US Presidential Elections

[Killian Kalthorne]

If he doesn't then he is a coward.

 

And Taks, we have tried the capitalistic side of things and look where it has gotten us. a $700 Billion Bailout and $11 Trillion in debt. That is a huge hallmark of failure in my book. Maybe its time for a little bit of socialism.

Edited September 26, 2008 by Killian Kalthorne

[Guard Dog]

If he doesn't then he is a coward.

 

And Taks, we have tried the capitalistic side of things and look where it has gotten us. a $700 Billion Bailout and $11 Trillion in debt. That is a huge hallmark of failure in my book. Maybe its time for a little bit of socialism.

 

Kill, you need to read my explanation of this current banking crisis a few pages back. It could hardly be called capitalisim when the government compels banks to make loans to certain lenders (low income). As far as trying socialisim in my country; only over my dead twitching corpse.

[Gorth]

Enforced socialism has a poor track record too when it comes to economics. It is a good way to lift feudal societies up to the "next stage", but only to a certain point. Then you need to gradually move into market economy to improve economics further.

 

On a personal level, I am not a fan of unfettered capitalism, as I know corporation 'A' doesn't care one inch about me and my wellbeing, it only cares about the wellbeing of corporation 'A'. Since it is not a person, you can't attribute nor expect it to have any morals, hence the need for counterbalances that protects individuals from corporate interests (unions, legislatators, watch dogs, anti trust whatever).

 

The challenge is to find the sweet spot where it is attractive for corporations to do business without running roughshod over people (e.g. Victorian age industrialisation).

 

Not having lived for a long time anywhere where I would eligible for voting on anything, I've lost interest in politics. Still funny to observe though

[Gorgon]

Government and lenders are intertwined, this is all basic monetary policy. You know, the various buttons you can press to adjust growth rate. Usually this is handled by the national bank, and is all part of good housekeeping of the economy, but government spending is a politicall decision. If you got elected promising jobs, just start spending and the jobs will be created. Massive bailouts are in the same category, that is deliberate Keynesian (Socialist) manipulation of market forces.

Edited September 26, 2008 by Gorgon

[Trenitay]

Why is it that all my redneck friends seem to favor Mcain. It seems that the only reason they can think of to like him is their guns. If anyone could give me another reason please tell me.

[taks]

If he doesn't then he is a coward.

 

And Taks, we have tried the capitalistic side of things and look where it has gotten us. a $700 Billion Bailout and $11 Trillion in debt. That is a huge hallmark of failure in my book. Maybe its time for a little bit of socialism.

wow, such ignorance, yet again. this has nothing to do with capitalism. we haven't "tried the capitalistic side of things" since... well, since ever. this is a result of government intervention, killian. if you don't understand why, do some research. your argument, ultimately, is circular: put government regulations in place to "restrict" capitalism, allow behavior that can only happen in government controlled scenarios (similar with monopolies, can't exist without government help), then when things go bad, blame capitalism. what a joke. the government has as much control over our lives for one reason and one reason only: an uneducated populace. sigh.

 

taks

[taks]

Thats crap and you know it, there has never been a point in american history where the two didn't overlap.

gawd, did everyone wake up on the stupid side of bed today? when did i ever say the two didn't overlap? really, do you people know HOW TO READ!

 

this is EXACTLY WHAT I THINK IS WRONG!!! DUH!!!

 

Who do we buy all those nifty toys from that secure national security? who does all that drilling and resource exploitation on government owned land? who builds all those federal buildings across the country? sea ports? air ports? roads?

none of this has anything to do with what i said. i'm talking about government regulation, not government spending.

 

jeeesus, folks.

 

taks

[taks]

Government and lenders are intertwined, this is all basic monetary policy.

no, it's simply control over our lives, nothing more.

 

i'm curious, why does everyone think that the government is even capable of dealing with free markets? where on earth did anyone ever get that idea from? realy, it is shameful. these idiots can't even balance their own books and yet we let them drive 30% of the world's economy. ooof.

