So after quite a few years of being extremely anti-suit and fashion, I have actually become very interested in fashion over the past year or so. I have been learning some interesting things that I actually didn't know (for example a sport coat with trousers is not a suit, although similar). Anyways, I have been reading an interesting book lately called Style: The Thinking Man's Guide to Dress. In it, one of the things discussed at the start of the book is about the views of fashion held by rightwing and leftwing people.
Basically, many on the right, those who are very practical, hardworking, socially and fiscally conservative, etc...will disdain fashion and dressing up as they view it as meaning the person is suspect. America is supposed to be a land about creating, building, and producing. Art, fashion, and so forth, are luxuries. People who indulge in such things are thus suspect, viewed as not really being serious or practical. Also, a man for whom fashion is an interest can be viewed as somewhat effeminate, which the conservative right doesn't like.
On the other hand, you have the leftwing, who can also disdain dressing up as they view it as meaning one is part of the establishment, something they tend to disdain. It also denotes class, being a member of "the rich" or of thinking (as they see it) that you are better than others.
What made me question this though is that the conservative columnist George Will wrote a column some time ago lamenting that so many Americans do not "dress up." According to him, it is a sign of a pervasive psychological national immaturity. Here is a link to his article, along with another by writer Daniel Akst that also laments denim (jeans):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/15/AR2009041502861.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123751483315591559.html
Will and Akst both denounce the dressing down of so many people in society and yearn for when we all dress to look good. Now the thing is, Will (and I am guessing Akst) are conservatives. In other words, they are supposed to be among the people for whom concern with dressing up is something to be looked down upon, meaning a person is not paying attention to what's important in life. They look down upon it as they see it as meaning a person is lazy, undisciplined, and general just not caring about much.
What I think it really shows is how both views can be taken to an extreme. Liking to wear nice clothes all of the time and be well-groomed and professional-looking, does not mean one is a panzy who has no practical skills and isn't a hard worker. Just the same, just because you like to wear jeans all the time doesn't mean you are lazy and aren't a hard worker either. A lot of the Silicon Valley entrepreneurs Will mentions in his column for example, got that way through hard work and brains.
That said, I do agree that some people who dress up all the time probably are preppy and some people who dress down all the time are lazy slobs, but one cannot draw wide-ranging conclusions based on a person's dress I think.
As an interesting side note, in America, we actually have two types of conservative. There's your blue-collar, socially conservative, NASCAR-watching, conservatives (many of whom are Democrats whom the Democratic party, due to its social liberalism, has had a hard time keeping in the party), while the others are your more elitist, country-club, Blue Blood-type conservatives. I would imagine that the former would be more the type who view dressing up as preppy and meaning one isn't practical or hardworking while the latter type would be the ones who view dressing down as meaning one is lazy and not a hardworker.
Friday, April 29, 2011
China = Hindenburg
Well, according to this guy. Two points I find especially interesting about this article are how he points out that in China now there are inter-generational mortgages being offered, just like were occurring in Japan right before their bubble burst. Also his point that in order for China to develope a strong middle-class, this means wages and incomes will have to go up, which will undercut China's advantage of having cheap labor.
Chinese Art Bubble?
So as some may be aware, at the peak of Japan's real-estate bubble back in the late 1980s and very early 1990s, there was a massive art bubble in the country as well. Artp rices were being bid up to extremely high levels. So out of pure curiousity, I decided to Google "Chinese art bubble" and WHEW! did I get some results.
Here is one link, one of the first to come up: Chinese Art Bubble
However, rather than post a bunch of links, just Google it. What I do wonder then is if this is another sign of the Chinese economy being in a major bubble as well, just like Japan was. I would guess probably. It seems we have three big indicators here: China having some of the tallest skyscrapers in the world being built in it, vacant buildings/cities, and a major art bubble.
Here is one link, one of the first to come up: Chinese Art Bubble
However, rather than post a bunch of links, just Google it. What I do wonder then is if this is another sign of the Chinese economy being in a major bubble as well, just like Japan was. I would guess probably. It seems we have three big indicators here: China having some of the tallest skyscrapers in the world being built in it, vacant buildings/cities, and a major art bubble.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Business Ethics Question
Kortaggio posted up a very interesting business ethics question on his blog: LINK
How to Avoid Junk Food
So one thing I have noticed is a lot of people (maybe most people even?) have a very hard time not eating junk food. They wonder how can people who workout and keep fabulous bodies have the discipline to not eat sweets and so forth. Well myself, for some years now, I have always watched what I eat. I always keep junk food to a minimum. It is not a staple of my diet (say meats, vegetables, junk food, etc...), just a small side part. So I figured I'd write some on why I think I can avoid junk food.
