Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Royal☭]

See, I'm the opposite.  I believe the economy is of great concern to the government.  And it seems that the most prosperous times in America are the direct result of the government getting involved.  It's government's job to ensure that the country can run and operate to the best of our abilities.

[Brentai]

The economy shouldn't be the government's concern, but they're the ones who went and cocked it up and they're the only ones who can fix it now.

[Mongrel]

Heh. I am reminded that the guy I work closest with at work is a 100% red-blooded Russian Stalinist.

Not Communist. Stalinist. As in "My grandpa was in the gulag and he told me that everyone in there deserved it."

He's all kinds of hilarious.

[Classic]

While I'm pretty certain I don't have a full enough picture to accurately say it's so... Reaganomics + Great Big War fucks up everything.

Part of the reason we have such a huge defense budget is because the national defense is a huge industry. All of that spending does in fact contribute directly to the economy. I'd definitely prefer to see the Gov't support on a national scale the production of the sorts of infrastructure that private corporations have no incentive to pursue and that states don't have the funding to pursue. Nuclear power being a great example.

The government is responsible for so much of the economy even without taking steps to control inflation. Even if you were to bring down the fed (madness, I tell you!) our governments are (or at least were) essentially in the business of manufacturing overall prosperity.

[Thad]

It's not that we fault you for having an opinion of your own, it's just we're a forum of goddamn liberals who happen to think McCain is the devil.

Speak for yourself.  Guild's opinion isn't the problem, his "debate" style (and I use the term loosely) is.

Frankly I don't want to acknowledge his recent posts at all (which of course means he wins!), but given that for some reason the last five posters (all right, four; IM gets a pass) have failed to call him on the fact that there are not actually more Republicans than Democrats, I guess I have to.  He just spent two paragraphs parroting Fox News talking points in support of a claim that is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE, and because he only got one reply in twenty minutes, he then proceeded to declare himself the winner of the debate.

This close to a thread split.  It's gotten to the point where it's disrupting the conversation.

[Classic]

To be fair, Thad...

What skews it is that the Republican base is bigger than the Democratic.

He read "base" as being "registered members of the party" which is a meaning that is interchanged with the one you used on several news programs without any warning.
He simply went on to give conjecture as to why what you said might be true.

Why he didn't call you on what he thought you meant, I'm not willing to try and rationalize.

I'm curious what he won though.

[Kazz]

I have this theory that Guild's knowledge of politics comes entirely from what he remembers of his old Civics class, and this thread.

[Thad]

What skews it is that the Republican base is bigger than the Democratic.

He read "base" as being "registered members of the party"

Yes, right after quibbling about the difference between a maverick and a rebel.

Which itself was right before a and obvious baiting, and right after a cheap shot, a question that had already been answered repeatedly, and a non sequitur.

If someone cares to explain to me exactly what he's contributing to this conversation, I'm all ears.  Failing that, if we're going to keep feeding him we should at least do it in a new thread.

[Detonator]

I believe the government should not be involved in the economy when it involves plunging the nation into trillion-dollar debts to fight an unecessary war.

Of course, if you believe that McCain will do the opposite of what he says, there is really no argument.

I believe McCain WOULD pull us out of Iraq... in his second term.  After four more years of muck, a promise of finally getting us out after "winning" might be popular.  It worked for Nixon.

[Guild]

What I'm hearing is that pulling out now would be extremely dangerous. Patreus thinks the war was a mistake, but pulling out immediately would be another.

We will be out of Iraq by 2010.

Also: Let's make this thread less personal attacks. I don't mind being demonized (Everybody knows hate is just another form of jealousy) but it detracts from the overall content of the thread.

[Classic]

I've heard it that American departure would destroy whatever shadow of good will remains for Americans at large in Iraq. I've also heard it that the real purpose of operations in Iraq were to help protect and preempt offensive plays by other Muslim nations that could destabilize Israel.

I don't really believe a word of it, and have no reason to other than the ethos of those who told it to me.

[Guild]

Well by that arguement this thread = null and all anybody has been saying here is "I back X pundit and not Y pundit."

I believe that most people are inherently good, and that the good general wouldn't be a leader of so many if he weren't basically a good guy.

People know when they're being lied to and manipulated. Except when it comes to conspiracy theorists and the media, apparently.

[SCD]

Last November I put Beer on McCain's fortunes, and while my opinion has sunk back to neutral, I still believe he will win the election, regardless of reasoning:  It's just a gut feeling.

One positive thing I will repeat about him is on the economic side of the house.  Of the three contenders, he is the only person who supports the North American Free Trade agreement.  This is not, at this interesting point in time, the most popular agreement between our three nations, but I believe that it is great in many respects.  Let me list a few:

1)  It is the only policy that the USA has implemented that has brought democracy to another nation.  That's right:  Economic trade and an influx of cash into Mexico has allowed for elections in the last decade and all but crushed heavy-handed socialist tactics which would otherwise threaten Mexico's stability.  Without much government intervention from the states, America has enabled an environment where democracy is fostering, and while in some rather ugly stages, is frankly a mass improvement from two decades ago when there was no trade.  This food shortage and rising food prices only will allow the farmers to profit further, so long as compensation is evenly distrubuted. 

And with the rising costs of living worldwide, this will happen. 


2)  NAFTA is the only effective agreement that corks the Brain Drains and respective immigration into America.  Fancy as with higher trade, the quality of education and compensation, and thus the quality of life on both sides of the border might just improve. 

This is all that comes to mind for now after a few beers. 

The reason I fear protectionism is that the more import/export tariffs and restrictions are introduced, the less incentive farmers have to sell to outside markets at a higher profit, and thus less incentive to produce more or at a higher quality.  Watch for it in Taiwan, India and Indonesia.  There will be some unhappy East Asians by Q42008

 

[Brentai]

My gut feeling is against McCain winning in any circumstance, but my gut feelings are uncannily inaccurate.

[Norondor]

McCain will win.

PRIMUS: Obviously, the Democrats are geniuses of failure. Fair or not, no matter the terms, there is absolutely no contest in which the Democratic party cannot and will not come in dead last.

SECUNDUS: Democratic voters are, by weight, about 20% informed progressives and 80% chumps. That 80% will absolutely believe the popular wisdom that Weathervane McCain is somehow both at once a maverick, breaking with party lines left and right (so to speak) and a bipartisan, willing to cross the aisle to get things done. Bipartisanship is seen as a good thing by chumps, who do not realize, as the informed progressives, that being willing and able to compromise your principles and those of the people who helped get you elected ought to have you swinging from a streetlamp.

Oh well.

[Ocksi]

This food shortage and rising food prices only will allow the farmers to profit further, so long as compensation is evenly distrubuted. 

Wrong.  There is no food shortage.  Unless government subsidy of corn farming changed drastically, there never will be.  But many, many megacorps rely on corn, so it's unlikely the government will reverse the laws enacted to make sure there's always an absolute abundance of virtually worthless corn.

And, of course, freely traded US corn is cheaper than home-grown corn in Mexico and CA, so farmers are losing their jobs and their land, which is also bad for their economies.

[Kazz]

I recall posting a paper on corn a while ago on Pyoko.  In superbrief, a few years ago, I read an article in NYT that said that the people of Malawi were starving because a drought had wiped out their ability to grow corn; food had to be imported from neighboring countries who were similarly affected, and as a result, families were unable to afford what little there was to go around anyway.

A week later, the NYT posted an article about how America had grown way too much corn.  So much, in fact, that much of it was left outside the silos, in massive piles on the ground, exposed to the elements.  Economists said that having so much corn was actually bad for American farmers; it would drive corn prices down, meaning the farmers would make less money and rely, as always, on government subsidies.

I decided, then, that the world was fucking insane.

[Classic]

There are shortages of staple foods (like corn and MOTHERFUCKING RICE!!!) in lots of places. Simply because people in those places can't afford to pay the prices we can for them, so we get preference.

There is no "shortage" at the grocers for Americans. Because it's simply more profitable to sell to our grocers, even if it makes people starve.

[Ocksi]

I guess I should clarify: American corn is the cause of non-grain food shortages in any nation that trades in it.  American corn is so drastically underpriced because of the enormous surplus of corn we grow that it becomes cheaper for countries such as Mexico to buy US corn than to grow their own.  However, as a staple food, especially in Central America, it's still grown.  At a loss.  This causes shutdown of farms and bankruptcy of farmers.

So I guess saying there's no food shortage is incorrect; there is food shortage artificially manufactured by the US' corn subsidies.  I'm not so daft as to only be thinking of America's food supply when talking about international food shortage, Classic.

[Classic]

Didn't think you were, but I was surprised when I heard that recent mad weather had spoiled lots of Chinese rice. Leading to a "for-real" shortage of rice. RICE MAN! RICE!!!

It prompted me to repeat old information, reminding everyone that we don't really feel the effects of even global food shortages. It's the sort of thing people can forget about.

Something bothers me though...

A food shortage manufactured by US corn subsidies? I'm not saying I doubt you, I'm just having trouble wrapping my head around how an artificial food surplus leads to shortages. I'll re-read your explanation a few more times once I can rationalize the contradiction in terms.