They seem to assume there is only one means to an end, a business only succeeds if it benefits the consumers. While that is indeed one way it is not the only way, especially when it comes to large corporations. Most of those people are only concerned with making monkey, they don’t care about the business, the customers, the employees. They only care when they’re forced to, or if it’s impacting their ability to make money.

The two act as if there was no problem in which the anti-trust acts were a response to. As if the government crafted a law to combat a non-existent problem. I don’t know that the US government has ever been proactive, over-reactive yes, but proactive I don’t think so.

I’m not suggesting the US anti-trust and regulatory laws are necessarily the greatest or even close to that or that they’re always enforced appropriately, but RP and Professor guy there take the position ‘hey this isn’t working as well as it could therefore we shouldn’t have any at all’. I think that’s some fallacious rational there. It’s like climbing a steep mountain, seeing the rope you’re using is frayed, and cutting your line because it’s dangerous.

It’s funny they talk about how the current (Regan) administration is doing good by deregulating some industries. Like the savings & loan industry which promptly decided it was time to start making a ton of high risk loans and started tossing the hot potato around until someone finally dropped it. History repeats, isn’t that what’s been happening right now? Make a bunch of bad loans sell them off to someone else, lather rinse repeat, someone gets stuck with the bad loans, they get screwed, the consumer gets screwed, and the people that made the bad loans and handed them off are swimming in money Scrooge McDuck style.

They talk about the telecoms and AT&T specifically, who has been buying out all the competition? I had two phone services land line and cellular, both were bought out by AT&T, my service didn’t get better, my bills certainly didn’t get cheaper. Would it be good for consumers if AT&T suddenly didn’t have to share it’s networks with it’s competitors?

>> ^imstellar28:
^what BansheeX said.
NetRunner:
My sources, among others, are excerpts from the best selling author Milton Friedman, the 1976 recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economics, and hailed "the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century…possibly of all of it".



And that's your problem right there.

Most economists are the most selfish, greedy motherfuckers on this planet.


"Robert H. Frank, Thomas Gilovich, and Dennis T. Regan, "Does Studying Economics Inhibit Cooperation?" Its conclusions: Economics grad students are more likely to free ride than the general public. Economists are less generous than other academics in charitable giving. Economics undergrads are more likely to defect in prisoner's dilemma problems. Students are less likely to return found money after studying economics but not after studying another subject like astronomy. No wonder they call it "the dismal science.""



So nyeh!

"You'll never hear anything like that from any Democratic Pollster, er, President, including the Obamessiah."

That may be true, but he is lying... Just read the history of the Iran Contra affair. Not to mention the horror show the Regan regime caused in Central America.

Ah the fine art of passing the buck, or in Regan's case the Jellybean, accepting all responsibility yet letting it be known you are wholly innocent, the blame just slides off like Teflon.

THE BIG YELLOW ONE IS THE SUN!

BRIAN REGAN - BEST COMEDIAN EVER!

You need more recent proof? How about Clinton's intervention in Kosovo?

I don't think it really matters whether it's a Democrat from one year ago or one from one hundred years ago. You can say the party was a different party before the 80s, but was it really that staggeringly different than the Dem Party of today? I don't think that's accurate. Bill Clinton is just as much an interventionist as Woodrow Wilson, IMO. And so is George W. Bush for that matter.

And, for the record, I'm not trying to defend the Republican Party. To the contrary, I was pointing out how neo-conservatism is the opposite of conservatism, and the party used to adopt a rather strict conservative policy. In fact, it's what the party still boasts, though their actions are to the contrary in most cases. That was my original point. Right now, the Democratic Party scares me less than the Republican Party, to be honest, so when election time comes and it's between Obama or McCain, I'd begrudgingly choose Obama over McCain any day. He'll be less awful than McCain, I think. I digress.

NetRunner, do you seriously think the Democratic Party does NOT adopt an interventionist policy? Even Clinton was guilty of intervention. Who else do I need to show you? Intervention, nation-building and unconstitutional policing abroad of the rights of human self-determination is native to the Democratic Party, and sometime not too distant in the history of the Republican Party (even before Regan), the Republican Party has adopted this Democratic policy, as well. What else is necessary to prove this to you?

