It’s good to see the USS Ronald Reaganomics still employing its namesakes creative supply (over the) side trickle down theories - leaving in its wake an impressive trail of debris scattered all along the Queensland coastline.
Amazingly consistent when you begin think of all the Republican trash and debris Reagan left as his legacy to America.
Loved the banner outside Brisvegas gay club “The Beat” last week - “The Beat Welcomes Ronald Reagan’s Sailors”…
Phil
“still employing its namesakes creative supply (over the) side trickle down theories”
Would you mind directing me to where Reagan or any adminstration official ever mentioned “trickle down economics” if that is what you were implying?
“Amazingly consistent when you begin think of all the Republican trash and debris Reagan left as his legacy to America”.
As in picking up an economy with the highest misery index ever recorded and leaving one that created the size of Germany in terms of economic growth.
Would you like me to send you Bob Bartley’s Book (deceased editor of Wall Street Journal) “seven Fat years” for an understanding of the guy’s accomplishments? Admit it, as a Canadian you are jealous at what he accomplished. I can understand that, I would be too.
Oh and it’s a great looking ship by the way. I saw it in NY harbor on it’s first set of voyages.
Never heard of it..
..’The Beat’ that is.
I dont have a need for such trash.
Presidential campaign in 1980 - his primary opponent countered with “voodoo economics”. That was one George H. W. Bush.
America’s economic recovery during Reagan’s presidency had nothing much to do with the supply-side nostra that were then fashionable. It had a lot to do with what many commentators call “Military Keynesianism”. And some adjustments to the relative values of the Deutschemark, Yen and Dollar negotiated in 1985 - as well as the begininnings of deindustrialisation and the symbolic smashing of the pilot’s union - which combined with other policy settings laid the ground for economic prosperity combined with a decline in real wages.
America’s consumer spending - which has been the “engine” of the world economy - has largely been driven by consumption in advance of earnings financed firstly by the late 90s stock bubble, and now by the housing bubble. America’s net savings are now down to 0% - a remarkable figure.
Davos spruikers may argue that the world economy can be driven by the expansion of production to low wage countries, but as Larry Summers pointed out, the Chinese economy can’t drive the world economy due to its gearing largely to satisfying the US export market and the low level of domestic demand overall precisely because of the wage advantage. So, if the US goes off the boil, we can look forward to interesting economic times indeed.
Sorry, rog, are you saying you prefer to meet US sailors in more upmarket venues? I’m confused!
Wikipedia on Reaganomics.
Oh Phil, old chum, I’m sad the Canadian election didn’t work out comrades but there’s no need for below the belt thumping of President Ronald Reagan.
Former union leader Reagan’s legacy as President was running Sovietism into the ground and an economic boom without precedent in the history of the world.
As the great man said at the end of his term “Not bad, not bad at all.”
Anyone wanting a debate about America’s economic strength should feel free to rejoin a Lyndon Larouche chat-room. The Left is at its most boring when it’s in “sky is falling” mode. We live at a time unprecedented prosperity and exponentially improving technology. Can’t some of you lefties smile and appreciate it? (And show some gratitude to Ronald Reagan for his part in the making 2006 mostly peaceful and prosperous)
Andrew Landeryou
I also note with concern Phil’s failure to use ‘Redux’ in the title of this post.
“Mostly peaceful”, Andrew? I guess then we have to learn how to stop worrying and love Iran’s bomb
?
Oh, you know JC it was in all the papers. Try this.
Misery index. And where are they now as Mark so edjumakationally puts it? The Legacy lives and history takes it’s time to unfurl. Smoke and mirrors baby.
Jealous? Of what? Most Canadians look at the train wreck next door and recoil in horror, believe me they aren’t jealous just relieved not to be American and have to suffer the ravages of old sleepy head and his evolutionary manchild.
And I agree the RR is a masterpiece of misplaced priorities and imperial insanity.
Landeryou, I knew you’d show up on this thread. How’s Hannity and Sophie, I understand you’re dating both of them? Is this true? The LP needs to know!
No argument from me Kim, you are confused.
Phil, Mark, Kim
Could you please direct me to where RR or any of his officials made that remark? I say you can’t because it’s a myth. Dare you!
Kim, I checked Wiki, even it says they cannot attribute the comment.
Mark:
Glad you want to talk economic turkey with us. However I am afraid you are conflating 25 years of Us economic history and pretending RR was responsible.
There’s an old Wall Street saying “you’ll go broke betting against the US consumer”. Don’t try it at home as you will end up with burned fingers.
*America’s economic recovery during Reagan’s presidency had nothing much to do with the supply-side nostra that were then fashionable. It had a lot to do with what many commentators call “Military Keynesianism�.*
This is the same Keynsian mantra that refers to digging holes in the ground. It’s Keynsian nonsense. Taking your argument to its “logical” absurdity Australia should militarize thereby ensuring prosperity for the next 10 years. Or better still lets do what Keynes actually suggested and dig holes in the ground. Whoever proposed that was genius! Oh, it was Keynes (I guess he ought to have stayed as mathematics professor)
*And some adjustments to the relative values of the Deutschemark, Yen and Dollar negotiated in 1985 *-
I don’t want to bust your balloon there, Mark, but the US economy was going gangbusters well before 1985 seeing he cut taxes to respectasble levels several years before that. Oh, the Dollar had soured up to 1985, kind of mocking your idea that the expansion was a weak Dollar led recovery. The Doll startd to fall after 1985.
*as well as the begininnings of deindustrialisation and the symbolic smashing of the pilot’s union
” De-industrialization“ Hardly think so, seeing the economy was booming during his time. Bust up of the polits union was hardly symbolic. It was a good and courageous thing he did.
Combined with other policy settings laid the ground for economic prosperity combined with a decline in real wages.*
Would you mind explaining this sentence.
I will let you in on a little secret. YOU CAN’T have Economic prosperity without a rise in real incomes. Sure enough, incomes zoomed during his presidency.
America’s consumer spending - which has been the “engine� of the world economy - has largely been driven by consumption in advance of earnings financed firstly by the late 90s stock bubble, and now by the housing bubble. America’s net savings are now down to 0% - a remarkable figure *
Ah not true. US savings if measured by taking all sorts of savings mechanisms into account, such as 401Ks and a host of tax saving devices aren’t taking into account by the commerce department’s calculation of savings ratio.
· Davos spruikers may argue that the world economy can be driven by the expansion of production to low wage countries*
Not true economies change. What was once economic to produce in the US or elsewhere can be done more efficiently in other parts of the world, otherwise not just a few jobs but nearly all jobs would be lost to places like India/China. Last time I looked the US had an unemployment rate of 5% proving once again that the law of Comparative Advatnage does work.
Mark et al
Would any of you like to borrow that book,Seven fat years. Just holler and I would be gald to send it to you on loan.
JC I understand that most conservatives don’t have a sense of humour - your secret is safe with me so I’ll explain the humour.
You are correct, I cannot provide such a quote.
However I lived it there at the time and know for as fact that the term/s were tied to so called Reganomics. It was used liberally (pun intentional) by all of the Reganite stenographers of the day.
Believe me when I say that I watched them all say it on the Sunday morning political shows. So right or wrong it became legend.
Now, look back at the post and tell me where I attributed that to Reagan. I did not, it was a historical reference to that legend and a bit of word play.
At least Landeryou get’s it, now there’s a righty with a sense of humour!
Phil
The reason it was used on the Sunday morning programs was because Brinkley and the rest the pack were screaming liberals rooting for the other side . They used the comment as a stick to beat RR. It was never used by RR people because it wasn’t what they were about. They were about “lifting all boats”, not trickle down shit.
That’s why the economy roared off.
Oh please, don’t give me that crap about the evil ‘liberal” media attempting to sully Reagans image, talk about a last refuge…..
I was there, I watched it live everyday for eight years it was pushed by administration officials as well, and decried as voodoo economics and bad policy by George Sr.
That says it all, or is George senior one of those nasty Libruls?
Joe - I don’t want to get into a big debate over 30 years of American economic history here as I have neither the time nor the inclination to do the necessary research right now to make my case comprehensively. Suffice it to say for the moment that Phil is quite right that the term was in common use among commentators during Reagan’s presidency.
*I was there, I watched it live everyday for eight years*
So was I Phil, so did I and I never heard that said. I don’t wanna bust your chops over and over it so I’ll let it go to yooful indiscretion.
It was “lifting all boats” and it won me over and i never looked back on my dark old days as a lefty.
And Phil, there was not one conservative host on any of those talk shows. Don’t forget, Fox only appeared in 1995.
Mark
Yes it was in common use by the Brinkleys of the time. I agree with that. Remember the real remark, “lifting all boats”. Fitting isn’t it when we have a post about the USS RR.
Joe - actually a lot of boats are sinking into the mud in the US at the moment. You can find some details of the increase in earnings inequality and the decrease in real wages in the US over time here. Note that it’s not a partisan source - The Economist recently reported the same story has come from the President’s Economics advisors.
Mark
What period are we talking about. RR’s or 18 years later. I want to get the timeline right?
I think you have a misconception about how old I am JC and how politically involved I was in the conservative movent during the late 70’s and 80’s.
I was a randist, and a young PC in Canada, I believed. I watched. I saw. I heard. I worked on election campaigns for conservative canditates.
Don’t question what I know!
If you want to sse who can piss higher I’m there standing in front of that wall with you mate!
Talk show hosts…William F Buckley who I adored at the time, Jack Anderson who was truly fair and balanced yet conservative in his own way. Buchannan……
Youthful indescretion indeed.
Oh yeah I forgot….Novak…
Mark
The pertinent point made in that piece was this:
“The key factor behind the deterioration of real household income and increase in poverty is the prolonged labor market slump that began in 2001″
Read tech crash and the other issues relating to the Clinton boom. Let’s not forget that job and income growth in the Clinton period was after 1996. Before that time the same mantra was being discussed, ie. “jobless recovery”.
Clinton also took over in a recession and it took 4 years toi sort itself out. He was also had a peace dividend as a tailwind.
Joe - the report I’ve linked to focusses on the period from 2000-2004. However, this paper (pdf) gives you the picture on US earnings and inequality from 1980.
Phil
Bill Buckley was on PBS (Channel 13). As far as I can remember at the time BB was not a Sunday regular talk show host like Brinkley. Let’s be honest The American ABC and PBS would not have compared in terms of audience rating.
I reckon Phil and Joe would have been his two viewers.
Phil, look at you now, a conservative!!!! What happened, you turned left while I turned right at about the same time. Couldn’t been as a result of watching Bill B.
Phil, you know you are always welcome on the dark side. And for you it would be jsut like riding a bike. You wouldn’t have forgotten a thing.
Precisely JC I haven’t forgotten. And yeah I remember (public broadcasting system) PBS, one of those liberal media organs isn’t it? Despite the money raising telethons, now utterly gutted.
Despite the channel Buckley was hugely influeltial in conservative circles and did much to define the talking points of the day. I also remember Kristol senior and a whole host of now retired conservtive warriors in the MSM of the day.
The Reaganites were very successful in painting the media of the day as liberal and against them, it was a Nixon thing.
The RR debris I was referring to was flotsam and jetsam like Cheaney and Rumsfeld. And media leftovers like Novak, now consigned to his true home at Fox.
Phil
you are always welcome back to our side now ya’hear. We do forgive sinners.
Phil Gomes, I really do wonder if the crashing of a single FA-18 into the Pacific Ocean would leave an impressive trail of debris scattered all along the Queeensland coastline. It is, after all, a coastine of some thousands of kilometres from the tip of Cape Yorke down to the Tweed River and as, according to the link you provided, the plane crashed while attempting to land it’s unlikely that its debris would be spread over such a great distance.
It’s nice to see the ACF sinking the boot into the US Navy. While they’re about it, though, they may as well have a go at it about the considerable amount of debris it left behind in the Coral Sea in May 1942. We’ve got nothing at all to thank them for about that bit environmental vandalism, now do we?
Still it’s such a good opportunity to take a gratuitous, if uninformed, swipe at Ronald Reagan, so why pass it up?
Aaah, another Saint Reagan accolyte. Ollie North I presume? Is the right always this pedantic or don’t they not understand creative licence.
Oh silly me. WMD. That must leave pedantic.
Ahha! Creative licence! AKA Fake but True. It’s untruthfulness giving us insights into deeper truths. Very post-modern.
Phil, I’m not an acolyte of Ronald Reagan. My attachment to the facts and to the truth is because without them you can’t have a sensible discussion just, as the Spanish would say, a “Conversacion entre los pajeros”. Good enough for the academia of our lesser universities/TAFEs, I suppose, but not in the rest of the world.
Sully RR’s reputation? Oh please.
He use to say “defence wasn’t a budget issue” and “I can’t recall” all the time. Those who want to canonise this fiscal vandal should have a closer look at his record.
No Greg. Not PoMo, just fun. there is a difference.
JC bashes the media and now you bash universities. Don’t tell me, you’re gonna bash the “elites” next.
It’s everyones fault but that of those on the right.
All you never wanted to know about sea dumping in Australia.
I might also add Phil, that its name isn’t the USS Ronald Reaganomics
I’d also like to remember Ronald Reagan as, along with Pope John Paul II, singlehandedly bringing down the Soviet Union.
The US Navy is basically incompetent.
That is all.
What exactly is the ‘fault’ in question that is being denied by the right? Planes crash; this is not something within the control of blog commentators.
Thanks for the instant enlightenment.
Phil, far be it from me to bash the Universities, or at least the First Tier ones, of which there are eight. After all I got all of my degrees from one of them, and am happy to sing their praises. Centres of Excellence, every one. On the other hand the other thirty, trudging along at Tiers Two down to Four, are fair game, I think. Dawkins has got a lot to answer for for trying to turn pigs’ ears into silk purses.
As for getting stuck into the elites, why should I? After ten years of the rule of the Machiavellian John Howard they’re all right wing now. If, however, you’re referring to the “wannabees”,(often referred to as the caffe latte or the chardonnay set), who delude themselves that they are “elites” and that anyone really cares about their opinions any more, well who could be blamed for a bit of harmless sport in occasionally pricking their delusions of importance. After all anyone who thinks that chardonnay is fit for anything better than being kept in an open bottle until it has oxidised into vinegar so that it can be used for a salad dressing deserves a bit of ribbing from time to time.
Tyro Rex, thanks for your useful insight: “The US Navy is basically incompetent.” The last time I saw the US Navy being called upon to seriously show its competence was off the coast of Indonesia about this time last year. I think that there would be at least 400,000 Acehnese who, if they read your comment would think you were an idiot who didn’t have a clue on what he was talking about. Still, I guess you believe that the UN is basically competent and there again those 400,000 Acehnese would be reinforced in their opinion given the farcical incompetence the UN has displayed from Day One after the tsunami.
Please don’t tell us your opinion of chardonnay. It would be painful to see your considered view that it is fit for human consumption.
Funny how when you start throwing trash around you end up with bits of it being stuck to you.
Dear GregM
I spent large amounts of the cold war in very close proximity to the USN. I stand by my assessment.
As for Chardonnay, I don’t drink the stuff. But I’m glad to hear such relevant opinions to the topic as to your obviously considered, tier one no less, views on modern wine output. Do go on.
The USS Ronald Reagan?Should call it by it’s real* name: the USS Free Trade Enforcer.
* And by real, I mean totally made up, but reasonably well fitting name.
“I’d also like to remember Ronald Reagan as, along with Pope John Paul II, singlehandedly bringing down the Soviet Union.”
So… they both singlehandedly brought down the Soviet Union? Wow, I never realised they were the same person! It all makes sense now!
Most Americans, and those associated with American power, are richer, freer and stronger as a legacy of Ronald Reagan.
One can pick any number of nits about Reagan’s economic and military policies. But it would be silly because, in the grand scheme of things, Reagan’s reforms were largely beneficial, to the US in particular, and mankind in general.
We forget how many politico-economic problems faced the West in the late seventies-early eighties. At home there was rampant inflation, high unemployment, rising taxes, rising crime in a recalcitrant underclass, excessive government waste and regulation. And abroad there was the twin threats of Second World miliary communism dominating the North and Third World radical nationalism running riot in the South.
Reagan saw the US polity as having two main problems: it was hampering the US economy at home, where it was being hammered by the Japs. And it was hamstringing the US military abroad, where it was being threatened by the Soviets. So Reagan freed up the US economy to compete with the Japs at home and beefed up the US military to constrain the Soviets abroad.
The results of the Reagan revolution in economic and military affairs speak for themselves.
Reagan’s free market reforms deserve substantial credit for the US’s current economic superiority. In the US economy, by 1983, Main Street had overcome inflation and unemployment, Wall Steet became the helmsman of global capitalism and (by 1994) Silicon Valley had forced the rest of the US economy to make the leap into info-tech industry.
The US business class still sets the pace for world economic performance. And the Japs are still wondering what hit them.
Likewise, Reagan’s military reforms underpinned the US’s recent martial superiority. The Pentagon, by 1985, had outspent the Russian communists and (by 1991) had knocked down Arab nationalists. Communism collapsed, the Cold War was won without firing a shot and nuclear disarmament started up in earnest.
Most of the RoW were happy to let the US be the global force to be reckoned with, until the current incumbent took office.
No doubt many of these improvements would have occurred without Reagan leading the US. And doubtless these reforms caused some unnecessary social inequity and global insecurity along the way. The lower end of the US working class has been devastated. And Russian has not recovered from its system collapse.
But Reagan did what you want a leader to do: identify the problem, implement the solution and follow-through until victory is assured.
So long as US leaders did not abuse the power that Reagan built up we can say that his achievements were to the good. Clinton largely built on Reagan, except in the area of deficit control. And even here most of Clinton’s work was done by the reduction in arms spending brought on by the end of the Cold War that Reagan hastened.
It is the current Republicans who have really queered Reagan’s pitch.
“I’d also like to remember Ronald Reagan as, along with Pope John Paul II, singlehandedly bringing down the Soviet Union.”
The problem with this sort of comment is that it doesn’t explain how Reagan was able to single-handedly bring down the great big Soviet Union while not being able to do the same to puny little Cuba. I have my own views, which I’ve stated often enough, on the variables which were decisive in producing such divergent outcomes.
“No doubt many of these improvements would have occurred without Reagan leading the US”.
By whom Jack? Reagan didn’t just appear out of nowhere. He parted with the Democrat Party after JFK’s death and never looked back. He built his philisophical ideas over 30 odd years before getting to the White House. There was and hasn’t been anyone who could have achieved what he did.
“And doubtless these reforms caused some unnecessary social inequity and global insecurity along the way”.
This is factually incorrect. The US economy expanded over his 8 years to the extent that it created another Germany in GDP growth over that time- an event of historical proportions. Everyone was better off as incomes rose accross the board. Sure one region got hit very badly when the oil patch blew up-think Texas etc.
I said earlier that it is impossible to have an economic expansion without a rise in income. Unless you and others can find a new law in economics that refutes that then it holds true.
“lower end of the US working class has been devastated”.
As in they were better off under Carter?
His time as President, “not bad, not bad at all”.
I think Anthony was satirising that whole narrative - ie Reagan and JP2 single handedly…
But that doesn’t mean that the income will be distributed equitably, or even in the same proportion as before the expansion, or that some won’t go backwards.
Mind you, Clinton didn’t do anything to address the increasing inequality of income and the glacial pace of real rises for the middle class.
Mark is correct. I have trouble speaking earnestly on politics without saying “fack” a lot.
Mark.
Many people confuse wealth with incomes. It isn’t the same thing. In addition to income, wealth grew in the US, during the 80’s because there was a stock market and real estate boom of huge proportions. So if you owned stock and a house you became wealthier. You were also helped along because income- real disposable incomes grew by 1/5 over the Reagan years, putting more into the pockets of people to buy stocks and homes.
I think it’s time to revist Bob Bartley’s book “Seven Fat Years”.
Chapter 1, The Man from Mars.
Man from Mars landed….. and what did he see?
Eco Growth.
Between 1982 and 90 US GNP rose 31% in real, inflation adjusted terms.
Living standards
1982-90
Living standards were up by 20%
De-industrialization
Manufacturing production grew in faster than GDP. It rose 48%
Gross investment grew by 32%
Between 1982-90 18.4 million jobs were added, satisfying the demo surge of the younger baby boom generation.
Productivity
up 10.2%
Not very large! But giving further impetus that an expansion with high levels of productivity means income growth as demand for labor increases.
Greed
(This is one the left love)
Charitable giving grew by5.1 a year between 92-90
Previous 25 years it was growing at 3.5%.
