Ralph Nader
milton_friedman
Join Date: 2004-08-11 Member: 30535Members
Join Date: 2004-08-11 Member: 30535Members
<div class="IPBDescription">Opinions about him</div> Just curious to see what the forum goers in here think about him (concerning policy)? Personally, i believe that he resorts to more rhetoric then actual fact (evil corporations, conspiracy against the working class). I was reading some transcripts on a debate he had with Jagdish Bhagwati (A renowned economist who is Pro Free Market/free trade) and the stuff Ralph nader resorts to is un-based, highly idealistic claims. Interesting to note what many students being tutored in the laws of economics think about him.
<i>Some years ago, the distinguished international-trade economist Jagdish Bhagwati was visiting Cornell University, giving a lecture to graduate students during the day and debating Ralph Nader on free trade that evening. During his lecture, Prof. Bhagwati asked how many of the graduate students would be attending that evening’s debate. Not one hand went up.
Amazed, he asked why. The answer was that the economics students considered it to be a waste of time. The kind of silly stuff that Ralph Nader was saying had been refuted by economists’ ages ago. The net result was that the audience for the debate consisted of people largely illiterate in economics and they cheered for Mr. Nader.</i>
Somewhat disheartening; intellectuals better start challenging this so called "consumer advocate” and anti-capitalist before they start turning back the clocks in economic policy. The same ideas he has been spouting off have already been tried and been debated in the 20th century (this century is also know as “battle of ideas”).
<i>Some years ago, the distinguished international-trade economist Jagdish Bhagwati was visiting Cornell University, giving a lecture to graduate students during the day and debating Ralph Nader on free trade that evening. During his lecture, Prof. Bhagwati asked how many of the graduate students would be attending that evening’s debate. Not one hand went up.
Amazed, he asked why. The answer was that the economics students considered it to be a waste of time. The kind of silly stuff that Ralph Nader was saying had been refuted by economists’ ages ago. The net result was that the audience for the debate consisted of people largely illiterate in economics and they cheered for Mr. Nader.</i>
Somewhat disheartening; intellectuals better start challenging this so called "consumer advocate” and anti-capitalist before they start turning back the clocks in economic policy. The same ideas he has been spouting off have already been tried and been debated in the 20th century (this century is also know as “battle of ideas”).
Comments
1. His "consumer oriented" ideas are, for lack of a better word, hogwash. He seems to assume that people are actually inclined to take an interest in economics. Not just economics, but <i>his</i> brand of them. I'm not sure where he gets his ideas on economics, but he needs to take a few college classes.
2. He seems to think that nationalized health care is a good idea. It would cost a huge amount of money and his general "We'll take it from the wealthy" idea probably won't go over too well.
3. He's incredibly vague. Looking at his website, he doesn't offer any details to his plans, preferring to rely on insubstantial rhetoric. He says things like "true progressive taxation." WTH does that mean?
4. He relies on the uninformed student vote. I know all politicians rely on the uninformed to some degree, but I've personally heard him speak at colleges and the man's an idiot who's trying to lead other idiots.
When I heard him speak at UMass Amherst, it was for the 2000 election. He talked about a lot of things, but he was part of the Green Party back then, so he really focused on the environment and health care, as well as how "big business is taking over." He's was, and is, a big fan of generalities. The environmentalism seemed to be fairly decent on the state of things. He referenced numbers from a variety of environmental watchdog groups and the EPA, but when it came to fixing things it was pure rhetoric. He alluded to taxing corporations and the rich more heavily, but that's his blanket solution for everything.
Everything else.... He had nothing, but he presented it superbly. Since he was speaking to college students, which are his traditional base, he had a stacked audience. He didn't take any questions afterwards, which didn't go over well with those of us who had even a modicum of political knowledge. The school paper, the College Republicans and the College Democrats all wanted to speak with him, but he booked it afterwards.
He also worked the class warfare angle like nobody's business. I know all Dems and Pubs do too, to an extent, but this guy was all about sticking it to the rich and businesses with more than one store. He hates Wal-Mart. I mean <i>hates.</i> If you took his word for it, businesses and everybody who makes more than $200,000/yr. isn't just out to get your money, they're going to take your money and your house. Then they're going slash the tires on your car. Finally, they'll kick your puppy and punch your children in the face. It was shocking.
He stands solidly in Socialist territory. He seems to think that nationalized health care would be more efficient and have less overhead, but doesn't seem to realize the size of the bureaucracy that would be necessary to administrate such a system. Medicare is huge and expanding it would be far more expensive then he realizes. Government bureaucracies aren't known for their efficiency, so why does he expect things to be different under him?
I've seen him give a talk too, sometime late last semester. He spent most of his time pointing out problems with the current system that nobody else wants to deal with, like the power of lobbying groups over the well-being of the American people and healthcare reform. And he did answer questions afterword.
And yes, I think nationalizing healthcare is a good idea. It's next to impossible for it to be worse than the current system. Universally affordable healthcare is definately a worthwhile cause, even if it's expensive. I'm open for better suggestions, but we can't leave it as is.
If college students are not informed, then I fear what the common man must be like.
I think its great he cares about the poor and such but I also heard he took money from republicans in the wisconsin state journal, that was a big turn off.
and Cam0- You can't honestly think that only 2 parties is a good thing, Its next to having no choice.
I also respect nader for being an independant. Too many people these days have one republican or one democratic view and conform to the rest of the partisanship, which is foolhardy and very unintelligable.
I don't want this to seem like a flame but you using buzzwords and italics dosen't make you intelligent.
There's a difference between demanding our would-be leaders have some idea of what's going on and demanding that they be an expert in all areas that the presidency may have an effect on.
Then there's the debate over if his ideals are indeed "right." I contend that they're not right or well-defined. His willingness to spank the wealthy simply because they have more smacks of Marxism. He might as well say that the proletariat needs to rise up and destroy the bourgeoisie.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I've seen him give a talk too, sometime late last semester. He spent most of his time pointing out problems with the current system that nobody else wants to deal with, like the power of lobbying groups over the well-being of the American people and healthcare reform. And he did answer questions afterword.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Keep in mind, this was in Mass. in 2000. I haven't seen him speak publicly in some time, so his style may have changed. It was also at the Amherst campus, so it was likely he just didn't want to be swamped, but that didn't change the fact that we all felt slighted.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And yes, I think nationalizing healthcare is a good idea. It's next to impossible for it to be worse than the current system. Universally affordable healthcare is definately a worthwhile cause, even if it's expensive. I'm open for better suggestions, but we can't leave it as is.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree, but I don't think that this is the thread for this.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If college students are not informed, then I fear what the common man must be like.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm perpetually surprised by what passes for intelligent. I was trying to talk politics with some people at my current campus and the number of people who didn't know even basic things about the political party <i>they belonged to.</i> One young lady was quite horrified when I told her that Republicans were opposed to **** marriage and abortion.
Not only that, I constantly have people asking me "What does that word mean?" It's not like I'm using obscure Old English. When you ask me what "melancholy" means, you just lost a whole lot of respect.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think this is a cheap attempt to insult people who don't conform to todays standards.
I think its great he cares about the poor and such but I also heard he took money from republicans in the wisconsin state journal, that was a big turn off.
and Cam0- You can't honestly think that only 2 parties is a good thing, Its next to having no choice.
I also respect nader for being an independant. Too many people these days have one republican or one democratic view and conform to the rest of the partisanship, which is foolhardy and very unintelligable.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that you're mistaking Milton and me for drudges who tow the party line without questioning it. I'm personally a Libertarian. I suspect that Milton may be a Libertarian too, judging from the economic posts that he's made, but I'm not certain.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't want this to seem like a flame but you using buzzwords and italics dosen't make you intelligent.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Neither does misspelling "doesn't."
Aside from some noticeable spelling errors, I don't see any place where "buzzwords" were used. The use of italics is probably because he was quoting from an article. It's dishonest to not distinguish somebody else's writing when using it in your own works. It's plagiarism and it will get you kicked out of virtually every college in the world.
In fact, Milton, if that article is available online, you should link it.
I remember listening to this sophomore kid when I was a freshman talk about how he thought Nader was the only one who knew what he was talking about. Always did make me laugh. Nader's an attention ****, and a direct threat to the Democrats. That's why the Democrats have been paying him a lot of legal attention recently, trying to make sure that if he messes up at all, he gets spanked hard for it.
Nader's economic and social policies would be absolutely ruinous to America's economy and social environment. I'm getting chills just thinking about the government providing me with healthcare. Ewwwww. Someone give me a trashbarrel.
Unfortunately, the answer that turned up for me is that the only candidate I would actually <i>want</i> to vote for is not going to be on the ballot (Kucinich).
[quote]Bah. What is more important than the right ideals? After you get elected, you aren't exactly going to be avoided by the economics community all of a sudden. Ask them how to accomplish it. The president does not need to be an economist when he can have a panel full of them to talk to. Nor does he need to be a general, or businessman, etc. He just needs to have some sense and well-defined principles, not all the specific plans.[/quote]
Ideals are important trait every president must have, but being a pragmatist is almost equal or more important. Yes, it is a very rosy idea to have everyone working together as one big happy family. Unfortunately this is the real world things and like that don't happen, especially in a country with a population of 300million (as well as being one of the most diverse).
I checked out is website (2 years ago, may of changed) and he espouses community based economics, heavy industrial regulation (bordering on being nationalized), massive income redistribution and huge expansion of the public [sector. In my opinion, he wants dismantle the current corporate structure and replace it with his.
Extensive nationalization, heavy regulation, huge expansion of the public sector while dismissing market forces have been argued for the past century and have been widely dismissed. Ignoring market forces and attempt to replace it with government bureaucracy is extremely foolish.
[quote]And yes, I think nationalizing healthcare is a good idea. It's next to impossible for it to be worse than the current system. Universally affordable healthcare is definitely a worthwhile cause, even if it's expensive. I'm open for better suggestions, but we can't leave it as is.[/quote]
No. Nationalizing healthcare in a country with the 3rd largest population in the world consisting 300million (also the fast growing country in the world) would be a disaster. I could go on for hours about this, but I won’t pursue this any further as it isn't directly related to the topic.
[quoteI don't want this to seem like a flame but you using buzzwords and italics doesn’t make you intelligent. [/quote]
What buzz word did I use? The only one I can see being considered a "buzzword" would be pseudoscience which is basically BS with style that sounds intelligent.
The italics were used to cite a paragraph of an article so it would be easier to distinguish what if wrote and what the article stated.
On a personal note, I find it quite odd why Ralph Nader finds it imperative that he somehow has to “represent and advocate for the consumer”. He goes around D.C. and bugs people about how we must regulate business to better serve the consumer. I was listening to Coast to Coast and he sat there and went down the list of accomplishments, one being the automotive industry. One of his famous publications was “unsafe at any speed”. He went on boasting how he and his interest group (odd how he sits there and bashes interest groups/lobbyist when he is one. Only difference is that he thinks his idea is better) got the automotive industry to increase the safety of their cars. All do respect Nader, no you didn’t, the consumers did.
The only importance I see “consumer advocates” are reporting the quality/safety of products; various <b>credible</b> publications do this (i.e. consumer reports). What I don’t see them needing to do is go around D.C. telling them what need and want. Because of people like him, we get warning labels pages long telling us not to dance on ladders when there wet and having to pay higher prices for unnecessary additions due to overly exaggerated safety concerns.
And "we get warning labels pages long telling us not to dance on ladders when there wet" because people sue. Just about every dumb label you see is because someone actually did it.
Put Nader in some dirty clothes and give him some alcohol, and he'd be exactly like the creepy homeless guy you avoid at the bus stop.