Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Have Sweeter Words EVER Been Spoken?

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Have Sweeter Words EVER Been Spoken?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:34 pm Post subject:

[quote="Rusty Shackleford"]

Ya-ta Boy wrote:

Quote:

Of course this whole thing could go to hell in a handbasket if Obama blunders, but so far he's shown impeccable political instincts.

Tehe, I got a giggle out of this.

If by "impeccable political instincts" you mean bowing to a despot, making fun of disabled people, advancing failed economic ideas, subsidizing economic failures with funds confiscated from people who actually create wealth, then you would probably be correct.

He's basically just the pinko-fascist version of Bush. Nothing really changes hence govt is the problem.

And in spite of all those 'blunders' he's still sitting at 66% approval ratings. Silly Americans.

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:38 pm Post subject:

BTW, Fox is my new hero. Go get 'em, boy (or girl)

Rusty Shackleford

Joined: 08 May 2008

Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:39 pm Post subject:

[quote="Ya-ta Boy"]

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

Ya-ta Boy wrote:

Quote:

Of course this whole thing could go to hell in a handbasket if Obama blunders, but so far he's shown impeccable political instincts.

And in spite of all those 'blunders' he's still sitting at 66% approval ratings. Silly Americans.

The econocalypse is Obama's 9/11. Bush had high approval ratings also at this point in his admin. Anyway, since when did popularity equate to competence.

Where did I say Blunders?

dmbfan

Joined: 09 Mar 2006

Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 11:26 pm Post subject:

Quote:

And in spite of all those 'blunders' he's still sitting at 66% approval ratings. Silly Americans.

You should recheck your stats on that on. The difference between who approves and disapproves Obama is very polarized.

I don't look to the future of my country with a lot of optomism.

dmbfan

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 12:29 am Post subject:

Quote:

Bush had high approval ratings also at this point in his admin. Anyway, since when did popularity equate to competence.

However, Bush had done nothing 12 weeks in. Obama has had a series of accomplishments and the public still supports him, although with a certain amount of apprehension about the specific policies. We live in a democratic republic--public approval means a great deal.

Quote:

The difference between who approves and disapproves Obama is very polarized.

Yes, this is true. However, it is the result of the extremism of the people who disapprove. They wouldn't approve of what he does, no matter what. A related point: Dems give Republican presidents more lee way at the beginning than Republicans give Dems. There are even some stats somewhere around demonstrating that.

ESL Milk "Everyday

Joined: 12 Sep 2007

Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 5:54 am Post subject:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

The econocalypse is Obama's 9/11. Bush had high approval ratings also at this point in his admin. Anyway, since when did popularity equate to competence.

Where did I say Blunders?

At this point, no one has anything to go on except speculation.

On the other hand, it's much easier for the biggest military superpower in the world to start a war in Afghanistan than it is to fix an economy ruined by years of neglect, especially when everyone is feeling all self-righteous and victimized... and crying out for blood.

I have to admit, I can understand why faith in Obama might be a little bit shaky, but it's definitely refreshing to have headlines about nations coming together as opposed to America making its allies angry.

And out of curiosity, how do you think John McCain would be handling all of this?

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 7:28 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

It really saddens me to think what the world could be like today if we hadn't stunted our potential with govt interventions.

Without government interventions into the market place, we'd be living in a system of monopolies, trusts, and dirt poor workers with wealth even more concentrated in the hands of a few than it is now.

Completely free markets are a train wreck when it comes to quality of life for the common man, which is why countries regulate. Proponents of completely free markets are up there with proponents of true communism when it comes to people whose opinions don't mesh with reality.

This is nonsense. Governments create monopoly. Markets destroy them.

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 7:29 am Post subject:

ESL Milk "Everyday wrote:

On the other hand, it's much easier for the biggest military superpower in the world to start a war in Afghanistan than it is to fix an economy ruined by years of neglect, especially when everyone is feeling all self-righteous and victimized... and crying out for blood.

More nonsense. War doesn't fix an economy any more than breaking a window to fix it creates wealth. America is way too far in debt. Until that changes, she is an empire is strong decline.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 7:36 am Post subject:

mises wrote:

Fox wrote:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

It really saddens me to think what the world could be like today if we hadn't stunted our potential with govt interventions.

This is nonsense. Governments create monopoly. Markets destroy them.

The US gov't has broken trusts before, and it needs to break the big banks again. Too big to fail is too big to exist.

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 7:45 am Post subject:

How'd they get that big? Do you have access to the Fed funds rate? Do you think your bank balance might be a little bigger if you could borrow at 3% and lend at 6%? Anyways, even if we disagree there. I think we will agree that the US government won't break up the banks. The banks are in charge.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 7:54 am Post subject:

mises wrote:

Governments create monopolies. Free markets destroy them.

mises wrote:

How'd they get that big? Do you have access to the Fed funds rate? Do you think your bank balance might be a little bigger if you could borrow at 3% and lend at 6%?

Anyways, even if we disagree there. I think we will agree that the US government won't break up the banks. The banks are in charge.

Fox has made some good contributions before and I choose to interpret his words generously.

Of course a great deal of gov't intervention into the market is bad. But if Fox is going to defend gov't intervention, he is absolutely correct to harken back to Teddie Roosevelt's progressive reforms (as opposed to say, FDR's straight-up meddling in the private sector). What we need now is exactly that.

Nobody has defended the Fed.

I also think even you would admit that your statement places too much faith in markets. After all, markets are rife with insider trading and saturated with the good ol' boy network. I disagree with Fox that regulation (beyond trust busting) will help because people work at the SEC precisely to get wonderful jobs in the private sector later.

We all need to get beyond this 'more government versus more free market' debate because there's no guarantee that more of either is helpful.

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:24 am Post subject:

I'd just not like us to be naive about government. Or markets. Actually, what a market is, is the dissemination of large amounts of information. If the state and big business collude to limit information, the market doesn't exist. I do not believe America is a market based economy, at least in financial services (20% of GDP). If any role of government exists, it should be to shine light on information. Goldman's et al should not be able to make a single 1 cent trade that does not go public.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:29 am Post subject:

[quote="Fox"]

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

Ontheway is going to rip you a new one on this so I will leave it to him.

Ontheway, if he is who I think he is, believes the only way to fix the medical system is to abolish income tax. He's not even in reality when it comes to economic discussion.

Ontheway happens to an economics professor who has been right about just about everything he's said so far.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:34 am Post subject:

mises wrote:

I'd just not like us to be naive about government. Or markets.

Actually, what a market is, is the dissemination of large amounts of information. If the state and big business collude to limit information, the market doesn't exist. I do not believe America is a market based economy, at least in financial services (20% of GDP). If any role of government exists, it should be to shine light on information. Goldman's et al should not be able to make a single 1 cent trade that does not go public.

Obviously I don't put my faith in gov't, for me its a four letter word!

But I'm just so relieved to hear someone any bit left of center refer to trust-busting and TR as the way forward (correct!) as opposed to FDR's nonsense. So I think telling that person "gov't = monopolies, free market = competition" is not at all helpful (or even accurate).

The gov't could be a way out, if Obama were to listen to the non-specialists (Emmanuel, Axelrod) rather than the insiders (Geithner, Summers). I don't think Obama has any bias either way. I just know he's a Constitutional Law scholar, and my Con Law professor is great, but he's the first to admit he knows absolutely nothing about the markets. Obama, likewise, knows nothing about the markets, but is too good a politician to admit it (as opposed to the honest, hapless McCain).

ontheway

Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...

Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:35 am Post subject:

mises wrote:

Quote:

Governments create monopolies. Free markets destroy them.

This is absolutely correct.

There has never been a monopoly that wasn't the product of some government law, rule, intervention or regulation that either created the monolopy or prevented others from competing with it or both.

NEVER.

It's interesting that, right now, we are seeing that thousands of US banks, the small and medium sized ones, are profitable, strong and perfectly capable of taking over all needed banking functions for the US economy.

There was absolutely no need to rescue a handful of big banks that got into trouble by betting that the Fed could inflate the money supply forever and get away with it.

These banks were not "too big to fail" but indeed, they were too big to save, and too big to be allowed in a free market.

In a free market, some organizations get too big, they grow too large and die. They should die. It's good for the market, good for the economy, good for the little guy.

Only socialism needs to save them. That's because, socialism ultimately favors only the rich and powerful. Everyone else loses.

The Federal Reserve is a good example of a government monopoly. It has failed. It is a dinosaur and needs to die.

It had to save the other large dinosaur banks in order to justify saving itself. But, in a free market, there is a natural limit to size. So, big business needs socialism to keep growing. They need socialism to limit their competition so they can survive.

Socialism always leads to a greater real disparity in wealth distribution than occurs under free markets. The rich benefit by keeping the middle classes and lower classes contained and poor. That way they can hire more servants. They can live the high life by supressing the wage levels of the working classes.

Of course, socialists are the best liars, and their followers are the least educated, so they believe the lies. Socialists never include the value of government subsidies to the rich, nor the value of supressed wages in allowing the rich to buy more services, in determining the true distribution of income.

The US Congress itself is a good example. Although they report their congressional salaries at under $200,000 per year, the effective value of government provided subsidies and nonsalary cash payments brings the value of their compensation into the millions of dollars $2,000,000 to $5,000,000 per year. Other politically connected individuals receive billions of dollars in subsidies and sweatheart deals. None of this would occur in a free market.

Without socialism, the Kennedy family and Bill Clinton would all be working pumping gas and selling fries at McDonalds. (Of course, Hillary would have still been married to the President of the United States and would still have become a US Senator, advocating whatever it took to be elected.)

Last edited by ontheway on Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:00 am; edited 2 times in total

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe