A Place of Safety
I expect simple behaviours here. Friendship, and love.
Any advice should be from the perspective of the person asking, not the person giving!
We have had to make new membership moderated to combat the huge number of spammers who register
















You are here: Home > Forum > A Place of Safety > General Talk > Origin of the Religious Right
icon4.gif Origin of the Religious Right  [message #52505] Sun, 24 August 2008 02:39 Go to next message
yusime is currently offline  yusime

Likes it here
Location: United States
Registered: April 2008
Messages: 195



Liberals and Conservatives can not afford to lose or we are all going to be destroyed!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5502785



He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake since for him a spinal cord would suffice. Albert Einstein
Re: Origin of the Religious Right  [message #52506 is a reply to message #52505] Sun, 24 August 2008 03:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
marc is currently offline  marc

Needs to get a life!

Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729



Did you read the book?



Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
Re: Origin of the Religious Right  [message #52508 is a reply to message #52506] Sun, 24 August 2008 04:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
yusime is currently offline  yusime

Likes it here
Location: United States
Registered: April 2008
Messages: 195



I saw him on CSPAN explaining the book. Have not had a chance to read it yet.



He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake since for him a spinal cord would suffice. Albert Einstein
Re: Origin of the Religious Right  [message #52549 is a reply to message #52505] Mon, 25 August 2008 14:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JimB is currently offline  JimB

Likes it here

Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349



Thank you Pat, that was a very enlightening article. I'm going to look further into that book. I have always believed that the religious right was a self-serving group and what I read in that article certainly supports that opinion.

JimB
Re: Origin of the Religious Right  [message #52558 is a reply to message #52505] Mon, 25 August 2008 17:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CallMePaul is currently offline  CallMePaul

Really getting into it
Location: U.S.A.
Registered: April 2007
Messages: 907



I had never even considered the origins of the religious right. I guess I just assumed they had always been present as a form of religious politics. Thanks for the article. It was an eye opener.



Youth crisis hot-line 866-488-7386, 24 hr (U.S.A.)
There are people who want to help you cope with being you.
Re: Origin of the Religious Right  [message #52559 is a reply to message #52505] Mon, 25 August 2008 18:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
saben is currently offline  saben

On fire!

Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537



Interesting how political strategies turn into ideologies.

Look at the Green movement- it is essentially a political strategy used by socialists who needed to find a way they could justify their anti-corporate stance after the fall of communism.

But if a strategy works, those in power aren't going to give up on it over something like morality...



Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
Re: Origin of the Religious Right  [message #52596 is a reply to message #52558] Tue, 26 August 2008 08:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
yusime is currently offline  yusime

Likes it here
Location: United States
Registered: April 2008
Messages: 195



Religion has always been a part of American history and political debate to some extent. The main difference between modern day religious politics and historical religious politics in America is that the primary arguments today lead to bitter hatred between disagreeing groups. The last moral question that held such an angry uncompromising set of ideals was the battle over slavery. Never in the history of our country have we involved ourselves in battles over petty religious differences like we are dealing with now. World War II marks a change in world dynamics that we had not really seen in the existence of humanity. That one war along with the creation of Communism and other political ideologies, which controlled much of the 20th century's political philosophy, nearly replaced religious ideals altogether within Christian regions. Religious extremism was not completely inevitable in America because of Freedom of Religion, but it was dulled by the events since World War II to a large degree. Creation of the Jewish State of Israel heavily supported by the people of the Religious Right now only because of a sense of duty to Christian principles and a belief in the end of humanity as a result of Israel's existence. The people of America largely blamed the Jews for World war II in the first place. A union between Protestants and Catholics into a political force in America (I still don't see how that happened),even though they still hate each other and see one another as EVIL incarnate today. Civil Rights movements. A strange connection between business and Religious ideals. To a degree there is not a single event that started their movement, but the Civil Rights movement (also seen as the Anti-Family movement) is the best place to put the groups that would later be known as the modern day Religious Right into political arguments. The old Confederacy is still trying to take over the United States, but no one pays attention to that because it is largely unimportant to people. Sounds downright insane, but pull all these events together and these events make some level of rational thought possible in regards to why America is involved in religious warfare at home and abroad, which we have never done before now.



He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake since for him a spinal cord would suffice. Albert Einstein
Re: Origin of the Religious Right  [message #52801 is a reply to message #52549] Sun, 31 August 2008 12:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
kupuna is currently offline  kupuna

Really getting into it
Location: Norway
Registered: February 2005
Messages: 510



The book "Thy Kingdom Come - An Evangelical Lament" is worth reading. In many ways it echoes Jimmy Carter's book "Our Endangered Values", and while both of them regard themselves as "evangelical" Christians, Ballmer is not a politician with his own personal agenda but a professional historian. He delivers a thought-provoking description of how the Religious Right have managed to distract so many Americans from reality, and into believing that their founders were fighting for life and against abortion, while instead, the fight was over the right to continue racial segregation in schools and still retain tax-exempt status. Instead of fighting for human rights, like many of their forefathers did, they now fight to diminish the rights of people who are in any way different from themselves.

As a European my question is how this has been possible. Is it about money and hence the ability to establish networks of radio and tv stations, incessantly pouring out propaganda?

People often refer to Fox News as one of the most powerful and effective Republican propaganda machines, and I wonder how that can be possible. To me there is nothing fascinating or attractive about it. Instead, it scares me, because it reminds me of the propaganda machinery that Joseph Goebbels was able to establish in the thirties, which deluded so many Europeans into believing that black is white and white is black.
Re: Origin of the Religious Right  [message #52889 is a reply to message #52801] Wed, 03 September 2008 11:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
yusime is currently offline  yusime

Likes it here
Location: United States
Registered: April 2008
Messages: 195



Just in case you don't know the people of the Radical Right are the mental relatives of the socially Conservative Confederacy. What was the ultimate goal of the Confederacy to spread slavery into areas where slavery did not exist, but when they realized they could not win the Civil War they tried to defend their own land rather then impose slavery on the rest of the country. America has never stopped having this exact debate only now do we see the extremist for who they are and some people refuse to admit what is happening. The definition of State's Rights to the Confederates means that they have a right to be harmful, hateful, bigots for whatever reason and the government can not do anything about it.

The "South" has never fought for the rights of any minority they now oppose gays, women, political outsiders, and many others. The Churches of the Southern states supported slavery while the more northern states and their Churches opposed slavery.

When Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Acts (a southern Democrat from Texas) that started the change of the south from Democratic to Republican. The main reason Barry Goldwater lost his presidential bid was because people were more afraid of him than Johnson. If Goldwater had won then the switch would have taken a longer time to happen if it would have occurred at all.

The South is ironically responsible for the Bill of Rights. Without the Bill of Rights the South would never have ratified the Constitution.

Power is the primary goal of the Old Confederacy they do not want the rest of the country telling them how to treat their citizens.

Barry Goldwater sums it up pretty easily.

There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."

* Speech in the US Senate (16 September 1981)

I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass. Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.

* November 1994, Conservatives Without Conscience, John Dean

Religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives.

Barry Goldwater quotes:
Now those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth, and let me remind you they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyranny. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed. Their mistaken course stems from false notions of equality, ladies and gentlemen. Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.

Acceptance Speech as the 1964 Republican Presidential candidate.

Hope that answers at least part if not all of your question. I really wish the older generation had listened to him then my generation would not have to work to clean up their mess!! Sorry if it seems a bit long there was no quick way to explain the current situation. If you have any more questions ask and I'll see if I can answer them.



He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake since for him a spinal cord would suffice. Albert Einstein
Re: Origin of the Religious Right  [message #52891 is a reply to message #52889] Wed, 03 September 2008 11:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Fingolfin is currently offline  Fingolfin

Likes it here
Location: Slovakia
Registered: August 2008
Messages: 265



This Radical Right reminds of something...
During WW2 there was Slovak state under the control of Germany. Its government consisted of so called clerofascists (catholic priests believing in national socialism and racism). Nowadays you can still meet people who believe that their faith in God entitles them to judge others according to any criteria... Those people who have often problems with their own personality seek the groups which claim hate against Jews, Africans, Muslims, Gays, Gypsies, whoever who does not fit their WHITE ideas. These are the only people I can't tolerate...

