George Will recently said something to the effect of:
Liberals are for redistributing wealth while stifling its creation.

That's a pretty standard conservative polemic.

It begs the question:

What is the best way to foster wealth creation in a society?
Furthermore, who shall create wealth and for whom shall they create it?

Too much government interference is a disincentive to entrepeneurship.  OK.
Too much laissez-faire leads to monopoly to the point where the entrepeneur cannot compete.  Such as the case with Wal-Mart.  The wealth Wal-Mart creates in Peckville, Ohio, does not make Peckville wealthier, just the Wal-Mart corporation and its investors. 

The "free market" orthodoxy is so knee-jerk in American conservatives that they shriek at the idea of "managed competition."  Government should have no say in the marketplace, they believe, but it always has and it always will. 

Under George HW Bush thew were talking about "enterprize zones" in the impoverished inner cities.  Should not every zone be an enterprize zone? 

Is it a principle of the "free market" to allow corporations to pay Indonesions $.50 an hour, import the foreign-made products for free, and sell at an outrageous mark-up?  That is for whom is the market really free, and what does that freedom mean?

"Entrepeneur" is the great buzz word among American politicians, but I see our current trade policies making entrepeneurship a thing of the past.

Just some questions on the creation of wealth.
???

Under George HW Bush they were talking about "enterprize zones" in the impoverished inner cities.  Should not every zone be an enterprize zone? 


YES!  (And while I'm at it - Karma for reminding us that the entire fracking country was once, by law, a Free Speech Zone.)

Folks like Vanderbilt used to be able to win against New Jersey thugs like Fulton, all the way to the Supreme Court.  And yes, this is where I differ sharply with Rand -- Fulton may have invented the steamboat, but that didn't entitle him to a permanent monopoly on steam engines.  I honestly wonder what she would have made of RIAA and ASCAP and their artificial monopoly over music distribution -- would she have modified her stance on intellectual property when every Joe Sixpack had reduced copyright (in 2007, "life of creator plus the extension of the law to be long enough that Walt Disney's 1982 Steamboat Willie, starring Mickey Mouse, never enters the public domain") into patent ("13 years even if you cure cancer, and not one day longer unless you can dissolve the drug into a bromide instead of a chloride, or do something else thatmakes no pharmacological difference but looks different to a judge who's never studied chemistry"?)

But I digress.

The issue of wealth creation is precisely why Rand argued, in her 60s-era compilation Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal that capitalism was an unknown ideal.  She foresaw that all mixed economies converge towards statism -- some 40 years before the Chinese made the Return of the Authoritarian Capitalist a business reality.

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal is worth reading, if for nothing else, than that it contains a few essays written by Alan Greenspan some 20+ years before he was appointed to run the Federal Reserve.  And it's about a thousand pages shorter than Atlas Shrugged.  For once in her life, she and her co-authors made their respective points quickly and with a minimum of extraneous crap.

To this day, I'm grateful for Greenspan's work in his role as Fed governor.  As someone who holds the bulk of his wealth in US-dollar denominated securities, however, I can't help but read his earlier essays and wonder if he wasn't playing the role of Francisco D'Anconia (an important character from Atlas Shrugged) the whole time.  There's a reason Ben Bernanke is called "helicopter Ben".  It's because we're all looking forward to his rate cuts (0 points, market crashes, 25 points, nothing happens, 50 points, we're all get laid!) next week.  But it's not because any of us believe he can make a lick of difference in the long run.  We call him "helicopter Ben" because when you run the printing presses, being able to shovel dollars out the side door of a helicopter... might make you popular, but it still doesn't make the dollars worth anything.

Interesting...

I'm hoping to get  a few more points of view on the subject before I go on a tear about it.

How I figure Wal-mart has turned from a free-market status to a monopoly is that it's practices inhibit competion. As an example Wal-Mart went after the distributers that supplied a small growing retail chain I worked for. I have no problem with a corporation that becomes large and successful because it provides a better mousetrap. Its when the corporation interfers with anyone else who might have an even better one.

The other problem with Wal-Mart is that it creates a locked economic system. Often attacks at Wal-Mart are simply disgused social and economic attacks thrown at us inferior Mid Americans and Southerners. Yet the reason why we hicks shop at Wal-Mart is that were forced to buy at Wal-Mart, for two main reasons. First, a lot of of don't have the money to really shop anywhere else, and second, there's often nowhere else to shop at. Again for two reasons, first they wiped out the smaller businessmen which eliminated competion and more economically independant business owners. Then after they chased out the competion they locked up the supplier market and took it to 3rd world producers which wiped out an untold number of decent paying jobs. Thus we mid-American peasants are forced to grovel at our master's feet. 

This to me is economic slavery and unAmerican.

How I figure Wal-mart has turned from a free-market status to a monopoly is that it's practices inhibit competion. As an example Wal-Mart went after the distributers that supplied a small growing retail chain I worked for. I have no problem with a corporation that becomes large and successful because it provides a better mousetrap. Its when the corporation interfers with anyone else who might have an even better one.

The other problem with Wal-Mart is that it creates a locked economic system. Often attacks at Wal-Mart are simply disgused social and economic attacks thrown at us inferior Mid Americans and Southerners. Yet the reason why we hicks shop at Wal-Mart is that were forced to buy at Wal-Mart, for two main reasons. First, a lot of of don't have the money to really shop anywhere else, and second, there's often nowhere else to shop at. Again for two reasons, first they wiped out the smaller businessmen which eliminated competion and more economically independant business owners. Then after they chased out the competion they locked up the supplier market and took it to 3rd world producers which wiped out an untold number of decent paying jobs. Thus we mid-American peasants are forced to grovel at our master's feet. 

This to me is economic slavery and unAmerican.



http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/happy0030.gif




Cat

How I figure Wal-mart has turned from a free-market status to a monopoly is that it's practices inhibit competion. As an example Wal-Mart went after the distributers that supplied a small growing retail chain I worked for. I have no problem with a corporation that becomes large and successful because it provides a better mousetrap. Its when the corporation interfers with anyone else who might have an even better one.

The other problem with Wal-Mart is that it creates a locked economic system. Often attacks at Wal-Mart are simply disgused social and economic attacks thrown at us inferior Mid Americans and Southerners. Yet the reason why we hicks shop at Wal-Mart is that were forced to buy at Wal-Mart, for two main reasons. First, a lot of of don't have the money to really shop anywhere else, and second, there's often nowhere else to shop at. Again for two reasons, first they wiped out the smaller businessmen which eliminated competion and more economically independant business owners. Then after they chased out the competion they locked up the supplier market and took it to 3rd world producers which wiped out an untold number of decent paying jobs. Thus we mid-American peasants are forced to grovel at our master's feet. 

This to me is economic slavery and unAmerican.

Thomas Frank explored this vicious cycle in his book "What's the Matter with Kansas." 

You might have heard the phrase "the malling of America."  Downtowns have been in decline for decades because of the convenience of malls and plazas with their huge meterless parking lots. 

Wal-Mart is the final nail in the coffin. 

Some towns have fought off Wal-Mart.  One such town is Greenfield, Mass.  They're trying to keep the struggling dowtown with its mom 'n' pop shops and cafes alive.  Greenfield isn't posh like its neighbor to the south, Northampton, but it has a stable downtown commerce scene.  If Joe Schmoe goes to the little hardware store in town instead of Wal-Mart, he'll see the little Thai restaurant acrosss the street.  Perhaps he'll say, "Hmmm...I think I'll give it a whirl."  Thus, the hardware store gets business and the restaurant gets business.  That's how a downtown stays alive.  You could argue, "Well, they don't sell Thai food at Wal-Mart."  True, and if Joe Schmoe drives to Wal-Mart, he'll see the Applebee's and the Friday's and it won't be on his mind to go into town for a bite to eat. 

Now, the clowns from AEI will tell you it's all consumer choice.  It is.  If a person has to meet a family budget, I can't blame him or her for going to Wal-Mart.  The question is also one of quality of life.  Empty downtowns are bad for morale and attract crime.  Is that the America we want to live in? Of course, if you live in the Greenfield area you can drive a piece down the road and visit the Wal-Marts in Hadley or Orange.

In Greenfield's Wal-Mart debate, Penn Gillette came back to his hometown to debate...on the side of Wal-Mart.
::)

"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth--the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve that mind that cannot match it."

Compare the stock performance of WMT during Sam Walton's reign, and after he left Wal-Mart... to a set of heirs who preferred to extract value through slave labor under the barrel of a Chinese soldier's gun, rather than creating it themselves.

Compare the value unlocked during the creation and building of HLT, the Hilton hotel chain, to the drunken antics of Hilton's daughter.

Then read the rest of the rant that was written 50 years ago.

Thomas Frank explored this vicious cycle in his book "What's the Matter with Kansas." 

You might have heard the phrase "the malling of America."  Downtowns have been in decline for decades because of the convenience of malls and plazas with their huge meterless parking lots. 

Wal-Mart is the final nail in the coffin. 

