Politics

http://michael-hudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/superimperialism.pdf

Since the 1960s a major aim of foreign aid has been to help the U.S. balance of
payments, not that of aid-recipients. In a travesty of economic terminology, any loan
extended by the U.S. or foreign governments is classified as “aid,†ipso facto, even when the
balance-of-payments effect is from aid recipients to donors. Reflecting the self-interest that
characterizes U.S. aid in general, payments made by the government to farmers to produce
crops that neither can be consumed at home nor sold abroad on commercial terms take on
the guise of foreign aid. Thus, in the curious system of U.S. accounts, the domestic costs of
crop purchase by the government – outlays intended since the Agricultural Adjustment Act
of 1933 to support prices above their free market levels – are transformed into components
of the cost of foreign aid.

 

Vader is this thread, Road Warrior Hawk is me.

 

i believe this video to be an accurate representation of the inner workings of colorful tengu's mind (just replace 08 with 12)


http://youtu.be/HmYMzxA_U-c

 

The problem I have with Ron Paul is that his positions on various issues constitute a unique mix of sensible yet controversial ideas, and batshit crazy ideas that would probably just make our problems even worse. It's difficult for me to get behind someone like that, although I'll admit he's still a lot better than most of the alternatives.

 

Tengu, you aren't actually american are you? Don't you live in a European country? I just feel like your political opinions don't really carry weight if you're not really going to be affected directly by them like the rest of us american folk.

Ron paul is a nut job and he's not going to win any presidential elections ever. It's going to be Perry or Romney running again Obama in 2012.

 

If I were to choose either of the three Perry,Romney or Paul it would surly be Paul. Too bad though, he'd never win a presidential election. Quite frankly, even while a lot of people share his social views his governmental views or lack of one at all scares most people.

 

You'd be correct true if America lacked influence on the rest of the world.

Except it has the biggest economy in the world. The US dollar is the world's reserve currency. It sees itself as leader of the free world, etc.

Basically, they have shitloads of influence on the world. So much so that whatever happens in the US (particularly anything major) is gonna affect the rest of the world.

It why people outside of the US should pay attention when its election campaigns begin. America's power is too much to ignore.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ron paul is a nut job and he's not going to win any presidential elections ever. It's going to be Perry or Romney running again Obama in 2012. </div></div>Out of curiosity, why aren't Ron Paul's views to your liking?

So what ideas of Ron's do you think will make America worse off?

 

Things like abolishing social welfare programs, abolishing income tax, and just generally failing to acknowledge that the government has a role to play as an equalizer in society. I'm not saying we should all become communists, but if the government doesn't act to mitigate the unfairness inherent to the capitalistic system, things would go to shit pretty quickly. Not that they haven't already, but it could be worse. The natural conclusion to capitalism would be that we'd basically be indentured servants to a few super-corporations. It's the government's job to stop this from happening, but Ron Paul would like to roll back the few protections we have left against it.

 

I can assure you, if ron paul were to be a president things in the US would go to shit pretty fast. He just has som very strange polarizing indefensible views that make him too much of a risk for americans to support. People love to speak of him like a saint on the internet, but I've never heard him being considered for a real running tot he white house.

If you want to be a part of real american political discussion talk about the people who actually have a shot at running against Obama like Perry and Romney. Nobody else will come out of the Republican party to runa gain him this coming election. Any talk of a 3rd person on the ballet is just stupid and shows a lack of understanding american politics.

I'm personally all for 4 more years of Obama. So far it's looking like he will win, if for nothing else, but because the republican party is failing to put forward a candidate strong enough to go against him.

 

See Tengu, it's that type of rhetoric that shows how out of touch you are of US politics. There are very few voting americans that agree with you. I know this because Ron Paul would have won by now if he was an electoral candidate. He is just a joke on the political stage now. I don't know much about the politics of your country, maybe he's similar to the people you tend to vote for, but here he's just not ellectable.

The doom and gloom talk about USA is just rhetoric. Tengu, of the real people who might actually have an affect on your country who do you support? Those would be Perry, Romney or Obama. The fact that Paul gets money doesn't mean he's ellectable, it just means he knows how to fund raise. US politics are about more than just who raises the most funds and who the people actually like (truth). The party that supports a candidate has to also want that person to be president.

This is what I mean when I say it sounds like you really don't understand american politics. They may affect you, but you don't really seem to understand how they work on the fundamental level.

 

Which, as they currently are, are inherently loss making - there's a similar system here in the UK with similar problems.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">abolishing income tax,</div></div>Good news is the Ron Paul is a realistic libertarian - he's proposed a flat income tax rate of 15%.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">and just generally failing to acknowledge that the government has a role to play as an equalizer in society.</div></div>On the contrary - his belief is that small government is necessary if it's gonna play as an equaliser to society. It's why he's been advocating that the federal government's only job is to uphold the constitution, as according to him, the constitution alone does the equaliser job.

Everything else is left to the states to do, and they can do what they like as long as they don't go against the constitution.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm not saying we should all become communists, but if the government doesn't act to mitigate the unfairness inherent to the capitalistic system, things would go to shit pretty quickly. Not that they haven't already, but it could be worse. The natural conclusion to capitalism would be that we'd basically be indentured servants to a few super-corporations. It's the government's job to stop this from happening, but Ron Paul would like to roll back the few protections we have left against it. </div></div>His belief is that between government & the free market regulating the markets, the latter is the lesser of the two evils. According to him, government regulation is controlled by lobbyists of special interests, which not only make the laws worse, but because it's government regulated, there's gonna be inherent red tape, making it harder for the laws to be changed in future. Take a look at the Dodd-Frank bill for a good example.

The market (i.e. consumers) at least will react negatively if shit hits the fan by getting shafted by the companies, in which case they're gonna have to self-regulate according to the consumers' wants and needs if they want the consumers' trust back.

See, what a lot of people fail to realise is that:

1. The market is the consumer. Not everyone's a seller, but everyone's a buyer. Trying to shift the market to benefit the business more than the consumer is asking for disaster (e.g. the current recession).

2. Consumers are more reactive than pro-active. We don't know what works for us until we first get shafted by businesses, and then use our wallets to boycott those companies. Those companies in turn will have to bend over backwards to gain our trust back.

Granted, I don't think Ron's idea of deregulating everything that is currently federal is necessarily a good thing. However, that ain't gonna happen in two terms as POTUS, let alone overnight. So what would happen instead if he became president would be what I think would be the optimum position of government - providing what the markets cannot provide via competition.

What Ron Paul does want (and I think this is what people fear about him the most) is to get rid of the entitlement mentality, the idea that the government MUST take care of you for EVERYTHING. It's not his main goal, but it plays a big part of his libertarian philosophy due to how big the federal government is ATM.

Aaaaaaaaaaaannd I've lost my train of thought.

 

Your just choosing to focus on the negative man. There is plenty positive going on here.

 

If you believe that the national government is incapable of being a functional regulatory force for our capitalistic society, then by all means abolish it. I'll admit that the system we have right now is highly corrupt, and no one is really putting pressure on the political system to change this. But we only have ourselves to blame. If someone was actually wanted to push an agenda of real reform, there are a lot of things we could do. For instance, we could put some serious limits on campaign spending that would level the playing field, and limit the amount of influence lobbyists have. Instead we've done just the opposite and allowed campaign spending to be practically unlimited and unrestricted.

What we have effectively done as a country is allow the corporations to brainwash us into thinking government is bad for us. To make us think that if everyone just looked out for themselves, rather than relying on government to solve our problems, we'd all be a lot better off. This is completely false. Government is a tool that we as the people of this country have to impose reasonable limits on our society, and create safety nets that ensure people don't fall off the face of the earth the second they run out of money. While I'll be the first to admit it hasn't always worked like it's supposed to, that's no reason to throw the whole thing out. We just have to figure out a way to start making it work again.

Or are you saying that we have no responsibility to our fellow human beings? Are you saying that anyone who runs out of money can go fuck themselves? That sounds really nice if you are a millionaire sitting in a mansion, with all the worlds resources at your fingertips. It sounds a lot less good if you are living in a run down apartment, one paycheck away from bankruptcy. Now the libertarians would say it's the person's own fault that they are destitute, and maybe they're right. But as long as that person has done nothing wrong, they deserve at the very least to be able to keep living and try to improve their situation. They don't deserve to starve to death.

It's too bad for them the free market doesn't care if people starve to death, or if they are otherwise being exploited. All it cares about is that people are working. If they don't work, they are worthless. Our government is the tool we have to fight against this ruthless system. It allows them to create rules that keep capitalism in check, and protect citizens from the worst of it's evils. We need the government to do this, regardless of what Ron Paul says.

If the government doesn't hold the capitalistic system in line, we get... well, we get what we have now. A dysfunctional and exploitative system that has people working more and more for less and less, and puts the majority of the wealth in the hands of select few that use it to advance themselves to even greater levels of power and control, that allow them to exploit people even further. The free market isn't the anwser to our problems, it is the problem.

Despite having said this, the Libertarians are right about one thing. A sufficiently corrupt and dysfunctional government has the potential to be much worse than a capitalistic system run amok ever could be. If you look at governments like China, we can clearly see that there is merit to limiting government power. The thing is, we can't let that real and present danger of an overpowered government blind us to the real and present danger of overpowered corporations. We need to strike a balance between the two, and right now corporations have tipped the balance significantly in their favor. You can't fix this by lowering taxes or limiting government. It will only make the problem worse.

What you really need in a situation like this, is some smart targeted legislation that strikes at the very heart of corporate greed. Not necessarily something that grows the government, but something that at the very least rebalances power in the capitalistic system back in favor of consumers. I honestly think you might be able to fix the worst of our problems with a simple bill that would increase income tax for the richest people, and redistribute it to the middle and lower class until they once again controlled the majority of wealth in this country. After all, doesn't it make sense that in a democratic society, the largest group of the population should control the majority of power and wealth? It does if they're not fucking idiots, because having more money and power is in their own self interest. How much do you have to be brainwashed to believe that giving control of all the country's money and power to a small segment of the population who you already know are abusing it is good for you?

You could of course pass such legislation without increasing the power of the government at all. The government would not have any power to spend the money they collected. They would only be allowed to collect and redistribute it. So what the hell are people afraid of? Why do people see the idea of taking money from people who can easily afford it, and giving it to people who are being taken advantage of, and say, "That seems like a really bad idea!" Seriously, what the fuck?

 

Because limiting campaign money is unconstitutional, apparently. That's something you have to take up with either how the constitution is interpreted, or the constitution itself.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What we have effectively done as a country is allow the corporations to brainwash us into thinking government is bad for us. To make us think that if everyone just looked out for themselves, rather than relying on government to solve our problems, we'd all be a lot better off. This is completely false.</div></div>This isn't about government being inherently bad for you. It's actually about self-reliance.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Government is a tool that we as the people of this country have to impose reasonable limits on our society, and create safety nets that ensure people don't fall off the face of the earth the second they run out of money. While I'll be the first to admit it hasn't always worked like it's supposed to, that's no reason to throw the whole thing out. We just have to figure out a way to start making it work again.</div></div>Hence small government. Mainstream libertarianism believes that the federal government works best when government works least, NOT in its abolition.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Or are you saying that we have no responsibility to our fellow human beings? Are you saying that anyone who runs out of money can go fuck themselves? That sounds really nice if you are a millionaire sitting in a mansion, with all the worlds resources at your fingertips. It sounds a lot less good if you are living in a run down apartment, one paycheck away from bankruptcy. Now the libertarians would say it's the person's own fault that they are destitute, and maybe they're right. But as long as that person has done nothing wrong, they deserve at the very least to be able to keep living and try to improve their situation. They don't deserve to starve to death.</div></div>Ron Paul's a constitutionalist, and therefore believe that the federal govt should only work with its constitutionally authorised functions. If taking responsibility for others isn't in it, then it's not part of the federal govt's role. That's the state govts' role (if they want to take that role).

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's too bad for them the free market doesn't care if people starve to death, or if they are otherwise being exploited. All it cares about is that people are working. If they don't work, they are worthless. Our government is the tool we have to fight against this ruthless system. It allows them to create rules that keep capitalism in check, and protect citizens from the worst of it's evils. We need the government to do this, regardless of what Ron Paul says.</div></div>Regulation isn't the federal govt's role. However, if the states wanna take that up, that's fine.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the government doesn't hold the capitalistic system in line, we get... well, we get what we have now. A dysfunctional and exploitative system that has people working more and more for less and less, and puts the majority of the wealth in the hands of select few that use it to advance themselves to even greater levels of power and control, that allow them to exploit people even further. The free market isn't the anwser to our problems, it is the problem.</div></div>If the free market was the problem, the banks wouldn't have been bailed out.

One of the biggest misconceptions about the free market is that busts shouldn't happen. And that's bullshit. We'd all be outta this recession by now had the banks not been bailed out.

In 1921, there was a stock market crash worse than the one which kickstarted the Great Depression. The US govt at the time decided not to bail out the companies affected and prevented the Federal Reserve from assisting.

You know how long it took to get out of that crash?

Less than a year.

When the 1929 crash happened, the Federal Reserve were allowed to "minimise" the destruction via printing more money, bailing out corporate companies, etc.

How long did it take for the Great Depression to end?

17 years.

The free market is NEVER the problem, considering it's mostly controlled by the buyers (consumers) rather than the sellers (companies).

That doesn't mean that it isn't perfect, so of course regulation is needed. But it's either self-regulated, or state regulated. The federal government shouldn't have control over regulation unless it's unconstitutional, as it's way too easy to corrupt regulation at a federal level.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Despite having said this, the Libertarians are right about one thing. A sufficiently corrupt and dysfunctional government has the potential to be much worse than a capitalistic system run amok ever could be. If you look at governments like China, we can clearly see that there is merit to limiting government power. The thing is, we can't let that real and present danger of an overpowered government blind us to the real and present danger of overpowered corporations. We need to strike a balance between the two, and right now corporations have tipped the balance significantly in their favor. You can't fix this by lowering taxes or limiting government. It will only make the problem worse.</div></div>Too much of anything is bad for you.

Right now, you have too much government according to Ron Paul.

The constitution was made to be a balance so as it isn't too small for the federal got to be powerless and isn't too big for the govt to start infringing upon individual rights.

That's why Ron Paul is advocating for the fed govt to be strictly constitutionalist. It may seem like too small a govt to do shit, but that's because the fed govt is way too big ATM.

According to him, anyway.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What you really need in a situation like this, is some smart targeted legislation that strikes at the very heart of corporate greed. Not necessarily something that grows the government, but something that at the very least rebalances power in the capitalistic system back in favor of consumers. I honestly think you might be able to fix the worst of our problems with a simple bill that would increase income tax for the richest people, and redistribute it to the middle and lower class until they once again controlled the majority of wealth in this country. After all, doesn't it make sense that in a democratic society, the largest group of the population should control the majority of power and wealth?</div></div>As much as I'd LOVE to agree with you on this point, it's actually not true. Simply because it's unrealistic.

Money is inherently limited. In fact, the more abundant money is, the less valued it becomes, prompting inflation. It's why there's no such thing as the many being rich and the few being poor. It's impossible.

Which is partly why Ron Paul advocated the 15% flat income tax rate - to level the playing field.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It does if they're not fucking idiots, because having more money and power is in their own self interest. How much do you have to be brainwashed to believe that giving control of all the country's money and power to a small segment of the population who you already know are abusing it is good for you?</div></div>Two reasons:

1. That's the catch of not only capitalism, but democracy as well. Both are the economic and political system that are closest to human nature. And while that doesn't mean it's good, it's the best we have.

2. The fear ATM is that squeezing the rich of their money to spread to the less fortunate via taxes, regulation etc. is only giving them more reasons to jump ship to what they see as greener pastures. China overtook Japan a few months ago as the second biggest economy in the world. It's one of the few countries that survived the global collapse, and even rarer are one of the VERY few experiencing a BOOM right now.

Of course Americans are gonna be scared of competition from other COUNTRIES. Hell, the Republicans are calling the rich people "job creators" because right now, they are seen as the ONLY people who can get the US outta the recession.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You could of course pass such legislation without increasing the power of the government at all.</div></div> Not possible. Any law added to the list of laws the federal govt has is in and off itself an increase of federal govt power. Whether that's a good or bad thing is up to you, but it's an increase in power nonetheless.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So what the hell are people afraid of? Why do people see the idea of taking money from people who can easily afford it, and giving it to people who are being taken advantage of, and say, "That seems like a really bad idea!" Seriously, what the fuck? </div></div>Desperate times call for desperate measures.

 

Dragon, you make so many ridiculous, baseless assumptions in this post it's just not accurate and it's not valuable.

All you're really doing is proving to everyone who cares to read your post that you have been tricked by right-wing framing of issues.

Saying we would have been out of the recession if the HADN'T bailed out the banks is truly ridiculous and isn't based on a real economic knowledge you have. You're just assuming the connections and circumstances of our modern world economy and the early 1920's are so similar that the same policies would have worked -- that my friend, is just plain wrong. We are in uncharted territory because the world is always changing. Shit, you don't even take the credit crisis into account. It's just a poor comparison to try to actually draw such an overarching "theory" out of.

I see the biggest problems as being the extreme centralization of wealth and total rigging of the system that has taken place in America. The disparity in wealth between rich and poor is so huge it's almost the same now as it was before the Great Depression. When wages and real buying power have stalled out and dwindled for literally decades (and the filthy rich at the very top get richer, and continue to bribe the Republican Party to rig the system a little more) working people ended up being forced to use credit to maintain the lifestyle they had as their wages and buying power were evaporating.

Once the crash of 2008 hit and credit dried up very quickly, ALL of the hundreds of millions of American consumers who were utilizing credit, in one form or another (credit cards to home equity loans), had to deleverage from their debts. Millions couldn't even do it without losing their homes and being catapulted into poverty (meanwhile, the ever-reliable, sick, cruel and thoughtless Republikkkan voters are cheering for the idea of letting the uninsured and underprivileged die)... What a bunch of sad, embarrassing and soulless goons the Republicans and their voters are, it truly makes me want to puke. I'd be humiliated, truly humiliated to count myself among them...

Why are all of you wannabe American politics experts from the UK??? Who cares who you like for president, you don't live here and I'd guess you know WAAAAY less about this country and our culture than you're giving yourself credit for. Tengu is is even worse, he's a backwards fool and sucker for right-wing propaganda and GARBAGE. That's all they have to offer this country anymore, GARBAGE and pain.

 

This is NOT a political black-and-white issue. Part of the problem of American politics is the failure of realising that the political "spectrum" is no longer a spectrum. Left- and right-wing views no longer exist, because there so many positions on so many issues.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Saying we would have been out of the recession if the HADN'T bailed out the banks is truly ridiculous and isn't based on a real economic knowledge you have. You're just assuming the connections and circumstances of our modern world economy and the early 1920's are so similar that the same policies would have worked -- that my friend, is just plain wrong. We are in uncharted territory because the world is always changing. Shit, you don't even take the credit crisis into account. It's just a poor comparison to try to actually draw such an overarching "theory" out of.</div></div> It was people from the Austrian school of economics who predicted the global collapse (Ron Paul included). If they got that right, who's to say they haven't got the solution to the problems?

Maybe you don't want to admit that there are patterns in economics because doing so would so suggest that there are simpler solutions of getting outta economic problems, even if those solutions are uncomfortable as fuck.

Truth isn't meant to look, sound, or be good. Truth is morally neutral.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I see the biggest problems as being the extreme centralization of wealth and total rigging of the system that has taken place in America. The disparity in wealth between rich and poor is so huge it's almost the same now as it was before the Great Depression. When wages and real buying power have stalled out and dwindled for literally decades (and the filthy rich at the very top get richer, and continue to bribe the Republican Party to rig the system a little more) working people ended up being forced to use credit to maintain the lifestyle they had as their wages and buying power were evaporating.

Once the crash of 2008 hit and credit dried up very quickly, ALL of the hundreds of millions of American consumers who were utilizing credit, in one form or another (credit cards to home equity loans), had to deleverage from their debts. Millions couldn't even do it without losing their homes and being catapulted into poverty (meanwhile, the ever-reliable, sick, cruel and thoughtless Republikkkan voters are cheering for the idea of letting the uninsured and underprivileged die)... What a bunch of sad, embarrassing and soulless goons the Republicans and their voters are, it truly makes me want to puke. I'd be humiliated, truly humiliated to count myself among them...</div></div>The entire US political system is corrupt because it's a two-party system. Two-party systems encourage black-and-white views while punishing gray views at the same time.

Here's what would've happened if the banks weren't bailed out - considering how big they were, they would've filed for bankruptcy, forcing them to either trim their fat or die. Any assets they would have to get rid off would've been sold to other companies. Worst case scenario, they die off, and a vacuum is left in their wake.

A huge vacuum (considering how big they were). Which in turn would been filled by various small, medium, and large companies fighting for the consumer's attention.

And since there would've been so many companies, the consumers will get it so good due to competition. This would've been over a long time ago.

That's not to say that Keynsian economics doesn't work - it does. It's just that compared to a mainly-Austrian-economic model, it's very inefficient.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why are all of you wannabe American politics experts from the UK??? Who cares who you like for president, you don't live here and I'd guess you know WAAAAY less about this country and our culture than you're giving yourself credit for. </div></div>I've already explained this before. I believe it's ignorant for people outside of the US to NOT watch what's going on in the US, as whatever happens there influences the rest of the world BIG TIME.

So I guess you know WAAAAY less about the countries and cultures outside of the US than you give yourself credit for.

 

I'm curious did any of you..Tengu/BlackDragon catch the Republican debate? Ron Paul answers were pretty piss poor

 

I'ma catch it tomorrow, when my internet won't croquette on me anymore.

 

Gernburgs, do you really think it's all Republicans doing the wrong stuff while the other parties get off free? I doubt that you believe that, but it also seems that you're giving hyberbolic blame to just one side of the political spectrum.

Colorful_Tengu, making fun of peoples' appearances is low and stupid. These kinds of personal attacks are lame, and only make you look unintelligent.

 

HE STARTED IT HE STARTED IT