Typical Tea Partier

This guy, Jesse Kelly, is running for House Representative in Arizona. He’s not just a typical Tea Partier, he’s a typical Republican. He’s also advocating Austrian economics, for you Austrians on here.
The questioner asked him that, given that we are experiencing salmonella outbreaks every three weeks now in our food, should we change federal regulations on ag from what they are now, voluntary regulations with industry policing itself (working great, eh Austrians?) to more hard-edged compulsory regulations whereby the state would force companies to produce clean food, inspect them regularly and fine them or shut them down if they don’t pass muster. He says that people need to “make sure for themselves that their food is safe.” LOL. Incredibly, he gets a huge round of applause from what is apparently a Tea Partier suicide cult (?) in the audience. White Americans never fail to astonish me.
Following the Austrians once again, he blames the BP oil spill on government regulations (!?). If only Big Government would have left BP alone, the spill never would have happened. That’s probably the view of BP too, I would wager.
You might be interested to note that, appropriately, BP is funding the Tea Party candidates in the US.
Republicans have always opposed just about every regulation on business that you can possibly think of. As the Republican Party is just the party of the capitalists, it takes little research to discover that capitalists have never met a regulation that they didn’t hate. They usually propose “voluntary regulation” which doesn’t make sense. If regulation is cool enough to do it yourself, why not just have the state do it for you, eh?
Voluntary regulation has always been a scam. It doesn’t cost a company any less to inspect itself than to submit to inspections by the state. The only reason lying capitalists propose “voluntary regulation” is so they won’t have to regulate themselves. It doesn’t take a lot of research to figure out that the record of capitalists in regulating themselves anywhere on Earth is pretty dismal. Hence the state tends to step in. All government regulatory agencies are socialist institutions.
I’m pointing this out because a lot of readers don’t seem to understand what socialism means.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

9 thoughts on “Typical Tea Partier”

  1. The original tea party movement was to support Ron Paul and against big government but the Neocon Zionist and big corporate organisations and there think tanks high-jacked the movement to promote Sarah Palin and attack Obama for not going to war against Iran which is exactly the problem with the US if there was a genuine political movement it would be hijacked and subverted by corporations and there front think tanks and organisations who add a couple of meaningless slogans and the retarded American audience falls for it.
    You want get any of these chicken shits demanding a real investigation into 9/11 or suing BP for the Gulf oil disaster.
    RT talks to one of the original founders
    “The Tea Party began as a movement to take back the United States from corrupt politicians. The Tea Party movement has been hijacked by Republicans and is now all about guns, gods and gays. Karl Denninger of The Market Ticker was one of the original founders of the Tea Party and calls the direction of the group an absolute joke.”
    List of Tea Party financiers.

  2. I mean Robert, you just don’t seem to have an understanding of how market forces work. You act for profit as a consumer just as a producer acts for profit.
    Revenue-Cost=Profit. That’s it. It’s as simple as that. So an entrepreneur has it in his best interest to serve safe food as opposed to unsafe food, because if people find out his food is toxic, he will lose profit.
    Likewise, you as a consumer try to get the best product for the price you can afford. You take risks by saving money, but hopefully they are educated risks. Whenever you jump in a car and go on the highway, you know close to 50k people die on the roads a year, yet you drive the roads anyways.
    You know that if you bought a tank, you’d be safer than in your crappy Corolla, but you can’t afford a tank. Ford can’t afford to build a tank either, because few people would buy them. Market process strives for a constant balance when allowed. Regulation STOPS this and creates misallocation of resources. Only the consumer and producer can understand what they want. The government is always a third party LACKING knowledge of the needs of individuals.

    1. Guess what? Socrates, possibly the first economist, was *wrong* about many things, in particular most anything related to economics.
      Adam Smith, following later, wrote some interesting books. They are also very clever and well-written. Guess what? Adam Smith is in general *wrong* about most things in his books. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

  3. I couldnt help but laugh at how insane that guys position was on the video. I totally new he was going to oppose what that woman wanted when he said “congratulations on being unique”.

  4. Hello Robert,
    First time commenter (although I did email you the other day from ‘Osstraylia’).
    The quantity of regulations is often a common subject that pops up amongst my friends.
    Two points.
    First, what frustrates me is not just what you have labelled ‘voluntary regulation’, but the fact that the breaking of real regulations (with teeth) is rarely adequately punished!! At least here in Australia it appears to me the punishment is puny.
    Secondly, the point that many Right Wingers make about regulations stifling creativity/productivity by making people more passive is, to me, a crock of s*it. It assumes that we are all the same.
    Entrepreneurial types will ALWAYS be entrepreneurial types. Regulations will never stop someone from doing what is natural to them (unless they live in an actual regulatory regime like a dictatorship).

    1. Welcome comrade! Your points are well taken. It’s the same here in the US. Fines for breaking regulations can be steep at times, but often they seem to be rather low. A capitalist is a rational economic actor in a sense. He is trying to minimize costs and maximize profits. If the costs of breaking regulations are just a small fine that is easily payable and does not effect the bottom line (he considers it a cost of doing business) then the capitalist will simply violate the regulations and add the fines to his cost leger. The benefits he gets from breaking the rules override the small cost of the fine.
      So regulations really need to be tough enough to make capitalists think twice. This won’t drive them out of business, but it will make them think twice before they break obvious rules again.
      I’ve never heard that argument you reiterate about how regulations stifle creativity. Seems pretty dubious to me. Nor do I think it makes anyone more passive, including capitalists. There are lots of regulations I must obey every day, from laws to social conventions. Obeying all this stuff definitely keeps me on my toes! Capitalists don’t seem to be made passive by the regulations. Instead, they seem to be driven into a state of agitation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)