Great post Justin
Really interesting to go through this book in light of post-Palin. Her persona certainly adds more real-world context into the authors' main thesis.
There was an internal battle going on when I was reading this and even when I heard about the Palin selection. As much as I hate the snootiness of the liberal left, I cringe whenever I hear the Republican party's future is the "white trash" vote. This culture/class war is bound to unfold even more in the near future. Intersting because, we are, after all, pretty educated guys who mostly only share the same values as the Sam's Club voters, but career/style of life/even location of where we live, we could be mistaken for liberals...I think that's why Mitt was so appealing. Razor sharp, Harvard degrees, founded a private equity firm, could hold his own with anyone intellectually, including Barack, and yet, kept to his core as a family man and consevative American. too bad he was a mormon.
Ironically, I've always believed that America's greatest strength has been because of people who "feed this country, work our factories, fight our wars." Another interesting thing to think about is, how will this group of people (descendants of the Greatest Generation) adapt to a rapidly exploding Hispanic society that happens to share most of their values? In terms of politics, GOP needs to capitalize on this huge potential base.
My worry and focus always shifts to America's continual decline in science/technology. The Indians and Chinese who are filling our science/mathematics doctoral programs won't be coming forever. Europe's model is interesting indeed. I am still bewildered why we cap our H-1 visas to keep out talented future Americans!
Friday, September 5, 2008
Grand New Party Discussion
I think we should break the discussion up into two parts. The first dealing with the first section of the book covering the history and the second having to do with their policy recommendations. So here are some thoughts/comments to get the discussion under way:
Part 1
--I was stuck by how much emphasis the authors contribute to the breakdown of the traditional family as causing so much of the societies problems? Will this country ever reverse course on the divorce rate, single parents etc.?
--I also was struck by the lost opportunities the Republican controlled Senate and House had when they wouldn't work with Clinton to push through SS reform that included private accounts (p. 122). I guess this shouldn't surprise me too much because these are the same people that pork barreled their way out of the majority.
--I like the quote on page 123 "fast economic growth, after all, is a means to an end--namely, higher living standards for most people....."
Part 2
--Some of the stats on the difference between stable families and the social cost of unstable ones are staggering see middle para on p. 137.
--Divorce rate for Ivy Leaguer's is 10%, I don't think only education explains this but also the stigma of divorce in certain social circles compared to other social circles where there is not the attached stigma.
--First generation immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than white population while future generation's crime rates are higher.
--Obviously, I loved their policy solutions to put family first and give huge tax breaks to married couples with children. I believe it is their thesis that this breakdown of families is a main factor in social ills so it makes sense that you have to create the right economic incentives for "ideal families."
--Invest in our infrastructure! I like the statistc that Dallas has twice as much pavement per person as LA and half the congestion. So many cities are poorly planned not to mention managed (cough... Detroit).
--Health Care is an huge issue (above my pay grade as Obama would say) obviously needs to be addressed but needs to be a major overhaul not piecemealed. Again it comes back to the free rider principal and making people have some skin in the game so you have consumption optimized, not giving universal health care to everyone, that is the opposite of optimization.
--Interesting idea about the number of police that need to be hired on page 203.
--I like the idea of instead of paying farmer subsidies for food we don't need to pay them subsidies to create energy or carbon removal agriculture, throw some windmills up on that land instead of growing corn that just gets tossed out.
--I agree that while education is important we need to be more like Europe in terms of offering more trade school options for people who decide college isn't for them. It's better for the economy for someone to have a specific skill than have a liberal arts education that they can't use. But what's the long term ramifications of this, I think we all agree on the value of a liberal arts education, so where's the balance?
Enough of my ramblings.
J
Part 1
--I was stuck by how much emphasis the authors contribute to the breakdown of the traditional family as causing so much of the societies problems? Will this country ever reverse course on the divorce rate, single parents etc.?
--I also was struck by the lost opportunities the Republican controlled Senate and House had when they wouldn't work with Clinton to push through SS reform that included private accounts (p. 122). I guess this shouldn't surprise me too much because these are the same people that pork barreled their way out of the majority.
--I like the quote on page 123 "fast economic growth, after all, is a means to an end--namely, higher living standards for most people....."
Part 2
--Some of the stats on the difference between stable families and the social cost of unstable ones are staggering see middle para on p. 137.
--Divorce rate for Ivy Leaguer's is 10%, I don't think only education explains this but also the stigma of divorce in certain social circles compared to other social circles where there is not the attached stigma.
--First generation immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than white population while future generation's crime rates are higher.
--Obviously, I loved their policy solutions to put family first and give huge tax breaks to married couples with children. I believe it is their thesis that this breakdown of families is a main factor in social ills so it makes sense that you have to create the right economic incentives for "ideal families."
--Invest in our infrastructure! I like the statistc that Dallas has twice as much pavement per person as LA and half the congestion. So many cities are poorly planned not to mention managed (cough... Detroit).
--Health Care is an huge issue (above my pay grade as Obama would say) obviously needs to be addressed but needs to be a major overhaul not piecemealed. Again it comes back to the free rider principal and making people have some skin in the game so you have consumption optimized, not giving universal health care to everyone, that is the opposite of optimization.
--Interesting idea about the number of police that need to be hired on page 203.
--I like the idea of instead of paying farmer subsidies for food we don't need to pay them subsidies to create energy or carbon removal agriculture, throw some windmills up on that land instead of growing corn that just gets tossed out.
--I agree that while education is important we need to be more like Europe in terms of offering more trade school options for people who decide college isn't for them. It's better for the economy for someone to have a specific skill than have a liberal arts education that they can't use. But what's the long term ramifications of this, I think we all agree on the value of a liberal arts education, so where's the balance?
Enough of my ramblings.
J
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)