Charitable giving grew faster than Jewelry purchases, beauty parlor and health club spending. So much for the greed decade!
Tax Revenues
Federal government receipts grew by 99%!!! Against a GDP growth of 102%!
(Read this twice)
Between 1983 and 1989 the figures show tax receipts actually grew faster than GNP.
So much for cutting taxes and letting the deficit rip!!!!!!!
Correction
Not very large! But giving further impetus that an expansion with high levels of productivity means income growth as demand for labor increases.
Should read……….expansion with LOW levels………
Yes Phil, it’s true, my PC is programmed to hone in on any post mentioning either the greatest post-war POTUS or the word ‘redux.’
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
Mark, who is concerned with Iran’s nukes, brother, I share your concerns and I’m sure you’ll support my proposal for a bit of Mullah-Mowing and Ayatollah-Asskicking.
The people of Iran - especially young hippies like yourself - yearn to be free. The women of Iran are sick of the most vicious patriarchy, more brutal than even that prevailing at the CFMEU. If President Bush had more lead in his pencil, he’d ordering the tanks over the border RIGHT NOW.
I poke fun a bit but there is a deadly serious point, any true idealist would urge the Americans to take action on Iran now. The Iranian President is a lunatic, we can only speculate as to his levels of support within the theocracy and military there.
Because lefties love nostalgia, I hope you’ll let me indulge in a little. I read in history books of a Left that was intolerant of fascism, dictators, misogyny. I read of a Left that wanted a world free from tyranny and fought for internationalism not isolationism.
Where have they gone? What do you all stand for? Am I right in thinking that the only common belief you share is in a ‘better yesterday’? I hope not.
Andrew, you probably don’t remember, but we met at Melbourne Uni in the early 90s. I think I’m older than you so I doubt that I could be described as a “young hippy” and I’m much more likely to go for an Aramis scent than patchouli…
Family quarrels are always the most vicious. I’m gunna make some popcorn, get a coke and put my feet up. This is gunna be better than a good movie.
Andrew, would you mind explaining to a RWDB who the CFMEU are and why are so brutal that you would compare them to mullocracy.
Please, just wait five mins as I have to put popcorn in the microwave….. large serving!!!!
“I read in history books of a Left that was intolerant of fascism, dictators, misogyny. I read of a Left that wanted a world free from tyranny and fought for internationalism not isolationism.”
Andrew, if you’re going to quote Nick Cohen at us you should acknowledge him with a proper reference.
Well I just happened to have like the guy. He and Thatcher came along and somehow the world became a better place, better for the rich, better for the poor and better for the long suffering sinners in between. This is blindingly obvious to me, so blindingly obvious that those who disagree clearly have a whole different list of criteria.
Tyro said…”But I’m glad to hear such relevant opinions to the topic as to your obviously considered, tier one no less, views on modern wine output. Do go on”
Ho ho ho…This from the man whose sole contribution to the debate was..”The US Navy is basically incompetent”
I think maybe wayy too long in the cold
mmmm speaking of relevance..
There is no trickle-down economics. You can search the history of economic thought and you will find no trickle-down theory. There is however great advantages in reducing governmental depredation.
A smaller government has more chance of fostering a less unequal society since it ought not have to resort to taxing struggling workers or inflating. It is the debauch of the currency which most particularly funnels wealth upward to the already wealthy.
All this arguing about the point is going nowhere, just bomb the crap out of Iran, blow up their oil wells and piplines, cut off their supply of $$$ thereby eliminating further tribal/terrorist funding plus nuclear ambitions, stabilise the M/E AND let them live the pious abstemious Muslim life just like they want to, PLUS help wean the US off their addiction (just a weensy bit) to oil.
So, any truth the rumour the USS Ronald Reagan has forgotten which port it was docking at?
Were there any God you’d probably be condemned to early onset Altzheimers for that filthy comment.
Naaah, Nabs, RR was just asleep at the helm.
Graeme, as an atheist who do you blame for your affliction with early onset Tourette’s Syndrome?
That’s easy Paul.
I blame Jason Soon and Quiggin. Funnily enough both economists. Whereas when I went onto Catallaxy I was determined to only insult dumb-left-wingers who insulted me first, as you can see that policy has been dropped. One doesn’t wish to make the same mistake twice.
