Quote:

---

Look around at all this. Built by people who got up every morning, worked hard trying to make a better life...then the Pulse happened and everyone got scared. They blinked, and before they knew it, they’d turned over the store to a bunch of thugs who were happy to take it off their hands. Overnight, the government, the police, everything intended to protect the people had been turned against them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Maybe it was the downturn you needed to have.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
We are in a state of severe change.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:

I think we'll bounce back, most of the time we do; I don't think it'll ever be to the extent we had in the '50s and '60s, OR (hopefully!) to where we were before the BushBubble burst, but we'll be okay in the long run. That's just my opinion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

If the 1970s taught us anything its that the US can NEVER recover from tough economic times.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Maybe it was the downturn you needed to have. Too much spending, too much consuming. It can't go on for ever, you know.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

..."Needed" to have?

You know, much as I do sympathize with people in other nations who have been hit by the economic downturn, and much as I agree this whole mess has been "our" bad (or at least the bad of the greedy thugs stealing left and right), I draw the line at outright wishing other people ill.

I'm bothered by the "you guys suck, you deserve it" mentality. We are not all rich assholes responsible for this problem. People are starving and dying here, not as bad as a third world nation, but they are. There was a while there people couldn't collect from our unemployment support programs, people have been worried about being able to buy food, water has been shut off in some city neighborhoods that have been hit hard, making hygiene and disease a huge concern, electricity was also shut off, which in summer, without AC, can be a bad proposition for people, and now we're heading into winter when those same people won't have heating.

And apparently you think we need to suffer to teach us a lesson about our buying habits. Yeah. Thanks.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:

I think we'll bounce back, most of the time we do; I don't think it'll ever be to the extent we had in the '50s and '60s, OR (hopefully!) to where we were before the BushBubble burst, but we'll be okay in the long run. That's just my opinion.

---

This might make AURaptor sad; he LOVED where we were just before it burst! Our economy was ON FIRE!!!

alas, we had no fire insurance...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

..."Needed" to have?

You know, much as I do sympathize with people in other nations who have been hit by the economic downturn, and much as I agree this whole mess has been "our" bad (or at least the bad of the greedy thugs stealing left and right), I draw the line at outright wishing other people ill.

I'm bothered by the "you guys suck, you deserve it" mentality. We are not all rich assholes responsible for this problem. People are starving and dying here, not as bad as a third world nation, but they are. There was a while there people couldn't collect from our unemployment support programs, people have been worried about being able to buy food, water has been shut off in some city neighborhoods that have been hit hard, making hygiene and disease a huge concern, electricity was also shut off, which in summer, without AC, can be a bad proposition for people, and now we're heading into winter when those same people won't have heating.

And apparently you think we need to suffer to teach us a lesson about our buying habits. Yeah. Thanks.

---

Wow, defensive what?

If your system relies on consuming/owning most of the world's resources, before your citizens do not starve or suffer then I'd say it was a pretty poor system. It should be possible to weather economic downturns, which any free marketeer will tell you are just inevitable 'adjustments' without people suffering catastrophically. If they are, then the system is broke, from where I stand.

I don't agree with the expectation that we all have to ride high on economic growth, it's not sustainable in any system, and as the resources of the world diminish and populations increase, then the down turns will only get worse if we continue on our current path.

I'd like to see the resources and the wealth distributed a little more equitably throughout the world, and maybe that goes for within countries as well. I'd like to see a system that doesn't rely on continuous growth as being the norm. I'd like to see a graph that didn't show the US and other Western nations as being so much wealthier and consuming so many more resources than most of the nations of the world, but I also know that they can't play catch up to our way of living without us really falling short on resources very soon.

I'd love for all this to be done because it was the right way to live, but I also see that people don't decide to downsize their standard of living on mass unless they are sometimes forced into it. Just because I don't wish to see the US return to its former levels of economic growth, doesn't mean I wish starvation on any human in this world, and I'm insulted that you have attributed that to me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

..."Needed" to have?

You know, much as I do sympathize with people in other nations who have been hit by the economic downturn, and much as I agree this whole mess has been "our" bad (or at least the bad of the greedy thugs stealing left and right), I draw the line at outright wishing other people ill.

I'm bothered by the "you guys suck, you deserve it" mentality. We are not all rich assholes responsible for this problem. People are starving and dying here, not as bad as a third world nation, but they are. There was a while there people couldn't collect from our unemployment support programs, people have been worried about being able to buy food, water has been shut off in some city neighborhoods that have been hit hard, making hygiene and disease a huge concern, electricity was also shut off, which in summer, without AC, can be a bad proposition for people, and now we're heading into winter when those same people won't have heating.

And apparently you think we need to suffer to teach us a lesson about our buying habits. Yeah. Thanks.

---

Wow, defensive what?

If your system relies on consuming/owning most of the world's resources, before your citizens do not starve or suffer then I'd say it was a pretty poor system. It should be possible to weather economic downturns, which any free marketeer will tell you are just inevitable 'adjustments' without people suffering catastrophically. If they are, then the system is broke, from where I stand.

I don't agree with the expectation that we all have to ride high on economic growth, it's not sustainable in any system, and as the resources of the world diminish and populations increase, then the down turns will only get worse if we continue on our current path.

I'd like to see the resources and the wealth distributed a little more equitably throughout the world, and maybe that goes for within countries as well. I'd like to see a system that doesn't rely on continuous growth as being the norm. I'd like to see a graph that didn't show the US and other Western nations as being so much wealthier and consuming so many more resources than most of the nations of the world, but I also know that they can't play catch up to our way of living without us really falling short on resources very soon.

I'd love for all this to be done because it was the right way to live, but I also see that people don't decide to downsize their standard of living on mass unless they are sometimes forced into it. Just because I don't wish to see the US return to its former levels of economic growth, doesn't mean I wish starvation on any human in this world, and I'm insulted that you have attributed that to me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Magon,

while I appreciate the right wing rant, [/snark] I don't suspect that a real shortage of resources is at play or that anyone needs to lower their standard of living so that others can increase theirs.

This is a free market issue, in which the control and lack of a free market has led to both the excesses and the imbalance you perceive. If govt. holds the power over finance the result is that it will give a disproportionate amount to itself and its friends, and the word that tipped me here was "force." If the market were truly a free market than the balance of influence of India and China would surely more than offset that of Europe and N. America. No one needs to force anyone to do anything, we just collectively need to recognize that the perception of wealth is what is key here.

The US possesses dollars which the rest of the world values out of proportion because of undue political influence of govts. who are beholden to international economic financial interest more than just our economic propaganda campaign. It does not logically follow that the US has any more economic influence than, India, because we own the dollar and they own the Rupee. I'm sure that in time the balance will definitely show things the other way. The influence of international bankers is bound to have more effect in this environment than any single player in the field.

If you haven't already, you might want to check out Hayek, and esp. G.K. Chesterton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

---

Quote:

---

Free market also relies on continuous growth and unlimited/undiscovered resources.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Magon

Govt. regulation is interference on behalf of corporations, sometimes on behalf of some corporations at the expense of others, often in fact. However, in spite of your opening, you appear to almost completely agree with me.

---

That's your system, because your politicans are so aligned with the corps who pay them off. Government regulation is government regulation - the less regulation, the more power the corporations have as in the USA.

Quote:

---

Your asian reference is off, however. The poverty did not come *after* the prosperity of some, but rather was the prior state of everyone, and the prosperity of some is new, due to the introduction of free markets.

---

Many Asian markets have had free market economies for many years. My point was about the inequities that often exist in free market economies, where you can have wealthy nations but lots of poverty. Trickle down economics is a myth.

Quote:

---

Of course free markets are not shrines, and a market totally unfettered by interference would lend itself to monopoly, but that's just a flaw in the design of the currency system.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Any interference by the govt., which is, not just happens to be, but has to be, the arm of some corporation or other, and so could never be a neutral beneficent force.

---

I don't see that my government is totally in the hands of the corporations, not saying that lobbyists are not powerful, but I still believe they represent their electorates. Call me an idealist

Quote:

---

Australia just has a better economic structure because it does not have a federal reserve system as the US, and now Europe. It's just a state in which the govt. has not yet been able to regulate markets to that degree yet. If the Australian market were more regulated by govt and less free, it would become like ours, and in time, it probably will, unless you have a more educated electorate.

---

Nope. The Reserve Bank of Australia http://www.rba.gov.au/

Quote:

---

Ah, this is the source of confusion. Those are not really free markets, but "international free trade" which was never free, but a fancy new name for imperialism that the Brits came up with to defend the opium wars in China. Of course, British Imperials could be looked at as govt. regulation of economies, or alternatively, as a corporatist system of govt-corporate monopoly merger.

---

Free market http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market = free trade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade, it's just the international arm of what happens locally. Businesses rely on growth and expansion. It's how they measure success.

Quote:

---

At any rate, you seem to be falling heavily on the Hayek side, and not Keynes here, so I take it we agree, and I'm glad you followed the Chesterton link.

Welcome to the Tea Party ;)

Oh, and if you're confused, don't worry, it's completely natural. It's confusing at first.

---

Yeah, well I remember having a confusing discussion with you about how nazis were left winged, so I'd say YOU were the confused one here. Whatever way we were taught, it's clear that our world views are chalk and cheese. I generally consider myself to be keynsian, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics if anything at all, favouring a mixed economy of regulated free markets, but I see that all these theories are now outdated, given the world population and the increasingly limited availability of resources. These days I align myself somewhere between the views of the left and the Greens. http://greens.org.au/policies/sustainable-economy/economics

Quote:

---

Soon you'll see we're really all on the same side, except for those nuts who think we're being invaded by immigrants, I suspect they're just ignorant. But it's not really a govt. totalitarian state control of an intellectual elite which you seek, but rather freedom from an imperial monopolistic domination, am I correct? If so, then we're really after the same thing.

---

I don't have your views on government, so I guess we're not really on the same page. I'm not sure what I would believe in the US, given the situation there, which frankly I don't really understand. here, I don't see government as a force for evil, any more than I see corporations as intrinsically evil. I like a system where there is checks on the power of any organisation, and actually I see that government is less powerful than corporations. Government here actually has a regulatatory affect on corporations, which is why they are always at each others throat. I think that is a good thing.

Quote:

---

(Funny side note, I said before reading this link that left in Australia was right in the US ;) )

---

I'm not sure what to make of that statement. It appears to those of us outside the US that your country has veered wildly to the right in recent years, and Obama has just moved you a smidgeon back to the centre. Our 'right' would be left of the Deomcrats and our 'left' would probably be considered communist by many of your guys.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Trickle down economics is a myth.

---

Quote:

---

Free Trade. Not to be confused with Free market.

---

Quote:

---

Yeah, well I remember having a confusing discussion with you about how nazis were left winged,

---

Quote:

---

I like a system where there is checks on the power of any organisation, and actually I see that government is less powerful than corporations. Government here actually has a regulatatory affect on corporations, which is why they are always at each others throat. I think that is a good thing.

---

Quote:

---

Magon,

1. Americans are not particularly different from anyone else, it's logical to assume that what would happen here would happen anywhere with anyone who followed the same path

---

Quote:

---

The disparities of NK/SK are not caused by the south Korean free market any more than the poverty of western china is caused by the emerging middle class of eastern china. In both cases, the poverty is caused by the decayed ideology of communism. In southeast asia, the communist influence is pronounced, and at the very least keeping people poor.

---

Quote:

---

If by your govt. you mean Australia (you live in the UK right?)

---

Quote:

---

I don't know a lot about the Australian central bank, but my understanding is that is a bank, and not a privately held consortium of corporations foreign and domestic, which is what we have here. If it's similar to ours in its regulatory power over the economy, than I would imagine that long term you would have trouble.

---

Quote:

---

Free trade is the lack of trade barriers. This would be fine except for the manner in which it enables imperialism.

---

Quote:

---

The free market is an ancient system of economic trade. Free Trade is the name of a globalist policy which has recently been developed and implemented (over the last 150 years or so, but slowly and incrementally.) Free Trade is really imperialism, or in the view of some, a step towards one world govt., which I suspect is just another tool of imperialism.

---

Quote:

---

I don't recall the discussion, but the fact that the National Socialist NSDAP was the left wing party on the ticket, solidly believed in, supported and enacted left wing policies is not a question which is in any credible dispute.

One could argue that the Nazi's left wing economic model was superior to that of the right wing Wiemar Republic's free market policies, but that's not the claim you just made.

---

Quote:

---

I'm surprised you consider yourself a Keynesian. It doesn't strike me that your statements would lead me to this conclusion.

---

Quote:

---

I think the Greens are economically naive but well intentioned. I frequently vote for them as a protest vote, but I'd seriously reconsider if I thought they had any chance of winning. Mostly I want the numbers to demonstrate support for the environment, even if I agree more with a Tory approach to environmentalism (Remember I assume that govt. is always corrupt, and so any govt. agency such as the EPA is automatically an office of the industry, so govt. regulation is the literal handing of environmental stewardship to the same corporations who are damaging the Earth)

---

Quote:

---

1. Govt. is automatically more powerful than a corporation:
a) It has a military
b) It can interfere in the actions of anyone and exile or imprison them
c) It can tax the population directly, and even issue its own currency.

Until a corporation can do this, it's nowhere near as powerful as govt.

---

Quote:

---

2. Govt. and corporations are not separate from one another, so any regulatory agency will belong to the corporate interests that elected the govt. within one or two election cycles. This has been demonstrated repeatedly, and in American legal circles is actually not particularly disputed.

---

Quote:

---

I've met a lot of Australians. They're a very aimiable lot, I'm very fond.

---

Quote:

---

I don't have any serious political disagreements with them. I also know a lot of people on the American left. They all seem to think that Australian liberals are basically moderate republicans

---

Quote:

---

I've never met an Australian who was remotely communist. I've met a few who thought they were socialists, but they tend to really be more libertarian.

---

Quote:

---

What I found more interesting was that you consider yourself to be on the left, which seems from my perspective to be more self-labeling than anything to do with your positions. Perhaps the same is true of myself, in the other direction.

---

Quote:

---

I also think the left right continuum of politics is a radical oversimplification, and may have become utterly useless.

---

Quote:

---

trickle down economics, which is one of the foundations of free trade ideology

---

Quote:

---

Those Asian countries often do not have social security or decent universal health - so there is little chance of social mobility.

---

Quote:

---

Well no, it’s been pretty much established by everyone in reality world

---

Quote:

---

they are both as old as each other.

---

Quote:

---

unless you also have a different meaning attached to that as well.

---

Quote:

---

I guess I see our government being quite powerless in the face of the IMF and the international financial world. These influences are extremely pernicious and drive government policies more than any other interest groups here. The fact for us is that a collapse in a financial sector impacts on our economics and hence our daily realities more than any government policy, and the government is forced to react but they are powerless to actually do much but tinker around the edges of a largely free trade world, hoping to either keep the countries competitive edge, or build a barrier to a world wide financial tsunami (which is what they did. Opting out is not an option.

---

Quote:

---

From the sounds of things, that is more a problem in your electoral system than ours. Not saying that it’s not a concern, but it’s quite different the way people get elected and the power of lobbyists.

---

Quote:

---

Some of us are amiable and some of us are not. We’re almost like individuals in that way.

---

Quote:

---

Well they’d be very wrong.

---

Quote:

---

Libertarian views are quite rare here. Perhaps those people moved to the states for political reasons.

---

Quote:

---

For instance, our military ....uses the majority of our tax dollars.

---

Quote:

---

You'll note where Rappy goes for his information. That official sounding site he references, "usgovernmentspending" is actually propaganda built by Christopher Chantrill, "writer and conservative". Look into the site - Chantrill thinks the roaring twenties is The Way American Should Function, and the crash in 1929 was not related to anything anyone did in the twenties. I guess the evil govt somehow did something evil right then in Oct, 1929 that ended the party.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I'd be curious to know how much of that "health, education, and pensions" spending would more accurately fit under Pentagon spending, in the form of healthcare for military personnel and veterans (VA), and education of same (GI Bill, for instance), and pensions, disability, and retirement pay of veterans.

Also, how much of your INCOME TAX is going to pay for defense spending, and how much is going to pay for Medicare and Social Security?

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.


Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

---

Quote:

---

Sorry, I thought I needed to vent because I felt you weren't getting *why* the Nazis were evil. Everyone knows that they *were* evil, but few people look to far into how they got that way.

---

Quote:

---

I think here you would be politically confused. You seem to anchor yourself to old world leftist standbys, but hold what I would call a more or less tea party world view, even if that may scare you. Your stances against globalism and for independent or personal economic control, a lot of the stuff you posted here, esp. earlier, I would place you on the right, but politics are strange.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
many countries would have what would be regarded as socialist type economies and are not authoritarian states. It's the authoritarian that you should object to, be it on the left or right spectrum

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Quote:

---

Sorry, I thought I needed to vent because I felt you weren't getting *why* the Nazis were evil. Everyone knows that they *were* evil, but few people look to far into how they got that way.

---

please show me where i have ever indicated where the nazis were not evil. I don't dispute their violence or insanity, I dispute that you should call them left winged. The fact that you do, leads me to believe that you are either very ignorant, or we have been taught very different ways of seeing the world.

Hopefully you can see this chart which places facism where I think it should be on the spectrum.



From wiki

Fascism (pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2][3][4] Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy.[5][6] Fascism was originally founded by Italian national syndicalists in World War I who combined left-wing and right-wing political views, but it gravitated to the political right in the early 1920s.[7][8] Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right of the conventional left-right political spectrum.[9][10][11][12][13][14]

It worries me that the Right in America appear to be rewriting history to fit their bias, which is why I keep rebutting you.

---

Quote:

---

I'm pro universal health
I believe in mixed economies
I'm pro gun control
I'm cautious about immigration, because I don't think my country can sustain a much larger population but think asylum seekers should be treated humanely and given citizenship if found to be geunuine.
I'm pro policies that encourage sustainability in undustry and land use
I favour a welfare system, but I think there should be checks and limits
I'd like America to butt out of a lot of its military activity globally
I'm probably socially conservative when it comes to bringing up kids, because I think one biological Mum and one biological Dad is the best system, but failing that two loving caring adults is also okay, and in the end we all do the best we can
I don't approve of hitting kids
I don't believe in capital punishment, or prison sentences for non violent crimes

Hmmm, there is probably a lot more.

NB When i talk about being pro gun, universal health, and immigration, I'm talking about my country, and not the US. What works here, may not work there.

---

Quote:

---

It's the authoritarian that you should object to, be it on the left or right spectrum

---

Quote:

---

except I don't think Byte meant to "insult" you...I think she was expressing her frustration that America seems to get blamed for everything wrong in the world, when in actuality it isn't the average American person who's responsible, much as it may seem that way at times.

---

Quote:

---

If we are honest we must face a very dark and sobering fact: The outcome of this war is far from certain. We are proud of being a nation of can-do optimists, but we are also a nation in denial about a culture in a tailspin.

---