First of all, the portion of the world that is "Booming" is doing so by following the wide, clear beaten path...the path cleared and beaten by the United States above and beyond all else. China, India, and many other nations which are still fundamentally POOR overall by any measure are experiencing substantially higher growth rates than the entire industrialized world, but this is a factor of finally playing catchup with the rest of the world, not one of them outdoing us. And let's also not ignore the fact that each and every one of those countries stellar growth rates is highly dependent upon the continuing (yes continuing) steady growth in THIS country. That is why this is still the country people are clamoring to break into for hope and opportunity.

We have freer markets than most, but that is not to say that we would not benefit tremendously from getting the government even more out of the business of putting its finger on the market scales.

I had a discussion once with a coworker which led me to conclude that the one of the most fundamental distinctions in perception among the left and the right regards markets. Liberals point to the existence of poverty as proof in their minds that markets are inherently capricious and unfair, needing "fixing" by government. Conservatives on the otherhand view the existence of poverty as affirming the proper functioning of markets in the overwhelming majority of instances, that poverty is the equitable results of markets functioning properly.

I am in the later group for the very reasons indicated earlier, there are three choices (four if you include substance abuse) that are 99.99999999999999999999% within the absolute control of the individual which can all but assure they will not live in poverty in this country (again: no children out of wedlock, no wedlock before graduating highschool, and graduate highschool). Poverty among people who make these choices is virtually non-existant in this country.

Do people who have failed to make these choices have my pity? Absolutely, I wish people would not make foolish choices in their lives, especially given the tremendous level of opportunity in this country (evidenced by the fact that people risk their lives to come here illegally). But what I do not believe is that any public policy should be crafted to minimize the cost to individuals of their individual choices in life. And I hold this belief with regard to ALL aspects of government. I am actually one of the rare conservatives who does not believe in "child tax credits". Having children should be treated as the most important decisions and committments people make in their lives, and like any other choice people make, they should be prepared to pay the price of that choice.

I do not believe that people should be bailed out of poverty which is overwhelmingly the result of their choices any more than I think that people who make bad investment decisions should be made whole by government.

Unfortunately government tends to do just the opposite of what it should. Politicians are rewarded for helping people to impose the cost of their personal choices onto other citizens, while concentrating benefits to the few. It should be just the opposite, government most definitely has a role in making sure that those who reap the benefits of an activity also bear the burden of the costs of those activities (in this regard I actually support taxes based on polluting activities...so long as these are set at a level designed to properly apportion the actual external costs back onto the polluters rather than to affirmatively control the behavoir itself).


Business exists to benefit those who invest in it. That business also creates jobs and benefits to the workers and consumers is what economists refer to as an "external" benefit (just like if I hire a landscaper to beautify my yard, while it may impact positively property values on the street as a whole, that was hardly my intention and purpose).

This country provides the opportunity for a free education through high school. That is the only one of the three prerequistes for virtually guaranteeing you will not live in poverty. Even our worst public high schools (oddly enouhg located in areas overwhelmingly controlled by politicians who believe in the "right" to everything under the sun) will help you avoid poverty if you actually graduate.

What I will agree with you on vis-a-vis difference in ideology is the notion of what constitutes a "right".

A Right--in my view--is something we are endowed with by God. A Right is something that can be absolutely exercised by any individual without support by any other person. I think that the U.S. Declaration of Independence (written by people who understood the power and significance of words, both in their selection, and usage) lays it out as perfectly as it ever has:

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are SECURED by government not provided by the government. My exercise of an actual right should not be at the expense of another. The minute something requires taking from another, than it is no longer a "right".

Think of it this way, if you were alone on a desert island, you would still be endowed by your creator with those rights, but whether you live or are happy depends entirely upon your own actions. Liberty is not an issue in such a situation because there is nobody to deny you Liberty. Goverment's only legitimate function vis-a-vis our rights is to protect them from intrusion by others (including government), but it does not--by definition--have any role in providing you with the means to exercise them.

This view of the nature of a "Right" is--as indicated earlier--fully supported by the text of the Bill of Rights, where in every instance the language makes absolutely clear that the rights are not being granted or created by the government, but merely recognized by (indicating that the Rights are presupposed to exist).

And traditionally the only one of those rights which has every been treated as creating an affirmative obligation on the part of society to provide for (and even that was not the case originally) was the right to counsel (historically the right to have an attorney provided to you is a relatively recent development and was not understood to be an obligation on the part of the government in criminal prosecutions).

So in each and every instance where a Right is recognized, it neither requires or mandates anything to be provided by society in order to exercise it (you have freedom of the press in this country, but that doesn't mean government is obligated to supply the press and ink). I have a right to keep and bear arms, but the government doesn't have to buy me the gun, etc., etc.

Government shouldn't be spending ANY money on research and development beyond that which is aimed and practical application supporting one of the enumerated roles of said government. All other research and development should be driven by the market place.

Education, we probably spend way more than we need to on education in this country. Across the nation, it is the often jurisdictions with the highest per pupil spending that are the worst in terms of their overall quality. And where higher education is concerned, far too many people in this country go to college, resulting in a huge financial cost and "degree inflation".

Unfortunately, a Bachelor's degree has become what a high school diploma used to be, a prima facie indication to prospective employeers of a certain base level of knowledge, competence, capacity, and dedication on the part of prospective employeers, beyond that the particularized knowledge provided by that degree is utterly useless and irrelevant to the persons ability to perform that job they are being hired for.

The place where I work, will not even consider someone without a bachelor's degree for administrative positions (what used to be called secretarial). Well, I am sorry, but there is absolutely nothing about these jobs which requires a college education. These are the people who answer the phones, proofread for grammer, do filing, etc. The only skills required that are not part of centuries of what used to be basic highschool level knowledge is proficiency with basic software packages (Word, Excel, Powerpoint), which hardly require a college degree to master and would traditionally have been the goal of vocational education (even though these are also routinely covered in many highschools today).

Finally, I already adressed the idea that the world economy is now less dependent on us then we are on it. Which do you honestly think is more likely that the U.S. going into a deep recession would hurt China, or China going into a deep recession would hurt the U.S.?

I will say this, I don't think that the long-term success of the United States economically compared to most of the rest of the world is some mystical, pre-ordained outcome because we are the United States. I believe it is the result of our economic system, relatively free markets, in the context of a politically free society. If we further abandon these values and systems, we can and will go down the tubes. Likewise, other nations are hindered by poor choices in economic policy, and propelled by good ones. What is striking about the global boom that you refer to, is that it is being caused by the fact that those countries have moved towards our notion of lower taxes, lower regulation, etc. etc.. Look at one of the single greatest success stories of the last 20 years, Ireland, they have economic policies that are quite frankly better than ours, and it has resulted in that nation's dramatic rise in the rankings of OECD countries. Country after country is beginning to implement lower tax rates, deregulation of industry, and so on. They are seeing the benefits of becoming more like us, while some in our country seem determined to make us more the way these countries used to be.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane