American Elections '08

[Cops]

You misconcieve tariffs to be this absolute and abominable policy

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.

Cops, uncharacteristically simplistic I must say. You gave banana's as an example and I think this is indicative the type of goods sold by early developing countries: agrarian and primary. Such goods are not in competition with highly developed countries because it is often the case that regional factors (weather, resources) are vital e.g. Oil-Iran, Coffee Beans-Costa Rica. It is on this basis that your argument against tariffs is flawed as countries demanding such goods would not wish to impose tariffs in such situations as there would be no financially beneficial alternative.

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.

As far as oil goes, I'm sure there's a lot more to it. Considering that much of America's supply comes from the middle east. Our economy is fueled by oil, it's become essential in our every day lives, where as bananas are replaceable by another fruit. You're drawing my argument about a fruit that is not essential to something that we as western society view as being very-essential.

Tariffs (practically speaking) are only ever used when domestic businesses are weaker than foreign competition; this paradoxically sustains the premise that tariffs are domestically beneficial. You misconcieve tariffs to be this absolute and abominable policy and you overestimate the necessity for international equity: self-interest is a prerequisite to growth and in many cases specialisation. It may not be as efficient as capitalism, but it can keep make weak industry and thus employment sustainable.

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.

[H.M.S. Stargazer]

So Clinton, Obama and Edwards are the 3 democrats so far?

[Epinephrine]

hmm. How do these work exactly. Can someone explain the primaries and how they work in determining the candidates?

Each party has a national convention where there are delegates which vote on their choice of candidate. Each state sends their own delegates from the state party. How those delegates are set is determined by some formula roughly equal to population. Delegates who go to the convention generally don't change their vote and vote according to the primary vote in their state. Each state has their own primary and their own way of selecting delegates.

For instance in Iowa, the republicans have everyone vote, and then they take the total percentages to send a representative amount of candidates. For the democrats, as I understand it, each district had mini-elections and then the top few candidates from each district would send a delegate representing the top few people in that district. Then the total of all these districts' delegates are sent to the national convention. It's a pretty dumb system really, and when you consider each state and each party in each state have their own rules, in the very end you have very few people actually determining the president of the united states.

[H.M.S. Stargazer]

hmm. How do these work exactly. Can someone explain the primaries and how they work in determining the candidates?

[MetalHeadz]

What can Jamaica do if the UK told them we're not buying your bananas at a decent rate? By the way the IMF made this a reality. Countries need money, of course their going to sell their products at no particular cost, if they didn't have some source of income regardless if it was more or less what was a 'fair price' then the affects would be disastrous. The country may try to fight this but not giving in is a lot worse in the short term.

Cops, uncharacteristically simplistic I must say. You gave banana's as an example and I think this is indicative the type of goods sold by early developing countries: agrarian and primary. Such goods are not in competition with highly developed countries because it is often the case that regional factors (weather, resources) are vital e.g. Oil-Iran, Coffee Beans-Costa Rica. It is on this basis that your argument against tariffs is flawed as countries demanding such goods would not wish to impose tariffs in such situations as there would be no financially beneficial alternative. Tariffs (practically speaking) are only ever used when domestic businesses are weaker than foreign competition; this paradoxically sustains the premise that tariffs are domestically beneficial. You misconcieve tariffs to be this absolute and abominable policy and you overestimate the necessity for international equity: self-interest is a prerequisite to growth and in many cases specialisation. It may not be as efficient as capitalism, but it can keep make weak industry and thus employment sustainable.

The EU is stable, I actually respect them for trying to break down some of the tariffs and subsidies that smaller poorer countries face, but let's face it, has this really changed how countries use and abuse other countries? No, because there's money to be made. I really doubt we'll ever stop subsidizing, taxing un-fairly, forcing small countries to accept short term loans with harsh and severe social affects.

But the EU also keeps many European jobs alive. What would the harsh and severe social 'affects' be for member countries if they completely removed tariffs from China and India? Much of our secondary and tertiary industry would be flattened -> unemployment -> recession.

Two sides to this argument, granted.

I agree with you about the IMF, stupid organisation. Dependency theory etc.

[Cops]

UK's bananas use to come from Jamaica, mostly.

[Money]

bananas come from costa rica mostly.

[Cops]

Poverty is a result of world economics? Lol. Relative poverty, perhaps. 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.

Countries that have more power and less tariffs result in a better economy?
Hmm, so the EU, which encompasses much of Western Europe and is one of the biggest financial and political organizations which actively imposes heavy external tariffs is inferior?

From a protectionist stand point it's quite logical to protect your industries. Counties that have power are able to avoid being the bitch to other countries, like America will ever say 'fine we're going to pay double what we pay you for this particular product'. They don't even need to get into a stand-off with a country, because they'll just get the product from somewhere else. They could also cut foreign aid to that country. America also runs the IMF and gives one country a grant per year, even if this is the only 'good' thing the IMF does it still wouldn't be a good move to expect loans in the future from a country and organization you just tried to fuck.

What can Jamaica do if the UK told them we're not buying your bananas at a decent rate? By the way the IMF made this a reality. Countries need money, of course their going to sell their products at no particular cost, if they didn't have some source of income regardless if it was more or less what was a 'fair price' then the affects would be disastrous. The country may try to fight this but not giving in is a lot worse in the short term.

The EU is stable, I actually respect them for trying to break down some of the tariffs and subsidies that smaller poorer countries face, but let's face it, has this really changed how countries use and abuse other countries? No, because there's money to be made. I really doubt we'll ever stop subsidizing, taxing un-fairly, forcing small countries to accept short term loans with harsh and severe social affects.

The IMF's motto is why not force short-term loans which provide 0 dollars to the social sector and hope that countries can get out of their pockets in the short term, of course they'll never do this but the benefit is we keep getting our money back and a bit extra and we can always claim that we do try to help other countries when we're just stealing nickels and pennies from poor people. We're so awesome, we bleed extreme nachos and mountain dew.

....EXTREME!

[Cops]

although I know the WHO is trying to be more independent.

I like their music I just don't care for their politics.

[MetalHeadz]

some one has to clean up those shit hole countries every one else left in shambles after colonization.

Heh, and America didn't colonise countries, like South East Asia perhaps?
To clarify, what countries which you're currently invading did we colonise?
To clarify, do you have any clue what you're talking about?

[MetalHeadz]

poverty is a result of world economics. Countries that have more power and less tariffs result in a better economy. Bad spending and leadership can lead to a lack of business and infrastructure, misplaced spending leads to poverty. Why would people invest in a country that is unstable?

Poverty is a result of world economics? Lol. Relative poverty, perhaps. 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.

Countries that have more power and less tariffs result in a better economy?
Hmm, so the EU, which encompasses much of Western Europe and is one of the biggest financial and political organisations which actively imposes heavy external tariffs is inferior?

This isn't too hard to understand, the more trade you do, the more money you bring in. The less taxes you pay on your exports, the more money you have coming in. The more money you make from trade, the more businesses are needed to accommodate this market.

The less taxes you have the less money a Government has to reinvest into the economy. This results in recession of social sectors such as Health Care, Education, Security, Defence and infrastructure. It also accentuates the gap between the rich and the poor as the rich are able to pay for the services that the Government cannot provide, services which are too expensive for the poor. In the case that your country has extravagent foreign policies, it would have severe implications for this also. I rebuke your assumption that lower taxes necessitates growth, development and stability: just a little too simplistic.

How the fuck does a developing country compete in an already dominated world economy? I think high tariffs and fair taxation is essential for the undeveloped world to kick start it's economies.

[HeavenSent]

i don't remember saying I agree with it, belay your fears.

I know. You just forgot the /sarcasm tags :wub:

[Vatican Assassin]

what scares me is you think that that is a good alternative.

i don't remember saying I agree with it, belay your fears.

[Heroin Bob]

clean up is a saying we have over here for take control over. the IMF and World Banks perform the same exact roles as Colonialism, without the risk of revolt. We use economics instead of bayonets and its a hole lot easier. Just find one corrupt guy to be king (not really hard to find someone who wants to be the only non-poor, empowered person in the country). Then print money out of thin-air and "loan" it to him in order to build a dam. 5 years later, due to corruption (which you were counting on) the dam is about half way built, the artificial lake is polluted, and the country is unable to pay back the loan, in fact they need more money to finish and maintain the dam. In exchange for another loan, the IMF gets control of the river, rights to build an ore mine on it, and receives favorable trade rights for the next 99 years.

So, as in colonialism, we get what we want, resources and labor to extract them. But where as before, the colonial empire was always obviously to blame, now the fort is gone and replaced by the corrupt king. Now all of the native's hatred is displaced onto its own king, and if they are aware enough, on some multi-national league they don't know how to find or how to defend itself against.

Its the same thing the mafia does. When they give out a loan, they don't want it to be paid back. If it is, ok then, they get good interest. If it isn't, then they get the laundry store or bar or whatever actual capital they can get their hands on. The IMF can print and loan out all the money it wants, what it gets in return is neo-colonialism.

what scares me is you think that that is a good alternative.

[HeavenSent]

http://www.amerikanexpose.com/hegel/ :fear: