Wtf does this have to do with anything? Hes saying that after many jobs were lost Obama is claiming that he created jobs, and no one is trying to challenge him on that, instead covering a "love story".
Just another arrogant american who distorts every story to suit his political agenda. In short you are a hypocrit. You report your vitriol laced news facts with your republican glasses on. You would be far more credible if you presented the FACTS and allowed the viewer to decide the rest, rather than your obvious biases. Isn't this the beef you have with the "mainstream" media? Hypocrit ! Why do you americans think you have the right to try and distort what you are presenting?
Typical conservative white male attitude that the husband is the one who "delivered the baby". Woman deliver babies. It's going to happen whether a man is standing there or not. Get a girlfriend. One who's willing to argue with you.
Oh god he spends time with his wife?!?!? You're an utter moron. Let me make this clear you little worm, you will NEVER be a politician. You are just too stupid, plain and simple. Piss off youtube and hit the books child.
I was feeling generous toward you tonight and give you two stars instead of one.Maybe just the little funny bit at the beginning. The remainder was just like the usual nonsensical dribble you spout.
And indeed no it doesn't directly create profit, and that's all you ever think about. The world isn't only about profit and you have yet to understand that simple concept. I actually care for my fellow man, and I'm willing to give up a few bucks for that in my already wealthy life. because even though I pay about the most taxes in the world, I'm still f*cking wealthy. There are NO reasons to complain.
yes i do think about profit quite a bit. praise be the gods! but i am completely aware that the world isn't about profit. it isn't all i'm about either.
since you are willing to part with money for charity's sake then by all means go right ahead. it's a noble act. i find myself doing the same thing to a stranger in need begging for change. i always overtip the waitress. but i know where that money is going. i watched it go. but thieves removed the taxes from my paycheck. that wasn't voluntary.
Ah if we'd let it all off to "charity" you wouldn't see as much spending no. I agree they take the money wether you like it or not, but if they don't then there will be hardly no money going to division of wealth or support of the needed population. It's like you don't like red lights, but they have to be there for your own safety so you accept the fact you need to stop at a red light. It's man protecting him from himself.
the only taxes worth paying are the ones i take advantage of. all others i needn't pay. i use traffic lights on a daily basis. i've no problem with funding such things. i don't want any money, f.e., going to foreign aid. i am overtaxed, and now a by-the-mile tax for using roads is being mulled over in Congress to replace the fuel tax. ridiculous. it's vile the way one item can be taxed several times in different ways for different reasons. overtaxation isn't about the poor, it's about the rich.
Uhm yeah, you're a selfish American I get that now. You know, being selfish is not a virtue. Individuals allways lose from the cohesive and right now you are going pro individual which might help you in the end but will destroy your future in the long run. And I think this crisis is that future we talked about earlier. America is taking hits and the only reason is because of the uncontrolled ever-wanting to expand free market, and now it collapses. A deserved punishment in my eyes.
cohesion is brought about by individuals working for others for the benefit of themselves. i agree with rand, that being selfish is virtuous. universal selfishness gives aid to the individual and the collective simultaneously.
the market fluctuates naturally, never entering a prolonged state of crisis that only regulation and overspending can create. The punishment that everyone is experiencing currently is only due to gov't intervention in the marketplace.
You are so far from it it's unbelievable. Only the first sentence is true actually. We all do work for ourselves, and we pay ss for the benefit of ourselves. You just don't see that benefit part. It's easy and I've explained before so I won't explain again, here. Be selfish. The cohesive allways wins, selfishness never produces cohesiveness. Just watch.
The government? You mean corrupt banks! The stupidity of the people and the greed of the banks caused the crisis. Not the government.
yes i don't see how being forced into a ponzi scheme benefits me. you're absolutely right.
socialism isn't selfless. it's a standard for selfishness. it's the collective's selfish wishes forced upon the individual.
oh yes, i do mean currupt banks, who have their power thanks to gov't. the most corrupt bank of all, the federal reserve, has congressional power, which was bestowed upon the bank by an act of congress. the federal reserve act (1913).
You call something a ponzi scheme without actually knowing what real socialism is. But whatever, as I said before, come live in Europe and experience the benefits for yourself. There are allways downsides, but given the fact that living in America sucks even harder, I choose Europe, or maybe Canada, where they are smart enough to have socialised and it's one of the best countries to live in [check the list]. Whatever you say the facts are against you and you can't denie that. Greetz
i've no interest in social benefits, but i would like to live in europe for awhile, just for a change of culture and scenery (although that'll probably never happen). i love living in america, despite the ridiculous nationalism, and i appreciate the ability to grow up in an industrialized nation. i just don't like what that nation is becoming.
the fact that ss is a ponzi scheme is demonstrable. i can't deny it, but such a fact (among many others) stands not against me. as-salamu alayka
And who owns what is IRRELEVANT? I'm sorry but you didn't just say that? OFCOURSE that is relevant. The government doesn't own the banks, the 8 years under Bush were like HELL! You say the politicians are bad, but socialism is a structure maintained by the people! The people ARE the government. First see the difference between politicians and "the government maintaining a socialistic structure". It's not the politicians but PEOPLE working for the government that do the administration.
the gov't is ALWAYS the people, regardless of the economic system.
of course the gov't doesn't own the banks, nor should they. the US treasury is enough, but in 1913 the US gave the power to print money to a private bank. the system of debt we have today couldn't exist at the level it does without the federal reserve bank.
If my bank owns a part of your bank and your bank collapses my bakn takes a hit too. So ownership is relevant for me because if your bank fails, mine does too and my money is endangered. This international co-ownership is possible through the free market, every market is free to interrelate etc. SO the FREE MARKET caused the global crisis, and the mentality of buying on loan/risktaking caused it in America. So both those ways of thinking FAILED.
banks that are adversely affected by investments in other institutions has nothing to do with what actually caused the crisis. ownership did not cause the crisis. it is irrelevant.
what caused the crisis was debt. what caused the debt was spending. what caused the spending were socialists and fascists. what caused the socialists and fascists were the people. the failure was here. the free market has nothing to do with it.
what a skewed anology do you make? No what actually caused the crisis is pure greed. The greed of the banks caused the crisis and the stupidity of people who, as the way it goes in America, buy their house on loan and only pay out the intrest as a sort of rent. THAT CAUSED the crisis, and the international ownership of the debts MADE BY THE PEOPLE caused it to spread. So the cause is not the co-ownership, but the collapse came through the free market. And that is as clear as water.
after the great depression, socialistic systems were put in place to prevent another depression. they all failed. all regulations failed. all regulative organizations failed. why? NO system (socialist ESPECIALLY) can save a nation from debt. it WILL have to be paid, that is the only solution.
greed is relative. i could just as easily argue that greed created the economy. i'd rather not wallow in ambiguity. i'd say YOUR analogy is skewed, as your water is clouded with sediment.
I really see no point to continue this discussion as you remain blind to the obvious. Really. My words seem like totally pointless. I know you might think thesame way, the only difference is, I actually live in the system you despise, and I witnessed both systems. And in all honesty, you can't defend the old American way of living and the current system anymore. The system as applied in Europe ensures a more durable future, and if you can't see that, I fear the worst for you. Greets.
i wouldn't make any attempt to defend the current system. i don't really know what the 'old american way' is. we shall see how 'durable' european socialism is, especially next to chinese fascism. the EU nations are all in debt.
at any rate, at least you're not religious. you and i are actually subscribed to many of the same channels. i'm subscribing to yours for the fuck of it.
I don't blame you for saying that, because I know you didn't look into it, but my region, as in the Flanders, has no debt. I know that's not the country as a whole, but my country is divided and we are governed practicly as separate countries. The debts are not because of the current system, because that's the system that's getting us out of debt AND Belgium is one of the most social countries in the world, I get sick, I pay NOTHING at the docter. Can't say it's bad.
you're right, i am unaware of just about everything regarding your local gov't. i am very PRO local gov't. my issues are with the central gov't. local gov'ts here compete for federal money. it's disgusting. they should be competing for customers (residents).
i have no problem paying for a service rendered. privatization of the medical industry will allow me to do that. i know you are aware that you ARE paying for medical treatment. you pay even when nothing is wrong with you. insurance is a lie
Insurance is a lie? Right... that's because you're on the good side of healthy. When you grow some cancer tomorrow you KNOW you'll be talking different. It's not like the people who get cancer and can't pay for treatment don't deserve it... that's like seeing a homeless guy on the street dying and you say:"hey, my money, so f*ck off". Don't you see yourself what kind of a person you're putting yourself out to be with those comments?
no. i'm not on the good side of healthy. at least not according to health insurance companies, who will not allow me to have insurance without massive premiums. i'm in debt to many medical insitutions and doctors for many numbers of tests. as a matter of fact, the insurance companies said they'd pay for those tests (when i had insurance), and refused after the test was completed. i say this not to complain, but to show that someone who is on this side of things still believes in the market.
Ha. Actually you just made a great point on how the current privatized market is totall crap. The government doesn't do those things. At least not my government, and my government is crap aswell, don't be mistaken.
indeed, they aren't done by the gov't. and yes, i did make a good point on how the american managed healthcare system is total crap. partially because of the private part, but mostly because of the public part. our hc system is a blend of gov't and mega-huge corporations. not good for anyone. the private and public sectors need to remain distinct and separate. they are currently very difficult to define.
ugh.. "mostly because of the public part"... even if there is a public part, and you totally misunderstand what our healthcare in europe is or means for the people. There is only a MEGAcorporations because you only want BUSINESS and REVENUE. THAT BUSINESS AND REVENUE is bribing your POLITICS. They SCREW with the common man for their OWN BENEFIT. SOCIALISM IS THE BUSINESS OF THE PEOPLE. Get that into your head damn... remember BOTTOM-UP not TOP-DOWN.
no i get what you're saying. you just aren't correct. you're a bottom-up socialist, i'm a top-down 'businessman' (i'll assume this title for now). the relationship between business and gov't in this country is symbiotic. i do not approve. i am no fascist. the insurance lobby is why we have managed healthcare. this isn't good for doctors, who run businesses. managed hc is ANTI-business. i am all for revenues. what i oppose is oligarchy that is protected by the gov't.
ALL business is ANTI-population. You cannot denie the fact that business care ALL for profit and will cut out the workers if they can afford to be cut out. Without a workforce the economy will collapse. Securing the workforce sustaining the business is a more solid foundation for a solid economy. IT IS OBSERVABLE IN EUROPE AND IS UNDENIABLY WORKING. bottom-up, not top-down.
business is anything but anti population. business only works when consumer demands are met. businesses get their profits, and the people get their products. i don't see how that's unfair. the workforce is secure in a good economy. the workforce isn't secure in a bad economy. it never will be. business exists for the owner's purpose. no other reason. the survival of business is much more important than employment. without business there are no workers.