Oh come on Graeme, go on over to Tim Blair’s site and not make your mistake there why dontcha. Trust me they really are a gang of crazed leftists. Why just yesterday he admitted to receiving money from the ABC.
They’d love to hear your opinion and I think you’d fit in quite well.
You judge me by your own standards beaker. I’m not much for the church experience. Not unless I can smuggle in a hip-flask or something.
What’s happened? You’ve stopped counting down and have fallen back on polite requests. What sort of Sheriff are you? “You’ve got until sundown to get out of town……… Er .. Any Sundown of your choosing”
“Amazingly consistent when you begin think of all the Republican trash and debris Reagan left as his legacy to America.”
What is this all about Phil? You want to explain this?
This couldn’t by BIGOTRY!!!!! could it. Personally I don’t think so. I don’t think it could be mindless bigotry. I must be something else. After you guys are LEFTWING. So it can’t be bigotry.
Still I’d quite like to see you expand on that one.
Just a quick note to Mr Bird. As you can see, you weren’t banned from this blog. However, your comments are subject to moderation to ensure you don’t repeat yesterday’s effort and vilify and abuse other commenters.
Wow. That’s technology for you? But will you stop other commentators villifying and abusing ME? Or ordinary people not on the cafe side of the street? Take Phils description of conservatives above for example? To be sure I’m a Reagan conservative. So we’re all TRASH right? I’ve just got to get used to people
socialists calling me TRASH right. Or Kulak. Or non-person. So long as its obliquely and in polite language?
It is true that after my bizzare treatment at Catallaxy I decided to go on the offensive. Rather then just hit back at insults HARD. So I admit to doing that here. But I’ll always hit back hard. That isn’t going to change.
Would you even consider treating both sides equally? Would you even know whether you were doing it or not? As far as I can see, this forum is chock-full of abuse. Implied more then overt. But there’s plenty of the overt stuff too.
Moderating takes all the feedback out of it. It blows the deal. See if my act is acceptable to you when its just snapback mode.
Give it a few hours and if its no good throw me out again. I’ll be more understanding about that.
…………………………………………………………………………..
You don’t need to print this post unless you really want to.
Think about this: You don’t want me starting my own blog do you? Who you figure I’m going to use for my inspiration? Peel another few layers off the onion from where Tim Blair now is.
Show some goodwill.
As remarked over at Troppo, the big problem with enforcing comments policies is that most of the time - because folks have other stuff to do, and no one is paid to watch comments threads - no moderator is watching. I didn’t look at LP at all until about 3pm yesterday. So unfortunately, when someone steps over the mark, the safest thing to do is pop them in moderation, because if they have a history of making abusive comments, they may very well do it again and no one will be there to deal. For instance, I’m about to go out and I may or may not be back before tonight.
Of course, as you say, you can always start your own blog.
Ok, Graeme, obviously you’re making an effort to be civil, so I’ll let you out of moderation to see if you can keep it up.
Thanks for that. I don’t know how long it can last.
But you will NOTICE if a bunch of unscholarly miscreants start swarming me….. won’t you? Because without a doubt I’ll retaliate so any moderation efforts are more productively levelled at them.
You know this is magnificent technology. If we can get the ground rules (or more correctly ‘norms of behaviour’ right, its my contention that the technology can give rise to what amounts to a spontaneous free (or at least cheap) THINKTANK.
But its not going to work if people are writing haikus abusing that intelligent fellow Jack all the time. Or other such behaviours not in keeping with honest truth-seeking.
Actually, I won’t be around for a while, and I know Mark isn’t now either. That’s what we were talking about before - these blogs are voluntary sites not professionally run, and therefore half the time there are no moderators reading comments. That’s why sometimes interventions around the comments policy appear belated - because they are but for no reasons of partiality but rather because there is no full time moderator checking every comment. So we rely a lot on people’s good will and trust in them to do the right thing.
So my advice, Graeme, would be that if you genuinely want to discuss issues, do so. And the best way to keep that on track is to ignore any slights that might be directed at you, and keep the high moral ground by staying dignified and talking about the issues not playing the man/woman/commenter of indeterminate gender.
Also this place is usually pretty quiet on weekends.