|
United States22883 Posts
On February 27 2012 14:44 EternaLLegacy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 14:38 Jibba wrote:On February 27 2012 14:29 EternaLLegacy wrote:On February 27 2012 14:08 Jibba wrote:On February 27 2012 13:52 xavra41 wrote:
I know Reagan didn't keep his word, and I don't support him either. But he did run on free markets and he was widely popular nonetheless. Government can't just "bolster" and industry. It can give other peoples' money away in a very inefficient and corrupt manner, but as I said before liberals don't understand that you have to take money away before you can give it to something. Rather than a giant sum of money passing through the leaky bucket it would be more efficient to simple lower taxes (and spending) if you wanted to create a haven for big business.
We have a serious problem when the majority of people in this country think that the government can fix all their problems. Probably most dangerous from young people as they are not used to politicians lying to them. I don't believe free markets are unstable and that's where we differ. I understand quite clearly how taxes, distributive, redistributive, regulatory and constituent policies work, and I also have a very firm handle on international political economies. The low tax business haven you speak of just doesn't exist, and it never has. They want things, and there's far more examples of strategic trade working than both free markets and protectionism. It's a necessary balancing act. The only models for free trade exist within a vacuum. As soon as they hit the international market, you get a prisoner's dilemma. Strategic trade is good. It's not perfect and like any form of agreement making, it's more art than science. That's your balancing act. It's been in place in the US for half a century now. The problem is that today, for the purpose of rhetoric, it's portrayed as protectionism when in actuality it's the complicated middle ground between free trade and protectionism. The rhetoric works that way because black and white thinking has become such commonplace and is so effective in modern American politics. "You're either with us or against us", and they lie and say there's no room for middle ground. That's fine that you believe that. However, I don't. Do you believe that your beliefs should be inflicted on me at gunpoint? Unless you can present a reasonable counter argument for free trade in international trade, which really doesn't exist. It's something that's been studied and researched for two decades now, and no alternative has been presented. The only alternative is a portrayed one used to score political points, but it has no bearing on reality. This isn't a personal belief system where everyone gets a choice. This is federal trade policy that has been in place for decades, and experts spend their careers studying it and making suggestions on how to implement it better. The system itself (as opposed to a free trade system) is reality, and there's plenty of room for contention on how to best execute it. But not believing in the system is just ignoring a part of reality. People traded before governments existed. Clearly, free trade is reality too. You're really talking about bartering in a discussion on trade policy? You've gone millenia before Adam Smith and Ricardo and even mercantilism, into remedial territory. It's really not relevant at all. In fact, free trade theory is predicated upon the existence of governments, so your statement is patently false.
I will ask you again, do you believe in enforcing your beliefs upon me by pointing guns at me?
Yes, in some situations. That's exactly how governments and societies work. If your beliefs are contrary to the law and you decide to break it, you will literally have guns pointed at you. If you keep those beliefs but don't break the law then obviously not, but I see little reason why an uneducated belief should be valued. The group of experts making decisions obviously believe something contrary to you, so in this case your belief is nearly meaningless.
You can choose to believe that 2+2=5 and no one will harm you for it, but no one will value you either.
You can argue that free trade is superior, but what I'm saying is that it does not exist and you cannot cite previous American prosperity as an example of it. It has always fallen somewhere in between free trade and protectionism and at times it's leaned one way or the other. If free trade is represented by 0 on a scale and protectionism is represented by 10, the problem I'm addressing is that politicians knowingly lie when they accuse anything >0 (say, 0.5) of being a form of protectionism. It's a black and white argument for what's really a very complicated issue. In reality, it's probably best to remain somewhere between 3-7. Arguing for 0 and 10 is silly and counter productive.
|
On February 27 2012 14:45 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 14:38 BlackJack wrote:On February 27 2012 13:41 Jibba wrote:On February 27 2012 13:26 BlackJack wrote:
Finally something I agree with Santorum on. You don't apologize to irrational people just so they will calm down. You tell them to behave like adults. Caving in to a child throwing a tantrum only tells them that throwing a tantrum will get them what they want. True, but there's also something to be said for being the bigger party, especially when you have overwhelming power. Truth be told, the little guys and the big guys never play by the same rules. Especially when in this case, you've knowingly done something disrespectful that caused the tantrum, and I don't believe in this case it's particularly irrational. God knows what would happen if mass bible burning took place in the US, and the amount of shit it'd stir up from people like Santorum. You can argue that it's just a book without any external significance but what you're really making is an anti-religion argument, which is just a fruitless, impertinent ideal and has no context or pull in real life situations, even if it's logically correct. If you're sticking with the tantrum argument, I think the better comparison is between an older and younger sibling. For the older sibling, proving yourself right feels good emotionally, but it doesn't help you accomplish your goals. The goal should be to get them to stop going nuts every time they get offended, not to beg for forgiveness so we can have a little peace until the next guy draws a cartoon of Muhammad. Apologizing treats the symptoms instead of the disease. It just dignifies their actions with a response. Since when is an apology the same as begging for forgiveness? They can take it or leave it, but we (including Santorum) admitted a mistake, so you own it by apologizing for it and trying to correct it in the future. If they don't accept that response, then it's on them. If you do something wrong and someone overreacts in response, you apologize for the wrong you've done. In some cases, you also condemn their overreaction. To be honest, I don't see the distinction between admitting a mistake you've made and apologizing.
In this instance you're right because the Quran burning was carried out by the military so it reflects on our government. However Obama has also gone out of his way to condemn a Quran burning by a private citizen, which is not admitting a mistake but simply an attempt to appease protesters
|
United States22883 Posts
Well, Obama panders to a lot of people, and my only concern are his time constraints. Normally, I don't mind condemning someone who goes out of their way to emotionally disturb other people. I think they're fully within their rights to do so and that's fine, but calling them a dick is an appropriate reaction too. For Obama to do it, like I said, my bigger concern is just whether a dumb redneck in Florida is worth his time or not. But if it were up to me, all of the hot topic news stories would get ignored for harder issues. He doesn't need a Passover Seder either or a Christmas tree lighting ceremony.
|
You're just a fail troll. United States has a much higher GDP per capita than Canada so the results speak for themselves. I am a big proponent of live and let live, so if you think USA is shit then don't come here and we will both be happy.
|
On February 27 2012 15:01 xavra41 wrote:
You're just a fail troll. United States has a much higher GDP per capita than Canada so the results speak for themselves. I am a big proponent of live and let live, so if you think USA is shit then don't come here and we will both be happy.
Yes but who/how many hold the cash? The fact of the matter is, very few people hold the majority of the money. They drag your average up. It doesnt prove you have a functioning system, it proves that there is a lot of money in America, which nobody is disputing.
Canada's middle class (the most important group of people in a country) is much more prolific, its higher educated and its healthier. Not only that, but you dont have to ever worry about losing your status due to medical bills, you dont really have to worry about whether or not you can afford to educate your kids, etc...
Yes you have more money than we do, but HOW MANY of the people see any of it? There in lies your issue. Your balance of wealth is incredibly far off, and it causes hardships for the majority of your citizens.
Somehow, they have managed to instil this idea that everyone can get rich with hard work (which is inherently false, seeing as how there need to be poor for there to by definition be rich). Its the old "If people work hard, everyone can be part of the 1%!" logic that I laugh at. You idolize the wealthy, and people believe they can one day be just that, not realizing the odds are stacked monumentally against them. They then vote for policies to protect the wealth of these people, incase they one day attain that wealth. Its insane.
|
On February 27 2012 15:01 xavra41 wrote:
You're just a fail troll. United States has a much higher GDP per capita than Canada so the results speak for themselves. I am a big proponent of live and let live, so if you think USA is shit then don't come here and we will both be happy.
As far as I can tell most people are trying to having a serious discussion, not trolling. Also I just looked up the GDP per capita for Canada and USA. Canada had a nominal GDP per capita of about $51.1 thousand while America had a nominal GDP per capita of $48.1 thousand. America does have a higher purchasing power parity (about $8000 higher) but even so it's not the massive difference you make it out to be. I looked this up on wikipedia btw, you could have taken the time to look to make sure you weren't saying something completely wrong in a government/economics discussion.
|
On February 27 2012 15:11 Attican wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 15:01 xavra41 wrote:
You're just a fail troll. United States has a much higher GDP per capita than Canada so the results speak for themselves. I am a big proponent of live and let live, so if you think USA is shit then don't come here and we will both be happy. As far as I can tell most people are trying to having a serious discussion, not trolling. Also I just looked up the GDP per capita for Canada and USA. Canada had a nominal GDP per capita of about $51.1 thousand while America had a nominal GDP per capita of $48.1 thousand. America does have a higher purchasing power parity (about $8000 higher) but even so it's not the massive difference you make it out to be. I looked this up on wikipedia btw, you could have taken the time to look to make sure you weren't saying something completely wrong in a government/economics discussion.
When talking about welfare GDP (PPP) is more relevant than nominal and that's what everyone goes by when talking about standard of living. 8 out 48 is almost 20% which I, and many others would call massive. I just said focus was trolling and spoke about nobody else.
|
On February 27 2012 14:54 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 14:45 Jibba wrote:On February 27 2012 14:38 BlackJack wrote:On February 27 2012 13:41 Jibba wrote:On February 27 2012 13:26 BlackJack wrote:
Finally something I agree with Santorum on. You don't apologize to irrational people just so they will calm down. You tell them to behave like adults. Caving in to a child throwing a tantrum only tells them that throwing a tantrum will get them what they want. True, but there's also something to be said for being the bigger party, especially when you have overwhelming power. Truth be told, the little guys and the big guys never play by the same rules. Especially when in this case, you've knowingly done something disrespectful that caused the tantrum, and I don't believe in this case it's particularly irrational. God knows what would happen if mass bible burning took place in the US, and the amount of shit it'd stir up from people like Santorum. You can argue that it's just a book without any external significance but what you're really making is an anti-religion argument, which is just a fruitless, impertinent ideal and has no context or pull in real life situations, even if it's logically correct. If you're sticking with the tantrum argument, I think the better comparison is between an older and younger sibling. For the older sibling, proving yourself right feels good emotionally, but it doesn't help you accomplish your goals. The goal should be to get them to stop going nuts every time they get offended, not to beg for forgiveness so we can have a little peace until the next guy draws a cartoon of Muhammad. Apologizing treats the symptoms instead of the disease. It just dignifies their actions with a response. Since when is an apology the same as begging for forgiveness? They can take it or leave it, but we (including Santorum) admitted a mistake, so you own it by apologizing for it and trying to correct it in the future. If they don't accept that response, then it's on them. If you do something wrong and someone overreacts in response, you apologize for the wrong you've done. In some cases, you also condemn their overreaction. To be honest, I don't see the distinction between admitting a mistake you've made and apologizing. In this instance you're right because the Quran burning was carried out by the military so it reflects on our government. However Obama has also gone out of his way to condemn a Quran burning by a private citizen, which is not admitting a mistake but simply an attempt to appease protesters
The apologies and political pressure over the Qur'an burnings in reality have little to do with us. Obama is shifting resources towards a highly intensive lean empire building machine of special forces and social operatives. The grunting and brute force appears to be having little effect on the shadow governments of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
|
On February 27 2012 14:52 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 14:44 EternaLLegacy wrote:On February 27 2012 14:38 Jibba wrote:On February 27 2012 14:29 EternaLLegacy wrote:On February 27 2012 14:08 Jibba wrote:On February 27 2012 13:52 xavra41 wrote:
I know Reagan didn't keep his word, and I don't support him either. But he did run on free markets and he was widely popular nonetheless. Government can't just "bolster" and industry. It can give other peoples' money away in a very inefficient and corrupt manner, but as I said before liberals don't understand that you have to take money away before you can give it to something. Rather than a giant sum of money passing through the leaky bucket it would be more efficient to simple lower taxes (and spending) if you wanted to create a haven for big business.
We have a serious problem when the majority of people in this country think that the government can fix all their problems. Probably most dangerous from young people as they are not used to politicians lying to them. I don't believe free markets are unstable and that's where we differ. I understand quite clearly how taxes, distributive, redistributive, regulatory and constituent policies work, and I also have a very firm handle on international political economies. The low tax business haven you speak of just doesn't exist, and it never has. They want things, and there's far more examples of strategic trade working than both free markets and protectionism. It's a necessary balancing act. The only models for free trade exist within a vacuum. As soon as they hit the international market, you get a prisoner's dilemma. Strategic trade is good. It's not perfect and like any form of agreement making, it's more art than science. That's your balancing act. It's been in place in the US for half a century now. The problem is that today, for the purpose of rhetoric, it's portrayed as protectionism when in actuality it's the complicated middle ground between free trade and protectionism. The rhetoric works that way because black and white thinking has become such commonplace and is so effective in modern American politics. "You're either with us or against us", and they lie and say there's no room for middle ground. That's fine that you believe that. However, I don't. Do you believe that your beliefs should be inflicted on me at gunpoint? Unless you can present a reasonable counter argument for free trade in international trade, which really doesn't exist. It's something that's been studied and researched for two decades now, and no alternative has been presented. The only alternative is a portrayed one used to score political points, but it has no bearing on reality. This isn't a personal belief system where everyone gets a choice. This is federal trade policy that has been in place for decades, and experts spend their careers studying it and making suggestions on how to implement it better. The system itself (as opposed to a free trade system) is reality, and there's plenty of room for contention on how to best execute it. But not believing in the system is just ignoring a part of reality. People traded before governments existed. Clearly, free trade is reality too. You're really talking about bartering in a discussion on trade policy? You've gone millenia before Adam Smith and Ricardo and even mercantilism, into remedial territory. It's really not relevant at all. In fact, free trade theory is predicated upon the existence of governments, so your statement is patently false. Show nested quote +I will ask you again, do you believe in enforcing your beliefs upon me by pointing guns at me? Yes, in some situations. That's exactly how governments and societies work. If your beliefs are contrary to the law and you decide to break it, you will literally have guns pointed at you. If you keep those beliefs but don't break the law then obviously not, but I see little reason why an uneducated belief should be valued. The group of experts making decisions obviously believe something contrary to you, so in this case your belief is nearly meaningless. You can choose to believe that 2+2=5 and no one will harm you for it, but no one will value you either. You can argue that free trade is superior, but what I'm saying is that it does not exist and you cannot cite previous American prosperity as an example of it. It has always fallen somewhere in between free trade and protectionism and at times it's leaned one way or the other. If free trade is represented by 0 on a scale and protectionism is represented by 10, the problem I'm addressing is that politicians knowingly lie when they accuse anything >0 (say, 0.5) of being a form of protectionism. It's a black and white argument for what's really a very complicated issue. In reality, it's probably best to remain somewhere between 3-7. Arguing for 0 and 10 is silly and counter productive.
Free trade is, by definition, not free if governments are involved. How can it be free trade when there's governments pointing guns everywhere?
You claim that just because experts say something and they're the law that me disagreeing makes it okay for guns to be pointed at me. I'm sure the experts in Mao's China thought they were doing a fantastic job allocating rice. Too bad for 20 million people who starved. Just because experts and guns are involved does not make anything right or wrong. Our educated elite seem to think that we can borrow and spend our way into prosperity right now, and they're absolutely incorrect. Experts are no longer experts but simply parrots when the government gets involved.
Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend that your claim has some legitimacy. Why is free trade bad? Why is arguing for no government involvement counterproductive?
And lastly, do you believe that every law is worth obeying? I'm sure you've broken a few thousand laws over the course of your lifetime without even realizing it. It's estimated every person commits 3 felonies a day in the US on average. Obviously, there's something wrong with the law. Law does not equal morality. They are completely separate concepts. When law follows morality, there is justice. When law does not, there is tyrrany.
|
Canada11385 Posts
Free trade is, by definition, not free if governments are involved. How can it be free trade when there's governments pointing guns everywhere?
But to what extent? Because aren't the two rather tied together no matter how you do it? Ignore command economy. Just think of the different governments that have been strong-armed into free trade agreements with the West- how? By government/ military. Many countries try protectionism and are pried away into free trade. Gunboat diplomacy in Japan for instance. Or even in think of more benign examples. Government and guns allow international trade. The Roman fleets kept pirates away from the Mediterranean trade. The British Royal Navy and the East India Trade Company. The American navy and its many bases spread throughout the world today. Empire and business go hand in hand.
America protected its own industry at a time when Britain was still hoping to sell to American markets. And then when American industry surpassed Britain, suddenly they were free trade with the government knocking on other countries doors trying to find new markets so their industry could continue to produce. It does seem to come in mixture of protectionism and free trade.
As for Law and Morality, I suppose then the question then becomes- where does morality originate from. Is it absolute and transcendent or is it relative and cultural. And what is our means of knowing morality.
|
On February 27 2012 18:02 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +Free trade is, by definition, not free if governments are involved. How can it be free trade when there's governments pointing guns everywhere? But to what extent? Because aren't the two rather tied together no matter how you do it? Ignore command economy. Just think of the different governments that have been strong-armed into free trade agreements with the West- how? By government/ military. Many countries try protectionism and are pried away into free trade. Gunboat diplomacy in Japan for instance. Or even in think of more benign examples. Government and guns allow international trade. The Roman fleets kept pirates away from the Mediterranean trade. The British Royal Navy and the East India Trade Company. The American navy and its many bases spread throughout the world today. Empire and business go hand in hand. America protected its own industry at a time when Britain was still hoping to sell to American markets. And then when American industry surpassed Britain, suddenly they were free trade with the government knocking on other countries doors trying to find new markets so their industry could continue to produce. It does seem to come in mixture of protectionism and free trade. As for Law and Morality, I suppose then the question then becomes- where does morality originate from. Is it absolute and transcendent or is it relative and cultural. And what is our means of knowing morality.
But why can't the market provide those services? We have private security to protect homeowners and businesses. The market can provide adequate protection. It just hasn't ever been allowed to except in rare circumstance, because government views it as a threat to their monopoly of power.
And protectionism makes no sense. Look up comparative advantage.
|
Canada11385 Posts
Why can't it indeed. Business has been around for long enough to wrest military monopoly from the government and yet it hasn't for the most part. And really the collapse of imperial power also sees the collapse of international trade- we call it the Dark Ages (although our view of this age is admittedly through the lense of the Renaissance.)
But I don't really see the advantage of the East India Company having the fleets rather than the Royal Navy. Or ExxonMobil, Shell, and BP having their personal navies vs sovereign nations. Actually we kinda do know what happens when military and business mix- the Beaver Wars in colonial New France with French traders vs British and Dutch traders waging proxy wars via their First Nation allies. It's not always so one-sided, government always getting involved in business. Just as often, business will recruit the government to gain an advantage over its competitors.
To me, companies with military power would be just as prone to fighting as their government as they try to gain an advantage over their competition. And a company wielding military power doesn't seem to be much different than a government- except no constitution or check and balances in power and certainly not even the slightest pretence of being accountable to citizens of a country. In fact the East India Company's rule in India very much make them indistinguishable from imperial rule when the company was nationalized. (Having armed forces, ruling by proxy.)
Protectionism makes sense in regards to infant industries that eventually wish to compete. Britain industrialized first and was the dominant manufacturer of the world and chief proponent of free trade so they could sell to new markets. When America industrialized, they had newer factories and technologies so they could outproduce Britain at a lower price. But until they got to that point, they hid behind tariff walls to protect their infant industries which could not compete with the established British manufacturers.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 27 2012 17:38 EternaLLegacy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 14:52 Jibba wrote:On February 27 2012 14:44 EternaLLegacy wrote:On February 27 2012 14:38 Jibba wrote:On February 27 2012 14:29 EternaLLegacy wrote:On February 27 2012 14:08 Jibba wrote:On February 27 2012 13:52 xavra41 wrote:
I know Reagan didn't keep his word, and I don't support him either. But he did run on free markets and he was widely popular nonetheless. Government can't just "bolster" and industry. It can give other peoples' money away in a very inefficient and corrupt manner, but as I said before liberals don't understand that you have to take money away before you can give it to something. Rather than a giant sum of money passing through the leaky bucket it would be more efficient to simple lower taxes (and spending) if you wanted to create a haven for big business.
We have a serious problem when the majority of people in this country think that the government can fix all their problems. Probably most dangerous from young people as they are not used to politicians lying to them. I don't believe free markets are unstable and that's where we differ. I understand quite clearly how taxes, distributive, redistributive, regulatory and constituent policies work, and I also have a very firm handle on international political economies. The low tax business haven you speak of just doesn't exist, and it never has. They want things, and there's far more examples of strategic trade working than both free markets and protectionism. It's a necessary balancing act. The only models for free trade exist within a vacuum. As soon as they hit the international market, you get a prisoner's dilemma. Strategic trade is good. It's not perfect and like any form of agreement making, it's more art than science. That's your balancing act. It's been in place in the US for half a century now. The problem is that today, for the purpose of rhetoric, it's portrayed as protectionism when in actuality it's the complicated middle ground between free trade and protectionism. The rhetoric works that way because black and white thinking has become such commonplace and is so effective in modern American politics. "You're either with us or against us", and they lie and say there's no room for middle ground. That's fine that you believe that. However, I don't. Do you believe that your beliefs should be inflicted on me at gunpoint? Unless you can present a reasonable counter argument for free trade in international trade, which really doesn't exist. It's something that's been studied and researched for two decades now, and no alternative has been presented. The only alternative is a portrayed one used to score political points, but it has no bearing on reality. This isn't a personal belief system where everyone gets a choice. This is federal trade policy that has been in place for decades, and experts spend their careers studying it and making suggestions on how to implement it better. The system itself (as opposed to a free trade system) is reality, and there's plenty of room for contention on how to best execute it. But not believing in the system is just ignoring a part of reality. People traded before governments existed. Clearly, free trade is reality too. You're really talking about bartering in a discussion on trade policy? You've gone millenia before Adam Smith and Ricardo and even mercantilism, into remedial territory. It's really not relevant at all. In fact, free trade theory is predicated upon the existence of governments, so your statement is patently false. I will ask you again, do you believe in enforcing your beliefs upon me by pointing guns at me? Yes, in some situations. That's exactly how governments and societies work. If your beliefs are contrary to the law and you decide to break it, you will literally have guns pointed at you. If you keep those beliefs but don't break the law then obviously not, but I see little reason why an uneducated belief should be valued. The group of experts making decisions obviously believe something contrary to you, so in this case your belief is nearly meaningless. You can choose to believe that 2+2=5 and no one will harm you for it, but no one will value you either. You can argue that free trade is superior, but what I'm saying is that it does not exist and you cannot cite previous American prosperity as an example of it. It has always fallen somewhere in between free trade and protectionism and at times it's leaned one way or the other. If free trade is represented by 0 on a scale and protectionism is represented by 10, the problem I'm addressing is that politicians knowingly lie when they accuse anything >0 (say, 0.5) of being a form of protectionism. It's a black and white argument for what's really a very complicated issue. In reality, it's probably best to remain somewhere between 3-7. Arguing for 0 and 10 is silly and counter productive. Free trade is, by definition, not free if governments are involved. How can it be free trade when there's governments pointing guns everywhere? No, it isn't. You're confusing lay definitions with actual economic concepts. You don't have free trade without governments. Even the most laissez faire system has government involvement because you still trade using a common currency, which is controlled by the government. What you're talking about is pre-civilization bartering systems.
You claim that just because experts say something and they're the law that me disagreeing makes it okay for guns to be pointed at me. I'm sure the experts in Mao's China thought they were doing a fantastic job allocating rice. Too bad for 20 million people who starved. Just because experts and guns are involved does not make anything right or wrong. Our educated elite seem to think that we can borrow and spend our way into prosperity right now, and they're absolutely incorrect. Experts are no longer experts but simply parrots when the government gets involved. There's open research and competing theories. It is nothing close to a command economy authoritarian state like early Communist China was. Relying on lay people to make important decisions instead of people who have studied the field their entire life is just stupid. It's like discounting the SC2 advice of MVP, because a bronze player thinks he's watched enough SC2 to understand it.
Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend that your claim has some legitimacy. Why is free trade bad? Why is arguing for no government involvement counterproductive? Why is anarchy counterproductive? Because there's no regulation. Because there's violence. Because currency has no value nor liquidity.
And lastly, do you believe that every law is worth obeying? I'm sure you've broken a few thousand laws over the course of your lifetime without even realizing it. It's estimated every person commits 3 felonies a day in the US on average. Obviously, there's something wrong with the law. Law does not equal morality. They are completely separate concepts. When law follows morality, there is justice. When law does not, there is tyrrany. Morality is completely subjective. This discussion really is quite silly. I think you should read more about economics.
|
United States22883 Posts
|
Romney's in touch with the proletariat 
|
I'm starting to think he's trying to use his wealth image to his advantage at this point. There's no way he's still trying to identify with the public. I think he's gonna start using it to show he's a strong, powerful guy, instead of even trying to identify with the common guy.
|
On February 28 2012 02:29 Mohdoo wrote:I'm starting to think he's trying to use his wealth image to his advantage at this point. There's no way he's still trying to identify with the public. I think he's gonna start using it to show he's a strong, powerful guy, instead of even trying to identify with the common guy.
So he'll be like an American Putin, but insanely rich?
|
More from the NYT.
“If people think that there is something wrong with being successful in America, then they better vote for the other guy,”
When talking to a group of Nascar fans wearing plastic ponchos:
“I like those fancy raincoats you bought,” he said. “Really sprung for the big bucks.”
The sad thing I can't tell if Romney is being a douche towards the NASCAR fans or if he is so out of touch with the average person that he doesn't know that a plastic rain poncho is like 5 bucks.
|
Honestly he should just embrace the fact that he's rich as hell. If he is already he's doing a poor job like he's trying to be too humble and awkward. Like he's afraid to alienate people with his money. It makes statements that would normally be fine into awkward messes.
Romney, Americans like that you're rich. It's the American dream thing. People like stories of success. You just gotta embrace it.
|
Romney's problem is not that he's rich it's that he has no idea how to talk to people, I wonder what it would be like to talk to him, just a normal conversation, I imagine it could be awkward. Also the fact that if he showed his true political leanings, a moderate, he would be doing much better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