Marek



It is better to switch on a small light than to curse the darkness.
- Vincent Šikula, Slovak writer
Re: Origin of the Religious Right  [message #52899 is a reply to message #52559] Wed, 03 September 2008 17:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
acam is currently offline  acam

On fire!
Location: UK
Registered: July 2007
Messages: 1849



Dear Saben,

You wrote "Look at the Green movement- it is essentially a political strategy used by socialists who needed to find a way they could justify their anti-corporate stance after the fall of communism."

I'm not a Green but am amazed you could vilify them in such terms. I know a number of Green politicians and every one of them takes the view they do for the good of the world as they see it. Not one of them stands to make money if green policies are followed. I can't believe any of them would take bribes or line their pockets from waste collection or cycle tracks or home insulation or hybrid cars.

And you seem to think that people might need an excuse to be against big business after the fall of communism. I was against big business before and after and don't see any need for an excuse, let alone an extra one.

So perhaps you didn't say quite what you were thinking. I would like to know what it is you have against the greens. Do you have oil shares? Please don't be insulted that I think your reasoning might be based on self interest. I hope you agree that self interest is a perfectly adequate reason for doing things, holding opinions and so on.

I also hope you agree that public servants ought not to let self interest govern their actions and should be altruistic in their public judgments. I do think that it is their failure on this front that is the strongest indictment of the current administration of the USA.

Love,
Anthony
Re: Origin of the Religious Right  [message #52907 is a reply to message #52899] Thu, 04 September 2008 01:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
E.J. is currently offline  E.J.

Really getting into it
Location: U.S.
Registered: August 2003
Messages: 565



he may be speaking of the "green" party in the US, not the UK



(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
Re: Origin of the Religious Right  [message #52911 is a reply to message #52899] Thu, 04 September 2008 04:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
yusime is currently offline  yusime

Likes it here
Location: United States
Registered: April 2008
Messages: 195



Anthony, The US was created on a free market economic supply side philosophy ideals created by John Locke. The Founders of the US and drafters of the Constitution could never have seen the Industrial Revolution and its eventual effect on the world or the US. The creation of corporations whose only desire was to make personal profit at the expense of the citizens of the US. That got the first labor movements in the country started in time to fight World War II but got moving after the war ended. In our time the old time economic Liberals have vanished from politics and now we have economic Liberals who worship the market economy because the economy is God to them. The modern day economic conservatives are skeptical of such ideas, but have no authority and would be easily swayed by the lure of Corporate America so they are useless. Even the Supreme Court of the US sides with corporations now more than back in the 1960's. Democrats and Republicans are both in league with corporations Democrats to a lesser extinct than Republicans. America needs drastic economic changes to make our politicians stop aiding business over workers.



He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake since for him a spinal cord would suffice. Albert Einstein
Re: Origin of the Religious Right  [message #52917 is a reply to message #52911] Thu, 04 September 2008 08:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
acam is currently offline  acam

On fire!
Location: UK
Registered: July 2007
Messages: 1849



Yes, Pat,

see what I wrote on the Palin thread agreeing with Marek's opinion that most politicians are neither black nor white.

Love,
Anthony
Re: Origin of the Religious Right  [message #52923 is a reply to message #52911] Thu, 04 September 2008 10:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Fingolfin is currently offline  Fingolfin

Likes it here
Location: Slovakia
Registered: August 2008
Messages: 265



You know, Pat, siding either is wrong. It is very tough (but most preferable) to find a healthy balance. If you make the companies villains, they will somehow try to shift their business somewhere else (Eastern Europe, South America, SouthEast Asia). If you favor the firms too much, strikes of the employees will be on a daily basis... Yes, the companies want (and for their sheer existence desperately NEED) to make profit, but on the other hand they have to offer either goods and/or service which push the society and development forth. And they have to act according the rules or there will be sanctions or they'll even lose their market position, more to the point their license in a particular country...
There's no Luke Skywalker with a ligthsword, neither there is a huge empire that has to be destroyed...
What would happen if you destroyed the companies???
We have our experience here from behind the Iron Curtain (do you call it like this?), when the labour class was favoured and there was no market economy and competence between the firms. You DON'T want experience that, trust me...

Marek



It is better to switch on a small light than to curse the darkness.
- Vincent Šikula, Slovak writer
Re: Origin of the Religious Right  [message #52936 is a reply to message #52923] Thu, 04 September 2008 12:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Nigel is currently offline  Nigel

On fire!
Location: England
Registered: November 2003
Messages: 1756



At last some common sense on the subject. Politicians have grand designs, but when all is said and done someone has to pay for them.

In the UK we are seeing our currency devalued once again. It's blamed on the recession that hasn't happened yet, the removal of foreign investment, but in fact over the past few months our Government has started printing money to cover its debts and to bolster up failed institutions which should be allowed to go to the wall.

Hugs
N

[Updated on: Fri, 05 September 2008 14:10]




I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.

…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
Re: Origin of the Religious Right  [message #52942 is a reply to message #52899] Thu, 04 September 2008 13:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
saben is currently offline  saben

On fire!

Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537



As I've been discussing in the other topic. I speak of the broad, global "Green" movement rather than any one political party. Most Greens I know are following their beliefs. Much like most Christians I know. The thing is, a lot of Green politics is about chanting slogans and MORAL points of view and then trying to impose those views on others.

Take whaling- morally it may be abhorrent to some. But what right do governments have to restrict the sustainable whaling of non-endangered species? In Australia, the government has a list of foods that can't be legally eaten, for not justifiable reason. It's morality politics, just like Christian conservatism.

Even Global Warming (which has some science to back it up) has become a religion, with a cult of followers worldwide predicting doom and gloom and wanting to impose regulation on individuals to achieve their goals. In Australia the "Greens" tried to ban particular types of shower heads, they tried to stop a Pulp Mill being built in an industrial zone in Tasmania, they usually are in favour of affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws. In other words, they are in favour of obstructing industry, forcing people to believe it's okay to be gay, forcing quotas (that obstruct natural selection), etc. To be fair, I usually agree with the science the Green movement promotes, but more often than not the science is exaggerated and usually they force their belief in science on others who may have other beliefs.

I'm opposed to unethical big business and I make an effort to support businesses that engage in ethical conduct, I am NOT in favour of government penalising big businesses, however, because often big businesses just do things right. That is how they get popular in the first place. As long as their behaviour is legal, there is no need to impose extra regulatory or tax burdens on them, the free market inevitably breaks most monopolies as such things aren't natural.

Additionally, in Australia at least, the Green movement is in favour of higher taxes, government controlled education, government run health and an extensive welfare state. If you follow those policies to their conclusion you end up with a system where the government has more control and individuals have less, where government has more money and individuals have less. Much like communist states of the past.

Green politics truly IS "watermelon politics" it is Green on the outside and Red in the middle. I'm yet to see a Green party that is in favour of free market driven environmentalism. Instead of giving tax breaks they prefer to raise taxes, instead of promoting a sustainable world they try and force it through law (and inevitably guns- which they are usually opposed to- without guns how does a government enforce its laws?).



Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
Re: Origin of the Religious Right  [message #52943 is a reply to message #52899] Thu, 04 September 2008 13:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
saben is currently offline  saben

On fire!

Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537



Oh and Anthony, I oppose bribery, corruption and self-interested public servants, but I disagree with your final paragraph.

Altruism should not be the goal of any public servant, whether "Green" or "Christian conservative". Altruism is for private charities, churches, NGOs and other welfare groups. The role of the public servant, and of government, should be the defense of liberty and nothing more.



Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
Re: Origin of the Religious Right  [message #52944 is a reply to message #52942] Thu, 04 September 2008 13:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
saben is currently offline  saben

On fire!

Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537



No oil shares, by the way.

I'm a student without any shares, in fact. My self interest lies in more government handouts.

But morally, I believe in less. I believe in a culture of responsibility. A welfare state leads to a culture of dependency, where everyone is dragged down.



Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
Re: Origin of the Religious Right  [message #52955 is a reply to message #52889] Thu, 04 September 2008 20:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
kupuna is currently offline  kupuna

Really getting into it
Location: Norway
Registered: February 2005
Messages: 510



Hope that answers at least part if not all of your question. I really wish the older generation had listened to him then my generation would not have to work to clean up their mess!! Sorry if it seems a bit long there was no quick way to explain the current situation. If you have any more questions ask and I'll see if I can answer them.