One thing many people complain about when trying to stop eating junk food are the cravings. You workout and then you get hit with massive cravings for sweets (cookies, cakes, wafers, chocolates, etc...). These cravings can be extremely powerful and incredibly hard to resist. The thing is, you can actually get rid of them if you stay disciplined long enough. Roughly, what causes the cravings is your body's blood sugar level. Basically, whenever you consume something like cookies, cakes, candy bars, or what have you, well all of these are loaded with simple sugars. They are a simple carbohydrate that your body utilizes immediately and there's a LOT of them, so you overload your blood-sugar level.
In response, your body then works overtime to lower the blood sugar level, and ends up overdoing it, and thus lowers the blood-sugar level too much. Thus your body craves energy. What provides instant energy? Sweets! Thus begins a viscious cycle that is hard to end. For most people, this is just part of how they function. Rarely do they actually watch what they eat. If they decide to try giving up sweets, their body, any time it needs energy, will create cravings for sweets which can be maddening.
For people trying to give up junk food and get into shape, this can be incredibly torturous. However, if you stick to it, your body eventually will adjust and lose the cravings altogether. And I do mean literally LOSE them. As in, you can actually be hungry, and be in the presence of a box of fresh donuts and yet not have cravings for them whatsoever. Oh, you might desire them to some degree, but you will not need any massive amount of willpower to avoid eating them.
So how to go about losing the cravings? Well, for starters, you need to always make sure to maintain a balanced blood-sugar level. This starts with ending the sweets and making sure to eat meals with a decent quantity of complex carbohydrates. Complex carbohydrates take longer for your body to break down. As a result, they are slower-acting. They do not provide instant energy, but they also do not spike your blood-sugar level.
For example, if you finish a workout and now crave sweets, a candy bar or cookies will provide you with instant energy, whereas eating a plate of whole grain pasta will be slower-acting. You won't start to feel the energy for about twenty minutes or so. However, when you do, you will not crave the sweets the way you had. The thing is, when you get used to eating like this, keeping your blood sugar level balanced, it becomes easy to avoid sweets almost altogether because your body never craves them. It never craves them because:
1) Your blood sugar level is always balanced, and
2) If you get hungry, your body is no longer used to the sweets as it's source of energy. This takes a little while, but eventually your body gets used to having a balanced blood-sugar level and to getting energy from healthy foods, and thus when hungry, even very hungry, sweets are not an irresistable craving.
Another key thing to keep in mind is that junk food should never be a staple of your eating. It should always be something you consume after you are mostly full from healthy food. This way, it is far easier to consume it in small quantities. So if for example someone brings in a birthday cake, don't eat it if you are hungry. If you are hungry, it means your body needs food. This means that cake is the last thing you should be eating. Eat something healthy first, then eat the cake, and this way, you'll probably only want to eat a small piece of the cake. If you eat like this, consuming a whole candy bar at once may be near impossible because you are always too full. You'd feel like you are force-feeding yourself.
You can wake up in the morning, eat say eggs and hash browns with some sausage or bacon, which will fill you up, then at lunch you eat something healthy and filling, and thus you are pretty full so you probably will either not want the desert, or you will only want the desert in a small portion because the main course filled you. Same with dinner. You eat a healthy, filling dinner, and it fills you up, and gives you energy, and you either are too full for the chocolate cake, or you only want say a small piece of it because you are full from the main course.
Non-sweet junk foods such as cheeseburgers, McDonald's french fries (pretty much any fries cooked in fat), thick pizzas, etc...to avoid these, again, eat healthy. If you find yourself hungry and craving a pizza or burger when you know you shouldn't, eat something else that is healthy and filling. Eating such foods as cheeseburgers or pizza is fine if done occassionally, in moderation though. But try not to make it a staple of your diet. Try to keep them as treats, like junk food.
If you start eating in this fashion, you can end up with a big leg-up in terms of nutritional eating, because no longer will you be a slave to sweets. You may even get to a point where you can't understand how people can eat such large quantities of sweet food. Myself for example, I do not drink coffee. Too much sugar and I don't like it in general. Soda I rarely if ever drink. Very occasionally, I may drink one, but it is very rare. I also am not able to consume a whole candy bar at once.
One final point is that eating healthy can also help control your appetite better because your body gets lots of good nutrients. Too many people eat junk food all day long, and then complain about still being hungry and of having no energy. This is likely because the food has virtually no nutritional value. Thus they end up overweight from the fat and sugar content, but constantly hungry and lacking in energy due to the lack of nutrients in the stuff they eat. Eating healthy foods packed with nutrients will reduce your body's want for food while giving you lots more energy, along with filling you up so that you do not have cravings for junk food.
One thing many people complain about when trying to stop eating junk food are the cravings. You workout and then you get hit with massive cravings for sweets (cookies, cakes, wafers, chocolates, etc...). These cravings can be extremely powerful and incredibly hard to resist. The thing is, you can actually get rid of them if you stay disciplined long enough. Roughly, what causes the cravings is your body's blood sugar level. Basically, whenever you consume something like cookies, cakes, candy bars, or what have you, well all of these are loaded with simple sugars. They are a simple carbohydrate that your body utilizes immediately and there's a LOT of them, so you overload your blood-sugar level.
In response, your body then works overtime to lower the blood sugar level, and ends up overdoing it, and thus lowers the blood-sugar level too much. Thus your body craves energy. What provides instant energy? Sweets! Thus begins a viscious cycle that is hard to end. For most people, this is just part of how they function. Rarely do they actually watch what they eat. If they decide to try giving up sweets, their body, any time it needs energy, will create cravings for sweets which can be maddening.
For people trying to give up junk food and get into shape, this can be incredibly torturous. However, if you stick to it, your body eventually will adjust and lose the cravings altogether. And I do mean literally LOSE them. As in, you can actually be hungry, and be in the presence of a box of fresh donuts and yet not have cravings for them whatsoever. Oh, you might desire them to some degree, but you will not need any massive amount of willpower to avoid eating them.
So how to go about losing the cravings? Well, for starters, you need to always make sure to maintain a balanced blood-sugar level. This starts with ending the sweets and making sure to eat meals with a decent quantity of complex carbohydrates. Complex carbohydrates take longer for your body to break down. As a result, they are slower-acting. They do not provide instant energy, but they also do not spike your blood-sugar level.
For example, if you finish a workout and now crave sweets, a candy bar or cookies will provide you with instant energy, whereas eating a plate of whole grain pasta will be slower-acting. You won't start to feel the energy for about twenty minutes or so. However, when you do, you will not crave the sweets the way you had. The thing is, when you get used to eating like this, keeping your blood sugar level balanced, it becomes easy to avoid sweets almost altogether because your body never craves them. It never craves them because:
1) Your blood sugar level is always balanced, and
2) If you get hungry, your body is no longer used to the sweets as it's source of energy. This takes a little while, but eventually your body gets used to having a balanced blood-sugar level and to getting energy from healthy foods, and thus when hungry, even very hungry, sweets are not an irresistable craving.
Another key thing to keep in mind is that junk food should never be a staple of your eating. It should always be something you consume after you are mostly full from healthy food. This way, it is far easier to consume it in small quantities. So if for example someone brings in a birthday cake, don't eat it if you are hungry. If you are hungry, it means your body needs food. This means that cake is the last thing you should be eating. Eat something healthy first, then eat the cake, and this way, you'll probably only want to eat a small piece of the cake. If you eat like this, consuming a whole candy bar at once may be near impossible because you are always too full. You'd feel like you are force-feeding yourself.
You can wake up in the morning, eat say eggs and hash browns with some sausage or bacon, which will fill you up, then at lunch you eat something healthy and filling, and thus you are pretty full so you probably will either not want the desert, or you will only want the desert in a small portion because the main course filled you. Same with dinner. You eat a healthy, filling dinner, and it fills you up, and gives you energy, and you either are too full for the chocolate cake, or you only want say a small piece of it because you are full from the main course.
Non-sweet junk foods such as cheeseburgers, McDonald's french fries (pretty much any fries cooked in fat), thick pizzas, etc...to avoid these, again, eat healthy. If you find yourself hungry and craving a pizza or burger when you know you shouldn't, eat something else that is healthy and filling. Eating such foods as cheeseburgers or pizza is fine if done occassionally, in moderation though. But try not to make it a staple of your diet. Try to keep them as treats, like junk food.
