First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
The Upcoming American Presidential Election
3498 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Nowheresville, MI
Offline
Posted 1/27/12
Personally, I'm not impressed by any of the Republican candidates. At this point I'm actually leaning toward Obama. He seems to genuinely want to make America a better place for everybody, but he's not had much success acheiving it. I feel like the Republicans are telling me what their focus groups tell them what I want to hear.....
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/27/12

impala1 wrote:

Personally, I'm not impressed by any of the Republican candidates. At this point I'm actually leaning toward Obama. He seems to genuinely want to make America a better place for everybody, but he's not had much success acheiving it. I feel like the Republicans are telling me what their focus groups tell them what I want to hear.....


You are right, Obama is genuine. Remember when he firmly told America that SOPA and PIPA was wrong, and that he would never sign it because it violates America's freedom of Speech...and then go on to sign ACTA, which is like SOPA and PIPA, only more organised, and international, and in secret, and a trade agreement. But, more than that, he decided to do this bypassing Congress, which is mandated in the Constitution, so he has shown his sincerity and ingenuity, both in his firmness against Censorship at home, and Censorship abroad.
Posted 1/27/12

impala1 wrote:

Personally, I'm not impressed by any of the Republican candidates. At this point I'm actually leaning toward Obama. He seems to genuinely want to make America a better place for everybody, but he's not had much success acheiving it. I feel like the Republicans are telling me what their focus groups tell them what I want to hear.....


And you never will be impressed. America's concept is just a well thought out scam.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/29/12

DomFortress wrote:

Then what about a real credible economic source material, as in the "Debt Supercycle" by Financial Sense.

Where the Debt Supercycle Begins

I spent my first decade in the business as a broker before transforming my business to a fee-based money management firm. All I sold in the 1980’s was fixed income. Who wanted to invest in stocks when you could get double digit returns in guaranteed deposits at a bank or by investing in government debt? I still remember one of my first trades—a 10-year treasury note paying a 15% interest rate.

What I did not realize at the time was the U.S., and the western world in general, was about to embark on what we now refer to as the “Debt Supercycle”—a theory articulated by the investment strategists at Bank Credit Analyst out of Canada. The Debt Supercycle is a description of the long-term decline in U.S. balance sheet liquidity and the rise in indebtedness during the WWII period. Economic expansions in the post WWII world were associated with the buildup in debt as western governments introduced automatic stabilizers through entitlements such as unemployment benefits, Social Security, Medicare, and deposit insurance at financial institutions. During the early stages of debt buildup, government policies were successful in preventing the frequent depressions that plagued the pre-WWII economy. Western economies would experience periodic corrections during recessions, but these recessions did not reverse the long-term trend of debt buildup that continued to grow with each successive decade.

These trends would lead to growing illiquidity making our financial markets more fragile and susceptible to the threat of a deflationary event like we experienced recently in the great credit crisis of 2008-2009. These periodic recessions were fought by governments with more deficit spending and credit creation. Thus, the bigger balance sheet excesses became, the more painful the eventual corrective process would be. The financial stakes became higher in each new economic cycle, putting ever-increasing pressure on governments to reflate demand, by whatever means were available.

According to the Bank Credit Analyst the Debt Supercycle reached an important inflection point in the recent economic meltdown of 2008-2009. Authorities reached the limit of their ability to get consumers to take on more credit. The result is that it forced governments to leverage up instead. This is where we are today as authorities spend, borrow and print money to fight off the deflationary impact of private sector deleveraging. Welcome to the final chapter of the Debt Supercycle—a period of trillion dollar deficits that are being monetized by trillion dollar expansions of central bank balance sheets, otherwise known as money printing. Once fiscal policy is pushed to the limits of sustainability, the Debt Supercycle will come to a violent end. This is exactly what is happening to Europe now.

A graphic depiction of this Debt Supercycle can be seen below. As of this writing, outstanding U.S. federal debt is close to $15.3 trillion dollars. For the first time in my lifetime US federal debt now exceeds U.S. GDP. In personal terms each U.S. citizen now owes $180,559.


Our politicians have been acting irresponsibly, paying only lip service to the nation’s rapidly growing debt burden. It has been argued that our debt is not as bad as it appears and we have plenty of options and time to resolve this issue. Some argue for higher taxes, others for dramatic spending cuts. The truth is that neither will work alone. There aren’t enough taxpayers to pay the bill, even if we raise tax rates to 100% on the rich. Spending cuts will also not solve our problems unless we eliminate all forms of entitlements and drastically reduce the size of our military. In the end, our only option will be to pursue a combination of tax increases, entitlement and spending reductions, and a steady dose of inflation. This is the policy we pursued after WWII and it is now the official policy of the U.S. government, a term referred to as financial repression.

I do not think it is an exaggeration to say history is largely a history of inflation, usually inflations engineered by governments for the gain of governments."

~Friedrich August von Hayek


I would like to address the unusual phenomenon of the Debt Supercycle and why it has gone on for well over three decades without a major crisis until recently. Politicians, and the Keynesian economists who support them, have long argued that debt imbalances don’t matter. What matters is the economy’s ability to grow and it is government's job to make sure it grows through whatever means necessary. On the surface this argument seems plausible. The two graphs below illustrate the popularity of this view.


From 1978 to today, the U.S was able to grow its total debt from $719 billion to $56 trillion, an annualized growth rate of 13.7%. While U.S. debt was growing during this period of time the interest rate paid on that debt steadily declined. This confounded experts who would have predicted higher rates of inflation and certainly higher rates of interest. This can be explained. At the end of the 1970’s inflation rates were hovering over 14%, bond yields on U.S. treasuries had risen to over 15%. The US. Government had been financing its growing deficits by urging the Fed to monetize its debt by printing money to buy U.S. treasuries. This is what led to the rising inflation rates during the 1970’s. This philosophy came to an end with President Carter’s appointment of Paul Volcker to head up the Federal Reserve.

From Printing Presses to the Bond Market

Volcker and other central bankers convinced their respective governments that they could tame the inflation monster by financing deficits through the bond market rather than the current practice of monetizing (printing money to pay off) the debt. Stung by a wave of rising inflation, governments turned to their central banks for advice. The advice given had three components: one, raise short-term interest rates in order to restrain bank borrowing by individuals and businesses; two, cut government borrowing; and three, use the bond market to finance budget deficits by selling bonds to domestic and overseas investors.

It was argued, and rightly so, that when a government taps the bond market it is drawing from the existing stock of savings—no new money is created. Large institutions such as insurance companies, pension funds, mutual funds, and individual investors would supply the necessary capital to finance government deficits. The inducement to supply this capital was high real interest rates, an interest rate that was well above the inflation rate. It worked. The migration of credit expansion from within the monetary sector to outside it was the single biggest reason why OECD government inflation fell below five percent throughout the 80’s, 90’s, and the 2000’s. As shown in the graphs above, it led to rising debt levels and falling interest rates.

Another process that occurred during this period that facilitated government debt financing was the revolution that was occurring in the capital markets. Peter Warburton described this process in his seminal work “Debt and Delusion,” from which I now quote:

The capital markets' revolution of the late 1980’s and the 1990’s was facilitated by several parallel developments, of which five stand out. First, the incapacity of the banks, due to non-performing loans; second, the adoption of liberal credit policies by governments; third, the displacement of discretionary consumer borrowing by obligatory government borrowing (to finance budget deficits); fourth, the concentration of management of private wealth in the hands of large funds; and fifth, the increased use and acceptance of financial derivatives….

If this powerful shift from traditional bank borrowing towards the capital markets in North America and Western Europe had not taken place, it is most probable that there would have been a much longer period of recession and consolidation in the aftermath of the late 1980’s property bust….

Deprived of the easy option of selling bonds to investment funds and individuals, the government would probably have resorted to greater monetization of their borrowing….

If this traditional course of action had been followed, then there is little doubt that inflationary fires would have been rekindled in the western economies during the 1990’s by pressing additional liquidity (cash and bank deposits) into the hands of consumers and firms, the demand for goods, services and assets would have increased relative to their available supplies. After a couple of years or so, the outcome of excessive money creation would have been a resurgence of consumer price inflation, following the pattern of the 1970’s and early 1980’s.
This process worked for an extended period of time with occasional hiccups and financial failures: the bankruptcy of Orange County, the Mexican peso crisis in late 1994, the collapse of Barings Bank in 1995, the Asian currency crisis in 1997, and the Russian debt default and the bankruptcy of Long Term Capital Management in 1998.

The Rise of Derivatives

Overtime, a new pattern was beginning to emerge by the 1990’s and continues on to this day: an increasing frequency of rogue waves or black swan events. With the increasing role of large financial institutions as intermediaries within the financial system a large important part of capital transfers were being done in secret through the derivatives market. Transactions between investment banks and mega funds such as hedge funds were increasingly being transacted in secret in the OTC derivatives market far from the public gaze.

Derivatives were the ultimate leverage tool used by hedge funds and the proprietary trading desks of large banks in gearing up the financial system. The use of derivatives enabled these financial entities the ability to gain control of a larger asset portfolio with a smaller commitment of capital. Derivatives in effect gave artificial support to both the bond and equity markets. It also facilitated the massive leveraging of the financial system with debt-to-asset ratios rising from 12-1 to 40-1 by the time of the 2008 financial crisis. Most importantly, the synthetic support given the bond and equity markets by these leveraged instruments were critically dependent on the downward progression of interest rates and the shape of the yield curve. A small tremor in the structure of interest rates would undermine the profitability of these leveraged trades leading to forced selling in the bond, equity, and commodity markets, which explains much of what happened during 2007-2009.

Risk On/Risk Off and the "Paranormal" Market

The fact remains that our financial system still remains highly leveraged. As Bill Gross recently wrote in his 2012 investment outlook, “most developed economies have not, in fact, delevered since 2008…credit as a whole remains resilient or at least static because of a multitude of quantitative easings (QE) in the U.S., U.K., and Japan...and now Euroland countries.”

Because interest rates are now zero bound, according to Gross, it raises the possibility of a fat left-tailed possibility of unforeseen delevering or the fat right-tailed possibility of central bank inflationary expansion. The result is we face a number of years in the future where economies will exhibit different aspects of the New Normal which Gross describes as “Sub,” ”Ab,” or “Paranormal" (to be explained below).

The global financial system is still leveraging up. However, this time it is governments that are doing the leveraging. Today, sovereign debt is being issued in copious quantities. The vast majority of this debt is being used to finance non-productive consumption. All of the world’s major governments are spending and living well beyond their means leaving central banks to return once again towards aggressive debt monetization to desperately ensure interest rates remain subdued and the financial system abundantly liquid. As Grant Williams explained with the following image below, "currently the central banks of the top three developed world entities: the Eurozone, the US and Japan have balance sheets that amount to roughly $8 trillion...What does this mean? It means that nearly $8 trillion in world economic growth is artificial and exists only courtesy of central bank intervention...It also means that central banks will never unwind their 'assets'...It also means that in this age of ongoing consumer and corporate deleveraging, central banks will have no choice but to continue monetizing."

Source: Grant Williams, "Things That Make You Go Hmmm..."

This creates an unstable dynamic whereby market participants focus their attention on divining opaque and unpredictabie moves by "the powers that be" rather than the real and economic value of various assets. This anticipation by highly leveraged financial players of policy reflation is what underpins the highly speculative nature of our current global marketplace. When reflationary policies are delayed or not forthcoming, the markets deleverage and go into “risk off” mode. This drives the dollar higher and treasury yields lower. When the monetary bazookas are unleashed the “risk on” trade is executed and stocks and commodities rise universally. This “risk on/risk off “ trade is now part of the new Paranormal that Gross describes in his 2012 investment outlook.

When Markets Rebel

The question as to which fat tail risk (left or right) the markets experience boils down to a game of confidence that governments and their respective central banks are playing with the bond markets. The risk to government is that because of zero bound interest rates, governments have been financing a good portion of their debt short-term. The rate of interest is low which helps to reduce deficits. The danger is that since a good majority of debt is short-term it will have to be rolled over. As long as confidence is maintained debt will continue to roll over at existing low interest rates. The real danger is when the markets lose confidence in policymakers. That is, if the markets rebel and demand higher rates of return. It is a rise in interest rates which now directly threatens the solvency of many governments. Record debt levels are not a burden to government as long as interest rates remain low. It is when confidence is lost and rates rise that the solvency issue comes into question. This is the nightmare scenario that keeps central bankers up at night; a warning Sidney Homer wrote in his “A History of Interest Rates”:

Many besides the government have been encouraged to borrow at short who in an earlier age would have borrowed at long term just to be sure the funds would be available if needed. The dangers of this procedure became sadly evident in the 1970’s, when certain borrowers, such as Penn Central and New York City, suddenly found the refunding market closed to them.


Summary

We now live in a new era of uncertainty—Pimco’s new “paranormal,” if you will. Our financial system continues to leverage up as governments replace the private sector in gearing up their balance sheets. Central banks are now embarked on a policy of reflation, monetizing a major portion of rising government deficits. The ECB’s balance sheet expanded by $947B (euro 727B), or 36% last year, to a record $3.5T. The Fed expanded its balance sheet by $513B to $2.92T, an increase of 21%.

We are now at a state where the sovereign bond market has grown to become the largest financial bubble in history; a bubble that could succumb to three potential market shocks. The first type of shock would come from a spike in commodity prices triggered by additional rounds of quantitative easing. It could be as simple as an "act of God" such as an earthquake, tsunami, or the failure of an important agricultural crop. The bond market would react in fear that higher commodity prices would be absorbed in the price of goods and services via loose monetary policy.

A second shock could be triggered as a result of political instability and loss of confidence in government policy. An example is what is occurring right now in Europe regarding an attempt toward a fiscal union or the debt ceiling debate in the U.S. The bond market would view negatively a failure by governments to rein in spending and control their deficits.

The third shock would emanate from a potential default or restructuring of a sovereign debt that would lead to a domino effect in the banking system. A large international bank or group of banks might not be able to meet their obligations which would lead to a rise in fear of uninsurable losses among the banks or their counterparties.

As the bond market continues to expand through sovereign debt expansion and central bank monetization, it is moving further away from reality as a result of speculative activity. This makes sovereign debt extremely sensitive to any unanticipated event. The probability of another black swan or rogue wave is beginning to multiply; from a failed bond auction, to larger than expected deficits, to political rancor over spending cuts. Sovereign debt can no longer be looked upon as a risk free asset. For the reasons cited above I continue to avoid U.S. treasury debt as the rates of return bear no resemblance to reality or are commensurate with the risk they entail. Caveat emptor!
In other words, the bond market and its subsequent debt supercycle will only become another global financial economic crisis, simply due to the fact that it's behaving like a speculative asset bubble economy.

Chapter 15 (Bubbles): Throughout the long sweep of history, the bursting of asset bubbles has nearly always been traumatic. Social, political and economic upheavals have a bad habit of following asset bubbles, while wealth destruction is a guaranteed feature. Four characteristics of bubbles are observed: that they are self-reinforcing on the way up (higher prices become the justification for higher prices); once they pop, the game is suddenly and permanently over; they are roughly symmetrical in time they take to peak and fall; and they are roughly symmetrical in price, returning to their pre-bubble status. Dr. Martenson concludes that the housing bubble is itself just a symptom of a credit bubble, leaving a final catastrophe of the currency as our most likely outcome.
Therefore what you just described wasn't a stable nor sustainable economy, but rather it's a crisis that's waiting to happen. Which is also why the World Bank itself had sounded its alarm on a bleak future outlook for one of the US's biggest bond holder, China.

Happy Chinese New Year, everybody! If all things went to business as usual, we'll see China demanding US to make good on its promise, the US will raise its debt ceiling or face default, and every US citizens shall shoulder-up more debts as a result. Thanks to capitalism, consumerism, and the corporations, we've got the 1% shareholders, and the 99% stakeholders worldwide. Go team greed.[/sarcasm]


Financial Sense isn't really a sound economic scource, rather, it is just a rant site for a single person, who apperantly believe that we will enter hyperinflation and we should just go back to bartering with Gold.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2011/03/inflation_and_doom-mongering
75430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 1/29/12 , edited 1/29/12

longfenglim wrote:



Financial Sense isn't really a sound economic scource, rather, it is just a rant site for a single person, who apperantly believe that we will enter hyperinflation and we should just go back to bartering with Gold.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2011/03/inflation_and_doom-mongering


Perhaps not but it doesn't change the fact that since the New Deal and the abandonment of the gold standard, the US treasury (and I suspect many other 'first world' treasuries) are basically a 'ponzi scheme' or an example of 'cheque kiting' -- both of which work fine in the short term but as they get more pressing, the political will needed to solve them becomes greater as well. Now it's been eighty years of politicians leaving it for the next guy's term of office.
Posted 1/30/12

longfenglim wrote:


DomFortress wrote:



Financial Sense isn't really a sound economic scource, rather, it is just a rant site for a single person, who apperantly believe that we will enter hyperinflation and we should just go back to bartering with Gold.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2011/03/inflation_and_doom-mongering
That site has creditable contributors by companies, within the financial and business institutions. Furthermore, your red herrings of "gold standard" wasn't even a part of the Dept Supercycle theory. Your argument is moot.


papagolfwhiskey wrote:


longfenglim wrote:



Financial Sense isn't really a sound economic scource, rather, it is just a rant site for a single person, who apperantly believe that we will enter hyperinflation and we should just go back to bartering with Gold.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2011/03/inflation_and_doom-mongering


Perhaps not but it doesn't change the fact that since the New Deal and the abandonment of the gold standard, the US treasury (and I suspect many other 'first world' treasuries) are basically a 'ponzi scheme' or an example of 'cheque kiting' -- both of which work fine in the short term but as they get more pressing, the political will needed to solve them becomes greater as well. Now it's been eighty years of politicians leaving it for the next guy's term of office.
I have a simple mantra; if it only works as short-term, then it wasn't sustainable to begin with.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 1/31/12

angrierchick wrote:

Yeah, Ron Paul is cut of the same cloth as many of the other republican candidates.


How so?


I bet you don't have a clue what your talking about.
1142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / PLACES
Offline
Posted 1/31/12 , edited 1/31/12

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


angrierchick wrote:

Yeah, Ron Paul is cut of the same cloth as many of the other republican candidates.


How so?


I bet you don't have a clue what your talking about.


I bet I do. Honestly, Ron Paul stans are smug for no reason and don't know a damn thing about his voting record. Idiots. Not too terribly surprising that the bulk of Ron Paul stans are people that he would support - specifically, White, Cis-Gendered, Heterosexual Males.

RON PAUL
-Supports getting rid of a federal minimum wage (he claims that it's to help the poor)
-Would eliminate tax credits to all but corporations
-Would put government spending back to 2004 levels and freeze it at that rate.
http://lewrockwell.com/paul/paul757.html
-Voted to protect the privacy of child pornographers on public wi-fi networks.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9829759-38.html
-Would relegate Gay Marriage to a state-rights issue, and would allow states to ban gay marriage
-Would limit Brown v. Board of Education
-Would limit Affirmative Action
-Voted for the Stupak amendment as well as personhood rights.
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/2012/gop-presidential-candidates/ron-paul.html
]-Has attempted to repeal the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, also known as the "Motor Voter" Act
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.2310:
-Has attempted to repeal OSHA
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.2139:
-Would Repeal Anti-Trust laws
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:h.r.1789:
-Would Eviscerate the 14th Amendment to make the American-born children of Undocumented Immigrants non-citizens.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.j.res.00046:
-Would repeal gun-free schools Act
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.02424:
-Opposes the Americans with Disabilities Act
-Would Repeal the Civil Rights Act
-Would Eliminate FEMA, AmeriCorp, EPA, and the Departments of Energy, Education, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Labor
-Would Withdraw the US from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (all the while claiming to be anti-war)

Now I want to hear you start explaining.
39209 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 1/31/12 , edited 1/31/12
Can I retroactively vote for Eugene V. Debs?


-Voted to protect the privacy of child pornographers on public wi-fi networks.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9829759-38.html


That is a bit of a misnomer. All that particular stance does is re-affirm the neutral carrier policy. Otherwise, ISPs and so-forth would necessarily have to wiretap their customers, keep logs, report offenders, etc. And this would inevitably be applied to copyright laws, and potentially applied to political dissidents.
13761 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 1/31/12
Ron Paul is alright... but he have some fucked up ideas...
I think Obama is the best candidate actually... Although I know that a lot of people out there do not share my view...!
39209 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 1/31/12

shuyi000 wrote:

Ron Paul is alright... but he have some fucked up ideas...
I think Obama is the best candidate actually... Although I know that a lot of people out there do not share my view...!


I'm voting for him, if for no other reason than CPUSA endorsing him.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 2/1/12

st1rn3r wrote:


shuyi000 wrote:

Ron Paul is alright... but he have some fucked up ideas...
I think Obama is the best candidate actually... Although I know that a lot of people out there do not share my view...!


I'm voting for him, if for no other reason than CPUSA endorsing him.


That, dear friend, is because Ron Paul is an Austrian laissez faire advocate, and, Laissez Faire, as anyone can tell you, doesn't work at all, never mind Austrianism. I suppose that the Communist Party of the United States of America is supporting him because his lack of OEconomic understanding would sink America into the abyss, and the citizen will then turn to them for Revolution.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 2/1/12

angrierchick wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


angrierchick wrote:

Yeah, Ron Paul is cut of the same cloth as many of the other republican candidates.


How so?


I bet you don't have a clue what your talking about.


I bet I do. Honestly, Ron Paul stans are smug for no reason and don't know a damn thing about his voting record. Idiots. Not too terribly surprising that the bulk of Ron Paul stans are people that he would support - specifically, White, Cis-Gendered, Heterosexual Males.

RON PAUL
-Supports getting rid of a federal minimum wage (he claims that it's to help the poor)


Just to play the devil's advocate, wouldn't getting rid of the federal minimum wage actually increase the likelihood of getting hired? For a company to be competative, it needs to purchase labour at the lowest possible price so as to increase profit, by getting rid of the minimum wage, the government allows companies to hire at these extraordinarily great rates, which, in turn, would decrease the price of our product, thereby making our product competative, increasing exports, leading to more jobs to hire more people, creating more purchasing power, which would oil the gears of the world's oeconomy.


angrierchick wrote:
-Would eliminate tax credits to all but corporations


To play the devil's advocate again, if we tax corporations, we would force them to flee our nation for safer haven, thereby losing our companies, our job producers, which would reduce our nation into a pauper state.


angrierchick wrote:
-Would put government spending back to 2004 levels and freeze it at that rate.
http://lewrockwell.com/paul/paul757.html


Austerity is necessary in times of OEconomic Crisis, look to Europe. Our National debt is massive, and it is common sense to cut programmes hack off unnecessary limbs for the sake of the Commonwealth of all.


angrierchick wrote:
-Voted to protect the privacy of child pornographers on public wi-fi networks.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9829759-38.html


All government intrusion into privacy is bad, especially if it is over the internet.


angrierchick wrote:
-Would relegate Gay Marriage to a state-rights issue, and would allow states to ban gay marriage


Better Gay Marriage in some states than Gay Marriage in none. For example, if we let the federal government, which represent all of America, to enact Gay Marriage, the chances of that are slim, as there are Religious fanaticks from the south, who represent a good part of our nation, who will block it, while if we let it to the state, the minorities, being more able to easily campaign at a local level, would be able to pass it in more states than if we let it to the government, with the specter of the southerners hanging over it.


angrierchick wrote:
-Would limit Brown v. Board of Education
-Would limit Affirmative Action


Affirmative Action, by 'positive discrimination', is bad for everyone, it is bad for the people whose merit were looked over in favour of a mediocre student whose main merit is accident of birth, it hinders entire races by encouraging mediocracy instead of industry for certain races, and, through that, proves itself racist. All people should be able to enter universities through their own merits alone, not based upon accident of birth.


angrierchick wrote:
-Voted for the Stupak amendment as well as personhood rights.
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/2012/gop-presidential-candidates/ron-paul.html


Unborn babies, like multinational corporations, are people. To kill either is murder.


angrierchick wrote:
-Has attempted to repeal the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, also known as the "Motor Voter" Act
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.2310:
-Has attempted to repeal OSHA
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.2139:
-Would Repeal Anti-Trust laws
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:h.r.1789:


The Natural Law of the Market shall always optimally allocate all resources and labourers, under the condition that it is unhindged by backward Government Regulation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfcUblb3i4I


angrierchick wrote:
-Would Eviscerate the 14th Amendment to make the American-born children of Undocumented Immigrants non-citizens.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.j.res.00046:
-Would repeal gun-free schools Act
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.02424:


Guns are good- it is in our constitution.


angrierchick wrote:
-Opposes the Americans with Disabilities Act
-Would Repeal the Civil Rights Act
-Would Eliminate FEMA, AmeriCorp, EPA, and the Departments of Energy, Education, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Labor


Austerity is necessy in a recession.


angrierchick wrote:
-Would Withdraw the US from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (all the while claiming to be anti-war)

Now I want to hear you start explaining.


We are already out of the ABM Treaty. We have been for an entire decade.

http://articles.cnn.com/2001-12-13/politics/rec.bush.abm_1_abm-treaty-rogue-state-missile-attacks-anti-ballistic-missile-treaty?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
1142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / PLACES
Offline
Posted 2/1/12 , edited 2/1/12
Just to play the devil's advocate, wouldn't getting rid of the federal minimum wage actually increase the likelihood of getting hired? For a company to be competative, it needs to purchase labour at the lowest possible price so as to increase profit, by getting rid of the minimum wage, the government allows companies to hire at these extraordinarily great rates, which, in turn, would decrease the price of our product, thereby making our product competative, increasing exports, leading to more jobs to hire more people, creating more purchasing power, which would oil the gears of the world's oeconomy.

