Say Anything Blog

Because it’s not like the system of government that has made Americans the most prosperous, most free people on the face of the earth (the very system of government that allows twits like Ms. Maines to spout of[f] her ill-conceived opinions without fear of official repriasal) is worth being proud of or anything.

Just to get this straight… it’s the ‘government’ that allows for economic prosperity, not the economic system that is in place?  You do understand that communism is more of an economic philosophy than it is a governmental philosophy right?

This is quite the ‘what came first?’ type of situation.  Is it the government that creates an ecomomy or an economy that needs a government?  I think it is neither. 

By making the statement that you made you are confusing government and economy.  They are two equally separate functions of society.  They can co-exist, but they can also function separately without the need for the other.  Your statement says the contrary and I disagre.

Just to get this straight… it’s the ‘government’ that allows for economic prosperity, not the economic system that is in place? You do understand that communism is more of an economic philosophy than it is a governmental philosophy right?

Not sure what you’re arguing here.  I suspect, like most libertarians, you are arguing simply for the sake of arguing.  An annoying habit, and one that leads to most libertarians not being taken very seriously.

Economies can exist independent of government.  People still have needs even in anarchy, after all.  Our economy does not exist independent of government, however.  Our founding fathers (along with the various state governments) have long involved government with the economy.  The federal reserve, for example, along with the creation of currency and regulation of interstate commerce are examples of this.

Our system of government allows for (generally) free markets.  Other systems of governments (communism most notably) do not.  Our government “allows” for economic prosperity by “allowing” for a market relatively free of government controls and encumberance.  There is some regulation and control, of course (some of it necessary, most of it not), generally free none-the less.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Dave Miller: You are partly right.  With our demand economic system, the economic functioning takes place mainly at the individual level, with govt being in an overseeing function.  However, our social system, with its personal, religious and political freedom, is a big part of the success of our free enterprise economic system.  In truth, they cannot be separated without damage to all four freedoms, the fourth being economic freedom.  It’s not a “mix and match” type thing.  Some believe that to be true, but experience dictates otherwise.
By the same token, a command economic system requires heavy govt control at all levels, so all freedoms are either absent or curtailed.  The systems do interact, and necessarily so.

Just to clear things up so our resident economist (robert) doesn’t jump all over me…

I wasn’t saying that our government “creates” economic prosperity.  I was saying that our government “allows” it.  Meaning that our government doesn’t prohibit it as some governments do (see: communist/socialist regimes).

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

By the same token, a command economic system requires heavy govt control at all levels, so all freedoms are either absent or curtailed. The systems do interact, and necessarily so.

And this, in my eyes, is the current trend with our government.  A few examples… smoking bans, ban of wine sales across state lines via the internet, inevitable taxation of all items purchased on the internet, the FDA, the USDA.  Those quickly come to mind.

Not sure what you’re arguing here. I suspect, like most libertarians, you are arguing simply for the sake of arguing. An annoying habit, and one that leads to most libertarians not being taken very seriously.

Why this?  I did not disparage you in any way.  I simply countered your comments with a point of view trying to fuel a discussion… mostly because the economy and the monetary system have been on my radar as of late.  I did not directly defend the Dixie Chicks and I did make the comment for the sole purpose of taking a jab at your political persuasion.  All I wanted was a LITTLE DISCOURSE.  Thanks to robert108 I got that… from you I got partisan B.S.

By the same token, a command economic system requires heavy govt control at all levels, so all freedoms are either absent or curtailed. The systems do interact, and necessarily so.

And this, in my eyes, is the current trend with our government.  A few examples… smoking bans, ban of wine sales across state lines via the internet, inevitable taxation of all items purchased on the internet, the FDA, the USDA.  Those quickly come to mind.

Not sure what you’re arguing here. I suspect, like most libertarians, you are arguing simply for the sake of arguing. An annoying habit, and one that leads to most libertarians not being taken very seriously.

Why this?  I did not disparage you in any way.  I simply countered your comments with a point of view trying to fuel a discussion… mostly because the economy and the monetary system have been on my radar as of late.  I did not directly defend the Dixie Chicks and I did make the comment for the sole purpose of taking a jab at your political persuasion.  All I wanted was a LITTLE DISCOURSE.  Thanks to robert108 I got that… from you I got partisan B.S.

Sorry for the double post… slow loading going on here.  An impatient trigger fingure.

Why this? I did not disparage you in any way. I simply countered your comments with a point of view trying to fuel a discussion… mostly because the economy and the monetary system have been on my radar as of late. I did not directly defend the Dixie Chicks and I did make the comment for the sole purpose of taking a jab at your political persuasion. All I wanted was a LITTLE DISCOURSE. Thanks to robert108 I got that… from you I got partisan B.S.

