As you have the left/right debate always, you develop the conditioning to always debate/disagree. So you learn to argue based on the camp you're in.
Recently, the two camps began arguing over the Financial Reform Bill 2009:
http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/AYO09D44_xml.pdf
A very time consuming endeavor, but if you want to really make up your own mind on the debate, you gotta read that bad boy.
Don't read into the source, but here is the headline:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/11/house-financial-regulator_n_389062.html
The Democrats are calling the bill a gift, and the Republicans are the party of No. The Republicans say this bill is the devil, and the Democrats are getting their way, and continue to push the country left. So, according to eachother, the opposition would ruin us if they are had power. Anyway, the economist on the left and the right come up with their own numbers, based on their study subjects and the economic theory he/she uses when studying a bill.
So we either have to learn to see through camp colored glasses, interpret their meanings, and split the difference, or we have to learn the actual discipline to a certain level of proficiency.
I believe the debate more correctly should be "Does central bank style Keynesian economics work for what we want, or would we be better off with a more hands off lasseiz-faire Adams approach?" And which style is the reform bill?
Recently, the two camps began arguing over the Financial Reform Bill 2009:
http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/AYO09D44_xml.pdf
A very time consuming endeavor, but if you want to really make up your own mind on the debate, you gotta read that bad boy.
Don't read into the source, but here is the headline:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/11/house-financial-regulator_n_389062.html
The Democrats are calling the bill a gift, and the Republicans are the party of No. The Republicans say this bill is the devil, and the Democrats are getting their way, and continue to push the country left. So, according to eachother, the opposition would ruin us if they are had power. Anyway, the economist on the left and the right come up with their own numbers, based on their study subjects and the economic theory he/she uses when studying a bill.
So we either have to learn to see through camp colored glasses, interpret their meanings, and split the difference, or we have to learn the actual discipline to a certain level of proficiency.
I believe the debate more correctly should be "Does central bank style Keynesian economics work for what we want, or would we be better off with a more hands off lasseiz-faire Adams approach?" And which style is the reform bill?
Jeremy, how did you add contributors to your site? And where the heck are you?!
ReplyDeleteAnd I somehow changed my name a bunch of times, with some crazy stuff too no less! It's Gabe btw, as Do Not Submit. I was in Thailand, at a hotel/bar, there was tequila involved, you don't wanna know what else. So I changed my name back to FFPub.
ReplyDeleteI think you are absolutely correct here. The debate has nothing to do with right and wrong. It is about money and political power. If you agree with your opponent, it is a political kowtow that weakens future power grabs. If the financial and health care debates had the first thing to do "the right thing" and reflecting the will of the taxpayers (you know, the people whose money it is!), then the focus would be on educating the voters on the issues and letting the mass' will be known. I don't like my president, but I support him because he is who we chose. I do not like Obama care, but I would support it if an informed public wanted it. As it stands, though, it is nothing more than red v. blue. Go Cougs!
ReplyDelete