Reagan's Legacy: Our 25-Year Boom

[D1B]

Which underscores my assertion of the absence of thoughtful debate on this board. Nice job, D.

Not really T-man. You are "out there". I don't know if you're baiting or serious. I do find your posts interesting, from a psycho-behavioural perspective and effin hilarious from a message board trouble maker perspective.

Anyway, it's futile.

[D1B]

Conservation works T-man. What Reagan did was criminal. For that alone he needs to be in the bottom half of all Presidents.

To dismiss conservation like you do shows that YOU are not open-minded on this.

The energy thing is just the tip of the iceberg.

Reagan and his handlers pretty much gave the keys to the economy to Wall Street. His blind faith in the private sector/free market to monitor themselves and alway do the right thing and have the country's best interests in mind set the stage for our current economic collapse as well as the litany of Enrons we've witnessed over the last 8 years.

Let's not even go into his foreign policy errors that we are still paying for today.

Reagan was a bad president.

[travelinman67]

Which underscores my assertion of the absence of thoughtful debate on this board. Nice job, D.

Not really T-man. You are "out there". I don't know if you're baiting or serious. I do find your posts interesting, from a psycho-behavioural perspective and effin hilarious from a message board trouble maker perspective.

Anyway, it's futile.

If you call sitting in City Council meetings as well as private meetings with City Managers during which strategies to reduce services and utility loads to constituents while maintaining revenues creates "out there" perspectives, then I'm guilty.
If you call meeting with hundreds of business owners during which strategies to reduce delivered product to their customers while increasing both gross and net revenues created my "out there" assertions, then again, I'm guilty.

My "assertions" are a result of my life experience, education, and 30 years of studying private sector market as well as government policy, NOT just a repetition of some political philosophy derived from reading fringe progressive theoriticians. And from experience, I have found my deductions are, as a rule, accurate and verfiable through third party experts. The one factor I include in my deliberations that liberals and faux-experts typically do not, is social response (human nature). Government cannot restrict liberty, deconstruct quality of life, nor demean it's people without triggering and electorate backlash. Hence, I put faith in the body politic to "correct" the ill conceived progressive policies foisted upon Americans.

Conditioning only works on the generation(s) it has been practiced. There is an innate moral standard with which every human is born and reinforced throught infancy: Food, comfort, human touch. Piaget's model of development, although focused on social and motor skills, carries into the morality of needs. And while those "innate" needs can be deprogrammed through extensive conditioning (which even then only works for a percentage of the population), it is an intense process that requires continuity through generations, and censorship of dissenting idea. A process apparently understood by our Framers and guided their hand as they crafted our nation's Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Study Orwell...his insight derived from years around human/social/government conflict, and is as accurate a depiction of the evil which emanates from failed government as exists.

[travelinman67]

Reagan and his handlers pretty much gave the keys to the economy to Wall Street. His blind faith in the private sector/free market to monitor themselves and alway do the right thing and have the country's best interests in mind set the stage for our current economic collapse as well as the litany of Enrons we've witnessed over the last 8 years.

Let's not even go into his foreign policy errors that we are still paying for today.

Specifics, not soundbites, please.

I.e., "In 1983, against the Democratic controlled Congresses wishes, the Reagan controlled SEC eliminated the audit provisions from SEC on all instruments rated "A" and below, which opened the door for large institutional investors to create and eventually expand the derivatives market..."

I hear you and Cap harp on this all the time, but never any specifics.

[dbackjon]

sounds stupid (at first glance) on LA City Council's part...

[D1B]

Not really T-man. You are "out there". I don't know if you're baiting or serious. I do find your posts interesting, from a psycho-behavioural perspective and effin hilarious from a message board trouble maker perspective.

Anyway, it's futile.

If you call sitting in City Council meetings as well as private meetings with City Managers during which strategies to reduce services and utility loads to constituents while maintaining revenues creates "out there" perspectives, then I'm guilty.
If you call meeting with hundreds of business owners during which strategies to reduce delivered product to their customers while increasing both gross and net revenues created my "out there" assertions, then again, I'm guilty.

My "assertions" are a result of my life experience, education, and 30 years of studying private sector market as well as government policy, NOT just a repetition of some political philosophy derived from reading fringe progressive theoriticians. And from experience, I have found my deductions are, as a rule, accurate and verfiable through third party experts. The one factor I include in my deliberations that liberals and faux-experts typically do not, is social response (human nature). Government cannot restrict liberty, deconstruct quality of life, nor demean it's people without triggering and electorate backlash. Hence, I put faith in the body politic to "correct" the ill conceived progressive policies foisted upon Americans.

Conditioning only works on the generation(s) it has been practiced. There is an innate moral standard with which every human is born and reinforced throught infancy: Food, comfort, human touch. Piaget's model of development, although focused on social and motor skills, carries into the morality of needs. And while those "innate" needs can be deprogrammed through extensive conditioning (which even then only works for a percentage of the population), it is an intense process that requires continuity through generations, and censorship of dissenting idea. A process apparently understood by our Framers and guided their hand as they crafted our nation's Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Study Orwell...his insight derived from years around human/social/government conflict, and is as accurate a depiction of the evil which emanates from failed government as exists.

Tman, I aint saying you don't have valid points, you do. It's just the utter reluctance to acknowledge validity in theory or practice counter to your "conditioning".

And statements like this: Government cannot restrict liberty, deconstruct quality of life, nor demean it's people without triggering and electorate backlash. Hence, I put faith in the body politic to "correct" the ill conceived progressive policies foisted upon Americans.


I would like, someday, to have a conversation with you about quality of life: What does that mean? Is is always intrinsicly related to industry, resource use and financial prosperity. Or, at what point does the quality of environment and public health come into play. Are we overpopulating the planet? Is it time to prepare humans to transition from consumers to stewards of planet.

But you never answer these questions. Last time it was taxes.

Finding common ground is typically very helpful in understanding each other.

Thomas Friedman is a genius, BTW.

[UNI88]

I can't believe you mention energy independence.

From Thomas Friedman's "Hot, Flat & Crowded"

In the wake of the oil embargo in the mid seventies, Ford/Carter implemented higher fuel economy standards for americans cars - to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. 1975 - CAFE ring a bell?

It worked, between 1975 and 1985, fuel economy for passenger cars went from 13.5 mpg to 27.5 mpg, for light truck 11.6 to 19.5. Worked so well it created the oil glut from 85 to 1995, weakend OPEC and contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, then the second -largest oil producer in the world.

So what happened next? After the original congressional mandate of 27.5 MPG took full effect in 1985, rather than continue to push for higher fuel economy standards and continue to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, Reagan actually rolled it back to 26 mpg in 1986!!!! He also slashed the budgets of Carters alternative energy programs, let tax incentives for solar and wind lapse, and several of these companies and thier technologies, which were originally funded by American taxpayers, ended up being bought by Japanese and European firms - helping to propel those countries' renewable industries. Reagan even stripped off the solar panels Carter had put on the White House roof - a cynical and nasty move reminiscent of something you or Z might do.

Read the book Tman. This is but one of Reagan's disastrous policies we'll be paying for for decades.

Why is it the liberals alway run under the shelter of conservation rather than seeking to improve or increase production?

A fundamental tool of business is to produce less product, provide less service, yet increase gross profit. It's THE fundamental model of late 20th century America business. If I can sell you a smaller car, that has half the power, uses half the energy, for the same price as a larger model, why not? If the oil companies can sell you one gallon of gas for the same price they sold you two gallons for in the 70's, they will.
Downsizing, conserving, simplifying are not philosophically wrong, but when economic or governmental conditions are generated forcing those conditions, principally to compensate for incompetent management or execute a marketing scheme, then the public has been duped.

The U.S. was not prepared to become energy independent in the 70's, for many reasons most of which were designed to protect energy market profit. Rather than tackling those conflicts, the CAFE standards were created to reduce consumer expectations under the guise of efficiency and environmental protection.

CO2 is not causing climate issues, pollution is not destroying the planet. These are just devices used to condition the public and prepare them for the next wave of expectation reduction.

And, BTW, energy independence is only a small portion of the cause of our economic collapse. The $4.00 spike last year was merely a "shove" under the upper fulcrum that expedited the collapse.

TMan, what is wrong with trying to conserve and preserve the planet?

It appears to me that you are considering this problem simply from a business and production perspective. What about impact of mankind on the planet? What kind of life are we leaving for our children and grand children? Businesses want to make a profit and they will take steps to do that without considering the impact of those steps on their employees, neighbors, or the future. Why is it wrong for the government (or someone) to try and make sure those things are considered? I would prefer that the government use incentives to encourage companies to conserve rather than setting limits but I don't want the government to do nothing.

[travelinman67]

Tman, I aint saying you don't have valid points, you do. It's just the utter reluctance to acknowledge validity in theory or practice counter to your "conditioning".

I already cited in a response to dback, my belief that there is nothing philosophically wrong with conservation. My objection stems from the motivation for it's government manadated implementation. The problems from which the "conservation need" derived resulted from government mismanagement of natural resources, and multi-national corporate market pressures applied to protect profit at the expense of the U.S.'s economic and security interests. Rather than burying their heads in the sand and calling on all American's (including industry) to lower their life expectations, the proper solution would have been to correct the underlying problem/cause.

