lew Rockwell, etc.)
3. Support for throwing women back into the Dark Ages, and general religious fanaticism (see: Operation Rescue, anti-abortion groups, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, the entire religious right, etc.)
4. Support for anti-science bad craziness (see: creationism, climate change denialism, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, James Inhofe, etc.)
5. Support for homophobic bigotry (see: Sarah Palin, Dobson, the entire religious right, etc.)
6. Support for anti-government lunacy (see: tea parties, militias, Fox News, Glenn Beck, etc.)7. Support for conspiracy theories and hate speech (see: Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Birthers, creationists, climate deniers, etc.)
8. A right-wing blogosphere that is almost universally dominated by raging hate speech (see: Hot Air, Free Republic, Ace of Spades, etc.)
9. Anti-Islamic bigotry that goes far beyond simply criticizing radical Islam, into support for fascism, violence, and genocide (see: Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, etc.)
10. Hatred for President Obama that goes far beyond simply criticizing his policies, into racism, hate speech, and bizarre conspiracy theories (see: witch doctor pictures, tea parties, Birthers, Michelle Malkin, Fox News, World Net Daily, Newsmax, and every other right wing source)
And much, much more. The American right wing has gone off the rails, into the bushes, and off the cliff.
I won’t be going over the cliff with them.

Among Andrew Sullivan's many reasons for "Leaving the Right" are:

I cannot support a movement that holds that purely religious doctrine should govern civil political decisions and that uses the sacredness of religious faith for the pursuit of worldly power.
I cannot support a movement that is deeply homophobic, cynically deploys fear of homosexuals to win votes, and gives off such a racist vibe that its share of the minority vote remains pitiful.
I cannot support a movement that does not accept evolution as a fact.
I cannot support a movement that sees climate change as a hoax and offers domestic oil exploration as the core plank of an energy policy....
I cannot support a movement that refuses to distance itself from a demagogue like Rush Limbaugh or a nutjob like Glenn Beck.

It seems to me that David Marjanović called this one. Our Prophet of the diminishment of the Far Right, David Marjanović.

Posted by: jdhuey | December 2, 2009 12:51 PM

I find it strange that so many people here talking about economics seem not to have taken Econ 101 (or perhaps they were texting during the lecture on production functions. When the price of labor goes up (either market driven or by fiat) then there is relative shift toward using Capital to produce goods and services (the farmer buys a tractor rather pay a laborer to plow the field). The laborer now finds that in order to gain employment at the higher rate she has to make her service more valuable by becoming more skilled (i.e. increase in human capital)and goes to work in the factory that produces the tractors.

These types of changes are not necessarily pleasant nor always make society 'better' but they can and do happen when you have a robust flexible economy. The type of dire catastrophic consequences that Walton describes can happen but only in a fragile inflexible economy.