Humodour

Apparently it'll be a few weeks till the bill gets a chance to pass again. But I think one or two days now will be enough to cause the biggest collapse in history.

The Brazilian stock market just crashed (dropping more than 10%) and they suspended trading. The Irish stock market crashed already yesterday (dropping more than 12%). The Brizilian crash was due to the Republicans in America not passing the $700 billion bailout bill. America's stock market fell 6% while Canada's fell 8%. You can probably expect more countries to crash later today and tomorrow. Switzerland likely. And now Brazil is down, the rest of South America will likely follow. Britain expects to crash shortly, as does America (as much as 33%!). This is pretty amazing stuff. It's kind of surreal. I always figured they'd be smart enough to pass that bill. I know I said Australia had a sound economy and was doing fine with the recent ditch... but so was Brazil! Everyone was assuming they'd pass that bill! All bets are off now.

sure, and i think mixed economies don't work. It's true. All mixed markets are failures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy#Examples

My, you're such a maverick, taks.

um, no, i didn't make that specific claim, and i'm not citing a "few examples," either. "examples" pile up continuously, if not daily. Oh, yes you did: i'm not, and you're committing another strawman. is that intellectually honest? even noob admitted he misrepresented me, yet you fail to acknowledge your complete and utter lack of tact in this regard. You're not? Excellent! So you believe that some levels of government regulation work fine? Oh, and he was being humble so you'd put semantics aside and actually justify your economic stance for once. then do. Sure. Australia. I know, I know - I like to talk up Australia. Fact remains, though, it's a good example of a well regulated free market economy that has experienced economic success and stability for many decades. It completely undermines your "all regulation is bad" theory. good for them, but that is not "proof" that regulation works, not in the least. again, here you are judging a system from within the system claiming "capitalism couldn't have done that." It doesn't matter what capitalism could have done. The point is clearly that regulation works fine here, quite contrary to everything you've been claiming. False, but irrelevant; the success or failure of any other regulatory system is of no consequence here, since we're talking about Australia. I have shown that Australia's economy is government regulated, and very successful. Clearly this means your claim that 'all' regulation is a failure... is a false notion.

I give up. This is like talking to a ****ing brickwall.

uh, the discussion about the current failure of the US' regulated market... every single socialisst country that has failed, or is failing? how many examples of proof do you need? taks You claim all levels of government regulation are failures, right? Then citing a few examples of failed government regulation is clearly in no way sufficient proof. That would be like me citing the failure of one democracy as evidence all democracies are failures. Furthermore, socialist states and communist states do not constitute all levels of government regulation, therefore it is not intellectually honest to claim "all levels of government regulation are failures" based on a small subset. I can, in fact, clearly cite you counter-examples of where regulation works to varying degrees: basically every Western country (even America when you free market boneheads lay off). The Reserve Bank of Australia, for example, specifically cites its sound regulatory framework as the reason why Australia weathered well the 1997 Asian crash, the 2000 recession, and the 2008 Wall Street crash. In fact, Australia's economic growth has been, on average, some of the highest in the OECD over the past 10 years. It is currently still more than double that of America. A similar situation applies to Brazil. Where's the failure there?

taks, I think we all got over the fact that you don't understand the term 'strawman'. We moved on. It's fairly trivial. We just want you to give us this 'proof' that regulation doesn't work. You keep talking about it, after all.

Oh, it's easy to prove? Good, good. Could you please do so? you mean lightly, and i just proved that you don't even understand why your own argument is false. taks Really? My browser must be playing up. Where is this proof?

Your capacity for self-delusion is admirable, taks. I'll leave you with the proper definition of strawman, now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Random n00b didn't misrepresent you, nor replace your argument with a weaker one, or whatever. He simply asked, quite reasonably, for you to either back up your nonsense claim that all intervention is bad, or prove your claim that the free market is always right. He was letting you off lightly. You should really be backing up both claims. Instead you give us "it's obviously true, so I don't need to prove anything" rhetoric.

i'm not misinterpreting at all. i don't have to prove the alternative. we know that intervention does not work. not at any level. that's why your argument, that i should prove the alternative, is a strawman. You're damn deluded. Honestly, that's on par with Walsingham quoting that guy who said "Banks have never worked and never will." EDIT: And learn what 'strawman' means. Random n00b's argument - if it were actually fallacious, which it isn't - would be a burden of proof error, not a strawman. A strawman is misrepresentation of another's stance. Random n00b did not misrepresent you. His ideology was strange, yes. But that wasn't what the speech was about. He was examining the nature of 'conservatism' and 'libertarianism' in America compared to the rest of the world.

I don't know man. Can we, really? I mean, it sure sounds nice (vagueness of definition notwithstanding), but is it really a philosophy, a way of things that can come on top when faced with others? I'm not even talking about whether it's a better way of doing things, but, can it even become a prevalent ideology? *shrug* We do it here in Australia (have for almost 30 years). You might have noticed I find economic libertarianism laughable, and the accusations that I'm a socialist or a liberal equally laughable. Once you get past the ideology barrier and just go "what the heck, let's just pick the best bits and stop trying to lay blame", it gets a lot easier. The real question should be whether or not you can extend the Third Way to populations of hundreds of millions, or perhaps whether or not some cultures are capable of perfecting it; America is ideologically as different to Australia as China is (in different ways, of course). I suspect that no matter who tries it in America, it will remain imperfect there for some time to come - there's just too much ideological opposition to regulation and the welfare state. But then, that was before this year. Now, I think the world is changing. A lot. The next 10 years will be amazing not just for America but the world - if we consider current trends, development in Brazil, India, China, Mexico, the Internet, and this new economic uncertainty in America. I'm hopeful. Brazil is already shaping out to be a potential good case for a successful social democracy with hundreds of millions of people (Mexico not so much). I agree, 'Third Way' is a vague term. I can recognise the tangible difference we have over here compared to America or a generic social democracy in Scandinavia, for example. And I can recognise the similarities Australia shares with Canada in what seems like 'Third Way' politics. But I honestly can't tell you yet if Brazil will head that way, or forge its own unique form of social democracy or what. *shrug* But yeah, I'm hopeful. I think the Internet is a really empowering tool for the Third Way and social democracy in general, so if I had to predict, I'd say yes - it can become a prevalent ideology.

That guy is spot on. He is an absolute champion, seriously.

I think it's best if I just quote Sarkozy directly since it's clear you didn't read the article: "The idea of the all-powerful market which must not be constrained by any rules, by any political intervention, was mad. The idea that markets were always right was mad." ~ Sarkozy Also: "Self-regulation as a way of solving all problems is finished. Laissez-faire is finished. The all-powerful market that always knows best is finished." ~ Sarkozy He's not calling for the end of capitalism by any means. He has quite good clarity about what needs to replace the current system: "The financial crisis is not the crisis of capitalism. It is the crisis of a system that has distanced itself from the most fundamental values of capitalism, which betrayed the spirit of capitalism ... The present crisis must incite us to refound capitalism on the basis of ethics and work." "The market economy is a regulated market ... in the service of all. It is not the law of the jungle; it is not exorbitant profits for a few and sacrifices for all the others. The market economy is competition that lowers prices ... that benefits all consumers."

666? At least the forum software says so You evil man. Your post count at the moment is 3666. Wow, that's a whole 3000 posts unrelated to 666! It can't be a coincidence.

I'll just point out once more that unregulated free market capitalism has had its time. America should now move over for capitalism with a conscience. Maybe that's the Third Way. Who knows? It works for Australia and Canada. But whatever it is, as Sarkozy points out, the era of the completely unregulated free market, Reagan's notion that the market always knows best, is over. No, don't stop me! Let me guess - it's a 'socialist conspiracy'. Call me when Cato Institute crumbles.

You seem confused. The Bush administration went to lengths to tip the partisan balance of the DoJ and Supreme Court towards religious conservatives.

Uh-huh? You think that's bad? Try this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npUMUASwaec She'll take over America when McSame kicks it in. Do you look forward to it, Dark Raven?

Empires never play fair. Playing fair is playing to lose, in this case. I guess it's just a matter of comparing and deciding what you like best. A consumerism-based world which essentially depreciates the individual and reduces them to what they can buy, a model that entails that if you can't purchase you're pretty much cannon fodder... or the opposite. The gulags, engineered famines, chronic, integrated ineffectiveness and crimethink. Yep, for me it's that bleak. Excuse me now, it appears the depression is starting to fight through the medication Look, maybe I'm being silly here - and call me crazy - but couldn't we have, you know, have a Third Way that strikes a balance between the two?

I don't know about "evil conspirators", but Ch

Evil Eurocommies? In this day and age when Bush has an approval rating of about 5% worldwide, I don't think it's fair to be so exclusive. So in future, please use more inclusive 'America vs the World' terminology such as "non-American freedom haters" so that we here in Canada, Australia, South America, etc, can feel more fully like part of the 'evil socialist conspiracy'. Cheers.

I wonder if we should really leave so important a decision to US Citizens, I mean, look at their track record. "Urr, I reckon' dat Bush fella did a pretty darned job with them whatevers he was doin'. Im votin' for 'im. Faaawr moore yeeh-ahrs!!" Generally the comments I see on American news sites and YouTube are long the lines of "Another example of the socialist liberal media bias to get Obama elected so that they can push their Muslim agenda of destroying America's freedom-loving citizens!" If I had a dollar for every time I heard an American accuse somebody of being a socialist or a liberal, I'd be able to single-handedly solve their economic crisis.

I wonder if we should really leave so important a decision to US Citizens, I mean, look at their track record. I'm not sure how much of that is due to American incompetence or America's ****ed up voting system. I'm actually kind of inclined to go with the ****ed up voting system, although after 20 years of Reaganesque blind free market obedience on their part, the former is tempting.

Good job on making the poll multiple-choice. Yeah, great job. Anyway, Obama of course. All my American expat friends here are voting for him, which is heartening. But you should probably expect Obama to win this little poll by a landslide. A similar poll on a generic Australian forum has him ahead of McCain by 36% (at 68%) out of a 300 person sample space. Similarly, the BBC recently polled 1000 people per country in 22 countries around the world, and Obama won every single one. India was closest, with Obama beating McCain by only a 9% margin there: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09...m?section=world

If anybody is up for a good laugh, watch these: http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/vid...in-open/704042/ http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/vid...-debate/704121/ Might help to press pause a few seconds after the video starts and then wait for it to buffer a bit.