Overwritten.net
Community => Serious Topics => Topic started by: angrykeebler on Friday, February 01, 2008, 12:16:45 PM
-
Clinton and Obama for the democrats and Romney and McCain for the GOP. I'd love to hear who you guys like and are voting for.
Personally, I think an Obama vs McCain race would be the best thing for this country. I like both and would not kill myself or move to Canada if either are elected.
-
As far as gaming is concerned... McCain has the most sensible ideas. Clinton is a bitch, and Romney said something really absurd and horrible.
Obama initially said he'd like gaming to be left alone, but then said he'd like surveys done to see how video games were affecting people. He might have said it to appease, but who knows.
McCain is the only one with sensible comments. He basically said that America should just have a unified rating system for movies and games. He'd like PG-13 and R for games just so that parents can understand the thing better. He said he'd prefer to leave the games industry alone for the most part.
-
Pug, I'm pretty sure that the gaming industry is *really* low on the priority list for all of these candidates.
I'm actually a fan of McCain, I would just never vote for him because I think that his party is filled with a bunch of morons. I don't really think that Romney is going to win, he's behind in most of the polls and McCain already won South Carolina and Florida. And Florida was solely a republican vote, which shows that he doesn't necessarily need independents to win. But if Romney does win, he will be incredibly easy to run against in the general election. He's changed positions so many times on issues that it's funny.
I'm for Obama 100 percent on this, but even if Hillary gets elected I'd be willing to bet that Obama would be her running mate.
-
I'm for Obama 100 percent on this, but even if Hillary gets elected I'd be willing to bet that Obama would be her running mate.
Really? Even with the nastiness in their campaign? It really seems to me they dislike each other.
-
Yeah, well, the media loves conflict. In fact, they thrive on it. They have a habit of making mountains out of molehills.
The last Democratic debate was last night between Barack and Hillary and there was virtually no confrontation between the two, and when there was it was just discussion on policy difference. I know that will probably change in the next few days before February fifth, but it won't be Obama or Hillary doing most of the bashing, it will be their surrogates. I was watching the post-debate analysis (which is mostly utter bullshit) and all the networks were mad that they weren't going at each other.
-
I'll vote for McCain if he's the Republican candidate, love the guy and how he speaks out against special interests (to a degree). I feel that's the biggest issue with our government... corporate control.
Things like anti-trust law would never be created today since the Congress' wallets are fat because of corporate "donations" and "sponsorship."
If McCain isn't the Republican candidate, I'll probably vote for Obama. If McCain isn't the Republican candidate and Clinton is the Democratic candidate, I'll probably vote Republican.
-
If I actually vote, which would be something of a miracle given my complete and utter lack of faith in our government and those who run it, it'll be for McCain. Obama is a fairly likable guy, and I don't hate every last one of his positions, but there's also some stuff there that worries me. However, I'd take him over Clinton any day of the week. If she ends up as president, I don't know what the hell I'll do. Possibly try to start my own country in a cardboard box somewhere close to 13th and Franklin. That, or I'll just go insane and start murdering people. *waves to FBI agents reading this* It's just a joke. Stop looking at me like that.
-
I think that Clinton could possibly be the worst option out of the mainstream contenders.
-
I like Bill and I like Hilary, but I don't want them doing a co-op as president. I wasn't ever going to vote for McCain, but I did like him until he called evolution a crock and said we should stay in Iraq even if it takes a hundred years.
Obama gets my vote, not only is he likable, but he's believable. Is he bullshitting? Maybe, but at least he's good at it.
-
McCain was talking about permanent bases in Iraq, not the current troop levels that we now have. He just said it in an idiotic way. Clinton and Obama also support bases in or around Iraq. We will be there for a long time no matter who you vote for. And if I were voting purely based on military matters I would probably go with McCain. He was right about the surge so far - whether it will create long term stability has yet to be seen. (Ironically, part of the reason that we have quelled violence in Baghdad is that we are copying Saddams strategy.) I just think that he is much weaker than the other candiates on other issues.
-
Well, Clinton is basically in the first stages of a public melt-down. This should be pretty fun to watch.
-
The emperor has no clothes, and that's one ugly emperor.
-
Wait wait. It's up to five now (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/24/nader.politics/index.html)... or is that four again?
Sorry, I know this is a serious thread, but it seems more appropriate here than anywhere else.
-
Well considering Nader's past success and the terrible candidates running this year, I would say that he picked an excellent year to throw away all of his money. I would prefer that he just give me the money and save himself the embarrassment, but watching him slowly lose is kind of fun as well.
-
The candidates aren't great this year (again), but I would say they are better than the ones to choose from in the last two elections.
Well, unless Hillary Clinton is the lead Democratic candidate.
-
Yeah, I was being sarcastic. I consider the candidates this year drastically better than any of the candidates last election. Even though I don't like her for this election, I would vote for Hillary over Kerry or Bush any day of the week.
-
Not me. I'd vote for Nader before I'd vote for Hillary, and I feel little left-wing candidates hurt by splitting the disaffected vote.
I'm interested to test my theory that Obama is so popular because people are scared to death of Hillary. If so, he'll win the democratic nomination, but McCain will become president comfortably.
-
I don't think thats the case. If that were true, he would be drawing record crowds (20,000 +) and raising the most money ever in an election simply because people were scared of Hillary.
If McCain becomes president I have the feeling that we will be entering into another war. Plus he's already admitted that he doesn't know a damned thing about the economy.
-
I don't put much stock in it either. I do wonder, though, how many people couldn't conceive of a woman president, let alone this woman. Obama, while partly black, doesn't come across as a threat to white Americans. I do see him in a positive light, though. I hope he can make a fundamental difference. I have no such hope for Hillary, or even McCain really.
-
(http://home.cinci.rr.com/jgoods/images/The%203%20candidate%20stooges.jpg)
Woop woop woop woop woop!
Nyuk nyuk!
-
haha... that's incredibly amusing and disturbing all at once.
-
The Hilary Clinton one is uncanny. Its like looking into the future.
edit:
Woop woop woop woop woop!
Nyuk nyuk!
hahaha... Cobra... amusingly spelled.
-
That's awesome. It looks like it'll most likely be Obama vs Mcain. That's kind of a tough choice for completely different reasons than last time.
-
Yeah, I like Obama, but I really like how McCain isn't a big fan of corporate interest in government. That I feel is this country's greatest problem right now. Things like the DMCA are a travesty and now the RIAA is trying to change piracy fines so people would pay like $1.5 million per CD pirated.
-
And Obama is a fan of corporate interest in government? I think I'd rather see both the legislative and executive branches go democrat right now. There's a much better chance of effective law changes that way. There will be leftist garbage in the mix, to be sure. But if it can start curbing the corporate takeover of the government and the export of jobs and wages, it will be worth putting up with.
-
I think I'd rather see both the legislative and executive branches go democrat right now. There's a much better chance of effective law changes that way.
The Democratic controlled congress hasn't done jack shit since getting elected. They are a bunch of pussies. The Republicans aren't any better - they are all greedy bastards. But it's clear that the change will come from the executive branch.
I heard Obama talk yesterday about how his cabinet will be filled with people who disagree with him and aren't afraid to do so. Smart man.
-
I'm not a fan of either party. But the problem with Congress is gridlock. There is not enough of a democrat majority to override presidential vetoes, plus there is a major filibustering issue in one of the houses. A democrat as president would at least eliminate the veto problem, and probably take a lot of wind out of the sails of republican filibusters.
-
I agree completely, although the gridlock is due to a number of things. When anyone with an opposing point of view is labeled as sympathetic to the enemy and putting America more at risk of being attacked, opposition begins to dispense. That's why we got into the mess in Iraq in the first place - no one was willing to stand up and take a stance because of the fear that they would be labeled soft on terror. It wasn't just politicians - the media went along for the ride as well. And now the nation is split between people who are too scared to think and people who are too scared to act. The result being that either nothing gets accomplished or really, really stupid things get accomplished.
-
To be honest, I'd be very very surprised if there was any real radical change in policy no matter who gets in. I think McCain and Obama both have the potential for integrity, but lets not forget a.) they're career politicians and b.) t party politics tend to rule in systems like mine and yours.
-
There could be radical change in a few areas depending on who gets elected. Obama will have more leverage than McCain simply because Republicans are going to lose seats in Congress. There will probably be pretty radical change from Obama and Hillary on Iraq, though it's certainly not going to happen overnight. As for health care? Anyone who thinks that Obama or Hillary are going to enact exactly what they are talking about now is a little naive. And none of them will have much leverage over the economy. People seem to think that electing Hillary or Obama will make things better overnight. The one big difference will be that there's a much better chance that something really stupid won't happen. With the Bush administration in office there's no telling what will happen next.
-
I remember recession and runaway inflation from the Jimmy Carter era. The difference now is that the seeds to recovery are nowhere in sight, not in America. They've been exported elsewhere. That obviously is not going to change soon enough if left to private enterprise. They are the one's who have successfully pushed for the sad status quo. It needs to be legislated. The only hope anything will happen on that front is to have the majority of Congress and the President on the same page. And of course, it can't be a pro-corporate republican page.
The economy can't be legislated directly. However, who gets whatever helpings of pie there are, whether feast or famine, can very much be. Stopping all those bakery trucks at the border is the first step. I've said this before. I don't give a shit about the global economy. With more Americans suffering under NAFTA and just old-fashioned corruption, I have no doubt I'm getting a lot more company. To me, this is by far the most crucial issue. As Americans continue to lose income, can no longer afford mortgage payments, and the housing industry joins the downhill snowball, there is going to be a lot less voter and constituent worry about macroeconomics than keeping the jobs here. Health care is very much a part of this, since it's the job loss in concert with the HMO travesty that has led to that state of affairs. Iraq is important mostly because it's such a drain on our diminishing resources.
-
To be honest, I'd be very very surprised if there was any real radical change in policy no matter who gets in. I think McCain and Obama both have the potential for integrity, but lets not forget a.) they're career politicians and b.) t party politics tend to rule in systems like mine and yours.
I like coming late to these threads so I can just say "what he said". See Cobra's last post for 2nd example.
-
I remember recession and runaway inflation from the Jimmy Carter era. The difference now is that the seeds to recovery are nowhere in sight, not in America. They've been exported elsewhere. That obviously is not going to change soon enough if left to private enterprise. They are the one's who have successfully pushed for the sad status quo. It needs to be legislated. The only hope anything will happen on that front is to have the majority of Congress and the President on the same page. And of course, it can't be a pro-corporate republican page.
The economy can't be legislated directly. However, who gets whatever helpings of pie there are, whether feast or famine, can very much be. Stopping all those bakery trucks at the border is the first step. I've said this before. I don't give a shit about the global economy. With more Americans suffering under NAFTA and just old-fashioned corruption, I have no doubt I'm getting a lot more company. To me, this is by far the most crucial issue. As Americans continue to lose income, can no longer afford mortgage payments, and the housing industry joins the downhill snowball, there is going to be a lot less voter and constituent worry about macroeconomics than keeping the jobs here. Health care is very much a part of this, since it's the job loss in concert with the HMO travesty that has led to that state of affairs. Iraq is important mostly because it's such a drain on our diminishing resources.
I had an econ prof. in university who was probably around your age and once said something along the lines of; "My generation was the first ever to more or less completely live in a period of mass employment that also featured a high average standard of living and decent personal purchasing power. There's no evidence that we've crossed some historical line and this is now the status quo. In fact, there is a very very real possibility that this was an anomaly." I can't say if there is any truth to that, and the sad fact is that no one really can, it's all guess work. The thing is that Pandora's Box has been open and a very real problem has developed for the western world along with globalization.
The thing is that globalization isn't really a political fad, it's an economic reality made possible through increased levels of global technology. National governments can try to combat it all they want, but they'll be very hard pressed to as long as the majority of political economists and corporate officers firmly believe that some level of free trade is more beneficial then a strict protectionist mind-set. Part of the main issue in America is that the largest American companies are actually multi-national corporations and their nationalistic ties are purely symbolic. Try to regulate Nike a little to harshly and they'll locate somewhere a little more friendly. America starts throwing up large tariffs on goods imported from around the world and the rest of the world does the same thing. The MNCs now just have to look at the numbers and if they decide relocating their head offices to Asia, Europe, or wherever will be ultimately more beneficial, then they have a duty as a corporation to their shareholders to do so.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world is freely trading with each other, yet throwing down highly restrictive tariffs on American goods which now have more trouble competing with, say, Chinese goods which are that much cheaper. The large exporting companies residing within America start to feel the sting especially when they're being pressured by government to hold a high percentage of jobs available in the company within the country. Yet, because of the exodious of many of the multi-nationals and the decreased trade, American purchasing power has dropped inproportionally to that of the rest of the world. Oh, yeah and that of China and India have increased immensely. Sure, the American market is a very enticing one right now with it's 300 million people with decent purchasing power, but as more and more countries industrialize and open up their markets it becomes a bit less of a bigger deal every day, especially if the government was to institute duties and tariffs.
It's a shitty deal, and the government definitely has the responsibility to the people to facilitate maximum employment, but protectionalist economic policies most likely aren't the way to create American jobs considering the global economic situation. If you eat beef every day and all of a sudden all the cows start dying, you can waste your time hunting for them and possibly starve or you can find a new way to get your protein and eat pork.
But, from my limited understanding, the American housing situation has very little to do with global trends and more to do with an overinflated credit bubble (a problem that had been talked about for years) and financial mismanagement from ALL levels (including that of the average citizen).
-
That's deja vu. Every time I suggest that this country needs to be proactive in keeping the fruits of American productivity in America, you tell me that it can't be done. Now you're suggesting that economic progress is an anomaly, and we may as well consider ourselves lucky we ever had it. Sorry, but I don't subscribe to that kind of fatalism. It's easy for someone to intellectualize away everything that matters, boil it down to a blip in the radar, if the scope is zoomed back far enough. The last thing we need now is to fold our arms and say it's all up to the global markets. Bullshit. How lazy is that? If we're going to go down, let's go down swinging, not spread-eagled waiting to get rammed. But who says we have to go down? Only if we keep doing nothing about safeguarding American economic interests is that a certainty.
-
Meanwhile, the rest of the world is freely trading with each other, yet throwing down highly restrictive tariffs on American goods which now have more trouble competing with, say, Chinese goods which are that much cheaper.
Much of the problem is that China controls the value of its currency and keeps it artificially low. This drives down the price of its goods.
-
That's deja vu. Every time I suggest that this country needs to be proactive in keeping the fruits of American productivity in America, you tell me that it can't be done. Now you're suggesting that economic progress is an anomaly, and we may as well consider ourselves lucky we ever had it. Sorry, but I don't subscribe to that kind of fatalism. It's easy for someone to intellectualize away everything that matters, boil it down to a blip in the radar, if the scope is zoomed back far enough. The last thing we need now is to fold our arms and say it's all up to the global markets. Bullshit. How lazy is that? If we're going to go down, let's go down swinging, not spread-eagled waiting to get rammed. But who says we have to go down? Only if we keep doing nothing about safeguarding American economic interests is that a certainty.
Economic progress and the American employment rate aren't one and the same. Not even close. All I'm saying here is that the system of interaction between commerce and markets which define who gets what on an global level is continuing to change and evolve, just as it has constantly been doing since the first prehistoric man walked over to the next village and offered what he had for what someone else had. And, just like before if you're in a situation where the tide is changing and you stand to lose out, you can either adapt or you can try to stop the current and drown.
The thing is that the short range doesn't really matter, only the long range. The rest of the world has jumped on board the philosophy behind free trade, trading blocks, and globalization, and America stands to lose a lot because of it. No one is disputing that, but I wonder why you think I'm just saying you might as well roll over and die? What I'm saying is that America is no longer in a position where it can dictate world economic trends, and as such it can no longer hope to legislate it's population into wealth.
There are many ways of combating the problem at hand, but what you suggest as a solution is old fashioned, out dated, and a dangerous thing to do to your children. It's also somewhat of a scapegoat mentality. People aren't defaulting on their mortgages because they've lost their jobs to more competitive foreign workers or because their industry has been made obsolete due to free trade, people are defaulting on their mortgages because a.) they failed to see that the bear market had to turn at some point and b.) the extremely dangerous American credit mentality combined with ill devised (sprinkled with a little bit of corruption) sub-prime lending practices. This was in no way unforeseen but no one did anything to stop it on any level because you were all happy buying things you couldn't afford, the sellers were pumped to sell it, and the lenders were ecstatic to finance it. Why think about the long term effects of anything when you can be ignorant today and hope you aren't around when the shit hits the fan?
America could very well experience vast economic growth and increases in employment in the future under a banner of free trade and globalization, but Americans aren't known for making sacrifices for the future and that would be a necessity. Close your borders now and you might save a few resource extraction jobs, penalize companies for outsourcing telemarketing and CS centers and you might save a few thousand of those jobs, but you stand to lose a lot more as your industrial sectors and consumer good export industry diminishes and stagnates.
I don't know why you think any of this means it's all up to the global market and the American government is powerless. You are very much in control of your own fate, but you have to do what it takes to stay competitive. Companies exporting jobs? Don't risk scaring them away by penalizing, entice them to stay through tax cuts and subsidiaries. Reduce your dependency on foreign owned resources, regulate foreign ownership within your industries, boost education, promote future growth in industries where jobs either can't be shipped over seas or it wouldn't be cost-effective to do so, try to correct some of the vast disparity between the lowest and highest paid, regulate the financiers more strictly, and so on and so forth. Reducing gov't spending in unnecessary areas (military) would go a long way towards funding the neccesary changes to stay competitive and ensure continuing American growth and prosperity in the future. Or you can continue to point your finger at the Mexicans for stealing your jobs and the Canadians for invading your market space and bend further over while your government officials pretend to solve these problems whilst turning a blind eye to corruption in hopes of a cushy job in the private sector after their tenure is up. Then, 20 years down the road when you're wondering why food all of a sudden takes up 40% of your paycheck, rent is skyrocketing, jobs are once again either scarce or extremely low paying, resource extraction companies are charging monopolistic prices, and your industrial markets are dying find another scapegoat. No, it's probably better to just demand that the government adapts it's industrial/commerical policy now, suck it up, admit that for the time being not every American has the born right of owning a car and a house, and plan out the future rather then trying to cling on to a past that can no longer exist.
Much of the problem is that China controls the value of its currency and keeps it artificially low. This drives down the price of its goods.
Very true and a lot of countries have done this in the past. The other major factor is that China's heavily centralized government is exactly what it takes for a developing country to reach 'first world' status. High accountability for corruption and illegal activity, cheap factors of production, a strong public sector and 'safety net', as well as the ability to take control of a situation, pick a market, and become competitive in it because of new technology in production equipment and cheap transportation. China is going to be a very big problem for every other heavily industrialized country in a few decades.
-
Sorry man. I don't buy it. Everything you say is couched in the assumption that we need to depend on the global economy to survive. If we don't play ball with China, the EU and Mexico, we're doomed. That's specifically what I don't buy. There are plenty of resources right here, and plenty of people right here. OK, so iPods may end up costing a few grand. I can live with that, if the essentials work the way they need to. You're saying it can't be done. I say it can, not that it's likely to be attempted. I do think, though, that if something isn't done at all, this country will end up going over to socialism. There isn't enough suffering yet for that, but without any economic intervention, there will be.
-
Sorry man. I don't buy it. Everything you say is couched in the assumption that we need to depend on the global economy to survive. If we don't play ball with China, the EU and Mexico, we're doomed. That's specifically what I don't buy. There are plenty of resources right here, and plenty of people right here. OK, so iPods may end up costing a few grand. I can live with that, if the essentials work the way they need to. You're saying it can't be done. I say it can, not that it's likely to be attempted. I do think, though, that if something isn't done at all, this country will end up going over to socialism. There isn't enough suffering yet for that, but without any economic intervention, there will be.
Well, to be perfectly honest we're not really debating anything here. You're subscribing to one completely legitimate philosophy on the matter, and it's not necessarily one I disagree with. It's probably my fault as I was under the impression that you were of the mindset that you could close down the borders and initiate a protectionalist policy set without feeling any economic repercussions, and that's clearly not the case. I'm not saying that if your country were to do so it would burn to the ground, but there would have to be vast changes to the structure of the country and government in order to do so and retain any semblance of the lifestyle you have today. It wouldn't really be a bad thing, but it's something that most don't consider when they call for protectionalist policies and expect nothing but candy and rainbows just because they all of a sudden have more job opportunities. Aparently, that doesn't include you. But, generally just like with going the other way there would most likely be a transitional period were things aren't so bright.
-
Listening to you two talk makes it seems as if we are either going to succumb to globalism entirely or adopt a strict protectionist policy. Either extreme is a little absurd given that you can't generalize all industries into a particular mindset as far as what is best for them - each operates according to different principles.
Tying it in to the original topic, though, it's clear that we will probably move to more protectionist policies during the next administration. Obama in particular has the most protectionist policies out of all of the candidates, and I can't say that I disagree with him.
-
Listening to you two talk makes it seems as if we are either going to succumb to globalism entirely or adopt a strict protectionist policy. Either extreme is a little absurd given that you can't generalize all industries into a particular mindset as far as what is best for them - each operates according to different principles.
You're correct, but the industries don't directly dictate policy. You could have softwood wanting tariffs and steel wanting free trade, but if your trading partners aren't dropping their tarriffs on steel unless you drop yours on softwood it's the government directly that has to make the decision (or more cynically whichever lobby group has the hotter representative). Hence, if a nation ever wants to open borders, the agreement has to beneficial to both parties, especially now that competition is more fierce, and if you plan on playing into your natural advantage, you're going to have to sacrifice some of your weaker, non-competitive industry.
But really, the problem we're experiencing right now with globalization isn't so much dealing with manufacturing job loss (expensive automatic production lines are still cheaper than using western labor for the most part) or resource extraction job loss, but service and sales sector job loss, which is probably the hardest to control and the least feasible to regulate. This is the downside of a well developed communications infrastructure.
-
You're correct, but the industries don't directly dictate policy. You could have softwood wanting tariffs and steel wanting free trade, but if your trading partners aren't dropping their tarriffs on steel unless you drop yours on softwood it's the government directly that has to make the decision (or more cynically whichever lobby group has the hotter representative). Hence, if a nation ever wants to open borders, the agreement has to beneficial to both parties, especially now that competition is more fierce, and if you plan on playing into your natural advantage, you're going to have to sacrifice some of your weaker, non-competitive industry.
It's a little naive to think that these industries don't directly affect policy decisions. The decisions that manipulate the politicians are a direct result of industry lobbyists, the success of which is based on the strength of these lobbyists, as you point out.
-
But really, the problem we're experiencing right now with globalization isn't so much dealing with manufacturing job loss (expensive automatic production lines are still cheaper than using western labor for the most part) or resource extraction job loss, but service and sales sector job loss, which is probably the hardest to control and the least feasible to regulate.
You're kidding. It would be cake to regulate anything based on the communications infrastructure. A computer program could do most of the tracking, maybe even tack tariffs on the spot, send the bills to the companies involved. If you mean politically difficult, then you're probably correct.
-
It's a little naive to think that these industries don't directly affect policy decisions. The decisions that manipulate the politicians are a direct result of industry lobbyists, the success of which is based on the strength of these lobbyists, as you point out.
Oh, they affect policy, they don't dictate it (at least broad sweeping policy like that concerning international trade). The issue considered with this is that there are just as many, if not more, American producers happy with lower tariffs and some form of free trade than there are against it. American industry is still very competitive globally because of higher levels of technology and high level integration and as such many companies are against restrictive barriers. While the politicians are obviously persuaded by lobbyists, it's not like there's not a sizeable camp of lobbyists clamoring for various duties as well. The politicians are most likely to be persuaded by not only those who are the most convincing, but also those who's interests go in line with the current plan for national growth (right or wrong).
Closing trade agreements isn't a magical solution to anything, especially if it's done half-assed. Employment isn't necessarily going to go up, it's just that the sectors with high growth and employment in a given country are going to shift. For anything else it takes a lot more government intervention and structuring of industry than we're used to seeing.
You're kidding. It would be cake to regulate anything based on the communications infrastructure. A computer program could do most of the tracking, maybe even tack tariffs on the spot, send the bills to the companies involved. If you mean politically difficult, then you're probably correct.
Totally. The technology is there to do it easily enough, but like you suggested it's the political aspect that's the problem. It's not even corruption based, but rather based on whether or not it'd be any use other then to make America an undesirable place to base your international corporation in. It'd could protect jobs and have an effect on companies who's majority market is America (and even then it doesn't guarantee anything), but more global-market oriented companies have a lot more options. The thing here is that sometimes the government bends a bit to industry not because of corruption or a conflict of interests, but rather because they believe some sort of compromise is ultimately the best option for the country as a whole.
Going back to what I said before about there not being radical change, this is basically where it comes in. Sure, a government could step in within the next decade or so, turn around American trade and foreign policy, but do you really think this constitutes the radical change people 'want'? Americans will still buy things they can't afford, companies big and small will still find new ways to downsize in order to save their bottom lines, 98% of politicians are still going to be limp wristed because they don't want to piss off anyone, most of the public is still going to be complacent while 90% of those who are not are going to be too lazy to make any sort of sacrifice other then posting on the internet during the work day to complain about it. Meanwhile resources are going to diminish while the population grows. There's a very good chance nothing is going to change until cataclysm.
-
The issue considered with this is that there are just as many, if not more, American producers happy with lower tariffs and some form of free trade than there are against it. American industry is still very competitive globally because of higher levels of technology and high level integration and as such many companies are against restrictive barriers.
It's not the producers that suffer. Companies thrive on globalization, but domestically it's the workers that suffer. Any company can ship jobs overseas to improve profits. Protectionist measures would devastate companies in particular markets, but they would increase jobs domestically. I'm not saying that America should institute more protectionist policies, but to say that American producers are happy is not the same as saying that American workers are happy.
Also, while American industries may still be competitive in some markets, we are losing out to India and China in a big way. There's no way that we are going to be competitive for long.
-
That's over simplified. Some companies, and domestically, some industry thrive under globalization and free trade, but those without the neccesary scale do not. It's foolish to assume that Americans are losing jobs simply because of free trade when in reality it's simply because of increased global trade in general. Look at the American auto and especially steel industries. Protectionalist tarrifs are placed on the later to no avail because the problem isn't that American buyers aren't buying American steel, it's because the rest of the world isn't buying American steel. American Big auto isn't in trouble because Japanese and European cars are popular in the states, it's because they can't compete on the world market with their low quality over priced products. These industries (like many other) aren't scaled to be able to survive as they are based on domestic sales, they're export industries. You can protect them all you want, but without directly subsidizing, there will still be layoffs as they have to scale down. That's not to say, however, that free trade offers no benefit to the American automobile industry as it very well could considering that each new free trade area agreement increases the size of the market and thus the potential customers. Open your borders and some industries benefit. Close them and others do. There's no accurate measure of which is more beneficial - it just comes down to who you're more willing to piss off and which industries are major employers in the states most likely to support you.
Shipping jobs overseas is the huge problem associated with globalization. There is, howver, very little assurance that things would be any other way even with harsh protectionalist policies in place. Large non-service sector corporations aren't tied down and are free to go where the money is. Like we talked about before, the American economy is closer to a free market economy than most developed nations. Honestly, it's a bit of a pointless conversation because it relies upon pure theoreticals. Closing borders could increase jobs if the American government were to take a more centralized approach to economic and inustrial structuring. Unrestricted free trade could increase jobs if American industry naturally sorted itself out according to the theory of comparative advantage. Both options would feature a transitional period that no one wants to deal with.
Most likely, the answer to increased purchasing power and standard of living probably lies somewhere in the middle. The thing is that re-opening agreements isn't really going to solve anything. The entire industrial and corporate structure is pretty fucked all the way from productivity levels to intercompany pay disparity and surging corporate profits while working wages don't keep up with inflation.
-
On another note, Clinton is officially insane and desperate.
-
This is news?
-
Well, she is more insane and desperate.
-
That's the ticket!
-
/stuff
Point taken, although I should point out that staying competitive becomes increasingly more difficult as the dollar shrinks in value.
On another note, Clinton is officially insane and desperate.
I can't believe that this gas tax holiday proposal isn't getting more press. Angry black preacher man gets front page for two weeks, but *actual* policy is apparently not really front page news. I mean, the idea is so inane that it baffles me. Every economist agrees that it's dumb, and Clinton literally said that the economists don't know what they are talking about. The fact that Obama opposes it and Clinton supports it should tell you much more about how they will handle the decisions of the presidency than a relationship with a pastor.
-
A lower (relative) dollar value could be good in some cases. It's good for keeping jobs in America as wages and (for the most part...hopefully) purchasing power stays the same, but all of a sudden the cost difference between hiring an American and a foreigner shrinks. It's also good for exporting industry as all of a sudden their prices are relatively cheaper on the world market, but it's the same dollar value coming in. A lot of it depends on if America is a net importer or exporter. I'm not sure which, resources would make me lean towards the former though.
And yeah, the gas tax break might be the stupidest thing I've heard in quite a while.
-
Large non-service sector corporations aren't tied down and are free to go where the money is.
I couldn't stay away from that one.
Corporations may be free to go where the money is, but we don't have to allow them to do any business here if they don't follow American policies--like for example, how they treat and compensate their employees, regardless of where they may be.
OK, begin flaming. I'll bask in that tomorrow. I'm off to bed.
-
I couldn't stay away from that one.
Corporations may be free to go where the money is, but we don't have to allow them to do any business here if they don't follow American policies--like for example, how they treat and compensate their employees, regardless of where they may be.
OK, begin flaming. I'll bask in that tomorrow. I'm off to bed.
I totally agree that what you describe would be the best choice in that situation. The problem with it is you ideally don't really want to get to that situation. When it comes to something like regulating Nike, you have to think about the implications of doing so should they decide to move their base of operations. If paying overpriced and not necessarily more productive American workers causes their entire profit equilibrium to shift and they do decide to cut and run, how many jobs and how many billions injected into the American economy are lost in an attempt to save a few thousand minimum wage factory and CS jobs? That's the main problem.
When economists proclaim that free trade is a win-win, they don't mean for the western work force, they mean for countries as a whole. Beyond that, it's generally up to the executive and legislative to create a structural situation that will naturally redistribute the benefits from free trade so purchasing power, employment rates, and standard of living don't suffer. That's where the problem lies.
Free trade agreements are also structured with long term benefits in mind, and that's something that the American voting public has never understood....with anything really. Beyond that, even looking at the short term, what's reopening NAFTA in the capacity that the voting public wishes for going to do? They have no clue, just as they also probably aren't aware that since the inception of NAFTA in 1993 US employment and real GDP has done nothing but increase (dramatically). They don't see that because they don't read sensationalist newspaper reports or see television adds from industries that have been benefiting, they just hear how the manufacturing industry is suffering and how staple commodities are flooding in from north of the border and form an opinion based solely on that.
Presidential candidates talking about reopening NAFTA is a giant appeasement smoke screen. Were it not there'd be a lot more public attention on NAFTA chapter 11 which basically allows individuals and firms to sue all protected and unprotected levels of government for passing or enforcing legislation which could prove detrimental to investments. Think about that for a second. Should that not realistically be center stage? The voters in all three NAFTA nations have had their government's hands tied on many occasions, and the only ones to benefit are firms which are most likely involved in something shady. Some examples include Canada banning a neurotoxin/fuel additive and bans on chemicals deemed environmentally harmful being overturned. That's arguably the number one case for reopening the agreement, but you rarely hear that because it's not as sensationalist as THE MEXICANS ARE STEALING YOUR JOBS!!!
We're really not in disagreement over anything here. I'm pretty sure we're both of the opinion that government's primary obligation is to protect and promote the well being and standard of living of the public as a whole. That's the nature of the social contract and that should always come first. I think we just have different opinions on how best to go about doing that. Due to the nature of the democratic republic, if the public wants to reopen and possibly null the agreement, then that's fully within their right and also the obligation of the government. Anything less would be a travesty. That said, I personally think that certain segments of industry and the government point to NAFTA as a distraction. The GDP has increased dramatically, yet where has that money gone? Disparity between the lowest and highest paid in any given company is higher than anywhere in the world, but it's almost never mentioned by any candidate who claims to be a working class hero. Why has purchasing power stalled? No one wants these questions asked so they blame jobs exported to countries (without any sort of free trade agreements) and other obvious symptoms while trying to pass them off as the cause in hopes of distracting people from the fact that there's a much more malignant disease at their root. That's just my theory anyways.
-
Hold on a sec. Why is there such a disparity? What have we been talking about off and on for months (years?)? That situation necessarily follows when corporate entities allowed to exist by the government, and hence (in America) the people, have absolutely no fiduciary obligation to the people. They don't owe us a living. That's one of their favorite lines. (They even apply it to their own employees, where I think they do owe them a living. That's another argument.) If they can get away with paying us "Mexican wages" or not paying us at all (I love the term "internship") that's exactly what they'll do. If they can eliminate millions of jobs to increase the value of their stock by any amount, large or small, that's exactly what they'll do. There is no downside to treating labor no differently from any other investment, like machinery.
The only surprise to me is how long since NAFTA it took to get to where I figured it had to lead. Define "long term". This and "sacrifice" are concepts you've brought to bear recently. The problem with both of those terms is that they allow for continued abuse behind the unsubstantiated promise of a better future at some undefined time in the future. They make a good smokescreen, a distraction. It's easy to make promises that you won't be around to be held accountable for (even if accountability of the power elite were still possible in this country).
How can something be win-win if the only winners are at the top of a miserable heap? GDP means nothing to skid row.
-
Hold on a sec. Why is there such a disparity?
It's interesting because, for the most part, recent growths in income disparity have taken place during periods of favorable growth within America. High GDP, stable inflation, low unemployment. There are lots of theories as to why, but only one thing matters and that would be that it's happening because people are letting it happen. Yes, corporations are partially to blame, but by nature maximizing profit is their function. You can't expect them to just out of the blue sit there and offer more then they have to. If anything is going to change it'll have to be because they either have no choice or the alternatives aren't as beneficial as increasing profit across the board. You're totally right in that to them, labor is capital and I couldn't agree more that that is a problem which needs to be dealt with. The question is how to deal with it.
Brining up sacrifice, you're completely kidding yourself if you think that it can be dealt with without any sacrifice at all. Every possible solution has a major downside. Stronger labour unions demanding more pay = using foreign labour is all of a sudden more beneficial. Shut down trade agreements and institute tariffs to keep competition out of the domestic market = the global market shutting your products out = less product going out = fewer jobs = less combined purchasing power = fewer domestic market sales = fewer jobs. And so on and so forth.
That's not to say any of these options are a bad idea PERIOD, that's just to say that there are very pronounced downsides to any major national economic policy change. The trick to it is to weigh the negatives of drastic change against the negatives of staying on course and slowly restructuring with long term goals. And what does "long term" mean from an economic standpoint. Generally, it means decades. But honestly, where exactly do you thing NAFTA has taken you? I understand that you live in Ohio, which is notoriously anti-NAFTA and politicians try to exploit that, but the simple fact is that there is no real concrete answer of where it's taken you. Any employment statistic you've heard regarding NAFTA is either altered in some way, taken out of context, or widely disputed. The fact is it's nearly impossible to measure the short term effects of a comprehensive agreement the size of NAFTA. All anyone actually knows is that since the year of inception employment has gone up, GDP has increased, and the balance of trade has shifted. Any other marginally broad statistic is generally flawed and invalid. A key thing to remember when people with interests bring up statistics on employment is that job loss and job displacement aren't even close to the same thing, yet they're usually talking about the wrong one in order to stack the numbers without outright lying.
The problem with both of those terms is that they allow for continued abuse behind the unsubstantiated promise of a better future at some undefined time in the future
Pessimistically true, but what's the alternative really? There's uncertainty and the potential of economic strife and collapse around the corner in either case and the American public isn't willing to allow government intervention into their daily lives on the scale necessary to create 'absolute' stability. The true answer probably lies somewhere in between, but Americans have to get off their asses and decide what they want, and sadly 90% of them don't care about or understand basic economic theory.
I don't know what you're suggesting the actual path should be, and I'm probably missing something but it seems to me like what you're saying is :Shut down FTAs, protect local industry. This makes jobs, and that solves the problem. The first part isn't entirely wrong and it's worked for places. China blew up under strict protectionist policies...but China is it's own breed and was developed to be self-sufficient in a global political environment which essentially treated it as the enemy. America is developmentally dependent on some level of global integration and is quickly losing (or it's arguably already lost it) the influence it once had to stack deals in it's favor. But what exactly do you see the problem as being specifically. Just job loss? Declining value of the dollar? Mortgage foreclosures? The American economic situation as a whole? Because a lot of the problems going on with the economy in America is completely internal. I don't want to come off sounding like a dick here, but the political and consumeristic attitudes of Americans is basically just starting to come back and bite you in the ass.
You mentioned skid row, do you know why the GDP means nothing to skid row in America? Because Americans have never given a shit about skid row. Sure, many claim to and some probably sincerely do, but no one has ever wanted to sacrifice anything when there was nothing in return for them. Look at the rest of the highly developed world with heavily subsidized or free post secondary eduction, working health care systems, subsidized prescriptions, well funded public education, developed welfare systems and public housing programs. People basically have to try to fall through the cracks in order to not be caught by the social safety net. And why do these far less wealthy countries with basically the same political and financial institutions have this much more developed safety net as well as a much higher standard of living? Sacrifice. Because the people in these countries all said "You know what, this is going to cost me money, but it helps someone out. It probably won't be me, but what do I care if I pay a few dollars more tax on every paycheque if it saves some lives or helps out those who can't help themselves? It's for the good of the whole." Americans, on the other hand, looked at the money they would have paid into it and thought "whitewall tires....fuck yeah".
And there's nothing wrong with that; it's a more free mentality and a more free economy. Yet, at the same time you can't look at it, play the victim card and pretend some mexican put all the people there, Americans put those people there whether it be because they wanted cheaper consumer products, wanted their stocks to go up, or just generally thought it wasn't an issue. And sure, the politicians, corporations, and the general 'elite' are partially to blame, but what do you expect when Americans make it very apparent that they're going to vote based on irrelevant shit like who did or did not show up to training camp in the 1960s?
You're right, the trick to maintaining a standard quality of living for America in the future might just very well be isolating yourselves from the rest of the world, centralizing your government, cutting back freedoms, removing energy dependency, and restructuring the economy to be wholly self-sufficient. There's a possibility of some middle ground there, but the strengths of the American economy are being replaced and chances are that no one is going to bend over backwards anymore when China and India are just as lucrative. But, you know there's going to have to be sacrifice to do that as well. As I said, any major change is going to require sacrifice somewhere or other. Accept it or don't, it doesn't matter. The reason I'm so against the idea is I don't think the American people have it in them. They'd rather buy a plasma then worry about how their kid is going to pay for college. They'd rather furnish their new condo with designer goods rather than put any savings away in order to cover any rainy days because they signed on to a mortgage with a variable interest rate and didn't double check the math themselves. They'd also rather continue to rack up debt and clamor for a low prime interest rate when they've been told time and time again that all they're doing is inflating a massive credit bubble which will eventually have to either collapse in on itself or burst (get ready for that bitch).
I'm not against the idea because it goes against the majority accepted economic theory, although that it a small part of it. What does that matter when it doesn't help the little guy as you said. I'm against the idea because I think any change towards traditional protectionist policy will be half assed, not directly benefit those who it should, cause suffering in others, and once again distract America from the real problems. Sure there still will be benefits, but will it be overall beneficial? Chances are that future American generations are going to have to start giving up stuff. The population is growing exponentially, resources certainly aren't, and now there's actually global competition. That's the problem, not NAFTA. NAFTA is trying to stay relevant in a world that no longer really gives all enough of a shit about a 300 million strong industrialized market in order to be raped by lowering their own tariffs while dealing with high American ones because there was little alternative. Whether NAFTA is beneficial or not isn't that big of an issue, accepting that the American industrial advantage has already been lost and planning for the future is. That doesn't necessarily mean free trade, that just means accepting that no matter what option you decide to take, there will be sacrifice involved. It's up to you whether or not you want to listen to the academics. Don't want to accept that there's going to have to be sacrifice and try to apply an outdated economic model to a system it doesn't really fit without implementing the changes necessary for said model? That's also fine, you don't have to accept it: either it will all work out or your decedents will do it for you....no one really knows.
-
Wow. That guy's a dick.
-
Yeah. To use your line, fuck him for contradicting me. :P
Wait up. I'm still reading his dissertation . . .
Edit: I'm pulling a MysterD here, but since it's just him, I won't feel guilty.
Yes, corporations are partially to blame, but by nature maximizing profit is their function. You can't expect them to just out of the blue sit there and offer more then they have to.
Absolutely. And if you have a business, it has to compete against other who do screw American labor in search of lower costs, which they pass on to customers/clients. If you don't follow suit you go out of business. The only solution is to change rules to protect American labor, something only the government can do. Once the playing field is adjusted, you can go back to being decent to your American workers, without going out of business.
All anyone actually knows is that since the year of inception employment has gone up, GDP has increased, and the balance of trade has shifted. Any other marginally broad statistic is generally flawed and invalid.
How invalid are entire towns out of work? How valid is the unemployment figure? If you now work for Walmart for subsistence wage, after losing a good-paying real job, you don't count as unemployed. If you've given up looking for work, you don't count as unemployed. Yes, I've heard the saying. "There are 3 kinds of liars: liars, damned liars, and statistics." Let's apply it all the way across the board here.
But honestly, where exactly do you thing NAFTA has taken you? I understand that you live in Ohio, which is notoriously anti-NAFTA and politicians try to exploit that, but the simple fact is that there is no real concrete answer of where it's taken you.
I know where the laws and policies have taken me inside of a decade, without counting the last 6 years. They've taken me from putting out a resume and getting 3 offers inside of two weeks to virtual inability to find work in my chosen field. How much of that is NAFTA, how much of it is the business-pushed policy to grant special work visas for foreigners to come here and work for substandard wages in my field, and how much is something else, like my age and crushing emotional turmoil, I have no way of knowing.
You defined "long term" and your definition is what I expected, which is to say entirely unacceptable. I can promise to give you a million euros in 50 years, even sign a contract to that effect. So what? Feel free to take your pound of flesh out of my grave, if you're still around, because I'll never get there to pay you. And I don't think it's exactly reasonable to demand that your people and their children endure serious hardship for over a generation on the off chance that some economic experiment is going to give their grandchildren better lives. The variables are going to rise ridiculously over that kind of timespan, and no one has any more clue about what really is going to happen over decades than the weatherman has about the forecast for next New Year's Day.
But you never defined "sacrifice", although you hammered that word above. What is it you think we should give up? All semblance of financial security? Healthy food? Decent transportation? Schooling? Healthcare? Human decency? Standards of behavior? Because I would gladly give up everything in this goddamned room to keep those. I don't need computers and consoles and games, even most of these clothes in the closet. I think any decent person would come to accept many less indulgences, as long as you don't ask them to give up the essentials. This word "sacrifice" is some abstract vagueness. It reminds me of cops telling a crowd to disperse. The problem is, the crowd is not who hears it. Individuals in the crowd do, and it makes absolutely no sense. What, you want me to evaporate, break apart into cells that scurry everywhere like paramecia? How do I disperse? How does "sacrifice" apply to me, to members of my family, to my neighbor? What is expected of me? More importantly, how does sacrifice change things for the better?
-
I've given up, mostly because (as this thread indicates) I'm not very knowledgeable on economics. The bulk of my knowledge comes from reading The Economist every week (great publication), but even still I struggle with some of the more complicated stuff.
But, as Senator Clinton pointed out in an interview this week, it doesn't really matter what the economic experts say. So maybe there's hope for me after all.
-
A.) I just reread that and realized I actually came off there a lot harsher than I probably should have. I'd like to apologize. I've been rolling on about 4-5 hours of sleep a night consistently for three or so weeks because of a hectic work and school schedules. I've been kind of a dick lately in general and I guess it kind of slipped into here.
B.) I should also specify that while I do have a pretty low opinion of the American public that doesn't really extend to any of you and it probably comes off sounding worse than it is. It's not (generally) a low opinion of people on an individual level but a group level. A little bit like Plato when he claimed democracy is flawed because the rabble only acts in their own self interest, even if they don't know it.
C.) As much as when she said it it's retarded, her statement is actually a lot more relevant here. On a massive global macro scale, economists don't know with any certainty. It's not a hard science because there aren't predefined laws being discovered, it's more of a case of breaking down social interactions at the level we're discussing. They can look at the past, combine a bunch of models, do some math and come to a highly probable conclusion, but much like the butterfly altering weather reports in chaos theory, it only takes one variable out of place to fuck everything up. The few "truths" that we know of are pretty abstract and don't have any real world applications that don't require massive assumptions in hypothesis or theory. I don't think most people who study what I study or make a career out of economics would agree with me on this though.
Where she's probably wrong, however, is claiming that she doesn't place much faith in them on something so well studied and small in scale. That shit is pretty cut and dry. Beyond that, it's a stupid statement to make as a presidential candidate for a myriad of reasons, including basically admitting that she's not going to listen to specialized advisers because her retarded gut instinct tells her they're wrong rather than because of any logical reason. In short, she's admitting that she's an emotional tyrant, not an inspiring visionary.
-
It had nothing to do with her gut instincts. She knew the policy would never get implemented. Bush said that he would veto, and a number of Congress members said that it wouldn't even get enacted. She was just trying to drum up votes. I actually thought that it would work, and she would have a massive victory in Indiana tonight, but as it turns out she won by less that 2 percentage points and lost badly in my state of NC, so perhaps American voters aren't quite as stupid as I thought they were. Kudos to Barack for not pandering on the issue.
As for economists, I have plenty of faith in them here in the U.S., particularly after the subprime mortgage fiasco. Bernake has handled it quite well so far.
My brother is a financial adviser, and he told me that people generally buy when prices are at their highest and sell when they are at their lowest. I suppose that this has always guided my thoughts on how people in general predict financial markets.
-
Isn't that backwards? If investors always bought high and sold low, they'd be extinct.
I added my comments to gpw1x's long post to my previous post (#56), not realizing the conversation was still active. Anyway, I'm too tired to respond further now. More tomorrow, maybe.
-
No, it's not backwards. And it's not true for everyone. But as a general trend, people invest when markets are doing well and sell when they aren't doing so well.
-
A.) I just reread that and realized I actually came off there a lot harsher than I probably should have. I'd like to apologize. I've been rolling on about 4-5 hours of sleep a night consistently for three or so weeks because of a hectic work and school schedules. I've been kind of a dick lately in general and I guess it kind of slipped into here.
B.) I should also specify that while I do have a pretty low opinion of the American public that doesn't really extend to any of you and it probably comes off sounding worse than it is. It's not (generally) a low opinion of people on an individual level but a group level. A little bit like Plato when he claimed democracy is flawed because the rabble only acts in their own self interest, even if they don't know it.
That does explain your hostile stance, and my feelings of being on the defensive. I've kept it civil, but I must confess to times when I just wanted to tell you to fuck off. That never wins an argument, and I'm glad I haven't. If your motivation to pursue this adversarial position like a bloodhound comes from a huge chip on your shoulder about Americans, I'm going to take the debate less seriously. It almost seems like you're enjoying American suffering. We had it coming, and by God we deserve it. No, I don't think so. People are just that, no more, no less. No one has some sort of omniscient appreciation of global issues. Even if they did, they couldn't deal with it. Everyone deals with what's on their plate, with whatever resources they can get. How much have you consumed while giving little in return during your college years, for example? The status quo is routine, not a deliberate rape of the planet. If adjustments need to be made, they will be made. It seems to me there is still a huge amount of power and wealth here. It simply needs redistribution. Tag that with whatever scare words and scary ideologies you want. It's what we need. To prostrate ourselves and beg forgiveness from the third world while letting them pour over the borders like locusts is exactly what we don't.
-
Sorry by sacrifice I mean pretty much what you describe; Not borrowing money to go out and buy a big screen television. Shit like that. Beyond that it's a variable. I don't think America will ever come to a point where the essentials are hard to come by, but it's certainly in danger of coming to a point where the comforts might be out of reach. Like I said before, I don't think we're in disagreement about much; just the ideal way to solve it. I think you're of the opinion that employment should be maximized first and everything else will fall in place while I'm of the opinion that the overall system needs to be restructured first and the only way that's going to happen is if people are pushed to the edge and completely can't deny that it's a necessity. Basically, I'm an unsympathetic dick.
Where the NAFTA discussion comes in is that (we're throwing out all stats here) I don't think closing NAFTA will cause those jobs to come back because the world isn't the way it was before. Pandora's Box has essentially been opened and shit has changed to the point where certain industries will no longer go back to operating the way they used it. It might not even have anything to do with alternative or cheap labour, it might be just better alternatives are out there or oil prices are higher or information systems are much more developed. I just personally see no reason to take the gamble, artificially reduce trade and hope things work for the best when, in my mind, taking the capital and labour that is no longer in use because it was implemented in a previously non-competitive industry and trying to find a way for it to fit in somehow would be a much better option. It's not rolling over and giving up, it's demanding action, but in a completely different capacity. The rest of it we are pretty much in agreement on. Government has to make some moves and those at the top shouldn't be making insane profit while those at the bottom don't have the means to obtain necessity.
-
Where the NAFTA discussion comes in is that (we're throwing out all stats here) I don't think closing NAFTA will cause those jobs to come back because the world isn't the way it was before. Pandora's Box has essentially been opened and shit has changed to the point where certain industries will no longer go back to operating the way they used it.
I read a great article around the time that the presidential candidates were in Detroit talking about NAFTA and lost jobs. Apparently there was a solar power factory opening in Germany which created around 500 jobs, and yet the candidates were focusing on the past.
The point is, which you are alluding to, that the U.S. has to adapt. So far, other industrialized nations have done this better than us in the past 10 years. We can't use the same old formulas and expect them to work.
-
Looks like Obama has it sewn up. He's officially 5 delegates away from the magic 2118, and unofficially he's there. The 2 remaining primaries tonight are nearly irrelevant.
So McCain vs Obama in November, for what it's worth.
Edit: Make that 4.
-
I don't really know whether or not I care much for Obama, but that crazy monster-woman he was up against makes me think it could only be a good thing to have him running instead. That chick is what innocent children have nightmares about.
Me, I'm voting for Christopher Walken as he appeared in Sleepy Hollow.
-
He's now secured it.
Now we'll see how the general election turns out.
-
If his speech tonight vs McCain's speech tonight is at all representative of how they'll fare against each other until November, Obama will be in the White House next year without a doubt. Rousing and inspiring vs weak and wooden.
-
It's bad enough when they are speaking with many states between them. During debates, the difference will be glaring.
I used to have a positive attitude on McCain before I actually began to listen to his policy positions. For a man that is supposed to be running on military prowess, he has made some *really* boneheaded remarks the past month on national security matters that haven't gotten much coverage due to the Democratic race. Three different times in three different speeches he was wrong about who Iran was training in Iraq. How the hell could you get that wrong when you spend so much time dealing with it?
/rant
-
If I'm going to rant about the results, it has to be about Hillary's refusal to wake up and smell the coffee. Hey, Clinton, you fucking LOST! Like Matthew Broderick at the end of Ferris Bueller's Day Off: "You're still here? It's over! Go home!" What pisses me off even worse is all the media talk about party division without appeasing Hillary. What? If you're a Hillary supporter who hates George Bush and his policies, what are you going to do November, regardless of whether Hillary lives or dies? You're voting for Obama. If you're a Southern white yahoo with a rebel flag over your trailer, and you're a Hillary supporter, what are you going to do in November, whether Clinton lives or dies? You're voting for McCain. Who the fuck cares what Hillary does at this point, except Hillary?
The Cafferty File (http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/04/how-should-obama-handle-the-hillary-%e2%80%9csituation%e2%80%9d/)
-
Well, that's just the media doing what they do best. If it gives the talking heads something else to talk about, they will drag it out for as long as they can. I doubt Obama really cares what she does at this point, and everyone with half a brain knows that he won't pick her to be VP. I find all notions of "party unity" to be ridiculous nonsense.
-
wow is this topic still alive? btw i stopped caring months ago
-
Congress needs to be this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xUy2inkGHQ) + thunderdome = win
-
See, then I might watch CNN more often.
-
Agree with Pyro.
This works too.
Actually the entire current government should be forced to watch this series and be reminded of what this country is supposed to be all about.
-
Shake it baby:
&feature=related
-
why are british politics like a thousand times more entertaining than ours
-
Because they've been around long enough to realize how absurd it all is, so they just go with it.
-
So, when's this motherfucking election over so I can start going back to websites and not have to worry about dumb people trying to sound smart by regurgitating talking points? I'm mainly talking about Digg.com here which went from maybe 1-2 good stories on the front page (with the rest being Apple spam) to 1-2 pieces of Apple spam on the front page (with the rest being anti-Palin stories).
-
Yeah, Digg has become filled with bullshit, a good deal of it absolutely bogus. Can't stand it.
I voted today. I feel only slightly less important now than I did before I voted.
-
I totally didn't vote in the federal election here last week. I think this is the first time I've missed an election for any of the three levels of government. Fuck it.
-
I'm so sick of this bullshit. I've followed everything closely for about a year and I'm so sick of it. Its not that I don't care. I'm just amazed that people buy into the bullshit on both sides. Fuck getting the facts - I'll take your word for it!
I was listening to a girl on the bus this morning who was talking to someone beside her. She said that she was going to vote for Obama but decided to vote for McCain because she was worried that, if Obama got elected, the country would elect a Socialist in the future. I wanted to slap her and ask her if she even understood what socialism is. Good Lord! I don't care who you vote for, but half of our population is voting on sheer ignorance. How is this even possible given the last eight years? I'm so sick of the partisan bullshit spewing lies, and I'm sick of the ignorance that buys into it. I'm a "patriot" and I'm disgusted at what this country has done for the past eight years.
-
I concur, though probably on some points for different reasons. But I think any reasonable person at this point has to simply admit that the system is broken, but so are the populace.
-
The populace? Ah, yes. We do have a say in things after all. And yet, every four years, we seem ill-suited to the task.
What's more damning - that we buy into the lies, or that we don't hold those who spew them responsible?
-
Yeah, this shit needs to end so I can regain my faith in humanity. I don't even mean the political elite...I mean the average voter. Holy shit, grow the fuck up - it doesn't matter if your side wins or loses at this point, you still fucking lose in the grand scheme of things because you had to drop that low.
-
I laugh at pretty much anyone that listens to the promises made by either side as if they will ever be expected to make good on them.
Since I'll be out of town the day of, I did early voting. It struck me as odd when I was voting for president there were seven total candidates. I felt bad that I didn't know a thing about any of the ones that aren't plastered on the news. It also made me wonder about those "presidential debates" that everyone got hyped about. Seems to me you should have all the candidates up there to have a proper debate. Of course, you need to have a proper debate to have a proper debate, not just airtime where these guys can blather on about the same shit. Damnit, I want to see them argue and talk to each other!
*sigh*
-
At this point, I see it what's in our hands as the possibility of allowing change, hopefully for the better. If we keep electing gridlocked governments, we're definitely fucked. If we elect a government cohesive enough to pass some shit, we're only possibly fucked. It may not be a step in the right direction necessarily, but it's the only reasonable one we have.
-
I call for Zombie Apocalypse. Undead 4 prez 2012, plz.
-
(http://www.appletreeblog.com/wp-content/2008/10/mccain-zombie.jpg)
-
;D
-
I posted this in another topic but it works here too:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v83/TheGreatTetsuo/obamasoulcalibur.jpg)
-
There is a Senate race running here in NC and the republican (Dole) is down. Just watched an attack ad: "FACT: Godless Americans take God from our lives."
I swear I'm not making this up.
-
Ahaha. Obviously it's a joke...VOTE FOR HIM
-
I voted. For what it's worth. Unrelentingly beautiful weather here, so I walked to the polls. No line, no major problems. My license doesn't have my current address, but my child-support bill from Ohio does, and that did the trick. (Got a real ballot.) Rooting for blue for the first time, well, ever. Game on.
-
Tim Robbins not allowed to vote. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/04/tim-robbins-polling-place_n_141029.html) Little did he know it's because he sucks. That said, how does it work in America? I know here that it's pretty uncommon for this kind of thing to happen, and if it does there's a contingency. Basically, every registered voter gets a card mailed right before an election to their listed address stating that they are indeed registered and defining their polling location. There's also public service info all up in the bitch basically saying if you haven't gotten a card call, visit, or whatever to see if you're still registered. Should you show up at your station and be told you aren't registered you can still vote assuming you have the proper identification. I assume that option was given out here, but it was what he didn't want to do because he looks forward to this day for four years like the douche he is.
Now, personally, I'm of the opinion here that should you walk in to the polls without being registered and you didn't just fly into the motherfucking country you should lose your vote. If you can't get off your ass to make a phone call over a month and you actually care, I don't even want to know how your decision making process works. Then again, I'm the type of person who thinks you should have to pass a test as well.
-
He was on Bill Maher last week, telling people how to make sure their vote was counted, now this happens. Notice how it doesn't happen to Republicans.
-
Doesn't it though?