Partisan?  I didn’t say anything about Democrats, Republicans or anything else.  Just pointing out the tendency of libertarians to be more interested in being contrarian than anything else.

And I offered discourse.  I responded to your point (if you had a point) by clarifying my meaning.

When you said this:

it’s the ‘government’ that allows for economic prosperity, not the economic system that is in place?

I took it that you were saying that my point was that the government creates economic prosperity.  That wasn’t my point at all.  The government does allow economic prosperity, and it does this by not overly encumbering the economy.

You are right when you say that we are trending away from this.  I stand by my previous statement regarding some government regulation being necessary, and I also stand by my statement that most of it is unnecessary and unduly burdensome.

I think we’re on the same page here, if you’d quit being so defensive and quick to find fault.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Honestly, you get bent out of shape over my comments...yet in the past you’ve been awfully quick to lump me in as a partisan hack.

Sorry if I came out a little blunt, but I find the whole “libertarian” schtick to be a little tiresome.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Or maybe I’m just crabby.  Not sure.

Anyway, no insult was intended Dave.  You and I disagree about some things, but I could probably be more tactful.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

"And this, in my eyes, is the current trend with our government.”

I agree, Dave Miller, and that is why I am so adamant about minimizing govt and govt interference, especially with the economy.  I don’t even like the jiggering of interest rates to control “inflationary trends”.  I think that keeping interest rates low has caused a shift of capital into real estate and away from regular business.  Residential real estate investment only has a first tier return, for the most part, whereas commercial real estate and regular business investments have a many-tiered effect.  Long-term, the last two are much better for the overall economy.  I think the argument needs to be won, which is why I am so relentless about “free people making free choices”. 
I must say, however, that it is ultimately up to us how much govt we want.  We need to regain more individual independence, IMO.

We’re all on the same page here.  Government involvement in the economy should be at a minimum, because government doesn’t create prosperity it allows it by not getting in the way.

It only took us...what...a dozen comments to agree?  Who says we on the right are a bunch of lock-step idealogues?

Though Dave will probably chafe at the thought of being lumped in with us stinky conservatives.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Gentlemen: This is a very interesting discussion on the role government has in a free economy and all, but it seems to deviate from the central point: Natalie Maines...dumb as a rock? Or merely aspiring to be??

Natalie Maines is being more than a little dishonest in her complaint.  Nobody is suggesting that she can’t be as “unpatriotic” as she cares to be.  No one has suggested that she should wave the flag, or stand up and salute when someone else does so.

Ms. Maines’ real complaint is that others, both performers and expecially fans, are exercising their disagreement and displeasure with her stand on issues, and voting with their dollars.  By all accounts, the Dixie Chicks current tour is an enormous flop, and it would seem that other country music artists are unwilling to come to the Chicks’ rescue.

In other words, Ms. Maines seems to think it is okay for her to spout off and express her own point of view, but it is not okay for others to hold her to account by doing the same.  Typical liberal hypocrisy.

On the economic issues - almost everything in this thread is pure BS. 

Check charts of the Federal and National debt since the Reagan “revolution”. Then check a chart of the Federal deficit over the same period.

ecm: Debt is only understood in the context of how much prosperity it generates.  By that standard, we manage debt here very well.  To think economically, you have to take both the cost and the benefit of any particular economic function into account.  Focusing on debt alone is BS thinking.

What’s pure BS is a post heralding some sort of purported grandiose truth… and no supporting citations to back it up.

If you expect to be taken seriously, you might wish to consider a less suspect approach.

Bat: It’s the old marxist wheeze that debt is absolutely bad because it exploits the workers…

Robert108,

It is indeed.  The problem with Marxist in gnereal, and marxist economics proponents in particular is that they are too doddered and too distracted by their own arrogance to recognize the young, sharp stake of capitalism protruding through their collective chest.

Speaking of the economy:

By Robert J. Samuelson
Newsweek
June 26, 2006 issue - If the Federal Reserve raises interest rates at the end of June, as seems probable, it will likely be criticized for making a fetish of inflation and, in the process, risking an American or global recession. There are already signs that the U.S. economy is slowing. Stock markets around the world have recently declined sharply. Why should the Fed make matters worse by nudging up rates even a tad? This is a sensible-sounding complaint. Based on what we now know, it’s also wrong.

As for Natalie, she’s set financially for life, most probably.  Some people refuse to Sig Heil but resist pressure and stand up for what they believe, no matter what it costs them.  Any of us should be as talented as Natalie Maines and her two backup singers.

Do you even know who the Dixie Chicks are?

Natalie should stick to singing.  When she says she doesn’t understand patriotism, she is right.  She doesn’t understand she is biting the hand that feeds her.  Without the gigantic American demand for her music, she is nothing.

