Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

They gave a lot of lip to Free Markets but they were not really free marketers. Brazil has a huge government subsidizing program, and the special interest that feed of the subsidizing program have a large influence on the current "conservatives" in Brazil. In other words, the prior government was hindering economic reform. That is why a large swath of the business community supported Lula. Lula is not only not attached to these special interests, but in addition, he truly believe in free markets. The labour unions in his own party have been the biggest hindrance to him passing his legislation. He has many parallels to Tony Blair.

I disagree with 95% of what Ralph Nader says, but one place I do agree with him is that all the corporate welfare in this country is not freemarket and is bad for the economy. The farm subsidies that many Republicans support and the corporate welfare schemes (in the form of subsidies and tax breaks) would warm Karl Marx's heart.

for RT
 

I associate the word more with the sense from the title of Solzhenitsyn's book, referring to a chain of islands. It was the isolation that made the gulags profoundly different from other forced-labor camps, no? And I thought that was what Amnesty was getting at. Places like Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram and Diego Garcia are completely isolated (setting apart the occasional mortar attack at Abu Ghraib) and are beyond any normal judicial system.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

I find that I agree with most of what you say here -- setting apart the torture stuff, I guess -- and it leaves me wondering how you can be such a committed Republican. I mean, wake up. This GOP is not about free markets -- it's about corporate welfare. You free market/libertarian types are being used. They pay lip service to the market ideals that you like, but if you want a financial responsible government, you'll have to elect Democrats. You'd have better luck joining the Democratic Party and working as a moderate there than you'll have in bringing around the people running your party.

for RT
 

I don't think that the gulag system was necessarily limited to geographically isolated places. The particular gulags in the book may have been, but that's not something I really associate with them. Hmmmm. I will have to look into that. The definitions cited in a comment in the blog you linked to didn't seem to mention isolation, iirc. More working and suffering.

Is Abu Ghraib really in the middle of nowhere? Assuming it is, why does that make a difference -- do you think what happened would not have happened if it'd been in a suburb of Baghdad?

ETA Really, I think the slave labor inherent in the gulag system did a lot to industrialize Russia/the Soviet Union, which was really quite backward (compared with (the rest of) Europe and the US) at WWI/the Revolution. While ultimately, communism (or whatever you call the system they had) may have slowed economic development, it's hard to argue that the more tightly controlled organization did push things forward more quickly than they had been going.

EATA, I googled (actually, yahooed) and there were more than 400 prisons. A lot of the mass labor projects were in more isolated areas -- mining, connecting distant habitable areas by building roads/railroads/canals. Not sure if it wasn't just hard to get non-imprisoned people to work those jobs . . . prison labor was cheaper. Or they felt it was.

for RT
 

Here I go butchering the spellings, but with Alexander Solzhenitsyn, I would just read A Day in the Life of Ivan Donitzavitch. That is really short but enough to depress you for a whole month. Reading the Gulag Archipelago is enough to take out three months.

for RT
 

I've read both in the past. And Cancer Ward -- not sure if that was him or someone else. Also depressing.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

sounds good. Do you have Howard Dean's phone number?

Junk Food Junkie?
 

I just got this email from a moderate Republican woman I raised money for. She got elected to the California Assembly. She is promoting the following bill in the California Assembly. I just now found out about it, and I have no idea who else supports it. Anybody want to guess what percentage of Republicans and Democrats support it? I could see people from both parties going either direction on this one. Any predictions? (I can see the logic in it, but do we really want to force health food on our children when I don't eat it myself).

Supporters of AB 569 (Garcia):

We need your help!!!

AB 569 has recently come under fire from opposition intent on keeping California Public School students SICK and FAT!

California has the second highest rate of overweight and low income children. Since the 1970's childhood obesity has doubled for pre-schoolers, aged 2-5 and adolescents aged 12-19. The rate has tripled for children aged 6-11!

Childhood obesity is resulting in heart disease, diabetes, hyper-tension and reduced life-spans.

This is not surprising considering Public Schools push Junk Foods - bags of chips, cookies and candy - instead of nutritious meals. In fact, some school districts rely on these sales for more than 50% of their budgets!

AB 569 is a common sense solution to the obesity crisis by requiring schools to be Pro-active participants. It would eliminate the sale of junk foods during regular breakfast and lunch periods and allow only for the sale of nutritionally balanced meals.

The opposition claims they need the money JUNK FOOD SALES generate to keep people employed. THIS IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE! Many school districts throughout the state have already moved towards healthier foods on their menus resulting in increased participation in the free and reduced lunch programs and increased revenue.

Proper nutrition should be our goal - and we should stop balancing budgets on the bellies of our children.

Please forward this email to your members and call, email or call members of the Assembly that will be voting on this issue tomorrow. A link is attached for your convenience.


www.asm.ca.gov



Our children are counting on you!

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

I understand what you are saying, but I dont' think you see the whole picture.

At least the Republicans try and claim to be pro-business and pro-free market even though they don't live up to it. The Democrats often don't even hide the fact that they are anti-business and anti-free market.

The biggest threats to the free market (and prosperity) in this country (in my opinion) are the trial lawyers and the unions. These are two of the Democrats strongest constituents. I think I will stick with the GOP.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

Montpelier has a population of about 8,000 -- how many Deans can there be there?

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

In his interview with NPR this morning, they mentioned that he's been so busy since he was elected Chair of the DNC that he hasn't had time to move to DC yet.

R(helpful)T

Junk Food Junkie?
 

I don't want to make a prediction, but I think this is a great idea. I'm a parent and I "force health food" on my kids, in the sense that I try to serve them food that's good for them instead of the sort of crap fringey likes to eat. (Hello, Friday!) Kids need responsible adults to give them structure and guidance as a general matter, and to keep them from drinking Coke and eating Ho-Ho's and Twinkies all the time specifically. When I went to public school, the food was for shit.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

They are pro-business, but they are often not pro-free market, particularly when it means being anti-free market. Look at the appointment of Cox to the SEC. Do you really think the "free market" will function better under Cox than Donaldson? Surely not, but regulated businesses had Bush's ear and wanted a friendlier regime. You see this pattern again and again with Bush Republicans.

And your view of Democrats is a caricature.

You cannot be serious. What threat are trial lawyers to the free market? And unions? Off the top of my head, more serious threats to the free market include:

Deficit spending's effects on interest rates
A permissive SEC allowing future Enrons
The effects of rising oil prices
Health care costs
Pension regulation (or the lack thereof)

Junk Food Junkie?
 

The more I think about it, the more I can't believe that a Democrat or Republican would be willing to vote against this bill. It would seem to me that that would be political suicide. Your opinion just seems to reinforce that. She wants me to call and lobby Assmeblymembers for it, but it seesm like a waste of time (or maybe I am just rationalizing my laziness).

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

Trade unions have been a significant force for democracy around the world, BTW. It has to do with what you were saying about the importance of the middle class.