NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's list the problems:

1) Consumer spending is going down, unemployment on the way up.

2) Big current account deficits (read = trade deficits) over the years have driven the dollar down, which is now starting to raise worries about inflation. Doomsayers are wondering whether things are getting to the point where the dollar needs to be saved before countries start dumping it from their reserves (which would send it into free fall).

3) There's a liquidity crisis in credit markets because banks are sitting on mortgage-backed securities that no one is willing to buy or lend against anymore. As everyone waits how the housing market develops and tries to re-assess and re-price risks, banks are hoarding cash as much as they can, significantly reducing their lending to businesses and consumers in the process, or otherwise negating the impact of Fed rate cuts.

4) The US government has a lot of debt and considering that it'll have to be paid back with interest, its probably best to get the budget in order at some point.

5) The housing market is still falling, destroying wealth and confidence in the process.

This is a pretty nasty sort of situation. Bernanke wants to keep cutting rates and injecting liquidity until there is any sign the recession is over and then immediately get rates back up and quickly to prevent the next bubble and get the US dollar back to reasonable levels. Bush tried giving a few people little envelopes of money. And everyone else is otherwise occupied with the campaign.

So if you were the asked by Bush and Bernanke what they should do, what would you answer?

1) Stop throwing cash down the rathole that is Iraq.
2) Institute sweeping education reforms, including mandatory classes on economics (small and large scale) and government.

Take a few years to see results, but worth it.

Stop allowing any more houses to be built, and don't print any money for a while, so that your currency is actually worth something again.

1) Consumer spending is going down, unemployment on the way up.

Get rid of all taxes, except a tariff and maybe a small sales tax.
Big current account deficits (read = trade deficits) over the years have driven the dollar down, which is now starting to raise worries about inflation. Doomsayers are wondering whether things are getting to the point where the dollar needs to be saved before countries start dumping it from their reserves (which would send it into free fall).
No clue.
There's a liquidity crisis in credit markets because banks are sitting on mortgage-backed securities that no one is willing to buy or lend against anymore. As everyone waits how the housing market develops and tries to re-assess and re-price risks, banks are hoarding cash as much as they can, significantly reducing their lending to businesses and consumers in the process, or otherwise negating the impact of Fed rate cuts
Once again, no clue. I admit it when I don't know.
The US government has a lot of debt and considering that it'll have to be paid back with interest, its probably best to get the budget in order at some point.

SHRINK THE BLOATED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! Get rid of welfare, social security,etc, keep nothing but the necesities.
The housing market is still falling, destroying wealth and confidence in the process.

*sighs* No clue...

I would replace our fiat "money" with hard currency; repeal each and every form of taxation; do away with all wage and price controls; reduce government spending in all areas to a bare minimum (ideally, $0.00); privatize anything and everything; do away with all tariffs, subsidies, etc. and adopt genuine free trade; end our military presence abroad; end the stupid "War on Drugs"; open our borders; get corporations out of bed with the government; toss out just about any form of regulation imaginable; and, if possible, dissolve the federal government.

1) Stop throwing cash down the rathole that is Iraq.
It's making BAE Systems a lot of money, it'd be great if you could keep pissing away billions there tbqh.
2) Institute sweeping education reforms, including mandatory classes on economics (small and large scale) and government.
Bugger that. As if young people would actually care, or take any advice on board. When we were doing about the economics of Fascist Italy in my History course, about 90% of people were either too stupid to understand anything about the economy, or simply didn't care.

And we're the people who're actually amongst the intellectual elite, so to speak, arrogant as that might sound. The people doing an NVQ in Trowel Occupations 2 floors down sure as hell don't care.

SHRINK THE BLOATED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! Get rid of welfare, social security,etc, keep nothing but the necesities.
Don't be stupid. You need everyone chipping into the economy, and without welfare, you exclude a lot of people from the market entirely - the US already has a fairly high poverty rate, you don't want that going up.

I would replace our fiat "money" with hard currency; repeal each and every form of taxation; do away with all wage and price controls; reduce government spending in all areas to a bare minimum (ideally, $0.00); privatize anything and everything; do away with all tariffs, subsidies, etc. and adopt genuine free trade; end our military presence abroad; end the stupid "War on Drugs"; open our borders; get corporations out of bed with the government; toss out just about any form of regulation imaginable; and, if possible, dissolve the federal government.

Doing away with all of these all at once would likely cause great social upheaval and stop reform in thast direction for decades to come.

Is it just me or has no one really dealt with the "current" problems. Most of the changes above, not just ,Magdha, could have economic benefits in the long run but would have little effect on current problems and may even exasperate them.

Is it just me or has no one really dealt with the "current" problems. Most of the changes above, not just ,Magdha, could have economic benefits in the long run but would have little effect on current problems and may even exasperate them.
Yeah. I should probably have said: I'm more interested in real evaluation of what is actually happening right now and some solution proposals that could actually work within the given set of realistic options.

make tents the next alternative and have huge marketing campaigns for them, so if people do lose their homes, they won't consider themselves poor, just alternative. okay joking aside.

Stop the wars with numerous countries, make educational reforms, encourage people not to become evangelical christians (As i have no understanding of what makes them tick).
i'm sure the US will weather this little storm, it's a big country lots of people.
I suppose encouraging immigrants to enter the US would be a start, create better programmes for those new to the US on how things work, encourage business from other nations.
Get a piece of the Chinese Industrial increase in metals.

Reduce powers of the market over the individual, if they're spending so much on rubbish reduce the amount of rubbish.

*Encourage outreach workers to help those individuals who would normally end up in a mental institution, this can produce far better results. (according to my sociology teacher*)
Sorry my ideas aren't really well thought out, i imagine Education reforms are required, and changes to attitudes to immigrants from foriegn countries.
Oh and end this 'war on terror' i see no positive impact of this on the populace other than encouraging warlike behaviour, this is bad in a country with economic concerns.

Easy. 5 year plans, duh. How else would you do it?

Don't be stupid. You need everyone chipping into the economy, and without welfare, you exclude a lot of people from the market entirely - the US already has a fairly high poverty rate, you don't want that going up.
Eliminating welfare WOULD make a lot of people poor... If not for everything else there. Elimination of MOST taxes would give people a lot more money
(I think last time I checked it was 30-something% of the average persons income, I'll have to recheck) and thus give not only private charities more money, but also give buisnesses more money allowing them to hire more people, thus lowering the poverty rate.

No neat solution here. The things that might help solve one problem will worsen others.

I guess I lean towards Bernanke's approach... though it's questionable what results it's generated so far, and it seems the sort of thing that requires very careful finesse to work.

Quit printing money like its going out of style.

Easy. 5 year plans, duh. How else would you do it?
2 Year Plans. Hey, the one that the DDR had was resolved in just the one, with massive increases in the chemicals industry around Leipzig.

OTOH that kinda left a huge stack of super toxic debris about, and whilst the US has Quite Some Space Left, you might not want to go down that path just yet.

So if you were the asked by Bush and Bernanke what they should do, what would you answer?


"Resign."

Followed by a sizable rant about the folly of centralized planning and oligarchy in general. This entire issue is actually quite amusing in how the nation of rugged bootstrap anti-government individualism goes off crying to the Fed and the government to fix things when their profit margins decline. Especially so because the central planners screwed things up to begin with. Even a pinko commie like me knows better than that.

Someone let me know when the market decides to act like one. That might fix things.

Easy. 5 year plans, duh. How else would you do it?

Heh. That was very good. Well done. :D

As for unemployment, how is that a problem, again? It's at 5% now, yeah? The economy has problems, sure, but unemployment isn't one of the indicators.

Yeah. I should probably have said: I'm more interested in real evaluation of what is actually happening right now and some solution proposals that could actually work within the given set of realistic options.

Its quite a pickle.. Bernake could raise interest rates fighting inflation and propping up the dollar, but that could also cause a deflationary spiral given the recession and low consumer confidence. He could continue with his actions and bring stagflationary pressures along with the free fall of the dollar. Not a situation I my knowledge of economics is at all adequate to solve.

Not a situation I my knowledge of economics is at all adequate to solve.

I'm not sure anyone's knowledge of economics is adequate to solve this one.

I'm not sure anyone's knowledge of economics is adequate to solve this one.

LOL. True, but any attempt I could make would probably be laughable at best.

Restrict the Government
Restrict Government spending
Stop Printing money like it's growing from trees
Keep the tax cut and cut taxes more.
Spend Five years easing the country into the Fair Tax plan.

Stop devaluing the currency.

Cut corporate and payroll taxes.

Drastically cut government spending.

Don't worry about the trade deficit - as long as you're using a fiat currency it doesn't matter.

Eliminating welfare WOULD make a lot of people poor... If not for everything else there.
Yes, this is why it's an utterly crap idea.
Elimination of MOST taxes would give people a lot more money
(I think last time I checked it was 30-something% of the average persons income, I'll have to recheck)
So?

A few million people spending a couple of hundred extra dollars on appliances or whatever and squirrelling the rest away doesn't help the economy like having an extremely wide base of people who can spend money, which, with welfare, is the current system.

Also, where are you cutting your spending on? Education? Healthcare provision? Social Security? None of those are appealing solutions whatsoever.
and thus give not only private charities more money
Pfft. Unlikely.
but also give buisnesses more money allowing them to hire more people, thus lowering the poverty rate.
Nah. The world's about to go into a recession, businesses aren't going to be hiring people in any great numbers without good reason.

Incidentally, what you're suggesting is essentially Reaganomics, which was a pretty mediocre system for creating jobs, at an average of roughly 2.1% per year. Which is alright, but nothing special, and considering the pretty decent prospects in the early mid 1980s after the Oil Glut, is pretty poor.

I'm not sure anyone's knowledge of economics is adequate to solve this one.

Someone ask the invisible hand. It's supposed to know.

Someone ask the invisible hand. It's supposed to know.

I did, and all it did was give me the invisible finger. Apparently it doesn't know what to do either.

Someone ask the invisible hand. It's supposed to know.
'Sup. Things will be better by about 2013, although China and India are going to be nearer the top, with the US and, to a lesser extent, the EU suffering from this crash.

Get rid of the Federal government, or at least beat it into a cage and keep it there.

I did, and all it did was give me the invisible finger.

Sigged.

Extort other nations around the world. Governments could learn A LOT from the mafia.

"Hey Spain, give us $10 billion or we are going to blow up Barcelona." That's one example. The Roman method. With Spain, you are talking about a nation that surrendered after a train bombing.

Like any true superpower would. This would have already been policy in a realist nation and the economy would never be in danger.

Get rid of the Federal government, or at least beat it into a cage and keep it there.

Agreed.

A few million people spending a couple of hundred extra dollars on appliances or whatever and squirrelling the rest away doesn't help the economy like having an extremely wide base of people who can spend money, which, with welfare, is the current system.

So 30% is only a couple hundred dollers? When? In 1880? Wide base of people who can spend money? So your saying that by taking money away from the average person and giving it to a poorer person CREATES more spending money? What planet do you live on again?
Also, where are you cutting your spending on? Education? Healthcare provision? Social Security? None of those are appealing solutions whatsoever.

They might not be apealing to YOU, however, the US got along just fine without any of these for quite some time, and I think that we could do without them. Again. Also, you forgot cutting spending on our huge uneeded army.
Pfft. Unlikely
Once again, YOU might not, but if my memory serves me correctly, about 25% of people back in 1927 donated to charity. And guess what? That was before our current welfare system! :eek:
Nah. The world's about to go into a recession, businesses aren't going to be hiring people in any great numbers without good reason.
Moneys not a good reason anymore?:confused:
Incidentally, what you're suggesting is essentially Reaganomics, which was a pretty mediocre system for creating jobs, at an average of roughly 2.1% per year. Which is alright, but nothing special, and considering the pretty decent prospects in the early mid 1980s after the Oil Glut, is pretty poor
Erm... I don't remember Reagan getting rid of all of those taxes, he reduced some taxes, did some reforms, and did a few tax cuts, but he didn't acheive the almost total removal of taxation (Note the almost) that I'm suggesting. 30% is a lot of money, it would be used far better in the hands of the average person, then in the hands of the average congressman.

Get rid of the Federal government, or at least beat it into a cage and keep it there.

Amen.

Extort other nations around the world.

"Hey Spain, give us $10 billion or we are going to blow up Barcelona." That's one example. The Roman method. With Spain, you are talking about a nation that surrendered after a train bombing.

Like any true superpower would. This would have already been policy in a realist nation and the economy would never be in danger.
Aye, aye.

Then you just get France saying "back le fuck away, nous avons aussi des nukes, seriously". And then Russia saying "Da, also we crush you and give nuke to Iran, how you like?", and then things start to go very wrong, very quickly.

Sigged.

*bows*

*bows*

*pies*

Aye, aye.

Then you just get France saying "back le fuck away, nous avons aussi des nukes, seriously". And then Russia saying "Da, also we crush you and give nuke to Iran, how you like?", and then things start to go very wrong, very quickly.

It wouldn't work with Russia or China among a select group of others. But we could certainly extort about 190 other countries.

France is too weak to do anything about it. You could enforce the policy on them for sure. Western Europeans have elected governments that make them all look like weak bitches. That's realism.

I did, and all it did was give me the invisible finger.


I'll be graduating from university very soon, needing a job, and everyone is screaming "recession!" Talk about a finger.

Invisible thumbscrews is more like it.

Let's list the problems:

1) Consumer spending is going down, unemployment on the way up.

Survey the nation to ascertain exactly what agricultural, mineral, military, human, industrial and financial resources are available to deploy, examine what infrastructure is available. Determine which are not being exploited to the full and then invest in this sector to provide more jobs and improve the weak sectors of the nation. In the US I think major priority would be on diversifying and intensifying agriculture in the south east where the climate allows for far more diverse crops than are produced, and on using the south west and midwest to develop and deploy a long term solar energy plan. Other priorities could be revamping of the car industry and rail transport infrastructure, since both lag behind other nations in these areas and could offer good prospects for creating jobs and getting meaningful improvement. These would lower unemployment and stimulate growth overall, but under control. Consumer spending can only be addressed when they feel secure, and they won't feel secure as long as they don't have work. Putting them to useful work is key.


2) Big current account deficits (read = trade deficits) over the years have driven the dollar down, which is now starting to raise worries about inflation. Doomsayers are wondering whether things are getting to the point where the dollar needs to be saved before countries start dumping it from their reserves (which would send it into free fall).

Tax imports and ensure domestic industries are engaged in producing goods that the nation itself needs rather than being purely export driven. Ensure as many resources as possible are purchased internally. Ensure no more currency is entering circulation.

3) There's a liquidity crisis in credit markets because banks are sitting on mortgage-backed securities that no one is willing to buy or lend against anymore. As everyone waits how the housing market develops and tries to re-assess and re-price risks, banks are hoarding cash as much as they can, significantly reducing their lending to businesses and consumers in the process, or otherwise negating the impact of Fed rate cuts.

Decree that reasonable credit applications are not refused, force banks to comply, and furthermore than once the crisis has passed that in future obviously bad risks are not taken on in the first place, to stop the cycle of bad credit that starts these problems.

4) The US government has a lot of debt and considering that it'll have to be paid back with interest, its probably best to get the budget in order at some point.

Increase personal taxation and cancel tax breaks to increase state revenues. Buy into the most strategic and revenue generating industries and take control of the resources coming out of the ground, particularly agricultural output, precious metals, oil and gas. Have targeted tax breaks or subsidies to key private industries with specific issues that will clearly be eased by such assistance, stressing their temporary nature. Use import tariffs protecting these investments to raise additional revenue and cut back foreign military adventures to those that address and clear and obvious immediate military threat.

5) The housing market is still falling, destroying wealth and confidence in the process.

The price was driven up artificially by a bubble economy, it has to drop to a realistic level (the same is true in the UK). It needs to be ridden out. The best the can be done is to achieve a soft landing and prevent a re-occurrence. Keep rates low to keep mortgage repayments affordable, discourage speculative buying. Have a social security net in place to deal with those who struggle, perhaps using a state scheme of buying up repro stock to use as social housing that also prevents lots of re-pro properties being auctioned for rock bottom prices and so further destabilising the market. The rent paid on the properties also ensures a good long term revenue stream to the state whilst also providing newly available directly owned state housing stock, and preventing a glut of housing on the open market.

So 30% is only a couple hundred dollers? When? In 1880? Wide base of people who can spend money? So your saying that by taking money away from the average person and giving it to a poorer person CREATES more spending money? What planet do you live on again?
Right, let's put it this way -

LMC family Y earns, ooh, $50,000 a year, right. Now they give quite a bit of that to their mortgage, spend a lot on their 2.4 kids, have a decent car, a PC and a TV, but OH MAN, they get a massive tax rebate. Now, do they actually spend all that much more because of that?

No, they keep it, and invest some of it in providing the services which the government no longer provides, such as education, because the US is now run like some arsehole state in Africa.

Does this massive tax rebate actually do much for the economy? No, it just privatises a whole load of services to no real benefit for anyone. Do they really want or need another couple of PCs, or TVs, or anything of the sort? Nah. And because they're MC, it'll just get squirreled away.



Now let's look at Really Pretty Hungry Family X. With welfare, they are basically surviving and not much more - but they have a little outlay on consumer goods every month - maybe the odd CD here, a new TV there. Now if you take their meagre income away, you get a family that basically... well... eats. And that's it.

How does that benefit anyone?
They might not be apealing to YOU, however, the US got along just fine without any of these for quite some time, and I think that we could do without them. Again.
Ah, yes, because the 19th century was a time of general cheeriness and glee, instead of being a depressing morass of easily preventable deaths all over the place, right?
Also, you forgot cutting spending on our huge uneeded army.
You don't want a whole bunch of pissed off soldiers around from being sacked, look at East Timor as a perfect example of what happens then.
Once again, YOU might not, but if my memory serves me correctly, about 25% of people back in 1927 donated to charity. And guess what? That was before our current welfare system! :eek:
... could we have some facts which may or may not serve you correctly.
Moneys not a good reason anymore?:confused:
Short term gains which they'll be paying through the teeth for when they can't afford it the most?

Great times to invest, eh?
Erm... I don't remember Reagan getting rid of all of those taxes, he reduced some taxes
He reduces tons of taxes.
did some reforms
A great many.
and did a few tax cuts
Massive ones.
but he didn't acheive the almost total removal of taxation (Note the almost) that I'm suggesting.
Aye, again, how are Social Security, healthcare and education going to hold up?
30% is a lot of money, it would be used far better in the hands of the average person, then in the hands of the average congressman.
He cut the top-band tax rate from 70% to 32%. That's a lot of money. On the other hand, he wasn't particularly successful at creating jobs, and when you come in with fairly high unemployment (9% or so), that's not a good thing.

It wouldn't work with Russia or China among a select group of others. But we could certainly extort about 190 other countries.
Aye, most of them so dirt poor there's hardly any point in it at all.
France is too weak to do anything about it.
They have nukes, you know.
You could enforce the policy on them for sure.
Western Europeans have elected governments that make them all look like weak bitches. That's realism.
Aye, we might look like it, but if the US started fucking with us, it'd be "oh man, you cargo ships are being impounded for this... oh, and we're raising tariffs on goods x, y and z (Florida Oranges a speciality), incidentally just keep in mind that we can annihilate you, thanks ;)"

That's the whole point Yoo. We'd make you abide by any trade agreement we wanted or face a war, which Europe has no stomach for at all. You think Spain, who couldn't stand up to a small group of terrorists is going to defy the U.S. if we actually threatened them? No way in hell. They'd pay up. Most of the world would. That's what the Romans did. They made policy and slapped down anyone that got uppity.

Even the UK, which had been the strongest for so long, allowed it's own people to be abducted by the Iranians with no retaliation. Now Spain may have committed the greatest act of international cowardice since the West sold out the Czechs when they threw out a successful government to appease terrorists, but I think the UK's response to Iran's aggression was even more humiliating. Not that the U.S. is far behind. The nonsense in Iraq and Afghanistan will likely be the last major military actions we ever engage in, no matter how humiliating the circumstances.

You really think that the European powers wouldn't pay extortion money to stop a war from happening? I mean really.

That's the whole point Yoo. We'd make you abide by any trade agreement we wanted or face a war, which Europe has no stomach for at all. You think Spain, who couldn't stand up to a small group of terrorists is going to defy the U.S. if we actually threatened them? No way in hell. They'd pay up. Most of the world would. That's what the Romans did. They made policy and slapped down anyone that got uppity.



