Talks of a 2nd Stimulus :|

[Bulkboy]

shifting troops is hardly a withdrawal.

going from the living room to the kitchen doesn't mean you left the house.

all they did was leave the large cities. they are still conducting business as usual right outside the cities.


when Obama brings all the US troops home from around the world (specifically the middle east) then we can celebrate. until then, nothing will have changed.

but its a shift in policy, that i would have thought u guys would welcome. nothing in politics happends overnight. it is a sign of improvements in iraq though and more confidence in the iraqi populations ability to run their own country.

 

[Tech]

but its a shift in policy, that i would have thought u guys would welcome. nothing in politics happends overnight. it is a sign of improvements in iraq though and more confidence in the iraqi populations ability to run their own country.

I disagree. I don't see it as a shift in policy at all.

If Obama was serious about changing policy in the middle east, why is he putting more troops in Afghanistan? why is he ok with bombing inside the borders of Pakistan? why is his administration condemning Iran?

No, this isn't a shift in policy. It is a way for Obama to appease his base without having to make any real changes.

Btw, only combat troops were removed from the cities. All of the non-combat troops still remain in the cities.

 

[Ironslave]

IS, the article u posted didnt completely dismiss infrastructure spending. it also stated that japan in many ways had spent the money wrong, by building unnnecessary roads and bridges in rural parts of the country. now, in the US today, roads and bridges are needed alot of places where traffic barely moves, alot of schools are crowded, and spending money in such fields stimulate commerce and the economy overall and it creates jobs.

Do you think the government can effectively and efficiently do this? If so, I suggest you refer to hurricane Katrina.

that jim rogers video, didnt really discuss that subject, it was really just more about the banking system which isnt really what this second stimulus package will focus on it it becomes reality.

How is this NOT about the banking system? We must have watched different videos, namely the part where Rogers says that he almost fell off his chair when Geithner said that 'Japan didn't spend enough'.

but its a shift in policy, that i would have thought u guys would welcome.

This is the shift.

nothing in politics happends overnight. it is a sign of improvements in iraq though and more confidence in the iraqi populations ability to run their own country.

You must have (once again) selectively ignored the recent increase in violence in Iraq, Tech has posted examples of massive suicide bombings a few times.

Btw, only combat troops were removed from the cities. All of the non-combat troops still remain in the cities.

and it's difficult to even really classify them as 'non combat' troops, it's a misleading notion. They still have all their weapons, and are still going to be a target for attacks and incentive for terrorism.

Rachel Maddow (a liberal, who is a former Obama supporter) does a great job commenting on it.

 

[Bulkboy]

Do you think the government can effectively and efficiently do this? If so, I suggest you refer to hurricane Katrina.

here we go again, the big bad government and all the bad things they do. hurricane katrina was one instance that showed that corruption and inefficiency exists in government. ive NEVER denied that government can be slow and inefficient. however, there will always be examples like this. look at the railway system in england, thats an example of privatization not always being good. the thing is that u cant direct private initiative the same way as government can direct resources. right now there is a time of economic hardship, and government can provide incentive to private contractors, and provide work for people by building new infrastructure that will be good for the population as well. i mean, drinking water, mass transit systems, proper roads and more schools, how on earth is that a bad way to spend money when its sorely needed alot of places?

How is this NOT about the banking system? We must have watched different videos, namely the part where Rogers says that he almost fell off his chair when Geithner said that 'Japan didn't spend enough'.

i said this thread at first wasnt about bailing out banks etc, it was about a stimulus package with focus on infrastructure. i think weve already covered the subject of bank bailouts before. and the article u posted stated that japan spent their money inefficiently, spending alot of it on stuff in rural areas that werent needed. and that if more had been spent on schools and infrastructure that was needed then maybe a different outcome would have been the case. also, japan is one example. japan has for many years tried to get their population to consume and spend more, but its a nation of savers, that is one of the reasons why japan is not doing well, because they have almost no domestic market. the US on the other hand have a large domestic market and alot of consumption. it would be reasonable to expect government intervention to have a greater impact here. also, there are already signs of the economy improving. the dollar is strenghtened, and new job numbers are more postive than expected. stocks have also risen.

This is the shift.

ye, more attention to afghanistan as should have been the case along time ago. afghanistan has been ignored for way too long.

You must have (once again) selectively ignored the recent increase in violence in Iraq, Tech has posted examples of massive suicide bombings a few times.

there will be periods with more violence, but u and tech havent addressed at all the big picture, and that overally violence in iraq is down 80-90% from the worst period. democracy isnt something that happends overnight. it takes time. just like it took time before it evolved into what it is today in the western world, its gonna take time before iraq too, is politically stable. u must remember, we are talking about a nation that has been under dictatorship for years, and with two major muslim groups that traditionally are very opposed to eachother. its gonna take time, but iraq now has a government, police and military forces, and are largely able to take care of themselves. that is progress from the early state. and with time, american troops will be able to leave completely.

 

[Tech]

ye, more attention to afghanistan as should have been the case along time ago. afghanistan has been ignored for way too long.

yeah, because sending more troops to a never-ending war in Afghanistan worked so well for these guys...

 

[Natzo]

Is this for real?

No it's not. I'm a bit disappointed, making money from the air is not the solution.

 

[BigBen]

Bulk Boy ead some Noam Chompskey then lets talk about the US and war.

 

[Natureboypkr]

Damn I was just thinking I might have to go back to Afghan soon. lol

 

[Ironslave]

here we go again, the big bad government and all the bad things they do. hurricane katrina was one instance that showed that corruption and inefficiency exists in government. ive NEVER denied that government can be slow and inefficient. however, there will always be examples like this.

It's a MAJOR example, you'd think they'd be at their absolute best for a situation like this, they were awful. Even today they STILL haven't done close to what they promised.

look at the railway system in england, thats an example of privatization not always being good.

They did a lousy job, and lost a fortune. If government does a lousy job, there are no repercussions.

the thing is that u cant direct private initiative the same way as government can direct resources. right now there is a time of economic hardship, and government can provide incentive to private contractors, and provide work for people by building new infrastructure that will be good for the population as well. i mean, drinking water, mass transit systems, proper roads and more schools, how on earth is that a bad way to spend money when its sorely needed alot of places?

You are missing the big picture, they have vastly over spent and over consumed, so doing more of the same to higher extremes is not the solution.

i said this thread at first wasnt about bailing out banks etc, it was about a stimulus package with focus on infrastructure. i think weve already covered the subject of bank bailouts before. and the article u posted stated that japan spent their money inefficiently, spending alot of it on stuff in rural areas that werent needed. and that if more had been spent on schools and infrastructure that was needed then maybe a different outcome would have been the case.

Government doesn't know how to spend money effectively and efficiently, it's just more wasteful spending. The smaller the government, the better.

also, japan is one example. japan has for many years tried to get their population to consume and spend more, but its a nation of savers, that is one of the reasons why japan is not doing well, because they have almost no domestic market. the US on the other hand have a large domestic market and alot of consumption. it would be reasonable to expect government intervention to have a greater impact here. also, there are already signs of the economy improving. the dollar is strenghtened, and new job numbers are more postive than expected. stocks have also risen.

Risen compared to what? The euro/pound? Thats not saying much, that's like saying I went to Vegas and lost $10,000 in a weekend, while my friends lost $15,000. The US dollar is going to devalue, maybe not in the next month, but over the very near future, and anybody with half a brain can see this.

You truly believe the economy has strengthened? How? Again, the problem is over spending, comsumption, borrowing, and so on.... and the solution is to do these same things to a higher level? Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. This is just like a crack addict experiencing withdrawal symptoms, if you keep giving them a 'fix' in higher and higher doses, they will feel better for a while. Soon, you'll get to the point where the 'fix' does nothing for the withdrawal, and you end up killing the person.

ye, more attention to afghanistan as should have been the case along time ago. afghanistan has been ignored for way too long.

Tech addressed this.

there will be periods with more violence, but u and tech havent addressed at all the big picture, and that overally violence in iraq is down 80-90% from the worst period.

LOL, it is still WAY up from before they invaded in the first place. How many hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions have fled Iraq? How many have been killed? It's pretty easy for levels to fall when the numer of people there is drastically reduced. Furthermore, bits and pieces have been taken control of by the various groups, so there is less conflict because the battles have been waged and essentially decided in some areas. Why do you keep ignoring all of this????

democracy isnt something that happends overnight.just like it took time before it evolved into what it is today in the western world, its gonna take time before iraq too, is politically stable.

Difference? They fought for their OWN democracy. Also, care to take a wild guess as to the main reason they fought for their independence??

u must remember, we are talking about a nation that has been under dictatorship for years. and with two major muslim groups that traditionally are very opposed to each other

Finally, something correct. So, what do you think would be a better policy to deal with dictators? A) Try and facilitate discussions and promote peaceful non-intervention, or B) Give them chemical weapons to use on a nearby country to stir the pot in a radical war?

.its gonna take time, but iraq now has a government, police and military forces, and are largely able to take care of themselves. that is progress from the early state. and with time, american troops will be able to leave completely.

Anything is more stable than the early state, that's not saying much. The US will leave completely? Do you realize America STILL has troops in 130 countries around the world?

Tell me, why are they STILL building bases in Iraq? The US embassy there is bigger than the Vatican!

Iraq is basically still in the stone ages, yet these bases have their own water and electricity, restaurants, swimming pools and even movie theaters! Tell me, if you're an Iraqi citizen, and you have to look at this massive base which is essentially a resort, occupied by a country which destroyed their own country and killed likely hundreds of thousands of their citizens, is this going to make America more safe and liked, or less? It is insane to believe that America is going to leave, or that Iraq is close to being stable, or the economy is recovering.

 

[Oloz]

right now there is a time of economic hardship, and government can provide incentive to private contractors, and provide work for people by building new infrastructure that will be good for the population as well. i mean, drinking water, mass transit systems, proper roads and more schools, how on earth is that a bad way to spend money when its sorely needed alot of places?

OK. In my town, (suburbs of Chicago) They built a town municipal building and only about 1/3 of it is occupied. What is the point? You're talking about infrastructure for these buildings and shit but if no ones going to use/occupy why bother?

 

[Bulkboy]

It's a MAJOR example, you'd think they'd be at their absolute best for a situation like this, they were awful. Even today they STILL haven't done close to what they promised.

femas response and the inefficiency of the response has largely been connected to the bush administration though. a president slow to react, even when given the information of a possible disaster. its worth noting that alot of government agencies were commended for their effort too though, like the coast guard, and the national weather forecast.there is reason to believe they've learned from those mistakes though. alot of the problem was response time and coordinating resources/ logistics. things that there is no reason to suspect private individuals would in any way do better or even be able to handle on such a large scale. emergency planning, rescuing on a large national scale is one area where i suspect even u consider the government have a responsibility. people working in fema and in the government are just humans like u and me. they fucked up during that catastrophe. alot of things went wrong, but i think just as much can be blamed on the administration at that time as it can be blamed on government always doing a lousy job.

They did a lousy job, and lost a fortune. If government does a lousy job, there are no repercussions.

it was a perfect example of privatization just for privatizations sake, and how private enterprise doesent always do a better job. especially in complex fields like railway. the government already did a decent job with the railway, why push it over to private operators? the consequenses were tons of accidents, delayed trains, failing to perform enough maintenance on the lines etc etc. it was a catastrophe, and it goes to show once again that ideology often gets in the way of real solutions. another problem with private takeover of such fields as railway, is the abandoning of railway lines that doesent provide much in the way of profit. ie, people who live in less populated areas suffer and gets less services. again, the government doesent work for profit, and therefore in many cases does a better job of providing services. there are many examples of this.