Thanks, Pat, it does answer my question, also adding some interesting information. It's interesting to read Barry Goldwater's comments, because I must admit I didn't know about his libertarian views and accordingly his conflict with the religious right.
Business should not be favored by the government  [message #52961 is a reply to message #52923] Fri, 05 September 2008 04:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
yusime is currently offline  yusime

Likes it here
Location: United States
Registered: April 2008
Messages: 195



I don't want corporations destroyed I just want them to follow economic, environmental, governmental guidelines without trying to control the government. I really do not want to see government preventing businesses from failing just because the business is powerful. What is the point of a free market if the government allows business to make reckless transactions then bails them out when they get in too deep? I don't want extreme socialism but just enough to reduce the vast disparity of wealth in America. I do not want businesses regulating themselves from positions of governmental power they will favor themselves over the people every time if that happens.

I also do not want government interfering with business unless necessary to enforce laws. Just like I do not want religion to interfere with government or government to interfere with religion. If business, religion and government can work together and ensure the rights, safety, and dignity of the Constitution and the American people I would support such an arrangement. If not we have to avoid such entanglements.



He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake since for him a spinal cord would suffice. Albert Einstein
Re: Origin of the Religious Right  [message #52964 is a reply to message #52936] Fri, 05 September 2008 08:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
acam is currently offline  acam

On fire!
Location: UK
Registered: July 2007
Messages: 1849



Really? Nigel,

you wrote "printing money". I seem to have missed it. What makes you write that?

All they have done is to relax a little the rules against borrowing too much that Prudence Brown said were essential when he was chancellor. Of course they weren't essential and would be counter-productive now. In times of recession the government ought to spend more than its income according to J M Keynes and I think most sensible economists agree with that.

And there is something to be said for not allowing banks to fail - or at least for not allowing their failures to harm depositors. The directors and shareholders are not protected and so Northern Rock shareholders have lost their money so there are still quite severe sanctions to punish bad management.

Love,
Anthony
Re: Origin of the Religious Right  [message #52965 is a reply to message #52943] Fri, 05 September 2008 09:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
acam is currently offline  acam

On fire!
Location: UK
Registered: July 2007
Messages: 1849



Dear Saben,

I can't believe you are against the selfless dedication you see in some public servants which is what I mean by altruism. There are many places where, if you want an official to do something, you get it quicker and better with a bribe than by following the rules. Once there was a time when the average town councillor was a small builder hoping to get advance warning of public contract work and snaffle it for themselves at profitable rates. An altruistic public servant made many rules to improve the process of competitive tendering for council work. Not many councillors are small builders any more.

And it is very difficult to choose people who will turn out to have these attitudes. But one can easily find people that are not motivated by greed. No-one motivated by the desire to get rich would choose teaching as a career. In the UK that applies to the whole NHS (even though Aneurin Bevan complained that he had to stuff the doctors' mouths with gold to get them to accept it). At present there is a weakness in the way that NHS Consultants are allowed to take on private work. So often if you get your operation through the NHS you wait six weeks and if you pay you get it whenever you want it.

In the USA the medical profession is greedier and so costs a much higher percentage of the GNP. Thatcher would choose the USA. I would not.

Love,
Anthony
Keynes  [message #52966 is a reply to message #52964] Fri, 05 September 2008 10:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
saben is currently offline  saben

On fire!

Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537



Actually, I think you'll find a lot of economists disagree with Keynes. Yes his views are mainstream, but no, they are not universal. Milton Freidman and Friedrich Hayek, both famous economists, were highly critical of Keynes.

If you haven't, read "Free to Choose" (Freidman) and "The Road to Serfdorm" (Hayek).

http://www.ideachannel.tv/ has the entire "Free to Choose" TV series which discusses a lot of the same topics as the book.

I don't believe governments are needed to manage economies- economies manage themselves.



Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
Public vs Private  [message #52967 is a reply to message #52965] Fri, 05 September 2008 10:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
saben is currently offline  saben

On fire!

Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537



"In the USA the medical profession is greedier and so costs a much higher percentage of the GNP."

Is that so? I'll take your word for it, but also note that America has one of the best standards of healthcare in the world. If anything it's over-regulation that causes problems in America due to the FDA and heavy restrictions placed on opening new hospitals and clinics. It's a fairly closed market due to regulatory barriers which makes price competition difficult.

It's a good thing the USA isn't the only country with a health sector that is heavily privatised. Before you jump to conclusions about the standard of care look at Singapore, Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong. Those 5 countries all rely far less on government for health care than the UK and overall they are some of the top countries if you look at health indicators.

The free market is a more efficient provider of health as it values diversity. The public sector is never efficient because the only incentive is to spend- a public service sector that doesn't spend its entire budget will find itself with a reduced budget in following years, the total opposite of the profit driven private sector. Additionally the private sector is driven by diversity and catering to individual customer needs- the public sector takes a "one-size fits all" approach to service delivery.

Also, what is wrong with those able to afford a higher standard of service being able to pay for it? The public sector sets glass ceilings on the standard of service. Take the following example:

A new cure is found for cancer, but treatments costs $100,000,000. In a public health system no-one is able to have this treatment- the government can't afford $100,000,000 for every single cancer patient. In a private health system, some people still miss out, true. But those who CAN afford it are able to get the treatment. Now it's nice to talk about equality, but surely it's better for a few people with the money to have their cancer cured than it is for NO-ONE to have it cured?

It's the same with education, public education (without a private alternative) just means everyone is bound to the same, low cost education. At least when you have a private alternative you give some people the opportunity to access a better education, even if most can only afford the "free" public school option.



Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
Re: Origin of the Religious Right  [message #52971 is a reply to message #52964] Fri, 05 September 2008 14:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Nigel is currently offline  Nigel

On fire!
Location: England
Registered: November 2003
Messages: 1756



Anthony, printing money is the increase of money supply without a corresponding increase in goods and services. That is inflation and inflation devalues our currency.

The Government could not find money to reimburste those who lost out from the removal of the 10p income tax band. It 'complained' that it would have to borrow £2.7 billion to cover it. So where has the money (£50 billion+?) come from to back Northern Rock? It must have been borrowed and it must have increased the money supply. Money supply increased in time of recession equals inflation. Inflation is also a handy way of reducing debt in real terms. Remember those who bought cheap houses before the 1970s superinflation?

I thought Keynes had been discredited by the monetarists.

There is something to be said for not bailing out Northern Rock. It was a business that failed. Yes, the shareholders suffered, but they know the game when they buy shares and they voted the executives into power who caused that failure. The account holders withdrew their money from bank reserves and to the best of my knowledge none of them lost out. (Btw I took my money out of Northern Rock in the Decemeber before the crisis.) There is also a a strategy called 'stop loss' which if invoked protects shareholders. This is not the place to explain it, but it has certainly saved my Shares Club from suffering great losses in the recent falls in share prices.

The protection of Northern Rock was blatant electioneering and, as someone said on this board some time ago, if it had been the Cheam & Sutton BS, not a finger would have been lifted to save its investors.

I repeat: the increase of money supply over the increase in production of goods and services is inflation. Holders of money lose out, and it is not their fault. Inflation can be a short term fix, but in the long term it is damaging to a country and its society. The extreme example is the post WW1 inflation in Germany which eased the way for the Nazi government.

Even a government spending more of its income (= our tax money, not theirs) is different from borrowing money to spend that someone else will have to pay back.

Hugs
N



I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.

…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
Re: Keynes  [message #52972 is a reply to message #52966] Fri, 05 September 2008 17:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
acam is currently offline  acam

On fire!
Location: UK
Registered: July 2007
Messages: 1849



Yes, Saben, I knew they did but I think they are wrong.

Friedman was Thatcher's favourite economist because she wanted to do whatever she wanted and the quantity theories of money allow that (that means I think they are all rubbish).

I don't know much about Hayek. I read economics from 1955-1958 and I'm pretty sure his work must have been since then!

I'm afraid I don't rate TV accounts of academic subjects. I've never seen a TV programme on a subject I really know about and thought it was any good.

Do you think the market should be left entirely uncontrolled? If you do I'm surprised and would call you an economic fundamentalist! If you don't then I think it follows that governments must apply whatever controls there are. There is no other source of rules or control is there?

