Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-20-2010, 11:04 PM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default Big Government Libertarianism (Glenn Loury & Jim Pinkerton)

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-20-2010, 11:34 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Big Government Libertarianism (Glenn Loury & Jim Pinkerton)

First of all, wow, great diavlog. I haven't watched the whole thing, yet, but how can you go wrong with these two? I had to break my rule of only watching DVs on the weekend.

Second of all, I endorse everything Pinkerton has said through the first 22 minutes.

Last week, Starwatcher asked for some concrete ideas for stemming the trend towards inequality. Pinkerton has many of the answers to that question.

Pinkerton is also correct to blame both the Democrats and the Republicans. When the American automobile industry was on the verge of extinction, I was stunned to discover that most of the "liberals" and "Democrats" I know were enthusiastically cheering on its demise. These are people who, from an environmental perspective, had learned to hate American industry and fetishize Japanese cars, and when the opportunity to destroy the industry presented itself, they could barely contain their excitement.

The one piece missing from Pinkerton's analysis is blame for the corporations themselves. (Well, I guess he did touch on it when he explained that Tyson has an interest in cheap labor at the expense of everyone else.) But let's be clear: It's the corporations themselves who sought "free trade" in the form of NAFTA and GATT as a means to increase their own profits and destroy unions at home. And it has worked beautifully. The rising inequality is the proof.

Here's how corporate America looks at Asia: there are 3 billion people living there, vs 310 million in the US. They are going to sell out America so they can exploit Asia. I wish I had a solution. We can end Republican tax incentives that encourage corporations to offshore our labor and undermine our wages, but ultimately you can't force multinational corporations to stay in or do business in the USA. It just may be that our glory days are over.

Kind of glad I had a chance to know America during its hey day, before conservative economic policies destroyed it.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-20-2010, 11:56 PM
Always Cynical Always Cynical is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 115
Default Re: Big Government Libertarianism (Glenn Loury & Jim Pinkerton)

Just remember who these two gents are.

Glenn Loury is vowing to replace Tommy Sowell when Sowell kicks. There's money in that gig, but Loury faces heavy competition from a variety of young Clarence Thomas-like wannabes.

Jimmy Pinkerton, pinched, nasal tone or not, seethes over Glenn Beck's wealth and wants Murdoch and Ailes to grant him either a syndicated talk radio show or Fox News gig for a couple of hours five days a week.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-20-2010, 11:59 PM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Big Government Libertarianism (Glenn Loury & Jim Pinkerton)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Always Cynical View Post
Just remember who these two gents are.

Glenn Loury is vowing to replace Tommy Sowell when Sowell kicks. There's money in that gig, but Loury faces heavy competition from a variety of young Clarence Thomas-like wannabes.

Jimmy Pinkerton, pinched, nasal tone or not, seethes over Glenn Beck's wealth and wants Murdoch and Ailes to grant him either a syndicated talk radio show or Fox News gig for a couple of hours five days a week.
You sure do seem to know a lot about the inner lives of DV'ers, and all of it indicates that what they say can't be trusted. Huh.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-21-2010, 12:10 AM
Always Cynical Always Cynical is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 115
Default Re: Big Government Libertarianism (Glenn Loury & Jim Pinkerton)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
You sure do seem to know a lot about the inner lives of DV'ers, and all of it indicates that what they say can't be trusted. Huh.
Follow the money, the offshore tax havens, the parents, the private prep schools, the Ivy, and the think tanks. You'll find the similarities quite eerie - if not down right oligarchial - in nature.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-21-2010, 12:26 AM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Big Government Libertarianism (Glenn Loury & Jim Pinkerton)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Always Cynical View Post
Follow the money, the offshore tax havens, the parents, the private prep schools, the Ivy, and the think tanks. You'll find the similarities quite eerie - if not down right oligarchial - in nature.
Show us the data!
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-21-2010, 12:37 AM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Big Government Libertarianism (Glenn Loury & Jim Pinkerton)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Always Cynical View Post
Just remember who these two gents are.

Glenn Loury is vowing to replace Tommy Sowell when Sowell kicks. There's money in that gig, but Loury faces heavy competition from a variety of young Clarence Thomas-like wannabes.

Jimmy Pinkerton, pinched, nasal tone or not, seethes over Glenn Beck's wealth and wants Murdoch and Ailes to grant him either a syndicated talk radio show or Fox News gig for a couple of hours five days a week.
Howdy AC,
I disagree with your characterization of Loury. He drove me nuts during 2008 with his analysis of Obama, but I don't respect him because he agrees with me. I just think he's cool, and really, really smart. I love listening to him.

As for Pinkerton, yes, he's as conservative as they come on virtually all topics, and I disagree with just about everything he says, but despite this I've always liked him and enjoyed listening to him. But that's me; I tend to listen to a lot of conservative voices.

I was actually quite surprised to hear the incredibly sane things he had to say about the US economy in tonight's DV. As far as I'm concerned, he's indistinguishable from the very best kind of Democrat in the kinds of things he was (apparently) proposing tonight. I think Obama is more of a corporate-friendly pseudo-Republican than Pinkerton is. (Though Obama is obviously far superior in every other respect.)
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-21-2010, 12:39 AM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Big Government Libertarianism (Glenn Loury & Jim Pinkerton)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Always Cynical View Post
Follow the money, the offshore tax havens, the parents, the private prep schools, the Ivy, and the think tanks. You'll find the similarities quite eerie - if not down right oligarchial - in nature.
Have you ever read Domhoff's Who Rules America?

If you haven't, you should.

Quote:
Drawing from a power elite perspective and the latest empirical data, Domhoff’s classic text is an invaluable tool for teaching students about how power operates in U.S. society. Domhoff argues that the owners and top-level managers in large income-producing properties are far and away the dominant figures in the U.S. Their corporations, banks, and agribusinesses come together as a corporate community that dominates the federal government in Washington and their real estate, construction, and land development companies form growth coalitions that dominate most local governments. By providing empirical evidence for his argument, Domhoff encourages students to think critically about the power structure in American society and its implications for our democracy.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-21-2010, 12:41 AM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Big Government Libertarianism (Glenn Loury & Jim Pinkerton)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
Show us the data!
He's absolutely right. What he said is about as empirically true as anything anyone has ever said in these forums.

(Note: Not necessarily about Glenn and Jim; I thought his observations about them was pretty crude; but the larger analysis is definitely correct.)
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-21-2010, 12:43 AM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Big Government Libertarianism (Glenn Loury & Jim Pinkerton)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
He's absolutely right. What he said is about as empirically true as anything anyone has ever said in these forums.

(Note: Not necessarily about Glenn and Jim; I thought his observations about them was pretty crude; but the larger analysis is definitely correct.)
Oh, I have no doubt about the general proposition. But it's a hell of a charge to level in specific without evidence.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-21-2010, 12:44 AM
Baltimoron Baltimoron is offline
Deactivated User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Busan, South Korea (ROK)
Posts: 1,690
Send a message via Skype™ to Baltimoron
Default Re: Big Government Libertarianism (Glenn Loury & Jim Pinkerton)

I don't know if that title is supposed to be ironic, straight, or comical, but it makes no sense whatsoever.

I have two points: on what Pinkerton said about progressivism, having just finished reading C. Vann Woodward's The Origins of the New South, 1877-1913, this much comes immediately to mind. Theodore Roosevelt's progressivism during his two terms and especially his third-party run was lily-white. And, the Republicans and Democrats he sought to attract in the South were racist, fully willing to corporations, but not to include Negroes (sic). Why doesn't Pinkerton just admit he's making a racist argument?

And, American industrial policy was rarely ever Hamiltonian. Did he forget Jefferson, and how southern interests fought internal improvements until the Civil War? Has he looked at the career of John C. Calhoun, who regressed from nationalist and pro-improvement to sectional and anti-Federalist?

Too much Jim, not enough Glenn Loury!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-21-2010, 12:49 AM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Big Government Libertarianism (Glenn Loury & Jim Pinkerton)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
Oh, I have no doubt about the general proposition. But it's a hell of a charge to level in specific without evidence.
I agree; fair enough. That's why I recommend the book; it's quite full of data. What's most remarkable and disturbing, perhaps, is how the wealthy are able to bend and twist our democratic institutions to overcome the popular will of the public. Jon Irenicus once started a thread asking people to explain what think tanks and policy institutions are for. If you don't know the answer to that question, you have no idea how politics in the United States operates, and on whose behalf. The short answer is that the policy planning network is a way for corporations and the wealthy to impose their will on the population and to co-opt popular public movements. One example: the Ford Foundation funded environmental groups that would satisfy the public desire for environmentalism but would do it on terms that were favorable and acceptable to corporations and the wealthy.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-21-2010, 12:54 AM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Big Government Libertarianism (Glenn Loury & Jim Pinkerton)