Yes I'm not saying they are directly anti-pop or that its their intent, but as I said their goal is PROFIT and they will gladly do whatever it takes even get rid of loads of workers to stay in the profit. Ofcourse if you let the workers dangling after that, don't help them finding a new job, don't support them financially when they need to, it would be DRAMATIC for that guy's family. That's why I pay for SS, so he that got cut gets his life back he worked hard for for many years...
societies are not responsible for individuals. you can't resolve a bad economy by spending money to help individuals. that is one of the most counter-productive things you could possibly do. a reduction in gov't services is the logical approach. let the individuals have their money. let them put it back into the economy. many will lose their jobs and there will be major hardship. it's not that i don't care, as i have to endure as well. the market works much faster and more effeciently.
insurance companies are the main reason why health care costs are so high. when you pool money, members will have no problem spending other people's money. this drives up costs. it works exactly the same way with social health insurance. healthcare costs are going up in every country with socialized healthcare OR managed healthcare. insurance is the reason for high prices. if there were no insurance and the bureaucracy were dismantled, prices would fall and keep falling.
Health Care IS an insurance "company" only in this case that company is the government. Remember! Those private companies want to make MONEY ON YOU, the government DOES NOT. That's why the government will treat you fair when you get sick. I agree that there are loafers, but you need to weed them out there are ways for that, and we apply them here too. Ofc. you'll never get rid of all of them we don't live in utopia.
i know gov't healthcare is insurance. that was my point. i'm speaking about insurance companies in general, including the gov't. healthcare costs still go UP when the gov't is the insurer. i am fully aware that insurance companies want to make money on me. that is why they shouldn't exist at their current capacity, if even at all. the gov't empowers them with the current system. under any insured healthcare system, prices will inflate inevitably higher.
Well yes the prices go up because the people are getting older and older. It's because of the post-WW2 babyboom. Currently the rate at which babies are born is keeping us steady but this wasn't allways the case. We're heading for a bump in the road but it's still sustainable. Some prices here are lower then yours so WHAT on earth are you talking about? Look at the facts... don't go from your "if this... then that..."-logic.
there are actually a few reasons why prices go up. i'll gladly cover them if you'd like. and i would expect some prices there to be lower. our system is worse off, and our currency is being inflated like never before. but this isn't a bump in the road, at least not here. and you can't remove the bump by spending money. this problem is so huge it could actually obliterate the US economically. just this ONE problem.
Well I was talking about the increase of elders where the social system in Europe currently has some problems with. Actually even though it is kind of paradox the problem is also the solution. Because we have more people able to take part in society we get relief on national debt, but the increment of elders relying on their pension and increment in elder sickness in need of treatment is driving the cost up. Without the elders there would be balance. That's the current bump.
i was actually trying to include the increase in elders within the context of my comment, but it isn't even remotely apparent. i apologize for that. intent and action aren't always equal. what i'm saying is that the baby boom generation is one of the main reasons for the out of control ss and subsidized medicine costs. it would be out of control nonetheless, but the retirement of such a large generation is hastening the inevitable.
Look no, the increase of elders is the ONLY reason why ss here is "out of control". The increase now is because of the crisis and as I said before SS is securing the workforce AND businesses they can work in. We secured the banks and we are going uphill again. America is going downhill still. We are out of debt and the poor/rich gap is WAY smaller than in America. Which systems WORKS do you think?
the problem in america is FAR worse than that of europe. retiring baby boomers alone would threaten the stability of the economy, even if the economy were in relatively good shape. if there isn't reform, ss alone will grow to dominate the budget. the best reform is to abolish ss.
which system works? europe isn't exactly funding two wars simultaneously. america should never have gone to war in the 1st place. the economy would still be bad, but not this bad.
It doesn't mean that my country or region is small that it's "local" in Belgium there are about 14 governments and it's the size of maryland...
I also pay for services rendered, but at least here I'm sure the service will actually be rendered when the need arises, and privatized medicine is an ABSOLUTE scam because often enough people get rejected medical aid even for common LIFETHREATENING diseases. Please, don't defend privatized medicine it's absolutely crap.
And the Chinese may be more powerfull economically in the long run, but I'm talkng about the population living a worthy life, and China doesn't meet that standard. And no we're not religious, luckaly. The old American way that it must be big to be good, wastefull of resources, being rich on the outside, but having to scrap to pay the rent at the end of the month. I know you don't defend your government, but I don't like people shitting on something they don't know, like socialism.
the lack of religious influence is one of many things that i appreciate about europe. in america the religious influence is sickening. it literally makes me want to vomit. i live in the south, where it encompasses almost every aspect of life from birth to death. i'm trying not to vent too much here so i can stay on topic...
as far as the old american way goes: your definition is a dead read and is descriptive of any populace. there is no real american way. there never was. it's just propaganda.
Every people has its way of living, so there is also an American way of living. I don't want to generalise and this goes for alot of people in Europe too, but it's mainly about the need to consume that sickens me. I can point out dozens of people that are far more happy with far less then what we have in "wealth" as you describe it. Happiness cannot be materialised, but the American way and the American economy drives on that. BTW The only good religion is no religion.
yes, there are many happy people who have little. perhaps their general lack of ambition (not a negative trait) is attributable to their genetic predisposition. i agree that happiness is not material. to me it is something that is only attained in brief moments, much like an orgasm or a high (just a comparison) it makes the rest of life worth living.
the pursuit of happiness should drive an economy. it is the most efficient vehicle.
I lack ambition, and yet I'm pretty happy generally. The thing is I get the OPPORTUNITY to do what I want and that's SOCIALISM *REPEATING* and reaching my full potential which I believe I'm doing, I help society, I'm productive...
Yes ofcourse, people can't be happy all the time, but you can't let destiny just take control like wild bullets in a gunfight. If you don't get hit or less likely to get hit you scream YAY while the rest is biting the dust, but hey WHO CARES? right... ?
well, i don't believe in destiny, and by 'destiny' i think you were saying 'chance', because i doubt you believe in destiny either. but chance is all there is.
a lot of the time the winner of a competition is only so due to the fact that the outcome was the subject of another's expert opinion. if i don't get hit i do scream YAY, and yes, who ultimately cares? sure i'll call the paramedics for them and see if they're ok. but all in all i don't care (unless i know them).
Also a lack of ambition is not "genetically predisposed" that's a load of crap. 80% of your being comes through your education, and education=opportunity you create through knowledge, but you can also create opportunity through finance, and where does finance come from for those who: are inable to work. are inable to get a decent job. are inable to go to school and get crappy jobs...? WHERE? If we'd let you loose, alot of people would suffer as long as you're doing great...
tone isn't very obvious in text, as my genetic predisposition comment was meant to be recognizably ironic.
life isn't fair. there will always be those who are more educated and less educated. there will always be those who have crappy jobs with crappy pay. low demand jobs are in the highest supply, so most people are going to be low demand, expendable producers. it's a social necessity. there will always be suffering. it's a competition. there will always be MORE losers and FEW winners.
Yes I agree life works that way. In nature it's exactly thesame. But we broke loose from nature. Humans can be compassionate towards eachother. Humans thrived and survived because they are group animals, and in terms of modern society, you would let down your group if a group member is hurt. The only difference is is that today the group is giganticly big. Thinking in terms of winners and losers is A way but it doesn't have to be.
you are saying that humans 'broke loose from nature', but i do not see it. everything is natural, even synthetic materials are ultimately natural. i see the complexity of human society as nothing more than an extension of nature. i see organic systems working to preserve themselves. that is the way i see businesses. it is nature on a level beyond what so many consider natural, when, in reality, everything is natural, even the artificial.
Now you're actually just stretching the defenition but that is not the topic... the thing is that we do perform our own deeds and you must be able to recognise that society benefits us. So helping society=society helping us that's the bottomline. Ofcourse, I wouldn't pay for social security if I didn't get something from it directly, but indirectly I also know it makes a stable economy able to take setbacks. America can't take the setback as we're witnessing.
society is very beneficial, i do recognize that. and i agree that 'helping society=society helping us'. that is why i am so pro business: business helps society. i don't think programs like ss help society. i think they hurt society. how can you put money into a fund and not make a profit? long term investment is about MAKING money. you don't make money with ss, you create debt, and society loses as a result.
and no, america can't take the setback. but whaddya gonna do, eh?
Yes you don't think it helps us and you're thinking wrong. As said before Belgium creates about the best students in the world. Not only the ones who can afford good schools but also the ones with the capability and less money get to go to school. More educated people= a better society. Knowledge is power and people don't say that for nothing, it's very serious. That's one of the reasons why Belgium as a small country is, in perspective, taken serious.
yes, i have acknowledged the belgian education system as i am aware of how it works. it hasn't failed to impress even me. however, i do not believe that the money needs to come from society as a whole. there is no difference between attaching money to children and having an affordable school. competition drives down prices if it is allowed to do so (i'm talking about american schools here), and the gov't doesn't need to act as a middleman with taxation.
No indeed. The American system works to some degree and America holds some of the finest schools in the world. I never said the American system is an absolutely flawed system because else it wouldn't have been where it is now. But alot of the people in America are poor, and I'm concerned about that. I agree if you are poor you need the initiative, but ALOT of people are jsut STUCK in their situation and they need that social aid.
In other words. A happy person is a person that has everything he needs to survive and maybe a bit more, and friends, family and a proper life to live, being free. If you get that, and not the fact we need to KEEP and HOLD ON to the money we have [which is alot in the first place], you'll understand why I vote socialistic and generally left.
your version of happy and my version of happy differ. i just don't see it as something that is permanently attainable. i don't think it should be. it isn't that i want to live in an unhappy world. i just don't want to live in a perfect world.
the average consumer doesn't have a lot of money. they spend like the gov't. they are sheep, and they deserve to be where they are. if we held onto our money we would be happiER (not necessarily happy).
Then stop saying the government is the source of all evil because the people ARE the government and the people isn't going to cheat itself THE EXAMPLES ARE THERE!!! So STOP saying the government is a bad caretaker for money because when it comes to money intended for return to the community they sure won't waste that money on something else, and if they do then your whole government is corrupt, but don't crap on the best f*cking system there is: socialism.
yes, the gov't is corrupt. and yes, i will crap on socialism.
i do not believe that the gov't is the source of all evil, but the people do cheat themselves. they always cheat themselves. the politicians convince them to do so. it makes me sick as to how lacking the political debate is these days. republicans are fascists and the democrats are socialists. no real difference. it's all just tinkering with a fucked up system. no one wants to change it.
You surely have a vision that does not cope with reality because reality in Europe is the opposite of what you're saying, that the government or socialism is anti-business which is absolutely false, since business here thrive MORE then in America, with the union being the BIGGEST economy in the world. I don't have to explain it even, since Europe is the proof you're wrong.
yes, the eu is the biggest economy in the world. that says nothing, however. the USA is the biggest national economy in the world, and that also says absolutely NOTHING. both economies are business friendly when compared with most of the world. but they are BOTH becoming less and less friendly to business. right now china and india are taking most of the manufacturing jobs in europe AND america. our economies are increasingly service-based.
Aha so it says nothing at all then? Then why doesn't Africa stand up for its rights and takes up arms to defend those rights? I guess economy DOES mean something. However, between America and Europe this doesn't mean much, no, but it SURE DOES against the REST of the world! You are just one-lining the argument about us being business unfriendly. We have OTHER strongpoints to keep businesses here instead of only thinking that regulations keep or chase away those businesses...
And also, indeed the ones who voted on the winner shouldn't complain either, but in general complaining and saying "I don't want to vote" or "I don't care to vote" is contradictive, because then, where you have the chance to actually say something about your politician's actions, you lay silent... Personally I believe Obama was the best candidate even though Clinton was good too, but she quit on that solid healthcare plan a few years back [stupid b*tch :)]
well, i did have a horse in the race, but he lost the republican primary. but choosing between mccain and obama was like being allowed to choose the method of my execution. i don't want to be executed. you can't say anything by voting if you are voting against yourself. i think it gives me the right to complain and to try to do something about it. in the words of rush (the band): if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.
Well I must say that your band is wrong. The choice to "not choose"... doesn't make sense if you put it that way... Even though, for you, you had to choose between two evils, you msut choose the lesser one. And again this is a result of the skewed American system: only 2 parties to really choose from. In Belgium I have around 5 - 6 parties I can choose from which gives me more freedom to get my opinions on the table.
if course it isn't wrong. if you do not choose, you have concluded your decision, therefore you have chosen not to choose. in this case, choosing the lesser of two evils is a compromise that i am not willing to make. i have nothing to gain as a result of this choice. as far as i'm concerned, the democrats and the republicans are two parties in one. my choice is between evil or nothing. i choose nothing.
Your logic is absolutely flawed on this matter. You cannot choose the NOT CHOOSE because it's not the choice between what there can be chosen but you reject to make a choice between those, so it's NOT a choice. No choice is NOT a choice. It's like saying doing nothing is doing something, but doing nothing remains doing nothing it's the antonym of something. Not choosing is the antonym of choosing so it can never be a choice. You're just shifting it one step back an call it a choice.
it's literally impossible to do nothing. action is always applicable.
the act of CHOOSING in this situation has actually been committed. if i HAD to choose, then not choosing wouldn't be a choice. but it is, and i chose it.
everyone chooses. but a very large number of people choose not to choose. why should i compromise my values for no benefit whatsoever? that isn't even a compromise. that's submission.
the man i supported would have benefited me. the other two do not. i don't see voting for him as submission, because i am not opposing my values. our values were 90% similar (maybe 10% submission, i will cede that. but i can live with such a compromise).
total collapse probably isn't far off. many economists have predicted it. i have heard a handful speak of the dollar being comparable to the weimar republic's mark. i'm not trying to be chicken little, but i'm doing what i can just in case.
Then it's hard to swallow that maybe one of the candidates only supports 10% of your ideas, but then at least you have voted for that 10%! One of them will get elected anyway! So if everybody thinks in this way the election will allways support only a minority of the people!
You don't know what I mean by complete chaos, I mean COMPLETE chaos maybe in caps it comes down to you more clear.
i looked over the two candidates. i hated mccain from the beginning. i agreed with obama on some points, but it wasn't even CLOSE to enough. i agree with obama about .5% of the time.
no i meant COMPLETE chaos too. ABSOLUTELY COMPLETELY HORRIFYING, BITCH-SLAPPING CHAOS. i think that encompasses it.
indeed it does. i'm free to speak, and no vote of mine contributed to the economic chaos we're experiencing. not voting for the right reasons is always good. i recommend everyone do it, but most people will vote for the wrong reasons, like party affiliation. i won't play that game. john mccain won my state easily. i knew he would. i live in texas. if i HAD voted it would have been a write-in, and that doesn't always count, depending on the state. not sure about tx.
No you should allways vote, in the worst case, for the LESSER of two evils, my analogy earlier CLEARLY shows that. I think this point is clear that VOTING is allways better then NOT voting.
i'm sorry, but i cannot cede this point to you. i disagree completely.
this next point is off-topic, but if there were a unifying force that united an entire society, the economy might be revived. f.e. ww2. in america it united the entire society, and all efforts went into the war machine, and it restored the economy. the world could do the same thing, but not with war, but with space exploration. that would be an excellent unifying factor.
well yes, but you agree on things that requires NO effort from your side, the unification of nations for space exploration which would indeed be a great thing, but the unfieing of a social installation is completely out of the question for you, because it requires some effort from your side, EVEN THOUGH it greatly helps society. I know you disagree on that, but I need not to say anything further and just point out the example of the opposite of your view, here in Europe.
but that is incorrect. the majority of cooperation between private entities and public entities during ww2 was voluntary. fdr won some gov't controls, but fortunately he had to deal with a very conservative congress.
i am willing to make effort, but only if the effort benefits me. for example, i can't opt out of a gov't program. so i have to pay for what i'll never use so other people can use it. for example, i have no problems paying taxes on roads. driving is my only mode of transportation.
Again choosing between what is MOST suitable doesn't allways mean you are choosing for something absolutely good. It's like saying I'm going to choose between smoking and shooting myself with a gun and the most lethal one is the worst choice. Ofcourse you can say "I wont choose" but in this case not only YOU choose but EVERYbody chooses, so it's best you actually DO make a choice and choose smoking.
America will stay global I'm sure, but NATO a desire for imperialism? THat's pretty absurd seen that not America alone has f.e. veto rights which I find stupid in the first place, but I think NATO can have its purpose. I'd rather see a combined European state first before NATO decides to be more "decisive" in their actions rather then doing their job half-assed. But as I said NATO has its purposes.
i wasn't saying that nato itself is an imperialistic entity. i'm saying powerful nations like the usa use their alliances to promote their interests, most of the time at the expense of the less-powerful member-states. these alliances are counter-productive. the EU and NAFTA are other examples of alliances that exploit the weaker member-states. these alliances are not necessary for a successful global market. standardization does not equal efficiency.
Ofcourse they do, like all nations do, that's natural and understandable, but ti's not the primairy goal of NATO. America pulls and pushes and so do other nations. It's just the unfair dividing of power within the NATO that gives America advantages over others which is wrong, but the concept of NATO is, actually, very good. It's a control to excessiveness in all forms within the world. It concerns making a consus about things happening in the world, f.e. N-Korea
the ideal control to excess is the free market, for example, where supply and demand naturally regulate excess.
conceptually, i fail to see the benefit of NATO. like i said, weaker member-states are exploited. they're just like welfare recipients, but they receive their own version of false security. the security of the western world is no safer with nato than without nato.
Well the suppliers can affect the demand very strongly and monopolies have their branches of "demand" all over the world. It's the human nature they are exploiting and they know there is allways going to be a demand. If you only care about the western world you're a pretty narrow minded, bigoted and racist person. We should ensure the safety of MANKIND and not only be selfish.
i don't care about the western or eastern or southern or northern world. i am EXTREMELY selfish, which is a virtuous trait. at least i admit it. 99.9% of all humans are as selfish as i am. you, for example. you are satiated by your own compassion. you are greedy. you want to trample on others for the sake of the trampled. racism? bigotry? that was a very funny statement considering the fact that you know me only through text. if you knew me better, you wouldn't have made such a comment.
That may be so, but then again I can only make my judgement upon what you add here as arguments and derived from your arguments I think that's a spot on conclusion. I am selfish in a way, and like JP Sartre says it "Hell are the others"... only other people can denie you your freedom but by taking your own freedom all the way you denie the freedom of others. Sometimes it's necessairy to take into account how your actions affect others, so you can't be 99.9% selfish all your life.
i am a very compassionate man. but i pride myself on being selfish. my society lacks it. selfishness and greed greased the wheels that drove this country to success. and i'm not talking about the horrific slaughter of the native americans or the enslavement of blacks. manifest destiny was a pile of shit. i'm talking about industry. the USA was what china is now, sans the bullshit communist rhetoric in a fascist china.
I hate to disagree. The abolishment of slavery is an absolute act against selfishness and the economy, both of the European traders and the American exploiters, kept flourishing. In any case, yes selfishnes did give boosts to our eceonomy, to the expense of 3/4th of the other part of humanity. If you can live with that, you're a monster, nothing less nothing more. Again it's just a conclusion from your argument, I believe you saying you're a compassionate and maybe cool guy.
but you aren't disagreeing. i honestly don't think that abolition of slavery was an overall bust to the economy. it was bad for the south until the market reacted after reconstruction. a free market (libertarian society) is anti-slave.
when the economy was boosted, it wasn't to the detriment of the poor. it was the other way around. industry provided jobs and cheaper goods that the poor never had access to before. of course many got rich. they deserved it.
a libertarian society has a lot of problems with slavery. when america tolerated slavery, it was hypocrisy. americans recognized that a LONG time ago. capitalism is not a personality. what i promote is a libertarian society, and as i define it, such a society would be powered by the free market.
it already IS powered by the free market and it's the FREE MARKET that failed us, and it isn't the first time it did either. As a once wise scholar named Socrates once said "Find a system/point that works, make exceptions to the rule, then slightly change the system". This crisis is the downside of the free market, so the free market must be adjusted in a way that helps us deal with crisis, seeing that Europe has the least problems, Europe's system must be working, no?
how has the free market contributed to the current economic state? honestly, i need someone to actually explain this to me sensibly. i've seen no evidence that the free market is the culprit. i have already explained to you the reason for this crisis. it's called debt, and the free market cannot be held accountable for debt. US debt, for example, comes from an increasingly leftist social policy when democrats are in power, and an increasingly fascist policy when republicans are in power.
Because the free market has given businesses the opportunity to expand tremendously, which is, if all goes well a good thing generally. Now when the housing market in America crashed the banks failed. European banks that have investments in American banks subsequently crashed aswell. The fact that OUR banks can have part ownership in YOUR banks is because of the free market. If this was not the case, only America would face this crisis, like it did for the most part in the 30's.
and why do you think the housing market failed? it wasn't the free market, and who owns what is irrelevant.
the housing market bubble was wrought with bad debt due to excessive lending. do you know who encouraged the excessive lending? i'll tell you: the gov't. the gov't encouraged the lending because the credit was available and it was considered unfair that some couldn't get loans just because they couldn't afford them. and yes, the gov't offered an incentive for those who made bad loans.
Because the banks think only about profit. The economy in America is based on risk taking. Americans take on loans they are not entirely sure they can pay off, and now the world gets the result. The free market was not able to sustain the setback and we know the results. It was not a direct free market problem, but it grew in an atmosphere in the idea that unlimited wealth is possible, and it's not. It's a case of overstretching, and capitalism overstretched, and THAT is the free market problem.
banks have never desired to make bad loans. bad loans are NOT profitable in the long term. even after all of the interest, most people who take bad loans won't be able to pay them off. it is inevitable that the bubble will collapse. most bankers understand that. they aren't stupid.
the free market is EASILY able to sustain the 'setback'. the PROBLEM is that the gov't is SUPPORTING the bad debt. THAT is why the crisis is ongoing. they aren't allowing the free market to work.
