It isn't often that you get reading suggestions from a United States senator, but that's what happened this past weekend for those who attended the National Review Institute's summit meeting in Washington, D.C.
The three-day conclave, part election post-mortem and part revival meeting (that is, reviving conservatism and America), featured a bracing dose of conservative intellectuals along with activists, campaign professionals and office holders. Newly minted Senator Ted Cruz of Texas spoke in his characteristic fashion — fluidly without notes or podium.
Cruz, while praising Mitt Romney in general and acknowledging that anyone can have a slip of the tongue, zeroed in on the 47 percent gaffe. It is precisely to those who are striving for something better, Cruz argued, those who are poor or unemployed, to whom Republicans should aim their message of opportunity and growth. They are the ones who stand to benefit most from policies that promote growth.
I was sitting near Mario Loyola of the Texas Public Policy Foundation as the senator spoke, so I caught Loyola's surprised expression when the senator quoted him. We should reflect, the senator suggested, on an article Loyola wrote for National Review in 2011. It's a tale of two cities — Houston and Detroit — symbols of two radically different governing philosophies.
Both cities were once dominated by one industry — autos in Detroit, oil in Houston. Both grew robustly during the Second World War, but the cities responded very differently to setbacks in the years that followed. Detroit and Michigan attempted to favor and coddle their big industry and the big unions associated with it. Houston went for competition.
Both cities (and most of the country) had histories of racial strife. Detroit unfortunately elected a leader in 1973, Mayor Coleman Young, who stoked racial animosity rather than attempting to unify the city. This accelerated the white flight (and capital flight) that had begun after the 1967 riots.
When the auto industry faced global competition starting in the 1970s, Michigan and big auto sought protection from Japanese imports. President Reagan extracted "voluntary" quotas from Japanese carmakers. The big three were thus shielded from the consequences of their own bad labor and management decisions. This permitted them to stagnate. They failed to adjust to market pressures and have continued to collect government bailouts to the present.
Michigan and Detroit used "targeted" tax credits and other incentives to lure jobs to their region — more than $3.3 billion over 15 years. The government has often intervened to help favored industries — condemning, for example, 1,300 houses, 140 businesses, 6 churches and a hospital to make way for a General Motors plant in the early 1980s. City and state taxes are high, and strikes have damaged the school system.
Between 1900 and 1930, Detroit was the fastest growing city in the world. Today, many of its buildings are abandoned. The illegitimacy rate is 80 percent. Half the city's population is functionally illiterate. During the recent recession, the unemployment rate reached 30 percent. Detroit is one of the most dangerous cities in America.
Houston roared to life as the oil capital of America. But because oil was extracted by hundreds of independent operators, the industry never consolidated as the auto industry had. Producers competed with one another, and with the world, rather than colluding to get protection and special breaks from the state.
Houston fell on hard times in the mid-1980s when oil prices suddenly declined. Rather than intervene to protect the ailing industry, government did nothing. Layoffs were massive and painful. Unemployment shot up to 9.3 percent. But within a couple of years, employment snapped back. Whereas before the shock, oil had represented 80 percent of Houston's economy, it dropped to 50 percent after. Left to its own devices, the economy diversified, expanding to include computer makers, airlines, retailers, utilities, food and grocery companies and medical centers. They were lured not by special tax incentives or breaks from the government but by a low tax environment, cost-conscious environmental regulation, right to work laws, and tort reform.
During the first Obama term, fully half of all the jobs created in America were created in Texas.
Senator Cruz mused that if government had been as intrusive in the early 20th century as it is now, the automobile itself would have been delayed. "We would have been subsidizing all the buggy makers." When Democrats say they have the answers, he advises to remember Detroit.
I doubt that many on this board have the attention span that would be necessary to read and comprehend that short essay. Hopefully some will, because it was quite good.
I'll go to my grave wondering how some intelligent people, when presented with a set of facts cannot come to a logical conclusion, but alas, it is the way of the left. VIVA CAPITALISTA
Comparing autos to oil doesn't really do it for me. Two entirely different industries, and while they are complimentary to each other, the choices surrounding the consumer's buying decision for each product also differ greatly.
