Lydon seemed to enjoy the show as well. Check out his post-show blog (fifth green box, center column).
Okay, okay, I might project the liberalism every time I get near NPR, I will confess.
But check out the comments on his site and tell me the crowd attracted doesn't give you that vibe. The "capitalism is evil" vibe is everywhere!
Big deal! China goes capitalist and doesn't go total democratic in 25 years. Only took America... what is it now? ...230 years and counting?
Still, Iraq plus Lebanon has a lot of people spooked right now, feeling like the world is coming to an end (probably my next column), and in that context, the blogosphere in general is awfully hyperbolic right now--reflecting the times and the growing anxiety.
| Permalink |
Comments (5)
Pop-socialism. It's rather popular amongst pseudo-intellectual tweenagers (aka Angry Tweenaged Radicals *tm) these days, along with anything by Chomsky or Zinn.
Posted by Jeremy | August 8, 2006 7:43 AM
i used to be more wary of Big Business and Colonialism myself. there are still many abuses, of course. i'm not crazy about capitalism, in an ideal world, but ours it not close, and it beats the alternatives. people making their own economic decisions/markets are better than the alternative.
and, as much as i hate to admit it as someone who has leaned Democrat, it really does seem the only way to beat those beggars in Washington/your state capital/your municipality is to cut their budgets. they'll spend more than every penny they can get their grubby paws on in pandering to we the populace.
one big problem with the current Bush Administration is 'cut taxes and spend'. at least with 'tax and spend' you had the coin!
Posted by Sean Meade | August 8, 2006 9:55 AM
"...'cut taxes and spend'. at least with 'tax and spend' you had the coin!"
They have the coin now. Cutting tax rates has led to a huge increase in tax revenue collected by the government. Same thing happened with Reagan.
Then, as now, the problem is 100% on the spending side.
Posted by Lexington Green | August 8, 2006 12:52 PM
i bow before your superior economics training, LG. when i copied my comment above as a post on my own weblog, i did include the caveat that i am no economist and i could be wrong. would it be fair to call this theory 'supply-side' or not? thanks!
Posted by Sean | August 8, 2006 5:37 PM
This is a common error. Think about it this way. For any taxable activity, if you have a tax rate of 0% you get no revenue. If you have a tax rate of 100%, you get zero revenue. Somewhere between 0 and 100, for any taxable activity there is an optimal rate of taxation in terms of revenue collected. This is the much-maligned Laffer Curve.
It is sometimes the case that cutting a tax RATE will lead to an increased rate of revenue due to an increase in reported taxable activity.
That is why it is a little bit misleading to talk about "tax cuts", when what you mean is "rate cuts". Bush's cuts have led to higher tax revenue. People will dispute the extent to which those cuts caused the increased revenue. But, anyway, there has been no decline in revenue taken in by the government. It is still tax and spend. But the spending side is out of control.
Posted by Lexington Green | August 8, 2006 5:47 PM