Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Take Three (Mickey Kaus & David Frum) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=6424)

Bloggingheads 01-11-2011 06:12 PM

Take Three (Mickey Kaus & David Frum)
 

bjk 01-11-2011 06:49 PM

Re: Take Three (Mickey Kaus & David Frum)
 
The discussion between 35 and 47 is interesting. BH should have excerpted it. Discussion of immigration and inequality. Too interesting perhaps.

bjkeefe 01-11-2011 07:00 PM

Hear, hear
 
Very well put, David.

I'm SO awesome! 01-11-2011 07:26 PM

Re: Take Three (Mickey Kaus & David Frum)
 
do i not hate these two people now? is this happening?

graz 01-11-2011 07:56 PM

Mickey has the key.
 
Hype or tragedy?

Mickey's friends from the affluent hills above Hollywood have been forced by teacher unions to rent their palaces and live above their storefronts.

chiwhisoxx 01-11-2011 08:33 PM

Re: Hear, hear
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 194235)

David's right that just because you have what are considered moderate politics you don't have to be milquetoast. But I think that has less to do with people's expectations and more to do with the people who have those politics simply happen to be squishier people. For me, a person like Ross Douthat's politics are inextricably linked to his temperament and personality. However, David's point still stands, and if there are actually people expecting him to act a certain way because of his politics, they should shut up.

brucds 01-11-2011 09:39 PM

Re: Take Three (Mickey Kaus & David Frum)
 
Haven't watched it yet, but this is sort of a genius pairing - two guys who almost everybody on "their" side can't stand. Really looking forward to it.

Eric Biesel 01-11-2011 10:08 PM

Re: Take Three (Mickey Kaus & David Frum)
 
It would take quite a while to list all of the issues on which Kaus and I disagree, but I have to say, this is the most coherent that I've heard him for some time; ever since his discussion with Robert Wright about the "Ground Zero Mosque", I vacillated between thinking he was bonkers or he was just a bozo. Frum's a smart dude, but I can tell you what the kind of "institutional reform" he evidently has in mind will produce: higher public spending as a percentage of GDP. I've found at the root of a lot of "common sense solutions" from politicians is most often a compromise of "you get your honey to lure voters, and I get mine".

basman 01-11-2011 10:22 PM

Re: Second Ever Pre-Hearing Note
 
Hey, two of my faves; and two HLS alumns to boot.

Looking--not leaning--forward; should be very fine.

Itzik Basman

Clear Eyes 01-11-2011 11:01 PM

Shocking truth about David Frum
 
I just watched the David Frum/Mickey Kaus diavlog. The two seemed to get along well and like each other but this is only because Mickey is unaware of David Frum's horrible secret: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...d-health-care/ Frum is actually a distant cousin of Kaus archenemy Paul Krugman.

Don Zeko 01-11-2011 11:27 PM

Why we have a deficit
 
David, David. Let's explore this further. What is it about the early 1980's and the past 10 years that has prevented us from budgeting responsibly? Isn't it clear that we've had problems balancing the budget ever since the Republicans convinced both themselves and the electorate that taxes should always be cut and never be raised, but failed to convince anyone that we should radically cut spending?

Unit 01-11-2011 11:34 PM

There's nothing more boring than institutional reform.
 
People that like to speculate on how this or that fix will do wonderful things for the democratic process should be asked this simple question: how much tinkering do you want to do? If the wonderful things you're envisioning now don't come to fruition, will you insist in tinkering more and more? Is there any danger of engendering a series of institutional reforms that continue to over-ride or repeal the previous reform, depending of who the most recent electoral winner happens to be?

Don Zeko 01-11-2011 11:48 PM

Re: There's nothing more boring than institutional reform.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 194279)
People that like to speculate on how this or that fix will do wonderful things for the democratic process should be asked this simple question: how much tinkering do you want to do? If the wonderful things you're envisioning now don't come to fruition, will you insist in tinkering more and more? Is there any danger of engendering a series of institutional reforms that continue to over-ride or repeal the previous reform, depending of who the most recent electoral winner happens to be?

As one of the more vocal institutional reformers in the forum, I'd say that there is no set end-point, because institutions interact with cultural norms and the political landscape in inherently unpredictable ways over long periods of time. The best we can hope is to continually tinker with the most dysfunctional parts of our system as they become problematic, without any expectation that we'll get to some perfect set of institutions. So I would say that we ought to do away with holds and the filibuster in the Senate, fiddle with the committee system, and give Washington DC congressional representation for now. Obviously people disagree, but I think that these are the most glaring shortcomings in our current institutional framework that can feasibly be reformed.

chiwhisoxx 01-12-2011 12:07 AM

Re: Take Three (Mickey Kaus & David Frum)
 
Confused about Mickey claiming that he doesn't think immigration is a very important issue. Whether immigration is important is up to the individual to decide. However, Mickey spent what seemed like a large amount of time and money on a hopeless Senate run against Barbara Boxer, with immigration as one of the major planks of his platform and source of disagreement with Boxer. Mickey seems to write and talk about immigration a lot too; during the lame duck Dream Act stuff, he was constantly tweeting about it. So what gives?

Wonderment 01-12-2011 12:29 AM

Re: There's nothing more boring than institutional reform.
 
Quote:

People that like to speculate on how this or that fix will do wonderful things for the democratic process should be asked this simple question: how much tinkering do you want to do? If the wonderful things you're envisioning now don't come to fruition, will you insist in tinkering more and more?
Do you think we currently live in a tinker-free environment? The Supreme Court just tinkered bigtime in the Citizens United case.

The problem Frum cited -- that elected officials spend most of their time fundraising and kissing special interest butt -- is toxic to democracy. Ensuring free and fair elections and uncorrupted behavior in office is not "tinkering;" it's essential to democratic government.

Unit 01-12-2011 12:36 AM

Re: There's nothing more boring than institutional reform.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 194289)
Do you think we currently live in a tinker-free environment? The Supreme Court just tinkered bigtime in the Citizens United case.

Actually I'm all for judicial activism. I think it's far-superior to "law-making".

Quote:

The problem Frum cited -- that elected officials spend most of their time fundraising and kissing special interest butt -- is toxic to democracy. Ensuring free and fair elections and uncorrupted behavior in office is not "tinkering;" it's essential to democratic government.
Good luck. Even changing simple rules like "no-zone-defense" in a simple game like basketball can generate all kinds of unexpected results.

Unit 01-12-2011 12:40 AM

Re: There's nothing more boring than institutional reform.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 194283)
As one of the more vocal institutional reformers in the forum, I'd say that there is no set end-point, because institutions interact with cultural norms and the political landscape in inherently unpredictable ways over long periods of time. The best we can hope is to continually tinker with the most dysfunctional parts of our system as they become problematic, without any expectation that we'll get to some perfect set of institutions. So I would say that we ought to do away with holds and the filibuster in the Senate, fiddle with the committee system, and give Washington DC congressional representation for now. Obviously people disagree, but I think that these are the most glaring shortcomings in our current institutional framework that can feasibly be reformed.

But you probably wouldn't be ok with a culture where at every election the winners not only occupy the old offices and clean out the shelves of the previous guy, but also reverse all the "institutional" tinkerings of the loosing party?

In my experience, changing rules of the game is mostly a mirage and a distraction, which, if you're not careful, quickly becomes addictive.

bjk 01-12-2011 10:24 AM

Re: Take Three (Mickey Kaus & David Frum)
 
I love how Frum wrings his hands about all the wrong turns the Republicans have been taking, as if all that's needed is a better health care plan. Meanwhile, if you record the descent of the Republicans from the day Karl Rove appeared on MTP in 2006 to declare the dawning of a new Republican majority, the Repubs lost the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. He leaves out what happened in the interim to tank the Republicans: WAR. War defeated the R's in 2006, it got Obama thru the primaries and elected in 2008, and only when it had receded did the R's regain the House. And you can't blame Limbaugh or Sarah Palin for the war.