If you start eating in this fashion, you can end up with a big leg-up in terms of nutritional eating, because no longer will you be a slave to sweets. You may even get to a point where you can't understand how people can eat such large quantities of sweet food. Myself for example, I do not drink coffee. Too much sugar and I don't like it in general. Soda I rarely if ever drink. Very occasionally, I may drink one, but it is very rare. I also am not able to consume a whole candy bar at once.
One final point is that eating healthy can also help control your appetite better because your body gets lots of good nutrients. Too many people eat junk food all day long, and then complain about still being hungry and of having no energy. This is likely because the food has virtually no nutritional value. Thus they end up overweight from the fat and sugar content, but constantly hungry and lacking in energy due to the lack of nutrients in the stuff they eat. Eating healthy foods packed with nutrients will reduce your body's want for food while giving you lots more energy, along with filling you up so that you do not have cravings for junk food.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Saturday, April 9, 2011
A Flaw in Right-to-Work Laws?
So I was discussing the issue of unions and right-to-work laws with a more left-leaning guy and he brought up what I thought was an interesting point. He said that he too agrees that workers should have the right to choose whether or not to join a union, but that a problem with right-to-work laws in certain areas at least, is that they allow people to gain the benefits of a union without joining. That at many companies where a union is present in such states, that non-union members still get the union benefits. This I wasn't aware of, but if true, such laws might need some reform. You shouldn't be able to get the benefits of collective bargaining without joining the union; if you want such benefits, become a paying union member.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Would Outright Eliminating the Minimum Wage Reduce the Unemployment Rate?
So America is stuck at a high unemployment rate right now. Some wonder if this is a new normal, or if the economy is just taking a long time to recover, and may even have been stalled somewhat by the government's various policies (massive spending, a huge debt, the biggest (or one of the biggest) peacetime deficit in history, etc...). Now the minimum wage is a price control. It artificially increases the price of labor to a business. And naturally, when you artificially increase the price of something, people buy less. So if you create a high minimum wage, you can hike the unemployment rate through that alone. Now the nation has a national minimum wage, but many states have their own even higher minimum wages as well.
The American economy is a very robust economy, so usually it can withstand a minimum wage so long as it isn't too high and still maintain full employment. However, with this major recession that has occurred, I am wondering, could the current minimum wages (states and national) be propping up the unemployment rate at the moment? One of the first things the Democrats did upon taking control of Congress in 2006 was to raise the minimum wage. While at the time this may not have had much of an effect, since the financial crisis hit and the recession developed, I am wondering if it is now a large burden on the economy that, if removed, could lower the unemployment rate?
I am wondering if Congress temporarily, as part of an economic stimulus package, put a year or two year hiatus on the minimum wage, and all the states were to do the same, with the idea to re-implement the minimum wages after the economy recovered fully, if this would have a major effect on the unemployment rate? Would it bring it down a couple of percentage points? Because even though the American economy can withstand minimum wages during good times, during a tough recession, the most severe since the Great Depression, I would imagine that the minimum wages are a massive unnecessary burden right now on the economy.
This situation won't happen, but it would be very interesting I think to see what the result would be economically if it did happen.
The American economy is a very robust economy, so usually it can withstand a minimum wage so long as it isn't too high and still maintain full employment. However, with this major recession that has occurred, I am wondering, could the current minimum wages (states and national) be propping up the unemployment rate at the moment? One of the first things the Democrats did upon taking control of Congress in 2006 was to raise the minimum wage. While at the time this may not have had much of an effect, since the financial crisis hit and the recession developed, I am wondering if it is now a large burden on the economy that, if removed, could lower the unemployment rate?
I am wondering if Congress temporarily, as part of an economic stimulus package, put a year or two year hiatus on the minimum wage, and all the states were to do the same, with the idea to re-implement the minimum wages after the economy recovered fully, if this would have a major effect on the unemployment rate? Would it bring it down a couple of percentage points? Because even though the American economy can withstand minimum wages during good times, during a tough recession, the most severe since the Great Depression, I would imagine that the minimum wages are a massive unnecessary burden right now on the economy.
This situation won't happen, but it would be very interesting I think to see what the result would be economically if it did happen.
