OT: Our Economy (US)
 

Prepare yourself for I have stepped upon the soapbox and now speak my mind:

Right now the US is in trawled in the grips of recession, and despite everything that has happened over the Last year, some in our government believe that all of the layoff’s, bankruptcies, depressed stocks, and growing concern about our economic futures is nothing more than a rumor.

George Bush is trying, from what I have seen, to keep our economy going by doing what he can to reverse what Clinton had done. Clinton embraced more government, more taxes, and more regulation while Bush seems to be interested in lower taxes, lower government involvement (say airline security) and less regulation.

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.

Right now, the US unemployment rate is at a national high, and some economist, mainly blind ones, say that unemployment is coming down. No, unemployment numbers are NOT coming down; they simply reflect the amount of people whose benefits have run out. Naturally since people are no longer receiving benefits, the amount of people collecting unemployment has naturally lowered. Unemployment starts are down they say, well yes and no. Most states do not monitor unemployment starts, only the number of people who collect weekly benefits. So again, a lie, or twisting of the facts.

In Washington State, Gary Locke the Governor, faced with economic disaster, does something that defies belief, he increases taxes on everything from sales tax to gasoline tax. In the Last week, gas prices have jumped by $.30 cents a gallon. Instead of fueling the economy, our Democratic Governor has stalled our economy by choking us with more taxes.

I recently have become aware that the show West Wing has become the Democratic response to a Republican President. Whatever George Bush does, they scrutinize and do the opposite on West Wing all the while hollering about morals and being in the publics best intrest. These are the same people who now criticize the military for their humane treatment of Terrorist when they kept their liberal left wing views silent during those same terrorist mistreatment of the people, namely women, of respective countries. Go figure. Now these Left Wing ultra democrats want people to believe that this economic down turn is the fault of George Bush when it is them who are increasing the taxes while George Bush is trying to lower them. A perfect example of role reversing.


It was Reganomics that brought us out of a horrible recession back in the early 80's, and it was Clintonomics that put has put us back into one now. I have faith that Bush and his economic advisers know what they are doing, and that they will lead our economy out of this post Clinton depression back into the light of economic prosperity so long as people are not fooled by what the Democrats are saying and doing.

Don't get sucked into something based upon propaganda, look into it, research it, and keep an open mind. I think therefore I am. The line against the wholesale slaughter of the innocence must be drawn here and now. This point, no further. They (Those who wish to be the power) have plunder our savings, cost us our jobs, and now want to suck us dry of every Last cent we have. They take our homes, our money, and our dignity and tell us that it’s not them doing it, but some one else. Democrats have lead this country into 3 recessions, and Republicans have lead us out of each of them.

Stop Taxing us into bankruptcy, and start protecting our rights to be free from sale.

[ 07 April 2002: Message edited by: Atrocities ]</p>

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

Trying to blame one side or the other for the current state of affairs is ridiculous. For where ever there are Democrats there are Republicans, and where ever there are Republicans there are Democrats. Both wasting so much breath blaming the other side for mistakes that they fail to do anything about it. And where ever there is money you will find both sides. I'm not sure about the whole free market issue, it seems that our economy is controled by the sale and use of military hardware more than anything else, a fact that I find completely revolting. And I don't see how you can say Bush is for lower government involvement (you site airline security) When first he puts National Guard troops in airports and then gives billions in aid to the airline companies so they don't fold... That doesn't sound very free-marketish. In a free market the companies that don't cut it go out of business, they don't get handouts. But I'm sure the Democrats would have done the exact same thing. And yes Democrats have sat on their asses while human rights are violated around the world... But so have the Republicans... Let's not forget the Chinese invasion of Tibet where buddhists monks were slaughtered and are still prevented from exercising their religion. Or how about Saudia Arabia, an ally during many presidencies of both parties, a repressive monarchy that we have helped hold up with our military sales and support, women are almost as repressed in many areas of the world as they are in this one country that we supposedly liberated (Afghanistan). Both the Democrats and the Republicans have ignored those issues that they feel can be ignored and when they can't they blame the other side. Both have supported Indonesia's 30 year occupation and ethnic cleansing of East Timor (look it up you won't find it on the nightly news). We have sold weapons to their army which they now use to kill civilians. Clinton, Bush I, Bush II, They're all the same... Grasping greedy politicians who can't wait to make more money and ruin the rest of us in the process... So instead of blaming the 'Democrats' for all the worlds ill's why don't you look at each person as an individual... A Republican can be just as greedy and heartless as a Democrat can... and they are often some of the worst...
We are all responsible for the evils our government does... This is supposed to be a democracy you know... We elect these men and women... We should all feel guilty when our leaders decide to bomb someone for not agreeing... If we do then we can get off our asses and change the system so we can all one day feel pride at the masterpiece we have created... But it won't happen as long as the Bushes and Clintons of the world hold power.

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

Kinboat: Your whole spiel is summed up in a single sentence.

There's only one party, the incumbent party!

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

I agree with Kinboat. Both sides are in the same bag and don't forget if it is necessary for them to kill us... they will !!! We do the same in SE IV... but it is a game not life.

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

George Washington warned, in his farewell address, not to have political parties. A pity we didn't listen.

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

Ultimately, I blame the whole "rich get richer, poor get poorer" effect for our current economy; when all is said and done, there will be 10 rich people in the world that give hand-me-outs to the other 6 billion.

Ok, a little stretched there. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
But all the same, "A house divided against itself can not stand", and the U.S. is definately a house divided politically. Less government and tax is good, but corporate despots aren't, and in a free-market, the corporate big-wigs end up replacing the government ones.

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

Yes it is a pity we didn't listen to some of our earlier leaders... One thing I forgot in my ramblings was this... The plight of the Afghani people wasn't on anyone's mind until it became politically beneficial to point it out (the terrorists we wanted were hiding in their country)... If we really cared about human rights violations there we would have done something many years ago. And yes a lot of my longer speils can be summed up in one sentence, that's an excellent one Baron Munchausen.

Damn didn't realize I started sounding so preachy there... That happens a lot with me. Sorry for the OT... There's probably a better place for this stuff.

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

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Kinboat:
The plight of the Afghani people wasn't on anyone's mind until it became politically beneficial to point it out (the terrorists we wanted were hiding in their country)... If we really cared about human rights violations there we would have done something many years ago.<hr></blockquote>
This isn't really an acurate statement. The deplorable conditions the Afgans lived under was well known by anyone who cared to get deeper into it than the nightly news. There have been many articles in magazines and newspapers over the Last few years talking about everything from the lack of basic human right for women to the destruction of priceless archeological atifacts that didn't fit into the Taleban's narrow world view.

The question is what could we as a country have done? Even after the blatent attacks on US soil on 9/11 there were many loud voices in other countries that were arguing we had no right to topple the "legitamate goverment" in Afganistan.

Imagine the screams of protest had we taken a more active role prior to those events.

Geoschmo

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

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

The sad state of affairs is that the USA is tryintg to be the policeman of the world, we are very concernd with building colitions, why? We are the remaning super-power. If we pulled out of the past hotspots, ie. Japan, South korea, and Germany. Beyond a bit of oil, why should we care. We have more reserves than the middleast. I am one for closing the borders and letting the rest fight it out, Beyond the Americas,Europe, and the Pacific rim. there would be no technology!

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

Political parties are all about economic policies. When you say that blaming one is ridicules, you fail to understand that blaming one is exactly correct in this instant. If you do not understand economics, then you do not understand the argument. There are two types of Americans, those who earn intrest, and those who pay it. 90% of Americans pay interest, and it is that 90% who also pay 99% of all taxes. The rich are protected and they will always be. That has been the nature of our unequal economy since its inception.

For the 90's, many Americans earned a lot of extra money, stocks, over time, better paying jobs, and Clintonomics (Clinton’s Economic Plan) took 27% over your standard tax rate. He paid down the deficit among other things. However, Americans were paying more taxes instead of saying money. Now, we are in a recession, and most Americans had no savings to fall back upon when the song stopped.

I did, but many of the people I worked with did not. In the Last 9 months the only people who have profited from this economy of the kind of people who bottom feed. You know them, the investment bankers. The people who buy your home at public auction and then bill you for the balance while selling your dreams at an incredibly inflated profit.

Economics has made and broke many countries, USSR for one. Back in 94 Clinton passed laws that seriously limited several sectors of the Free Market. We are now feeling the strangle hold of those laws.

The major difference about these two political parties is simply a difference of economic views.

One method of economic stimulus my work, while the other may work better or worse. Worse is where we are now. Where do you want to be in 6 months from now? Home at your desk playing SEIV, or living in an over inflated costly apartment eating TopperOnmin trying to play SEIV pbw on dial up?

Look what happened in the past, and see what worked and what did not. Higher taxes, wage fixes, and price fixing have always caused inflation and poor economic times. While lower taxes, free market, and no economic restrictions, say past those to prevent meltdown, have always brought about good economic times.

In the 90's, free market was attacked, AT&T, Microsoft, Health care, Tabacco, firearms, auto makers, forestry, etc. Sure some of these, indeed most, profited by stepping on the small guy, but that is how free market works. Its is not a "government kept fair" system. That line of linking is called socialism. Unfair business practices can be addressed and stamped out in court, or buy consumer protection laws. But to have the Government come in and take to trial nearly every business in the US during the 90's for liability issues was killing our economy.

Law suites and legal games choked free Market, and now we, the people who pay interest, are really paying for it. The law suites were not about consumer needs, or fair business, but about sucking money out of the free market into the pockets of trial lawyers. Trial lawyers who supported Clinton and his methods. Make the rich guys pay us money. Think about it, did any of the law suites do anything for you? Did you get any money from the Tabacco settlement? No you did not, but do you know who did? Yes, the trial lawyers. They made billions. They did that at our expense, and at the expense of our economy. Clinton provided the atmosphere for them to do it, and he allowed it too happen.

Bush’s economic plans may scare a few, but only those who believe Kainism is the way too go.

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

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

I would just like to point out one thing first: The President doesn't pass laws. That's right, the President does NOT pass laws. To blame everything that happens to the economy on the President sitting at the time is a huge exageration. Congress passes laws, the President signs them. True, this gives him (or, perhaps sometime in the future, her) some control over what gets turned into law, but it doesn't go very far. A veto blocks every part of a bill, which is why it is not often used; it brings everything to a halt, sometimes delaying things for years. So, economic policy is directed to some extent by the President, but Congress has most of the authority.

