The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

I'll allow spendius to answer for himself but from my point of view, what this has to do with the discussion is to point out that capitalism is a system and if you focus on and tinker with one element of the system you are likely to create ripples through the system that result in effects you neither sought nor want.

This can very easily be demonstrated with the fruit picking example:

Consumers want cheap fruit. Irrespective of your personal habits, this is a driving wave of consumerism.

In order to remain in business (which obviously requires a profit margin) apple growers must produce their product at a cost which, when marked up for profit, very close to what sellers of "bargain" priced apples are willing to pay.

As the largest percentage of any operation's costs tends to be labor, that's the most likely place for the apple grower to target necessary reductions.

If the apple grower reduces the cost of his labor force to the point where no one will work for him, he goes out of business and so he has to constantly maintain the proper balance.

While he always has his profit margin to play with, what is the point of busting your ass growing and selling apples if you're not going to make a decent return, and in any case the profit margin isn't infinite?

The most socially conscious apple grower in the world can only give up so much of his profit to his workers before there is nothing to give them, including their wages.

If he is forced to pay his workers $x then he is forced to increase his price by $x, and if consumers want to consume apples, they will have to pay it.

As prices increase, sales will decrease and as apples are not essential to human life, the demand for them will no longer support the entire apple growing industry. Some companies will go out of business and the jobs they offered will cease to exist.

In the end there will be:

1) Fewer people enjoying the benefits of eating apples
2) Fewer people making a living from apple growing
3) A relatively small number of apple laborers who are content with their wages but who can't afford apples either

Of course the rich will continue to buy and enjoy apples. There will just be a lot fewer, if any, apple growers among their ranks.

Free markets are like ecologies, they are self-organizing. The more you meddle with them the more unintended problems you have to deal with.

All of the life forms within ecology do not get to live and thrive. If you insist that that be the case you will, at best, have a zoo.

The market just like an ecology can and will deal with a glut of predators who take far more than they need, but as far as the market goes we're not willing to see the extinction of a "prey class" be the event that puts an end to the gluttonous predators and so we will attempt to intervene in the natural process.

I get that. It makes sense and I'm in favor of it, but only in extreme cases and then with as light a hand as possible.

I can never understand why so many on the left who have no problem understanding why man shouldn't be screwing around with ecologies (or if they do have nevertheless blindly accepted that we shouldn't), find it impossible to view the economy with the same clarity.

I think it's a combination of well intentioned empathy and (to borrow a term from you) overweening hubris.

"We don't have a problem with capitalism per se, but instead of free markets, we want domesticated ones, and we know exactly what buttons to push and levers to pull to make sure we get all of the benefits of a free market without so much nasty fang and claw."

Already done!

You can't honestly tell me you are confident about any of your candidates chance of success, George. And I suspect that any attempt on your part to do so would revolve far more around structural weaknesses in the economy than it would the personal qualities of said candidates, that you think would position them to win. THAT'S whistling in the dark.

Cycloptichorn

An interesting post, but if you read carefully, you'll see that I never proposed any of the solutions that you seem to think I or others like me are proposing.

One thing I will say, though: there's no such thing as a 'free market' any more than there is such a thing as 'free trade.' These are code words used by those who want to preserve a system in which those with the money, continue to manipulate the marketplace to their advantage (through the buying of politicians and policy, and legal action against their would-be competitors). A truly 'free' market would actually be one which was regulated to a far greater extent than our current one is.

In the example of the apples, the only thing I could say, would be that it would have been a hell of a lot easier to just let the people who were currently willing to pick them for low prices to keep right on doin' it.

Cycloptichorn

I'd agree with a fair bit of your post, but I sense this



is overly optimistic.

Too political. My plot would include terror at Krogers when the apple-pickin' machines couldn't find any orchards in the city. Current working title, "A Feast for Cider"! (I may be able to work in some menacing crows somewhere, too).

It's not that they are tapped out, but that they have hit their limits as to how much they can legally donate.

They'll get around it by giving money to Rove's unregulated group...

Cycloptichorn

Romney was in Ohio a couple of days ago. He was asked about an issue that will be on the ballot in two weeks (November 8th). Senate Bill #2 (aka Issue 3) would limit the powers of public sector employees' unions, amongst other things.
Romney gave a non-response to a question about whether he endorses the Republican supported measure. Yesterday, in a visit to Virginia, he had to clarify his position. The Dems pounced on him for waffling and some supporters of the measure were critical of Romney.
I emailed Sozobe in Columbus inviting her to fill us in on Issue 3 in the battleground state of Ohio. She said she would but might not get around to it until the weekend.
Stay tuned!

Romney's explanation of the apparent gaffe is that he was uncertain of what the referendum he had been asked about was all about.

I cany sympathize to some extent as who the hell can keep track of all the referendum numbers and names. I'm convinced that with each of these YES/NO referendums at least a third of the voters cast a vote that they didn't intended because they got confused over whether they should vote YES or NO and couldn't understand the wording.

In any case, a good argument can be made that since Romney was visiting a pro-Kasich phone center he should have known which referendum was which.

