Clintonomics

Firstly I need to provide The Link to the story from the NY Times regarding John McCain's economic policies.  Lets hope I relearned the HTML properly as I went in and did it myself. (Who is blogspot to tell me how I should link anything.) 

Todays post is a continuation of economic policy reviews based upon NY Times policy summaries.  Todays subject:Hilary Clinton

Good Things: Hilary is a fiscal conservative.  It says it right in the middle of the article.  Thank goodness too.

Bad Things: Government more active role in economy correcting "excesses." "They add that reducing the deficit is no longer sufficient, because today's problems have less to do with the size of the economic pie than the way it is divided."  Her belief that she really has to manage the economy.  

Really Bad Things: Response to subprime lending mess.  

Why its really bad: If "the patient" is the US economy "the patient" is not dying.  "The patient" has a cold.  Maybe even the flu.  Even if the "patient" was seriously ill the best "doctor" would be the federal reserve system.  Ill abuse the metaphor one more time to equate intervention here to over prescription of drugs with dangerous side effects. 

Could go either way: Her response to executive pay.  Recognizing that laws on executive pay would probably not do much good.  It not really that big of a problem.  Its troubling to be sure but if you reduced executive pay to levels where they would not be as troubling every American might see an extra $100 a year.  Not really a huge structural problem.  

Allowing Bush tax cuts to expire.  Good if used to reduce deficit bad if used to "pay for other proposals" 

I guess my main line of criticism is that todays inequality problems are not all that serious and that the government may not be able to solve them without creating more serious problems.  We are currently lucky enough to live in one of the freest and most prosperous eras and areas in the world and in history.  Im not at all convinced that "we are in great need of a total overhaul."  Equal opportunity should be the goal.  Not total equality.

McCaininomics

Recently my friend David challenged my support of John McCain on the grounds that McCain would not handle the economy appropriately.  Here is a link from the New York Times and my critique.

Good Things: Mandates to address global warming and Medicare, cuts to programs that are ineffective, pursuing tax reforms suggested by a bipartisan commission, reference to Theodore Roosevelt, recognizes and honestly discusses the complexities of globalization, support for alternative energy and educational programs, commitments to reduce pork barrel spending.

Bad Things: Similar to other Republican candidates he advances the idea that we can increase revenue by cutting taxes.  

Unclear: As noted in the article it is unclear whether he will in actuality be able to balance the budget, however he is certainly paying more lip-service to it than other candidates.

His assertion that cutting government spending would stimulate the economy.  To me, this sounds like he was confusing short and long term.  It is fairly clear that in the short term cutting government spending would not stimulate the economy and would in fact slow it.  However if he is trying to say that cutting government spending would improve the economy in the long term that is certainly a more defensible position.  It is an opinion that could be argued either way rather than an almost indefensible misunderstanding.

Altogether I find McCain's policy more appealing than other candidates as do a great deal of more qualified economists.  Critiques of other Candidate's economic policy to follow.

Music/ Makes the people come together/ Music / Music makes the bourgeoisie and the rebel

A good weekend brings about an interesting discussion on music.  As the discussion progressed I found myself forced to give more and more ground conceding the point that some Music could be objectively better than other music.  I was all but convinced that music was an objective practice until I looked up the word objective in the dictionary and found that one definition is "not dependent on the mind for existence."  I have held and continue to hold that the purpose of music was to express and communicate.  Expression and communication are dependent on the mind for existence.  Music is not objective.

 

Presidential

 I just took an interesting quiz on the website for the Washington Post.  In it you select positions from a list provided by the candidates and at the end it tells you which candidates positions you most favor.  For the Republicans John McCain most closely resembles to positions I selected followed by Rudy Giuliani.  Among Democrats I favored positions that most closely resembled those of Barrack Obama followed by Bill Richardson.  I can only hope that one of these candidates makes it to the general election.

Its my first time...