Look, I largely agree with your broader point. American politics does usually consist of a privileged elite talking to itself about what it will do to the rest of us. But you always make this critique in personalized terms, as if BHTV could just rectify the problem by finding DV'ers with more plebian resumes. While I'm all for publicizing such DV'ers, criticizing Loury and Pinckerton this way is just silly. Pinckerton is probably the most anti-corporate, anti-Washington Consensus conservative on bhtv, and Loury is an extremely smart and thoughtful guy that is extremely invested in the problems of the non-elite in our country. What's more, they spent half of the DV discussing ways to revitalize the American middle class in ways that are verboten to most of the corrupt elite you're criticizing. So if this DV prompts you to supply personalized alarm bells about the careerist motivation underlying everything that is said, I wonder what kind of DV would actually satisfy your concerns.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-21-2010, 01:02 AM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Big Government Libertarianism (Glenn Loury & Jim Pinkerton)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baltimoron View Post
I don't know if that title is supposed to be ironic, straight, or comical, but it makes no sense whatsoever.
Well, it's just what Jim said, half-joking, to describe himself at the very beginning, when Glenn observed the contradiction between Jim's professed libertarianism and his desire for a big government industrial policy and other policies to protect the interests of the American population against the ravages and depredations of the elite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baltimoron View Post
Why doesn't Pinkerton just admit he's making a racist argument?
Would you mind elaborating on this? What part of Pinkerton's argument was racist?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baltimoron View Post
And, American industrial policy was rarely ever Hamiltonian. Did he forget Jefferson, and how southern interests fought internal improvements until the Civil War? Has he looked at the career of John C. Calhoun, who regressed from nationalist and pro-improvement to sectional and anti-Federalist?
Good points. And his tribe continues to fight them to this day.

I happen to think he's right, though, that it would be a wise use of our national wealth to invest in national infrastructure. Ten years ago we could have done this by wiring the nation with fiber optics and high speed networks. But building a hundred nuke plants is a great idea, too.

Part of what the libertarians fail to grasp is that American industry could not compete in a free market. The agriculture and aviation industries are classic examples: both are so heavily subsidized in Europe that if the US government didn't dramatically intervene in the markets in the US, both industries would flounder, or vanish. Unfortunately, a child's view of economics, a view so simple it can be spelled out on a 3x5 card, is no substitute for understanding the complexities of 21st century economy.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-21-2010, 01:06 AM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: Big Government Libertarianism (Glenn Loury & Jim Pinkerton)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Always Cynical View Post

Glenn Loury is vowing to replace Tommy Sowell when Sowell kicks. There's money in that gig, but Loury faces heavy competition from a variety of young Clarence Thomas-like wannabes.
I'm pretty sure Sowell won't be coauthoring papers with Sam Bowles and Rajiv Sethi any time soon.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-21-2010, 01:20 AM
chamblee54 chamblee54 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 319
Default Re: Big Government Libertarianism (Glenn Loury & Jim Pinkerton)

This was technically challenging. Mr. Loury would speak softly, so that you have to turn up the volume to hear him. Then, out of nowhere, he starts to shout about anti colonialism, and knocks you back a few steps.
Mr. Pinkerton made a snide comment about the left being interested in polar bears and gay marriage. The problem with that is, if the world is not a friendly place for polar bears to live, it will not be long before humans cannot live here.
"Jimmy Pinkerton, pinched, nasal tone or not, seethes over Glenn Beck's wealth and wants Murdoch and Ailes to grant him either a syndicated talk radio show or Fox News gig for a couple of hours five days a week." One thing Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck have in common is good looks. You cannot say this about Mr. Pinkerton.
Mr. Pinkerton said he used to oppose wars, and has/had some other "cool" views. And now he is working for Fox, and making snide comments about polar bears. Maybe someone, somewhere is interested in how this transformation took place.
chamblee54
__________________
Chamblee54
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-21-2010, 01:33 AM
Unit Unit is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,713
Default Hamil(Pinker)ton

Jim Hamil(Pinker)ton thinks he's looking up to the great Alexander when in fact he's committing an "Agrarian fallacy". Manufacturing is undergoing the same evolution that Agriculture went through in the last century. If 100 years ago 40% of the labor force worked in the fields, nowadays only 2% are actually enough to produce an all-time-high yield of foodstuff by manning a hyper-mechanized and capital-laden industrial/agricultural system. An Hamil(pinker)ton in 1910 would have been heard bemoaning the decline of the American farming force and "We don't grow stuff anymore", etc...proposing large-scale govt-promoted agricultural farms to employ well-payed middle-class (true) Americans, to the ridicule of later generations.

Manufacturing is going through the same "industrialization" process. Manufacturing output is at an all-time-high and as Economist Don Boudreaux says: "data compiled by the Federal Reserve show that the inflation-adjusted total value of industrial output is today (May 2010) - despite the fact that we're in a recession - 67 percent HIGHER than in January 1986".
True, less and less people are employed in manufacturing, but their productivity is higher and higher.

So here is what Jim could do: he could follow another founding father, Jefferson, and retire to his very own Motor-cello (a mansion in downtown Detroit), with a fleet of American-made Harley Davidson's, and quietly pursue his Manufactarian Utopia, penning immemorable quotes such as these:

2011. "Those who labour in the factory are the chosen people of God, if ever he had a chosen people, whose breasts he has made his peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue. It is the focus in which he keeps alive that sacred fire, which otherwise might escape from the face of the earth."