His explanation sounded sincere, but how much is that worth? If it's true, it an unfortunate unforced error as he above all the other candidates can't afford to be seen as flip-flopping.

The skeptics, obviously, believe that he was trying to distance himself from an unpopular law that the polls suggest will be overturned through the referendum. If that's the case then it's clear Romney has his eyes on the General Election. Whether this is because he is confident he will win the nomination or simply "just in case" good sense isn't something he will reveal.

There is even some chatter that the original comment was intentional and intended to embarrass Kasich. Apparently Kasich has enemies within the Ohio Republican Party who would like to see him fail, and the thinking is that Romney carried their water for later consideration. Seems like nonsense to me.

To be fair to Mitt, in his original quote on this issue, he did specifically say that he wasn't up to speed on exactly what the issue was about.

I agree, though, when you're visiting a call center for a ballot measure, ostensibly as a show of support for the locals who are working to get the GOP cause advanced, it's usually a good idea to, yaknow, study up on what they are doing first.

Mitt - I love him. He's like a perfectly greased weathervane.

Cycloptichorn

You should at leave give Huntsman his due if you're going to use one of his lines.

A compliment indeed to any self-respecting politician.

I couldn't remember where I saw that at, thanks for reminding me.

Cycloptichorn

I can tell you who: from 1975 to the mid-80's I was in the unique position of working for both a television station's news department and for a US Congressman. As any election approached, I was amazed at how well-versed our broadcasters were on:
what the issues were,
who were the opposing candidates in each State House and Senate District,
what initiatives were on the various ballots around the State,
who were the Federal level candidates and for what Congressional District
and more.

We had what was then the new fangled technology of IFB (Interrupt Frequency Broadcast - i think) meaning they had a thing in their ear that the news staff could talk to them about something they might need to know. But because it WAS new, the broadcasters didn't want to depend upon it.
They studied their notes incessantly.
And when we went live on election night 1976, they were smooth and informed (and on-the-air for over six hours.)

You know who else knew? ----- Every single candidate I ever met, especially the ones who won. The Congressman I worked for, James R. Jones, knew all that stuff above plus the names of every important poobah and stuffed-shirt oil baron for 500 miles in all directions. To say nothing about the hordes of hangers-ons, grinners, pickers and general folk all of whom had some task or problem or idea they wanted to press on him. (One bunch had the money, the other bunch actually voted.)

And, godyes, I do go on, the most knowledgeable people are the ones running the campaigns. I don't like the man, but Karl Rove knows his politics better than most baseball fans know batting averages. He can tell you within a complete of percentage points what the winning margins were in hundreds of close races over the past twenty five years. And he would have never let Mitt get off the plane in Ohio without filling his head full of ----OHIO.

Who the hell can keep track?
Joe(anybody who is serious about being a political leader.)Nation

That sounds very plausible Finn but it is beside the point I was making. Consumers want cheap doctoring as well. And cheap legal advice. Cheap dental care. These are all stitched up with union-type operations. The apple-picker is on his or her own. Being discriminated against by people who gang up to prevent themselves being discriminated against in the same way. Loosely, the chattering classes. Especially the supposed socialists among them who express sympathy with the apple picker, and the Asian sweat-shop worker, but then go out bargain hunting.

I offered the opinion that Mr Perry knows what I am saying and his hesitancy might be due to him trying to not say it because it will lose him votes.

As apples become more expensive there will be a greater motive to grow them and to pay the pickers better wages and provide better working conditions. A balance is arrived at. That's simple stuff.

The bargain seeker is the one who grinds the noses of those who haven't majored in an 'ology and thus agrees with Mr Cain. It's their own fault for not having majored in an 'ology.

That Cyclo is a phoney. A Surrey socialist. He needs to read The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists. You're letting him off.

Never a good response to someone who doesn't fit your stereotypes, is there?

Is it honestly that hard to believe that some of us prefer quality over quantity, when making purchase decisions? I assure you that this attitude of mine is not based in any pre-held belief I grew up with; but rather, built from a lifetime of experiencing cheap crap breaking, and quality goods appreciating.

Cycloptichorn

Well, I can't and so, to some extent, I sympathize with him.

Yeah, but, c'mon. I KNOW you wouldn't show up to campaign at a call center, full of people making calls, obviously on the GOP side, and not known what they hell they were doing there. Rookie mistake.

Or - and this is more likely - it wasn't a mistake at all, but instead, just more of the same from Mitt.

Cycloptichorn

Far be it for me to defend Cyclo, but if he says he doesn't shop based on price, it's hardly worth my time to call him a liar.

I'm content to point out how jiggering with the market with the professed intention of helping the nose grinded, will ultimately back-fire.

There are phoney socialists, sinister socialists and stupid socialists, but I'm not familiar with Surrey socialists.

Which is why I also wrote in the post from which Joe (Cherry picking) Nation quoted:

I'll have to double check but I think the primary is a separate election from the general election.
They can donate $2500 to the primary and then donate again for the general election.