|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
seethetraffic
Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Location: Seoul
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 8:39 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| joe_doufu wrote: |
| seethetraffic wrote: |
| China is Hong Kong's government. Does China have more "government" than the USA? Yes. |
Are you sure? Back that up with a link please. I would bet you a shiny baek-won that the US government is bigger. |
Under your logic (that the USA has a larger government- which it doesn't) it follows that with a smaller government (China, according to you) has more freedom. Do you honestly believe that people are freer in China than in the USA? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
antoniothegreat
Joined: 28 Aug 2005
Location: Yangpyeong
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| seethetraffic wrote: |
| joe_doufu wrote: |
| seethetraffic wrote: |
| China is Hong Kong's government. Does China have more "government" than the USA? Yes. |
Are you sure? Back that up with a link please. I would bet you a shiny baek-won that the US government is bigger. |
Under your logic (that the USA has a larger government- which it doesn't) it follows that with a smaller government (China, according to you) has more freedom. Do you honestly believe that people are freer in China than in the USA? |
i think, but i am not sure, and dont have the time now to find proof, but Hong Kong is a semi-autonomous region of China. It prospered under British rule and the Chinese were smart enough to keep it going and not change it. They even have their own currency, distinct from the rest of China.
politically, it is a part of China, but has a degree of self-rule.
similar to western Samoa and Puerto Rico being American territory, but not quite the same as New York or Florida. There are levels of autonomy. ask anyone from Canada when they were granted independence, and you might get a few differeing dates.
I believe this is what Dofuo is getting at. The Hong Kong government and the Chinese government are not very similar at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
If the Chinese government is bigger than the US government, I'll eat my hat. I mean mainland China. Measured by budget, either overall or per capita, you choose. I get to choose the hat.
I don't think I asserted anywhere that less government = more freedom. In fact I distinctly recall writing
| Quote: |
| You need a balance between government and the protection of freedom |
Chinese people do have freedoms that Americans don't have. They pay far less income tax, for one thing, which means they have much more control over their economic lives. Overall, though, I wouldn't say they're more free than Americans. That's not because the US is a democracy. It's because the US is a "free country" with a bill of rights that protects people from the government.
Being a democracy and being a "free country" are not the same thing, that's the point I've gotten at. There are free countries without democracy and democracies without freedom. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seethetraffic
Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 7:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| joe_doufu wrote: |
If the Chinese government is bigger than the US government, I'll eat my hat. I mean mainland China. Measured by budget, either overall or per capita, you choose. I get to choose the hat.
I don't think I asserted anywhere that less government = more freedom. In fact I distinctly recall writing
| Quote: |
| You need a balance between government and the protection of freedom |
Chinese people do have freedoms that Americans don't have. They pay far less income tax, for one thing, which means they have much more control over their economic lives. Overall, though, I wouldn't say they're more free than Americans. That's not because the US is a democracy. It's because the US is a "free country" with a bill of rights that protects people from the government.
Being a democracy and being a "free country" are not the same thing, that's the point I've gotten at. There are free countries without democracy and democracies without freedom. |
OK- name one of each. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| seethetraffic wrote: |
| joe_doufu wrote: |
| There are free countries without democracy and democracies without freedom. |
OK- name one of each. |
Singapore.
Nazi Germany. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If I'm not mistaken, Hitler banned all but the Nazi Party soon after coming to power. How does a one-party dictatorship = democracy in any common meaning of the term? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seethetraffic
Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| joe_doufu wrote: |
| seethetraffic wrote: |
| joe_doufu wrote: |
| There are free countries without democracy and democracies without freedom. |
OK- name one of each. |
Singapore.
Nazi Germany. |
One must necessarily have a restricted view of freedom to view Singapore as a truly free country- especially if one views political freedom as an essential component of freedom.
It is troubling that you have found some way in your mind to imagine Nazi Germany as a democracy. I think most people rightly see that era as anything but a democracy in the truest sense of the word. It was a dictatorship.
Suffice it to say that <-------- (probably on someone's irritating expressions list) I will be very pleased if Hillary and Bill spend another 8 years of their lives serving the USA while residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. "It's the economy, stupid!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| seethetraffic wrote: |
| One must necessarily have a restricted view of freedom to view Singapore as a truly free country- especially if one views political freedom as an essential component of freedom. |
I guess you've never been there. Economic freedom is the essential freedom, and Singaporeans have more of that than Americans (who pay about half their earnings in taxesl). Singapore is a nice place to live. The USA isn't as nice.
| Quote: |
| It is troubling that you have found some way in your mind to imagine Nazi Germany as a democracy. I think most people rightly see that era as anything but a democracy |
Only Nazi apologists like you perpetuate the story that the entire nation of Germany was conquered by one crazy man. Democracy means "people power" and the people of Germany chose Hitler. They elected him, and none of the foolishness Germany did in the 1930's to 1944 would have been possible without their complicity. It was true democracy in the sense of mob rule -- the thing that America's founding fathers warned of when they decided not to go with democracy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
antoniothegreat
Joined: 28 Aug 2005
Location: Yangpyeong
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| seethetraffic wrote: |
| antoniothegreat wrote: |
| the thing about CLinton, what did he really do? everyone says he was a great preisdent, but what were his accomplishments? the economy? ask any economist how much influence the president has on the economy... and the american economy boomed in the 90s a lot because of the internet boom. CLinton had no more to do with that than i did. and before you say the economy fell off when Bush took office, again, ask anyone who studies economics, the economy started to fall about a year and a half before the election, we just didnt really feel the full effects until after the election, so you can't blame that on Bush or credit Clinton. |
antonio,
Willing to bet you have a different view about Reagan helping the economy. Presidents don't influence the economy?
Look at the last 30 years. Carter was in office 1976-1980 and the economy tanked. The economy boomed for most of the next 8 years (1980-1988) under Reagan. George H.W. Bush came into office and for the next 4 years (1988-1992) the economy tanked. Bill Clinton came into office and for the next (almost 8 years, 1992-2000) the economy boomed. Then you know the rest- tanking for over 4 years now under George W.
What did the successful Presidents have that the others didn't have other than good economic policies? Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were confidence men. Reagan spent his young adult years acting and as a radio broadcaster, persuading people. Bill Clinton, even the "right" would admit was a confidence man. Remember there is a little thing called "consumer confidence". People get this comfort to spend from many unmeasurable signals and the leader of one's country may not be important to everyone but usually it is to wage-earners and more wage-earners vote than otherwise.
Many have tried to discount Bill Clinton's effect by pointing to the decline which began before he left office. I submit that the decline occured not because of his leadership. The economy began to tank once it began sinking in that he was leaving. He couldn't be re-elected! Remember, the USA didn't know yet who or what it would get as a replacement for Clinton. It ended up with the lackluster selection of Gore or Bush Jr. (I hesitate to mention Nader here) so there wasn't much to look for and little "confidence" to speak of for the future. |
yes I give credit to Reagan and the economy. maybe I should have been more clear in what I said about presidents and the economy. presidents can and do influence the economy. We can point to Reagan and Trickle Down economics on Reagans influence.
But Clinton is another story. I think Reagan influence the economy to be good. Clinton happened to be president when the economy rose. In order to influence the economy, you must have a policy. What was Clinton's policy?
he paid down the debt, great, I am thankful he did (and that is even more credible as Democrats are proponents of big governemtn and many would have used the money to bloster other programs budgets) but paying down the debt is not policy. policy is tax breaks and subsidies and promotions.
it was stated CLinton heavily backed the rise of the internet. I dont see any evidence for that. if i can get some good hard evidence pointing to the administration being largely responsible, well, you will have a new Clinton fan.
I understand what you say about "confident men" but I think you are over-valuing that. because Clinton lacked a policy, the drop in the economy before his departure was more due to uncertainty, than the loss of CLinton's policies. so yes, CLinton's departure did affect this, but because the market did not know its future direction.
if you give credit to Clinton and the rise of the dot coms, then mustn't ne take the fall for them as well? they came during his administration. If he aided their rise, he could then help defray their fall... so if you are trying to give Clinton the credit for the booming 90's he too must take the fall as well.
and to correct what you said, the economy has been tanking over the past 6 years (mid 1998 to now). and Given the situation, I think Bush has done well. during bad economic times, you ease taxes, Bush has done that. ( you can argue over who should get the money morally, but he put more money back into the country with his tax relief. you can also argue over using the money that we are using in Iraq to elsewhere, but that is another argument...)
in summary, i still have no evidence CLinton helped boom the economy of the 90's. if he can take that credit, he must take the fall for the collapse. the economic fall occurred not because he was leaving, but due to uncertainty int he future (remember, the 2000 election was one of the closest ever). I should find some trends to check. I wonder what the relationship is between departing two term presidents and the economy, that could help prove or disprove my point... i will start looking... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
In order to influence the economy, you must have a policy. What was Clinton's policy?
he paid down the debt, great, I am thankful he did (and that is even more credible as Democrats are proponents of big governemtn and many would have used the money to bloster other programs budgets) but paying down the debt is not policy. policy is tax breaks and subsidies and promotions.
|
I'm sure you were writing too fast or something or you would never have said what you did. Paying down the debt is NOT a policy? Only (Republican) tax breaks are economic policy, not what the other guy does?
The old thing about the Dems being the party of big government is out-dated and just does not reflect the behavior of the parties in power. If you look at 8 years of Reagan, 4 of Bush I and 5 of Bush II, it is quite clear the GOP practices massive deficit spending, no matter what their campaign rhetoric is. Borrow and spend. Borrow and spend. Fiscal responsibility was the mantra of moderate Republicans, who have been driven from power by the more extremists of the party...The GOP's motto should be: Cut taxes, borrow from China and spend, spend, spend! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
antoniothegreat
Joined: 28 Aug 2005
Location: Yangpyeong
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
In order to influence the economy, you must have a policy. What was Clinton's policy?
he paid down the debt, great, I am thankful he did (and that is even more credible as Democrats are proponents of big governemtn and many would have used the money to bloster other programs budgets) but paying down the debt is not policy. policy is tax breaks and subsidies and promotions.
|
I'm sure you were writing too fast or something or you would never have said what you did. Paying down the debt is NOT a policy? Only (Republican) tax breaks are economic policy, not what the other guy does?
The old thing about the Dems being the party of big government is out-dated and just does not reflect the behavior of the parties in power. If you look at 8 years of Reagan, 4 of Bush I and 5 of Bush II, it is quite clear the GOP practices massive deficit spending, no matter what their campaign rhetoric is. Borrow and spend. Borrow and spend. Fiscal responsibility was the mantra of moderate Republicans, who have been driven from power by the more extremists of the party...The GOP's motto should be: Cut taxes, borrow from China and spend, spend, spend! |
yes, i was typing fast and should have been more detailed. WHat I meant is that paing off the debt is yes, part of policy, and Clinton deserves credit for that. But getting that money can not be attributed to Clinton. He was not responsible for creating the extra cash. As you say, the moderate Republicans were the ones that drove home the idea of fiscal responsibility and paying down the debt, and moderate Republicans were the ones that pushed for the debt being paid off.
Clinton followed this policy, but moderate Republicans were the ones that made it popular and sold it to the public in their "Contract with America."
Reagan spent spent spent, but why? because his foreign policy was focused on brining down the USSR. our economy was so much bigger, to end the Cold War Reagan new all we had to do was drive them bankrupt. create so many walls for Communists to defend (Korea, Afghanistan, Germany, the Pacific, the Atlantic, US-backed Israel) and out-spend them.
Bush one.... he he he
Bush II-basics of economics, when the economy is down, tax less and spend more. yes, this drives up the defecit, and that MUST be paid back later (when a booming period occurs, like the 90's). IF Bush did not tax less and spend more, our economy would be so much worse. less taxes and more spending puts more money in the economy and gives it a jump. This is basic in economics. I would want any president to raise the deficit in favor of boosting the economy during a harsh economic time rather than worry about the deficit and create a depression.
The Great Depression was fixed by WWII. the spending that occurred. you fix/aviod depressions by getting money to circulate. FDR was trying exactly that before WWII...
taking into consideration what i just wrote, if high spending and tax relief is economic policy, yes, paying off the debt is policy as well. sorry about that....  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| antoniothegreat wrote: |
| Bush II-basics of economics, when the economy is down, tax less and spend more. yes, this drives up the defecit, and that MUST be paid back later (when a booming period occurs, like the 90's). IF Bush did not tax less and spend more, our economy would be so much worse. |
Lowering the tax burden (it is a burden) during hard times is basic economics, but increasing spending is definitely debateable. It boosts GDP a certain amount by buying products from American producers, but there is some question to whether this is the best way to boost the economy. Remember those are taxpayers' dollars -- did we really pay taxes to the government to have them "waste" them to boost the GDP? I don't know about that. I would favor a government that shrinks when times are tough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
but moderate Republicans were the ones that made it popular and sold it to the public in their "Contract with America."
|
Those were NOT moderate Republicans who did the Contract with America thing. The moderate Republicans are on the EPA's endangered list because there are so few of them.
Do you remember the most popular song in Washington on Jan. 20, 2001? It's the best short course in GOP fiscal policy I know. And so blatant.
(They even stole the tune [Happy Days Are Here Again] from the Dems. Talk about adding insult to injury.)
So long sad times
So long bad times
We��re rid of Bill at last
Howdy gay times
Cloudy gray times
You are now a thing of the past
Spending days are here again
Bill��s gone and we can spend again
So let's sing a song of cheer again
Hu��s in Beijing so we��ll spend again
Altogether shout it now
Borrow from Beijing
And spend it now!
So let's tell the world about it now
Clinton��s gone and we can spend again
Fiscal sanity is gone
There'll be no more from now on
From now on...
Spending days are here again
The National debt can soar again
So, let��s let the Chinese pay someday
Spending times
Spending nights
Spending days
Are here again! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
antoniothegreat
Joined: 28 Aug 2005
Location: Yangpyeong
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| joe_doufu wrote: |
| antoniothegreat wrote: |
| Bush II-basics of economics, when the economy is down, tax less and spend more. yes, this drives up the defecit, and that MUST be paid back later (when a booming period occurs, like the 90's). IF Bush did not tax less and spend more, our economy would be so much worse. |
Lowering the tax burden (it is a burden) during hard times is basic economics, but increasing spending is definitely debateable. It boosts GDP a certain amount by buying products from American producers, but there is some question to whether this is the best way to boost the economy. Remember those are taxpayers' dollars -- did we really pay taxes to the government to have them "waste" them to boost the GDP? I don't know about that. I would favor a government that shrinks when times are tough. |
you are assuming the money just disappears after it is spent. the reason it is important is that money then goes to businesses, who pass it on as wages to employees, who then spend it, and and economy gets back going. we are not "wasting" those dollars and flushing them down the toilet... and those dollars ideally are borrowed, because we lowered taxes. so they are not taken from the common worker, but are given to the common worker. they are taken/borrowed/created from banks. a shrinking governemnt when times are rough only succeeds in not putting more money into the economy, and that is not a cure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seethetraffic
Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| joe_doufu wrote: |
| seethetraffic wrote: |
| One must necessarily have a restricted view of freedom to view Singapore as a truly free country- especially if one views political freedom as an essential component of freedom. |
I guess you've never been there. Economic freedom is the essential freedom, and Singaporeans have more of that than Americans (who pay about half their earnings in taxesl). Singapore is a nice place to live. The USA isn't as nice.
| Quote: |
| It is troubling that you have found some way in your mind to imagine Nazi Germany as a democracy. I think most people rightly see that era as anything but a democracy |
Only Nazi apologists like you perpetuate the story that the entire nation of Germany was conquered by one crazy man. Democracy means "people power" and the people of Germany chose Hitler. They elected him, and none of the foolishness Germany did in the 1930's to 1944 would have been possible without their complicity. It was true democracy in the sense of mob rule -- the thing that America's founding fathers warned of when they decided not to go with democracy. |
You attempt to diminish democracy by attaching its name to Nazi germany. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
