|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 22 2012 05:29 Souma wrote:Hillary scores a cease-fire in Gaza. This woman works magic. I, for one, thought it would be impossible for an immediate cease-fire after the bombing of the bus in Tel Aviv. The Obama Administration won't be the same without her I imagine. If Susan Rice weathers the storm then I imagine she'll take the reigns, otherwise it's likely to be John Kerry, who is a shoo-in for both Secretary of Defense and State. What's next, Hillary? 
Hillary achieved the ceasefire, even though the deal was largely brokered by the Egyptian government and was decided before she arrived to announce it.
Anyway, it's not much of a ceasefire when you have rocket attacks just hours after the truce. I think we will come to realize that the "ceasefire" is simply a chance for Hamas to regroup before it attacks again.
On November 22 2012 05:37 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 05:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:
It should be considered wrong to repeatedly take money from people who haven't even been born yet, we are hurting our own children and grandchildren. And yet I distinctly remember you taking a rather hardline "damn the torpedoes" attitude towards environmentalism...
Depends on what kind of environmentalism we are talking about here. I'm in favor of environmental policies if they have clear and worthwhile positive externalities. But trying to stop global warming by slowing carbon emission growth will have no positive externalities.
|
On November 22 2012 05:52 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 05:29 Souma wrote:Hillary scores a cease-fire in Gaza. This woman works magic. I, for one, thought it would be impossible for an immediate cease-fire after the bombing of the bus in Tel Aviv. The Obama Administration won't be the same without her I imagine. If Susan Rice weathers the storm then I imagine she'll take the reigns, otherwise it's likely to be John Kerry, who is a shoo-in for both Secretary of Defense and State. What's next, Hillary? Hillary achieved the ceasefire, even though the deal was actually brokered by the Egyptian government and was decided before she arrived to announce it.Anyway, it's not much of a ceasefire when you have rocket attacks just hours after the truce. I think we will come to realize that the "ceasefire" is simply a chance for Hamas to regroup before it attacks again.
Well to be fair, the specifics of how the ceasefire came to be are rather nebulous at this point; for the bulk of yesterday, Egypt and Hamas had confirmed a ceasefire while Israel denied it, so whether or not Hillary played a role in convincing Israel is still difficult to ascertain.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 22 2012 05:52 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 05:29 Souma wrote:Hillary scores a cease-fire in Gaza. This woman works magic. I, for one, thought it would be impossible for an immediate cease-fire after the bombing of the bus in Tel Aviv. The Obama Administration won't be the same without her I imagine. If Susan Rice weathers the storm then I imagine she'll take the reigns, otherwise it's likely to be John Kerry, who is a shoo-in for both Secretary of Defense and State. What's next, Hillary? Hillary achieved the ceasefire, even though the deal was actually brokered by the Egyptian government and was decided before she arrived to announce it.Anyway, it's not much of a ceasefire when you have rocket attacks just hours after the truce. I think we will come to realize that the "ceasefire" is simply a chance for Hamas to regroup before it attacks again.
Source? Article explicitly states The agreement, brokered by both Clinton and top Egyptian officials, called for an end to the Hamas rocket attacks and expressed hope for a “broader calm.”
|
|
|
While it is good that an agreement was reached I'm rather pessimistic. At some point some lunatic will fire a rocket from Gaza, and no matter whether it's related to Hamas, those factions for whom Hamas is not extreme enough or a fanatic who just built the rocket in his backyard. Most likely the answer from Israel will be strong (at least they indicate this) and there we go again.
Alternate scenario is Israel just not easing the blockade like in 2008 leading to new escalations in some weeks.
My hope is that because Netanyahu invested a lot of political capital in this, he might have an interest in playing down random attacks from Gaza and perhaps even Hamas will openly distance them from those incidents (haha, whom am I kidding?). Ok, sorry for derailing, but this is more interesting than the question of Hillarys part in this...
|
On November 22 2012 06:09 silynxer wrote:
While it is good that an agreement was reached I'm rather pessimistic. At some point some lunatic will fire a rocket from Gaza, and no matter whether it's related to Hamas, those factions for whom Hamas is not extreme enough or a fanatic who just built the rocket in his backyard. Most likely the answer from Israel will be strong (at least they indicate this) and there we go again.
Alternate scenario is Israel just not easing the blockade like in 2008 leading to new escalations in some weeks.
My hope is that because Netanyahu invested a lot of political capital in this, he might have an interest in playing down random attacks from Gaza and perhaps even Hamas will openly distance them from those incidents (haha, whom am I kidding?). Ok, sorry for derailing, but this is more interesting than the question of Hillarys part in this...
That point has already passed. There were 12 rockets launched an hour after the cease-fire, and the attacks are still continuing. Here are some updates.
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/article.php?p=146614
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-palestinians-israel-rocketsbre8ak1b3-20121121,0,2663908.story
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Your CNN article states
The agreement to end the hostilities came after a day of intensive negotiations featuring Clinton, Egyptian President Mohamed Morsy and Palestinian officials...
Egypt was just negotiating on behalf of Palestine. Takes two to tango.
And about the current hostilities, if they are from people who are acting without orders then all Palestine has to do is condemn them and crack down on them (genuinely, of course).
|
On November 22 2012 06:15 Souma wrote:Your CNN article states Show nested quote +The agreement to end the hostilities came after a day of intensive negotiations featuring Clinton, Egyptian President Mohamed Morsy and Palestinian officials... Egypt was just negotiating on behalf of Palestine. Takes two to tango.
Your post seemed to imply that Clinton primarily achieved the ceasefire and "worked magic." I'm just pointing out the partisan exaggeration here...
|
On November 22 2012 06:13 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 06:09 silynxer wrote:
While it is good that an agreement was reached I'm rather pessimistic. At some point some lunatic will fire a rocket from Gaza, and no matter whether it's related to Hamas, those factions for whom Hamas is not extreme enough or a fanatic who just built the rocket in his backyard. Most likely the answer from Israel will be strong (at least they indicate this) and there we go again.
Alternate scenario is Israel just not easing the blockade like in 2008 leading to new escalations in some weeks.
My hope is that because Netanyahu invested a lot of political capital in this, he might have an interest in playing down random attacks from Gaza and perhaps even Hamas will openly distance them from those incidents (haha, whom am I kidding?). Ok, sorry for derailing, but this is more interesting than the question of Hillarys part in this... That point has already passed. There were 12 rockets launched an hour after the cease-fire, and the attacks are still continuing. Here are some updates. http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/article.php?p=146614http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-palestinians-israel-rocketsbre8ak1b3-20121121,0,2663908.story
Yeah, to be expected if you are realistic. Whether that was pure fanaticism or a lack of communication inside Gaza or whatever else is hard to say. Historically Hamas has kept ceasefires and I expect them to do so now as well, lets hope Israel gives them some leeway until tomorrow.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 22 2012 06:18 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 06:15 Souma wrote:Your CNN article states The agreement to end the hostilities came after a day of intensive negotiations featuring Clinton, Egyptian President Mohamed Morsy and Palestinian officials... Egypt was just negotiating on behalf of Palestine. Takes two to tango. Your post seemed to imply that Clinton primarily achieved the ceasefire and "worked magic." I'm just pointing out the partisan exaggeration here...
I'm the partisan one when you specifically stated
the deal was actually brokered by the Egyptian government and was decided before she arrived to announce it.
Oh puh-lease.
And yes, she did work magic, because it obviously takes more than just being at the table to negotiate.
|
Nikk
United States63 Posts
On November 21 2012 22:52 p4NDemik wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2012 22:01 Nikk wrote:On November 21 2012 21:46 p4NDemik wrote:
It's also easy to pitch because it is a relevant concern. Not so relevant that holding the debt limit hostage was the reasonable approach to getting it done, but relevant enough to push for reform now, while we are in a reform-mindset post recession and post 2007-2008 financial crisis. Why is deficit reduction a relevant concern? If anything, shouldn't we increase deficit spending during a recession or in times of high unemployment? I'm not a economics major, but if spending were to say continue without being discussed as an issue, the U.S. debt would start to reach such a high level that creditors would worry about how safe it actually is to buy bonds. There would be a certain point that the long-term interest on the debt, in combination with the debt itself would just be too much for the U.S. government to ever pay off. ... I mean ideally we want a surplus of course, but in its absence this would suffice. ...