Some towns have fought off Wal-Mart.  One such town is Greenfield, Mass.  They're trying to keep the struggling dowtown with its mom 'n' pop shops and cafes alive.  Greenfield isn't posh like its neighbor to the south, Northampton, but it has a stable downtown commerce scene.  If Joe Schmoe goes to the little hardware store in town instead of Wal-Mart, he'll see the little Thai restaurant acrosss the street.  Perhaps he'll say, "Hmmm...I think I'll give it a whirl."  Thus, the hardware store gets business and the restaurant gets business.  That's how a downtown stays alive.  You could argue, "Well, they don't sell Thai food at Wal-Mart."  True, and if Joe Schmoe drives to Wal-Mart, he'll see the Applebee's and the Friday's and it won't be on his mind to go into town for a bite to eat. 

Now, the clowns from AEI will tell you it's all consumer choice.  It is.  If a person has to meet a family budget, I can't blame him or her for going to Wal-Mart.  The question is also one of quality of life.  Empty downtowns are bad for morale and attract crime.  Is that the America we want to live in? Of course, if you live in the Greenfield area you can drive a piece down the road and visit the Wal-Marts in Hadley or Orange.

In Greenfield's Wal-Mart debate, Penn Gillette came back to his hometown to debate...on the side of Wal-Mart.
::)


I lived in a town that kept out a Wal-mart for 20 years. Unfortunatly they put in two Wal-Marts only 10 miles down the expressway which really hurt the town, not only in closed businesses but revenue lost to the neighboring town.

One of the weaknesses of the traditional downtown was that they were often hemmed in by residential or other areas. Thus when a community's business districts needed to expand, the only place was the farm field outside of town. Some of today's smart communities have discovered a way to accomidate both the big box retail with the local small business. Some communities like Galena and Princeton, Illinois have turned their downtowns into a place that fosters the creation of unique shops that offer service and specialization that the big chains can't. In turn these downtowns have themselves become a shopping\tourism draw because they have shops no one else does.     

"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth--the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve that mind that cannot match it."

Compare the stock performance of WMT during Sam Walton's reign, and after he left Wal-Mart... to a set of heirs who preferred to extract value through slave labor under the barrel of a Chinese soldier's gun, rather than creating it themselves.

Compare the value unlocked during the creation and building of HLT, the Hilton hotel chain, to the drunken antics of Hilton's daughter.

Then read the rest of the rant that was written 50 years ago.

The great thing about Ayn Rand is that it's a pristine ideology that cannot succeed in the real world---just like Marxist-Leninism. 

Whine Rant can prattle on about "moochers and looters" f*cking up the Golden Dream exactly as the propaganda ministers of the Kremlin could blame the failure of their unworkable ideology on "wreckers" and "running dogs of imperialism." 

For instance, it is never that cutting taxes doesn't work.  Only failing to cut taxes enough doesn't work!
::)

Actaully there has been one small store chain which has been able to take on Wal-mart nationwide, and that is Dollar General and to some small extent Family Dollar. Their lower prices, general store format, and neighborhood\small town locations gives it the nimbleness to grow like a weed around Wal-Mart. Dixon, Il (16,000) has a Super Wal-Mart , 2 Dollar Generals, and a Family Dollar. However since these stores are targeted to the low income, these stores aren't for the fashionable and are often dirty and crowded. However it also should be noted for those who aren't familiar with these store is that they are not the same as true dollar stores that sell everything for a buck. 

Actaully there has been one small store chain which has been able to take on Wal-mart nationwide, and that is Dollar General and to some small extent Family Dollar. Their lower prices, general store format, and neighborhood\small town locations gives it the nimbleness to grow like a weed around Wal-Mart. Dixon, Il (16,000) has a Super Wal-Mart , 2 Dollar Generals, and a Family Dollar. However since these stores are targeted to the low income, these stores aren't for the fashionable and are often dirty and crowded. However it also should be noted for those who aren't familiar with these store is that they are not the same as true dollar stores that sell everything for a buck. 


Yeah, I've noticed more of those in my area too (I live in San Jose). Some are like conveinence stores, while others are like mini supermarkets. Even though the selection isn't as good or as varied, I really like going there. It saves quite a bit of money, lol. I imagine alot of what they carry is either extra or dead stock from other stores.

The first time I saw a 99 Cent store was in the early-mid '90s. They were around then, but I don't think it was as common. Do you think that might be a semi return to mom and pop stores in a way?

The retail chain I once worked for was a local 4 store operation. Since the founder and his wife still worked in the stores it still was a mom an pop store. It was a a large 1.00 store that at the was the only general retail on the south side of town. 

Whine Rant can prattle on about "moochers and looters" f*cking up the Golden Dream exactly as the propaganda ministers of the Kremlin could blame the failure of their unworkable ideology on "wreckers" and "running dogs of imperialism." 


Serious question -- most libertarian types acknowledge the reality that the Randroid vision is unelectable (as well as unworkable), because human greed doesn't stop just because there's an interesting moral code hanging about.  We all want a free lunch, especially as long as someone else is paying.  For instance, I'm happy to invest in defense contractors, which is (from a capitalist standpoint) the same as being on welfare.  At least I feel kinda icky about it, unlike about 70-80% of the rest of the population who happily slurps outa the public trough.  ("It's corporate welfare, but at least I get a return on my tax dollars!")

You've hung around a lot more lefties than I have -- do they acknowledge the same problem? Namely, that human greed makes the idealized Marxist vision equally unworkable, and that 70-80% of the population would immediately join the black market the day after the Revolution?  And the only thing that's different about the "good" 20-30% would feel similarly weird (about "false consciousness") as they joined in the trade.  ("It's a false consciousness, but at least I can get a loaf of bread!")

Serious question -- most libertarian types acknowledge the reality that the Randroid vision is unelectable (as well as unworkable), because human greed doesn't stop just because there's an interesting moral code hanging about.  We all want a free lunch, especially as long as someone else is paying.  For instance, I'm happy to invest in defense contractors, which is (from a capitalist standpoint) the same as being on welfare.  At least I feel kinda icky about it, unlike about 70-80% of the rest of the population who happily slurps outa the public trough.  ("It's corporate welfare, but at least I get a return on my tax dollars!")

You've hung around a lot more lefties than I have -- do they acknowledge the same problem? Namely, that human greed makes the idealized Marxist vision equally unworkable, and that 70-80% of the population would immediately join the black market the day after the Revolution?  And the only thing that's different about the "good" 20-30% would feel similarly weird (about "false consciousness") as they joined in the trade.  ("It's a false consciousness, but at least I can get a loaf of bread!")

Well, yes and no.
There are still true believers in Marxism/Leninism, but very few, mostly in places like Berkeley, Cambridge, or Greenwich Village.  For the past 40 years, and especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union, it's like belonging to the Flat Earth Society. 

The problem most of the Left has--I mean people who rally for Dennis Kucinich and think Hillary is a sell-out to the fascists---is a failure to gauge the length and difficulty of the struggle.  They are impatient.  They don't understand how little would change if Dennis Kucinich got to be president.  It takes far more than waving signs at a few peace marches and voting for the right candidates to actually change the culture.

I can't stand the Christian fundamentalists.  I don't have to tell you why, you've heard it all before.  However, I have to give the fundies credit.  They didn't just make a lot of noise and interrupt congressional hearings.  They joined the school committees, they got on the town councils, they started from the bottom and worked their way up.  They were patient.  The fundies did all the things Ralph Nader keeps telling the lefties to do.  The Left has a problem relating to Joe Schmoe.  In a lot of ways, I'm a leftie.  In a lot of ways I'm Joe Schmoe.  A lot of folks on the Left just assume they're sophisticated and feel it's the right thing to do to condemn the redneck janitor who says he hates the Puerto Ricans.  "No peace for racists!," yeah that's a great slogan; however, it never stopped anybody from being a racist.  When I choose to, I'm very good at talking to people whose views I despise without condemning them.  A lot of issues about race are actually issues about class,  so without saying "you're wrong," I bring the subject around to class....and soon they find it's the fatcats they can't stand, not the Puerto Ricans. 

Tolerance.  That's a big buzzword with the Left.  Well, it's pretty easy to tolerate people who already agree with you, and those are the only people a lot of these tolerant lefties actually tolerate.  Maybe it's a good idea to not only tolerate those who you disagree with, but make friends with them.  Doesn't mean you'll become them. 

A lot of lefties underestimate the intelligence of conservatives, and overestimate their own.

Michael Moore at least tried to actually relate to the working class.  It went over like a lead balloon, but at least he tried.

Anyway....
::)

There are still true believers in Marxism/Leninism, but very few, mostly in places like Berkeley, Cambridge, or Greenwich Village.  For the past 40 years, and especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union, it's like belonging to the Flat Earth Society. 


Cool.  Not hanging in (hard-)leftist circles, I'd always wondered.  The flat earthers are the only ones we on the right ever got to see.  You'll have to take my word for it that the economic right is the same way.  I can't speak for the religious right, but given the wide divergence between what Jesus suggested the Bible and what his so-called followers profess, it might be the same there, too.


The problem most of the Left has--I mean people who rally for Dennis Kucinich and think Hillary is a sell-out to the fascists---is a failure to gauge the length and difficulty of the struggle.  They are impatient.  They don't understand how little would change if Dennis Kucinich got to be president.  It takes far more than waving signs at a few peace marches and voting for the right candidates to actually change the culture.


Grok.  At least most of us on the (economic) right have realized the President is a figurehead.  Someone propped up for the masses to blame. 


However, I have to give the fundies credit.  They didn't just make a lot of noise and interrupt congressional hearings.  They joined the school committees, they got on the town councils, they started from the bottom and worked their way up. *snip*


Relax.  I give 'em grudging credit for the same reason.  They did the things the (free-market part of the) business world didn't want to do because we were too busy working for a living :)

Tolerance.  That's a big buzzword with the Left.  Well, it's pretty easy to tolerate people who already agree with you, and those are the only people a lot of these tolerant lefties actually tolerate.  Maybe it's a good idea to not only tolerate those who you disagree with, but make friends with them.  Doesn't mean you'll become them.

And Karma to you for recognizing the inherent contradiction that first drove me to libertarianism.  The 80s left seemed no more interested in economic freedom than the religious right was interested in political freedom.  I took freedom as an absolute, and ran with it.

A lot of lefties underestimate the intelligence of conservatives, and overestimate their own.

Yeah, the old adage:  Democrats are smart, Republicans are evil.  We on the right agreed: (Carter/McGovern) Democrats claim know what's best for everyone, (Goldwater/Reagan) Republicans are too stupid to tell you what to do with your life, and that's why we'll take our chances with the 'Pubs...


Michael Moore at least tried to actually relate to the working class.  It went over like a lead balloon, but at least he tried.

Anyway....
::)


Hey, it's all water under the bridge, man.  I thought Moore's Canadian Bacon was the funniest send-up of the military/industrial complex ever written, even as I supported the racket he was mocking.  He was far more effective as a satirist than he was as a polemicist. 

Anyone still reading this should grab themselves a copy of Greenspan's book, which comes out this week.  I've always wondered how a guy who hung out with Ayn Rand (close enough to her inner circle that he had his essays - arguing against fiat currency in the favor of the gold standard - published in her compilations) got to be head of the Federal Reserve Board, and in charge of the largest attempt at fiat currency in human history.  Anyways, his new book may well provide a few more clues to the mystery.

There are a lot of parallels to be drawn between the real world's Greenspan and Rand's ficticious character D'Anconia. His speech suggesting everyone pile into subprime mortgages smacks a lot of something D'Anconia did to the copper markets in Atlas Shrugged, and yeah, it's a spoiler, so I'm not gonna give it all away.  That rant I linked to a few posts ago reads verbatim like the sort of essays that Greenspan was writing in the 60s.

Cool.  Not hanging in (hard-)leftist circles, I'd always wondered.  The flat earthers are the only ones we on the right ever got to see.  You'll have to take my word for it that the economic right is the same way.  I can't speak for the religious right, but given the wide divergence between what Jesus suggested the Bible and what his so-called followers profess, it might be the same there, too.
The purists were just unreasonable.  The ones I could never stand were the Yuppie liberals with their Yoga and arugala salads.  Sure, they love Black people, so long as they're Oprah and Denzel Washington! And you know, you had all these raging 42-year-old campus divorcees claiming they suffered the same plight as African Americans because marriage was kind of "domestic slavery." 
:D

Grok.  At least most of us on the (economic) right have realized the President is a figurehead.  Someone propped up for the masses to blame. 
That's why Bill Clinton was your best friend.  Think about it.
::)

Relax.  I give 'em grudging credit for the same reason.  They did the things the (free-market part of the) business world didn't want to do because we were too busy working for a living :)
I don't know about that.  I guess you could say fewer Christian Right wives worked because they were stay-at-home moms.  After all, a woman's place is in the home!  But I tend to think the Christian Right was dedicated to an authoritarian dogma that commanded them to do God's work.  In their case, God's work was minding everybody else's business and keeping sex ed. out of the curriculum and stuff.  You might want to kick back with a six pack and watch Monday Night Football, but they knew if they didn't go to the schoolboard meetings, the heathen liberals would get to run the show!


Yeah, the old adage:  Democrats are smart, Republicans are evil.  We on the right agreed: (Carter/McGovern) Democrats claim know what's best for everyone, (Goldwater/Reagan) Republicans are too stupid to tell you what to do with your life, and that's why we'll take our chances with the 'Pubs...
I've heard a lot of people say Reagan was "stupid."  Like a fox.  I think he was evil to be sure, but not stupid.  It was only the early-stage Alzheimer's that made him seem forgetful and bumbling.  People loved Reagan.  He could charm the pants off his worst enemies.  Same with Bill Clinton.  The Limbaugh jihad against Clinton was absolutely necessary because the Right saw how much people loved him.  It took that extra effort to get so many people to despise Clinton, and even then he was twice as popular with the folks as Dubya.  The GOP outsources the "what's best for everyone" portion of their platform to the Christian Right.  Without the evangelicals, Reagan would not have won in '80.  Both Bush I and Bush II received endorsement from the Christian Right and did their bidding.  We know about Dubya's life in Christ, but I remember Daddy Bush declaring in '92, "The Republicans don't leave GOD out of their platform!"  It was pretty transparent he was saying that because his handlers advised him to.  If only the Dems were truly Godless.  Jimmy Carter was a self-proclaimed "born again," and Clinton was just on C-SPAN this weekend singing the praises of the Evangelicals!

There were a lot of things covered here while I was gone, so I will just hit on a few highlights:

As far as "WalMart" being a monopoly, I kinda question that.  I know that we had 2 huge "Super Stores" in my town, and it did not hurt our business at all.  Because within a year most of the computers sold there start to die out, so they come to us for repair or replacement.

As far as monopolizing suppliers, that is not unusual in the business world.  Any time you open up to a major market, you may have a problem with supplying current customers.  Suzuki had made the Samuri for over 25 years before they started to export them to the US.  They knew that before then, they could never have met the demand if they had tried.  And computer maker Acer only entered the US market last year, dispite being in business for over 30 years, and being the world's 3rd largest computer supplier.

So if a company lands a major contract, unless they have excess manufacturing capacity, current customers frequently suffer.  They then have to decide if they are going to expand capacity, reduce customers, or outsource.

I do believe in low Government intervention in business.  But I also believe that if a company is being abusive, it should be punished harshly, and either forced to comply or shut down.  I guess I take the liberal view of "Innocent Until Proven Guilty", and feel that as long as a business is run ethically, they should be left alone.

And yes, I am a huge believer in wealth creation.  I do not believe that money is a finite item, but infinite.  When I collect my paycheck, I did not take that money away from somebody else.  Instead I created it through my hard work.  If I sell my house for a profit, I did not steal the extra money from the buyer.  Most people still can't comprehend the fact that money is never lost, and never dissapears.  This is why one of my favorite trivia questions is "How much money was lost in the 1929 stock exchange collapse?"  The real answer is none.  Stock value was lost, and faith in the economic system.  But the money spent for stock did not go away, it went into the pocket of the person you bought it from.  You personally may have lost money through the exchange, but the money did not vanish.

This is why one of my favorite trivia questions is "How much money was lost in the 1929 stock exchange collapse?"  The real answer is none.  Stock value was lost, and faith in the economic system.  But the money spent for stock did not go away, it went into the pocket of the person you bought it from.  You personally may have lost money through the exchange, but the money did not vanish.


You're familiar with the term "cold comfort," no?

Joe Schmoe loses his job, his home, and his automobile and winds up living in a shotgun shack while JP Morgan lit up his cigars with hundred dollar bills...but, hey, nobody lost any money!  Money is infinite!
:D

You're familiar with the term "cold comfort," no?

Joe Schmoe loses his job, his home, and his automobile and winds up living in a shotgun shack while JP Morgan lit up his cigars with hundred dollar bills...but, hey, nobody lost any money!  Money is infinite!
:D


There is a difference between "no money was lost" and "nobody lost any money".  The 1929 crash (like the recent "Housing Bubble Collapse") were both caused by the same thing:  People over-extending their credit, and getting things that they realistically could not afford.  We saw the same thing happen in the S&L Collapse a decade and a half ago.

The real loss was not monitary, but the loss of confidence in our economy (or a significant segment of the economy).  In reality, less then 2% of people have lost their homes in this recent collapse.  And those people were more then likey so over-extended that they should never have been given the loans in the first place.  During the last 5 years, Mortgage lenders were going crazy, giving away Variable Rate loans on questionable property to people who barely qualified.  And now that the interest rates are going up, they can no longer afford to make the payments.

So while 2% are loosing their houses, 98% are keeping their houses, which they probably could not have afforded before.  But that is of little comfort to the 2% that lost thousands.  And people are not loosing their jobs, we are actually at an almost record low unemployment rate.  And the only ones living in shotgun shacks (if they can even find them anymore) are those that bought houses they could not afford in the first place.

  And people are not loosing their jobs, we are actually at an almost record low unemployment rate.  And the only ones living in shotgun shacks (if they can even find them anymore) are those that bought houses they could not afford in the first place.



Actually there isn't a way to accurately count the unemployment rate since the only ones counted are the ones who are collecting unemployment compensation.  Being in construction I know quite a few people who have done there best but have exhausted their compensation and are now exhausting there savings.  Many, many, are taking jobs for less pay and fewer benefits.  I am sure there are many who feel that we should genuflect to the powers that be that there are the few jobs available that there are, benefits or not.  We should not have gotten used to such luxuries as  warm homes, new clothes, dependable cars, food, health/dental care, and (god forgive my greedy selfish self) a vacation once a year.

Actually there isn't a way to accurately count the unemployment rate since the only ones counted are the ones who are collecting unemployment compensation.  Being in construction I know quite a few people who have done there best but have exhausted their compensation and are now exhausting there savings.  Many, many, are taking jobs for less pay and fewer benefits.  I am sure there are many who feel that we should genuflect to the powers that be that there are the few jobs available that there are, benefits or not.  We should not have gotten used to such luxuries as  warm homes, new clothes, dependable cars, food, health/dental care, and (god forgive my greedy selfish self) a vacation once a year.

Underemployment is a bigger problem than unemployment. 

An article in the local papers recently revealed 20% of the school children in Holyoke are homeless.  A lot of families are living in shelters.  The more sickening part is that some of these families were shipped to Holyoke by the state because Boston is overwhelmed. 

I was homeless for a brief period.  It's hell.  I know Mushroom was also homeless once.  A single person going homeless is one thing, an entire family is another. 

You can trivialize a problem with statistics, such as saying only 2% of home owners lost their houses and they didn't deserve them in the first place.  How many more are hanging on to their homes by their fingernails?  The banks should just foreclose on those families, because they probably don't deserve their housing either. 

Mercy and justice are not statistical.

The United States is turning into a Third World country because we have incompetent leaders who kow-tow to special interests and treat social policy as an on-the-job nuisance. 
::)

George Will recently said something to the effect of:
Liberals are for redistributing wealth while stifling its creation.

That's a pretty standard conservative polemic.

It begs the question:

What is the best way to foster wealth creation in a society?
Furthermore, who shall create wealth and for whom shall they create it?

Too much government interference is a disincentive to entrepeneurship.  OK.
Too much laissez-faire leads to monopoly to the point where the entrepeneur cannot compete.  Such as the case with Wal-Mart.  The wealth Wal-Mart creates in Peckville, Ohio, does not make Peckville wealthier, just the Wal-Mart corporation and its investors. 

The "free market" orthodoxy is so knee-jerk in American conservatives that they shriek at the idea of "managed competition."  Government should have no say in the marketplace, they believe, but it always has and it always will. 

Under George HW Bush thew were talking about "enterprize zones" in the impoverished inner cities.  Should not every zone be an enterprize zone? 

Is it a principle of the "free market" to allow corporations to pay Indonesions $.50 an hour, import the foreign-made products for free, and sell at an outrageous mark-up?  That is for whom is the market really free, and what does that freedom mean?

"Entrepeneur" is the great buzz word among American politicians, but I see our current trade policies making entrepeneurship a thing of the past.

Just some questions on the creation of wealth.
???


For me, this is a matter of creating efficient and effective social programs.  First, we need universal healthcare.  Everyone needs access to basic (and primarily preventive) care.

Second, we need a welfare program designed to help but that still encourages people to find work.  The current program has improved since the nineties, but there are still some issues to be resolved.

Third, we need to seriously deal with illegal immigration and the people who hire illegals.  Once we fix that problem, we'll considerably decrease much of the poverty (and crime) in this country.

Fourth, we need to revise the income tax code to lower taxes on everyone who makes about $5 million a year or less, and raise taxes on those who make more than that.  The rich run our system, so they should have to pay for it.

Fifth, we need to privatize and eventually phase out Social Security.  It's a program that has become a collossal waste of money, and people who are currently in their 30s will never see the benefits of it, because it will be bankrupt by the time they become elderly.

Sixth, we need to adopt a mostly isolationist foreign policy.  We need to leave Iraq as soon as possible, and once we do that and withdraw our forces from a few other places, we'll be able to spend a lot less on the military.

Seventh, we need to set trade policies up as a system of reciprocation.  We must end NAFTA and CAFTA and replace them with regulations that reflect how the countries involved treat us.  If they protect an industry, we should protect our own equivalent.  If they open up a market, we should open up our equivalent.  We shouldn't continue to open up our markets to countries that block our exports or slap huge tariffs on them.

Once all these things are done, we'll end up spending a lot less tax money while making more tax revenue.  Once a budget surplus is established and we start paying down more of our national debt, the economy will be a lot more secure, and more sustainable growth will occur.  From that point onward, it's mostly a matter of letting the market clear things.

Underemployment is a bigger problem than unemployment. 

I was homeless for a brief period.  It's hell.  I know Mushroom was also homeless once.  A single person going homeless is one thing, an entire family is another. 


Well, "Underemployment" is most often a factor of either the local economy, or having skills that are saturated.

For example, in the late 1990's early 2000's, LA was flooded with people with MCSE certification.  This led to people like me being unable to find work, or finding work at far below what we should have been getting.  The same thing is happening now as the construction market adjusts itself.  Skills that were highly demanded 5 years ago are simply not needed now.

But there is nothing to be done about that.  You can't make companies hire people it does not need, nor to pay them above what the local supply and demand are.  My solution in 2003 was to leave the LA area.  I relocated to a place where my skills were more in demand, and it was possible to live at a lower wage.

And I have been homeless 3 times.  In LA, there is simply no cushion available if you are out of work for more then a few months.  Unemployment Insurance does not even come close to paying for rent, let alone anything else.


For me, this is a matter of creating efficient and effective social programs.  First, we need universal healthcare.  Everyone needs access to basic (and primarily preventive) care.

Second, we need a welfare program designed to help but that still encourages people to find work.  The current program has improved since the nineties, but there are still some issues to be resolved.

Third, we need to seriously deal with illegal immigration and the people who hire illegals.  Once we fix that problem, we'll considerably decrease much of the poverty (and crime) in this country.


Well, we have social programs now.  But they are either abused, or so Byzantine that it is almost impossible to get the benefits when needed.

I do agree with your second point, and I have long supported a form of "Workfare".  Under the current system, somebody who takes a job looses their benefits.  I would much prefer a "transition", where benefits are reduced as income oncreases, as a way to wean people off of the government teat.

Illegal Immigration is yet another subject.  I find it funny that people who claim to support "the workers" are often the same people who scream when stronger immigration laws are proposed.  I am all in favor of slamming those who hire illegals, as well as actually putting illegals in jail if they re-enter the country.  Give them all to Sheriff Joe in Phoenix for a few months before returning them to Mexico.  And let those that knowingly hire them spend a few years in Levenworth for violating National Security.

But at the same time, I support an amnesty program for those that have not broken any laws, and are interested in becoming productive citizens


Fourth, we need to revise the income tax code to lower taxes on everyone who makes about $5 million a year or less, and raise taxes on those who make more than that.  The rich run our system, so they should have to pay for it.

Fifth, we need to privatize and eventually phase out Social Security.  It's a program that has become a collossal waste of money, and people who are currently in their 30s will never see the benefits of it, because it will be bankrupt by the time they become elderly.

Sixth, we need to adopt a mostly isolationist foreign policy.  We need to leave Iraq as soon as possible, and once we do that and withdraw our forces from a few other places, we'll be able to spend a lot less on the military.

Seventh, we need to set trade policies up as a system of reciprocation.  We must end NAFTA and CAFTA and replace them with regulations that reflect how the countries involved treat us.  If they protect an industry, we should protect our own equivalent.  If they open up a market, we should open up our equivalent.  We shouldn't continue to open up our markets to countries that block our exports or slap huge tariffs on them.


Personally, I would love to see a tax code where those making under $45k are not taxed at all.  I do not believe that the lowest segment of society should pay income taxes at all.  And I would love to see more of a "Flat Tax", where people pay on a graduated scale, with no deductions at all.  You simply pay a percentage of your gross income.  But the CPAs would then all be out of work.

I think SS should be provatized, but on an elective basis.  This has been done in many countries, and invariably those that choose to leave the system end up with more money then those that stay in the standard Government program.  If nothing else, put the money in T-Bills or Savings Bonds.  I am not happy at all with the current system, but I also know that it will never change.

Isolationism would never work.  That is because there are simply bad people out there that want to hurt us.  We had been out of the Middle East for years when 9/11 happened.  We were in talks with Japan to lift the oil embargo when they attacked Pearl Harbor.  Whenever you have something that somebody else covets (or dispises), they will attack you.  It is simply impossible with a global econjomy to turn the clock back to the 17th century.

But I agree 100% with a Reciprical Trade Policy.  I became fascinated with the concept since I read "Debt Of Honor" by Tom Clancy in 1994.  To me it makes perfect sense, mirror the trade policies of countries that we trade with.  If they slap 200% terrifs on our goods, slap a similar terrif on their goods.

In the book, Japan was the main target for the "Trade Reform Act", because they have among the most restrictive trafe laws in the world.  Now I love Japan (I lived there for over a year, and it is my first request for posting).  But their restrictions to imports sicken me.  This is a country where electrinocs are dirt cheap, yet a meal for 1 at McDonalds will set you back $15 (and that was in 1990, I am sure it is more now).  A 50 lb bag of rice that you can buy here for $15 costs over $100 in Japan.  In fact, black marketeering still happens in Japan, where service members will buy rice in the Exchange, and sell it in town for a huge profit.

I am an avid Capitolist.  I believe in free and fair trade.  And I also beleve that companies (or countries) that do not follow the rules should be punished.  Either copy their trade policies, or lock them out as a trading partner.  Currently the countries that are most abusing the US economically are Japan and China.  We are their #1 trading partner, yet their countries are almost closed off to US exports.  Both of them need to learn that Trade is a 2 way street, not just a 1 way street where their imports come in, and our Dollars go out.

However, that will never happen because their respective Lobbies are simply to powerful.  Sometimes it makes me wish that the "Great White Fleet" never forced them to open their doors to trade.

Isolationism would never work.  That is because there are simply bad people out there that want to hurt us.  We had been out of the Middle East for years when 9/11 happened.  We were in talks with Japan to lift the oil embargo when they attacked Pearl Harbor.  Whenever you have something that somebody else covets (or dispises), they will attack you.  It is simply impossible with a global econjomy to turn the clock back to the 17th century.

Well, I see it differently.  9/11 occurred because of prior interventions we made in the Middle East.  Osama himself stated the reason for Al Quida's previous attack on the WTC in 1993 and for 9/11 was because of us having troops stationed in Saudi Arabia.  Terrorist attacks don't occur in a vacuum, and these people don't hate us just out of envy.  We also are the world's biggest supporter of Israel.  That certainly doesn't help our reputation among Islamists.

Now, don't get me wrong.  I agree that some people will hate us no matter what we do, and terrorism will remain a threat until the end of time.  However, it certainly doesn't improve our security any to invade a country with a stable (albeit oppressive) government and replace it with a weak government incapable of preventing ethnic strife.

Intervention should be a last resort in the Middle East, because the more we meddle with their affairs, the more enemies we make.  We just recently committed to a huge arms deal with Israel, which is a great way to send the message to the Islamic World that we have no interest in being a neutral arbitrator.  Until we start acting like a neutral country, we will continue to accumulate enemies among the Muslims.  We must still improve our security procedures and border security, but we need to stop invading countries.

Well, I see it differently.  9/11 occurred because of prior interventions we made in the Middle East.  Osama himself stated the reason for Al Quida's previous attack on the WTC in 1993 and for 9/11 was because of us having troops stationed in Saudi Arabia.  Terrorist attacks don't occur in a vacuum, and these people don't hate us just out of envy.  We also are the world's biggest supporter of Israel.  That certainly doesn't help our reputation among Islamists.

Now, don't get me wrong.  I agree that some people will hate us no matter what we do, and terrorism will remain a threat until the end of time.  However, it certainly doesn't improve our security any to invade a country with a stable (albeit oppressive) government and replace it with a weak government incapable of preventing ethnic strife.

Intervention should be a last resort in the Middle East, because the more we meddle with their affairs, the more enemies we make.  We just recently committed to a huge arms deal with Israel, which is a great way to send the message to the Islamic World that we have no interest in being a neutral arbitrator.  Until we start acting like a neutral country, we will continue to accumulate enemies among the Muslims.  We must still improve our security procedures and border security, but we need to stop invading countries.


ditto

I find it tiring when people say that we should ask why 9/11 happened.  The history of the US is rife with what can be called "imperialist expansion" , but too many consider it unpatriotic to question any move the country makes, especially when the military is involved. 

Well, I see it differently.  9/11 occurred because of prior interventions we made in the Middle East.  Osama himself stated the reason for Al Quida's previous attack on the WTC in 1993 and for 9/11 was because of us having troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. 

Of course, Osama has also declaired that we are a "Godless Nation", and should be destroyed no matter what.

Out troops in Saudi Arabia in 2001 were under 1,000 people.  The majority of them were either manning Patriot batteries (in the event Iraq or Iran attacked), or supporting SA troops in maintaining fighters and other equipment that we sold to them.  Osama is the kind of fanatic that would never be happy until all of the Jews are dead, all non-Arabs are out of the Middle East, and every country in the world is united under a Muslim theocracy.  And even then, I am sure that he would find something to fight about.

Of course, Osama has also declaired that we are a "Godless Nation", and should be destroyed no matter what.

Out troops in Saudi Arabia in 2001 were under 1,000 people.  The majority of them were either manning Patriot batteries (in the event Iraq or Iran attacked), or supporting SA troops in maintaining fighters and other equipment that we sold to them.  Osama is the kind of fanatic that would never be happy until all of the Jews are dead, all non-Arabs are out of the Middle East, and every country in the world is united under a Muslim theocracy.  And even then, I am sure that he would find something to fight about.


Agreed...  but don't you think things like aiding the Mujahideens against the Soviets in Afghanistan and aiding the insurgency against Mossadegh in Iran were good examples of our meddling -- which also eventually led to the rise of Islamism in a modern context?

Where I want to go with this is that the more we interfere, the more enemies we make.  I would argue that we would fare much better if we limited our intervention to things like World Wars.  We can trade all we want to, but we need to stop arming insurgencies and supporting dictators.

Where I want to go with this is that the more we interfere, the more enemies we make.  I would argue that we would fare much better if we limited our intervention to things like World Wars.  We can trade all we want to, but we need to stop arming insurgencies and supporting dictators.


It would be nice, but not realistic.  One of the things that modern International Politics centers on is "Mutual Defense Treaties".  And one of the things that made the US so influential is the fact that we tend to support our allies.  Another is that no matter how badly we may have gotten along with a country in the past, we are willing to overlook it as long as they are willing to be "good neighbors" now.

200 years ago, nobody would have imagined that we would be close allies with England.  Could you imagine telling your grandparents 60 years ago that we would be selling some of our most secret air defense systems (and training them how to use) to Japan and Germany?  Or tell your parents (or you if you are old enough to remember) that we would have a trusting relationship with Russia, or talking to Lybia (still rulled by Gadaffi) about normalizing trade and giving them no interest loans?

One reason why so many countries like to trade with us is that for the most part, we do not care about what country somebody is from, or what God they pray to.  We simply want to trade with them.  And a lot of countries do not like that.  They also do not like it when we are willing to stand behind another country they want to take over, and say "If you pick on them, you pick on us as well".

A lot of people call it meddling, but try to tell that to the people of Kuwait, South Korea, or even England and France.  Just like every country welcomes aid when a natural disaster strikes, they also welcome aid when the big bully up the street pounds on your door with a baseball bat.

I would much rather see the UN take over that area, but while the US is like the big brother in the next room with a .357, the UN is more like relying on the Keystone Kops.  By the time they make it to your house (8 hours later), they pull out their guns that when you pull the trigger a banner unrolls that says "BANG".

It would be nice, but not realistic.  One of the things that modern International Politics centers on is "Mutual Defense Treaties".  And one of the things that made the US so influential is the fact that we tend to support our allies.  Another is that no matter how badly we may have gotten along with a country in the past, we are willing to overlook it as long as they are willing to be "good neighbors" now.

200 years ago, nobody would have imagined that we would be close allies with England.  Could you imagine telling your grandparents 60 years ago that we would be selling some of our most secret air defense systems (and training them how to use) to Japan and Germany?  Or tell your parents (or you if you are old enough to remember) that we would have a trusting relationship with Russia, or talking to Lybia (still rulled by Gadaffi) about normalizing trade and giving them no interest loans?

One reason why so many countries like to trade with us is that for the most part, we do not care about what country somebody is from, or what God they pray to.  We simply want to trade with them.  And a lot of countries do not like that.  They also do not like it when we are willing to stand behind another country they want to take over, and say "If you pick on them, you pick on us as well".

A lot of people call it meddling, but try to tell that to the people of Kuwait, South Korea, or even England and France.  Just like every country welcomes aid when a natural disaster strikes, they also welcome aid when the big bully up the street pounds on your door with a baseball bat.

I would much rather see the UN take over that area, but while the US is like the big brother in the next room with a .357, the UN is more like relying on the Keystone Kops.  By the time they make it to your house (8 hours later), they pull out their guns that when you pull the trigger a banner unrolls that says "BANG".