You are missing the big picture, they have vastly over spent and over consumed, so doing more of the same to higher extremes is not the solution.

i think u underestimate the complexity of the world economy. Every country borrows money, and the US is in a better position to do so than any other country because of the position of the dollar. also, as long as consumption plummets, as it currently does, government can spend more money without having to worry about inflation. in such a time is not the time for the government to sit back, its a time for the government to help the market correct itself.
there is not a country on this planet that will sit back and let the market correct itself during an economic crisis. the consequenses are too great for that to be an alternative. look what happend when they let lehman brothers fail. it drags everyone else down in the pitfall. sorry, but its not the 1800s anymore, the economy is globalized to the point where one fall and it harms everyone. the sky is not falling and americas economy is not gonna crumble without it affecting everyone else, we are all in this together.

Government doesn't know how to spend money effectively and efficiently, it's just more wasteful spending. The smaller the government, the better.

how about the US military? isnt that a sign of government spending money effectively and efficiently then i dont know. or maybe private individuals should take care of that aswell? alot of the things u take for granted everyday are supplied by the government. there is no guarantee that private will do it better. in some cases, yes, private individuals may do a better job. but in other cases the government may do a better job. when it comes to directing resources in a time of economic turmoil, the government can do alot. and building new infrastructure is something that will boost commerce as long as its done right and in areas where its needed.

Risen compared to what? The euro/pound? Thats not saying much, that's like saying I went to Vegas and lost $10,000 in a weekend, while my friends lost $15,000. The US dollar is going to devalue, maybe not in the next month, but over the very near future, and anybody with half a brain can see this.

You truly believe the economy has strengthened? How? Again, the problem is over spending, comsumption, borrowing, and so on.... and the solution is to do these same things to a higher level? Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. This is just like a crack addict experiencing withdrawal symptoms, if you keep giving them a 'fix' in higher and higher doses, they will feel better for a while. Soon, you'll get to the point where the 'fix' does nothing for the withdrawal, and you end up killing the person.

i didnt say it had strenghtened per say, i said there were signs that this economic crisis is running out of steam( stock markets, unemployment numbers, consumption etc)

the dollar has strenghtened compared to most currencies. yes it may loose alittle value over time. offc, the hegemony of the US dollar may not last forever. but this economic crisis has shown, that it still is the currency that people seek too. that analogy is flat out wrong, u cant compare economics to narcotics. im defending the keynesian policy thats been led since ww2 and that has given us the greatest standard of living ever. basically government should be less active when the economy is doing good, and increase activity and stimulate to growth when the economy is doing bad. letting the economy crash and resulting in mass unemployment and poverty, like u are advocating is not the solution, and it is a reason why no country is letting that happend. yes, the country may aquire some debt now, but when the good times comes again, spending can decrease and debt can be paid back, its not family economics we are talking about here. every country has debt, and borrows from eachother.

LOL, it is still WAY up from before they invaded in the first place. How many hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions have fled Iraq? How many have been killed? It's pretty easy for levels to fall when the numer of people there is drastically reduced. Furthermore, bits and pieces have been taken control of by the various groups, so there is less conflict because the battles have been waged and essentially decided in some areas. Why do you keep ignoring all of this????


Difference? They fought for their OWN democracy. Also, care to take a wild guess as to the main reason they fought for their independence??

offc its up from before the war lol. also i have always stated that i was against the war from the beginning. the difference between me and u, is that u want to leave, and let iraq get thrown into chaos and civil war. while i realize that after having invaded a country u have some responsibility to actually stabilize it. improvements have been made period. check out economic statistics, check out education statitics etc. things have gotten better. u cant expect things to happend overnight. its a long term commitement that has to be made. the iraqi population deserve a chance, and after all theyve been through they deserve our help.

Finally, something correct. So, what do you think would be a better policy to deal with dictators? A) Try and facilitate discussions and promote peaceful non-intervention, or B) Give them chemical weapons to use on a nearby country to stir the pot in a radical war?

agree with u here, military intervention was a mistake in iraq in the first place. i also agree that diplomatic measures should always be used first and foremost. military intervention should only be used when all other options have been tried, and the situation in a particular country is so bad that something must be done to protect the civillian population from further suffering.

ye, not the brightest moment in US history when that picture was taken. however, its in the nature of politics, and a superpower will always look out for its interests. lets just hope we learn from past mistakes.

Anything is more stable than the early state, that's not saying much. The US will leave completely? Do you realize America STILL has troops in 130 countries around the world?

Tell me, why are they STILL building bases in Iraq? The US embassy there is bigger than the Vatican!

Iraq is basically still in the stone ages, yet these bases have their own water and electricity, restaurants, swimming pools and even movie theaters! Tell me, if you're an Iraqi citizen, and you have to look at this massive base which is essentially a resort, occupied by a country which destroyed their own country and killed likely hundreds of thousands of their citizens, is this going to make America more safe and liked, or less? It is insane to believe that America is going to leave, or that Iraq is close to being stable, or the economy is recovering.

complete widthdrawal is scheduled for 2012 i think. and what does the fact that the US has troops in alot of places have to do with this? alot of countries depend on US military presence for their security and infact want to have US troops there. alot of those troops are there through NATO and UN presence too. i mean, hell norway have troops in alot of countries too if were gonna take that into account. and saying iraq is in the stone age is infact false. iraq is one of the more developed middle eastern countries, with enormeous resources and potential. its the political situation that is the big issue, and political stability comes with security. there is no guarantee for success in iraq, that i know. we might end up with a civil war and dividing of the country between different fractions. but we owe it to the iraqis to try. lets hope we succeed, and learn to not walk into a snake nest like that again.

 

[Ironslave]

femas response and the inefficiency of the response has largely been connected to the bush administration though. a president slow to react, even when given the information of a possible disaster. its worth noting that alot of government agencies were commended for their effort too though, like the coast guard, and the national weather forecast.there is reason to believe they've learned from those mistakes though. alot of the problem was response time and coordinating resources/ logistics. things that there is no reason to suspect private individuals would in any way do better or even be able to handle on such a large scale. emergency planning, rescuing on a large national scale is one area where i suspect even u consider the government have a responsibility. people working in fema and in the government are just humans like u and me. they fucked up during that catastrophe. alot of things went wrong, but i think just as much can be blamed on the administration at that time as it can be blamed on government always doing a lousy job.

it was a perfect example of privatization just for privatizations sake, and how private enterprise doesent always do a better job. especially in complex fields like railway. the government already did a decent job with the railway, why push it over to private operators? the consequenses were tons of accidents, delayed trains, failing to perform enough maintenance on the lines etc etc. it was a catastrophe, and it goes to show once again that ideology often gets in the way of real solutions. another problem with private takeover of such fields as railway, is the abandoning of railway lines that doesent provide much in the way of profit. ie, people who live in less populated areas suffer and gets less services. again, the government doesent work for profit, and therefore in many cases does a better job of providing services. there are many examples of this.

i think u underestimate the complexity of the world economy. Every country borrows money, and the US is in a better position to do so than any other country because of the position of the dollar. also, as long as consumption plummets, as it currently does, government can spend more money without having to worry about inflation.

LOL, the us borrows billions of dollars a day at interest. How are they going to pay back the debt they have? What happens when the rest of the world ditches the US dollar? Anybody with half a brain knows the value of the US dollar is going to decline over the next 5-10 years as they print billions of them! It's that simple.

in such a time is not the time for the government to sit back, its a time for the government to help the market correct itself.

Help the market correct itself?! By basically nationalizing the failed auto industry, spending billions on bailouts for zombie banks, and printing billions of dollars for "stimulus" packages? Oh Bulkboy, this is a new low

there is not a country on this planet that will sit back and let the market correct itself during an economic crisis. the consequenses are too great for that to be an alternative. look what happend when they let lehman brothers fail. it drags everyone else down in the pitfall. sorry, but its not the 1800s anymore, the economy is globalized to the point where one fall and it harms everyone. the sky is not falling and americas economy is not gonna crumble without it affecting everyone else, we are all in this together.

BS.... there is a very slight period of downfall when the company goes under, but the valuable assets get scooped up, the invaluable ones get thrown out, and things start to build again. Lehman had $640 billion in assets and 26,000 employees. Did some people lose their jobs? Of course, that is an unfortunate part of the restructuring as they were part of the invaluable aspects of the business. But, the world didn't end, the bad assets are gone, and the road to growth and recovery begins.

how about the US military? isnt that a sign of government spending money effectively and efficiently

.... the US military is an example of the government spending money effectively and efficiently?!

then i dont know. or maybe private individuals should take care of that aswell? alot of the things u take for granted everyday are supplied by the government.

Quit with the strawman arguments. The purpose of government is to provide the most minimal resources (defense, law enforcement, so on) to protect rights of its citizens. Every big government socialist always resorts to these "omg, you don't want any government? that'd be anarchy!!11!" nonsense arguments when defending the moronic spending and policies.

when it comes to directing resources in a time of economic turmoil, the government can do alot. and building new infrastructure is something that will boost commerce as long as its done right and in areas where its needed.

BS. Government action prevents and delays recovery, always has.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

i didnt say it had strenghtened per say, i said there were signs that this economic crisis is running out of steam( stock markets, unemployment numbers, consumption etc)

No there aren't... it's the propping up of bad assets in the short term, delaying/worsening the inevitable.

the dollar has strenghtened compared to most currencies. yes it may loose alittle value over time. offc, the hegemony of the US dollar may not last forever. but this economic crisis has shown, that it still is the currency that people seek too.

Because they HAVE to, not because they want to. The dollar is the world's reserve currency, but it's going to lose tons of value over the next few years, major countries are already trying to get their assets out of US dollars.

that analogy is flat out wrong, u cant compare economics to narcotics. im defending the keynesian policy thats been led since ww2 and that has given us the greatest standard of living ever. basically government should be less active when the economy is doing good, and increase activity and stimulate to growth when the economy is doing bad. letting the economy crash and resulting in mass unemployment and poverty, like u are advocating is not the solution, and it is a reason why no country is letting that happend. yes, the country may aquire some debt now, but when the good times comes again, spending can decrease and debt can be paid back, its not family economics we are talking about here. every country has debt, and borrows from eachother.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

the difference between me and u, is that u want to leave, and let iraq get thrown into chaos and civil war. while i realize that after having invaded a country u have some responsibility to actually stabilize it.

I think, and you realize? I have never met anybody so dogmatic in their beliefs and impervious to reason. Ask any member here, I've owned you in these arguments every time.

ye, not the brightest moment in US history when that picture was taken. however, its in the nature of politics, and a superpower will always look out for its interests. lets just hope we learn from past mistakes.

BS, they gave Musharraf 10 BILLION dollars recently, how's that going?

complete widthdrawal is scheduled for 2012 i think.

Selectively ignoring evidence are we? Why are they STILL building these massive forts? What is a non combat soldier?

and what does the fact that the US has troops in alot of places have to do with this?

130+ countries. How many decades since the Korean War? Guess what, troops are still there.


I will make a bet with you right now, and I will give you 5-1 odds. If by the end of 2012 the US still has thousands of troops in Iraq, you will buy me 1 ounce of gold at the price on December 31, 2012. If they don't, I will give you $4,500 USD. Currently, the price of gold is around $910/OZ... so 5oz of gold is worth about $4500 USD. Obviously, by this bet, I'm reasoning that the value of the US dollar is going to go down, while of course, you doubt this, so you should be fine if you don't win the bet, right?

Want to take the bet?

 

[Bulkboy]

i talk about how an entire administration failed to react properly,and that rescuing and catastophy handling is something there is no reason to suspect privates would be able to handle in any way better than the gov, and ur response is a youtube video with some austrian- economics asshole fishing for validation of his failed libertarianism. oh, so people build their own houses faster than the government, thank u captain obvious. that still doesent have jack shit to do with the response to the catastrophe.

it was a perfect example of privatization just for privatizations sake, and how private enterprise doesent always do a better job. especially in complex fields like railway. the government already did a decent job with the railway, why push it over to private operators? the consequenses were tons of accidents, delayed trains, failing to perform enough maintenance on the lines etc etc. it was a catastrophe, and it goes to show once again that ideology often gets in the way of real solutions. another problem with private takeover of such fields as railway, is the abandoning of railway lines that doesent provide much in the way of profit. ie, people who live in less populated areas suffer and gets less services. again, the government doesent work for profit, and therefore in many cases does a better job of providing services. there are many examples of this.

u didnt at all respond to this part of my post. it was rather relevant seeing as u always drag down government and highlights all the good things the private sector does.

LOL, the us borrows billions of dollars a day at interest. How are they going to pay back the debt they have? What happens when the rest of the world ditches the US dollar? Anybody with half a brain knows the value of the US dollar is going to decline over the next 5-10 years as they print billions of them! It's that simple.

mention to me, ONE alternative to the USD as the dominating currency. as they print billions of them, inflation will also increase, making it easier to pay down the debt. thought about that? the japanese have quite recently said that their trust in the dollar is unshakable. the funny thing is that alot of the economies are just as dependant on american consumption to fuel their economy. these countries have no interest in stopping to buy US dollars. there is currently no alternative to the dollar. and many countries have a percentage wise bigger debt than the US. offc it wont be easy paying down the debt, but its not something thats critical to do at once either.

Help the market correct itself?! By basically nationalizing the failed auto industry, spending billions on bailouts for zombie banks, and printing billions of dollars for "stimulus" packages? Oh Bulkboy, this is a new low

no its just another low for u my friend. once again u assume ur right. without any example to show to in history, u assume ur flawed libertarian ideology to be right. just like communism is extreme, u are as well, on the other end of the specter. just like communism couldnt show to one country where it worked, u can not show to one country where ur approach has worked. well guess what, i can show to countries where keynesian politics has worked. in my own country for instance, we had our credit crisis during the 80s, the government nationalized banks, and later sold them back to private shareholders with a profit. also the government is heavily involved in the oil sector, and u know what? norways economy is thriwing, and its currently the best country in the world to live in.

if in the beginning of the economic crisis, we had done what u advocate. we would be looking at a disaster right now. i dont think u understand what impact it would even have, we would have mass unemployment, and thousands of people who didnt need to suffer would suffer. not only the companies doing a lousy job gets affected. everyone does. u dont realize this. u just assume, that by some magic, the market will take care of everything. but guess what, it doesent, it never has. it never will, and thats why not a single country in the world right now follow ur approach.

.... the US military is an example of the government spending money effectively and efficiently?!

blackwater tells u anything? thats what happends when private companies gets involved in war. id say the US military is a damn fine organisation. its capable of operating and responding all over the world. with the best of personell and equipment. id say that showcases good government spending.

Quit with the strawman arguments. The purpose of government is to provide the most minimal resources (defense, law enforcement, so on) to protect rights of its citizens. Every big government socialist always resorts to these "omg, you don't want any government? that'd be anarchy!!11!" nonsense arguments when defending the moronic spending and policies.

lets look at some places where ur ideology was tried and tested. granted, some of these were not spotless copies of ur free market utopia(that doesent ,and have never existed). but if complete economic freedom and absence of government is a cure-all, partial economic freedom and limited government should be a step against the cure right.

two examples. first we have pinochets chile, here labour unions were criminalized, universalt health care abandoned and social security privatized. it ended in a catastrophe, with a poverty rating over 40% and an economic growth rate below half of the latin america average at the time.

the second example, is post communist russia. mafia took over the entire thing, there were no social security network to help elderly. the elite grabbed everything and russian GDP sank with more than 50%.

infact, u should quit the strawman arguments and ur science fiction claims of no government= great society. because U HAVE NOTHING TO SHOW TOO!

I think, and you realize? I have never met anybody so dogmatic in their beliefs and impervious to reason. Ask any member here, I've owned you in these arguments every time.

i couldnt care less if u think uve "owned" me. what does that mean anyway? its a debate where we both have differing views. some members will agree with me, and some with u. i view this as an opportunity to learn, and strengthen my english skills, and i wont stop debating u, just cause u think ure "winning". i think ur ideology is a failed trainwreck. still, i dont go around highlighting myself like u are. oh and btw, ure not coming off as such a bad ass intelectual as u may think, specially not with the owning part, it makes u sound like an insulted teenager accept the fact that not everyone agrees with u, and that u will be called out on ur views from time to time.

I will make a bet with you right now, and I will give you 5-1 odds. If by the end of 2012 the US still has thousands of troops in Iraq, you will buy me 1 ounce of gold at the price on December 31, 2012. If they don't, I will give you $4,500 USD. Currently, the price of gold is around $910/OZ... so 5oz of gold is worth about $4500 USD. Obviously, by this bet, I'm reasoning that the value of the US dollar is going to go down, while of course, you doubt this, so you should be fine if you don't win the bet, right?

Want to take the bet?

look dude, i cant predict the future to a t, things may come up that requires a greater presence of troops. i dont think there will be alot of troops in iraq in 2012. there may be 1000 or there may be 10000. in 2012 i will be well into my studies and im not really willing to risk loosing money i may or may not be able to pay at that given time.

 

[Ironslave]

i talk about how an entire administration failed to react properly,and that rescuing and catastophy handling is something there is no reason to suspect privates would be able to handle in any way better than the gov, and ur response is a youtube video with some austrian- economics asshole fishing for validation of his failed libertarianism. oh, so people build their own houses faster than the government, thank u captain obvious. that still doesent have jack shit to do with the response to the catastrophe.

LOL, yeah, Habitat for Humanity really botched that whole recovery thing didn't they?

Failed libertarianism? How did it EVER fail? Keynesianism and government caused this whole disaster, that is not up for debate.

u didnt at all respond to this part of my post. it was rather relevant seeing as u always drag down government and highlights all the good things the private sector does.

I responded before, they screwed up, and they got killed for the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. If the government screws up, then the taxpayers are the ones who foot the bill!

mention to me, ONE alternative to the USD as the dominating currency. as they print billions of them, inflation will also increase, making it easier to pay down the debt. thought about that?

Sure, why don't they just print trillions of them and pay back the debt overnight by that logic! Zimbabwe seems to be doing really well with this strategy. The dollar would collapse if they did this, and everything would be just worthless. I'd think the obvious choices are the Chinese Yuan or Swiss Frank, who knows, but nobody with half a brain is going to suggest that over the next few years, the dollar will be strengthened as the money supply in increased by the billions. Why on earth would the Chinese accept payment for the billions of dollar denominated assets in this monopoly money??

the japanese have quite recently said that their trust in the dollar is unshakable.

Oh really? Then comment on this. It suggests the Japanese tries to liquidate 1/3 of their government debt holdings in US bonds?

http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/4...mp-135-billion-in-us-bonds-on-the-black-marke

the funny thing is that alot of the economies are just as dependant on american consumption to fuel their economy. these countries have no interest in stopping to buy US dollars. there is currently no alternative to the dollar. and many countries have a percentage wise bigger debt than the US. offc it wont be easy paying down the debt, but its not something thats critical to do at once either.

In some ways, they do profit from America's over consumption, but they're in the MUCH better position to be creditor nations than debtor nations. Countries have no interest in USD? Are you kidding, look at the Chinese buying a piss load of gold.

no its just another low for u my friend. once again u assume ur right. without any example to show to in history, u assume ur flawed libertarian ideology to be right.

LOL... sooo let me get this straight, by propping up Zombie banks, insurance companies, and essentially nationalizing the auto industry (in which Obama basically forced the CEO of a private company to resign), they are helping the market correct??



This is the EXACT opposite of helping the market correct, they are preventing it! I AM 100% right on this, this isn't up for argument.

No example to show in history?? Somehow, your selective amnesia is kicking in again, and you must have over looked this, which I posted last post, and many times before.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

just like communism is extreme, u are as well, on the other end of the specter. just like communism couldnt show to one country where it worked. u can not show to one country where ur approach has worked.

You're right, I can't, because there are no examples in which it has been tried! Thus, I also cannot show one instance where it has failed.

well guess what, i can show to countries where keynesian politics has worked. in my own country for instance, we had our credit crisis during the 80s, the government nationalized banks, and later sold them back to private shareholders with a profit. also the government is heavily involved in the oil sector, and u know what? norways economy is thriwing, and its currently the best country in the world to live in.

Why is it the best? That is purely subjective. But, furthermore, Norway doesn't waste 1 trillion dollars maintaining an empire overseas each year. Norway's success boils down to 2 things: 1) be a very small country and 2) have a lot of oil/natural gas. Your public-private system also allows more lenience for the public companies to operate, while the US government has more 'crony capitalism' through a very active government and federal reserve which sticks their nose in where it doesn't belong. (Fannie/Freddie anyone?) Furthermore, the US government is actually PREVENTING oil companies from drilling in areas where there is tons of oil, and would provide tons of jobs and be of assistance for raising capital around the world, and lowering their debt. Norway is also becoming more capitalist overall, look at rates of government expenditures vs. GDP.

Keynesianism/socialism has failed much, much more often. Look into America's current system, the UK (which is in just brutal shape) Japan's 'lost decade', the collapse of the soviets, China's past and growth since they embraced capitalism, tons more.

if in the beginning of the economic crisis, we had done what u advocate. we would be looking at a disaster right now. i dont think u understand what impact it would even have, we would have mass unemployment, and thousands of people who didnt need to suffer would suffer. not only the companies doing a lousy job gets affected. everyone does. u dont realize this. u just assume, that by some magic, the market will take care of everything. but guess what, it doesent, it never has. it never will, and thats why not a single country in the world right now follow ur approach.

Nonsense, again, Norway is on its feet due to a tiny population rich with resources. Furthermore, I did some research, and Norway in a way almost did what I advocate.. though they nationalized 3 large banks (i dislike this), they fired their senior management, sent their stockholders packing, and the other ones went under! Guess what, the world didn't end, and recovery was quick! The US bailed out the banks, rewarded failure, and (except GM), most of the same execs get their massive salaries and bonuses, and keep their ferrari's.

Thanks for bringing this up, it supports my arguments much more than yours.

blackwater tells u anything? thats what happends when private companies gets involved in war.

When did I ever advocate a private war company?

id say the US military is a damn fine organisation. its capable of operating and responding all over the world. with the best of personell and equipment. id say that showcases good government spending.

LOL.... look at the US' military spending verses other countries, no wonder it has the best equipment, that's easy.

Furthermore, the US's forein policy cost over a TRILLION dollars a year, they spend over 700 million dollars a DAY in Iraq! This is effective spending? LOL.

lets look at some places where ur ideology was tried and tested. granted, some of these were not spotless copies of ur free market utopia(that doesent ,and have never existed). but if complete economic freedom and absence of government is a cure-all, partial economic freedom and limited government should be a step against the cure right.

It is not a magical, cure all solution. Naturally, there will be times of recession, which is a good thing to get rid of insoluble assets and to grow the soluble ones. It doesn't create the massive booms/busts.

two examples. first we have pinochets chile, here labour unions were criminalized, universalt health care abandoned and social security privatized. it ended in a catastrophe, with a poverty rating over 40% and an economic growth rate below half of the latin america average at the time.

LOL. First of all, Pinochet was a violent military dictator, which I will never ever support. Second, he came in after a period of MASSIVE socialism. Inflation was over 150%.Minister of Economics Pedro Vuskovic, under Pinochet's predecessor, Allende, made the aims of the new government clear, “State control is projected to destroy the economic base of imperialism and class domination by putting an end to private ownership of the means of production.” Furthermore, here is another excerpt discussing Allende's rule.

but by the end of 1971 the economy began to unravel. Increasing wages and controlling prices meant that industries could no longer cover their costs and began to declare bankruptcy. When government induced bankruptcies occurred, the Allende government would take the firms into receivership and begin operating them without paying any compensation to owners or creditors. When companies could not pay back loans, banks would no longer have sufficient reserves to satisfy legal requirements and likewise taken over by the government. This tactic was highly successful at increasing the number of nationalized industries. Before the end of the Allende regime all major companies in the hands of the government. With government running industries, the goal of making a profit disappeared as UP apparatchiks sought to keep wages high and the price of goods low. Operating at a loss required the government to subsidize Chilean industries. State-owned enterprises quickly began running deficits, which, by 1973, required 10.5% of the Chilean GDP in subsidies. In order to meet the expanding government budget Allende began printing bank notes. As expected, inflation began to rise and in 1972 inflation reached 260% for the year, nearly ten times the rate of 1970. Hey Bulkboy, does this seem like the approach of a country in today's world, to a lesser degree?? :music:

More.....