Love,
Anthony
LOL man this thread has gotten way off topic!  [message #52973 is a reply to message #52505] Fri, 05 September 2008 17:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
arich is currently offline  arich

Really getting into it
Location: Seaofstars
Registered: August 2003
Messages: 563



No Message Body



People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
Re: Origin of the Religious Right  [message #52975 is a reply to message #52971] Fri, 05 September 2008 17:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
acam is currently offline  acam

On fire!
Location: UK
Registered: July 2007
Messages: 1849



Dear Nigel,

the money supply can't be measured. The suggestion that it has deterministic effects on the economy can't be sustained. The monetarists signally failed to disprove Keynes although there is no doubt that Keynes didn't explain everything.

I'm amazed you think there is something to be said for not bailing out Northern Rock. Surely we need people to trust that they can invest their savings in a bank without risking total loss? If we can't have stable and trustworthy financial institutions we can't have a stable society at all - or so I think.

What if 'stop loss' were to fail?

The way to control inflation is to ensure demand doesn't outstrip supply. The current crisis has arisen because we had severe house inflation because the supply was turned off by Thatcher, who wouldn't let councils spend the money they got from selling off the stock and so the stock wasn't replaced. Matters were made worse by the willingness of financial institutions to lend more than houses were worth long-term and so greatly increasing the demand.

It is that inflation we are suffering from now.

Love,
Anthony
Re: Origin of the Religious Right  [message #52977 is a reply to message #52975] Fri, 05 September 2008 20:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Nigel is currently offline  Nigel

On fire!
Location: England
Registered: November 2003
Messages: 1756



Anthony, I must bow to your superior knowledge that money supply cannot be measured although it appears to be in the newspapers I read.

I can only repeat that the people who lodged their money with Northern Rock did not lose their money. The bank always maintained it had the funds to cover deposits. The people who lost out were the shareholders. If you buy shares it is made clear that the value can go down as well as up. That's the name of the game. If you can't accept that, you don't buy shares. If you speculate and get your fingers burnt you only have yourself to blame. Stop loss can only fail because the shareholder does not adhere to the system. In my shares club we made a large loss a couple of months ago, not because stop loss failed, but because the responsible members took their eye off the ball and they have admitted liability for that.

By Thatcher I assume you mean Mrs Thatcher, now Baroness Thatcher, who rescued the country from those dire days of the late seventies which everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten. Her philospohy was clear. She wanted people to be responsible for themselves and not reliant on government agencies. That's what she was elected to do. I concede that towards the end of her premiership she made mistakes. Everyone has a tragic flaw. Of course as a baroness she would correctly sign her letters as "Thatcher of Kesteven', but she is a lady and deserves as every other citizen does the correct title. These days I receive so many letters addressed to me without a title. That is just a discourtesy, and a different thread. (Sorry JFR)

Mrs Thatcher left the premiership in 1990. I find it a most tenuous link between her and the present mortgage crisis. There have been 18 years for those in charge to correct her policy. The present crisis comes from greedy and irresponsible banks vying for business by offering 125% mortgages to people who couldn't afford them.

The way to control inflation is certainly to ensure that demand does not outstrip supply and that is easily done by ensuring that there is not too much money in the system. If too many people have excess money they are going to spend it, or invest it so that someone else can spend it. Personally I do not see the danger of deflation, but it appears in the press to be a greater eveil than inflation. (To clarify my standpoint I owe no one any money apart from what is on my credit cards and that is paid in full on demand.)

Hugs
Nigel



I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.

…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
Re: Origin of the Religious Right  [message #52980 is a reply to message #52975] Sat, 06 September 2008 05:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
saben is currently offline  saben

On fire!

Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537



Anthony, there are two ways the government receives money:
1) Taxation
2) By printing more (which causes inflation and is equivalent to taxation in the effect it has on the "common man")

Both ways take money from people.

If my business fails, is it legitimate for me to take money from you to bail myself out? I don't think so!

So when a business fails why is it legitimate for the government to take money from the entire nation to bail out a small proportion of the nation that were shareholders (co-owners) of that business?

Government programs aren't free. Every time the government so much as sneezes someone is paying for it. In the free market the consumer only pays for what they want. With government, we are forced to pay for things (such as the Iraq War) that we DON'T want. I don't think this is fair, or just, or right.



Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
Re: Keynes  [message #52981 is a reply to message #52972] Sat, 06 September 2008 05:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
saben is currently offline  saben

On fire!

Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537



I guess I am an economic fundamentalist, because fundamentally, free market economics work!