So... you think that selling weapons to insurgencies and propping up dictators are good things for the world and for our own interests?...  I don't know if you noticed, but most of the time, these things come back to bite us in the @$$.  A lot of the reason for the rise of Islamism is because we undermined a lot of secular governments in the Middle East if they didn't support our business interests.  We helped their opposition, and in many cases, this consisted of religious fanatics.  When we weren't doing that, we supported secular governments that were oppressive, which eventually got overthrown by reliigious fanatics who kept it firmly in mind that we were the ones supporting their oppressors (like how we supported the Shah).

I don't see how you think this kind of intervention is a good thing....

I have no problem with opening up trade and normalizing relations, but half of the time, we're undermining stable governments or supporting oppressive ones.

A lot of the reason for the rise of Islamism is because we undermined a lot of secular governments in the Middle East if they didn't support our business interests.  We helped their opposition, and in many cases, this consisted of religious fanatics.  When we weren't doing that, we supported secular governments that were oppressive, which eventually got overthrown by reliigious fanatics who kept it firmly in mind that we were the ones supporting their oppressors (like how we supported the Shah).


This goes right back to something I mentioned under another thread.

It is easy to look at individual items and condemn them, yet totally miss the environment that things occured in.

During most of the incidents you infer, it was not just us doing the intervention.  People condemn US intervention in many areas of the world, forgetting that most of those interventions were done in an attempt to ballance (or weaken) Soviet influence.  And while most of our interventions in the Middle East were done in one country (Israel), the Soviet Union basically controlled all of the Middle East.

Until the late 1970's, the Middle East was almost 100% Soviet dominated.  The only country we had any influence in was Israel, who did not fully trust us, but trusted the Soviets even less.  Even today, Saudi Arabia is the only other country in the region that pays any attention to US interests.  As far as all of the rest care, we are only good for selling oil to.

And the US had no interest in fostering revolutions in the Middle East.  If you look at every revolution in the region, you will find Soviet arms, Soviet money, and Soviet advisors.  The US was more interested in stability in the region, since turmoil is not conductive to trade.  Even today, every country in the region (other then Saudi Arabia and Israel) uses almost exclusively USSR equipment, and USSR tactics.  Even those that have bought equipment from countries like China and France still use Warsaw Pact tactics.

And speaking of France, they sold far more equipment to the Middle East then the US ever has.  They have been the #2 arms dealer in the region for decades.  The US is a distant 5th, behind Russia, France, PRC, and North Korea.  So why not blame France for "propping up Dictators"?

And during the Cold War, that is almost always the case when it came to supporting governments or insurgents.  One side of a fight went to the Soviets, and the other came to the US.  Often neither side really cared about who gave the arms and equipment, just that they got them.  And the US and USSR did not care as much for who they supported, just so they would have some influence when the fighting was all done.

And yes, I actually have no problem propping up certain dictators.  Because I would rather see a Dictator in charge of a country, then another Khmer Rouge.  Personally, I do not automatically equate "Dictator" with "Despot".  I also do not equate "Democracy" with "Freedom", which has been proven as a lie in such "Democratic" nations as East Germany, South Africa, and North Korea.

This thread has become my Frankenstein monster!

May God forgive me....

:D

This goes right back to something I mentioned under another thread.

It is easy to look at individual items and condemn them, yet totally miss the environment that things occured in.

During most of the incidents you infer, it was not just us doing the intervention.  People condemn US intervention in many areas of the world, forgetting that most of those interventions were done in an attempt to ballance (or weaken) Soviet influence.  And while most of our interventions in the Middle East were done in one country (Israel), the Soviet Union basically controlled all of the Middle East.

Until the late 1970's, the Middle East was almost 100% Soviet dominated.  The only country we had any influence in was Israel, who did not fully trust us, but trusted the Soviets even less.  Even today, Saudi Arabia is the only other country in the region that pays any attention to US interests.  As far as all of the rest care, we are only good for selling oil to.

And the US had no interest in fostering revolutions in the Middle East.  If you look at every revolution in the region, you will find Soviet arms, Soviet money, and Soviet advisors.  The US was more interested in stability in the region, since turmoil is not conductive to trade.  Even today, every country in the region (other then Saudi Arabia and Israel) uses almost exclusively USSR equipment, and USSR tactics.  Even those that have bought equipment from countries like China and France still use Warsaw Pact tactics.

Incorrect.  There are two glaring examples of us being interested in revolution.  First, we aided Mossadegh's opponents in Iran to help bring down his government and install one that was more favorable to both American and British oil interests.  The second example is the aid we gave to Iran contras in the 80s.

Stability seems to be our goal only recently.  We want stability in Iraq now, but during the Iran-Iraq War, we did everything short of direct military action to create instability between those 2 countries.

You're correct that we're not the only guilty party though.  Europe and Russia have dicked over the Middle East for years now.  The oil for food scandal was one of the most rotten things Europe engaged in recently.

And speaking of France, they sold far more equipment to the Middle East then the US ever has.  They have been the #2 arms dealer in the region for decades.  The US is a distant 5th, behind Russia, France, PRC, and North Korea.  So why not blame France for "propping up Dictators"?.

I do.  I realize that France is the country that armed Israel with nukes, and they now hypocritically demand that Iran disarm.  Believe me, my opinion of France is no higher than that of the average American.  The difference is that I know the relevant historical reasons for not trusting them.  Too many people dislike France just because it's popular to bash them right now.

And during the Cold War, that is almost always the case when it came to supporting governments or insurgents.  One side of a fight went to the Soviets, and the other came to the US.  Often neither side really cared about who gave the arms and equipment, just that they got them.  And the US and USSR did not care as much for who they supported, just so they would have some influence when the fighting was all done.

And yes, I actually have no problem propping up certain dictators.  Because I would rather see a Dictator in charge of a country, then another Khmer Rouge.  Personally, I do not automatically equate "Dictator" with "Despot".  I also do not equate "Democracy" with "Freedom", which has been proven as a lie in such "Democratic" nations as East Germany, South Africa, and North Korea.


It's funny you mention Khmer Rouge.  We supported Suharto in nearby Indonesia.  He may not have been as bad as Pol Pot, but when we support dictators, we contradict any notion of "spreading democracy."

Here's what I want out of America.  Either we practice what we preach in supporting freedom and democratic ideals by not supporting dictators and insurgencies, or we just admit that we're like every other powerful nation -- we only have trade interests in mind.

I suppose the second option is easier and more practical, but if we go that route, we really need to cut the bullshi* about being a beacon of freedom.

Incorrect.  There are two glaring examples of us being interested in revolution.  First, we aided Mossadegh's opponents in Iran to help bring down his government and install one that was more favorable to both American and British oil interests.  The second example is the aid we gave to Iran contras in the 80s.

Stability seems to be our goal only recently.  We want stability in Iraq now, but during the Iran-Iraq War, we did everything short of direct military action to create instability between those 2 countries.

You're correct that we're not the only guilty party though.  Europe and Russia have dicked over the Middle East for years now.  The oil for food scandal was one of the most rotten things Europe engaged in recently.

I do.  I realize that France is the country that armed Israel with nukes, and they now hypocritically demand that Iran disarm.  Believe me, my opinion of France is no higher than that of the average American.  The difference is that I know the relevant historical reasons for not trusting them.  Too many people dislike France just because it's popular to bash them right now.

It's funny you mention Khmer Rouge.  We supported Suharto in nearby Indonesia.  He may not have been as bad as Pol Pot, but when we support dictators, we contradict any notion of "spreading democracy."

Here's what I want out of America.  Either we practice what we preach in supporting freedom and democratic ideals by not supporting dictators and insurgencies, or we just admit that we're like every other powerful nation -- we only have trade interests in mind.

I suppose the second option is easier and more practical, but if we go that route, we really need to cut the bullshi* about being a beacon of freedom.


It seems Uncle Sam likes to stir up the hornets nest and then acts surprised when he gets stung!
Do you have a good link on France's role in Israeli armament?  I'd be interested to read more about it. 

Here's a decent link on the France/Israel thing: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/index.html

And the US had no interest in fostering revolutions in the Middle East.  If you look at every revolution in the region, you will find Soviet arms, Soviet money, and Soviet advisors. 


Dig.  The greatest strategic mistake we made in the Cold War was in not cleaning up after our mess.  We "won", but we forgot to put our tools away after we were done with 'em. 

Case in point: you show "Rambo III" to a bunch of Millenials and they wonder why Rambo's fighting with the bad guys against the poor innocent Russians :-?

Moral of the story:  Winning a proxy war isn't enough.  You have to consolidate your gains.

Indeed...  but the fact remains that both the U.S. and the Soviets supported dictators and revolutions.

In my mind, that puts both of us around the same level of evil.  The difference is that America is generally a lot more clever about things.  Communism has been a failure in every area it is implemented, but at least capitalism is more practical as a system.

At this point, we shouldn't be dicking over countries we don't like.  We should be cleaning up the corporate corruption in our own country.

The second example is the aid we gave to Iran contras in the 80s.

Stability seems to be our goal only recently.  We want stability in Iraq now, but during the Iran-Iraq War, we did everything short of direct military action to create instability between those 2 countries.


We did not "give" anything to Iran during the Iran-Contra Affair.  I still find it funny how many people either never really understood what happened there, or have forgotten.

During the mid-1980's, there were a large number of Americans being kidnapped in Lebanon.  Most were simply teachers at the American University there.  And of those taken hostage, a large number turned up dead.  And it was not just American hostages, there were also some taken from England, France, and other European countries (the actual count is 25 Americans, 16 French, 12 Britons, 7 Swiss, 7 West Germans, 4 Soviets, 2 Saudi Arabians).

Anglican Envoy Terry Waite was the main mediary, shuttling between London, Washington, Beirut, and Tehran.  The groups doing the hostage taking (like Hezbollah) were strongly influenced by Iran.  Iran proposed that by some quid pro quo negotiation, they said that if the US sold (not gave, sold) them some outdated short range missiles (TOW 1 antitank and HAWK 1 antiaircraft) they would bring the pressure on the groups to release their hostages.

However, the story broke early, and this had some bad results.  Several hostages were killed and Terry Waite himself was taken hostage for over 4 years.

And the Contras were involved because a profit was shown from the arms deals, and since it was a "black op", the money had to be sent into another black op.  So any profit made was simply funneled into paying for another op that was already on the book: aid to the Contras in Nicuragua.

There were never any weapons "given" to Iran, (no more then there were weapons given to Iraq, those were sold to help end attacks on neutral oil tankers) they were sold in order to gain the release of over 30 hostages, many of the English, French, even Russian.  And a great many were released because of the negotiations, and the thankless efforts of Terry Waite.

Personally, I think the movie Lord Of War summed that whole chapter up very well.  Turi was talking to a guy who had been involved in puppet arms shipments in that era.  When Yuri accuesed him of being two-faced for arming both sides of the conflict, his answer was fairly simple:

"Who says that we wanted either side to win?"

I was thinking of that scene from "Lord of War" myself.  That happens to be my favorite movie of all time.

The funny thing is, though, you seem to defend this kind of thing.  The impression I got from that movie is that it was showing how stupid it was for us to engage in that kind of thing.

Let me include a few details of this arrangement that you left out.

"The affair emerged when a Lebanese newspaper reported that the U.S. sold arms to Iran in exchange for the release of hostages by Hezbollah. E-mails sent by Oliver North to John Poindexter support this. However, the Israeli ambassador to the U.S. claims that the reason was to establish links with elements of the military in Iran. It is also noteworthy that the Contras did not receive all of their finances from arms sales, but also through drug trafficking of which the US was found to be aware."

"The Iran-Contra report found that the sales of arms to Iran violated United States Government policy; it also violated the Arms Export Control Act. Overall, if the releasing of hostages was the purpose of arms sales to Iran, the plan was a failure as only three of the 30 hostages were released."

"Michael Ledeen, a consultant of Robert McFarlane, asked Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres for help in the sale of arms to Iran. The general idea behind the plan was for Israel to ship weapons to Iran, then the US would reimburse Israel with the same weapons. The Israeli government required that the sale of arms meet high level approval from the United States government, and when Robert McFarlane convinced them that the U.S. government approved the sale, Israel obliged by agreeing to sell the arms. Reagan approved McFarlane's idea to reach out to Iran on July 18, 1985 while in a hospital bed recovering from cancer surgery. In July 1985, Israel sent American-made BGM-71 TOW (Tube-launched, Optically-tracked, Wire-guided) anti-tank missiles to Iran through an arms dealer named Manucher Ghorbanifar, a friend of Iran's Prime Minister. One hostage, the Reverend Benjamin Weir was subsequently released, despite the completed arms sale. This ultimately proved Ledeen's plan a failure with only three shipments through Israel."

"After a botched delivery of HAWK missiles, and a disastrous London meeting between McFarlane and Ghorbanifar (at which Ghorbanifar threatened his American interlocutor by saying that there would be "fire back on your interests"), Arrow Air Flight 1285, a plane containing nearly 250 American servicemen, crashed in Newfoundland.

On the day of the crash, responsibility was claimed by Islamic Jihad, a wing of Hezbollah that had taken credit for the kidnapping of the very Americans in Lebanon whom the Reagan administration sought to have released. The crash came on the second anniversary of another attack for which Islamic Jihad took credit: the near-simultaneous bombings of six targets in Kuwait, the French and American Embassies among them. Members of Hezbollah had participated in and were jailed for those attacks, but most of the conspirators were members of the Iraqi Shia opposition party al-Dawa, (the Call, today one of the largest political parties in Iraq). An article in the June 2007 Middle East Review of International Affairs, by Nathan Thrall, presents evidence of Iran's complicity."

"Robert McFarlane resigned in December 1985. He was replaced by Admiral John Poindexter. On the day of McFarlane's resignation, Oliver North, a military aide to the United States National Security Council (NSC), proposed a new plan for selling arms to Iran. This time, there were two new ideas. Instead of selling arms through Israel, the sale was to be direct. Second, the proceeds from the sale would go to the Contras at a markup. Oliver North wanted a $15 million markup, while contracted Iranian arms broker Manucher Ghorbanifar added a 41% markup of his own. Other members of the NSC were in favor of North's plan. John Poindexter authorized the plan, and it went into effect.

At first, the Iranians refused to buy the arms at the inflated price because of the excessive markup imposed by North and Ghorbanifar. In February 1986, 1000 TOW missiles were shipped to Iran. From May to November 1986, there were additional shipments of miscellaneous weapons and parts. Reagan claimed that the total of all arms sales was less than a planeload."

"In mid-September 1985 shortly after the initiation of the sales, Reverend Benjamin Weir, held hostage since May 1984 was freed by the 'Islamic Jihad Organization', but in September and October of 1986 three more Americans - Frank Reed, Joseph Ciccipio, Edward Tracy - were abducted. It is thought they were kidnaped to replace the freed Americans."

"The plan went ahead, and proceeds from the arms sales went to the Contras, a right-wing guerilla organization engaged in an insurgency against the leftist Sandinista government of Nicaragua. The diversion was coordinated by Oliver North of the National Security Council. Supporting the Contras financially was an effort to assist them in their fight against the Nicaraguan government.

Both the sale of weapons to Iran and the funding of the Contras attempted to circumvent not only stated Administration policy, but also legislation passed by Congress known as the Boland Amendment. Administration officials argued that regardless of the Congress restricting the funds for the Contras, or any affair, the President (the administration) could carry on by seeking alternative means of funding such as private entities and foreign governments.

The Contras were also involved in drug trafficking. According to The Washington Post, some Central Americans criticize Reagan for his support of the Contras, saying he was an anti-communist zealot, blinded to human rights abuses, while others say he 'saved Central America' and helped 'nurture democratic governments and free-market systems across the region.' Daniel Ortega, Sandinistan leader of Nicaragua from 1979 to 1990, said that he hoped God would forgive Reagan for his 'dirty war against Nicaragua.'"

"Whatever the reasons for US arms sales to Iran, the aborted deal caused political strife in the United States when the details became public knowledge.

The Lebanese magazine Ash-Shiraa exposed the arrangement on November 3, 1986. This was the first public reporting of the alleged weapons-for-hostages deal. The operation was discovered only after an airlift of guns was downed over Nicaragua. Eugene Hasenfus, who was captured by Nicaraguan authorities, initially alleged in a press conference on Nicaraguan soil that two of his coworkers, Max Gomez and Ramon Medina, worked for the CIA. He later said he did not know whether they did or not. The Iranian government confirmed the Ash-Shiraa story, and ten days after the story was first published, President Ronald Reagan affirmed the truth of the matter. In a televised speech, on November 13, Reagan confirmed the sale of weapons to Iran and stated the reasons for the sale of weapons. He also claimed that only a planeload worth of weapons were sent to Iran.

'My purpose was... to send a signal that the United States was prepared to replace the animosity between us with a new relationship... At the same time we undertook this initiative, we made clear that Iran must oppose all forms of international terrorism as a condition of progress in our relationship. The most significant step which Iran could take, we indicated, would be to use its influence in Lebanon to secure the release of all hostages held there.'

The scandal was compounded when on November 21, Oliver North and his secretary Fawn Hall shredded pertinent documents. US Attorney General Edwin Meese admitted on November 25 that profits from weapons sales to Iran were made available to assist the Contra rebels in Nicaragua. On the same day, John Poindexter resigned, and Oliver North was fired. Poindexter was replaced by Frank Carlucci on December 2, 1986."

"On November 25, 1986, President Reagan, faced with mounting pressure from Congressional Democrats and the media, announced the creation of a Special Review Board looking into the matter and the next day assigned former Senator John Tower, former Secretary of State Edmund Muskie, and former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft to serve as members; this Presidential Commission would take effect on December 1 and became known as the Tower Commission. The commission was the first presidential commission to review and evaluate the National Security Council. The objectives of the Tower Commission were to inquire into 'the circumstances surrounding the Iran-Contra matter, other case studies that might reveal strengths and weaknesses in the operation of the National Security Council system under stress, and the manner in which that system has served eight different Presidents since its inception in 1947.'