There is more demand that Americans for her music, Robert108.

Do you even know who the Dixie Chicks are?

TwoHotel9 on June 18, 2006 at 5:22 PM

You mean Natalie and the sisters?  Oh sure, Boy.

Well, subtract her American sales and see how well she would be doing.  Really, she should move to France, if she doesn’t understand patriotism for her home country.  I know you don’t understand patriotism, either, btw.

I’m not ready to make nice
I’m not ready to back down
I’m still mad as hell and
I don’t have time to go round and round and round
It’s too late to make it right
I probably wouldn’t if I could
‘Cause I’m mad as hell
Can’t bring myself to do what it is you think I should

It’s nice to see someone in show business with a spine these days.

As far as the economy is concerned, static-state analysis is always wrong where the US economy is concerned, because privately-owned capital can simply move to where it is most profitable.  It’s that individual independence thing, you know?  Maybe you don’t.

Dixie Chicks: Spoiled brats getting too much attention.

Excuse me!  That should have been: “Ignorant spoiled brats...”

she should move to France, if she doesn’t understand patriotism for her home country. I know you don’t understand patriotism, either, btw.

No, Robert, you should move to France.  The reason you should move to France is because you are what we real patriots call a ‘faux patriot’...or ‘all hat and no cattle’.

You faux patriots think you have some claim on America but, of course, you do not.

However, I think you would be much happier sitting in a sidewalk cafe in Paris, expounding on everything as you always do, about nothing, sipping a latte.

Me, I’m staying here and protesting the war and Bush and trying my best to turn things around.  That may not be possible, since both parties are corrupt to the core like a rotten, worm-eaten apple, but at least I’ll know I did what I could, in my own one vote and one voice way.

As far as the economy is concerned, static-state analysis is always wrong where the US economy is concerned, because privately-owned capital can simply move to where it is most profitable. It’s that individual independence thing, you know? Maybe you don’t.

robert108 on June 18, 2006 at 5:28 PM

Tell it to Samuelson.  I’m sure you could convince him with your deeper understanding.  On the other hand, he’d probably slip you a dollar and tell you to be on your way. 

The only way to make money in this country is to use the same rules the rich ruling class has made to help themselves, whenever and wherever you can.

You are deeply ignorant.  You have no idea what you are talking about.  Your defeatist mentality is the opposite of patriotism, and has been from your first appearance on this blog.  At least you’re consistent.

That goes for your ideas about economics, as well.

You are deeply ignorant. You have no idea what you are talking about. Your defeatist mentality is the opposite of patriotism, and has been from your first appearance on this blog. At least you’re consistent.

More ‘rightie’ insults.  I’m the pariot, you’re the BushWhacked faux patriot.  You wouldn’t know the difference if it bit you.

***********

robert108 on June 18, 2006 at 5:35 PM That goes for your ideas about economics, as well.

robert108 on June 18, 2006 at 5:36 PM

If you mean the article in Newsweek by Samuelson, they were his ideas, not mine.  He doesn’t even know me.

As for Nat and the actual Talent, their ticket sales are well below projected levels, and their new album is no better. Their label shipped alot of discs, the sales are very low. Come the end of this month you will see it in discount bins at a K-mart near you. On the other hand, Gnarls Barkley, St. Elsewhere is selling faster than they can print it. Go figure. And while figuring give it a listen, I’m hooked.

Re: Their album sales:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060531/nyw075.html?.v=52

Any weakness of concert tickets may be due to the fact that alot of sane patriotic Americans could be afraid some BushWhacked faux patriot gun-lover may show up at their concert and start blowing people away (they have had death threats).

It keeps saying it is leaving, and then it does not. Must not be welcome anywhere else.

And we do understand you are a"super-patriot" for Wahabism. You make that clear every time you comment here.

Oh, yea. I always get my news from yahoo.

Boy, do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Their label shipped alot of discs, the sales are very low.

Dixie Chicks New Album, Taking The Long Way, Debuts At #1 On Billboard Top 200
Wednesday May 31, 8:45 am ET
Dixie Chicks Become First Female Group Ever To Have Three Albums Debut In Top Slot
On Sales Dates For Dixie Chicks “Accidents & Accusations Tour” Announced

NEW YORK, May 31 /PRNewswire/—As Taking The Long Way debuts at #1 on the Billboard Top 200 best-selling albums chart this week, with first week’s sales of 525,829, the Dixie Chicks have become the first female group in chart history to have three albums debut at #1, breaking the record the Chicks established in 2002 when the group’s last studio album, Home, debuted at #1 and made them the first female group ever to have two albums debut at #1.

******

I’m admitting a mis-spelling:

‘Pariot’ should have been ‘patriot’.

No trouble admitting misspellings.

Boy- lots of bile being tossed around here today. Sorry I came late to the party!

As regards the Dixie Chicks- everyone’s entitled to their opinions- Natalie Maines being no different than anyone else. But while in one breath she espouses this freedom, then denigrates those of us who disagree with her, well, how ignorant is that? All the talent in the world won’t save her, I’m afraid. I must say I enjoyed their music before she felt she had to speak her mind. But now that I know how she feels about our country, I’ll have nothing to do with them. Isn’t that my right to choose? And to voice my opinion, as she did? What exactly is the argument here? And what does all this name-calling get us?

Oops- gotta go light the grill. God bless America!

And you will list their actual number sold, when? Shipping is not the same as selling. Oh, and by the way, when did you buy it?

Oh, yea. I always get my news from yahoo.
.....Boy, Good Little NeoCon

I doubt you ever read Forbes either:

http://www.forbes.com/technology/ feeds/ap/2006/05/31/ap2785095.html

The Dixie Chicks appear to be more popular than the president these days. President Bush’s approval rating has plummeted, but the Chicks are on top of the pop and country charts with their first album since publicly criticizing Bush three years ago.

For the year, the Chicks’ first-week showing is behind only Rascal Flatts’ “Me and My Gang” (722,000 units), according to Wade Jessen, director of Billboard’s country charts.

Jessen said the strong sales figures may show that hardcore country fans are not as bothered by the controversy as many in the music industry thought, or simply that the group is attracting a broader audience.

And you will list their actual number sold, when?

Already did:

with first week’s sales of 525,829, the Dixie Chicks have become the first female group in chart history to have three albums debut at #1

********

I’m not buying music.  I’ll borrow yours.

The Dixie Chicks appear to be more popular than the president these days. President Bush’s approval rating has plummeted, but the Chicks are on top of the pop and country charts with their first album since publicly criticizing Bush three years ago.

But how many divisions do the Dixie Chicks have?

But how many divisions do the Dixie Chicks have?

?

Josef Stalin, the Pope, Dixie Chicks,.....awww, forget it....

That’s okay, GO’B...some of us got it!

Actually, according to the LA Times, the problem is that while people like their music, it’s the Dixie Chicks themselves that aren’t being well received.

After declaring themselves “Not Ready to Make Nice” with fans and radio programmers who had criticized the Dixie Chicks for a jab at President Bush on the eve of the war in Iraq, the controversial trio may be paying the price at the concert box office.

Early sales of tickets have been so slow in several cities on the group’s imminent Accidents & Accusations tour that the tour is being significantly revamped, resulting in the cancellation of some shows and the addition of others…

Initial sales for Chicks shows in more than 20 markets, most in 10,000- to 20,000-capacity sports arenas, are averaging 5,000 to 6,000 in major metropolitan areas and fewer in smaller markets, according to Billboard…

“The Chicks will tell you they’re not a country act, and it appears that not a lot of country fans are lining up to buy tickets to this show,” (Billboard’s Ray) Waddell said. “If the sales were based only on quality of this record and the quality of the Dixie Chicks as performers, it should be a no-brainer home run. It’s too bad there’s other baggage associated with it.”

Yeah… other baggage.  Natalie Maines has every right to say whatever she thinks, just as her former fans have every right not to spend their money to go see anymore of her.  End of story.  She’s got nothing to complain about… and no one to blame but herself.

Yeah, poor Dixie Chicks.  They’re crying all the way to the bank.  And able to look in the mirror as well.

able to look in the mirror as well.
I don’t know...have you seen Natalie Maines recently? She either looks very, very anger or like she’s going for the heroin chic look!

And Gnarls Barkley sold 945,000 in the same period. What exactly is your point, stupid?

I figured that their album would sell well for the first 3-4 weeks as those on the left will run out and get it as a show of solidarity. Also if you check out the prices on Amazon and Barnes and Noble, this disc is selling at a vastly lower price than just a lot of the competition at under $9.00. Going out and purchasing $65-$85 tickets for a concert are a whole other proposition especially for those not committed to the actual artists or the genre (or lack there of if you read the reviews...it’s having a hard time on radio because it’s hard ro figure out how to classify the music on this release).

I think that the slow ticket sales are far more about the recent cracks she’s made at country music and it’s fans...who wants to line the pockets of someone who has professed to not want their money? There are a lot more people put off by that than the stupid London Incident. The Chicks (particularly Nat) are reveling in their status of being a victim and now they seem to be taking swipes at people to continue the status quo.

What’s interesting if if you look around on the internet and get the story of the Chicks’ past you’ll see that the sisters sold their soul to hit the big time regardless...so it’s hard to know if they truly believe anything they say at all or if it’s all to stay in the spotlight....