Maybe this is the new big plan for the economy: sell as many weapons to the Middle East as possible. Let a million Rosie the Riveters bloom. That this buildup endangers an entire region, one holding the keys to the current energy infrastructure of the world, is just a sidelight to this, I guess.
First, the military announced an $11 billion sale to Iraq, despite concerns.
The Obama administration is moving ahead with the sale of nearly $11 billion worth of arms and training for the Iraqi military despite concerns that Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki is seeking to consolidate authority, create a one-party Shiite-dominated state and abandon the American-backed power-sharing government.
The military aid, including advanced fighter jets and battle tanks, is meant to help the Iraqi government protect its borders and rebuild a military that before the 1991 Persian Gulf war was one of the largest in the world; it was disbanded in 2003 after the United States invasion.
But the sales of the weapons — some of which have already been delivered — are moving ahead even though Mr. Maliki has failed to carry out an agreement that would have limited his ability to marginalize the Sunnis and turn the military into a sectarian force. While the United States is eager to beef up Iraq’s military, at least in part as a hedge against Iranian influence, there are also fears that the move could backfire if the Baghdad government ultimately aligns more closely with the Shiite theocracy in Tehran than with Washington.
So perhaps to balance the possibility that the arms sales go to a Shiite-backed government in Baghdad, the military turned around and sold $30 billion in arms to the Sunnis in Saudi Arabia.
Fortifying one of its crucial allies in the Persian Gulf, the Obama administration announced a major weapons deal with Saudi Arabia on Thursday, saying it had agreed to sell F-15 fighter jets valued at nearly $30 billion to the Royal Saudi Air Force.
The agreement is part of a broader 10-year, $60 billion arms package for Saudi Arabia that Congress approved a year ago. But its timing is laden with significance, with tensions over Iran mounting and the United States pulling its last soldiers out of Iraq.
Yay, we’re arming both sides of a potential regional conflict!
Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest came right out and said that this sale would “positively impact the U.S. economy and further advances the president’s commitment to create jobs by increasing exports.” Military stimulus can work, of course. The buildup during World War II finally generated enough demand to get the country out of the Depression. But that money can go to so much of a more productive use. And if on the off chance that it sparks a conflagration in that volatile part of the world, the resulting disabling of oil infrastructure would cause much more harm than good. This is just a dangerous game.





111 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
SURE! Sell weapons to anyone who wants them. This is no different to selling drugs. “Got the money? Here ya go.”
BTW, F15′s not T15′s as captioned, F for Fighter, T for trainer.
Good grief! We’re a country governed by short sighted idiots.
And, a certain Robert Redford character might point out, it’s a game you don’t want to lose.
Call me crazy, but I’d rather not play the damn game at all.
It still amazes me at how folks feel the economy must be better for Obama to win next year, and yet all he does is stuff that makes it that much harder for the economy to be better.
Hard to have an improving economy with $300 a barrel for oil.
Tens of Billions in military weapons sales?
Wow…but diddya hear Ron Paul’s a racist?
Glenn Greenwald too.
The rich are concerned with too much world population – slaves might use too many resources and cause shortages for the rich! Selling weapons for war is one way to solve the problem.
Nothing new under the sun. Reagan supplied Saddam (Rummy was his bag-man) and the Ayatollahs in the 1980′s. Remember “arms for hostages”?
The purpose of the weapons sales is to use them against the Arab spring.
Well, at least Iraq has money to spend….wonder where they got that!
America may not want war with Iran but we’re going to get it anyways!
Obama saves the world!
Doesn’t seem prudent.
Rosie the Riveter.
Regarding that…….do we get a “credit” in the “hostage department”???? Seems only fair to me.
Yeah I heard Ron Paul is a racist. I also hear he’s a homophobe and a misogynist.
Those F-15′s are too big for the local police forces parking lots I guess, and it would be a shame to just dismantle them.