I should, at the very start, lay out the purposes of this blog.  I have with much interest read the blogs of several people who I know and respect (namely Andrew Hanson and David Miller.)  They have provided not only windows into the lives of my friends but have further enriched my life by exposing me to interesting topics and view points.  This blog is intended primarily for these friends and any others I find along the way.  The views I will present are my own and I affirm that I will never willfully mislead nor lie nor provide any dishonesty on this blog.  I welcome all criticism, inquiries, and replies as a secondary purpose of this blog, beyond communicating with my friends, is to continue to subject my thoughts and ideals to scrutiny so that they may become stronger and I myself become a less ignorant person. 

Personal Liberty is the first topic that I would like to tackle as it is the last topic that inspired an interesting and engaging conversation I was a party to and, because it has interesting implications on virtually every political question that we as citizens are required to decide.  That discussion motivated me to finish reading John Stuart Mill's essay "On Liberty" and this too has played into my decision to compose my thoughts.

The term Liberty should be further defined before advancing, as it is a complex and intangible quality.  Mill's understanding of liberty and freedom are defined in his introductory as "absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects," (and the ability to espouse those beliefs publicly)  "Liberty of tastes and pursuits," and "freedom to unite for any purpose not involving harm to others."  These three cornerstones go a long way in defining the term but I would just like to add that Liberty often more easy to define in a negative sense.  That is to say that it is more easily determined what constitutes oppression infringement of liberty than what constitutes freedom.

I apologize in advance for the mere, hasty, summary of Mill's position that follows.  However Mill has composed a convincing argument and it has altered my own understanding of the subject.  I would advise anyone (David) to read the essay as it is a good starting point for further discussion.   Mill's Principle of Liberty is "that the sole end for which mankind are waranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self protection...  [the good of a person being interfered with] either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant."  Mill  goes on to argue that this Principle of Liberty is supported by, and is subordinate to, his Principal of Utility.  He argues that over the long run it is in mankind's best interest to allow personal liberty.  These appeals are largely based on the assumptions that stifling freedom in opinion, expression, and modes of life, beyond that which is necessary to protect the liberties of other members of society, results in harm being done to man individually and collectively.  Individually, people are denied the ability to determine and follow the best mode of life to follow (which they are better able to do than a disinterested party) and are harmed by being forced to conform to an alternative mode of life.

Collectively society would stagnate and improvement would be impossible as originality and genius would be stifled by interference.  Mill also argues that that intervention onto the life of another is equivalent to an assumption of infallibility and is much more likely to lead to moral wrongs being adopted and ingrained whereas a free society would gradually improve over time.

I affirm my approval of the sentiments laid out it this summary and would like to add my own sentiments.  Mill uses utilitarian criteria to justify his principal of utility and I would contend that a similar philosophy comes into play, explicitly or implicitly, in many legal decisions today.  However I would also claim that manipulation and coercion is a direct infringement upon the inherent dignity of a person.  

One application of this principle of liberty would be David's decision to smoke or not to smoke.  I find the act of smoking to be disgusting and foolish.  David is free, and should be free, to decide whether or not he should smoke.  I have in the past considered stealing and destroying David's smokes, had I done so I would have been in the wrong as this would be an invasion of David's liberty.  However, I am free to hold and relate my opinions to David in attempts to convince him of the correctness of my argument.  (David don't smoke.  1) It does harm to your health.  2) It does not look cool.  3) It is an unwise use of money.)

Finally, something "ground my gears" recently.  I was walking around Madison the other day.  I was standing alone on the north side of University ave. at Park st. waiting for a break in traffic so I could cross.  A break in traffic was coming up and a little voice in my head said "CROSS."  As I began to edge out into the street it was countered by another voice that commanded "WAIT."  The problem was that this second voice was not my own and it was not inside my head.  I looked around to acknowledge the asshole that thought he had the authority to tell me to wait.  It turns out that this asshole was the street light itself.  It seems that the city of Madison had installed motion sensors and speakers to this street light and it was now giving me instructions.  Thats bullshit.  Lets say I had followed its instructions and waited until it gave me the go ahead to cross and was promptly splattered by car that ran the red light.  Would I be any less dead?  In reality I crossed the street against the advice big brother and made it safely.  I know better than a computer chip when it is safe to cross a street and assume all responsibility for my actions, willing to cede no responsibility to an inanimate object.