2015 Oct. 28. "It is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little workshop. The small manufacturers are the most precious part of a state."

2017 Dec. 20. "I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries; as long as they are chiefly manufactural."

2023 June 28. "Good husbandry with us consists in abandoning Chinese junkets and tin-toys, tending small motorcycles, some red cars following, and endeavoring to have, while the plants are at rest, a spontaneous cover of toxic white smoke. I do not present this as a production judicious in itself, but as good in comparison with what most people there pursue.

2025 Apr. 29. "It [manufacture] is at the same time the most patriotic, healthy, and fulfilling [occupation]."

2025 Sep. 8. "I am become the most industrious and ardent tinkerer of the canton . . . ."

2033 Nov. 14. "The class principally defective is that of manufacture. It is the first in utility, and ought to be the first in respect. The same artificial means which have been used to produce a competition in learning, may be equally successful in restoring manufacture to its primary dignity in the eyes of men. It is a science of the very first order. It counts among it handmaids of the most respectable sciences, such as Chemistry, Natural Philosophy, Mechanics, Mathematics generally, Natural History, Botany. In every College and University, a professorship of manufacture, and the class of its students, might be honored as the first. Young men closing their academical education with this, as the crown of all other sciences, fascinated with its solid charms, and at a time when they are to choose an occupation, instead of crowding the other classes, would return to the plants of their fathers, their own, or those of others, and replenish and invigorate a calling, now languishing under contempt and oppression. The charitable schools, instead of storing their pupils with a lore which the present state of society does not call for, converted into schools of manufacture, might restore them to that branch qualified to enrich and honor themselves, and to increase the productions of the nation instead of consuming them."

2040 June 27. "I think it the duty of industrialists who are wealthier than others to give those less so the benefit of any improvements they can introduce, gratis."

2047 May 10. "The pamphlet you were so kind as to send me manifests a zeal, which cannot be too much praised, for the interests of manufacture, the employment of our first parents in Eden, the happiest we can follow, and the most important to our country."

2051 July 30. "With respect to the boys I never till lately doubted but that I should be able to give them a competence as comfortable metallurgists, and no station is more honorable or happy than that."

--Jim Hamil(pinker)ton.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-21-2010, 01:39 AM
Always Cynical Always Cynical is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 115
Default Re: Big Government Libertarianism (Glenn Loury & Jim Pinkerton)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
While I'm all for publicizing such, criticizing Loury and Pinckerton this way is just silly. Pinckerton is probably the most anti-corporate, anti-Washington Consensus conservative on bhtv,
Pinkerton's on his hands and knees whenever Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes snap their fingers. If you choose to ignore the facts of Pinkerton's blind obedience to the Fox czars, that's your problem and there's little one can type to convince you otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
and Loury is an extremely smart and thoughtful guy that is extremely invested in the problems of the non-elite in our country.
And Loury's chief interest is getting to the head of the line when Tommy Sowell kicks. Sowell's successor will make a boatload of offshore bucks, just like Tommy - the Clarence Thomas of the Paleo and Neo right. Loury's no fool and he wants the dinero. Period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
What's more, they spent half of the DV discussing ways to revitalize the American middle class in ways that are verboten to most of the corrupt elite you're criticizing. So if this DV prompts you to supply personalized alarm bells about the careerist motivation underlying everything that is said, I wonder what kind of DV would actually satisfy your concerns.
Name a tangible, realistic, economically viable suggestion that either Pinkerton or Loury offered during this debate. Name one. Pinkerton and Loury want tax cuts and deregulation - and nothing more. Pinkerton mouths off about "Wall Street" but offers no specific policy plan to address the litany of ills on Wall Street and in the hedge fund world. None. Instead, Pinkerton plays to the Conservative and Neoconservative base with general prattle and catchphrases straight from Frankie Luntz. Loury, meanwhile, seemed baffled by the idea of a "fixed pension system" and simply fell apart in the final segment of the debate.

Earlier, Loury had offered a rather sharp critique of Dinesh D'Souza, but that had more to do with the fact that D'Souza used his usual weak scholarship, deep polemic, and backstabbing ways to beat out Loury a few years back for a bunch of high-paying gigs when they were competitors at the same think tank. Loury lost money to D'Souza then so Loury rips D'Souza now. That D'Souza operates in blind sophistry and blatant butt kissing and that he'd kill your mother or his own for his Conservative bosses has long been a well-known fact of life in the think tank world. That Loury blasts D'Souza now, while quite accurate in the wake of the Forbes' piece and quite pleasant when one sees such an offensive mounted by Christopher Hitchens, has everything to do with the fact that D'Souza beat him to the big money before and Loury has been aching for years to even that score.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-21-2010, 02:05 AM
Baltimoron Baltimoron is offline
Deactivated User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Busan, South Korea (ROK)
Posts: 1,690
Send a message via Skype™ to Baltimoron
Default Re: Big Government Libertarianism (Glenn Loury & Jim Pinkerton)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
What part of Pinkerton's argument was racist?
Aside from Woodward's insight into the northern Progressive alliance with southern "Progressives" in the period Pinkerton alludes to, Pinkerton as much as says he wants to limit Hispanic immigration, and never mentions African-Americans. I would argue immigration is now a dog whistle for racism. And, maybe if my South Korean students didn't believe that households in the American South own guns to kill Asian tourists, some of those East Asian wunderkind would come to learn English and stay to work. I teach these kids English, because they want to study and imitate Hollywood culture. But, they all tell me repeatedly how most Americans are technologically and culturally retarded and racist. Restricting immigration would inflate the economy at least as much as kow-towing to the unions he despises. I would rather espouse a multi-cultural progressivism, that includes democratic institutions for all individuals, if we have to pay extra for groceries. I'd rather someone know, that he/she had a voice in deciding to manufacture a given product, rather than accept that he/she can make it but not buy it. And then, there's the demographic time bomb, if younger immigrants don't replace an older population.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
I happen to think he's right, though, that it would be a wise use of our national wealth to invest in national infrastructure. Ten years ago we could have done this by wiring the nation with fiber optics and high speed networks. But building a hundred nuke plants is a great idea, too.

Part of what the libertarians fail to grasp is that American industry could not compete in a free market. The agriculture and aviation industries are classic examples: both are so heavily subsidized in Europe that if the US government didn't dramatically intervene in the markets in the US, both industries would flounder, or vanish. Unfortunately, a child's view of economics, a view so simple it can be spelled out on a 3x5 card, is no substitute for understanding the complexities of 21st century economy.
I'm beginning to think actually, that a technocratic fix like what you advocate is not half bad. But, as I said above, the only way to fix the excesses of interest group pluralism - the lop-sided "intervention" is the result - is to build democratic institutions beyond the constitutional skeleton the US has. perhaps, the favored few now might not get their piece of the pie they enjoy now if more groups got a bigger slice. But, at least everyone would have a stake in the system, and get a reward equal to their contribution.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-21-2010, 02:15 AM
Baltimoron Baltimoron is offline
Deactivated User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Busan, South Korea (ROK)
Posts: 1,690
Send a message via Skype™ to Baltimoron
Default Re: Hamil(Pinker)ton

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unit View Post
Jim Hamil(Pinker)ton thinks he's looking up to the great Alexander when in fact he's committing an "Agrarian fallacy". Manufacturing is undergoing the same evolution that Agriculture went through in the last century....
It's not just city vs. farm. The Jeffersonians and Hamiltonians quarreled over the central bank and the federal government. Jefferson had no objection to manufacture, just as long as it was private, local, and small-scale. Hamilton always had the better grasp of political economy, though, which is about right, since he came from a family of merchants.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-21-2010, 02:54 AM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Big Government Libertarianism (Glenn Loury & Jim Pinkerton)

OK, then you tell me this. Can you name anyone that's been on the front page of BHTV that you don't think has questionable motives or qualifications along these lines? If so, who? How often has this person/these people been on?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-21-2010, 03:27 AM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: Big Government Libertarianism (Glenn Loury & Jim Pinkerton)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Always Cynical View Post
Just remember who these two gents are.

Glenn Loury is vowing to replace Tommy Sowell when Sowell kicks. There's money in that gig, but Loury faces heavy competition from a variety of young Clarence Thomas-like wannabes.
Jimmy Pinkerton, pinched, nasal tone or not, seethes over Glenn Beck's wealth and wants Murdoch and Ailes to grant him either a syndicated talk radio show or Fox News gig for a couple of hours five days a week.
Name some names, you shameless gossip.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-21-2010, 05:55 AM
BornAgainDemocrat BornAgainDemocrat is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: near Chattanooga
Posts: 826
Default Wow!

That was quite a conversation. I'm a big fan of Glenn Loury's so I was surprised to find myself agreeing mostly with Jim Pinkerton on the economic issues and the nature of what ails us -- and it always kept coming back to that.

Making Alexander Hamilton the face of America's new industrial policy sounds like a strong idea. The exposure of all the quickie millionaires in the Obama administration at the end was devastating.

Last edited by BornAgainDemocrat; 09-21-2010 at 05:58 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-21-2010, 06:07 AM
jacksonian jacksonian is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 15
Default Re: Big Government Libertarianism (Glenn Loury & Jim Pinkerton)

What would it even mean to be the "Clarence Thomas of the Paleo and Neo right"? Isn't Clarence Thomas himself already on the right? And regardless of what you think of him, he's a judge, not an academic or public intellectual who churns out books. So...other than all these people being black and having political views you disapprove of, what's the connection between any of these people?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Always Cynical View Post
Pinkerton's on his hands and knees whenever Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes snap their fingers. If you choose to ignore the facts of Pinkerton's blind obedience to the Fox czars, that's your problem and there's little one can type to convince you otherwise.



