John McCain vs Barack Obama Mega-Politic-Thread of super fun awesomeness.

[span]

So your saying that.. If we arrested Osama Bin Laden, and he somehow won his case against being a terrorist, yet went on to confess everything that he did, or tried to do that you wouldn't find it to be a problem if McCain had gone to him before he sought the office of President of the United States, and had served on a board with him? What about if Osama Bin Laden was a highly respected professor at a college in Chicago, and had since given up his ways of trying to destroy the infidels? The guy was trying to blow shit up, and kill people, to get what he wanted. And it honestly sounds like you don't have a problem with, whether it was 30 or 40 years ago or not.

Well, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have been used by the U.S. Gov as both a policital and militant tool on multiple occasions, the Balkans vs the Serbs and september 11th 2001 as patsies to name a couple. you don't seem to mind this? And the Bush's family ties to the Bin Laden family? That shit should be put right, and it's characters such as Bill Ayers that would've stood up for the truth in the matter. Whether you're aware or not, there is infact multiple definitions of the word 'Terrorism', it could be said the current administration are 'terrorists' yet you seem fairly content with the current state of affairs.

Ehh, I'm way behind and won't bother with my out of date interjections since I'm in agreement with Concrete and 404 in many of their points and Concrete's perspective in general. Relieved to hear 404's first post was sarcastic, I really wasn't sure... great writing btw.

[kthx]

Basically this election is simple for one reason.

Listen to Obama speak and you will hear a tale about how he had to grow up with nothing, and how America is wrong, and America is bad, and how only he can fix America.

Listen to McCain speak and you will hear the story about how he became a man who loved America through hardship, and that although America has problems it is still the best country in the world.

If you would have asked me six months ago who I was going to vote for, I would have said Obama. I watched the news and heard about how terrible this country was, how everyone in the world hated our country for putting our noses where they don't belong. I have heard the news analyze our economy and say that our nation is dying, I once thought that this country was terrible, and that Obama would be the one who would save us from this problem. I wasn't proud to be an American, I wasn't proud of President Bush, and my general outlook on my financial future was all doom and gloom.

You see, I had an epiphany the other day when I was reading some stories on drudge report. Ever since I really started learning about America as a whole, about our economy, and generally became more interested in politics and history I find that the pride for my country has grown as well. I know that some people can't translate what I am saying yet but keep reading. The reason I know McCain is the right candidate to run our country, is because he is the one who truly loves our country. His ideas to improve America don't involve imposing stricter government policies on the people themselves. My question is that if you are American, how do you feel about this country right now, if you are embarrassed or ashamed to be American, than you are listening to the wrong candidate.

[Zerzera]

Heck, even I love America. We only have to work half as hard with America around.

[Fluffz]

sssh zerz, dont tell them. I want that free rocket protection system.


anyway i have a general question:

we do spend billions on oil - but the oil is used to fuel our economy. If a billion dollars' worth of oil is used to create $15billion dollars' worth of products or services, is it really a loss?

Doesnt the same thing apply to debt? If the state lend 10 bucks from a bank inside this state and creates products worth 150 bucks why is everyone worried? The need for streets, healthcare or education is already there, why not create more debt to fulfill these needs?

[kthx]

Because the government can't just create money without having any gold to back up the printing of it. The fact that we are so far in debt is the reason why the dollar is so low on the world markets.

[Zerzera]

Doesnt the same thing apply to debt? If the state lend 10 bucks from a bank inside this state and creates products worth 150 bucks why is everyone worried? The need for streets, healthcare or education is already there, why not create more debt to fulfill these needs?

That's only the case when the country can afford a capitalist system. As soon as the people and businesses can't make up for their own debts, the government has to step up and compensate. When the government can't come up with a source for the money the country could economically crash. When the country is already in debt and lacks trust of other parties, they can't borrow money to fix it.
Other than that it virtually doesn't really matter how far in debt a government is.
The United States have big leverage though, not because of their military power which would be void in times of real crisis, it's the interest other countries already have in their economy. You have to keep pouring money in or you might lose what you already put in.

[Kolar]

Because the government can't just create money without having any gold to back up the printing of it. The fact that we are so far in debt is the reason why the dollar is so low on the world markets.

That is not the current situation. No economy follows a gold standard today. The US prints enough money to keep the value of the currency stable.

[Jerome Scuggs]

The US prints enough money to keep the value of the currency stable.

I think there's a very strong case for this not being true since at least 1970, but that's also in part because Keynes didn't believe that inflation caused devaluation of the dollar. On top of that, the current US policy seems to be slightly less strict (a trillion dollars created in fed loans in the last 9 months, for starters).

More than anything the problem with a centralized, fiat currency is that it allows the government to undertake projects that otherwise they couldn't afford - from welfare to war. We first got off the gold standard just in time for WW2 and then left the bretton woods system in '72, just in time for modern big government to emerge. My issue with such a system is not economic as much as moral, because that sort of system creates alot of potential for abuse, and that's exactly what we see.

Someone sent me a link to this, I thought it was rather relevant in light of recent moves by our government. It's from a few months ago.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/16/ber...markets27.html

The same people who keep making mistake after mistake are the people who can argue the merits of a fiat currency standard to the death, and create a bullet-proof case for fiscal policy and the necessity of central banking. Yet the economy is collapsing and even though they claim to know "what's wrong", shit keeps getting worse. For some reason we still believe these guys when they say oh, NOW we know whats wrong, this is what we'll do.

[Vihta]

US preferring socialism more these days? :P

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/07/news...ion=2008090715

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/...a7e71d7a80.htm

[Ayano]

US preferring socialism more these days? :P

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/07/news...ion=2008090715

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/...a7e71d7a80.htm

It's called regulated market economics. They fucked up so bad we had to seize them. The problem with for profit markets is that; they're for profit which is good for competition. But with so much at stake, you can't afford to gamble for more market share as Freddie and Mac are doing with all that gov-aid they got.

[Summa]

hmmm i wasn't aware that obama spoke with a negative tone, always thought it was hopeful and uplifting, but wark has enlightened me

not

and i swear if i hear mccain being a pow as a qualification for president again ima throw something

[kthx]

yeah, im damn tired about hearing Obama being a community organizer also! gonna throw stuff if I hear him say that. Maybe McCain deserves to be able to tell the story.

[Jerome Scuggs]

It's called regulated market economics. They fucked up so bad we had to seize them.

Not a problem of free markets but what happens when you create two massive companies whose directive is to take up loans (no matter how bad/risky they were - their mission was to be a source of capital at all times) - and then guarantee the loans with government backing.

You can call it whatever you want ("government-sponsored enterprise"), but that doesnt change what bankers see it as: a "magic piggy bank", to quote Greenspan. Dump off your bad loans to a company who was guaranteed against loss, that easy. Somewhere down the line it's going to implode and cause worse damage than any so-called free-market "business cycle", and it's looking like this might be that time.

[Ayano]

...You can call it whatever you want ("government-sponsored enterprise"), but that doesnt change what bankers see it as: a "magic piggy bank"...

Thats always an issue. Obviously to even consider the seize, they never once thought of that scenario.

There's going to be regulation checks and so forth. They'll actually lose net worth for a bit but it'll stabilize.

[Fluffz]

That's only the case when the country can afford a capitalist system. As soon as the people and businesses can't make up for their own debts, the government has to step up and compensate.

Its just that the current debt brought the US to where is is today, a after all very powerfull economy. Most eastern Europe countries actually have a low debt while Japan's dept/GDP ration is 3x higher than the US one. Jet it plays such an important role in elections. A national debt is not the same as the red number on your bank account. I think all the arguments about it are populistic, political nonsense because people do not understand how debt is not automatically a bad thing. The whole first world is in debt

And before someone starts with this central planning = weak argument again, democracy is not communism after all. When an investment is made by the goverment it most likely was analyzed by exactly those specialists that would also analyze it in a ideal free market. As long as the goverment creates debt by investing it into usefull, profitable and required infrastructure it wont hurt an economy. For example education or sustainable energy might at some point turn its investment into profit. Or not?