Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is an intriguing guy...[he] asks great questions and answers others with style, flair, reason and wit. On the blogroll he goes. Make him a part of your regular blogospheric reading. I certainly will.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Common Sense Junction: Misha @ Anti-Idiotarian never ceases to amaze me. He keeps finding other good blogs. I went over to A.I. this morning for my daily Misha fix and he had found this guy named Morgan Freeberg in Fair Oaks, California, that has a blog, House of Eratosthenes. Freeberg says its "The Blog That Nobody Reads" but it may now become the blog that everybody reads.
Jaded Haven: Good God, Morgan, you cover a topic from front to back with a screwy thoroughness I find mind boggling. I'm in awe of your thought proccesses, my friend, you're an exceptional talent. You start by throwing in the kitchen sink, tie in someone's syphilitic uncle, bend around a rip tide of brilliance and bring it all home in a neat, diamond dripping package of an exceptionally readable moment of damn fine wordsmithing. I love reading you.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
Philmon: When Morgan meanders, stick with him - he's got a point and it'll be worth it in the end. He's not a hit-and-run snarky quip kind of guy. The pieces all fall into place like tumblers in a lock and bang! He's opened a cognative door for you.
Rightlinx: Morgan at House of Eratosthenes is one of the best writers out there. I read him nearly every day because he manages to provide an interesting perspective, even though I don't always agree.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
…says that crazy wild-eyed right-winger, Arianna Huffington.
The collapse of Communism as a political system sounded the death knell for Marxism as an ideology. But while laissez-faire capitalism has been a monumental failure in practice, and soundly defeated at the polls, the ideology is still alive and kicking. [emphasis mine]
It’s good to have some definition attached to what the election meant, besides “hope” and “change.” It’s even better to see Arianna taking a centrist approach — she says marxism doesn’t work, and capitalism doesn’t work either. That raises an obvious question. Don’t hold your breath waiting for the answer.
If a politician announced he was running on a platform of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” he would be laughed off the stage. That is also the correct response to anyone who continues to make the case that markets do best when left alone.
It’s time to drive the final nail into the coffin of laissez-faire capitalism by treating it like the discredited ideology it inarguably is. If not, the Dr. Frankensteins of the right will surely try to revive the monster and send it marauding through our economy once again.
“Our economy.” I wonder what she thinks that is? Keep those businesses shackled down, or else they’ll terrorize the regulators who are innocently doin’ their regulatin’? By transacting with some marauding bidness?
That’s a little bit like calling a gaggle of deer hunters a “wildlife preserve” isn’t it?
…is it capitalism, or socialism, when you steal content from other blogs to boost your own moneymaking venture?
You know, that’s another good question. Arianna’s against communism, so she says, and she’s against “unregulated” monsters of unfettered capitalism. She just likes anarchy and theft?
Well, let’s show some respect. The lady does speak for the majority, since the election was all about whether to trash capitalism or not. More than one left-winger told me no…indulging in the mandated ritual of calling me a dummy and a moron and a poo poo head for suggesting such a thing. Obama’s no socialist, He’s just all about hopenchange.
Here’s the one question I’d like people to keep in mind for next year. I know it’ll be rotated to the front of my gray matter, and it seems a reasonable question to ask.
If we’re going to be taking the “middle road” by allowing capitalism to continue, but keeping it on a short leash, regulatin’ it and hacking at it to within an inch of its life — what is it, exactly, that makes the regulators different from the capitalists? I mean, they’re supposed to have all these attributes to them that makes the regulatory framework superior. Compared to the businessmen, they’re smarter, more responsible, more efficient, they care more about “The People.” They aren’t “drunk.”
What makes them this way?
I’m thinking about how they start out being different: They are supposed to be independent. That means they’re disconnected from the bottom-line of the business they’re regulating…which means, they don’t care if it works out or not. That really is the primary job qualification, right? So if a rule can be interpreted in such a way that the result will be detrimental to the business’ continuing survival, that brash, courageous, sober regulator will go ahead and ram it through since his judgment is so superior. This will be to the beneficial interest of — who? Whoever’s interests are opposed to the interests of the business being regulated. That’s the consumer? Consumers like to see businesses fail right after they transact with those businesses?
Uh…last I checked, a lot of this economic doom and gloom came from the auto industry. That marauding, unfettered, underregulated, Wild Wild West cowboy loose-cannon of an American auto industry. Hmmm. What’s your warranty worth if the car company fails after you bought your car?
So that’s one way the regulators are different from the businessmen: Apathy. They, by design, are stripped of any interest in whether the business concern succeeds or fails. The other distinguishing characteristic is inexperience.
Perhaps Ms. Huffington knows of some other distinguishing characterstics that offset these. Her theory would appear to depend on it. Maybe the regulators were born under a different star, that makes them more caring and more compassionate? Perhaps they belong to a whole different type of Holy Being, somewhere amidst humans, angels and djinn? Or perhaps there is some more mundane explanation — some other property endemic to the regulatory discipline, making them more responsible and sympathetic to the interests of…you and me? Oh dear, there’s another troublesome question. What keeps them accountable? If every little failed business, every little disappointing quarterly report, is evidence that “it’s time to drive the final nail into the coffin of laissez-faire capitalism by treating it like the discredited ideology it inarguably is” — how do we know the regulators are doing the work of The People? How do I know I’m a People? When union goons and regulators are running our auto companies into the ground, and I’m being told this is somehow for my benefit?
Just some thoughts. Not too complicated ones…but I suppose they have too many permutations and moving parts to fit into Huffington Sound Bite Land. Maybe she’s right — regulation will fix everything. Maybe this coming year we’ll find out. But it occurs to me, we’ve been regulating the snot out of businesses for a very long time now. If that turned out to be the right way to go, wouldn’t we have figured that out right after the Tamany Hall days, and just stuck to that model throughout the generations?
Oh dear, there I go again.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.