AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

No. Revelation is not at hand as a consequence of your thoughts on this matter okie.

A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2008, AND THEREAFTER

Wackonomics

For the U.S. Congress, news media, pundits and much of the American public, a lot of economic phenomena can be explained by what people want, human greed and what seems plausible. I'm going to name this branch of economic "science" wackonomics and apply it to some of today's observations and issues.

Since July this year, crude oil prices have fallen from $147 to $64 a barrel. Similarly, average gasoline prices have fallen from over $4 to a national average of $2.69 a gallon. When crude oil and gasoline were reaching their historical highs, Congress and other wackoeconomists blamed it on greedy oil company CEOs in their lust for obscene profits. But what explains today's lower prices? The only answer, consistent with wackonomic theory, is easy: Oil company CEOs have lost their lust for obscene profits. Or, maybe, since many of these CEOs are getting up in years, they might have begun to heed Matthew's warning (19:24), "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

Speaking of CEOs, there's the "unconscionable," "obscene" salaries they receive, in some cases over $10 million a year. Wackonomics has an easy answer for these high salaries: it's greed. However, CEOs don't have the corner on greed. There are other greedy people we don't scorn but hold in high esteem. According to Forbes' Celebrity 100 list, Oprah Winfrey receives $275 million, Steven Spielberg gets $130 million, Tiger Woods $115 million, Jay Leno $32 million and Dr. Phil $40 million. I need to talk to these people and learn their strategy. I've been making every effort to get that kind of money. I go to bed greedy, dream greedy dreams, awaken greedy and proceed through the day greedy. Despite my heroic efforts, it's all been for naught; I earn a pittance by comparison.

Wackonomics can help us understand what some people call the income distribution. The logical extension of wackonomic thought is that the unequal or unfair distribution of income is the handiwork of a dollar dealer who distributes dollars. The dollar dealer might deal one person a million dollars a year while dealing most others a mere pittance like $10, $20 or $30 thousand a year. Thus, the reason why some people are wealthy while others are poor is because the dollar dealer is a racist, sexist, a multi-nationalist, or just plain mean. Economic justice requires a re-dealing of the dollars, income redistribution or spreading the wealth, where the government takes the ill-gotten gains of the few and returns them to their rightful owners. Wackonomics might have a greed-based explanation for income inequality. There is a pile of money called income and greedy people got there first and took their unfair share. Similarly, economic justice requires a redistribution of income.

Wackonomics isn't just practiced by the uninitiated. This year's Nobel Laureate, Princeton University Professor Paul Krugman, after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, gave one rendition of wackonomics in his column "After the Horror," New York Times (9/14/01). Krugman wrote, "Ghastly as it may seem to say this, the terror attack -- like the original day of infamy, which brought an end to the Great Depression -- could do some economic good." He went on to point out how rebuilding the destruction in New York and Washington, D. C., would stimulate the economy through business investment and job creation. For practitioners of non-wackonomics, this reasoning doesn't even pass the smell test. If Professor Krugman's vision is correct, and extending his logic, the terrorists would have made an even larger contribution to our economic well-being had they been able to fly a plane into the White House and destroyed buildings in other cities.

Wackonomics isn't all bad. There's an upside to it. It spares people the bother of having to understand the complexities of the world.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/08/Wackonomics.htm

No dodging Fox. I asked YOU to tell me the imperfections. Simply saying that it could because it is of human design isn't good enough. I want you to tell me. I won't let you put me in some goose chase. Suffice if I was to say that you list is fine and dandy, but wholly impractical because it ignores human behavior and the same human flaws which you recognized in your last post. conservatism seems fine on paper, but it just doesn't ever play out.

That specifically is it's biggest flaw; it relies on a far too idealistic viewpoint on humans.

As much as you'd probably like to reply to my thoughts on conservatism's practicality, I really am not interested in your thoughts on what I've said until you specifically identify the ways in which you think conservatism is flawed. After that, I'd gladly chat about my opinion. I'm just not going to waste my time until we're both square on a start point.

T
K
O

I personally think conservatism works just fine everywhere it is tried.

So enlighten us Cyclop. Give us a specific example where conservatism hasn't worked. Human error in the application doesn't count. Give us a specific example of a conservative value that doesn't work. I'll refer you to Boetcker's list posted a short ways back. He pretty well sums it all up right there.

What difference does it matter what I would say? You should be able to back up your claim with some sort of example unless you're just talking through your hat again. Here are Boetcker's principles again. Pick one and tell me how he is wrong:

1. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
2. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong
3. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
4. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
5. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
6. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
7. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
8. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
9. You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
10 You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.

TKO, honestly. I am not about to get into some kind of Q & A with you on something as broad and all emcompassing as conservative values. I personally think conservatism works just fine everywhere it is tried. I don't think there are ANY weaknesses in modern American conservatism as I have attempted to define it on this thread. There is ALWAYS potential for human error and misjudgment in the application of anything, however.

So, if you have something specific to discuss, please offer it. Otherwise, I have no clue what you're asking.

What difference does it matter what I would say? You should be able to back up your claim with some sort of example unless you're just talking through your hat again. Here are Boetcker's principles again. Pick one and tell me how he is wrong:

1. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
2. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong
3. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
4. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
5. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
6. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
7. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
8. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
9. You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
10 You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.

How do you explain the need to write into the Constitution recognition and granting of rights of the non-white, non-male human?

Easy. The tradition was that black people were something less than human or at least not AS human as whites. That is how our forefathers (and the British slave traders and folks in Canada etc.) justified slavery at all.

Foxfyre wrote:

Easy. The tradition was that black people were something less than human or at least not AS human as whites. That is how our forefathers (and the British slave traders and folks in Canada etc.) justified slavery at all.

There is still black on black slavery practiced in Africa, today, Foxfyre, so I think the issue is a bit more complex than a white on black phenomena. If I understand it right, it was a practice there, and the Europeans simply went there to obtain a supply of labor from slave masters that were willing to sell. The sin of slavery was an equal opportunity proposition, both whites and blacks participated. Something else that should be brought out, some slave masters treated their slaves very poorly, but many treated their slaves very well, no justification at all, but at least there was some respect there during a time when the practice was common, not only here, but in many parts of the world. Some indians were enslaved by other indians, just another example.

Another irony today, we have black on black violence, virtually unnoticed by the media, and by the black community in general, it seems to be largely accepted, as if it is normal, at least in some areas. I think this is another issue that needs to be recognized and dealt with.

Conservatism as a ideology is first and foremost rational. It resists making decisions on feelings/emotion ...