Global Financial Crisis (5 Viewers)

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
116,978
I'm not necessarily a big fan of Obama's healthcare bill, but I don't see how anyone with an entrepreneurial mindset can keep their disgust down with the current healthcare system.
OK, that is fair enough. But you've been saying this for years now, yet I've never seen an actual healthcare plan conducted by our government that is feasible or wouldn't ramp up our national debt.
 

Buy on AliExpress.com

IrishZebra

Western Imperialist
Jun 18, 2006
23,327
The "Tea Party" can mean a lot of different things. Do you even know what the premise was behind the modern day Tea Party movement?

I have no idea what you're doing bringing Murdoch into this discussion, it's asinine.
It's a collection of disenfranchised people who want to stop the bloated federal monstrosity and the partisan politics, with seeped in right-wing tendencies.

Murdoch along with the kochs has given funding to the 'radical' elements of the tea party movement including rallies and protests.

Those people want more $ for themselves...
 

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
84,956
OK, that is fair enough. But you've been saying this for years now, yet I've never seen an actual healthcare plan conducted by our government that is feasible or wouldn't ramp up our national debt.
Making the current one OK to leave in place and ignore?

Hell, I'd argue that our current one is actually contributing to the national debt.

Making no decision to change here is literally making the decision to keep investing in failure.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
116,978
The means of production aren't collectively owned...how is it socialist?


Wait so you believe that de-regulation will solve the problem of human greed,apathy and evil? That's a bit naive IMO
Governments won't solve it either. They act as the mechanism that allows for the avarice and illegality to flourish. Personally, I think anyone who can't see that is an idiot.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
116,978
It's a collection of disenfranchised people who want to stop the bloated federal monstrosity and the partisan politics, with seeped in right-wing tendencies.

Murdoch along with the kochs has given funding to the 'radical' elements of the tea party movement including rallies and protests.

Those people want more $ for themselves...
The Tea Party was never a homogeneous entity. Lots of people who considered themselves "Tea Partiers" did not give a damn about God, Gays and Guns. Those folks are the new Tea Party clowns who are essentially Neo-Clowns. But I still don't see why Murdoch was brought up in here.

Making the current one OK to leave in place and ignore?

Hell, I'd argue that our current one is actually contributing to the national debt.

Making no decision to change here is literally making the decision to keep investing in failure.
It depends on what that "change" is.

Is it Change we can believe in? Because if it is, I'd rather not.
 

IrishZebra

Western Imperialist
Jun 18, 2006
23,327
when the answer to anything is that government or society needs to be the solution and not the individual its a form of socialism
That's not what socialism means at all.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

so·cial·ism/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
Noun: A political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.


Third Way is a centrist approach designed to reconcile the two, call me a centrist if anything.
 

IrishZebra

Western Imperialist
Jun 18, 2006
23,327
The Tea Party was never a homogeneous entity. Lots of people who considered themselves "Tea Partiers" did not give a damn about God, Gays and Guns. Those folks are the new Tea Party clowns who are essentially Neo-Clowns. But I still don't see why Murdoch was brought up in here.



It depends on what that "change" is.

Is it Change we can believe in? Because if it is, I'd rather not.
Murdoch? because he's provides support to the neo-clowns, at least that's what I've read.
 

AndreaCristiano

Nato, Vive, e muore Italiano
Jun 9, 2011
19,425
Well its not like rommney is any better I mean at least perry made Texas what it is. The only state with growth , not touched by the housing market all while creating 40% of the nations jobs. Who is better out there that actually has a shot ?

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
116,978
Well its not like rommney is any better I mean at least perry made Texas what it is. The only state with growth , not touched by the housing market all while creating 40% of the nations jobs. Who is better out there that actually has a shot ?

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk
I'm not voting for a fucking Republican unless it's Ron Paul. The rest are liars and neanderthals. Texans who understand the economy and personal freedoms hate that piece of shit Perry because he does nothing but destroy both, and that's the truth. If Texans don't like him there's no reason for you to like him.

I mean shit I would take 4 more years of Bush with 5% unemployment and 2.50 gas! It would be like a renewal
:sergio:

No, I'm not like you at all.
 

AndreaCristiano

Nato, Vive, e muore Italiano
Jun 9, 2011
19,425
I'm not voting for a fucking Republican unless it's Ron Paul. The rest are liars and neanderthals. Texans who understand the economy and personal freedoms hate that piece of shit Perry because he does nothing but destroy both, and that's the truth. If Texans don't like him there's no reason for you to like him.


:sergio:

No, I'm not like you at all.

im not saying thats my preference im actually a paulist have been a member of his campaign for liberty since inception, but lets be honest he's never gonna win, so you wont vote for another repub so then what 4 more years of Obamanation
 

Tak!

Senior Member
Jun 23, 2011
4,193
And governments are so rational. They're so smart and always do the right thing. They've never destroyed an economy and have never killed anyone in the history of the world.

Some of the most inane economic arguments in the world today consist of thinking a command and control economy by governments will lead you towards economic growth. It is complete lunacy because that is exactly what is ruining my own country; the Federal Reserve, in conjunction with the federal government, trying to plan every single facet of society as to guard against a recession. And what is their only course of action in staving off a recession? Spending money.

Recessions are supposed to be a good thing in economics. It pushes the insolvent or the incompetent players out of the market for better firms to take their place. In command and control economies, this process isn't allowed to occur because cronies in government bail out their friends. I'd much rather have a market dictate what happens in the world because at least if the shitheads make a bad bet they will end up offing themselves.



Well, then you would assume wrong, because Obummer only cares about the illusion of doing the right thing. Everything he agrees to is only a detriment to myself and the rest of the middle class, and I'm someone who voted for the fucking clown.
As I said, anything consisting of human (behaviour) won't act rational. So no, government's won't. I never said that? I never said anything about command and control. Those are heavily loaded words. I said the a free markets doesn't exist, has never done and never will. This does not imply someone has to control the market. There can be regulations but that's a different question. How these regulations is set and to what degree. Spending money is another way of earning money. I.ex. let's say there's some sort of financial crisis and people are loosing jobs. This in turn means that more people will be in need of money from government and that less tax money will be arranged. Instead of this the government can spend money on let's say building new revenues and to do this labor will be needed... and so on. There will be a chain reaction which in turn will lower the fees that otherwise would have been spent. This is just a boring example but what I'm trying to say is that there are different perspectives. I'm not saying Obama is doing the right thing and since I don't live in America I actually don't care if he does. America is going down just as any big empire has done. Only reason America isn't going down faster is because China has spent too much in America to let it sink straight away. Either way, America's future has already been set. The final hit will be when they won't be able to braindrain anymore and that's a obstacle that hasn't been challenged correctly. By correctly I'm not saying there's a right way of doing it but that it hasn't been solved. This issue should have been solved at least 20 years ago. And no, I don't think America is a bad country and deserves to loose their spot as the financial centre but ship has sailed.

Obama is Obama and probably just a puppet, the question is rather who's the puppet master.

Anyway, Sweden's doing fine and it working very well for them. It doesn't mean that every country should do the same. Different countries have different needs and what works for France doesn't necessarily work for Russia. But, ideas from each other can used and implemented/adapted.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 4)