Perhaps he can figure out how to pay for it using the Fed’s backdoor funding plan. Americans won’t mind paying $10 a gallon for gas./s
Does this comport with Hillary’s bons mots two or three weeks ago? Among many Fed authorities State Dept has to agree to such sales, no?
Hadn’t she lent some weight to a requirement for societal tolerance in destinations for benefits coming from the US?
As I recall Hillary’s context was LGBT, but the logic would extend far and wide I think. Anyhow wouldn’t the LGBT issue, alone, be a sufficient show stopper for ALL these sales virtually anywhere in the Middle East?
A simple “none of the buyers would qualify” would suffice from the State Dep’t.
Years ago, prolly a decade, I met some one who was an agent for military aircraft sales to places like Saudi Arabia. I asked him if the Saudis knew how to fly the planes. He gave me a knowing look, and said: Of course not.
He gave me a book to read on the subject, but I didn’t bother as I’d gotten the information I wanted.
Yeah, local police have to be content with those dratty little drones.
He seems to be all 3.
And a nutcase about economics too.
This is what I call terminal short term vision. I also call it WTF???????? Very, very scary.
That’s not right. He USED to be racist.
How is he a homophone???
We were supplying the Sunnis with arms as far back as when we called the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a bunch of terrorists for supplying the Shiite with weapons.
I guess we’re having difficulty with the whole entire we gave you a democracy thing. No surprise when you base your war on poorly researched intel and don’t bother to question the veracity of a guy convicted of fraud in one of your ally nations. D’oh.
DING!!
My speculation is that the arms sales to Iraq are not so much about “military stimulus” spending (“weaponized Keynesianism”) so much as they are about creating a likely monopoly on violent force in Iraq. The power in the US does not want Iraq to rapidly fracture or melt down. One approach to that is to heavily arm the current government of Iraq – treating it as an arms sale partner – sufficiently that the government there (and likely strongman al-Maliki) are hard to displace.
Awwww, c’mon the free market fairy is REAL!
She’s going to sprinkle magic fairy dust on all the corporations and then we ALL win.
Forget everything you know about the pursuit of profit and the purpose of regulatory agencies. Somalia is an underrated country.
Makes sense to me. In theory…….
OT
Just got an email from BlueAmerica. Best belly laugh I’ve had all day. You’d think they would be too embarrassed by all the turncoat candidates they’d carefully selected to raise their heads above the trenches.
At least Jane, seeing that fail, went on to other causes.
I have no trouble with failed experiments, since most of life is failure, and failure is one of life’s great learning devices. My problem is sticking with a known failing tactic.
Linky.
Gay cooties from toilet seats? And YES I believe the story. The guy reeks of fear of anything that does not remotely resemble himself.
It sucks, but the problem is a global one. If the U.S. doesn’t sell its weapons, somebody else will sell theirs. We wouldn’t sell to Saddam, so the Russians were happy to do so. Everyone wants to sell weapons, the M.I.C. isn’t just for the U.S. and it is a sellers market with many willing buyers, and has been since our predecessors first walked upright. I’m amazed at how far we’ve evolved and how little our attitudes towards the “other tribes” have changed. Pan Pacifica has always been at war with Eurasia.
Yes, he does strike one as very paranoid.
Obamas list of things to do in 2012
Invade IranSell weapons to Turkmenistan, then invade Iran.
Get re-elected.
Bring back American jobs,Tell big oil to go screw themselvesApprove the pipeline for jobs.
Invade Iran again.
Build more drones for jobs.
Give a speech about tornadoes and food costs.
Invade Iran again.
Get re-elected.
Ohhhhhh, homoPHOBE……..I got it.
FRankly, I always thought he looks kind a gay. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
It’s not the free market fairy part that makes Paul unique. All the PTB use that nostrum to justify looting the 99ers.
What makes Paul even more of a nutcase is the gold bug part. He would turn U.S. monetary policy over to Russia & China, which are the only major gold producers to increase production between 2006 and 2010.
Bowling lessons. You forgot bowling lessons.
Except for Vaclav Havel. At least before he turned neocon.
The question, then, would not be what Paul is but where he learned his trade.
Makes sense. What has me puzzled is that 1/5 of all US arms sales from the last 50 years went to Saudi Arabia. Then the US eliminated the biggest Saudi threat for them, Sadam Hussein. How did we get the Saudi’s ok to sell these arms to Iraq when Maliki doesn’t seem all that stable?
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Mostly agreed, especially if he’s for a return to the gold standard that you mentioned yesterday (I knew he was against the Fed, something I can get behind, but I didn’t know he was for a return to the gold standard), but what other ecnomic policies has he discussed besides that?? Yes, being for a return to the gold standard is enough, just curious because I haven’t heard any other specifics regarding economics.
You always hear.. Against the Fed; Against the wars; Against the Patriot Act; For legalization of drugs; Against foriegn intervention; and definitely against the “big brother” type of attacks on our Constitutional rights.
All things I could lukewarmly or wholeheartedly support. You just don’t hear the gory details of the other shit and that’s what needs to get out more IMO.
Why do you care where he became a nutcase?
WRT O, I became very interested in when he was recruited by PTB & how it happened bc he is a member of a disadvantaged class. And made it to the very pinnacle of power.
But Paul is a kinda sorta RWM, so much less interested in his path to glory. Curious why you are.
That’s why one of my nearly penultimate comments was: The best thing you can say about Paul becoming POTUS is all the fun we’ll have impeaching him for all the things we knew about him but didn’t pay attention to before the election.
That is too funny ! Love it!
The trouble is, its the same deal with the devil we’ve made in the past.
For my part, I wonder if setting up a monopoly on violent force in Iraq could be the kindest thing we could do for those poor people, after we destroyed their nation. Disorder and endless insurrection will cost many lives there without the force monopoly. Of course, the US is selling arms to a place where they will be used brutally, there is no doubt.
What I want is an end to the sales of weapons and munitions to any entity in the Middle East and Southwest Asia. Full stop.
Meh… what else is new? Team USA has been doing this pretty much forever. Sorry to rain on anyone’s parade if they’re surprised by this, albeit thanks for the post.
Don’t forget that Team USA also armed the Afghani Mujahideen in their conflict with the Sovietskis. Some say the CIA created the Taliban, and now we fight them.
It’s kind of a win-win for the 1%. They make big buck$$$ outa the bang-bang, but they – and their spawn – never have to go near the conflict to get their hands dirty.
Same old, different day…
The US sold weapons to Saudi Arabia, as well, right on the heels of the sales to Iraq. In the past, I’ve seen the US do this same thing with sales to Saudi Arabia and Israel.
I speculate that the Saudis don’t mind the idea of an armed Iraq – the Iraqi military is absolutely no threat to Saudi Arabia – Iraq doesn’t have the political unity to manage any sort of national aggression beyond its borders, let alone the military capacity to threaten Saudi Arabia which famously has top-notch weapons and such from the US – and an armed, quasi-stable Iraq is better than any fragmented Iraq which is effectively under the control of Iran. The Saudis are probably a lot more bothered by the rising Iranian power in the region than they are by war-torn Iraq. After all, Iraq can’t even threaten little Kuwait, if it wanted to, whereas the Iranians can credibly threaten to shut down the Strait of Hormuz.
LOL, you mean Bush can lie us into a war that costs billions of dollars and millions of lives, lock up American citizens with no habeas corpus, and Obama can declare war without Congress’ approval, detain Americans forever with no habeas corpus, and they don’t get impeached…
But Ron Paul will be impeached?
This country needs an enema.
Everyone of them running to run the country is a certifiable NUT case, R or D.
But, jasee, it isn’t the monopoly of force the U.S. is worried about. It’s that it isn’t U.S. monopoly of force.
But I digress.
