|
Post by timothylane on Nov 17, 2019 9:45:21 GMT -8
I'm not sure Williamson is entirely right, though I haven't paid any attention to what Rubio has been saying so I don't know exactly what he's responding to. "America" doesn't care which company gets the sales if the stockholders and workers are Americans, but in the end we are better off if the money goes to Americans rather than Japanese or Germans or Mexicans or Canadians or whoever. It may not be a large preference, certainly not enough to want to rely on coffee and chocolate produced in American hothouses rather than imported from elsewhere. And since the money balances out in the end, we can't sell our goods elsewhere unless foreigners are selling here (or we're investing over there).
There's also the matter of strategic products. Would we want our fighter planes to be made in China, or for that matter made in America by Chinese companies that obey the dictates of Chairman Xi? Much better that they be made in America by American workers for American companies. And we found out a few decades ago how unpleasant it can be to rely on foreigners, especially hostile foreigners, for key supplies such as oil (or, today, rare earth elements).
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Nov 17, 2019 21:28:04 GMT -8
I read Rubio's article and must say that his message is somewhat of a mess. He talks about economic questions and wanders off theme to speak about the collapse of American morals which have little to do with economics. I think he does himself a big disservice by confusing issues.
The basic problem I have with both Williamson's and Rubio's arguments is that Williamson writes as if the government is not already up to its eyeballs in our national economics and Rubio sounds like he wants more of it. Believe me, those capitalists who Williamson appears to admire so much have been using government intervention to promote their businesses.
We have not had free-market capitalism in this country, ever! I am not sure that it has ever existed in the world, but I guess Hongkong in the 1980s is the closest which has come to allowing it.
As with most politicians, Rubio makes no suggestions as to how to bring about his desired end, and frankly, I hope he doesn't. I do agree with Williamson that, almost all, politicians are uniquely unqualified to deal with the building and running of businesses.
The problem I have with Williamson is his obvious scorn for many Americans, particularly those who are blue-collar types. This attitude has become quite clear over the last few years. Furthermore, he sounds like someone who has taken Adam Smith as his prophet and the theory of free-market capitalism as his religion. In fact, lately, he is sounding very much like a globalist libertarian to me. It would appear that in his mind, the only thing the government should concern itself with is the area of commerce and there as little as possible. I might agree with him if such a thing could actually happen, but we all know it can't and won't.
As I recall, Williamson is an open-borders advocate and doesn't seem to worry much about American workers as much as he does American business. He's got no problem with flooding the U.S.A. with low-educated, low-paid labor from third world countries and thereby depressing the wages of millions of Americans as well as destroying our culture. I would have more sympathy for his thoughts about economics, if this were not the case. That being said, I have as much, possibly more, disdain for our government as Williamson.
Williamson's comment is not well considered, or dishonest. When the number of automobiles sold per year is 15 million units, it most certainly does make a difference whether the units are made in the U.S. or overseas. It also makes a difference where the profits from the sales of those millions of units end up. Are they on the books of Toyota listed in Tokyo, or in the U.S.? Then there is the question of where all the future spare parts which will be needed to keep those cars on the road will be produced. Furthermore, where are all those dollars ending up, in the USA or elsewhere. Surely Williamson understands this. That is why I tend to think he is being dishonest. By narrowing his example to one unit, he is trying to obscure the larger effect.
The problems which Rubio and Williamson write about are huge, but I see little from either man which is very useful on a pragmatic level. As such, I don't believe we should look to either for solutions to these problems. One is a politician and the other a scribbler.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Nov 17, 2019 21:40:14 GMT -8
The problem is that capitalism has losers as well as winners. What's good for the economy as a whole is never good for everyone in the economy. Sometimes it's bad for a lot of people. And of course it can be both bad and good for many. People like Williamson don't care about the losers or what happens to them. People like Rubio don't seem to understand the economy as a whole.
What we need is to find some way to combine both.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Nov 17, 2019 22:10:59 GMT -8
They both present simplistic answers to complex questions. Rubio probably does this because he is a politician therefor must please the crowd. I can live with that.
Williamson would appear to me to be a much more malignant case. Over the last few years he is sounding like a ideologue who has little or no concern for Americans who do not fit his idea of worthy. Perhaps I am wrong, but I have a sneaking feeling that, given the right circumstances, Williamson could happily develop into a mini St. Just.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,047
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Nov 18, 2019 8:38:40 GMT -8
Rubio is clearly off the rails. Republicans have been taking on the tenets of the left and redefining them as Republican or conservative for quite some time now. Living now in a chick-centric society where security trumps freedom, it’s a vote-getter to talk about “compassion” no matter if that compassion leads to the impoverishment of even more people.
