|
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/01/02/is_this_any_way_to_treat_your_banker
Blunt article from, Shen Dingli, a top-ranked Chinese academic, calling on the US to get its fiscal house in order for the long-term, and stop kicking the can down the road with politically expedient 'compromises'.
The schadenfreude-laden tone aside, Shen's reflects the general mood of most decision-makers in the People's Republic. The PRC does not want to see America go under; it would much rather America do its thing and do it well. Unfortunately, the irrationality and capriciousness (the Chinese word is '任性') of US domestic policy drive them absolutely nuts--and I think you can see it in the article below.
+ Show Spoiler +Is this any way to treat your banker?
SHANGHAI — At the last possible instant, the White House and Congress reached a compromise that prevented the United States from falling off the "fiscal cliff" -- or, as we in China have been calling it, caizheng xuanya. By raising taxes on households that make more than $450,000 a year, the negotiations will save middle-class families from tax increases and also will likely prevent the United States from going into another recession. China can relax -- for now. Given how deeply the Chinese and U.S. economies are intertwined -- in 2012, the United States imported more than $350 billion of goods from China while exporting just under $90 billion -- a U.S. recession would hurt China's labor force. China's exports to the United States grew at 9.4 percent from 2010 to 2011 and at a similar speed in 2012; if that number slows significantly or becomes negative, it would undercut China's economic prospects and even impair China's social stability.
Why hasn't the United States been able to keep its financial house in order? The United States is the richest country in the world, but since 2009, the U.S. government has spent at least $1 trillion more than it took in. In its first term, the Obama administration aspired to solve all of its country's problems at once: addressing the financial crisis by bailing out businesses and stimulating the markets, wrapping up the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and reforming social security and health care. But the weak economy sent the U.S. federal debt soaring from roughly $10 trillion to $16.4 trillion in just four years. Real reform of the U.S. entitlement system has yet to happen. And the fiscal cliff deal merely locked in George W. Bush's unsustainable tax cuts for most Americans. All this has Chinese elites worried.
Frankly, China is fed up with the performance of U.S. democracy. People's Daily, the mouthpiece of the Communist Party, warned the United States in a recent article not to scare the world so frequently. In Beijing's eyes, the financial crisis instigated by the fall of the U.S. firm Lehman Brothers in 2008, followed by years of slow growth, 2011's debt-ceiling fight, and 2012's fiscal cliff showdown have weakened America considerably. Xinhua, China's national news wire, weighed in on the matter Wednesday: "So the politicians have chosen to kick the can down the road again and again. But as we all know, the can will never disappear. Sometime and somewhere, you might trip over it and fall hard on the ground, or in the U.S. case, into an abyss you can never come out of." By focusing on their own constituents and not making hard decisions for the benefit of the country, America's lawmakers are making things worse; another People's Daily article, published Dec. 31, called the fiscal cliff crisis "auto-sadism" arising from the U.S. political system.
One hopes that the United States can work out a sensible solution. The total 2012 federal budget of $3.8 trillion accounted for roughly a quarter of U.S. GDP. To be sure, the United States can keep sustaining its unbalanced federal account by printing money and selling Treasury bonds. By printing more dollars, the U.S. government stimulates its markets, as well as exports and employment, by increasing its liquidity. But much of this liquidity will actually go abroad, pushing inflation overseas.
Is that any way to treat your banker?
China helps the U.S. economy by lending money to the United States by buying Treasury bonds - it now holds $1.16 trillion of U.S. debt. U.S.-China cooperation has helped save the United States from financial insolvency -- and China has benefited from this system by keeping its currency competitive -- but this enablement has come with risks, including weakening the credibility of the U.S. dollar. To fundamentally improve its economy, the United States needs to stop the financial gimmicks and boost its exports the old-fashioned way, through innovation, while encouraging its citizens to increase their incomes and decrease their spending. China wants to partner with a healthy, balanced United States, not a profligate, irresponsible one.
And even if America's day of reckoning has been postponed, China still faces the risk that the United States could fall off one fiscal cliff or another in the future. Without a fundamental restructuring of the U.S. budget that significantly raises income while cutting expenses, the United States looks like a disaster waiting to happen.
No wonder many Chinese see an America in decline, even if many Americans don't believe it yet. We see few signs that the United States is ready to reinvent its national narrative and mission. But here in Shanghai, we understand basic math pretty well. The United States needs to balance its consumption and savings; weigh its pursuit of al Qaeda in Afghanistan with other foreign-policy goals; and cut its spending on defense and social welfare. How can Washington be responsible for the rest of the world if it can't even take care of itself?
|
i hope we heed the message
|
It really is ridiculous beyond words the way this (US politics) has been proceeding.
|
On January 04 2013 09:01 Aveng3r wrote: i hope we heed the message
Agreed. The US gov needs to get its act together.
|
Translation: The US should prioritize stability that allows China to continue taking advantage of an undervalued yuan.
He might be right that the US is playing too much brinksmanship with fiscal policy, but we're not taking lectures about global responsibility and health over irresponsibility from China of all places.
|
On January 04 2013 09:04 a_flayer wrote: It really is ridiculous beyond words the way this (US politics) has been proceeding. It's a great thing that gerrymandering means that no much no insane either party appears to be, it is becoming more and more difficult for that to actually matter at the ballot box.
We have a legal form of vote rigging yo.
|
So China wants US to pay its people peanuts like they do? Maybe open infamous work camps as well...
User was temp banned for this post.
|
The United States is already beyond repair. I mean the Federal Government is already effectively bankrupt and in the next decade or so, things are going to get a lot worse here. You can blame the politicians.
|
For a country that spends so much on it's military, by far the biggest threat to it's future seems to be coming from within.
|
I actually like USA, its culture and what it has achieved, I don't even mind the extreme nationalism that certain individuals in USA demonstrates (note, I said certain, not everyone in the entire USA) But when it comes to dealing with money and the economics then I don't know what to say.
|
On January 04 2013 09:10 Integra wrote: I actually like USA, its culture and what it has achieved, I don't even mind the extreme nationalism that certain individuals in USA demonstrates (note, I said certain, not everyone in the entire USA) But when it comes to dealing with money and the economics then I don't know what to say.
The downside to the US culture of individualism/capitalism etc. Everyone (including the parties) are selfish and looking out for #1. As much as people like to say "we are united" and stuff people are always looking for their own interests or their own parties interests first. This leads to competition rather than cooperation to find things that will benefit the country as a whole in our government.
|
You can blame the politicians but ultimately it's the American people who are to blame for letting this happen.
|
On January 04 2013 09:09 LittleRedBoy wrote: The United States is already beyond repair. I mean the Federal Government is already effectively bankrupt and in the next decade or so, things are going to get a lot worse here. You can blame the politicians. I can certainly see why a young Native American boy might consider the US beyond repair.
|
On January 04 2013 09:14 Boypartz wrote: You can blame the politicians but ultimately it's the American people who are to blame for letting this happen.
Well you're correct. The vast majority of Americans don't care or even realize that these politicians are ruining everything. Oh, and we can't forget about Ben Bernanke. I'm surprised that there are still trees left in the world after all the money that he has printed.
|
On January 04 2013 09:18 LittleRedBoy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 09:14 Boypartz wrote: You can blame the politicians but ultimately it's the American people who are to blame for letting this happen. Well you're correct. The vast majority of Americans don't care or even realize that these politicians are ruining everything. Oh, and we can't forget about Ben Bernanke. I'm surprised that there are still trees left in the world after all the money that he has printed. Bernanke doesn't print anything, grampa. These days it's all 1s and 0s.
|
On January 04 2013 09:17 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 09:09 LittleRedBoy wrote: The United States is already beyond repair. I mean the Federal Government is already effectively bankrupt and in the next decade or so, things are going to get a lot worse here. You can blame the politicians. I can certainly see why a young Native American boy might consider the US beyond repair.
The US government is bankrupt, that is a fact. The only reason that the US economy hasn't completely crashed is because they are spending and printing trillions of dollars. Eventually the chickens are going to come home to roost.
On January 04 2013 09:20 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 09:18 LittleRedBoy wrote:On January 04 2013 09:14 Boypartz wrote: You can blame the politicians but ultimately it's the American people who are to blame for letting this happen. Well you're correct. The vast majority of Americans don't care or even realize that these politicians are ruining everything. Oh, and we can't forget about Ben Bernanke. I'm surprised that there are still trees left in the world after all the money that he has printed. Bernanke doesn't print anything, grampa. These days it's all 1s and 0s.
You do realize that I was being sarcastic?
|
On January 04 2013 09:21 LittleRedBoy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 09:17 farvacola wrote:On January 04 2013 09:09 LittleRedBoy wrote: The United States is already beyond repair. I mean the Federal Government is already effectively bankrupt and in the next decade or so, things are going to get a lot worse here. You can blame the politicians. I can certainly see why a young Native American boy might consider the US beyond repair. The US government is bankrupt, that is a fact. The only reason that the US economy hasn't completely crashed is because they are spending and printing trillions of dollars. Eventually the chickens are going to come home to roost. What sort of chicken are these? Do they cuckoo as the sun rises like a cock, or do they simply threaten to?
|
I'm not sure what to say. I mean, he's right, a lot of us know he's right, but what does this really change? America is still going to go straight to hell, regardless of the fact that everyone with half a brain knows that we're heading there. Our system is broken, it encourages all the wrong things. You see, there is nothing special about the human race, there is no x-factor, no soul, nothing magical that cannot be computed. What a system encourages is what eventually becomes dominant. Evolution is a prime example of this. In our case, our system encourages politicians (probably the most dirty profession in the world, outside of things like terrorists and drug kingpins), it encourages CEOs with no pity, remorse, compassion or morals, it encourages selling out, it encourages stupidity, it encourages all kinds of horrible shit that's just destroying our country.
|
On January 04 2013 09:23 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 09:21 LittleRedBoy wrote:On January 04 2013 09:17 farvacola wrote:On January 04 2013 09:09 LittleRedBoy wrote: The United States is already beyond repair. I mean the Federal Government is already effectively bankrupt and in the next decade or so, things are going to get a lot worse here. You can blame the politicians. I can certainly see why a young Native American boy might consider the US beyond repair. The US government is bankrupt, that is a fact. The only reason that the US economy hasn't completely crashed is because they are spending and printing trillions of dollars. Eventually the chickens are going to come home to roost. What sort of chicken are these? Do they cuckoo as the sun rises like a cock, or do they simply threaten to? The chickens reside in the bond market, my friend. Imagine the bond market as a forest. The higher the debt-to-GDP ratio rises while interest rates remain low, the drier and hotter that forest gets, and the more likely it is to suffer a forest fire.
Bond prices are at record highs today in spite of a massive glut of new treasury supply. However, secondary trading volume has thinned dramatically, while price movements (volatility) have hit a sort of plateau reminiscent of the waning days of the 1920s stock market.
|
Wow, that's some serious thing going on there.
Has the US to show his cards? Is china bluffing?
Is the world order caused to change?
|
On January 04 2013 09:26 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 09:23 farvacola wrote:On January 04 2013 09:21 LittleRedBoy wrote:On January 04 2013 09:17 farvacola wrote:On January 04 2013 09:09 LittleRedBoy wrote: The United States is already beyond repair. I mean the Federal Government is already effectively bankrupt and in the next decade or so, things are going to get a lot worse here. You can blame the politicians. I can certainly see why a young Native American boy might consider the US beyond repair. The US government is bankrupt, that is a fact. The only reason that the US economy hasn't completely crashed is because they are spending and printing trillions of dollars. Eventually the chickens are going to come home to roost. What sort of chicken are these? Do they cuckoo as the sun rises like a cock, or do they simply threaten to? The chickens reside in the bond market, my friend. Imagine the bond market as a forest. The higher the debt-to-GDP ratio rises while interest rates remain low, the drier and hotter that forest gets, and the more likely it is to suffer a forest fire. Bond prices are at record highs today in spite of a massive glut of new treasury supply. However, secondary trading volume has thinned dramatically, while price movements (volatility) have hit a sort of plateau reminiscent of the waning days of the 1920s stock market. Yes, yes, that all sounds about right, the question was one of inevitability however. The forest might dry up and the chickens may come home to roost, but they also may not. Speaking definitively in either case requires a hefty amount of evidence. And some 1920s resemblance is in and of itself a topic for debate. Die, misplaced unequivocal speak!
|
On January 04 2013 09:21 LittleRedBoy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 09:17 farvacola wrote:On January 04 2013 09:09 LittleRedBoy wrote: The United States is already beyond repair. I mean the Federal Government is already effectively bankrupt and in the next decade or so, things are going to get a lot worse here. You can blame the politicians. I can certainly see why a young Native American boy might consider the US beyond repair. The US government is bankrupt, that is a fact. The only reason that the US economy hasn't completely crashed is because they are spending and printing trillions of dollars. Eventually the chickens are going to come home to roost. Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 09:20 coverpunch wrote:On January 04 2013 09:18 LittleRedBoy wrote:On January 04 2013 09:14 Boypartz wrote: You can blame the politicians but ultimately it's the American people who are to blame for letting this happen. Well you're correct. The vast majority of Americans don't care or even realize that these politicians are ruining everything. Oh, and we can't forget about Ben Bernanke. I'm surprised that there are still trees left in the world after all the money that he has printed. Bernanke doesn't print anything, grampa. These days it's all 1s and 0s. You do realize that I was being sarcastic? being in debt =/= bankrupt
its plausible to get out of debt but not in the current political swinging of politicians on the state and federal levels.
|
On January 04 2013 09:04 Atrbyg wrote:Agreed. The US gov needs to get its act together.
The US people need to get their act together. We get the government we deserve.
|
Start learning dat Chinese guys xD
|
United States2267 Posts
I wish we had more competent people in Congress right now who could actually decide on a way to fix this problem. Someone on the news this morning said something like "The American people hate Congress right now". I think that quote pretty much sums up how the majority of Americans currently feel.
|
On January 04 2013 09:43 Hoodlum wrote: Start learning dat Chinese guys xD Not really. If the US goes under, China goes under too. That's why China is so freaked out when US politics consistently tilt towards short-term fixes
|
On January 04 2013 09:08 -Archangel- wrote: So China wants US to pay its people peanuts like they do? Maybe open infamous work camps as well...
wat the fuck does this have to do with OP
|
On January 04 2013 09:41 sc14s wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 09:21 LittleRedBoy wrote:On January 04 2013 09:17 farvacola wrote:On January 04 2013 09:09 LittleRedBoy wrote: The United States is already beyond repair. I mean the Federal Government is already effectively bankrupt and in the next decade or so, things are going to get a lot worse here. You can blame the politicians. I can certainly see why a young Native American boy might consider the US beyond repair. The US government is bankrupt, that is a fact. The only reason that the US economy hasn't completely crashed is because they are spending and printing trillions of dollars. Eventually the chickens are going to come home to roost. On January 04 2013 09:20 coverpunch wrote:On January 04 2013 09:18 LittleRedBoy wrote:On January 04 2013 09:14 Boypartz wrote: You can blame the politicians but ultimately it's the American people who are to blame for letting this happen. Well you're correct. The vast majority of Americans don't care or even realize that these politicians are ruining everything. Oh, and we can't forget about Ben Bernanke. I'm surprised that there are still trees left in the world after all the money that he has printed. Bernanke doesn't print anything, grampa. These days it's all 1s and 0s. You do realize that I was being sarcastic? being in debt =/= bankrupt its plausible to get out of debt but not in the current political swinging of politicians on the state and federal levels.
Well the United States Government is both in debt and bankrupt. There are economists who estimate that the total unfunded liabilities for Medicare and Social Security are in excess of $200 trillion. Frankly, there is no possible way for the government to pay that.
|
On January 04 2013 09:46 Shady Sands wrote:Not really. If the US goes under, China goes under too. That's why China is so freaked out when US politics consistently tilt towards short-term fixes
What about after that...do you think the Chinese could recover faster? Would they be hit as hard as the US? If I remember correctly China has about 20% of the world's population which is kind of ridiculous. Also Europe would probably go under as well. I think its pretty confusing to guess what would happen, but I doubt Africa and South America would rise up to replace them.
|
On January 04 2013 09:46 Shady Sands wrote:Not really. If the US goes under, China goes under too. That's why China is so freaked out when US politics consistently tilt towards short-term fixes
Well when an economy the size of the United States' goes under, everyone gets hurt. You're correct there. But, regardless, I believe that China would be doing relatively well compared to the United States in this case.
|
On January 04 2013 09:51 LittleRedBoy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 09:46 Shady Sands wrote:On January 04 2013 09:43 Hoodlum wrote: Start learning dat Chinese guys xD Not really. If the US goes under, China goes under too. That's why China is so freaked out when US politics consistently tilt towards short-term fixes Well when an economy the size of the United States' goes under, everyone gets hurt. You're correct there. But, regardless, I believe that China would be doing relatively well compared to the United States in this case. Generally, as a national leader, you would rather do well than simply do better than the next guy. At least, I hope...
|
I chuckled when the article said that Obama aspired to fix this. It has been business in the capital as usual from day one until today. Spend money and ask for more in taxes. To his credit, an ending of the war in Iraq and scaling back in Afghanistan have lowered outlays. The United States has had increasing deficits for quite a while now, and no change in this is in sight.
It is no small wonder that some Chinese are expressing doubts just now. Presumably, if they had somewhere better to invest their money safely, it would have been done long ago. If the debt is a cause for concern today, then they ignored such objections just fine in the past. All this still is just idle talk until we see mass sales of bonds to those still interested in buying. They're fine ones to criticize domestic policy in their own right; since when have Chinese people really had a say in the setting of their own domestic policy aside from the very few extremely well-connected ones. In the US, we're inerred to the criticism of top 1%, in China, far less than that control their own political system.
|
On January 04 2013 09:08 coverpunch wrote: Translation: The US should prioritize stability that allows China to continue taking advantage of an undervalued yuan.
He might be right that the US is playing too much brinksmanship with fiscal policy, but we're not taking lectures about global responsibility and health over irresponsibility from China of all places.
Pretty much this. China want America to keep a strong dollar to keep exporting like it's doing right now. But keeping a strong value when the biggest exporter is devauling its own so much is suicide, both europe and america should know this by know.
|
On January 04 2013 09:48 LittleRedBoy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 09:41 sc14s wrote:On January 04 2013 09:21 LittleRedBoy wrote:On January 04 2013 09:17 farvacola wrote:On January 04 2013 09:09 LittleRedBoy wrote: The United States is already beyond repair. I mean the Federal Government is already effectively bankrupt and in the next decade or so, things are going to get a lot worse here. You can blame the politicians. I can certainly see why a young Native American boy might consider the US beyond repair. The US government is bankrupt, that is a fact. The only reason that the US economy hasn't completely crashed is because they are spending and printing trillions of dollars. Eventually the chickens are going to come home to roost. On January 04 2013 09:20 coverpunch wrote:On January 04 2013 09:18 LittleRedBoy wrote:On January 04 2013 09:14 Boypartz wrote: You can blame the politicians but ultimately it's the American people who are to blame for letting this happen. Well you're correct. The vast majority of Americans don't care or even realize that these politicians are ruining everything. Oh, and we can't forget about Ben Bernanke. I'm surprised that there are still trees left in the world after all the money that he has printed. Bernanke doesn't print anything, grampa. These days it's all 1s and 0s. You do realize that I was being sarcastic? being in debt =/= bankrupt its plausible to get out of debt but not in the current political swinging of politicians on the state and federal levels. Well the United States Government is both in debt and bankrupt. There are economists who estimate that the total unfunded liabilities for Medicare and Social Security are in excess of $200 trillion. Frankly, there is no possible way for the government to pay that.
A social welfare sistem would cost much less than the current US is paying for to subside the "private" healtcare sistem. US spend about 7k dollar pro capita on its "private" healtcare sistem, whereas the average in europe for their "socialist" healtcare sistem is 3.2k dollars. America is giving huge chunks of its taxes to private corporation, which in turn are spilling shitty propaganda about the danger of "socialism" and most of america is believing this. Pretty sad.
|
Respect to Shen Dingli for saying what most are to afraid to talk about.
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
On January 04 2013 09:55 Danglars wrote: They're fine ones to criticize domestic policy in their own right; since when have Chinese people really had a say in the setting of their own domestic policy aside from the very few extremely well-connected ones. In the US, we're inerred to the criticism of top 1%, in China, far less than that control their own political system. Why shouldn't they criticize US domestic policy? They're saying US voters vote in politicians that choose policies that are good short term but are bad long term. It's a criticism of US democracy in a way, politicians only care about getting reelected every 2 or 6 years. They don't care about what happens 10 years later.
|
On January 04 2013 09:26 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 09:23 farvacola wrote:On January 04 2013 09:21 LittleRedBoy wrote:On January 04 2013 09:17 farvacola wrote:On January 04 2013 09:09 LittleRedBoy wrote: The United States is already beyond repair. I mean the Federal Government is already effectively bankrupt and in the next decade or so, things are going to get a lot worse here. You can blame the politicians. I can certainly see why a young Native American boy might consider the US beyond repair. The US government is bankrupt, that is a fact. The only reason that the US economy hasn't completely crashed is because they are spending and printing trillions of dollars. Eventually the chickens are going to come home to roost. What sort of chicken are these? Do they cuckoo as the sun rises like a cock, or do they simply threaten to? The chickens reside in the bond market, my friend. Imagine the bond market as a forest. The higher the debt-to-GDP ratio rises while interest rates remain low, the drier and hotter that forest gets, and the more likely it is to suffer a forest fire. Bond prices are at record highs today in spite of a massive glut of new treasury supply. However, secondary trading volume has thinned dramatically, while price movements (volatility) have hit a sort of plateau reminiscent of the waning days of the 1920s stock market. You have some interesting insights in some things but I really do wish you'd stop covering up your ignorance in other things --like the bond market -- by fluffing it up with meaningless babble like your last two sentences.
Anyone who believes that America is going to go 'bankrupt' does not understand how the economy works. The only danger is a technical default brought about by Republican fanatics isolated from the political process by gerrymandered seats.
|
hahaha, of course they want us to do well! do you know how much money we owe them???
|
United States23455 Posts
Also, they don't want the yuan to appreciate against the dollar, because that will decrease profits of Chinese businesses. And if the dollar depreciates, we technically will be paying them back less money than they loaned us. Of course they want us to do better haha.
|
On January 04 2013 09:51 LittleRedBoy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 09:46 Shady Sands wrote:On January 04 2013 09:43 Hoodlum wrote: Start learning dat Chinese guys xD Not really. If the US goes under, China goes under too. That's why China is so freaked out when US politics consistently tilt towards short-term fixes Well when an economy the size of the United States' goes under, everyone gets hurt. You're correct there. But, regardless, I believe that China would be doing relatively well compared to the United States in this case.
I'm not sure if Shady agrees (or even cares to speak his mind on this) but I always thought China had more to fear from a global economic downturn. Of course in the short term the US would be worse off. But the risk of social upheaval (dare I say revolution) is significantly higher for China.
It might be the higher absolute standard of living, better social cohesion or simply US elites being better at controlling their population. But for the most part the US seems to be remarkably good at absorbing economic shocks and not letting it rattle the underlying system, while China suffers from all kinds of unrest even in times of growth and relative prosperity.
|
I honestly desire to be completely wrong in this regard, but I believe the U.S. is in for some dire straights economically. Politicians have their share of blame in the matter, but as stated previously by other posters, if Americans as a whole weren't so apathetic/ignorant this mess wouldn't have been created so easily.
I hear people who identify with both political parties push for increased or continued spending with no thought of actually reducing our debt. Republicans want to continue or increase or spending in military despite the fact that we have the largest military by an almost unimaginable margin. Democrats want to continue or increase spending domestically despite entitlements (I don't include Social Security as an entitlement but that's another story) eating up more and more of the federal budget.
So much attention was given to raising taxes on the "wealthy" during this fiscal cliff negotiations. Regardless of whether they should have been raised or not, implementing all the necessary tax reforms do not solve our deficit spending. In order to at least attempt to right the U.S. fiscal ship large cuts will need to be made and they will be painful. I believe most politicians know this and they choose to kick the can down the road.
Every attempt at fiscal reform and spending cuts is met with fierce opposition, in part because we as citizens have become too dependent upon government in many areas. Try to cut military spending and the DoD protests about "gutting the military" while military contractors would be losing their job. Any potential cut in domestic spending is seen as picking on the "little guy". Opposition to bailouts of companies deemed "too big to fail" is seen as wanting the economy to tank and millions of people to lose their jobs. Even the silliest of federal spending will be vehemently defended by the politicians who represent the area receiving the funds.
As stated earlier, I believe the American people (as a whole) are too ignorant/apathetic and the politicians are too self-serving for significant changes to be made.
TL;DR - The United States is continuing to head toward the true "fiscal" cliff regardless of this recent legislation.
|
On January 04 2013 08:59 Shady Sands wrote:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/01/02/is_this_any_way_to_treat_your_bankerBlunt article from, Shen Dingli, a top-ranked Chinese academic, calling on the US to get its fiscal house in order for the long-term, and stop kicking the can down the road with politically expedient 'compromises'. The schadenfreude-laden tone aside, Shen's reflects the general mood of most decision-makers in the People's Republic. The PRC does not want to see America go under; it would much rather America do its thing and do it well. Unfortunately, the irrationality and capriciousness (the Chinese word is '任性') of US domestic policy drive them absolutely nuts--and I think you can see it in the article below. + Show Spoiler +Is this any way to treat your banker?
SHANGHAI — At the last possible instant, the White House and Congress reached a compromise that prevented the United States from falling off the "fiscal cliff" -- or, as we in China have been calling it, caizheng xuanya. By raising taxes on households that make more than $450,000 a year, the negotiations will save middle-class families from tax increases and also will likely prevent the United States from going into another recession. China can relax -- for now. Given how deeply the Chinese and U.S. economies are intertwined -- in 2012, the United States imported more than $350 billion of goods from China while exporting just under $90 billion -- a U.S. recession would hurt China's labor force. China's exports to the United States grew at 9.4 percent from 2010 to 2011 and at a similar speed in 2012; if that number slows significantly or becomes negative, it would undercut China's economic prospects and even impair China's social stability.
Why hasn't the United States been able to keep its financial house in order? The United States is the richest country in the world, but since 2009, the U.S. government has spent at least $1 trillion more than it took in. In its first term, the Obama administration aspired to solve all of its country's problems at once: addressing the financial crisis by bailing out businesses and stimulating the markets, wrapping up the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and reforming social security and health care. But the weak economy sent the U.S. federal debt soaring from roughly $10 trillion to $16.4 trillion in just four years. Real reform of the U.S. entitlement system has yet to happen. And the fiscal cliff deal merely locked in George W. Bush's unsustainable tax cuts for most Americans. All this has Chinese elites worried.
Frankly, China is fed up with the performance of U.S. democracy. People's Daily, the mouthpiece of the Communist Party, warned the United States in a recent article not to scare the world so frequently. In Beijing's eyes, the financial crisis instigated by the fall of the U.S. firm Lehman Brothers in 2008, followed by years of slow growth, 2011's debt-ceiling fight, and 2012's fiscal cliff showdown have weakened America considerably. Xinhua, China's national news wire, weighed in on the matter Wednesday: "So the politicians have chosen to kick the can down the road again and again. But as we all know, the can will never disappear. Sometime and somewhere, you might trip over it and fall hard on the ground, or in the U.S. case, into an abyss you can never come out of." By focusing on their own constituents and not making hard decisions for the benefit of the country, America's lawmakers are making things worse; another People's Daily article, published Dec. 31, called the fiscal cliff crisis "auto-sadism" arising from the U.S. political system.
One hopes that the United States can work out a sensible solution. The total 2012 federal budget of $3.8 trillion accounted for roughly a quarter of U.S. GDP. To be sure, the United States can keep sustaining its unbalanced federal account by printing money and selling Treasury bonds. By printing more dollars, the U.S. government stimulates its markets, as well as exports and employment, by increasing its liquidity. But much of this liquidity will actually go abroad, pushing inflation overseas.
Is that any way to treat your banker?
China helps the U.S. economy by lending money to the United States by buying Treasury bonds - it now holds $1.16 trillion of U.S. debt. U.S.-China cooperation has helped save the United States from financial insolvency -- and China has benefited from this system by keeping its currency competitive -- but this enablement has come with risks, including weakening the credibility of the U.S. dollar. To fundamentally improve its economy, the United States needs to stop the financial gimmicks and boost its exports the old-fashioned way, through innovation, while encouraging its citizens to increase their incomes and decrease their spending. China wants to partner with a healthy, balanced United States, not a profligate, irresponsible one.
And even if America's day of reckoning has been postponed, China still faces the risk that the United States could fall off one fiscal cliff or another in the future. Without a fundamental restructuring of the U.S. budget that significantly raises income while cutting expenses, the United States looks like a disaster waiting to happen.
No wonder many Chinese see an America in decline, even if many Americans don't believe it yet. We see few signs that the United States is ready to reinvent its national narrative and mission. But here in Shanghai, we understand basic math pretty well. The United States needs to balance its consumption and savings; weigh its pursuit of al Qaeda in Afghanistan with other foreign-policy goals; and cut its spending on defense and social welfare. How can Washington be responsible for the rest of the world if it can't even take care of itself? IMO they're just deflecting from their own domestic issues. China has its own debt issues (in the provinces and hidden at the banks) and a slowing economy. Better to deflect deflect blame to someone else (oh no! 'merica can't buy our crap!) then deal openly with reality.
|
Canada6002 Posts
On January 04 2013 09:04 Atrbyg wrote:Agreed. The US gov needs to get its act together.
Indeed. We need to move forward, not backward. Upward, not downward.
|
US is unique nation, in that it is 3d in population in the world, but unlike China,(no idea about India politics), and Russia, the goverment does not rule with an iron fist, doesn`t censure the media, doesn`t controll elections, and so on.
Sure it is easier to rule democratically over 3-15 millions of people living in close vicinity and bounded by common traditions and general feel for eachother.
Sure it would be easier to rule if the goverment system would just allow people with a little more power to jam their viev on others. Would that make the country better overall? Doubtfull.
Look at the world arroud you. Look at Europe that is crumbling under wellfare states. Look at Asia, where Japan is decaying for dacade or so, where China is rising by selling their people`s well-being and health to outcompit other countries.
India, where the capital city has no electricity grid(at least it used to around 2009 or so), and the majority of people are living 19-century rural lifestyle or are in slums.
Look at GB, France, Italy, Spain, where public debt, unemployment and taxes are way higher, and their struggle.
Sure democracy is not a piece of cake. Sure US is not in perfect shape. But it pull togather. It always did, no reason to assume this time would be different.
Sure it would be easier to make a Politbuerau of Obama, Pelosi, Boehner, Reid, McConel, and Romeny and let the 6 run the country the way they see fit. Or just make Obama a kinda-sorta king, Putin style. Would it be better of average joe? I doubt it.
If proposed to live in China, India, Japan, Russia, Spain, GB, France, Italy or US, i would pick US any day.
Now, Denmark, Swiserland, Finland, Singapure, would probably be prefered to US. But, you may see the pattern, of small, well-governed nation-states.
On January 04 2013 09:48 LittleRedBoy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 09:41 sc14s wrote:On January 04 2013 09:21 LittleRedBoy wrote:On January 04 2013 09:17 farvacola wrote:On January 04 2013 09:09 LittleRedBoy wrote: The United States is already beyond repair. I mean the Federal Government is already effectively bankrupt and in the next decade or so, things are going to get a lot worse here. You can blame the politicians. I can certainly see why a young Native American boy might consider the US beyond repair. The US government is bankrupt, that is a fact. The only reason that the US economy hasn't completely crashed is because they are spending and printing trillions of dollars. Eventually the chickens are going to come home to roost. On January 04 2013 09:20 coverpunch wrote:On January 04 2013 09:18 LittleRedBoy wrote:On January 04 2013 09:14 Boypartz wrote: You can blame the politicians but ultimately it's the American people who are to blame for letting this happen. Well you're correct. The vast majority of Americans don't care or even realize that these politicians are ruining everything. Oh, and we can't forget about Ben Bernanke. I'm surprised that there are still trees left in the world after all the money that he has printed. Bernanke doesn't print anything, grampa. These days it's all 1s and 0s. You do realize that I was being sarcastic? being in debt =/= bankrupt its plausible to get out of debt but not in the current political swinging of politicians on the state and federal levels. Well the United States Government is both in debt and bankrupt. There are economists who estimate that the total unfunded liabilities for Medicare and Social Security are in excess of $200 trillion. Frankly, there is no possible way for the government to pay that. exept get the less wastefull healthcare system. Like any other developed nations of the world already enjoy.
|
Ostensibly the US would be doing China a favor by encouraging inflation in non US markets, the appreciation of the RMB is something that Beijing has had a hard time keeping in check. That being said the Chinese government is stuck saddling the debt for the time being.
The reality is that the Chinese economy is linked in a spiral with the US. The failure of one means at the very least the recession of the other.
|
According to most people who frequent the Politics Megathread, the US can just endlessly accrue debt and inflate our currency. Anyone who talks about economic responsibility is some sort of paranoid right wing Austrian.
These Chinese clearly need to start reading Krugman's columns and educate themselves.
|
If America started using India or another country for the majority of the cheap goods imported instead of China, China would falter. Who else could China supply cheap goods to, though? If they found another partner, what would the competition look like?
However, I don't think the American government, or at least the ones "responsible" for the economic climate don't know what they are doing. (They know full well what's going on.)
Edit: for the post above, I believe we just continuously add and outgrow old debt. I know most modern economies have outgrown gold a long, long, long time ago.
|
On January 04 2013 11:47 jdseemoreglass wrote: According to most people who frequent the Politics Megathread, the US can just endlessly accrue debt and inflate our currency. Anyone who talks about economic responsibility is some sort of paranoid right wing Austrian.
These Chinese clearly need to start reading Krugman's columns and educate themselves. Really is the too big to fail argument, or at least the too big to let it fail.
|
"So the politicians have chosen to kick the can down the road again and again. But as we all know, the can will never disappear. Sometime and somewhere, you might trip over it and fall hard on the ground, or in the U.S. case, into an abyss you can never come out of."
That has to be the dumbest metaphor I have ever heard. It BARELY makes sense. /facepalm
Ofc China is worried, they are holding almost 3 trillion usd in reserves. Buying US currency to not allow their currency to appreciate was not such a good idea in the end, now the anger comes out lol. I almost feel bad
Best thing of all, if usd depreciates it will make US exports more competitive and boost the production. That's why someone's raging on the other side of the pond
|
People say we need to act but then will be angry when cuts to the entitlement system are proposed. We don't have enough money to give so many people.... free money. It is quite obvious. Take every single dime from people in this country making over $500,000 and we can run the US for 8 days.....8 DAYS. We need to cut our spending and that means trim the fat from entitlements (in addition to certain tax increases, I assume).
|
On January 04 2013 11:50 ThomasjServo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 11:47 jdseemoreglass wrote: According to most people who frequent the Politics Megathread, the US can just endlessly accrue debt and inflate our currency. Anyone who talks about economic responsibility is some sort of paranoid right wing Austrian.
These Chinese clearly need to start reading Krugman's columns and educate themselves. Really is the too big to fail argument, or at least the too big to let it fail. In response to this, I'm rather fond of the "too big to bail out" argument.
|
On January 04 2013 11:47 jdseemoreglass wrote: According to most people who frequent the Politics Megathread, the US can just endlessly accrue debt and inflate our currency. Anyone who talks about economic responsibility is some sort of paranoid right wing Austrian.
These Chinese clearly need to start reading Krugman's columns and educate themselves. Except an economy built on Keynesian Socialism (privatize the gains, socialize the risks to boost animal spirits) doesn't do much better over the long run. It's like using a martingale to try and beat a sub-50% casino game--all that ends up happening is that your average risk remains the same but your kurtosis goes crazy because now you have a nonzero chance of deep-sixing your entire economy.
|
On January 04 2013 11:15 naastyOne wrote:Look at GB, France, Italy, Spain, where public debt, unemployment and taxes are way higher, and their struggle.
UK unemployment is very similar to the US: around 8%. I certainly wouldn't lump them together with Italy or Spain.
|
On January 04 2013 10:32 T.O.P. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 09:55 Danglars wrote: They're fine ones to criticize domestic policy in their own right; since when have Chinese people really had a say in the setting of their own domestic policy aside from the very few extremely well-connected ones. In the US, we're inerred to the criticism of top 1%, in China, far less than that control their own political system. Why shouldn't they criticize US domestic policy? They're saying US voters vote in politicians that choose policies that are good short term but are bad long term. It's a criticism of US democracy in a way, politicians only care about getting reelected every 2 or 6 years. They don't care about what happens 10 years later. Their best way of criticizing US policy is selling their bonds. Maybe you should have quoted more of what I wrote, where I developed the point. This has been going on a while, accelerating an ongoing trend at the latter years of Bush and under Clinton. Bonds sold then were bought by the Chinese. They were not so unappealing then. The US was already heading down that road and with no serious talk otherwise. Buyers remorse? The US meets its debt holders while being increasingly stressed to meet those in the future. It's talk talk talk until nobody's around to buy the bonds, and the Chinese have successfully passed off the ones they currently hold.
And, may I ask, what domestic agendas Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao and members of the various politburos ran on? How close was the election? What kind of discussions were held on the currency and federal outlays? Oh wait... How are the motivations of politicians democratically selected any less worthy than those of leaders appointed by the who's who of the Chinese Communist party? Why is this money not invested in their own country, if they represent responsible governance by comparison? Safety and security.
I'm down for the criticism of the growth of entitlements with no supporting revenue. I advocate a hard line on entitlement reform and tax freezes/cuts to help throttle the ability of politicians to spend money to buy votes (yes, both parties). Having foreign criticism of US domestic policy by those eagerly buying bonds and politically impotent to control their own domestic policy is strange.
|
United States43014 Posts
On January 04 2013 12:00 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 11:15 naastyOne wrote:Look at GB, France, Italy, Spain, where public debt, unemployment and taxes are way higher, and their struggle.
UK unemployment is very similar to the US: around 8%. I certainly wouldn't lump them together with Italy or Spain. Furthermore the UK elected a right wing government at the height of the crisis (more due to years of chronic Labour economic mismanagement than due to ideological reasons) who promptly attempted harsh spending cuts in the name of austerity, predicting that they would balance the budget by now and begin to repay the debt. Unfortunately it turned into a triple dip recession as the economy shrank and people lost their jobs and became more reliant on the state than before. Spending has actually increased, borrowing has increased as tax revenues shrink and everyone still has less than before. It's all gone pretty badly, it's not even that we're cutting back and slowly taking on the mountain of debt, spending is growing, revenue is declining, all the targets have been missed, readjusted and missed again and there is no end in sight.
|
While the start of the article is pretty dead-on, he got to the ridiculous metaphor from Xinhua and it just went downhill from there. Yes, the US government spends trillions of dollars, which, relative to GDP, is not a huge amount compared to other countries. Also, quite a bit of dollars will go abroad, because it is a reserve currency and commodities like oil are traded in dollars. Wouldn't a greater quantity of dollars increase the value of other currencies against it, making things sold in dollars cheaper for other countries, the opposite of inflation?
China just wants a country with a large economy and a strong currency to buy its stuff, and while he tries to make it sound like he is trying to help the US, it is a completely self-serving argument.
Oh, and I almost fell out of my chair reading this:boost its exports the old-fashioned way, through innovation
|
One of the many reasons I choose not to work in government. Call when we've returned to any era before Truman.
|
On January 04 2013 11:15 naastyOne wrote:If proposed to live in China, India, Japan, Russia, Spain, GB, France, Italy or US, i would pick US any day. If my primary interests was the national economy, personally I would pick Canada over the US any day. The only western whose big 5 banks published profit and growth gains during the recession.
On the other hand, our personal and household debt is probably just as bad if not worse than the US and Europe, hehehe...
|
On January 04 2013 12:33 Taekwon wrote: One of the many reasons I choose not to work in government. Call when we've returned to any era before Truman. Dude, you are missing out. Now is the time to cash in on the gravy train before it runs out of gas.
On January 04 2013 12:35 Not_Computer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 11:15 naastyOne wrote:If proposed to live in China, India, Japan, Russia, Spain, GB, France, Italy or US, i would pick US any day. If my primary interests was the national economy, personally I would pick Canada over the US any day. The only western whose big 5 banks published profit and growth gains during the recession. On the other hand, our personal and household debt is probably just as bad if not worse than the US and Europe, hehehe... Yeah, but Canada is cold and too many of the people speak French.
On January 04 2013 12:37 snotboogie wrote: Can someone explain to me why everyone is talking about "cutting the fat" of "entitlements" like health care and social security, but noone is talking about cutting down the monstrosity that is the "defence" budget? I hear plenty of talk about both actually.... Anyway, entitlements are what are growing exponentially and threaten the economic future of the nation, not military spending.
|
Can someone explain to me why everyone is talking about "cutting the fat" of "entitlements" like health care and social security, but noone is talking about cutting down the monstrosity that is the "defence" budget?
|
On January 04 2013 12:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 12:00 hypercube wrote:On January 04 2013 11:15 naastyOne wrote:Look at GB, France, Italy, Spain, where public debt, unemployment and taxes are way higher, and their struggle.
UK unemployment is very similar to the US: around 8%. I certainly wouldn't lump them together with Italy or Spain. Furthermore the UK elected a right wing government at the height of the crisis (more due to years of chronic Labour economic mismanagement than due to ideological reasons) who promptly attempted harsh spending cuts in the name of austerity, predicting that they would balance the budget by now and begin to repay the debt. Unfortunately it turned into a triple dip recession as the economy shrank and people lost their jobs and became more reliant on the state than before. Spending has actually increased, borrowing has increased as tax revenues shrink and everyone still has less than before. It's all gone pretty badly, it's not even that we're cutting back and slowly taking on the mountain of debt, spending is growing, revenue is declining, all the targets have been missed, readjusted and missed again and there is no end in sight. This.
Unfortunately, the Chameleon is cursed by the UK's structural problems and his own political instincts. David Cameron believes in a limited government with using paternalistic libertarianism (the theories of Cass Sunstein) to finesse its way through tactical-level difficulties. However, the problems facing the United Kingdom are structural and strategic, and require someone with the will of Palmerston, Thatcher, or Churchill to fix. Cameron is bright but he doesn't have the backbone.
First and foremost, the UK is the world's most heavily 'post-industrialized' large economy, but its human endowment--the average level an distribution of education and human capital among non-immigrant Britons--will not let it translate post-industrial economic gains into widespread prosperity. It needs to pull back from that precipice and re-tool its economy if it wants to fix that.
Second, the UK needs to figure out what role it needs to play in the world. More specifically, is it an European nation, an American outpost in Europe, or a destination for Russian exiles? The Franco-German tag team in the PIGS crisis will only cement those two nations as the center of Europe, so Britain may be unhappy playing second or third fiddle. The Anglo-American alliance is doing great, but the US pivot to Asia plus defense cuts will by default leave gaping vacuums that Britain must fill in the alliance's traditional area of influence (read: no more NATO adventures in places like Libya or Afghanistan). Charting a non-aligned course internationally may marginalize Britain in a world of regional power blocs and the G2.
|
|
this auto sadism thing reminds me a lot of the french utopic government
|
On January 04 2013 12:37 snotboogie wrote: Can someone explain to me why everyone is talking about "cutting the fat" of "entitlements" like health care and social security, but noone is talking about cutting down the monstrosity that is the "defence" budget?
Because they haven't seen a better/different system like on in Canada or Australia. Honestly I think the main problem with the US is the arrogance of the people, and just not caring about what happens around them. I'm generalizing but if you had something like Fox news in Canada or lots of places in Europe, people wont buy that shit. They fight to keep their freedoms that were won just decades ago.
People in US will more than anything be like, "whatever, can't do anything about it, time to go watch my reality TV show and update my facebook status".This self-centered but lazy culture also thinks they are the best, again generally speaking, and seem to act like elitists, yet really not having much to back it up.
I only can speak from experience from living in eastern europe and Canada, but at least now, we are all very happy for where we live, and we work hard to make our communities a better place. There are lots of volunteering opportunities, and organization driven programs to bring people together and appreciate the people around you, and also to be proud of actually being Canadian.
I think for a change the US should look to Canada to learn something, as they are currently very successful, very safe, and very accepting.
|
On January 04 2013 12:57 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 12:37 snotboogie wrote: Can someone explain to me why everyone is talking about "cutting the fat" of "entitlements" like health care and social security, but noone is talking about cutting down the monstrosity that is the "defence" budget? Because they haven't seen a better/different system like on in Canada or Australia. Honestly I think the main problem with the US is the arrogance of the people, and just not caring about what happens around them. I'm generalizing but if you had something like Fox news in Canada or lots of places in Europe, people wont buy that shit. They fight to keep their freedoms that were won just decades ago. People in US will more than anything be like, "whatever, can't do anything about it, time to go watch my reality TV show and update my facebook status".This self-centered but lazy culture also thinks they are the best, again generally speaking, and seem to act like elitists, yet really not having much to back it up. I only can speak from experience from living in eastern europe and Canada, but at least now, we are all very happy for where we live, and we work hard to make our communities a better place. There are lots of volunteering opportunities, and organization driven programs to bring people together and appreciate the people around you, and also to be proud of actually being Canadian. I think for a change the US should look to Canada to learn something, as they are currently very successful, very safe, and very accepting. I promise to try to be more like you Canadians and not be a lazy, arrogant, self-centered person who doesn't care about my community. Unfortunately it is hard, my birth place has completely and permanently shaped my character for the worse. I ask my parents all the time, "why, why, why didn't you birth me in Canada???" Now I need to go update my facebook status.
|
On January 04 2013 12:46 jdseemoreglass wrote:I wanted to know what kind of god forsaken self-contradictory theory "paternalistic libertarianism" was. Turns out your link is empty Shady lol... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_paternalismHere ya go. Thanks! fixed the link.
|
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/01/02/the_nudgy_state?page=0,1
FYI this is what "libertarian paternalism" is like in Britain:
Prime Minister David Cameron frequently expressed his admiration for Nudge, the ideas of which meshed well with the more state-centric brand of conservatism -- known as "big society" -- that the Tory leader championed on the campaign trail. In 2010, Cameron set up the Behavioural Insights Team -- quickly dubbed the "nudge unit" by the press -- a group of behavioral economists, with Thaler acting as a consultant, given a mandate to "find innovative ways of encouraging, enabling and supporting people to make better choices for themselves."
The unit has undertaken a number of trial programs so far. In one, non-payers of car taxes were sent a letter, including a picture of their car, warning in plain English that their vehicle would be lost if they did not pay up. Including the photo tripled payment rates. The unit has also seen enormous success in informing people by text message that they're late on taxes or fines.
In another intervention, insulation firms set up a service to clean out customers' attics while installing insulation. (It was found that people were much more likely to pay for new energy-saving insulation if they didn't have to go through the trouble of sorting through years worth of junk.) The unit has been an occasional target of ridicule on Fleet Street, but its interventions have been successful enough -- about £300 million ($485 million) in savings so far -- that other governments are looking to copy it.
|
On January 04 2013 12:37 snotboogie wrote: Can someone explain to me why everyone is talking about "cutting the fat" of "entitlements" like health care and social security, but noone is talking about cutting down the monstrosity that is the "defence" budget? The defense budget isn't a monstrosity... its been a bit high due to the wars but now that those are over its fine.
Percent of overall budget:
Percent of GDP:
That's not to say you couldn't cut it some more. But it isn't where the money is so it'll only get you so far.
Conversely here's entitlements:
|
the problem is that politicians here come from the dredges of the US higher education system. everyone here knows that some of the biggest morons in college take joke majors like political science or business. and those same people go on to pursue careers in politics, or as lawyers before turning to politics.
they're arguing over how much funding things such as science education get when most of those fuckers haven't even had a basic biology course. it's no surprise they argue like a bunch of opinionated college preppies when that's exactly where they came from.
if each member of congress was required to have even a single semester of math, biology, chemistry, physics, english, communication, US history, and economics, we wouldn't be in the level of shit we're in now.
|
On January 04 2013 12:57 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 12:37 snotboogie wrote: Can someone explain to me why everyone is talking about "cutting the fat" of "entitlements" like health care and social security, but noone is talking about cutting down the monstrosity that is the "defence" budget? Because they haven't seen a better/different system like on in Canada or Australia. Honestly I think the main problem with the US is the arrogance of the people, and just not caring about what happens around them. I'm generalizing but if you had something like Fox news in Canada or lots of places in Europe, people wont buy that shit. They fight to keep their freedoms that were won just decades ago. People in US will more than anything be like, "whatever, can't do anything about it, time to go watch my reality TV show and update my facebook status".This self-centered but lazy culture also thinks they are the best, again generally speaking, and seem to act like elitists, yet really not having much to back it up. I only can speak from experience from living in eastern europe and Canada, but at least now, we are all very happy for where we live, and we work hard to make our communities a better place. There are lots of volunteering opportunities, and organization driven programs to bring people together and appreciate the people around you, and also to be proud of actually being Canadian. I think for a change the US should look to Canada to learn something, as they are currently very successful, very safe, and very accepting.
Apathy is probably the biggest problem in American society. Personally I feel like most of my fellow countrymen don't pay enough attention to contribute in any meaningful fashion to the debate at hand, and am not convinced that participation for the sake of participation is worth much.
I lived in China (one year), as well as the US and from what I can gather as far as social obligations are concerned the Chinese seemed legitimately less concerned with the disadvantaged than Americans. Bias aside, the impoverished relied far more on non-Chinese contributions than those of their countrymen; additionally political apathy was rampant.
Granted this is more a function of an inability to participate in government which produces a lack of interest in the matter but I feel it warrants mentioning.
I promise to try to be more like you Canadians and not be a lazy, arrogant, self-centered person who doesn't care about my community. Unfortunately it is hard, my birth place has completely and permanently shaped my character for the worse. I ask my parents all the time, "why, why, why didn't you birth me in Canada???" Now I need to go update my facebook status.
Don't forget to change your TL country as well.
|
On January 04 2013 13:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:... Conversely here's entitlements: ![[image loading]](https://dl.dropbox.com/u/72070179/Entitlements2.PNG)
this unfortunately won't be solved until the baby boomer generation dies off. now that they're all old they're going to be fighting tooth and nail to keep as many dollars as they can going to their healthcare no matter how badly if fucks over the rest of the budget.
|
On January 04 2013 13:24 TheDraken wrote: the problem is that politicians here come from the dredges of the US higher education system. everyone here knows that some of the biggest morons in college take joke majors like political science or business. and those same people go on to pursue careers in politics, or as lawyers before turning to politics.
they're arguing over how much funding things such as science education get when most of those fuckers haven't even had a basic biology course. it's no surprise they argue like a bunch of opinionated college preppies when that's exactly where they came from.
if each member of congress was required to have even a single semester of math, biology, chemistry, physics, english, communication, US history, and economics, we wouldn't be in the level of shit we're in now. i hope you are trolling. If not, /facepalm.
It might help in the long run if they raised tax, but that is somewhat of a political suicide on the politician's part.
|
On January 04 2013 12:35 Not_Computer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 11:15 naastyOne wrote:If proposed to live in China, India, Japan, Russia, Spain, GB, France, Italy or US, i would pick US any day. If my primary interests was the national economy, personally I would pick Canada over the US any day. The only western whose big 5 banks published profit and growth gains during the recession. On the other hand, our personal and household debt is probably just as bad if not worse than the US and Europe, hehehe... You do realize Canada hasnt had its banking crisis-housing crisis yet but when it does it will be pretty bad as well? We are running: a budget and a trade deficit and the only thing that is keeping things afloat is the Canadian citizens ability to ramp up their borrowing, to the point where our debts/personal income ratio is now higher than the Americans were at in 07?
|
On January 04 2013 12:57 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 12:37 snotboogie wrote: Can someone explain to me why everyone is talking about "cutting the fat" of "entitlements" like health care and social security, but noone is talking about cutting down the monstrosity that is the "defence" budget? Because they haven't seen a better/different system like on in Canada or Australia. Honestly I think the main problem with the US is the arrogance of the people, and just not caring about what happens around them. I'm generalizing but if you had something like Fox news in Canada or lots of places in Europe, people wont buy that shit. They fight to keep their freedoms that were won just decades ago. People in US will more than anything be like, "whatever, can't do anything about it, time to go watch my reality TV show and update my facebook status".This self-centered but lazy culture also thinks they are the best, again generally speaking, and seem to act like elitists, yet really not having much to back it up. I only can speak from experience from living in eastern europe and Canada, but at least now, we are all very happy for where we live, and we work hard to make our communities a better place. There are lots of volunteering opportunities, and organization driven programs to bring people together and appreciate the people around you, and also to be proud of actually being Canadian. I think for a change the US should look to Canada to learn something, as they are currently very successful, very safe, and very accepting.
i think you're a bit off the mark by generalizing that americans are arrogant and lazy. what you see on TV and how the government behaves is not an accurate reflection of US society. as it is the vast majority of americans are pissed to hell with how the government is acting, and to be honest it really comes down to the older generation being wildly out of touch with what they perceive to be the "radical and immoral" younger generations.
sure it's fun to see things like jersey shore and think that all americans are fucked up self-absorbed people, but that's the exact reason we watch it. they're just as strange to us as they are to you.
|
On January 04 2013 12:46 jdseemoreglass wrote:I wanted to know what kind of god forsaken self-contradictory theory "paternalistic libertarianism" was. Turns out your link is empty Shady lol... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_paternalismHere ya go.
"Cab drivers in New York City have seen an increase in tips from 10% to 22% after passengers had the ability to pay using credit cards on a device installed in the cab whose screen presented them with three default tip options, ranging from 15% to 30%"
Lol, just the other day my cab driver was saying how much he loved the new(ish) credit card system. Now I see clearly why...
|
On January 04 2013 13:33 TheDraken wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 13:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:... Conversely here's entitlements: ![[image loading]](https://dl.dropbox.com/u/72070179/Entitlements2.PNG) this unfortunately won't be solved until the baby boomer generation dies off. now that they're all old they're going to be fighting tooth and nail to keep as many dollars as they can going to their healthcare no matter how badly if fucks over the rest of the budget. Or you could adopt a civilized healthcare system, per capita Canadians pay half as much as you do for a healthcare system that generates more or less the same results.
|
Canada6002 Posts
On January 04 2013 13:42 sharky246 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 13:24 TheDraken wrote: the problem is that politicians here come from the dredges of the US higher education system. everyone here knows that some of the biggest morons in college take joke majors like political science or business. and those same people go on to pursue careers in politics, or as lawyers before turning to politics.
they're arguing over how much funding things such as science education get when most of those fuckers haven't even had a basic biology course. it's no surprise they argue like a bunch of opinionated college preppies when that's exactly where they came from.
if each member of congress was required to have even a single semester of math, biology, chemistry, physics, english, communication, US history, and economics, we wouldn't be in the level of shit we're in now. i hope you are trolling. If not, /facepalm. It might help in the long run if they raised tax, but that is somewhat of a political suicide on the politician's part.
You can't honestly say that poli sci or business hold a candle to any science major.
|
On January 04 2013 13:59 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 13:33 TheDraken wrote:On January 04 2013 13:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:... Conversely here's entitlements: ![[image loading]](https://dl.dropbox.com/u/72070179/Entitlements2.PNG) this unfortunately won't be solved until the baby boomer generation dies off. now that they're all old they're going to be fighting tooth and nail to keep as many dollars as they can going to their healthcare no matter how badly if fucks over the rest of the budget. Or you could adopt a civilized healthcare system, per capita Canadians pay half as much as you do for a healthcare system that generates more or less the same results.
I believe obesity may be a contributing factor here.... maybe
Though I'm one to talk; we deep fry our debt and eat it for breakfast
|
Every thread, other than Farva's Megathread, seems to devolve into this. People make arguments in absentia that are made every time, then when disproved, these same people make even more inane statements. To address the OP specifically, China can't afford for us to go under, they need us. We don't really need them at all, a lot of goods are made in other SEA countries and the U.S. could easily, albeit at the cost of some consumerism, switch many goods and services over. China continually undervalues their currency, they have been called out by various international watchdogs and even government run international bodies for their practice of undervaluing labor. They need consumers badly, or else this plan that is working fairly well now will fail miserably; so miserably in fact that China would most likely need many other nations to fill what the U.S. has right now. Of course China doesn't want the U.S. to go under, the world economy would go under too.
|
Is auto-sadism just the same as masochism, or am I missing something here?
|
I'd love to see every country just turn to shit as all economies fail and it just resets from 0. Is a shitty economy better than no economy at all? I think becoming a completely socialist world would solve all these "economic" problems, so long as you don't have too many shitheads in charge ^_~
|
We see few signs that the United States is ready to reinvent its national narrative and mission. But here in Shanghai, we understand basic math pretty well.
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS. I love this quote. America definitely needs a blow to its ego.. What a better way to do it than a direct insult.
I agree with everything China has said here..
Like what the fuck, holy shit, its such a big deal that people who make over $450,000 per year should see a tax increase. No shit man!? I'm sorry for the crude language, but this has got me on the edge of my seat, although I am laying down. We need a real reform in our government and finances.. As the article states, we keep kicking the can down the street and not dealing with the problem head on. We sit back while our government is getting more and more in debt and the general public is fed things like reality TV and (literally) McDonalds. I want for all of us Americans to get better.. at spending less, supporting local businesses, finding ways to make more money, seeing through corporate veils and monopolies.. The future is looking grim if we do not change our ways. We need a genuine revolution. We need GENUINE transparency with our government.
|
On January 04 2013 14:40 LarJarsE wrote:Show nested quote +We see few signs that the United States is ready to reinvent its national narrative and mission. But here in Shanghai, we understand basic math pretty well. YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS. I love this quote. America definitely needs a blow to its ego.. What a better way to do it than a direct insult. I agree with everything China has said here.. Like what the fuck, holy shit, its such a big deal that people who make over $450,000 per year should see a tax increase. No shit man!? I'm sorry for the crude language, but this has got me on the edge of my seat, although I am laying down. We need a real reform in our government and finances.. As the article states, we keep kicking the can down the street and not dealing with the problem head on. We sit back while our government is getting more and more in debt and the general public is fed things like reality TV and (literally) McDonalds. I want for all of us Americans to get better.. at spending less, supporting local businesses, finding ways to make more money, seeing through corporate veils and monopolies.. The future is looking grim if we do not change our ways. We need a genuine revolution. We need GENUINE transparency with our government.
because wealthy people at the top are looking down at the rest of you and asking what the fuck is everyone's obsession with income tax. to be honest, raising the top income tax rate doesn't do shit to bankers or millionaire investors. all it does is hurt people like doctors and lawyers who are just at the very bottom of that bracket and who aren't wealthy like everyone thinks they are.
capital gains tax is still absurdly low. the estate tax is still far too low. even raising something like fucking property taxes would target the wealthy better than any fucking income tax, but the majority of america is still obsessed with income taxes because they haven't even fucking heard of capital gains or estate taxes.
and then there's the issue that there just simply aren't enough wealthy people in america to soak. if you really want to balance the budget, take a look at the behemoth that is entitlements. as long as social security, medicare, and medicaid go unchecked it doesn't matter how much money you take from the wealthy. it ain't gonna do shit.
|
On January 04 2013 15:05 TheDraken wrote: and then there's the issue that there just simply aren't enough wealthy people in america to soak. if you really want to balance the budget, take a look at the behemoth that is entitlements. as long as social security, medicare, and medicaid go unchecked it doesn't matter how much money you take from the wealthy. it ain't gonna do shit.
Pretty much this. The problem is that there is a ton of money being spent on welfare, which is only going to grow in the future, and no-one has the guts to say the truth, that the US can't afford it. Even if you raised tax to balance the budget in the short term, welfare spending, especially medicare & medicaid, is only going to increase unless the government does something about it.
|
On January 04 2013 14:33 Blargh wrote: I'd love to see every country just turn to shit as all economies fail and it just resets from 0. Is a shitty economy better than no economy at all? I think becoming a completely socialist world would solve all these "economic" problems, so long as you don't have too many shitheads in charge ^_~
Do you even know how socialism works. Or economy in general
|
FYI, the biggest issue for entitlements isn't that the income tax is too low or there are too many old people. It's that technology reduces labor's share of the GDP in favor of capital (think installment payments on industrial robots replacing the wages of assembly line workers).
This, more than anything else, reduces the amount of money available for SS/Medicare/Medicaid, since those three programs are funded, mainly, by payroll and income taxes on wages and salaries, not installment payments to the Roomba replacing the janitor or automated production line that replaces 150 GM guys.
|
On January 04 2013 14:33 Blargh wrote: I'd love to see every country just turn to shit as all economies fail and it just resets from 0. Is a shitty economy better than no economy at all? I think becoming a completely socialist world would solve all these "economic" problems, so long as you don't have too many shitheads in charge ^_~ Pure socialism is a pipe dream on a micro or macro scale. As far as political theory goes it is idealistic as they come, an inherently antithetical to human nature.
Unchecked Socialism has proved to be self-damning in almost every instance in the last fifty years. Barring major cultural pillars which support the social element of the theory there is really very little hope for it as a pure political doctrine.
While I am curious as to what would happen in the event of global economic collapse, I don't think that pure Socialism, or democratic Socialism is a solution in and of itself.
|
On January 04 2013 14:40 LarJarsE wrote:Show nested quote +We see few signs that the United States is ready to reinvent its national narrative and mission. But here in Shanghai, we understand basic math pretty well. YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS. I love this quote. America definitely needs a blow to its ego.. What a better way to do it than a direct insult. I agree with everything China has said here.. Like what the fuck, holy shit, its such a big deal that people who make over $450,000 per year should see a tax increase. No shit man!? I'm sorry for the crude language, but this has got me on the edge of my seat, although I am laying down. We need a real reform in our government and finances.. As the article states, we keep kicking the can down the street and not dealing with the problem head on. We sit back while our government is getting more and more in debt and the general public is fed things like reality TV and (literally) McDonalds. I want for all of us Americans to get better.. at spending less, supporting local businesses, finding ways to make more money, seeing through corporate veils and monopolies.. The future is looking grim if we do not change our ways. We need a genuine revolution. We need GENUINE transparency with our government. The opposite side would say that the government does not spend the money more wisely or more efficiently than the rich do. Those earning $450,000 and above don't suddenly drop their Benjamins into the mattress and do nothing with their extra money. They don't play Scrooge McDuck and take dives into a room of money all day long. They invest the money in their own businesses or elsewhere in entrepreneurial activity which generates jobs, in turn providing others with money to spend and taxes on that. The increased taxes on 450k+ are borne disproportionately by those earning far less, in job cuts from rich people buying fewer and less expensive yachts. You better believe if I'm asked to do some productive activity and it puts me one penny above whatever the sin tax level is that year, I'm gonna turn it down to keep my name off the populist's hit list. It would appear a majority of Americans do want to kill the goose that lays the economic golden egg.
The string of platitudes is really sweet. Invest in education (ahem, school administration jobs) and technology. Support local businesses. Transparency. Genuine revolution. I've been hearing this for four years of speeches and seeing just more pork and more class warfare demagoguery. Washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Fixing a revenue problem fixes nothing (except their support for the next spending program. It helps fix that). Fixing a spending problem does.
|
On January 04 2013 15:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 14:40 LarJarsE wrote:We see few signs that the United States is ready to reinvent its national narrative and mission. But here in Shanghai, we understand basic math pretty well. YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS. I love this quote. America definitely needs a blow to its ego.. What a better way to do it than a direct insult. I agree with everything China has said here.. Like what the fuck, holy shit, its such a big deal that people who make over $450,000 per year should see a tax increase. No shit man!? I'm sorry for the crude language, but this has got me on the edge of my seat, although I am laying down. We need a real reform in our government and finances.. As the article states, we keep kicking the can down the street and not dealing with the problem head on. We sit back while our government is getting more and more in debt and the general public is fed things like reality TV and (literally) McDonalds. I want for all of us Americans to get better.. at spending less, supporting local businesses, finding ways to make more money, seeing through corporate veils and monopolies.. The future is looking grim if we do not change our ways. We need a genuine revolution. We need GENUINE transparency with our government. The string of platitudes is really sweet. Invest in education (ahem, school administration jobs) and technology. Support local businesses. Transparency. Genuine revolution. I've been hearing this for four years of speeches and seeing just more pork and more class warfare demagoguery. Washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Fixing a revenue problem fixes nothing (except their support for the next spending program. It helps fix that). Fixing a spending problem does.
It's really unfortunate that they aren't going to fix the spending issues then since all the programs they run are what put them in office
|
On January 04 2013 14:40 LarJarsE wrote:Show nested quote +We see few signs that the United States is ready to reinvent its national narrative and mission. But here in Shanghai, we understand basic math pretty well. YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS. I love this quote. America definitely needs a blow to its ego.. What a better way to do it than a direct insult. I agree with everything China has said here.. Like what the fuck, holy shit, its such a big deal that people who make over $450,000 per year should see a tax increase. No shit man!? I'm sorry for the crude language, but this has got me on the edge of my seat, although I am laying down. We need a real reform in our government and finances.. As the article states, we keep kicking the can down the street and not dealing with the problem head on. We sit back while our government is getting more and more in debt and the general public is fed things like reality TV and (literally) McDonalds. I want for all of us Americans to get better.. at spending less, supporting local businesses, finding ways to make more money, seeing through corporate veils and monopolies.. The future is looking grim if we do not change our ways. We need a genuine revolution. We need GENUINE transparency with our government. Like China.
|
On January 04 2013 15:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 14:40 LarJarsE wrote:We see few signs that the United States is ready to reinvent its national narrative and mission. But here in Shanghai, we understand basic math pretty well. YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS. I love this quote. America definitely needs a blow to its ego.. What a better way to do it than a direct insult. I agree with everything China has said here.. Like what the fuck, holy shit, its such a big deal that people who make over $450,000 per year should see a tax increase. No shit man!? I'm sorry for the crude language, but this has got me on the edge of my seat, although I am laying down. We need a real reform in our government and finances.. As the article states, we keep kicking the can down the street and not dealing with the problem head on. We sit back while our government is getting more and more in debt and the general public is fed things like reality TV and (literally) McDonalds. I want for all of us Americans to get better.. at spending less, supporting local businesses, finding ways to make more money, seeing through corporate veils and monopolies.. The future is looking grim if we do not change our ways. We need a genuine revolution. We need GENUINE transparency with our government. The opposite side would say that the government does not spend the money more wisely or more efficiently than the rich do. Those earning $450,000 and above don't suddenly drop their Benjamins into the mattress and do nothing with their extra money. They don't play Scrooge McDuck and take dives into a room of money all day long. They invest the money in their own businesses or elsewhere in entrepreneurial activity which generates jobs, in turn providing others with money to spend and taxes on that. The increased taxes on 450k+ are borne disproportionately by those earning far less, in job cuts from rich people buying fewer and less expensive yachts. You better believe if I'm asked to do some productive activity and it puts me one penny above whatever the sin tax level is that year, I'm gonna turn it down to keep my name off the populist's hit list. It would appear a majority of Americans do want to kill the goose that lays the economic golden egg. The string of platitudes is really sweet. Invest in education (ahem, school administration jobs) and technology. Support local businesses. Transparency. Genuine revolution. I've been hearing this for four years of speeches and seeing just more pork and more class warfare demagoguery. Washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Fixing a revenue problem fixes nothing (except their support for the next spending program. It helps fix that). Fixing a spending problem does.
Unfortunately, much as bullets win battles, spending wins elections. Short of finding a common enemy (e.g. inciting a cold war), nothing--not fancy speeches, not better rhetoric, neither reason nor logic nor emotion--yields votes more reliably and efficiently than good old pork barrel spending and patronage.
Of course, the best political ideas usually combine a common enemy with promises of unlimited largesse to defeat said enemy. Sometimes to the enemy is found in the mirror--God, Atheism, abortion, gun violence, drugs--while sometimes it comes from nature (global warming). Most often, however, the enemy comes from afar (RUSSIA! CHINA! JIHADISTS IN BUTTFUCKISTAN!).
Normally, when nations engage in that saber-rattling, it catches up to them, because sooner or later they have to put up or shut up, and in every war, there will be at least one winner and one loser, so eventually a nation will lose a war. The US is just lucky that our geographic position made it damn hard for us to *lose* a war (as in, an enemy defeats our army/navy and occupies some US territory), and nuclear weapons now make that impossible.
|
On January 04 2013 15:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 14:40 LarJarsE wrote:We see few signs that the United States is ready to reinvent its national narrative and mission. But here in Shanghai, we understand basic math pretty well. YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS. I love this quote. America definitely needs a blow to its ego.. What a better way to do it than a direct insult. I agree with everything China has said here.. Like what the fuck, holy shit, its such a big deal that people who make over $450,000 per year should see a tax increase. No shit man!? I'm sorry for the crude language, but this has got me on the edge of my seat, although I am laying down. We need a real reform in our government and finances.. As the article states, we keep kicking the can down the street and not dealing with the problem head on. We sit back while our government is getting more and more in debt and the general public is fed things like reality TV and (literally) McDonalds. I want for all of us Americans to get better.. at spending less, supporting local businesses, finding ways to make more money, seeing through corporate veils and monopolies.. The future is looking grim if we do not change our ways. We need a genuine revolution. We need GENUINE transparency with our government. The opposite side would say that the government does not spend the money more wisely or more efficiently than the rich do. Those earning $450,000 and above don't suddenly drop their Benjamins into the mattress and do nothing with their extra money. They don't play Scrooge McDuck and take dives into a room of money all day long. They invest the money in their own businesses or elsewhere in entrepreneurial activity which generates jobs, in turn providing others with money to spend and taxes on that. The increased taxes on 450k+ are borne disproportionately by those earning far less, in job cuts from rich people buying fewer and less expensive yachts. You better believe if I'm asked to do some productive activity and it puts me one penny above whatever the sin tax level is that year, I'm gonna turn it down to keep my name off the populist's hit list. It would appear a majority of Americans do want to kill the goose that lays the economic golden egg. The string of platitudes is really sweet. Invest in education (ahem, school administration jobs) and technology. Support local businesses. Transparency. Genuine revolution. I've been hearing this for four years of speeches and seeing just more pork and more class warfare demagoguery. Washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Fixing a revenue problem fixes nothing (except their support for the next spending program. It helps fix that). Fixing a spending problem does. It's a matter of choice. US currently spends about 15% of it's budget on social and medical security. Germany spends about 30% on these things and also has many other social programs. German economy is doing quite well, unemployment is relatively low and standards of living are arguably higher than in US. Some northern European countries have even higher welfare/medicare spendings, higher standards of living and good economies. I am not saying that US has to adopt these principles, but it's a matter of choice, whether to reduce spending or increase taxes.
|
On January 04 2013 15:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 14:40 LarJarsE wrote:We see few signs that the United States is ready to reinvent its national narrative and mission. But here in Shanghai, we understand basic math pretty well. YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS. I love this quote. America definitely needs a blow to its ego.. What a better way to do it than a direct insult. I agree with everything China has said here.. Like what the fuck, holy shit, its such a big deal that people who make over $450,000 per year should see a tax increase. No shit man!? I'm sorry for the crude language, but this has got me on the edge of my seat, although I am laying down. We need a real reform in our government and finances.. As the article states, we keep kicking the can down the street and not dealing with the problem head on. We sit back while our government is getting more and more in debt and the general public is fed things like reality TV and (literally) McDonalds. I want for all of us Americans to get better.. at spending less, supporting local businesses, finding ways to make more money, seeing through corporate veils and monopolies.. The future is looking grim if we do not change our ways. We need a genuine revolution. We need GENUINE transparency with our government. Like China. Am I the only one that giggles a little when tu quoque is now applied by US commentators on Chinese pundits?
|
On January 04 2013 15:36 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 15:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 04 2013 14:40 LarJarsE wrote:We see few signs that the United States is ready to reinvent its national narrative and mission. But here in Shanghai, we understand basic math pretty well. YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS. I love this quote. America definitely needs a blow to its ego.. What a better way to do it than a direct insult. I agree with everything China has said here.. Like what the fuck, holy shit, its such a big deal that people who make over $450,000 per year should see a tax increase. No shit man!? I'm sorry for the crude language, but this has got me on the edge of my seat, although I am laying down. We need a real reform in our government and finances.. As the article states, we keep kicking the can down the street and not dealing with the problem head on. We sit back while our government is getting more and more in debt and the general public is fed things like reality TV and (literally) McDonalds. I want for all of us Americans to get better.. at spending less, supporting local businesses, finding ways to make more money, seeing through corporate veils and monopolies.. The future is looking grim if we do not change our ways. We need a genuine revolution. We need GENUINE transparency with our government. Like China. Am I the only one that giggles a little when tu quoque is now applied by US commentators on Chinese pundits? Not the only one, but Chinese commentators by virtue of the fact that they are expressing are a political opinion should be taken with a hefty grain of salt. Implications of revolution and even transparency are funny enough, but to imagine that a Chinese national is expressing an opinion of their own volition sans government influence is relatively naive.
|
On January 04 2013 09:01 Aveng3r wrote: i hope we heed the message
The people might know that shit is wrong, but our government will not fix the problem.
President is almost worthless when it comes to getting our finances on track.
Congress is made up of many individuals who ONLY look out for themselves and their voters. Their whole goal is to get what they can for themselves as an individual and for their state(even if what they want isn't necessary), so that when it comes time to get reelected the population of that state remember they get X bullshit because Y is in office looking out for us.
There aren't enough good people in congress to actually get the right things done. It is sad, but we're going to keep floating here, but we wont rise up to what we were before. At least not for a long time.
|
On January 04 2013 15:59 NoobSkills wrote:The people might know that shit is wrong, but our government will not fix the problem.
The people clearly do not. That's why they're getting tax cuts instead of tax raises, and, in fact, why it's nearly impossible for a democratic country in the US's position to right itself. Nobody will vote for a guy who promises to significantly reduce their affluence and quality of life in order to right the ship.
People will keep on voting for tax cuts until there isn't a government left standing to tax them.
|
Can't really win, when everyone in charge fucks their own nation in the arse to take home stupid paychecks people can't seriously expect anything to change.
CEO / directors take home hundreds of millions, people get taxed to bail em out. They retire and take political positions drop/freeze taxes on the plebs to make em feel a bit better, while paving the way for their successor to make equally stupid dollars while they themselves take a nice cut.
Fucks given by anyone in a position to do anything = 0.
|
On January 04 2013 15:18 ThomasjServo wrote: Pure socialism is a pipe dream on a micro or macro scale. As far as political theory goes it is idealistic as they come, an inherently antithetical to human nature.
Unchecked Socialism has proved to be self-damning in almost every instance in the last fifty years. Barring major cultural pillars which support the social element of the theory there is really very little hope for it as a pure political doctrine.
While I am curious as to what would happen in the event of global economic collapse, I don't think that pure Socialism, or democratic Socialism is a solution in and of itself.
Indeed it is. Also, I severely doubt socialism will ever become viable for many reasons. But yes, I almost wouldn't mind an economical shitstorm to occur just for the sake of seeing what would end up happening. At least it'd show karma at work. Douche-baggery and idiocy can only go on so long before karma hits like a speeding train.
On a general note, it truly surprises me so many find taxes to be such a terrible thing. Assuming taxes are used on something other than some political dipshit's personal gain, they seem totally fine and I would never mind paying them. So long as people don't see any instant personal benefit in whatever tax, they will be against taxes
|
On January 04 2013 15:40 ThomasjServo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 15:36 Shady Sands wrote:On January 04 2013 15:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 04 2013 14:40 LarJarsE wrote:We see few signs that the United States is ready to reinvent its national narrative and mission. But here in Shanghai, we understand basic math pretty well. YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS. I love this quote. America definitely needs a blow to its ego.. What a better way to do it than a direct insult. I agree with everything China has said here.. Like what the fuck, holy shit, its such a big deal that people who make over $450,000 per year should see a tax increase. No shit man!? I'm sorry for the crude language, but this has got me on the edge of my seat, although I am laying down. We need a real reform in our government and finances.. As the article states, we keep kicking the can down the street and not dealing with the problem head on. We sit back while our government is getting more and more in debt and the general public is fed things like reality TV and (literally) McDonalds. I want for all of us Americans to get better.. at spending less, supporting local businesses, finding ways to make more money, seeing through corporate veils and monopolies.. The future is looking grim if we do not change our ways. We need a genuine revolution. We need GENUINE transparency with our government. Like China. Am I the only one that giggles a little when tu quoque is now applied by US commentators on Chinese pundits? Not the only one, but Chinese commentators by virtue of the fact that they are expressing are a political opinion should be taken with a hefty grain of salt. Implications of revolution and even transparency are funny enough, but to imagine that a Chinese national is expressing an opinion of their own volition sans government influence is relatively naive.
I wasn't aware that we are still prejudiced enough to think that where an opinion comes from is more legitimate of a concern than the actual opinion's logical consistency and factual correctness. I wouldn't give two fucks who is telling me something as long as he/she/it is right. Is the opinion right, or isn't it.
|
On January 04 2013 15:05 TheDraken wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 14:40 LarJarsE wrote:We see few signs that the United States is ready to reinvent its national narrative and mission. But here in Shanghai, we understand basic math pretty well. YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS. I love this quote. America definitely needs a blow to its ego.. What a better way to do it than a direct insult. I agree with everything China has said here.. Like what the fuck, holy shit, its such a big deal that people who make over $450,000 per year should see a tax increase. No shit man!? I'm sorry for the crude language, but this has got me on the edge of my seat, although I am laying down. We need a real reform in our government and finances.. As the article states, we keep kicking the can down the street and not dealing with the problem head on. We sit back while our government is getting more and more in debt and the general public is fed things like reality TV and (literally) McDonalds. I want for all of us Americans to get better.. at spending less, supporting local businesses, finding ways to make more money, seeing through corporate veils and monopolies.. The future is looking grim if we do not change our ways. We need a genuine revolution. We need GENUINE transparency with our government. because wealthy people at the top are looking down at the rest of you and asking what the fuck is everyone's obsession with income tax. to be honest, raising the top income tax rate doesn't do shit to bankers or millionaire investors. all it does is hurt people like doctors and lawyers who are just at the very bottom of that bracket and who aren't wealthy like everyone thinks they are. capital gains tax is still absurdly low. the estate tax is still far too low. even raising something like fucking property taxes would target the wealthy better than any fucking income tax, but the majority of america is still obsessed with income taxes because they haven't even fucking heard of capital gains or estate taxes. and then there's the issue that there just simply aren't enough wealthy people in america to soak. if you really want to balance the budget, take a look at the behemoth that is entitlements. as long as social security, medicare, and medicaid go unchecked it doesn't matter how much money you take from the wealthy. it ain't gonna do shit.
While there are issues with the future solvency of entitlement programs, there aren't going to be cuts until those programs go severely red.
|
On January 04 2013 16:27 Blargh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 15:18 ThomasjServo wrote: Pure socialism is a pipe dream on a micro or macro scale. As far as political theory goes it is idealistic as they come, an inherently antithetical to human nature.
Unchecked Socialism has proved to be self-damning in almost every instance in the last fifty years. Barring major cultural pillars which support the social element of the theory there is really very little hope for it as a pure political doctrine.
While I am curious as to what would happen in the event of global economic collapse, I don't think that pure Socialism, or democratic Socialism is a solution in and of itself. Indeed it is. Also, I severely doubt socialism will ever become viable for many reasons. But yes, I almost wouldn't mind an economical shitstorm to occur just for the sake of seeing what would end up happening. At least it'd show karma at work. Douche-baggery and idiocy can only go on so long before karma hits like a speeding train. On a general note, it truly surprises me so many find taxes to be such a terrible thing. Assuming taxes are used on something other than some political dipshit's personal gain, they seem totally fine and I would never mind paying them. So long as people don't see any instant personal benefit in whatever tax, they will be against taxes 
That's the problem, they are always used for that...
|
At what amount would the debt be considered too much? Is there anything China can do, why haven't they done anything the past generation?
If all China can do is publish articles to voice their complaints, I think what the politicians are doing is okay. We are in too much debt, taxing an extra couple % on the wealthy is only going to pay back a minute fraction of what we owe. For those posting stuff like hoping the US gets crushed by debt to teach politicians a lesson, it's the general population who will suffer the most.
For numbers and figures, I think I got them from some WSJ articles and www.usdebtclock.org
|
Austria24420 Posts
Don't blame politicians, blame the people who vote them. It's a democracy, if you're complaining about the people you elected yourselves I don't know what to tell you.
|
It's no secret that America is in decline, but it's just sad know that "sadism" is the word used, and it's so very appropriate. Sometimes I wish my ballot let me vote on more than just "representatives"...
...it seems my and a few other generations of Americans are going to have a lot of filth to clean up.
|
On January 04 2013 17:49 W2 wrote:At what amount would the debt be considered too much? Is there anything China can do, why haven't they done anything the past generation? If all China can do is publish articles to voice their complaints, I think what the politicians are doing is okay. We are in too much debt, taxing an extra couple % on the wealthy is only going to pay back a minute fraction of what we owe. For those posting stuff like hoping the US gets crushed by debt to teach politicians a lesson, it's the general population who will suffer the most. For numbers and figures, I think I got them from some WSJ articles and www.usdebtclock.org An economy can hold really insane amounts of debt before any effect on it's economy is felt the key is that the vast majority of the debt is held within said economy. I think US foreign held debt is about 25% of all public securities held not sure what the number is also in relation to gdp? number may be old but anything under 8% of GDP you can pretty much eat forever. So yes the debt is actually high but not in the ways some people think, and yes china is last time I checked largest single holder of foreign debt but doesn't hold the majority of it, I think it's china, japan, uk then everyone else.
|
On January 04 2013 17:59 DarkLordOlli wrote: Don't blame politicians, blame the people who vote them. It's a democracy, if you're complaining about the people you elected yourselves I don't know what to tell you.
As if America is truly a representative democracy where anyone can be voted into any office with out millions of dollars in campaigning fees, legal representation, political backing, and corporate sponsorship. Alot of people don't get to vote for people that they actually want to vote for, they are given a choice between a list of people they hate that were drafted from a pool of extremely wealthy and influential people with no regard for the middle or lower class. If I had the choice to vote for people I think are deserving of representing our country I would be voting for teachers, intellectuals, doctors, and economists, not like there's many decent ones of those around any more either now that it's basically law that if you don't work and speak in perfect congruence with the reigning political dogma in those fields you will get shafted and / or be out of a job.
|
On January 04 2013 17:59 DarkLordOlli wrote: Don't blame politicians, blame the people who vote them. It's a democracy, if you're complaining about the people you elected yourselves I don't know what to tell you. With his multi-million dollar campaign and the massive media exposure, Obama would have been elected in your country if he presented himself, wether you like it or not. This is democracy. You prefere to blame your peers rather than the presidential campaign. I think both have some responsability in that shit.
|
Austria24420 Posts
On January 04 2013 18:48 Diks wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 17:59 DarkLordOlli wrote: Don't blame politicians, blame the people who vote them. It's a democracy, if you're complaining about the people you elected yourselves I don't know what to tell you. With his multi-million dollar campaign and the massive media exposure, Obama would have been elected in your country if he presented himself, wether you like it or not. This is democracy. You prefere to blame your peers rather than the presidential campaign. I think both have some responsability in that shit.
Of course he would've been elected here. I'm not saying things are better here or anywhere else for that matter. People are just too stupid to realize their power in a democracy. Why? Because there's no union between them, everybody's looking for the best for themselves.
|
What MUUUUUUURICA really needs is to change their political system to a system that elects the person the people needs not the person companies wants.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
Oh wow, China is really upset at the way America is being run. Can't blame them (if the facts in that article is true, which im guessing it is 90% accurate) i mean, they hold $1.3 trillion worth of America's debt as they know how big of an impact on the world it would be if America goes tits up finacially.
Lots of trading between America and China too which is understanable as what both countries produce, but to publicly bring this up is quite strange. I know China are trying to twist the American goverments arm here and force change by throwing out a few facts about their policies, but to do this so early on is quite interesting.
I for one do hope everything gets sorted, but it is hard, when the rich rule the country (and other countries don't get me wrong) and the middle class and lower classes have to pay the most, but if you can get the balance and get the right people in the job who actually want to tackle this situation, there is no reason why it cannot be done!!
America has the same problem as the UK, but the problem is America is 100x the size and has more influence than the UK, the reason that we can get away with what we are doing for a bit longer. But i wouldn't be suprised to see something similar come up about the UK in a few years time.
|
Yes democracy is too volatile and I see no other solution than a one party state. To observers of american politics the reoccurring gridlocks, filibustering and other non partisan activities aren't really a new thing.
|
The way I see it is that people in Asia work harder and are smarter at the moment. It is only natural that the system adjusts itself. By that I mean Western people have to start living with less values than before. I mean you cannot expect your own living standards to get better if the Asian people's living standards are getting better. It is a zero sum game.
|
Austria24420 Posts
On January 04 2013 19:26 Rescawen wrote: The way I see it is that people in Asia work harder and are smarter at the moment. It is only natural that the system adjusts itself. By that I mean Western people have to start living with less values than before. I mean you cannot expect your own living standards to get better if the Asian people's living standards are getting better. It is a zero sum game.
A rising economy and living standard does not mean that people are smarter and more hard working there. There's a million factors to it.
|
Ok here's someone that doesn't know anything about economy. So how can the super power USA almost get bankrupt????? Wars cost a shit load of money, is Iraq where all the money of US went?
|
On January 04 2013 19:27 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 19:26 Rescawen wrote: The way I see it is that people in Asia work harder and are smarter at the moment. It is only natural that the system adjusts itself. By that I mean Western people have to start living with less values than before. I mean you cannot expect your own living standards to get better if the Asian people's living standards are getting better. It is a zero sum game. A rising economy and living standard does not mean that people are smarter and more hard working there. There's a million factors to it.
This is exactly what I mean, people do not want face the truth. They have been spoiled for generations. The world is not fair, it used to be for Asia and soon its gonna be for the West. The sooner you accept certain facts the easier.
|
Crazy good read.
A large number of citizens have next to zero tax liability. Meanwhile, those same people are the benefactors of the entitlement policies that are weakening our country as a whole. Everybody needs to chip in, even if its only a little bit.
The other problem with the lack of tax liability and entitlement policies is that a good many of the benefactors of the status quo continue to vote in politicians who vow to raise taxes on the "haves" in order to provide luxuries for the "have nots." People as a whole have a very curious ideas about the differences between wants and needs. Sooner or later, we are all going to have to come to back to reality regarding the difference between the two.
Politicians are shouldered with the responsibility of enacting policies that will benefit our country for the long term. But, to do this, they must first care about the well being of our nation more than they care about their political status. Much like a mother or father has to limit their child's candy consumption, our political leaders need to limit the entitlements so many american's have come to know and love.
There are a lot of "programs" out there that have good intentions, but the reality is that those programs are stifling growth. One example is the recent denial of the oil pipeline from Canada. Article found here. Meanwhile, back in Washington, politicians are spending fast and furious to pay people back for their campaign support. Here is just one of many articles about the irresponsible and wasteful spending in Washington.
I was glad to see the Chinese article pointed out the disparity between America's imports and exports, specifically with China. In our pursuit to buy as much as we can for as little as possible, we have decimated our economy. There are very few people who value the benefits of buying groceries from their local grocery store. Instead, they spend their paychecks at Wal-Mart. There's a reason why their prices are so much cheaper. A large part of the goods sold there are the fruits of underpaid and overworked foreigners. We support the very things that we fight against here at home. Poor working conditions for a disgustingly little pay. An interesting article about WalMart's relationship with China can be found here. The hypocrisy evidenced by our spending habits is appalling.
Every American wants to be paid more and more money, receive better health care, and better pension plans. What they don't understand is that they are cutting their own throats. In order to support their employment desires, people must first be willing to buy the end product that is being sold at a price high enough to provide the salaries they want. Refer back to the Wal-Mart syndrome to understand why this isn't logical.
The Unions are partly responsible for this. Even though a company is going bankrupt, they still hold firmly on to the teat emphatically trying to get milk from a dry udder. Like so many things, the Union started out with a noble and just mission. However, I strongly feel that their original intent has been perverted to the point of doing more harm that good. In their effort to secure more and more money for less and less work, they are killing any chance for a business to remain profitable. Here is an interesting article about how the relationship the Unions share with American Airlines has affected their business.
America needs a reality check. Sooner or later we're going to have to make some hard choices. I just pray that we make the right decision before the consequences are out of our hands completely.
|
Austria24420 Posts
On January 04 2013 19:31 superjoppe wrote: Ok here's someone that doesn't know anything about economy. So how can the super power USA almost get bankrupt????? Wars cost a shit load of money, is Iraq where all the money of US went?
You have to look at "money" from a broader perspective. Most of the money the USA have (or don't have) is not actual physical money. It's in loans, debts, investments, ETCETCETC Of course there's physical money as well (mainly in gold).
So they can lose a shitton of money through failed investments, speculations, mishandling of taxes, etcetcetc. And yes, of course wars cost money as well.
|
On January 04 2013 19:38 Joedaddy wrote:Crazy good read. A large number of citizens have next to zero tax liability. Meanwhile, those same people are the benefactors of the entitlement policies that are weakening our country as a whole. Everybody needs to chip in, even if its only a little bit. The other problem with the lack of tax liability and entitlement policies is that a good many of the benefactors of the status quo continue to vote in politicians who vow to raise taxes on the "haves" in order to provide luxuries for the "have nots." People as a whole have a very curious ideas about the differences between wants and needs. Sooner or later, we are all going to have to come to back to reality regarding the difference between the two. Politicians are shouldered with the responsibility of enacting policies that will benefit our country for the long term. But, to do this, they must first care about the well being of our nation more than they care about their political status. Much like a mother or father has to limit their child's candy consumption, our political leaders need to limit the entitlements so many american's have come to know and love. There are a lot of "programs" out there that have good intentions, but the reality is that those programs are stifling growth. One example is the recent denial of the oil pipeline from Canada. Article found here. Meanwhile, back in Washington, politicians are spending fast and furious to pay people back for their campaign support. Here is just one of many articles about the irresponsible and wasteful spending in Washington. I was glad to see the Chinese article pointed out the disparity between America's imports and exports, specifically with China. In our pursuit to buy as much as we can for as little as possible, we have decimated our economy. There are very few people who value the benefits of buying groceries from their local grocery store. Instead, they spend their paychecks at Wal-Mart. There's a reason why their prices are so much cheaper. A large part of the goods sold there are the fruits of underpaid and overworked foreigners. We support the very things that we fight against here at home. Poor working conditions for a disgustingly little pay. An interesting article about WalMart's relationship with China can be found here. The hypocrisy evidenced by our spending habits is appalling. Every American wants to be paid more and more money, receive better health care, and better pension plans. What they don't understand is that they are cutting their own throats. In order to support their employment desires, people must first be willing to buy the end product that is being sold at a price high enough to provide the salaries they want. Refer back to the Wal-Mart syndrome to understand why this isn't logical. The Unions are partly responsible for this. Even though a company is going bankrupt, they still hold firmly on to the teat emphatically trying to get milk from a dry udder. Like so many things, the Union started out with a noble and just mission. However, I strongly feel that their original intent has been perverted to the point of doing more harm that good. In their effort to secure more and more money for less and less work, they are killing any chance for a business to remain profitable. Here is an interesting article about how the relationship the Unions share with American Airlines has affected their business. America needs a reality check. Sooner or later we're going to have to make some hard choices. I just pray that we make the right decision before the consequences are out of our hands completely.
great read from you. I agree with you. I just hope more people are like you, so there can actually be transition instead of coup of any kind.
|
Austria24420 Posts
On January 04 2013 19:38 Rescawen wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 19:27 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 19:26 Rescawen wrote: The way I see it is that people in Asia work harder and are smarter at the moment. It is only natural that the system adjusts itself. By that I mean Western people have to start living with less values than before. I mean you cannot expect your own living standards to get better if the Asian people's living standards are getting better. It is a zero sum game. A rising economy and living standard does not mean that people are smarter and more hard working there. There's a million factors to it. This is exactly what I mean, people do not want face the truth. They have been spoiled for generations. The world is not fair, it used to be for Asia and soon its gonna be for the West. The sooner you accept certain facts the easier.
Thank you Jesus for pointing out my wrongness. What if their economical and political systems are just working out better for them, thus elevating their financial state? Which is what's happening yo. What I'm saying is that there's a million more factors to this than "they work harder and are smarter". There's tons of aspects in their cultures that are in fact NOT smarter, from women's treatment to child labor and sweatshops. That may seem "smart" right now but once they have the living standards we're used to, they'll be facing the same problems pretty soon.
A reality check is in store, yes. But there's more to it than your black and white arguments.
|
China critisising usa economic politics, Like china got everything right, they are still a one party communist dictatorship with poor respect for civil rights. China does not work harder and smarter then the usa, infact not a single country works harder then the people in the usa. They dont work smarter either, as their labour productivity is way lower then the productivity of the usa,its just that there are realy a lot of workers in china. 60-80 hour a week with 2-3 weeks holiday a year is normal in the usa, you should hear us cry in europe when we would have to do that. All that china does is work cheaper, because there are less regulations for polution and toxic waste,and because wages and living standards are considerably lower (on average, we here only see the 10% of china that takes part in the economic suces). Despite chinas economic succes, i dont think there are manny americans who would want to trade their american citizen ship for chinas one, america is still way and way better of then china and will be for at least 50 more years.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
On January 04 2013 19:38 Joedaddy wrote:Crazy good read. A large number of citizens have next to zero tax liability. Meanwhile, those same people are the benefactors of the entitlement policies that are weakening our country as a whole. Everybody needs to chip in, even if its only a little bit. The other problem with the lack of tax liability and entitlement policies is that a good many of the benefactors of the status quo continue to vote in politicians who vow to raise taxes on the "haves" in order to provide luxuries for the "have nots." People as a whole have a very curious ideas about the differences between wants and needs. Sooner or later, we are all going to have to come to back to reality regarding the difference between the two. Politicians are shouldered with the responsibility of enacting policies that will benefit our country for the long term. But, to do this, they must first care about the well being of our nation more than they care about their political status. Much like a mother or father has to limit their child's candy consumption, our political leaders need to limit the entitlements so many american's have come to know and love. There are a lot of "programs" out there that have good intentions, but the reality is that those programs are stifling growth. One example is the recent denial of the oil pipeline from Canada. Article found here. Meanwhile, back in Washington, politicians are spending fast and furious to pay people back for their campaign support. Here is just one of many articles about the irresponsible and wasteful spending in Washington. I was glad to see the Chinese article pointed out the disparity between America's imports and exports, specifically with China. In our pursuit to buy as much as we can for as little as possible, we have decimated our economy. There are very few people who value the benefits of buying groceries from their local grocery store. Instead, they spend their paychecks at Wal-Mart. There's a reason why their prices are so much cheaper. A large part of the goods sold there are the fruits of underpaid and overworked foreigners. We support the very things that we fight against here at home. Poor working conditions for a disgustingly little pay. An interesting article about WalMart's relationship with China can be found here. The hypocrisy evidenced by our spending habits is appalling. Every American wants to be paid more and more money, receive better health care, and better pension plans. What they don't understand is that they are cutting their own throats. In order to support their employment desires, people must first be willing to buy the end product that is being sold at a price high enough to provide the salaries they want. Refer back to the Wal-Mart syndrome to understand why this isn't logical. The Unions are partly responsible for this. Even though a company is going bankrupt, they still hold firmly on to the teat emphatically trying to get milk from a dry udder. Like so many things, the Union started out with a noble and just mission. However, I strongly feel that their original intent has been perverted to the point of doing more harm that good. In their effort to secure more and more money for less and less work, they are killing any chance for a business to remain profitable. Here is an interesting article about how the relationship the Unions share with American Airlines has affected their business. America needs a reality check. Sooner or later we're going to have to make some hard choices. I just pray that we make the right decision before the consequences are out of our hands completely.
Here here! Without bigger taxes the goverment has no way of getting its money back to help support it's country properly. Rich people need to be taken down a peg and stop being able to throw money out left right and centre around the world to evade taxes, if you earn the money from the country, you pay taxes in that country. Lets just hope Obama, grows some balls and tells his goverment that they have no choice but to impliment these changes, and fast.
Does US have the similar sort of problem with Sports Starts avoiding high tax brackets like we have with footballers? For example, Wayne Rooney is reportedly on £220,000 ($350,000 i guess) a week, yet his tax is so small it's a joke. They should get taxed at 50% when you earn over 150,000 a year (these footballers get that weekly!) and yet they pay 22% tax...due to stupid loopholes the rich have found to save themselve 1000s.
The Sunday Times has uncovered 55 players who are taxed at just 22 per cent because they get a large proportion of their total earnings from their image rights companies.
Is the loop hole, that meant, Wayne Rooney gets paid £171,600 a week. A measly £48,400 going to the goverment (every week) due to outstanding loopholes. He should be paying £110,000 a week to the goverment!!! It's outrageous how they get away with this just because they have obsurd amount of money to throw at people who know the loopholes, it should be stopped, and stopped FAST!
So if America has the same issue, surely thats where the goverment should start? I know the UK goverment would love an extra £5.7million a year in taxes from just Wayne Rooney alone....
|
On January 04 2013 19:57 Rassy wrote: China critisising usa economic politics, Like china got everything right, they are still a one party communist dictatorship with poor respect for civil rights. China does not work harder and smarter then the usa, infact not a single country works harder then the people in the usa. They dont work smarter either, as their labour productivity is way lower then the productivity of the usa,its just that there are realy a lot of workers in china. 60-80 hour a week with 2-3 weeks holiday a year is normal in the usa, you should hear us cry in europe when we would have to do that. All that china does is work cheaper, because there are less regulations for polution and toxic waste,and because wages are cheaper. Despite chinas economic succes, i dont think there are manny americans who would want to trade their american citizen ship for chinas one, america is still way and way better of then china and will be for at least 50 more years.
I agree that in a lot of ways America remains far superior to China. The point to take away from all this though is that in order to continue enjoying our enlightened statehood, we must first have our house in order.
@Pandemona I think you misunderstood what I was saying. More so than taxing the "rich," its the rest of the people that need to be contributing. Its those who have little to no tax liability that are the recipients of the majority of the entitlement policies that weaken our country as a whole. History is showing us that they will continue to vote in politicians who will give them more, not less. This cycle only benefits the politicians they elect.
Sooner or later, there won't be enough rich people left to supply America's less fortunate with what they interpret as necessities. Then America will be so destitute that we won't be able to afford the enlightened, "feel good" policies we use as evidence of our social superiority.
|
On January 04 2013 17:59 DarkLordOlli wrote: Don't blame politicians, blame the people who vote them. It's a democracy, if you're complaining about the people you elected yourselves I don't know what to tell you. Or form of government when you deduce that you can't choose a winnable good candidate, because statistical mass is made of idiots, and the form of government supports them. Its the same story in Poland as well. The reasons maybe slightly different, but the effect is the same.
|
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
@Pandemona I think you misunderstood what I was saying. More so than taxing the "rich," its the rest of the people that need to be contributing. Its those who have little to no tax liability that are the recipients of the majority of the entitlement policies that weaken our country as a whole. History is showing us that they will continue to vote in politicians who will give them more, not less. This cycle only benefits the politicians they elect.
Sooner or later, there won't be enough rich people left to supply America's less fortunate with what they interpret as necessities. Then America will be so destitute that we won't be able to afford the enlightened, "feel good" policies we use as evidence of our social superiority.
Yeah i get your point, but i wanted to add that perspective to it too. The rich do get so little tax for what they should get, and yes i agree, there is so much benefits and little tax to the average wage. But you will get a better stability taxing the rich quicker and harder than the poor.
|
On January 04 2013 20:26 Pandemona wrote:Show nested quote +@Pandemona I think you misunderstood what I was saying. More so than taxing the "rich," its the rest of the people that need to be contributing. Its those who have little to no tax liability that are the recipients of the majority of the entitlement policies that weaken our country as a whole. History is showing us that they will continue to vote in politicians who will give them more, not less. This cycle only benefits the politicians they elect.
Sooner or later, there won't be enough rich people left to supply America's less fortunate with what they interpret as necessities. Then America will be so destitute that we won't be able to afford the enlightened, "feel good" policies we use as evidence of our social superiority. Yeah i get your point, but i wanted to add that perspective to it too. The rich do get so little tax for what they should get, and yes i agree, there is so much benefits and little tax to the average wage. But you will get a better stability taxing the rich quicker and harder than the poor.
Wealth is a measure of how much money flow. If the rich get lower taxes than the lower classes, there's no reason for money to flow, it will only accumulate upward. And then we get to the feudal age again. Not that we're far from it right now.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
On January 04 2013 20:56 Gheizen64 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 20:26 Pandemona wrote:@Pandemona I think you misunderstood what I was saying. More so than taxing the "rich," its the rest of the people that need to be contributing. Its those who have little to no tax liability that are the recipients of the majority of the entitlement policies that weaken our country as a whole. History is showing us that they will continue to vote in politicians who will give them more, not less. This cycle only benefits the politicians they elect.
Sooner or later, there won't be enough rich people left to supply America's less fortunate with what they interpret as necessities. Then America will be so destitute that we won't be able to afford the enlightened, "feel good" policies we use as evidence of our social superiority. Yeah i get your point, but i wanted to add that perspective to it too. The rich do get so little tax for what they should get, and yes i agree, there is so much benefits and little tax to the average wage. But you will get a better stability taxing the rich quicker and harder than the poor. Wealth is a measure of how much money flow. If the rich get lower taxes than the lower classes, there's no reason for money to flow, it will only accumulate upward. And then we get to the feudal age again. Not that we're far from it right now.
Yeah but the Goverment needs the money faster, the economys are not providing enough to eat at the debts that are their for goverments around the world, not just in America. Taxing people harder and quicker (ala not taking 2 years to bring in a new tax band, try 3months) will help burden the financial strain on the goverments.
|
I lot of this falls on the American people. They've been so ingrained in the idea of having lower taxes, that of course there's money shortfalls everywhere, and the country is facing massive debts. Lower taxes, in incredibly general terms, puts more money into the private businesses and executives through disposable income and consumer spending, instead of towards income tax where the money can be used in other programs to aide the country.
|
On January 04 2013 19:50 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 19:38 Rescawen wrote:On January 04 2013 19:27 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 19:26 Rescawen wrote: The way I see it is that people in Asia work harder and are smarter at the moment. It is only natural that the system adjusts itself. By that I mean Western people have to start living with less values than before. I mean you cannot expect your own living standards to get better if the Asian people's living standards are getting better. It is a zero sum game. A rising economy and living standard does not mean that people are smarter and more hard working there. There's a million factors to it. This is exactly what I mean, people do not want face the truth. They have been spoiled for generations. The world is not fair, it used to be for Asia and soon its gonna be for the West. The sooner you accept certain facts the easier. Thank you Jesus for pointing out my wrongness. What if their economical and political systems are just working out better for them, thus elevating their financial state? Which is what's happening yo. What I'm saying is that there's a million more factors to this than "they work harder and are smarter". There's tons of aspects in their cultures that are in fact NOT smarter, from women's treatment to child labor and sweatshops. That may seem "smart" right now but once they have the living standards we're used to, they'll be facing the same problems pretty soon. A reality check is in store, yes. But there's more to it than your black and white arguments.
Why is child labor not smart? Sweating is good for you so why are sweatshops bad?
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Austria24420 Posts
On January 04 2013 21:22 ElizarTringov wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 19:50 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 19:38 Rescawen wrote:On January 04 2013 19:27 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 19:26 Rescawen wrote: The way I see it is that people in Asia work harder and are smarter at the moment. It is only natural that the system adjusts itself. By that I mean Western people have to start living with less values than before. I mean you cannot expect your own living standards to get better if the Asian people's living standards are getting better. It is a zero sum game. A rising economy and living standard does not mean that people are smarter and more hard working there. There's a million factors to it. This is exactly what I mean, people do not want face the truth. They have been spoiled for generations. The world is not fair, it used to be for Asia and soon its gonna be for the West. The sooner you accept certain facts the easier. Thank you Jesus for pointing out my wrongness. What if their economical and political systems are just working out better for them, thus elevating their financial state? Which is what's happening yo. What I'm saying is that there's a million more factors to this than "they work harder and are smarter". There's tons of aspects in their cultures that are in fact NOT smarter, from women's treatment to child labor and sweatshops. That may seem "smart" right now but once they have the living standards we're used to, they'll be facing the same problems pretty soon. A reality check is in store, yes. But there's more to it than your black and white arguments. Why is child labor not smart? Sweating is good for you so why are sweatshops bad?
I can only assume that this is sarcasm
|
On January 04 2013 21:25 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 21:22 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 19:50 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 19:38 Rescawen wrote:On January 04 2013 19:27 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 19:26 Rescawen wrote: The way I see it is that people in Asia work harder and are smarter at the moment. It is only natural that the system adjusts itself. By that I mean Western people have to start living with less values than before. I mean you cannot expect your own living standards to get better if the Asian people's living standards are getting better. It is a zero sum game. A rising economy and living standard does not mean that people are smarter and more hard working there. There's a million factors to it. This is exactly what I mean, people do not want face the truth. They have been spoiled for generations. The world is not fair, it used to be for Asia and soon its gonna be for the West. The sooner you accept certain facts the easier. Thank you Jesus for pointing out my wrongness. What if their economical and political systems are just working out better for them, thus elevating their financial state? Which is what's happening yo. What I'm saying is that there's a million more factors to this than "they work harder and are smarter". There's tons of aspects in their cultures that are in fact NOT smarter, from women's treatment to child labor and sweatshops. That may seem "smart" right now but once they have the living standards we're used to, they'll be facing the same problems pretty soon. A reality check is in store, yes. But there's more to it than your black and white arguments. Why is child labor not smart? Sweating is good for you so why are sweatshops bad? I can only assume that this is sarcasm
No, Andrew Carnegie started working at the age of 13, was he not a child at that age? He became a millionare later in life. Here is one you might be more familiar with, Flash, he was a progamer at the age of 14, was he not young enough to be considered a child? I can only wish I had started working as a child with my dad and learned carpentry but instead I stayed in school and have walked away with no real skills from it.
|
On January 04 2013 21:07 divito wrote: I lot of this falls on the American people. They've been so ingrained in the idea of having lower taxes, that of course there's money shortfalls everywhere, and the country is facing massive debts. Lower taxes, in incredibly general terms, puts more money into the private businesses and executives through disposable income and consumer spending, instead of towards income tax where the money can be used in other programs to aide the country.
China's taxation as a percentage of gdp is around 15%, drastically lower than in the US. Where are their problems concerning this? Same with Hong Kong and Singapore. These countries have strong growth in their economies, and budget surpluses. So how does it follow that low taxes automatically leads to budget shortfalls? Maybe the problem is that a lot of western nations aren't prudent and frugal in their spending and taxation.
|
Absolutely terrifying.
This is why I havn't affiliated myself with my countries government in years. I pay taxes for the privlege of living here but that's as far as my loyalties go.
This isn't the nation Washington fought for. This is a nation ran by greed where the rich get richer and the poor are irrelevant.
Will have my bachelor's of science in nursing come December 2013. I wonder how far that would get me in Europe i.e. Germany. Always wanted to live there.
|
Austria24420 Posts
On January 04 2013 21:32 ElizarTringov wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 21:25 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:22 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 19:50 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 19:38 Rescawen wrote:On January 04 2013 19:27 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 19:26 Rescawen wrote: The way I see it is that people in Asia work harder and are smarter at the moment. It is only natural that the system adjusts itself. By that I mean Western people have to start living with less values than before. I mean you cannot expect your own living standards to get better if the Asian people's living standards are getting better. It is a zero sum game. A rising economy and living standard does not mean that people are smarter and more hard working there. There's a million factors to it. This is exactly what I mean, people do not want face the truth. They have been spoiled for generations. The world is not fair, it used to be for Asia and soon its gonna be for the West. The sooner you accept certain facts the easier. Thank you Jesus for pointing out my wrongness. What if their economical and political systems are just working out better for them, thus elevating their financial state? Which is what's happening yo. What I'm saying is that there's a million more factors to this than "they work harder and are smarter". There's tons of aspects in their cultures that are in fact NOT smarter, from women's treatment to child labor and sweatshops. That may seem "smart" right now but once they have the living standards we're used to, they'll be facing the same problems pretty soon. A reality check is in store, yes. But there's more to it than your black and white arguments. Why is child labor not smart? Sweating is good for you so why are sweatshops bad? I can only assume that this is sarcasm No, Andrew Carnegie started working at the age of 13, was he not a child at that age? He became a millionare later in life. I can only wish I had started working as a child with my dad and learned carpentry but instead I stayed in school and have walked away with no real skills from it.
Your view of the world is ridiculously absurd then and I suggest you actually go see the conditions these children are forced to work under. They don't choose to work there, they're forced to. They have no past, no present and no future. All they do is sweat and die for people like you. You're naming one person who made it, completely ignoring the circumstances. I could name you a million children who died in the meantime except nobody will ever know their names. Now, tell me again why child labor is smart.
If you think you have achieved no skills through your education, blame your education. Or yourself for not quitting school and learning a craft which you can do. Child labor is something completely different.
|
On January 04 2013 21:36 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 21:32 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:25 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:22 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 19:50 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 19:38 Rescawen wrote:On January 04 2013 19:27 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 19:26 Rescawen wrote: The way I see it is that people in Asia work harder and are smarter at the moment. It is only natural that the system adjusts itself. By that I mean Western people have to start living with less values than before. I mean you cannot expect your own living standards to get better if the Asian people's living standards are getting better. It is a zero sum game. A rising economy and living standard does not mean that people are smarter and more hard working there. There's a million factors to it. This is exactly what I mean, people do not want face the truth. They have been spoiled for generations. The world is not fair, it used to be for Asia and soon its gonna be for the West. The sooner you accept certain facts the easier. Thank you Jesus for pointing out my wrongness. What if their economical and political systems are just working out better for them, thus elevating their financial state? Which is what's happening yo. What I'm saying is that there's a million more factors to this than "they work harder and are smarter". There's tons of aspects in their cultures that are in fact NOT smarter, from women's treatment to child labor and sweatshops. That may seem "smart" right now but once they have the living standards we're used to, they'll be facing the same problems pretty soon. A reality check is in store, yes. But there's more to it than your black and white arguments. Why is child labor not smart? Sweating is good for you so why are sweatshops bad? I can only assume that this is sarcasm No, Andrew Carnegie started working at the age of 13, was he not a child at that age? He became a millionare later in life. I can only wish I had started working as a child with my dad and learned carpentry but instead I stayed in school and have walked away with no real skills from it. Your view of the world is ridiculously absurd then and I suggest you actually go see the conditions these children are forced to work under. They don't choose to work there, they're forced to. They have no past, no present and no future. All they do is sweat and die for people like you. You're naming one person who made it, completely ignoring the circumstances. I could name you a million children who died in the meantime except nobody will ever know their names. Now, tell me again why child labor is smart.
I never said the conditions were good, nor did I say I am a fan of forced labor. But the human body was made for work, children can obviously take less loads of work than adults, but other than that I see nothing wrong with it.
|
The economic criticisms of the us in this article are valid and are key concerns about the us economy.
However I would still rather invest in the usa than china. At least the usa has a relatively transparent system, especially compared to china, that's how we know these problems exist. Who knows the extent of the shadow banking system in china, and how leveraged the real estate sector is there? What about the breaches of human rights that raise the question, is there any effective rule of law in china?
At least the chinese have expended some effort to understand free market economics. I hope this means an unexpected collapse of the export driven chinese economy doesn't occur due to lack of demand by europe and america, this is something I worry about.
|
Austria24420 Posts
On January 04 2013 21:40 ElizarTringov wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 21:36 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:32 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:25 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:22 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 19:50 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 19:38 Rescawen wrote:On January 04 2013 19:27 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 19:26 Rescawen wrote: The way I see it is that people in Asia work harder and are smarter at the moment. It is only natural that the system adjusts itself. By that I mean Western people have to start living with less values than before. I mean you cannot expect your own living standards to get better if the Asian people's living standards are getting better. It is a zero sum game. A rising economy and living standard does not mean that people are smarter and more hard working there. There's a million factors to it. This is exactly what I mean, people do not want face the truth. They have been spoiled for generations. The world is not fair, it used to be for Asia and soon its gonna be for the West. The sooner you accept certain facts the easier. Thank you Jesus for pointing out my wrongness. What if their economical and political systems are just working out better for them, thus elevating their financial state? Which is what's happening yo. What I'm saying is that there's a million more factors to this than "they work harder and are smarter". There's tons of aspects in their cultures that are in fact NOT smarter, from women's treatment to child labor and sweatshops. That may seem "smart" right now but once they have the living standards we're used to, they'll be facing the same problems pretty soon. A reality check is in store, yes. But there's more to it than your black and white arguments. Why is child labor not smart? Sweating is good for you so why are sweatshops bad? I can only assume that this is sarcasm No, Andrew Carnegie started working at the age of 13, was he not a child at that age? He became a millionare later in life. I can only wish I had started working as a child with my dad and learned carpentry but instead I stayed in school and have walked away with no real skills from it. Your view of the world is ridiculously absurd then and I suggest you actually go see the conditions these children are forced to work under. They don't choose to work there, they're forced to. They have no past, no present and no future. All they do is sweat and die for people like you. You're naming one person who made it, completely ignoring the circumstances. I could name you a million children who died in the meantime except nobody will ever know their names. Now, tell me again why child labor is smart. I never said the conditions were good, nor did I say I am a fan of forced labor. But the human body was made for work, children can obviously take less loads of work than adults, but other than that I see nothing wrong with it.
What a completely pointless thing to say. This is your opinion and nothing else. Children should not be put to work because they cannot make responsible decision for themselves at a young age. That's why (at least here) you can quit school with 15 years and learn a craft, not before that. If an 8 year old boy comes up to you and says "Hey, I want to work at your company!" is he making a responsible decision? No, he's not. Because his brain is not developed enough, he's not educated enough and he doesn't have enough experience to be responsible.
No decisions should be make by someone who cannot make responsible decisions. That's why there's education.
|
On January 04 2013 21:45 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 21:40 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:36 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:32 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:25 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:22 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 19:50 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 19:38 Rescawen wrote:On January 04 2013 19:27 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 19:26 Rescawen wrote: The way I see it is that people in Asia work harder and are smarter at the moment. It is only natural that the system adjusts itself. By that I mean Western people have to start living with less values than before. I mean you cannot expect your own living standards to get better if the Asian people's living standards are getting better. It is a zero sum game. A rising economy and living standard does not mean that people are smarter and more hard working there. There's a million factors to it. This is exactly what I mean, people do not want face the truth. They have been spoiled for generations. The world is not fair, it used to be for Asia and soon its gonna be for the West. The sooner you accept certain facts the easier. Thank you Jesus for pointing out my wrongness. What if their economical and political systems are just working out better for them, thus elevating their financial state? Which is what's happening yo. What I'm saying is that there's a million more factors to this than "they work harder and are smarter". There's tons of aspects in their cultures that are in fact NOT smarter, from women's treatment to child labor and sweatshops. That may seem "smart" right now but once they have the living standards we're used to, they'll be facing the same problems pretty soon. A reality check is in store, yes. But there's more to it than your black and white arguments. Why is child labor not smart? Sweating is good for you so why are sweatshops bad? I can only assume that this is sarcasm No, Andrew Carnegie started working at the age of 13, was he not a child at that age? He became a millionare later in life. I can only wish I had started working as a child with my dad and learned carpentry but instead I stayed in school and have walked away with no real skills from it. Your view of the world is ridiculously absurd then and I suggest you actually go see the conditions these children are forced to work under. They don't choose to work there, they're forced to. They have no past, no present and no future. All they do is sweat and die for people like you. You're naming one person who made it, completely ignoring the circumstances. I could name you a million children who died in the meantime except nobody will ever know their names. Now, tell me again why child labor is smart. I never said the conditions were good, nor did I say I am a fan of forced labor. But the human body was made for work, children can obviously take less loads of work than adults, but other than that I see nothing wrong with it. What a completely pointless thing to say. This is your opinion and nothing else. Children should not be put to work because they cannot make responsible decision for themselves at a young age. That's why (at least here) you can quit school with 15 years and learn a craft, not before that. If an 8 year old boy comes up to you and says "Hey, I want to work at your company!" is he making a responsible decision? No, he's not. Because his brain is not developed enough, he's not educated enough and he doesn't have enough experience to be responsible. No decisions should be make by or for someone who cannot make responsible decisions. That's why there's education.
While I agree child labour isn't something we should want we also have to realise those children don't really have an alternative. What's going to happen to them when they stop working? You think they'll get a better future? Getting an education doesn't help you when you're starving.
On topic: China's seriously a joke in these kind of things, let them look at their own problems first regarding things like the banking sector first which is a way bigger problem than the US national debt.
|
On January 04 2013 21:45 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 21:40 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:36 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:32 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:25 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:22 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 19:50 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 19:38 Rescawen wrote:On January 04 2013 19:27 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 19:26 Rescawen wrote: The way I see it is that people in Asia work harder and are smarter at the moment. It is only natural that the system adjusts itself. By that I mean Western people have to start living with less values than before. I mean you cannot expect your own living standards to get better if the Asian people's living standards are getting better. It is a zero sum game. A rising economy and living standard does not mean that people are smarter and more hard working there. There's a million factors to it. This is exactly what I mean, people do not want face the truth. They have been spoiled for generations. The world is not fair, it used to be for Asia and soon its gonna be for the West. The sooner you accept certain facts the easier. Thank you Jesus for pointing out my wrongness. What if their economical and political systems are just working out better for them, thus elevating their financial state? Which is what's happening yo. What I'm saying is that there's a million more factors to this than "they work harder and are smarter". There's tons of aspects in their cultures that are in fact NOT smarter, from women's treatment to child labor and sweatshops. That may seem "smart" right now but once they have the living standards we're used to, they'll be facing the same problems pretty soon. A reality check is in store, yes. But there's more to it than your black and white arguments. Why is child labor not smart? Sweating is good for you so why are sweatshops bad? I can only assume that this is sarcasm No, Andrew Carnegie started working at the age of 13, was he not a child at that age? He became a millionare later in life. I can only wish I had started working as a child with my dad and learned carpentry but instead I stayed in school and have walked away with no real skills from it. Your view of the world is ridiculously absurd then and I suggest you actually go see the conditions these children are forced to work under. They don't choose to work there, they're forced to. They have no past, no present and no future. All they do is sweat and die for people like you. You're naming one person who made it, completely ignoring the circumstances. I could name you a million children who died in the meantime except nobody will ever know their names. Now, tell me again why child labor is smart. I never said the conditions were good, nor did I say I am a fan of forced labor. But the human body was made for work, children can obviously take less loads of work than adults, but other than that I see nothing wrong with it. What a completely pointless thing to say. This is your opinion and nothing else. Children should not be put to work because they cannot make responsible decision for themselves at a young age. That's why (at least here) you can quit school with 15 years and learn a craft, not before that. If an 8 year old boy comes up to you and says "Hey, I want to work at your company!" is he making a responsible decision? No, he's not. Because his brain is not developed enough, he's not educated enough and he doesn't have enough experience to be responsible. No decisions should be make by someone who cannot make responsible decisions. That's why there's education.
Maybe the child's choice is as simple as whether or not they're going to eat. I'd say choosing to eat over going to school is a responsible choice. Don't tell the child they can't work, pay them to go to school. If your offer is competitive with the sweatshop wages I'm sure they'll accept.
|
On January 04 2013 21:45 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 21:40 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:36 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:32 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:25 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:22 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 19:50 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 19:38 Rescawen wrote:On January 04 2013 19:27 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 19:26 Rescawen wrote: The way I see it is that people in Asia work harder and are smarter at the moment. It is only natural that the system adjusts itself. By that I mean Western people have to start living with less values than before. I mean you cannot expect your own living standards to get better if the Asian people's living standards are getting better. It is a zero sum game. A rising economy and living standard does not mean that people are smarter and more hard working there. There's a million factors to it. This is exactly what I mean, people do not want face the truth. They have been spoiled for generations. The world is not fair, it used to be for Asia and soon its gonna be for the West. The sooner you accept certain facts the easier. Thank you Jesus for pointing out my wrongness. What if their economical and political systems are just working out better for them, thus elevating their financial state? Which is what's happening yo. What I'm saying is that there's a million more factors to this than "they work harder and are smarter". There's tons of aspects in their cultures that are in fact NOT smarter, from women's treatment to child labor and sweatshops. That may seem "smart" right now but once they have the living standards we're used to, they'll be facing the same problems pretty soon. A reality check is in store, yes. But there's more to it than your black and white arguments. Why is child labor not smart? Sweating is good for you so why are sweatshops bad? I can only assume that this is sarcasm No, Andrew Carnegie started working at the age of 13, was he not a child at that age? He became a millionare later in life. I can only wish I had started working as a child with my dad and learned carpentry but instead I stayed in school and have walked away with no real skills from it. Your view of the world is ridiculously absurd then and I suggest you actually go see the conditions these children are forced to work under. They don't choose to work there, they're forced to. They have no past, no present and no future. All they do is sweat and die for people like you. You're naming one person who made it, completely ignoring the circumstances. I could name you a million children who died in the meantime except nobody will ever know their names. Now, tell me again why child labor is smart. I never said the conditions were good, nor did I say I am a fan of forced labor. But the human body was made for work, children can obviously take less loads of work than adults, but other than that I see nothing wrong with it. What a completely pointless thing to say. This is your opinion and nothing else. Children should not be put to work because they cannot make responsible decision for themselves at a young age. That's why (at least here) you can quit school with 15 years and learn a craft, not before that. If an 8 year old boy comes up to you and says "Hey, I want to work at your company!" is he making a responsible decision? No, he's not. Because his brain is not developed enough, he's not educated enough and he doesn't have enough experience to be responsible. No decisions should be make by someone who cannot make responsible decisions. That's why there's education.
Is a child responsible enough at the age of 8 to say "Hey I want to go to school!"? He isn't educated enough to make such a decision, his brain is not developed enough to know weather he really wants to go. School doesn't not teach responsibility. School teaches the fake responsibility of homework rather than the real responsibility of work.
|
Austria24420 Posts
On January 04 2013 21:51 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 21:45 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:40 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:36 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:32 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:25 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:22 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 19:50 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 19:38 Rescawen wrote:On January 04 2013 19:27 DarkLordOlli wrote: [quote]
A rising economy and living standard does not mean that people are smarter and more hard working there. There's a million factors to it. This is exactly what I mean, people do not want face the truth. They have been spoiled for generations. The world is not fair, it used to be for Asia and soon its gonna be for the West. The sooner you accept certain facts the easier. Thank you Jesus for pointing out my wrongness. What if their economical and political systems are just working out better for them, thus elevating their financial state? Which is what's happening yo. What I'm saying is that there's a million more factors to this than "they work harder and are smarter". There's tons of aspects in their cultures that are in fact NOT smarter, from women's treatment to child labor and sweatshops. That may seem "smart" right now but once they have the living standards we're used to, they'll be facing the same problems pretty soon. A reality check is in store, yes. But there's more to it than your black and white arguments. Why is child labor not smart? Sweating is good for you so why are sweatshops bad? I can only assume that this is sarcasm No, Andrew Carnegie started working at the age of 13, was he not a child at that age? He became a millionare later in life. I can only wish I had started working as a child with my dad and learned carpentry but instead I stayed in school and have walked away with no real skills from it. Your view of the world is ridiculously absurd then and I suggest you actually go see the conditions these children are forced to work under. They don't choose to work there, they're forced to. They have no past, no present and no future. All they do is sweat and die for people like you. You're naming one person who made it, completely ignoring the circumstances. I could name you a million children who died in the meantime except nobody will ever know their names. Now, tell me again why child labor is smart. I never said the conditions were good, nor did I say I am a fan of forced labor. But the human body was made for work, children can obviously take less loads of work than adults, but other than that I see nothing wrong with it. What a completely pointless thing to say. This is your opinion and nothing else. Children should not be put to work because they cannot make responsible decision for themselves at a young age. That's why (at least here) you can quit school with 15 years and learn a craft, not before that. If an 8 year old boy comes up to you and says "Hey, I want to work at your company!" is he making a responsible decision? No, he's not. Because his brain is not developed enough, he's not educated enough and he doesn't have enough experience to be responsible. No decisions should be make by or for someone who cannot make responsible decisions. That's why there's education. While I agree child labour isn't something we should want we also have to realise those children don't really have an alternative. What's going to happen to them when they stop working? You think they'll get a better future? Getting an education doesn't help you when you're starving. On topic: China's seriously a joke in these kind of things, let them look at their own problems first regarding things like the banking sector first which is a way bigger problem than the US national debt.
My whole argument started with me saying that china is not "more hard working and smarter". I used sweatshops and child labor as an example. So of course I agree with you, as it is currently they maybe don't have an alternative. But that doesn't change my point that they should have at least basic education available to all of them and no child labor.
|
Austria24420 Posts
On January 04 2013 21:51 ElizarTringov wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 21:45 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:40 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:36 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:32 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:25 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:22 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 19:50 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 19:38 Rescawen wrote:On January 04 2013 19:27 DarkLordOlli wrote: [quote]
A rising economy and living standard does not mean that people are smarter and more hard working there. There's a million factors to it. This is exactly what I mean, people do not want face the truth. They have been spoiled for generations. The world is not fair, it used to be for Asia and soon its gonna be for the West. The sooner you accept certain facts the easier. Thank you Jesus for pointing out my wrongness. What if their economical and political systems are just working out better for them, thus elevating their financial state? Which is what's happening yo. What I'm saying is that there's a million more factors to this than "they work harder and are smarter". There's tons of aspects in their cultures that are in fact NOT smarter, from women's treatment to child labor and sweatshops. That may seem "smart" right now but once they have the living standards we're used to, they'll be facing the same problems pretty soon. A reality check is in store, yes. But there's more to it than your black and white arguments. Why is child labor not smart? Sweating is good for you so why are sweatshops bad? I can only assume that this is sarcasm No, Andrew Carnegie started working at the age of 13, was he not a child at that age? He became a millionare later in life. I can only wish I had started working as a child with my dad and learned carpentry but instead I stayed in school and have walked away with no real skills from it. Your view of the world is ridiculously absurd then and I suggest you actually go see the conditions these children are forced to work under. They don't choose to work there, they're forced to. They have no past, no present and no future. All they do is sweat and die for people like you. You're naming one person who made it, completely ignoring the circumstances. I could name you a million children who died in the meantime except nobody will ever know their names. Now, tell me again why child labor is smart. I never said the conditions were good, nor did I say I am a fan of forced labor. But the human body was made for work, children can obviously take less loads of work than adults, but other than that I see nothing wrong with it. What a completely pointless thing to say. This is your opinion and nothing else. Children should not be put to work because they cannot make responsible decision for themselves at a young age. That's why (at least here) you can quit school with 15 years and learn a craft, not before that. If an 8 year old boy comes up to you and says "Hey, I want to work at your company!" is he making a responsible decision? No, he's not. Because his brain is not developed enough, he's not educated enough and he doesn't have enough experience to be responsible. No decisions should be make by someone who cannot make responsible decisions. That's why there's education. Is a child responsible enough at the age of 8 to say "Hey I want to go to school!"? He isn't educated enough to make such a decision, his brain is not developed enough to know weather he really wants to go. School doesn't not teach responsibility. School teaches the fake responsibility of homework rather than the real responsibility of work.
Wow, you sound like you're 12 and frustrated because your teachers were mean and gave you lots of homework! Simple math lessons teach you rational thinking, biology teaches you to understand organisms and how your body works, history teaches you what fucked up things already happened + political systems, geography & economy lessons, etcetcetcetc. If you think that someone who never went to school can ever make a choice that's as responsible as someone's who did, you're deluded.
You didn't achieve any skills in school? Then tell me how your english got good enough to have this conversation with me.
|
On January 04 2013 21:51 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 21:45 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:40 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:36 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:32 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:25 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:22 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 19:50 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 19:38 Rescawen wrote:On January 04 2013 19:27 DarkLordOlli wrote: [quote]
A rising economy and living standard does not mean that people are smarter and more hard working there. There's a million factors to it. This is exactly what I mean, people do not want face the truth. They have been spoiled for generations. The world is not fair, it used to be for Asia and soon its gonna be for the West. The sooner you accept certain facts the easier. Thank you Jesus for pointing out my wrongness. What if their economical and political systems are just working out better for them, thus elevating their financial state? Which is what's happening yo. What I'm saying is that there's a million more factors to this than "they work harder and are smarter". There's tons of aspects in their cultures that are in fact NOT smarter, from women's treatment to child labor and sweatshops. That may seem "smart" right now but once they have the living standards we're used to, they'll be facing the same problems pretty soon. A reality check is in store, yes. But there's more to it than your black and white arguments. Why is child labor not smart? Sweating is good for you so why are sweatshops bad? I can only assume that this is sarcasm No, Andrew Carnegie started working at the age of 13, was he not a child at that age? He became a millionare later in life. I can only wish I had started working as a child with my dad and learned carpentry but instead I stayed in school and have walked away with no real skills from it. Your view of the world is ridiculously absurd then and I suggest you actually go see the conditions these children are forced to work under. They don't choose to work there, they're forced to. They have no past, no present and no future. All they do is sweat and die for people like you. You're naming one person who made it, completely ignoring the circumstances. I could name you a million children who died in the meantime except nobody will ever know their names. Now, tell me again why child labor is smart. I never said the conditions were good, nor did I say I am a fan of forced labor. But the human body was made for work, children can obviously take less loads of work than adults, but other than that I see nothing wrong with it. What a completely pointless thing to say. This is your opinion and nothing else. Children should not be put to work because they cannot make responsible decision for themselves at a young age. That's why (at least here) you can quit school with 15 years and learn a craft, not before that. If an 8 year old boy comes up to you and says "Hey, I want to work at your company!" is he making a responsible decision? No, he's not. Because his brain is not developed enough, he's not educated enough and he doesn't have enough experience to be responsible. No decisions should be make by or for someone who cannot make responsible decisions. That's why there's education. While I agree child labour isn't something we should want we also have to realise those children don't really have an alternative. What's going to happen to them when they stop working? You think they'll get a better future? Getting an education doesn't help you when you're starving. On topic: China's seriously a joke in these kind of things, let them look at their own problems first regarding things like the banking sector first which is a way bigger problem than the US national debt.
The truth is not less of a truth depending on who it comes from. So whilst China definitely has plenty of stuff to improve on and lives in a metaphorical glass house, the remarks are still very valid.
|
On January 04 2013 21:57 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 21:51 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:45 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:40 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:36 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:32 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:25 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:22 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 19:50 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 19:38 Rescawen wrote: [quote]
This is exactly what I mean, people do not want face the truth. They have been spoiled for generations. The world is not fair, it used to be for Asia and soon its gonna be for the West. The sooner you accept certain facts the easier. Thank you Jesus for pointing out my wrongness. What if their economical and political systems are just working out better for them, thus elevating their financial state? Which is what's happening yo. What I'm saying is that there's a million more factors to this than "they work harder and are smarter". There's tons of aspects in their cultures that are in fact NOT smarter, from women's treatment to child labor and sweatshops. That may seem "smart" right now but once they have the living standards we're used to, they'll be facing the same problems pretty soon. A reality check is in store, yes. But there's more to it than your black and white arguments. Why is child labor not smart? Sweating is good for you so why are sweatshops bad? I can only assume that this is sarcasm No, Andrew Carnegie started working at the age of 13, was he not a child at that age? He became a millionare later in life. I can only wish I had started working as a child with my dad and learned carpentry but instead I stayed in school and have walked away with no real skills from it. Your view of the world is ridiculously absurd then and I suggest you actually go see the conditions these children are forced to work under. They don't choose to work there, they're forced to. They have no past, no present and no future. All they do is sweat and die for people like you. You're naming one person who made it, completely ignoring the circumstances. I could name you a million children who died in the meantime except nobody will ever know their names. Now, tell me again why child labor is smart. I never said the conditions were good, nor did I say I am a fan of forced labor. But the human body was made for work, children can obviously take less loads of work than adults, but other than that I see nothing wrong with it. What a completely pointless thing to say. This is your opinion and nothing else. Children should not be put to work because they cannot make responsible decision for themselves at a young age. That's why (at least here) you can quit school with 15 years and learn a craft, not before that. If an 8 year old boy comes up to you and says "Hey, I want to work at your company!" is he making a responsible decision? No, he's not. Because his brain is not developed enough, he's not educated enough and he doesn't have enough experience to be responsible. No decisions should be make by someone who cannot make responsible decisions. That's why there's education. Is a child responsible enough at the age of 8 to say "Hey I want to go to school!"? He isn't educated enough to make such a decision, his brain is not developed enough to know weather he really wants to go. School doesn't not teach responsibility. School teaches the fake responsibility of homework rather than the real responsibility of work. Wow, you sound like you're 12 and frustrated because your teachers were mean and gave you lots of homework! Simple math lessons teach you rational thinking, biology teaches you to understand organisms and how your body works, history teaches you what fucked up things already happened + politial system, geography & economy lessons, etcetcetcetc. If you think that someone who never went to school can ever make a choice that's as responsible as someone's who did, you're deluded.
I guess Andrew Carnegie must have not been as responsible as me. I learned english mostly outside of school.
|
On January 04 2013 21:33 smokeyhoodoo wrote: China's taxation as a percentage of gdp is around 15%, drastically lower than in the US. Where are their problems concerning this? Same with Hong Kong and Singapore. These countries have strong growth in their economies, and budget surpluses. So how does it follow that low taxes automatically leads to budget shortfalls? Maybe the problem is that a lot of western nations aren't prudent and frugal in their spending and taxation. Their economies function drastically differently as well. And I did qualify my statement as being in the "incredibly general" sense.
The key takeaway, however, is that America cannot keep after its lofty desire for politicians that will continue spending cuts and lower taxes and expect problems to go away. Their situation is exacerbated by that desire, along with ill-advised spending and other problematic policies.
|
On January 04 2013 10:32 T.O.P. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 09:55 Danglars wrote: They're fine ones to criticize domestic policy in their own right; since when have Chinese people really had a say in the setting of their own domestic policy aside from the very few extremely well-connected ones. In the US, we're inerred to the criticism of top 1%, in China, far less than that control their own political system. Why shouldn't they criticize US domestic policy? They're saying US voters vote in politicians that choose policies that are good short term but are bad long term. It's a criticism of US democracy in a way, politicians only care about getting reelected every 2 or 6 years. They don't care about what happens 10 years later.
This can be applied to most governments I'd say. Politicians mostly care about getting elected. They want the power to do what they feel is right. The problem is that doing the right thing in the long term for the economy isn't something that will get you votes.
Democracy has attained its limits apparently.
|
Austria24420 Posts
On January 04 2013 22:00 ElizarTringov wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 21:57 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:51 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:45 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:40 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:36 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:32 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:25 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:22 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 19:50 DarkLordOlli wrote: [quote]
Thank you Jesus for pointing out my wrongness. What if their economical and political systems are just working out better for them, thus elevating their financial state? Which is what's happening yo. What I'm saying is that there's a million more factors to this than "they work harder and are smarter". There's tons of aspects in their cultures that are in fact NOT smarter, from women's treatment to child labor and sweatshops. That may seem "smart" right now but once they have the living standards we're used to, they'll be facing the same problems pretty soon.
A reality check is in store, yes. But there's more to it than your black and white arguments. Why is child labor not smart? Sweating is good for you so why are sweatshops bad? I can only assume that this is sarcasm No, Andrew Carnegie started working at the age of 13, was he not a child at that age? He became a millionare later in life. I can only wish I had started working as a child with my dad and learned carpentry but instead I stayed in school and have walked away with no real skills from it. Your view of the world is ridiculously absurd then and I suggest you actually go see the conditions these children are forced to work under. They don't choose to work there, they're forced to. They have no past, no present and no future. All they do is sweat and die for people like you. You're naming one person who made it, completely ignoring the circumstances. I could name you a million children who died in the meantime except nobody will ever know their names. Now, tell me again why child labor is smart. I never said the conditions were good, nor did I say I am a fan of forced labor. But the human body was made for work, children can obviously take less loads of work than adults, but other than that I see nothing wrong with it. What a completely pointless thing to say. This is your opinion and nothing else. Children should not be put to work because they cannot make responsible decision for themselves at a young age. That's why (at least here) you can quit school with 15 years and learn a craft, not before that. If an 8 year old boy comes up to you and says "Hey, I want to work at your company!" is he making a responsible decision? No, he's not. Because his brain is not developed enough, he's not educated enough and he doesn't have enough experience to be responsible. No decisions should be make by someone who cannot make responsible decisions. That's why there's education. Is a child responsible enough at the age of 8 to say "Hey I want to go to school!"? He isn't educated enough to make such a decision, his brain is not developed enough to know weather he really wants to go. School doesn't not teach responsibility. School teaches the fake responsibility of homework rather than the real responsibility of work. Wow, you sound like you're 12 and frustrated because your teachers were mean and gave you lots of homework! Simple math lessons teach you rational thinking, biology teaches you to understand organisms and how your body works, history teaches you what fucked up things already happened + politial system, geography & economy lessons, etcetcetcetc. If you think that someone who never went to school can ever make a choice that's as responsible as someone's who did, you're deluded. I guess Andrew Carnegie must have not been as responsible as me. I learned english mostly outside of school.
Considering he got lucky with the choice of job he went for (a decision he didn't make himself but was advised by his uncle), yeah. He was not. He was lucky enough to be born into a society where that kind of thing is possible and he was lucky enough to have an uncle who told him it'd be smart to work for a telegraphing company. He received help from Tom Scott and countless others along the way. Imagine he didn't have them. Your argument is so ridiculous, it hurts. And once again, I would name you a few million children who never became millionaires because they worked themselves to death, but I can't. Their names are apparently not important enough to be remembered. Now stop debating about things you don't understand.
Why don't we let 8 year olds vote too? They naturally have the right to since they're working.
|
On January 04 2013 22:12 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 22:00 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:57 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:51 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:45 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:40 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:36 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:32 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:25 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:22 ElizarTringov wrote: [quote]
Why is child labor not smart? Sweating is good for you so why are sweatshops bad? I can only assume that this is sarcasm No, Andrew Carnegie started working at the age of 13, was he not a child at that age? He became a millionare later in life. I can only wish I had started working as a child with my dad and learned carpentry but instead I stayed in school and have walked away with no real skills from it. Your view of the world is ridiculously absurd then and I suggest you actually go see the conditions these children are forced to work under. They don't choose to work there, they're forced to. They have no past, no present and no future. All they do is sweat and die for people like you. You're naming one person who made it, completely ignoring the circumstances. I could name you a million children who died in the meantime except nobody will ever know their names. Now, tell me again why child labor is smart. I never said the conditions were good, nor did I say I am a fan of forced labor. But the human body was made for work, children can obviously take less loads of work than adults, but other than that I see nothing wrong with it. What a completely pointless thing to say. This is your opinion and nothing else. Children should not be put to work because they cannot make responsible decision for themselves at a young age. That's why (at least here) you can quit school with 15 years and learn a craft, not before that. If an 8 year old boy comes up to you and says "Hey, I want to work at your company!" is he making a responsible decision? No, he's not. Because his brain is not developed enough, he's not educated enough and he doesn't have enough experience to be responsible. No decisions should be make by someone who cannot make responsible decisions. That's why there's education. Is a child responsible enough at the age of 8 to say "Hey I want to go to school!"? He isn't educated enough to make such a decision, his brain is not developed enough to know weather he really wants to go. School doesn't not teach responsibility. School teaches the fake responsibility of homework rather than the real responsibility of work. Wow, you sound like you're 12 and frustrated because your teachers were mean and gave you lots of homework! Simple math lessons teach you rational thinking, biology teaches you to understand organisms and how your body works, history teaches you what fucked up things already happened + politial system, geography & economy lessons, etcetcetcetc. If you think that someone who never went to school can ever make a choice that's as responsible as someone's who did, you're deluded. I guess Andrew Carnegie must have not been as responsible as me. I learned english mostly outside of school. Considering he got lucky with the choice of job he went for (a decision he didn't make himself but was advised by his uncle), yeah. He was not. He was lucky enough to be born into a society where that kind of thing is possible and he was lucky enough to have an uncle who told him it'd be smart to work for a telegraphing company. He received help from Tom Scott and countless others along the way. Imagine he didn't have them. Your argument is so ridiculous, it hurts. And once again, I would name you a few million children who never became millionaires because they worked themselves to death, but I can't. Their names are apparently not important enough to be remembered. Now stop debating about things you don't understand. Why don't we let 8 year olds vote too? They naturally have the right to since they're working.
So you are saying the human body was not made to work? What was it made for then? Also here is some more people who started working at an early age:David Farragut, who started work early at 9 as a midshipman and Benjamin Franklin stopped schooling at 10 and started working for his father.
|
Austria24420 Posts
On January 04 2013 22:29 ElizarTringov wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 22:12 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 22:00 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:57 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:51 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:45 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:40 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:36 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:32 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:25 DarkLordOlli wrote: [quote]
I can only assume that this is sarcasm No, Andrew Carnegie started working at the age of 13, was he not a child at that age? He became a millionare later in life. I can only wish I had started working as a child with my dad and learned carpentry but instead I stayed in school and have walked away with no real skills from it. Your view of the world is ridiculously absurd then and I suggest you actually go see the conditions these children are forced to work under. They don't choose to work there, they're forced to. They have no past, no present and no future. All they do is sweat and die for people like you. You're naming one person who made it, completely ignoring the circumstances. I could name you a million children who died in the meantime except nobody will ever know their names. Now, tell me again why child labor is smart. I never said the conditions were good, nor did I say I am a fan of forced labor. But the human body was made for work, children can obviously take less loads of work than adults, but other than that I see nothing wrong with it. What a completely pointless thing to say. This is your opinion and nothing else. Children should not be put to work because they cannot make responsible decision for themselves at a young age. That's why (at least here) you can quit school with 15 years and learn a craft, not before that. If an 8 year old boy comes up to you and says "Hey, I want to work at your company!" is he making a responsible decision? No, he's not. Because his brain is not developed enough, he's not educated enough and he doesn't have enough experience to be responsible. No decisions should be make by someone who cannot make responsible decisions. That's why there's education. Is a child responsible enough at the age of 8 to say "Hey I want to go to school!"? He isn't educated enough to make such a decision, his brain is not developed enough to know weather he really wants to go. School doesn't not teach responsibility. School teaches the fake responsibility of homework rather than the real responsibility of work. Wow, you sound like you're 12 and frustrated because your teachers were mean and gave you lots of homework! Simple math lessons teach you rational thinking, biology teaches you to understand organisms and how your body works, history teaches you what fucked up things already happened + politial system, geography & economy lessons, etcetcetcetc. If you think that someone who never went to school can ever make a choice that's as responsible as someone's who did, you're deluded. I guess Andrew Carnegie must have not been as responsible as me. I learned english mostly outside of school. Considering he got lucky with the choice of job he went for (a decision he didn't make himself but was advised by his uncle), yeah. He was not. He was lucky enough to be born into a society where that kind of thing is possible and he was lucky enough to have an uncle who told him it'd be smart to work for a telegraphing company. He received help from Tom Scott and countless others along the way. Imagine he didn't have them. Your argument is so ridiculous, it hurts. And once again, I would name you a few million children who never became millionaires because they worked themselves to death, but I can't. Their names are apparently not important enough to be remembered. Now stop debating about things you don't understand. Why don't we let 8 year olds vote too? They naturally have the right to since they're working. So you are saying the human body was not made to work? What was it made for then? Also here is some more people who started working at an early age:David Farragut, who started work early at 9 as a midshipman and Benjamin Franklin stopped schooling at 10 and started working for his father.
The human body wasn't made for anything ffs. If anything, what we consider "work" is unnatural and that's why it destroys our bodies. That's why millions of children died during labor. Are you completely out of your mind? Our bodies are the result of evolution, they're this way to make us survive under the circumstances we lived in when the human race developed through evolution. Keep your creation theories at home, in your basement where nobody will ever find them.
Interestingly enough all the people you keep bringing up became rich in societies that were already overall wealthy and had a decently high living standard. Think about it, just for a second. Maybe you should've actually paid attention to what was taught in school, then you wouldn't be having this retarded argument. Child labor is a fucking terrible idea because children cannot make responsible decisions without receiving some kind of education first. PERIOD.
Here is a list of MILLIONS who died during child labor. Maybe I'll add a list of the MILLIONS who never had a future because of the lack of education, but only if you ask nicely.
+ Show Spoiler +
Now can we please stop this silencingly retarded discussion because it's going off topic. If you're saying child labor is a smart thing I'll give you what I started with: your view of the world is fucking absurd.
|
On January 04 2013 22:29 ElizarTringov wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 22:12 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 22:00 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:57 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:51 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:45 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:40 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:36 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:32 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:25 DarkLordOlli wrote: [quote]
I can only assume that this is sarcasm No, Andrew Carnegie started working at the age of 13, was he not a child at that age? He became a millionare later in life. I can only wish I had started working as a child with my dad and learned carpentry but instead I stayed in school and have walked away with no real skills from it. Your view of the world is ridiculously absurd then and I suggest you actually go see the conditions these children are forced to work under. They don't choose to work there, they're forced to. They have no past, no present and no future. All they do is sweat and die for people like you. You're naming one person who made it, completely ignoring the circumstances. I could name you a million children who died in the meantime except nobody will ever know their names. Now, tell me again why child labor is smart. I never said the conditions were good, nor did I say I am a fan of forced labor. But the human body was made for work, children can obviously take less loads of work than adults, but other than that I see nothing wrong with it. What a completely pointless thing to say. This is your opinion and nothing else. Children should not be put to work because they cannot make responsible decision for themselves at a young age. That's why (at least here) you can quit school with 15 years and learn a craft, not before that. If an 8 year old boy comes up to you and says "Hey, I want to work at your company!" is he making a responsible decision? No, he's not. Because his brain is not developed enough, he's not educated enough and he doesn't have enough experience to be responsible. No decisions should be make by someone who cannot make responsible decisions. That's why there's education. Is a child responsible enough at the age of 8 to say "Hey I want to go to school!"? He isn't educated enough to make such a decision, his brain is not developed enough to know weather he really wants to go. School doesn't not teach responsibility. School teaches the fake responsibility of homework rather than the real responsibility of work. Wow, you sound like you're 12 and frustrated because your teachers were mean and gave you lots of homework! Simple math lessons teach you rational thinking, biology teaches you to understand organisms and how your body works, history teaches you what fucked up things already happened + politial system, geography & economy lessons, etcetcetcetc. If you think that someone who never went to school can ever make a choice that's as responsible as someone's who did, you're deluded. I guess Andrew Carnegie must have not been as responsible as me. I learned english mostly outside of school. Considering he got lucky with the choice of job he went for (a decision he didn't make himself but was advised by his uncle), yeah. He was not. He was lucky enough to be born into a society where that kind of thing is possible and he was lucky enough to have an uncle who told him it'd be smart to work for a telegraphing company. He received help from Tom Scott and countless others along the way. Imagine he didn't have them. Your argument is so ridiculous, it hurts. And once again, I would name you a few million children who never became millionaires because they worked themselves to death, but I can't. Their names are apparently not important enough to be remembered. Now stop debating about things you don't understand. Why don't we let 8 year olds vote too? They naturally have the right to since they're working. So you are saying the human body was not made to work? What was it made for then? Also here is some more people who started working at an early age:David Farragut, who started work early at 9 as a midshipman and Benjamin Franklin stopped schooling at 10 and started working for his father.
I think the humans and their bodies were created to help them explore, and invent. If you buy the modern theory, human biology is so complex with so many intelligent and intricate parts that Scientists now believe that the ``intelligent gene'' could not have developed by itself. It has been purported that the chances of the intelligent genes developing by themselves is tantamount to a random storm running through a garbage dump and making an aeroplane out of it. Therefore, popular theory by mad scientists suggest thats human gene was implanted by Aliens. The series Ancient Aliens tries to gather facts to support a similar theory.
There, now you know it. The purpose of the human body is to entertain sub-space species (Aliens). We're just an experiment.
+ Show Spoiler +This post is in jest, of course. But you can find out about Ancient Aliens here.
|
On January 04 2013 22:41 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 22:29 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 22:12 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 22:00 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:57 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:51 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:45 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:40 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:36 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:32 ElizarTringov wrote: [quote]
No, Andrew Carnegie started working at the age of 13, was he not a child at that age? He became a millionare later in life. I can only wish I had started working as a child with my dad and learned carpentry but instead I stayed in school and have walked away with no real skills from it.
Your view of the world is ridiculously absurd then and I suggest you actually go see the conditions these children are forced to work under. They don't choose to work there, they're forced to. They have no past, no present and no future. All they do is sweat and die for people like you. You're naming one person who made it, completely ignoring the circumstances. I could name you a million children who died in the meantime except nobody will ever know their names. Now, tell me again why child labor is smart. I never said the conditions were good, nor did I say I am a fan of forced labor. But the human body was made for work, children can obviously take less loads of work than adults, but other than that I see nothing wrong with it. What a completely pointless thing to say. This is your opinion and nothing else. Children should not be put to work because they cannot make responsible decision for themselves at a young age. That's why (at least here) you can quit school with 15 years and learn a craft, not before that. If an 8 year old boy comes up to you and says "Hey, I want to work at your company!" is he making a responsible decision? No, he's not. Because his brain is not developed enough, he's not educated enough and he doesn't have enough experience to be responsible. No decisions should be make by someone who cannot make responsible decisions. That's why there's education. Is a child responsible enough at the age of 8 to say "Hey I want to go to school!"? He isn't educated enough to make such a decision, his brain is not developed enough to know weather he really wants to go. School doesn't not teach responsibility. School teaches the fake responsibility of homework rather than the real responsibility of work. Wow, you sound like you're 12 and frustrated because your teachers were mean and gave you lots of homework! Simple math lessons teach you rational thinking, biology teaches you to understand organisms and how your body works, history teaches you what fucked up things already happened + politial system, geography & economy lessons, etcetcetcetc. If you think that someone who never went to school can ever make a choice that's as responsible as someone's who did, you're deluded. I guess Andrew Carnegie must have not been as responsible as me. I learned english mostly outside of school. Considering he got lucky with the choice of job he went for (a decision he didn't make himself but was advised by his uncle), yeah. He was not. He was lucky enough to be born into a society where that kind of thing is possible and he was lucky enough to have an uncle who told him it'd be smart to work for a telegraphing company. He received help from Tom Scott and countless others along the way. Imagine he didn't have them. Your argument is so ridiculous, it hurts. And once again, I would name you a few million children who never became millionaires because they worked themselves to death, but I can't. Their names are apparently not important enough to be remembered. Now stop debating about things you don't understand. Why don't we let 8 year olds vote too? They naturally have the right to since they're working. So you are saying the human body was not made to work? What was it made for then? Also here is some more people who started working at an early age:David Farragut, who started work early at 9 as a midshipman and Benjamin Franklin stopped schooling at 10 and started working for his father. The human body wasn't made for anything ffs. If anything, what we consider "work" is unnatural and that's why it destroys our bodies. That's why millions of children died during labor. Are you completely out of your mind? Our bodies are the result of evolution, they're this way to make us survive under the circumstances we lived in when the human race developed through evolution. Keep your creation theories at home, in your basement where nobody will ever find them. Interestingly enough all the people you keep bringing up became rich in societies that were already overall wealthy and had a decently high living standard. Think about it, just for a second. Maybe you should've actually paid attention to what was taught in school, then you wouldn't be having this retarded argument. Child labor is a fucking terrible idea because children cannot make responsible decisions without receiving some kind of education first. PERIOD. Here is a list of MILLIONS who died during child labor. Maybe I'll add a list of the MILLIONS who never had a future because of the lack of education, but only if you ask nicely. + Show Spoiler +Now can we please stop this silencingly retarded discussion because it's going off topic. If you're saying child labor is a smart thing I'll give you what I started with: your view of the world is fucking absurd.
When I say the human body was made to work, I mean the body should be fit and strong and capable of physical labor, of course the only way to do that is by doing physical labor, which can be done with work. If the body does not do physical labor the muscles start to degenerate and become weak, that is why I am saying it was made to work. I did not mention anything about creationism so I don't know why you brought that up. If they were in societies with such a high standard of living why did they have to go to work? No, child labor is a great idea, the execution of this idea is poor.
|
Austria24420 Posts
On January 04 2013 22:54 ElizarTringov wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 22:41 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 22:29 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 22:12 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 22:00 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:57 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:51 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:45 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:40 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:36 DarkLordOlli wrote: [quote]
Your view of the world is ridiculously absurd then and I suggest you actually go see the conditions these children are forced to work under. They don't choose to work there, they're forced to. They have no past, no present and no future. All they do is sweat and die for people like you. You're naming one person who made it, completely ignoring the circumstances. I could name you a million children who died in the meantime except nobody will ever know their names. Now, tell me again why child labor is smart. I never said the conditions were good, nor did I say I am a fan of forced labor. But the human body was made for work, children can obviously take less loads of work than adults, but other than that I see nothing wrong with it. What a completely pointless thing to say. This is your opinion and nothing else. Children should not be put to work because they cannot make responsible decision for themselves at a young age. That's why (at least here) you can quit school with 15 years and learn a craft, not before that. If an 8 year old boy comes up to you and says "Hey, I want to work at your company!" is he making a responsible decision? No, he's not. Because his brain is not developed enough, he's not educated enough and he doesn't have enough experience to be responsible. No decisions should be make by someone who cannot make responsible decisions. That's why there's education. Is a child responsible enough at the age of 8 to say "Hey I want to go to school!"? He isn't educated enough to make such a decision, his brain is not developed enough to know weather he really wants to go. School doesn't not teach responsibility. School teaches the fake responsibility of homework rather than the real responsibility of work. Wow, you sound like you're 12 and frustrated because your teachers were mean and gave you lots of homework! Simple math lessons teach you rational thinking, biology teaches you to understand organisms and how your body works, history teaches you what fucked up things already happened + politial system, geography & economy lessons, etcetcetcetc. If you think that someone who never went to school can ever make a choice that's as responsible as someone's who did, you're deluded. I guess Andrew Carnegie must have not been as responsible as me. I learned english mostly outside of school. Considering he got lucky with the choice of job he went for (a decision he didn't make himself but was advised by his uncle), yeah. He was not. He was lucky enough to be born into a society where that kind of thing is possible and he was lucky enough to have an uncle who told him it'd be smart to work for a telegraphing company. He received help from Tom Scott and countless others along the way. Imagine he didn't have them. Your argument is so ridiculous, it hurts. And once again, I would name you a few million children who never became millionaires because they worked themselves to death, but I can't. Their names are apparently not important enough to be remembered. Now stop debating about things you don't understand. Why don't we let 8 year olds vote too? They naturally have the right to since they're working. So you are saying the human body was not made to work? What was it made for then? Also here is some more people who started working at an early age:David Farragut, who started work early at 9 as a midshipman and Benjamin Franklin stopped schooling at 10 and started working for his father. The human body wasn't made for anything ffs. If anything, what we consider "work" is unnatural and that's why it destroys our bodies. That's why millions of children died during labor. Are you completely out of your mind? Our bodies are the result of evolution, they're this way to make us survive under the circumstances we lived in when the human race developed through evolution. Keep your creation theories at home, in your basement where nobody will ever find them. Interestingly enough all the people you keep bringing up became rich in societies that were already overall wealthy and had a decently high living standard. Think about it, just for a second. Maybe you should've actually paid attention to what was taught in school, then you wouldn't be having this retarded argument. Child labor is a fucking terrible idea because children cannot make responsible decisions without receiving some kind of education first. PERIOD. Here is a list of MILLIONS who died during child labor. Maybe I'll add a list of the MILLIONS who never had a future because of the lack of education, but only if you ask nicely. + Show Spoiler +Now can we please stop this silencingly retarded discussion because it's going off topic. If you're saying child labor is a smart thing I'll give you what I started with: your view of the world is fucking absurd. When I say the human body was made to work, I mean the body should be fit and strong and capable of physical labor, of course the only way to do that is by doing physical labor, which can be done with work. If the body does not do physical labor the muscles start to degenerate and become weak, that is why I am saying it was made to work. I did not mention anything about creationism so I don't know why you brought that up. If they were in societies with such a high standard of living why did they have to go to work? No, child labor is a great idea, the execution of this idea is poor.
Alright. Your view of the world is absurd.
|
I think people really need a history lesson. Being a child far back in history, chores and other such issues are taught at a fairly young age in a fashion consistent with the child's capabilities. It's not all fun and games like it is today. I think we're a little too entitled nowadays.
|
MERICUH
yo guys if we ever get into power let's make sure we're not fucking idiots like the current leaders are k
|
On January 04 2013 22:56 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 22:54 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 22:41 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 22:29 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 22:12 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 22:00 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:57 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:51 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:45 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:40 ElizarTringov wrote: [quote]
I never said the conditions were good, nor did I say I am a fan of forced labor. But the human body was made for work, children can obviously take less loads of work than adults, but other than that I see nothing wrong with it. What a completely pointless thing to say. This is your opinion and nothing else. Children should not be put to work because they cannot make responsible decision for themselves at a young age. That's why (at least here) you can quit school with 15 years and learn a craft, not before that. If an 8 year old boy comes up to you and says "Hey, I want to work at your company!" is he making a responsible decision? No, he's not. Because his brain is not developed enough, he's not educated enough and he doesn't have enough experience to be responsible. No decisions should be make by someone who cannot make responsible decisions. That's why there's education. Is a child responsible enough at the age of 8 to say "Hey I want to go to school!"? He isn't educated enough to make such a decision, his brain is not developed enough to know weather he really wants to go. School doesn't not teach responsibility. School teaches the fake responsibility of homework rather than the real responsibility of work. Wow, you sound like you're 12 and frustrated because your teachers were mean and gave you lots of homework! Simple math lessons teach you rational thinking, biology teaches you to understand organisms and how your body works, history teaches you what fucked up things already happened + politial system, geography & economy lessons, etcetcetcetc. If you think that someone who never went to school can ever make a choice that's as responsible as someone's who did, you're deluded. I guess Andrew Carnegie must have not been as responsible as me. I learned english mostly outside of school. Considering he got lucky with the choice of job he went for (a decision he didn't make himself but was advised by his uncle), yeah. He was not. He was lucky enough to be born into a society where that kind of thing is possible and he was lucky enough to have an uncle who told him it'd be smart to work for a telegraphing company. He received help from Tom Scott and countless others along the way. Imagine he didn't have them. Your argument is so ridiculous, it hurts. And once again, I would name you a few million children who never became millionaires because they worked themselves to death, but I can't. Their names are apparently not important enough to be remembered. Now stop debating about things you don't understand. Why don't we let 8 year olds vote too? They naturally have the right to since they're working. So you are saying the human body was not made to work? What was it made for then? Also here is some more people who started working at an early age:David Farragut, who started work early at 9 as a midshipman and Benjamin Franklin stopped schooling at 10 and started working for his father. The human body wasn't made for anything ffs. If anything, what we consider "work" is unnatural and that's why it destroys our bodies. That's why millions of children died during labor. Are you completely out of your mind? Our bodies are the result of evolution, they're this way to make us survive under the circumstances we lived in when the human race developed through evolution. Keep your creation theories at home, in your basement where nobody will ever find them. Interestingly enough all the people you keep bringing up became rich in societies that were already overall wealthy and had a decently high living standard. Think about it, just for a second. Maybe you should've actually paid attention to what was taught in school, then you wouldn't be having this retarded argument. Child labor is a fucking terrible idea because children cannot make responsible decisions without receiving some kind of education first. PERIOD. Here is a list of MILLIONS who died during child labor. Maybe I'll add a list of the MILLIONS who never had a future because of the lack of education, but only if you ask nicely. + Show Spoiler +Now can we please stop this silencingly retarded discussion because it's going off topic. If you're saying child labor is a smart thing I'll give you what I started with: your view of the world is fucking absurd. When I say the human body was made to work, I mean the body should be fit and strong and capable of physical labor, of course the only way to do that is by doing physical labor, which can be done with work. If the body does not do physical labor the muscles start to degenerate and become weak, that is why I am saying it was made to work. I did not mention anything about creationism so I don't know why you brought that up. If they were in societies with such a high standard of living why did they have to go to work? No, child labor is a great idea, the execution of this idea is poor. Alright. Your view of the world is absurd.
Yeah it must be so since it opposes your view of the world.
|
On January 04 2013 22:56 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 22:54 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 22:41 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 22:29 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 22:12 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 22:00 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:57 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:51 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:45 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:40 ElizarTringov wrote: [quote]
I never said the conditions were good, nor did I say I am a fan of forced labor. But the human body was made for work, children can obviously take less loads of work than adults, but other than that I see nothing wrong with it. What a completely pointless thing to say. This is your opinion and nothing else. Children should not be put to work because they cannot make responsible decision for themselves at a young age. That's why (at least here) you can quit school with 15 years and learn a craft, not before that. If an 8 year old boy comes up to you and says "Hey, I want to work at your company!" is he making a responsible decision? No, he's not. Because his brain is not developed enough, he's not educated enough and he doesn't have enough experience to be responsible. No decisions should be make by someone who cannot make responsible decisions. That's why there's education. Is a child responsible enough at the age of 8 to say "Hey I want to go to school!"? He isn't educated enough to make such a decision, his brain is not developed enough to know weather he really wants to go. School doesn't not teach responsibility. School teaches the fake responsibility of homework rather than the real responsibility of work. Wow, you sound like you're 12 and frustrated because your teachers were mean and gave you lots of homework! Simple math lessons teach you rational thinking, biology teaches you to understand organisms and how your body works, history teaches you what fucked up things already happened + politial system, geography & economy lessons, etcetcetcetc. If you think that someone who never went to school can ever make a choice that's as responsible as someone's who did, you're deluded. I guess Andrew Carnegie must have not been as responsible as me. I learned english mostly outside of school. Considering he got lucky with the choice of job he went for (a decision he didn't make himself but was advised by his uncle), yeah. He was not. He was lucky enough to be born into a society where that kind of thing is possible and he was lucky enough to have an uncle who told him it'd be smart to work for a telegraphing company. He received help from Tom Scott and countless others along the way. Imagine he didn't have them. Your argument is so ridiculous, it hurts. And once again, I would name you a few million children who never became millionaires because they worked themselves to death, but I can't. Their names are apparently not important enough to be remembered. Now stop debating about things you don't understand. Why don't we let 8 year olds vote too? They naturally have the right to since they're working. So you are saying the human body was not made to work? What was it made for then? Also here is some more people who started working at an early age:David Farragut, who started work early at 9 as a midshipman and Benjamin Franklin stopped schooling at 10 and started working for his father. The human body wasn't made for anything ffs. If anything, what we consider "work" is unnatural and that's why it destroys our bodies. That's why millions of children died during labor. Are you completely out of your mind? Our bodies are the result of evolution, they're this way to make us survive under the circumstances we lived in when the human race developed through evolution. Keep your creation theories at home, in your basement where nobody will ever find them. Interestingly enough all the people you keep bringing up became rich in societies that were already overall wealthy and had a decently high living standard. Think about it, just for a second. Maybe you should've actually paid attention to what was taught in school, then you wouldn't be having this retarded argument. Child labor is a fucking terrible idea because children cannot make responsible decisions without receiving some kind of education first. PERIOD. Here is a list of MILLIONS who died during child labor. Maybe I'll add a list of the MILLIONS who never had a future because of the lack of education, but only if you ask nicely. + Show Spoiler +Now can we please stop this silencingly retarded discussion because it's going off topic. If you're saying child labor is a smart thing I'll give you what I started with: your view of the world is fucking absurd. When I say the human body was made to work, I mean the body should be fit and strong and capable of physical labor, of course the only way to do that is by doing physical labor, which can be done with work. If the body does not do physical labor the muscles start to degenerate and become weak, that is why I am saying it was made to work. I did not mention anything about creationism so I don't know why you brought that up. If they were in societies with such a high standard of living why did they have to go to work? No, child labor is a great idea, the execution of this idea is poor. Alright. Your view of the world is absurd.
A person's culture and country greatly affects their perception of the world. Perhaps what he is saying applies best to his own area of residence. I do not agree that the human body was made solely to work, but was most certainly made to help us work. As a child, I only ever cared about satisfying my curiosity. But an adult must work for a livelihood.
Children don't like doing homework, what makes people think they'll be mentally willing and physically capable of handling the work given to them?
|
Austria24420 Posts
On January 04 2013 23:13 Unshapely wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 22:56 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 22:54 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 22:41 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 22:29 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 22:12 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 22:00 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:57 DarkLordOlli wrote:On January 04 2013 21:51 ElizarTringov wrote:On January 04 2013 21:45 DarkLordOlli wrote: [quote]
What a completely pointless thing to say. This is your opinion and nothing else. Children should not be put to work because they cannot make responsible decision for themselves at a young age. That's why (at least here) you can quit school with 15 years and learn a craft, not before that. If an 8 year old boy comes up to you and says "Hey, I want to work at your company!" is he making a responsible decision? No, he's not. Because his brain is not developed enough, he's not educated enough and he doesn't have enough experience to be responsible.
No decisions should be make by someone who cannot make responsible decisions. That's why there's education. Is a child responsible enough at the age of 8 to say "Hey I want to go to school!"? He isn't educated enough to make such a decision, his brain is not developed enough to know weather he really wants to go. School doesn't not teach responsibility. School teaches the fake responsibility of homework rather than the real responsibility of work. Wow, you sound like you're 12 and frustrated because your teachers were mean and gave you lots of homework! Simple math lessons teach you rational thinking, biology teaches you to understand organisms and how your body works, history teaches you what fucked up things already happened + politial system, geography & economy lessons, etcetcetcetc. If you think that someone who never went to school can ever make a choice that's as responsible as someone's who did, you're deluded. I guess Andrew Carnegie must have not been as responsible as me. I learned english mostly outside of school. Considering he got lucky with the choice of job he went for (a decision he didn't make himself but was advised by his uncle), yeah. He was not. He was lucky enough to be born into a society where that kind of thing is possible and he was lucky enough to have an uncle who told him it'd be smart to work for a telegraphing company. He received help from Tom Scott and countless others along the way. Imagine he didn't have them. Your argument is so ridiculous, it hurts. And once again, I would name you a few million children who never became millionaires because they worked themselves to death, but I can't. Their names are apparently not important enough to be remembered. Now stop debating about things you don't understand. Why don't we let 8 year olds vote too? They naturally have the right to since they're working. So you are saying the human body was not made to work? What was it made for then? Also here is some more people who started working at an early age:David Farragut, who started work early at 9 as a midshipman and Benjamin Franklin stopped schooling at 10 and started working for his father. The human body wasn't made for anything ffs. If anything, what we consider "work" is unnatural and that's why it destroys our bodies. That's why millions of children died during labor. Are you completely out of your mind? Our bodies are the result of evolution, they're this way to make us survive under the circumstances we lived in when the human race developed through evolution. Keep your creation theories at home, in your basement where nobody will ever find them. Interestingly enough all the people you keep bringing up became rich in societies that were already overall wealthy and had a decently high living standard. Think about it, just for a second. Maybe you should've actually paid attention to what was taught in school, then you wouldn't be having this retarded argument. Child labor is a fucking terrible idea because children cannot make responsible decisions without receiving some kind of education first. PERIOD. Here is a list of MILLIONS who died during child labor. Maybe I'll add a list of the MILLIONS who never had a future because of the lack of education, but only if you ask nicely. + Show Spoiler +Now can we please stop this silencingly retarded discussion because it's going off topic. If you're saying child labor is a smart thing I'll give you what I started with: your view of the world is fucking absurd. When I say the human body was made to work, I mean the body should be fit and strong and capable of physical labor, of course the only way to do that is by doing physical labor, which can be done with work. If the body does not do physical labor the muscles start to degenerate and become weak, that is why I am saying it was made to work. I did not mention anything about creationism so I don't know why you brought that up. If they were in societies with such a high standard of living why did they have to go to work? No, child labor is a great idea, the execution of this idea is poor. Alright. Your view of the world is absurd. A person's culture and country greatly affects their perception of the world. Perhaps what he is saying applies best to his own area of residence. I do not agree that the human body was made solely to work, but was most certainly made to help us work. As a child, I only ever cared about satisfying my curiosity. But an adult must work for a livelihood. Children don't like doing homework, what makes people think they'll be mentally willing and physically capable of handling the work given to them?
It's not about what children like or don't like. It's that they can't responsibly decide what they like or don't like. Because they're children. So putting them to work is nothing short of abusing them. I don't care where he's from or how he grew up. His view of the world is absurd. He's for something that already wasted millions of lives. And I bet he would very rapidly change his mind if an 8 year old child had the power to make his decisions for him. He'd be fucked in a matter of hours.
|
On January 04 2013 21:33 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 21:07 divito wrote: I lot of this falls on the American people. They've been so ingrained in the idea of having lower taxes, that of course there's money shortfalls everywhere, and the country is facing massive debts. Lower taxes, in incredibly general terms, puts more money into the private businesses and executives through disposable income and consumer spending, instead of towards income tax where the money can be used in other programs to aide the country. China's taxation as a percentage of gdp is around 15%, drastically lower than in the US. Where are their problems concerning this? Same with Hong Kong and Singapore. These countries have strong growth in their economies, and budget surpluses. So how does it follow that low taxes automatically leads to budget shortfalls? Maybe the problem is that a lot of western nations aren't prudent and frugal in their spending and taxation. China also owns the vast majority of the banking system and almost every heavy industrial company. Hong Kong government owns all the land in Hong Kong and funds itself via land sales to Hong Kong oligarchs, ensuring that HK real estate is always cripplingly expensive and a significant portion of the population lives in government owned housing Singapore also provides massive housing subsidies and benefits from being the money laundering capital of South East Asia.
So all America has to do to follow their model is to either (a) nationalize every bank and major corporation in the land or (b) nationalize all the land or (c) find an economy that is 100x the size of the American economy and act as its money laundering center. Eazy Peazy.
|
America should just print more dollars to finance their debt, and thats exactly what they going to do. That will also devaluate the dollar against the yuan and make america more competitive, something manny americans have been complaining about and what romney was pointing to when he said that china didnt play fair. Then as soon as the economy picks up, the economy can support the debt and usa can stop printing monney, the dollar goes up again to balance everything, we will be in this flatline of basicly zero real economic growth for 10 more years to come.
The Usa economy is only threathend by 1 thing, and that are the demographic changes. (more older people in relation to young people) This realy is the only thing that can threaten the usa economy. All the debt is just virtual, an accounting trick, i realy hope people will understand this one day.
|
On January 04 2013 23:21 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 21:33 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 04 2013 21:07 divito wrote: I lot of this falls on the American people. They've been so ingrained in the idea of having lower taxes, that of course there's money shortfalls everywhere, and the country is facing massive debts. Lower taxes, in incredibly general terms, puts more money into the private businesses and executives through disposable income and consumer spending, instead of towards income tax where the money can be used in other programs to aide the country. China's taxation as a percentage of gdp is around 15%, drastically lower than in the US. Where are their problems concerning this? Same with Hong Kong and Singapore. These countries have strong growth in their economies, and budget surpluses. So how does it follow that low taxes automatically leads to budget shortfalls? Maybe the problem is that a lot of western nations aren't prudent and frugal in their spending and taxation. China also owns the vast majority of the banking system and almost every heavy industrial company. Hong Kong government owns all the land in Hong Kong and funds itself via land sales to Hong Kong oligarchs, ensuring that HK real estate is always cripplingly expensive and a significant portion of the population lives in government owned housing Singapore also provides massive housing subsidies and benefits from being the money laundering capital of South East Asia. So all America has to do to follow their model is to either (a) nationalize every bank and major corporation in the land or (b) nationalize all the land or (c) find an economy that is 100x the size of the American economy and act as its money laundering center. Eazy Peazy.
Hmm? (c) is impossible, is there really an economy that is hundred times that of America? (b) would meet many objections, considering that people in America have bought or inherited lands. I didn't get point (a), how would America make money by nationilising every bank? Would it be through loan schemes, interest, etc.?
|
On January 04 2013 21:07 divito wrote: how would America make money by nationilising every bank? Would it be through loan schemes, interest, etc.?
Yes. - If USA nationalized their banks then the country would make money on interest from loans/lending. However this obviously is not going to happen.
Sidenote: From my perspective it would be nice if our neighbors were more responsible with their country. It's like living next to a person with 50 irresponsible kids, a dirty front/back yard, a dog that shits all over the sidewalk and every time you tell them maybe they should patch the whole in their roof they tell you to fuck off with that nonsense.
I can understand why Americans don't want to hear that sort of thing coming from China, but it would be nice it was coming from Canada (a bit more respectable?). However I often think that Americans would just blow that off, thinking ah.. fuck the north, what do they know anyway? Most people I've met from the states don't stray too far from that line of thinking, but maybe they are just the more vocal ones. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's just the feeling I have.
Good luck with that congress, eh.
|
On January 04 2013 23:35 Rassy wrote: America should just print more dollars to finance their debt, and thats exactly what they going to do. That will also devaluate the dollar against the yuan and make america more competitive, something manny americans have been complaining about and what romney was pointing to when he said that china didnt play fair. Then as soon as the economy picks up, the economy can support the debt and usa can stop printing monney, the dollar goes up again to balance everything, we will be in this flatline of basicly zero real economic growth for 10 more years to come.
The Usa economy is only threathend by 1 thing, and that are the demographic changes. (more older people in relation to young people) This realy is the only thing that can threaten the usa economy. All the debt is just virtual, an accounting trick, i realy hope people will understand this one day.
Why not reduce taxes to zero and increase spending to infinity then?
|
On January 04 2013 11:47 jdseemoreglass wrote: According to most people who frequent the Politics Megathread, the US can just endlessly accrue debt and inflate our currency. Anyone who talks about economic responsibility is some sort of paranoid right wing Austrian.
These Chinese clearly need to start reading Krugman's columns and educate themselves. Strawmans, strawmans everywhere (in jdseemoreglass' posts).
|
On January 05 2013 00:01 Mo0Rauder wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 21:07 divito wrote: how would America make money by nationilising every bank? Would it be through loan schemes, interest, etc.? Yes. - If USA nationalized their banks then the country would make money on interest from loans/lending. However this obviously is not going to happen. Sidenote: From my perspective it would be nice if our neighbors were more responsible with their country. It's like living next to a person with 50 irresponsible kids, a dirty front/back yard, a dog that shits all over the sidewalk and every time you tell them maybe they should patch the whole in their roof they tell you to fuck off with that nonsense. I can understand why Americans don't want to hear that sort of thing coming from China, but it would be nice it was coming from Canada (a bit more respectable?). However I often think that Americans would just blow that off, thinking ah.. fuck the north, what do they know anyway? Most people I've met from the states don't stray too far from that line of thinking, but maybe they are just the more vocal ones. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's just the feeling I have. Good luck with that congress, eh.
The loan idea is interesting but is it possible to implement? How can American give away more money when they themself don't have enough of it? Illegally printing more money without the gold to back it up?
|
How can Washington be responsible for the rest of the world if it can't even take care of itself?
This is the biggest point in my opinion. We spend so much money on foreign aid and invading other countries. We could cut our carrier fleet in half and still have more than any other country, and its not like any country is capable of invading us any time soon. Our defense budget could be cut in half and we would still be the strongest military in the world.
Medicare and Social Security are messes that would take pages to cover, but we should start with taking care of ourself first. There is no need for us to be world police, especially as the world has let us know they don't appreciate us taking on this role in the first place.
|
On January 05 2013 01:38 StreetWise wrote:Show nested quote +How can Washington be responsible for the rest of the world if it can't even take care of itself? This is the biggest point in my opinion. We spend so much money on foreign aid and invading other countries. We could cut our carrier fleet in half and still have more than any other country, and its not like any country is capable of invading us any time soon. Our defense budget could be cut in half and we would still be the strongest military in the world. Medicare and Social Security are messes that would take pages to cover, but we should start with taking care of ourself first. There is no need for us to be world police, especially as the world has let us know they don't appreciate us taking on this role in the first place.
And what should we do the next time (insert country here) is unwilling or unable to stop a genocide in their back yard? Should we just standby and let millions of people die in the name of "not wanting to be the world police"?
|
On January 05 2013 00:18 Unshapely wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 00:01 Mo0Rauder wrote:On January 04 2013 21:07 divito wrote: how would America make money by nationilising every bank? Would it be through loan schemes, interest, etc.? Yes. - If USA nationalized their banks then the country would make money on interest from loans/lending. However this obviously is not going to happen. Sidenote: From my perspective it would be nice if our neighbors were more responsible with their country. It's like living next to a person with 50 irresponsible kids, a dirty front/back yard, a dog that shits all over the sidewalk and every time you tell them maybe they should patch the whole in their roof they tell you to fuck off with that nonsense. I can understand why Americans don't want to hear that sort of thing coming from China, but it would be nice it was coming from Canada (a bit more respectable?). However I often think that Americans would just blow that off, thinking ah.. fuck the north, what do they know anyway? Most people I've met from the states don't stray too far from that line of thinking, but maybe they are just the more vocal ones. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's just the feeling I have. Good luck with that congress, eh. The loan idea is interesting but is it possible to implement? How can American give away more money when they themself don't have enough of it? Illegally printing more money without the gold to back it up? The US would not make money from nationalization by taking over operations. It would make money by allowing the banks to continue their own operations but having the right to control what happens to profits. So instead of the bank paying executives handsomely or making distributions to stockholders, it could take the profits and choose itself what to pay execs or not pay distributions to stockholders.
It's rarely a wise move and tends to be tyrannical.
|
On January 05 2013 00:01 Mo0Rauder wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 21:07 divito wrote: how would America make money by nationilising every bank? Would it be through loan schemes, interest, etc.? Yes. - If USA nationalized their banks then the country would make money on interest from loans/lending. However this obviously is not going to happen. I'm not sure you understand the current problem with the American banking system. Traditional banks (for the moment let's call them Commercial banks), have rather strict debt ratios (4-10% depending what tier capital). Those are not the banks in trouble, nor are they the ones people advocate nationalizing (usually).
What we saw in the 2007-2008 housing crisis were Investment Banks having very high debt ratios
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Leverage_Ratios.png)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leverage_(finance)#Leverage_and_the_financial_crisis_of_2007.E2.80.932009Financial institutions were highly levered. Lehman Brothers, for example, in its last annual financial statements, showed accounting leverage of 30.7 times ($691 billion in assets divided by $22 billion in stockholders’ equity).[26] Bankruptcy examiner Anton R. Valukas determined that the true accounting leverage was higher, it had been understated due to dubious accounting treatments including the so-called repo 105 (Allowed by Ernst & Young).[27] Accounting leverage is the ratio usually cited by the press.
By 30.7 times they mean 30700%. Now high leverage ratios aren't bad as a rule. The problem we had in 2007 is that they were borrowing to support consumption. The specific case of consumption we now know was improperly rated Synthetic Collateralized Debt Obligation. Given that what the banks were consuming was debt (ie. they were taking on debt to buy someone elses debt at a higher rate of return), and given that it was improperly rated, when it defaulted the banks lost unanticipated billions and had to have the government bail them out (and the federal reserve to artificially modify the money supply so our economy wouldn't collapse).
These would have been the Investment Banks (not the Commercial Banks), though many were owned by the same companies. There is no good way to make money off of defaulting debts (or not in the scale needed), that's why the government had to bailed out Frannie & Freddy. It's also why nationalizing these banks wouldn't make the government anywhere close to what it needs to avoid the debt ceiling.
I'm not saying the government hasn't gone own to make a series of poor decisions, because it has. I'm just saying nationalizing the banks isn't a magic bullet
|
On January 05 2013 01:46 Sermokala wrote: And what should we do the next time (insert country here) is unwilling or unable to stop a genocide in their back yard? Should we just standby and let millions of people die in the name of "not wanting to be the world police"?
oh, its like a madlib: Countries | Offending Race/Group(s) | Victimized Race | Time Cambodia | Khmer Rouge | Viets, Chinese, Chams, Thais | 1975-79 Rwanda | Hutu | Tutsi | 1994 Bosnia | Bavarian | Serbs | 1992-95 Sri Lanka | Liberation Tigers | Tamil | Tibet | China | Tibetans | 1959 Australia | Australians | Aboriginal | 1900-1969 and many more
i presume the comment was to address US policy post WW2.
|
On January 05 2013 01:46 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 01:38 StreetWise wrote:How can Washington be responsible for the rest of the world if it can't even take care of itself? This is the biggest point in my opinion. We spend so much money on foreign aid and invading other countries. We could cut our carrier fleet in half and still have more than any other country, and its not like any country is capable of invading us any time soon. Our defense budget could be cut in half and we would still be the strongest military in the world. Medicare and Social Security are messes that would take pages to cover, but we should start with taking care of ourself first. There is no need for us to be world police, especially as the world has let us know they don't appreciate us taking on this role in the first place. And what should we do the next time (insert country here) is unwilling or unable to stop a genocide in their back yard? Should we just standby and let millions of people die in the name of "not wanting to be the world police"? You mean like Rwanda? Worked out pretty well.
But you shouldn't worry StreetWise, because all that money is primarily spent in order to further US interest. Has always been, will always be. 'Humanitarian intervention' is just code for pursuing various geopolitical goals, which is why the US (among others) are so extremely selective with it.
|
On January 05 2013 01:46 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 01:38 StreetWise wrote:How can Washington be responsible for the rest of the world if it can't even take care of itself? This is the biggest point in my opinion. We spend so much money on foreign aid and invading other countries. We could cut our carrier fleet in half and still have more than any other country, and its not like any country is capable of invading us any time soon. Our defense budget could be cut in half and we would still be the strongest military in the world. Medicare and Social Security are messes that would take pages to cover, but we should start with taking care of ourself first. There is no need for us to be world police, especially as the world has let us know they don't appreciate us taking on this role in the first place. And what should we do the next time (insert country here) is unwilling or unable to stop a genocide in their back yard? Should we just standby and let millions of people die in the name of "not wanting to be the world police"?
Its a question the u.s. should turn to after it stops committing war crimes and acts of terrorism and supporting war criminals and terrorists for a reasonable amount of time. Say a couple decades.
|
What i find fun when looking at the "high taxes BAAD" people is that facts seem to just plain disagree with you?
Sweden went well thru the whole crisis. Denmark too. Is there any 1st World "socialist" country, in which the people actually pay their taxes, that struggles badly? .
Most first World countries with high taxes and expensive/strong social services went thru this whole crisis whiteout big problems... Yet you demonize socialism high tax/high social services (which you call entitlements, wtf?) just because... I have no Idea.. Pure unfounded ideology?
|
On January 05 2013 01:38 StreetWise wrote:Show nested quote +How can Washington be responsible for the rest of the world if it can't even take care of itself? This is the biggest point in my opinion. We spend so much money on foreign aid and invading other countries. We could cut our carrier fleet in half and still have more than any other country, and its not like any country is capable of invading us any time soon. Our defense budget could be cut in half and we would still be the strongest military in the world. Medicare and Social Security are messes that would take pages to cover, but we should start with taking care of ourself first. There is no need for us to be world police, especially as the world has let us know they don't appreciate us taking on this role in the first place.
Yes, but that would involve giving less monies to the military-industrial complex, which will never happen with Republicans in charge, and is only slightly more likely to happen when the Democrats are. The US needs to be stronger than everyone else combined, not just any one country, and while China is arming up that will only continue.
It worries me when I constantly see US politicians kicking the can down the road. I'm young enough to be the one suffering the consequences and old enough to wonder why people aren't more angry about it. Course, it's not just US politicians - how many countries, in this day and age, will actually be able to afford the pensions they agreed to pay out to workers? How many countries are operating within their means, or at least were doing so before austerity set in? People complain about austerity, but the sad fact is we've been electing successive governments who refuse to deal with the underlying issues - we're spending a craptonne more money than we're making - and instead have been patching budget problems with expediences like dipping into the pension funds. Austerity was always coming, and because we put it off so long it will hurt even harder.
Quite frankly, the older generations failed us. Or rather, the Baby-boomer generation did, and now with them all retiring we're going to be left with their debts to pay and their retirements to fund. I was in the UK when the riots were going on and I remember thinking that all those kids had a right to be angry, but their anger was entirely misplaced. They were by and large just trying to 'stick it to the man', when they should have been protesting and marching for more jobs, more opportunities denied to them, the lies we have been told growing up. Now I don't know if my kids will have the same opportunities I had - we already have a generation of university graduates working at Starbucks. Will it be better for our kids? I just don't know. But I am damn angry.
|
On January 05 2013 03:06 Velr wrote: What i find fun when looking at the "high taxes BAAD" people is that facts seem to just plain disagree with you?
Sweden went well thru the whole crisis. Denmark too. Is there any 1st World "socialist" country, in which the people actually pay their taxes, that struggles badly? .
Most first World countries with high taxes and expensive/strong social services went thru this whole crisis whiteout big problems... Yet you demonize socialism high tax/high social services (which you call entitlements, wtf?) just because... I have no Idea.. Pure unfounded ideology? You're alive today. I'm alive today. I guess that means we'll never die.
|
These countries also do not tend to have the HUGE debt issues... But i doubt that interests you..
|
On January 05 2013 03:08 Sanctimonius wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 01:38 StreetWise wrote:How can Washington be responsible for the rest of the world if it can't even take care of itself? This is the biggest point in my opinion. We spend so much money on foreign aid and invading other countries. We could cut our carrier fleet in half and still have more than any other country, and its not like any country is capable of invading us any time soon. Our defense budget could be cut in half and we would still be the strongest military in the world. Medicare and Social Security are messes that would take pages to cover, but we should start with taking care of ourself first. There is no need for us to be world police, especially as the world has let us know they don't appreciate us taking on this role in the first place. Yes, but that would involve giving less monies to the military-industrial complex, which will never happen with Republicans in charge, and is only slightly more likely to happen when the Democrats are. The US needs to be stronger than everyone else combined, not just any one country, and while China is arming up that will only continue. It worries me when I constantly see US politicians kicking the can down the road. I'm young enough to be the one suffering the consequences and old enough to wonder why people aren't more angry about it. Course, it's not just US politicians - how many countries, in this day and age, will actually be able to afford the pensions they agreed to pay out to workers? How many countries are operating within their means, or at least were doing so before austerity set in? People complain about austerity, but the sad fact is we've been electing successive governments who refuse to deal with the underlying issues - we're spending a craptonne more money than we're making - and instead have been patching budget problems with expediences like dipping into the pension funds. Austerity was always coming, and because we put it off so long it will hurt even harder. Quite frankly, the older generations failed us. Or rather, the Baby-boomer generation did, and now with them all retiring we're going to be left with their debts to pay and their retirements to fund. I was in the UK when the riots were going on and I remember thinking that all those kids had a right to be angry, but their anger was entirely misplaced. They were by and large just trying to 'stick it to the man', when they should have been protesting and marching for more jobs, more opportunities denied to them, the lies we have been told growing up. Now I don't know if my kids will have the same opportunities I had - we already have a generation of university graduates working at Starbucks. Will it be better for our kids? I just don't know. But I am damn angry. You put the blame where the blame lies. The problem is, though, most of your peers don't. They never consider blaming the people themselves or the policies they supported. If things get worse, we blame bankers or the economic system in general. There is a permanent populist sort of mindset in the masses, an eternal US vs. THEM mentality, which makes them incapable of looking at themselves, or at least their parents generation, for the blame.
|
Printing money isn't done quickly and fast for the simple reason that is another form of tax that hit mostly the people with low and constant wages, so all retired people for one. You're not "creating" wealth, you're just creating money, but at the cost of the wealth of the lower wage population mostly, for the benefit of "job creators" that can sell more. You'd be better off with a sistem that actually tax the big revenue source, instead of making them pay 17% (in America), or 22% in Europe, while the worker class pay from 30 to 50%.
|
Japan has a huge debt 200%+ of gdp. Yet japan is the most advanced country in the world by far and they are maintaining their wealth even with zero economic growth while going through a huge transition with their changing demographic. Even with 200% debt of its gdp, it is japan who acts as the worlds bank.
Usa has been in debt for over 100 years, the debt has been steadily rising for over 100 years. Yet the past 100 years where the most succesfull in american history. Somewhere down the line all this debt is not a bad thing, its even inherent to the current system. The system is verry difficult to understand though, and it is not realy teached or explained at businesschools either.
|
It takes a "Top ranked Chinese academic" to say something every news station has been talking about for months and is obvious to everyone who has had a high school government class?
The only new perspective is an attempt to guilt us into line, which is just silly. America is guilt-proof.
|
On January 05 2013 03:30 Rassy wrote: Japan has a huge debt 200%+ of gdp. Yet japan is the most advanced country in the world by far and they are maintaining their wealth even with zero economic growth while going through a huge transition with their changing demographic. Even with 200% debt of its gdp, it is japan who acts as the worlds bank.
Usa has been in debt for over 100 years, the debt has been steadily rising for over 100 years. Yet the past 100 years where the most succesfull in american history. Somewhere down the line all this debt is not a bad thing, its even inherent to the current system. The system is verry difficult to understand though, and it is not realy teached or explained at businesschools either. Really depends on what sort of metric we are using I suppose, but in any case, the growth of our economy has actually been decelerating for a while.
|
On January 05 2013 03:30 Rassy wrote: Japan has a huge debt 200%+ of gdp. Yet japan is the most advanced country in the world by far and they are maintaining their wealth even with zero economic growth while going through a huge transition with their changing demographic. Even with 200% debt of its gdp, it is japan who acts as the worlds bank.
Usa has been in debt for over 100 years, the debt has been steadily rising for over 100 years. Yet the past 100 years where the most succesfull in american history. Somewhere down the line all this debt is not a bad thing, its even inherent to the current system. The system is verry difficult to understand though, and it is not realy teached or explained at businesschools either.
if every country is in debt where the hell is all the money going to?
|
On January 05 2013 03:49 JieXian wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 03:30 Rassy wrote: Japan has a huge debt 200%+ of gdp. Yet japan is the most advanced country in the world by far and they are maintaining their wealth even with zero economic growth while going through a huge transition with their changing demographic. Even with 200% debt of its gdp, it is japan who acts as the worlds bank.
Usa has been in debt for over 100 years, the debt has been steadily rising for over 100 years. Yet the past 100 years where the most succesfull in american history. Somewhere down the line all this debt is not a bad thing, its even inherent to the current system. The system is verry difficult to understand though, and it is not realy teached or explained at businesschools either. if every country is in debt where the hell is all the money going to? Most of the debt money goes into inflated GDP's. Which is why we have so many bubbles/recessions. It's called "artificial growth."
|
On January 05 2013 03:30 Rassy wrote: Japan has a huge debt 200%+ of gdp. Yet japan is the most advanced country in the world by far and they are maintaining their wealth even with zero economic growth while going through a huge transition with their changing demographic. Even with 200% debt of its gdp, it is japan who acts as the worlds bank.
Usa has been in debt for over 100 years, the debt has been steadily rising for over 100 years. Yet the past 100 years where the most succesfull in american history. Somewhere down the line all this debt is not a bad thing, its even inherent to the current system. The system is verry difficult to understand though, and it is not realy teached or explained at businesschools either.
Japans does have debt problems which is why their rating isn't AAA and they've been warned by the IMF for example for it too... Anyway why Japan can sustain such a large debt burden is because 90% of it is domestically held, for the US it is 30% which is actually one of the reasons the US public debt isn't nearly as bad as its made up to be. It's already discussed in the US politics thread too.
Debt indeed isn't a bad thing but too much debt can be crippling and with the growth of the GDP like it is now you're just putting it off for the next generations to fix.
And really just printing money like you advocated earlier isn't a solution either, you're causing massive inflation which hits everyone's savings including pension funds etc. It also reduces your competitiveness severly because of the higher prices which is exactly the opposite you wanted to accomplish with the devaluation of the dollar.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the chinese media should try to talk about their own problems a bit more. this common tactic of focusing on other countries is simply done to shift attention from internal problems, or else blame them on others.
|
On January 05 2013 04:12 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 03:30 Rassy wrote: Japan has a huge debt 200%+ of gdp. Yet japan is the most advanced country in the world by far and they are maintaining their wealth even with zero economic growth while going through a huge transition with their changing demographic. Even with 200% debt of its gdp, it is japan who acts as the worlds bank.
Usa has been in debt for over 100 years, the debt has been steadily rising for over 100 years. Yet the past 100 years where the most succesfull in american history. Somewhere down the line all this debt is not a bad thing, its even inherent to the current system. The system is verry difficult to understand though, and it is not realy teached or explained at businesschools either. Japans does have debt problems which is why their rating isn't AAA and they've been warned by the IMF for example for it too... Anyway why Japan can sustain such a large debt burden is because 90% of it is domestically held, for the US it is 30% which is actually one of the reasons the US public debt isn't nearly as bad as its made up to be. It's already discussed in the US politics thread too. Debt indeed isn't a bad thing but too much debt can be crippling and with the growth of the GDP like it is now you're just putting it off for the next generations to fix. And really just printing money like you advocated earlier isn't a solution either, you're causing massive inflation which hits everyone's savings including pension funds etc. It also reduces your competitiveness severly because of the higher prices which is exactly the opposite you wanted to accomplish with the devaluation of the dollar.
Maybe not bad from the sense that our country won't go belly-up, but we still need to pay it off at some point.
|
On January 05 2013 03:49 JieXian wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 03:30 Rassy wrote: Japan has a huge debt 200%+ of gdp. Yet japan is the most advanced country in the world by far and they are maintaining their wealth even with zero economic growth while going through a huge transition with their changing demographic. Even with 200% debt of its gdp, it is japan who acts as the worlds bank.
Usa has been in debt for over 100 years, the debt has been steadily rising for over 100 years. Yet the past 100 years where the most succesfull in american history. Somewhere down the line all this debt is not a bad thing, its even inherent to the current system. The system is verry difficult to understand though, and it is not realy teached or explained at businesschools either. if every country is in debt where the hell is all the money going to? Most of the Japanese public debt has exceedingly low interest rates and is held by domestic savers, who are happy to take said low interest rates as inflation is negative, which means that real interest rates are substantially higher than they appear.
Unfortunately, Shinzo Abe appears hell-bent on re-inflating the economy (installing a lackey at the helm of the BoJ), so this cycle may not continue for much longer. Given the relatively front-loaded maturity timeline of Japanese government debt (about 6 years, on average), if interest rates rise, a substantial part of the debt will need to be refinanced fairly quickly at higher interest rates. Since a lot of the debt is legacy overhang from when Japan had a larger nominal GDP, from a macro fundamentals standpoint, it will be relatively harder for a smaller current Japanese economy to shoulder the debt burden (imagine a retiree trying to pay down large debts accumulated in his forties with his social security checks). This makes the Japanese debt market uniquely vulnerable to a cascading failure of confidence.
Of course, given that most Japanese bond market investors are Japanese institutions, the government could resort to administrative measures to keep the game rolling for longer than it should by swallowing losses and remaining tethered to the public bond market. This will push the cost down to Japanese savers, who suddenly will be receiving less and less from the savings they've put in while the economy experiences inflation around them. This may lead to social unrest, especially among the elderly, as medical care gets more and more expensive the longer people live (and Japanese life expectancy is really high). We may see protest marches composed of the 65-and-up segment marching down Shinjuku in the future, but whether that will actually make an impact remains to be seen.
|
On January 05 2013 03:06 Velr wrote: What i find fun when looking at the "high taxes BAAD" people is that facts seem to just plain disagree with you?
Sweden went well thru the whole crisis. Denmark too. Is there any 1st World "socialist" country, in which the people actually pay their taxes, that struggles badly? .
Most first World countries with high taxes and expensive/strong social services went thru this whole crisis whiteout big problems... Yet you demonize socialism high tax/high social services (which you call entitlements, wtf?) just because... I have no Idea.. Pure unfounded ideology? I agree that "high taxes are bad" is overly simplistic. But to answer your question...
Europe as a whole has fared worse than the US through the crisis. Even today the eurozone is back in recession and fixes to key areas (banking and housing) lag behind the US.
Exceptions: Germany is doing well - they took their medicine a decade ago when their unemployment was over 12%. Low tax and banking haven Switzerland is doing well. Scandinavia is doing well, though Norway in particular has been buoyed by stubbornly high commodity prices. Outside of Europe, Canada and Australia have also been buoyed by high commodity prices.
BTW calling pension and healthcare spending "entitlements" is common parlance in the US.
|
i dont think any american disagrees that the problem needs to be solved, but how to do it is the question. the article just says a solution needs to happen but perhaps specific details on suggestions would help.
Also, im not super fond of a country like china trying to tell others how to conduct themselves
|
On January 05 2013 00:01 Mo0Rauder wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 21:07 divito wrote: how would America make money by nationilising every bank? Would it be through loan schemes, interest, etc.? Yes. - If USA nationalized their banks then the country would make money on interest from loans/lending. However this obviously is not going to happen. Sidenote: From my perspective it would be nice if our neighbors were more responsible with their country. It's like living next to a person with 50 irresponsible kids, a dirty front/back yard, a dog that shits all over the sidewalk and every time you tell them maybe they should patch the whole in their roof they tell you to fuck off with that nonsense. I can understand why Americans don't want to hear that sort of thing coming from China, but it would be nice it was coming from Canada (a bit more respectable?). However I often think that Americans would just blow that off, thinking ah.. fuck the north, what do they know anyway? Most people I've met from the states don't stray too far from that line of thinking, but maybe they are just the more vocal ones. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's just the feeling I have. Good luck with that congress, eh.
I think thats a good idea, for the US to at least open thier own national bank (singular) and compete with the other banks on interest rates, offer loans and business loans etc. I am not sure if there already is an American government owned national bank.
|
So long as politicians are unwilling to tighten their belts and reduce government spending (instead of giving themselves raises), none of this will change. Unfortunately, it will never happen because it's political suicide to even suggest cutting back on big expenditures.
|
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-feds-scrap-ban-on-sea-otters-in-southern-california-waters-20121218,0,6414668.story
Here's a simple story in a nutshell: For 25 years.... Let me repeat that, for 25 years, a federal government agency has been tasked with trying to force sea otters to stay outside an imaginary line in the waters of Southern California. This was done primarily to protect fishermen from the shellfish eating otters (*coughlobbyistscough*). They finally decided to scrap the program, admitting it was a total failure.
Now I want you to imagine the details here... There was an office somewhere, which needed to be heated, paid for, there was a group of workers who had to be paid, and who probably fought for 25 years to keep or increase their funding for their "sea otter relocation" program. Just imagine these people going to work every day knowing they were accomplishing basically nothing but still sucking on the government teat. Now I know this is a single, very small situation. But there are countless ridiculous, unnecessary programs like this in the nation. You've probably never heard of 99% of them. But every one of them will fight tooth and nail to keep or increase their funding. Minority interests are often much stronger than majority precisely because the minority has more to gain/lose at the expense of the majority.
The reason the debate about the "proper role of government" is so important is precisely to ensure that the important tasks of government are adequately supported without resources being drained by things that should not even be in the purview of government agencies. Opposing tax increases and demanding cuts in our current environment isn't draconian, it is simply common sense. No one should be demanding more revenue so long as there is so much blatant pork and fat to cut from the system. If we cut the fat and still can't fulfill the real roles of government, then we can discuss tax increases.
Unfortunately I think we all know just how hard it is to cut anything in government, so revenue increases are likely necessary. Which is why we shouldn't start so many shitty programs in the first place. ie. "we need to pass the bill to know what's in it" sort of logic.
|
On January 05 2013 03:06 Velr wrote: What i find fun when looking at the "high taxes BAAD" people is that facts seem to just plain disagree with you?
Sweden went well thru the whole crisis. Denmark too. Is there any 1st World "socialist" country, in which the people actually pay their taxes, that struggles badly? .
Most first World countries with high taxes and expensive/strong social services went thru this whole crisis whiteout big problems... Yet you demonize socialism high tax/high social services (which you call entitlements, wtf?) just because... I have no Idea.. Pure unfounded ideology? Yeah. Even the US itself used to have much higher tax rates, up to 94% in 1944, for the biggest part of the last century until the 80s. Despite financing two world wars, being in dept with 120% of GDP after WW2, helping to rebuild Germany and Europe after the 2nd world war and burning a lot of money during the arms race with Russia and cold war they still experienced something like a golden age during that time. I must admit I don't know a lot about the US economic history and surely there are other factors, but can this be pure coincidence?
|
On January 05 2013 04:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 03:06 Velr wrote: What i find fun when looking at the "high taxes BAAD" people is that facts seem to just plain disagree with you?
Sweden went well thru the whole crisis. Denmark too. Is there any 1st World "socialist" country, in which the people actually pay their taxes, that struggles badly? .
Most first World countries with high taxes and expensive/strong social services went thru this whole crisis whiteout big problems... Yet you demonize socialism high tax/high social services (which you call entitlements, wtf?) just because... I have no Idea.. Pure unfounded ideology? I agree that "high taxes are bad" is overly simplistic. But to answer your question... Europe as a whole has fared worse than the US through the crisis. Even today the eurozone is back in recession and fixes to key areas (banking and housing) lag behind the US. Exceptions: Germany is doing well - they took their medicine a decade ago when their unemployment was over 12%. Low tax and banking haven Switzerland is doing well. Scandinavia is doing well, though Norway in particular has been buoyed by stubbornly high commodity prices. Outside of Europe, Canada and Australia have also been buoyed by high commodity prices. BTW calling pension and healthcare spending "entitlements" is common parlance in the US. You seem to know a lot more than me about economics, but isn't the economic crisis in the eurozone caused because of economies like Greece, Spain, Portugal and I think Ireland pulling down the Euro. Without Germany the eurozone would probably have already collapsed right?
|
2012 the year when the american hegemony died
|
America to China: Give your citizens the right to vote.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On January 05 2013 04:52 Eufouria wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 04:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 05 2013 03:06 Velr wrote: What i find fun when looking at the "high taxes BAAD" people is that facts seem to just plain disagree with you?
Sweden went well thru the whole crisis. Denmark too. Is there any 1st World "socialist" country, in which the people actually pay their taxes, that struggles badly? .
Most first World countries with high taxes and expensive/strong social services went thru this whole crisis whiteout big problems... Yet you demonize socialism high tax/high social services (which you call entitlements, wtf?) just because... I have no Idea.. Pure unfounded ideology? I agree that "high taxes are bad" is overly simplistic. But to answer your question... Europe as a whole has fared worse than the US through the crisis. Even today the eurozone is back in recession and fixes to key areas (banking and housing) lag behind the US. Exceptions: Germany is doing well - they took their medicine a decade ago when their unemployment was over 12%. Low tax and banking haven Switzerland is doing well. Scandinavia is doing well, though Norway in particular has been buoyed by stubbornly high commodity prices. Outside of Europe, Canada and Australia have also been buoyed by high commodity prices. BTW calling pension and healthcare spending "entitlements" is common parlance in the US. You seem to know a lot more than me about economics, but isn't the economic crisis in the eurozone caused because of economies like Greece, Spain, Portugal and I think Ireland pulling down the Euro. Without Germany the eurozone would probably have already collapsed right?
Frankly you should just blame america(or more specifically american investment banks that underwrote mortgage backed assets). If it wasn't for america, none of those "problem" countries would have trouble defaulting except maybe Greece(which if you looked @ the problem closely enough, you can trace back go Goldman Sachs)
|
Money is illogical, it can be made without putting work or effort in it, on the otherhand some work hard 24/7 and just get enough to pull through the day. One one hand emplyees work as much as their bosses, solve more complex problems then they do or do much manual labour work then their bosses but dont earn more. This does not make sense as a physical law. Money and financial systems are a comupter program running in the heads of people, we dont have it from birth, at least not in the way it is practiced now, it is very rudementary. People have to be thought it, the financial system is like a childrens song that we learn from day one and continue to sing till the end of our days without thinking of the meaning of the words.
The republicans are using this debate to make cheap politics, if they would be interessted in a constructive intelligent way of solving problems they would do and act accordingly. I really had a high opinion of americans, all my life, they were the heroes the good guys, the guys of moral freedom, intelligence, the saviours and liberators of the world, here to enlighten us and bring peace. And now there are no visions no moral debates, america has gown complacent and I dare to say that the america I used to look up to, started to decay the day the Soviet Union broke down and collapsed. Today there are clowns like Palin, for which every american should be deeply ashamed, stars like Justin Bieber, I mean come on america, you were cool once ! What has happened ?
|
On January 05 2013 05:07 ElMeanYo wrote: America to China: Give your citizens the right to vote.
Why is this relevant? Why does every thread involving China have to involve ad hominem attacks on the Chinese? If this was an American economist saying the exact same thing (and many do) would you dismiss them also on the basis of pot calling the kettle black because they are residing in the same country while doing nothing about existing problems?
|
On January 05 2013 05:10 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 05:07 ElMeanYo wrote: America to China: Give your citizens the right to vote. Why is this relevant? Why does every thread involving China have to involve ad hominem attacks on the Chinese?
Why does every political thread on TL involve ad hominem attacks on the US?
|
On January 05 2013 05:10 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 05:07 ElMeanYo wrote: America to China: Give your citizens the right to vote. Why is this relevant? Why does every thread involving China have to involve ad hominem attacks on the Chinese? Isn't this entire thread about a Chinese dude leveling ad-hominems against the US?
|
On January 05 2013 05:09 Holy_AT wrote: Money is illogical, it can be made without putting work or effort in it, on the otherhand some work hard 24/7 and just get enough to pull through the day. One one hand emplyees work as much as their bosses, solve more complex problems then they do or do much manual labour work then their bosses but dont earn more. This does not make sense as a physical law. Money and financial systems are a comupter program running in the heads of people, we dont have it from birth, at least not in the way it is practiced now, it is very rudementary. People have to be thought it, the financial system is like a childrens song that we learn from day one and continue to sing till the end of our days without thinking of the meaning of the words.
The republicans are using this debate to make cheap politics, if they would be interessted in a constructive intelligent way of solving problems they would do and act accordingly. I really had a high opinion of americans, all my life, they were the heroes the good guys, the guys of moral freedom, intelligence, the saviours and liberators of the world, here to enlighten us and bring peace. And now there are no visions no moral debates, america has gown complacent and I dare to say that the america I used to look up to, started to decay the day the Soviet Union broke down and collapsed. Today there are clowns like Palin, for which every american should be deeply ashamed, stars like Justin Bieber, I mean come on america, you were cool once ! What has happened ?
Money is civilization, and only has as much worth as how much faith we have in civilization. Gold as currency is worth as much as paper money. It has very few uses outside of currency and w/o a civilization, is completely useless.
|
On January 05 2013 05:13 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 05:10 Caihead wrote:On January 05 2013 05:07 ElMeanYo wrote: America to China: Give your citizens the right to vote. Why is this relevant? Why does every thread involving China have to involve ad hominem attacks on the Chinese? Isn't this entire thread about a Chinese dude leveling ad-hominems against the US?
No, did you read the actual article or not?
|
On January 05 2013 05:13 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 05:10 Caihead wrote:On January 05 2013 05:07 ElMeanYo wrote: America to China: Give your citizens the right to vote. Why is this relevant? Why does every thread involving China have to involve ad hominem attacks on the Chinese? Isn't this entire thread about a Chinese dude leveling ad-hominems against the US?
honestly, fiscal irresponsibility is a far more serious problem then lack of a democracy. We've all seen the repercussions of what happens when certain financial institutions can make up value out of thin air. Now china is not w/o its criticisms, but w/ regards to democracy, i think we've all seen how effective and brutally efficient its government can be in the modern world compared to its democratic counterparts.
|
On January 05 2013 05:13 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 05:10 Caihead wrote:On January 05 2013 05:07 ElMeanYo wrote: America to China: Give your citizens the right to vote. Why is this relevant? Why does every thread involving China have to involve ad hominem attacks on the Chinese? Isn't this entire thread about a Chinese dude leveling ad-hominems against the US? ... concerning the economy. Stick to the topic people, good god.
|
On January 05 2013 03:30 Rassy wrote: Japan has a huge debt 200%+ of gdp. Yet japan is the most advanced country in the world by far and they are maintaining their wealth even with zero economic growth while going through a huge transition with their changing demographic. Even with 200% debt of its gdp, it is japan who acts as the worlds bank.
Usa has been in debt for over 100 years, the debt has been steadily rising for over 100 years. Yet the past 100 years where the most succesfull in american history. Somewhere down the line all this debt is not a bad thing, its even inherent to the current system. The system is verry difficult to understand though, and it is not realy teached or explained at businesschools either. There is also a difference and japan is feeling the effects their econ has been dragged down by that debt. But somewhere like 95% of that is owned with in japan they have very little foreign held sovereign debt. And that becomes a key distinction when it comes to the effects of paying interest on that debt.
|
On January 05 2013 04:13 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 03:49 JieXian wrote:On January 05 2013 03:30 Rassy wrote: Japan has a huge debt 200%+ of gdp. Yet japan is the most advanced country in the world by far and they are maintaining their wealth even with zero economic growth while going through a huge transition with their changing demographic. Even with 200% debt of its gdp, it is japan who acts as the worlds bank.
Usa has been in debt for over 100 years, the debt has been steadily rising for over 100 years. Yet the past 100 years where the most succesfull in american history. Somewhere down the line all this debt is not a bad thing, its even inherent to the current system. The system is verry difficult to understand though, and it is not realy teached or explained at businesschools either. if every country is in debt where the hell is all the money going to? Most of the Japanese public debt has exceedingly low interest rates and is held by domestic savers, who are happy to take said low interest rates as inflation is negative, which means that real interest rates are substantially higher than they appear. Unfortunately, Shinzo Abe appears hell-bent on re-inflating the economy (installing a lackey at the helm of the BoJ), so this cycle may not continue for much longer. Given the relatively front-loaded maturity timeline of Japanese government debt (about 6 years, on average), if interest rates rise, a substantial part of the debt will need to be refinanced fairly quickly at higher interest rates. Since a lot of the debt is legacy overhang from when Japan had a larger nominal GDP, from a macro fundamentals standpoint, it will be relatively harder for a smaller current Japanese economy to shoulder the debt burden (imagine a retiree trying to pay down large debts accumulated in his forties with his social security checks). This makes the Japanese debt market uniquely vulnerable to a cascading failure of confidence. Of course, given that most Japanese bond market investors are Japanese institutions, the government could resort to administrative measures to keep the game rolling for longer than it should by swallowing losses and remaining tethered to the public bond market. This will push the cost down to Japanese savers, who suddenly will be receiving less and less from the savings they've put in while the economy experiences inflation around them. This may lead to social unrest, especially among the elderly, as medical care gets more and more expensive the longer people live (and Japanese life expectancy is really high). We may see protest marches composed of the 65-and-up segment marching down Shinjuku in the future, but whether that will actually make an impact remains to be seen.
Where do you get your information? I just like how you lay things out, do you frequent some specific website or a news outlet? What type of education have you received? I'm trying to familiarize myself with a few concepts so your advice would be good.
|
On January 05 2013 04:45 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 03:06 Velr wrote: What i find fun when looking at the "high taxes BAAD" people is that facts seem to just plain disagree with you?
Sweden went well thru the whole crisis. Denmark too. Is there any 1st World "socialist" country, in which the people actually pay their taxes, that struggles badly? .
Most first World countries with high taxes and expensive/strong social services went thru this whole crisis whiteout big problems... Yet you demonize socialism high tax/high social services (which you call entitlements, wtf?) just because... I have no Idea.. Pure unfounded ideology? Yeah. Even the US itself used to have much higher tax rates, up to 94% in 1944, for the biggest part of the last century until the 80s. Despite financing two world wars, being in dept with 120% of GDP after WW2, helping to rebuild Germany and Europe after the 2nd world war and burning a lot of money during the arms race with Russia and cold war they still experienced something like a golden age during that time. I must admit I don't know a lot about the US economic history and surely there are other factors, but can this be pure coincidence? Very few were affected by those high rates and rebuilding Europe helped the economy - lots for our factories to do and no competitors. There were also demographics at play. The working age population was booming whereas now the retired population is booming.
|
On January 05 2013 05:08 czylu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 04:52 Eufouria wrote:On January 05 2013 04:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 05 2013 03:06 Velr wrote: What i find fun when looking at the "high taxes BAAD" people is that facts seem to just plain disagree with you?
Sweden went well thru the whole crisis. Denmark too. Is there any 1st World "socialist" country, in which the people actually pay their taxes, that struggles badly? .
Most first World countries with high taxes and expensive/strong social services went thru this whole crisis whiteout big problems... Yet you demonize socialism high tax/high social services (which you call entitlements, wtf?) just because... I have no Idea.. Pure unfounded ideology? I agree that "high taxes are bad" is overly simplistic. But to answer your question... Europe as a whole has fared worse than the US through the crisis. Even today the eurozone is back in recession and fixes to key areas (banking and housing) lag behind the US. Exceptions: Germany is doing well - they took their medicine a decade ago when their unemployment was over 12%. Low tax and banking haven Switzerland is doing well. Scandinavia is doing well, though Norway in particular has been buoyed by stubbornly high commodity prices. Outside of Europe, Canada and Australia have also been buoyed by high commodity prices. BTW calling pension and healthcare spending "entitlements" is common parlance in the US. You seem to know a lot more than me about economics, but isn't the economic crisis in the eurozone caused because of economies like Greece, Spain, Portugal and I think Ireland pulling down the Euro. Without Germany the eurozone would probably have already collapsed right? Frankly you should just blame america(or more specifically american investment banks that underwrote mortgage backed assets). If it wasn't for america, none of those "problem" countries would have trouble defaulting except maybe Greece(which if you looked @ the problem closely enough, you can trace back go Goldman Sachs)
European banks were even more over-leveraged than their US counterparts. What happened to US banks was more dramatic, but that's partially due to greater transparency. That's also why the banking crisis ended in the US and drags on in the EU. We have mark to market accounting and we did honest stress tests. Meanwhile Europe seems more concerned with convincing everyone things are OK rather than admit error and fix what's broken.
The Euro is a flawed concept that has lead to structural issues within the euro zone. As the poster you replied to stated, Germany is helping to prop up the euro zone. But the euro zone is also helping to prop up Germany. In many ways the weakness in countries like Greece lend strength to Germany - money flees Greece to Germany and interest rates are kept too low for Germany in order to save Greece and Spain (and others too).
Make no mistake - Europe's problems are largely their own.
|
On January 05 2013 06:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 04:45 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:On January 05 2013 03:06 Velr wrote: What i find fun when looking at the "high taxes BAAD" people is that facts seem to just plain disagree with you?
Sweden went well thru the whole crisis. Denmark too. Is there any 1st World "socialist" country, in which the people actually pay their taxes, that struggles badly? .
Most first World countries with high taxes and expensive/strong social services went thru this whole crisis whiteout big problems... Yet you demonize socialism high tax/high social services (which you call entitlements, wtf?) just because... I have no Idea.. Pure unfounded ideology? Yeah. Even the US itself used to have much higher tax rates, up to 94% in 1944, for the biggest part of the last century until the 80s. Despite financing two world wars, being in dept with 120% of GDP after WW2, helping to rebuild Germany and Europe after the 2nd world war and burning a lot of money during the arms race with Russia and cold war they still experienced something like a golden age during that time. I must admit I don't know a lot about the US economic history and surely there are other factors, but can this be pure coincidence? Very few were affected by those high rates and rebuilding Europe helped the economy - lots for our factories to do and no competitors. There were also demographics at play. The working age population was booming whereas now the retired population is booming.
The main causes of our current deficit can be traced back to the policies of 2 presidents, LBJ and Reagan. LBJ's Great Society created a literal shit ton of government agencies designed to protect the poor and needy, such as Medicare(and later Medicaid) along with a broad spectrum of educational and social initiatives designed to improve social mobility. Back then, because of the massive scope of these programs, they were often poorly implemented and barely fit with in the government budget. Flash forward to Reagan, in an effort to kill the cold war, Reagan followed the policy of deficit spending by upping the spending on Military, while diminishing taxes on the wealthiest Americans(which in practice is basically just corporations). This massive influx of capital into both government military research and private enterprise is what ultimately killed the Soviet Union, because they(under the rules of a balanced budget) did not have the resources to support both a military arms race and maintain a first world standard of living, while fighting a losing war in Afghanistan. If Khrushchev had a similar idea when the US was sinking resources into Vietnam, I'm sure we'd all be singing praises to the Soviet Union today. By reducing revenue while upping spending to kill the Soviets, Reagan put the deficit in a downward spiral that has grown into the fiscal cliff we know today.
Anyway, flash forward to today, and we see the modern iterations of both parties fighting to the death over the policies of LBJ and Reagan. The democrats want their social programs like it was still 1960 and Republicans want their tax breaks like it was still 1980, and in the crossfire lies the american people and the global financial system.
|
On January 05 2013 06:51 czylu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 06:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 05 2013 04:45 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:On January 05 2013 03:06 Velr wrote: What i find fun when looking at the "high taxes BAAD" people is that facts seem to just plain disagree with you?
Sweden went well thru the whole crisis. Denmark too. Is there any 1st World "socialist" country, in which the people actually pay their taxes, that struggles badly? .
Most first World countries with high taxes and expensive/strong social services went thru this whole crisis whiteout big problems... Yet you demonize socialism high tax/high social services (which you call entitlements, wtf?) just because... I have no Idea.. Pure unfounded ideology? Yeah. Even the US itself used to have much higher tax rates, up to 94% in 1944, for the biggest part of the last century until the 80s. Despite financing two world wars, being in dept with 120% of GDP after WW2, helping to rebuild Germany and Europe after the 2nd world war and burning a lot of money during the arms race with Russia and cold war they still experienced something like a golden age during that time. I must admit I don't know a lot about the US economic history and surely there are other factors, but can this be pure coincidence? Very few were affected by those high rates and rebuilding Europe helped the economy - lots for our factories to do and no competitors. There were also demographics at play. The working age population was booming whereas now the retired population is booming. The main causes of our current deficit can be traced back to the policies of 2 presidents, LBJ and Reagan. LBJ's Great Society created a literal shit ton of government agencies designed to protect the poor and needy, such as Medicare(and later Medicaid) along with a broad spectrum of educational and social initiatives designed to improve social mobility. Back then, because of the massive scope of these programs, they were often poorly implemented and barely fit with in the government budget. Flash forward to Reagan, in an effort to kill the cold war, Reagan followed the policy of deficit spending by upping the spending on Military, while diminishing taxes on the wealthiest Americans(which in practice is basically just corporations). This massive influx of capital into both government military research and private enterprise is what ultimately killed the Soviet Union, because they(under the rules of a balanced budget) did not have the resources to support both a military arms race and maintain a first world standard of living, while fighting a losing war in Afghanistan. If Khrushchev had a similar idea when the US was sinking resources into Vietnam, I'm sure we'd all be singing praises to the Soviet Union today. By reducing revenue while upping spending to kill the Soviets, Reagan put the deficit in a downward spiral that has grown into the fiscal cliff we know today. Anyway, flash forward to today, and we see the modern iterations of both parties fighting to the death over the policies of LBJ and Reagan. The democrats want their social programs like it was still 1960 and Republicans want their tax breaks like it was still 1980, and in the crossfire lies the american people and the global financial system.
This has to be the craziest interpretation of USSR collapse I've ever heard. Do you actually believe in this?
lol!
|
On January 05 2013 04:12 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 03:30 Rassy wrote: Japan has a huge debt 200%+ of gdp. Yet japan is the most advanced country in the world by far and they are maintaining their wealth even with zero economic growth while going through a huge transition with their changing demographic. Even with 200% debt of its gdp, it is japan who acts as the worlds bank.
Usa has been in debt for over 100 years, the debt has been steadily rising for over 100 years. Yet the past 100 years where the most succesfull in american history. Somewhere down the line all this debt is not a bad thing, its even inherent to the current system. The system is verry difficult to understand though, and it is not realy teached or explained at businesschools either. Japans does have debt problems which is why their rating isn't AAA and they've been warned by the IMF for example for it too... Anyway why Japan can sustain such a large debt burden is because 90% of it is domestically held, for the US it is 30% which is actually one of the reasons the US public debt isn't nearly as bad as its made up to be. It's already discussed in the US politics thread too. Debt indeed isn't a bad thing but too much debt can be crippling and with the growth of the GDP like it is now you're just putting it off for the next generations to fix. And really just printing money like you advocated earlier isn't a solution either, you're causing massive inflation which hits everyone's savings including pension funds etc. It also reduces your competitiveness severly because of the higher prices which is exactly the opposite you wanted to accomplish with the devaluation of the dollar.
I have to admit i dont support unlimited monney printing, for the reason you mentioned. There manny examples where monney printing led to a disaster. What i mostly tried to do was get the message across that debt in itself is not a bad thing. People here are talking "how do we ever get out of all this debt" as if it is a major thread to their existence. The answer is: you are never going to get rid of all this debt , its inherent to the system, and it does not threaten your existance.
The economy grows and grows, so there need to come more monney into the system to accomodate all these extra trades wich are beeing done. Now the people in power can do 2 things to add more monney:
1:they can outright print monney, the effect of the added monney is permanent. 2:they can bring monney as debt into the system, the effect of the added monney is temporarely, it will disapear when the monney disapears again (the debt is paid back) The growth of the economy (over larger time periods) is permanent, the added monney should also be permanent. All debt wich will be taken out, should be replaced by new debt and even some more to accomodate for interest and economic growth. If not there simply would be a shortage of monney to accomodate trades at current prices.
Why do governments introduce extra monney as debt and not print it outright? I dont realy know this but bringing monney as debt has a few advantages. It also is a lot more flexible for managing the monney amount then permanently adding dollars,wich are near impossible to take out. Debt will always have to be paid back and you can just stop isueing new debt to compensate if you want to shrink the amount of monney in circulation. If usa would now pay of all debt,there would be no monney left at all for 4$ cofees at starbucks and what not. If usa would pay of all debt now i guess a house in the usa would be like 10k and a cofee 40 cents.
One day in the far future there will be a monetary revolution to get rid of the perverted system we now have,but this day i guess is well over 100 years away unfortunatly.
|
Debt is taking portions of future growth and spending it in the present. The problem is that successive generations work increasing portions of their life so that the country could have nicer things in the past and they don't get to say no.
So I agree that it's not bad per se, but people think about it in ways that don't demand prudence in how it is spent and take more than they should because they aren't warned or don't care about the consequences.
|
On January 05 2013 05:21 czylu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 05:13 farvacola wrote:On January 05 2013 05:10 Caihead wrote:On January 05 2013 05:07 ElMeanYo wrote: America to China: Give your citizens the right to vote. Why is this relevant? Why does every thread involving China have to involve ad hominem attacks on the Chinese? Isn't this entire thread about a Chinese dude leveling ad-hominems against the US? honestly, fiscal irresponsibility is a far more serious problem then lack of a democracy. We've all seen the repercussions of what happens when certain financial institutions can make up value out of thin air. Now china is not w/o its criticisms, but w/ regards to democracy, i think we've all seen how effective and brutally efficient its government can be in the modern world compared to its democratic counterparts.
"Brutally" is the right word.
|
China starting to sweat over the 85 billion per month the US FED is printing now through QE? A large part of the USAs debt problem is due to outsourcing productive manufacturing jobs to China.A lot of the true wealth generation left the country. Companies like GE not paying any tax last year doesn't help either.
|
lol why wouldn't the U.S. print money?
They have the license to print gold.
U.S. currency is Gold. The entire world depends on it and that's not going to change any time soon.
China can keep complaining... and keep buying billions of treasuries.
|
On January 05 2013 03:10 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 03:06 Velr wrote: What i find fun when looking at the "high taxes BAAD" people is that facts seem to just plain disagree with you?
Sweden went well thru the whole crisis. Denmark too. Is there any 1st World "socialist" country, in which the people actually pay their taxes, that struggles badly? .
Most first World countries with high taxes and expensive/strong social services went thru this whole crisis whiteout big problems... Yet you demonize socialism high tax/high social services (which you call entitlements, wtf?) just because... I have no Idea.. Pure unfounded ideology? You're alive today. I'm alive today. I guess that means we'll never die. No person is eternal and it likely applies to countries too. The question is how long, how healthy and how pleasant this life is. Countries with higher taxes and larger social programs on average have smaller crime rates, higher living standards and more stable economies. That's just statistics. Low tax countries however may support faster growing economies, so there is always a trade off.
|
On January 05 2013 13:24 Alex1Sun wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 03:10 coverpunch wrote:On January 05 2013 03:06 Velr wrote: What i find fun when looking at the "high taxes BAAD" people is that facts seem to just plain disagree with you?
Sweden went well thru the whole crisis. Denmark too. Is there any 1st World "socialist" country, in which the people actually pay their taxes, that struggles badly? .
Most first World countries with high taxes and expensive/strong social services went thru this whole crisis whiteout big problems... Yet you demonize socialism high tax/high social services (which you call entitlements, wtf?) just because... I have no Idea.. Pure unfounded ideology? You're alive today. I'm alive today. I guess that means we'll never die. No person is eternal and it likely applies to countries too. The question is how long, how healthy and how pleasant this life is. Countries with higher taxes and larger social programs on average have smaller crime rates, higher living standards and more stable economies. That's just statistics. Low tax countries however may support faster growing economies, so there is always a trade off.
You've got the causation reversed.
|
On January 05 2013 10:08 RinconH wrote: lol why wouldn't the U.S. print money?
They have the license to print gold.
U.S. currency is Gold. The entire world depends on it and that's not going to change any time soon.
China can keep complaining... and keep buying billions of treasuries. It really isn't umm.. what we aren't on the gold standard anymore dude. We let out currency float long ago, that is why you can buy US$ futures.
|
On January 05 2013 13:41 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 13:24 Alex1Sun wrote:On January 05 2013 03:10 coverpunch wrote:On January 05 2013 03:06 Velr wrote: What i find fun when looking at the "high taxes BAAD" people is that facts seem to just plain disagree with you?
Sweden went well thru the whole crisis. Denmark too. Is there any 1st World "socialist" country, in which the people actually pay their taxes, that struggles badly? .
Most first World countries with high taxes and expensive/strong social services went thru this whole crisis whiteout big problems... Yet you demonize socialism high tax/high social services (which you call entitlements, wtf?) just because... I have no Idea.. Pure unfounded ideology? You're alive today. I'm alive today. I guess that means we'll never die. No person is eternal and it likely applies to countries too. The question is how long, how healthy and how pleasant this life is. Countries with higher taxes and larger social programs on average have smaller crime rates, higher living standards and more stable economies. That's just statistics. Low tax countries however may support faster growing economies, so there is always a trade off. You've got the causation reversed. Perhaps, but I rather think these issues may be interconnected both ways.
|
United States43014 Posts
On January 05 2013 13:45 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 10:08 RinconH wrote: lol why wouldn't the U.S. print money?
They have the license to print gold.
U.S. currency is Gold. The entire world depends on it and that's not going to change any time soon.
China can keep complaining... and keep buying billions of treasuries. It really isn't umm.. what we aren't on the gold standard anymore dude. We let out currency float long ago, that is why you can buy US$ futures. He didn't mean literal gold. He meant the dollar is the reserve currency of the world.
|
The logical inference is the US still has the strongest economy in the world. As more chinese rise above poverty, the pressure on demand should have their living cost skyrocket, putting an end to cheap labor.
Quick technological development like Japan or South Korea is unfeasible while competing against both and without western aid in the context of the Cold War, so the alternative is to stop the rise by funneling wealth to the ruling class, which leads to social unrest. Said unrest is controlled through preventing the spread of information, but every time a bureaucrat takes his BMW for a spin, a bunch of people gets pissed that they have to ride a bike to work.
China is a timebomb about whether that unrest can be controlled until the economy develops to a level it can beat the rest of the world without devaluing the currency, therefore earning the privilege the US currently have of being the world's central bank. The key to achieve that is military expense, either to frighten the people or ideally, have them proud of their country being the most powerful in the world so they ignore their deep seated issues. Sounds familiar? And just last century when two countries attempted to do that, what ensued? Cold war. Not a bright prospect for the future, from either side.
|
Heliusx to China: Stop violating the humans rights of 1/5 of the human population.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
I sometimes don't get people who just blindly comment. But here are my thoughts on this.
Was what the person in China said wrong to begin with? Just because it came from China who some view as an "enemy of your economy" doesn't mean it is wrong.
You blame the migration of jobs and manufacturing elsewhere on your woes but wouldn't a local/federal policy solve that? Wasn't that the issue before that was confronted by the European car brands when they were facing up against the Japanese brands? They required the said items be manufactured in a European country or face a higher tax rate. The solution Japanese brands went with was build factories in Europe to make their cars not receive a higher tax rate.
It is all politcal anyway so just because companies moved their workforce or manufacturing to another country doesn't make that country evil or bad. It just means that it was more logical from a business standpoint to move it there.
If you go by the logic then our what Europe did for their car industry, you could then give the company a choice as to what amounts to being competitive in the American market. The higher tax of items from abroad would mean more taxes received by the government through sale to use for whatever they deem fit. Moving it to the States on the other hand, gives you employment and at the same time a lower taxed item manufactured locally in your country.
So either of the two choices still work for you as Americans, wouldn't it. There doesn't need to be a blaming game here, you just need to take action. If you take in more debt that what you can pay, of course you will eventually cripple yourself, either just by being unable to pay or just being able to pay the interest alone.
It makes sense if you think about it and disregard any bias you may have for a country.
|
"is this any way to treat your banker"
Is a bit bold imo... considering the 'banker' in this context would be pretty much 'SOL' if the USA didn't do well. Not a news flash but if the US went down, every other country would as well - china's economy was linked and they entrenched themselves in that link to the US.
If the Chinese are fed up with our democracy then it should stop buying our bonds and put pressure on us, but it hasn't and it won't.
Silly article is silly - but I find it amusing and interesting, which is what media is here to do these days anyways.
I always tell people if you want to change anything you need to start small, everyone has grandiose plans on how to change or fix the world. You can never do that by posting even the simplest and most intelligent comment online. Get active in your own community and start to make a difference - no matter how small the initial impact, if you believe something - chances are others do as well.
|
On January 05 2013 10:08 RinconH wrote: lol why wouldn't the U.S. print money?
They have the license to print gold.
U.S. currency is Gold. The entire world depends on it and that's not going to change any time soon.
China can keep complaining... and keep buying billions of treasuries.
You do realize this not only bad for everyone else, but also bad for most of the US citizens. There is no way many not so hard working or even decently hard working us citizens will earn more money to overcome inflation, hence its just rich getting richer and poor getting poorer.
|
On January 05 2013 16:15 17Sphynx17 wrote: I sometimes don't get people who just blindly comment. But here are my thoughts on this.
Was what the person in China said wrong to begin with? Just because it came from China who some view as an "enemy of your economy" doesn't mean it is wrong.
You blame the migration of jobs and manufacturing elsewhere on your woes but wouldn't a local/federal policy solve that? Wasn't that the issue before that was confronted by the European car brands when they were facing up against the Japanese brands? They required the said items be manufactured in a European country or face a higher tax rate. The solution Japanese brands went with was build factories in Europe to make their cars not receive a higher tax rate.
It is all politcal anyway so just because companies moved their workforce or manufacturing to another country doesn't make that country evil or bad. It just means that it was more logical from a business standpoint to move it there.
If you go by the logic then our what Europe did for their car industry, you could then give the company a choice as to what amounts to being competitive in the American market. The higher tax of items from abroad would mean more taxes received by the government through sale to use for whatever they deem fit. Moving it to the States on the other hand, gives you employment and at the same time a lower taxed item manufactured locally in your country.
So either of the two choices still work for you as Americans, wouldn't it. There doesn't need to be a blaming game here, you just need to take action. If you take in more debt that what you can pay, of course you will eventually cripple yourself, either just by being unable to pay or just being able to pay the interest alone.
It makes sense if you think about it and disregard any bias you may have for a country.
Sounds like a tariff and I don't think starting another trade war is the brightest thing to do.
|
On January 05 2013 10:08 RinconH wrote: lol why wouldn't the U.S. print money?
They have the license to print gold.
U.S. currency is Gold. The entire world depends on it and that's not going to change any time soon.
China can keep complaining... and keep buying billions of treasuries. Currency collapses do not happen overnight but we are seeing a steady diminishing of the USD purchasing power.Gold was USD$300 back in 2000 and now it is around USD$1700.Back in the early 1970s when the dollar was backed by gold the price of gold was USD$35.Just because something is true today does not mean it will be true in one, five or ten years time.
Also the top holder of US treasuries is now the US Federal Reserve and not China.Basically the FED is printing money and using it to buy US treasuries and bonds.How can you claim that is sustainable? The situation is getting worse not better.
|
On January 05 2013 18:39 yandere991 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 05 2013 16:15 17Sphynx17 wrote: I sometimes don't get people who just blindly comment. But here are my thoughts on this.
Was what the person in China said wrong to begin with? Just because it came from China who some view as an "enemy of your economy" doesn't mean it is wrong.
You blame the migration of jobs and manufacturing elsewhere on your woes but wouldn't a local/federal policy solve that? Wasn't that the issue before that was confronted by the European car brands when they were facing up against the Japanese brands? They required the said items be manufactured in a European country or face a higher tax rate. The solution Japanese brands went with was build factories in Europe to make their cars not receive a higher tax rate.
It is all politcal anyway so just because companies moved their workforce or manufacturing to another country doesn't make that country evil or bad. It just means that it was more logical from a business standpoint to move it there.
If you go by the logic then our what Europe did for their car industry, you could then give the company a choice as to what amounts to being competitive in the American market. The higher tax of items from abroad would mean more taxes received by the government through sale to use for whatever they deem fit. Moving it to the States on the other hand, gives you employment and at the same time a lower taxed item manufactured locally in your country.
So either of the two choices still work for you as Americans, wouldn't it. There doesn't need to be a blaming game here, you just need to take action. If you take in more debt that what you can pay, of course you will eventually cripple yourself, either just by being unable to pay or just being able to pay the interest alone.
It makes sense if you think about it and disregard any bias you may have for a country. Sounds like a tariff and I don't think starting another trade war is the brightest thing to do.
True, but sometimes, there are just things that need to be done. Other than spending cuts, restructing spending etc, you have to find a way to either drive companies to start producing within the US or just basically tax whatever is coming in because your current revenue stream from taxes is not going to cut it.
The US is a major consumer market that quite a few companies want to be part of. And if they risk being undercut by local manufactured products because of their higher tax, they would reconsider building a manufacturing site within the territory as well.
Granted its not going to be quick, but I think it needs to be done to drive the local economy.
|
Shen has a valid point, but coming from China I can't help but feel an ironic undertone in it, as only one party holds all power in China, struggles as seen between the Democrats and Republicans are not possible in the first place.
Anyways, the fierce struggles in the upper levels of the politics in the u.s.a. are only natural as they reflect large gaps running through the different political opinions in the population. I myself am very interested to see how things will flatten out in the end.
|
On January 05 2013 20:23 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 10:08 RinconH wrote: lol why wouldn't the U.S. print money?
They have the license to print gold.
U.S. currency is Gold. The entire world depends on it and that's not going to change any time soon.
China can keep complaining... and keep buying billions of treasuries. Currency collapses do not happen overnight but we are seeing a steady diminishing of the USD purchasing power.Gold was USD$300 back in 2000 and now it is around USD$1700.Back in the early 1970s when the dollar was backed by gold the price of gold was USD$35.Just because something is true today does not mean it will be true in one, five or ten years time. Also the top holder of US treasuries is now the US Federal Reserve and not China.Basically the FED is printing money and using it to buy US treasuries and bonds.How can you claim that is sustainable? The situation is getting worse not better.
You sure our purchasing power has been going down steadily? When I take $2,000 from 1970 and apply it to 2012, well, I've got more money! (Even from 2000 to 2012, it grew!)
Why would the government do something that is unsustainable? Do they not know what they are doing? (How did they get into a position if they didn't know what they were doing?) Do they hate America? Do they just not care? Why wouldn't the government take the steps necessary to ensure the survival of this nation?
The rounds of quantitative easing have been to combat hyper-deflation. Some people will literally start yelling at you in the face in the real world if you present them with this. (If this happens, don't present the facts, because you may be strangled beyond death.) November's rate was 1.8, with our target being either 2 or 2.2%
|
On January 05 2013 21:31 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 20:23 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On January 05 2013 10:08 RinconH wrote: lol why wouldn't the U.S. print money?
They have the license to print gold.
U.S. currency is Gold. The entire world depends on it and that's not going to change any time soon.
China can keep complaining... and keep buying billions of treasuries. Currency collapses do not happen overnight but we are seeing a steady diminishing of the USD purchasing power.Gold was USD$300 back in 2000 and now it is around USD$1700.Back in the early 1970s when the dollar was backed by gold the price of gold was USD$35.Just because something is true today does not mean it will be true in one, five or ten years time. Also the top holder of US treasuries is now the US Federal Reserve and not China.Basically the FED is printing money and using it to buy US treasuries and bonds.How can you claim that is sustainable? The situation is getting worse not better. You sure our purchasing power has been going down steadily? When I take $2,000 from 1970 and apply it to 2012, well, I've got more money! (Even from 2000 to 2012, it grew!) Why would the government do something that is unsustainable? Do they not know what they are doing? (How did they get into a position if they didn't know what they were doing?) Do they hate America? Do they just not care? Why wouldn't the government take the steps necessary to ensure the survival of this nation? The rounds of quantitative easing have been to combat hyper-deflation. Some people will literally start yelling at you in the face in the real world if you present them with this. (If this happens, don't present the facts, because you may be strangled beyond death.) November's rate was 1.8, with our target being either 2 or 2.2% But... But... THE PRICE OF GOLD IS REALLY HIGH! Certainly inflation is skyrocketing and we're about to have to burn money instead of firewood or gas!
|
On January 05 2013 22:36 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 21:31 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On January 05 2013 20:23 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On January 05 2013 10:08 RinconH wrote: lol why wouldn't the U.S. print money?
They have the license to print gold.
U.S. currency is Gold. The entire world depends on it and that's not going to change any time soon.
China can keep complaining... and keep buying billions of treasuries. Currency collapses do not happen overnight but we are seeing a steady diminishing of the USD purchasing power.Gold was USD$300 back in 2000 and now it is around USD$1700.Back in the early 1970s when the dollar was backed by gold the price of gold was USD$35.Just because something is true today does not mean it will be true in one, five or ten years time. Also the top holder of US treasuries is now the US Federal Reserve and not China.Basically the FED is printing money and using it to buy US treasuries and bonds.How can you claim that is sustainable? The situation is getting worse not better. You sure our purchasing power has been going down steadily? When I take $2,000 from 1970 and apply it to 2012, well, I've got more money! (Even from 2000 to 2012, it grew!) Why would the government do something that is unsustainable? Do they not know what they are doing? (How did they get into a position if they didn't know what they were doing?) Do they hate America? Do they just not care? Why wouldn't the government take the steps necessary to ensure the survival of this nation? The rounds of quantitative easing have been to combat hyper-deflation. Some people will literally start yelling at you in the face in the real world if you present them with this. (If this happens, don't present the facts, because you may be strangled beyond death.) November's rate was 1.8, with our target being either 2 or 2.2% But... But... THE PRICE OF GOLD IS REALLY HIGH! Certainly inflation is skyrocketing and we're about to have to burn money instead of firewood or gas!
And you've got people like George Soros saying they will be buying gold. Who the fuck lets the world know that they will be buying up gold in massive quantities? Do they feel like paying a higher price for no reason, cutting profits massively? If anything, he's selling gold. He didn't make $1B in one month by telling everyone what he was up to.
We can also look at GDP numbers, since these things get people really fucking pissed off in real life. I like pissing people off.
(I know you're not mad, though.)
|
On January 05 2013 22:36 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 21:31 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On January 05 2013 20:23 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On January 05 2013 10:08 RinconH wrote: lol why wouldn't the U.S. print money?
They have the license to print gold.
U.S. currency is Gold. The entire world depends on it and that's not going to change any time soon.
China can keep complaining... and keep buying billions of treasuries. Currency collapses do not happen overnight but we are seeing a steady diminishing of the USD purchasing power.Gold was USD$300 back in 2000 and now it is around USD$1700.Back in the early 1970s when the dollar was backed by gold the price of gold was USD$35.Just because something is true today does not mean it will be true in one, five or ten years time. Also the top holder of US treasuries is now the US Federal Reserve and not China.Basically the FED is printing money and using it to buy US treasuries and bonds.How can you claim that is sustainable? The situation is getting worse not better. You sure our purchasing power has been going down steadily? When I take $2,000 from 1970 and apply it to 2012, well, I've got more money! (Even from 2000 to 2012, it grew!) Why would the government do something that is unsustainable? Do they not know what they are doing? (How did they get into a position if they didn't know what they were doing?) Do they hate America? Do they just not care? Why wouldn't the government take the steps necessary to ensure the survival of this nation? The rounds of quantitative easing have been to combat hyper-deflation. Some people will literally start yelling at you in the face in the real world if you present them with this. (If this happens, don't present the facts, because you may be strangled beyond death.) November's rate was 1.8, with our target being either 2 or 2.2% But... But... THE PRICE OF GOLD IS REALLY HIGH! Certainly inflation is skyrocketing and we're about to have to burn money instead of firewood or gas! Exactly, the inflation of the past 20 years has been in assets and commodities - not consumer products.
|
On January 06 2013 02:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 22:36 aksfjh wrote:On January 05 2013 21:31 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On January 05 2013 20:23 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On January 05 2013 10:08 RinconH wrote: lol why wouldn't the U.S. print money?
They have the license to print gold.
U.S. currency is Gold. The entire world depends on it and that's not going to change any time soon.
China can keep complaining... and keep buying billions of treasuries. Currency collapses do not happen overnight but we are seeing a steady diminishing of the USD purchasing power.Gold was USD$300 back in 2000 and now it is around USD$1700.Back in the early 1970s when the dollar was backed by gold the price of gold was USD$35.Just because something is true today does not mean it will be true in one, five or ten years time. Also the top holder of US treasuries is now the US Federal Reserve and not China.Basically the FED is printing money and using it to buy US treasuries and bonds.How can you claim that is sustainable? The situation is getting worse not better. You sure our purchasing power has been going down steadily? When I take $2,000 from 1970 and apply it to 2012, well, I've got more money! (Even from 2000 to 2012, it grew!) Why would the government do something that is unsustainable? Do they not know what they are doing? (How did they get into a position if they didn't know what they were doing?) Do they hate America? Do they just not care? Why wouldn't the government take the steps necessary to ensure the survival of this nation? The rounds of quantitative easing have been to combat hyper-deflation. Some people will literally start yelling at you in the face in the real world if you present them with this. (If this happens, don't present the facts, because you may be strangled beyond death.) November's rate was 1.8, with our target being either 2 or 2.2% But... But... THE PRICE OF GOLD IS REALLY HIGH! Certainly inflation is skyrocketing and we're about to have to burn money instead of firewood or gas! Exactly, the inflation of the past 20 years has been in assets and commodities - not consumer products. Oh, I see. So inflation has only hit things of severely limited supply. I doubt increased global demand for those same products has increases, so it MUST be the money supply.
|
On January 06 2013 03:39 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 02:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 05 2013 22:36 aksfjh wrote:On January 05 2013 21:31 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On January 05 2013 20:23 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On January 05 2013 10:08 RinconH wrote: lol why wouldn't the U.S. print money?
They have the license to print gold.
U.S. currency is Gold. The entire world depends on it and that's not going to change any time soon.
China can keep complaining... and keep buying billions of treasuries. Currency collapses do not happen overnight but we are seeing a steady diminishing of the USD purchasing power.Gold was USD$300 back in 2000 and now it is around USD$1700.Back in the early 1970s when the dollar was backed by gold the price of gold was USD$35.Just because something is true today does not mean it will be true in one, five or ten years time. Also the top holder of US treasuries is now the US Federal Reserve and not China.Basically the FED is printing money and using it to buy US treasuries and bonds.How can you claim that is sustainable? The situation is getting worse not better. You sure our purchasing power has been going down steadily? When I take $2,000 from 1970 and apply it to 2012, well, I've got more money! (Even from 2000 to 2012, it grew!) Why would the government do something that is unsustainable? Do they not know what they are doing? (How did they get into a position if they didn't know what they were doing?) Do they hate America? Do they just not care? Why wouldn't the government take the steps necessary to ensure the survival of this nation? The rounds of quantitative easing have been to combat hyper-deflation. Some people will literally start yelling at you in the face in the real world if you present them with this. (If this happens, don't present the facts, because you may be strangled beyond death.) November's rate was 1.8, with our target being either 2 or 2.2% But... But... THE PRICE OF GOLD IS REALLY HIGH! Certainly inflation is skyrocketing and we're about to have to burn money instead of firewood or gas! Exactly, the inflation of the past 20 years has been in assets and commodities - not consumer products. Oh, I see. So inflation has only hit things of severely limited supply. I doubt increased global demand for those same products has increases, so it MUST be the money supply. The world had a severely limited supply of houses and auto factories too?
|
On January 04 2013 09:04 a_flayer wrote: It really is ridiculous beyond words the way this (US politics) has been proceeding.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PFt3l.jpg)
Cool story bro. Would you like to say anything specific or do you just dislike America because it's the cool thing to do these days in Europe.
Things like these are a side-effect of politics, which are a part of democracy. It isn't ideal but the alternatives are way worse, as far as I'm concerned. Although the Chinese appear to disagree with that, "Frankly, China is fed up with the performance of U.S. democracy." I really don't think China has the right to lecture anyone when it comes to democracy.
Don't get me wrong though I don't see any problem with criticizing the U.S. government for playing with the world economy for political gain.
User was warned for this post
|
On January 05 2013 07:01 nolook wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 06:51 czylu wrote:On January 05 2013 06:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 05 2013 04:45 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:On January 05 2013 03:06 Velr wrote: What i find fun when looking at the "high taxes BAAD" people is that facts seem to just plain disagree with you?
Sweden went well thru the whole crisis. Denmark too. Is there any 1st World "socialist" country, in which the people actually pay their taxes, that struggles badly? .
Most first World countries with high taxes and expensive/strong social services went thru this whole crisis whiteout big problems... Yet you demonize socialism high tax/high social services (which you call entitlements, wtf?) just because... I have no Idea.. Pure unfounded ideology? Yeah. Even the US itself used to have much higher tax rates, up to 94% in 1944, for the biggest part of the last century until the 80s. Despite financing two world wars, being in dept with 120% of GDP after WW2, helping to rebuild Germany and Europe after the 2nd world war and burning a lot of money during the arms race with Russia and cold war they still experienced something like a golden age during that time. I must admit I don't know a lot about the US economic history and surely there are other factors, but can this be pure coincidence? Very few were affected by those high rates and rebuilding Europe helped the economy - lots for our factories to do and no competitors. There were also demographics at play. The working age population was booming whereas now the retired population is booming. The main causes of our current deficit can be traced back to the policies of 2 presidents, LBJ and Reagan. LBJ's Great Society created a literal shit ton of government agencies designed to protect the poor and needy, such as Medicare(and later Medicaid) along with a broad spectrum of educational and social initiatives designed to improve social mobility. Back then, because of the massive scope of these programs, they were often poorly implemented and barely fit with in the government budget. Flash forward to Reagan, in an effort to kill the cold war, Reagan followed the policy of deficit spending by upping the spending on Military, while diminishing taxes on the wealthiest Americans(which in practice is basically just corporations). This massive influx of capital into both government military research and private enterprise is what ultimately killed the Soviet Union, because they(under the rules of a balanced budget) did not have the resources to support both a military arms race and maintain a first world standard of living, while fighting a losing war in Afghanistan. If Khrushchev had a similar idea when the US was sinking resources into Vietnam, I'm sure we'd all be singing praises to the Soviet Union today. By reducing revenue while upping spending to kill the Soviets, Reagan put the deficit in a downward spiral that has grown into the fiscal cliff we know today. Anyway, flash forward to today, and we see the modern iterations of both parties fighting to the death over the policies of LBJ and Reagan. The democrats want their social programs like it was still 1960 and Republicans want their tax breaks like it was still 1980, and in the crossfire lies the american people and the global financial system. This has to be the craziest interpretation of USSR collapse I've ever heard. Do you actually believe in this? lol!
So, pray tell. What DID cause the collapse of the Soviet Union, if not economic and military pressure exerted from US policy?
|
|
On January 06 2013 08:35 czylu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 07:01 nolook wrote:On January 05 2013 06:51 czylu wrote:On January 05 2013 06:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 05 2013 04:45 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:On January 05 2013 03:06 Velr wrote: What i find fun when looking at the "high taxes BAAD" people is that facts seem to just plain disagree with you?
Sweden went well thru the whole crisis. Denmark too. Is there any 1st World "socialist" country, in which the people actually pay their taxes, that struggles badly? .
Most first World countries with high taxes and expensive/strong social services went thru this whole crisis whiteout big problems... Yet you demonize socialism high tax/high social services (which you call entitlements, wtf?) just because... I have no Idea.. Pure unfounded ideology? Yeah. Even the US itself used to have much higher tax rates, up to 94% in 1944, for the biggest part of the last century until the 80s. Despite financing two world wars, being in dept with 120% of GDP after WW2, helping to rebuild Germany and Europe after the 2nd world war and burning a lot of money during the arms race with Russia and cold war they still experienced something like a golden age during that time. I must admit I don't know a lot about the US economic history and surely there are other factors, but can this be pure coincidence? Very few were affected by those high rates and rebuilding Europe helped the economy - lots for our factories to do and no competitors. There were also demographics at play. The working age population was booming whereas now the retired population is booming. The main causes of our current deficit can be traced back to the policies of 2 presidents, LBJ and Reagan. LBJ's Great Society created a literal shit ton of government agencies designed to protect the poor and needy, such as Medicare(and later Medicaid) along with a broad spectrum of educational and social initiatives designed to improve social mobility. Back then, because of the massive scope of these programs, they were often poorly implemented and barely fit with in the government budget. Flash forward to Reagan, in an effort to kill the cold war, Reagan followed the policy of deficit spending by upping the spending on Military, while diminishing taxes on the wealthiest Americans(which in practice is basically just corporations). This massive influx of capital into both government military research and private enterprise is what ultimately killed the Soviet Union, because they(under the rules of a balanced budget) did not have the resources to support both a military arms race and maintain a first world standard of living, while fighting a losing war in Afghanistan. If Khrushchev had a similar idea when the US was sinking resources into Vietnam, I'm sure we'd all be singing praises to the Soviet Union today. By reducing revenue while upping spending to kill the Soviets, Reagan put the deficit in a downward spiral that has grown into the fiscal cliff we know today. Anyway, flash forward to today, and we see the modern iterations of both parties fighting to the death over the policies of LBJ and Reagan. The democrats want their social programs like it was still 1960 and Republicans want their tax breaks like it was still 1980, and in the crossfire lies the american people and the global financial system. This has to be the craziest interpretation of USSR collapse I've ever heard. Do you actually believe in this? lol! So, pray tell. What DID cause the collapse of the Soviet Union, if not economic and military pressure exerted from US policy? The collapse of the USSR is primarily political, although economics do play a role, it is secondary to the well intentioned but badly executed reforms attempted by Gorbachev, and karma, imo.
|
I really hope that the US doesn't go under, but really it's its own damned fault if it does.
|
On January 05 2013 20:42 JustPassingBy wrote: Anyways, the fierce struggles in the upper levels of the politics in the u.s.a. are only natural as they reflect large gaps running through the different political opinions in the population. I myself am very interested to see how things will flatten out in the end.
not an attack on you, but really the entire difference of political opinion in the United States can be summed up in only two viewpoints? i call BS. America really needs to move away from its two party state because while china only has an appearance of democracy they don't tend to spend an entire presidential term bickering over policy
also i feel like a lot of the people posting in this thread need to stop disregarding criticism just because its from china because right now the US is acting childish by refusing to admit it is in a pretty bad state.
|
On January 05 2013 21:31 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 05 2013 20:23 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 10:08 RinconH wrote: lol why wouldn't the U.S. print money?
They have the license to print gold.
U.S. currency is Gold. The entire world depends on it and that's not going to change any time soon.
China can keep complaining... and keep buying billions of treasuries. Currency collapses do not happen overnight but we are seeing a steady diminishing of the USD purchasing power.Gold was USD$300 back in 2000 and now it is around USD$1700.Back in the early 1970s when the dollar was backed by gold the price of gold was USD$35.Just because something is true today does not mean it will be true in one, five or ten years time. Also the top holder of US treasuries is now the US Federal Reserve and not China.Basically the FED is printing money and using it to buy US treasuries and bonds.How can you claim that is sustainable? The situation is getting worse not better. You sure our purchasing power has been going down steadily? When I take $2,000 from 1970 and apply it to 2012, well, I've got more money! (Even from 2000 to 2012, it grew!) Why would the government do something that is unsustainable? Do they not know what they are doing? (How did they get into a position if they didn't know what they were doing?) Do they hate America? Do they just not care? Why wouldn't the government take the steps necessary to ensure the survival of this nation? The rounds of quantitative easing have been to combat hyper-deflation. Some people will literally start yelling at you in the face in the real world if you present them with this. (If this happens, don't present the facts, because you may be strangled beyond death.) November's rate was 1.8, with our target being either 2 or 2.2%
Just because you have it doesn't mean it is good on you.
Proof that gold was growing in terms of price per ounce or whatever does not mean your purchasing power is growing steadily. It actually might mean the opposite in certain respects. If you could theoretically have bought a gold ounce for 35 usd 30 years ago, but now it would need around 1500 usd just to pay for the same gold ounce, then you could actually say the usd doesn't have the same value as in the past to purchase the same product.
Granted, there is inflation and demand that drives up the price so we can take that example into mortgaged back housing. A house you purchased at year A is worth 40k (initially). After say a 5 or 10 year period since demand was higher for your area, lets say it is now 100k (speculative projection). Now you could look at that and say, I've made 60k. Well, that 60k only applies, if you've already paid for the house and no other loans are stuck on to your house, right?
So aren't treasury bonds working in the same way wherein they are "technically" selling a portion of the worth of the gold they have in paper as a commitment to back their loans? So you could say a 1500 usd per gold ounce has already been loaned out for say 1200 usd per ounce. Then that would mean you only really have 300 usd per ounce left to use or claim as "your own".
I know this is too simplistic but it should give you an idea on how spending just because you believe you have said amount at X year is not right. you have to take into account was is actually left for you to spend.
And to say that government knows what they are doing is not necessarily true. Every action logically has a reaction to be expected. So pushing the problem onto the next generation would be what is being viewed as the "reaction" of this action by the US. So you may not be the one to suffer, but the next generation would be the ones to suffer as they have no way to play around with number like the current generation has done.
That's my two cents
|
On January 06 2013 09:22 RavenLoud wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 08:35 czylu wrote:On January 05 2013 07:01 nolook wrote:On January 05 2013 06:51 czylu wrote:On January 05 2013 06:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 05 2013 04:45 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:On January 05 2013 03:06 Velr wrote: What i find fun when looking at the "high taxes BAAD" people is that facts seem to just plain disagree with you?
Sweden went well thru the whole crisis. Denmark too. Is there any 1st World "socialist" country, in which the people actually pay their taxes, that struggles badly? .
Most first World countries with high taxes and expensive/strong social services went thru this whole crisis whiteout big problems... Yet you demonize socialism high tax/high social services (which you call entitlements, wtf?) just because... I have no Idea.. Pure unfounded ideology? Yeah. Even the US itself used to have much higher tax rates, up to 94% in 1944, for the biggest part of the last century until the 80s. Despite financing two world wars, being in dept with 120% of GDP after WW2, helping to rebuild Germany and Europe after the 2nd world war and burning a lot of money during the arms race with Russia and cold war they still experienced something like a golden age during that time. I must admit I don't know a lot about the US economic history and surely there are other factors, but can this be pure coincidence? Very few were affected by those high rates and rebuilding Europe helped the economy - lots for our factories to do and no competitors. There were also demographics at play. The working age population was booming whereas now the retired population is booming. The main causes of our current deficit can be traced back to the policies of 2 presidents, LBJ and Reagan. LBJ's Great Society created a literal shit ton of government agencies designed to protect the poor and needy, such as Medicare(and later Medicaid) along with a broad spectrum of educational and social initiatives designed to improve social mobility. Back then, because of the massive scope of these programs, they were often poorly implemented and barely fit with in the government budget. Flash forward to Reagan, in an effort to kill the cold war, Reagan followed the policy of deficit spending by upping the spending on Military, while diminishing taxes on the wealthiest Americans(which in practice is basically just corporations). This massive influx of capital into both government military research and private enterprise is what ultimately killed the Soviet Union, because they(under the rules of a balanced budget) did not have the resources to support both a military arms race and maintain a first world standard of living, while fighting a losing war in Afghanistan. If Khrushchev had a similar idea when the US was sinking resources into Vietnam, I'm sure we'd all be singing praises to the Soviet Union today. By reducing revenue while upping spending to kill the Soviets, Reagan put the deficit in a downward spiral that has grown into the fiscal cliff we know today. Anyway, flash forward to today, and we see the modern iterations of both parties fighting to the death over the policies of LBJ and Reagan. The democrats want their social programs like it was still 1960 and Republicans want their tax breaks like it was still 1980, and in the crossfire lies the american people and the global financial system. This has to be the craziest interpretation of USSR collapse I've ever heard. Do you actually believe in this? lol! So, pray tell. What DID cause the collapse of the Soviet Union, if not economic and military pressure exerted from US policy? The collapse of the USSR is primarily political, although economics do play a role, it is secondary to the well intentioned but badly executed reforms attempted by Gorbachev, and karma, imo.
Or we could face up to the fact that Reagan drained the USSR economically and politically by getting the Saudis to flood the world market with cheap oil (destroying the main revenue source of the USSR economy, oil sales), by partnering with the Pope to embezzle funds into Poland for Solidarity (without which Solidarity would have collapsed), by smuggling arms and money to the muhajideen and other anti-Communists (further draining the USSR treasury), by attacking the USSR directly on moral grounds (giving comfort and hope to the people who tossed off the satellite state governments), and by starting a naval build-up that the USSR spent billions futilely trying to match (again, draining the USSR treasury).
I understand that you can't give credit to the US because you are a person who would avoid doing that at all costs, but facts are facts. Ask Lech Walesa who brought down the Iron Curtain. Ask anyone else who was actually living behind the Iron Curtain not named Gorbachev, who has gotten the biggest case of sour grapes ever in the last 20 years. Why do you think he started those reforms? The USSR was falling behind the US. He was trying to save the system and preserve a gentler, milder Communism that could catch back up economically and technologically to the West. It wasn't enough. The system was too decayed already and pressured from the outside to maintain itself.
The whole rotten edifice just needed a few kicks to come crashing down, and the US either delivered them or helped others to.
|
On January 04 2013 09:04 Atrbyg wrote:Agreed. The US gov needs to get its act together.
it's not the US gov that needs to get it's act together. it's the people that have completely lost touch with how their political system works and how to use it.
|
On January 07 2013 08:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 09:22 RavenLoud wrote:On January 06 2013 08:35 czylu wrote:On January 05 2013 07:01 nolook wrote:On January 05 2013 06:51 czylu wrote:On January 05 2013 06:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 05 2013 04:45 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:On January 05 2013 03:06 Velr wrote: What i find fun when looking at the "high taxes BAAD" people is that facts seem to just plain disagree with you?
Sweden went well thru the whole crisis. Denmark too. Is there any 1st World "socialist" country, in which the people actually pay their taxes, that struggles badly? .
Most first World countries with high taxes and expensive/strong social services went thru this whole crisis whiteout big problems... Yet you demonize socialism high tax/high social services (which you call entitlements, wtf?) just because... I have no Idea.. Pure unfounded ideology? Yeah. Even the US itself used to have much higher tax rates, up to 94% in 1944, for the biggest part of the last century until the 80s. Despite financing two world wars, being in dept with 120% of GDP after WW2, helping to rebuild Germany and Europe after the 2nd world war and burning a lot of money during the arms race with Russia and cold war they still experienced something like a golden age during that time. I must admit I don't know a lot about the US economic history and surely there are other factors, but can this be pure coincidence? Very few were affected by those high rates and rebuilding Europe helped the economy - lots for our factories to do and no competitors. There were also demographics at play. The working age population was booming whereas now the retired population is booming. The main causes of our current deficit can be traced back to the policies of 2 presidents, LBJ and Reagan. LBJ's Great Society created a literal shit ton of government agencies designed to protect the poor and needy, such as Medicare(and later Medicaid) along with a broad spectrum of educational and social initiatives designed to improve social mobility. Back then, because of the massive scope of these programs, they were often poorly implemented and barely fit with in the government budget. Flash forward to Reagan, in an effort to kill the cold war, Reagan followed the policy of deficit spending by upping the spending on Military, while diminishing taxes on the wealthiest Americans(which in practice is basically just corporations). This massive influx of capital into both government military research and private enterprise is what ultimately killed the Soviet Union, because they(under the rules of a balanced budget) did not have the resources to support both a military arms race and maintain a first world standard of living, while fighting a losing war in Afghanistan. If Khrushchev had a similar idea when the US was sinking resources into Vietnam, I'm sure we'd all be singing praises to the Soviet Union today. By reducing revenue while upping spending to kill the Soviets, Reagan put the deficit in a downward spiral that has grown into the fiscal cliff we know today. Anyway, flash forward to today, and we see the modern iterations of both parties fighting to the death over the policies of LBJ and Reagan. The democrats want their social programs like it was still 1960 and Republicans want their tax breaks like it was still 1980, and in the crossfire lies the american people and the global financial system. This has to be the craziest interpretation of USSR collapse I've ever heard. Do you actually believe in this? lol! So, pray tell. What DID cause the collapse of the Soviet Union, if not economic and military pressure exerted from US policy? The collapse of the USSR is primarily political, although economics do play a role, it is secondary to the well intentioned but badly executed reforms attempted by Gorbachev, and karma, imo. Or we could face up to the fact that Reagan drained the USSR economically and politically by getting the Saudis to flood the world market with cheap oil (destroying the main revenue source of the USSR economy, oil sales), by partnering with the Pope to embezzle funds into Poland for Solidarity (without which Solidarity would have collapsed), by smuggling arms and money to the muhajideen and other anti-Communists (further draining the USSR treasury), by attacking the USSR directly on moral grounds (giving comfort and hope to the people who tossed off the satellite state governments), and by starting a naval build-up that the USSR spent billions futilely trying to match (again, draining the USSR treasury). I understand that you can't give credit to the US because you are a person who would avoid doing that at all costs, but facts are facts. Ask Lech Walesa who brought down the Iron Curtain. Ask anyone else who was actually living behind the Iron Curtain not named Gorbachev, who has gotten the biggest case of sour grapes ever in the last 20 years. Why do you think he started those reforms? The USSR was falling behind the US. He was trying to save the system and preserve a gentler, milder Communism that could catch back up economically and technologically to the West. It wasn't enough. The system was too decayed already and pressured from the outside to maintain itself. The whole rotten edifice just needed a few kicks to come crashing down, and the US either delivered them or helped others to. The funny thing is, now it is the US that has entered the "Brezhnev Stagnation", with a silent rot slowly killing all that has made America great.
|
On January 06 2013 09:50 SCkad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 20:42 JustPassingBy wrote: Anyways, the fierce struggles in the upper levels of the politics in the u.s.a. are only natural as they reflect large gaps running through the different political opinions in the population. I myself am very interested to see how things will flatten out in the end. not an attack on you, but really the entire difference of political opinion in the United States can be summed up in only two viewpoints? i call BS. America really needs to move away from its two party state because while china only has an appearance of democracy they don't tend to spend an entire presidential term bickering over policy also i feel like a lot of the people posting in this thread need to stop disregarding criticism just because its from china because right now the US is acting childish by refusing to admit it is in a pretty bad state. Well, among US people there is almost no divergence of opinions on this topic. If you look at statistics, almost all Americans, regardless of whether they are republicans, democrats or independents, at least in some cases agree almost exactly on what should be done. When asked particular detailed down-to-numbers questions on how to reduce the debt, republican and democrat people (not politicians) often have nearly the same opinions: http://www.ted.com/talks/adam_davidson_what_we_learned_from_teetering_on_the_fiscal_cliff.html
Polititians and media are just wreaking chaos, while common people actually agree on many points in this debate.
|
On January 07 2013 08:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 09:22 RavenLoud wrote:On January 06 2013 08:35 czylu wrote:On January 05 2013 07:01 nolook wrote:On January 05 2013 06:51 czylu wrote:On January 05 2013 06:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 05 2013 04:45 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:On January 05 2013 03:06 Velr wrote: What i find fun when looking at the "high taxes BAAD" people is that facts seem to just plain disagree with you?
Sweden went well thru the whole crisis. Denmark too. Is there any 1st World "socialist" country, in which the people actually pay their taxes, that struggles badly? .
Most first World countries with high taxes and expensive/strong social services went thru this whole crisis whiteout big problems... Yet you demonize socialism high tax/high social services (which you call entitlements, wtf?) just because... I have no Idea.. Pure unfounded ideology? Yeah. Even the US itself used to have much higher tax rates, up to 94% in 1944, for the biggest part of the last century until the 80s. Despite financing two world wars, being in dept with 120% of GDP after WW2, helping to rebuild Germany and Europe after the 2nd world war and burning a lot of money during the arms race with Russia and cold war they still experienced something like a golden age during that time. I must admit I don't know a lot about the US economic history and surely there are other factors, but can this be pure coincidence? Very few were affected by those high rates and rebuilding Europe helped the economy - lots for our factories to do and no competitors. There were also demographics at play. The working age population was booming whereas now the retired population is booming. The main causes of our current deficit can be traced back to the policies of 2 presidents, LBJ and Reagan. LBJ's Great Society created a literal shit ton of government agencies designed to protect the poor and needy, such as Medicare(and later Medicaid) along with a broad spectrum of educational and social initiatives designed to improve social mobility. Back then, because of the massive scope of these programs, they were often poorly implemented and barely fit with in the government budget. Flash forward to Reagan, in an effort to kill the cold war, Reagan followed the policy of deficit spending by upping the spending on Military, while diminishing taxes on the wealthiest Americans(which in practice is basically just corporations). This massive influx of capital into both government military research and private enterprise is what ultimately killed the Soviet Union, because they(under the rules of a balanced budget) did not have the resources to support both a military arms race and maintain a first world standard of living, while fighting a losing war in Afghanistan. If Khrushchev had a similar idea when the US was sinking resources into Vietnam, I'm sure we'd all be singing praises to the Soviet Union today. By reducing revenue while upping spending to kill the Soviets, Reagan put the deficit in a downward spiral that has grown into the fiscal cliff we know today. Anyway, flash forward to today, and we see the modern iterations of both parties fighting to the death over the policies of LBJ and Reagan. The democrats want their social programs like it was still 1960 and Republicans want their tax breaks like it was still 1980, and in the crossfire lies the american people and the global financial system. This has to be the craziest interpretation of USSR collapse I've ever heard. Do you actually believe in this? lol! So, pray tell. What DID cause the collapse of the Soviet Union, if not economic and military pressure exerted from US policy? The collapse of the USSR is primarily political, although economics do play a role, it is secondary to the well intentioned but badly executed reforms attempted by Gorbachev, and karma, imo. Or we could face up to the fact that Reagan drained the USSR economically and politically by getting the Saudis to flood the world market with cheap oil (destroying the main revenue source of the USSR economy, oil sales), by partnering with the Pope to embezzle funds into Poland for Solidarity (without which Solidarity would have collapsed), by smuggling arms and money to the muhajideen and other anti-Communists (further draining the USSR treasury), by attacking the USSR directly on moral grounds (giving comfort and hope to the people who tossed off the satellite state governments), and by starting a naval build-up that the USSR spent billions futilely trying to match (again, draining the USSR treasury). I understand that you can't give credit to the US because you are a person who would avoid doing that at all costs, but facts are facts. Ask Lech Walesa who brought down the Iron Curtain. Ask anyone else who was actually living behind the Iron Curtain not named Gorbachev, who has gotten the biggest case of sour grapes ever in the last 20 years. Why do you think he started those reforms? The USSR was falling behind the US. He was trying to save the system and preserve a gentler, milder Communism that could catch back up economically and technologically to the West. It wasn't enough. The system was too decayed already and pressured from the outside to maintain itself. The whole rotten edifice just needed a few kicks to come crashing down, and the US either delivered them or helped others to. No, you don't understand me at all and I think this post would be much better without that attitude or the strawmanning assumptions.
At the end of the day, both economical and political causes are valid and intertwined, we're just arguing from different sides of the same coin.
|
On January 06 2013 14:07 17Sphynx17 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 21:31 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 05 2013 20:23 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 10:08 RinconH wrote: lol why wouldn't the U.S. print money?
They have the license to print gold.
U.S. currency is Gold. The entire world depends on it and that's not going to change any time soon.
China can keep complaining... and keep buying billions of treasuries. Currency collapses do not happen overnight but we are seeing a steady diminishing of the USD purchasing power.Gold was USD$300 back in 2000 and now it is around USD$1700.Back in the early 1970s when the dollar was backed by gold the price of gold was USD$35.Just because something is true today does not mean it will be true in one, five or ten years time. Also the top holder of US treasuries is now the US Federal Reserve and not China.Basically the FED is printing money and using it to buy US treasuries and bonds.How can you claim that is sustainable? The situation is getting worse not better. You sure our purchasing power has been going down steadily? When I take $2,000 from 1970 and apply it to 2012, well, I've got more money! (Even from 2000 to 2012, it grew!) Why would the government do something that is unsustainable? Do they not know what they are doing? (How did they get into a position if they didn't know what they were doing?) Do they hate America? Do they just not care? Why wouldn't the government take the steps necessary to ensure the survival of this nation? The rounds of quantitative easing have been to combat hyper-deflation. Some people will literally start yelling at you in the face in the real world if you present them with this. (If this happens, don't present the facts, because you may be strangled beyond death.) November's rate was 1.8, with our target being either 2 or 2.2% Just because you have it doesn't mean it is good on you. Proof that gold was growing in terms of price per ounce or whatever does not mean your purchasing power is growing steadily. It actually might mean the opposite in certain respects. If you could theoretically have bought a gold ounce for 35 usd 30 years ago, but now it would need around 1500 usd just to pay for the same gold ounce, then you could actually say the usd doesn't have the same value as in the past to purchase the same product. Granted, there is inflation and demand that drives up the price so we can take that example into mortgaged back housing. A house you purchased at year A is worth 40k (initially). After say a 5 or 10 year period since demand was higher for your area, lets say it is now 100k (speculative projection). Now you could look at that and say, I've made 60k. Well, that 60k only applies, if you've already paid for the house and no other loans are stuck on to your house, right? So aren't treasury bonds working in the same way wherein they are "technically" selling a portion of the worth of the gold they have in paper as a commitment to back their loans? So you could say a 1500 usd per gold ounce has already been loaned out for say 1200 usd per ounce. Then that would mean you only really have 300 usd per ounce left to use or claim as "your own". I know this is too simplistic but it should give you an idea on how spending just because you believe you have said amount at X year is not right. you have to take into account was is actually left for you to spend. And to say that government knows what they are doing is not necessarily true. Every action logically has a reaction to be expected. So pushing the problem onto the next generation would be what is being viewed as the "reaction" of this action by the US. So you may not be the one to suffer, but the next generation would be the ones to suffer as they have no way to play around with number like the current generation has done. That's my two cents
I'm a bit lost. First, what is it that I have that's not good for me?
Secondly, are you making the value of the dollar be directly related to gold? I'm not saying that.
Are you saying that T-Bills are gold or something? Man, I haven't been this confused in the longest time.
I was saying that if I have $1,000 USD, just straight up ten 100 dollar bills, it would be over $10,000 today from the 1970s. I didn't buy the dollars with euros or yen. I worked for it and kept it. I'm not saying I'm holding gold over that time. Not at all.
|
On January 07 2013 09:14 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 14:07 17Sphynx17 wrote:On January 05 2013 21:31 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 05 2013 20:23 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 10:08 RinconH wrote: lol why wouldn't the U.S. print money?
They have the license to print gold.
U.S. currency is Gold. The entire world depends on it and that's not going to change any time soon.
China can keep complaining... and keep buying billions of treasuries. Currency collapses do not happen overnight but we are seeing a steady diminishing of the USD purchasing power.Gold was USD$300 back in 2000 and now it is around USD$1700.Back in the early 1970s when the dollar was backed by gold the price of gold was USD$35.Just because something is true today does not mean it will be true in one, five or ten years time. Also the top holder of US treasuries is now the US Federal Reserve and not China.Basically the FED is printing money and using it to buy US treasuries and bonds.How can you claim that is sustainable? The situation is getting worse not better. You sure our purchasing power has been going down steadily? When I take $2,000 from 1970 and apply it to 2012, well, I've got more money! (Even from 2000 to 2012, it grew!) Why would the government do something that is unsustainable? Do they not know what they are doing? (How did they get into a position if they didn't know what they were doing?) Do they hate America? Do they just not care? Why wouldn't the government take the steps necessary to ensure the survival of this nation? The rounds of quantitative easing have been to combat hyper-deflation. Some people will literally start yelling at you in the face in the real world if you present them with this. (If this happens, don't present the facts, because you may be strangled beyond death.) November's rate was 1.8, with our target being either 2 or 2.2% Just because you have it doesn't mean it is good on you. Proof that gold was growing in terms of price per ounce or whatever does not mean your purchasing power is growing steadily. It actually might mean the opposite in certain respects. If you could theoretically have bought a gold ounce for 35 usd 30 years ago, but now it would need around 1500 usd just to pay for the same gold ounce, then you could actually say the usd doesn't have the same value as in the past to purchase the same product. Granted, there is inflation and demand that drives up the price so we can take that example into mortgaged back housing. A house you purchased at year A is worth 40k (initially). After say a 5 or 10 year period since demand was higher for your area, lets say it is now 100k (speculative projection). Now you could look at that and say, I've made 60k. Well, that 60k only applies, if you've already paid for the house and no other loans are stuck on to your house, right? So aren't treasury bonds working in the same way wherein they are "technically" selling a portion of the worth of the gold they have in paper as a commitment to back their loans? So you could say a 1500 usd per gold ounce has already been loaned out for say 1200 usd per ounce. Then that would mean you only really have 300 usd per ounce left to use or claim as "your own". I know this is too simplistic but it should give you an idea on how spending just because you believe you have said amount at X year is not right. you have to take into account was is actually left for you to spend. And to say that government knows what they are doing is not necessarily true. Every action logically has a reaction to be expected. So pushing the problem onto the next generation would be what is being viewed as the "reaction" of this action by the US. So you may not be the one to suffer, but the next generation would be the ones to suffer as they have no way to play around with number like the current generation has done. That's my two cents I'm a bit lost. First, what is it that I have that's not good for me? Secondly, are you making the value of the dollar be directly related to gold? I'm not saying that. Are you saying that T-Bills are gold or something? Man, I haven't been this confused in the longest time. I was saying that if I have $1,000 USD, just straight up ten 100 dollar bills, it would be over $10,000 today from the 1970s. I didn't buy the dollars with euros or yen. I worked for it and kept it. I'm not saying I'm holding gold over that time. Not at all.
I think that's his point, though. The value of money is defined by what you can do with it; that's purchasing power. You can be buying gold or other stuff, it doesn't really matter. The dollar's value is directly related to what it can get you.
If you had worked for $1000 cash in the 70s and kept it under your mattress since then, you don't have more money at the end. You actually just have the $1000 you started with, because it's been sitting under your bed, untouched. Moreover, in the 70s, you might have been able to use that money to buy a car; now it might get you a TV. Far from growing, its value has plummeted.
Simply put, $1000 in the 70s being worth $10,000 today does not mean the dollar is stronger. It actually means the dollar is "weaker", because you need more money to buy the same thing.
|
On January 07 2013 09:04 RavenLoud wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2013 08:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:On January 06 2013 09:22 RavenLoud wrote:On January 06 2013 08:35 czylu wrote:On January 05 2013 07:01 nolook wrote:On January 05 2013 06:51 czylu wrote:On January 05 2013 06:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 05 2013 04:45 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:On January 05 2013 03:06 Velr wrote: What i find fun when looking at the "high taxes BAAD" people is that facts seem to just plain disagree with you?
Sweden went well thru the whole crisis. Denmark too. Is there any 1st World "socialist" country, in which the people actually pay their taxes, that struggles badly? .
Most first World countries with high taxes and expensive/strong social services went thru this whole crisis whiteout big problems... Yet you demonize socialism high tax/high social services (which you call entitlements, wtf?) just because... I have no Idea.. Pure unfounded ideology? Yeah. Even the US itself used to have much higher tax rates, up to 94% in 1944, for the biggest part of the last century until the 80s. Despite financing two world wars, being in dept with 120% of GDP after WW2, helping to rebuild Germany and Europe after the 2nd world war and burning a lot of money during the arms race with Russia and cold war they still experienced something like a golden age during that time. I must admit I don't know a lot about the US economic history and surely there are other factors, but can this be pure coincidence? Very few were affected by those high rates and rebuilding Europe helped the economy - lots for our factories to do and no competitors. There were also demographics at play. The working age population was booming whereas now the retired population is booming. The main causes of our current deficit can be traced back to the policies of 2 presidents, LBJ and Reagan. LBJ's Great Society created a literal shit ton of government agencies designed to protect the poor and needy, such as Medicare(and later Medicaid) along with a broad spectrum of educational and social initiatives designed to improve social mobility. Back then, because of the massive scope of these programs, they were often poorly implemented and barely fit with in the government budget. Flash forward to Reagan, in an effort to kill the cold war, Reagan followed the policy of deficit spending by upping the spending on Military, while diminishing taxes on the wealthiest Americans(which in practice is basically just corporations). This massive influx of capital into both government military research and private enterprise is what ultimately killed the Soviet Union, because they(under the rules of a balanced budget) did not have the resources to support both a military arms race and maintain a first world standard of living, while fighting a losing war in Afghanistan. If Khrushchev had a similar idea when the US was sinking resources into Vietnam, I'm sure we'd all be singing praises to the Soviet Union today. By reducing revenue while upping spending to kill the Soviets, Reagan put the deficit in a downward spiral that has grown into the fiscal cliff we know today. Anyway, flash forward to today, and we see the modern iterations of both parties fighting to the death over the policies of LBJ and Reagan. The democrats want their social programs like it was still 1960 and Republicans want their tax breaks like it was still 1980, and in the crossfire lies the american people and the global financial system. This has to be the craziest interpretation of USSR collapse I've ever heard. Do you actually believe in this? lol! So, pray tell. What DID cause the collapse of the Soviet Union, if not economic and military pressure exerted from US policy? The collapse of the USSR is primarily political, although economics do play a role, it is secondary to the well intentioned but badly executed reforms attempted by Gorbachev, and karma, imo. Or we could face up to the fact that Reagan drained the USSR economically and politically by getting the Saudis to flood the world market with cheap oil (destroying the main revenue source of the USSR economy, oil sales), by partnering with the Pope to embezzle funds into Poland for Solidarity (without which Solidarity would have collapsed), by smuggling arms and money to the muhajideen and other anti-Communists (further draining the USSR treasury), by attacking the USSR directly on moral grounds (giving comfort and hope to the people who tossed off the satellite state governments), and by starting a naval build-up that the USSR spent billions futilely trying to match (again, draining the USSR treasury). I understand that you can't give credit to the US because you are a person who would avoid doing that at all costs, but facts are facts. Ask Lech Walesa who brought down the Iron Curtain. Ask anyone else who was actually living behind the Iron Curtain not named Gorbachev, who has gotten the biggest case of sour grapes ever in the last 20 years. Why do you think he started those reforms? The USSR was falling behind the US. He was trying to save the system and preserve a gentler, milder Communism that could catch back up economically and technologically to the West. It wasn't enough. The system was too decayed already and pressured from the outside to maintain itself. The whole rotten edifice just needed a few kicks to come crashing down, and the US either delivered them or helped others to. No, you don't understand me at all and I think this post would be much better without that attitude or the strawmanning assumptions. At the end of the day, both economical and political causes are valid and intertwined, we're just arguing from different sides of the same coin.
Gorbachev's "failed" political reforms were a response to increasing pressure from Washington's expanding military budget and economic pressures exerted by Washington via the Saudi's(who dumped cheap oil to weaken Russian oil at the request of the US) and the Afghanistan war(which the rebels were funded secretly by the CIA). Maybe you need to look up the details Reykjavik Summits, which is the origin of where Gorbachev first came up with those ideas. All of Gorbachev's political reforms were implemented to appease Reagan, to try and make him stop the Star Wars(SDI) military research program. While Star Wars was a buncha made-up bullshit, if a system like that were to ever materialize, the Soviet's would be completely defenseless to an American invasion. The USSR did not have the fiscal capability to both match Reagan's fictional and ludicrous military program AND deal w/ the economic pressures exerted by America. In essence, the cold war ended on reagan's bluff.
|
On January 07 2013 11:02 czylu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2013 09:04 RavenLoud wrote:On January 07 2013 08:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:On January 06 2013 09:22 RavenLoud wrote:On January 06 2013 08:35 czylu wrote:On January 05 2013 07:01 nolook wrote:On January 05 2013 06:51 czylu wrote:On January 05 2013 06:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 05 2013 04:45 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:On January 05 2013 03:06 Velr wrote: What i find fun when looking at the "high taxes BAAD" people is that facts seem to just plain disagree with you?
Sweden went well thru the whole crisis. Denmark too. Is there any 1st World "socialist" country, in which the people actually pay their taxes, that struggles badly? .
Most first World countries with high taxes and expensive/strong social services went thru this whole crisis whiteout big problems... Yet you demonize socialism high tax/high social services (which you call entitlements, wtf?) just because... I have no Idea.. Pure unfounded ideology? Yeah. Even the US itself used to have much higher tax rates, up to 94% in 1944, for the biggest part of the last century until the 80s. Despite financing two world wars, being in dept with 120% of GDP after WW2, helping to rebuild Germany and Europe after the 2nd world war and burning a lot of money during the arms race with Russia and cold war they still experienced something like a golden age during that time. I must admit I don't know a lot about the US economic history and surely there are other factors, but can this be pure coincidence? Very few were affected by those high rates and rebuilding Europe helped the economy - lots for our factories to do and no competitors. There were also demographics at play. The working age population was booming whereas now the retired population is booming. The main causes of our current deficit can be traced back to the policies of 2 presidents, LBJ and Reagan. LBJ's Great Society created a literal shit ton of government agencies designed to protect the poor and needy, such as Medicare(and later Medicaid) along with a broad spectrum of educational and social initiatives designed to improve social mobility. Back then, because of the massive scope of these programs, they were often poorly implemented and barely fit with in the government budget. Flash forward to Reagan, in an effort to kill the cold war, Reagan followed the policy of deficit spending by upping the spending on Military, while diminishing taxes on the wealthiest Americans(which in practice is basically just corporations). This massive influx of capital into both government military research and private enterprise is what ultimately killed the Soviet Union, because they(under the rules of a balanced budget) did not have the resources to support both a military arms race and maintain a first world standard of living, while fighting a losing war in Afghanistan. If Khrushchev had a similar idea when the US was sinking resources into Vietnam, I'm sure we'd all be singing praises to the Soviet Union today. By reducing revenue while upping spending to kill the Soviets, Reagan put the deficit in a downward spiral that has grown into the fiscal cliff we know today. Anyway, flash forward to today, and we see the modern iterations of both parties fighting to the death over the policies of LBJ and Reagan. The democrats want their social programs like it was still 1960 and Republicans want their tax breaks like it was still 1980, and in the crossfire lies the american people and the global financial system. This has to be the craziest interpretation of USSR collapse I've ever heard. Do you actually believe in this? lol! So, pray tell. What DID cause the collapse of the Soviet Union, if not economic and military pressure exerted from US policy? The collapse of the USSR is primarily political, although economics do play a role, it is secondary to the well intentioned but badly executed reforms attempted by Gorbachev, and karma, imo. Or we could face up to the fact that Reagan drained the USSR economically and politically by getting the Saudis to flood the world market with cheap oil (destroying the main revenue source of the USSR economy, oil sales), by partnering with the Pope to embezzle funds into Poland for Solidarity (without which Solidarity would have collapsed), by smuggling arms and money to the muhajideen and other anti-Communists (further draining the USSR treasury), by attacking the USSR directly on moral grounds (giving comfort and hope to the people who tossed off the satellite state governments), and by starting a naval build-up that the USSR spent billions futilely trying to match (again, draining the USSR treasury). I understand that you can't give credit to the US because you are a person who would avoid doing that at all costs, but facts are facts. Ask Lech Walesa who brought down the Iron Curtain. Ask anyone else who was actually living behind the Iron Curtain not named Gorbachev, who has gotten the biggest case of sour grapes ever in the last 20 years. Why do you think he started those reforms? The USSR was falling behind the US. He was trying to save the system and preserve a gentler, milder Communism that could catch back up economically and technologically to the West. It wasn't enough. The system was too decayed already and pressured from the outside to maintain itself. The whole rotten edifice just needed a few kicks to come crashing down, and the US either delivered them or helped others to. No, you don't understand me at all and I think this post would be much better without that attitude or the strawmanning assumptions. At the end of the day, both economical and political causes are valid and intertwined, we're just arguing from different sides of the same coin. Gorbachev's "failed" political reforms were a response to increasing pressure from Washington's expanding military budget and economic pressures exerted by Washington via the Saudi's(who dumped cheap oil to weaken Russian oil at the request of the US) and the Afghanistan war(which the rebels were funded secretly by the CIA). Maybe you need to look up the details Reykjavik Summits, which is the origin of where Gorbachev first came up with those ideas. All of Gorbachev's political reforms were implemented to appease Reagan, to try and make him stop the Star Wars(SDI) military research program. While Star Wars was a buncha made-up bullshit, if a system like that were to ever materialize, the Soviet's would be completely defenseless to an American invasion. The USSR did not have the fiscal capability to both match Reagan's fictional and ludicrous military program AND deal w/ the economic pressures exerted by America. In essence, the cold war ended on reagan's bluff. Yes, however, the USSR would still not have collapsed so suddenly if the political house was in order, nor would they stagnate so much to begin with. It might be gradually weakened and surpassed by the US, but not roll over and die the instant someone tries to install western reforms without some major fail in politics.
I'm not sure if we disagree on anything in particular tbh. Reality is pretty complex and must be approached in a systematic way rather than a linear and black and white "this causes that end of story".
|
On January 07 2013 10:49 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2013 09:14 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On January 06 2013 14:07 17Sphynx17 wrote:On January 05 2013 21:31 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 05 2013 20:23 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 10:08 RinconH wrote: lol why wouldn't the U.S. print money?
They have the license to print gold.
U.S. currency is Gold. The entire world depends on it and that's not going to change any time soon.
China can keep complaining... and keep buying billions of treasuries. Currency collapses do not happen overnight but we are seeing a steady diminishing of the USD purchasing power.Gold was USD$300 back in 2000 and now it is around USD$1700.Back in the early 1970s when the dollar was backed by gold the price of gold was USD$35.Just because something is true today does not mean it will be true in one, five or ten years time. Also the top holder of US treasuries is now the US Federal Reserve and not China.Basically the FED is printing money and using it to buy US treasuries and bonds.How can you claim that is sustainable? The situation is getting worse not better. You sure our purchasing power has been going down steadily? When I take $2,000 from 1970 and apply it to 2012, well, I've got more money! (Even from 2000 to 2012, it grew!) Why would the government do something that is unsustainable? Do they not know what they are doing? (How did they get into a position if they didn't know what they were doing?) Do they hate America? Do they just not care? Why wouldn't the government take the steps necessary to ensure the survival of this nation? The rounds of quantitative easing have been to combat hyper-deflation. Some people will literally start yelling at you in the face in the real world if you present them with this. (If this happens, don't present the facts, because you may be strangled beyond death.) November's rate was 1.8, with our target being either 2 or 2.2% Just because you have it doesn't mean it is good on you. Proof that gold was growing in terms of price per ounce or whatever does not mean your purchasing power is growing steadily. It actually might mean the opposite in certain respects. If you could theoretically have bought a gold ounce for 35 usd 30 years ago, but now it would need around 1500 usd just to pay for the same gold ounce, then you could actually say the usd doesn't have the same value as in the past to purchase the same product. Granted, there is inflation and demand that drives up the price so we can take that example into mortgaged back housing. A house you purchased at year A is worth 40k (initially). After say a 5 or 10 year period since demand was higher for your area, lets say it is now 100k (speculative projection). Now you could look at that and say, I've made 60k. Well, that 60k only applies, if you've already paid for the house and no other loans are stuck on to your house, right? So aren't treasury bonds working in the same way wherein they are "technically" selling a portion of the worth of the gold they have in paper as a commitment to back their loans? So you could say a 1500 usd per gold ounce has already been loaned out for say 1200 usd per ounce. Then that would mean you only really have 300 usd per ounce left to use or claim as "your own". I know this is too simplistic but it should give you an idea on how spending just because you believe you have said amount at X year is not right. you have to take into account was is actually left for you to spend. And to say that government knows what they are doing is not necessarily true. Every action logically has a reaction to be expected. So pushing the problem onto the next generation would be what is being viewed as the "reaction" of this action by the US. So you may not be the one to suffer, but the next generation would be the ones to suffer as they have no way to play around with number like the current generation has done. That's my two cents I'm a bit lost. First, what is it that I have that's not good for me? Secondly, are you making the value of the dollar be directly related to gold? I'm not saying that. Are you saying that T-Bills are gold or something? Man, I haven't been this confused in the longest time. I was saying that if I have $1,000 USD, just straight up ten 100 dollar bills, it would be over $10,000 today from the 1970s. I didn't buy the dollars with euros or yen. I worked for it and kept it. I'm not saying I'm holding gold over that time. Not at all. I think that's his point, though. The value of money is defined by what you can do with it; that's purchasing power. You can be buying gold or other stuff, it doesn't really matter. The dollar's value is directly related to what it can get you. If you had worked for $1000 cash in the 70s and kept it under your mattress since then, you don't have more money at the end. You actually just have the $1000 you started with, because it's been sitting under your bed, untouched. Moreover, in the 70s, you might have been able to use that money to buy a car; now it might get you a TV. Far from growing, its value has plummeted. Simply put, $1000 in the 70s being worth $10,000 today does not mean the dollar is stronger. It actually means the dollar is "weaker", because you need more money to buy the same thing.
Well, yes you're right. I had it backwards. From 1970, the /DX was valued at around $120. Today, it's at $80. If I had put in $1000 of 1970's money into the /DX, I would actually have less today. I'm assuming there's a correlation there. However, I wasn't talking about literally putting my money under a mattress.
|
|
|
|