Agricultural lands were confiscated in a similar fashion. Using the Agricultural Reform Act of 1967 as a basis, UP government officials began declaring vast tracts of land inefficiently run and thus ready for nationalization. More than 3,000,000 hectares of farmland were seized in 1972. The 1967 Agricultural Reform Act was not the only method used to seize farmlands. Members of the UP would go into the countryside and organize peasant unions, which would then encourage their workers to occupy property. If an owner complained, the government would not help. Outnumbered and without support from the government, landowners lost their lands. Newly seized lands were often turned into communes similar to those in the Soviet Union. Communes in Chile provided much the same results as they did in other socialist states. Food shortages developed as agricultural production began to precipitously drop. The nationalization-taking place in agriculture and industry meant that capital flight was a major problem for the UP government. No longer would Chileans invest their private savings into businesses, neither would foreign firms. As agricultural and industrial efficiency rapidly declined, Chile’s export surplus disappeared. With fewer goods to sell on the international market, Chile could no longer purchase the capital goods necessary to maintain agricultural and industrial production. Unfortunately for Chileans, the picture was grim in 1972-73. The state controlled 400 of the largest companies and banks. General price controls were in effect. Multiple exchange rates existed. Prohibitions on many imports were accompanied by 10,000% deposit requirements for imported goods. Tariffs on imports ranged from 94-220%. Sales taxes were indexed creating inefficiency and confusion. High public sector employment led to a bloated bureaucracy. Public debt soared. Government controlled interest rates, credit and all capital movement. Allende took out large loans from the Soviet Union and other socialist states. Powerful unions controlled wages. No employees could be fired. Mandatory wage increases were instituted. In essence, the Chilean economy was in shambles.
Patricio Mellar explains the process the Chilean economy went through during the Allende administration in the following way: “According to this populist paradigm, expansionary policies initially generate a high growth rate with a rise in real wages, with price controls holding down inflationary pressure. The initial stage of a populist program produces highly successful results- high growth simultaneously with lower inflation and greater purchasing power for the workers. Stage one- check. In the second stage, the strong expansion of demand generates growing disequilibrium: stocks become exhausted; the foreign sector acts as a safety valve, but foreign currency starts to become scarce. All of this stimulates the inflationary process, together with capital flight and a demonetization of the economy. The public sector experiences high deficits as a result of subsidizing mass consumption goods and the exchange rate; at the same time, tax revenue shrinks in real terms, and the public deficit rises substantially. Stage two- check The third stage ends in government attempts to apply a counter-inflationary adjustment policy, cutting subsidies and lowering real wages. Subsequently, a different government with greater credibility, will apply a tough orthodox stabilization program whose consequences are unemployment and loss of purchasing power among low income groups. Stage three- check, all stages complete! In brief, this populist paradigm inflicts a terrible cost on the very group it was meant to favor.” Chile had reached the third stage of Mellar’s description by 1973. Inflation stood at 600% as the economy continued to weaken and edge closer to collapse. Society had become polarized by 1973 and, as the economy collapsed, workers, who had placed their hopes and dreams in the success of Salvador Allende, watched as his effectively eliminated many imports, inflation soared and their wages plummeted. Elites in society watched as their businesses sank into utter ruin. The military was becoming impatient with the Allende government because of the havoc it was reeking on the economy, but more important for what it was attempting in the army. Party cadres began propaganda campaigns among the enlisted men and low-level officers calling for them to rise up against their superiors and overthrow the senior military leadership. This was, of course, against civilian and military law but the Allende government seemed unable or unwilling to control party cadres. Senior military leaders were concerned about the possibility of civil war breaking out among differing factions in the military as it had done nearly a century earlier. When on August 22, 1973, the Chamber of Deputies passed legislation by a vote of 81 to 45 condemning the actions of Allende as illegitimate and unconstitutional, the Supreme Court quickly concurred. Since the Chilean Constitution lacked a provision for the impeachment of the president the Chamber requested that the Army restore law and order to Chile. Eighteen days later Salvador Allende was removed from office ending what may be considered the most turbulent period in Chilean history

..... real nice socialist society you got there, Bulkboy, they ruined everything and shit was hitting the fan so much that the military overthrew them, rather than face civil revolt, LOL.

Naturally, things were already going awful, and the capitalist solution is NOT a quick fix. Wages DID go down, you are right, but the problem was wages were too high! (and already coming down.) The emphasis among these reforms was the reduction of public sector debt through decreasing the share of GDP expended by government.

More

ll. The communes established in 1972 were abolished with the regime returning 30% of the 10,000,000 hectares of government land to its original owners, 31% was sold to new owners, 29% was given to ex-tenants and 10% was retained by the state.

Hmm... people were given back their property which was taken by the government, sounds pretty good to me!

The food shortages of 1972-73 were quickly erased through increases in agricultural production. Industrial and Agricultural reforms played an important role in the turn around of the Chilean economy.

Wait, the previous socialist/communist regime resulted in food shortages, while capitalism eliminated this via an increase in food production?!