Whatever faults Williamson has, I commend him for taking a whack at Rubio who would have been George Bush on steroids had he been elected president. We would be counting Medicare Part X, Y, and Z by now. Those may be wonderful ideas, but we can’t afford them.
I think you have a good point there, Mr. Kung. For the libertarian, free markets are the kind of tonic that would have been sold by Professor Marvel in The Wizard of Oz. It can cure everything. And the added benefit is that it is an amoral system. That is, nothing is more embarrassing to the intellectual class than to stand for old-fashioned values. One is much trendier if you go the way of Pope Francis and ditch actual morals and substitute economics or pseudo-science (“climate change,” for example).
And (Williamson is black, right?) if you have a hidden or innate grievance against America, you can hide behind the “free market” as you flood the borders with illegal aliens and care not a whit if the workers who make your car are American or Japanese.
We know that NRO has become a cesspool of RINOism. That’s not news. So when one of their writers goes after one of their own kind, its remarkable in the same way a horse is who can count to three by stomping his hoof.
There is more to a nation than economics, as you said. Other than the conceits of Progressivism, what is it that binds this nation together? The answer that comes to mind is “consumerism.” And consumerism is a borderless phenomenon. We’ve seen how modern Western government has joined this trend, basically bankrupting themselves in order to feed the ever-growing appetites and expectations of consumers. And this is where “climate change” and such nonsense comes it. It’s a way to try to anoint all this shallowness with something deeper. Consumers win. They get to pretend they care. Government wins because they can basically do the same thing while gaining ever more power.
All in all, I’d rather have Kongkong than Communism. Arguably neither is on the menu. Having a pure and unadulterated thought about politics, economics, or morality in this current climate is nigh impossible. We might have a discussion here and note the benefits and limitations of the free market. But such thoughts are not driving the debate. Reality is mostly on hold.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Nov 18, 2019 10:05:00 GMT -8
I agree completely. I only wish someone less fanatic than Williamson would point these things out. Unfortunately, old-fashioned common sense and guts appear to be all-too-rare in the conservative movement.
In matters of extremes, I would also prefer Hongkong. In a Hongkong, the government may not particularly care about you, but it leaves you alone. In communism, the government cares much to much about you and will never leave you alone.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Nov 18, 2019 11:08:38 GMT -8
I read somewhere once that the problem the Germans had with the East German government (the German Democratic Republic, be it noted) was that everything was a political issue. Want bacon at breakfast? Let's see how the Party stands on that. We see much the same thing today, even if the reasons are different. That also shows up these days in terms of social issues, hence Erick Erickson's famous "You will be made to care." All too accurate.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,047
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Nov 18, 2019 14:27:46 GMT -8
Remember (as you do...but speaking to the lurkers out there), the Democrat leaders want the power of Stalin and certainly have similar agendas. "Climate change" works nearly perfectly in this regard because everything that happens impacts the environment to some extent (good, bad, or mostly indifferent). Remember (as you do but the lurkers may not), these Democratic Stalinists want to regulate cow farts.
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Nov 18, 2019 14:40:00 GMT -8
I have had some concerns recently about who is going to follow DJT in 2024. I do not think it is going to be an old establishment republican, that party is dead, RIP. Even those who I would have considered mostly ok in 2016 are, or will be, outdated. There are several republicans who seem to have the right ideas, the newly elected atty general of Kentucky Daniel Cameron, and hold on to your shorts------Donald J. Trump Jr. I have heard him at several rallies and he had a hour with Mark Levin the other day. He is well spoken, conservative who could if he wants be formidable using the political organization his father has built. What I don't like is the recurring father to son trends in our poiliticics. Both parties are guilty and it tends to create a entitlement thinking. However, there are worse possibilities.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,047
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Nov 18, 2019 15:08:13 GMT -8
I just read something the other day that posited him. I don’t mind that he’s the son. I mind if he has backbone or whether he’ll cave to ever liberal notion that his whacky wife wants. I see that pitfall with Junior.
But then the best “conservatism” we can get out of anyone these days is like his father: Thoroughly socially liberal but pro-America and pro-business. It’s a weird mix and really should be poured into a new party. But there it is. And I could easily vote for Junior.
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Nov 18, 2019 17:17:58 GMT -8
From what I have heard from Jr. he is more aggressively pro American than his dad, if that's possible. Perhaps he is already planning to run. DJT has mentioned several times that Donald Trump could be president into the 2030s and he never said it would be him. Remember Buckley's guide to voting, "vote for the most conservative person you can find."
