Sorry, I was being provocative in calling y'all socialists.  I did have 
the impression your ideal economy would be more European than American. 
We disagree less than I thought, but the disagreement is still pronounced. 
More on that in the other thread (forthcoming)!

One more stab at recruiting James to the voting pact:

Setting: A cocktail party.

James: [performs an elaborate parlour trick]
	[or maybe tells the BoyJazz story]
Alice: [swoons] [recovers]
[The conversation now turns to politics.]
Alice: So, James, who are *you* voting for?
James: Mitt Romney, to my walloping chagrin.
Alice: [buffaloed, waits with eyebrows raised]
James: See, I'm in this kind of cult and there was this pact...
Alice: [horrified fascination]
James: It's a long story, I'll point you to the relevant blog posts.

[Later, James forwards his brilliant, cogent arguments against Romney.]
[Alice, curiosity piqued, swallows it all up, forwards to her friends, 
James's candidate wins the election.]

Actually, wait, this is James Mickens we're talking about. Is there really 
any chance he won't convince us to endorse his favorite candidate? :)

Danny (adoring Mickens fan, who still thinks he has something on James 
when it comes to economics)


PS: above applies to Trixie too!

PPS: the prediction markets say that Hillary is more likely than anyone 
else to win the election, but that she probably won't.

P3S: to Trixie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.
      GIYF!


--- \/	 FROM James W Mickens AT 07.09.07 20:28 (Today)   \/ ---

>> Who else wants to join?  (You can reply to just me if you want.)
>> We really need some socialists (Michelle? Dave? Trixie? James?).
>
> Being concerned about the negative effects of income inequality does not make

> me a socialist. I have no special distrust of capitalism or market-based 
> systems. My ideal economy would look more American than European, and as I've

> mentioned before, a certain level of income inequality is needed to encourage

> our most productive citizens. However, I recognize that completely unfettered

> markets optimize wealth-based metrics, not welfare-based metrics. Thus, a 
> basic sense of morality compels me to support government intervention when 
> markets fail to protect the less fortunate. This is not a socialist stance, 
> but a humanistic one.
>
> ~j
>
>
> p.s. I will not join the endorsement pact because there is no guarantee that 
> the selected candidate will be the best one from my perspective. I see no 
> reason to cede my vote to the will of a collective that may not share my key 
> political beliefs. The fate-sharing aspect of the endorsement process might 
> encourage me to argue hard for my candidate; however, fate-sharing does not 
> ensure the correctness of the group's decision from my perspective, and it is

> precisely my perspective which determines how I cast my vote on election day.
>

-- 
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  search://"Daniel Reeves"

"It's not easy being easy." -- The Ethical Slut