The US Economy

I really do like Blatham despite his many faults - perhaps it is all those wonderful metaphors that he occasionally sprinkles through his posts.

Blatham does indeed presume (as he concedes) that the current political leadership in America - "45 degree right rudder"- requires that the liberal voices here far outnumber conservative ones and that they are entitled to be more shrill and doctrinaire than others in denouncing what they don't like. I do not at all accept that proposition. I find the too frequent and too emotional presumption of righteousness on the part of some liberals here one of A2k's least attractive elements. (There is some of this on the right as well, but not nearly so much).

In one paragraph Blatham gives away a particularly relevant element of his bias.
"There are two different things going on here. There is discussion and ideas forwarded/read as a means to better comprehend the world. There is also the goal, held with varying degrees of seriousness, of trying to 'beat' the opposition. Again, the context here is American polarity."

I guess the implication is that there are two groups - those (like Blatham) attempting to better comprehend the world, and then there are those victims of "American polarity" who wish only to beat the opposition. In fact a good deal of the polarity both in the world and on A2K comes from sources outside the U.S.A. (After all it takes two to polar!).

The fact is that many of the liberal advocates on these threads are themselves particularly polarizing in their often shrill denunciations of the dark (sometimes religious right) forces that they imagine are out to enslave us all. (There are loonies in every political camp, and I doubt that any side particularly dominates in this area.)

It is likely impossible to have a meaningful political discussion on these or any like issues without occasionally annoying one another. (It is even concievabe that I have done that myself.) It is a price we must pay, but we should strive to make it as low as possible. We must have a police function to keep these threads from going the way of ABUZZ and others, and we hope the police can always be both right and adroit in handling such issues. In the real world they are no better than we. I did not follow the earlier friction (if that is what it was) between Timber and PDiddie and don't have an opinion on the matter. In a perfect world Timber would not have publicly scolded PDiddie; he instead would have done it in a PM. However Timber is usually quite restrained and considerate here, and this was hardly the only (and far from the worst) direct criticism I have observed of another poster on these threads.

All that said I do usually like these threads - even with Blatham, PDiddie, Nimh, and Timber in them. Indeed sometimes it is precisely because of these individuals that I like it here.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I really do like Blatham despite his many faults - perhaps it is all those wonderful metaphors that he occasionally sprinkles through his posts.

Blatham does indeed presume (as he concedes) that the current political leadership in America - "45 degree right rudder"- requires that the liberal voices here far outnumber conservative ones and that they are entitled to be more shrill and doctrinaire than others in denouncing what they don't like.

I love that! Conservatives are now responsible both for the abundance of liberals (if you actually believe they are abundant) and for their asinine behavior and deplorable tactics.

And then there's the laughable notion that Bush is so terribly conservative. Where? On what? I wish he were, but he isn't. Bush is a RINO. Sadly, he's the RINO we'll have to keep in order to make sure no Democrat sits in the oval office for at least a few more years.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Blatham does indeed presume (as he concedes) that the current political leadership in America - "45 degree right rudder"- requires that the liberal voices here far outnumber conservative ones and that they are entitled to be more shrill and doctrinaire than others in denouncing what they don't like.

I definitely did not read anything of the latter in his post: it sounds like projection. The first, yes - about the "outnumbering" - he did make a point about that. That point was about using global rather than American standards on left-right when determining bias of this board. Though I sympathise with the position of a few brave conservatives battling off legions of Bush-haters, I also think it's perfectly reasonable to point out that, in global terms, its not "the left" outnumbering "the right", at all - its the "center" (folks like, say, Craven, Walter, Thomas, Kara, Steve etc) outnumbering both the right (you, Timber, Scrat, McG, Sofia, etc) and the left (Tartarin, Blatham, Lola, Dys, me, etc). (Mind you, thats a VERY relative/flexible/sketchy categorisation).

And from that - just as reasonable - point of view, there aint all that much of an imbalance here, at all. The tragic thing is that the fiercest debate will centre around the mid-focus of American politics - say, GWB - and then, of course, with both the center and the left turning against his few sympathisers, things can get unreasonably unpleasant for the latter.

georgeob1 wrote:

I find the too frequent and too emotional presumption of righteousness on the part of some liberals here one of A2k's least attractive elements. (There is some of this on the right as well, but not nearly so much).

You only think so because you agree with those on the right presuming righteousness. (Duh)

I'd say - my subjective POV - that there aren't all that more liberals doing so than conservatives - to just adopt the US standards for the moment again. Yeh, there's enough of them to go round - but that in itself, considering there are so many more of 'em, doesn't say much.

georgeob1 wrote:

In one paragraph Blatham gives away a particularly relevant element of his bias.
"There are two different things going on here. There is discussion and ideas forwarded/read as a means to better comprehend the world. There is also the goal, held with varying degrees of seriousness, of trying to 'beat' the opposition. Again, the context here is American polarity."

I guess the implication is that there are two groups - those (like Blatham) attempting to better comprehend the world, and then there are those victims of "American polarity" who wish only to beat the opposition.

I'm left wondering why you'd guess that, at all, since its not what he said, as far as I can tell. Way I'd read it, I assumed he meant that all of us tend to engage more or less in each thing. Most of us I'm sure came here for the "discussion to better comprehend the world" - and most of us tend to get caught up in "trying to 'beat' the opposition". Some more than others, and the whole thing is definitely spoiling the fun.

georgeob1 wrote:

It is likely impossible to have a meaningful political discussion on these or any like issues without occasionally annoying one another. (It is even concievabe that I have done that myself.)

Well, cant speak for others but you've never annoyed me so far! I've sometimes violently disagreed with what you were saying, but I've never been annoyed about how you were saying it. So there you go - it is possible.

georgeob1 wrote:

In a perfect world Timber would not have publicly scolded PDiddie; he instead would have done it in a PM. However Timber is usually quite restrained and considerate here

Wouldnt have said anything about it if it were a one-off thing rather than a pattern.

Heard from 4 people now saying, 'yeh, thats what I've always felt, too', resp., 'that needed to be said'. I dont really feel like taking this up as some cause or something. But I've called people on something like this before, and never before got that kind of reaction. Lets just say that apparently, its not just that I'm crazy or something - there really is a more widely felt underswell of "complaints concerning Timber's overall style of interaction", to paraphrase his post on PDiddie. Food for thought, I'd say (but probably in vain).

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Food for thought, I'd say (but probably in vain).

OK goddammit, I'll think about it. :wink:

0 Replies

Heh - not you! <big grin>

Ah'm fersure going to try not to think about it for a sec' ... shouldnt be too hard if I get offa this bloody board for a mo'! Wink

0 Replies

Quote:

Blatham does indeed presume (as he concedes) that the current political leadership in America - "45 degree right rudder"- requires that the liberal voices here far outnumber conservative ones and that they are entitled to be more shrill and doctrinaire than others in denouncing what they don't like.

Salty oaths to this! I don't presume the current administration 'requires' the 'outnumbering' of administration-agreeing voices. I observe, as has Walter and nimh, that this is simply a consequence of an international membership and the reality that most people in the western world (george knows the polls now) disagree with this administration's policies.

Nor do I presume that non-conservative voices have some special justification to be shrill. I do, however, think that shrill is no big problem...IF we mean by 'shrill' something like 'passionate'. I have far more problem with derogative cliches and poorly reasoned argument than with shrill. But also, the claim that folks on the left are more guilty of lousy discussion than the folks on the right is itself an evidence of a polarized context than it is a reality. A natural measure for shrill (if you've ever worked in a Personel Department) is...the who who is doing the complaining. And as to the sub-text of pack-posting or ganging up, that's simply not happening here. On abuzz, I would frequently get an invitation from kuv or someone else to join him in targeting someone. It was an offer I never accepted. I've seen nothing like that here, and have never received such an invitation. If anyone feels 'outnumbered', then their only honest recourse is to think well and write well.

Quote:

In one paragraph Blatham gives away a particularly relevant element of his bias.
"There are two different things going on here. There is discussion and ideas forwarded/read as a means to better comprehend the world. There is also the goal, held with varying degrees of seriousness, of trying to 'beat' the opposition. Again, the context here is American polarity."
[I guess the implication is that there are two groups - those (like Blatham) attempting to better comprehend the world, and then there are those victims of "American polarity" who wish only to beat the opposition. In fact a good deal of the polarity both in the world and on A2K comes from sources outside the U.S.A. (After all it takes two to polar!). /QUOTE] Well, no. I meant that all of us wear two hats, learners and citizens. But the polarization as it has evolved on these threads is uniquely American - a left and a right, period. Very dual. And this polarization has evolved to include the international members in the problematic way we are now dealing with in this conversation beginning at the unilateral move against Iraq. This is not the international community bringing a dualist polarity to the US, it is the converse.

I want to quote some Americans here to try and communicate what it is that we non-Americans can face when talking to you guys. All of these quotes are from Grapham Turner's wonderful wonderful article in an August issue of the Daily Telegraph.

Tom Foley, former speaker of the House of Representatives

Quote:
"We have, unfortunately, a very pervasive notion of our good intentions. It leads to an assumption than any sort of objective examination of the US must result in approval, if not vigorous applause. If it doesn't, we become confused and ask why others don't see us as we see ourselves - such evident virtue, such benign affability. We think we are a marvellous country. We are constantly praising ourselves. When others dont seem to appreciate how wonderful we are, we put it down to deliberate ignorance or malign attitudes. Our belief is that we are not self-interested. For example, our perception is that we didn't go to war against Iraq to dominate the oil market, and we're ver offended if anyone suggest such a thing. Yet we advance the ame charge against the Russians and the French. We say they are only interested in getting contracts there. We always excuse ourselve sfrom self-interested motives."

Robert Joss, dean of the Stanford Business School

Quote:
"...that is whay Americans genuinely feel, that what we are doing is trying to bring goodness to everybody else, that we are ready to pay the highest price to bring them freedom and to make the world a safer lace. I know that it sounds terribly naive to Europeans, but it is not phoney - it is the genuine conviction of most Americans. They are shocked that other people should see our motives differently. It's true that we want to project our kind of society around the world, but we don't see that an exercise of power. And when other people ask: 'Who are you to tell us what is good for us? or tell us that we are acting in an imperial way, that really hurts Americans. We don't like other people telling us how to live, but we can't understand it when folks in other countries object ot us doing the same to them."

Michael Ignatieff, director of the Carr centre in the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard

Quote:
"There is nothing more frightening than American innocence. Our inability to question our own motives is truly alarming"

Chip Blacker, former special assistant for national security affairs

Quote:
"We think democracy is good because it works for us. Capitalism is good for the same reason. That is why we end up doing things which are patently illegal and ignoble. We convince ourselves that, whatever it is we want, it must be good for others beccause it is good for us"

Raymond Seitz, former ambassador to London

Quote:
"When you talk about American power, you have to realize there is an ideological context. America is basically an idea. We have often been seen and, indeed, prided ourselves on being non-ideological, but we are, in fact, very ideological - and our ideology is America."

Michael Ignatieff

Quote:
"Yes, we do have an ideology and, like all ideologies, it doesn't believe it is one. It just believes it is The Truth. President Bush believes it to a degree which is astonishing."

So, that is why almost every one of these threads ends up becoming a debate on America, and then, why the debates go the way they do.

0 Replies

I take "shrill" in this context to mean "owning allegiance neither to truth nor civility".

0 Replies

scrat

The term means 'high pitched', of course. I was following george's usage which has the connotation of 'hysterical'. But 'hysterical' is as freighted a term as we might find in English, with it's suggestion of the weak female constitution and unbalanced female mind, so I chose the more agreeable term of 'passionate', and specified that was what I meant.

Your suggestion of the term's meaning as 'owing allegiance neither to truth nor civility' could likewise be accomodated, so long as that's stipulated up front, which you do.

And I think you have clear precedent with your notion here, as indeed, I have more than once in the past found myself reading your posts - like this one immediately above - and thinking of Andromache. I've always felt that if one's usage fall in close on the heels of Shakespeare's, that one can't be far off base.

Quote:

How poor Andromache shrills her dolors forth.

0 Replies

All this talk reminds me of Shrillary...ugh!

0 Replies

Well Blatham makes a few good points. I did like the quote from Tom Foley (a cousin). It does describe something which I believe to be generally true and as well descriptive of my own feelings.

However that perception is not uniquely American. There are plenty of Frenchmen, Canadians, and others who in a like (if a somewhat lesser) manner, implicitly assume good intentions on their own parts and there is even a bit of it among Europeans concerning their new union.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

And though Craven doesn't agree with me, I think a logical fallacy is a far worse crime than an impoliteness.

I don't disagree with that. It's just that A2K staff is tasked with curbing the impoliteness and can do little to discourage logical fallacy (that's the job of the debators).

0 Replies

craven

Yes, sorry, I didn't state that well at all.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
I thought that only "Moderator" was a moderator...everyone was just another user...Am I wrong in that thought?

No, you are not wrong in that thought. Most folks understand that, though, of course, there always will be some who don't.

He was only partly wrong. To better rephrase his point see nimh's that the moderators refrain from weilding the stick under their name.

What McG is alluding to is something I said when he took issue with me for not personally calling out all insults.

I said that my objections posted under my name are exactly that, and that anything official comes from the moderator account. This is long standing policy.

That's how it should be (IMO). When I criticize an insult I mean to do it entirely under my name as my objection to it.

Anything that purports to be an official position (like the stick comments as there would be no stick otherwise) should come from the moderator account and with moderator consensus to avoid presisely what nimh is complaining about.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
I thought that only "Moderator" was a moderator...everyone was just another user...Am I wrong in that thought?

No, you are not wrong in that thought. Most folks understand that, though, of course, there always will be some who don't.

He was only partly wrong. To better rephrase his point see nimh's that the moderators refrain from weilding the stick under their name.

What McG is alluding to is something I said when he took issue with me for not personally calling out all insults.

I said that my objections posted under my name are exactly that, and that anything official comes from the moderator account. This is long standing policy.

That's how it should be (IMO). When I criticize an insult I mean to do it entirely under my name as my objection to it.

Anything that purports to be an official position (like the stick comments as there would be no stick otherwise) should come from the moderator account and with moderator consensus to avoid presisely what nimh is complaining about.

The good moderation is the reason I am still a member here. I see it to be fair, balanced and used only when necessary.

0 Replies

Thanks everyone for their comments.

I henceforth promise not to criticise the moderation of the forum or the moderators publicly, a transgression that manages to accomplish precisely the thing of which I am critical: demeaning the forum.

I am grateful for this place and the opportunity to rant and joke, as well as to thrust and parry with those whose views I don't share.

Carrying on with a topical link, this from Alternet seems to me to sum up the present divergent opinions about the US economy:

Quote:

How's the economy doing? This is shaping up to be the number one question affecting President George W. Bush's re-election bid. If you turn on the TV or pick up the newspaper, it looks like the economy is picking up steam, roaring out of a long slump just in time for the election season.

But then you turn to your neighbors and friends, and they say it still feels like a recession. Part of this disconnect is because most people get their income from the labor market, not the stock market. The Dow is up 15 percent for the year, but unemployment is unchanged and wages are stagnant.

Business reporting puts a lot of emphasis on the stock market, and sometimes even more esoteric indicators such as quarterly GDP growth or the Institute for Supply Management Manufacturing Index. (Both have recently taken big jumps.)

But the vast majority of Americans still own little or no stock, even including retirement accounts. So the growth of the economy won't help them until it shows up in rising employment or wages.

But the Republicans got a lot of mileage out of that 8.2 percent growth in the third quarter, "the fastest in 19 years." I was a guest recently on a right-wing talk radio show in Boston, and the host kept coming back to that. As far as he was concerned, this was incontestable proof that the sun was shining brightly on the U.S. economy, and the Republican tax cuts had worked.

Still Waiting for the Trickledown

0 Replies

PDid, Here's another interesting bit of news: Although San Jose is considered the area with the "highest" average income in the US, the sales tax base has fallen by an average of 20% in our county. Some businesses lost as much as 40 percent, and some in the low teens. This down trend has continued while this government continues to report growth. Something is definitely not in jibe. I tend to believe what's happening locally than what the feds feed the general public.

0 Replies

I posted this on the "good reasons to get rid of GW Bush" thread, but I'll repost it here since it seems to fit in here as well. Also, I'm bookmarking.

This "jobless recovery" is no recovery at all. The outlook for the stock market isn't good for the next two years and just who, do you suppose will be buying all these products American companies are producing with cheap foreign labor? Not Americans, because they won't have jobs to produce the income it takes to buy the stuff.

The stock market is high now because large corporations are trying to buy back their stock, anticipating trouble to come. This inflates stock prices because those holding the shares being sought demand a high price......but not for long.

0 Replies

Lola,

Your facts are not facts: they are fantasy. The market rise is NOT a reaction to stock buybacks by large companies. It is a result of broadbased buying and cash inflows to mutual funds. This is readily verifiable through any large mutual fund research site. Our unemployment rate is down to 5.8% and declining. Jobs are being created at an increasing rate. You can certainly deny all this, but the continuing unfolding of the facts of our economic upturn make your assertions to the contrary look increasingly foolish..

0 Replies

george,

Quote:

This is readily verifiable through any large mutual fund research site.

Yes, george, darlin, and we all trust the mutual funds these days don't we? I was mistaken about one thing, the by backs are not by large corporations, it's small companies. And I don't trust the economic numbers on jobs from this administration any more than I trust them to tell us the truth about anything. They're all crooks, I tell you! Laughing

Futhermore, the jobs that are lost are jobs that will continue to be lost regardless of whether we're able to dispose of GW and the boys or not. This is where the large corporations come in. They're all closing their manufacturing facilities here and moving them to Mexico or India and paying people there a pittance for their work. They're all disgusting. (I exclude you from this pronouncement of mine because you, Timber and a few others happen to be charming, but if it weren't for that, you'd be disgusting too.)

Never trust a neoconservative. Never trust a fundamentalist. That's my motto.

0 Replies

Lola, What george said about cash inflows into mutual funds is correct. Actually, there's been billions pouring into mutual funds for the past six months or so - somewhat akin to when just before the market crash of three years ago. Kinda scary, but that's what's driving the market. Our retirement investments are doing fantastic so far, and I'm a conservative investor. Wink

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know