President Reagan appeared before the Tower Commission on December 2, 1986, to answer questions. His answers were not entirely consistent, and he was (allegedly) plagued with poor memory, because the questions were regarding details that occurred months and years prior. It was also said that during the time in question he was almost constantly using heavy pain medications.

The report published by the Tower Commission, known as the Tower Commission Report, was delivered to the President on February 26, 1987. It criticized the actions of Oliver North, John Poindexter, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and others. It did not determine that the President had knowledge of the extent of the program, although it argued that the President ought to have had better control of the National Security Council staff. The wording of the report surprised some since it was expected to have been weak in its criticism of the President. Instead, it heavily criticized President Reagan for not properly supervising his subordinates or being aware of their actions. The U.S. Congress issued its own report on November 18, 1987, indicating that 'If the president did not know what his national security advisers were doing, he should have.' The congressional report stated that the President bore 'ultimate responsibility' for wrongdoing by his aides, and his Administration exhibited 'secrecy, deception and disdain for the law.' A major result of the Tower Commission was the consensus that Reagan should have listened to his National Security Advisor more, thereby placing more power in the hands of that chair. The National Security Advisor was to be seen as an 'honest broker' and not someone who would use the position to further his or her political agenda.

Some doubted the intentions of the Tower Commission and believed that it was a political stunt. The commission had limited its criticism of Vice President George H.W. Bush. Subsequently, the head of the commission, John Tower, was nominated to the position of Secretary of Defense by Bush when he became President. He was not confirmed by the Senate. Some Democrats used the nomination to retaliate against President George H.W. Bush for what they viewed as 'negative' (though successful) campaign tactics against their nominee, Michael Dukakis. Others, including the conservative organizer Paul Weyrich, accused Tower (accurately, the evidence suggests) of having been involved in extramarital affairs and heavy drinking. One of Tower's leading critics was Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn, a Georgia Democrat. Brent Scowcroft was named National Security Advisor."

"Faced with undeniable evidence of his involvement in the scandal, Reagan expressed regret regarding the situation at a nationally televised White House press conference on Ash Wednesday, March 4, 1987. Responding to questions, Reagan stated that his previous assertions that the U.S. did not trade arms for hostages were incorrect. He also stated that the Vice President knew of the plan.

Domestically, the scandal precipitated tarnished President Reagans popularity as his approval ratings saw 'the largest single drop for any U.S. president in history', from 67% to 46% in November 1986, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll Reagan survived the scandal however and by December 1988 Gallup poll 'recording a 63% approval rating.'

Internationally the damage was more severe. The scandal 'completely discredited the U.S.-led campaign against international terrorism, undermining previous and curent efforts by its allies,' stay steadfast to a 'no negotiations, no concessions', policy on terrorism.

U.S. willingness to engage in concessions with Iran and the Hizballah not only signalled to its adversaries that hostage-taking was an extremely useful instrument in extracting political and financial concessions for the West but also undermined any credibility of U.S. criticism of other states' deviation from the principles of no-negotiation and no concession to terrorists and their demands.

In the Poindexter's hometown of Odon, Indiana, a street was renamed to John Poindexter Street. Bill Breedan, a former minister, stole the street's sign in protest of the Iran-Contra Affair. He claimed that he was holding it for a ransom of $30 million, in reference to the amount of money given to Iran to transfer to the contras. He was later arrested and was sent to jail, making him, as stated by Howard Zinn, 'the only person to be imprisoned as a result of the Iran-contra Affair."

"From the 1980s onward, allegations were made that the Contras were being funded through cocaine distribution.

One of the earliest such allegations was contained in a lawsuit filed in 1986 by two journalists represented by the Christic Institute, alleging that the CIA and other parties were engaged in criminal acts, including financing the purchase of arms with the proceeds of cocaine sales. The suit was dismissed; several of the named participants subsequently sued the Christic Institute for libel and won.

Senator John Kerry's 1988 U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report on Contra drug links, which was released on April 13, 1989, concluded that 'senior U.S. policy makers were not immune to the idea that drug money was a perfect solution to the Contras' funding problems.' The Kerry Committee report further stated that members of the U.S. State Department 'who provided support for the Contras were involved in drug trafficking...and elements of the Contras themselves knowingly received financial and material assistance from drug traffickers.' Kerry was suspicious of North's connection with Manuel Noriega, Panama's drug baron. According to the National Security Archive, Oliver North had been in contact with Noriega and had met him personally.

The report went on to say that 'the Contra drug links included...payments to drug traffickers by the U.S. State Department of funds authorized by the Congress for humanitarian assistance to the Contras, in some cases after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law enforcement agencies on drug charges, in others while traffickers were under active investigation by these same agencies.' Houses of the Congress began to raise questions about the drug-related allegations associated with the Contras, causing a review in the spring of 1986 of the allegations by the State Department, in conjunction with the Justice Department and relevant U.S. intelligence agencies.

Former DEA agent Celerino Castillo alleged that Ilopango Airport in El Salvador was used by Contras for drug trafficking, with full knowledge of the CIA. He further alleged that his investigations were hindered by US government agencies. These allegations were part of an investigation by the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, which however did not find substantial evidence to support Castillo's allegations. Castillo also testified before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on the same allegations.

The allegations resurfaced in 1996 when journalist Gary Webb published reports in the San Jose Mercury News, and later in his book Dark Alliance, detailing how Contras had distributed crack cocaine into Los Angeles to fund weapons purchases. These reports were initially attacked by various other newspapers, which attempted to debunk the link, citing official reports that apparently cleared the CIA.

The Wall Street Journal reported on January 29, 1997 on activities at the Mena, Arkansas airport allegedly involved then-governor Bill Clinton in a coverup of illegal drug-trading activity. The Wall Street Journal article goes on to state:

At the center of the web of speculation spun around Mena are a few undisputed facts: One of the most successful drug informants in U.S. history, smuggler Barry Seal, based his air operation at Mena. At the height of his career he was importing as much as 1,000 pounds of cocaine per month, and had a personal fortune estimated at more than $50 million. After becoming an informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration, he worked at least once with the CIA, in a Sandinista drug sting. He was gunned down by Colombian hit men in Baton Rouge, La., in 1986; eight months later, one of his planes—with an Arkansas pilot at the wheel and Eugene Hasenfus in the cargo bay—was shot down over Nicaragua with a load of Contra supplies.

In 1998, CIA Inspector General Frederick Hitz published a two-volume report that substantiated many of Webb's claims, and described how 50 contras and contra-related entities involved in the drug trade had been protected from law enforcement activity by the Reagan-Bush administration, and documented a cover-up of evidence relating to these activities. The report also showed that Oliver North and the NSC were aware of these activities. A report later that same year by the Justice Department Inspector General Michael Bromwich also came to similar conclusions.

In 2004, Gary Webb committed suicide by shooting himself twice (huh?) in the head."

"In 1992 U.S. President George H.W. Bush pardoned six people involved in the scandal, namely Elliott Abrams, Duane R. Clarridge, Alan Fiers, Clair George, Robert C. McFarlane, and Caspar W. Weinberger.

George W. Bush selected some individuals that served under Reagan for high-level posts in his presidential administration. They include:

Elliott Abrams: under Bush, the Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs; in Iran Contra, pleaded guilty on two counts of unlawfully withholding information, pardoned.
Otto Reich: head of the Office of Public Diplomacy under Reagan.
John Negroponte: under Bush, the National Intelligence Director.
Admiral John Poindexter: under Bush, Director of the Information Awareness Office; in Iran Contra found guilty of multiple felony counts for conspiracy, obstruction of justice, lying to Congress, defrauding the government, and the alteration and destruction of evidence, convictions reversed.
Robert Gates: under Bush, confirmed on December 6, 2006 as the new Secretary of Defense to replace the resigning Donald Rumsfeld. Served as Director of Central Intelligence from 1991–1993 under George H.W. Bush. During Iran Contra he was Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.
Charles E. Allen: under Bush, appointed in August 2005 to be chief intelligence officer at the Department of Homeland Security. Allen's position at DHS was not subject to Senate confirmation. Prior to the DHS appointment, Allen had worked 47 years at the CIA. Director of Central Intelligence William Webster formally reprimanded Allen for failing to fully comply with the DCI's request for full cooperation in the agency's internal Iran-Contra scandal investigation. However coworkers of Allen pointed out that Webster reprimanded the one person in the CIA who had brought his suspicions of a funds diversion to Robert Gates."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

If you doubt the validity of wikipedia, check out the 51 primary sources that this site uses for its information.

Sorry to assault you with a wall of text, but the facts are clearly more damning than the way you put it.

^ Um....yeah!

Mushroom's right, it wasn't a "give" it was a "trade."
Caught red-handed, let off scot-free.