BornAgainDemocrat 01-12-2011 10:35 AM

What America has to offer the world
 
37 minutes in, discussing immigration, Frum says that what America has to offer the rest of the world is out human capital. I disagree. What America has to offer the rest of the world is our example. That example used to be the Ozzie and Harriet world of a house in the suburbs and a full-time Mom who stayed at home with the kids. On the basis of it we defeated communism and established our way of life as the ideal goal towards which all countries aspired. Today America offers an example of what not to do: import vast numbers of uneducated (and possibly uneducable) immigrants from underdeveloped countries watch as your middle-class society together with all its supporting welfare institutions go down the tubes, along with your cultural influence. America used to be an idea. Now it is an impotent armed force wasting its substance in places like Afghanistan.

bjkeefe 01-12-2011 10:38 AM

Re: What America has to offer the world
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat (Post 194318)
37 minutes in, discussing immigration, Frum says that what America has to offer the rest of the world is out human capital. I disagree. What America has to offer the world is our example. That example used to be the Ozzie and Harriet world of a house in the suburbs and a full-time Mom who stayed at home with the kids. On the basis of it we defeated communism and established our influence influence around the world.

You think that was it, huh? Nothing to do with America's enormous financial and natural resources advantages, particularly after WWII?

Quote:

Today America offers an example of what not to do: import vast numbers of uneducated and possibly uneducable immigrants ...
That part I bolded is really quite disgustingly bigoted.

BornAgainDemocrat 01-12-2011 10:59 AM

Re: What America has to offer the world
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 194319)
You think that was it, huh? Nothing to do with America's enormous financial and natural resources advantages, particularly after WWII?



That part I bolded is really quite disgustingly bigoted.

Dear BJ:

You refer to my reference to the large numbers of uneducated and possibly uneducable immigrants who are coming into the country.

I wish this observation could be chalked up to prejudice on my part. But unfortunately it is based on all the evidence so far, to which our elites (and conventional liberals as yourself) are determined to turn a blind eye.

Third and fourth generation Latino immigrants lag far behind their Asian and European counterparts by all measures of educational and economic achievement. This not just about the new arrivals who don't speak English well. I wish it were not the case, but, as an early Israeli settler once remarked about new immigrants from Morocco, facts are facts.

As for America's enormous financial and natural resources advantage, that is precisely what we are in the process of squandering, which underwrote the American dream back in the 1950's.

By the way, I don't think the situation is hopeless. I think it is politically challenging. To solve it will require a great deal more income redistribution and a much more steeply progressive tax on the wealthy than would have otherwise have been required. I support those reforms. Can't we at least agree on that?

bjkeefe 01-12-2011 11:03 AM

Re: What America has to offer the world
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat (Post 194323)
Dear BJ:

Dear BADem:

I pointed out that phrase of yours in case you had put something in a way you had not intended. Since you have now confirmed that you did mean it, I'll leave it at this: I am not going to get into a discussion with someone determined to put a pseudo-intellectual gloss on his bigoted views of people unlike him.

Ocean 01-12-2011 11:05 AM

Re: Take Three (Mickey Kaus & David Frum)
 
David Frum is astonishingly ignorant about the way health care works. He tries to draw a parallel between the shortcomings of education and the shortcomings of health care (as perceived by him). Mickey doesn't agree with the parallel and comes up with the reasoning that health care doesn't have as many unions as education. None of them seemed aware of the most obvious difference. Education doesn't have insurance companies.

I do agree with Frum that "something" is wrong with our health outcomes compared to other countries. I disagree with him about the reasons. He could only come up with some vague invocation of profits going to the "providers", which is a gross misunderstanding about what the problem is. I would encourage Frum to look at hospital's revenues and expenses. Look at non-profit hospitals. Look at the cost of medications for the elderly and revenues for pharmaceutical companies. Look at the cost of the most expensive procedures and how those relate to the overall measurement of "outcomes". A $100,000 worth of medical interventions that prolong someone's life for a few days, will increase overall health care cost while it will do nothing for life expectancy as an outcome indicator.

