One of the nice things about working remotely is I can start catching up on a backlog of podcasts. I've mostly used iTunes on Windows. I've occasionally run into usability issues, e.g., presumably after one upgrade, I lost over hundreds of unheard podcasts (iTunes probably deleted all but the most recent without warning). Of course, as a professional DBA, I'm fairly anal-retentive about backing up my PC and was able to find a backup before the purge incident. Add a recent PC migration and migrating/consolidating files, I have an unintuitive mess of podcast folders, many podcasts with multiple folders, even though at the file system, there are single folders. iTunes doesn't have a utility I can see to reorganize its fragmented folders, not to mention there are files on the file system that don't show in their folders. I can use VLC to create a playlist from a podcast folder and then manually delete the podcast from the playlist and the file system after it's played.
Long context to explain how I stumbled across the old split initial Dem primary debate that had been covered by Meet the Press. The amount of stupidity among economically-illiterate Dems is staggering. I'm not going to go point by point through the podcast; it would take several pages to debunk each and every error, and it's somewhat pointless to discuss an old podcast, several months before Biden was nominated and elected POTUS.
These type posts are so hard to write; they take days to write, and at the end I promise myself I won't go through this process again. This post was on the first group of 10 candidates, not the second one with Biden and Comrade Bernie. I may cover the second half in a future post, but I'll probably take a break. Here are some points I want to expand on:
- Industrial policy. Green energy is seen as a way for many, if not most Dems, as way to reengineer American economic growth. We free market advocates see the market--all 330 million consumers--as the more effective, efficient mechanism to service the wants and needs, to drive investment and consumption. Democrats (and to some extent Trumpkin Republicans) sell "good-paying jobs" in the energy efficiency market. But keep in mind that of 156 million or so jobs, roughly 7% work in the energy sector, and only about a third of those in the green energy sector. Yes, job growth is probably growing faster in the subsector, but it's a rounding error in the overall job market. And that is after massive subsidies and politically correct policies; it's like the Dems are totally oblivious of the lessons of the Solyndra and other related scandals.
- Healthcare. It's almost impossible to know where to start here. Cherokee Lizzie sniffs that "healthcare is a human right". No, it's not. We have goods and services for which there is a market, just like for other wants and needs, like food and drinks, lodging, energy, etc. There is no discussion of how government policies drove healthcare as being linked to jobs, with implicit subsidies with tax-free status; government policy also has anti-competitive aspects, like certificate of need laws, medical school/doctor supply restrictions, etc. The government's own health programs shift costs to the private sectors and (along with education) have been among the most inflation-bound sectors. And you can argue that health insurance is more like bundled health services than true services, with Dem focus on funding and availability of birth control. Birth control is more of an ordinary expense, like gasoline and oil changes for cars. Our auto insurance protects against things like property damage and bodily injury while driving. Not to mention sterilization can range from $200-$2000, often discounted, if you don't want to spend up to $200 a year or so for assorted pills. Oh, and the Dems take a stand against for-profit health corporations, high-paid executives, "unaffordable" administrative costs, etc. A lot of this is toxic Politics of Envy, with private health insurance companies earning lower profits than (say) high tech firms. The administrative costs issue is more of an apples to oranges comparison, because administrative costs for high-cost government program recipients (e.g., older people) being a percentage of higher overall costs, not on a per-patient comparison between coverage sources. And let's point out that asserted government costs rarely include government overhead and personnel costs. And, oh yes, some "moderate" Dems favor a public option (vs outright nationalization, e.g., Medicare For All). What private company can compete against a government running up trillion dollar deficits? Why are profits immoral for the healthcare industry vs. any other industry (food companies, etc.)? Walmart makes money by selling retail goods cheaper than many (if not most) of its competitors. The search for profits drives innovation and cost containment. Government bureaucracies are not built on reduced headcount, rapid change, and cutting budgets; government employees are not vested in financial goals of operational efficiency. And as much as progressives worry about monopoly power in the private sector, they hypocritically don't mind the same abuses applied by the monopoly of government in education and healthcare. In fact, there's no logical stopping point for extending the Statist empire of rule making. (The moderators, on the Medicare for All talking point, mostly pushed back on the politically unpopular notion of kicking people off their job-based private insurance.)