In any case you are very contradictory, because socialism provides more leverage to the people, while you don't trust politics and choose to stay "an individual". Individuals allways loose against groups. Coming out as a group makes you stronger. History proves that for me.
Yes, even you as an American tourist will benefit from the security net, while when I go to America I need an extra policy with EuropeAssistance that ensures my well being because I will be left to DIE when I happen to get into an accident. THAT is socialism, not some boogyman taking away individualism, which I find a despicable selfish word to use even. You obviously a) don't know sh*t about socialism and/or b) you don't care a f*ck about your fellow human being.
i know a hell of a lot about socialism. socialists are always telling non-socialists that they don't know what they are talking about and that they don't understand. of course i understand. but here is what you aren't able to see, and this is happening in europe and america. there is NO end to gov't. socialists always speak of limitations, but they NEVER know when to stop.
Well by reading your "argument" it's self-evident you don't know anything about it. It's not that I just want to put you down. By saying "you're wrong" doesn't mean I'm ACTUALLY wrong. Socialism works and there hasn't been a change in our system for fourty years so again what you're saying is or a lie or it's because you're uninformed and since I allways believe the best of people I won't pick the worst of the two.
but it doesn't work. the budget of EU member-states, for example are VERY strained. just like in america, the revenues from taxes do not cover the costs. just like in america, more money has to be printed as a result. and just like the dollar, the euro and the pound are being devalued over the long term. europe isn't even spending massive sums money on wasteful wars like the US gov't. some officials there advocate a single world currency. what do you think?
No a single world currency, THAT would decrease competition, if you're so competitive minded. The euro has been doing better then the dollar ever since it was launched. I won't say it won't do worse ever from now on, but I think the general trend will be the euro over the dollar. You want to know why our economy is strained? Because of the increased age, not simply because of socialism. Because of the baby-boom post WW2 we now have alot of elderlings and less young ones to cover the cost.
i agree with you on the currency issue. as a matter of fact i think there should be more currencies to compete with the ones that are diminishing within a society. in america there have been real attempts to create new currencies (not recognized as legal tender), which is not illegal under any american law. the gov't seized the currency anyway.
our economy or yours is strained because of debt. that is it, whether it's debt to another nation or debt to the elderly.
And as long as the government handles it correctly we can survive the increase in elder populations, and that's a temporary problem, a partly competitive/socialistic structure in the long run in general circumstances is the best current known system for a society. And yes you fought wars, we did too. That's, by the way, your own fault. Don't use that as an argument because we were smart BEFORE the war started and didn't join, you complain afterwards!
the problem is there's no money AND the older generations are increasing. if i could take the money i put into ss and invest it in ANYTHING, i'd have a better chance of having some retirement money.
i was always against the war. it is 0% my fault. just for the record.
Well just saying 'there is no money' isn't enough, what's the cause we have no money? Less active population, more inactive population. Also, the desire for businesses to keep growing and the increasing efficiency in doing that is DESTROYING our world both economically AND ecologically. Permanent growth is IMPOSSIBLE and this crisis proves that, and "money" and "growth" are the only true desires of capitalism and it fails again after the great depression. So reform.
the problem once again is a lack of incentive. when big business lacks incentive to keep manufacturing jobs in america, they outsource the jobs. i would do the same thing if i ran a business. a business doesn't exist to employ, but they understand that employees are consumers. they don't hate anyone. american social policy has moved steadily left since ww2. this has driven business away. businesses go where they can compete. manufacturing cannot compete here.
Social policy does NOT drive away businesses and having a more global social policy would be better for this world and it's inhabitants. We have other means to keep businesses here, mainly because we are the biggest consumers. Once the now low-pay countries become consumers aswell, they will also become less attractive for these business plus we still have the experience and education on our side. These calculations you forget.
it is not a matter of waiting for development in underdeveloped nations, as they will only develop as they are allowed. manufacturing jobs WILL return to america. we only need to wait for costs to outweigh production in foreign lands. that will happen, but only as a natural result of the market, not social reform.
Maybe but what did you do to stop it? I know one person can do nothing but why doesn't America spoke against it as a people and nation? First you have Bush Sr., republican - war, you vote democrat, Clinton, you do very well... you vote Bush jr., republican... war. You vote Obama - better international relations [at least that's the plan]. Why are you so pro-right wing thoughts but anti-war, and then still vote republicans in office? Some republican idea's are just retarded, bigoted and selfish.
actually, under clinton we had an unnecessary war in kosovo (i realize it was NATO, but it doesn't matter). as a matter of fact, the USA has been in a constant state of war since WW2, some say since the spanish-american war (1899ish). you vote democrat or republican you get unnecessary war. i am neither democrat nor republican. i hate them equally. democrats are too far left, republicans are fascists.
Well NATO isn't America, and yes it does matter. But that aside, if you think the democrats in America are "too left" you wouldn't want to come to Europe, even though it generally is better living here, since the more right-wing political parties here are even more left then American democrats. It has served us well, and it will keep serving the birthplace of modern civilisation for many years to come. note that Europe has been a world power for centuries, America has not, and already crumbling.
america's entangled in useless alliances like nato, which really only serve to satiate american imperial interests. i don't like the american empire. it must dissolve.
the american empire IS crumbling, as it follows the route of other recent empires, like the british or soviet empires, for example. america will always be a major power on a global scale, but its domination will surely diminish, most likely to be overtaken by china.
btw, i'd like to visit europe one day, despite the socialism.
You are correct on most points. There is alot of correption and lobbies to control much of American politics. They don't necessairly want to keep the people down but more serve their own interests, like no socialism, because socialism means increased taxes for the monopoly businesses wherever they sell their products [and they cannot NOT sell their products here].
in the free market, a monopoly cannot survive unless it is allowed to survive by gov't. supply and demand always renders a playable system. there are many ways gov'ts have allowed monopoly to thrive: one of the main life support systems for a corporate monopoly are public regulations, which work in favor of big business, all the while promoted as beneficial to the working person. these regulations are exploitative, serving only the monopoly.
The government cannot decide to stop businesses or monopoly since that would be governing against their own system. Regulation isn't necessairly in favour of a monopoly, but America's regulations do. That's why you need to reform to a more SOCIAL structure = anti-monopoly and pro-civilian...
the gov't can easily decide to stop monopoly/oligarchy. a monopoly cannot truly exist in a free market. anyone can compete. we have laws that prevent unilateral control over an entire industry. we had these laws long before the welfare/warfare state. the ONLY entity with the power to sustain a monopoly is the gov't. what is pro-civilain? we need to be pro business. gov't reguations are anti-business, but they inevitably benefit the powerful, as they reduce competition.
No they cannot. Monopolies are worldwide so you'd need tons of governments doing that PLUS government is dependant on monopolies for economic matters. Microsoft have practicly a UNILATERAL control over the software industry. No the government cannot control monopolies, it's more the other way around if even so. We need to be PRO-civilian which is SUPPORT from below instead of suspending bussinesses who can choose to drop the ones hanging below.
once again, monopolies are worldwide because if GOVERNMENT. what do you think allows huge businesses to rule over entire industries in many nations? it's called 'free trade', which is NOT free market capitalism. it is based on MASSIVE amounts of regulation that favor only the businesses that influence power. the EU and NAFTA and the AU and any other trade bloc you can think of are examples of gov't allowing monopoly. you don't support civilians, you support BUSINESS and COMPETITION.
No I don't, because I voted on the socialist party last election 2 weeks ago. They are a labour party, they stand up for the ordinairy workmen. "Free trade" is just a free market component... so wha? "free trade -> free market"... duh... Governments allow monoplies ofcourse because they depend on them and they are within rule, that does NOT MAKE IT RIGHT the way they act. BTW in Belgium as I said regulation is PRO civilian and works from the ground up not from the roof down like in America...
obama is spending time with his wife
OH NO he should be impeached
penold3 11 months ago
@penold3
Wtf does this have to do with anything? Hes saying that after many jobs were lost Obama is claiming that he created jobs, and no one is trying to challenge him on that, instead covering a "love story".
serialkiller1990 7 months ago
Just another arrogant american who distorts every story to suit his political agenda. In short you are a hypocrit. You report your vitriol laced news facts with your republican glasses on. You would be far more credible if you presented the FACTS and allowed the viewer to decide the rest, rather than your obvious biases. Isn't this the beef you have with the "mainstream" media? Hypocrit ! Why do you americans think you have the right to try and distort what you are presenting?
IncognitoShhh 11 months ago
Keep telling it like it is and remember...
If you want to make a conservative mad lie to him
If you want to make a liberal mad tell them the truth
TheMrLiberty 1 year ago
fake an gay
risheeboy 1 year ago
Typical conservative white male attitude that the husband is the one who "delivered the baby". Woman deliver babies. It's going to happen whether a man is standing there or not. Get a girlfriend. One who's willing to argue with you.
BiggEarrl 1 year ago
This is sad.
loyfah 1 year ago
Oh god he spends time with his wife?!?!? You're an utter moron. Let me make this clear you little worm, you will NEVER be a politician. You are just too stupid, plain and simple. Piss off youtube and hit the books child.
BlaineDeschain 2 years ago
You have the charisma of a school bus fire and provide the objectivity of Fox News, do us all a favour and get a real job.
iCipher 2 years ago
Your a dumb jew and your gay... No one likes you or your gay peice of shit videos... Eat some shit and then die...
adamalden 2 years ago
I hate him too, but be more articulate.
HHRB0664 2 years ago
Hey genius, talk about cheats...you cheating genius. Lee Doran, cheating genious. When is youtube going to catch up to you?
TouchOfGreatness 2 years ago
This is fun.
On the other hand it shows that not only the health system needs to be redone but the school system as well.
D4l4m4r 2 years ago
It would be good if you could cite sources like other videos and the like or at least point in the direction to check out your claims.
joscobo 2 years ago
2:11 ... no you are.
WorldOfHumanWreckage 2 years ago
Just because there were those jobs that were lost does not mean that 150,000 were not created dumbass.
MoNsTeRHoGGeR 2 years ago
I've never watch somebody so stupid taking himself so seriously. KEEP UP!!!!!!! hahahaha
MihaZ 2 years ago
Hi, "Genius".
Thanks for providing Thunderf00t content to amuse us with.
mrfoxtalbot 2 years ago 3
You need to be on fox news, the only place you would seem to fit in....
RoCkErX285 2 years ago
I'm Australian and I even know he's talking bullshit about American politics.
GonzoZodiac 2 years ago
man your so boring.all i heard was bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla blaaaa
911SeekingTheTruth 2 years ago
I agree this is fucking rubbish.
GonzoZodiac 2 years ago 2
I was feeling generous toward you tonight and give you two stars instead of one.Maybe just the little funny bit at the beginning. The remainder was just like the usual nonsensical dribble you spout.
desertblbuesman 2 years ago
He's not on a boat. . .
jwil2570 2 years ago
wow you're dumb.
chronus671 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
suck my ass
typesloweatpho 2 years ago
Wao! thats your come back? You need to learn some manners. As an atheist I say peace is key for Paradise.
