Comments on: Let Us Rally to Protect the Delicate Flower of Rugged Individualism! http://crookedtimber.org/2009/03/11/let-us-rally-to-protect-the-delicate-flower-of-rugged-individualism/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:59:58 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: John http://crookedtimber.org/2009/03/11/let-us-rally-to-protect-the-delicate-flower-of-rugged-individualism/comment-page-1/#comment-269190 John Sat, 14 Mar 2009 22:13:53 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9962#comment-269190 No societies are perfect and at the end of the day you have to use as the yardstick the greatest happiness of the greatest number. You can't base your opinion on the wealthiest 1% of a country any more than the poorest 20%. I've lived and worked in four countries:US, France, Britain, Germany and soldiered in a couple of others. If I had to nominate which of these had the best combination of lifestyle and a society that worked fairly well I would unerringly choose France with probably the Brits as second because it's a nice lifestyle and they take themselves least seriously of any society I've known. I'm afraid our problem in the US is that we are the prisoner of all kinds of urban myths and misinformation much of it peddled for some political purpose or other. How anyone can talk about "small govt" with a straight face when the combined federal and state budgets of this country, even before the recent stimulus, totaled around $4.5 trillion is a mystery. This is several times larger than the govt spending of any other sovereign state in the world. And much of it is grossly inefficient. About 54% of national expenditure on healthcare, where we are as is widely acknowledged spending at twice the rate of our peer group, comes from govt. Our defense expenditures, greater than the rest of the world combined, are riddled with cost over runs and boondoggles. In short the small govt cow left the barn long ago. The challenge as we enter a period of relative decline over the next 50 years is manage this whole process more efficiently and that means getting rid of the urban myths and misinformation with which this original piece and many postings are riddled. I actually think this is Obama's great challenge: to educate the country in reality. No societies are perfect and at the end of the day you have to use as the yardstick the greatest happiness of the greatest number. You can’t base your opinion on the wealthiest 1% of a country any more than the poorest 20%. I’ve lived and worked in four countries:US, France, Britain, Germany and soldiered in a couple of others. If I had to nominate which of these had the best combination of lifestyle and a society that worked fairly well I would unerringly choose France with probably the Brits as second because it’s a nice lifestyle and they take themselves least seriously of any society I’ve known. I’m afraid our problem in the US is that we are the prisoner of all kinds of urban myths and misinformation much of it peddled for some political purpose or other. How anyone can talk about “small govt” with a straight face when the combined federal and state budgets of this country, even before the recent stimulus, totaled around $4.5 trillion is a mystery. This is several times larger than the govt spending of any other sovereign state in the world. And much of it is grossly inefficient. About 54% of national expenditure on healthcare, where we are as is widely acknowledged spending at twice the rate of our peer group, comes from govt. Our defense expenditures, greater than the rest of the world combined, are riddled with cost over runs and boondoggles. In short the small govt cow left the barn long ago. The challenge as we enter a period of relative decline over the next 50 years is manage this whole process more efficiently and that means getting rid of the urban myths and misinformation with which this original piece and many postings are riddled. I actually think this is Obama’s great challenge: to educate the country in reality.

]]> By: someguy http://crookedtimber.org/2009/03/11/let-us-rally-to-protect-the-delicate-flower-of-rugged-individualism/comment-page-1/#comment-269131 someguy Sat, 14 Mar 2009 01:16:31 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9962#comment-269131 mds, The should also go here http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/07/democrats-proud.html Money quote about the ME plans you are referring to "That could be written more clearly but what they are saying is that Medicare pays HMOs 10 percent more than they would pay for an enrollee in traditional Medicare but the HMOs offer the enrollee 13 percent more worth of extra benefits and rebates. In other words, the HMOs pass on to the enrollee all of Medicare's "extra payments" plus some. (Note that this is exactly what one would expect in a competitive market.)" mds,

The should also go here

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/07/democrats-proud.html

Money quote about the ME plans you are referring to

“That could be written more clearly but what they are saying is that Medicare pays HMOs 10 percent more than they would pay for an enrollee in traditional Medicare but the HMOs offer the enrollee 13 percent more worth of extra benefits and rebates. In other words, the HMOs pass on to the enrollee all of Medicare’s “extra payments” plus some. (Note that this is exactly what one would expect in a competitive market.)”

]]> By: mds http://crookedtimber.org/2009/03/11/let-us-rally-to-protect-the-delicate-flower-of-rugged-individualism/comment-page-1/#comment-269086 mds Fri, 13 Mar 2009 18:48:57 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9962#comment-269086 <blockquote>you should make taxes on all other sources of income than work (e.g. property) highly punitive. Any chance of the US trying that?</blockquote> Certainly. But Spock will have to grow a beard. Meanwhile, even though it is largely Googling to the choir, I would suggest that anyone experiencing the least uncertainty about <blockquote>It doesn’t stink but doesn’t deliver better health care at a lower cost than the US private sector as Europe allegedly does.</blockquote> need merely look up "Medicare Advantage" on the interwebs. So strong is the Cult of the Private Sector in the US, that we currently pay insurance companies an average of ~12 percent extra to provide the same service as regular Medicare. And naturally, any attempt to cut these taxpayer subsidies for offering the same services at higher cost are attacked by the party of the "free market" and by the Cato Institute.
you should make taxes on all other sources of income than work (e.g. property) highly punitive. Any chance of the US trying that?

Certainly. But Spock will have to grow a beard.

Meanwhile, even though it is largely Googling to the choir, I would suggest that anyone experiencing the least uncertainty about

It doesn’t stink but doesn’t deliver better health care at a lower cost than the US private sector as Europe allegedly does.

need merely look up “Medicare Advantage” on the interwebs. So strong is the Cult of the Private Sector in the US, that we currently pay insurance companies an average of ~12 percent extra to provide the same service as regular Medicare. And naturally, any attempt to cut these taxpayer subsidies for offering the same services at higher cost are attacked by the party of the “free market” and by the Cato Institute.

]]> By: lurker http://crookedtimber.org/2009/03/11/let-us-rally-to-protect-the-delicate-flower-of-rugged-individualism/comment-page-1/#comment-269046 lurker Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:34:58 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9962#comment-269046 'which has often made it more attractive not to work than to work' (quoted in post 7) Somebody rather smarter than me pointed out recently that to make it always more attractive for everyone to work than not to work, you should make taxes on all other sources of income than work (e.g. property) highly punitive. Any chance of the US trying that? ‘which has often made it more attractive not to work than to work’ (quoted in post 7)
Somebody rather smarter than me pointed out recently that to make it always more attractive for everyone to work than not to work, you should make taxes on all other sources of income than work (e.g. property) highly punitive. Any chance of the US trying that?

]]> By: John Quiggin http://crookedtimber.org/2009/03/11/let-us-rally-to-protect-the-delicate-flower-of-rugged-individualism/comment-page-1/#comment-268982 John Quiggin Fri, 13 Mar 2009 01:03:47 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9962#comment-268982 James Conran, you're broadly right, but the period of US relative dynamism is much shorter than you suggest, and also much more limited. Western European countries were doing better on growth in output per hour into the mid-1990s, by which time many of them had surpassed the US. The US triumphalism of the mid-90s rested on a combination of higher than average employment/population ratios and extremely high average hours per worker. The US did better on output per hour between about 1995 and 2005, but lost ground on the E/P ratio. James Conran, you’re broadly right, but the period of US relative dynamism is much shorter than you suggest, and also much more limited. Western European countries were doing better on growth in output per hour into the mid-1990s, by which time many of them had surpassed the US. The US triumphalism of the mid-90s rested on a combination of higher than average employment/population ratios and extremely high average hours per worker.

The US did better on output per hour between about 1995 and 2005, but lost ground on the E/P ratio.

