Ouyangwulong, this goes directly to some of my past points regarding corporate totalitarianism. I have posted many clips about how stunned I am by some of the actions taken over the past few years by this administration. So many actions are obvioulsy intended to make the problems worse. They continue to decrease the cost of money in the midst of a credit crisis? How would you explain that? It is as if it is intentional. There can be no other explanation. You cannot contribute it to ignorance. That is too easy. Think about it. This is all intentional.

I believe there is an effort to kill the dollar by the Neocons. Call me a conspiracy theorist all you want. No one can be as inept as the B...

Ouyangwulong, this goes directly to some of my past points regarding corporate totalitarianism. I have posted many clips about how stunned I am by some of the actions taken over the past few years by this administration. So many actions are obvioulsy intended to make the problems worse. They continue to decrease the cost of money in the midst of a credit crisis? How would you explain that? It is as if it is intentional. There can be no other explanation. You cannot contribute it to ignorance. That is too easy. Think about it. This is all intentional.

I believe there is an effort to kill the dollar by the Neocons. Call me a conspiracy theorist all you want. No one can be as inept as the Bush administration appears to be. It is as if they would accept that characterization. You think it is really plausible to assume this is all about incompetence?

Well, Willhelm, that's exactly the alarming underlying point. I don't actually blame the GOP or Conservative ideology for Bush's agenda and its results. (Because clearly there is very little connection between this surreal disaster and the ideals of ANY legitimate political party.)

A free market is a delicate balance of mutual rights and responsibilities, and it's the government's job to make sure everyone plays fairly.

Bush hasn't actually maintained a free market, but instead has intervened on behalf of corporations against the interests of individuals. By removing normal regulatory oversight and arguing against "intervention" he has sheltered corporations that seek profit through unscru...

Well, Willhelm, that's exactly the alarming underlying point. I don't actually blame the GOP or Conservative ideology for Bush's agenda and its results. (Because clearly there is very little connection between this surreal disaster and the ideals of ANY legitimate political party.)

A free market is a delicate balance of mutual rights and responsibilities, and it's the government's job to make sure everyone plays fairly.

Bush hasn't actually maintained a free market, but instead has intervened on behalf of corporations against the interests of individuals. By removing normal regulatory oversight and arguing against "intervention" he has sheltered corporations that seek profit through unscrupulous shortcuts.

This capricious economic opportunism has, in the end, weakened companies and devastated the economy. Allowing predatory lending based on a housing bubble was anti-free market. Allowing Enron to manipulate energy markets was anti-free market.

As F.A. Hayek pointed out in his later work, an economy manipulated by corporations is no more free than one manipulated by the government. Even if the temporary beneficiaries of such a system tell us there is nothing to worry about...

And I'll meet you more than half way in saying that Clinton's wonder economy of the 90s was also more than just a little bit bubble. I think this is reflecting a continuing trend of encouraging corporate practices that make companies look good on paper, even if that isn't actually helping the market.

The collapse of the tech bubble under Clinton is certainly analogous to the collapse of the mortgage and housing bubble under Bush. I don't believe Clinton's economic theory was any more sound than Bush's.

The reason Bush has done more damage to the economy than Clinton is simply because he was a bigger deficit spender. Although Clinton encouraged a roaring bubble economy, which was a bad ide...

And I'll meet you more than half way in saying that Clinton's wonder economy of the 90s was also more than just a little bit bubble. I think this is reflecting a continuing trend of encouraging corporate practices that make companies look good on paper, even if that isn't actually helping the market.

The collapse of the tech bubble under Clinton is certainly analogous to the collapse of the mortgage and housing bubble under Bush. I don't believe Clinton's economic theory was any more sound than Bush's.

The reason Bush has done more damage to the economy than Clinton is simply because he was a bigger deficit spender. Although Clinton encouraged a roaring bubble economy, which was a bad idea, he kept the government to a more or less balanced budget, so when the bubble burst we didn't have to face a de facto national bankruptcy.

This has inspired me to suggest a brief history of Totalitarian Economics...

I.
The Age of Kings.
or "It ain't bad when you're on top!"

This was a simple time when one ruler by divine right simply owned everything. Not satisfactory for most people who weren't kings, this era generally came to a close with heads on sticks.

Fortunately, from the enlightenment, Adam Smith got a bright idea with the "free market" - id est, a market not controlled by anyone.

II.
The Age of Robber Barons.
or "Let them Eat Coal"

But it's tough to control the world in a free market, so the elites came up with a new strategy. Without Kings to get in the way, a few businessmen manged to get control of just about ...

This has inspired me to suggest a brief history of Totalitarian Economics...

I.
The Age of Kings.
or "It ain't bad when you're on top!"

This was a simple time when one ruler by divine right simply owned everything. Not satisfactory for most people who weren't kings, this era generally came to a close with heads on sticks.

Fortunately, from the enlightenment, Adam Smith got a bright idea with the "free market" - id est, a market not controlled by anyone.

II.
The Age of Robber Barons.
or "Let them Eat Coal"

But it's tough to control the world in a free market, so the elites came up with a new strategy. Without Kings to get in the way, a few businessmen manged to get control of just about everything in the country, and then force everyone else to do business on their terms. Worse than class warfare, this era produced unreadably smug Upton Sinclair novels. (Not to mention the creepy and possibly pederastic books of Horatio Alger...)

Fortunately, the government got control of this and put an end to unfair monopolies, by regulating the economy so nobody gets too much power, except, of course, the government...

