The Kalmyk
Well-Known Member
Sorry Panhead I didn't read your whole post and for that I'm an ASS...Got excited 
Article: How to Prevent the Next Wall Street Crisis
- Thread starter NJ-XC-Justin
- Start date
Hell, why not get rid of regulation and bring back child labor. Our economy would be WAY more productive with all those tiny hands bringing production jobs back to the US.
If you think us giving jobs away overseas is bad, take a look at the American government that's now in debt to the tune of 9 TRILLION dollars to foreign banks and countries. And instead of doing the smart thing and buckling down to pay off our debt while decreasing government spending, we're giving away tax cuts, fighting a trillion-dollar way in Iraq, and not cutting government spending one bit. The Neo-cons are putting too much money in the pockets of their defense industry friends to do the responsible thing and actually control spending. The republicans are worse than the democrats when it comes to increasing debt and spending money we don't have.
Panhead
Well-Known Member
Sorry Panhead I didn't read your whole post and for that I'm an ASS...Got excited
No problem Bro.
It is to bad in our political system of today the best that can be offered to us is these 4. This is the greatest country on earth with almost 500 million people and we get to choose from this mess. I have read the Liberterian Manifesto and found it very interesting and very close to my beliefs. It's to bad our multiple party system only has room for two though.
Panhead
Well-Known Member
If you think us giving jobs away overseas is bad, take a look at the American government that's now in debt to the tune of 9 TRILLION dollars to foreign banks and countries. And instead of doing the smart thing and buckling down to pay off our debt while decreasing government spending, we're giving away tax cuts, fighting a trillion-dollar way in Iraq, and not cutting government spending one bit. The Neo-cons are putting too much money in the pockets of their defense industry friends to do the responsible thing and actually control spending. The republicans are worse than the democrats when it comes to increasing debt and spending money we don't have.[/QUOTE]
It's only going to get worse, middle class gets squeezed = less money to spend. Less money to spend= things have to be cheaper. Cheaper things= more jobs gone. Wash, rinse, repeat. Welcome to the Third World, kids
It's only going to get worse, middle class gets squeezed = less money to spend. Less money to spend= things have to be cheaper. Cheaper things= more jobs gone. Wash, rinse, repeat. Welcome to the Third World, kids
The Kalmyk
Well-Known Member
come on now...we all own something made with TINY Chinese hands....
Exactly. Why not bring that production back to American soil?
I just hope we can bring back 14-hour work days, no days off, illegal toxic waste dumping, no emissions controls, shorter life spans, higher infant mortality, zero benefits, and all the wonderful things that made the industrial revolution's quality of life so much better than the one we experience today.
BTW, here's a nice dispassionate explanation of the current crisis from some top UChicago economists:
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/diamond-and-kashyap-on-the-recent-financial-upheavals/
kimrey
New Member
I think the question is: wouldn't you rather they be made by tiny American hands?
Those meddling regulators messed it up for all of us. I really wanted to run a factory cranking out mystery meat from diseased cows, chickens and pigs butchered by 6 year olds, but the stupid Federal government had to come along and screw up my plans.
The Kalmyk
Well-Known Member
nope I'm not ok with that...But if we are talking equality here what's the difference...Children are children...Does it matter if there Chinese or American....
The Kalmyk
Well-Known Member
JBogner....I guess the answer is suck the rest of the world dry....force their poor little children to make our childrens toys and sew the shirts on our backs...Americans reputation outside the borders of our country will continue to be "Needy and Soft"
The Kalmyk
Well-Known Member
Our options are not simply a binary decision to either completely deregulate or, as you say, continue to "suck the world dry." There are many, many options between those extreme ends of the spectrum.
The Kalmyk
Well-Known Member
I can agree with that...
I do agree that you can't lower taxes and spend more money, which is what the Republicans have done. That is why most fof them lost their positions in 2006. But it has been proven that when you lower taxes it puts more money into the consumers pockets and they will spend it and put it back into the economy. Go ahead and raise the taxes on the big businesses. They will raise the cost of their products which will cost the consumer more money purchase. When was the last time a poor person gave you a job?
And what a ridiculous statement that the Democrats care more about the middle class. They are the ones fighting to stop the drilling for all the oil that we have. Who do you think those oil companies are going to hire to work for them? Maybe the middle class?
And what a ridiculous statement that the Democrats care more about the middle class. They are the ones fighting to stop the drilling for all the oil that we have. Who do you think those oil companies are going to hire to work for them? Maybe the middle class?
You can't really think that opening up drilling in Alaska is going to create any more than a handful of jobs. Even if it's 1000, it has no bearing on the economy. The middle class isn't comprised of large numbers of people living in Alaska.
I agree that tax cuts help people spend more money. Rebates, however, do not. This has all been shown statistically so I won't go into defending one over the other. The idea is that you need to raise the income stream constantly, not in random lump payments.
I'm happy to see selling short being bagged on Wall Street. I've always thought this was a BS way to make money, gambling on companies essentially failing. I think one reality here that people somewhat avoid is that the stock market is gambling, and is based on the same principle as collecting and trading baseball cards. There are a few big exceptions to this. First, the card price is almost always correlated to the player's performance. Secondly, there aren't 50 different ways to trade a baseball card, 47 of which few people understand.
Libertarianism is a philosophical idea that's fun to discuss. But it has little to no practical application in the world we live in today, IMO.
Panhead is right. Buy a house you can afford. We did the same thing. Spend less than you make when you buy things. One more bothersome thing about this whole mess is that it's accepted by the establishment that people have absolutely no self control to do this. In the end, aren't people doing everything here? If a person can't control themselves and spend reasonably, why are we to believe that this same person is going to go to work and act any differently?
I'd like to see that "proof." When I look back at the Dow Jones and NASDAQ averages for 2001-present, I see zero growth. The economy has not grown at all over the past 8 years under Bush. When I look at the same chart for 1993-2001 (Clinton), I see the Dow jumped 500% in 8 years.
If you go back further and look at Reagan and the first Bush, you can see a 200% rise over 12 years for the Dow. Of course, they did it by MASSIVE deficit spending that shot the national debt through the roof. Clinton, despite your claim, cut spending, reduced the deficit spending, and was the most fiscally responsible president of the past 30 years.
This idea that republicans are better for the economy is factually incorrect when you actually look at the historical performance of the economy.
gtluke
The Moped
i'm talking about the feds buying AIG, fannie and freddie.
and here's a quote from one of our major founding fathers
First off I did say that the Republicans spent way too much money and for that they are gone.
Secondly, I never brought up Clinton and never said he didn't cut spending. He did however hand over a recession to George Bush. Along with that the President had to deal with the economical effects from 9-11 (which Clinton spent the prior 8 years ignoring). I guess it's easy to say the Democrats are better for the economy when they don't have anything major going on during their terms in power.
Secondly, I never brought up Clinton and never said he didn't cut spending. He did however hand over a recession to George Bush. Along with that the President had to deal with the economical effects from 9-11 (which Clinton spent the prior 8 years ignoring). I guess it's easy to say the Democrats are better for the economy when they don't have anything major going on during their terms in power.
MST.ESQ
New Member
Everyone who has bashed the others' party of choice now needs to point the finger (not the middle one...) at themselves. Consumers have become lazy in controlling the economy. Example - why do we all agree to sign 2yr contracts for cell phone and tv service? Ridiculous - and an unheard of proposition only a few years ago!
Also..... Congress and long term legislative trends, not the President, has more influence on the market - prior growth periods due to silicon valley, dot-coms, etc. do not represent real growth... With proper analysis, both sides of the aisle have done poorly in "reacting" to the markets. Also, don't forget the inflated valuation of the Euro, non-market valuation fo the yen, etc. There are just too many factors and too much history to pin this on any 4 or 8 yr term in office. And unfortunately, neither candidate has any real plan in place...
Also..... Congress and long term legislative trends, not the President, has more influence on the market - prior growth periods due to silicon valley, dot-coms, etc. do not represent real growth... With proper analysis, both sides of the aisle have done poorly in "reacting" to the markets. Also, don't forget the inflated valuation of the Euro, non-market valuation fo the yen, etc. There are just too many factors and too much history to pin this on any 4 or 8 yr term in office. And unfortunately, neither candidate has any real plan in place...