 

You know, the various buttons you can press to adjust growth rate. Usually this is handled by the national bank, and is all part of good housekeeping of the economy, but government spending is a politicall decision.

they can't just "push buttons" to adjust anything, and if history has proven anything, the more the government (particularly the fed) tries to push buttons, the worse things get. period.

 

If you got elected promising jobs, just start spending and the jobs will be created. Massive bailouts are in the same category, that is deliberate Keynesian (Socialist) manipulation of market forces.

government spending and reductions in taxes are about the only two ways the government can directly effect the economy. yes, the bailouts are socialist, and ultimately are a required because of the government tinkering in the first place. in other words, they're "bailing out" the mess they created in the first place. in reality, that means every tax payer in the US just got whomped for a $3500 tax increase (one way or another). in reality, those that pay the most in taxes are shouldering this burden.

 

taks

[taks]

Why is it that all my redneck friends seem to favor Mcain. It seems that the only reason they can think of to like him is their guns. If anyone could give me another reason please tell me.

um, gee, maybe because obama is at least as, if not moreso, liberal than any previous candidate in the past 50 years? maybe because if obama is elected we'll have both a democratically controlled congress as well as president and they realize that while bush and his republican friends spent alot, it will only get worse if we do the same thing again.

 

wow, are you that myopic that you can't see why someone wouldn't want to vote for a socialist? ya know, just because YOU are a liberal and like obama doesn't make it the "smart" option. quite frankly, both of our major candidates are nothing more than politicians. most of the people i know also favor mccain, and i can absolutely guarantee they're not redneck - unless being redneck means earning in the top 10% income with at least one (if not more) college degree.

 

i still get a kick out of all the liberal hippies that really bought it when karl rove said "we're trying to appeal to the average liberal with a phd that likes to smoke pot" (or whatever, paraphrased)... hehe, you all bought it, hook, line and sinker.

 

taks

[taks]

On a personal level, I am not a fan of unfettered capitalism, as I know corporation 'A' doesn't care one inch about me and my wellbeing, it only cares about the wellbeing of corporation 'A'. Since it is not a person, you can't attribute nor expect it to have any morals, hence the need for counterbalances that protects individuals from corporate interests (unions, legislatators, watch dogs, anti trust whatever).

ah, but here's where the wool has been pulled over your eyes (much of the world's, actually). see, we've never lived in a society where things have been "unfettered." never, really. the reason people believe that this is true is because it seems sensible, and we always hear about the horror stories of "true capitalism." the problem is that the horror stories all come from the "fettered" system. we've been programmed to blame the boogeyman.

 

the reason that this line of reasoning really doesn't hold is probably a bit more complex than i can explain, but in general it goes like this... corporation A does not give a whit about you, true. the fact that it ONLY cares about its bottom line is, in actuality, good for you. why? because it also needs you, and people like you to buy its products. it will therefore strike a balance that gives you what you want (product) while maximizing what it wants (profit). the fact that it is amoral is even better because you then always know what its goals are - profit. there's never any hidden agenda. it's up front. YOU have control over corporation A simply because YOU have the right to decide whether or not you're getting the most that you can get (or what it is that you want) in the first place. if you don't like it, don't buy it. corporation A never has a vote. it is 100% on you.

 

someone try the monopoly idea... really. try it. that's an easy one.

 

taks

[Humodour]

USA deserves McCain

 

As much as I'd like to see them elect McCain so I can laugh at people like taks, the world needs Obama.

 

Anyway, I'm not sure I could laugh in that circumstance (McCain elected) after all - you'd be consigning hundreds of millions of innocent Americans to 4 more years of social and economic degradation.

[taks]

Anyway, I'm not sure I could laugh in that circumstance (McCain elected) after all - you'd be consigning hundreds of millions of innocent Americans to 4 more years of social and economic degradation.

you mean, the kind of degradation where, in spite of all our problems we're still growing, we control nearly 1/3 of the world GDP, and we still double the economic output of the EU with half the population? yeah, kinda sucks to be us, doesn't it? i'd call it **** envy if you were a girl.

 

taks

[Humodour]

Some food for thought:

 

So, because there's a financial crisis, Senator McCain cannot take 90 minutes to address how he will face challenges around the world, including how and when he will send American troops to fight, and possibly die.

 

Wow. Troops would sure love that luxury.

 

Unfortunately, though, insurgents in Iraq don't stop shooting at us, or setting IEDs, because our Commander in Chief needs a breather to figure out Wall Street.

 

Al Qaeda in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region don't send our troops notes that read, "Hey, I hear you guys are tied up with Wall Street. Your President needs to concentrate on other things, so we'll give you a break. So, to make things easier on you, here's our coordinates."

 

Nor do our troops get a few days to figure out how to hold onto an area we've secured, if there's an unexpected attack. Sometimes we need to deal with multiple flare-ups at once in any war zone. We'd sure love a time-out, but sadly, the world isn't such a nice place that it gives us that kind of pity.

 

When you're Commander in Chief, I don't think there'd be a worse signal to send to our troops in harm's way than to say, "Hey, hold on guys. I know you're getting killed over there, but I have to get a time-out here to deal with Wall Street."

 

If troops need to multi-task without a break, is it so wrong that we demand that a potential President-in-waiting prove that he can manage a financial crisis, and still address crises around the world for 90 minutes? And, if a potential President-to-be can't manage that, is it wrong to think that maybe he ought not just suspend a debate and the campaign, but move aside and get out of the race?

 

Just something to think about.

 

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/100395/m...%22time_out%22/

[Laozi]

yeah, but what I'm saying it is impossible to keep business out of politics

 

I dunno why people (republicans) look back at the days of Gould, Sumner, and Rockefeller like it was some time of Utopian example of laissez faire capitalism. The consolidation of wealth, zero workers rights, the most extreme examples of business leading the government around by the nose, the exploitation of immigrants, it all smacks of an elitism that people sit back and kid themselves into thinking they would matter in. Its like all those kids in The Decline of Western Civilization who can say with a straight face that they're totally gonna make it. They think because they don't receive any tangible financial benefit from the government that its laws and regulations don't benefit them in some way. Excuse me if I'm not all for those 'old timey' union busters

[Lokey]

um, gee, maybe because obama is at least as, if not moreso, liberal than any previous candidate in the past 50 years?

 

taks

Limbaugh is still peddling that line? I guess the classics never get old.

 

I assume the last 30 pages or so are about the same?

[SteveThaiBinh]

ah, but here's where the wool has been pulled over your eyes (much of the world's, actually). see, we've never lived in a society where things have been "unfettered." never, really. the reason people believe that this is true is because it seems sensible, and we always hear about the horror stories of "true capitalism." the problem is that the horror stories all come from the "fettered" system. we've been programmed to blame the boogeyman.

While this may be true, it does put me in mind of the modern-day communists:

 

Communist: We should nationalise the whole economy, and collectivise agriculture, and all work for the common good instead of selfish gain.

 

Me: Yes, but they tried that in Russia (and elsewhere), and it was a disaster.

 

Communist: Ah, but that wasn't 'pure' Communism, because of X, Y and Z, and pure Communism would definitely work and we should definitely give it another chance.

 

Me: No.

 

Anyway, fair or not, American-style capitalism has taken a massive reputation hit across the globe, and I look forward to seeing how this affects the dynamic between the World Bank and IMF and developing countries.

[Lohengrin]

ah, but here's where the wool has been pulled over your eyes (much of the world's, actually). see, we've never lived in a society where things have been "unfettered." never, really. the reason people believe that this is true is because it seems sensible, and we always hear about the horror stories of "true capitalism." the problem is that the horror stories all come from the "fettered" system. we've been programmed to blame the boogeyman.

While this may be true, it does put me in mind of the modern-day communists:

 

Communist: We should nationalise the whole economy, and collectivise agriculture, and all work for the common good instead of selfish gain.

 

Me: Yes, but they tried that in Russia (and elsewhere), and it was a disaster.

 

Communist: Ah, but that wasn't 'pure' Communism, because of X, Y and Z, and pure Communism would definitely work and we should definitely give it another chance.

 

Me: No.

 

Anyway, fair or not, American-style capitalism has taken a massive reputation hit across the globe, and I look forward to seeing how this affects the dynamic between the World Bank and IMF and developing countries.

 

It is not suprising. Ayn Rand developed her ideology in direct opposition to the communists, and she did it by adapting their style of rhetoric and their naive faith in the idea that human society can be understood and predicted simply like cogs in a machine, if only one applies the correct scientific formula in social science.

 

It was a popular idea in many political circles at the beginning of the 20th century that human society could be understood and predicted using the same principles as was being proven very succesful in natural sciences. It is largely discredited now, but communists and objectivists still cling to it because without it their whole ideology falls apart.

[Gorgon]

I don't see how you could get around making these broad assumptions if you want to connect the dots and make arguments in social sciences. Marxism, Socialism, Capitalism (used to denote a system of government), they are all disciplines that depend on broad assumptions to make any sense.

[Lohengrin]

I don't see how you could get around making these broad assumptions if you want to connect the dots and make arguments in social sciences. Marxism, Socialism, Capitalism (used to denote a system of government), they are all disciplines that depend on broad assumptions to make any sense.

 

You have to make some broad assumptions yes. But when your entire ideology is based on broad assumptions alone or things you think are axioms(Like humans are mainly motivated by greed), then you are trying to shoehorn social science into becoming a natural science.

[Humodour]

I don't see how you could get around making these broad assumptions if you want to connect the dots and make arguments in social sciences. Marxism, Socialism, Capitalism (used to denote a system of government), they are all disciplines that depend on broad assumptions to make any sense.

 

But when you become uncompromisingly ideological like the communists, conservatives and libertarians do, you lose sight of the reality of society and the market, and that's not helpful at all.

[Enoch]

<sigh>

 

Once again, current economic troubles do not fit squarely into the narrow views of either ideology. Unregulated capitalism, although it's great for growth and efficiency, creates a pretty regular cycle of booms and panics in financial markets (see: the entirety of U.S. economic history before 1932). Government intervention and regulation, if done well, sacrifices a little bit of growth and efficiency in exchange for more stability and predictability. (Which is usually a good tradeoff for the well-being of the citizenry as a whole when done properly.) In this particular event, the business elites miscalculated, the private-sector checks on them (audits; rating agencies; the business press) failed, and the government similarly failed to notice/address the problem before it boiled over. The bailout is essentially damage control-- to help stop the bleeding and, if possible, minimize the degree to which the financial panic harms the broader economy.

[Walsingham]

<sigh>

 

Once again, current economic troubles do not fit squarely into the narrow views of either ideology. Unregulated capitalism, although it's great for growth and efficiency, creates a pretty regular cycle of booms and panics in financial markets (see: the entirety of U.S. economic history before 1932). Government intervention and regulation, if done well, sacrifices a little bit of growth and efficiency in exchange for more stability and predictability. (Which is usually a good tradeoff for the well-being of the citizenry as a whole when done properly.) In this particular event, the business elites miscalculated, the private-sector checks on them (audits; rating agencies; the business press) failed, and the government similarly failed to notice/address the problem before it boiled over. The bailout is essentially damage control-- to help stop the bleeding and, if possible, minimize the degree to which the financial panic harms the broader economy.

 

 

That seems reasonable.

[Humodour]

Republican presidential nominee Mike Huckabee says suspending the debates was a "huge mistake".

 

Huckabee said Thursday in Mobile that the people need to hear both candidates. He said that

[SteveThaiBinh]

Closed for length.