And the Roman Empire turned out great didnt it? Wait, it fell because everyone got sick of them and ganged up on them? Well, things must have been ok after it fell. Wait, you mean that after it fell Italy fractered into a bunch of warring petty kingdoms who were constantly picked on by the other Europian powers, and that even after they were reunited Italy hasnt really had a stable government since 476 AD (with the exception of Mussollini if you can count him as stable, I wouldnt)?


Yeah, lets do what Rome did...

What good is history if youre not going to learn from it?

That's the whole point Yoo. We'd make you abide by any trade agreement we wanted or face a war, which Europe has no stomach for at all. You think Spain, who couldn't stand up to a small group of terrorists is going to defy the U.S. if we actually threatened them? No way in hell. They'd pay up. Most of the world would. That's what the Romans did. They made policy and slapped down anyone that got uppity.

You really think that the European powers wouldn't pay extortion money to stop a war from happening? I mean really.

Trying to force trade agreements with other nations with force would likely cause nations to bump the dollar en masse, crippling the economy. Not to mention anger large segements of the voting population.

I think Europe has the arms needed to cause a nuclear holocaust if necessary meaning a cold war is the most likely type of war, and even that is highly unlikely.

Trying to force trade agreements with other nations with force would likely cause nations to bump the dollar en masse, crippling the economy. Not to mention anger large segements of the voting population.

I think Europe has the arms needed to cause a nuclear holocaust if necessary meaning a cold war is the most likely type of war, and even that is highly unlikely.

Exactly. And the idea that Russia, China, etc would just sit idealy by as the US became THE Imperial power is absurd.

I gotta split this one into a few pieces.
Right, let's put it this way -

LMC family Y earns, ooh, $50,000 a year, right. Now they give quite a bit of that to their mortgage, spend a lot on their 2.4 kids, have a decent car, a PC and a TV, but OH MAN, they get a massive tax rebate. Now, do they actually spend all that much more because of that?

No, they keep it, and invest some of it in providing the services which the government no longer provides, such as education, because the US is now run like some arsehole state in Africa.


1. They invest it in education because the government no longer provides it. That creates jobs in the private school sector. Which has a much lower dropout rate then public schools I might add.
2. That money that their now spending and investing is LESS than what the government used to TAKE by force. Or threat of force to be more accurate.
3. I fail to see how a non-interventionist government islike some arsehole state in Africa.

4. The private sector (Which now runs the things the government used to) is usually better than the government because of competition of which the government has none.
5. Do you live in the US?
Now let's look at Really Pretty Hungry Family X. With welfare, they are basically surviving and not much more - but they have a little outlay on consumer goods every month - maybe the odd CD here, a new TV there. Now if you take their meagre income away, you get a family that basically... well... eats. And that's it.

How does that benefit anyone?

You know what? You're right! Why the heck don't they get off welfare and buy more products? After all, the US isn't some "Arsehole state in Africa" where you can't get a job. Just flip through the newspaper, look at store windows "HELP WANTED" signs all over the place.
Ah, yes, because the 19th century was a time of general cheeriness and glee, instead of being a depressing morass of easily preventable deaths all over the place, right?
Ah yes, the 19th century had our technology and knowledge didn't they?
You don't want a whole bunch of pissed off soldiers around from being sacked, look at East Timor as a perfect example of what happens then.

You're right again, why did we create an army that large again? Looks like we'll have to do this slowly then.
... could we have some facts which may or may not serve you correctly.
Are you questioning the fact that 1927 didn't have welfare in the US or that 25% (Or some number close to that) of people gave some of their money to private charities?
Short term gains which they'll be paying through the teeth for when they can't afford it the most?

Great times to invest, eh?

Please elaborate. I'm not getting your point here other than you believe that creating jobs is a short term gain.
He reduces tons of taxes
A great many
Massive ones
Once again, not enough. We're still paying through our teeth, aren't we? Not even Congress is sneaky enough to raise taxes that much higher in such a short period of time.
Aye, again, how are Social Security, healthcare and education going to hold up?

Once again, they won't. At least not government run Healthcare, Charity, and Education .;)
He cut the top-band tax rate from 70% to 32%
? I'm not quite sure what top-band tax is:confused:

to me it seems that whenever the analysists(or whatever they're called) say something that roughly translates as "todays trading will be shit" it actually seems to happen since people expect it to be. so what we do is bribe the analysists to say "todays trading will be good" then people expect it to be and it is. keep doing this until everything is back to normal.

now, if only it would be that simple.

You really think that the European powers wouldn't pay extortion money to stop a war from happening? I mean really.


No I dont. I think your arrogance makes it impossible to see anyone outside the US as being able to stand up for itself.

And the Roman Empire turned out great didnt it? Wait, it fell because everyone got sick of them and ganged up on them? Well, things must have been ok after it fell. Wait, you mean that after it fell Italy fractered into a bunch of warring petty kingdoms who were constantly picked on by the other Europian powers, and that even after they were reunited Italy hasnt really had a stable government since 495 AD (with the exception of Mussollini if you can count him as stable, I wouldnt)?


Yeah, lets do what Rome did...

What good is history if youre not going to learn from it?

What a joke. Rome ruled for 1,000 years and fell apart because they got weak and started using appeasement and understand instead of enforcing what they wanted.

What a joke. Rome ruled for 1,000 years and fell apart because they got weak and started using appeasement and understand instead of enforcing what they wanted.
Close anyway. They started using mercenary armies who were poorly equiped when they did fight. Which wasn't very often.

What a joke. Rome ruled for 1,000 years and fell apart because they got weak and started using appeasement and understand instead of enforcing what they wanted.

Actually, its because they couldnt control their empire as it was too large, the Huns, Vandals, etc showed up, barbarians had been Roman trained and Roman equiped so they began to revolt (groups like the Visgoths) and all the regions it controled started to get a little out of control.


Just because it doesnt fit in with your "Might makes right" world view doesnt make it a joke.

That's the whole point Yoo. We'd make you abide by any trade agreement we wanted or face a war, which Europe has no stomach for at all.
This is an artist's (yeah, mine, fine) representation of what would result from this kind of bullshit eventually -

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/7489/whpiche7.png
You think Spain, who couldn't stand up to a small group of terrorists
The Madrid Train Bombings were not something that people can simply "stand up to", any more than the events of September 11th. What did the US do to those who were responsible for those attacks? Very, very little. Aye, a couple of deaths, who gives a shit. What could Spain magically do?
is going to defy the U.S. if we actually threatened them?
Damn right, what the fuck is the US going to do about it?

You launch a nuke at Spain, the fallout either really pisses off North Africa, which has no love for the US and a lot of angry young men, or you piss off Europe, who are richer than you and can put you in a world of hurt yourself.
No way in hell. They'd pay up.
I really doubt this.
Most of the world would.
I think you're confusing "most of the world" with "Latin America and Africa, as if anyone gives a shit about them".
That's what the Romans did. They made policy and slapped down anyone that got uppity.
Aye, otoh the Romans didn't have to listen to public opinion, and when the army started getting involved too strongly in politics, as would happen in this kind of instance, the leaders started getting killed for not complying to their wishes. Do you honestly want the US to become a military dictatorship? Because that's what'll happen if you go down this kind of road.
You really think that the European powers wouldn't pay extortion money to stop a war from happening? I mean really.
Yep, and I think it would be made quite clear to the US that if extortion was now on the cards, it would be an absolutely reciprocal system.

No I dont. I think your arrogance makes it impossible to see anyone outside the US as being able to stand up for itself.

My arrogance or recent history?

The UK has watched it's empire that cost so many British lives fall apart because of political correctness. France lost all of it's will and power after WW1. Germany is somewhat stronger, but following the West very closely. Spain surrenders to terrorists. On and on.

Asia is the entire home for humanity. The West has gotten so weak.

Rename it from the "U.S economy" to the "bob syndrome effect mushroom"

Close anyway. They started using mercenary armies who were poorly equiped when they did fight. Which wasn't very often.

Well the invasions of the Huns and Vandels Im sure had nothing to do with beating them into a hole.


Attilla kicked their collective asse. Even with their Visgoth allies. But now it is being derailed. My point is "Do what Rome did!" is an obvious recipe for disaster to anyone who knows anything about history.

My arrogance or recent history?

The UK has watched it's empire that cost so many British lives fall apart because of political correctness. France lost all of it's will and power after WW1. Germany is somewhat stronger, but following the West very closely. Spain surrenders to terrorists. On and on.

Asia is the entire home for humanity. The West has gotten so weak.

The British lost their empire because they were no longer a formidable power. After WWII they were the USA's bitch. The French will pretty put out by WWI. Spain never surrendered to terrorists. Most of Asia is poor when compared to the West.

So wtf are you talking about?

Yep, and I think it would be made quite clear to the US that if extortion was now on the cards, it would be an absolutely reciprocal system.

I have too agree, if America started needing to extort money,
we would be......not a place I would want to live.

Well the invasions of the Huns and Vandels Im sure had nothing to do with beating them into a hole.


Attilla kicked their collective asse. Even with their Visgoth allies. But now it is being derailed. My point is "Do what Rome did!" is an obvious recipe for disaster to anyone who knows anything about history.

That is such bullshit. Rome fell apart, starting with Commodus because of stupidity and weakness. They stopped being bullies and started negotiating.

You think because the Roman Empire fell that they were an obvious recipe for disaster? Are you kidding me? Every single system of government has failed at one time or another. The Romans lasted the longest because they didn't care about world opinion and did what benefits them and what they had the power to do.

The British lost their empire because they were no longer a formidable power. After WWII they were the USA's bitch. The French will pretty put out by WWI. Spain never surrendered to terrorists. Most of Asia is poor when compared to the West.

So wtf are you talking about?

To be fair, Asian countries and culture is pratically the same. Except for Japan, which is West Junior.

That is such bullshit. Rome fell apart, starting with Commodus because of stupidity and weakness. They stopped being bullies and started negotiating.

You think because the Roman Empire fell that they were an obvious recipe for disaster? Are you kidding me? Every single system of government has failed at one time or another. The Romans lasted the longest because they didn't care about world opinion and did what benefits them and what they had the power to do.



Wait wait wait...Commodus is the reason Rome fell? He ruled from 180 to 192, and Rome traditionally is considered to have fallen in 476. Youre teling me that every Emperor for 300 years was following failed policy?


No, Rome fell because it started to need its troops back home because of things like the Huns and the Vandals, and when the legions withdrew, Germanic tribes began to march on them and attack them as well. Maybe because Rome brutally oppressed them, who knows? And lets not forget that Rome NEVER truely controlled the British Ilse.

No, again, just because history doesnt follow your world view of might makes right doesnt make it bullshit.


And no, Im saying that following Romes example in areas that were CLEARLY one of the causes of their demise when we can CLEARLY see it as such, and following policies that history has shown many, many times to cause nothing but resentment and ultimitally destruction of the resented are not a good fucking idea. And study post-Rome Italy. Thats what the US would look like if we fall apart, you know it and I know it.

Have any of you even looked at anything lately? If you ignore gas prices, Inflation has only gone up a scant 2% since 1990. 132,000 jobs were made last summer, and the unemploment rate is still hovering at 4.5%. The worker output levels are up for the first time since 2003, now 6.9% higher.

December 14, 2007 economic report's opening line was "Maybe the American economy is not going to keel over just yet, after all". They later go on to say that "government reports released Thursday showed a surpising resilience in the broader economy."

We've had 6 consecutive years of growth, with the most recent data showing the third quarter rowth rate at an awesome 4.9 percent. For 51 months, 8.3 million jobs have been created (since Aug. '03), making us in the longest growth period in record.

Even Bill Clinton's former economic advisor confessed on national television, "The big news from the, uh, job numbers is that the recession is not yet stated."

God Bless Reagan

I gotta split this one into a few pieces.
Sounds good to me.
1. They invest it in education because the government no longer provides it. That creates jobs in the private school sector. Which has a much lower dropout rate then public schools I might add.
1) It doesn't create jobs at all, it just puts some of the sacked people into work and also dereguralises the system. And if you want inspectors to make sure thigns are going ok, where do they come from?

2) Of course private schools currently have a lower dropout rate, the children in private education will be richer and hence won't drop out due to financial worries or because they're bored, their education will be more tailored to their needs. Now if you make all education private, you have all of the penalties of a public school education, plus you get a larger underclass of people who are completely without an education.
2. That money that their now spending and investing is LESS than what the government used to TAKE by force. Or threat of force to be more accurate.
It's turned out to be more with our rail system in the UK, and our post, and basically everything else we privatisesd.
3. I fail to see how a non-interventionist government is
Because it lets people unnecessarily starve and become poorer and stupider, basically because it can, despite having ample means to do otherwise.
4. The private sector (Which now runs the things the government used to) is usually better than the government because of competition of which the government has none.
Aye, we tried privatisation of our postal service and rail network in the UK. Both are a complete clusterfuck.
5. Do you live in the US?
Obviously not.
You know what? You're right! Why the heck don't they get off welfare and buy more products? After all, the US isn't some "Arsehole state in Africa" where you can't get a job. Just flip through the newspaper, look at store windows "HELP WANTED" signs all over the place.
Because in the most deprived areas, there are no jobs to be had. That's why.
Ah yes, the 19th century had our technology and knowledge didn't they?
No, but they sure as hell could have done better in terms of saving lives.
You're right again, why did we create an army that large again?
To prop up the arms industry in the US, and as a deterrent to the Evil Commies in the Cold War, now to get rid of the lower end of the gene-pool.
Looks like we'll have to do this slowly then.
Aye, which means reducing taxes slowly, which means that by the time this whole thing is over, there'll have been no point in doing so, and services will take decades to sort themselves out again.
Are you questioning the fact that 1927 didn't have welfare in the US or that 25% (Or some number close to that) of people gave some of their money to private charities?
The 25% figure.
Please elaborate. I'm not getting your point here other than you believe that creating jobs is a short term gain.
Creating jobs when there is dwindling demand for goods and services doesn't help industry, it loses them money.
Once again, not enough. We're still paying through our teeth, aren't we? Not even Congress is sneaky enough to raise taxes that much higher in such a short period of time.
My family pays 40% of its income out to income tax (sad times, but oh well). But still we're doing alright, even if money's a bit tight by the end of the month.
Once again, they won't. At least not government run Healthcare, Charity, and Education .;)
Who're your regulators of non-governmental healthcare and education, then?
I'm not quite sure what top-band tax is:confused:
... Tax upon those in the top band for tax (ie those earning the most), incidentally, it was lowered to 28%, rather than 32%, whoops.

Have any of you even looked at anything lately? If you ignore gas prices, Inflation has only gone up a scant 2% since 1990. 132,000 jobs were made last summer, and the unemploment rate is still hovering at 4.5%. The worker output levels are up for the first time since 2003, now 6.9% higher.


Housing market is also craptastic.

December 14, 2007 economic report's opening line was "Maybe the American economy is not going to keel over just yet, after all". They later go on to say that "government reports released Thursday showed a surpising resilience in the broader economy."

We've had 6 consecutive years of growth, with the most recent data showing the third quarter rowth rate at an awesome 4.9 percent. For 51 months, 8.3 million jobs have been created (since Aug. '03), making us in the longest growth period in record.

Even Bill Clinton's former economic advisor confessed on national television, "The big news from the, uh, job numbers is that the recession is not yet stated."

Bold indicate that it just means that the economy will only get worse.

God Bless Reagan

No.

Ban credit cards
Regulate loans
Back the dollar with things of value
End the war in Iraq
Pull troops from unnecessary places like Germany
Shrink the defense budget as much as possible
Ride out the storm

*sigh* I'm tired so I'm only gonna adress a few of your points.
1) It doesn't create jobs at all, it just puts some of the sacked people into work and also dereguralises the system. And if you want inspectors to make sure thigns are going ok, where do they come from?

2) Of course private schools currently have a lower dropout rate, the children in private education will be richer and hence won't drop out due to financial worries or because they're bored, their education will be more tailored to their needs. Now if you make all education private, you have all of the penalties of a public school education, plus you get a larger underclass of people who are completely without an education.



It's turned out to be more with our rail system in the UK, and our post, and basically everything else we privatisesd.


Because it lets people unnecessarily starve and become poorer and stupider, basically because it can, despite having ample means to do otherwise.


Aye, we tried privatisation of our postal service and rail network in the UK. Both are a complete clusterfuck.


Obviously not.


Because in the most deprived areas, there are no jobs to be had. That's why.


No, but they sure as hell could have done better in terms of saving lives.


To prop up the arms industry in the US, and as a deterrent to the Evil Commies in the Cold War, now to get rid of the lower end of the gene-pool.


Aye, which means reducing taxes slowly, which means that by the time this whole thing is over, there'll have been no point in doing so, and services will take decades to sort themselves out again.


The 25% figure.


Creating jobs when there is dwindling demand for goods and services doesn't help industry, it loses them money.


My family pays 40% of its income out to income tax (sad times, but oh well). But still we're doing alright, even if money's a bit tight by the end of the month.



Who're your regulators of non-governmental healthcare and education, then?

Quote:
I'm not quite sure what top-band tax is

... Tax upon those in the top band for tax (ie those earning the most), incidentally, it was lowered to 28%, rather than 32%, whoops.
The private sector regulates itself *Cough* LAwyers*Coughcough*
2. Thats the UK not the US
3. Show me some statistics, I know quite a few people who aren't rich and sent their kids to private school.
4.And people aren't starving and getting stupider now?
5. Who regulates the government healthcare?
5. Reducing taxes is not only for the upcoming "depression" as some people claim.
I'll adress these more fully tommorow, so good night.

My arrogance or recent history?

The UK has watched it's empire that cost so many British lives fall apart because of political correctness.
No, it lost its Empire due to our hubris. We stopped trying to run things as well as we had in Africa, because for the last 50 years, we had been the top dogs, and all of a sudden this was not the case.

The US would do very well to take note of what happened, lest it happen to them.
France lost all of it's will and power after WW1.
No, it didn't. The France of the 1920s and 1930s was pretty comparable to the other great states of Europe at the time, albeit more so. They spent vast, vast amounts of money on the military, lost an enormous amount on the Wall Street Crash and had large problems in Indochina.

Incidentally, the Trente Glorieuses, in which the French economy grew hugely from 1945 to 1975-ish were a key showing that the French didn't lose their will, nor their power, after the World Wars.
Germany is somewhat stronger, but following the West very closely.
Not really, no. Germany is about the same as anyone else in Europe at the moment. We're experiencing an economic slowdown, and that's just how things are.
Spain surrenders to terrorists.
You don't have a fucking clue, do you?

How has Spain surrendered to terrorists, exactly?

Let's list the problems:

I hope you have a glass of water

1) Consumer spending is going down, unemployment on the way up.

have the government do more spending in the consumers place (yeah the government won't be out buying millions of Mac's but still) which would be dandy especially as IMHO some infrastructural improvement is due (rebuilding New Orleans would be nice)

course the US will have to take a massive loan out but you have to spend money to make money :(

2) Big current account deficits (read = trade deficits) over the years have driven the dollar down, which is now starting to raise worries about inflation. Doomsayers are wondering whether things are getting to the point where the dollar needs to be saved before countries start dumping it from their reserves (which would send it into free fall).

1) increased government investment in small businesses (though this is more a thing for the banks to do) along with government grants into the development of new technology with corporations

the mentioned above investments in infrastructure would do this no end of good

2) pray that the dollar recovers

3) There's a liquidity crisis in credit markets because banks are sitting on mortgage-backed securities that no one is willing to buy or lend against anymore. As everyone waits how the housing market develops and tries to re-assess and re-price risks, banks are hoarding cash as much as they can, significantly reducing their lending to businesses and consumers in the process, or otherwise negating the impact of Fed rate cuts.

government help in the taking out of loans (and dare I say paying off some!) is all you can do really

4) The US government has a lot of debt and considering that it'll have to be paid back with interest, its probably best to get the budget in order at some point.

wait until things get sunny again before worrying about that (not cutting taxes for awhile would be all I can suggest)

5) The housing market is still falling, destroying wealth and confidence in the process.

tighter rules on new housing development and higher property tax (under the guise of the environment) along with the development of apartment complexes to house the future grown ups (turn the US into Italy is what I'm saying)

hopefully the building of large scale apartment complexes will keep a housing market on life support albeit killing off much of what makes the US different from Europe

So if you were the asked by Bush and Bernanke what they should do, what would you answer?

give me lots of money and a private office...with a bathroom

Yeah, lets do what Rome did...

omg government investment in new stadiums built on residential areas with the now homeless being crammed into nearby apartment complexes!

oddly this is what Beijing is doing :p

1. Eliminate Social Security (Our 78 billion a month in Iraq is like a penny compared to this monster)
2. Fix Medicare so we can import cheaper drugs from Canada and other such countries
3. Back the dollar with valuable things (Actually the dollar is no longer backed by anything but trust. Thats the reason why the USA has never truly refused to pay a loan because trust is the only thing holding the dollar...Its also why the dollar is now falling)
4. Eliminate Estate Tax (This will allow small businesses to grow rather then die by the second generation, of course I still want the Mega rich to pay)
5. Make it so that people have to work or starve (The reason China is growing so fast isn't because its so god damn awesome. Its because if you don't work you die...)

omg government investment in new stadiums built on residential areas with the now homeless being crammed into nearby apartment complexes!

oddly this is what Beijing is doing :p


We'd have to have the homeless fight to the death for our entertainment too. Oddly I wouldnt be suprised if HSH supported this as well and called it him being a "realist".

Throwing out a prosperous and successful government because you fear that more terrorist attacks could result from its supporting the other Western powers against terrorism?

The terrorists certainly considered it a massive victory and Spain's cowardice hurt Western efforts more than just about anything else since 9/11.

IMHO, the biggest act of international cowardice since the 30's and I hope I am not alone.

We'd have to have the homeless fight to the death for our entertainment too. Oddly I wouldnt be suprised if HSH supported this as well and called it him being a "realist".

I support this... we can even charge money for people to see them fight and thus, increase federal earnings. It also takes out welfare drains...

I support this... we can even charge money for people to see them fight and thus, increase federal earnings. It also takes out welfare drains...

:rolleyes:


Again, why do people with under 10 posts post the most illogical/hateful/bigoted BS?

:rolleyes:


Again, why do people with under 10 posts post the most illogical/hateful/bigoted BS?

It is hardly illogical/hateful/or bigoted... I have no faith in my government to accomplish anything and they hardly have the ability to turn homeless people into productive members of society...

It is hardly illogical/hateful/or bigoted... I have no faith in my government to accomplish anything and they hardly have the ability to turn homeless people into productive members of society...

Because all homeless people are just lazy and just like living on the street that much where they dont want to work.

The private sector regulates itself *Cough* LAwyers*Coughcough*
No, that's not regulation, that's lawyers being used for the pettiest of things.
2. Thats the UK not the US
Both fairly free-market, capitalistic economies.
3. Show me some statistics, I know quite a few people who aren't rich and sent their kids to private school.
The NCES Census in 1998 (aye, 10 years back, gimme a break) showed that among households with school age children and incomes over $75,000 per year, 16.4 percent had at least one child in private school. In comparison, 5.2 percent of households earning less than $40,000 had a child in private school.

Those are quite telling statistics right there, no?
4.And people aren't starving and getting stupider now?
Not really, no.
5. Who regulates the government healthcare?
Government-hired inspectors, of course.
5. Reducing taxes is not only for the upcoming "depression" as some people claim.
Crap policy ahoy!

Because all homeless people are just lazy and just like living on the street that much where they dont want to work.

In other countries maybe not. In the US? Yes for the most part. Put it this way, nearly a million illegal immigrants come to the US every year, there has to be jobs somewhere out there.

The problem is most Americans don't want a crappy job they want a good job and thats why they don't do anything at all, period.

The U.S is not like China where there is such a absolutely huge glout of population that its completely impossible to find a job. If you look through the newspapers you'll find plenty of job advertisements. Its just that the jobs aren't that great.

Throwing out a prosperous and successful government because you fear that more terrorist attacks could result from its supporting the other Western powers against terrorism?

The terrorists certainly considered it a massive victory and Spain's cowardice hurt Western efforts more than just about anything else since 9/11.

IMHO, the biggest act of international cowardice since the 30's and I hope I am not alone.
Err, no, they got kicked out because they blamed it on ETA, who patently did not orchestrate that particular incident, and entered Iraq, which nobody wanted at all.

In other countries maybe not. In the US? Yes for the most part. Put it this way, nearly a million illegal immigrants come to the US every year, there has to be jobs somewhere out there.

The problem is most Americans don't want a crappy job they want a good job and thats why they don't do anything at all, period.

The U.S is not like China where there is such a absolutely huge glout of population that its completely impossible to find a job. If you look through the newspapers you'll find plenty of job advertisements. Its just that the jobs aren't that great.



Except getting a job in the city ie, where most homeless people are, is really not possible. There are usually NO JOBS. Besides, they have to compeat with illegal labor, who can be paid much less. Thats why they get the jobs and homeless and others dont. It has nothing to do with it being crappy, but everything to do with employers not wanting to pay people minimum wage when they can avoid it.

So, again, the idea that homeless people are just lazy is absurd and it shows a lack of understanding of the various issues contributing to poverty.

2. Thats the UK not the US
Are you referring to the postal service comment and such? Yes, privatizing it works fine, until all the private corporations decide to collaborate to keep prices up instead of competing so they go down and when the government protects the the businesses from competition and lets them take over all their competition.

3. Show me some statistics, I know quite a few people who aren't rich and sent their kids to private school.
Why does private school have a lower drop out rate, hmm... maybe it's because parents are paying the school for their kids to go there. They obviously arn't going to let their kids drop out :rolleyes:

4.And people aren't starving and getting stupider now?
They are obviously the latter...

5. Who regulates the government healthcare?
Who regulates private healthcare? As far as I can tell it is either no one or they arn't doing their god damn job.

I like how economics threads go nowhere :p

Because all homeless people are just lazy and just like living on the street that much where they dont want to work.

careful he has caught the libertarian

I hear its fatal and leads to crazy ideas like never saving money for a rainy day :eek:

I like how economics threads go nowhere :p



careful he has caught the libertarian

I hear its fatal and leads to crazy ideas like never saving money for a rainy day :eek:

Libertarian IMO is code for "selfish and only caring about oneself and not giving a shit about the society one lives in".

Err, no, they got kicked out because they blamed it on ETA, who patently did not orchestrate that particular incident, and entered Iraq, which nobody wanted at all.

That's bullshit. I'm not going to fight this battle again, guessing from experience, people generally can't remember things that happened past a few weeks on this forum, but the election was for appeasement.

Even if you want to spin the election, you have to admit that it was taken as a total victory by Islamic terrorists around the world and government obliged by them by immediately pulling its troops out of Iraq and doing everything that the terrorists demanded.

Except getting a job in the city ie, where most homeless people are, is really not possible. There are usually NO JOBS. Besides, they have to compeat with illegal labor, who can be paid much less. Thats why they get the jobs and homeless and others dont. It has nothing to do with it being crappy, but everything to do with employers not wanting to pay people minimum wage when they can avoid it.

So, again, the idea that homeless people are just lazy is absurd and it shows a lack of understanding of the various issues contributing to poverty.

My grandfather came to the US from China, he wasn't an illegal immigrant and came to the US after waiting for three years. Once he was here, he worked like hell, he took on three jobs, one of which paid below minimum wage. After borrowing money he was able to go to one of the crappiest colleges in the US but he was able to find a company even with his mediocre education. His son would go on to become one of the best business lawyers in the US and his son's son (me) is now living in Long Island, one of the richest districts in the US.

To be frank, after hearing stories of my grandpa working his butt off and yet still being able to succeed and get off the street. Yes, I still believe that the majority of homeless people if they truly truly work their butts off, can succeed and rise above their plight.

That's bullshit. I'm not going to fight this battle again, guessing from experience, people generally can't remember things that happened past a few weeks on this forum, but the election was for appeasement.

Even if you want to spin the election, you have to admit that it was taken as a total victory by Islamic terrorists around the world and government obliged by them by immediately pulling its troops out of Iraq and doing everything that the terrorists demanded.



Im going to hazard a guess and say a Europian might know more about the situatian than you do, particularlly because American media is notorious for misrepresenting the way things are in Europe.

My grandfather came to the US from China, he wasn't an illegal immigrant and came to the US after waiting for three years. Once he was here, he worked like hell, he took on three jobs, one of which paid below minimum wage. After borrowing money he was able to go to one of the crappiest colleges in the US but he was able to find a company even with his mediocre education. His son would go on to become one of the best business lawyers in the US and his son's son (me) is now living in Long Island, one of the richest districts in the US.

To be frank, after hearing stories of my grandpa working his butt off and yet still being able to succeed and get off the street. Yes, I still believe that the majority of homeless people if they truly truly work their butts off, can succeed and rise above their plight.


This is the problem. Things change. The situation when your grandfather came to the US was totally different. For one, you didnt need a good college education to stand a chance in the work force.

Social and economi factors change. Just because it was possible once doesnt make it possible now.

Why does private school have a lower drop out rate, hmm... maybe it's because parents are paying the school for their kids to go there. They obviously arn't going to let their kids drop out :rolleyes:

actually a massive bombshell against private schools was this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/2552523.stm)

"So in fact I think the headline figure we got from that was roughly if you pay an extra £5,000 at an independent school, you are around 4% less likely to get a good degree, for every extra £5,000."

this explains the royal family :)

Libertarian IMO is code for "selfish and only caring about oneself and not giving a shit about the society one lives in".

more anarcho-capitalism without the anarchy

Communism?

That's bullshit. I'm not going to fight this battle again, guessing from experience, people generally can't remember things that happened past a few weeks on this forum, but the election was for appeasement.

Even if you want to spin the election, you have to admit that it was taken as a total victory by Islamic terrorists around the world and government obliged by them by immediately pulling its troops out of Iraq and doing everything that the terrorists demanded.
No, you're simply wrong. The government was thrown out because it blamed ETA for the attacks, which everyone knew at the time was untrue, as it was completely not their style.

I don't see how this was some kind of massive victory for Islamic terrorism everywhere - the average Spaniard wanted out of Iraq even before the Madrid train bombings, and people got even more offended by the claim that it was ETA, which made it a dead cert that the PP were on their way out.

This is the problem. Things change. The situation when your grandfather came to the US was totally different. For one, you didnt need a good college education to stand a chance in the work force.