No. It would actually make more wage slaves and more people living paycheck to paycheck and having to work two and three part time jobs to make ends meet. If they lose one of those jobs, they'll be in a situation where they have to cut back on essential items. This is even more-so if the people have dependents. Just because one is working doesn't mean that they aren't poor. What matters about having jobs in an economy is that these jobs are enough to provide a decent enough wage where the economy can be stimulated by purchasing miscellaneous items and money going into the country. If you're a wage slave, you won't be able to put a lot of money into the economy. Additionally, a country that is in decent financial straits has a solid middle class. With a bunch of underpaid wage slaves, your middle class will dwindle quickly.

To play the devil's advocate again, if we tax corporations, we would force them to flee our nation for safer haven, thereby losing our companies, our job producers, which would reduce our nation into a pauper state.

Except that corporations are being taxed at the lowest rate ever, and they're still going overseas. You assume that if everything is perfect for corporations that they'll be benevolent enough to create jobs. What matters is the bottom line, and they want to increase it.

Austerity is necessary in times of OEconomic Crisis, look to Europe. Our National debt is massive, and it is common sense to cut programmes hack off unnecessary limbs for the sake of the Commonwealth of all.

That would be the case if we didn't have a war on our hands. Furthermore, Greece got where they did due to absurd amounts of government spending on non-essential items or items that would not benefit the welfare of their country. Government spending to create jobs and such is essential. Thirdly, why would you want to use Greece as an example when the people there are rioting in the streets?

Better Gay Marriage in some states than Gay Marriage in none. For example, if we let the federal government, which represent all of America, to enact Gay Marriage, the chances of that are slim, as there are Religious fanaticks from the south, who represent a good part of our nation, who will block it, while if we let it to the state, the minorities, being more able to easily campaign at a local level, would be able to pass it in more states than if we let it to the government, with the specter of the southerners hanging over it.

One case that completely invalidates your point. Loving v. Virginia, 1967.

Affirmative Action, by 'positive discrimination', is bad for everyone, it is bad for the people whose merit were looked over in favour of a mediocre student whose main merit is accident of birth, it hinders entire races by encouraging mediocracy instead of industry for certain races, and, through that, proves itself racist. All people should be able to enter universities through their own merits alone, not based upon accident of birth.

That assumes that we live in a completely merit-based society where everyone is on equal footing. Furthermore, it doesn't encourage mediocrity except for anyone but the race that benefits from barriers already in place. Many of the recipients of Affirmative Action are white women, and people who benefit from Affirmative Action function at an equal or greater level than their white male coworkers because it is automatically assumed that they're not as good, so they're less deserving of this position'. It allows white (men) to think that they're more qualified and are better than they actually are and does not encourage healthy competition or actual merit. Affirmative Action policies, additionally, take a backseat to how fit a person is for a job. All it does is that it opens up a door for them that would remain closed due to discriminatory hiring/recruiting/etc. practices. Also, you disregard such practices as legacy and nepotism, which are much more numerous and accepted (gee, I wonder why?) than Affirmative Action policies.

Unborn babies, like multinational corporations, are people. To kill either is murder.
By what standard? Does life begin at conception? Does life become valid when the fetus is able to support itself outside of the womb? What about stillbirths?

The Natural Law of the Market shall always optimally allocate all resources and labourers, under the condition that it is unhindged by backward Government Regulation.
And didn't you just say up top that Laissez-Faire capitalism does not work?

Guns are good- it is in our constitution.
Except when kids are coming to schools shooting other kids and when our classrooms are rendered unsafe.

Austerity is necessy in a recession.
We aren't in a recession.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 2/2/12 , edited 2/2/12

angrierchick wrote:

No. It would actually make more wage slaves and more people living paycheck to paycheck and having to work two and three part time jobs to make ends meet. If they lose one of those jobs, they'll be in a situation where they have to cut back on essential items. This is even more-so if the people have dependents. Just because one is working doesn't mean that they aren't poor. What matters about having jobs in an economy is that these jobs are enough to provide a decent enough wage where the economy can be stimulated by purchasing miscellaneous items and money going into the country. If you're a wage slave, you won't be able to put a lot of money into the economy. Additionally, a country that is in decent financial straits has a solid middle class. With a bunch of underpaid wage slaves, your middle class will dwindle quickly.


Wages aren't stagnant. Lowering the minimum wage would allow for the lowering of wages in all employment, thereby increasing the employablity (is that even a word?) of the Labourers. What matter is not 'providing a decent wage' in this economy, but generating the most profit. By lowering minimum wage, not only are we employing people to labour, we are also allowing the Economy to take its natural course. There is something known as the Natural Rate of Unemployment in an economy, which the the percent of people who will, at any given time, be unemployed. In the short term, unemployment will decrease if you increase inflation, but it will always naturally fall onto the natural rate of unemployment, and, sometimes, it would go below that rate. By decreasing the price of labour, we are also decreasing the price of products, which would make our product once again competative. You say that this would create wage slaves and would destroy the middle class, that is completely untrue. I would cite historic examples of Laissez Faire Capitalism where the middle class actually grew in spite of Wage Slaves. That is because the Middle Class are link to the profit of the Corporations through stock, the more profitable the corporation, the more profitable the stocks, therefore, contrary to your claim, our middle class, who are usually investors as well, would profit from the lowering of minimum wages.



angrierchick wrote:

Except that corporations are being taxed at the lowest rate ever, and they're still going overseas. You assume that if everything is perfect for corporations that they'll be benevolent enough to create jobs. What matters is the bottom line, and they want to increase it.


That is because our wages are to high to be employed in such a way that would generate the most profit for the companies. We should lower taxes and get rid of the minimum wage for the Free Market will take its course.


angrierchick wrote:


That would be the case if we didn't have a war on our hands. Furthermore, Greece got where they did due to absurd amounts of government spending on non-essential items or items that would not benefit the welfare of their country. Government spending to create jobs and such is essential. Thirdly, why would you want to use Greece as an example when the people there are rioting in the streets?


War is an non-essential item, and is an item that wouldn't benefit the country, and Ron Paul is firmly against US intervention in other nations. Also, I said Europe, not Greece, which includes France, Britain, and other nations with imposition of Austerity.




angrierchick wrote:

One case that completely invalidates your point. Loving v. Virginia, 1967.


No, one case does not invalidate my point. Virginia is a southern state that is known for racism and homophobia, and it proves my point, to the contrary, that, because we have several states such fundamentalists, we are better off letting the individual states decided than letting these state impose it upon the entire union.


angrierchick wrote:

[That assumes that we live in a completely merit-based society where everyone is on equal footing. Furthermore, it doesn't encourage mediocrity except for anyone but the race that benefits from barriers already in place. Many of the recipients of Affirmative Action are white women, and people who benefit from Affirmative Action function at an equal or greater level than their white male coworkers because it is automatically assumed that they're not as good, so they're less deserving of this position'. It allows white (men) to think that they're more qualified and are better than they actually are and does not encourage healthy competition or actual merit. Affirmative Action policies, additionally, take a backseat to how fit a person is for a job. All it does is that it opens up a door for them that would remain closed due to discriminatory hiring/recruiting/etc. practices. Also, you disregard such practices as legacy and nepotism, which are much more numerous and accepted (gee, I wonder why?) than Affirmative Action policies.


We are a merit based society, our economic system is founded upon meritocracy. Unless you want to say that we are inherently different, and some people need more help than others to succeed, you are basing it entirely upon a unfounded assumption that these people are inherently inferior. Affirmative action is discrimination, place and simple, Nepotism is bad, but it works, Affirmitive Action is Nepotism foisted upon colleges and companies by the government. You say that there is discriminatory hiring and requiting practices, I would like proof of that. Companies do not hire based upon race or sex but on qualifications, because a free market, as I say once, and say so again, allocate rescources in the most optimal manner, the expidiency of the owners of corporations would lead them to hire based upon what would lead to the greatest profit, etc. Even so, if they were sexist or racist, the government hoisting affirmative action would not change their nature, they still would do everything to chase the woman or the minority away. Racism is not about forcing races to live in harmony through government intervention, but education of the mass of people.



By what standard? Does life begin at conception? Does life become valid when the fetus is able to support itself outside of the womb? What about stillbirths?


By this standard- viz. that we are getting rid of a potential labourer, whose produce may have contributed to the general commonwealth and to the wealth of the nation, and the people therein. In short, we are losing an Automaton, a means of production.


And didn't you just say up top that Laissez-Faire capitalism does not work?


Not according Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Jean Baptiste Say, James Mill, John Staurt Mill, Claude Frédéric Bastiat, et. al.


Except when kids are coming to schools shooting other kids and when our classrooms are rendered unsafe.

It is for responsible and non-mentally unstable adults to carry, not for kids.


We aren't in a recession.


Yes we are.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.