While there is fluctuation, by and large nations see their biggest periods of growth when the government is smallest. Look outside of Europe and the US- look at Australia during the Hawke/ Keating years, or Japan, or China, or Hong Kong, or Singapore, or South Korea. Or even the Thatcher and Reagan administrations.

I believe in a government that sets the basic rules for trade, that enforces contract, that helps stop corruption and breech of contract and then steps back and lets the market decide things. I've never seen an instance of government spending doing what a tax cut could not. There are very few situations I can think of where a government should interfere in the economy.



Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
Re: Bailing out Northern Rock  [message #52984 is a reply to message #52980] Sat, 06 September 2008 08:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
acam is currently offline  acam

On fire!
Location: UK
Registered: July 2007
Messages: 1849



Dear Saben,

You misunderstand. The government did not do anything to help the owners of Northern Rock. Those people have lost everything that they thought they owned.

But Northern Rock borrowed money from people and lent it to other people who used it to buy houses and Northern Rock took the deeds of the houses as security for the loan. Then when rumours began that it was unsafe the people who had lent money to Northern Rock claimed it back. This is a risk inherent in all building society business - they borrow money which they may have to return at a month or twos notice and lend it for 20 or 25 years. Of course they are liable to problems if they can't keep or attract people to lend them money. But inherently the position is safe because the houses are worth more than the debt secured on them (except for mortgages of 100% or more or house prices fall).

When this happened to Northern Rock the government stood in for the people when everyone took their money out of Northern Rock and lent it a lot of money. As the mortgages gradually get paid off or the houses of defaulters get sold most of that government loan will be repaid. The only shortfall would be from the recent mortgages where the value of the property was or became less than the loan - but this is only some of the most recent mortgages and so is a very small proportion of the overall business.

So the risk takers (shareholders) have lost everything and the lenders have lost nothing which is as it should be.

And overall, by the time everything has settled down, the cost to the taxpayer will be very small because the government's loan to Northern Rock will all or nearly all be repaid.

Love,
Anthony
Re: Bailing out Northern Rock  [message #52985 is a reply to message #52984] Sat, 06 September 2008 11:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
kupuna is currently offline  kupuna

Really getting into it
Location: Norway
Registered: February 2005
Messages: 510



So the risk takers (shareholders) have lost everything and the lenders have lost nothing which is as it should be.

... but the current administration in Washington DC seems to be concerned about the banks' and their shareholders' money, while not giving a rat's ass about the homeowners losing everything. Which is as one might expect but not as it should be.
Re: LOL man this thread has gotten way off topic!  [message #52986 is a reply to message #52973] Sat, 06 September 2008 12:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
yusime is currently offline  yusime

Likes it here
Location: United States
Registered: April 2008
Messages: 195



I was just trying to share information on a topic I find interesting I did not expect for the topic to turn to economics and economic theory.



He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake since for him a spinal cord would suffice. Albert Einstein
Re: LOL man this thread has gotten way off topic!  [message #52987 is a reply to message #52986] Sat, 06 September 2008 15:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Nigel is currently offline  Nigel

On fire!
Location: England
Registered: November 2003
Messages: 1756



When you start a thread, Pat, you may well be opening Pandora's box.



I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.

…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
Re: Bailing out Northern Rock  [message #52989 is a reply to message #52984] Sat, 06 September 2008 16:24 Go to previous message
saben is currently offline  saben

On fire!

Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537



My comments were based on this, said by Nigel:

I can only repeat that the people who lodged their money with Northern Rock did not lose their money. The bank always maintained it had the funds to cover deposits. The people who lost out were the shareholders.

I don't know whose facts are right or wrong.

I agree that providing banks with insurance is probably a role governments should take on- they are probably the only people that can afford to insure a bank. But I also think that banks should probably pay the government for backing, rather than the government just backing all banks voluntarily. I don't know much about how the system works, but if only certain banks did have a guarantee that the government would bail them out, then people would choose the banks based on whether they wanted to take a risk or not. My understanding is that now in the UK and Australia most banks are just backed by default and if they fail it's the taxpayer that is forced to foot the bill. That is wrong, in my opinion.



Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
Previous Topic: Hey Timmy,
Next Topic: probs in the world
Goto Forum: