Limbaugh passed away

[Brooklyn]

I remember listening to Limpballs shows when he discussed the tobacco cases. Recall that juries made multi million awards to claimants who suffered illness from tobacco use, esp at the time when the industry was not regulated. Limpballs argued that regulation was not necessary and that the awards were excessive as people should be free to indulge in whatever activity they wanted to do without government interference. Many Republican appellate courts overturned those awards even though the Constitution gives such a prerogative to juries as per Amendment 7:



In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law



wiki analysis: The Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. This amendment codifies the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases and inhibits courts from overturning a jury's findings of fact.

Somehow these Republican appellate judges (in their wicked little minds) were miraculously able to ascertain the extent of injuries even though they were not in a court examining the demeanor of aggrieved claimants. Rush applauded all this. I wonder how he feels about it all now that he has a bird's eye view from his perch in Hell.

[a fan]

The damage began in the '90's with NAFTA & granting most favored nation status to China.

No. The damage began with Reagan tax cuts and the first attempt at Trickle down Economics. Then union busting. Then Corporate Tax breaks with the idiotic idea that they"ll "make up the taxes somewhere else".

Then, yes, NAFTA, further corporate tax cuts, and even more attempts at Trickle down.

You see things only in extremes. It need not be as radical as Bernie.

Bernie is about 10 steps to the right of the EU and Japan, my man.

Asking for the US to move to the EU and Japan is MUCH more extreme than any piddly ideas from Bernie. The entire 1st world moved slowly---as you are suggesting that we do---to the left over the last 40 years in terms of coherent economic programs for the working class.

America kept moving to the right. Laughably so. Sadly so. Any move to correct this absurd move to the right will be viewed by FoxNation as a radical change.

Which is why Rural America and TrumpBase is royally F'ed. And why all my Coastal elite lib friends will eventually give up trying to help them, and just enjoy all the money Republicans (and corporate Dems) are throwing at them.....

[old salt]

The Chinese are kicking our ass because they've combined totalitarian governance with state controlled industry.

Hmmm, when the USSR combined totalitarian governance with state-controlled industries, there were endless lines for food while the only Russian manufactured goods exported outside of the Eastern bloc were weapons.

The Chinese effectively adapted the capitalist model with state control. The Soviets never tried.

[holmes435]

The Chinese are kicking our ass because they've combined totalitarian governance with state controlled industry.

Hmmm, when the USSR combined totalitarian governance with state-controlled industries, there were endless lines for food while the only Russian manufactured goods exported outside of the Eastern bloc were weapons.

The Chinese effectively adapted the capitalist model with state control. The Soviets never tried.

Eh, they did try, with some success, but the Russians truly succeeded.

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/rush-limba ... 1613692155

Very well written and spot on by Ms Noonan. I can't find many flaws in what she says having known him for decades. The most salient point she makes is that conservatives had become pretty good at winning the white house. They were never very good at espousing conservative principles over the airwaves. Now I understand why I stopped listening to his show many years ago. He was a relic of the good ole boy network. He did know his audience and what they wanted to hear. When his show stopped being just about humor and entertaining and switched to hardcore conservative elitism, it was no fun to listen to anymore. I prefer to read Mr a Fan opine about the republicans, he understands who they are, hell who both sides really are.

[ardilla secreta]

The Chinese are kicking our ass because they've combined totalitarian governance with state controlled industry.

Hmmm, when the USSR combined totalitarian governance with state-controlled industries, there were endless lines for food while the only Russian manufactured goods exported outside of the Eastern bloc were weapons.

and caviar. Then after perestroika they pretty much gutted every sturgeon they could get their hands on. Proper beluga caviar is from around 21 yo sturgeon. Ossetia from 14, sevruga from 7. Corrupt harvesters don’t care. Now the quality is questionable and prices exorbitant.

[MDlaxfan76]

The Chinese are kicking our ass because they've combined totalitarian governance with state controlled industry.

Hmmm, when the USSR combined totalitarian governance with state-controlled industries, there were endless lines for food while the only Russian manufactured goods exported outside of the Eastern bloc were weapons.

The Chinese effectively adapted the capitalist model with state control. The Soviets never tried.

The Soviets actually went all in for state-control of industry, basically all means of production. Yes, totalitarian governance, with only the elite being adequately fed, warm houses, etc. Failed strategy.

After a period of 'Wild West' lack of governance, Putin has restored much of the totalitarianism, secret police etc, with a full scale kleptocracy of 'capitalist' industry. No concern about the people's actual welfare, simply a return of Russian "nationalism" to appeal to the populist Russian soul. Failing system, especially as the world moves to less oil dependence.

The Chinese, with quite a few hiccups, have developed a model of totalitarian control with a semblance of individual freedoms to pursue personal advancement economically, channeled by government priorities. They have recognized the principle that government only survives if it is accepted as legitimate via the consent of the governed. At their core, they know that the government's continued power is dependent upon their people's progress economically. Of course, they also know that they can influence that consent through the control of information and access to economic success. And they brook no dissent, seeing such as existentially challenging their unitary control. So they suppress, "re-educate", isolate any such dissent.

Yet they have embraced capitalism, but with a long term view of state defined priorities and a tight hand on the major control levers. This long term state control enables swift, massive actions first to build massive, export capabilities using a combination of almost limitless worker capacities with a ruthless focus on engineering processes, indeed engineered to out produce at lower cost all international competitors. (And with state driven or at least sanctioned IP "theft" as needed to accelerate this process). And rapidly and productively increasing worker productivity in a full employment priority economy. And now transforming their economy from export dependent to domestic consumer powered, both for strategic economic security but also in recognition that continued high economic growth needs to drive consumer success with a burgeoning middle class to which all can aspire and actually achieve. They have recognized that their tiny family farm prior reality needed to be replaced with industrial style food production and they have enticed and in many cases forced the people to move to enormous brand new cities, with free housing and guaranteed employment.

They have massively invested in education, again ruthlessly engineered to channel human capital towards state objectives for more STEM capabilities, with a continued culture of "building things" rapidly at low cost. This has also resulted in both tremendous entrepreneurial activity, encouraged by the state (up to a point), but also excess engineering capacity...recognizing the need for raw materials beyond their own massive resources, they are exporting their well trained people to Africa and elsewhere to build railroads, electric plants, ports, etc in exchange for access to rare earths and other rare materials, and rights to port access.

I could go on and on about how they are making decisions based on long term objectives, and with the ability to move swiftly and massively in support of those objectives. The key, though, is that this is all based on their view that the economic growth progress is essential to maintaining the consent of the governed, the maintenance of unitary power...the priority is the unitary power at all times.

Another 'dissertation' would be on the strategic weaknesses of their approach and how we might best compete with them going forward, recognizing our own strategic strengths and weaknesses. But it's definitely not through 'protectionism' and 'anti-globalism' as that approach will just cede the world to Chinese economic dominance.

[FannOLax]

...
...
Another 'dissertation' would be on the strategic weaknesses of their approach and how we might best compete with them going forward, recognizing our own strategic strengths and weaknesses. But it's definitely not through 'protectionism' and 'anti-globalism' as that approach will just cede the world to Chinese economic dominance.

Interesting analysis, MDlaxfan76. I agree that protectionism, anti-globalism and populism are definitely not the answer. I also note that state-owned means of production is the very definition of socialism (a term that gets used vaguely and darkly by reich-wing acolytes of Limbaugh), which would seem to mean that a blend of socialism and capitalism can be successful. The pitfalls of "pure" unregulated capitalism were on display in England during the early Industrial Revolution, when the working class had 72-hour work weeks and child labour was common.

[MDlaxfan76]

...
...
Another 'dissertation' would be on the strategic weaknesses of their approach and how we might best compete with them going forward, recognizing our own strategic strengths and weaknesses. But it's definitely not through 'protectionism' and 'anti-globalism' as that approach will just cede the world to Chinese economic dominance.

Interesting analysis, MDlaxfan76. I agree that protectionism, anti-globalism and populism are definitely not the answer. I also note that state-owned means of production is the very definition of socialism (a term that gets used vaguely and darkly by reich-wing acolytes of Limbaugh), which would seem to mean that a blend of socialism and capitalism can be successful. The pitfalls of "pure" unregulated capitalism were on display in England during the early Industrial Revolution, when the working class had 72-hour work weeks and child labour was common.

Yes, "populism" is also a path to failure, especially if paired with "nativism" and "nationalism" (or "anti-globalism").

Instead we should be looking at the strategic advantages of our system of freedoms and rule of law and doubling down on those advantages, while also recognizing that we have weaknesses due to our hyper-short term focus which we should better address.

But one of our own challenges is maintaining the "consent of the governed", something that appears to be far more fragile than perhaps we realized. When there's a a vast media propaganda machine devoted to undermining such consent even through gross disinformation, coupled with decades of neglect to ensuring the advancement of the bulk of the populace economically, we have some very real vulnerabilities.

[old salt]

...
...
Another 'dissertation' would be on the strategic weaknesses of their approach and how we might best compete with them going forward, recognizing our own strategic strengths and weaknesses. But it's definitely not through 'protectionism' and 'anti-globalism' as that approach will just cede the world to Chinese economic dominance.

Interesting analysis, MDlaxfan76. I agree that protectionism, anti-globalism and populism are definitely not the answer. I also note that state-owned means of production is the very definition of socialism (a term that gets used vaguely and darkly by reich-wing acolytes of Limbaugh), which would seem to mean that a blend of socialism and capitalism can be successful. The pitfalls of "pure" unregulated capitalism were on display in England during the early Industrial Revolution, when the working class had 72-hour work weeks and child labour was common.

Yes, "populism" is also a path to failure, especially if paired with "nativism" and "nationalism" (or "anti-globalism").

Instead we should be looking at the strategic advantages of our system of freedoms and rule of law and doubling down on those advantages, while also recognizing that we have weaknesses due to our hyper-short term focus which we should better address.

But one of our own challenges is maintaining the "consent of the governed", something that appears to be far more fragile than perhaps we realized. When there's a a vast media propaganda machine devoted to undermining such consent even through gross disinformation, coupled with decades of neglect to ensuring the advancement of the bulk of the populace economically, we have some very real vulnerabilities.

We made it too easy for China to take advantage of us.

[Typical Lax Dad]

...
...
Another 'dissertation' would be on the strategic weaknesses of their approach and how we might best compete with them going forward, recognizing our own strategic strengths and weaknesses. But it's definitely not through 'protectionism' and 'anti-globalism' as that approach will just cede the world to Chinese economic dominance.

Interesting analysis, MDlaxfan76. I agree that protectionism, anti-globalism and populism are definitely not the answer. I also note that state-owned means of production is the very definition of socialism (a term that gets used vaguely and darkly by reich-wing acolytes of Limbaugh), which would seem to mean that a blend of socialism and capitalism can be successful. The pitfalls of "pure" unregulated capitalism were on display in England during the early Industrial Revolution, when the working class had 72-hour work weeks and child labour was common.

Yes, "populism" is also a path to failure, especially if paired with "nativism" and "nationalism" (or "anti-globalism").

Instead we should be looking at the strategic advantages of our system of freedoms and rule of law and doubling down on those advantages, while also recognizing that we have weaknesses due to our hyper-short term focus which we should better address.

But one of our own challenges is maintaining the "consent of the governed", something that appears to be far more fragile than perhaps we realized. When there's a a vast media propaganda machine devoted to undermining such consent even through gross disinformation, coupled with decades of neglect to ensuring the advancement of the bulk of the populace economically, we have some very real vulnerabilities.

We made it too easy for China to take advantage of us.

Who are the “we”?

[MDlaxfan76]

...
...
Another 'dissertation' would be on the strategic weaknesses of their approach and how we might best compete with them going forward, recognizing our own strategic strengths and weaknesses. But it's definitely not through 'protectionism' and 'anti-globalism' as that approach will just cede the world to Chinese economic dominance.

Interesting analysis, MDlaxfan76. I agree that protectionism, anti-globalism and populism are definitely not the answer. I also note that state-owned means of production is the very definition of socialism (a term that gets used vaguely and darkly by reich-wing acolytes of Limbaugh), which would seem to mean that a blend of socialism and capitalism can be successful. The pitfalls of "pure" unregulated capitalism were on display in England during the early Industrial Revolution, when the working class had 72-hour work weeks and child labour was common.

Yes, "populism" is also a path to failure, especially if paired with "nativism" and "nationalism" (or "anti-globalism").

Instead we should be looking at the strategic advantages of our system of freedoms and rule of law and doubling down on those advantages, while also recognizing that we have weaknesses due to our hyper-short term focus which we should better address.

But one of our own challenges is maintaining the "consent of the governed", something that appears to be far more fragile than perhaps we realized. When there's a a vast media propaganda machine devoted to undermining such consent even through gross disinformation, coupled with decades of neglect to ensuring the advancement of the bulk of the populace economically, we have some very real vulnerabilities.

We made it too easy for China.

Maybe, but protectionism was never the answer...and I'd argue that we still haven't gotten off our butts to recognize what we need to do to actually compete over the long haul. We p-ss and moan about 'woe is me, china's eating our lunch', but we haven't gotten nearly as serious as they have been at improving human capital and marshaling resources to compete in the industries of the future.

We actually DO have strategic advantages but we continue to squander them. And yeah, the last 4 years have set us way, way back...will this new administration recognize and be able to 'sell' the American public on what those advantages are and what it will take to 'win' the next 50 years?

Sure hope so. But I dunno.

What I do know is that the MAGA crowd had this entirely backwards and they haven't gone away...

