EPTEdit: And perpetrating negative images of what a drag should look like.
If Herman Cain can't be trusted to hire people who can smoke properly then how can he be trusted to hire people to run the economy properly?
Herman Cain - Page 18
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
jon arbuckle
Canada443 Posts
Edit: And perpetrating negative images of what a drag should look like. If Herman Cain can't be trusted to hire people who can smoke properly then how can he be trusted to hire people to run the economy properly? | ||
|
Terrifyer
United States338 Posts
On October 27 2011 15:37 jon arbuckle wrote: As a smoker I find that ad offensive for teaching children how to smoke improperly. it's quite true, to be honest. I even made a facebook page about it | ||
|
Mobius_1
United Kingdom2763 Posts
On October 27 2011 06:27 Kiarip wrote: No this isnt' true. It's true that if one particular thing no longer gets bought by customers, then yes that business is gonna suffer losses, but if people start saving their money, then it constricts the monetary supply in rotation, thus increasing the value of currency with respect to products available in the marketplace that are trying to get sold, so the prices will have to drop across the board. Think about it, if the rich are just simply sitting on their money right now, but then all of them decide to spend all of it all of a sudden will ti be good or bad for the average joe? The amount of products in the marketplace won't increase.. but the amount of money will, that means all the people that DOn"T have all that money saved up will simply get priced out of the market by the people that have a lot more, becasue as the supply of money increases for all the products (since the rich are sitting on such a significant portion of total equity,) all the prices will go up considerably, and then people that don't have all that mone won't be able to afford anything. You're right about having to pay back interests, but that's why it's not a good time to grow the economy right now, and why stimuli will continue to fail and only make the situation worse. When the majority of people have debt it should create the natural free market incentive to save money and pay off debts (via higher interest rates,) Then when money is saved up, banks will ahve to lower rates in order to remain in business (otherwise the banks justh ave to keep paying the interest rates.) So when money is saved up interest rates drop, and borrowing becomes worthwhile again, so people try to make businesses, adn if they have a good business model other peopel will use their money to buy the businesses' products. This isn't the situation we're in right now however, right now we're in a situation where people don't have much money. The rich have money. Small business owners don't have much money either. if the rich come in to buy out all the resources for their own investments, then all the small business owners won't be able to buy the resources necessary to maintain their business, then they will go out of business, other people will lose jobs, and then when ti coems to the rich trying to get back the return on their investment, they will fall short, because they have less than expected customers. Meanwhile if the rich sit on their money, the money supply in rotation is constrained, the prices go down (hedging inflation or even causing some deflation,) this resulting in people who DON'T have debt having a significant gain in theri purchasing power. Obviously people with debt, are going to be in trouble and may have to default, which will result in banks having to default, but this is nearly inevitable at this point, because the federal reserve has been burrying the banks now for a long time by forcing them to give out such low interest loans. Which is why, while people are in debt (which is a direct result of the forced low interest rates,) it's not a good idea to invest in anything, because debt implies decreased consumption in the future. So we don't need to worry about taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor, because if we do that it will simply increase the amount of money that people in total are willing to spend on what's already in the market, but ti won't increase the productivity, it will simply increase the inflation (price per existing good.) Instead you want to allow interest rates to go up, and let hte economy correct itself, by having people save money and repay their debt, or force them to default on it (instead of continually borrowing more money to pay the interest for their pre-existing principles which in the end once again will only burry the banking institutions, which as you may have guessed I am strongly against bailing out) People shouldnt have to put money into businesses in order for businesses to exist, only in order for them to grow. Otherwise you have a shitty business model, a business needs to be not only self-sustainable, but profitable. Of course it's hard for a business to be profitable when there's so little people that could spend money, but that's what all these mal-investments driven by the FED have resulted in... You need to allow the economy to correct itself before you can start trying to business again, trying to force growth will only result in more bubbles. I like your laissez-faire perspective, a lot of the problems in the economy are caused by poor anti-cyclical monetary and fiscal policy-making, mostly by politicians trying to further their popularity at the polls at the cost of the economy (Continuing the debt consumption binge in the middle of a boom is a bad idea for when you wake up to find your economy in shambles). However, savings-->growth (ie Solow Growth Model) is quite simplistic and rudimentary, ignores a lot of the instruments of modern economics and finance. The best thing for the economy would be to increase consumption and investment through lower interest rates (which are controlled by the Fed, you seemed to imply it's endogenous, my bad if I misunderstood). Inflation isn't a worry at the moment because aggregate demand in the economy is so damned low, and there's enough surplus productive capacity to satisfy the extra demand. As for business growth, it's not to do with whether a company's business plan is good or bad, as you said, "if one particular thing no longer gets bought by customers", but right now, nothing is selling as much as they used to or could be, because demand is lacklustre. To remedy this, we need make the people spend. One great way to do this is, coincidentally, reduce taxes, but because of the higher marginal propensity to consume for poorer people, demand is more responsive to tax cuts for poorer people, while the rich are likely to spend a lower proportion of what they receive. Which is why a flat tax and sales tax, both regressive taxes, are bad ideas. (In other words, does Herman Cain and Rick Perry honestly think encouraging the wealthy to buy more Ferraris is better for the economy than just helping the poor put proper food on their table from Wal-Mart?) My assessment of the situation is that America (and Europe, but their consumers less so) is addicted to debt, and all the wonderful things the bank can buy you seemingly for free. If we cut out all debt the economy will suffocate and suffer for a long time. It is much better to let the economy heal itself, and when it can handle it, reduce the debt level by encouraging saving, hopefully resulting in healthier, more organic growth based on technological progress not financial wizardry. Also, break up the big banks. | ||
|
bLah.
Croatia497 Posts
| ||
|
fenix404
United States305 Posts
cain is a FED insider. he will NOT be trying to audit or reduce (let alone remove) the federal reserve, which is unaccountable and does not answer to anyone in government but themselves. also, "Paul is unelectable and not a conservative." OP, please explain. | ||
|
hoob
Sweden69 Posts
| ||
|
fenix404
United States305 Posts
| ||
|
Praetorial
United States4241 Posts
On October 27 2011 19:27 fenix404 wrote: ron paul ftw! cain is a FED insider. he will NOT be trying to audit or reduce (let alone remove) the federal reserve, which is unaccountable and does not answer to anyone in government but themselves. also, "Paul is unelectable and not a conservative." OP, please explain. I'd be interested to know why "Fed insider" is one of the most common conservative insults. In my opinion, both Cain and Paul are both conservatives who have very little concept of how to run a country. | ||
|
Spyridon
United States997 Posts
On October 27 2011 19:27 fenix404 wrote: ron paul ftw! cain is a FED insider. he will NOT be trying to audit or reduce (let alone remove) the federal reserve, which is unaccountable and does not answer to anyone in government but themselves. also, "Paul is unelectable and not a conservative." OP, please explain. I'm not sure what he meant by that comment either... But look at how the last elections went. He dominated the debates, which was followed by the media doing everything they can to make him seem irrelevant, and he wasnt even put through. It's a shame too. He's the only republican that actually follows the blueprint of what a republican is "supposed" to be about. That speaks loudly about what politics have become these days... and as long as things are like this it doesnt really matter who wins the election... Whoever wins isnt going to be able to do shit because the only way you get support is taking sides, and anyone who tries to disturb the current balance won't get far. Even if it's Ron Paul, it's inevitable that our next president won't be able to do half of what they promise, just like is happening with Obama now. The current system won't let them. Oh, and it's kind of silly to say Ron Paul is not conservative... maybe not if your talking the "modern" definition of conservative... but look at what the conservative and the republican party are SUPPOSED to be about traditionally and you will see his views are more conservative than probably everyone else up there. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On October 27 2011 12:17 shinosai wrote: I watched this video, and I don't think Herman Cain listened to the whole song. His views seem antithetical to it, actually. I mean, he's basically attacking the poor people for protesting, and then you have lines like this in the song. What was he thinking? "pay no attention to the people in the street crying out for accountability, make a joke out of what we believe, say we don't matter cause you disagree" Lol That video just had it's comments disabled. | ||
|
Amaroq64
United States75 Posts
A fetus is a potential life. A woman is an actual life. Eighteen years of toil shouldn't be forced on an unwilling human being for the sake of something that isn't even a life of its own yet. Once the baby is capable of living outside of the human body, then and only then does it have the same rights as other living humans. In reference to some other stuff being posted here. I'm so glad that there's at least one other rational voice here who knows that Keynesian economics has failed and cannot do anything but fail. I explicitly believe that Laissez-Faire Capitalism is the ideal social system. | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On October 28 2011 06:08 Amaroq64 wrote: Ugh. I like how Cain takes firm, ballsey stances on the things he believes in. But his stance on abortion is vile. Who on earth can claim to be pro-life when they're so ready to force women and/or young couples into the obligation of taking care of a child that they can't afford to care for. Even without counting the expenses to rear a child, even giving birth to one is very expensive. A fetus is a potential life. A woman is an actual life. Eighteen years of toil shouldn't be forced on an unwilling human being for the sake of something that isn't even a life of its own yet. Once the baby is capable of living outside of the human body, then and only then does it have the same rights as other living humans. In reference to some other stuff being posted here. I'm so glad that there's at least one other rational voice here who knows that Keynesian economics has failed and cannot do anything but fail. I explicitly believe that Laissez-Faire Capitalism is the ideal social system. No, a fetus is definitely as much "a life" as the mother. Now the fetus may not be as intelligent as the mother or be able to have the social interactions the mother can, but there are plenty of people that have minimal intelligence/social interaction (or only have Potential intelligence/social interactions). Say a newborn... they are about as helpless as a fetus, why do we force a woman to raise a child for 18 years instead of just throwing it in the dumpster? Some conjoined twins are not capable of "living outside another human being" do they get not get rights? PS (he did not say he would force the woman to care for the child for 18 years... social services typically takes children away from parents that try to murder them.) | ||
|
jax1492
United States1632 Posts
How can he not know they have had nuclear weapons for almost 30 years ... more shocking is that he is/was the front runner. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 27 2011 19:36 hoob wrote: I like this guy, he seems to really know what he stands for and know how to articulate those positions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WELkanHrSqw Yep. He can tell it, he can explain it, he aint ashamed of it. Where others give lip service to conservatism, he actually embodies it. Where others just wanna strike a 50% compromise with Democrats, you get the feeling he wants to push that farther right. The answer to a desired trillion+ dollar stimulus is not starting negotiations from 500 billion. Answer for this horrible health care bill that got passed is not searching for the bits and pieces that are good in it, but repealing the piece of nonsense and start over. | ||
|
BushidoSnipr
United States910 Posts
| ||
|
Ancestral
United States3230 Posts
On October 28 2011 06:17 Krikkitone wrote: No, a fetus is definitely as much "a life" as the mother. Now the fetus may not be as intelligent as the mother or be able to have the social interactions the mother can, but there are plenty of people that have minimal intelligence/social interaction (or only have Potential intelligence/social interactions). Say a newborn... they are about as helpless as a fetus, why do we force a woman to raise a child for 18 years instead of just throwing it in the dumpster? Some conjoined twins are not capable of "living outside another human being" do they get not get rights? PS (he did not say he would force the woman to care for the child for 18 years... social services typically takes children away from parents that try to murder them.) And Republicans are notorious for their social support of women. A fetus is as much "a life?" I say half of the world disagrees with you. And you justification is so weak I shouldn't even mention it. Intelligence? They literally can't even think until the third trimester. You can believe in "the sanctity of life," but saying they're equal in status to born human? What if the mother's life was in danger? These are cliche arguments, but it sounds like you haven't even considered them. Bottom line, it's not possible to care for every single child conceived. Which means being raped and impregnated is the end of your productive life if you're poor. | ||
|
Ideas
United States8166 Posts
On November 03 2011 11:23 Danglars wrote: Yep. He can tell it, he can explain it, he aint ashamed of it. Where others give lip service to conservatism, he actually embodies it. Where others just wanna strike a 50% compromise with Democrats, you get the feeling he wants to push that farther right. The answer to a desired trillion+ dollar stimulus is not starting negotiations from 500 billion. Answer for this horrible health care bill that got passed is not searching for the bits and pieces that are good in it, but repealing the piece of nonsense and start over. did you actually watch the video? lol | ||
|
LaLLsc2
United States502 Posts
| ||
|
_Darwin_
United States2374 Posts
| ||
|
Harbinger631
United States376 Posts
On October 28 2011 06:08 Amaroq64 wrote: A fetus is a potential life. A woman is an actual life. Eighteen years of toil shouldn't be forced on an unwilling human being for the sake of something that isn't even a life of its own yet. Once the baby is capable of living outside of the human body, then and only then does it have the same rights as other living humans.. I wonder how common the view is that the fetus isn't alive. Of course it's alive, it executes metabolism and growth just like the rest of us! Nothing changes at birth, the fetus just changes location and uses a different modality to get oxygen into the bloodstream. That's it, nothing magical there. | ||
| ||