Charlymaumushi 2 years ago
Dude, you're fucking retarded. Good god how the hell did you get this popular? Fucking idiocracy...
spleenblender 2 years ago 4
I'm guessing that you watch Fox news.
THEL33THAXOR 2 years ago 4
nice background , to bad about that guy blabbering in the foreground.
dryduck 2 years ago 4
U SUCK
ImAllFact 2 years ago 5
Complete drivel. Nice backgroud though. No subscription from me though. Aren't you the sock account guy? You don't need subs dude, you make them!
PrinceBishop3 2 years ago 6
Lee, if you're really trying to make money, I think you'd be better off just sucking Glenn Beck's dick.
terminaldeity 2 years ago 8
@terminaldeity Kudos for not removing this comment Lee, shows you appreciate our right to free speech.
Also I think sucking Glenn Beck's dick is probably an inefficient method of producing capital. Not that, that could stop you --BA-ZING!
sugarface88 1 year ago
This guy has NO idea what he's talking about.
alextheangry02 2 years ago 5
ASS HATS!
rmac40 2 years ago
Ohh your so fucking stupid :P
narf126 2 years ago 4
The planet is spinning in the correct direction , you're a GENIUS .
Tyrael71 2 years ago
Comment removed
Salmo77 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Right on Man!!! This is a great Video
musicprodave 2 years ago
And indeed no it doesn't directly create profit, and that's all you ever think about. The world isn't only about profit and you have yet to understand that simple concept. I actually care for my fellow man, and I'm willing to give up a few bucks for that in my already wealthy life. because even though I pay about the most taxes in the world, I'm still f*cking wealthy. There are NO reasons to complain.
Subher0 2 years ago
yes i do think about profit quite a bit. praise be the gods! but i am completely aware that the world isn't about profit. it isn't all i'm about either.
since you are willing to part with money for charity's sake then by all means go right ahead. it's a noble act. i find myself doing the same thing to a stranger in need begging for change. i always overtip the waitress. but i know where that money is going. i watched it go. but thieves removed the taxes from my paycheck. that wasn't voluntary.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
Ah if we'd let it all off to "charity" you wouldn't see as much spending no. I agree they take the money wether you like it or not, but if they don't then there will be hardly no money going to division of wealth or support of the needed population. It's like you don't like red lights, but they have to be there for your own safety so you accept the fact you need to stop at a red light. It's man protecting him from himself.
Subher0 2 years ago
the only taxes worth paying are the ones i take advantage of. all others i needn't pay. i use traffic lights on a daily basis. i've no problem with funding such things. i don't want any money, f.e., going to foreign aid. i am overtaxed, and now a by-the-mile tax for using roads is being mulled over in Congress to replace the fuel tax. ridiculous. it's vile the way one item can be taxed several times in different ways for different reasons. overtaxation isn't about the poor, it's about the rich.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
Uhm yeah, you're a selfish American I get that now. You know, being selfish is not a virtue. Individuals allways lose from the cohesive and right now you are going pro individual which might help you in the end but will destroy your future in the long run. And I think this crisis is that future we talked about earlier. America is taking hits and the only reason is because of the uncontrolled ever-wanting to expand free market, and now it collapses. A deserved punishment in my eyes.
Subher0 2 years ago 3
cohesion is brought about by individuals working for others for the benefit of themselves. i agree with rand, that being selfish is virtuous. universal selfishness gives aid to the individual and the collective simultaneously.
the market fluctuates naturally, never entering a prolonged state of crisis that only regulation and overspending can create. The punishment that everyone is experiencing currently is only due to gov't intervention in the marketplace.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
You are so far from it it's unbelievable. Only the first sentence is true actually. We all do work for ourselves, and we pay ss for the benefit of ourselves. You just don't see that benefit part. It's easy and I've explained before so I won't explain again, here. Be selfish. The cohesive allways wins, selfishness never produces cohesiveness. Just watch.
The government? You mean corrupt banks! The stupidity of the people and the greed of the banks caused the crisis. Not the government.
Subher0 2 years ago 2
yes i don't see how being forced into a ponzi scheme benefits me. you're absolutely right.
socialism isn't selfless. it's a standard for selfishness. it's the collective's selfish wishes forced upon the individual.
oh yes, i do mean currupt banks, who have their power thanks to gov't. the most corrupt bank of all, the federal reserve, has congressional power, which was bestowed upon the bank by an act of congress. the federal reserve act (1913).
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
You call something a ponzi scheme without actually knowing what real socialism is. But whatever, as I said before, come live in Europe and experience the benefits for yourself. There are allways downsides, but given the fact that living in America sucks even harder, I choose Europe, or maybe Canada, where they are smart enough to have socialised and it's one of the best countries to live in [check the list]. Whatever you say the facts are against you and you can't denie that. Greetz
Subher0 2 years ago
i've no interest in social benefits, but i would like to live in europe for awhile, just for a change of culture and scenery (although that'll probably never happen). i love living in america, despite the ridiculous nationalism, and i appreciate the ability to grow up in an industrialized nation. i just don't like what that nation is becoming.
the fact that ss is a ponzi scheme is demonstrable. i can't deny it, but such a fact (among many others) stands not against me. as-salamu alayka
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
Not really demonstrable, unless you count in the corrupt schemes, but that requires a government change, not a system change...
It stands not against you specific, but it does against the wellbeing of your nation.
Greets
Subher0 2 years ago
And who owns what is IRRELEVANT? I'm sorry but you didn't just say that? OFCOURSE that is relevant. The government doesn't own the banks, the 8 years under Bush were like HELL! You say the politicians are bad, but socialism is a structure maintained by the people! The people ARE the government. First see the difference between politicians and "the government maintaining a socialistic structure". It's not the politicians but PEOPLE working for the government that do the administration.
Subher0 2 years ago
the gov't is ALWAYS the people, regardless of the economic system.
of course the gov't doesn't own the banks, nor should they. the US treasury is enough, but in 1913 the US gave the power to print money to a private bank. the system of debt we have today couldn't exist at the level it does without the federal reserve bank.
i still don't see how ownership is relevant.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
If my bank owns a part of your bank and your bank collapses my bakn takes a hit too. So ownership is relevant for me because if your bank fails, mine does too and my money is endangered. This international co-ownership is possible through the free market, every market is free to interrelate etc. SO the FREE MARKET caused the global crisis, and the mentality of buying on loan/risktaking caused it in America. So both those ways of thinking FAILED.
Subher0 2 years ago
banks that are adversely affected by investments in other institutions has nothing to do with what actually caused the crisis. ownership did not cause the crisis. it is irrelevant.
what caused the crisis was debt. what caused the debt was spending. what caused the spending were socialists and fascists. what caused the socialists and fascists were the people. the failure was here. the free market has nothing to do with it.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
what a skewed anology do you make? No what actually caused the crisis is pure greed. The greed of the banks caused the crisis and the stupidity of people who, as the way it goes in America, buy their house on loan and only pay out the intrest as a sort of rent. THAT CAUSED the crisis, and the international ownership of the debts MADE BY THE PEOPLE caused it to spread. So the cause is not the co-ownership, but the collapse came through the free market. And that is as clear as water.
Subher0 2 years ago
after the great depression, socialistic systems were put in place to prevent another depression. they all failed. all regulations failed. all regulative organizations failed. why? NO system (socialist ESPECIALLY) can save a nation from debt. it WILL have to be paid, that is the only solution.
greed is relative. i could just as easily argue that greed created the economy. i'd rather not wallow in ambiguity. i'd say YOUR analogy is skewed, as your water is clouded with sediment.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
I really see no point to continue this discussion as you remain blind to the obvious. Really. My words seem like totally pointless. I know you might think thesame way, the only difference is, I actually live in the system you despise, and I witnessed both systems. And in all honesty, you can't defend the old American way of living and the current system anymore. The system as applied in Europe ensures a more durable future, and if you can't see that, I fear the worst for you. Greets.
Subher0 2 years ago
i wouldn't make any attempt to defend the current system. i don't really know what the 'old american way' is. we shall see how 'durable' european socialism is, especially next to chinese fascism. the EU nations are all in debt.
at any rate, at least you're not religious. you and i are actually subscribed to many of the same channels. i'm subscribing to yours for the fuck of it.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
I don't blame you for saying that, because I know you didn't look into it, but my region, as in the Flanders, has no debt. I know that's not the country as a whole, but my country is divided and we are governed practicly as separate countries. The debts are not because of the current system, because that's the system that's getting us out of debt AND Belgium is one of the most social countries in the world, I get sick, I pay NOTHING at the docter. Can't say it's bad.
Subher0 2 years ago
you're right, i am unaware of just about everything regarding your local gov't. i am very PRO local gov't. my issues are with the central gov't. local gov'ts here compete for federal money. it's disgusting. they should be competing for customers (residents).
i have no problem paying for a service rendered. privatization of the medical industry will allow me to do that. i know you are aware that you ARE paying for medical treatment. you pay even when nothing is wrong with you. insurance is a lie
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
Insurance is a lie? Right... that's because you're on the good side of healthy. When you grow some cancer tomorrow you KNOW you'll be talking different. It's not like the people who get cancer and can't pay for treatment don't deserve it... that's like seeing a homeless guy on the street dying and you say:"hey, my money, so f*ck off". Don't you see yourself what kind of a person you're putting yourself out to be with those comments?
Subher0 2 years ago
no. i'm not on the good side of healthy. at least not according to health insurance companies, who will not allow me to have insurance without massive premiums. i'm in debt to many medical insitutions and doctors for many numbers of tests. as a matter of fact, the insurance companies said they'd pay for those tests (when i had insurance), and refused after the test was completed. i say this not to complain, but to show that someone who is on this side of things still believes in the market.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
Ha. Actually you just made a great point on how the current privatized market is totall crap. The government doesn't do those things. At least not my government, and my government is crap aswell, don't be mistaken.
Subher0 2 years ago
indeed, they aren't done by the gov't. and yes, i did make a good point on how the american managed healthcare system is total crap. partially because of the private part, but mostly because of the public part. our hc system is a blend of gov't and mega-huge corporations. not good for anyone. the private and public sectors need to remain distinct and separate. they are currently very difficult to define.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
ugh.. "mostly because of the public part"... even if there is a public part, and you totally misunderstand what our healthcare in europe is or means for the people. There is only a MEGAcorporations because you only want BUSINESS and REVENUE. THAT BUSINESS AND REVENUE is bribing your POLITICS. They SCREW with the common man for their OWN BENEFIT. SOCIALISM IS THE BUSINESS OF THE PEOPLE. Get that into your head damn... remember BOTTOM-UP not TOP-DOWN.
Subher0 2 years ago
no i get what you're saying. you just aren't correct. you're a bottom-up socialist, i'm a top-down 'businessman' (i'll assume this title for now). the relationship between business and gov't in this country is symbiotic. i do not approve. i am no fascist. the insurance lobby is why we have managed healthcare. this isn't good for doctors, who run businesses. managed hc is ANTI-business. i am all for revenues. what i oppose is oligarchy that is protected by the gov't.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
ALL business is ANTI-population. You cannot denie the fact that business care ALL for profit and will cut out the workers if they can afford to be cut out. Without a workforce the economy will collapse. Securing the workforce sustaining the business is a more solid foundation for a solid economy. IT IS OBSERVABLE IN EUROPE AND IS UNDENIABLY WORKING. bottom-up, not top-down.
Subher0 2 years ago
business is anything but anti population. business only works when consumer demands are met. businesses get their profits, and the people get their products. i don't see how that's unfair. the workforce is secure in a good economy. the workforce isn't secure in a bad economy. it never will be. business exists for the owner's purpose. no other reason. the survival of business is much more important than employment. without business there are no workers.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
Yes I'm not saying they are directly anti-pop or that its their intent, but as I said their goal is PROFIT and they will gladly do whatever it takes even get rid of loads of workers to stay in the profit. Ofcourse if you let the workers dangling after that, don't help them finding a new job, don't support them financially when they need to, it would be DRAMATIC for that guy's family. That's why I pay for SS, so he that got cut gets his life back he worked hard for for many years...
Subher0 2 years ago
societies are not responsible for individuals. you can't resolve a bad economy by spending money to help individuals. that is one of the most counter-productive things you could possibly do. a reduction in gov't services is the logical approach. let the individuals have their money. let them put it back into the economy. many will lose their jobs and there will be major hardship. it's not that i don't care, as i have to endure as well. the market works much faster and more effeciently.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
insurance companies are the main reason why health care costs are so high. when you pool money, members will have no problem spending other people's money. this drives up costs. it works exactly the same way with social health insurance. healthcare costs are going up in every country with socialized healthcare OR managed healthcare. insurance is the reason for high prices. if there were no insurance and the bureaucracy were dismantled, prices would fall and keep falling.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
Health Care IS an insurance "company" only in this case that company is the government. Remember! Those private companies want to make MONEY ON YOU, the government DOES NOT. That's why the government will treat you fair when you get sick. I agree that there are loafers, but you need to weed them out there are ways for that, and we apply them here too. Ofc. you'll never get rid of all of them we don't live in utopia.
Subher0 2 years ago
i know gov't healthcare is insurance. that was my point. i'm speaking about insurance companies in general, including the gov't. healthcare costs still go UP when the gov't is the insurer. i am fully aware that insurance companies want to make money on me. that is why they shouldn't exist at their current capacity, if even at all. the gov't empowers them with the current system. under any insured healthcare system, prices will inflate inevitably higher.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
Well yes the prices go up because the people are getting older and older. It's because of the post-WW2 babyboom. Currently the rate at which babies are born is keeping us steady but this wasn't allways the case. We're heading for a bump in the road but it's still sustainable. Some prices here are lower then yours so WHAT on earth are you talking about? Look at the facts... don't go from your "if this... then that..."-logic.
Subher0 2 years ago
there are actually a few reasons why prices go up. i'll gladly cover them if you'd like. and i would expect some prices there to be lower. our system is worse off, and our currency is being inflated like never before. but this isn't a bump in the road, at least not here. and you can't remove the bump by spending money. this problem is so huge it could actually obliterate the US economically. just this ONE problem.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
Well I was talking about the increase of elders where the social system in Europe currently has some problems with. Actually even though it is kind of paradox the problem is also the solution. Because we have more people able to take part in society we get relief on national debt, but the increment of elders relying on their pension and increment in elder sickness in need of treatment is driving the cost up. Without the elders there would be balance. That's the current bump.
Subher0 2 years ago
i was actually trying to include the increase in elders within the context of my comment, but it isn't even remotely apparent. i apologize for that. intent and action aren't always equal. what i'm saying is that the baby boom generation is one of the main reasons for the out of control ss and subsidized medicine costs. it would be out of control nonetheless, but the retirement of such a large generation is hastening the inevitable.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
Look no, the increase of elders is the ONLY reason why ss here is "out of control". The increase now is because of the crisis and as I said before SS is securing the workforce AND businesses they can work in. We secured the banks and we are going uphill again. America is going downhill still. We are out of debt and the poor/rich gap is WAY smaller than in America. Which systems WORKS do you think?
Subher0 2 years ago
the problem in america is FAR worse than that of europe. retiring baby boomers alone would threaten the stability of the economy, even if the economy were in relatively good shape. if there isn't reform, ss alone will grow to dominate the budget. the best reform is to abolish ss.
which system works? europe isn't exactly funding two wars simultaneously. america should never have gone to war in the 1st place. the economy would still be bad, but not this bad.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
I don't see the link between my car insurance and the car price being so high...
Subher0 2 years ago
regarding the link between car insurance and automobile prices, i will have to look into that. i've never thought about it.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
Don't look, because there is no link...
Subher0 2 years ago
nope. none that i could find in a very lazy attempt.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
It doesn't mean that my country or region is small that it's "local" in Belgium there are about 14 governments and it's the size of maryland...
I also pay for services rendered, but at least here I'm sure the service will actually be rendered when the need arises, and privatized medicine is an ABSOLUTE scam because often enough people get rejected medical aid even for common LIFETHREATENING diseases. Please, don't defend privatized medicine it's absolutely crap.
Subher0 2 years ago
And the Chinese may be more powerfull economically in the long run, but I'm talkng about the population living a worthy life, and China doesn't meet that standard. And no we're not religious, luckaly. The old American way that it must be big to be good, wastefull of resources, being rich on the outside, but having to scrap to pay the rent at the end of the month. I know you don't defend your government, but I don't like people shitting on something they don't know, like socialism.
Subher0 2 years ago
the lack of religious influence is one of many things that i appreciate about europe. in america the religious influence is sickening. it literally makes me want to vomit. i live in the south, where it encompasses almost every aspect of life from birth to death. i'm trying not to vent too much here so i can stay on topic...
as far as the old american way goes: your definition is a dead read and is descriptive of any populace. there is no real american way. there never was. it's just propaganda.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
Every people has its way of living, so there is also an American way of living. I don't want to generalise and this goes for alot of people in Europe too, but it's mainly about the need to consume that sickens me. I can point out dozens of people that are far more happy with far less then what we have in "wealth" as you describe it. Happiness cannot be materialised, but the American way and the American economy drives on that. BTW The only good religion is no religion.
Subher0 2 years ago
yes, there are many happy people who have little. perhaps their general lack of ambition (not a negative trait) is attributable to their genetic predisposition. i agree that happiness is not material. to me it is something that is only attained in brief moments, much like an orgasm or a high (just a comparison) it makes the rest of life worth living.
the pursuit of happiness should drive an economy. it is the most efficient vehicle.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
I lack ambition, and yet I'm pretty happy generally. The thing is I get the OPPORTUNITY to do what I want and that's SOCIALISM *REPEATING* and reaching my full potential which I believe I'm doing, I help society, I'm productive...
Yes ofcourse, people can't be happy all the time, but you can't let destiny just take control like wild bullets in a gunfight. If you don't get hit or less likely to get hit you scream YAY while the rest is biting the dust, but hey WHO CARES? right... ?
Subher0 2 years ago
well, i don't believe in destiny, and by 'destiny' i think you were saying 'chance', because i doubt you believe in destiny either. but chance is all there is.
a lot of the time the winner of a competition is only so due to the fact that the outcome was the subject of another's expert opinion. if i don't get hit i do scream YAY, and yes, who ultimately cares? sure i'll call the paramedics for them and see if they're ok. but all in all i don't care (unless i know them).
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
Also a lack of ambition is not "genetically predisposed" that's a load of crap. 80% of your being comes through your education, and education=opportunity you create through knowledge, but you can also create opportunity through finance, and where does finance come from for those who: are inable to work. are inable to get a decent job. are inable to go to school and get crappy jobs...? WHERE? If we'd let you loose, alot of people would suffer as long as you're doing great...
Subher0 2 years ago
tone isn't very obvious in text, as my genetic predisposition comment was meant to be recognizably ironic.
life isn't fair. there will always be those who are more educated and less educated. there will always be those who have crappy jobs with crappy pay. low demand jobs are in the highest supply, so most people are going to be low demand, expendable producers. it's a social necessity. there will always be suffering. it's a competition. there will always be MORE losers and FEW winners.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
Yes I agree life works that way. In nature it's exactly thesame. But we broke loose from nature. Humans can be compassionate towards eachother. Humans thrived and survived because they are group animals, and in terms of modern society, you would let down your group if a group member is hurt. The only difference is is that today the group is giganticly big. Thinking in terms of winners and losers is A way but it doesn't have to be.
Subher0 2 years ago
you are saying that humans 'broke loose from nature', but i do not see it. everything is natural, even synthetic materials are ultimately natural. i see the complexity of human society as nothing more than an extension of nature. i see organic systems working to preserve themselves. that is the way i see businesses. it is nature on a level beyond what so many consider natural, when, in reality, everything is natural, even the artificial.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
Now you're actually just stretching the defenition but that is not the topic... the thing is that we do perform our own deeds and you must be able to recognise that society benefits us. So helping society=society helping us that's the bottomline. Ofcourse, I wouldn't pay for social security if I didn't get something from it directly, but indirectly I also know it makes a stable economy able to take setbacks. America can't take the setback as we're witnessing.
Subher0 2 years ago
society is very beneficial, i do recognize that. and i agree that 'helping society=society helping us'. that is why i am so pro business: business helps society. i don't think programs like ss help society. i think they hurt society. how can you put money into a fund and not make a profit? long term investment is about MAKING money. you don't make money with ss, you create debt, and society loses as a result.
and no, america can't take the setback. but whaddya gonna do, eh?
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
Yes you don't think it helps us and you're thinking wrong. As said before Belgium creates about the best students in the world. Not only the ones who can afford good schools but also the ones with the capability and less money get to go to school. More educated people= a better society. Knowledge is power and people don't say that for nothing, it's very serious. That's one of the reasons why Belgium as a small country is, in perspective, taken serious.
Subher0 2 years ago
yes, i have acknowledged the belgian education system as i am aware of how it works. it hasn't failed to impress even me. however, i do not believe that the money needs to come from society as a whole. there is no difference between attaching money to children and having an affordable school. competition drives down prices if it is allowed to do so (i'm talking about american schools here), and the gov't doesn't need to act as a middleman with taxation.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
No indeed. The American system works to some degree and America holds some of the finest schools in the world. I never said the American system is an absolutely flawed system because else it wouldn't have been where it is now. But alot of the people in America are poor, and I'm concerned about that. I agree if you are poor you need the initiative, but ALOT of people are jsut STUCK in their situation and they need that social aid.
Subher0 2 years ago
In other words. A happy person is a person that has everything he needs to survive and maybe a bit more, and friends, family and a proper life to live, being free. If you get that, and not the fact we need to KEEP and HOLD ON to the money we have [which is alot in the first place], you'll understand why I vote socialistic and generally left.
Subher0 2 years ago
your version of happy and my version of happy differ. i just don't see it as something that is permanently attainable. i don't think it should be. it isn't that i want to live in an unhappy world. i just don't want to live in a perfect world.
the average consumer doesn't have a lot of money. they spend like the gov't. they are sheep, and they deserve to be where they are. if we held onto our money we would be happiER (not necessarily happy).
if you're happy, then i'm glad for you.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
Then stop saying the government is the source of all evil because the people ARE the government and the people isn't going to cheat itself THE EXAMPLES ARE THERE!!! So STOP saying the government is a bad caretaker for money because when it comes to money intended for return to the community they sure won't waste that money on something else, and if they do then your whole government is corrupt, but don't crap on the best f*cking system there is: socialism.
Subher0 2 years ago
yes, the gov't is corrupt. and yes, i will crap on socialism.
i do not believe that the gov't is the source of all evil, but the people do cheat themselves. they always cheat themselves. the politicians convince them to do so. it makes me sick as to how lacking the political debate is these days. republicans are fascists and the democrats are socialists. no real difference. it's all just tinkering with a fucked up system. no one wants to change it.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
I would kick Tim Geithner square in the nuts
bsharker 2 years ago
You surely have a vision that does not cope with reality because reality in Europe is the opposite of what you're saying, that the government or socialism is anti-business which is absolutely false, since business here thrive MORE then in America, with the union being the BIGGEST economy in the world. I don't have to explain it even, since Europe is the proof you're wrong.
Subher0 2 years ago
yes, the eu is the biggest economy in the world. that says nothing, however. the USA is the biggest national economy in the world, and that also says absolutely NOTHING. both economies are business friendly when compared with most of the world. but they are BOTH becoming less and less friendly to business. right now china and india are taking most of the manufacturing jobs in europe AND america. our economies are increasingly service-based.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
Aha so it says nothing at all then? Then why doesn't Africa stand up for its rights and takes up arms to defend those rights? I guess economy DOES mean something. However, between America and Europe this doesn't mean much, no, but it SURE DOES against the REST of the world! You are just one-lining the argument about us being business unfriendly. We have OTHER strongpoints to keep businesses here instead of only thinking that regulations keep or chase away those businesses...
Subher0 2 years ago
And also, indeed the ones who voted on the winner shouldn't complain either, but in general complaining and saying "I don't want to vote" or "I don't care to vote" is contradictive, because then, where you have the chance to actually say something about your politician's actions, you lay silent... Personally I believe Obama was the best candidate even though Clinton was good too, but she quit on that solid healthcare plan a few years back [stupid b*tch :)]
Subher0 2 years ago
well, i did have a horse in the race, but he lost the republican primary. but choosing between mccain and obama was like being allowed to choose the method of my execution. i don't want to be executed. you can't say anything by voting if you are voting against yourself. i think it gives me the right to complain and to try to do something about it. in the words of rush (the band): if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
Well I must say that your band is wrong. The choice to "not choose"... doesn't make sense if you put it that way... Even though, for you, you had to choose between two evils, you msut choose the lesser one. And again this is a result of the skewed American system: only 2 parties to really choose from. In Belgium I have around 5 - 6 parties I can choose from which gives me more freedom to get my opinions on the table.
Subher0 2 years ago
if course it isn't wrong. if you do not choose, you have concluded your decision, therefore you have chosen not to choose. in this case, choosing the lesser of two evils is a compromise that i am not willing to make. i have nothing to gain as a result of this choice. as far as i'm concerned, the democrats and the republicans are two parties in one. my choice is between evil or nothing. i choose nothing.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
Your logic is absolutely flawed on this matter. You cannot choose the NOT CHOOSE because it's not the choice between what there can be chosen but you reject to make a choice between those, so it's NOT a choice. No choice is NOT a choice. It's like saying doing nothing is doing something, but doing nothing remains doing nothing it's the antonym of something. Not choosing is the antonym of choosing so it can never be a choice. You're just shifting it one step back an call it a choice.
Subher0 2 years ago
it's literally impossible to do nothing. action is always applicable.
the act of CHOOSING in this situation has actually been committed. if i HAD to choose, then not choosing wouldn't be a choice. but it is, and i chose it.
everyone chooses. but a very large number of people choose not to choose. why should i compromise my values for no benefit whatsoever? that isn't even a compromise. that's submission.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
that still doesn't make it right [in the sense of not choosing and still complaining] to not make a choice!
If there is no benefit for your country then I foresee a grimm future for your country, one that will see a totall collapse with mass chaos etc.
Every political choice is submission, even the one you wanted, because NOBODY has EXACT thesame ideas about society and how it should be as you.
Subher0 2 years ago
the man i supported would have benefited me. the other two do not. i don't see voting for him as submission, because i am not opposing my values. our values were 90% similar (maybe 10% submission, i will cede that. but i can live with such a compromise).
total collapse probably isn't far off. many economists have predicted it. i have heard a handful speak of the dollar being comparable to the weimar republic's mark. i'm not trying to be chicken little, but i'm doing what i can just in case.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
Then it's hard to swallow that maybe one of the candidates only supports 10% of your ideas, but then at least you have voted for that 10%! One of them will get elected anyway! So if everybody thinks in this way the election will allways support only a minority of the people!
You don't know what I mean by complete chaos, I mean COMPLETE chaos maybe in caps it comes down to you more clear.
Subher0 2 years ago
i looked over the two candidates. i hated mccain from the beginning. i agreed with obama on some points, but it wasn't even CLOSE to enough. i agree with obama about .5% of the time.
no i meant COMPLETE chaos too. ABSOLUTELY COMPLETELY HORRIFYING, BITCH-SLAPPING CHAOS. i think that encompasses it.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
then voting still counts. for 5% even still. Not voting is not good and doesnt give you the right to complain.
Subher0 2 years ago
indeed it does. i'm free to speak, and no vote of mine contributed to the economic chaos we're experiencing. not voting for the right reasons is always good. i recommend everyone do it, but most people will vote for the wrong reasons, like party affiliation. i won't play that game. john mccain won my state easily. i knew he would. i live in texas. if i HAD voted it would have been a write-in, and that doesn't always count, depending on the state. not sure about tx.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
No you should allways vote, in the worst case, for the LESSER of two evils, my analogy earlier CLEARLY shows that. I think this point is clear that VOTING is allways better then NOT voting.
Subher0 2 years ago
i'm sorry, but i cannot cede this point to you. i disagree completely.
this next point is off-topic, but if there were a unifying force that united an entire society, the economy might be revived. f.e. ww2. in america it united the entire society, and all efforts went into the war machine, and it restored the economy. the world could do the same thing, but not with war, but with space exploration. that would be an excellent unifying factor.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
well yes, but you agree on things that requires NO effort from your side, the unification of nations for space exploration which would indeed be a great thing, but the unfieing of a social installation is completely out of the question for you, because it requires some effort from your side, EVEN THOUGH it greatly helps society. I know you disagree on that, but I need not to say anything further and just point out the example of the opposite of your view, here in Europe.
Subher0 2 years ago
but that is incorrect. the majority of cooperation between private entities and public entities during ww2 was voluntary. fdr won some gov't controls, but fortunately he had to deal with a very conservative congress.
i am willing to make effort, but only if the effort benefits me. for example, i can't opt out of a gov't program. so i have to pay for what i'll never use so other people can use it. for example, i have no problems paying taxes on roads. driving is my only mode of transportation.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
Again choosing between what is MOST suitable doesn't allways mean you are choosing for something absolutely good. It's like saying I'm going to choose between smoking and shooting myself with a gun and the most lethal one is the worst choice. Ofcourse you can say "I wont choose" but in this case not only YOU choose but EVERYbody chooses, so it's best you actually DO make a choice and choose smoking.
Subher0 2 years ago
America will stay global I'm sure, but NATO a desire for imperialism? THat's pretty absurd seen that not America alone has f.e. veto rights which I find stupid in the first place, but I think NATO can have its purpose. I'd rather see a combined European state first before NATO decides to be more "decisive" in their actions rather then doing their job half-assed. But as I said NATO has its purposes.
Subher0 2 years ago
i wasn't saying that nato itself is an imperialistic entity. i'm saying powerful nations like the usa use their alliances to promote their interests, most of the time at the expense of the less-powerful member-states. these alliances are counter-productive. the EU and NAFTA are other examples of alliances that exploit the weaker member-states. these alliances are not necessary for a successful global market. standardization does not equal efficiency.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
Ofcourse they do, like all nations do, that's natural and understandable, but ti's not the primairy goal of NATO. America pulls and pushes and so do other nations. It's just the unfair dividing of power within the NATO that gives America advantages over others which is wrong, but the concept of NATO is, actually, very good. It's a control to excessiveness in all forms within the world. It concerns making a consus about things happening in the world, f.e. N-Korea
Subher0 2 years ago
the ideal control to excess is the free market, for example, where supply and demand naturally regulate excess.
conceptually, i fail to see the benefit of NATO. like i said, weaker member-states are exploited. they're just like welfare recipients, but they receive their own version of false security. the security of the western world is no safer with nato than without nato.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
Well the suppliers can affect the demand very strongly and monopolies have their branches of "demand" all over the world. It's the human nature they are exploiting and they know there is allways going to be a demand. If you only care about the western world you're a pretty narrow minded, bigoted and racist person. We should ensure the safety of MANKIND and not only be selfish.
Subher0 2 years ago
LOL.
i don't care about the western or eastern or southern or northern world. i am EXTREMELY selfish, which is a virtuous trait. at least i admit it. 99.9% of all humans are as selfish as i am. you, for example. you are satiated by your own compassion. you are greedy. you want to trample on others for the sake of the trampled. racism? bigotry? that was a very funny statement considering the fact that you know me only through text. if you knew me better, you wouldn't have made such a comment.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
That may be so, but then again I can only make my judgement upon what you add here as arguments and derived from your arguments I think that's a spot on conclusion. I am selfish in a way, and like JP Sartre says it "Hell are the others"... only other people can denie you your freedom but by taking your own freedom all the way you denie the freedom of others. Sometimes it's necessairy to take into account how your actions affect others, so you can't be 99.9% selfish all your life.
Subher0 2 years ago
i am a very compassionate man. but i pride myself on being selfish. my society lacks it. selfishness and greed greased the wheels that drove this country to success. and i'm not talking about the horrific slaughter of the native americans or the enslavement of blacks. manifest destiny was a pile of shit. i'm talking about industry. the USA was what china is now, sans the bullshit communist rhetoric in a fascist china.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
I hate to disagree. The abolishment of slavery is an absolute act against selfishness and the economy, both of the European traders and the American exploiters, kept flourishing. In any case, yes selfishnes did give boosts to our eceonomy, to the expense of 3/4th of the other part of humanity. If you can live with that, you're a monster, nothing less nothing more. Again it's just a conclusion from your argument, I believe you saying you're a compassionate and maybe cool guy.
Subher0 2 years ago
but you aren't disagreeing. i honestly don't think that abolition of slavery was an overall bust to the economy. it was bad for the south until the market reacted after reconstruction. a free market (libertarian society) is anti-slave.
when the economy was boosted, it wasn't to the detriment of the poor. it was the other way around. industry provided jobs and cheaper goods that the poor never had access to before. of course many got rich. they deserved it.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
Capitalism has absolutely NO problems with slavery as history shows, so a free market is NOT anti slave it is only PRO profit.
I'l not saying capitalism is an evil system, combined with socialism its the best system in the world!
Subher0 2 years ago
a libertarian society has a lot of problems with slavery. when america tolerated slavery, it was hypocrisy. americans recognized that a LONG time ago. capitalism is not a personality. what i promote is a libertarian society, and as i define it, such a society would be powered by the free market.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
it already IS powered by the free market and it's the FREE MARKET that failed us, and it isn't the first time it did either. As a once wise scholar named Socrates once said "Find a system/point that works, make exceptions to the rule, then slightly change the system". This crisis is the downside of the free market, so the free market must be adjusted in a way that helps us deal with crisis, seeing that Europe has the least problems, Europe's system must be working, no?
Subher0 2 years ago
how has the free market contributed to the current economic state? honestly, i need someone to actually explain this to me sensibly. i've seen no evidence that the free market is the culprit. i have already explained to you the reason for this crisis. it's called debt, and the free market cannot be held accountable for debt. US debt, for example, comes from an increasingly leftist social policy when democrats are in power, and an increasingly fascist policy when republicans are in power.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
Because the free market has given businesses the opportunity to expand tremendously, which is, if all goes well a good thing generally. Now when the housing market in America crashed the banks failed. European banks that have investments in American banks subsequently crashed aswell. The fact that OUR banks can have part ownership in YOUR banks is because of the free market. If this was not the case, only America would face this crisis, like it did for the most part in the 30's.
Subher0 2 years ago
and why do you think the housing market failed? it wasn't the free market, and who owns what is irrelevant.
the housing market bubble was wrought with bad debt due to excessive lending. do you know who encouraged the excessive lending? i'll tell you: the gov't. the gov't encouraged the lending because the credit was available and it was considered unfair that some couldn't get loans just because they couldn't afford them. and yes, the gov't offered an incentive for those who made bad loans.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
Because the banks think only about profit. The economy in America is based on risk taking. Americans take on loans they are not entirely sure they can pay off, and now the world gets the result. The free market was not able to sustain the setback and we know the results. It was not a direct free market problem, but it grew in an atmosphere in the idea that unlimited wealth is possible, and it's not. It's a case of overstretching, and capitalism overstretched, and THAT is the free market problem.
Subher0 2 years ago
banks have never desired to make bad loans. bad loans are NOT profitable in the long term. even after all of the interest, most people who take bad loans won't be able to pay them off. it is inevitable that the bubble will collapse. most bankers understand that. they aren't stupid.
the free market is EASILY able to sustain the 'setback'. the PROBLEM is that the gov't is SUPPORTING the bad debt. THAT is why the crisis is ongoing. they aren't allowing the free market to work.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
In any case you are very contradictory, because socialism provides more leverage to the people, while you don't trust politics and choose to stay "an individual". Individuals allways loose against groups. Coming out as a group makes you stronger. History proves that for me.
Subher0 2 years ago
great video
advocated01 2 years ago
Yes, even you as an American tourist will benefit from the security net, while when I go to America I need an extra policy with EuropeAssistance that ensures my well being because I will be left to DIE when I happen to get into an accident. THAT is socialism, not some boogyman taking away individualism, which I find a despicable selfish word to use even. You obviously a) don't know sh*t about socialism and/or b) you don't care a f*ck about your fellow human being.
Subher0 2 years ago
i know a hell of a lot about socialism. socialists are always telling non-socialists that they don't know what they are talking about and that they don't understand. of course i understand. but here is what you aren't able to see, and this is happening in europe and america. there is NO end to gov't. socialists always speak of limitations, but they NEVER know when to stop.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
Well by reading your "argument" it's self-evident you don't know anything about it. It's not that I just want to put you down. By saying "you're wrong" doesn't mean I'm ACTUALLY wrong. Socialism works and there hasn't been a change in our system for fourty years so again what you're saying is or a lie or it's because you're uninformed and since I allways believe the best of people I won't pick the worst of the two.
Subher0 2 years ago
but it doesn't work. the budget of EU member-states, for example are VERY strained. just like in america, the revenues from taxes do not cover the costs. just like in america, more money has to be printed as a result. and just like the dollar, the euro and the pound are being devalued over the long term. europe isn't even spending massive sums money on wasteful wars like the US gov't. some officials there advocate a single world currency. what do you think?
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
No a single world currency, THAT would decrease competition, if you're so competitive minded. The euro has been doing better then the dollar ever since it was launched. I won't say it won't do worse ever from now on, but I think the general trend will be the euro over the dollar. You want to know why our economy is strained? Because of the increased age, not simply because of socialism. Because of the baby-boom post WW2 we now have alot of elderlings and less young ones to cover the cost.
Subher0 2 years ago
i agree with you on the currency issue. as a matter of fact i think there should be more currencies to compete with the ones that are diminishing within a society. in america there have been real attempts to create new currencies (not recognized as legal tender), which is not illegal under any american law. the gov't seized the currency anyway.
our economy or yours is strained because of debt. that is it, whether it's debt to another nation or debt to the elderly.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
And as long as the government handles it correctly we can survive the increase in elder populations, and that's a temporary problem, a partly competitive/socialistic structure in the long run in general circumstances is the best current known system for a society. And yes you fought wars, we did too. That's, by the way, your own fault. Don't use that as an argument because we were smart BEFORE the war started and didn't join, you complain afterwards!
Subher0 2 years ago
the problem is there's no money AND the older generations are increasing. if i could take the money i put into ss and invest it in ANYTHING, i'd have a better chance of having some retirement money.
i was always against the war. it is 0% my fault. just for the record.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
Well just saying 'there is no money' isn't enough, what's the cause we have no money? Less active population, more inactive population. Also, the desire for businesses to keep growing and the increasing efficiency in doing that is DESTROYING our world both economically AND ecologically. Permanent growth is IMPOSSIBLE and this crisis proves that, and "money" and "growth" are the only true desires of capitalism and it fails again after the great depression. So reform.
Subher0 2 years ago
the problem once again is a lack of incentive. when big business lacks incentive to keep manufacturing jobs in america, they outsource the jobs. i would do the same thing if i ran a business. a business doesn't exist to employ, but they understand that employees are consumers. they don't hate anyone. american social policy has moved steadily left since ww2. this has driven business away. businesses go where they can compete. manufacturing cannot compete here.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
Social policy does NOT drive away businesses and having a more global social policy would be better for this world and it's inhabitants. We have other means to keep businesses here, mainly because we are the biggest consumers. Once the now low-pay countries become consumers aswell, they will also become less attractive for these business plus we still have the experience and education on our side. These calculations you forget.
Subher0 2 years ago
it is not a matter of waiting for development in underdeveloped nations, as they will only develop as they are allowed. manufacturing jobs WILL return to america. we only need to wait for costs to outweigh production in foreign lands. that will happen, but only as a natural result of the market, not social reform.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
Maybe but what did you do to stop it? I know one person can do nothing but why doesn't America spoke against it as a people and nation? First you have Bush Sr., republican - war, you vote democrat, Clinton, you do very well... you vote Bush jr., republican... war. You vote Obama - better international relations [at least that's the plan]. Why are you so pro-right wing thoughts but anti-war, and then still vote republicans in office? Some republican idea's are just retarded, bigoted and selfish.
Subher0 2 years ago
actually, under clinton we had an unnecessary war in kosovo (i realize it was NATO, but it doesn't matter). as a matter of fact, the USA has been in a constant state of war since WW2, some say since the spanish-american war (1899ish). you vote democrat or republican you get unnecessary war. i am neither democrat nor republican. i hate them equally. democrats are too far left, republicans are fascists.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
Well NATO isn't America, and yes it does matter. But that aside, if you think the democrats in America are "too left" you wouldn't want to come to Europe, even though it generally is better living here, since the more right-wing political parties here are even more left then American democrats. It has served us well, and it will keep serving the birthplace of modern civilisation for many years to come. note that Europe has been a world power for centuries, America has not, and already crumbling.
Subher0 2 years ago
america's entangled in useless alliances like nato, which really only serve to satiate american imperial interests. i don't like the american empire. it must dissolve.
the american empire IS crumbling, as it follows the route of other recent empires, like the british or soviet empires, for example. america will always be a major power on a global scale, but its domination will surely diminish, most likely to be overtaken by china.
btw, i'd like to visit europe one day, despite the socialism.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
You are correct on most points. There is alot of correption and lobbies to control much of American politics. They don't necessairly want to keep the people down but more serve their own interests, like no socialism, because socialism means increased taxes for the monopoly businesses wherever they sell their products [and they cannot NOT sell their products here].
Subher0 2 years ago
in the free market, a monopoly cannot survive unless it is allowed to survive by gov't. supply and demand always renders a playable system. there are many ways gov'ts have allowed monopoly to thrive: one of the main life support systems for a corporate monopoly are public regulations, which work in favor of big business, all the while promoted as beneficial to the working person. these regulations are exploitative, serving only the monopoly.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
The government cannot decide to stop businesses or monopoly since that would be governing against their own system. Regulation isn't necessairly in favour of a monopoly, but America's regulations do. That's why you need to reform to a more SOCIAL structure = anti-monopoly and pro-civilian...
Subher0 2 years ago
the gov't can easily decide to stop monopoly/oligarchy. a monopoly cannot truly exist in a free market. anyone can compete. we have laws that prevent unilateral control over an entire industry. we had these laws long before the welfare/warfare state. the ONLY entity with the power to sustain a monopoly is the gov't. what is pro-civilain? we need to be pro business. gov't reguations are anti-business, but they inevitably benefit the powerful, as they reduce competition.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
No they cannot. Monopolies are worldwide so you'd need tons of governments doing that PLUS government is dependant on monopolies for economic matters. Microsoft have practicly a UNILATERAL control over the software industry. No the government cannot control monopolies, it's more the other way around if even so. We need to be PRO-civilian which is SUPPORT from below instead of suspending bussinesses who can choose to drop the ones hanging below.
Subher0 2 years ago
once again, monopolies are worldwide because if GOVERNMENT. what do you think allows huge businesses to rule over entire industries in many nations? it's called 'free trade', which is NOT free market capitalism. it is based on MASSIVE amounts of regulation that favor only the businesses that influence power. the EU and NAFTA and the AU and any other trade bloc you can think of are examples of gov't allowing monopoly. you don't support civilians, you support BUSINESS and COMPETITION.
behindtheparadigm 2 years ago
No I don't, because I voted on the socialist party last election 2 weeks ago. They are a labour party, they stand up for the ordinairy workmen. "Free trade" is just a free market component... so wha? "free trade -> free market"... duh... Governments allow monoplies ofcourse because they depend on them and they are within rule, that does NOT MAKE IT RIGHT the way they act. BTW in Belgium as I said regulation is PRO civilian and works from the ground up not from the roof down like in America...
Subher0 2 years ago