The way tax dollars are being used and distributed is the problem. Market forces have done nothing to help the situation, but rather have consistently made it worse. Cheap products (poor quality) in health care cause more damage that will end up causing more expenses in the future.

The easiest solution would be single payer, universal health care and re-establishing health priorities, with heavy investment in prevention and rational end of life goals. There are too many new, expensive technologies constantly developing. It's better that the recipients of health care (all of us) make decisions about how to "ration" it and not leave it to insurance companies which have created repugnant situations by denying care.

bjkeefe 01-12-2011 11:11 AM

Re: Take Three (Mickey Kaus & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 194326)
David Frum is astonishingly ignorant about the way health care works. He tries to draw a parallel between the shortcomings of educations and the shortcomings of health care (as perceived by him). Mickey doesn't agree with the parallel and comes up with the reasoning that health care doesn't have as many unions as education. None of them seemed aware of the most obvious difference. Education doesn't have insurance companies.

I do agree with Frum that "something" is wrong with our health outcomes compared to other countries. I disagree with him about the reasons. He could only come up with some vague invocation of going to the "providers", which is a gross misunderstanding about what the problems is. I would encourage Frum to look at hospital's revenues and expenses. Look at non-profit hospitals. Look at the cost of medications for the elderly and revenues for pharmaceutical companies. Look at the cost of the most expensives procedures and how those relate to the overall measurement of "outcomes". A $100,000 worth of medical interventions that prolongs someone's life for a few days, will increase overall health care cost while it will do nothing for life expectancy as an outcome indicator.

The way tax dollars are being used and distributed is the problem. Market forces have done nothing to help the situation, but rather have consistently made it worse. Cheap products (poor quality) health care cause more damage that will end up causing more expenses in the future.

The easiest solution would be single payer, universal health care and re-establishing health priorities, with heavy investment in prevention and rational end of life goals. There are too many new, expensive technologies constantly developing. It's better that the recipients of health care (all of us) make decisions about how to "ration" it and not leave it to insurance companies which have created repugnant situations by denying care.

Very well said.

Ocean 01-12-2011 11:17 AM

Re: Take Three (Mickey Kaus & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 194327)
Very well said.

Thank you.

(It would have been better if I had edited a bit before clicking. I was distracted by snow removal maneuvers.)

badhatharry 01-12-2011 11:31 AM

Re: Take Three (Mickey Kaus & David Frum)
 
Great conversation! One of the best I've ever heard on Bhtv.

The 'no labels' people should perhaps consult with a branding person. To me the name is meaningless and doesn't say anything about what they want to do except that they don't want to be called anything. People need signposts.

The reason people who don't like ACA don't like it is because they have no confidence that it will cut costs to the recipients as advertised. No government program is capable of cutting costs because it lacks market incentives. People just know this intuitively and those who try to convince them of ACA's efficacy come off as deeply disingenuous. And this comes back around to one of the reasons people don't trust the government.

I don't see that the election went the way it did in California is because of Reagan's amnesty program. Big stretch for a narrative, Mickey.

I'm glad to hear that patterns in elections are just artifacts. It always seemed that way to me. The whole thing is too complex.

Their whole thing at the end about Obama was silly. Who cares if Obama cares? Neither guy seems to like him very much. What a fall from grace Obama has experienced!

Let's hope Mickey is right about Brown and the unions.

badhatharry 01-12-2011 11:42 AM

Re: Take Three (Mickey Kaus & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 194326)
David Frum is astonishingly ignorant about the way health care works...

The easiest solution would be single payer, universal health care and re-establishing health priorities, with heavy investment in prevention and rational end of life goals. There are too many new, expensive technologies constantly developing. It's better that the recipients of health care (all of us) make decisions about how to "ration" it and not leave it to insurance companies which have created repugnant situations by denying care.

It would be lovely of government health care performed the way you describe but what you are describing bears no resemblance to government health care here or anywhere else and the ACA does nothing to remedy the situation.

Were that it were a perfect world!

stephanie 01-12-2011 12:00 PM

Re: What America has to offer the world
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 194319)
You think that was it, huh? Nothing to do with America's enormous financial and natural resources advantages, particularly after WWII?

You don't agree it was stay at home moms? Are you saying you don't believe working women are dooming us in our fight against Islamic terrorism, as well as causing the economic downturn? What's wrong with you?

bjkeefe 01-12-2011 12:09 PM

Re: What America has to offer the world
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 194335)
You don't agree it was stay at home moms? Are you saying you don't believe working women are dooming us in our fight against Islamic terrorism, as well as causing the economic downturn? What's wrong with you?

Actually, I had always understood that we won the Cold War because Jesus and Ronald Reagan. But I repeat myself.

Florian 01-12-2011 12:14 PM

Re: Take Three (Mickey Kaus & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 194332)
It would be lovely of government health care performed the way you describe but what you are describing bears no resemblance to government health care here or anywhere else and the ACA does nothing to remedy the situation.

Were that it were a perfect world!

And were that you would, and would that you would, and would that you were..... better informed. Come to France, badhat, and have a heart attack and see what happens. Even non-insured foreigners are treated better in France than insured Americans in the US.


http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/pdf/...6/msg04152.pdf

miceelf 01-12-2011 12:17 PM

Re: Take Three (Mickey Kaus & David Frum)
 
Very well said.

I have to find it discouraging that David Frum, one of the more reasonable and apparently intelligent republicans, has such a profound misunderstanding of the problem, particularly given how early on he was talking a lot about the problem of capture by special interests.

If he really thinks the primary driver of health care costs (and good outcomes) is really incompetence by physicians and hospitals, he and I live in different worlds.

Pharmaceutical companies are a huge driver of cost and have institutionalized capture.

Insurance companies are the primary factor limiting access to care, and adding to costs of care while providing no benefits in either efficiency or better outcomes for patients.

Do republicans really just immediately cross these two things off their list when they go about trying to think about what in the health care system needs fixing?

Don Zeko 01-12-2011 12:23 PM

Re: Take Three (Mickey Kaus & David Frum)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 194330)
The reason people who don't like ACA don't like it is because they have no confidence that it will cut costs to the recipients as advertised.


No, this is the reason that you don't like the ACA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 194330)
No government program is capable of cutting costs because it lacks market incentives. People just know this intuitively and those who try to convince them of ACA's efficacy come off as deeply disingenuous. And this comes back around to one of the reasons people don't trust the government.

Except that there are several reasons that "private" health care in this country is a massive market failure, and the rest of the developed world has some kind of universal health care scheme, much cheaper health care, and at least as good results. I continue to be stunned that so many people think that free market platitudes constitute an effective argument when the track record of our "free market" health care system is so bad relative to more government-centric systems.

BornAgainDemocrat 01-12-2011 12:24 PM

Re: What America has to offer the world
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 194324)
Dear BADem:

I pointed out that phrase of yours in case you had put something in a way you had not intended. Since you have now confirmed that you did mean it, I'll leave it at this: I am not going to get into a discussion with someone determined to put a pseudo-intellectual gloss on his bigoted views of people unlike him.

Please, BJ. I am neither a bigot nor a pseudo-intellectual. I am trying to address the challange of human biodiversity -- the fact that in a Darwinian world different population groups are endowed with different sets of abilities and disabilities. It is all a matter of frequency and percentages in the genetic lottery of life. You have to be a Creationist not to take these facts seriously -- in which case you will be naked unto your enemies.

Let's concentrate on egalitarianism where it counts -- in making sure that all groups have a chance to lead happy and fulfilling lives regardless of their individual endowments. I've given a lot of thought to this problem. best,

Florian 01-12-2011 12:52 PM

Re: What America has to offer the world
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat (Post 194340)
Please, BJ. I am neither a bigot nor a pseudo-intellectual. I am trying to address the challange of human biodiversity -- that fact that in a Darwinian world different population groups are endowed with different sets of abilities and disabilities. It is all a matter of frequency and percentages in the genetic lottery of life. You have to be a Creationist not to take these facts seriously -- in which case you will be naked unto your enemies.

Let's concentrate on egalitarianism where it counts -- in making sure that all groups have a chance to lead happy and fulfilling lives regardless of their individual endowments. I've given a lot of thought to this problem. best,

Could you please provide evidence for your claim that different population groups are endowed with different sets of abilities and disabilities? I would also like to know how governments are supposed to apply this "scientific" knowledge to immigrants. Only individuals immigrate, not populations.

I know that you have a very high opinion of your own intelligence, but I have difficulty believing it when you make such dubious claims. I remember not so long ago that you made similarly unfounded claims about contemporary Europeans being "collectively responsible" for the holocaust and therefore morally obligated to solve the Israel/Palestinian problem....

Now what is your "ethnic group"? Are you absolutely sure that you are one of the chosen few?

popcorn_karate 01-12-2011 12:55 PM

Re: What America has to offer the world
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 194335)
You don't agree it was stay at home moms? Are you saying you don't believe working women are dooming us in our fight against Islamic terrorism, as well as causing the economic downturn? What's wrong with you?

We have gone from one person being able to support a family while the other raised the children a generation or two ago, to the current situation where both people have to work while other people take care of their children.

The fact that we can now have a discussion about which person stays home vs. work is significant progress, but it has been paired with gross economic decline so that in most cases that discussion won't happen due to the economic reality that both people will be working.

just my .02

uncle ebeneezer 01-12-2011 01:03 PM

Re: Take Three (Mickey Kaus & David Frum)
 
Agreed. Great post Ocean.

To pile on a bit: Aren't the ridiculously over-priced treatments at the end-of-life, in fact, a prime example of why the market fails in this case? In other words the difficulty of letting a loved one go, causes many people to authorize extremely inefficient and costly measures thus raising costs exponentially. And of course the market (always with an eye toward revenue) is happy to oblige.

stephanie 01-12-2011 01:04 PM

Re: What America has to offer the world
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by popcorn_karate (Post 194344)
We have gone from one person being able to support a family while the other raised the children a generation or two ago, to the current situation where both people have to work while other people take care of their children.

Oh, for God's sake, you mean you want me to take BornAgainDem's argument seriously?

I think you are focusing on an overly narrow time period and segment of the population in claiming that, but more importantly I'd like some evidence that the reason for the change is working women. Even if it were it would not give a moral basis to limit women's opportunities (as you seem to acknowledge), but I simply don't think you can show the link.

Also, of course, the link to how having stay at home moms allowed us to defeat Communism (even though we largely didn't for a good part of the Cold War, including the Reagan era).

Edit: To address this fairly and perhaps help identify where we agree and disagree, I'll be a little more specific. If the economic problems you reference were do to a dramatic increase in the workforce (as the working women are to blame hypothesis would suggest) I think we would see it in the following ways: (1) high unemployment in the fields women are entering or high unemployment that otherwise can be traced to an overly rapid growth in the workforce and a loss of bargaining power by workers that resulted; and (2) inflation due to a greater number of families with more income driving up prices. (This is the "working women hurt the US, because successful women tend to marry successful men resulting in a greater disparity of income between richer and poorer families.)

(2) is clearly not the case. Inflation hasn't been a problem for ages, and the prices for consumer products, food, gas and so on on average have been quite low over the relevant period, for the most part (blips in gas prices, obviously, but nothing like what was expected back in the 70s). (The demand for low prices in part fuels the demand for free trade and unwillingness to have a gas tax of the sort existing in many other countries, but I don't think you can blame working women for that.)

(1) doesn't seem to be the case either. The unemployment and workers losing bargaining power and generally the loss of the traditional segments of well-paying jobs for uneducated men aren't in fields in which women have been flocking into. They are in fields hurt for other reasons, basically the decline of US manufacturing. One reason women are doing better, probably, in the current economy is that they haven't joined these segments in great numbers.

popcorn_karate 01-12-2011 03:10 PM

Re: What America has to offer the world
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 194346)
Oh, for God's sake, you mean you want me to take BornAgainDem's argument seriously?

i didn't consider his post an argument, exactly. more a frustrated person waving their hands in the general direction of a perceived problem. For some quixotic reason i wanted to salvage an argument out of it : )

i don't know why i have these odd urges.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 194346)
I think you are focusing on an overly narrow time period and segment of the population in claiming that, but more importantly I'd like some evidence that the reason for the change is working women. Even if it were it would not give a moral basis to limit women's opportunities (as you seem to acknowledge), but I simply don't think you can show the link.

i wasn't trying to point towards any causality, merely pointing out that a choice is still absent in the lives of most people and that is still a problem (the lack of choice). to me, its a pretty big problem because my experience raising children (and having had a mom around growing up because i was lucky enough to be poor before bill clinton was president) leads to me to believe that a stay at home parent is a pretty optimal solution if the economic realities will allow it.


Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 194346)
Also, of course, the link to how having stay at home moms allowed us to defeat Communism (even though we largely didn't for a good part of the Cold War, including the Reagan era).

yeah, see quixotic above.


Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 194346)
Edit: To address this fairly and perhaps help identify where we agree and disagree, I'll be a little more specific. If the economic problems you reference were do to a dramatic increase in the workforce (as the working women are to blame hypothesis would suggest) I think we would see it in the following ways: (1) high unemployment in the fields women are entering or high unemployment that otherwise can be traced to an overly rapid growth in the workforce and a loss of bargaining power by workers that resulted; and (2) inflation due to a greater number of families with more income driving up prices. (This is the "working women hurt the US, because successful women tend to marry successful men resulting in a greater disparity of income between richer and poorer families.)

(2) is clearly not the case. Inflation hasn't been a problem for ages, and the prices for consumer products, food, gas and so on on average have been quite low over the relevant period, for the most part (blips in gas prices, obviously, but nothing like what was expected back in the 70s). (The demand for low prices in part fuels the demand for free trade and unwillingness to have a gas tax of the sort existing in many other countries, but I don't think you can blame working women for that.)

(1) doesn't seem to be the case either. The unemployment and workers losing bargaining power and generally the loss of the traditional segments of well-paying jobs for uneducated men aren't in fields in which women have been flocking into. They are in fields hurt for other reasons, basically the decline of US manufacturing. One reason women are doing better, probably, in the current economy is that they haven't joined these segments in great numbers.

mmmm yeah. my point was much less intellectual and thought out - merely the observation that the huge struggle to have choices has coincided with other changes such that the the constraints on choice have shifted from societal to economic grounds - the end result being much less of a victory than is generally presumed by the left.

i'm not advocating for reversing the gains in women's rights and choices on the off chance that it would magically undo the economic changes we have undergone in the last 50 years.

bkjazfan 01-12-2011 03:45 PM

Re: Take Three (Mickey Kaus & David Frum)
 
Unlike Mickey sitting here in Los Angeles I don't see much push back against K-12 public school teacher unions.

Unlike Mickey while living in Los Angeles during the Clinton years this ideal come one, come all, burgeoning job market that he has spoken of a couple times was not occurring here.

Like Mickey I enjoyed Thomas Edsall's book "Chain Reaction" - written at least 20 years ago about the white vote and it's drift away from the Democratic party.

Like Mickey I read Ron Brownstein a sydicated columnist on political affairs. He is fair and balanced, has a coherent style, and a perceptive view on all things political. He is not a party hack like so many others appear to be.

John

bkjazfan 01-12-2011 04:02 PM

Re: What America has to offer the world
 
David Nelson the last living member of the family represented on "The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet" died today from complications related to colon cancer at the age of 74. He is survived by a wife, Yvonne, a daughter, 4 sons, and 7 grandchildren.

John


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.