Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Is it not the responsibility of the federal government to ensure that the constitution is enforced?
    Not the legislature, no. The enforcement of law is the responsibility of the executive power.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Douglas)
    What Wiz is saying, without saying it, is that it was the republicans who got the 1964 civil rights act passed.
    No, that wasn't "what I was saying" .... Although I admit that case could be made. However, my point was that the high-profile votes of the presidential candidates set the tone for the future of the 2 parties.

    Lyndon Johnson famously remarked "We just lost the South" when he signed the bill ... meanwhile the GOP's candidate that year, Barry Goldwater, opposed it. In the 1964 election, Goldwater made inroads into the Deep South, winning in 4 states that hadn't voted Republican since the 1870s. This awakened the GOP to the fact that they could win the south with socially conservative campaigning. In the next election, only one Southern state (Texas) voted Democrat.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Douglas)
    What Wiz is saying, without saying it, is that it was the republicans who got the 1964 civil rights act passed.
    What he's also saying is that the Republican party of 1964 has for all intents and purposes become the Democratic party of today.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    What he's also saying is that the Republican party of 1964 has for all intents and purposes become the Democratic party of today.
    No, I'm not exactly saying that either. It's more complicated than that.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    No, I'm not exactly saying that either. It's more complicated than that.
    The politics are complicated, in that the modern DNC didn't adopt the economic agenda of the 1964 Republicans. What is less complicated is makeup of each party's base. The northeast was a Republican haven 40 years ago, while the south consistently voted Democrat. The reverse is now true.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    The politics are complicated, in that the modern DNC didn't adopt the economic agenda of the 1964 Republicans. What is less complicated is makeup of each party's base. The northeast was a Republican haven 40 years ago, while the south consistently voted Democrat. The reverse is now true.
    I agree that if you look at each party's geographic base it seems uncomplicated. But the underlying principles of the 2 parties have not simply reversed. For instance, today's Republicans don't oppose civil rights for racial minorities, which the Democrats did during the "Solid South" era, nor has the GOP become the party of organized labor (even though the Dems can't be described as being that anymore either).
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Are we taking lynching to be a race hate crime - or simply local and possibly unreasonable justice? Haven't I read that most 'lynched' were Whites by Whites? More racial blagging?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    I agree that if you look at each party's geographic base it seems uncomplicated. But the underlying principles of the 2 parties have not simply reversed. For instance, today's Republicans don't oppose civil rights for racial minorities, which the Democrats did during the "Solid South" era, nor has the GOP become the party of organized labor (even though the Dems can't be described as being that anymore either).
    The political spectrum shifted. Being racist will not get you elected nowadays. It's undeniable that the Democrats are the party of minority groups right now. Neither national party supports unions, though the Democratic politicians in NYC can't make a step without voicing support for unions and passing ridiculous regulations that stifle economic growth and employment just to please unions. The situation is getting intolerable; if not for the finance sector, our economy would have in ruins right now.

    The Democrats did remain the more left-wing of the two parties, though they managed to lose the support of much of the working class due to the theocratic inclination of our southern brethren.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    The political spectrum shifted. Being racist will not get you elected nowadays. It's undeniable that the Democrats are the party of minority groups right now. Neither national party supports unions, though the Democratic politicians in NYC can't make a step without voicing support for unions and passing ridiculous regulations that stifle economic growth and employment just to please unions. The situation is getting intolerable; if not for the finance sector, our economy would have in ruins right now.

    The Democrats did remain the more left-wing of the two parties, though they managed to lose the support of much of the working class due to the theocratic inclination of our southern brethren.
    Don't most politicians in ethnically necessary consituencies play up to ethnic interests?

    Isn't union power one of the most obvious factors to disprove the notion of 'market' that I've heard you espousing? The market's gone surely?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    Don't most politicians in ethnically necessary consituencies play up to ethnic interests?
    No, it's not socially acceptable. The most you'll get is a speech about the importance of diversity.