In reply to this comment by garsh:
Such little respect for the man who single-handedly destroyed the Soviet Union and brought about the end to the cold war.

What else would you expect from a liberal moron?

No worries. And thanks for the promote on the ID video! I was pleasantly surprised when I switched to the main page.

In reply to this comment by theaceofclubz:
Thanks man, I never would have figured out why people weren't voting for it if you hadn't mentioned that.
In reply to this comment by BoneyD:
Hi Ace,

Your vid http://www.videosift.com/video/Penn-Said-Bitch-on-MSNBC seems to have been embedded for the next video in his playlist (one about Ronald Regan's kid). It must've ticked over to the next when you got the embed code or something... Anyways, thought you should know

Thanks man, I never would have figured out why people weren't voting for it if you hadn't mentioned that.
In reply to this comment by BoneyD:
Hi Ace,

Your vid http://www.videosift.com/video/Penn-Said-Bitch-on-MSNBC seems to have been embedded for the next video in his playlist (one about Ronald Regan's kid). It must've ticked over to the next when you got the embed code or something... Anyways, thought you should know

Hi Ace,

Your vid http://www.videosift.com/video/Penn-Said-Bitch-on-MSNBC seems to have been embedded for the next video in his playlist (one about Ronald Regan's kid). It must've ticked over to the next when you got the embed code or something... Anyways, thought you should know

GHeap,

You said: "I don't know what is greater, your ignorance or your aversion of the issue."

Almost certainly my ignorance, but it's not because of this issue. And I'm not avoiding anything. You made a claim about Romney's qualifications to serve under a Democratic president. I responded by pointing out that, in my opinion, most of his statements on the economy throughout the course of his campaign have been nothing but right-wing boilerplate. They haven't shown a nuanced understanding of the economy or a desire to be honest about our place in the world market (He's gonna bring all those auto industry jobs back to Michigan! Just you wait and see!). Moreover, I claimed that statements he made (in this video, no less!) about the Democrats and the war show him to lack sound political and strategic judgement. I'd say that lacking good judgement should pretty much disqualify you from having any cabinet position in any administration, but I guess that's just me trying to skirt the issue. Oh, wait...

The fact is, your suggestion was ill thought out. It would be as ludicrous as me saying that Romney, if he'd won, should've made Ralph Nader his Secretary of Labor.

"He's got the Reganomics thing going on. And despite how you feel about Regan, he did the economy justice."

First of all, his name was Ronald Reagan. Second, do you mean the "Reaganomics" that GHWB called "voodoo economics?" Or are you talking about the Reaganomics that no less a conservative than Mike Huckabee says is "more concerned with Wall Street than Main Street?" No, Ronald Reagan did not "do the economy justice" (mostly for the reasons Farhad points out above). And in the areas where he wasn't as awful as he could've been, it was largely because he had been embarrassed by the failure of his more ideologically driven first 2 years in office, and was forced to the left. As blogger Ezra Klein puts it:

"This is a guy who raised taxes six years in a row...passed a massive amnesty bill, wildly increased the size of the federal government, exploded the deficit, saved Social Security by instituting a large payroll tax, and expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit. Not to say he didn't have his conservative dogma humming along quietly in the background, but the last seven years of his administration saw him somewhat chastened, and far more deal-oriented."

So more Reaganomics? If that term means "fucking the economy up for 2 years until the situation becomes so bad politically that I have to try to pass some half-assed fixes that wouldn't be nearly as good as what the Democrats would have done all along," then I'll pass. So will any Democratic nominee for president, thankfully.

Finally, I'd point out that even though I thought what you said was stupid, I didn't downvote your comment. It was pretty cheap that you did so to me, but it's your character and reputation at stake when you do such things, not mine.

^I don't know what is greater, your ignorance or your aversion of the issue. Did I say anything about the war? I'll tell you what before I go and tell you about how Romney would be good with the economy why don't you do some research about his past performance, not only in his private business but his political policies. He's got the Reganomics thing going on. And despite how you feel about Regan, he did the economy justice.

well, not the best Paul spot i've seen, but worth a vote anyway.

oh, and you may want to update your tags. Reagan, not Regan.

Did anyone else notice the picture of Regan on his nightstand?

Fionn Regan is really an amazing songwriter. Have you heard "Put a Penny in the Slot"?