Why is it the U.S. biz to meddle in Iraqi affairs at all? Surely you don’t think the U.S. can repair its misdeeds (that euphemism could be taken out and shot) by helping yet another dictator est. a monopoly of force.
Or maybe you do.
Do you have an advanced degree in International Relations? I’ve been curious for several years about how they teach the courses about the U.S. co-opting national govts against the will of the ‘street.’
So if you have a graduate degree, perhaps you could satisfy my curiosity.
I think the problem with all these FMS sales is the corruption/cronycapitalism shit involved. Some fat cats just get fatter. That tends to happen with any government spending but this and financial transactions are probably among the worst. Just my feeling, nothing to back it up.
Ron Paul would be impeached bc he fails to kowtow to his masters on certain critical issues.
Just curious but why do you favor a return to the gold standard?
I understand much of the others even the fed thing. In fact, the treasury can handle all the functions of the fed. But the fed is a creature of congress even though they do not try to control it.
is that sarc? did you read the link. weak at best. and if that is what they have to go on then O’s 20 year relationship with Wright must prove he hates white people
I’ve never used ‘penultimate’, but I’ve used ‘penult’ and ‘antepenult’. Very handy at dinner parties when everyone wants to know how come words like ‘photograph’/'photographer’/'photographic’ have variant stresses.
Still I suppose you can argue that sales to Iraq and Saudi will keep them on our side and sell us all that oil, ya know??
The fed is not a creature of congress, it is a creature of the banking cartel. only power congress has is to abolish it and until recently there have only been a few brave souls to state that. Those in the past that did soon found themselves tied up in scandals or dead
That may be the “reasoning” that would be used in certain circumstances. Of course, then we have the issue that the alleged 9/11 “terrorists” were nearly all Saudi nationals and possibly received funding from the Royal House of Saud.
Then again, there’s LOADS of ties between the Saudi royals and the Bush Crime Syndicate… so you figure out who benefited in what way from: a) selling the Saudi’s military shit, and b) having Saudi’s fly into buildings on Sept 11, 2001.
The Magnificent Mindless ‘Merican Murder Machinery is brutal by design. They ain’t shooting flower seeds ya know.
My apologies. I wasn’t clear.
I am NOT for a return to the gold standard. I think that’s insane.
Sorry for the mix-up.
I can get behind a lot of the stuff Ron Paul is advocating. Even going after the Fed. I’m aware of all the arguments why it’s dangerous to have the a central bank controlled by politicians or those respondent to politicians, but IMO it’s just GOT to be better than having a privately owned central bank. But no, the return to the gold standard would be insane (sorry, can’t think of a better word than that) IMO.
IMO most all other rights don’t mean much if we lose habeas corpus, so that’s why I’m more willing to entertain supporting Ron Paul then, say, George W Bush, but the other crap he would bring to the table is very, very, very frightening, and I just wish that would get out more.
For example, what’s his specific position on regulating the sale of food and drugs??? I suspect if more knew the answer to that, then maybe they would give him a little more scrutiny other than going rah rah for those things he does support that we can get behind.
I’m very conflicted on the man. I could easily see myself supporting him in the R primary (In Virginia, there are no party registrations so anyone can vote in any primary) and if left with a choice between Paul and Obama, I gotta admit I’m hard pressed to see why Paul would be a worse choice, but at the end of the day I’m most likely going to support whichever candidate the NPA puts forward in the general.
But, again, NO, I do not favor a return to the gold standard.
The chance that a Republican president would be impeached for those reasons I would put at 0.01%. But more interesting to me is how Ron Paul’s positions would play out with the 1%. For example, the gold standard would go nowhere. End the wars? Not likely. I’ve seen little discussion of the practical effects of a Paul presidency.
Rocky Anderson for president!
Yes, thank you, that’s what I was wondering yesterday too when I suggested that those think Paul really will stop the unwarranted wiretapping, torture, renditions, indefinite detentions, the Patriot Act, etc. should explain HOW that would occur.
Because it’s hard for me see any way it occurs even if he won a landslide.
I think THAT is part of the plan. I hope THEY know that.
Paul is not a R. Just a label of convenience for him.
I think the Rs will ‘get’ him long before he bc POTUS. Just having a little mental funning.
Paul may be the only one who can “save” this country.
He would utterly destroy it to the point that people would not only revolt, but they would have to for their survival.
And yes Paul will and Obama after Paul wins.
“I said what?”. “oh but I meant …”
“I always loved Reagan, … I even have dirty thoughts about him”.
“What do you mean I didn’t wasn’t clear or honest, … I clearly said any business should be allowed to discriminate for any reason, … so those whites only fountains are private owned and thus perfectly legal now, … and the Constitution, the original one of course, says nothing about whites only water fountains, or whites only [insert word here], … so it’s not a right, …”
“What do you mean the EPA and FDA, and the other fed. depts are necessary?” “It’s not mentioned in the Constitution, the original of course, so clean water, clean air, clean food, clean anything is not a right, … it’s called rugged individualism, look it up you commie …”
“But I can’t end the wars. I really really tried. But I’m not a king. It’s the fault of Congress. Same for the Patriot Act. Also for marijuana. Sorry, my hands are tied. But I did try to pass legislation. I really did. But my fellow Rs and enemy Ds teamed up together and kept the Fed. I mean what can I do? It’s a democracy and this how it works. I’m not a king, …”
I give him about 5 seconds after he wins before he pulls an O.
eCAHN~ I’m not so sure I agree with your comment that Origami “is a member of a disadvantaged class.” After all, his Gammy was an executive of the Bank of Honolulu and growing up dark skinned in Hawai’i (and/or Indonesia) is not the same as in Detroit or L.A. But I do believe that the PTB selected him for his “paint job” more than his political skills ~ that which they can provide in heaps.
Saw him on TYT on Current TV. He makes sense and criticizes both wings of the Corporatist Party. I’m pretty sure Obama will utilize his newly codified powers, via the Defense Bill, to disappear Rocky if he gains traction. Weapons sales are part of the economic stimulus plan that encourages “small wars”.
Got it.
Paul strikes something in me bc I sense he opposes corruption. I am not an individualist or libertarian but corruption, greed and pursuit of “my” aims only can and are bringing us all down. There is a need to make room for “us” as in the social network and in justice, etc. That is what I hear you saying a lot. Someway we have to end this system.
It’s fun to conjecture about ALL of these guys (and wimmen too). But I see a lot of progressives saying “Gee, I really like these parts of Paul’s philosophy”. My take is that whatever label you choose for him, and I used R because he ain’t no D, he’s still essentially the same as all of them, i.e., a lying piece of shit. Excuse me please for my mix of objectivity and subjectivity. I just haven’t yet met a conservative who, once in power, did not shed any progressive ideals. Paul is an illusion.
“the same as all of them” – correct.
All of them – R and D.
Plenty of so-called liberals saying the same thing about O and making excuses for him as conservatives made about B and Palin/McCain.
We’ve come full circle. Now even “liberals” are cheering the war with Iran.
You can’t make this shite up.
Well, I’d be curious what he believes and how he expects to get elected with an electoral college aligned the way it is. Oh and if by some miracle he did get elected, what’s his plan for getting anything, anything at all past the opposition party controlling both houses of congress with a 100% majority. Well, I suppose he could then just, you know, switch sides, but to ???
What???? That is crazy.
WTF has happened to folks? Since O took office, a significant portion of the population seems to have lost their fucking minds.
The libertarian creed is every bit as bad as the conservative one. He just tries to hide it better.
PaulObama strikes something in me bc I sense heopposes corruptionsupports change.I haven’t looked closely at his voting record, but I suspect that on votes where his vote really mattered, he voted R. I could be wrong, of course, but that research would present a good indication of what he would do.
OT, Now I’m off to my dentist (Dr. Pain). Whoopee!