This makes absolutely no sense to me. There is no situation where the federal government couldn't pay its debts, it is the issuer of the currency, not a user. The US government has no money (or infinite money), all it does is control the money supply.
Why would we ever want a surplus? Even if it was agreed that an arbitrary ratio of deficit to GDP was best (this still sounds completely ridiculous and without reason that I can see) a surplus means the government is taking money out of the economy, which directly hurts savings. Public deficit = private savings.
On November 21 2012 23:26 Romantic wrote:
... Because debts need to be paid back, with interest. States don't need to pay them back because people operate as if they (States\governments) are immortal, but they do need to either pay interest or allow inflation to make everyone poorer.
I suppose you could operate a government without any taxation by just funding expenditures with inflation (lol Roman Empire), but that still isn't free wealth. The government would need to use inflation to erode the private sector's purchasing power to make room for public use, that is, paying in newly printed dollas.
So it really is just a fear of too much inflation?
On November 22 2012 05:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Debt isn't only about economics. It's also about morality to some degree. It should be considered wrong to repeatedly take money from people who haven't even been born yet, we are hurting our own children and grandchildren. Obviously we can't increase the debt forever, and obviously many of our social programs and employee benefits are unsustainable in the long run. That means the benefits we are reaping now from our policies of excess will be paid eventually by later generations, either in the form of higher taxes or reduced benefits, but most likely both.
Just to take one example, the people who are receiving social security now are receiving more than they paid into it. In future generations people will receive less than they pay in. The people paying now are getting screwed over, because they are paying the cost of benefits for other people which they will never receive themselves. Social security alone is an example of a direct transfer of wealth from one generation to another.
Why can we not increase the debt forever? You said its obvious, but I don't understand. Also, you seem to be implying that social programs will be cut at some point in the future (for political reasons only as far as I can tell) and that this somehow means we are taking away from future generations. Can you please explain this?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
At some point the interest rates just become too big of a burden. And, for obvious reasons, the U.S. can't just print as much money as it wanted to.
btw I'm not addressing the current debt issue, I'm mainly responding to the "Why shouldn't we let debt expand infinitely?" question.
|
On November 22 2012 06:34 Souma wrote:
At some point the interest rates just become too big of a burden. And, for obvious reasons, the U.S. can't just print as much money as it wanted to.
Yes, and also, no one is going to loan money to someone with "infinite" debt lmao. These things seem obvious, but apparently they need explaining. -_-
|
@Nikk, I did not have the time to read your discussion with p4NDemik but perhaps my points have not yet been brought up (if they have forgive me):
This would be very true if you only look at a national economy but since we are now globally interlinked and the global value of money is trust (and power) based there are real issues with high debts. Mind you America isn't even close to those levels, especially since the dollar still holds strong as world currency (in my opinion this is to a big part based on sheer power, but this would require a much deeper analysis than I'm capable of). So I also don't see much trouble on the debt front. Well only imagined trouble that becomes real trouble if policies are based on it.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the debt is dollar denominated. the u.s. can always pay the debt. devaluing the dollar helps the economy too.
the only guys that this hurts are those who have dollar denominated savings stashed away somewhere.
looking at europe, each individual member state has no control over their currency and that's giving away your monetary sovereignty to the bond market. that scenario is what debt hawks are really on about, but that's not the u.s. system.
|
On November 22 2012 06:37 silynxer wrote:
@Nikk, I did not have the time to read your discussion with p4NDemik but perhaps my points have not yet been brought up (if they have forgive me):
This would be very true if you only look at a national economy but since we are now globally interlinked and the global value of money is trust (and power) based there are real issues with high debts. Mind you America isn't even close to those levels, especially since the dollar still holds strong as world currency (in my opinion this is to a big part based on sheer power, but this would require a much deeper analysis than I'm capable of) I also don't see much trouble on the debt front. Well only imagined trouble that becomes real trouble if policies are based on it.
Why do you say we aren't even close to those levels? We've already had our credit rating downgraded by S&P.
The trouble on the debt front is far from imaginary. The trouble that could ensue after the fiscal cliff will certainly not be imaginary either.
On November 22 2012 06:41 oneofthem wrote:
the debt is dollar denominated. the u.s. can always pay the debt. devaluing the dollar helps the economy too.
the only guys that this hurts are those who have dollar denominated savings stashed away somewhere.
looking at europe, each individual member state has no control over their currency and that's giving away your monetary sovereignty to the bond market. that scenario is what debt hawks are really on about, but that's not the u.s. system.
Inflation also skews the signals set by price mechanisms, which introduces various forms of inefficiency into a market.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 22 2012 06:43 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 06:37 silynxer wrote:
@Nikk, I did not have the time to read your discussion with p4NDemik but perhaps my points have not yet been brought up (if they have forgive me):
This would be very true if you only look at a national economy but since we are now globally interlinked and the global value of money is trust (and power) based there are real issues with high debts. Mind you America isn't even close to those levels, especially since the dollar still holds strong as world currency (in my opinion this is to a big part based on sheer power, but this would require a much deeper analysis than I'm capable of) I also don't see much trouble on the debt front. Well only imagined trouble that becomes real trouble if policies are based on it. Why do you say we aren't even close to those levels? We've already had our credit rating downgraded by S&P.The trouble on the debt front is far from imaginary. The trouble that could ensue after the fiscal cliff will certainly not be imaginary either.
funny you say that, the rating was downgraded because of political concerns. i.e. people who think like you refusing to pass the debt ceiling as a political matter.
the only way u.s. fails to pay its debt is if it is too afraid to, because of an overactive imagination.
Inflation also skews the signals set by price mechanisms, which introduces various forms of inefficiency into a market.
unless the u.s. needs to pay 50% of its gdp in gold to creditors there's no hyperinflation worry.
|
Nikk
United States63 Posts
On November 22 2012 06:34 Souma wrote:
At some point the interest rates just become too big of a burden. And, for obvious reasons, the U.S. can't just print as much money as it wanted to.
btw I'm not addressing the current debt issue, I'm mainly responding to the "Why shouldn't we let debt expand infinitely?" question.
Why do interest rates become too big of a burden? The US can never become insolvent as the debt is in dollars.
On November 22 2012 06:37 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 06:34 Souma wrote:
At some point the interest rates just become too big of a burden. And, for obvious reasons, the U.S. can't just print as much money as it wanted to. Yes, and also, no one is going to loan money to someone with "infinite" debt lmao. These things seem obvious, but apparently they need explaining. -_-
On November 22 2012 06:43 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Why do you say we aren't even close to those levels? We've already had our credit rating downgraded by S&P.
The trouble on the debt front is far from imaginary. The trouble that could ensue after the fiscal cliff will certainly not be imaginary either.
Inflation also skews the signals set by price mechanisms, which introduces various forms of inefficiency into a market.
What do you mean by "no one is going to loan money to someone with infinite debt"? We are talking about the US government and not a user of the currency aren't we? The government will always be able to sell bonds if needed. There is absolutely no conceivable way that this isn't the case. And on that note, we don't have to even sell bonds. That is a policy decision that is made to encourage savings.
The credit rating downgrade has nothing to do with the debt or deficit levels. It was specifically political, as mentioned above.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 22 2012 06:49 Nikk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 06:34 Souma wrote:
At some point the interest rates just become too big of a burden. And, for obvious reasons, the U.S. can't just print as much money as it wanted to.
btw I'm not addressing the current debt issue, I'm mainly responding to the "Why shouldn't we let debt expand infinitely?" question. Why do interest rates become too big of a burden? The US can never become insolvent as the debt is in dollars.
Well I was assuming you were talking about debt in general, which includes foreign-held debt, and not just local debt. But uh, I would also think there's some threshold where the dollar could be too devalued but I have nothing on that.
|
Yup, what oneofthem said. Also S&P's ratings are pretty much worthless, or only have worth in their ability to manipulate markets based on trust, they are at best self-fulfilling prophecies. As long as treasury bonds are sold at conditions below inflation you don't need to break a sweat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