The reduction in tariffs was vital to Chile and deserves greater explanation in key areas. Tariffs had averaged 100% under Allende and ranged from 95% to 220% from 1971-73. They were reduced to a flat 10% rate across products (automobiles the exception). (more on this sentence soon). Shortages were alleviated but a trade deficit was the cost. With the return of businesses to private ownership over 3,000 price controls were lifted. Financial institutions, which had also been re-privatized, were allowed to freely determine interest rates causing capital to return to the country. And, as part of fiscal policy, capital markets were deregulated in addition to the central bank ending its role as primary lender. Chile began to recover by 1976 and was the beneficiary of the strongest economy in Latin America from 1976 to 1981 with average annually growth rates approaching 8%. Pinochet and the Chicago Boys were finally able to slay the inflation dragon as inflation dropped from 650% in 1973 to 10% in 1981.

Now, as I mentioned it would be discussed, Chile soon slid into another recession a few years later in 1981, but this was because the Chilean government abandoned Friedman's recommendation of flexible exchanged rates, and instead fixed them(!!) which caused the trade deficit. (hmmm... doesn't sound too "free market", does it? ])

However, the recession was over in a few short years! By 1984:The market freely determined wages. A competitive currency developed as it floated on international currency markets. Both the public and private sector had learned a valuable lesson. The aftermath of the 1982-83 recession was a new policy of export led growth in which Chile developed an outward-looking approach. Efforts to increase exports led to a rationalization of the Chilean economy in which industries undertook a division of labor that concentrated Chilean efforts in areas where Chile was competitive in the international economy. Copper remained the primary export but agricultural goods and fishing increased their share of export revenue. Between 1985 and 1990 Chile quintupled its exports and saw subsequent increases in wages and the GDP. Unemployment decreased as well.


Which is EXACTLY what I've been advocating, a short, hard recession, getting government out of the way, and then things not only return to normal, but the good prospers and the bad is eliminated!


FURTHERMORE, Friedman argued that "economic freedom is not only desirable in itself but is also a necessary condition for political freedom." Was he right? Heck yes he was, Pinochet loosened his grip as a dictator, he asked the people to vote if he could remain in power for another 5 years in 1988, they voted no, and in 1989, Chile elected it's first president in three decades

So, let me see..... Socialism stole people's property from them, the country went in shambles, the military had to overthrow the President to avoid civil war, food was scarce, etc etc..... yet, capitalism came in, people got back their land, the recessions ended, food shortages eliminated, the country prospered to new and sustainable levels, and the country's political landscape changed to allow them MUCH more freedom?

Thank you once again, Bulkboy, for giving me another example of how government run communism/socialism ruins a nation, yet capitalism increases the prosperity, freedom, and liberty!!

The second example, is post communist russia. mafia took over the entire thing, there were no social security network to help elderly. the elite grabbed everything and russian GDP sank with more than 50%.

LOL, yeah, the mafia is going to take over America if capitalism occurs. Bulkboy, communism CAUSED the collapse of the Soviets. Of course GDP has to shrink, that is what happens during a recession! As Tech mentioned, what was a major cause of this? Wasteful spending in a war in Afghanistan, which for some lunacy reason, you think America should follow in their footsteps!! I'm not even going to bother with destroying this, like I did with your Chile example (though I do thank you very much for mentioning it, I was previously unaware of this beautiful example of capitalism fixing the disaster of extreme socialism :music .

infact, u should quit the strawman arguments and ur science fiction claims of no government= great society. because U HAVE NOTHING TO SHOW TOO!

One of us has nothing to show, but it's not me. Furthermore, it's pretty ironic that you accuse me of a strawman argument, yet later in the same sentence you suggest I favor "no government", this is just plain wrong and is a strawman argument on your part, as I have NEVER ONCE suggested this.

some members will agree with me, and some with u.

LOL... why don't we take a vote on this?

i view this as an opportunity to learn, and strengthen my english skills, and i wont stop debating u, just cause u think ure "winning".

Debates are great, I agree.... however, you do NOT view this as an opportunity to learn, you NEVER learn anything, and are impervious to reasoning. I'm willing to bet you will STILL think capitalism ruined Chile, while it allowed the people to make it prosper after a disaster of socialism/communism, (though of course, there IS always going to be a painful period of liquidation of the socialist mistakes, but it's short).

i think ur ideology is a failed trainwreck.

Yet, you've never produced one single example of it being so. The odd time you actually try to present an example from history, rather than simply babble with nonsense rhetoric, I prove it wrong.

oh and btw, ure not coming off as such a bad ass intelectual as u may think, specially not with the owning part, it makes u sound like an insulted teenager accept the fact that not everyone agrees with u, and that u will be called out on ur views from time to time.

First of all, I only responded in this way when you said that

the difference between me and u, is that u want to leave, and let iraq get thrown into chaos and civil war. while i realize that after having invaded a country u have some responsibility to actually stabilize it.[/b] . So, you are suggesting that you have this wisdom to realize the proper solution, while my suggestions would undoubtedly result in chaos.

Keep calling me out on my views, I enjoy defending them, and I do that pretty well. The frustrating part is that you are SO dogmatic to things which are just plain wrong. Like, come on man, saying the US govt is helping the market correct itself, by bailing out/propping up/nationalizing it's major FAILED companies?? Bulkboy, this is PREVENTING the correction, NOBODY, not even somebody who agrees with these policies would suggest that this is ALLOWING the market to correct.

look dude, i cant predict the future to a t, things may come up that requires a greater presence of troops. i dont think there will be alot of troops in iraq in 2012. there may be 1000 or there may be 10000. in 2012 i will be well into my studies and im not really willing to risk loosing money i may or may not be able to pay at that given time.

No, if you truly felt you were correct, you'd take the bet. The US government will not remove troops from the country regardless of what any treaty says, just like they are currently going around invading and bombing whatever the hell they want. You keep avoiding answering why they are STILL building massive, state of the art, borderline luxurious fortresses, because you have no answer for it.

 

[Braaq]

Soooo can I use my toilet paper to buy my groceries now? Since our dollar will be worth as much anyways. :wutyousay:

 

[Ironslave]

 

[lifterdead]

On a positive note, a lot of changes can happen in a short amount of time. Perhaps aliens will land and attempt put earth on the inter-galactic market.

:mf_emoticon_psychot