Next, just as a recession is not good for people in an economy, growth that is too rapid is also a bad thing. Most of the policies implemented while Clinton was in office were to prevent the economy from "overheating". Had actions not been taken to control growth, the recession could have come much, much earlier. Think of it this way: when there is lots of growth, businesses start to build an inventory of goods. There comes a point where there is so much excess inventory, that production is cut back, meaning workers are cut back. Businesses still have their supply to sell, yet suddenly the workers/consumers can't buy them. This is basically what happened in the Depression. You can curse these policies all you like in hindsight, but in reality, they were what was needed at the time.

In response to Mudshark, Isolationism isn't the answer. Been there, done that. But back then, the world economy wasn't nearly as interconnected as it is now. The United States buys things from everyone, and everyone buys from us. To simply say "to hell with the rest of the world" is economic suicide. It could also turn out to be the suicide of our entire civilization. Sure, we're a superpower, the only one left. But, to use a SEIV analogy, we're also right on the edge of MEE, and the only thing keeping us from MEE is the fact that it is more profitable to be our friend. Cut off the rest of the world, then we no longer become profitable, and I don't care how advanced the military is, we might not survive.

That's all I have to say about that (for now http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

One thing I do not like. Is how Western culture tries to impose its morals on other culters.

I highly recommend the book Can Asians Think ?

by by Kishore Mahbubani.
Published by Key Porter.


As for American Economic's. 1 word.

homogenize

And the same thing has happened in Canada.

I hope this is just a fad.

Because there is something wrong with the idea that I can shop and eat at the same places as with every one else on this forum. I hope it is just a fad and it has only 20 to 30 years left....

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>The President doesn't pass laws. That's right, the President does NOT pass laws. To blame everything that happens to the economy on the President sitting at the time is a huge exageration.<hr></blockquote>

True, however, the President sets policy, and economic policy has nothing to do with laws passed by congress. Tax increases and breaks have to be approved by congress, and they are often passed because the President, whomever he is, wants it passed.

What happened in the 90's was what happened in the 20's. I agree that Free Market with out checks and balances often implodes. When our economy was running hot, Clinton lifted sanctions that opened the flood gates. Asia dumbed their semi-conductor market on into the US, and under cut Japan. They took the meaning of Free Market too far. Clinton should have realized this, and introduced restriction on importations. He did not because he was reaseving money from China. That is a proven fact.

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.

You see, if a Canadian company tries to sell Depleted urianium candy bars in the use to get rid of their nucler waste, and our government says NO, they can sue our government for lost revenue, and more often than not, they win.

Its all about money. It has always been about money. People who have it want more of it, and those of us who needed and have little of it get pinched for more of it.

Take this for example, Washington State does not have an income tax but Oregon does. Washington State has a huge sales tax, nearing 10%, and Oregon does not.

Now a person living in Washington who works in Oregon has to pay Oregon income tax while a Oregonian who buys stuff in washington does not have to pay sales tax.

The reason Oregonians do not have to pay sales tax is because you can not tax without repersentation. However, taxation without repersentation does not apply to washingtonians who work in Oregon. We have to pay Oregonian income tax. We have no repersentation in Oregon, and therefore the taxing of our citizians is illegal. But since Oregon gets money for it, Oregon will not budge, and often refuse to return money to Washingtonians at tax return time. They claim it is all theirs because we do not live in state and therefore are not justified in having any excess tax payments repaid. And since Washington want too keep the people from Oregon coming over here to buy things, they too won't do a god damned thing about it.

Both states are Democratic lead.

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

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

Since you all like one liners, here's one to sum up your arguments, Atrocities:

It's the golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules.

Or here's another one:

Everything and everyone has it's price.

And a personal favorite of mine:

Physics doesn't make the world go 'round, money does.

And of course:

Money is the root of all evil. However, I don't agree with this one. A more accurate statement is The desire for money is the root of all evil.

There is no democracy. There is no government. There are only policy makers who's opinions and votes are up for sale to the highest bidder. The reason human rights violations are hardly ever opposed is because it is hardly ever finacially beneficial for those currently in power to oppose them. The reason Big Business is very seldom opposed by Big Brother is because Big Business's money is very seldom less important than the individual constituant's opinions (and thus, continued support). Only when the individual constituants' voices are raised as one; only when the disparate individuals join together into a mob, is Big Brother forced to heed their words. And rare indeed is there an issue that can rally all the people under one banner. And even then, it is sometimes not enough; Big Business's sirens song of campaign contributions can occasionally drowned out even the loudest outcries of the mob mentality; especially if it is not an election year.

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

I don't want to upset the Americans here (Well, maybe a little http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ), but personally I hate the American economic model and the way it is gradually taking over the entire world.

Actually, it's not so much the economics of it (capitalism has it's advantages) but the culture of rampant consumerism that comes with it: The unquestioned belief that economic growth is good and that any price is worth paying for it - The idea that it is better to produce, market and sell crap that no-one wants or needs simply to keep money moving around within the economy than it is to produce nothing at all. It strikes me as a lazy and morally empty philosophy to live by - it's certainly highly inefficient and environmentally unsustainable.