III.
The Age of Socialism
or "Comrade, why are you more equal than me?"

Of course, this wasn't the last we'd seen of the economic elites. They just changed horses. When the government usurped the power of the Robber Barons, the Robber Barons simply joined the government, and used its power to favor themselves.

This was the era of great state-granted monopolies and economic projects from the New Deal. The idea is that by making myself ridiculously rich paying hungry Okaies $1 a day I am also making my country better.

Not particularly a new idea, and not a particularly good deal either. Sure we got out of the depression, but it laid a philosophical groundwork for the excesses of today.

IV.
The Age of the Military Industrial Complex
or "The Bay of [REDACTED] Cluster-F[REDACTED]"

After the Second World [REDACTED], the rise of the Soviet [REDACTED], parntered with the Red Paranioa agitated by Senator [REDACTED] inspired a corrupt bargain between [REDACTED] industries and the Federal [REDACTED] using officers of the Central [REDACTED] Agency. This eventually forced them to [REDACT] President [REDACTED] in 19[REDACTED]. This continued until the mind 198[REDACTED]'s with the [REDACTED] administration, and the devastating exposure of the Iran-[REDACTED] Controversy.

{Editor's Note: I could tell you what really happend, but then I'd have to REDACT you.}

IV.
The Age of More King...

IV.
The Age of the Military Industrial Complex
or "The Bay of [REDACTED] Cluster-F[REDACTED]"

After the Second World [REDACTED], the rise of the Soviet [REDACTED], parntered with the Red Paranioa agitated by Senator [REDACTED] inspired a corrupt bargain between [REDACTED] industries and the Federal [REDACTED] using officers of the Central [REDACTED] Agency. This eventually forced them to [REDACT] President [REDACTED] in 19[REDACTED]. This continued until the mind 198[REDACTED]'s with the [REDACTED] administration, and the devastating exposure of the Iran-[REDACTED] Controversy.

{Editor's Note: I could tell you what really happend, but then I'd have to REDACT you.}

IV.
The Age of More Kings and Robber Barons
or "All that was old is new again!"

Since the end of the cold war, there has been no centralizing cause through which to effectively intimidate people into submission, so instead the now firmly entrenched elites have perused a new strategy. They have sought influence over popular opinion by insisting that their profiteering constitutes some sort of "economic progress." (pssst, it doesn't!)

I believe the logic is that as long as SOMEBODY is getting rich, then our economy is doing great. And if that somebody happens to be me an not you, that's just extreemly convenient...

Thus both Clinton and Bush administrations trumpeted the over performance of certain sectors of the economy, while encouraging wild spending by consumers to keep the economy afloat. (Check out credit card debt statistics since the birth of Trickle Down Economics, and you'll see where it is really all trickling!)

This is uniquely influenced by democracy, where each party seems to know it's got 8 good years max. Thus Democrats and Republicans have all played the game of trying to keep their economic bubbles inflated just long enough to let it burst all over the next guy's administration.

Not that all Republicans believe in this ideology but there is a strong
undercurrent of 'the best government is no government' within the GOP.

It would be correct to say Republican ( of which I do not consider myself by the way) in regard to policy lean toward
1. policies that protect personsal liberty
2. policies requiring the least amount of government intervention or regulation are favorable.
3. policies supporting market-based incentives are best.

This is an example of the results of no government yet none of those espousing such are taking any claim for it.

First, What is an example of "the results of no government"? and
Second, what particular policie...

Not that all Republicans believe in this ideology but there is a strong
undercurrent of 'the best government is no government' within the GOP.

It would be correct to say Republican ( of which I do not consider myself by the way) in regard to policy lean toward
1. policies that protect personsal liberty
2. policies requiring the least amount of government intervention or regulation are favorable.
3. policies supporting market-based incentives are best.

This is an example of the results of no government yet none of those espousing such are taking any claim for it.

First, What is an example of "the results of no government"? and
Second, what particular policies are you speaking about when you say "this is an example of the results of no government?

Because clearly there is very little connection between this surreal disaster and the ideals of ANY legitimate political party

I agree with this 100%. The impact of a particular party on this potential economic crisis is one of government incompetence, and in that includes, Republicans, Democrats, and the electorate. If what we are facing is as big as some predict, then it is not about political ideology, it is about debt reaching the point that most of the World looks at America and says "wait a minute", let's do the math here.

Kmcolo, I think "some" is the operative phrase in the term "some republicans."

The thing is that there are also some republicans who want the police-state to control every aspect of our lives in the interest of "national security" (uh, I mean, conformity.)

The thing seems to be that the ideological foundations have little to no bearing on the current political parties, both Democrat and Republican. They seem to be aligned along lines of material interest, not ideological commonality.

I would blame the members of the GOP for drinking the cool-aide and going along with Bush's insanity. But I don't blame "conservative" ideology.

Bush's beliefs seem best described as "no government" when tha...

Kmcolo, I think "some" is the operative phrase in the term "some republicans."

The thing is that there are also some republicans who want the police-state to control every aspect of our lives in the interest of "national security" (uh, I mean, conformity.)

The thing seems to be that the ideological foundations have little to no bearing on the current political parties, both Democrat and Republican. They seem to be aligned along lines of material interest, not ideological commonality.

I would blame the members of the GOP for drinking the cool-aide and going along with Bush's insanity. But I don't blame "conservative" ideology.

Bush's beliefs seem best described as "no government" when that lets him get away with things, and "big government" when it helps me or my friends. This is not, in fact, ideology, but a particularly barbaric sort of convenience.