Does the economic crisis affect you?

[newconroer]

Originally Posted by freaksavior

NO WE ARE NOT!!

its in peoples head!! seriously why did this "crisis" hit us? hmm thank you media and freakin news for filling everyone head full of crap!

You should learn something about economics.

Forget what the media says; in a free market, business handles it's own. Oh wait, Americans trashed their free market. Ok, nevermind, media...lead the way.


Though seriously, America HAS been in a recession for years, that's more or less been lying dormant.


Income tax, IRS in general and the federal banking reserve has plagued the economy for decades. Now, when it starts to really show, people want to act like it's no big deal.
It wouldn't be surprising that they are the same people, or of the same mindset, as those who used to think it was no big deal years ago either.


@Btarunr

What you must understand, is that America especially, is built upon SOUND economic policies, and the protection of those policies. The regulations in place are for that purpose.
What you have today is something completely different.

The purpose of point fingers and blaming, as much as it seems to only fuel the fire, is that truth must be spoken, and more importantly, it needs to be heard, and you cannot separate the politics or the political figures/parties from the equation, because they are the variables that have influenced the problems being faced today. You must have some sense of continuity, otherwise, if noone is accountable, then who will stop them the next time?

[proletariandan]

Originally Posted by btarunr

Not all regulation is Socialism. Socialism doesn't hold the answers to how to regulate and bring capitalism back to shape. The equation doesn't work out in that way.

I don't think anyone is saying that socialism is going to revive capitalism; the idea is to smash capitalism, which is a political economy model where the government is controlled by a narrow class of business elites at the cost of the great majority. When I talk about socialism, I'm not talking about what exists in Cuba or North Korea, I'm talking about the nationalization of the means of production (schools, hospitals, banks, laboratories, factories, etc) and the democratic management of those sectors of the economy that require it and regulation of those sectors that don't. The difference between a capitalist and socialist political economy are who controls the government and therefore who controls the means of production or the commanding heights of the economy.

[newconroer]

That's on the fringe of national socialism, which had it's most successful results in Nazism. Unfortunatley, despite actual market strengthening of the natural kind, it needed a military presence to survive.


And people are also confusing governmental styles with economic systems.
Both capitalism and socialism are of the latter; and more importantly, capitalism is an actual system, where as socialism is about economic theories. Which as we've seen, might be great on paper, but utterly fail in practice.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by proletariandan

I don't think anyone is saying that socialism is going to revive capitalism; the idea is to smash capitalism, which is a political economy model where the government is controlled by a narrow class of business elites at the cost of the great majority. When I talk about socialism, I'm not talking about what exists in Cuba or North Korea, I'm talking about the nationalization of the means of production (schools, hospitals, banks, laboratories, factories, etc) and the democratic management of those sectors of the economy that require it and regulation of those sectors that don't. The difference between a capitalist and socialist political economy are who controls the government and therefore who controls the means of production or the commanding heights of the economy.

Two words for you if you think socialism in America is the answer. Freddy Mack. Now tell me how did that little experiment work out?

[mdm-adph]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

Two words for you if you think socialism in America is the answer. Freddy Mack. Now tell me how did that little experiment work out?

As I recall, it wasn't government controlled, just government-funded. Having the government give money to an organization/business, and then not having any control over the money, is like giving crack to a crackhead. No wonder it went tits up.

[newconroer]

Originally Posted by mdm-adph

As I recall, it wasn't government controlled, just government-funded. Having the government give money to an organization/business, and then not having any control over the money, is like giving crack to a crackhead. No wonder it went tits up.

Having government give money to an organization, and then proceed to control the money in every way possible is potentially even worse.

[DarkMatter]

Mailman, FYI I'm 26 years old and I have lived enough to know a lot of people that talk like you. I'll admit I have put you in that same bag, because, well you act like them. 99% of people talking like you end up being as the idea I have of you right now. Come on enlighten me, tell me how exactly you are, until know your words talk for yourself. ME, me, me and me. That's what matters.

And don't fall for vain menaces. Of corse you can verbally destroy me in a language I don't dominate, that doesn't make your ideology the right one.

Originally Posted by newconroer

Having government give money to an organization, and then proceed to control the money in every way possible is potentially even worse.

And potentially much better, just depends on who is in control.

[mdm-adph]

Originally Posted by newconroer

Having government give money to an organization, and then proceed to control the money in every way possible is potentially even worse.

Why? It's "the Peoples'" money. The government is the servant of the People. Don't you want the People controlling what happens to their money?

Either that, or don't take the money.

[thoughtdisorder]

Come on guys, it's all good.

Let's get back to "Does the economic crisis affect you?"

[Thermopylae_480]

Originally Posted by proletariandan

I don't think anyone is saying that socialism is going to revive capitalism; the idea is to smash capitalism, which is a political economy model where the government is controlled by a narrow class of business elites at the cost of the great majority. When I talk about socialism, I'm not talking about what exists in Cuba or North Korea, I'm talking about the nationalization of the means of production (schools, hospitals, banks, laboratories, factories, etc) and the democratic management of those sectors of the economy that require it and regulation of those sectors that don't. The difference between a capitalist and socialist political economy are who controls the government and therefore who controls the means of production or the commanding heights of the economy.

If corporations control a government than it is a corporate oligarchy, not necessarily capitalism. In a true free market economy government does not control business, and business does not control government. Government should exist to intervene when a corporation commits fraud, theft, or infringes on the property of individuals or groups of individuals. In a true capitalist society private individuals and investors control the means to production. To have government intervene and redistribute wealth on behalf of either corporations or "the people" is not capitalism in the slightest, but different sides of the socialism coin-corporate socialism or popular socialism. Socialism is a polite way to steal lawfully gained production from one group and distribute it to another using the guise of a government as the weapon.

Surrendering the powers of production to a government invariably results in the means of production being used as rewards and bribes to government officials. Socialism requires the consolidation of a great amount of power in a central authority which then is subject to a greater degree of centralized corruption. The Soviets, with an extremely centralized authoritarian government were unable to make socialism work with absolute control over their economy and people; it is arrogant to assume that any other nation could accomplish a socialist utopia with anything less.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by DarkMatter

Mailman, FYI I'm 26 years old and I have lived enough to know a lot of people that talk like you. I'll admit I have put you in that same bag, because, well you act like them. 99% of people talking like you end up being as the idea I have of you right now. Come on enlighten me, tell me how exactly you are, until know your words talk for yourself. ME, me, me and me. That's what matters.

And don't fall for vain menaces. Of corse you can verbally destroy me in a language I don't dominate, that doesn't make your ideology the right one.

I am so glad you care so much for your fellow man. You are truly a beacon of hope for the socialist world. Go fourth and be prosperous.......for someone else.

[DarkMatter]

The problem is that currently that oligarchy, raised by a century of badly managed capitalism, not only controls the corporate world, but also the political world. Is so that most economic decisions made by the governments are to protect that oligarchy. The governments are formed by the elite and help the elite reach that position, there's no place for poor people into politics.

Ideal capitalism is as unreachable as ideal socialism, both of which would be the answer to a "perfect" world. Capitalism promotes wealth based on merits, the idea that anyone can get rich if it's smart enough, but that's not true at all nowadays, if it ever was anyway. First of al,l to become rich or powerful, you need a good education (not only in the sense of the education itself, but the prestige of the institution), which is out of reach for most people. Once again, the elite breeding itself.

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

I am so glad you care so much for your fellow man. You are truly a beacon of hope for the socialist world. Go fourth and be prosperous.......for someone else.

I'll tell you just one more time: I don't believe in socialism. No one here believes anyway. I believe in a fair capitalism, something we clearly don't have right now. Capitalism was not founded with the idea of creating and mantaining an elite, it was created to fight the elite at the moment, to fight the oligarchy of that time, the one based on "born rights". We have returned to that, the world is just not capitalist right now. There's no difference between Monarchies of the past and what we have today. I can't believe anyone thinks George Bush Jr. reached presidency by it's own merits.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by DarkMatter

I'll tell you just one more time: I don't believe in socialism. No one here believes anyway. I believe in a fair capitalism, something we clearly don't have right now. Capitalism was not founded with the idea of creating and mantaining an elite, it was created to fight the elite at the moment, to fight the oligarchy of that time, the one based on "born rights". We have returned to that, the world is just not capitalist right now. There's no difference between Monarchies of the past and what we have today. I can't believe anyone thinks George Bush Jr. reached presidency by it's own merits.

