tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10563856.post8881908971520142264..comments2023-10-23T11:10:05.945-04:00Comments on Karen Duncan: Life in the Time of Coronavirus: Free Market Myths and Other Republican LiesKaren Duncanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13954405672195734097noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10563856.post-73325108057490525972008-02-13T08:44:00.000-05:002008-02-13T08:44:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10563856.post-84749779886324046602008-01-24T09:08:00.000-05:002008-01-24T09:08:00.000-05:00Thank you Demon Princess for that very well writte...Thank you Demon Princess for that very well written comment.<BR/><BR/>You are right, especially about the fact that the debate has been oversimplified. It's not an either or - "free markets vs socialism."<BR/><BR/>Ironically, when some people criticize Barak Obama for his remarks about Ronald Reagan, they miss his main point. Historically, Obama was correct in what he said.<BR/><BR/>For good or ill, Reagan did change the terms of the debate on the economy and every analysis and every solution proposed since the so-called Reagan Revolution has been couched in terms of free markets and supply side philosophy.<BR/><BR/>The only solutions to economic slowdowns seem to include tax cuts and rebates, regardless of what that does to the national debt or the budget deficit.<BR/><BR/>Nobody has come up with true new ideas that challenge an orthodoxy that has been proved, by evidence on the ground, to not work.<BR/><BR/>The last truly transformative Democratic presidents who came up with progressive ideas, which had a resounding affect on the national discussion, were FDR, with the New Deal, and Lyndon Johnson, with the Great Society.<BR/><BR/>Their ideas worked for a while and then did need reform for reasons too complicated to get into here.<BR/><BR/>But their economic philosophy was successful for far longer and with less harm to working people than Reagan's supply side revolution.Karen Duncanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13954405672195734097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10563856.post-79087774126005227642008-01-23T17:48:00.000-05:002008-01-23T17:48:00.000-05:00Excellent post! Stumbled across it on Tailrank's a...Excellent post! Stumbled across it on Tailrank's aggegrator.<BR/><BR/>Dogood, your observation that the housing bubble is just going through a natural adjustment is well taken, but I think the broader economy is also suffering from all the other factors brought up in this post--it's been a "CEO's boom," & the factors that have driven it are not going away anytime soon. Note that the CEO of Countrywide Mortgage is doing more than fine, thank you, while the subprime mess he made is everybody else's problem. Bush's new "shot in the arm" solution is more "luntatics in charge of the asylum" voodoo economics --last seen in the neocon tax cuts of '03. We, as a country can't keep doing this. It's not a case of "socialism" v. "free market economies"--that simplification obscures the dynamics at work here.<BR/><BR/>The fact is that Americans need good jobs with benefits, a middle class, here in the U.S. And responsible CEO's who recognize this will not NEED to be regulated. The middle class as I knew it growing up would certainly be surprised to hear they've been the beneficiaries of "socialism." You use the word too broadly. Most Americans just want to be treated fairly at work--a tiny fraction of the cost of CEOs' pay--don't you? It is HORRIBLY lopsided & out of whack right now, & Bush's proposals will make it more so. <BR/><BR/>While we haven't been paying attention, EVERY US function in the US has been viewed as another opportunity to starve EVERY system we've come to rely upon as an opportunity for privatization (as above).<BR/><BR/>I particularly wanted to compliment the author for recognizing that the information we've been fed about the economy for so long is skewed. Unemployment figures are not correct indicators. Nor, for that matter, are the numbers of people who go hungry. Boy George has been playing semantic games with us by defining those problems out of existence on paper--who cares if they're about real people struggling, trying to play by the rules as once we knew them. It's been going on so long now that only now that it's beconme a full-blown crisis can we see the full implications of it, & how deeply a bankrupt economic policy has sunk us.Demon Princesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05912777709540411298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10563856.post-5139047190170444642008-01-22T11:00:00.000-05:002008-01-22T11:00:00.000-05:00Thanks for the insightful post. I really enjoyed ...Thanks for the insightful post. I really enjoyed reading it this morning while I was sipping a cool, crisp and refreshing Coca Cola.<BR/><BR/>Haha, just kidding about the product placement. ;)<BR/><BR/>My main problem with the free-market theories of the Reagan conservatives is that it's not actually about free markets so much as it's about the preservation of the holy Status Quo. The underlying philosophy is that since the status quo emerged from the market, it must be good and preserved at all costs. So we love the free market when it's growing, but when it goes through a natural cooling period to readjust and move in a new direction, we freak out and immediately jump in to try and stop it from fixing itself.<BR/><BR/>The latest and greatest example is the housing market. We were all for not regulating subprime lending practices while money was flooding into the market and the value of existing realestate kept skyrocketing. But as soon as the market tried to readjust and assert a lower real market value on property, well, oh noes, that's not good. We bought these homes as an investment, and no one wants to sell for a loss.<BR/><BR/>...except it is good. It would be great if property values were lower again. It would mean that more people could afford a piece of the American Dream without having to sell his kidneys or take out one of the free-money adjustable rate subprime loans that caused this mess in the first place. We don't have to let at-risk homeowners go homeless, but if we helped them through this transition period while allowing the market to readjust, existing homesales would actually pick up again. Indeed, the people facing eviction right now who NEED cheaper housing would able to find it if the realestate market at large was allowed to revalue. Cost of living would go down. Consumer confidence would go back up. And we'd actually be better off in the long run.<BR/><BR/>I'm probably more economically conservative than some people (I sort of came to accept that, being a Democrat and all) but I think we all can agree, or at least should agree, that the question at it's heart isn't Socialism versus Reaganomics. In my opinion, the real question is how and in what manner the government should promote the public good by giving people the tools they need to endure cooling market cycles and thrive during growth cycles. In other words, rather than preserving a status quo, how best can we invest in ourselves to promote future economic growth?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10563856.post-30947431551656593452008-01-22T09:34:00.000-05:002008-01-22T09:34:00.000-05:00Note: The comment above, which I deleted, was an ...Note: The comment above, which I deleted, was an advertisement from somebody from a payday loan company.<BR/><BR/>Two points: 1)I don't accept advertisements on my blog and I'm certainly not going to allow somebody free advertisement by posting a comment with a link to a commercial site; and 2)I do not in any way support the payday loan industry. In fact, I support legislation to regulate them better. So I'm certainly not going to allow somebody to use my site to advertise what I consider to be legalized usury.<BR/><BR/>Please rest assured, all legitimate comments are welcome and I don't ever delete comments just because I disagree with you.<BR/><BR/>I just answer back :)Karen Duncanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13954405672195734097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10563856.post-31172054942620865342008-01-21T23:57:00.000-05:002008-01-21T23:57:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com