Don't forget Americans foot the bill for research while other socialist societies reap the benefits of that. If other countries were required to do their own research they would have to spend a lot more for it.
RandFan, sorry to rehash stuff you already know. When you said you weren't sure how much a president actually influences the market or the conditions of the American people I assumed you meant that you didn't know they had a lot of influence and therefore probably didn't know much about it. You do at least acknowledge that California is having a financial crisis and that it is because of too much spending through social programs. This is the problem. Once the population realizes they can vote themselves benefits then financial stability is lost.
I know you have your view on this, as does everyone else. People seem to be going ga ga over socialism these days. Socialism just strikes me as wrong. I believe competition is vital for everything, from microorganisms up through to societies. Socialism diminishes the need for competition and with it the benefits of competition. It seems ironic to me that the bible thumping, Darwin rejecting right-wingers see this too, but the more scientific minded left do not.
First, I find your opinions difficult to listen to because you sold out human kind to help the toasters.
But putting all that aside, I think that few people care much about the "ism" anymore. In my opinion, I think most everyday Americans and probably most of the world, scientific-minded or not, just want to do what works. The biggest woo of all to my mind is becoming married to ideas and theoretical concepts no matter what happens in the real world. If I recall what happened to Greenspan correctly, his "flaw" was that his theoretical construct was incapable of properly presuming the behavior of banks-- perhaps more accurately, the behavior of people running banks:
“I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organizations, specifically banks, is such that they were best capable of protecting shareholders and equity in the firms.”
But isn't every economic construct presumptive of human behavior? And isn't human behavior ever-changing? I'm not arguing the invalid nature of constructs. I am however advocating a 'roll with the punches' attitude about them. If they suck and they don't work, change them. Don't stay in a bad marriage. Greenspan didn't. He's a squirrelly, scary man, but I respect him for being able to admit to his "flaw."
Also, I really appreciated reading joobz posting above about medical research-- I learned something! And it was a little different that what I had thought before. That's what happens when you let go of the argument for argument's sake (and with all due respect to Rush's critical thinking skills, he is in the business of arguing just for argument's sake...) and just listen.
Listen to RandFan-- beware false dichotomy.
Take care and down with cylons.