]]> By: Peter Whiteford http://crookedtimber.org/2009/03/11/let-us-rally-to-protect-the-delicate-flower-of-rugged-individualism/comment-page-1/#comment-268978 Peter Whiteford Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:26:11 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9962#comment-268978 Last year the OECD published a report that deals with income inequality, with a chapter (written by me) that looks specifically at income redistribution through the tax and benefit systems. http://www.oecd.org/document/53/0,3343,en_2649_33933_41460917_1_1_1_1,00.html I argued (like most other people in this field) that it is important to distinguish between progressivity and redistribution – progressivity describes the structure of taxes and benefits, but redistribution is determined both by the progressivity of taxes and benefits and the level of taxes and benefits. For example, a more progressive tax system may redistribute less than a less progressive system if the level of taxes is substantially lower. The report actually found that the USA has the most progressive system of direct taxes in the OECD, which includes income taxes and employee social security contributions, but not employer social security contributions or indirect taxes. (Adding these in would be unlikely to change the rankings because indirect taxes are everywhere less progressive than direct taxes, and they are generally higher in Europe than in the USA.) Progressivity is measured by looking at the share of total taxes paid by different income groups and calculating what share is paid by different deciles, but also by calculating the concentration coefficient (i.e. the Gini coefficient) for taxes. In a number of countries, the richest 20% paid a higher share of their own income in taxes than in the USA, but their systems were less progressive because the middle and the poor also paid a (much) higher share of their income in taxes. The Nordic countries actually tend to have the least progressive systems of direct taxes, and the English-speaking countries the most progressive. Nevertheless, the report also found that the USA is the only OECD country which redistributes more through the tax system than through the system of cash benefits. Another way of putting this is that other countries reduce inequality more through paying social security benefits than through taxes. So the USA redistributes less through social security (age and disability pensions) and unemployment payments etc. than most other countries. (Also most but not all other countries support families with children through cash benefits, whereas the USA mainly does this through the tax system.) Even though the US social security system overall is about average in progressivity, the overall redistributive effect is lower mainly because most other countries spend a lot more through their social security systems than the USA. So when you look at the combined effect of taxes and benefits overall the USA redistributes less than most other OECD countries, despite the fact that it has the most progressive system of direct taxes. The USA also starts off with one the highest levels of earnings inequality and inequality in capital income among OECD countries, so that when you look at household incomes “after” taxes and benefits, the USA is the fourth most unequal country in the OECD - after Mexico, Turkey and Portugal. So my policy conclusions would be that increasing progressivity in the US system of taxes is not necessarily the most effective way of reducing inequality – although obviously it would help – but that increasing the level of taxes and spending the money on sensible social programmes would be likely to be more important. Last year the OECD published a report that deals with income inequality, with a chapter (written by me) that looks specifically at income redistribution through the tax and benefit systems.
http://www.oecd.org/document/53/0,3343,en_2649_33933_41460917_1_1_1_1,00.html

I argued (like most other people in this field) that it is important to distinguish between progressivity and redistribution – progressivity describes the structure of taxes and benefits, but redistribution is determined both by the progressivity of taxes and benefits and the level of taxes and benefits. For example, a more progressive tax system may redistribute less than a less progressive system if the level of taxes is substantially lower.

The report actually found that the USA has the most progressive system of direct taxes in the OECD, which includes income taxes and employee social security contributions, but not employer social security contributions or indirect taxes. (Adding these in would be unlikely to change the rankings because indirect taxes are everywhere less progressive than direct taxes, and they are generally higher in Europe than in the USA.)

Progressivity is measured by looking at the share of total taxes paid by different income groups and calculating what share is paid by different deciles, but also by calculating the concentration coefficient (i.e. the Gini coefficient) for taxes.
In a number of countries, the richest 20% paid a higher share of their own income in taxes than in the USA, but their systems were less progressive because the middle and the poor also paid a (much) higher share of their income in taxes. The Nordic countries actually tend to have the least progressive systems of direct taxes, and the English-speaking countries the most progressive.

Nevertheless, the report also found that the USA is the only OECD country which redistributes more through the tax system than through the system of cash benefits.
Another way of putting this is that other countries reduce inequality more through paying social security benefits than through taxes.

So the USA redistributes less through social security (age and disability pensions) and unemployment payments etc. than most other countries. (Also most but not all other countries support families with children through cash benefits, whereas the USA mainly does this through the tax system.) Even though the US social security system overall is about average in progressivity, the overall redistributive effect is lower mainly because most other countries spend a lot more through their social security systems than the USA.

So when you look at the combined effect of taxes and benefits overall the USA redistributes less than most other OECD countries, despite the fact that it has the most progressive system of direct taxes.

The USA also starts off with one the highest levels of earnings inequality and inequality in capital income among OECD countries, so that when you look at household incomes “after” taxes and benefits, the USA is the fourth most unequal country in the OECD - after Mexico, Turkey and Portugal.

So my policy conclusions would be that increasing progressivity in the US system of taxes is not necessarily the most effective way of reducing inequality – although obviously it would help – but that increasing the level of taxes and spending the money on sensible social programmes would be likely to be more important.

