whats wrong with the left?

[quadibloc]

It's possible to stimulate the economy without driving the nation into debt.

Nothing stops the country from putting its people and natural resources to work.

But if you pay the people in money that they can use to buy imports in an increased quantity, while exports don't increase, that throws the country into debt. So the solution is to increase the number of people working without increasing imports. That means increasing tariffs.

Right now, agreements like GATT and the WTO stand in the way of this. So the whole world gets caught together in the trap of recessions with no easy way out.

[mike]

Does anyone on this thread actually know what the 'left' is?

Technically it's a representative who sits on the left of the chamber of the National Constituent Assembly/Legislative Assembly after the French revolution

Normally left is defined as being a belief in egalitarian society and right is being a belief in a stratified society (normally these days benefiting from the advantages that wealth brings).

Of course within that you have those who believe in state control (think Communists) or abolition of the state (think Anarchists - usually in Europe left wing anarchists and yes there's far more left wing anarchists than right wing anarcho-individualists).

[wellington1869]

there's also the question of what to get into debt for. The repubs have no problem debt-financing of wars, but balk at debt-financing for education, infrastructure, new technologies, health, or anything civilized

I certainly agree that during the fat years, debt should be paid down. The US basically began doing that during the fat 90s under clinton, but two unnecessary iraq wars (under the bushes) (and one very, very necessary afghan war) destroyed the surplus. oh well.

[wellington1869]

libertarians are a hard bunch to define. Being a generic anti-govt group, they tend to attract folk from both extreme ends of the political spectrum.  Commies and anarchists on the far-left who want to destroy democratic govt like them; and so do anti-tax rich people (and evangelicals who dont want government protecting schools and institutions from prosletization).

[keyboardlover]

libertarians are a hard bunch to define. Being a generic anti-govt group, they tend to attract folk from both extreme ends of the political spectrum.  Commies and anarchists on the far-left who want to destroy democratic govt like them; and so do anti-tax rich people (and evangelicals who dont want government protecting schools and institutions from prosletization).

I was under the impression that libertarians are more conservative on the monetary side and more liberal on the 'government shouldn't tell people what to do side' (which is actually quite conservative now that I think about it.) Is that correct?

[wellington1869]

I was under the impression that libertarians are more conservative on the monetary side and more liberal on the 'government shouldn't tell people what to do side' (which is actually quite conservative now that I think about it.) Is that correct?

yea, "social liberals/fiscal conservatives" are attracted to libertarianism for that reason.  They're probably the least offensive of libertarians. I'm probably that kind of libertarian myself, to be honest.  (tho i'm not against govt spending on civilized things).
 
But I always find myself arguing with the anarchists and 'big guv't, herp-de-derp' people who I always find among liberatarians.  It may actually be too large a tent, so large that libertarians could probably never agree on a political platform, which is probably why as a third party, they've had almost no success at all.

[itlnstln]

To piggyback off Welly, it's those same reasons Libertarians don't get support from either side.  Republicans don't like Libs' social plans, and Dems don't like their governmental plans.  Their kind of an odd group, in a way, politcally.  Ironically, though, people probably identify with Libs more than they might imagine.

[mike]

Right now, agreements like GATT and the WTO stand in the way of this. So the whole world gets caught together in the trap of recessions with no easy way out.

The trouble with protectionism is that it only works if only one country does it. Unfortunately everyone would end up trying it causing a collapse in world trade making everyone a lot worse off.

[keyboardlover]

Have y'all heard about what Cuba is doing? It's proof positive that communism doesn't work.

[wellington1869]

Have y'all heard about what Cuba is doing? It's proof positive that communism doesn't work.

yea, its pretty amazing. Castro also said in a speech that he no longer believes cuba's commie economy works. He also apologized for persecuting gays and dissidents during the cuban revolution. He also defended israel and said ahmedinejad was nuts.

how about that, huh? Never thought the day would come.  (of course, too bad he didnt realize all this 50 years ago)

[keyboardlover]

yea, its pretty amazing. Castro also said in a speech that he no longer believes cuba's commie economy works. He also apologized for persecuting gays and dissidents during the cuban revolution. He also defended israel and said ahmedinejad was nuts.

how about that, huh? Never thought the day would come.  (of course, too bad he didnt realize all this 50 years ago)

That's amazing...I wonder what made him change his mind? Wonder if it could work with North Korea?

