|
On December 22 2011 20:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2011 20:09 nebffa wrote:
Ok and what is your evidence to say that his belief in the free market is wrong? I have nothing against you for your viewpoint - in fact I used to think Ron Paul was completely wrong myself. In Australia we don't have nearly as much a free market economy and tax rates are quite high and I thought that was the way to go. It works here, but that's beside the point - I started learning more about Ron Paul's policies and they are based on sound evidence, he predicted the housing market crash in 2008, so what is your evidence to back up your claim? That deregulation of financial sector and blind belief in free market are directly responsible of the crisis we are in today? What Ron Paul suggest is very simple: throw oil to try to extinguish a fire.
FFS. I can't stand seeing so many people who have absolutely no clue why we're in the mess that we're currently in. The housing bubble/mortgage crisis that touched off all of our economic problems is the direct result of government interference in the free market. Our politicians, in all of their wisdom, decided that people who can't afford houses should own houses and coerced banks into giving out bad loans that were never going to be paid back, thereby leading to the bundling of bad loans and the creation of all of those derivatives in the subprime mortgage market. REGULATORS fucked everything up -- not the free market.
|
Bad interference has bad effects.
Bad freedom leads to abuse and has bad effects.
|
It's a direct result of misguided incentives. But not of government interference in the free market in general. Get that or well, do research. Don't just repeat what they tell you...
edit: agree with the one above me...  Things are not always simple. Things are indeed most of the time not simple. (But then again it depends what people perceive as complex..)
|
On December 23 2011 02:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2011 20:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 22 2011 20:09 nebffa wrote:
Ok and what is your evidence to say that his belief in the free market is wrong? I have nothing against you for your viewpoint - in fact I used to think Ron Paul was completely wrong myself. In Australia we don't have nearly as much a free market economy and tax rates are quite high and I thought that was the way to go. It works here, but that's beside the point - I started learning more about Ron Paul's policies and they are based on sound evidence, he predicted the housing market crash in 2008, so what is your evidence to back up your claim? That deregulation of financial sector and blind belief in free market are directly responsible of the crisis we are in today? What Ron Paul suggest is very simple: throw oil to try to extinguish a fire. FFS. I can't stand seeing so many people who have absolutely no clue why we're in the mess that we're currently in. The housing bubble/mortgage crisis that touched off all of our economic problems is the direct result of government interference in the free market. Our politicians, in all of their wisdom, decided that people who can't afford houses should own houses and coerced banks into giving out bad loans that were never going to be paid back, thereby leading to the bundling of bad loans and the creation of all of those derivatives in the subprime mortgage market. REGULATORS fucked everything up -- not the free market.
Look your system crashed because your banks were authorized to do "financially creative" (all Wall Street has masturbated for ten years with financial creativity) speculative bullshit that they were not allowed to do before and that they are not allowed to do anywhere else. If your politicians didn't deregulated every fucking thing, maybe the world wouldn't have become the giant casino for mad bankers it is since 30 years. Simple as that.
Look at the fact, the crisis didn't happened in France, or in Germany, or anywhere else where the stock market is kind of regulated. It happened in the holy land of the free market, where putting rules and laws to make sure people don't do completely irresponsible stuff is a terrible attack against liberty. The fact that there are indeed bad regulations doesn't mean that deregulating brainlessly as it has been done since Reagan is good. In fact, it's the reason we have astronomical debts, and the reason we are in the worst crisis since 1929.
You guys would support that 2 + 2 = 5 if it could serve your free market / anti-statist mantra.
|
On December 23 2011 03:16 Djzapz wrote:
Bad interference has bad effects.
Bad freedom leads to abuse and has bad effects.
QFFT.
It may be possible to levy a fair share of the blame on the government in the case of this specific bubble, but the financial sector buys favorable laws with lobbying all the time anyway, and will happily engage in rediculous speculation if given the chance to do so.
"Imagine for a moment that, left to the mercy of the free market, many people would be crushed by powers far beyond their understanding, and they would not deserve it. Furthermore, imagine that regulators were fallible humans with poor incentives, whacking on delicately balanced forces with a sledgehammer. Close your eyes and imagine it. Extrapolate the result. If that were true, then... then you'd have a big problem and no easy way to fix it, that's what you'd have. Does this universe look familiar?"
|
On December 23 2011 04:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2011 02:49 xDaunt wrote:On December 22 2011 20:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 22 2011 20:09 nebffa wrote:
Ok and what is your evidence to say that his belief in the free market is wrong? I have nothing against you for your viewpoint - in fact I used to think Ron Paul was completely wrong myself. In Australia we don't have nearly as much a free market economy and tax rates are quite high and I thought that was the way to go. It works here, but that's beside the point - I started learning more about Ron Paul's policies and they are based on sound evidence, he predicted the housing market crash in 2008, so what is your evidence to back up your claim? That deregulation of financial sector and blind belief in free market are directly responsible of the crisis we are in today? What Ron Paul suggest is very simple: throw oil to try to extinguish a fire. FFS. I can't stand seeing so many people who have absolutely no clue why we're in the mess that we're currently in. The housing bubble/mortgage crisis that touched off all of our economic problems is the direct result of government interference in the free market. Our politicians, in all of their wisdom, decided that people who can't afford houses should own houses and coerced banks into giving out bad loans that were never going to be paid back, thereby leading to the bundling of bad loans and the creation of all of those derivatives in the subprime mortgage market. REGULATORS fucked everything up -- not the free market. Look your system crashed because your banks were authorized to do "financially creative" (all Wall Street has masturbated for ten years with financial creativity) speculative bullshit that they were not allowed to do before and that they are not allowed to do anywhere else. If your politicians didn't deregulated every fucking thing, maybe the world wouldn't have become the giant casino for mad bankers it is since 30 years. Simple as that. Look at the fact, the crisis didn't happened in France, or in Germany, or anywhere else where the stock market is kind of regulated. It happened in the holy land of the free market, where putting rules and laws to make sure people don't do completely irresponsible stuff is a terrible attack against liberty. The fact that there are indeed bad regulations doesn't mean that deregulating brainlessly as it has been done since Reagan is good. In fact, it's the reason we have astronomical debts, and the reason we are in the worst crisis since 1929. You guys would support that 2 + 2 = 5 if it could serve your free market / anti-statist mantra.
It's also a pretty well known fact that the reason why Canada came out of the crisis in great shape was because the banks weren't allowed to dick off and go crazy like in the States. The government and the banks were conservative in the most etymologically pure and honest way.
|
On December 23 2011 03:16 Djzapz wrote:
Bad interference has bad effects.
Bad freedom leads to abuse and has bad effects.
I think its safe to say we agree then that neither of these options is a good one, then, and that leaves the middle ground. What I advocate is an appropriate amount of regulation, and I happen to think that amount is smaller than the amount we are currently using (though I admit this is debatable, and I could be wrong.)
To me, as far as corporate regulation goes, I would like to see a bare minimum amount. That would include a minimum wage, and basic safety rights and regulations. Within the financial sector, its murky. I don't pretend to know for sure what needs to be done, but history has led me to believe that govt interference within the banking system has caused problems. One thing is for sure though, and that is that whatever the "fix" may be, it wont be easy, and will most likely cause short term economic issues that later fix themselves.
I just can't help but feel like too many people are so shortsighted when it comes to these things. We keep putting band-aids on wounds that take greater effort to heal, and eventually they get infected. In my mind, it would be better to have a few years of near economic collapse if it meant long periods of prosperity after.
|
On December 23 2011 04:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2011 02:49 xDaunt wrote:On December 22 2011 20:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 22 2011 20:09 nebffa wrote:
Ok and what is your evidence to say that his belief in the free market is wrong? I have nothing against you for your viewpoint - in fact I used to think Ron Paul was completely wrong myself. In Australia we don't have nearly as much a free market economy and tax rates are quite high and I thought that was the way to go. It works here, but that's beside the point - I started learning more about Ron Paul's policies and they are based on sound evidence, he predicted the housing market crash in 2008, so what is your evidence to back up your claim? That deregulation of financial sector and blind belief in free market are directly responsible of the crisis we are in today? What Ron Paul suggest is very simple: throw oil to try to extinguish a fire. FFS. I can't stand seeing so many people who have absolutely no clue why we're in the mess that we're currently in. The housing bubble/mortgage crisis that touched off all of our economic problems is the direct result of government interference in the free market. Our politicians, in all of their wisdom, decided that people who can't afford houses should own houses and coerced banks into giving out bad loans that were never going to be paid back, thereby leading to the bundling of bad loans and the creation of all of those derivatives in the subprime mortgage market. REGULATORS fucked everything up -- not the free market. Look your system crashed because your banks were authorized to do "financially creative" (all Wall Street has masturbated for ten years with financial creativity) speculative bullshit that they were not allowed to do before and that they are not allowed to do anywhere else. If your politicians didn't deregulated every fucking thing, maybe the world wouldn't have become the giant casino for mad bankers it is since 30 years. Simple as that. Look at the fact, the crisis didn't happened in France, or in Germany, or anywhere else where the stock market is kind of regulated. It happened in the holy land of the free market, where putting rules and laws to make sure people don't do completely irresponsible stuff is a terrible attack against liberty. The fact that there are indeed bad regulations doesn't mean that deregulating brainlessly as it has been done since Reagan is good. In fact, it's the reason we have astronomical debts, and the reason we are in the worst crisis since 1929. You guys would support that 2 + 2 = 5 if it could serve your free market / anti-statist mantra.
That's the problem with economics though. It is not as concrete as mathematics because its all speculative. Even in retrospect, it is speculative because there is no real way to qualify and quantify the data. There is still enormous disagreement among economic experts about whether the New Deal helped get the US out of the Great Depression, or whether it actually extended the duration of it.
There are too many external factors and variables to conclusively say which way is better.
And you can't say with a straight face that deregulation is the sole cause of the current economic crisis without also acknowledging the equally astronomical increase in spending the the US govt has undertaken in recent years. You are completely ignoring a huge portion of the problem.
|
On December 23 2011 05:43 ryanAnger wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2011 04:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 23 2011 02:49 xDaunt wrote:On December 22 2011 20:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 22 2011 20:09 nebffa wrote:
Ok and what is your evidence to say that his belief in the free market is wrong? I have nothing against you for your viewpoint - in fact I used to think Ron Paul was completely wrong myself. In Australia we don't have nearly as much a free market economy and tax rates are quite high and I thought that was the way to go. It works here, but that's beside the point - I started learning more about Ron Paul's policies and they are based on sound evidence, he predicted the housing market crash in 2008, so what is your evidence to back up your claim? That deregulation of financial sector and blind belief in free market are directly responsible of the crisis we are in today? What Ron Paul suggest is very simple: throw oil to try to extinguish a fire. FFS. I can't stand seeing so many people who have absolutely no clue why we're in the mess that we're currently in. The housing bubble/mortgage crisis that touched off all of our economic problems is the direct result of government interference in the free market. Our politicians, in all of their wisdom, decided that people who can't afford houses should own houses and coerced banks into giving out bad loans that were never going to be paid back, thereby leading to the bundling of bad loans and the creation of all of those derivatives in the subprime mortgage market. REGULATORS fucked everything up -- not the free market. Look your system crashed because your banks were authorized to do "financially creative" (all Wall Street has masturbated for ten years with financial creativity) speculative bullshit that they were not allowed to do before and that they are not allowed to do anywhere else. If your politicians didn't deregulated every fucking thing, maybe the world wouldn't have become the giant casino for mad bankers it is since 30 years. Simple as that. Look at the fact, the crisis didn't happened in France, or in Germany, or anywhere else where the stock market is kind of regulated. It happened in the holy land of the free market, where putting rules and laws to make sure people don't do completely irresponsible stuff is a terrible attack against liberty. The fact that there are indeed bad regulations doesn't mean that deregulating brainlessly as it has been done since Reagan is good. In fact, it's the reason we have astronomical debts, and the reason we are in the worst crisis since 1929. You guys would support that 2 + 2 = 5 if it could serve your free market / anti-statist mantra. That's the problem with economics though. It is not as concrete as mathematics because its all speculative. Even in retrospect, it is speculative because there is no real way to qualify and quantify the data. There is still enormous disagreement among economic experts about whether the New Deal helped get the US out of the Great Depression, or whether it actually extended the duration of it. There are too many external factors and variables to conclusively say which way is better. And you can't say with a straight face that deregulation is the sole cause of the current economic crisis without also acknowledging the equally astronomical increase in spending the the US govt has undertaken in recent years. You are completely ignoring a huge portion of the problem.
Fine. I agree with you, nobody really knows anything about the economics, it's actually a pseudo-science and the prediction and opinions of economists are rarely worth more than the prediction of an African shaman. That being said:
You see, I am a socialist, but I don't believe that State can solve everything, and I know from experience and use of common sense that too much State leads to disasters. That's called having a reasonable position.
What I expect from someone who would be a conservative or a liberal is to support free market without being blinded or extremist, and to know that you can't rely on it solely. Because it makes just as little sense than believing that if the State takes over everything, stuff will get better (there are people who think that in France).
Someone can come with a different opinion, approach, and I am ready to respect it and try to understand the rational basics behind it, even when I don't agree. The problem with libertarians is that they believe in free market the way fundamentalists believe in religion. They believe it's the key for everything, that the least regulated market is the best, that big companies will always act in the common interest etc etc... They just stick to a simple idea and form a simplistic economic and political philosophy that never adapts to the complexity of reality.
That's not rational. You just look, you just open your eyes, and you see (you don't have to think: just to see) that companies can do enormous damages if they don't have any rules, that free market can be a sensitive idea, but needs corrections, that the conjunction of self interests don't always benefits the majority of people. Just because we don't live in Utopia and pure ideas usually lead to the worst when followed blindly. We have seen the result with socialism and marxism, I am not in a hurry to see the result with capitalism (and despite Stalin or Mao, I do believe there is a huge amount to learn from Marx for people who are not stupid, naive or blind enough to think that his theories are the goddamn Bible; the same is probably true with liberalism and free market theories).
As much as I am not sure about anything concerning the economics, I am sure that libertarians are wrong, not because of the content of their ideas, but because they push it to such an extreme that, regardless the idea, it can only give disasters.
TL;DR: I don't have problem with liberalism, although I don't support it. I have problem with extremists, because they are not interested in reality or anything else than their ridiculous dogmas. That applies to far left winger like Trotskysts as well as far right wingers like libertarians.
|
I think this has just become an issue with semantics and labeling then. Your opinion of a libertarian differs from my own (based on my ideas I would consider myself a "libertarian" but I try not to adhere to the strictures that labels provide) and this was all a misunderstanding. I don't really think anyone in this thread is truly extremist because most of us are intelligent enough to understand that there will always be the necessity for compromise, its just a matter of what and how much.
Heh, to be honest this thread is and example of what bothers me so much about politics and politicians. People are too stuck in artificial groups and labeling that they become so segregated they can't ever meet an agreement. I think the best scenario would be if everyone just put their ideas on the table, with the idea that compromise is necessary. Of course in todays political environment, that would never happen.
|
On December 23 2011 04:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2011 02:49 xDaunt wrote:On December 22 2011 20:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 22 2011 20:09 nebffa wrote:
Ok and what is your evidence to say that his belief in the free market is wrong? I have nothing against you for your viewpoint - in fact I used to think Ron Paul was completely wrong myself. In Australia we don't have nearly as much a free market economy and tax rates are quite high and I thought that was the way to go. It works here, but that's beside the point - I started learning more about Ron Paul's policies and they are based on sound evidence, he predicted the housing market crash in 2008, so what is your evidence to back up your claim? That deregulation of financial sector and blind belief in free market are directly responsible of the crisis we are in today? What Ron Paul suggest is very simple: throw oil to try to extinguish a fire. FFS. I can't stand seeing so many people who have absolutely no clue why we're in the mess that we're currently in. The housing bubble/mortgage crisis that touched off all of our economic problems is the direct result of government interference in the free market. Our politicians, in all of their wisdom, decided that people who can't afford houses should own houses and coerced banks into giving out bad loans that were never going to be paid back, thereby leading to the bundling of bad loans and the creation of all of those derivatives in the subprime mortgage market. REGULATORS fucked everything up -- not the free market. Look your system crashed because your banks were authorized to do "financially creative" (all Wall Street has masturbated for ten years with financial creativity) speculative bullshit that they were not allowed to do before and that they are not allowed to do anywhere else. If your politicians didn't deregulated every fucking thing, maybe the world wouldn't have become the giant casino for mad bankers it is since 30 years. Simple as that. Look at the fact, the crisis didn't happened in France, or in Germany, or anywhere else where the stock market is kind of regulated. It happened in the holy land of the free market, where putting rules and laws to make sure people don't do completely irresponsible stuff is a terrible attack against liberty. The fact that there are indeed bad regulations doesn't mean that deregulating brainlessly as it has been done since Reagan is good. In fact, it's the reason we have astronomical debts, and the reason we are in the worst crisis since 1929. You guys would support that 2 + 2 = 5 if it could serve your free market / anti-statist mantra.
Oh, please. We don't have a free market in the US.
|
On December 23 2011 06:46 ryanAnger wrote:
I think this has just become an issue with semantics and labeling then. Your opinion of a libertarian differs from my own (based on my ideas I would consider myself a "libertarian" but I try not to adhere to the strictures that labels provide) and this was all a misunderstanding. I don't really think anyone in this thread is truly extremist because most of us are intelligent enough to understand that there will always be the necessity for compromise, its just a matter of what and how much.
Heh, to be honest this thread is and example of what bothers me so much about politics and politicians. People are too stuck in artificial groups and labeling that they become so segregated they can't ever meet an agreement. I think the best scenario would be if everyone just put their ideas on the table, with the idea that compromise is necessary. Of course in todays political environment, that would never happen.
My libertarian culture is very small, I have to admit. I read Ayn Rand and I wanted to hang myself (I raged for the whole next day that someone could write obscenities like that), and I've read / watched Ronn Paul and he gave me headache because of how incredibly over simplistic and populist his ideas are.
Maybe there are perfectly reasonable libertarian who don't think free market is the solution to everything and that the State is evil and the reason of all evils in the Universe.
It seems to me they wouldn't be libertarians, though.
On December 23 2011 07:02 Pertinacious wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2011 04:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 23 2011 02:49 xDaunt wrote:On December 22 2011 20:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 22 2011 20:09 nebffa wrote:
Ok and what is your evidence to say that his belief in the free market is wrong? I have nothing against you for your viewpoint - in fact I used to think Ron Paul was completely wrong myself. In Australia we don't have nearly as much a free market economy and tax rates are quite high and I thought that was the way to go. It works here, but that's beside the point - I started learning more about Ron Paul's policies and they are based on sound evidence, he predicted the housing market crash in 2008, so what is your evidence to back up your claim? That deregulation of financial sector and blind belief in free market are directly responsible of the crisis we are in today? What Ron Paul suggest is very simple: throw oil to try to extinguish a fire. FFS. I can't stand seeing so many people who have absolutely no clue why we're in the mess that we're currently in. The housing bubble/mortgage crisis that touched off all of our economic problems is the direct result of government interference in the free market. Our politicians, in all of their wisdom, decided that people who can't afford houses should own houses and coerced banks into giving out bad loans that were never going to be paid back, thereby leading to the bundling of bad loans and the creation of all of those derivatives in the subprime mortgage market. REGULATORS fucked everything up -- not the free market. Look your system crashed because your banks were authorized to do "financially creative" (all Wall Street has masturbated for ten years with financial creativity) speculative bullshit that they were not allowed to do before and that they are not allowed to do anywhere else. If your politicians didn't deregulated every fucking thing, maybe the world wouldn't have become the giant casino for mad bankers it is since 30 years. Simple as that. Look at the fact, the crisis didn't happened in France, or in Germany, or anywhere else where the stock market is kind of regulated. It happened in the holy land of the free market, where putting rules and laws to make sure people don't do completely irresponsible stuff is a terrible attack against liberty. The fact that there are indeed bad regulations doesn't mean that deregulating brainlessly as it has been done since Reagan is good. In fact, it's the reason we have astronomical debts, and the reason we are in the worst crisis since 1929. You guys would support that 2 + 2 = 5 if it could serve your free market / anti-statist mantra. Oh, please. We don't have a free market in the US.
Oh yeah, and Obama is a communist. That's true, I always forget.
|
|
|
On December 23 2011 07:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Oh yeah, and Obama is a communist. That's true, I always forget.
What does Obama have to do with it?
The US doesn't have a free market economy, but that was true before Obama ever entered politics.
|
Ron Paul is now favored to win Iowa.
Mr. Paul also leads our forecast. The model gives him a 44 percent chance of winning Iowa based on the current standing of the candidates and the historic uncertainty of polling-based forecasts. Mr. Romney has a 32 percent chance of winning, while Mr. Gingrich’s chances have crashed to 15 percent.
Source
|
On December 23 2011 07:20 Pertinacious wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2011 07:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Oh yeah, and Obama is a communist. That's true, I always forget. What does Obama have to do with it? The US doesn't have a free market economy, but that was true before Obama ever entered politics.
Because as long as you don't live in the jungle you will never have a completely completely free market. Means people will always say the market is not free. You have probably the freest market in the whole world.
Obama is related because Americans don't even realize anymore how far on the right their political spectrum is and how far neo liberalism has has gone in deregulating market in the last 30 years. You talk with American and you have the impression they live in Soviet Union, although they have one of the most ruthlessly uber-capitalist system in history.
Obama would be a solid right winger anywhere in Europe. That's always comical to think.
It can always be worse, so let's carry on that way.
|
On December 23 2011 07:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Ron Paul is now favored to win Iowa. Show nested quote +Mr. Paul also leads our forecast. The model gives him a 44 percent chance of winning Iowa based on the current standing of the candidates and the historic uncertainty of polling-based forecasts. Mr. Romney has a 32 percent chance of winning, while Mr. Gingrich’s chances have crashed to 15 percent. Source
Out of curiosity, why does everyone throw such a massive fit over Iowa?
They've got what, 7 electoral votes? What makes them so special and warranting of non-stop media coverage YEARS before the actual elections?
Is it because other states don't do these "straw polls" as often or as early?
I don't mean to shit on Iowa, but seriously, why does it matter so much? I'm genuinely curious.
|
On December 23 2011 07:35 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2011 07:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Ron Paul is now favored to win Iowa. Mr. Paul also leads our forecast. The model gives him a 44 percent chance of winning Iowa based on the current standing of the candidates and the historic uncertainty of polling-based forecasts. Mr. Romney has a 32 percent chance of winning, while Mr. Gingrich’s chances have crashed to 15 percent. Source Out of curiosity, why does everyone throw such a massive fit over Iowa? They've got what, 7 electoral votes? What makes them so special and warranting of non-stop media coverage YEARS before the actual elections? Is it because other states don't do these "straw polls" as often or as early? I don't mean to shit on Iowa, but seriously, why does it matter so much? I'm genuinely curious.
The media wont get people interested if they take a realistic approach. They want you to watch their programs, so they have to make it sound EXTREMELY OMG important in some way.
|
On December 23 2011 07:35 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2011 07:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Ron Paul is now favored to win Iowa. Mr. Paul also leads our forecast. The model gives him a 44 percent chance of winning Iowa based on the current standing of the candidates and the historic uncertainty of polling-based forecasts. Mr. Romney has a 32 percent chance of winning, while Mr. Gingrich’s chances have crashed to 15 percent. Source Out of curiosity, why does everyone throw such a massive fit over Iowa? They've got what, 7 electoral votes? What makes them so special and warranting of non-stop media coverage YEARS before the actual elections? Is it because other states don't do these "straw polls" as often or as early? I don't mean to shit on Iowa, but seriously, why does it matter so much? I'm genuinely curious.
The winner of Iowa usually gains momentum through their win, plus new donors etc (at least that's the theory)
|
On December 23 2011 07:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2011 07:20 Pertinacious wrote:On December 23 2011 07:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Oh yeah, and Obama is a communist. That's true, I always forget. What does Obama have to do with it? The US doesn't have a free market economy, but that was true before Obama ever entered politics. Because as long as you don't live in the jungle you will never have a completely completely free market. Means people will always say the market is not free. You have probably the freest market in the whole world. Obama is related because Americans don't even realize anymore how far on the right their political spectrum is and how far neo liberalism has has gone in deregulating market in the last 30 years. You talk with American and you have the impression they live in Soviet Union, although they have one of the most ruthlessly uber-capitalist system in history. Obama would be a solid right winger anywhere in Europe. That's always comical to think. It can always be worse, so let's carry on that way.
I'd like to think that most US citizens know that our country is to the right (politically) of countries like the UK, Germany, France, Russia, etc. I haven't seen any studies, though, so I guess it's *possible* that most Americans think we live in the USSR. I'm doubtful, but whatever.
I agree that it could always be worse, certainly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
