OT: Our Economy (US)

[Arak Koba]

Ultimately, I blame the whole "rich get richer, poor get poorer" effect for our current economy; when all is said and done, there will be 10 rich people in the world that give hand-me-outs to the other 6 billion.

Ok, a little stretched there.
But all the same, "A house divided against itself can not stand", and the U.S. is definately a house divided politically. Less government and tax is good, but corporate despots aren't, and in a free-market, the corporate big-wigs end up replacing the government ones.

[Kinboat]

Yes it is a pity we didn't listen to some of our earlier leaders... One thing I forgot in my ramblings was this... The plight of the Afghani people wasn't on anyone's mind until it became politically beneficial to point it out (the terrorists we wanted were hiding in their country)... If we really cared about human rights violations there we would have done something many years ago. And yes a lot of my longer speils can be summed up in one sentence, that's an excellent one Baron Munchausen.

Damn didn't realize I started sounding so preachy there... That happens a lot with me. Sorry for the OT... There's probably a better place for this stuff.

[ 08 April 2002: Message edited by: Kinboat ]

[geoschmo]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kinboat:
The plight of the Afghani people wasn't on anyone's mind until it became politically beneficial to point it out (the terrorists we wanted were hiding in their country)... If we really cared about human rights violations there we would have done something many years ago.

---

This isn't really an acurate statement. The deplorable conditions the Afgans lived under was well known by anyone who cared to get deeper into it than the nightly news. There have been many articles in magazines and newspapers over the Last few years talking about everything from the lack of basic human right for women to the destruction of priceless archeological atifacts that didn't fit into the Taleban's narrow world view.

The question is what could we as a country have done? Even after the blatent attacks on US soil on 9/11 there were many loud voices in other countries that were arguing we had no right to topple the "legitamate goverment" in Afganistan.

Imagine the screams of protest had we taken a more active role prior to those events.

Geoschmo

[ 08 April 2002: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Mudshark]

The sad state of affairs is that the USA is tryintg to be the policeman of the world, we are very concernd with building colitions, why? We are the remaning super-power. If we pulled out of the past hotspots, ie. Japan, South korea, and Germany. Beyond a bit of oil, why should we care. We have more reserves than the middleast. I am one for closing the borders and letting the rest fight it out, Beyond the Americas,Europe, and the Pacific rim. there would be no technology!

[Atrocities]

Political parties are all about economic policies. When you say that blaming one is ridicules, you fail to understand that blaming one is exactly correct in this instant. If you do not understand economics, then you do not understand the argument. There are two types of Americans, those who earn intrest, and those who pay it. 90% of Americans pay interest, and it is that 90% who also pay 99% of all taxes. The rich are protected and they will always be. That has been the nature of our unequal economy since its inception.

For the 90's, many Americans earned a lot of extra money, stocks, over time, better paying jobs, and Clintonomics (Clinton’s Economic Plan) took 27% over your standard tax rate. He paid down the deficit among other things. However, Americans were paying more taxes instead of saying money. Now, we are in a recession, and most Americans had no savings to fall back upon when the song stopped.

I did, but many of the people I worked with did not. In the Last 9 months the only people who have profited from this economy of the kind of people who bottom feed. You know them, the investment bankers. The people who buy your home at public auction and then bill you for the balance while selling your dreams at an incredibly inflated profit.

Economics has made and broke many countries, USSR for one. Back in 94 Clinton passed laws that seriously limited several sectors of the Free Market. We are now feeling the strangle hold of those laws.

The major difference about these two political parties is simply a difference of economic views.

One method of economic stimulus my work, while the other may work better or worse. Worse is where we are now. Where do you want to be in 6 months from now? Home at your desk playing SEIV, or living in an over inflated costly apartment eating TopperOnmin trying to play SEIV pbw on dial up?

Look what happened in the past, and see what worked and what did not. Higher taxes, wage fixes, and price fixing have always caused inflation and poor economic times. While lower taxes, free market, and no economic restrictions, say past those to prevent meltdown, have always brought about good economic times.

In the 90's, free market was attacked, AT&T, Microsoft, Health care, Tabacco, firearms, auto makers, forestry, etc. Sure some of these, indeed most, profited by stepping on the small guy, but that is how free market works. Its is not a "government kept fair" system. That line of linking is called socialism. Unfair business practices can be addressed and stamped out in court, or buy consumer protection laws. But to have the Government come in and take to trial nearly every business in the US during the 90's for liability issues was killing our economy.

Law suites and legal games choked free Market, and now we, the people who pay interest, are really paying for it. The law suites were not about consumer needs, or fair business, but about sucking money out of the free market into the pockets of trial lawyers. Trial lawyers who supported Clinton and his methods. Make the rich guys pay us money. Think about it, did any of the law suites do anything for you? Did you get any money from the Tabacco settlement? No you did not, but do you know who did? Yes, the trial lawyers. They made billions. They did that at our expense, and at the expense of our economy. Clinton provided the atmosphere for them to do it, and he allowed it too happen.

Bush’s economic plans may scare a few, but only those who believe Kainism is the way too go.

[ 08 April 2002: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[Will]

I would just like to point out one thing first: The President doesn't pass laws. That's right, the President does NOT pass laws. To blame everything that happens to the economy on the President sitting at the time is a huge exageration. Congress passes laws, the President signs them. True, this gives him (or, perhaps sometime in the future, her) some control over what gets turned into law, but it doesn't go very far. A veto blocks every part of a bill, which is why it is not often used; it brings everything to a halt, sometimes delaying things for years. So, economic policy is directed to some extent by the President, but Congress has most of the authority.

Next, just as a recession is not good for people in an economy, growth that is too rapid is also a bad thing. Most of the policies implemented while Clinton was in office were to prevent the economy from "overheating". Had actions not been taken to control growth, the recession could have come much, much earlier. Think of it this way: when there is lots of growth, businesses start to build an inventory of goods. There comes a point where there is so much excess inventory, that production is cut back, meaning workers are cut back. Businesses still have their supply to sell, yet suddenly the workers/consumers can't buy them. This is basically what happened in the Depression. You can curse these policies all you like in hindsight, but in reality, they were what was needed at the time.

In response to Mudshark, Isolationism isn't the answer. Been there, done that. But back then, the world economy wasn't nearly as interconnected as it is now. The United States buys things from everyone, and everyone buys from us. To simply say "to hell with the rest of the world" is economic suicide. It could also turn out to be the suicide of our entire civilization. Sure, we're a superpower, the only one left. But, to use a SEIV analogy, we're also right on the edge of MEE, and the only thing keeping us from MEE is the fact that it is more profitable to be our friend. Cut off the rest of the world, then we no longer become profitable, and I don't care how advanced the military is, we might not survive.

That's all I have to say about that (for now

[tesco samoa]

One thing I do not like. Is how Western culture tries to impose its morals on other culters.

I highly recommend the book Can Asians Think ?

by by Kishore Mahbubani.
Published by Key Porter.


As for American Economic's. 1 word.

homogenize

And the same thing has happened in Canada.

I hope this is just a fad.

Because there is something wrong with the idea that I can shop and eat at the same places as with every one else on this forum. I hope it is just a fad and it has only 20 to 30 years left....