My old Perfesser - to Fiddler's green

[SloopJonB]

Markets DO self regulate. The problem is the extreme "violence" they do it with. Most economic policy is an attempt to moderate the effects of the "natural" processes.

[kdh]

...the US will be forced to reduce its deficit spending.

Beau, government borrowing is borrowing from future generations--our kids and grandkids. The US debt currently stands at $200,000 per citizen under the age of 18.

[Jamie]

Regarding Greenspan, I couldn't agree more that is admission of an error was astounding for someone in his position. I too believe that markets would self-regulate better than they did, indeed I still can't quite figure out why the don't. There is clear evidence of a fundamental irrationality about markets that doesn't seem to be reflected in the literature anywhere

To echo sloop, they do...eventually and if the problem is ignored long enough, very abruptly. I was getting my degree at the time. All these issues, off balance sheet vehicles, asset backed securities were openly discussed by students and professors as potential time bombs...many knew it was coming but it was too lucrative to say "no". They all graduated and went and did the things they disavowed.

The Federal debt: I can still remember discussions about how we were going to price things if certain classes of treasuries disappeared. That was only 13 years ago.

What is really shocking to me is how I started out a bit to the Right politically, but find now that I've become far Left without changing my views!

[Orestes Munn]

What is really shocking to me is how I started out a bit to the Right politically, but find now that I've become far Left without changing my views!

I have moved considerably to the right, since my youth…to about the same place.

[LarryHoward]

What is really shocking to me is how I started out a bit to the Right politically, but find now that I've become far Left without changing my views!

I have moved considerably to the right, since my youth…to about the same place.

I thought I was very far right until I met some folks who would be well places in a militia setting. Let's just say that I've always been fiscally conservative and socially liberal and leave it at that.

[kimbottles]

What is really shocking to me is how I started out a bit to the Right politically, but find now that I've become far Left without changing my views!

I have moved considerably to the right, since my youth…to about the same place.

I thought I was very far right until I met some folks who would be well places in a militia setting. Let's just say that I've always been fiscally conservative and socially liberal and leave it at that.

I am fiscally conservative and a social moderate. I have always considered that stance to be middle of the road, but now it is hard to figure out where I am compared to the landscape. Neither party is appealing to me, but they together seem to have locked out the possibility of any additional political parties.

[kdh]

Let's just say that I've always been fiscally conservative and socially liberal and leave it at that.

I am fiscally conservative and a social moderate. I have always considered that stance to be middle of the road, but now it is hard to figure out where I am compared to the landscape. Neither party is appealing to me, but they together seem to have locked out the possibility of any additional political parties.

Otherwise known as "Massachusetts conservative," Mitt Romney notwithstanding, whose views just seemed to go wherever votes would be maximized.

We seem to have replaced "liberal" and "conservative" with "blue" vs "red." These, unfortunately, are correlated with "rich" vs not, "educated" vs not, "privileged" vs not.

No value judgment here, just the correlations.

I think it would be great to get away from the divisiveness and closer, as Eric mentioned earlier, to the big questions--governments' role in our lives, the place for regulation, a tax structure that creates good incentives, using public policy to help those who need it.

[SloopJonB]

Unfortunately, "liberal" in the States seems to have become the new all purpose pejorative - much like "Commie" was in my youth.

Although I didn't much care for him, I must admit I had to feel a bit sorry for Romney when he was in the primaries - the one track loonies in the Rep party had gained such a grip on it that if he took ANY kind of stand it would have pissed off one faction or another. The result was that he had to do a Tim Allen and "have no opinion" on anything but being rich.

It's interesting - the people here seem to be generally pretty high powered, educated and accomplished - more so on average that some of the other sites. That would lead one to expect a somewhat conservative bent to these discussions but the opposite appears to be true. On other sites, particularly "The Sewer" on SN, the hardest core right wingers generally seem to be not particularly accomplished.

[Orestes Munn]

Let's just say that I've always been fiscally conservative and socially liberal and leave it at that.

I am fiscally conservative and a social moderate. I have always considered that stance to be middle of the road, but now it is hard to figure out where I am compared to the landscape. Neither party is appealing to me, but they together seem to have locked out the possibility of any additional political parties.

Otherwise known as "Massachusetts conservative," Mitt Romney notwithstanding, whose views just seemed to go wherever votes would be maximized.

We seem to have replaced "liberal" and "conservative" with "blue" vs "red." These, unfortunately, are correlated with "rich" vs not, "educated" vs not, "privileged" vs not.

No value judgment here, just the correlations.

I think it would be great to get away from the divisiveness and closer, as Eric mentioned earlier, to the big questions--governments' role in our lives, the place for regulation, a tax structure that creates good incentives, using public policy to help those who need it.

I agree and it would also be nice if our politics were more about balancing real liberal and conservative ideas, rather than money grabs and flat-earth posturing from both sides, but my reading leads me to conclude that it was, more or less, ever thus.

Incidentally, liberal that I am, there are areas where I would happily settle for a conservative solution. For example, in health care, where I would prefer a single payer, a market-based scheme, e.g., the Ryan-Rivlin plan would be a huge improvement over the current, disorganized and cripplingly expensive, mess, which Obamacare only tinkers with. Back when there was consensus that pollution was a problem, market solutions, e.g., cap and trade schemes, also made relative sense. Unfortunately, we seem to be questioning whether we should even want to fix social problems.

[LarryHoward]

Unfortunately, "liberal" in the States seems to have become the new all purpose pejorative - much like "Commie" was in my youth.

Although I didn't much care for him, I must admit I had to feel a bit sorry for Romney when he was in the primaries - the one track loonies in the Rep party had gained such a grip on it that if he took ANY kind of stand it would have pissed off one faction or another. The result was that he had to do a Tim Allen and "have no opinion" on anything but being rich.

It's interesting - the people here seem to be generally pretty high powered, educated and accomplished - more so on average that some of the other sites. That would lead one to expect a somewhat conservative bent to these discussions but the opposite appears to be true. On other sites, particularly "The Sewer" on SN, the hardest core right wingers generally seem to be not particularly accomplished.

Jon,

I think the factor in play is that all of us care about what happens to the country (and the world) and the people in it and bristle at "labels" because we tend to evaluate things pretty heavily. Keith says it very well. There are reasoned discussions that can be had on the role of government, the size and depth of the safety net and how that gets funded and implemented. I'd venture not one person here would say "let them starve if the don;t want to work" nor support a tax policy so burdensome that it really was redistribution. The discussion I think thing group would have would be "how much" based on "why and what's for the common good". Everyone here is accomplished. Some financial, some in contributions other than financial and all because they actually care and believe real work and real contributions pay you back. We also are on this site because like minded folks decided they wanted our company in the pub. I think we respect folks who may see things a bit differently. We should't think we are a representative sample of the population at large.

I have a neighbor who is a flaming, far left liberal and that anyone with the slightest tone of a conservative nature must be a "Tea Party-er". He''s also well educated, a successful writer and commentator and a fine dinner guest. We touch on but generally don't discuss politics beyond local land use and zoning issues. That's OK. We'd be boring if we all thought the same.

[SloopJonB]

Unfortunately, "liberal" in the States seems to have become the new all purpose pejorative - much like "Commie" was in my youth.

Although I didn't much care for him, I must admit I had to feel a bit sorry for Romney when he was in the primaries - the one track loonies in the Rep party had gained such a grip on it that if he took ANY kind of stand it would have pissed off one faction or another. The result was that he had to do a Tim Allen and "have no opinion" on anything but being rich.

It's interesting - the people here seem to be generally pretty high powered, educated and accomplished - more so on average that some of the other sites. That would lead one to expect a somewhat conservative bent to these discussions but the opposite appears to be true. On other sites, particularly "The Sewer" on SN, the hardest core right wingers generally seem to be not particularly accomplished.

We shouldn't think we are a representative sample of the population at large.

There's the rub.

[kdh]

Jon, look at the US blue states. They're on the coasts where the schools and wealth are. Wealthy, educated, privileged people vote democratic in this country, on average. There are plenty of exceptions, of course.

I'm sitting right now in Newton, MA, not far from Cambridge. These are not conservative bastions.

Eric, I agree that any health care system with reasonable incentives for caregivers, patients, and insurance providers would be better than what we have now. In my mind that could easily be completely public or completely private or somewhere between.

[Rob McAlpine]

According to some recent reports, I live in the second highest income city in the US.

I would not describe this town as either liberal or uneducated. My VP and geologist went to Brown and Stanford, respectively. The Stanford/Andover grad is a socially liberal devout Christian, fiscally beyond conservative, and one of the smartest people I have ever met. I named my son after him.

Personally, I am a pro-life Christian social liberal, and an economic conservative. My wife is a pro-choice Atheist social conservative and an economic conservative/liberal philanthropist. We agree on almost everything.

Doesn't make much sense, does it?

Trying to fit individuals with convenient, simplistic labels is fruitless. For every Rush Limbaugh there is a Rachel Maddow. For each Sarah Palin there is an Alan Grayson. Anyone who tries to tell me the right wing fringe is crazy is technically correct, but is ignoring the every-bit-as-loony left wing fringe. They both scare the hell out of me.

[kdh]

Rob, I'm not even going to try to describe what I am politically.

Though I agree with you. Those who run election candidacies put us into red and blue buckets and try to characterize who we are based on where we live, our income, skin color, who knows what else. I think it's changed the tenor of politics.

In the end I'm sure it's a useful exercise, but an attractive leader inspires, brings us together rather than divides us, brings out the best in us.

[Jamie]

I try to be pragmatic and excercize "logic" over political dogma, but that seems to piss everyone off

[SloopJonB]

In politics, like in a courtroom, if everyone is pissed off, you probably got it right.

[Olaf Hart]

I used to think anarchy was the answer, but then I went to Italy and realised I was wrong ...

[Ish]

I have always thought that an improved electoral system would let a voter use his vote either for or against someone. A negative vote would counteract a positive vote, the one with the most votes at the end is the winner. If there are no candidates with a positive vote count they all have to stand down (or be euthanized) and have another election with different candidates. Some of our recent elections would have left nobody above water...what a slate of losers. There is no point in voting under the current system unless there is someone to vote for, so the number of ballots cast is hitting all-time lows. I think a for/against option might bring more voters out.

[kimbottles]

I have been known to do "write-in" votes when no one on the ballot appealed to me.

That's how I came to vote for Colin Powell twice in US presidential elections.

[Joli]

I believe much of the strife and turmoil in our countrymen and between our parties is because we all realize we are now faced with feeding the masses with crumbs. When there were 50 workers for every retired SS recipient it was easy , when Johnson created Medicair it was minor cost for every worker easily funded by an abundance of young workers. Today is a very different story from 50~80 years ago, the government has created a system of entitlement that has not been good for the soul of our country. Every Ponzi Scheme has an end, ours will be when the markets come, I hope it's gradual but fear it will be a soul wrenching awakening for many that leaves them in generational poverty with minimal safety nets. I blame all self serving politicians for this, I blame our weakness for voting for the ubiquitous "Obama Phone", I blame human nature. There is no free ride.

As Peter Drucker said: "There are two kinds of jobs, those you don't want and those you can't have." We tried over the years to make sure our kids understood this.

[SloopJonB]

I have been known to do "write-in" votes when no one on the ballot appealed to me.

That's how I came to vote for Colin Powell twice in US presidential elections.

Yes - I thought he would have been good. Too bad his wife wouldn't let him run because she assumed he would be assassinated.

Arthur C. Clarke had a great idea for elections. All the people with a predetermined set of qualifications would be fed into a computer database. When "elections" were held, a slate would be printed out and they would be drafted, like jury duty. Since they would all be high quality people due to the selection process, they would be unlikely to "funk it" and would do the best job they could. One term and then back to the real world.

I think it could work as well as Geo-synchronous satellites, which he also thought of, along with GCA for aircraft among other things.