World Politics

[Anonymous]

To answer your other question Auscy, yes we vote in idiots, in fact we just voted in another one.

And if the extreme right have their way, we will get to vote for the biggest one yet next go round. You betcha'!

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Well, in 2000 he got a lot less votes than Gore, and had they recounted Florida, Gore would have won. Gore was actually too stiff then and ignored much of the south, including his own state of Tennessee. I wasn't a big Gore supporter, but sure wish now he would have won. Oh my.

In 2004 John Kerry pretty much ran a terrible campaign, arrogantly not addressing some of the criticism he faced (Swift Boat Vets), as he was his own campaign manager. The GOP said he was arrogant, and elitist, and he didn't show enough to convince enough people otherwise. Still, he barely lost to Bush. According to Greg Palast, Kerry may have won Ohio and the election, had it not been for "spoilage" votes.

One other thing about Kerry, he was a very good solider in Viet Nam - very brave,, but I know a few Viet Nam vets who didn't respect him much because he wouldn't address the Swift Boat vets, or release his full military records - even though he eventually did and nothing stood out. A lot of these vets looked at Al Gore's service as a clerk who carried a typewriter around in Viet Nam with more respect; "You know what, at least he was there" one told me, because Gore didn't play his service up at all, none. He hardly talks about it to this day. But it was the centerpiece of Kerry's campaign.

In retrospect I can see why Kerry lost, and as bad as Bush was, I don't know that Kerry would have been that much better. I don't think he would have changed that much to be honest. Gore losing in 2000 however was in retrospect a travesty. Things wouldn't have been paradise, and a few things may have been worse, but they would be quite different and not nearly as catastrophic overall. Most significant election in my lifetime (nearly 50 years).

Of course, this is all just my opinion. I register as an (I), and tend to find myself agreeing with Dems like Mike Gravel and Repubs like Ron Paul (yes, the crazies!)

 

[Hugh Januss]

Well technically we really didn't.............

Bump.
Well, what Alpe said is what I would have said if I was smarter and could type faster. Bush 2.0 was an abomination even by our standards. I think the world would be significantly different if he hadn't stolen two elections.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Bump.
Well, what Alpe said is what I would have said if I was smarter and could type faster. Bush 2.0 was an abomination even by our standards. I think the world would be significantly different if he hadn't stolen two elections.

So bush was up against 2 more idiotic people than him so he won? Why didn't they recount Florida's votes? (As you can see I don' follow politics that much)

 

[Hugh Januss]

So bush was up against 2 more idiotic people than him so he won? Why didn't they recount Florida's votes? (As you can see I don' follow politics that much)

Oh they recounted and recounted. It went to the Supreme Court which just happened to have a conservative majority at the time.......game over.
That is quite alright I don't follow your politics much either.

 

[RightWingNutJob]

And if the extreme right have their way, we will get to vote for the biggest one yet next go round. You betcha'!

It's not if the extreme right get their way, rather if the economy still sucks by the time the next elections come around. Considering the Obama administration is following the exact same path as the previous ones when it comes to the economy (borrowing money to consume) I would bet we are going to be in worse shape. I believe as it stands at this point our gdp is around 70% consumption, how that is sustainable I can't imagine. Instead of letting the markets correct things and turn towards a more production and savings based economy, we just borrow more money from China and consume more stuff. Completely Unsustainable.

 

[RightWingNutJob]

So bush was up against 2 more idiotic people than him so he won? Why didn't they recount Florida's votes? (As you can see I don' follow politics that much)

If you are interested on how it works, read up on the Electoral College. The democrats argue that gore won the popular vote, but they fail to mention thats not how it works.

 

[BroDeal]

So bush was up against 2 more idiotic people than him so he won? Why didn't they recount Florida's votes? (As you can see I don' follow politics that much)

It is not that they were idiots. They were unlikeable or at least incapable of conveying likeability through the media. Kerry had the added disadvantage of looking weird. He was once described as looking like he should have two bolts sticking out of his neck. Gore was often compared to a piece of wood.

In American politics charisma is everything. Both Clinton and Bush showed that a politician can be a complete scumbag and a large percentage of the population's only concern will be whether the politician would be a good guest at a barbecue.

 

[BroDeal]

Considering the Obama administration is following the exact same path as the previous ones when it comes to the economy (borrowing money to consume) I would bet we are going to be in worse shape. I believe as it stands at this point our gpd is around 70% consumption, how that is sustainable I can't imagine. Instead of letting the markets correct things and turn towards a more production and savings based economy, we just borrow more money from China and consume more stuff. Completely Unsustainable.

They are not following the same path. The two situations are different. Bush ran up huge deficits when the economy was good, when the country should have been reducing the debt. Obama is running up huge deficits when the economy needs government spending to make up for the loss of private spending to lessen the effects of the recession. If Obama continues to spend after the recession ends then he will be equivalent to Bush.

 

[usedtobefast]

I know this is a bit personal but did you ever vote for him when he was first going for president. If so,why?

never voted for anyone in his party
rupert murdoch is from oz.WTF???