And statements like this: Government cannot restrict liberty, deconstruct quality of life, nor demean it's people without triggering and electorate backlash. Hence, I put faith in the body politic to "correct" the ill conceived progressive policies foisted upon Americans.


I would like, someday, to have a conversation with you about quality of life: What does that mean? Is is always intrinsicly related to industry, resource use and financial prosperity. Or, at what point does the quality of environment and public health come into play. Are we overpopulating the planet? Is it time to prepare humans to transition from consumers to stewards of planet.

All great topics, not really appropriate for this thread, however...

...the fundamental, principal law of nature is that life in all it's forms, by design, seek survival and advancement of it's species. Man, for obvious apparent reason, is a "rung climber". To impose conditions on man which by their nature require man's unchallenged acceptance of diminshment, goes against that most fundamental law of nature.
Your belief that the transition of man's role from "consumers" to "stewards" is somehow inevitable is a fallacy. The facet of this debate that the "environmentalism" concerns narcisstically fail to acknowledge is the earth's biosystem's ability to adapt to maintain equilibrium.
When temperatures increase, atmospheric water vapor concentrations increase blocking sunlight and resulting in temperature decreases: And when temperatures decrease, the reverse happens. This is not a "notion", it's a scientific fact which has been proven many, many times. The same goes with atmospheric concentrations of CO2...via several post volcanic eruption studies, most notably Pinatubo, the results of which were quantitatively equivalently reproduced in man controlled biosphere testing. The examples of our planet's biosystem's ability to self-correct are virtually unending, yet somehow, environmentalists inexplicably believe that within the scope of our presence within this understatedly immense biosystem, man's decision to burn a log in their fireplace will destroy the biosystem...ignoring the fact that since the beginning of recorded history, annually there has been a naturally occurring forest fire somewhere on the planet which emits more particulates and pollutants into the atmosphere than all the "manmade" fireplace fires ever lit by humans. Just last year...around ONE MILLION ACRES of forest land went up in flames JUST IN CALIFORNIA! Try to wrap your head around that while reconciling that most metropolitan regions within California now have laws against fires in fireplaces (including "clean air" woodstoves), with mandated "no burn" days...under the guise of environmental protection.
Why should man be incessantly, continuously mandated to reduce their quality of life expectations, often with NO THOUGHT given to the absurdity of the request ("...stop cigarette smoking to prevent air pollution..."), and worse, why should those making these absurd requests be "given a pass" and allowed to spew their nonsense without challenge?

I agree with you that there are reasons for embracing asceticism, but those reasons emanate from spiritual enlightment, not natural environment stewardship or to mask governmental negligence or "corporate greed" (human gluttany).

But you never answer these questions. Last time it was taxes.

Finding common ground is typically very helpful in understanding each other.

Thomas Friedman is a genius, BTW.

I've attempted to present my information in depth, with sources, over and over, yet seemingly my responses are greeted with less than intellectual replies such as rows of laughing emoticons and suggestions I'm "off meds". Why should I waste my time on people with closed minds, who fail to study issues, demonstrate a life ethos embracing mediocrity, and propose not mere disrespect of dissenting viewpoints, but a belief that dissenting views MUST be silenced?


BTW, Thomas Friedman is off his meds.

[D1B]

Tman, I aint saying you don't have valid points, you do. It's just the utter reluctance to acknowledge validity in theory or practice counter to your "conditioning".

I already cited in a response to dback, my belief that there is nothing philosophically wrong with conservation. My objection stems from the motivation for it's government manadated implementation. The problems from which the "conservation need" derived resulted from government mismanagement of natural resources, and multi-national corporate market pressures applied to protect profit at the expense of the U.S.'s economic and security interests. Rather than burying their heads in the sand and calling on all American's (including industry) to lower their life expectations, the proper solution would have been to correct the underlying problem/cause.

And statements like this: Government cannot restrict liberty, deconstruct quality of life, nor demean it's people without triggering and electorate backlash. Hence, I put faith in the body politic to "correct" the ill conceived progressive policies foisted upon Americans.


I would like, someday, to have a conversation with you about quality of life: What does that mean? Is is always intrinsicly related to industry, resource use and financial prosperity. Or, at what point does the quality of environment and public health come into play. Are we overpopulating the planet? Is it time to prepare humans to transition from consumers to stewards of planet.

All great topics, not really appropriate for this thread, however...

...the fundamental, principal law of nature is that life in all it's forms, by design, seek survival and advancement of it's species. Man, for obvious apparent reason, is a "rung climber". To impose conditions on man which by their nature require man's unchallenged acceptance of diminshment, goes against that most fundamental law of nature.
Your belief that the transition of man's role from "consumers" to "stewards" is somehow inevitable is a fallacy. The facet of this debate that the "environmentalism" concerns narcisstically fail to acknowledge is the earth's biosystem's ability to adapt to maintain equilibrium.
When temperatures increase, atmospheric water vapor concentrations increase blocking sunlight and resulting in temperature decreases: And when temperatures decrease, the reverse happens. This is not a "notion", it's a scientific fact which has been proven many, many times. The same goes with atmospheric concentrations of CO2...via several post volcanic eruption studies, most notably Pinatubo, the results of which were quantitatively equivalently reproduced in man controlled biosphere testing. The examples of our planet's biosystem's ability to self-correct are virtually unending, yet somehow, environmentalists inexplicably believe that within the scope of our presence within this understatedly immense biosystem, man's decision to burn a log in their fireplace will destroy the biosystem...ignoring the fact that since the beginning of recorded history, annually there has been a naturally occurring forest fire somewhere on the planet which emits more particulates and pollutants into the atmosphere than all the "manmade" fireplace fires ever lit by humans. Just last year...around ONE MILLION ACRES of forest land went up in flames JUST IN CALIFORNIA! Try to wrap your head around that while reconciling that most metropolitan regions within California now have laws against fires in fireplaces (including "clean air" woodstoves), with mandated "no burn" days...under the guise of environmental protection.
Why should man be incessantly, continuously mandated to reduce their quality of life expectations, often with NO THOUGHT given to the absurdity of the request ("...stop cigarette smoking to prevent air pollution..."), and worse, why should those making these absurd requests be "given a pass" and allowed to spew their nonsense without challenge?

I agree with you that there are reasons for embracing asceticism, but those reasons emanate from spiritual enlightment, not natural environment stewardship or to mask governmental negligence or "corporate greed" (human gluttany).

But you never answer these questions. Last time it was taxes.

Finding common ground is typically very helpful in understanding each other.

Thomas Friedman is a genius, BTW.

I've attempted to present my information in depth, with sources, over and over, yet seemingly my responses are greeted with less than intellectual replies such as rows of laughing emoticons and suggestions I'm "off meds". Why should I waste my time on people with closed minds, who fail to study issues, demonstrate a life ethos embracing mediocrity, and propose not mere disrespect of dissenting viewpoints, but a belief that dissenting views MUST be silenced?


BTW, Thomas Friedman is off his meds.

Well, okey dokey. I'm off for 18 holes and a couple beers. Have a great day!!

[OL FU]

25 year boom after a decade of stagflation.

Economic freedom after 50 years of government control


Freeing the American entrepeneur to create wealth and jobs and economic prosperity

Realizing that personal freedom requires economic freedom it does not exclude it.


yeah, he sucked Welcome, again, to the land of living small

[houndawg]

Why is it the liberals alway run under the shelter of conservation rather than seeking to improve or increase production?

A fundamental tool of business is to produce less product, provide less service, yet increase gross profit. It's THE fundamental model of late 20th century America business. If I can sell you a smaller car, that has half the power, uses half the energy, for the same price as a larger model, why not? If the oil companies can sell you one gallon of gas for the same price they sold you two gallons for in the 70's, they will.
Downsizing, conserving, simplifying are not philosophically wrong, but when economic or governmental conditions are generated forcing those conditions, principally to compensate for incompetent management or execute a marketing scheme, then the public has been duped.

The U.S. was not prepared to become energy independent in the 70's, for many reasons most of which were designed to protect energy market profit. Rather than tackling those conflicts, the CAFE standards were created to reduce consumer expectations under the guise of efficiency and environmental protection.

CO2 is not causing climate issues, pollution is not destroying the planet. These are just devices used to condition the public and prepare them for the next wave of expectation reduction.

And, BTW, energy independence is only a small portion of the cause of our economic collapse. The $4.00 spike last year was merely a "shove" under the upper fulcrum that expedited the collapse.

TMan, what is wrong with trying to conserve and preserve the planet?

It appears to me that you are considering this problem simply from a business and production perspective. What about impact of mankind on the planet? What kind of life are we leaving for our children and grand children? Businesses want to make a profit and they will take steps to do that without considering the impact of those steps on their employees, neighbors, or the future. Why is it wrong for the government (or someone) to try and make sure those things are considered? I would prefer that the government use incentives to encourage companies to conserve rather than setting limits but I don't want the government to do nothing.

It's much easier than confounding the issue with unknowns like the 9 billion people that will be sharing the planet in 2040.