|
Post by machiavelli on Mar 31, 2009 22:11:29 GMT -5
As the old Mach himself wrote... It's good to be feared Muhaha *evil grin* So...you see yourself as more The Prince than the Discourses on Livy? I don't see myself as either, but I am a big fan of The Prince and the plethora of warnings it brings to us about armed prophets That and the advice on how to rule fickle peasants... which will come in handy when my plan kicks in... muahahha
|
|
|
Post by machiavelli on Mar 31, 2009 22:18:05 GMT -5
Which will be a minor problem in twenty years, if we don't solve it when we can. We can't and shouldn't do anything about it right now. BTW, if you're a third world country, debts are really, really bad. Weren't the NICs brought up on a huge load of Debt? If so, they turned out pretty good for developing countries... Not to fall into conspiracy theories, but I've heard that there are two longshot policy options of eliminating U.S debt quicker 1- Implement the Amero, North American Currency and peg the US dollar at 1/3, consequently dissolving the debt 2- Sell the largest Gold reserves, seeing as Gold prices are at an all time high this should wipe away the Federal Debt clean. Then the debate is not one about deficits, but about what is the most effective stimulus. I think spending on public works works best. I agree. Besides, North American Infrastructure could use improvements. South Korea is weathering the storm by tripling its railroad networks and creating a more efficient port system so that when the boom cycle hits, they'll be able to accommodate more trade.
|
|
|
Post by Paradox on Mar 31, 2009 23:17:09 GMT -5
A lot of these public works projects are things we probably would have needed to do even if the economy was going well. Hell, we should have been doing them for years already. The US infrastructure is in pitiful shape.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 1, 2009 5:16:33 GMT -5
Which will be a minor problem in twenty years, if we don't solve it when we can. We can't and shouldn't do anything about it right now. BTW, if you're a third world country, debts are really, really bad. Weren't the NICs brought up on a huge load of Debt? If so, they turned out pretty good for developing countries... Debt isn't always bad for developing countries, just if you're some country the IMF doesn't like, say the Phillipines, South Korea, Indonesia, Thailand, or anywhere in Africa or South America. In which case it's toxic. Economically speaking, debt is good. But politically, it's a disaster. Not to fall into conspiracy theories, but I've heard that there are two longshot policy options of eliminating U.S debt quicker 1- Implement the Amero, North American Currency and peg the US dollar at 1/3, consequently dissolving the debt 2- Sell the largest Gold reserves, seeing as Gold prices are at an all time high this should wipe away the Federal Debt clean. There's another, much better, way. Get out of recession and then into surplus. It's not like it hasn't happened over and over again. The US doesn't even have close to the world's highest debt levels (110% of GDP- Italy). I agree. Besides, North American Infrastructure could use improvements. South Korea is weathering the storm by tripling its railroad networks and creating a more efficient port system so that when the boom cycle hits, they'll be able to accommodate more trade. That's not the point. That's a helpful side-effect. The point is to stimulate the economy, get people buying and selling and being employed again. It's also nice that this stimulus will have a good long-term impact, but it's not the main issue.
|
|
|
Post by booley on Apr 1, 2009 12:31:52 GMT -5
...... BTW, if you're a third world country, debts are really, really bad. well I think it's also important ot understand WHY debt for third world countries is so bad. For one, these countries HAVE to make payments (rather large one compared to the money they are making) regardless. So your people are starving and AIDS is rampant and you need the money elsewhere? Sucks to be you. Send that payment. Also there are conditions on the money. Now that may seem reasonable. IF one gives billions to another, there should be conditions. Goodness knows the trouble we could have avoided if there had been conditions on the banking bail out money. BUT the conditions that third world governments have are things like sell off your national infrastructure for pennies on the dollars to private companies, bust unions, and open your markets to foreign competitors so local producers can't compete. It's like getting a small business loan but only if AIG runs the actual business and gets the profits instead of you. But you still get the debt and the risks. (why does that sound familiar?) There are other issues as well. Like the interest rates, the vulture funds, resource depletion, countries like the US busting agricultural subsidies abroad while protecting them them at home..ect ect. These problems do not necessarily apply to the US
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 1, 2009 18:43:50 GMT -5
There's also a form of debt known as odious debt. That where a US-installed dictator takes out a loan from the IMF to buy a whole bunch of tanks or guns or something in order to repress the people of that country, or just to cart off to Switzerland. When the people eventually beat him, they're left with the debt.
It got so bad that in 1985 (the year of Live Aid), the third world gave twice as much in aid to the first world as the first world returned in PR payments.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Apr 2, 2009 6:44:59 GMT -5
Well the GOP fudget, now with details, would totaly repeal the stimulus package, give large tax cuts the wealthy americans, and sut funding to social programs like medicare and medicad. In other words the same sort of things that have been tried and failed. www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/01/gop.budget/index.html
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Apr 2, 2009 11:30:21 GMT -5
I can understand the rationale behind limiting too much spending, but what's the point of halting nondefense government spending to a standstill? It looks like they wanna turn the country into a military complex, little more. An additional $5 billion dollars for defense would make the USA the single largest military machine ever seen.
|
|
|
Post by booley on Apr 2, 2009 20:41:08 GMT -5
.... In other words the same sort of things that have been tried and failed. But if one listens to the GOP rhetoric, especially right now, one notices a pattern. They seem to think it's their message that's the problem. In other words, the policies are fine, the GOP just can't convince people to follow conservative ideas. Besides the Bizzaro world aspect to this (as one problem conservatives have NOT had for 30 years is getting a lot of people to go along with their ideas) I think this also says something important about the GOP's policies. The GOP's policies have not failed at all. They are working perfectly. They just are not working to the purpose the rest of us were told about.
|
|
|
Post by booley on Apr 2, 2009 20:43:41 GMT -5
..... It got so bad that in 1985 (the year of Live Aid), the third world gave twice as much in aid to the first world as the first world returned in PR payments. Almost as if the transfer of capital from the third world to the first (or at least the corporations) was always part of the plan. At least when the Vikings plundered your villiage, they never added insult by saying you would benefit in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Apr 3, 2009 15:49:57 GMT -5
But if one listens to the GOP rhetoric, especially right now, one notices a pattern. They seem to think it's their message that's the problem. But their message IS the problem, specifically the message that says "our ideas aren't fucking retarded". It's too over the top to be believed anymore.
|
|
|
Post by booley on Apr 3, 2009 16:40:19 GMT -5
But if one listens to the GOP rhetoric, especially right now, one notices a pattern. They seem to think it's their message that's the problem. But their message IS the problem, specifically the message that says "our ideas aren't fucking retarded". It's too over the top to be believed anymore. But for almost 30 years lots of people didn't think their ideas were stupid. That includes a lot of Democrats who should have known better. The GOP's problems have largely arisen because they were so successful and kept getting what they wanted. The GOP's policies were not failures. They worked great at moving money upwards, making the rich richer, giving business carte blanc, and making people accept authortarianism. They just were never honest about what those policies were designed to do.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Apr 4, 2009 2:08:42 GMT -5
But their message IS the problem, specifically the message that says "our ideas aren't fucking retarded". It's too over the top to be believed anymore. But for almost 30 years lots of people didn't think their ideas were stupid. That includes a lot of Democrats who should have known better. The GOP's problems have largely arisen because they were so successful and kept getting what they wanted. The GOP's policies were not failures. They worked great at moving money upwards, making the rich richer, giving business carte blanc, and making people accept authortarianism. They just were never honest about what those policies were designed to do. That was really just a joke. I'm well aware of their distressing effectiveness.
|
|