 

[RightWingNutJob]

They are not following the same path. The two situations are different. Bush ran up huge deficits when the economy was good, when the country should have been reducing the debt. Obama is running up huge deficits when the economy needs government spending to make up for the loss of private spending to lessen the effects of the recession. If Obama continues to spend after the recession ends then he will be equivalent to Bush.

How is borrowing more money to consume more products helping the situation? They are doing the exact same thing thats been going on for the past 20 years. All they are doing is re inflating the bubble and setting us up for a bigger burst. They are not allowing the market to correct itself.
Government spending is a joke. You can hire people to dig a ditch and fill it up again, but that's not production, once again you are just borrowing more money to consume. Cash for Clunkers is a perfect example, you are encouraging people to destroy perfectly fine cars that are paid off to take on more debt and buy another car. It's exactly the opposite of what we need.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

They are not following the same path. The two situations are different. Bush ran up huge deficits when the economy was good, when the country should have been reducing the debt. Obama is running up huge deficits when the economy needs government spending to make up for the loss of private spending to lessen the effects of the recession. If Obama continues to spend after the recession ends then he will be equivalent to Bush.

I thought that the economy took a beating when 9/11 happened. Didn't the stock market get pounded back them?

 

[rhubroma]

How is borrowing more money to consume more products helping the situation? They are doing the exact same thing thats been going on for the past 20 years. All they are doing is re inflating the bubble and setting us up for a bigger burst. They are not allowing the market to correct itself.
Government spending is a joke. You can hire people to dig a ditch and fill it up again, but that's not production, once again you are just borrowing more money to consume. Cash for Clunkers is a perfect example, you are encouraging people to destroy perfectly fine cars that are paid off to take on more debt and buy another car. It's exactly the opposite of what we need.

The problem is that the famous market doesn't just "correct itself." We talk about the market as if it were some organic species with its own psychology and sentiments, when, in reality, it is a completely abstract thing. The market doesn't exist, people do. And the people who really give the market its lymph are extremely greedy and have even been supported in their greedyness by government having taken its hand away from the market. And this has been proven to fly directly against the public interest (even if most are unaware of this). For the people who have been in charge of monitering this non-existant thing and give it rules (in the public interest), which seems to totally govern our lives, have been since Reganomics the same folks at the top of the financial echelons appointed by the politicians who have stood to make the most profit from a market without regulations. There has and still exists, consequently, an incestuous relationship between the political body and Wall Street, again not in the public interest.

Their greed and comlete lack of self-control, for they yes exist, have lead the world's economy through the various exploding bubbles we have seen since the 80's. The only aparent remedy in the capitalist culture, has been for public funds to be poured into the private banking and finacial system to bail it out and save it from complete collapse.

The last crash with the epicenter at Wall Steet has made aparent how much private debt and the finacialization of profit (which is thus no longer manufacture based) had created a virtual wealth that was not connected in any way to real mass earnings, and thus completely unjustifed. But everybody wanted a bigger house, even if their real wages should have made that an impossibility, whereas the finacial speculators filled their portfolios with toxic investments without any sense of decorum and proper measure, driven as they were by the prospects of fast wealth.

As soon as the system failed, all of a sudden, those so-called financial gurus at Wall Street (mostly republicans, of course) who normally love a deregulated market (when profitable) and disdain government spending and denounce it as socialist anathama (oh God!), started to demand of the Bush administratration trillions to save their skins. Then they proceeded on a propagandistic campaign to tell the indignant masses that "everything was allright, daddy isn't dead, just trust in him and he will fix everything as before."

And they say in the capitalist world, ideology is dead. Well if that's not ideology, I don't know what is.

The voice of many democrats, though, has been no better. And so we are right back to the old wicked ways. The market still is without the type of regulation it needs, which, yes may drive profits down and allow less dynamic growth, but will save the savings of millions and allow for generated wealth to be more in touch with actual earnings reality. It was as if the government policy in dealing with the disaster has been: "let's change everything so that everything remains the same." Thus re-affirming the incestuous relationship. Because concepts like responsibility, healthy downsizing (at the financial markets), sustainable growth are just as sinister to conservative thinking as social spending.

Government spending is a joke when it is done in the sheer interests of saving "the market" from its sickness and the miltiary in excess, whereas when it gaurantees citizens good urban infrastructures, healthcare, education and pensions, it is what any mature and responsable society should have its taxes put toward.

 

[Cobblestones]

So very true.

the belief in 'the market' is something I have never understood. The market does one thing: it distributes goods and services and allocates resources through trading, matching supply and demand.

From that, how does it follow that the market is always beneficial to the national economy? In fact, we know it isn't. Every time there is a speculative bubble, the market fails as a regulatory device and turns into the opposite, diverting resources away from more beneficial use into a bubble economy.

As rhubroma said, the market does not exist as a separate entity. It's just a bunch of people. And those people might make stupid decisions, which are not in their best interest (like investing in a bubble).

Any economic theory which fails to take into account this simple fact is fraught. One of these failed theories is the economic theory of unregulated markets. It fails at being beneficial to the national economy. It might work if all the players are rational, but we know they aren't, so the theory is wrong.

 

[titan_90]

Climate Change

Well it looks like that scientists have looked over the stolen e-mails and have came to the conclusion that climate change is real and not some vast left-wing conspiracy that the lunatic fringe would like us to believe. However the ethics used by some scientists was very poor.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091212/ap_on_sc/climate_e_mails

 

[CentralCaliBike]

So very true.

the belief in 'the market' is something I have never understood. The market does one thing: it distributes goods and services and allocates resources through trading, matching supply and demand.

From that, how does it follow that the market is always beneficial to the national economy? In fact, we know it isn't. Every time there is a speculative bubble, the market fails as a regulatory device and turns into the opposite, diverting resources away from more beneficial use into a bubble economy.

As rhubroma said, the market does not exist as a separate entity. It's just a bunch of people. And those people might make stupid decisions, which are not in their best interest (like investing in a bubble).

Any economic theory which fails to take into account this simple fact is fraught. One of these failed theories is the economic theory of unregulated markets. It fails at being beneficial to the national economy. It might work if all the players are rational, but we know they aren't, so the theory is wrong.

Is there an economic theory out there that has been proven and has a long standing history of success?

 

[usedtobefast]

Is there a economic theory out there that has been proven and has a long standing history of success?

they seem to evolve/devolve as time goes on. more shenanigans=more
regulations=finding loopholes to new regs=more shenanigans...et.all
"the market" just people **** what people do.
d-o-i-n-g ...

 

[CentralCaliBike]

they seem to evolve/devolve as time goes on. more shenanigans=more
regulations=finding loopholes to new regs=more shenanigans...et.all
"the market" just people **** what people do.
d-o-i-n-g ...

No disagreement here, but is there a system that has a good track record? Personally, I do not think you will find one due to basic human nature.

 

[usedtobefast]

No disagreement here, but is there a system that has a good track record? Personally, I do not think you will find one due to basic human nature.

i agree. people are not perfect. still most folks are ok, mostly...

 

[BroDeal]

Is there an economic theory out there that has been proven and has a long standing history of success?

I know of one that has been proved to be a total failure: Supply side economics, also known as trickle down economics but better described (by GHWB) as voodoo economics. Too bad the modern conservatives hitched their wagon to that sham a long time ago and have been unwilling to acknowledge reality ever since. In fact since Reagan believed in this idiocy, the theory has become akin to a religious belief among to Republicans.

 

[Anonymous]

Is there an economic theory out there that has been proven and has a long standing history of success?

Scott...yeah...the ****ing one you have been proving via links for about 5000 threads...what is wrong with you mate? need ACTUAL buddies?

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Scott...yeah...the ****ing one you have been proving via links for about 5000 threads...what is wrong with you mate? need ACTUAL buddies?

I am not the economist and have not been posting the economic links...

I will say that I do believe capitalism at a basic level is far better in dealing with human nature than the alternatives, the current problem seems to be largely a result of corporate socialism.

 

[Bala Verde]

Berlusconi got punched in the face:

video after the incident

story in Italian

 

[ravens]

How is borrowing more money to consume more products helping the situation? They are doing the exact same thing thats been going on for the past 20 years. All they are doing is re inflating the bubble and setting us up for a bigger burst. They are not allowing the market to correct itself.
Government spending is a joke. You can hire people to dig a ditch and fill it up again, but that's not production, once again you are just borrowing more money to consume. Cash for Clunkers is a perfect example, you are encouraging people to destroy perfectly fine cars that are paid off to take on more debt and buy another car. It's exactly the opposite of what we need.

It IS exactly what we need if you hate the country you have been elected to lead and your aim is to wound it in such a way that it can never fully recover.He has 4 years to do the damage (2 to the mid-term elections). I think he is way ahead of schedule. The result will make our currency worthless.

He resents the country. It is intentional, and his most hard core supporters applaud his actions. He has been surrounded and indoctrinated by anti-American agitators since childhood right through to the presidency. Now they have been invited into all departments of the government to tear it apart as best they can. They only figure on getting this one chance and will do as much damage as possible.

He isn't nearly as smart as his supporters make him out to be, but that does not mean he is dumb. He IS smart. He doesn't believe what he says (or what is written on the prompter to be more precise.) He KNOWS this will blow up. He wants it to blow up.

 

[BroDeal]

It IS exactly what we need if you hate the country you have been elected to lead and your aim is to wound it in such a way that it can never fully recover.He has 4 years to do the damage (2 to the mid-term elections). I think he is way ahead of schedule. The result will make our currency worthless.

He resents the country. It is intentional, and his most hard core supporters applaud his actions. He has been surrounded and indoctrinated by anti-American agitators since childhood right through to the presidency. Now they have been invited into all departments of the government to tear it apart as best they can. They only figure on getting this one chance and will do as much damage as possible.

He isn't nearly as smart as his supporters make him out to be, but that does not mean he is dumb. He IS smart. He doesn't believe what he says (or what is written on the prompter to be more precise.) He KNOWS this will blow up. He wants it to blow up.