Another What If?

[RangerM]

Even I'm not quite so jaundiced as to see the electorate as pigs at a trough. More like sheep being led to slaughter. It seems to me we've got fewer and fewer people whose troughs are full. LINK

In fairness, I did say "a large portion of the electorate". I didn't say all of it. I would say it is over-represented in the OWS crowd.

Seriously, if you can work your way through it, go back and read THIS LINK that I posted earlier. I apologize that it is 27 pages long, and pretty dry, but the concept of financialization is one that needs to be understood and brought into the common dialog.

I'll do my best. Long flight to Utah tomorrow.

[retro-man]

Travel safe.

[fmccap]

 

If his lament is with fiat currency, to what "competing currencies" are you referring?

 

Something we had until 1971. Something along the lines of if they are going to spend money we should be taxed for it right away instead of putting it on the endless credit card that just taxes us twice with the inflation tax. If it hit people right away things would be much different than kicking the can down the road and people not fully realizing what's going on. Don't fiat currencies always fail?

 

The Tea Party is definitely travelling along that line of thinking. At times, even the OWS crowd has an anti-government message, but it is too closely aligned with an anti-U.S. Government message.

What's wrong with an anti-government message considering what our government has become?

 

Very little (and none from the POTUS). Romney and Newt seem (to me, anyway) to come the closest. Theirs is a message of growth, and I believe that is the only thing that will get us out of the rut we are in. (simply cutting will not be enough)

What real growth is this you speak of? I think growth will come from cutting, and the more you cut the more real growth there will be. Put the money back into the peoples hands. You and I create real growth, not the government. Things will need to get worse before they get better. What happened in the 1921 recession with the so called "laissez-faire" policies? What brought about the "roaring 20's"? Depression of 1920–21

 

I see Newt or Mitt vs. Obama as two sides of the same coin.

[fmccap]

Even I'm not quite so jaundiced as to see the electorate as pigs at a trough. More like sheep being led to slaughter. It seems to me we've got fewer and fewer people whose troughs are full. LINK

 

 

 

Seriously, if you can work your way through it, go back and read THIS LINK that I posted earlier. I apologize that it is 27 pages long, and pretty dry, but the concept of financialization is one that needs to be understood and brought into the common dialog.

 

Poverty in America?

[retro-man]

Poverty in America?

Oh. Alrighty then, I guess it was just our imagination. Let's all get back to work then.

 

LINK

 

Americans are overwhelmingly pessimistic about their own future and about the fate of their country, according to a new Time/Penn Shoen Berland poll presented at this week's Aspen Ideas Festival.

Sixty-eight percent of Americans think the last decade showed a marked decline in American life. Most applicants do not expect things to improve in the near future.

Largely due to the election of Barack Obama, minorities are an exception to this overwhelmingly pessimistic trend.

Whites tend to view the last decade as one of the worst of the last century. African-Americans and Hispanics are more likely than others to say that the quality of life in America has improved.

 

But at least we've got air conditioning. I'm sure it's pure heaven to watch your 401K evaporate and be eating from the food bank. And hey, according to The Heritage Foundation, it's not as bad yet as it was in 1918. I did not know that. I guess I should listen to these guys - because they never have an agenda. [/sarcasm]

[Edstock]

Oh. Alrighty then, I guess it was just our imagination. Let's all get back to work then.

You delusional Communist! :happy feet:

 

It is interesting to observe how oblivious the Goppers and their supporters are: the end of this era's Monopoly game is approaching as the 1% increase their wealth through system control. The game is over, when one player has all the money and property. The trick for the Goppers is to leave enough that the delusional can believe in the system's "fairness". If this is done, the Second American Revolution can be avoided.

 

 

Interesting times, tovarich, interesting times.

 

BTW, check out this appraisal of 1962, 50 years ago:

 

http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/ideas/1962?page=full

 

 

 

 

 

[fmccap]

There are some interesting comments in this last blurb.

 

1. Even under a Neoliberal economic system the government does create growth. Exactly what growth and how much is a matter of discussion, but to me one would waste his time suggesting the government is not a consumer and therefore not part of growth. Perhaps others here that have studied economics think otherwise. The reality that the government consumes and drives innovation through a certain percentage of its spending makes it a vital piece of the economic framework of our country.

 

You could just shout "Defense dept" and destroy your argument that the government does not create growth. And anyone in the field of research medicine understands how little work would get done without the government applying its ability to pool money and put it towards research.

 

We as a society are very charitable and extremely caring but with lives and jobs it remains that efficacy is not better within a fragmented population but placed in knowledgeable hands that can judge better what is relevant to advancing our nation. I love pets and have owned many but if we left grants for research up to societal giving how many people would give to the humane society or PETA before the cancer society? Would this world be a worse place if more unwanted pets were euthanized and the money spent towards medical research? No, it undoubtedly would not. The quick and painless death or an animal which costs less than current system of no kill facilities could result in hundreds of millions more to universities and researchers which could lead to yours, or their or my grandparents, parents, siblings even children being cured or just receiving better treatment that extends their life.

 

Yet we embrace the potential foolishness of our own choices over the choices of a small group of people that have at many points a better understanding of what is the best choice. Why even have a government if we embrace the notion of personal choice to that degree.

Consumes what, a lot of wasted money?

 

Drives innovation? LOL, Hows the Chevy Volt coming along(they were the driving force behind it), how about the great innovation they tried to put behind Ethanol(failure) or Alternative energy(failure)? Solyndra ring a bell? They are now saying there are about 15 more companies headed in the same direction.

 

 

You are a fool to believe this "small group of people" know what our best choice is. They base "our" best choice on who is going to contribute the most political donations to "there personal campaigns".

[RangerM]

What's wrong with an anti-government message considering what our government has become?

There's nothing wrong with an anti-BIG government message, but when you're (ie. the OWS) prepared to simply blame "capitalism" and throw the entire system down the drain without considering the actual circumstances--that being, we are a l-o-n-g way from unfettered capitialism--you are promoting an anti-U.S. Government message.

What real growth is this you speak of? I think growth will come from cutting, and the more you cut the more real growth there will be. Put the money back into the peoples hands. You and I create real growth, not the government.

There are some interesting comments in this last blurb.

 

1. Even under a Neoliberal economic system the government does create growth. Exactly what growth and how much is a matter of discussion, but to me one would waste his time suggesting the government is not a consumer and therefore not part of growth.

You could just shout "Defense dept" and destroy your argument that the government does not create growth.

 

I've put these two comments together to emphasize we need growth in the PRIVATE economy. The government cannot spend money that isn't taken from someone who earned it.

 

The individual is free to trade his labor for the money he has. Once he has run out, he can make more. But in the transaction, two parties benefit; the employer and the laborer.

 

When the government takes a portion, the laborer doesn't benefit. And even as the government spends that largesse, a lesser amount (due to government overhead costs) is returned to the private economy than existed before. In other words, the growth from government spending is more than offset (eventually) by the reduction in private spending.

 

Government spending can stimulate growth only until the money runs out. It then must confiscate more, because it has nothing to trade for it. The worker always has more labor to trade.

 

Yet we embrace the potential foolishness of our own choices over the choices of a small group of people that have at many points a better understanding of what is the best choice. Why even have a government if we embrace the notion of personal choice to that degree.

You'll forgive me if I prefer to make my own choices in a great many matters that those on the left would sooner take out of my hands.

 

If I am to surrender my right of choice, then what freedoms do I possess?

Edited January 17, 2012 by RangerM

[Imawhosure]

If Ron Paul had a much stronger defense message, I would support him until the future Republican candidate was chosen at the convention.

 

We certainly have an economic problem here, but electing somebody to fix it while gutting foreign policy leaving us vulnerable is not logical. Whats more, Ron Pauls weakness on defense and involvement would destroy any chance he had for his economic policy to succeed as his ideas would cede control of our energy sources for over 10yrs to the radicals in the Middle East, while he had to fight our liberal friends who are green to open up our own vast energy resources.

