American Elections '08

[Squeezer]

just remember - every politician who passed every law, policy or regulation truly believed that they were helping people, and they did it for the best of intentions and interests. but ultimately, it's not a question of policy A over policy B, it's a question of whether there should be policy at all.

I honestly can't find it in myself to believe that.

Oh, and I'm down with Barack since the whole Kucinich/ Ron Paul ticket is a pipe dream.

[Jerome Scuggs]

and on the IMF debate - when the IMF was created, it was seen as a great was to help the less-developed countries, and bring equality and economic security. noone foresaw the amazing plethora of problems it would spawn - except economists, of course, who argued that the IMF would wind up hurting underdeveloped countries and cause massive problems.

of course, these economists were obviously ignored, because there was a pressing need to save the third world countries. it was our duty to help them, we couldn't be "cold" and "calculating".

now that the full impact of the supranational monetary institutions has been seen, it's obvious that it must be dismantled.

mainstream socialists demanded the creation of the IMF in order to bring equality to people, and now they demand its dissolution because it's "capitalist" debt-slavery is ruining lives.

i think that's sad, because the main argument from austrian economist Murray Rothbard against the IMF was that it would be seen as "free trade" and an "economic" institution (like NAFTA), and he predicted the exact problems arising today. (for the record, the austrian school has pretty much predicted the path of our economy for the last 30-40 years, go figure).

but anyways, i think it should serve as a lesson. because even though it's not universal health care, it failed for the exact same reasons that universal health care will fail. it failed like social security is going to fail (the surplus is going to run out in what, 10 years? 5 years?), it failed like medicare failed. in every instance, the economics of the policy became subservient to the immediate needs of the moment, and the initial success was soon outweighed by the crushing miscalculation and plethora of unforeseen problems.

just remember - every politician who passed every law, policy or regulation truly believed that they were helping people, and they did it for the best of intentions and interests. but ultimately, it's not a question of policy A over policy B, it's a question of whether there should be policy at all.

[Jerome Scuggs]

did anyone watch the ABC debates?

if anything, ron paul won the "least child-like" award, and when he spoke he was rarely refuted. he also made a brilliant case as to why all the problems - iraq, health care, etc - are inextricably tied to monetary and economic policy. even better, he was relatively thorough when explaining these points.

ii think paul's problem is, it's hard for him to stay on topic. when asked about any of the issues, he tries to bring it back to the economic thing. for me, though, it just seems like a problem with politics and not paul, because those sort of things are related, and you can't talk about one without the other.

the thing that annoys me the most about the debates is that for the most part, the politicians have correctly diagnosed the problems. romney, guiliani, and thompson all made great points as to why universal health care was a bad idea (even as far as saying that bureaucracy and regulation itself is the main obstacle to achieving quality health care), but it's what they choose to do to remedy the situation that i find fault with

i don't watch alot of mainstream politicians, and it was sort of terrifying. apparently they believe they can truly "run" an economy. i suppose they've done a fantastic job, they just need to "run" it more.

my parents don't take ron paul very seriously, but after watching the debates they said they felt paul did a great job, and at the very least proved that he was the only one who was literally mature enough to be a president.

now that obama's in the lead, all the GOP candidates are going to have to re-tool their campaigns - everyone except Ron Paul.

[Cops]

inclusive language includes words such as postulate. Busting out big words does not strengthen your arguments.

But I guess we're done, you agree with me that the IMF is garbage and you pretty much can't follow the topics I wish to discuss, fighting a debate on bananas with a debate on oil is just a piss off.

[MetalHeadz]

That being said, its pretty clear metalhaze is using a thesaurus.

Meh, if you knew me in real life you wouldn't say that.

Check out this quote: Now listen to me say this, and tell me if it has any meaning what-so-ever. Ok, ready? Here it is: "World economics allows alleviation above substinence and laborius means of living." WTF does that even mean?

It's vague no doubt, I was merely using the terminology Cops presented me with initially. I meant it to mean that the appreciation of economic processes in an international environment can allow highly developed/modernised countries to help the underdeveloped/subsistence based countries work themselves out of poverty and hardship. The acknowledgement that there could be other factors other than the traditional 'they're just lazy'/laissez faire assumption is essential in developmental studies. In a broad sense, the debate is very convoluted as you postulate but to assume that a non-interventionist strategy is appropriate is narrow minded.

That's all I meant by it.

[Vatican Assassin]

Not everyone who knows how to describe different things with different words is using a thesaurus. This is an intricate, complicated, and convoluted subject which requires the use of punctilious, scrupulous, and meticulous language in order to understa...oh I can't go on with this joke anymore too much alt tabing go fuck the world some more you free market scum.

That being said, its pretty clear metalhaze is using a thesaurus. Check out this quote:

I would argue that the result of 'world economics' is to liberate nations and peoples from shackles of poverty and unemployment. It a system which allows elevation and alleviation above subsistence and laborious means of living.

Now listen to me say this, and tell me if it has any meaning what-so-ever. Ok, ready? Here it is: "World economics allows alleviation above substinence and laborius means of living." WTF does that even mean? And what is this system of "world economics" these guys are talking about. World ecomics is just a little vague, wouldn't you say? When was the last time you heard someone say something was "allowing alleviation" of something? Just say what you mean, don't use big words just for the sake of it. You make some really good points metal, such as reminding us that taxes are helpful toward the quality of life, which often gets left out of free-market equations, but sometimes you just lose me.

[Cops]

For fuck sake Cops, I thought I could have a decent enough argument with you here. Once again I threaten someones opinions and they get all emotional. To be straight though (and confirmed after your suggestion of revision of what you said), you clearly maintained the negatives of free marketism and tariffs and didn't seem to recognise their necessity in certain situations. But whatever, I don't expect anything different anymore. Disappointingly, it seems as if my language rather than my points offended you and what's with the 'thesaurus' jokes eh, ever heard of a vocabularly?

Because saying that they are necessary for our societies to keep our jobs is not recognizing the necessity of these harsh implications? I recognize that it's a double edged sword my friend, you on the other hand haven't realized that I already know this, have said this, understand this, have mentioned this several times.

I'm not aware of that IMF case, but it sounds very suspect to me as the IMF does not usually get involved in such procedure.


You underestimate the power of demand. Government regulation rarely overides public demand unless it is absolutely unavoidable, it doesn't make economic sense.


Ok, product elasticity is important.

The IMF did this to benefit South America, as well as themselves. They were selling their product for much less than Jamaica, once Jamaica was barred from selling their products South America jumped in and sold them for far less. They were also able to pick up a few new customers.

The point of removing the UK from trading with this particular product was to force this industry to crumble, the US was able to get their fruit cheaper from other countries, if Jamaica's industry was allowed to thrive the price would have forced the South American prices to go up (The South American countries were quite happy selling this product for much less than Jamaica). Tell me why the IMF is so concerned with the U.S agenda? Oh yeah I forgot, they run it.

Like you said you don't understand this case, so there's no point fighting this argument because unless you read up on it then we're just wasting our time. The bottom line is that the IMF has fucked over more countries than I could possibly list, and you'll probably agree with me on this point.

[MetalHeadz]

Once again you misconceive what I actually said, instead of actually reading what I said you just assumed. If you weren't so eager to pull out your thesaurus you might know that I already said that from a protectionist stand-point tariffs are necessary to insure that we keep jobs here, in our own respected countries. Sometimes Metalheadz your ego and pompous attitude makes me not want to respond to you. For someone who claims to be of high intelligence you really lack some basic abilities, but good work with the thesaurus, I see your skills are ballsy as ever.

For fuck sake Cops, I thought I could have a decent enough argument with you here. Once again I threaten someones opinions and they get all emotional. To be straight though (and confirmed after your suggestion of revision of what you said), you clearly maintained the negatives of free marketism and tariffs and didn't seem to recognise their necessity in certain situations. But whatever, I don't expect anything different anymore. Disappointingly, it seems as if my language rather than my points offended you and what's with the 'thesaurus' jokes eh, ever heard of a vocabularly?

There's nothing simplistic of any type of 'good' that allows countries to feed their people, just because the product is worth less compared to oil it does not make it any less important. Unfortunately you're wrong, there is many alternatives for bananas and other types of fruit for that matter. The IMF made it so the UK had to buy bananas from other parts of the world at a higher price, instead of allowing a good trade agreement between two countries to continue.

I'm not aware of that IMF case, but it sounds very suspect to me as the IMF does not usually get involved in such procedure.

where as bananas are replaceable by another fruit.

You underestimate the power of demand. Government regulation rarely overides public demand unless it is absolutely unavoidable, it doesn't make economic sense.

Fine we agree that from a protectionists stand-point tariffs is a good way to make sure your society over-all benefits, but you're still taking what I said about a product that we as humans do not necessarily 'need' in our every day lives and applying to something we do 'need'. Even if oil isn't necessarily considered a 'need', I am only labeling it of higher importance than one singular fruit because we have changed our lives, cities, homes, based on the ability to get from place to another.

Ok, product elasticity is important.

[PaulOakenfold]

Here is the 90 minute democratic debate from the other night between the 4 leading democratic candidates, full transcript on the side and all:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...HIC.html#video

[Cops]

All choices available, I'm okay with that.

As long as Obama is still in the race I'm happy.

[RednaZ]

Oprah Winfrey vs Chuck Norris

[the_paul]

Obama ftw. Especially over Huckabee

[H.M.S. Stargazer]

Huckabee versus Obama!

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

All choices available, I'm okay with that.

[Cops]

Obama = El Presidente