Some Random, Unfocused Thoughts on High-Speed Rail and Social Control
Anyone who follows American politics and policy is probably aware of how the Democrats and the Left overall have an enormous fondness for high-speed rail. They often lament about how America is practically a "Third World country" in comparison to foreign countries, such as those Europe, which had trains back in the 1980s that make current Amtrak trains look Stone Age, or Japan and China. As Europe has, they want America to have a a large, across-continent high-speed rail system, so people can just hop on a train that goes 200+ mph and ride it to any of the major cities.
Now the main argument given by those in favor of high-speed rail is the environmental benefits. High-speed electric trains don't put out carbon emissions or pollution like automobiles or belch out huge quantities of carbon like airliners do (yes, the coal-fired powerplants that would power such a train system put out carbon, but the idea here is to eventually replace these with alternative sources of energy). And on this, they are probably sincere.
But I think that, subconsciously, there is more to it then that. The Left tend to be prone to utopian ideals. And utopias usually always mean society functioning in some specific manner that someone dreams up (this is why one person's utopia is always another person's nightmare). And trains are part of this utopian ideal. Why? Well, look at how the future is often portrayed in science-fiction. Things like cars are fully-automated. They drive themselves and highways are also fully-automated. The people themselves do not control anything. The reason for this is because to a utopian, modern society sucks. It has too many problems. Too many things simply not controlled or working efficiently.
For example, in Arthur C. Clarke's 3001: The Final Odyssey (which takes place in the year 3001), everyone is required to shave their head and wear a form of monitoring device on their heads, so the government can monitor you 24/7. People are permitted to wear a wig over the monitoring device, but otherwise, everyone is thus bald. This is an example of utopianism. I'd love to see a government try to make that work without becoming or being a totalitarian dictatorship. Clarke, like many such dreamers before him, assumes that the government will be wise, caring, and benevolent. Why this is so is never really explained.
Or we could look at the show Seaquest, that 1990s TV show that was like a version of underwater Star Trek. In it, hamburgers are illegal. Why? Environmental reasons, global warming, etc...again another utopian ideal, as I suppose everyone eats soy or whatnot in replacement of meat. And speaking of Star Trek, that too is a great example of the utopian fantasy gone wild. Anyone think they drive cars around on Earth in the universe of Star Trek? There are no more companies supposedly, no market. Basic needs are supposed to be taken care of (the communist fantasy), and I suppose there are either high-speed trains, or people can just be beamed around the planet.
A final example I'd say is the movie "I, Robot," with Will Smith. Note how there are no more fuel-powered vehicles, all vehicles drive themselves, and when you park somewhere, a huge machine comes out and snatches your vehicle and stores it in some huge vault.
Okay, so going back to high-speed trains, I think they too fall into this utopian ideal of controlling everything in society. Having people drive around in cars all over the place is just too disorganized. There is no central planning element at all. if you seriously think about it, the Democrats I highly doubt would let people drive around in cars if it wasn't required. Cars would be reserved specifically to police, fire services, etc...and for driving around government officials. The proletariat could never be trusted to handle such vehicles. We can see this in how the Left would love to raise gas taxes drastically to force people to drive small vehicles. And high-speed trains that are run by the state, where you don't have people driving all over the place whenever and wherever they want, are a way of helping achieve this as well.
I think it just bugs the daylights out of the Left how here in America, we have the Interstate Highway System, which allows people to drive everywhere and anywhere, and cheap gas and gas-guzzling SUVs, as opposed to the European model of very expensive gasoline, people who do drive having very tiny cars, usually diesel-fuel powered, and people having access to high-speed rail to go everywhere, which of course runs on the government's schedule and probably obtains part of its subsidies from the high fuel taxes.
The Leftist utopian dream is one of tiny, ultra-fuel-efficient cars, vast public transportation services, a massive welfare state, and so forth. High-speed trains are a crucial part of this utopian dream. Rarely do you ever see a utopian-modeled future of fuel-powered SUVs and pickup trucks where people can still drive wherever they want to on the Interstate.
Now the main argument given by those in favor of high-speed rail is the environmental benefits. High-speed electric trains don't put out carbon emissions or pollution like automobiles or belch out huge quantities of carbon like airliners do (yes, the coal-fired powerplants that would power such a train system put out carbon, but the idea here is to eventually replace these with alternative sources of energy). And on this, they are probably sincere.