 

Even if everything worked out perfectly for him, best case scenario would be our economy for 7yrs or more, would be in as bad or worse shape than it is now, along with our foreign policy being in the crapper.

 

Is that sound like a reason to elect someone? I think not. While I do agree that American instant gratification desires have to change, we are searching for CUTS, and adding money to the federal income stream through growth policies. A man who on one hand wants to cut, then in the other is willing to allow the lifeblood of our economy....energy......to swing wildley is at least as bad as Obama, if not worse.

 

Not to mention----------->If Ron Paul was the nominee under these ideas,he would damage conservatives as much or more than Obama has done liberals because not only would what I have pointed out happen, but when they had to throw him out of office after 1 term, we would also be in a much weaker position to protect ourselves........meaning liberals would then be elected for 20yrs, lol.

 

Shame on the republicans for running such a weak field that Ron Paul is actually a player in that field with such crackpot foreign policy views. If Barack Obama is a socialist, then Ron Paul is an isolationist. Both ways of running a country have been proven to be awful in the modern era, so lets get someone else to run for the dems beside BHO, and get the nominee for the repubs that is not Ron Paul so America has some decent choices to vote for.

[fmccap]

If Ron Paul had a much stronger defense message, I would support him until the future Republican candidate was chosen at the convention.

 

We certainly have an economic problem here, but electing somebody to fix it while gutting foreign policy leaving us vulnerable is not logical. Whats more, Ron Pauls weakness on defense and involvement would destroy any chance he had for his economic policy to succeed as his ideas would cede control of our energy sources for over 10yrs to the radicals in the Middle East, while he had to fight our liberal friends who are green to open up our own vast energy resources.

 

Even if everything worked out perfectly for him, best case scenario would be our economy for 7yrs or more, would be in as bad or worse shape than it is now, along with our foreign policy being in the crapper.

 

Is that sound like a reason to elect someone? I think not. While I do agree that American instant gratification desires have to change, we are searching for CUTS, and adding money to the federal income stream through growth policies. A man who on one hand wants to cut, then in the other is willing to allow the lifeblood of our economy....energy......to swing wildley is at least as bad as Obama, if not worse.

 

Not to mention----------->If Ron Paul was the nominee under these ideas,he would damage conservatives as much or more than Obama has done liberals because not only would what I have pointed out happen, but when they had to throw him out of office after 1 term, we would also be in a much weaker position to protect ourselves........meaning liberals would then be elected for 20yrs, lol.

 

Shame on the republicans for running such a weak field that Ron Paul is actually a player in that field with such crackpot foreign policy views. If Barack Obama is a socialist, then Ron Paul is an isolationist. Both ways of running a country have been proven to be awful in the modern era, so lets get someone else to run for the dems beside BHO, and get the nominee for the repubs that is not Ron Paul so America has some decent choices to vote for.

I would really like to know where you get " gutting foreign policy" from?

 

"cede control of our energy sources for over 10yrs to the radicals in the Middle East", where does this come from also? I love how people buy the BS that we are dependent on "MIDDLE EAST" foreign oil. I hope you don't truly believe it.

 

What is your suggestion for Foreign policy? Considering we can't afford it anymore something has to change. What does history tell us about where we will end up if we continue on?

[Imawhosure]

I would really like to know where you get " gutting foreign policy" from?

 

"cede control of our energy sources for over 10yrs to the radicals in the Middle East", where does this come from also? I love how people buy the BS that we are dependent on "MIDDLE EAST" foreign oil. I hope you don't truly believe it.

 

What is your suggestion for Foreign policy? Considering we can't afford it anymore something has to change. What does history tell us about where we will end up if we continue on?

 

No, I know for a fact we are not dependent, but the world market is, and because we are part of the world market, our oils price for even internal consumption is affected by anything that happens anywhere, until there is a glut of it, or other energy sources prove cheaper putting a downward pressure on the price.

 

As far as your second assertion----------->the only reason you enjoy the life you have now along with virtually all of the free countrys of the world is AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY, past and present. Therefore, we better be able to figure out how to afford it or with the danger that lurks in the world today, economics will become something we USED to worry about in the good old, easy days.