[wellington1869]

That's amazing...I wonder what made him change his mind? Wonder if it could work with North Korea?

personally i think he's dying and wants to make some amends before he goes... he's really sick apparently.
Would be great if, as a last step, he also opens up cuba to elections.

[pex]

there's also the question of what to get into debt for. The repubs have no problem debt-financing of wars, but balk at debt-financing for education, infrastructure, new technologies, health, or anything civilized

But I always find myself arguing with the anarchists and 'big guv't, herp-de-derp' people who I always find among liberatarians.

I will review and respond to the rest later but I had to interject here:

So theft, slavery, and an organized criminal syndicate greater than any other and in constant subversion of the supreme law of the land that wants you dead if you do not comply with its ever increasing tyranny is the solution to America's problems (looking to the left to implement?)  What other plausible scenario will provide for the money and then the human capital to make 'civilized spending and production' possible (nevermind while maintaining rule of law?)

[microsoft windows]

I meant reducing the risk of real-deal fiscal insolvency like what Greece's got.

[quadibloc]

Sadly, Castro said he was misunderstood. He may favor some tiny market reforms in Cuba, but a free press and free elections? Nonsense!

And with North Korea, it doesn't look like the Pleasure Brigade will have the chance to leave Kim Jong-Il as "barely something to identify at an inquest".

[ricercar]

When was the last time the U.S. government was solvent..?

Never?

[microsoft windows]

Are you crazy? There was going to be a great depression, it's clear. The net economy, ebay, combined with cheap imports from China have totally undermined the global economy, and most are too stupid to realize it.  I've been predicting it for 10 years. On top of that you had nut jobs deregulating the stock market and making it a casino.

 It's  pure idiocy and craziness and that type of thinking that it wasn't going to be a great depression, and that it isn't going to, and can't  happen again that's causing it to happen.

I'm old enough, and my parents had me when they were old enough, that my parents lived through the great depression, and they were always scared of it happening again.  Most people these days are generations removed from it, and just don't seem to get it.

The only thing that saved us, and is saving us from it is massive correction, spending, and stepping in from the government. If they had held the purse strings like Hoover, the world would be in total shambles right now.   The world doesn't want to pay what it used to for houses, or for things, and as a result people are going to be out of work, and die.

That's why I'm moving to Japan/China as soon as I can get any money at all. lol

You did not grow up in the Great Depression. What we've been through this past decade is nothing compared to it.

[Konrad]

@ricercar
 
That graph doesn't look so scary until you realize it's logarithmic. US national debt increased by an order of 10 between about 1983 and 2007.  Actually, it looks like debt was well-managed from about 1865 onwards ... until WWI, then WWII ... then from the 70s it just started getting out of control.  I don't know what the hell that really means, but it can't be good.

[chimera15]

Have y'all heard about what Cuba is doing? It's proof positive that communism doesn't work.

lol  Cuba's been blockaded from trade for 50 years yet the government is still in power.  Seems like it works to me.  China's not exactly proving your point either.

Meanwhile capitalism with trade from the entire world has pretty much collapsed as bad as the Russian economy did, again almost totally blockaded for 50 years.

[microsoft windows]

Sure, the government in Cuba technically "works", but there's still excessive poverty and lack of freedom.

[keyboardlover]

lol  Cuba's been blockaded from trade for 50 years yet the government is still in power.  Seems like it works to me.  China's not exactly proving your point either.

A government can stay in power for a long time even though the people are poor and oppressed. All the money they make (within the country) goes straight to the top. Is that what you mean by "it works"? And by the way, China is the same. Their economy may be huge now but their bubble will burst someday too. An economy that's essentially built on slave labor is not sustainable and won't stand forever.

[chimera15]

You did not grow up in the Great Depression. What we've been through this past decade is nothing compared to it.

Obviously? That's what I said. What are you saying?  I've been predicting that it will be....

[chimera15]

A government can stay in power for a long time even though the people are poor and oppressed. All the money they make (within the country) goes straight to the top. Is that what you mean by "it works"? And by the way, China is the same. Their economy may be huge now but their bubble will burst someday too. An economy that's essentially built on slave labor is not sustainable and won't stand forever.

Is that an argument against communism, or against capitalism?

[keyboardlover]

Is that an argument against communism, or against capitalism?

Communism.

EDIT: actually it's not really an argument against either one so much as against various unsustainable forms of government. China's happens to be a combination of the two.

[Konrad]

An economy that's essentially built on slave labor is not sustainable and won't stand forever.

What does that say about an economy built on another country's slave labour?

[chimera15]

Communism.

Sounds the same as capitlism today to me.  like 99% of the money is owned by like less than 5% of the population in the US or something ridiculous like that, and all our stuff is made by slave labor in China.

[keyboardlover]

What does that say about an economy built on another country's slave labour?

If you're referring to the U.S., I believe that had we not adapted our economy, it certainly wouldn't have been sustainable. Even today, you can still argue whether or not the U.S.'s economy will be sustainable forever. But that's for different reasons now than it was back then.

[chimera15]

Communism.

EDIT: actually it's not really an argument against either one so much as against various unsustainable forms of government. China's happens to be a combination of the two.

By trading with China, we in effect become communists in reality.  That's real capitalism, getting the stuff for as little as possible, and selling it for the most, and as a result you deal with a government that oppresses it's people, has caps on earnings, and completely controls every aspect of a person's life.

[keyboardlover]

Sounds the same as capitlism today to me.  like 99% of the money is owned by like less than 5% of the population in the US or something ridiculous like that, and all our stuff is made by slave labor in China.

Name another country that can equal our payscales, working conditions, and all the other financial and non-financial benefits we have. I've already done research into working in other countries (and was about to at some points. I even interviewed for a job in Germany). But I couldn't find anywhere with as good benefits, pay, etc. as I have here. I live a comfortable lifestyle, and am not one of those 5%. And I work hard and contribute to society.

[keyboardlover]

By trading with China, we in effect become communists in reality.  That's real capitalism, getting the stuff for as little as possible, and selling it for the most, and as a result you deal with a government that has oppresses it's people, has caps on earnings, and completely controls every aspect of a person's life.

Don't really see the connection with us being communists...we're just cogs in the global economy, along with everyone else. And the reason why everything's made in China now anyway is because of the old American Unions (a socialist concept). And we're not the only ones who pay China to build our stuff...

[chimera15]

Name another country that can equal our payscales, working conditions, and all the other financial and non-financial benefits we have. I've already done research into working in other countries (and was about to at some points. I even interviewed for a job in Germany). But I couldn't find anywhere with as good benefits, pay, etc. as I have here. I live a comfortable lifestyle, and am not one of those 5%. And I work hard and contribute to society.

I liked Norway.

[keyboardlover]

I liked Norway.

Norway's definitely got a great economy and is a rich country. But it's just very different from here...if you go there you would understand. I don't believe the payscale is as competitive but they do have a lot of decent benefits. There's just...not as much going on there. It's a different culture and everything...who knows you might like it. You could take a trip there instead of Japan...

I don't know anything about the working conditions there so can't comment on that...

[chimera15]

Don't really see the connection with us being communists...we're just cogs in the global economy, along with everyone else. And the reason why everything's made in China now anyway is because of the old American Unions (a socialist concept). And we're not the only ones who pay China to build our stuff...

If you as a democracy and capitalists deal with communists, the different economical systems infect each other.  It's why we didn't want to have trade with Russia or Cuba.  Because their systems are so antithetical, their workers who are forced into wage caps and shared wealth and like 50% or more in taxes and a communal health and government owned production the American companies can't compete and so get put out of business.  This forces the government to step in, as they have for cars and in effect run them, or they die.

Look at aircraft manufactures.  Before we were forced to compete with airbus, which is a communist/socialist government owned aircraft manufacturing company, the US had half a dozen big jet makers.  They were put out of business directly as a result of not being able to compete with Airbus.  They all got eaten and rolled up into Boeing, which is now one giant conglomeration that in some way can complete because it has a total monopoly in the US as an aircraft maker.    The government can't break them up, which in a real capitalist system they should have been broken up a long time ago because they would die against such global pressure.

The same thing is happening with the car companies, only the government stepped in to save them because they realized what was happening.  It won't be long before this happens again though, we'll have one national car company, just as Russia did.  It'll be the only way they can compete.

[keyboardlover]

If you as a democracy and capitalists deal with communists, the different economical systems infect each other.  It's why we didn't want to have trade with Russia or Cuba.  Because their systems are so antithetical, their workers who are forced into wage caps and shared wealth and like 50% or more in taxes and a communal health and government owned production the American companies can't compete and so get put out of business.  This forces the government to step in, as they have for cars and in effect run them, or they die.

I suspect that if Russia or Cuba could output what China does given the U.S.'s demand, we would go with them. Either that, or there are other issues with trading with those countries that I'm not aware of. It's typically either money (not enough) or political conflict that ends trade relationships.

Although, fair dues, although China's treatment of its labor force is poor, it's probably better than some other countries. Don't know enough to compare.

[chimera15]

Norway's definitely got a great economy and is a rich country. But it's just very different from here...if you go there you would understand. I don't believe the payscale is as competitive but they do have a lot of decent benefits. There's just...not as much going on there. It's a different culture and everything...who knows you might like it. You could take a trip there instead of Japan...

I don't know anything about the working conditions there so can't comment on that...

I lived there for 6 months in 1995.  I worked for SAS.

[keyboardlover]

I lived there for 6 months in 1995.  I worked for SAS.

Oh wow cool...was the pay/benefits comparable to here? How were the working conditions?

[chimera15]

Oh wow cool...was the pay/benefits comparable to here? How were the working conditions?

As it's the only time I could find a job that would pay me more than $15 an hour, wasn't a minimum wage retail sales job, and had health benefits as a result of national health care, I can't really compare it to anywhere in the U.S.

[keyboardlover]

As it's the only time I could find a job that would pay me more than $15 an hour, wasn't a minimum wage retail sales job, and had health benefits as a result of national health care, I can't really compare it to anywhere in the U.S.

Gotcha...really cool that you got experience there though.

[chimera15]

Some photos I took:

I took two big tours of Norway, one out west to Bergen from Oslo, and the other up North to Trondheim.



This was the last shot I had of film, you can see the mark where it ran into the second to last shot.  I almost didn't get it.  I climbed a 1000 foot fyord to get this, and hiked about 10 miles.










These were scanned in the late 90's/ early 2000's, so not the best unfortunately.  The skies and contrast aren't as nice as they could be.  I've got 100's of shots like this.  Norway is like heaven on earth basically.

[keyboardlover]

Wow I had heard it's beautiful and those photos definitely attest to that...

[mike]

Look at aircraft manufactures.  Before we were forced to compete with airbus, which is a communist/socialist government owned aircraft manufacturing company, the US had half a dozen big jet makers.  They were put out of business directly as a result of not being able to compete with Airbus.  They all got eaten and rolled up into Boeing, which is now one giant conglomeration that in some way can complete because it has a total monopoly in the US as an aircraft maker.    The government can't break them up, which in a real capitalist system they should have been broken up a long time ago because they would die against such global pressure.

Airbus is a private company which admittedly gets a lot of government assistance. Not only is the US complaining of government assistance to Airbus, but the EU is complaining of government assistance to Boeing Airbus itself is a merger of numerous private aerospace companies because of the dominance of US aerospace companies.

Don't know where you get the "communist" bit from - there's a certain amount of socialism around in Europe but there's no way on earth that the former communist countries would have "collaborated" with capitalist countries in the west in the formation of Airbus.

In a "real" capitalist system, the government wouldn't interfere with industry to break up monopolies which of course is why government interference is required.

[chimera15]

A lot of my cooworkers hooked up with norwegian girls, but I never was that interested.  I was too interested in my compaq 386, and the online mud I couldn't access from Norway back then cause I couldn't find a node.  lol

[chimera15]

Airbus is a private company which admittedly gets a lot of government assistance. Not only is the US complaining of government assistance to Airbus, but the EU is complaining of government assistance to Boeing Airbus itself is a merger of numerous private aerospace companies because of the dominance of US aerospace companies.

Don't know where you get the "communist" bit from - there's a certain amount of socialism around in Europe but there's no way on earth that the former communist countries would have "collaborated" with capitalist countries in the west in the formation of Airbus.

In a "real" capitalist system, the government wouldn't interfere with industry to break up monopolies which of course is why government interference is required.

The government's job is to ensure fair play and competition in a capitalist system.  In a socialist/communist system the government owns the companies, so there would be no reason to break them up, cause they own them anyway.  It might look like a socialist move to break a company up, but it's actually a capitalist one that ensures capitalism.

As for Airbus is not owned by the government.  As of 2005 Airbus is about 25% owned by French and Spanish governments.  It used to be a lot more.

http://crookedairbus.blogspot.com/2007/02/us-official-explains-airbus-state.html

Any government that owns companies that directly produces products and sells them is communist.

Communism, or really Utopianism, is a natural state of evolution of a government. The only difference between communism and utopianism is that communism is forced on a population and utopianism evolves over time because of abuses of it's populace through laws and controls.  Utopianism occurs when a society evolves naturally so that the government controls most parts of life and the populace lives lives that are for the good of all.  
 
They don't have to call it communist for it to be communist.  Unless actions are taken for capitalists to stay capitalists they too will become communist/socialist/utopianst, even though they may still insist it's capitalism.   Trading and competition with societies that are more evolved will cause the destruction of the lower evolved government, or hasten the evolution.  That's what's happened in Europe, and why Airbus is completely unfair for the US to be competing against.

[mike]

The government's job is to ensure fair play and competition in a capitalist system.  In a socialist/communist system the government owns the companies, so there would be no reason to break them up, cause they own them anyway.  It might look like a socialist move to break a company up, but it's actually a capitalist one that ensures capitalism.

You're confusing a free economy ("pure" capitalism) with a mixed economy.

[wellington1869]

In a "real" capitalist system, the government wouldn't interfere with industry to break up monopolies which of course is why government interference is required.

"real" by whose definition? Even adam smith (father of capitalism, for all intents and purposes) supported breaking up monopolies and even supported taxing the rich at a higher tax rate than the poor.

total laissez faire policies would be disastrous because capitalism leads directly to monopolies and oligarchies -- the very sign of capitalist success - which in turn would destroy capitalism and competition. Even adam smith recognized that. Govt 'trust busting' therefore is an integral part of making capitalism work.

I think the only people who argue for "pure" laissez faire policies are loony libertarians and those who already have a monopoly and want to keep it. But they dont realize they're going against adam smith's own advice.

[chimera15]

You're confusing a free economy ("pure" capitalism) with a mixed economy.

There's no such thing as a mixed economy in the real world.  Or really, they're all mixed, and there's no such thing as a pure free economy.  Free economy is an arbitrary or at best a relative definition.

All economies are in various states of evolution.  It's like saying, humans are a mix between apes and whatever we're evolving into. You can say an ape is an ape based on characteristics, in time, but at what point, looking at a full evolutionary scale, do you then decided that it's another species?  You can't define a species as a mix between one and another, because they're all mixed,  it's only arbitrary that we define one vs another.

[Ekaros]

In pure capitalism there wouldn't be goverment, it wouldn't likely work too well. Or then the goverment and state would be the corporations not individuals...

[maclover]

You know, I'm sorry if I'm a little blunt, but you're an idiot.

I'm pretty sure you're the idiot in this argument because you ignore history.

First off, we're not even close to being in a depression.

We are getting closer by the day as enough jobs aren't being created to keep up with population growth. During the great depression there was a 20-25% unemployment rate in the United States. Right now we are at 10,6%.

Second, how does creating a bunch of government jobs help private employment? It just brings the US deeper and deeper into debt.

You called me an idiot but you asked this question. Do you even have a basic grasp of economy 101.

And third, how are the Republicans the ones out of touch right now?

There is no great bondsman that's coming to collect on the debt the united states is in. China is happily continuing to buy American bonds because it keeps the Chinese export economy going. In fact Japan complained about China buying their bonds because it increases the value of the yen which makes it less attractive for companies outside of Japan to import Japanese goods.

The deficit shouldn't be an issue right now. Sure in a long term perspective it's important but in the short term job creation should be getting more attention. Getting the economy going again is what's important because that's what's going to enable us to reduce the deficit in the future.

It might look like a socialist move to break a company up, but it's actually a capitalist one that ensures capitalism.

I'm sorry but a spade is a spade. Joseph McCarthy is dead and no longer in office any longer. The cold war is over. You can use the word socialism, it's OK.

If you want to enjoy pure capitalism there is always Somalia.

[pex]

If you want to enjoy pure capitalism there is always Somalia.

I wonder why warlords suck so bad in somalia they can't unify/fearmonger one subjects under warlord.

Why didn't Mark Thatcher fund Simon Mann to take over Somalia instead of Equatorial Guinea?

GUESTIONS!

[quadibloc]

If you want to enjoy pure capitalism there is always Somalia.

If you want to enjoy pure socialism, there is always Zimbabwe.