His grandmother was a bank VP. They grow on trees there are so many of them. And she only got to that level very late in her career & bc O had already been selected.
Sometimes I think we all have. It’s the water I guess or maybe global warming.
You may not have noticed but I am a Paul supporter – - NOT.
Heh. My fear about Paul (don’t really have one since he is so unlikely to bc POTUS, but just in case…) is that he is NOT a liar, and like W will take his political capital to execute his ideology.
But aren’t some parts of the libertarian creed good??
I’ve always believed, and still do, that what we should have is a very libertarian like government regarding our private lives (in the home) and a very progressive government regarding our public lives (the second we step out of the home) with progressive help for those in need.
It seems Republicans are the exact opposite. They want more government in our private lives (abortion/drugs/sex/almost everything) while wanting no government in the public arena (doing away with almost all regulation of businesses, ALL of which occur in public. You can’t do business with yourself).
I think that dynamic is why libertarians do as well as they do. Most folks, I think, really don’t want the government in our private lives. But most folks, I think, really do want to feel safe that what they’re buying to eat is actually what it says it is on the label.
Paul wants a lot of gubmint in our private lives. He thinks a zygote is the most important matter, i.e. more important than war, economy, or any already born person. Now you are not female, so that prolly doesn’t matter to you. But I wonder how many women would vote for him.
It does matter to me. I have a sister, a niece, and may one day have a granddaughter.
LOL, regarding the possible granddaughter my son is past 30, so that’s looking less and less likely now.
He got married this year and it was a Kim Kardashian like marriage. Three months. Would’ve been funny if not the thousands of dollars spent on the wedding. Three friggen’ months. WTF??
For the most part I agree. But there is a trap in there. We live our lives in society and we need to make our living in society and we need to be mindfful of others in society. There is no way around that. Our jobs, our safety net and our systems of justice all depend on a social contract. What we have going on now is everyone for his own self. Fuck the unemployed, those in poverty, those without health care and those illegally detained. I got mine. Fuck your OWS, go work and make your own way. Drug test those bastards taking unemployment checks, let them get a bath and go get a job. And so goes the individualist creed. John Galt lives. Nah, not me. I want a just government. Obama once said he thought government could be a force for good. somewhere he lost it.
I once sat next to senator pothole (D’amato) on the shuttle from DC to NYC, so had an hour to talk one-on-one with a sitting U.S. senator.
Leading with my chin, as is my wont, I started off by saying that the trouble with both Rs and Ds is that they all want to tell you how to live your lives, only they insist that you live your life in diff ways from the other party (remember those halcyon days of yesteryear when there was a diff). Oh no no no said the senator, with a straight face, the Rs don’t do that.
Ditto Paul, the vaunted libertarian.
Yeah, I agree with you. I guess I would qualify the no government in our private lives by saying no government programs that restrict, but lots of government programs that are for our benefit.
A person should be free to do what they want with their body. That’s as true for someone smoking a joint as is for a pregnant woman. But the second that person that smokes the joint steps out of his house, there SHOULD be restrictions.
But programs that provide benefits are good and can literally mean the difference between life and death.
It’s sort of like obscenity I guess. You know a good government program when you see it.
Back in the old days, when academic economics pretended to be fair, they used to teach now quaint topics like market imperfections, like externalities, or that point at which your bad behavior (pollution for example) has a negative influence on others, and you don’t pay for it. The recommendation for mitigating such situations was govt regulation.
Ron Paul (or any other libertarian) never heard of externalities.
Not sure that I’m following you all the way here. The first paragraph (above) is pretty much how today’s “Libertarians” tend to want things, as well. I mean: Ron Paul (and others who spout off here sometimes, at least) is all about being up in a woman’s uterus & in people’s private lives. Yet he doesn’t want any regulations, etc, in the public sphere.
Maybe I’m missing something, or maybe those who self-identify as “Libertarian” these days (seems ever more popular) aren’t really “getting” that what they want is the same old shit that the Republicans have propounded forever.