 

There will always be a Hitler, a Stalin, a Mussolini in the world waiting to pounce. Will there always be a US, a Britain, a Canada around to disuade them by using the carrott and the stick philosophy?

 

I don't know! If I figure out how many Ron Pauls and facsimiles of him are running for higher office in these countrys, I may be able to give you a better odds on answer; just as much as I will be able to give you a different answer if I could find a few Ronald Reagans and Margaret Thatchers. If nothing else, those 2 should have proven to everyone that limp wrist foreign policy is not the way to go. If you think it is, then I feel sorry for you.

[fmccap]

No, I know for a fact we are not dependent, but the world market is, and because we are part of the world market, our oils price for even internal consumption is affected by anything that happens anywhere, until there is a glut of it, or other energy sources prove cheaper putting a downward pressure on the price.

 

As far as your second assertion----------->the only reason you enjoy the life you have now along with virtually all of the free countrys of the world is AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY, past and present. Therefore, we better be able to figure out how to afford it or with the danger that lurks in the world today, economics will become something we USED to worry about in the good old, easy days.

 

There will always be a Hitler, a Stalin, a Mussolini in the world waiting to pounce. Will there always be a US, a Britain, a Canada around to disuade them by using the carrott and the stick philosophy?

 

I don't know! If I figure out how many Ron Pauls and facsimiles of him are running for higher office in these countrys, I may be able to give you a better odds on answer; just as much as I will be able to give you a different answer if I could find a few Ronald Reagans and Margaret Thatchers. If nothing else, those 2 should have proven to everyone that limp wrist foreign policy is not the way to go. If you think it is, then I feel sorry for you.

Ronald Reagan why? I does remind me of something he said though, "The longer we stay in Lebanon, the harder it will be for us to leave. We will be trapped by the case we make for having troops there in the first place. What can we expect if we withdraw from Lebanon? The same as will happen if we stay. I acknowledge that the level of fighting will increase if we leave. But I firmly believe this will happen in any event." Less than one month later, 241 Marines were killed.

 

As far as the Hitler and so on, remember what one of the Japanese said about invading Americas homeland.

Edited January 19, 2012 by fmccap

[mettech]

Does the "best interest" of the individual vote = the best interest of the Nation?

 

And that is why only the educated man was allowed to vote in the beginning.

 

To get elected today, a presidential candidate could run on a platform of: Free education, Free health insurance, Reduced taxes for the middle class, No taxes for the poor, Blame the well to do, Free.... wait a minute...

 

Something sounds familiar here...

[fmccap]

 

As far as your second assertion----------->the only reason you enjoy the life you have now along with virtually all of the free countrys of the world is AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY, past and present. Therefore, we better be able to figure out how to afford it or with the danger that lurks in the world today, economics will become something we USED to worry about in the good old, easy days.

 

The first sentence I don't believe, except for the 2 world wars. Nothing now a days has anything to do with it and little of the past does as far as why I have the life I have. I believe that to be just an opinion with nothing behind it. I know you believe as I do we have the strongest and most advanced military in the world and the freest People in the world. Tell me who is coming here to take our freedoms away from us? I don't believe anyone.

[napfirst]

The first sentence I don't believe, except for the 2 world wars. Nothing now a days has anything to do with it and little of the past does as far as why I have the life I have. I believe that to be just an opinion with nothing behind it. I know you believe as I do we have the strongest and most advanced military in the world and the freest People in the world. Tell me who is coming here to take our freedoms away from us? I don't believe anyone.

 

 

You do remember 9-11 right.....have you flown lately?.....

[retro-man]

You do remember 9-11 right.....have you flown lately?.....

I hate to say this - because it's going to sound more extreme than I probably am in pragmatic reality but:

1.) If we hadn't been mucking around in the Middle East defending "our" oil, there probably wouldn't have been a 9/11 - and we'd probably have a greater range of alternate and domestic sources, creating domestic jobs and improving our trade balance.

2.) If there had been a 9/11 anyway, once we found out where the perps were from we should have nuked their mother's villages. That action alone would have had every secret service in the world doing our work for us to root them out. What a tremendous savings it would have been. (But under the current way of doing things, that's the last place we'd ever have attacked, because their mothers live where the oil comes from. We attacked a bunch of countries around there, but not the one where almost all of the hijackers were from.)

Edited January 19, 2012 by retro-man

[RangerM]

I hate to say this - because it's going to sound more extreme than I probably am in pragmatic reality but:

1.) If we hadn't been mucking around in the Middle East defending "our" oil, there probably wouldn't have been a 9/11 - and we'd probably have a greater range of alternate and domestic sources, creating domestic jobs and improving our trade balance.

If our goal was to protect our oil, why are we paying for it?

As far as the "domestic" sources, see Keystone Pipeline.

2.) If there had been a 9/11 anyway, once we found out where the perps were from we should have nuked their mother's villages. That action alone would have had every secret service in the world doing our work for us to root them out. What a tremendous savings it would have been. (But under the current way of doing things, that's the last place we'd ever have attacked, because their mothers live where the oil comes from. We attacked a bunch of countries around there, but not the one where almost all of the hijackers were from.)

To me, the question is when attacked, do you retaliate against the munitions factory or the mine from where the base metal came?

[RangerM]

Rick Perry said it best, "Are you better off now than you were 4 Trillion dollars--in debt--ago"?

[FiredMotorCompany]

Rick Perry said it best, "Are you better off now than you were 4 Trillion dollars--in debt--ago"?

 

Not a Perry fan, but that is a good "zinger".

 

And in answer? Not so much. Maybe it should have been 347 TRILLION! That way they could never say their "failure" was due to not getting enough money to spend (at least they couldn't have said it with a straight face).

Edited January 20, 2012 by FiredMotorCompany

[Imawhosure]

The first sentence I don't believe, except for the 2 world wars. Nothing now a days has anything to do with it and little of the past does as far as why I have the life I have. I believe that to be just an opinion with nothing behind it. I know you believe as I do we have the strongest and most advanced military in the world and the freest People in the world. Tell me who is coming here to take our freedoms away from us? I don't believe anyone.

 

 

If you don't believe after everything this country has gone through that without world presence everything would just be fine and dandy, I suppose I can't convince you. I am not trying to talk you out of your guy, I am just pointing out that there is danger there.

[fmccap]

You do remember 9-11 right.....have you flown lately?.....

Yea the ones who attacked us because we are free?

 

Last time I flew was in 98, will not do it anymore because of all the crap you have to go through and the TSA.

[fmccap]

If you don't believe after everything this country has gone through that without world presence everything would just be fine and dandy, I suppose I can't convince you. I am not trying to talk you out of your guy, I am just pointing out that there is danger there.

Do you believe that we are responsible for any of the problems we have had or are having?

[goinbroke2]

THIS SHOULD BE POSTED IN CONGRESS!!

 

 

 

Ranger posted;

"The individual is free to trade his labor for the money he has. Once he has run out, he can make more. But in the transaction, two parties benefit; the employer and the laborer.

 

When the government takes a portion, the laborer doesn't benefit. And even as the government spends that largesse, a lesser amount (due to government overhead costs) is returned to the private economy than existed before. In other words, the growth from government spending is more than offset (eventually) by the reduction in private spending.

 

Government spending can stimulate growth only until the money runs out. It then must confiscate more, because it has nothing to trade for it. The worker always has more labor to trade." :shades:

 

(or stapled to obama's forehead)!

[goinbroke2]

Actually, it should be a full page ad in every newspaper and a commercial on every tv!! :yup:

 

 

HELLO PEOPLE!!!

 

 

WAKE UP!!!

[Mark B. Morrow]

 

As far as the "domestic" sources, see Keystone Pipeline.

 

 

 

 

While Canada certainly feels familiar (except Quebec which feels sort of exotic) It is not domestic. Oil sells at the world market price no matter where it comes from.