]]> By: Phil http://crookedtimber.org/2009/03/11/let-us-rally-to-protect-the-delicate-flower-of-rugged-individualism/comment-page-1/#comment-268871 Phil Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:59:33 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9962#comment-268871 <i>what would be really interesting is to discover how many of the French think like this</i> It would indeed. Good luck drafting the questionnaire. what would be really interesting is to discover how many of the French think like this

It would indeed. Good luck drafting the questionnaire.

]]> By: webegeeks http://crookedtimber.org/2009/03/11/let-us-rally-to-protect-the-delicate-flower-of-rugged-individualism/comment-page-1/#comment-268869 webegeeks Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:51:42 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9962#comment-268869 The day I went on medicare was a very good day. My private insurer constantly denied claims and interfered with my treatment options (I had cancer), while medicare never gave me one bit of trouble. My private insurer refused to pay for an ambulance ride when I had a heart attack, medicare has paid for several with never a denial from them of any kind. My private insurer refused to pay for a hospital stay when I had to withdraw from pain medications I had been on for over two years, and medicare just paid over $20,000.00 for an intrathecal pain pump implanted in my gut like a pacemaker. My private insurer denied, denied, and denied claims to the point that it staying ahead of the medical bills was impossible, it ate up all of my savings, resulted in me having to sell a home I loved and had lived in for 15 years because I couldn't pay for the medications their so called corrolary (sp) didn't cover but I needed because of my cancer and heart condition and pay the mortgage too. My private insurer also made certain a stellar credit rating was ruined. Since going on medicare I have NEVER had a call from a collection agency, doctors office demanding payment, or hospital threatening me with legal action. I was in the railroad industry and covered by United Healthcare, so it is not as if I was on cheap insurance either. It is just that insurance companies first response is to deny everything and hope people are so sick they won't fight them. These people are evil, and that is a fact, and it is sad that the American public is so damned stupid that insurance companies have effectively blocked universal healthcare since it was first proposed in 1952! The day I went on medicare was a very good day. My private insurer constantly denied claims and interfered with my treatment options (I had cancer), while medicare never gave me one bit of trouble. My private insurer refused to pay for an ambulance ride when I had a heart attack, medicare has paid for several with never a denial from them of any kind. My private insurer refused to pay for a hospital stay when I had to withdraw from pain medications I had been on for over two years, and medicare just paid over $20,000.00 for an intrathecal pain pump implanted in my gut like a pacemaker. My private insurer denied, denied, and denied claims to the point that it staying ahead of the medical bills was impossible, it ate up all of my savings, resulted in me having to sell a home I loved and had lived in for 15 years because I couldn’t pay for the medications their so called corrolary (sp) didn’t cover but I needed because of my cancer and heart condition and pay the mortgage too. My private insurer also made certain a stellar credit rating was ruined. Since going on medicare I have NEVER had a call from a collection agency, doctors office demanding payment, or hospital threatening me with legal action. I was in the railroad industry and covered by United Healthcare, so it is not as if I was on cheap insurance either. It is just that insurance companies first response is to deny everything and hope people are so sick they won’t fight them. These people are evil, and that is a fact, and it is sad that the American public is so damned stupid that insurance companies have effectively blocked universal healthcare since it was first proposed in 1952!

]]> By: JM http://crookedtimber.org/2009/03/11/let-us-rally-to-protect-the-delicate-flower-of-rugged-individualism/comment-page-1/#comment-268815 JM Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:29:47 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9962#comment-268815 It was common, iirc, for African dictatorships after WWII to claim that democracy was a western imposition, and that their authoritarian regimes were a reflection of an African tradition of rule by consensus. Then, the rulers robbed their countries blind and brutalized their opponents. Same with "our socialism," which briefly elicited such excitement on the right during the recent US election until, you know, they actually got the details. For the last several years, Americans have been told how horrible, horrible, just plain awful life is in Europe, much as Soviet citizens were told about crime, poverty, violence, and drug dependence in the free west. It's bad out there. You think it's bad here, but it's worse out there. Trust me. Good. Now, obey me. It's all just advertising for the lifestyles of the ruling class, no matter how you slice it. Just look at all the disinformation out there on EFCA. Bimbos on FOX lie to the masses because their bosses see Americans as stupid and disposable. At least in our system, the violence is mostly sublimated, but the result is the same. Consolidation of wealth at the highest levels with the rest of the population panicking over their shrinking slice of the pie and looking for someone to blame. Witches! Imperialists! Frenchmen! Look! Over there! Away from where I'm just robbing your dumb ass blind! Made you look. It was common, iirc, for African dictatorships after WWII to claim that democracy was a western imposition, and that their authoritarian regimes were a reflection of an African tradition of rule by consensus. Then, the rulers robbed their countries blind and brutalized their opponents. Same with “our socialism,” which briefly elicited such excitement on the right during the recent US election until, you know, they actually got the details.

For the last several years, Americans have been told how horrible, horrible, just plain awful life is in Europe, much as Soviet citizens were told about crime, poverty, violence, and drug dependence in the free west. It’s bad out there. You think it’s bad here, but it’s worse out there.

Trust me.

Good.

Now, obey me.

It’s all just advertising for the lifestyles of the ruling class, no matter how you slice it. Just look at all the disinformation out there on EFCA. Bimbos on FOX lie to the masses because their bosses see Americans as stupid and disposable.

At least in our system, the violence is mostly sublimated, but the result is the same. Consolidation of wealth at the highest levels with the rest of the population panicking over their shrinking slice of the pie and looking for someone to blame. Witches! Imperialists! Frenchmen! Look! Over there! Away from where I’m just robbing your dumb ass blind!

Made you look.

]]> By: mpowell http://crookedtimber.org/2009/03/11/let-us-rally-to-protect-the-delicate-flower-of-rugged-individualism/comment-page-1/#comment-268812 mpowell Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:00:51 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9962#comment-268812 <i> On the other hand the second point (and to a degree the first) would seem to contradict Henry’s confidence as to the robustness of “nati0nal economic trajectories”, no? </i> If I understand what Henry's point was, I don't think this was true. You are assuming that there is only one variable for these trajectories to move along. Obviously, this is not the case. It is quite possible for the American society to have followed a distinct trajectory, completely independent of what Western Europeans were doing that, that started with a low level of inequality in the 60s and 70s and built up to the extremely high levels that you see today. Also, there is a difference between substantially changing the institutional structure of a society and observing a significant shift in one of it's outputs, like income inequality.
On the other hand the second point (and to a degree the first) would seem to contradict Henry’s confidence as to the robustness of “nati0nal economic trajectories”, no?

If I understand what Henry’s point was, I don’t think this was true. You are assuming that there is only one variable for these trajectories to move along. Obviously, this is not the case. It is quite possible for the American society to have followed a distinct trajectory, completely independent of what Western Europeans were doing that, that started with a low level of inequality in the 60s and 70s and built up to the extremely high levels that you see today. Also, there is a difference between substantially changing the institutional structure of a society and observing a significant shift in one of it’s outputs, like income inequality.

]]> By: dave http://crookedtimber.org/2009/03/11/let-us-rally-to-protect-the-delicate-flower-of-rugged-individualism/comment-page-1/#comment-268810 dave Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:12:47 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9962#comment-268810 The 'France' of that footnote, while not being an actual place, is also the one inhabited by the leaders of many of the strikes that the French public sector is prone to. One need only listen to them for a few minutes to be reminded that there are people who continue to believe that the state should provide everything that they need, in return for a few hours of their time graciously accorded to some light duties, and for it not to do so represents a grievous affront to natural justice, deserving of direct and unequivocal opposition. Of course what would be really interesting is to discover how many of the French think like this, and also voted for Sarkozy... The ‘France’ of that footnote, while not being an actual place, is also the one inhabited by the leaders of many of the strikes that the French public sector is prone to. One need only listen to them for a few minutes to be reminded that there are people who continue to believe that the state should provide everything that they need, in return for a few hours of their time graciously accorded to some light duties, and for it not to do so represents a grievous affront to natural justice, deserving of direct and unequivocal opposition.

Of course what would be really interesting is to discover how many of the French think like this, and also voted for Sarkozy…

]]> By: James Conran http://crookedtimber.org/2009/03/11/let-us-rally-to-protect-the-delicate-flower-of-rugged-individualism/comment-page-1/#comment-268809 James Conran Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:52:03 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9962#comment-268809 Oh, much kudos on footnote 2 by the way. Oh, much kudos on footnote 2 by the way.