But I think that, subconsciously, there is more to it then that. The Left tend to be prone to utopian ideals. And utopias usually always mean society functioning in some specific manner that someone dreams up (this is why one person's utopia is always another person's nightmare). And trains are part of this utopian ideal. Why? Well, look at how the future is often portrayed in science-fiction. Things like cars are fully-automated. They drive themselves and highways are also fully-automated. The people themselves do not control anything. The reason for this is because to a utopian, modern society sucks. It has too many problems. Too many things simply not controlled or working efficiently.
For example, in Arthur C. Clarke's 3001: The Final Odyssey (which takes place in the year 3001), everyone is required to shave their head and wear a form of monitoring device on their heads, so the government can monitor you 24/7. People are permitted to wear a wig over the monitoring device, but otherwise, everyone is thus bald. This is an example of utopianism. I'd love to see a government try to make that work without becoming or being a totalitarian dictatorship. Clarke, like many such dreamers before him, assumes that the government will be wise, caring, and benevolent. Why this is so is never really explained.
Or we could look at the show Seaquest, that 1990s TV show that was like a version of underwater Star Trek. In it, hamburgers are illegal. Why? Environmental reasons, global warming, etc...again another utopian ideal, as I suppose everyone eats soy or whatnot in replacement of meat. And speaking of Star Trek, that too is a great example of the utopian fantasy gone wild. Anyone think they drive cars around on Earth in the universe of Star Trek? There are no more companies supposedly, no market. Basic needs are supposed to be taken care of (the communist fantasy), and I suppose there are either high-speed trains, or people can just be beamed around the planet.
A final example I'd say is the movie "I, Robot," with Will Smith. Note how there are no more fuel-powered vehicles, all vehicles drive themselves, and when you park somewhere, a huge machine comes out and snatches your vehicle and stores it in some huge vault.
Okay, so going back to high-speed trains, I think they too fall into this utopian ideal of controlling everything in society. Having people drive around in cars all over the place is just too disorganized. There is no central planning element at all. if you seriously think about it, the Democrats I highly doubt would let people drive around in cars if it wasn't required. Cars would be reserved specifically to police, fire services, etc...and for driving around government officials. The proletariat could never be trusted to handle such vehicles. We can see this in how the Left would love to raise gas taxes drastically to force people to drive small vehicles. And high-speed trains that are run by the state, where you don't have people driving all over the place whenever and wherever they want, are a way of helping achieve this as well.
I think it just bugs the daylights out of the Left how here in America, we have the Interstate Highway System, which allows people to drive everywhere and anywhere, and cheap gas and gas-guzzling SUVs, as opposed to the European model of very expensive gasoline, people who do drive having very tiny cars, usually diesel-fuel powered, and people having access to high-speed rail to go everywhere, which of course runs on the government's schedule and probably obtains part of its subsidies from the high fuel taxes.
The Leftist utopian dream is one of tiny, ultra-fuel-efficient cars, vast public transportation services, a massive welfare state, and so forth. High-speed trains are a crucial part of this utopian dream. Rarely do you ever see a utopian-modeled future of fuel-powered SUVs and pickup trucks where people can still drive wherever they want to on the Interstate.
The Fallacy of Seeking "Bipartisanship"
So one of the constant refrains you often hear is why can't the two major political parties in our coutnry, the Democrats and the Republicans, "just get along?" Why can't they focus on ending the stupid games and bitter partisanship and just focusing on coming up with real solutions to our problems? This partisanship is especially emphasized right now, where the U.S. government is on the verge of partially shutting down if the two parties don't reach a deal by midnight.
However, this cry for "bipartisanship" always bugs me, because I don't see how people expect it could be done. "Bipartisanship" means one side giving up its views to satisfy the other. True bipartisanship is rare and difficult because we have two separate parties with some major disagreements in how to solve problems.
For example:
How Do We Improve the Quality of Our Public Schools and the Educational System As a Whole?
Republicans: Less government. Get rid of the National Education Association (NEA). School vouchers. Keep it limited to the states and get the federal government out of it entirely as the quality of public education has only gotten worse with more government involvement (such as the creation of the NEA).
Democrats: More government. Expand the NEA as "obviously" local control of the schools is inadequate and the reason the quality of public schooling has been falling. And school vouchers are one of the worst ideas ever thought of for public schools.
How Do We Fix Healthcare?
Republicans: Less government of course. Free-market solutions. Healthcare is 1/6 of our economy. The Democrats want to put it under government control so that the government then controls 1/6 of our economy. And economic freedom is crucial to political freedom and overall freedom. Healthcare should not be run or controlled by the government!
Democrats: More government of course. In fact, full-on single-payer, government-run healthcare (for the really far Left). Healthcare should not be run by the private-sector!
How Do We Fix the Economy?
Republicans: Simplify our overly complex tax code, then use the additional revenue from closing loopholes to cut taxes if possible. Also, the economy is mostly autonomous, it will recover on its own. Government doesn't "manage" the economy. And Keynesian fiscal stimulus via government spending doesn't work. Maintain healthy free and global trade as this is a key to job creation.
Democrats: Massive stimulus spending is needed. Those Republicans saying it doesn't work are wrong. Invest in alternative energy, education, infrastructure, etc...and crack down on things like NAFTA. Free trade has destroyed lots of American jobs!
How Do We Fix the Financial System So A Repeat of 2008 Doesn't Occur?
Republicans: Less regulation. Too much regulation will hamstring the financial system and destroy innovation. The financial system already is among the most regulated industries there are.
Democrats: Obviously more regulation. Too little regulation is what led to this crisis in the first place!
...and on and on and on...
So how could we citizens possibly expect true bipartisanship to come about? I do not think it can, and such differences in policy are what thus create the bitter partisanship we see today. Seriously, how could you create "bipartisan" healthcare bill, for example, when both parties fundamentally disagree with the other one over the solution? And then extend this same problem to other areas of policy.
I think the call for bipartisanship tends to come from those average citizens who don't pay too much attention to policy or politics and just want the politicians to govern the country efficiently. Because of this, I don't think they realize how true bipartisanship is a very rare thing and virtually impossible thing to create.
However, this cry for "bipartisanship" always bugs me, because I don't see how people expect it could be done. "Bipartisanship" means one side giving up its views to satisfy the other. True bipartisanship is rare and difficult because we have two separate parties with some major disagreements in how to solve problems.
For example:
How Do We Improve the Quality of Our Public Schools and the Educational System As a Whole?
Republicans: Less government. Get rid of the National Education Association (NEA). School vouchers. Keep it limited to the states and get the federal government out of it entirely as the quality of public education has only gotten worse with more government involvement (such as the creation of the NEA).
Democrats: More government. Expand the NEA as "obviously" local control of the schools is inadequate and the reason the quality of public schooling has been falling. And school vouchers are one of the worst ideas ever thought of for public schools.
How Do We Fix Healthcare?
Republicans: Less government of course. Free-market solutions. Healthcare is 1/6 of our economy. The Democrats want to put it under government control so that the government then controls 1/6 of our economy. And economic freedom is crucial to political freedom and overall freedom. Healthcare should not be run or controlled by the government!
Democrats: More government of course. In fact, full-on single-payer, government-run healthcare (for the really far Left). Healthcare should not be run by the private-sector!
How Do We Fix the Economy?
Republicans: Simplify our overly complex tax code, then use the additional revenue from closing loopholes to cut taxes if possible. Also, the economy is mostly autonomous, it will recover on its own. Government doesn't "manage" the economy. And Keynesian fiscal stimulus via government spending doesn't work. Maintain healthy free and global trade as this is a key to job creation.
Democrats: Massive stimulus spending is needed. Those Republicans saying it doesn't work are wrong. Invest in alternative energy, education, infrastructure, etc...and crack down on things like NAFTA. Free trade has destroyed lots of American jobs!
How Do We Fix the Financial System So A Repeat of 2008 Doesn't Occur?
Republicans: Less regulation. Too much regulation will hamstring the financial system and destroy innovation. The financial system already is among the most regulated industries there are.
Democrats: Obviously more regulation. Too little regulation is what led to this crisis in the first place!
...and on and on and on...
So how could we citizens possibly expect true bipartisanship to come about? I do not think it can, and such differences in policy are what thus create the bitter partisanship we see today. Seriously, how could you create "bipartisan" healthcare bill, for example, when both parties fundamentally disagree with the other one over the solution? And then extend this same problem to other areas of policy.
I think the call for bipartisanship tends to come from those average citizens who don't pay too much attention to policy or politics and just want the politicians to govern the country efficiently. Because of this, I don't think they realize how true bipartisanship is a very rare thing and virtually impossible thing to create.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)