[old salt]

Are Japan & the EU protectionist ? If yes, too much so ?

[a fan]

Are Japan & the EU protectionist ? If yes, too much so ?

By comparison to the US? Yes. Very much so.

[MDlaxfan76]

Are Japan & the EU protectionist ? If yes, too much so ?

By comparison to the US? Yes. Very much so.

Agreed. There are only a few justifications for any protectionism and the EU and Japan go too far with it.

[a fan]

Are Japan & the EU protectionist ? If yes, too much so ?

By comparison to the US? Yes. Very much so.

Agreed. There are only a few justifications for any protectionism and the EU and Japan go too far with it.

Most people think "taxes" when they think of protectionism. Taxation is just one piece of that protectionist puzzle.

In the EU/Japan, workers show up at their place of work with full medical bennies, and their training/education partially/totally paid in full.

THAT is just the start of their protectionism.

Then there's all the GI's for their foods. Things like protected designation of origin (PDO), protected geographical indication (PGI), and traditional specialities guaranteed (TSG). American legislators give our protections away to multinationals like candy. So you can do lovely things like take Chinese Apple Concentrate, repack it in America...and voila! American Apple Juice!

We're so, so, so far behind the EU and Japan for many, many protections of our workers and our products. Sold out by both parties of US Congressmen who don't give a *hit about anything but getting elected.

You don't realize how bad the sell out has been until you get an insider's look...

[old salt]

Are Japan & the EU protectionist ? If yes, too much so ?

By comparison to the US? Yes. Very much so.

Agreed. There are only a few justifications for any protectionism and the EU and Japan go too far with it.

Most people think "taxes" when they think of protectionism. Taxation is just one piece of that protectionist puzzle.

In the EU/Japan, workers show up at their place of work with full medical bennies, and their training/education partially/totally paid in full.

THAT is just the start of their protectionism.

Then there's all the GI's for their foods. Things like protected designation of origin (PDO), protected geographical indication (PGI), and traditional specialities guaranteed (TSG). American legislators give our protections away to multinationals like candy. So you can do lovely things like take Chinese Apple Concentrate, repack it in America...and voila! American Apple Juice!

We're so, so, so far behind the EU and Japan for many, many protections of our workers and our products. Sold out by both parties of US Congressmen who don't give a *hit about anything but getting elected.

You don't realize how bad the sell out has been until you get an insider's look...

Oh I realize how bad the sell out was. I recall living in Japan in the '70's & Europe in the '80's & trying to buy a car, refrigerator, washer/dryer or any manufactured item. Thank goodness we could buy American in the BX, then sell at a profit to our landlord at the end of our tour of duty. We could buy a US spec European made vehicle (Saab was a favorite) at a decent price, if it included shipping it back to the US before selling it.
In Japan, I recall a gift wrapped single big red juicy Wash state apple costing the equiv of $5 in the Ginza, when I could buy a dozen of them at the commissary for the price of one on the local economy. I bought VAT free, US spec -- a BSA 650 in London in '70, then a Honda Gold Wing at the BX in Subic Bay in '77, toured on them, then shipped them home at 40% off what I would have paid a US dealer.

Thanks for making my case. You two can't agree.
Do the EU & Japan take protectionism too far, or do we not take it far enough ?

[DMac]

Nice. Thanks for your service.

[a fan]

Thanks for making my case. You two can't agree.

Not true. I didn't say one way or another that Japan or EU did or didn't go too far.

What I did say, and will say again, is that if Biden or the Dems so much as try and protect the working class-----FoxNation will (laughbly) lose their collective minds.

These voters have bought FoxNation's trickle down nonsense. Nothing will change their minds. I'm convinced these people are so far gone that you could yank all the borrowed Federal Trillions pumping through their neighborhoods, and they'd STILL blame "someone else" for why their GED can't get them a six figure job. They're gone. Bye bye. Seeya later.

Case in point----look at Tucker and FoxNation laughably blaming the Green New Deal (that never happened) for why uber-Republican Texas infrastructure failed. Oh yeah, it's AOC's fault. Makes total sense.


As for "has the EU gone too far" in terms of protectionism? Irrelevant. We'd have to go further than Bernie and AOC's wildest dreams, and we'd STILL be less protectionist than the EU and Japan. Again, it's not even a close call.

[old salt]

As for "has the EU gone too far" in terms of protectionism? Irrelevant. We'd have to go further than Bernie and AOC's wildest dreams, and we'd STILL be less protectionist than the EU and Japan. Again, it's not even a close call.

So maybe Trump's tariffs weren't really all that protectionist, at least compared to EU/Japan multi-faceted protectionism.