    Even if the people who ARE racist tend to prefer that it not be openly played upon. Helps them cope, I guess.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Not the legislature, no. The enforcement of law is the responsibility of the executive power.
    But the executive is part of fed govt. Aha, but it's a senate apology.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    Isn't union power one of the most obvious factors to disprove the notion of 'market' that I've heard you espousing? The market's gone surely?
    Err...just because markets aren't allowed to function in the construction and garbage disposal industries in one city in the nation means that markets don't function?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Err...just because markets aren't allowed to function in the construction and garbage disposal industries in one city in the nation means that markets don't function?
    Yea in fact it does (and what do you mean by 'nation'). You know I was referring to the 'market' in the neoclassical sense, and I made reference to one of it's most obvious spanners - unions - largely a result of corporations - another great spanner in the works of free marketeers. The market's dead Milton!

    The 'market' is an ideal that all conservatives share, some cling to it's corpse because they value personal responsibility, some pretend it's still alive because it focuses power in a few friendly hands, which are you?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    Yea in fact it does (and what do you mean by 'nation'). You know I was referring to the 'market' in the neoclassical sense, and I made reference to one of it's most obvious spanners - unions - largely a result of corporations - another great spanner in the works of free marketeers. The market's dead Milton!

    The 'market' is an ideal that all conservatives share, some cling to it's corpse because they value personal responsibility, some pretend it's still alive because it focuses power in a few hands, which are you?
    Only 9% of the American non-government work force is unionized so I don't see your point.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Is the market free Bizzy or do corporations, unions, pressure groups, and the massive amount of services provided by government mean the 'market' is not free and therefore not a 'market'?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    Is the market free Bizzy or do corporations, unions, pressure groups, and the massive amount of services provided by government mean the 'market' is not free and therefore not a 'market'?
    The market is a combination of all these groups; it has never existed in a vacuum. As long as none of the groups is powerful enough to set prices by itself, the market is able to function.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    The market is a combination of all these groups; it has never existed in a vacuum. As long as none of the groups is powerful enough to set prices by itself, the market is able to function.
    I would say a free market requires the absence of these controlling interests. Unions fix wages. Pressure groups sway purchases and investments. Only if a market has failed would we need the intervention of governments. Who do you suppose fixes the prices of UK cars, (oligopoly being one of the first outcomes of corporate market-busting).

    The market's been dead a while. I think it's worth reviving, but I won't pretend it has anything to do with how I buy my electricity or oil today.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    I would say a free market requires the absence of these controlling interests. Unions fix wages. Pressure groups sway purchases and investments. Only if a market has failed would we need the intervention of governments. Who do you suppose fixes the prices of UK cars, (oligopoly being one of the first outcomes of corporate market-busting).
    Unions can't unilaterally set prices. Firstly, they have to negotiate with employers. More importantly, if they force up wages by enough, their firms will become uncompetitive and will be destroyed by international competition. What ever happened to the British textile and auto industries? Unions can make short-term gains. In the long term, they either destroy themselves or the industries they operate in. Either way, the markets are allowed to function with few restrictions.

    The market's been dead a while. I think it's worth reviving, but I won't pretend it has anything to do with how I buy my electricity or oil today.
    The market for utilities is more free now than it has been in the last 60 years. Many industries that people considered to be natural monopolies (such as telecommunication) are being privatized at a rapid pace thanks to massive technological innovation. Every year the government becomes more and more obsolete. And that means that the markets are becoming more and more free.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    The market for utilities is more free now than it has been in the last 60 years. Many industries that people considered to be natural monopolies (such as telecommunication) are being privatized at a rapid pace thanks to massive technological innovation. Every year the government becomes more and more obsolete. And that means that the markets are becoming more and more free.
    Definately true that they are more free than in the past. Point accepted. I don't accept that lack of government control implies a free market tho'. Only huge corps can buy into these markets and of course huge corps have great influence on gov policy. Price fixing is a fact of life in the corporate age.

    You're not gonna be popular at the LSE!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    Definately true that they are more free than in the past. Point accepted. I don't accept that lack of government control implies a free market tho'. Only huge corps can buy into these markets and of course huge corps have great influence on gov policy. Price fixing is a fact of life in the corporate age.
    Corporations have to compete against each other, international competition, and even products from other industries. Perfect competition doesn't exist in most industries, but whatever competition does exist is significantly more efficient than the alternatives.

    You're not gonna be popular at the LSE!
    I won't be studying economics. I doubt I'll find any professors in agreement with me on the field I will be studying though.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 25, 2005
The home of Results and Clearing

4,854

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.