???
Back in the old days when I took a very basic Economics class, we were taught (and it was even in the textbook) that some things – mainly utilities – should ALWAYS be public, not privatized, bc citizens *need* energy & water, etc. And so, private companies should not be brought into the mix to “make money” from selling them to citizens.
har de har: the last laugh was on yours truly for “believing” that text book and professor. Bc not too long after I took the class, the world changed and suddenly it was the bestest thing evah to privatize everything in sight, esp utilities. Just ask Ken Lay and GW Bush…
I don’t see how you square having the government regulate what a woman can and can’t do with her own body with libertarianism, but yes, there are those that call themselves libertarians that espouse that very thing.
I guess my point is libertarianism, in general, is about no government anywhere (in the private or the public) and the fact that in theory libertarianism includes the part of no government in the private life is why they do as well as they do, particularly among young people.
Or, I’m still botching what I’m trying to say. I seem to be awesomely good at that.
What was the text and the year?
I never ran into anything about basic human needs in any of my econ courses. The utilities argument was that it was a natural monopoly so needed gubmint regulation. The utilities made out like bandits under that regime bc they were, thru govt rate setting, guaranteed a ROR on capital, which meant they could simply maximize profits by employing way too much capital.
Then someone figured out that the natural monopoly was in transmission, not generation, so the two were separated and the former allegedly continued to be regulated.
I think you may be right that, in theory, Libertarianism means NO govt ever (or almost ever), and perhaps young people really mean that.
Ron Paul is against abortion and would have govt say no to women who want one no matter what.
Maybe young people don’t know that.
My anecdotal encounters with so-called, self-identified “Libertarians” – most of whom tend to be over at least 35 – tend to espouse the “Libertarian” principal of no govt for social programs, especially like welfare. But they ALL have their hands out for social programs that THEY want, like WIC or Soc Sec, etc. And they ALL are bitterly and vehemently opposed to (and very much want govt to regulate/prohibit): a) abortions, b) possibly even birth control, c) gay marriage, and d) other types of civil rights.
So it’s hard to say what Ron Paul’s “followers” really believe. Many that I know are just Tea Party-Republicans who like the notion that “Libertarian” means they’ll never ever ever ever have to pay taxes ever again (but will still get LOTS of social services, such as the fire dept or roads, when it suits them… they just don’t want to pay for any of it bc, shudder, some poor person may get to benefit from it, too, the dog forbid).
I’m probably misquoting, and your description is much more apt.
It was back in the 1990s but heaven’s knows what the text book was; way too long ago for me to remember that now. I do know (and I don’t think I’m totally messing this up) that the text and prof said that utilities should not be privatized. I may have forgotten or messed up the “reasoning” behind it.
Wow. College profs were still talking about regulation for an reason in the 90s? That’s pretty outre.
I think your experience was the exception though, and not the rule. I went to college late, but it was still the 1980′s, and in both the two year college AND the four year college I transferred to, all of the eoncomics taught had a right wing slant to it. I think by the 1990′s that was more the rule.
I remember it well because I complained about it at the end of every semester when we got the forms to rate our professors.
Indeed, first they opened up cable TV, then electricity, recently here in Texas, the natural gas industry. And ALL of us here in Texas pay highe rates than practically any other state. Granted, we got lots of those things. But, we pay 20% MORE than any other state.
Wow OFG. I went college in the 70′s and had to walk two miles in the snow to get to class and we only had wood stoves and too few corrals for our horses.
Merchants of death. Real Christians need not apply.
Cable TV is an excellent example because the argument they used every time to justify de-regulating that was that monthly cable bills would go down due to competition. I don’t think it’s farfetched to say that not a single person saw their cable bills go down and almost every person saw their cable bills go up.
Yet after the real life experience, far too many folks STILL buy the “free market” bullshit time and time again.
If you need “satistics” feel free to use Texas. The “public utility commission” screws us bigtime. All political appointees, dontcha know.
