Author Topic: So its down to 4  (Read 34488 times)

Offline angrykeebler

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,717
So its down to 4
« 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.
Suck it, Pugnate.

Offline Pugnate

  • What? You no like?
  • Global Moderator
  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 12,236
    • OW
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #1 on: Friday, February 01, 2008, 12:28:28 PM »
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.

Offline Ghandi

  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4,804
  • HAMS
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #2 on: Friday, February 01, 2008, 12:37:16 PM »
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.

Offline angrykeebler

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,717
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #3 on: Friday, February 01, 2008, 12:43:51 PM »
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.
Suck it, Pugnate.

Offline Ghandi

  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4,804
  • HAMS
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #4 on: Friday, February 01, 2008, 12:50:03 PM »
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.

Offline scottws

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6,602
    • Facebook Me
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #5 on: Friday, February 01, 2008, 01:23:34 PM »
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.

Offline Quemaqua

  • 古い塩
  • Administrator
  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 16,498
  • パンダは触るな。
    • Bookruptcy
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #6 on: Friday, February 01, 2008, 07:25:47 PM »
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.

天才的な閃きと平均以下のテクニックやな。 課長有野

Offline gpw11

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7,180
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #7 on: Sunday, February 03, 2008, 12:30:27 AM »
I think that Clinton could possibly be the worst option out of the mainstream contenders. 

Offline nickclone

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,271
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #8 on: Thursday, February 14, 2008, 02:49:30 PM »
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.

Offline Ghandi

  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4,804
  • HAMS
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #9 on: Thursday, February 14, 2008, 04:18:21 PM »
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.

Offline gpw11

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7,180
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #10 on: Sunday, February 24, 2008, 03:40:34 PM »
Well, Clinton is basically in the first stages of a public melt-down.  This should be pretty fun to watch.

Offline Cobra951

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8,934
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #11 on: Sunday, February 24, 2008, 03:50:24 PM »
The emperor has no clothes, and that's one ugly emperor.

Offline sirean_syan

  • Global Moderator
  • Post-aholic
  • *
  • Posts: 2,544
  • ...
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #12 on: Sunday, February 24, 2008, 04:36:00 PM »
Wait wait. It's up to five now... or is that four again?

Sorry, I know this is a serious thread, but it seems more appropriate here than anywhere else.

Offline Ghandi

  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4,804
  • HAMS
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #13 on: Sunday, February 24, 2008, 08:18:37 PM »
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.

Offline scottws

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6,602
    • Facebook Me
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #14 on: Monday, February 25, 2008, 06:18:55 AM »
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.

Offline Ghandi

  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4,804
  • HAMS
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #15 on: Monday, February 25, 2008, 08:21:27 AM »
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.

Offline Cobra951

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8,934
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #16 on: Monday, February 25, 2008, 12:41:16 PM »
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.

Offline Ghandi

  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4,804
  • HAMS
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #17 on: Monday, February 25, 2008, 12:58:28 PM »
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.

Offline Cobra951

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8,934
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #18 on: Monday, February 25, 2008, 02:35:28 PM »
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.

Offline Cobra951

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8,934
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #19 on: Saturday, March 29, 2008, 10:12:28 AM »


Woop woop woop woop woop!

Nyuk nyuk!

Offline Quemaqua

  • 古い塩
  • Administrator
  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 16,498
  • パンダは触るな。
    • Bookruptcy
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #20 on: Saturday, March 29, 2008, 03:42:06 PM »
haha... that's incredibly amusing and disturbing all at once.

天才的な閃きと平均以下のテクニックやな。 課長有野

Offline Pugnate

  • What? You no like?
  • Global Moderator
  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 12,236
    • OW
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #21 on: Saturday, March 29, 2008, 04:25:58 PM »
The Hilary Clinton one is uncanny. Its like looking into the future.

edit:

Quote
Woop woop woop woop woop!

Nyuk nyuk!

hahaha... Cobra... amusingly spelled.

Offline gpw11

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7,180
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #22 on: Wednesday, April 02, 2008, 11:08:44 PM »
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.

Offline scottws

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6,602
    • Facebook Me
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #23 on: Thursday, April 03, 2008, 08:34:03 AM »
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.

Offline Cobra951

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8,934
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #24 on: Thursday, April 03, 2008, 09:56:02 AM »
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.

Offline Ghandi

  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4,804
  • HAMS
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #25 on: Thursday, April 03, 2008, 12:35:25 PM »
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.

Offline Cobra951

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8,934
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #26 on: Thursday, April 03, 2008, 01:11:10 PM »
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.

Offline Ghandi

  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4,804
  • HAMS
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #27 on: Thursday, April 03, 2008, 11:46:24 PM »
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.

Offline gpw11

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7,180
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #28 on: Thursday, April 03, 2008, 11:49:06 PM »
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.

Offline Ghandi

  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4,804
  • HAMS
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #29 on: Friday, April 04, 2008, 12:05:54 AM »
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.

Offline Cobra951

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8,934
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #30 on: Friday, April 04, 2008, 09:04:05 AM »
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.

Offline Quemaqua

  • 古い塩
  • Administrator
  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 16,498
  • パンダは触るな。
    • Bookruptcy
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #31 on: Friday, April 04, 2008, 09:26:05 AM »
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.

天才的な閃きと平均以下のテクニックやな。 課長有野

Offline gpw11

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7,180
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #32 on: Friday, April 04, 2008, 05:47:44 PM »
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).           

Offline Cobra951

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8,934
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #33 on: Friday, April 04, 2008, 06:14:12 PM »
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.

Offline Ghandi

  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4,804
  • HAMS
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #34 on: Friday, April 04, 2008, 06:25:37 PM »
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.

Offline gpw11

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7,180
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #35 on: Friday, April 04, 2008, 10:07:37 PM »
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.

Quote
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.

Offline Cobra951

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8,934
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #36 on: Saturday, April 05, 2008, 12:06:16 PM »
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. 

Offline gpw11

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7,180
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #37 on: Saturday, April 05, 2008, 06:17:36 PM »
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.

Offline Ghandi

  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4,804
  • HAMS
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #38 on: Wednesday, April 09, 2008, 11:43:44 PM »
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.

Offline gpw11

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7,180
Re: So its down to 4
« Reply #39 on: Thursday, April 10, 2008, 12:03:47 AM »
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.