Ok then what about Bill Clinton? Or even Obama? Did they too have "elite" beginnings? Yet again your comment is flawed.

[zithe]

Originally Posted by DRDNA

Yes I am feeling the affects ...find out if I still have a job tomorrow.... ....been with the company for over 10 years .....I am from upstate Ny ...NO jobs around here

My family's here, too. My dad's having trouble finding a job. I'm off season so I can't help out with money problems. =\

[DarkMatter]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

Ok then what about Bill Clinton? Or even Obama? Did they too have "elite" beginnings? Yet again your comment is flawed.

They were funded by the elite, yes, and they will have to return that in the future. But not money, they don't need money. Some minor law adjustments here or there, some contracts. Where's the true OWN MERITS when the one that paid their campaign is going to receive most of the governments contracts in return? When did they gained that provilege by their own merits? They did not, they just paid a campaign. Money breeding money.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by DarkMatter

They were funded by the elite, yes, and they will have to return that in the future. But not money, they don't need money. Some minor law adjustments here or there, some contracts. Where's the true OWN MERITS when the one that paid their campaign is going to receive most of the governments contracts in return? When did they gained that provilege by their own merits? They did not, they just paid a campaign. Money breeding money.

So they were funded by the elite? They bought the election then? I guess the people voting had nothing at all to do with it.

[DarkMatter]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

So they were funded by the elite? They bought the election then? I guess the people voting had nothing at all to do with it.

I can't believe you know so little about politics. You don't, I mean, you do know. I guess you're just acting as if you didn't.

Politic election as any other election is based on popularity and they did bought popularity, yes. Millions and millions spent in their campaings speak for themselves. But there's very little to choose from in the US to call it free elections anyway. This is what you will hear from pretty much anyone outside the US. Two factions can't contain the ideology of millions of people with the diverse cultures within the US and it trully doesn't.

And it's not about the fact that the people voted them, which means they think they are valid enough (the best election given the options), it's not even about the fact they are valid or not, it's about the fact that they were first chosen because they belonged to an elite and not because of their merits. You mentioned Clinton, let's talk about Hillary Clinton. I won't say she was not valid enough to reach where she reached, I won't say she was not valid to stay, but she wasn't more prepared than other 100 million people in the US, and those never had the option. That's again an elite breeding itself. Same can be said about Bush, but 100 times worse this time, because he certainly wasn't up to the task.

In a sense is not very different than those dictators that perform elections, fake elections, where the only valid party is their own. But in this case, there are two parties and they don't use brute force to make electors choose them. They use propaganda, a propaganda that only big amounts of money can buy, only at reach of the rich and powerful.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by DarkMatter

I can't believe you know so little about politics. You don't, I mean, you do know. I guess you're just acting as if you didn't.

Politic election as any other election is based on popularity and they did bought popularity, yes. Millions and millions spent in their campaings speak for themselves. But there's very little to choose from in the US to call it free elections anyway. This is what you will hear from pretty much anyone outside the US. Two factions can't contain the ideology of millions of people with the diverse cultures within the US and it trully doesn't.

And it's not about the fact that the people voted them, which means they think they are valid enough (the best election given the options), it's not even about the fact they are valid or not, it's about the fact that they were first chosen because they belonged to an elite and not because of their merits. You mentioned Clinton, let's talk about Hillary Clinton. I won't say she was not valid enough to reach where she reached, I won't say she was not valid to stay, but she wasn't more prepared than other 100 million people in the US, and those never had the option. That's again an elite breeding itself. Same can be said about Bush, but 100 times worse this time, because he certainly wasn't up to the task.

In a sense is not very different than those dictators that perform elections, fake elections, where the only valid party is their own. But in this case, there are two parties and they don't use brute force to make electors choose them. They use propaganda, a propaganda that only big amounts of money can buy, only at reach of the rich and powerful.

Just to let you know when you vote in the U.S. there are 15 other people on the ballet for any given position. You don't HAVE to vote for democrats or republicans. You can vote for whoever you want. If it was strictly about money than Ross Perot would have been a shoe-in. However democrats, republicans and independents pretty much do represent the common goals of the people. After all we live in the same "house". The president has power but the real powers are held in congress and the senate. Which are more representative of the region hence of the people. I don't think you have a realistic concept of American politics or how they work. It sounds like you have been fed a lot of propaganda.

[DarkMatter]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

Just to let you know when you vote in the U.S. there are 15 other people on the ballet for any given position. You don't HAVE to vote for democrats or republicans. You can vote for whoever you want. If it was strictly about money than Ross Perot would have been a shoe-in. However democrats, republicans and independents pretty much do represent the common goals of the people. After all we live in the same "house". The president has power but the real powers are held in congress and the senate. Which are more representative of the region hence of the people. I don't think you have a realistic concept of American politics or how they work. It sounds like you have been fed a lot of propaganda.

Only two make an ubiquitous TV debate and appearances. You understimate the power of the TV and propaganda, marketing, after all they sell them to you. You are very naive (despite how old you might be) if you think that the populace and you, yes you, are free from the influences.

I know how it works don't worry, is not really different to any other democratic country. The fact is that the people in the congress and the senate are not different in nature, they prosper because ther's someone there to up them in the lists, because they share the same mentality and thanks to a lot of money too. An election of a senator follows the same (relative) principles and media paraphernalia and always have some company or financial group behind them. It's a system that has evolved and the penetration of the monetary elite into the politics has grown with every generation. Now it's totally controled, thought the control changes from one coalition to another depending of who is in power. It's the same as in the F1: every driver has his sponsors, that he will carry no matter where he goes, and that at the same time play a very important role on the future of that driver, in obtaining the seat.

You seem to think I'm talking about the US, I'm not, pretty much every capitalist and democratic country is the same in that respect. One thing is sure thought, the tolerance for lobbys in the US is far greater than any other country, and happens, happens a lot, don't try to evade this fact. The worst part, as I said, is that it seems to be socially accepted.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by DarkMatter

Only two make an ubiquitous TV debate and appearances. You understimate the power of the TV and propaganda, marketing, after all they sell them to you. You are very naive (despite how old you might be) if you think that the populace and you, yes you, are free from the influences.

I know how it works don't worry, is not really different to any other democratic country. The fact is that the people in the congress and the senate are not different in nature, they prosper because ther's someone there to up them in the lists, because they share the same mentality and thanks to a lot of money too. An election of a senator follows the same (relative) principles and media paraphernalia and always have some company or financial group behind them. It's a system that has evolved and the penetration of the monetary elite into the politics has grown with every generation. Now it's totally controled, thought the control changes from one coalition to another depending of who is in power. It's the same as in the F1: every driver has his sponsors, that he will carry no matter where he goes, and that at the same time play a very important role on the future of that driver, in obtaining the seat.

You seem to think I'm talking about the US, I'm not, pretty much every capitalist and democratic country is the same in that respect. One thing is sure thought, the tolerance for lobbys in the US is far greater than any other country, and happens, happens a lot, don't try to evade this fact. The worst part, as I said, is that it seems to be socially accepted.

So whats the answer oh wise one? What do we do? How do we fix our evil ways?

[DarkMatter]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

So whats the answer oh wise one? What do we do? How do we fix our evil ways?

I don't know. Nobody does. But one thing is certain, the system we've been using until now is not the answer.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by DarkMatter

I don't know.

Now you're being honest.

[TRIPTEX_CAN]

Too bad Bush spent all your $$$ in Iraq.... this thread wouldn't exist otherwise. I don't understand how some people still defend him as being "not that bad".

Off topic.... or is it?

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by TRIPTEX_MTL

Too bad Bush spent all your $$$ in Iraq.... this thread wouldn't exist otherwise. I don't understand how some people still defend him as being "not that bad".

Off topic.... or is it?

Thats right! All of our money went to Iraq. You are an economic GENIUS!

[Triprift]

Yesterday our government announced a 42 billion dollar stimulas package for the economy with the bit i was interested in being the $950 payment to anyone who earn less than 80k a year. I wonder what ill get as the government is encouraging us all to spend are money for the good of the economy hmmm maybe a Ps3 and some games.