I can buy a used car, but I can't really buy used gasoline.
It is truly amazing how concise and unambiguous Todd's posts become when impacted by irrefutable fact.
An echo: Viva Capitalism I wonder, is there any correlation in the governmant's funding of the Car and the Oil industry.
Carbon dioxide is not wasted, the plants use it to make Oxygen and energy when the sun don't shine. And when the sun does shine; Photosynthesis, if you don't mind 5 syllables.
I agree with Dogfish. Were it not for the apples to oranges nature of any honest comparison between the auto industry and the petroleum industry, the argument posed would be very compelling. As it stands, it flies in the face of reality.
Adding on to Dogfish's point: does anyone out there really think about what brand of gasoline they buy? I know I don't. It's a chemical compound, with a very standard recipe. Concepts such as "winter blends" are no more than tools to justify price-gouging throughout the rest of the year. I submit that most of us, when we do bother to make decisions about where we buy gas, do so on a basis of price, or perhaps depending on ethanol content (which is not a brand-specific distinction). Because such factors are relatively consistent across the entire market, there is no resl, market-driven competition in the petroleum industry. Big Oil is an oligopoly, and possibly the most villainous one in the entire world, let alone the US. (Sorry; I can't resist an opportunity to demonize Big Oil.)
When we buy a car, on the other hand, we tend to be much more selective, due in no small part to the fact that there are so many variations in design, function, and quality, many of which are brand-specific. There is also much greater variance in price across the market. That variance was not the only factor in Detroit's fall from grace, but it played a huge role. I know that my general preference for Japanese autos has been based on cost, not only at the dealership, but also in terms of maintenance and fuel. I'd love to have a nice, big, 'Merican-made 4x4 as much as anyone, but it simply doesn't pencil out for me, so my fishing rig (and commuter) is a stripped-down Toyota Tacoma, powered by only two wheels and a wimpy, 4-cylinder engine. By the way, to Dogfish's point, I purchased it "lightly used," but I have only been able to find "new" gas to put in it.
All this aside, this Cruz fellow seems well-spoken and intelligent, so I kind of like him so far. Hey - if I gotta get screwed over, it might as well be by somebody that doesn't come off as a moron. Being abused by Congress is hard enough without the realization that most of them are idiots. I wish him well (until he pisses me off).
Cue the wingnuts to tell us even more emphatically why buying gasoline and buying a car made in Detroit are exactly the same, and why it's Obama's fault...
Perhaps while they are at it they will blame Obama for the failure of the BetaMax, and if the gubmint had just left the BetaMax alone like they did with the precise nature of sliced bread that the BetaMax would still be around.
Perhaps while they are at it they will blame Obama for the failure of the BetaMax, and if the gubmint had just left the BetaMax alone like they did with the precise nature of sliced bread that the BetaMax would still be around.
Lost in all of the rants is the fact Houston's economy went from 80% oil dependent to 50%. Why do you think that happened?
I'm going to go out on a limb here...I mean, I'm not an economist or anything...but I'm going to guess that, in Houston, 30% of their local economy went into something other than the oil industry...and that out of the thousands of oil-dependent companies in the Houston area some closed, some downsized, and some consolidated.
Oil producing jobs in Houston taking a hit is not a big deal, except to those who lose their jobs, of course. Oil can be found everywhere, and anywhere, and no one down the chain is going to be in trouble if Houston produces less oil.
The American Auto Industry, however, is not that way. You can mostly only get those cars from Detroit (and associated cities).
Those jobs support tens of millions of jobs all over the USA, too...from car dealers to auto parts industries to mechanics.
10,000 jobs lost in Detroit will result in millions of jobs lost all over the USA. Losing every job in the entire city of Houston that deals with the oil industry will not short the country or the world on oil, nor will it cost millions of jobs anywhere.
That's why comparing them is silly...which I suspect you know, but will continue to harp on anyway.
There are a LOT of corporate headquarters located in and around Houston, so there is obviously some added appeal there. If I had to take a wild-ass guess, I'd say that the cost of doing business in Texas is less than that in Michigan, due to Texas STATE policy. I don't think intrusion by the FEDERAL government, or any lack thereof, factored in heavily.
As for why nobody's moving to Detroit, well, cost of doing business aside, it's a $hithole. I'm more sure about this than my speculation regarding Houston's diversification.
As for why nobody's moving to Detroit, well, cost of doing business aside, it's a $hithole. I'm more sure about this than my speculation regarding Houston's diversification.
I've read you're posts for a year and more, and you are insightful. But you choose to say potato, while choose to say pototo.
I'm still trying to contemplate why someone would ever copy/past anything that Mona Charon writes since it is virtually all just as inaccurate and misleading as this article is.
I'm also still trying to contemplate why RWWJ's would try and compare the oil industry in Houston to the auto industry in Detroit.
I'm also still trying to figure out not only why it's Obama's fault, but what the thing is that's his fault this time.
Lastly, I'm still contemplating why Hank always changes topics in the middle of a conversation.
No need to contemplate why RWWJ's not only stick to their guns when their "facts and logic" are shown to be "smoke and mirrors and fallacies", but double down on their fallacies...that is, to turn a phrase, how they roll.
Hank, sorry to offend your delicate sensibilities.
You need soap and water, soap and water, soap and water, soap and water, water, water, water, water, water, water, water, water, water, water, water, water.
Thankyou, made me forget about that pompous azz's, er I mean Todd's foolishness for a few.
It pleases me to no end that these are the "smart" comments made about me by a guy who's contribution to the political conversation is either pithy, indecipherable, and worthless one liners, or just copy/pastes of right wing fools like the one that started this thread.
So Cruz seemed like a smart cookie with his comparison or analogy only until one thought about it and realizes it's a false - apples and oranges - comparison. Yeah, let's select sample cities or regions that appear to support our argument, and then analyze only the variable or variables that also appear to support our argument, and naturally we'll ignore any sample cities or variables that conflict with our argument. Wow, that takes a real 148 er to figure out. I suppose "cherry picking" is a more appropriate description than apples and oranges, but fruity nonetheless.
If that was the point of the article, Hank, then it could have been made with one sentence...
"Houston is doing great, Detroit is not"
...but even you, I'm sure, know that the point of the article was to find a pretend link between leaving Houston to its own devices and watching it triumph over evil, and a link between government assistance in Detroit causing it to be in trouble, and then concluding that the only difference between what happened in Houston and what happened in Detroit is that the Gubmint fukked up Detroit.
No Hank, it does not. But unless you missed the point, Sen. Cruz was suggesting a causal correlation between styles of governing and results while ignoring that any other factors or variables may have contributed to the outcome, and contributed more greatly. That is the flaw in myopic analyses.
And you're waaay to big a pussy to go there and let those words spew out of that cocksucker of yours. You'd get your ass beat so fast it would be comical.
And it would probably be some Shelton broad that decided to kick your pussy ass back to Bellevue.
And you're waaay to big a pussy to go there and let those words spew out of that cocksucker of yours. You'd get your ass beat so fast it would be comical.
And it would probably be some Shelton broad that decided to kick your pussy ass back to Bellevue.
And you're waaay to big a pussy to go there and let those words spew out of that cocksucker of yours. You'd get your ass beat so fast it would be comical.
And it would probably be some Shelton broad that decided to kick your pussy ass back to Bellevue.
hehehehe...I knew that would get your goat.
Pine Tree restaurant. 6:15am on any work day. Bob's Tavern, Friday night, about 9pm. Try it. I want to be there with a video camera.
No Hank, it does not. But unless you missed the point, Sen. Cruz was suggesting a causal correlation between styles of governing and results while ignoring that any other factors or variables may have contributed to the outcome, and contributed more greatly. That is the flaw in myopic analyses.
It always offends me when anyone says, You missed the point, it is at a minimum presumptuous, and most certainly shallow.
Wasn't trying to offend you Blackmouth. It's not presumptuous if Hank's subsequent post offered no clue that he understood the difference between implied causation and coincidental correlation. Shallow? This is the dark side; almost everything posted here is shallow due to brevity if nothing else.
As some of you have pulled at the strings of this argument, the argument has become like life without zinc oxide. This piece of trash also reminds me of trickle down economics, which was of course, a runaway success.
