Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by askan:
your not from MI5 or something? I promise I voted for the Queen. Honest http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif <hr></blockquote>

Askan, your card is already marked and you are being watched as a republican sympathizer

I would start noticing the shadows round you if I were you
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

be afraid, be very afraid

[ 08 April 2002: Message edited by: Growltigga ]</p>

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

Capitalism and the American Version are two very different systems. The american system is closer to socialism than capitalism.

Humm too many ismmmmmm/s

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

Actually the vast majority of modern systems are a combined system that utilize some free market and some socialism and er... other forms. The socialism is used to define a level of life for all persons. In theory anyways. The captitalism is used to offer the carrot of advancement to the masses. Yes you to can rise up and make more of yourself. Despite the large costs of higher education, after all you have loans... that you have to pay back... with interest. And then of course there is corporatism. This is marked as capitalism and free market but isn't really. This is where the corporations use their money to influence governmental policies for their own benefit. Such corporations often illegally come to agreements with competitors for mutual benefit (note the rising frequency of cases focused on these acts) and also act to ensure their own survival through government bail outs and intervention when they screw up. This is not part of capitalism. In Capitalism the big boy would fall down and leave room for new growth. The argument is that doing that would have long reaching economic impacts blah blah. Quite simply we don't really know. There has never been a time in history when we have allowed all of the big companies in an area to go down.

Simply put neither government nor economics is a science. You can't say A + B = C the best people can do is say A + B might be C or was C Last time. But the time before that it was D.

PS: That whole reagonamics thing was just wrong. You can look at the numbers and see that exactly one thing and one thing only ended that 80's depression. OIL. Iran and Iraq went to war and sold more oil despite OPEC agreements not to. This decreased oil prices and refreshed the economy. In fact it could be argued that the excessive waste of Reagan spending HURT the economy. But I won't make that argument here.

Oh. And just so the whole oil thing is cleared up and I don't hear the same argument again... it isn't just Gasoline. Think of all the ways oil is used and how the prices of all those are affected. Oil for lubrication. Oil based paints. Oil based pLastics. And of course oil fules. Now think of how all those interconnect with the products produced. Keeping machinery running. Powering the machinery. Transporting the Goods. Powering the place of sale. Powering the consumer. Transport for all of these. In addition the federal reserve board had a retard in control for the start. In fact a whole new term was coined for the previously unknown combination of poor economy, high inflation, and high interest rates. Stagflation. Also look at the percentage of power produced using oil prior to this. IE: late 1970, early 1980. It's alot more than today. By the time the economy started to recoved most of them had gone out of business or been shutdown and were being replaced by A&gt; Nat. Gas or B&gt; Coal again.

I have done detailed looks blah blah on Reagan and his "economics". An economic theory that was even attacked by his own party. The economy recovered despite his plan. Not because of it.

As for Clinton. No comment since that part of history is still too recent for any in depth analysis. IE: We are still feeling effects of that and it is still to early to say one way or the other.

PPS: The power structure I described above is heightened in the US due to winner takes all politics while proportional politics in many other coutries reduce the impact as each vote "counts more". IE: With winner takes all you only need enough votes to win and you have it all. No sharing. Proportional you need to try and keep more of your voters happy because every vote determines how much power you will have.

[ 08 April 2002: Message edited by: Cyrien ]</p>

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Cyrien:
Yes you to can rise up and make more of yourself. Despite the large costs of higher education, after all you have loans... that you have to pay back... with interest.<hr></blockquote>

Actually, education is free in Germany. There is no fee for studying on a university and if you cannot afford living and learning you will get money from the state with no interests. You have to pay it back, so.

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

Atrocities said: 'NAFTA is anther example of a good idea for the rich to get richer. Do you know about Chapter 11 in NAFTA? Basically is allows any company out side of the USA to sue the USA government if the US hampers or otherwise prevents the sale of their product. Just ask California about it.'

I don't agree with most of our (the USA) foriegn policies... Because most of them are merely a tool for the rich to get richer as you say. But Bush and the republican party support the WTO (World Trade Organization) and other Groups that would do everything that NAFTA did only over most of the world... So I go back to my original assertion that there is no difference between the Democratic and Republican parties, They do the same things call them different and bLast the other side for it.

Dogscoff said: 'I don't want to upset the Americans here (Well, maybe a little ), but personally I hate the American economic model and the way it is gradually taking over the entire world.'

Didn't upset me, I personally agree with you here. One symptom of the current system is seeing people more as consumers instead of producers. Unemployment is a prime example... When in an agrarian society would there be unemployment? There wouldn't be much because everyone has their own land farming for their own food. It's only when you get into mass-production that you start making so much junk you don't need more producers, just more consumers. Unemployment and social castes (rich, richer, and poor) result. Don't know if I even understand that one sentence. Anyway I'd just like to say, excellent arguments all around.

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

Yes Chapter 11. The one that the legislators now wring their hands over the effect of unintentional provisoes. Companies that bring forth suits are not even heard in court but in closed proceedings not open to the public.

No use blaming Republicans or Democrats on this gaff back in '92. They were both for it!

Given that when I occasionally tune into CSPAN to watch a vote being taken in a half-empty chamber, I doubt that the nimrods who voted for NAFTA even read the provisions, much less understood them. Another shining example of a successful lobbying effort.

Damn, and I came here to get away from these types of discussions on other Boards. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Cyrien:
... You can look at the numbers and see that exactly one thing and one thing only ended that 80's depression. OIL. ... it isn't just Gasoline. Think of all the ways oil is used and how the prices of all those are affected. Oil for lubrication. Oil based paints. Oil based pLastics. And of course oil fules... Transporting the Goods. ...<hr></blockquote>

Check out http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/

I hit the job market in 73. Laid off shortly after during the embargo. It was tough and made me aware of the importance of OIL.
This Last recesion started with higher oil prices. Of course the overblown Internet Tech Rush and other foolish house of cards were the first victims.

Our global economy is built on cheap transportation. Taking advantage of Economy-of-Scale manufacturing and cheap labor. Double the transport costs and maybe we will make shoes all over the US again.

------------------------------------

UPGRADES HAPPEN!!!

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Kinboat:

Didn't upset me, I personally agree with you here. One symptom of the current system is seeing people more as consumers instead of producers. Unemployment is a prime example... When in an agrarian society would there be unemployment? There wouldn't be much because everyone has their own land farming for their own food. It's only when you get into mass-production that you start making so much junk you don't need more producers, just more consumers. Unemployment and social castes (rich, richer, and poor) result. Don't know if I even understand that one sentence. Anyway I'd just like to say, excellent arguments all around.<hr></blockquote>

Whereas the emphasis on conspicuous consumption as a mark of success has, IMO, helped to eliminate the general health of the family institution, consumption itself also drives the push for technology.

Make no mistake, returning to an agrarian society of gentlemen farmers would not be a turn in the right direction. It's one thing to keep a family plot to augment your caloric intake, quite another to farm for a living in this day and age (unless you're Amish). No unemployment? How about starvation or losing your farm when there's too little or not enough rain. Can anyone say "sharecropper", or worse yet, "serf". Not too many true Jeffersonians left, except for the re-enactors.

On the contrary, it's mass production and the economies of scale that have made this hemisphere the breadbasket of the world.

Social castes will always exist to an extent or other because not all people are cut from the same cloth. Unlike what a Socialism Purist would have you believe, Capitalism, or the hybrid of Capitalism and Socialism that we labor under exists as a hybrid because purism requires another "ism" for it to work: fanaticism. For the average Joe/Jane busy going about their lives seeking to better their lot in life and that of their kin, capitalism, with it's emphasis on incentive and reward is more attractive than socialism and it's attention to the lowest common denominator which rewards stagnation and sloth.

Sorry for the rant.

[ 08 April 2002: Message edited by: wr8th ]</p>

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

"It has been proven that economic growth is obtained by free market, and that having a free market, without the chains of government regulation, promotes economic growth and expansion. "
Well, except in the Great Depression, of course, which was caused by a lack of regulations, among other things, and partly cured by a large public spending program.
As for Reagan, he spent billions and billions of dollars (most of which ended up as government debt) on the military. A fine example of less Republican government spending.
If you Subscribe to Keynesian economics, then you have the government spend money during recessions, and then less during expansions.
"I have faith that Bush " Ha! What about Bush Sr.'s economic troubles? He's a Republican, so he should have had us rolling in the fricking money. But he didn't.
The President largely has no major impact on the economy. In all honesty, how can he? He propagates legislation, that historically has been too late to affect it anyhow.

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

just a little OT:

The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than the
British or Americans.

On the other hand, the French eat a lot of fat and also suffer fewer heart
attacks than the British or Americans.

The Japanese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than
the British or Americans.

The Italians drink excessive amounts of red wine and also suffer fewer heart
attacks than the British or Americans.

Conclusion:

Eat & drink what you like. It's speaking English that kills you.