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,047
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Nov 18, 2019 17:28:34 GMT -8
I’ll tell you this, Artler. I think it’s much more possible that Jr. has a more embedded and coherent philosophy than his seat-of-the-pants Twitter-deficit-disorder father.
At some point, a guy like this (if he were to get a following) could start a new party. The GOP does need to be proverbially taken out to pasture and shot.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Nov 25, 2019 22:40:11 GMT -8
Here is an old piece by Theodore Dalrymple which lays out human reality in the most convincing and honest way. Old Wisdom
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,047
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Nov 26, 2019 9:39:01 GMT -8
Mr. Kung sets these mouse traps waiting for them to be sprung. Well, I took the cheese, of course, on this line:
I’m sure he has a stopwatch in his hand waiting for me to post that Dalrymple quote.
That’s an interesting bit of history. One could say there was a further jump in chrome-ature if you consider LSD, mescaline, etc., in the 60’s and beyond.
I love that. I know that Dalrymple isn’t a relativist. Often tasteless excess is not simply because something is new or innovative. It is because it is tasteless excess. We have a lot of that these days.
Another good insight.
LOL. So true.
Very nicely put. I believe we are all aware of that phenomenon here. Rarely do I find discussion of it anywhere else though.
Hmm. I’ll have to think about that. I have thought about that. I like it. Again, we word it differently here — offer in terms of Personal Indulgences — but it is the same.
Oh my. This man knew his fellow man…or at least some of them.
That’s a bold and broad statement. Whether self-deception is the principle cause of misery seems an over-simplification. But it certainly is a great cause. And we deal with this issue almost daily here, finding a way to tell our truths as best we can without being too obnoxious or uncivil about it. But truth is certainly the enemy of many.
A great essay by Dalrymple and a model for how to do it.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Nov 26, 2019 10:30:46 GMT -8
That romantic notion that good thoughts cancel bad deeds is standard operating procedure among leftists. What is aberrant (to some degree or another) for most people is normal for them.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,047
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Nov 26, 2019 11:26:19 GMT -8
I believe the term “talking past each other” is rooted in one’s inability at the kind of honest introspection that is inherent to Reality Culture. We all do that. It’s human nature. But being aware of it (a minor act, really) is what it’s all about. But some people can’t seem to do that. I had a rather intense (but friendly) conversation with someone the other day (Pat was included as well) where “talking past each other” was endemic which meant the conversation, although interesting, likely resolved nothing. And this wasn’t between me and Pat. I acknowledge that Pat is usually right and I am sometimes right.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Nov 26, 2019 11:45:28 GMT -8
I thought you would like that piece. It re-enforces my belief that Dalrymple is the best contemporary commentator on Western Society.
I have passed on some of his works to a friend in Hongkong who also likes Dalrymple. It is not often that I find writers to be important, but I find Dalrymple very important and think we should spread his thoughts far and wide.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,047
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Nov 26, 2019 14:12:22 GMT -8
I’m just humble ol’ Brad, here. The opposite of Donald Trump. And I’m the first to say that such people have their needed qualities. Poverty is over-rated, for sure.
I think that article explains, in larger terms, a lot of things. It’s an overall framework worth knowing and understanding.
Unless, of course, life is entirely and only about me me me, 24/7, having no larger end than scratching every itch and being eternally distracted. Then you can throw all that out because such philosophy acts, in practical terms, like a brake on all that.
Almost expunged from Western culture is the idea of doing without, of delayed gratification, of having a point other than stuffing one’s face (figuratively or literally) with the smorgasbord of products and services (private or governmental) at one’s disposal.
This attitude just breeds a different person. What is the essence of Marx’s dialectical materialism? It is this. It produced the human slug. It produces, and amplifies, the narcissism that resides to some extent in each one of us....all while thinking one is the cat's meow.
A truly noble and good life (in this world and/or the next) is about discriminating between the things you should do with and that you should do without — and between lies and truth, of course. And even having a conversation like that with oneself begins with understanding the basic framework as outlined in this article.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 11, 2020 16:28:55 GMT -8
The link is to another of Theodore Dalrymple's brilliant articles which dissect our present madness. Save the raddishesI think Brad will particularly enjoy reading this.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Jan 11, 2020 17:22:41 GMT -8
Weird and frightening. I can see his point that even a single zealot can cause a lot of trouble, even if most of it doesn't matter. (How many potential boycotters even use the airline, which I never heard of?) But even a single customer lost might be more than they would lose by getting rid of the "too binary" greeting.
|
|