- Jobs. Both parties hype exaggerated the capability of government to generate jobs. (I would argue that government reducing economic uncertainty with stable policies, opening new markets for trading and migration, with low, uniform taxes, light regulation, and limited spending provides a proper context for economic growth and the employment opportunities that come with it.) The Dem candidates try to fit their union constituents in every soundbite, their "good" pay and benefits and then attack highly paid executives, often in terms of multiples compared to the average joe. I do not like this Politics of Envy. Let's point out by fairly recent statistics, a minor league baseball player might earn on average up to $15000, while the average major league salary is more like $4.38 M. Is this "fair"? They are competing in different markets, might have differing responsibilities, lifestyles, knowledge, experience and specialized skills. There may be a small, highly competitive pool of talented corporate executives, say in a given industry. I remember as a graduate school teaching fellow teaching two classes, I made a few hundred a month; as a junior professor, that jumped to a few thousand, I taught one or two additional courses, but I also taught higher-level classes with research and university service requirements. And when I started as a professor, there was a shortage of accredited MIS PhD graduates and almost every course had a waiting list. I didn't whine about how unfair the market was, bur I was highly motivated to complete my doctorate in record or near-record time.
- Migrants/ICE Deportations. As a libertarian, I'm for open immigration and I will not attempt to defend Trump's immoral nativist policies. A lot of Dems focusing on their Latino constituents here (former El Paso Congressman Beto O'Rourke trying to impress viewers with his high school Spanish gimmick), paying lip service to headline-making policies like migrant family separation by the US government, queues for asylum in Mexico, etc. There's a lot of talk about tweaking immigration laws enabling said cruel policies, about foreign aid to Central American countries driving asylum, a pathway to citizenship for undocumented residents, etc. I give credit to Senator Amy Klobuchar for a more comprehensive view of immigration because the larger picture of Trump's policy was his virtually unpublicized adverse policies on legal immigration. There are some points that really weren't addressed: (1) the fundamental fact driving unauthorized migration is the lack of legalized work permits and/or legal immigration/residency opportunities, which the Dem union constituency has opposed on grounds of lower wage competition; (2) the Dems have failed to address the legacy of Deporter-in-Chief Obama or the reason why the 111th Congress didn't address immigration or Dreamers while they held a supermajority until they lost the House in the midterms; (3) in terms of promoting economic growth to mitigate migration from Central America, the Dems ignore free trade pacts with said nations and/or expanding NAFTA/USCMA. (Their union constituency also views imports as an economic threat.) As for foreign aid, first of all, we have an unsustainable federal spending problem; second, we have no control over the internal affairs of other nations, and foreign aid is a notoriously poor trickle-down approach to ordinary citizens and businesses. It's like trying to nail jello to the wall.
- Iran. As a libertarian, I have generally opposed Trump's antagonistic neo-con policies against Iran, including the break from the Obama Administration's nuclear deal with Iran. The Dems of course favored favored resurrecting the deal while at the same time wanting to avoid the perception they would accept the reality of a nuclear-armed Iran. I'll simply point out multiple nations have nuclear weapons, and I'm not convinced the Dems will pursue a non-interventionist strategy, especially in the aftermath of Obama, who escalated involvement in Afghanistan and the undeclared drone wars and intervened disastrously in Libya, among other things.
- Guns. Todd tried to focus on where you draw the boundary on federal policy on firearm restrictions. Not really a direct response, just the usual soundbites on "common sense" policies, including registration/background checks, "public health" (Warren), student fear for their own safety, anecdotal incidents (Booker), outlawing war/assault weapons, etc. No seeming recognition of the primacy of the role of the states in public safety issues and schools, just focus on popularity of certain restrictive policies and majorities in Congress and the White House to push said policies.
- SCOTUS. This topic seems to be, in the aftermath of the failed Garland nomination, how do you get your nominees by (then) Majority Leader McConnell? Some delusional responses here, like go on the offense against red state senators; there is some talk of bipartisanship and/or stripping the GOP of the filibuster. (No talk about nominating a mainstream candidate.) They seem to regard SCOTUS as super-progressive legislators.
- Climate Change. Just like in the pro-abort talking point (note that I am pro-life), there's a fight over who is more dedicated to the cause of climate change. Some talk of major bailouts of coastal cities, policies promoting non-gasoline powered vehicles and green-friendly farming/carbon capture, rejoining the Paris climate accord (severed by Trump), a need for worker-based populism. I didn't really hear a good counter to Todd's question of morally hazardous floodplain bailouts or popular opposition to carbon tax proposals; one suggested that somehow he'll reimburse consumers. He also points out some economists support the carbon tax; I'll simply point out that the purported estimates of carbon externalities are dubious, and these taxes have an adverse effect on economic growth.
- LGBTQ Rights. This mostly focused on Trump's rollback of certain protections. The obvious response is to pass legislation which limits Presidential discretion and/or challenge the President's authority to discriminate under the law. The Dems see LGBTQ as one of their key constituencies and will generally pay lip service to the activist LGBTQ agenda. One candidate (Tulsi Gabbard) was reminded of her past socially conservative views: why should LGBTQ party constituents believe her conversion on the issue now? We libertarians are quite clear: the government itself must not discriminate, e.g., in military or civilian hiring. But assertions that, say, conservatives want to micromanage LGBTQ love lives are wildly polemical and false. Even on "gay marriage", there was never any conservative attempt to outlaw gay/other relationships. I'm a social conservative, but even when I was a Navy ensign and encountered occasional closet gays (and homosexuality was grounds for a military discharge), neither I nor any of my other straight buddies had any interest in outing them; we had a "live-and-let-live" philosophy. But this philosophy of tolerance doesn't translate into things like mandating a LGBTQ education agenda in our public schools, etc.
- Civil Rights/African Americans/Latinos. Basically, what have you done, Democrat, to respond to the needs of African-Americans and earn their votes, could you do as POTUS? Some responses like providing child care/subsidies, protect their political rights to fair representation at the ballot box, criminal justice reform, more aid for public school, and fight for economic and racial justice. As a libertarian, I think the progressive war on poverty has been a failure and has set a morally hazardous reliance of government dependence that has largely splintered the urban African-American family. Minority business set-asides, university admission quota systems, etc., do little more than set up a culture of entitlement and the implementation of immoral double standards. No discussion here of another key Dem constituency, teacher unions, virulently opposed to school choice favored by desperate poor black families and children, the massive failure of education and public safety in largely Dem-led urban communities, the disastrous War on Drugs and high incarceration rates of young black men.
- Public Questions/Miscellaneous Topics
- Foreign Intervention to Counter Genocide. O''Rourke says YES, but is vague on the rationale on how this is America's interests. Most of his response was an accurate but predictable analysis of Trump's uneven, chaotic foreign policy of alienating allies, currying favor with Putin, Some pushback at needing Congress to get more involved in the authorization of the use of force, war funding at the expense of domestic priorities. Gabbard was strong on leaving Afghanistan. Biggest threat to US? Climate change. China. Russia. Trump. Taliban. As a libertarian, I am opposed to interventionism and military action beyond direct attacks on the US and economic sanctions, which I view as a precursor to conflict. With the exception of Gabbard, I was not impressed by discussions here.
- Trump: Russia, Impeachment Prosecution, No one above the law. I fully expected a ton of Trump bashing here, much of it well-deserved. I'm not thrilled over the overblown Russiagate obsession (except for Trump's corrupt attempts to intervene).