Frankly, I was surprised, myself, as this was a very basic Econ class as part of the beginning of an MBA program, and the Univ was not particularly “liberal.” That’s why it stood out for me, and I definitely remember discussing it with the Prof in class. As a long-time, bleeding edge leftie – but one with little Economics background/education – this stood out for me.
My memory is pretty good, so I don’t think I messed this up. Later on, I wished I had photocopied the section of the book bc it DOES seem, like, I dunno… kind of “wild” in terms of how our society functions.
Wow, I don’t know how you got through it. I would think it was particularly tough walking those two miles in the snow UPHILL BOTH WAYS.
Today’s young ‘uns just don’t know how well they have it.
I know. Go figure.
My Prof, as it turns out, was exactly my age & came from a very very similar background to me, plus went to undergrad at a Univ very close to where I did undergrad back east. I think he as an old hippie, quite honestly. He kind of implied that to me, although his Univ did not have as much “radical” stuff going on that my college did (or at least, that my classmates and I managed to have happen). But he is from the anti Viet Nam era, and I suspect he had some more progressive ideas.
Or you can use the stats from CA, as well.
And yeah: the Cable TV example is a very good one. I have never ever subscribed to cable tv, believe it or not, and one good reason why is that it just keeps getting more expensive for ever more crapulous crap.
My landlady has it. Once in a while I channel surf and cannot believe what a bunch of NOTHING there is… ok if you want to watch sports, but I’m not a sports fan. Other than that?? Not much most of the time.
The last time I had tv on my own, I still used an antenna. It was fine and essentially free (other than power).
My very unscientific “analysis” is that most citizens who “buy” the “free market” bullshit hype somehow think it will translate into: a) lower costs (even though anyone with half a wit about them can see that hasn’t ever happened), and b) lower taxes (no, there’s no logic here, but I’ve heard this stated in conjunction with the so-called “free market”).
I hate to generalize, but a lot of citizens are intellectually VERY lazy and don’t bother to reason through anything.
Sorry for the longwindedness, but since you asked. . .
I’m always curious about oddballs and what’s involved in that end product. Paul is ripe for some analysis (maybe the rest of them, too). I sense a McVeigh-lite and hope he’s not.
I was a kid in the 1960s when the discourse got nasty around the nurture versus nature thing.
Human nature became judged as an improper cause for anything on the human level (even individuals) since it couldn’t be controlled, and personal responsibility could not be assigned. It became a toxic, antisocial concept yet without actually being disproven. There were never satisfactory answers, only cocksure opinions.
So I was testing the waters again. Paul is a good subject. As a guess I doubt he was perverse at birth, and I haven’t the foggiest idea how he got that way.
Thanks for taking the time to explain.
Yes Paul is an oddball and that is an interesting topic, i.e. how that happens. (I won’t get into the nature vs. nurture, although I have my opinions.)
I think I know too many oddballs to go down the investigatory road. If I did that, I wouldn’t have any time left over for other matters. :-)
Yep.
It’s been abolished a couple of times in our history.
Not THIS one. I actually am considering changing my registration (independant in VA)to vote against him in the primary. I dislike what he stands for that much.
Not that I particularly care for any of the mainstream candidate choices this go round. I just think he is a particularly bad choice.
Heh,
I guess I’m a contrarian. I think I had it way better than my poor kids have it today. At least for a few years I actually got to believe I might have a chance to retire if I worked hard enough and I could own a small piece of America. The poor kids today are pretty much living with the idea of indentured servitude. And according to candidates like Gingrich the fact that they aren’t in the workforce as children is being “coddled.”
I did not think you’re a Paul supporter :)
That’s been the “big new plan for the economy” since WWII. But. . . you’re catching on.
Perhaps, if elected, he could utilize the “bully pulpit” and appeal directly to the American people, the 99% who are fed up with the corruption of the corporate party. What is your remedy, to just bend over and accede to the continuing anal rape?