]]> By: James Conran http://crookedtimber.org/2009/03/11/let-us-rally-to-protect-the-delicate-flower-of-rugged-individualism/comment-page-1/#comment-268807 James Conran Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:49:08 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9962#comment-268807 Further to Ben Alpers point (that America has tended to have a more progressive tax structure), I would also suggest a couple of points to counter (or at least complicate) cliche-mongerers such as Cohen: 1) from 1945 to 1970 (roughly) the US economy was not obviously more dynamic (taking growth and employment performance as metrics) than western Europe 2) How recent a phenomenon is the greater egalitarianism/social democracy of the French political economy compared to the American? It is very striking today to read RW Johnson's (wonderfully written) book "The Long March of the French Left" (published in 1981 I think?) where he spills a fair bit of ink decrying the high level of income and wealth inequality in France compared to, among others, the US). On the other hand the second point (and to a degree the first) would seem to contradict Henry's confidence as to the robustness of "nati0nal economic trajectories", no? Further to Ben Alpers point (that America has tended to have a more progressive tax structure), I would also suggest a couple of points to counter (or at least complicate) cliche-mongerers such as Cohen:

1) from 1945 to 1970 (roughly) the US economy was not obviously more dynamic (taking growth and employment performance as metrics) than western Europe

2) How recent a phenomenon is the greater egalitarianism/social democracy of the French political economy compared to the American? It is very striking today to read RW Johnson’s (wonderfully written) book “The Long March of the French Left” (published in 1981 I think?) where he spills a fair bit of ink decrying the high level of income and wealth inequality in France compared to, among others, the US).

On the other hand the second point (and to a degree the first) would seem to contradict Henry’s confidence as to the robustness of “nati0nal economic trajectories”, no?

]]> By: Richard Schrader http://crookedtimber.org/2009/03/11/let-us-rally-to-protect-the-delicate-flower-of-rugged-individualism/comment-page-1/#comment-268805 Richard Schrader Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:38:07 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9962#comment-268805 American uniqueness is a fairly fragile concept. As a global market leader, our top of the charts run lasted from the end of WW 2 to the ripening of Watergate summer and the post-petro shock economy. Mostly, this great surge rose on the back of the broken European economies coming out of the war and unchallenged American military power. Not to mention the vast spending of the federal government in building roads and homes, lending money to vets to buy said homes and constructing a military apparatus that actually made it share of technological breakthroughs, like the internet. America's difference, beside its rapaciously materialistic culture and lousy public schools, has been the ability of creative businessmen to take big ideas (and technology) and apply them to a mass commercial market. The era of financial casinos risking other people's money is over, its superstructure in ruins. Let a public entity guide investment strategies for awhile -- and put more resources in growing Medicare-like programs and institutions of higher education. American uniqueness is a fairly fragile concept. As a global market leader, our top of the charts run lasted from the end of WW 2 to the ripening of Watergate summer and the post-petro shock economy. Mostly, this great surge rose on the back of the broken European economies coming out of the war and unchallenged American military power. Not to mention the vast spending of the federal government in building roads and homes, lending money to vets to buy said homes and constructing a military apparatus that actually made it share of technological breakthroughs, like the internet. America’s difference, beside its rapaciously materialistic culture and lousy public schools, has been the ability of creative businessmen to take big ideas (and technology) and apply them to a mass commercial market. The era of financial casinos risking other people’s money is over, its superstructure in ruins. Let a public entity guide investment strategies for awhile—and put more resources in growing Medicare-like programs and institutions of higher education.

]]> By: Ben Alpers http://crookedtimber.org/2009/03/11/let-us-rally-to-protect-the-delicate-flower-of-rugged-individualism/comment-page-1/#comment-268804 Ben Alpers Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:20:23 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9962#comment-268804 "France" is also, still, about Iraq. It was only in 2002, when the French (along with most of "Old Europe" and half of the American public) took the absolutely correct position on Washington's rush to war on Iraq, that our chattering classes decided that France was the ultimate <strike>bête noire</strike> liberty beast. “France” is also, still, about Iraq. It was only in 2002, when the French (along with most of “Old Europe” and half of the American public) took the absolutely correct position on Washington’s rush to war on Iraq, that our chattering classes decided that France was the ultimate bête noire liberty beast.

]]>