People talk about "economic growth" as if it is necessarily a good thing. Why is it? Is ecomic growth actually benefitting mankind? The world economy has been growing and growing for decades but the gap between rich and poor just gets bigger: The sum of misery on this planet increases exponentially. The economy that we have been growing (Like the flesh eating plant in "Little shop of Horrors" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )is a hungry monster that just demands to be fed more and of the world's resources- not to mention the human cost: The increased stress and pressure in workplaces and job markets; The meaningless redundancies just to keep share prices up; The third world sweat shops, The marginalisation of those people who are unprofitable (ie the elderly; those too disabled to work); The social stigma for those who can't afford the latest bit of advertised uselessness; The fore-mentioned human rights abuses ignored for the sake of profit... the list goes on. This is the price that consumerism and economic growth demand. Is it really worth it? What do we get in return? All the very best for the ultra-rich. Diminishing free time, increasing stress levels and a placatory amassment of material goods for the working masses: Misery, exclusion and poverty for the rest. And that's just in the industrialied world - Don't get me started on the [BIG NUMBER]% of the world's population without clean water or a hope of an education.

People talk about progress, but who can actually say what we are progressing toward? I can't say for sure but it's certainly not the altruistic, utopian future I read about in sci-fi novels.

I realise that I am posting questions and not answers - I'm not clever enough for answers - but I think that the world needs to stop for a minute, decide just what it wants to achieve, and then look at whether or not what we are doing is actually taking us toward that goal.

Of course, it ain't gonna happen...

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

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

Well put Dogscoff.

On the question about the benifit of economic growth here's what the CIA web site says at the what's happening in the USA. (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html)

Quote from under the heading of Economy - Overview

"The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households."


Now as an interesting side note the CIA website also describes the United Kingdom as a cold little island somewhere east of New York, known mainly for its breeding of lousy cricket players and that angry woman who sank the Argentinian boat.

Unfortunately it labelled my country as being reknown for claiming New Zealand born superstars as their own. Bugger.

Askan

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

I second that, well said indeed Dogscoff

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by askan:
a cold little island somewhere east of New York, known mainly for its breeding of lousy cricket players and that angry woman who sank the Argentinian boat.<hr></blockquote>

Hmmm, I don't believe this is from the CIA, I would not have thought north americans knew what cricket was other than that anthropomorphic personification seen on Pinochio - Askan, you are Australian are'nt you?

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

Askan - that's a really good site. Thanks=-)

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

Hmmm, how can people still think that George W.Bush is for free market and low taxes ?

Less than a month ago he raised taxes on imported steel by 30%, only because US steel industry can not compete with EU and Japan. Guess who will pay for more expensive american steel? USA consumers.

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

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

Hmmm, I don't believe this is from the CIA, I would not have thought north americans knew what cricket was other than that anthropomorphic personification seen on Pinochio - Askan, you are Australian are'nt you?<hr></blockquote>

The CIA guy who wrote the UK page didn't put it that bluntly but it was an impression I think the author was trying to convey.

And your quite astute with my nationality...your not from MI5 or something? I promise I voted for the Queen. Honest http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Askan

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.

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

wr8th said: "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."

I'm not saying that pre-industrial life was a rosy wonderland, but in some of my darker moments I think the Amish might have the right idea (toss out this bLasted computer and go back to my family farm). But I do believe we could at least make it available as an option, but in today's world an independant samll scale farmer cannot compete with the mass-production farming of today. But the farming practices of today don't yeild any more food per acre then those methods of yester-year. They may do it with less man power (and they use 4 times more water) and therefore cheaper for those that can afford massive expensive Combines and the like.

"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."

But Capitalism really doesn't reward the average Joe/Jane, it only appears to... It rewards the large businessman who can produce items cheaper than any small scale operator. Thus money tends to flow upwards towards to richest people who control all their many conglomerates buying out the common man. Sure some people get lucky and provide just the right service at the right time and make it rich. They then go on to buy up competetor's and form another conglomerate. And Socialism in practice is a different creature than Socialism in theory. I believe that a true Communist or Socialist government doesn't reward 'sloth' it gives everyone a fair deal, an even playing field and lets everyone stop worrying about whether the steel plant is cutting back. Now keep in mind that I don't agree with the Communism that has actually been put in practice because they have been Dictatorships claiming Communism. Every attempt at true Communism on a large scale (can't speak for any small tries, Kibbutz, Communes etc) has been ruined by the greed of those in power, similar to what is happening now. To really work you need people willing to sacrifice that second car so the Jones' down the street can afford to pay their gas bill... and sadly that seems to be lacking in America. Can you really argue with Health Care for everyone, food for everyone? I believe these to be a part of our human rights (life liberty and the pursuit of happiness) And somewhat as a responsiblity we have to help all human beings. All the current system does is deprive the majority of people in the world of the products of their labor so a few can live in luxury. It has been estimated that if everyone in the world lived in the same style as American's are accustomed to, we would need 4 planet Earths to provide the resources.

Wardad... I guess I'm going to have to start brushing up on my Japanese if I wanna live longer huh... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

I'm not saying that pre-industrial life was a rosy wonderland, but in some of my darker moments I think the Amish might have the right idea (toss out this bLasted computer and go back to my family farm). But I do believe we could at least make it available as an option, but in today's world an independant samll scale farmer cannot compete with the mass-production farming of today. But the farming practices of today don't yeild any more food per acre then those methods of yester-year. They may do it with less man power (and they use 4 times more water) and therefore cheaper for those that can afford massive expensive Combines and the like.

I like the bucolic backgound of where I live compared to the slum I grew up in. I'll take the smell of manure over a garbage strewn street anyday. I'm also happy I don't have to live off the land like my forbears did back in the "old country" and that a sytem of combines and distribution systems allow me to take the fruits of my labor (paycheck) and trade it in for a decent life (no mini-mansion or Lexus' for me, thanks). Anecdotal info: the Amish produce more food per acre than any modern mechanized farming process. I've visited them and I prefer electricity and the computer I play SE4 on. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif


But Capitalism really doesn't reward the average Joe/Jane, it only appears to... It rewards the large businessman who can produce items cheaper than any small scale operator. Thus money tends to flow upwards towards to richest people who control all their many conglomerates buying out the common man. Sure some people get lucky and provide just the right service at the right time and make it rich. They then go on to buy up competetor's and form another conglomerate. And Socialism in practice is a different creature than Socialism in theory. I believe that a true Communist or Socialist government doesn't reward 'sloth' it gives everyone a fair deal, an even playing field and lets everyone stop worrying about whether the steel plant is cutting back.

Except that Socialism and communism in theory is just that.. theory, just like pure capitalism. Human "frailties" (human nature) will prevent that proposed ideal from ever becoming reality. In even the most stringent Marxist construct, hierarchies will arise complete with elites calling themselves the "proletarian intelligentsia" or the "politburo". When it does level the playing field, the net effect is to appeal to the dullard which eventually becomes the supportable standard which over time deteriorates from the weight of the masses the state is to support at a roughly equal level. Capitalism is not fair as it will not transfer that which those who work diligently have attained to those who are not as diligent, thus eliminating any incentive to achieve. Obviously we don't live in a purely capitalistic constuct any more than we do in caves.

Now keep in mind that I don't agree with the Communism that has actually been put in practice because they have been Dictatorships claiming Communism. Every attempt at true Communism on a large scale (can't speak for any small tries, Kibbutz, Communes etc) has been ruined by the greed of those in power, similar to what is happening now. To really work you need people willing to sacrifice that second car so the Jones' down the street can afford to pay their gas bill... and sadly that seems to be lacking in America. Can you really argue with Health Care for everyone, food for everyone?

It depends on why they can't pay the gas bill. Is it because they lost their job? Or didn't have one? Were they living beyond their means and fell on bad times? Did they gamble and lose?
Yes I can argue it when it's viewed as an entitlement that everyone has a god-given right too without the reasonable expectation that they contribute positively to society themselves. Personally, my family and I tend to live frugally and have passed up opportunities for more money, bigger house etc. in favor of a more fiscal security. And yet I'd have to pay more to support someone who didn't care enough to plan responsibly.... and that's where the crux of the matter is: accountability for one's actions, seemingly an anachronism.

I believe these to be a part of our human rights (life liberty and the pursuit of happiness) And somewhat as a responsiblity we have to help all human beings. All the current system does is deprive the majority of people in the world of the products of their labor so a few can live in luxury. It has been estimated that if everyone in the world lived in the same style as American's are accustomed to, we would need 4 planet Earths to provide the resources.

Provide a good example for the rest of us to follow and surrender the technological gizmos you're using to type your response on and play SE4...
Rather than receding towards the level of those whom we blithely "steal" from, perhaps the evolution of technology spurred by consumerism will eventually provide the resources of those 4 earths of your example so that eventually everyone will be as well fed and educated as they'd like to be. The metaphor is there everytime you play SE4. Do you honestly believe that doling out resources evenly to all we'd ever have a hope of getting off this rock in less than a millenium?

Can you tell I didn't have my coffee? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

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

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>I'm not saying that pre-industrial life was a rosy wonderland, but in some of my darker moments I think the Amish might have the right idea (toss out this bLasted computer and go back to my family farm).<hr></blockquote>
Well, I don't think you could pick any era and hold it up as a utopia. Problems have existed since the beginning of time, and they'll exist as long as mankind does. That said, no era has made technology and luxury as widely available as the current one. Don't believe me? You're reading this, for one example. Almost no one had computers twenty-five years ago. Walk over and flip that light switch on the wall. Go outside and get in your car. Open your refrigerator--wouldn't you rather go cut a block of ice out of your local iceberg to keep your food cold? Mankind can cure diseases today that were fatal twenty years ago. No other time in man's history has provided such things on such a wide scale.

As far as communism/socialism/capitalism goes, there are and always will be men who take advantage of the system they are found in. That goes for any area of life, though. The mere existence of fakes/frauds is not sufficient reason to discard any system. If a system fails to account for and deal with their existence, then it is faulty.

I prefer the free market as a system superior to both communism and socialism. A "purist" communist/socialist state will never exist. Men will seek power for their own benefit; others will not want to work as hard--after all, they still get all the benefits; still others will not want to fund their fellow-man's delinquence. The only means to ensure compliance is governmental intervention--loss of freedom.

In a free-market system, men are free to give--or not give--to others as their conscience dictates. They are free to choose who they give to--whether the truly needy, or the freeloader. In short, the free market means more individual freedom.

I'm not a libertarian who believes that government=bad and freedom from restrictions=good every time. I wear seatbelts and have a driver's license. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif The government (who else?) should punish those who abuse the system. Freedom does not mean freedom to pollute, or freedom to clear-cut, or freedom to underpay employees. However, the institutions created to protest these abuses have gone too far in their own interests (another example of power-seeking men). Unions which originally were to protect their members now extort corporations. Low wages? The vast majority of the world lives far below our poverty level. The industrialized world lives in what the rest of the world would consider luxury. The selfishness on the part of employers has, in many cases, been replaced with selfishness on the part of the employees. Environmental Groups ask for tight restrictions on human development, giving more importance to plants and animals than to mankind. Whatever happened to balance? Whatever happened to stewardship of our natural resources? They're resources--they're here to be used wisely for our good. Enslavement to nature is just as bad as waste of nature. [/rabbit trail rant]

The free market system which used to exist in America has been turned into a half-breed of capitalism and socialism. Such a system loses out. Attempting to avoid abuses of the free market, we have restricted the freedom upon which it operates. On the other hand, while not preventing its abuses, we have added to them the abuses of the socialist system--power-seeking and freeloading.

People do not always win in the free market. Their product may not be marketable, or someone else may do it better. But the free market gives one the freedom to choose how to earn (i.e., it takes work) one's living and better themselves.

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

What are the real benifits of free open markets?

Smart capable people are allowed to succeed. Their heirs are allowed to lose it. This system benifits the most people via trickle down. It also avoids the problem of frustrated smart capable people leading revolts.

Yes, there can be too much success. Monopolies, pollution, and resource exhaustion violate the "We the People, By the People, For the People" context of the constitution.


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

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

Free Market Economy is the most brilliant idea ever concieved:

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

It lets the Government worry about other things than Economic progress as the people living in it are already doing it.

It generates many capitals and revenues for the people, by the people, and to the people.

It creates jobs, and jobs, and jobs.

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

And yet: so was Command Economy.

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

In a switch the country can turn into a brimming war machine.

What Unemployment?

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

If you think about it: Both are outdated.

Both damage the environment.

CCE: Less for the many but everybody has equal amounts.

FME: The bigger they come: Monopolies are a definite possiblity.

FME: The harder they fall: Widespread depression can spread VERY quickly and with surprising responce and quonsequences.

FME: The richer gets richer but the poorer gets poorer.

FME: Rampant destruction of Resources and Cultures and Ways of life for money.

CCE: What goes around, Comes around: If they government doesn't keep checking it everyday, every second, it will collapse.

So there is really not much to talk about the advantages of Economic models. Equilibrium is the only way to go, and that is hard to achieve as figuring out the Missing Link.

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

Wr8th said: 'Yes I can argue it when it's viewed as an entitlement that everyone has a god-given right too without the reasonable expectation that they contribute positively to society themselves'

It's exactly this attitude that some people are more entitled to the basics of human existence that propagates discrimination and hatred in the world. I can only hope if you ever find yourself without food that someone with more compassion will be nearby. Who gets to decide what a 'positive contribution' is? You? Me? Whoever it is won't be fair, everyone has their own biases that they lug around. I have already devoted two years of my life volunteering for others, and I didn't even ask them if they 'earned' my help... I did it because all human life is precious, regardless of their value in the eyes of this government.

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Kinboat:
Wr8th said: 'Yes I can argue it when it's viewed as an entitlement that everyone has a god-given right too without the reasonable expectation that they contribute positively to society themselves'

It's exactly this attitude that some people are more entitled to the basics of human existence that propagates discrimination and hatred in the world. I can only hope if you ever find yourself without food that someone with more compassion will be nearby. Who gets to decide what a 'positive contribution' is? You? Me? Whoever it is won't be fair, everyone has their own biases that they lug around. I have already devoted two years of my life volunteering for others, and I didn't even ask them if they 'earned' my help... I did it because all human life is precious, regardless of their value in the eyes of this government.<hr></blockquote>

Spare me the sanctimony. As if your personal stint at volunteerism gives you special priviledged insight or that you're the only one to do so.... Please.

Who are you to presume what I've been through?
I'm for giving people a hand-up, not a hand-out. Like helping those who've exhibited the strength of character to try and help themselves and their family (an example of a positive contribution) but have fallen short and are too proud to ask for assistance. A silent, sometimes anonymous hand-up leaves them with more than just the immediate tangible benefit, it also leaves them their integrity. I know. Too many (not all) expect hand-outs simply because they've found it expedient and have been socialized to feel it's their right.

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

Well, I know one example of what is NOT a positive contribution: lying around doing nothing but getting drunk or high. Can we all agree on that? It seems to me that the only kind response to that is to forcibly take away the addict's freedom long enough to dry him/her out. But some people don't like depriving addicts of their right of self-determination. OK, if that isn't allowed, then the only kind thing to do is to let them get so hungry that they are willing to commit themselves to a detox center. To give an addict free food and shelter is extremely cruel in the long run.
And I submit that the same argument applies to lazy good-for-nothings; it is just not so obvious.
And Lastly, I say why do these extra rights stop at food and shelter? What about clothing, education, transportation, entertainment, recreation, etc.? And it has to be good stuff, because surely dignity is also a basic human right. Would you deny another man dignity, you cold-hearted SOB?

[edit: everyone recognizes the sarcasm at the end there, right?]

[ 10 April 2002: Message edited by: dmm ]</p>

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

Is that something like the idea that the best expression of parental love is not to give a child everything he wants? *gasp* And I thought a five-year old was the most qualified individual to determine exactly what's best for himself.

Bottom line: Best is not synonymous with warm, fuzzy feelings. In fact, warm fuzzy feelings aren't indicative of anything (except sitting with your leg crossed for so long it fell asleep).

[ 11 April 2002: Message edited by: Krsqk ]</p>

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

Link...

Not my view point or endorced. Just an interesting read.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/5208
http://www.ips-dc.org/comment/raskinsigners.htm

[ 11 April 2002: Message edited by: tesco samoa ]</p>

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

I just recieved this from a friend. What do y'all think?


&gt;
&gt; STOP PAYING FOR ECONOMIC AND HUMAN TERRORISM!!
&gt;
&gt; I hear we are going to hit close to $3.00 a gallon by
&gt; the summer Want gasoline prices to come down? We need
&gt; to take some intelligent, united action. Phillip
&gt; Hollsworth, offered this good idea: This makes MUCH
&gt; MORE SENSE than the "don't buy gas on a certain day"
&gt; campaign that was going around Last April or May!
&gt;
&gt; The oil companies just laughed at that because they
&gt; knew we wouldn't continue to "hurt" ourselves by
&gt; refusing to buy gas. It was more of an inconvenience
&gt; to us than it was a problem for them. BUT, whoever
&gt; thought of this idea, has come up with a plan that can
&gt; really work. Please read it and join with us!
&gt;
&gt; Now that the oil companies and the OPEC nations have
&gt; conditioned us to think that the cost of a gallon of
&gt; gas is CHEAP at $1.50- $1.75, we need to take
&gt; aggressive action to teach them that BUYERS control
&gt; the marketplace....not sellers. With the price of
&gt; gasoline going up more each day, we consumers need to
&gt; take action. The only way we are going to see the
&gt; price of gas come down is if we hit someone in the
&gt; pocketbook by not purchasing THEIR gas! And we can do
&gt; that WITHOUT hurting ourselves. How? .
&gt;
&gt; Since we all rely on our cars, we can't just stop
&gt; buying gas. But we CAN have an impact on gas prices if
&gt; we all act together to force a price war. Here's the
&gt; idea: For the rest of this year, DON"T purchase ANY
&gt; gasoline from the two biggest companies (which now are
&gt; one), EXXON and MOBIL. If they are not selling any
&gt; gas, they will be inclined to reduce their prices. If
&gt; they reduce their prices, the other companies will
&gt; have to follow suit.
&gt;
&gt; But to have an impact, we need to reach literally
&gt; millions of Exxon and Mobil gas buyers. It's really
&gt; simple to do!! Now, don't wimp out on me at this
&gt; point...keep reading and I'll explain how simple it is
&gt; to reach millions of people!! .
&gt;
&gt; I am sending this note to about thirty people. If each
&gt; of you send it to at least ten more (30 x 10 = 300)...
&gt; and those 300 send it to at least ten more (300 x 10 =
&gt; 3,000) ... and so on, by the time the message reaches
&gt; the sixth generation of people, we will have reached
&gt; over THREE MILLION consumers! ..
&gt;
&gt; If those three million get excited and pass this on to
&gt; ten friends each, then 30 million people will have
&gt; been contacted! If it goes one level further, you
&gt; guessed it..... THREE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE!!! .
&gt;
&gt; Again, all you have to do is send this to 10 people.
&gt; That's all. If you don't understand how we can reach
&gt; 300 million and all you have to do is send this to 10
&gt; people.
&gt;
&gt; How long would all that take? If each of us sends this
&gt; email out to ten more people within one day of
&gt; receipt, all 300 MILLION people could conceivably be
&gt; contacted within the next 8 days!!!
&gt;
&gt; I'll bet you didn't think you and I had that much
&gt; potential, did you? Acting together we can make a
&gt; difference. If this makes sense to you, please pass
&gt; this message on. PLEASE HOLD OUT UNTIL
&gt;
&gt; THEY LOWER THEIR PRICES AND KEEP THEM DOWN. THIS CAN
&gt; REALLY WORK. YOU KNOW THEY LOVE HOLIDAYS AND SUMMER
&gt; TRAVELERS.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; STOP PAYING FOR TERRORISM!!!!!!
&gt;
&gt; Note the following information:
&gt;
&gt; Every time you fill up the car, you can avoid putting
&gt; more money into the coffers of Saudi Arabia. Just buy
&gt; from gas companies that don't import their oil from
&gt; the Saudis.
&gt;
&gt; Nothing is more frustrating than the feeling that
&gt; every time I fill-up the tank, I am sending my money
&gt; to people who are trying to kill me, my family, and my
&gt; friends. I thought it might be interesting for you to
&gt; know which oil companies are the best to buy gas from.
&gt;
&gt; Major companies that import Middle Eastern oil (for
&gt; the period 9/1/00 - 8/31/01).
&gt;
&gt; Shell................ 205,742,000 barrels
&gt; Chevron/Texaco....... 144,332,000 barrels
&gt; Exxon/Mobil.......... 130,082,000 barrels
&gt; Marathon............. 117,740,000 barrels
&gt; Amoco................ 62,231,000 barrels
&gt;
&gt; If you do the math at $30/barrell, these imports
&gt; amount to over $18 BILLION! Here are some large
&gt; companies that do not import Middle Eastern oil:
&gt;
&gt; Citgo 0 barrels
&gt; Sunoco 0 barrels
&gt; Conoco 0 barrels
&gt; Sinclair 0 barrels
&gt; BP/Phillips 0 barrels
&gt;
&gt; All of this information is available from the
&gt; Department of Energy and can be easily documented.
&gt; Refineries located in the U.S. are required to state
&gt; where they get their oil and how much they are
&gt; importing. They
&gt; report on a monthly basis.
&gt;
&gt; Keep this list in your car; share it with friends. And
&gt; Stop paying for terrorism.............

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

OIL BURNS!!!

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

A big pile of....

I think it is nice that they added the terrorism bit.... ask your friend for the proof and facts that this message is delivering.

I also love the math on the 3x10x10x10 factor with a ratio of one to one on the unique friend list.

but think about this.

For this to be true then

Everyone is the middle east is a terrorist

Refinerys from non-middle eastern countries do not purchase oil from the middle east.

That Citgo to BP refinerys are not at 100% or close to 100% production capacity. Because if they are then they will run out of gas. Which should cause the prices to increase. And Citgo to BP to purchase there gas from the refinerys that would have produced gas to shell to amoco or from middle eastern countries to cover the increase in production.

Unless economics and supply and demand work differently.......

So tell your friend to to tell 10 other friends that this is bull*&^%.

And within 8 days 300 million people will know that http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Later Wardad.

That's what I think.

P.S.

No personal insults were intended.

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

What do I think? I think I should buy stock in oil companies! If gas hits $3/gal, then profit/gal can be much higher without people noticing much. They will be selling a premium product instead of a cheap commodity. Sure, people will cut back driving and flying some, but not enough to kill the huge profit potential. Americans are stuck with their gas-guzzling vehicles, their long commutes, and their spread-out suburbs. Maybe they will change in the long run (they certainly would If I Were In Charge; see that topic), but they are stuck in the short run.

As far as the idea of boycotting the biggest company: I do that already. Join me, everyone!

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

Yea, Well... I thought it was simplistic too.

My wife has always bought Texaco, and to please her I buy it too. Now that Mobil bought them out it's time to reconsider. I might buy Citgo from now on.

Ok, some OIL companies are intergrated operations and have mideast holdings etc... or just can't avoid mideast oil. These companies have regular oil shipments to their refineries.

Some companies like Armanda Hess are smaller and do buisness elsewhere. Psst.. they also had a great P/E of 5 Last year, with a decent dividend, and healthy 3 yr grotwth rate. Damn, I wish I bought their stock.

Other independant refineries and stations buy on the spot market or contract for whatever is available. So they could be selling mideast oil and oil products if the big companies can't move it.

Also in Texas years ago because of Gov regulation the local crude would get higher prices than the imported crude. So some oil brokers just forged paper work and made a bundle.
So I don't believe everything the oil companies report to the DOE. If we make an issue about mideast oil, we will get lied to and have to pay extra for the lip service.

I remember the Valdez disaster when nearly everyone stop buying Exxon. It really hurt the Exxon station owner/operators, but had little effect on Exxon corporate income. BUT... I still do not buy Exxon and I still feel good about it.

So maybe boycotting outlets for mideast oil won't do much, but I'll feel a little better when I'm pumping gas.


P.S. I do not expect gas to go to $3.00 a gallon in the US anytime soon. I also did not expect 9/11 or the new Israel/Palistenian war either.


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

Damn, Want to buy yesterdays tech stocks? Please?

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

NOT PC!!! SENSE OF HUMOR REQUIRED:

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and
retire on the income.

ENRON VENTURE CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your
brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption
for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island company secretly owned by the majority
shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option
on one more. Sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release. The
public buys your bull.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. You
are surprised when the cow drops dead.

A FRENCH CORPORATION: You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times
the milk. You then create clever cow cartoon images called Cowkimon and market them World-Wide.

A GERMAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You reengineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month , and milk themselves.

A BRITISH CORPORATION: You have two cows. Both are mad.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows, but you don't know where they are. You break for lunch.

A RUSSIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
You count them again and learn you have 12 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.

A SWISS CORPORATION: You have 5000 cows, none of which belong to you. You charge others for storing them.

A HINDU CORPORATION: You have two cows. You worship them.

A CHINESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You have 300 people milking them. You claim full employment, high bovine productivity, and arrest
the newsman who reported the numbers.

A TEXAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. That one on the left is kinda cute...

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

Like it except for the reference to British companies

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

That is funny. I especially like the Last one. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Note where I am posting from. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

The tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians, passed on from one generation to the next, says that when you discover you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount. However, in modern business, because of the heavy investment factors to be taken into consideration, often other strategies have to be tried with dead horses, including the following:

1. Buying a stronger whip.
2. Changing riders.
3. Threatening the horse with termination.
4. Appointing a committee to study the horse.
5. Arranging to visit other sites to see how they ride dead horses.
6. Lowering the standards so that dead horses can be included.
7. Appointing an intervention team to reanimate the dead horse.
8. Creating a training session to increase the riders load share.
9. Reclassifying the dead horse as living-impaired.
10. Changing the form so that it reads: "This horse is not dead."
11. Hiring outside contractors to ride the dead horse.
12. Harnessing several dead horses together for increased speed.
13. Donating the dead horse to a recognized charity, thereby deducting its full original cost.
14. Providing additional funding to increase the horse's performance.
15. Doing a time management study to see if the lighter riders would improve productivity.
16. Purchasing an after-market product to make dead horses run faster.
17. Declaring that a dead horse has lower overhead and therefore performs better.
18. Forming a quality focus group to find profitable uses for dead horses.
19. Rewriting the expected performance requirements for horses.

and if all else fails:

20. Promote the dead horse to a supervisory position.

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

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


and if all else fails:

20. Promote the dead horse to a supervisory position.<hr></blockquote>

Now how many of us have seen the "Peter Principle +1" in action?:

Promoting a dead horse to one level above his incompetence.

Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
 

Back to capitalism jokes: politicaly correct capitalism:
You have two cows. You got sued for $1000000000 for sexualy harrasing them. You did fondle their breasts, did't you ?