And Loury's chief interest is getting to the head of the line when Tommy Sowell kicks. Sowell's successor will make a boatload of offshore bucks, just like Tommy - the Clarence Thomas of the Paleo and Neo right. Loury's no fool and he wants the dinero. Period.



Name a tangible, realistic, economically viable suggestion that either Pinkerton or Loury offered during this debate. Name one. Pinkerton and Loury want tax cuts and deregulation - and nothing more. Pinkerton mouths off about "Wall Street" but offers no specific policy plan to address the litany of ills on Wall Street and in the hedge fund world. None. Instead, Pinkerton plays to the Conservative and Neoconservative base with general prattle and catchphrases straight from Frankie Luntz. Loury, meanwhile, seemed baffled by the idea of a "fixed pension system" and simply fell apart in the final segment of the debate.

Earlier, Loury had offered a rather sharp critique of Dinesh D'Souza, but that had more to do with the fact that D'Souza used his usual weak scholarship, deep polemic, and backstabbing ways to beat out Loury a few years back for a bunch of high-paying gigs when they were competitors at the same think tank. Loury lost money to D'Souza then so Loury rips D'Souza now. That D'Souza operates in blind sophistry and blatant butt kissing and that he'd kill your mother or his own for his Conservative bosses has long been a well-known fact of life in the think tank world. That Loury blasts D'Souza now, while quite accurate in the wake of the Forbes' piece and quite pleasant when one sees such an offensive mounted by Christopher Hitchens, has everything to do with the fact that D'Souza beat him to the big money before and Loury has been aching for years to even that score.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-21-2010, 06:15 AM
BornAgainDemocrat BornAgainDemocrat is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: near Chattanooga
Posts: 826
Default Re: Big Government Libertarianism (Glenn Loury & Jim Pinkerton)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post

Here's how corporate America looks at Asia: there are 3 billion people living there, vs 310 million in the US. They are going to sell out America so they can exploit Asia. I wish I had a solution.
Maybe the solution is China itself. When American businessmen finally start realize what an economic Goliath China will be (Japan x 15) and what a miniscule, inconsequential bit role they will have to play, they'll start to see the light. I hope so.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-21-2010, 06:38 AM
BornAgainDemocrat BornAgainDemocrat is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: near Chattanooga
Posts: 826
Default Re: Hamil(Pinker)ton

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unit View Post
Jim Hamil(Pinker)ton thinks he's looking up to the great Alexander when in fact he's committing an "Agrarian fallacy". Manufacturing is undergoing the same evolution that Agriculture went through in the last century. . . True, less and less people are employed in manufacturing, but their productivity is higher and higher.
So how about a thirty-hour workweek? How else are ordinary people supposed to benefit from all this economic progress?

Combine that with a time-out on immigration and high tariff wall against China and we would have the makings of a new American industrial policy. I'm with Jim Pinkerton here. An economy of the people, by the people, and for the people!

Last edited by BornAgainDemocrat; 09-21-2010 at 06:40 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-21-2010, 08:06 AM
rfrobison rfrobison is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 1,629
Default On role models

The question arises: When the role models for uneducated urban youth of whatever ethnicity are sports heroes, hip-hop artists and gangsters, the idea that you're going to get the vast army of said youth to pluck chickens is simply ridiculous.

And while James Pinkerton no doubt could afford to pay more for his chicken sandwiches, we don't all make his salary.

Please give me a break.
__________________
Send lawyers, guns and money/Dad, get me outta this
--Warren Zevon--
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-21-2010, 08:31 AM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: Hamil(Pinker)ton

Quote:
Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat View Post
So how about a thirty-hour workweek? How else are ordinary people supposed to benefit from all this economic progress?

Combine that with a time-out on immigration and high tariff wall against China and we would have the makings of a new American industrial policy. I'm with Jim Pinkerton here. An economy of the people, by the people, and for the people!
I agree with the last 2 points. Raise tariffs so we can pay back the Chinese the money we owe them.

Why a limit on hours worked? We have to produce the stuff we need to live on - food, housing, education, transportation ... To produce that stuff we have to work. Better a 50 hour work week than 30.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-21-2010, 08:35 AM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: On role models

Quote:
Originally Posted by rfrobison View Post
The question arises: When the role models for uneducated urban youth of whatever ethnicity are sports heroes, hip-hop artists and gangsters, the idea that you're going to get the vast army of said youth to pluck chickens is simply ridiculous.

And while James Pinkerton no doubt could afford to pay more for his chicken sandwiches, we don't all make his salary.

Please give me a break.
I think Jim and Glenn were both way off on that point. There is nothing wrong with manual labor. People can adapt to having to show for work on time and put in a good effort. And it is socially redeeming. Makes a better person out of you to effectively be forced to do good. That is why the good old days were good. Hard work was rewarded back then.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-21-2010, 08:40 AM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: Wow!

Quote:
Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat View Post
That was quite a conversation. I'm a big fan of Glenn Loury's so I was surprised to find myself agreeing mostly with Jim Pinkerton on the economic issues and the nature of what ails us -- and it always kept coming back to that.

Making Alexander Hamilton the face of America's new industrial policy sounds like a strong idea. The exposure of all the quickie millionaires in the Obama administration at the end was devastating.
I think for the Jim system to work there has to be some degree of limitations on personal freedom. You can't work, for example, for a low wage. Or employ whomever you want to employ.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 09-21-2010, 10:02 AM
Unit Unit is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,713
Default Re: Hamil(Pinker)ton

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baltimoron View Post
It's not just city vs. farm. The Jeffersonians and Hamiltonians quarreled over the central bank and the federal government. Jefferson had no objection to manufacture, just as long as it was private, local, and small-scale. Hamilton always had the better grasp of political economy, though, which is about right, since he came from a family of merchants.
..and seeing the problems that central banking has been giving us, it looks like Jefferson was right on that one.

I'm not sure what you mean by "political economy". If you mean do more with less, politically, then I don't believe Hamilton had a better grasp than Jefferson.
A background in business is no guarantee of political success, in fact, it often leads to control-freaks who want to micro-manage the whole economy (e.g. Hoover).
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-21-2010, 10:07 AM
Unit Unit is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,713
Default Re: Hamil(Pinker)ton

Quote:
Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat View Post
So how about a thirty-hour workweek? How else are ordinary people supposed to benefit from all this economic progress?
Again, think of the evolution of farming: would you have said, a hundred years ago, "what abt thirty-hour week on the farm, how else are ordinary people blah blah..." No of course not. Ordinary people benefit from vast amounts of cheap manufactures, so they can save or spend their remaining money on something else.

Quote:
Combine that with a time-out on immigration and high tariff wall against China and we would have the makings of a new American industrial policy. I'm with Jim Pinkerton here. An economy of the people, by the people, and for the people!
That's about as backwards as it gets. High tariffs against China punish American consumers. Why do you want to shoot ordinary people in the foot?

Immigrants are people too.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-21-2010, 10:12 AM
Unit Unit is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,713
Default Re: Hamil(Pinker)ton

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
I agree with the last 2 points. Raise tariffs so we can pay back the Chinese the money we owe them.
Higher tariffs are paid by the ordinary people who buy Chinese products. So in effect you want ordinary *Americans* to pay for Uncle Sam's profligacy.

Quote:
Why a limit on hours worked? We have to produce the stuff we need to live on - food, housing, education, transportation ... To produce that stuff we have to work. Better a 50 hour work week than 30.
"Producing the stuff we need" is the road to misery. Trade, exchange, specialization, division of labor is what brought us the economic miracle of the last two centuries. You want to go back to "subsistence living", be my guest.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-21-2010, 11:37 AM
bkjazfan bkjazfan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Los Angeles, Ca.
Posts: 1,192
Default Re: Big Government Libertarianism (Glenn Loury & Jim Pinkerton)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Always Cynical View Post
Just remember who these two gents are.

Glenn Loury is vowing to replace Tommy Sowell when Sowell kicks. There's money in that gig, but Loury faces heavy competition from a variety of young Clarence Thomas-like wannabes.

Jimmy Pinkerton, pinched, nasal tone or not, seethes over Glenn Beck's wealth and wants Murdoch and Ailes to grant him either a syndicated talk radio show or Fox News gig for a couple of hours five days a week.
Are you their psychiatrist?
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-21-2010, 12:11 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Big Government Libertarianism (Glenn Loury & Jim Pinkerton)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
(Note: Not necessarily about Glenn and Jim; I thought his observations about them was pretty crude; but the larger analysis is definitely correct.)
That's a hell of a caveat, given that the claim was about Glenn and Jim and has no relevance otherwise. He has an unpleasant habit in general of making personal claims about diavloggers in a blanket way.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 09-21-2010, 12:24 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Big Government Libertarianism (Glenn Loury & Jim Pinkerton)

Quote:
Originally Posted by chamblee54 View Post
Mr. Pinkerton said he used to oppose wars, and has/had some other "cool" views. And now he is working for Fox, and making snide comments about polar bears. Maybe someone, somewhere is interested in how this transformation took place.
Unless you have some evidence that Pinkerton used to be an environmentalist, I don't find the suggestion that it's due to FOX plausible.

Pinkerton strikes me as representative of a certain type of Republican (related to the Reagan Dems). When the parties realigned or partially realigned in the period from the late '60s through the early '90s, what seems to have happened is that the Dems adopted a bunch of socially liberal positions, along with a pro civil rights position, much more skepticism about foreign policy, and so on. Due to the conflicts within the Dems, the Republicans were able to sell themselves as the party for the regular American, pro family, pro religion, unlike those Dems, who cared only about their special interests.

Thus, in the '80s, you got a lot of people voting less on economics as cultural interests or foreign policy (strength, defense, not necessarily wars), and you had the Republicans effectively portraying some of the Dem interests (in particular environmental and affirmative action) as anti the American worker. This meshed well with the cultural arguments (the culture war).

The Dems managed to push back against how they'd been portrayed through Clinton and the DLC strategies, and also benefitted by the growth of cultural liberalism in mainstream America, especially within the cities, suburbs, and professional classes. But these people weren't especially interested in the strong economic liberalism, but were more technocratic in preference. Add to that the fear the Dems had of seeming too liberal and you got a Democratic Party that, Pinkerton could genuinely say, doesn't stand all that strongly for the working class.

Pinkerton, of course, is right about that. Where he's wrong, though, is that he seems to buy into the Reagan-era rhetoric and the hopes that the Republican Party would actually realign to support the little guy, the regular American worker. The fact is, that this has never been more than rhetoric.

That said, I think Pinkerton's anti-inequality comments, his anti-war positions, his strong defense/fear of Islam in some instances, his general anti immigration/anti free trade views, and his anti environmentalism are all part of one broad set of views that make sense in context. (His anti environmentalism also seems consistent with his idea that we could solve absolutely everything with technology if we just tried.)

Note: when I say they make sense, I mean as an overarching political program. What doesn't make sense -- and I think is related more to the Dems not standing strongly for anything he cares about plus the antipathy on culture grounds and to some of the special interest groups in the party -- is that Pinkerton thinks that his views can be supported at all within the Republicans. He'd be better off trying to change the Dems or starting a third party, as the corporatist interests and libertarian rhetoric have way to much control over the Republicans and as it stands if people like Pinkerton stay Republican for cultural reasons the strategy has worked and we have no pro worker or pro little guy party in any meaningful sense.

Last edited by stephanie; 09-21-2010 at 12:27 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-21-2010, 12:33 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Big Government Libertarianism (Glenn Loury & Jim Pinkerton)

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
That's a hell of a caveat, given that the claim was about Glenn and Jim and has no relevance otherwise. He has an unpleasant habit in general of making personal claims about diavloggers in a blanket way.
Fair enough. What I meant to be agreeing with, and I was probably wrong to do so in the context of his attacks on the two diavloggers, is the broad and non-personal observation that there is an elite network found in "private prep schools, the Ivy [League], and the think tanks," etc. I might have been superimposing my own sociological analysis on top of AC's remarks and incorrectly assuming that's what he meant or was driving at. In any case, I certainly don't want to be associated with his attacks on Glenn and Jim.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 09-21-2010, 12:35 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Big Government Libertarianism (Glenn Loury & Jim Pinkerton)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
Fair enough. What I meant to be agreeing with, and I was probably wrong to do so in the context of his attacks on the two diavloggers, is the broad and non-personal observation that there is an elite network found in "private prep schools, the Ivy [League], and the think tanks," etc. I might have been superimposing my own sociological analysis on top of AC's remarks and incorrectly assuming that's what he meant or was driving at. In any case, I certainly don't want to be associated with his attacks on Glenn and Jim.
Fortunately, it appears that Jeff realized I was referring to the "general proposition" as opposed to the personal attacks. So hopefully I was not widely misunderstood to be agreeing with AC's attacks on Jim and Glenn.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-21-2010, 01:18 PM
nikkibong nikkibong is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,803
Default Re: Big Government Libertarianism (Glenn Loury & Jim Pinkerton)

good diavlog.

But do these guys have any idea of the absolutely miniscule scale of China's embrace of so-called "green energy?" China is the world's largest energy user, and 70% of its power comes from coal, 20% from oil, 6% from hydroelectricity. less than 1% is from "renewable sources."

i'm distressed by the widespread china veneration among opinion leaders. i had thought that good classical liberals and democrats were opposed to dictatorships because of the coercive nature of their rule - not because they were making bad "policy decisions." so, what, now that china is making a few turbines our hackles are no longer raised?

military dictatorships, now with windmills™ !
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 09-21-2010, 02:13 PM
Salt Salt is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 344
Default Re: Big Government Libertarianism (Glenn Loury & Jim Pinkerton)

A lot of anti-colonialists like Obama threw their hats in with the Soviets out of convenience. They needed a competing ideology, no matter how poorly considered, apparently. That's how the liberals wound up putting a Marxist in the White House. Fruitcakes.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:21 AM.


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