Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

5-dimensional political test

politics test

  • Please log in to reply
151 replies to this topic

#141
Darkpriest

Darkpriest

    (9) Sorcerer

  • Members
  • 1396 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

Well it is true technically speaking, but you could of course argue that China doing so is only a minor factor globally.

 

well quite big populace and manufacturing region, which can hardly be replaced given the current geopolitical situation. If African countries would have chineese mentality, then that would be indeed less of a factor



#142
Zoraptor

Zoraptor

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 2668 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

The real issues is that some financial institutions created a product that bypassed the regular failsafe mechanics... they dumped bad debts into new papers which they marketed safe... the real problem was misinformed market, which then made bad decisions. This is more of a criminal/fraudulent act and it should be viewed as that. Do you see every neighbor as a thief if one of them steals from you?


That isn't really accurate, the 'bad debts' in terms of sub prime were absolutely known and designed to be 'bad debts', and it was known that derivatives were based on them.

 

The big issues were that banks- and more pertinently the ratings agencies that were supposed to monitor them that provided the independent label of them being safe- thought they had a golden goose to get money from a new market and turn a 3% roi into a 10% one, and that there were no real consequences for them when it turned out the goose had died. People still listen to Moodys, S&P etc as if they know anything when they blithely labelled derivatives as AAA and the banks- in general- got both a bail out and maintenance of their special status.

 

The problem is not with fraud or criminal behaviour, the problem is that these people were morons. They believed they had developed the perfect system when in reality it was just another pyramid scheme, and have had no effective consequences for their actions. Not even a decade later and you already have people buying houses in places like London on credit- with no intention at all of anyone actually living in them- just to sell to some other person functioning on credit six months later. It's moronic, irresponsible and traps people like the perfectly innocent single house owner who ends up with negative equity when the bubble bursts, as well as all the people who cannot afford accommodation at all, and the taxpayer who ends up with their economy in recession when the bubble inevitably bursts. But it looks good in a narrow economic sense in the short term, so nobody wants to fix it.

 

Welfare is the threat to economics... please explain, why every single country, that is a walfare state (aside of Norway) has very high national debt and can't handle it?

 

We've got a far bigger welfare state than the US, but our debt: gdp ratio is way lower and would be even more so if we hadn't had a city flattened by an earthquake. And it ain't just Norway with their oil cash, all the Scandics are in the same situation as we and Australia are, far lower debt levels despite more welfare.

 

Welfare is not a large contributor to economic malaise because welfare gets spent, it goes into circulation in the wider economy. Indeed, cutting welfare usually intensifies recessions because it removes money that is being circulated which hits businesses leading to more layoffs, while people with excess cash tend to sit on it and cut spending in recessions those on low wages cannot cut spending unless forced.

 

The problem with the high debt European countries and the US is the same as with the banks- they've been run by morons, whether left or right wing. Ideological morons, short term vision morons, political benefit before actual benefit morons; people who think that the good times will last forever so never make hard decisions to actually pay down debt when they can. And that is irrespective of left/ right divide; our left party reduced debt massively last time it as in power, our right wing one runs massive deficits, cut taxes for the rich and raised GST during a downturn which actually turned it into a depression etc. Our left wing party wants to raise the retirement age (which is essential in the medium term, along with a capital gains tax to stop looney tunes housing speculation that should have come in yesterday) but the right wing one wants to keep it where it is. And you have plenty of right wing US politicians handing out massive corporate welfare packages- overpriced military contracts, agricultural subsidies that favour massive conglomerates etc etc.


  • ShadySands and Rostere like this

#143
licketysplit

licketysplit

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 409 posts

I'm a right-leaning, interventionist nationalist liberal. Sounds about right. Answered no to most questions.



#144
Darkpriest

Darkpriest

    (9) Sorcerer

  • Members
  • 1396 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

 

Welfare is the threat to economics... please explain, why every single country, that is a walfare state (aside of Norway) has very high national debt and can't handle it?

 

We've got a far bigger welfare state than the US, but our debt: gdp ratio is way lower and would be even more so if we hadn't had a city flattened by an earthquake. And it ain't just Norway with their oil cash, all the Scandics are in the same situation as we and Australia are, far lower debt levels despite more welfare.

 

Welfare is not a large contributor to economic malaise because welfare gets spent, it goes into circulation in the wider economy. Indeed, cutting welfare usually intensifies recessions because it removes money that is being circulated which hits businesses leading to more layoffs, while people with excess cash tend to sit on it and cut spending in recessions those on low wages cannot cut spending unless forced.

 

 

 

 

When you are trying to treat walfare during the recession it's obvious that it's going to intensify it... after all you cut some souces of income and you would have to remove a lot of leeches from the redistribution system, which would have no income, because they would not be able to adapt and find new work during the recession, that's why it is important to make such changes during the high economic growth period, where such changes have lessvisible impact short term, but will benefit the overall economy long term.



#145
Rostere

Rostere

    Illuminatus of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1084 posts
  • Location:Stockholm
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

 

The real issues is that some financial institutions created a product that bypassed the regular failsafe mechanics... they dumped bad debts into new papers which they marketed safe... the real problem was misinformed market, which then made bad decisions. This is more of a criminal/fraudulent act and it should be viewed as that. Do you see every neighbor as a thief if one of them steals from you?


That isn't really accurate, the 'bad debts' in terms of sub prime were absolutely known and designed to be 'bad debts', and it was known that derivatives were based on them.

 

The big issues were that banks- and more pertinently the ratings agencies that were supposed to monitor them that provided the independent label of them being safe- thought they had a golden goose to get money from a new market and turn a 3% roi into a 10% one, and that there were no real consequences for them when it turned out the goose had died. People still listen to Moodys, S&P etc as if they know anything when they blithely labelled derivatives as AAA and the banks- in general- got both a bail out and maintenance of their special status.

 

The problem is not with fraud or criminal behaviour, the problem is that these people were morons. They believed they had developed the perfect system when in reality it was just another pyramid scheme, and have had no effective consequences for their actions. Not even a decade later and you already have people buying houses in places like London on credit- with no intention at all of anyone actually living in them- just to sell to some other person functioning on credit six months later. It's moronic, irresponsible and traps people like the perfectly innocent single house owner who ends up with negative equity when the bubble bursts, as well as all the people who cannot afford accommodation at all, and the taxpayer who ends up with their economy in recession when the bubble inevitably bursts. But it looks good in a narrow economic sense in the short term, so nobody wants to fix it.

 

Welfare is the threat to economics... please explain, why every single country, that is a walfare state (aside of Norway) has very high national debt and can't handle it?

 

We've got a far bigger welfare state than the US, but our debt: gdp ratio is way lower and would be even more so if we hadn't had a city flattened by an earthquake. And it ain't just Norway with their oil cash, all the Scandics are in the same situation as we and Australia are, far lower debt levels despite more welfare.

 

Welfare is not a large contributor to economic malaise because welfare gets spent, it goes into circulation in the wider economy. Indeed, cutting welfare usually intensifies recessions because it removes money that is being circulated which hits businesses leading to more layoffs, while people with excess cash tend to sit on it and cut spending in recessions those on low wages cannot cut spending unless forced.

 

The problem with the high debt European countries and the US is the same as with the banks- they've been run by morons, whether left or right wing. Ideological morons, short term vision morons, political benefit before actual benefit morons; people who think that the good times will last forever so never make hard decisions to actually pay down debt when they can. And that is irrespective of left/ right divide; our left party reduced debt massively last time it as in power, our right wing one runs massive deficits, cut taxes for the rich and raised GST during a downturn which actually turned it into a depression etc. Our left wing party wants to raise the retirement age (which is essential in the medium term, along with a capital gains tax to stop looney tunes housing speculation that should have come in yesterday) but the right wing one wants to keep it where it is. And you have plenty of right wing US politicians handing out massive corporate welfare packages- overpriced military contracts, agricultural subsidies that favour massive conglomerates etc etc.

 

I very much agree with the statement that most economic trouble stems from idiocy that is not inherent to either the right or the left side of politics. Just like left-wing politicians can end up spending too much on pointless schemes and projects which never bear fruit economically, right-wing politicians can sell off collective assets and lower taxes irresponsibly (I think it's called "Reaganomics" - running a massive deficit while still lowering taxes). The key is a balanced economy. I'll write a long post on left/right later, meanwhile, food for thought:

 

Budget_Deficit_1971_to_2001.png

 

US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_Pre

 

So the economic crisis was half as taxing as WW2 to the US economy. Reagan and Obama are competing for worst economic performance, although said crisis might play a part in this (and how was the economy looking during the eighties?). In any case, the conclusion from this is that economic responsibility has nothing to do with left or right on the political spectrum.



#146
Namutree

Namutree

    Compulsive Double Poster of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1711 posts
  • Location:Michigan
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

 

So the economic crisis was half as taxing as WW2 to the US economy. Reagan and Obama are competing for worst economic performance, although said crisis might play a part in this (and how was the economy looking during the eighties?). In any case, the conclusion from this is that economic responsibility has nothing to do with left or right on the political spectrum.

 

In the 80's the economy was pretty bad until Reagan took over. The immediate situation was worse than it is now, but the long-term economic outlook was better. So, just as bad as now in it's own way. 

 

I would also agree with you that left-right does not equal fiscal responsibility. Especially when you consider that Reagan re-popularized military interventionism in the US. In the long term such a policy has costed us trillions of dollars, and many enemies. I loathe Reagan, but some on the right love him for various dumb reasons. 

 

Well really I have a hard time calling people like Reagan politically right wing. He certainly wasn't a champion of traditional American values; socially or economically. 



#147
Valsuelm

Valsuelm

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 421 posts
  • Location:New York, USA
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

 

 

 

 China funds the US debts

 

 

That is a myth. The rest of what you say above is for the most part right on though.

 

 

1) Check the purchases of gov bonds

2) Check the manufacturing plants placement of US based companies.

 

 

1) China is the largest foreign holder of U.S. government bonds yes. However the vast majority of government bonds are held within the U.S.. That said, who holds the government bonds means very little in regards to how the U.S. (and the majority of other nations) accrues and fund it's debt. Also, last I looked (which was a few months back), China was divesting itself of a great deal of those bonds and other U.S. backed assets (i.e. cash)...

 

2) Irrelevant in regards to the deficit the U.S. federal government runs.
 


Edited by Valsuelm, 01 December 2014 - 02:40 PM.


#148
Gorgon

Gorgon

    Forum Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4753 posts

It's got precious little to do with the president certainly. 



#149
Darkpriest

Darkpriest

    (9) Sorcerer

  • Members
  • 1396 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

 

 

 

 

 China funds the US debts

 

 

That is a myth. The rest of what you say above is for the most part right on though.

 

 

1) Check the purchases of gov bonds

2) Check the manufacturing plants placement of US based companies.

 

 

1) China is the largest foreign holder of debt yes. However the vast majority of government bonds are held within the U.S.. That said, who holds the government bonds however mean very little in regards to how the U.S. (and the majority of other nations) accrues and fund it's debt.

 

2) Irrelevant in regards to the deficit the U.S. federal government runs.
 

 

 

1) True, but it does affect the price

 

2) Directly, yes. Indirectly, it does affect it partly based on the tax acquisition. That however might be fairly irrelevant due to the size of economy. It could however affect the stock and the economy overall. Crisis comes and goes I guess...



#150
Darkpriest

Darkpriest

    (9) Sorcerer

  • Members
  • 1396 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

@Rostere

 

1) Please do add a name tag to the first graph.

2) Please add a graph with GDP growth and also highlight things like 70s oil crisis, etc. if you can easily find these things.



#151
Namutree

Namutree

    Compulsive Double Poster of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1711 posts
  • Location:Michigan
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

 

 

That's because neoliberal ideologues are working overtime to convince everyone that the theoretical "welfare queen" is to blame for everything.

First you say it's the rich; now it's neo-liberal ideologues. Which is it? The rich or neo-liberals? Most of the rich are not neo-liberals. They usually prefer economic protectionism; for obvious reasons. 



#152
Barothmuk

Barothmuk

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 233 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

So... what I'm seeing here is there are a lot of folks here who really don't like freedom.

Yeah, libertarians are weird like that.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: politics, test

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users