Social and economi factors change. Just because it was possible once doesnt make it possible now.

The more the world changes...the more the world stays the same. However, I will agree with you that the majority of manufacturing jobs (and thus no education required jobs) have moved from the USA. But frankly there are still jobs such as janitors and construction workers. They may not pay great but you can still earn money.

And even if you don't have college education that doesn't mean you can't get one, even if its in a terrible college. I think that it is possible for people to strive and better themselves. Or perhaps its because I'm an unfailing optimist when it comes to the human spirit.

No, you're simply wrong.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2337/2219165117_44cecbe45c.jpg?v=0

your wasting time no?

The more the world changes...the more the world stays the same. However, I will agree with you that the majority of manufacturing jobs (and thus no education required jobs) have moved from the USA. But frankly there are still jobs such as janitors and construction workers. They may not pay great but you can still earn money.

But the janitorial jobs go to illegal immagrants, and construction either goes to said illegals or those with union ties. The go to illegals because they dont have to pay them minimum wage. Anyone else they would.

Or perhaps its because I'm an unfailing optimist when it comes to the human spirit.

This. Sorry man, I was like you once, I understand how it feels to really wish the world didnt suck so much.



Another facter commonly overlooked is most homeless people are untreated scizophrenic. So, that makes it very, very hard to actually function in society because they are unmedicated, and they cant afford said medication.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2337/2219165117_44cecbe45c.jpg?v=0

your wasting time no?
S'pose so.

[1: Limit Major Corporations to 2 or 3 states of their choosing

[2: Stop throwing money at Iraq

[3: Export more natural recources & luxeries to Very Rich Countries (If there are ANY countries richer than the US)

[4: LIMIT OUT-OF-HAND CONSUMER SPENDING. NO MORE OF THIS MENTALITY OF "IF I BUY A SHIRT THAT SAYS CANADIAN SWALLOW ON IT THEN THE WORLD WILL BE A BETTER PLACE " BULLSHIT. Have people spend money on what they NEED, mixed in with consumer products.

But the janitorial jobs go to illegal immagrants, and construction either goes to said illegals or those with union ties. The go to illegals because they dont have to pay them minimum wage. Anyone else they would.



This. Sorry man, I was like you once, I understand how it feels to really wish the world didnt suck so much.



Another facter commonly overlooked is most homeless people are untreated scizophrenic. So, that makes it very, very hard to actually function in society because they are unmedicated, and they cant afford said medication.


I don't really know, but I didn't think scizophrenic could be treated. Isn't it a mental disorder?

I don't really know, but I didn't think scizophrenic could be treated. Isn't it a mental disorder?

It is. And it can be treated with medication. Cured, no, but it can be treated so one becomes more "normal".


In fact, many people become homeless because they lose their jobs and house etc because of their schizophrenia.

Because all homeless people are just lazy and just like living on the street that much where they dont want to work.

Some are lazy, some are not. Don't make blanket statements or you will sound as foolish as some of the other people on this thread.

Some are lazy, some are not. Don't make blanket statements or you will sound as foolish as some of the other people on this thread.

I would seriously question anyone who said that someone liked living on the street enough to not overcome their laziness and get a job.

I don't really know, but I didn't think scizophrenic could be treated. Isn't it a mental disorder?

1) its a mental illness
2) it can be treated rather affectively these days (albeit you will most likely end up with buying pills for the rest of your life ) though it can come back and is slightly hereditary

*hasn't gone to my psychology class in like a month*

I would seriously question anyone who said that someone lived living on the street enough to not overcome their laziness and get a job.

That's strangely conservative coming from a lefto like you. Back on point however, some have mental problems, or have other real issues. I do, however, agree with you that the majority are probably lazy, just not all of em.

Survey the nation to ascertain exactly what agricultural, mineral, military, human, industrial and financial resources are available to deploy, examine what infrastructure is available. Determine which are not being exploited to the full and then invest in this sector to provide more jobs and improve the weak sectors of the nation. In the US I think major priority would be on diversifying and intensifying agriculture in the south east where the climate allows for far more diverse crops than are produced, and on using the south west and midwest to develop and deploy a long term solar energy plan. Other priorities could be revamping of the car industry and rail transport infrastructure, since both lag behind other nations in these areas and could offer good prospects for creating jobs and getting meaningful improvement. These would lower unemployment and stimulate growth overall, but under control. Consumer spending can only be addressed when they feel secure, and they won't feel secure as long as they don't have work. Putting them to useful work is key.




Tax imports and ensure domestic industries are engaged in producing goods that the nation itself needs rather than being purely export driven. Ensure as many resources as possible are purchased internally. Ensure no more currency is entering circulation.



Decree that reasonable credit applications are not refused, force banks to comply, and furthermore than once the crisis has passed that in future obviously bad risks are not taken on in the first place, to stop the cycle of bad credit that starts these problems.



Increase personal taxation and cancel tax breaks to increase state revenues. Buy into the most strategic and revenue generating industries and take control of the resources coming out of the ground, particularly agricultural output, precious metals, oil and gas. Have targeted tax breaks or subsidies to key private industries with specific issues that will clearly be eased by such assistance, stressing their temporary nature. Use import tariffs protecting these investments to raise additional revenue and cut back foreign military adventures to those that address and clear and obvious immediate military threat.



The price was driven up artificially by a bubble economy, it has to drop to a realistic level (the same is true in the UK). It needs to be ridden out. The best the can be done is to achieve a soft landing and prevent a re-occurrence. Keep rates low to keep mortgage repayments affordable, discourage speculative buying. Have a social security net in place to deal with those who struggle, perhaps using a state scheme of buying up repro stock to use as social housing that also prevents lots of re-pro properties being auctioned for rock bottom prices and so further destabilising the market. The rent paid on the properties also ensures a good long term revenue stream to the state whilst also providing newly available directly owned state housing stock, and preventing a glut of housing on the open market.

Wow. See, I think its very representative of NS that someone who is still new to the place posts something well thought out, logical, and reasonable, and nobody batters an eyelid. Nobody managed to respond to you. Which sucks. To my complete lack of economic knowledge, your ideas seem pretty good. Maybe it was just the fact that it was a huge wall of text, and contained nothing so inflammatory as "Spain surrendered to terrorists".

Welcome to NSG.

No.

You're God!? :eek:

That's strangely conservative coming from a lefto like you. Back on point however, some have mental problems, or have other real issues. I do, however, agree with you that the majority are probably lazy, just not all of em.

Wait, since when is it conservative to say that poor people and homeless arent just too lazy to get a job?

Because Im used to hearing that "Poor people are just lazy!" BS from neocons and the right.

I never said poor people were just lazy. Im saying thats probably very rarely the case. Reread what I said.

You're God!? :eek:

Yes.

Libertarian IMO is code for "selfish and only caring about oneself and not giving a shit about the society one lives in".

Opposing coercion is selfish? I'm glad to be selfish, then.

Yes.

*bows*

Wait, since when is it conservative to say that poor people and homeless arent just too lazy to get a job?

Because Im used to hearing that "Poor people are just lazy!" BS from neocons and the right.

I never said poor people were just lazy. Im saying thats probably very rarely the case. Reread what I said.

That's not what it looks like. Must be the twilight zone at work....

Opposing coercion is selfish? I'm glad to be selfish, then.

No, but opposing all governement institutions meant to better society and the needy is.

That's not what it looks like. Must be the twilight zone at work....

I said I would seriously questions anyone who said that poor people liked living on the street enough to not get a job.


Meaning, nobody wants to live on the street. So, to assume that someone is lazy enough to choose to live on the street rather than get a job is foolish.

No, but opposing all governement institutions meant to better society and the needy is.

Then I'm still glad to be selfish. :)

*restart Attlee's Britain*
Yeah, I don't think so. It's not like the US government has any competency to do any of the things you mentioned, and last time it took a rather disagreeable old lady to fix the situation.

have the government do more spending in the consumers place (yeah the government won't be out buying millions of Mac's but still) which would be dandy especially as IMHO some infrastructural improvement is due (rebuilding New Orleans would be nice)
Would it ever. I still can't quite believe that in the wealthiest nation on earth, a city still looks like a bunch of ruins and no one seems to want to fix it. At least turn it into a museum or something!

course the US will have to take a massive loan out but you have to spend money to make money :(
There's still some room left, as a percentage of GDP the deficit isn't as huge as it sometimes sounds. But interest payments are essentially wasted taxpayer funds (unless that particular taxpayer owns the bond, of course) and there might be healthcare and social security commitments looming on the horizon.

government help in the taking out of loans (and dare I say paying off some!) is all you can do really
Well, the Fed or the government could go out right now and say "we'll buy mortgage-backed securites". That'd essentially move the subprime mess from the balance sheets of financial institutions to the purse of the taxpayer.

But whether that would be the right thing to do, or cause a massive moral hazard problem in the future, I don't know. I don't think that sort of let-off is the way to go, personally.

Wow. See, I think its very representative of NS that someone who is still new to the place posts something well thought out, logical, and reasonable, and nobody batters an eyelid. Nobody managed to respond to you. Which sucks. To my complete lack of economic knowledge, your ideas seem pretty good. Maybe it was just the fact that it was a huge wall of text, and contained nothing so inflammatory as "Spain surrendered to terrorists".

Welcome to NSG.
It's not well thought out, it's basically a restatement of democratic socialist party manifestos from the 50s and 60s. If it had contained the word "bourgeois", I'd have said it came from AP.

Nonetheless, it was one of the more on-topic posts and hence I join your "welcome".

How about inventing a new gold standard for protecting the USD ? ( exchange rate of $ = value of amount of gold in Fed's stock) Gold prices are soaring these days. ( There is of course the risk of a further slowdown of the US economy, but it could make the dollar more stable )

Either: Abolish capitalism.

Or:

1) Raise taxes on the upper income brackets slightly, maybe 3-5%.
2) Use some of this money to give rebates to people with lower incomes. People with lower incomes are significantly more likely to spend money. The U.S. economy is a consumption economy. Consumption needs to be encouraged, and this is a good way of doing it.
3) Use the rest of the money to improve the crumbling infrastructure. Doing this will put people to work, and also increase the stock of capital.
4) Gradually remove some of the subsidies given to oil companies, giving them to companies developing alternative sources of energy. As these companies grow, they will employ people and also develop new technology.

Yeah, I don't think so. It's not like the US government has any competency to do any of the things you mentioned, and last time it took a rather disagreeable old lady to fix the situation.

Fix is an interesting term. I live in spitting distance of the biggest of her fixes, but it has had little effect on the lives of most people around here, other than giving a rather nice reflective quality off the windows at sunset.

Nothing has been fixed. We spend more on mortgages/rents now as a proportion of our incomes than we did in the seventies. Our agriculture has serious issues both economically and in terms of production (monoculturing, outbreaks, topsoil degradation) and unemployment is still with us. What have we fixed, not in terms of numbers, but in terms of solid achievements? Very little.

Leaving everything (or most things) to the market is a gamble, and when you are talking about the economy of an entire nation, you have to have a plan and control over it. If a government refuses to take control for the affairs of the nation then it is basically refusing to take responsibility. If you "leave it to market forces" you might as well use a Magic 8 Ball to run the country.

The American government is certainly no more competent than our own (less so, I imagine) but they have to start somewhere, and until they take responsibility and start trying to manage things directly, they are never going to develop the competencies needed, nor need to hire the best workers for managing these things.


Would it ever. I still can't quite believe that in the wealthiest nation on earth, a city still looks like a bunch of ruins and no one seems to want to fix it. At least turn it into a museum or something!

Indeed. The market does not necessarily solve the problem. There must surely be opportunities - as they call it - in New Orleans, but no private group seems willing to commit any resources to it. The government need to take the initiative and end the chaos, or indeed, nothingness, that is the reconstruction effort.

It's not well thought out, it's basically a restatement of democratic socialist party manifestos from the 50s and 60s. If it had contained the word "bourgeois", I'd have said it came from AP.

I'm not one for class warfare ;) I just like to see things getting done without people worrying if they will make their money within the first 12 seconds and if they can get out quickly enough afterwards. I believe that a single central organisation and authority is the most efficient way of solving things rather than leaving it to hundreds of individuals fighting it out.

Nonetheless, it was one of the more on-topic posts and hence I join your "welcome".

Thank you, both. However I'm not new here. I forgot to log into my nation whilst I was out of town. Previously on here as Abdju (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/member.php?u=1446281)

Stop spending money like it was free! US may be a superpower but other nations have their limits on how much they are willing to spend their money to aid the US economy. I don't know a shit about economics but the facts are US is spending more and more, dollar is dropping and the loaners and/or investors want some money back (they don't just give it away).

What have we fixed, not in terms of numbers, but in terms of solid achievements? Very little.
There is basically no answer I could give you that wouldn't be made up of numbers. That's because numbers are tools we use to reflect reality, and trying to give an accurate picture of the world without using numbers is basically impossible.

If you "leave it to market forces" you might as well use a Magic 8 Ball to run the country.
That's the thing though: there is no need for anything to be run by anyone. These are people's lives, they can take care of themselves without needing to be directed into every minute detail.

Occasionally government can provide the basis on which people build by themselves, or provide rules that make sure they don't get into too bad conflict with each other. But you can't start taking decisions away from free individuals and hand them to politicians because they happened to have a good stylist and speech writer to win the votes of a bunch of chavs for them.

...nor need to hire the best workers for managing these things.
There are no good workers for that sort of job. The history of the 20th century is basically the history of trying to get into this position. Some were destroyed while doing so, others managed to get there and were destroyed by the impossibility of the task. Either way people got hurt courtesy of the hubris of those who thought they knew better.

Indeed. The market does not necessarily solve the problem. There must surely be opportunities - as they call it - in New Orleans, but no private group seems willing to commit any resources to it. The government need to take the initiative and end the chaos, or indeed, nothingness, that is the reconstruction effort.
And then? The fact that people aren't willing to commit resources should tell you something about the nature of the opportunities. Central planners have always been very good at identifying "opportunities" and spending lots of resources on them, but if you do have the good fortune of living in Britain, then you'd already know (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_dome) about that.

The thing that surprises me about New Orleans is that even the people who used to live there seem to have lost the interest and will to come back. It's not the first city to be destroyed by a disaster, but it's the first one during my lifetime that doesn't seem to be rebuilt.

I believe that a single central organisation and authority is the most efficient way of solving things rather than leaving it to hundreds of individuals fighting it out.
But this authority doesn't have the knowledge these individuals have, nor does it really have the power to make them act. Using the bits of information your authority can gather, it can make laws and try to force people to do stuff, but whenever these laws conflict with the interests of the individuals, you won't get what you were after. That's why the USSR failed and that's why Attlee's vision failed.

You think because the Roman Empire fell that they were an obvious recipe for disaster? Are you kidding me? Every single system of government has failed at one time or another. The Romans lasted the longest because they didn't care about world opinion and did what benefits them and what they had the power to do.

They also didnt have to worry about nukes dropping on their heads in retaliation. The Roman line of thinking is obsolete in modern times.

How would you fix the US economy?

Nukes. :p

Vote for Root? http://www.rootforamerica.com/home/wherestands.php

Libertarian IMO is code for "selfish and only caring about oneself and not giving a shit about the society one lives in".

"selfish, adj. Devoid of consideration for the selfishness of others."

-The Devil's Dictionary, by Ambrose Gwinnett Bierce.

At least turn it into a museum or something!

better yet how about moving the resident out of the tin trailers and into some housing

There's still some room left, as a percentage of GDP the deficit isn't as huge as it sometimes sounds. But interest payments are essentially wasted taxpayer funds (unless that particular taxpayer owns the bond, of course) and there might be healthcare and social security commitments looming on the horizon.

but really its kind of awkward having a government trimming its spending whilst asking the public to spend :p

course there isn't much that can be cut out so I guess its either tax hike time or pulling Saddam Hussein on the lenders

But whether that would be the right thing to do, or cause a massive moral hazard problem in the future, I don't know. I don't think that sort of let-off is the way to go, personally.

what else is there to do?

Vote for Root? http://www.rootforamerica.com/home/wherestands.php

eww constitution worship and that stupid states rights crap that will see lynchings every Sunday

can't you have a nice boyfriend for a change?:p

eww constitution worship and that stupid states rights crap that will see lynchings every Sunday

can't you have a nice boyfriend for a change?:p

I agree that that stuff is nonsense. The only reason I support him is because he seems to be the only aspirant who genuinely wants to fix the debt.

I am sorry if I am re-hashing anything (I started on this last page) If the US Goobermint would just;

1) Legalize (re-) industrial hemp, you know, the fiber that made the first US flag...

2) Legalize and tax cannibus...

Debt? What debt? Done and done...

Of course that would only be the start, I am not a politition so I can only go with facts...

Let's list the problems:

1) Consumer spending is going down, unemployment on the way up.

2) Big current account deficits (read = trade deficits) over the years have driven the dollar down, which is now starting to raise worries about inflation. Doomsayers are wondering whether things are getting to the point where the dollar needs to be saved before countries start dumping it from their reserves (which would send it into free fall).

3) There's a liquidity crisis in credit markets because banks are sitting on mortgage-backed securities that no one is willing to buy or lend against anymore. As everyone waits how the housing market develops and tries to re-assess and re-price risks, banks are hoarding cash as much as they can, significantly reducing their lending to businesses and consumers in the process, or otherwise negating the impact of Fed rate cuts.

4) The US government has a lot of debt and considering that it'll have to be paid back with interest, its probably best to get the budget in order at some point.

5) The housing market is still falling, destroying wealth and confidence in the process.

This is a pretty nasty sort of situation. Bernanke wants to keep cutting rates and injecting liquidity until there is any sign the recession is over and then immediately get rates back up and quickly to prevent the next bubble and get the US dollar back to reasonable levels. Bush tried giving a few people little envelopes of money. And everyone else is otherwise occupied with the campaign.

So if you were the asked by Bush and Bernanke what they should do, what would you answer?

1) Reduce barriers to entry for entrepreneurs. Incentives for labor-intensive start-ups - particularly manufacturing and unskilled jobs.
2) Institute corporate tax increases and/or cuts based on CEO pay (both present and future interests) proportionate to total compensation paid by the corporation.
3) Shareholder voting on executive pay and on board member makeup.
4) Eliminate payroll tax collection - let wage earners pay quarterly just like everyone else. People would then pay much closer attention to what their tax dollars are spending.
5) Distribute more federal responsibilities back to the states (a -la welfare reform)
6) Streamline immigration policies so that immigrants find complying with the law easier than crossing a desert on foot.
7) Line item veto for presidents.
8) Greatly streamline tax codes, business regulation and laws to simplify working/living/doing-business in America.
9) Pass laws favorable for domestic energy production, from exploration to refinement.
10) Fewer disincentives for real estate investments. (currently tax incentives regarding passive income/losses discourage the people most able to help with surplus real estate from participating)
11) Equalize tax benefits for social security, health insurance, etc. for the self employed.
12) Long-term tax incentives for business to increase labor costs proportionate to gross income.
13: Eliminate HMOs and PPOs. Allow full tax deduction of deductibles with tax credits for lower wage earners. This returns competitive factors to medicine. Aggressively pursue and prosecute physicians with fraudulent billing and ban insurance companies for determining suitable treatments (other than asking for 2nd opinions)
14) Give states and local communities the means to reform education on a local level.

there is plenty more, but I am late for an appointment...

1) Reduce barriers to entry for entrepreneurs. Incentives for labor-intensive start-ups - particularly manufacturing and unskilled jobs.
2) Institute corporate tax increases and/or cuts based on CEO pay (both present and future interests) proportionate to total compensation paid by the corporation.

there is plenty more, but I am late for an appointment...

You know, I never understood corporate tax. Corporations just pass their taxes on to their customers. Why not just tax the customers?

1) Reduce barriers to entry for entrepreneurs...
2) Institute corporate tax increases...
3) Shareholder voting on executive pay and on board member makeup.
4) Eliminate payroll tax collection...
5) Distribute more federal responsibilities back to the states (a -la welfare reform)
6) Streamline immigration policies so that immigrants find complying with the law easier than crossing a desert on foot.
7) Line item veto for presidents.
8) Greatly streamline tax codes...
9) Pass laws favorable for domestic energy production...
10) Fewer disincentives for real estate investments.
11) Equalize tax benefits ...
12) Long-term tax incentives ...
13: Eliminate HMOs and PPOs. Allow full tax deduction ...
14) Give states and local communities the means to reform education on a local level.

there is plenty more, but I am late for an appointment...
I'd say eight of those 14 ways could be accomplished immediately by adopting the FairTax.

Talk about a way to really boost the economy... The FairTax is it.

You know, I never understood corporate tax. Corporations just pass their taxes on to their customers. Why not just tax the customers?
Taxing corporations makes the Democrats in DC feel better. It also makes their public school educated voter base happy. Other than that, there's no good reason for doing so.

You know, I never understood corporate tax. Corporations just pass their taxes on to their customers. Why not just tax the customers?

Government say, "Why not tax both?"

Government say, "Why not tax both?"
The problem is that taxes don't just cost a business (or a person, for that matter) the amount of the tax. There are enormous compliance costs that are just non-productive uses of capital. We're talking about amounts around 2-1/2 BILLION. That's almost 1/4 of all tax revenue. FOR COMPLIANCE -- it's outrageous!

And you know, those compliance costs get passed right down on to the customer, as well. It's all a part of overhead and it must be paid for before a company can start measuring a profit.

Taxing corporations makes the Democrats in DC feel better. It also makes their public school educated voter base happy. Other than that, there's no good reason for doing so.

Every Republican Congressman and every Republican voter is against taxing corporations? While I can see most Republican representatives and a good portion of Republican voters wish to lower corporate taxation I would bet few desire to eliminate it.

And any tax plan that promises an increase of 10.5% GDP growth is full of shit.

Get rid of all taxes, except a tariff and maybe a small sales tax.

No clue.

Once again, no clue. I admit it when I don't know.

SHRINK THE BLOATED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! Get rid of welfare, social security,etc, keep nothing but the necesities.

*sighs* No clue...


Dude... What a wonderful idea. It's one of motivations of Fair Tax initiative and Constitution party. btw, Mike Huckabee supports Fair Tax. Fair tax erases all FEDERAL taxes and replaces it with national sales tax of about 23%. Prebate check every to cover tax on food. (fairtax.org.). The bill creator and sponsor survived the House elections. John Linder I believe. He is republican.

Democrats hate fairtax and always vote no to it. Democrats in office is a sure fire way of cutting education, healthcare, and services to citizens while raising taxes.

And keep in mind that public education and healthcare are not constitutional requirement for citizens.

Democrats hate fairtax and always vote no to it. Democrats in office is a sure fire way of cutting education, healthcare, and services to citizens while raising taxes.


Really? Lets see, a FairTax means the government makes less money. Not inherantly bad, but when you consider that requires cuts in spending, think about this: when the US government cuts spending, what are the first programs to get cut? Education and other social services, or defense? So, no, voting against a fair tax DOES NOT lead to cuts in education.

And keep in mind that public education and healthcare are not constitutional requirement for citizens.

No, they are not. But that doesnt mean we shouldnt have them. Just giving the rich an education and health care is a nice step towards an aristocracy/oligarchy.

Kill George W. Bush, maybe? I don´t know... *whistles innocently*

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q48/borntodiedos/kill_bush.jpg

Kill George W. Bush, maybe? I don´t know... *whistles innocently*

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q48/borntodiedos/kill_bush.jpg

The CIA are on their way to your house. Prepare to be not-torture waterboarded.

The CIA are on their way to your house. Prepare to be not-torture waterboarded.

ROFL!:D

I'd say eight of those 14 ways could be accomplished immediately by adopting the FairTax.

Talk about a way to really boost the economy... The FairTax is it.

The only fair tax is no tax at all.

The first thing I'd do would be to bring all of the troops that are stationed overseas back home to America. Then, I'd cut at least 50% of the military's budget. After that, I'd shut down the Department of Homeland Security (basically the American version of the East German "Ministry for State Security" or Stasi), the FBI, and the CIA. Not only would the $3 trillion War on Iraq be ended, but so would the rest of the waste.

After that, I'd end the War on Drugs and the idiotic "3 strikes" laws and release everybody who is in jail under those idiotic laws, saving most of the $60 billion that is wasted on the prison industry every year.

Then, I'd reform the tax system by implementing a Negative Income Tax that guarantees all Americans who have a job a guaranteed minimum household income of $50,000 and all Americans of retirement age (which would be raised to something more reasonable) a guaranteed minimum household income of $30,000. Then, I'd reform the tax system to make the first $100,000 exempt from taxes and to implement a flat tax on all income over $100,000. I'd also ban income tax revenues from being spent on anything other than guaranteed minimum income. Then, in order to make the program work, I'd end the Federal Reserve to stop inflation, repeal minimum wage laws to bring about 100% employment, and end Social Security and other current programs which would be made redundant.

Besides all of that, I'd have the government default on the debt (China isn't stupid enough to invade America) and ban all future debt-spending. Since the government would be hard-pressed for tax revenues after my other reforms, they wouldn't have any more money to waste on pork barrel projects or politically motivated prosecutions.

Basically, my plan would achieve the stated goals of both left and right. It would increase equality and would decrease significantly the size of the government.

Democrats hate fairtax and always vote no to it. Democrats in office is a sure fire way of cutting education, healthcare, and services to citizens while raising taxes.


I'd amend that to say that politicians hate the FairTax. It's a sure way to limit their power. But there are a number of elected representatives that are looking out for us instead of themselves. They are the co-sponsors of HB-25 and it's Senate counterpart, S-1025.

That leads to an interesting idea... The best way to pick the next Presidential candidate would be to look at the co-sponsors of the bill. Because you're looking at responsible individuals, you could just start down the list alphabetically and probably get a good President every time.

The first thing I'd do would be to bring all of the troops that are stationed overseas back home to America. Then, I'd cut at least 50% of the military's budget. After that, I'd shut down the Department of Homeland Security (basically the American version of the East German "Ministry for State Security" or Stasi), the FBI, and the CIA. Not only would the $3 trillion War on Iraq be ended, but so would the rest of the waste.

After that, I'd end the War on Drugs and the idiotic "3 strikes" laws and release everybody who is in jail under those idiotic laws, saving most of the $60 billion that is wasted on the prison industry every year.

Then, I'd reform the tax system by implementing a Negative Income Tax that guarantees all Americans who have a job a guaranteed minimum household income of $50,000 and all Americans of retirement age (which would be raised to something more reasonable) a guaranteed minimum household income of $30,000. Then, I'd reform the tax system to make the first $100,000 exempt from taxes and to implement a flat tax on all income over $100,000. I'd also ban income tax revenues from being spent on anything other than guaranteed minimum income. Then, in order to make the program work, I'd end the Federal Reserve to stop inflation, repeal minimum wage laws to bring about 100% employment, and end Social Security and other current programs which would be made redundant.

Besides all of that, I'd have the government default on the debt (China isn't stupid enough to invade America) and ban all future debt-spending. Since the government would be hard-pressed for tax revenues after my other reforms, they wouldn't have any more money to waste on pork barrel projects or politically motivated prosecutions.

Basically, my plan would achieve the stated goals of both left and right. It would increase equality and would decrease significantly the size of the government.

Holy Jesus. A well thought out post from a first poster, with some things I agree with, without a single bigoted, hateful, or nationalistic statement in them.

AND without use of the :sniper: or :mp5:


I hope you stay for some time to come. Welcome to NSG.

I'd amend that to say that politicians hate the FairTax. It's a sure way to limit their power. But there are a number of elected representatives that are looking out for us instead of themselves. They are the co-sponsors of HB-25 and it's Senate counterpart, S-1025.

That leads to an interesting idea... The best way to pick the next Presidential candidate would be to look at the co-sponsors of the bill. Because you're looking at responsible individuals, you could just start down the list alphabetically and probably get a good President every time.

Myrmidonisia, you are awesome. I notice you are also from Georgia. Wanna hook up some weekend and party?

Holy Jesus. A well thought out post from a first poster, with some things I agree with, without a single bigoted, hateful, or nationalistic statement in them.

AND without use of the :sniper: or :mp5:


I hope you stay for some time to come. Welcome to NSG.

Hmmm...that depends what your feelings on the Negative Income Tax Plan are. :)

You know, I never understood corporate tax. Corporations just pass their taxes on to their customers. Why not just tax the customers?

Not all of a corporation's income comes from American customers. A company like Coca-Cola makes plenty on the international market, and there are plenty of very successful companies that don't sell much stuff directly to individuals. (When was the last time you bought something from Lockheed Martin?)

There is basically no answer I could give you that wouldn't be made up of numbers.

I do not intend this statement literally. Rather I meant focusing on solid achievements, i.e. putting people to work, ensuring they have good food, healthcare, housing etc. Obviously these things are still measured, but are figures that directly show the improvements (or lack thereof) in the lives of the people.

That's the thing though: there is no need for anything to be run by anyone. These are people's lives, they can take care of themselves without needing to be directed into every minute detail.

People don't, and I didn't suggest as such. I meant the running/administration of projects and resources, which has to be done by someone.

Occasionally government can provide the basis on which people build by themselves, or provide rules that make sure they don't get into too bad conflict with each other. But you can't start taking decisions away from free individuals and hand them to politicians because they happened to have a good stylist and speech writer to win the votes of a bunch of chavs for them.

I agree completely when it comes to politicians. Which is why I think most aspects of administration are better performed by workers of the Civil Service who are hired as experts in their respective fields of responsibility rather than someone chosen by the hoi-polloi because they smooch babies better than the other one does. That, however, I feel is digressing from my original point (I discussed my view on this matter at some length on this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=546223)) As I've already said, I've no desire to tell individuals what to do with their lives, beyond obeying the laws of the land as we do now.

There are no good workers for that sort of job.

I was referring specifically to project management, see above re: civil service and role of politicians...

And then? The fact that people aren't willing to commit resources should tell you something about the nature of the opportunities. Central planners have always been very good at identifying "opportunities" and spending lots of resources on them, but if you do have the good fortune of living in Britain, then you'd already know (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_dome) about that.

It tells about the potential for short term profit on these projects, not of whether or not they are needed. There is a need for decent irrigation systems in much of East Africa, despite a lack of people investing in them for profit. Profit and need do not always go together, which is where private investment trips up.

The thing that surprises me about New Orleans is that even the people who used to live there seem to have lost the interest and will to come back. It's not the first city to be destroyed by a disaster, but it's the first one during my lifetime that doesn't seem to be rebuilt.

It doesn't surprise me. I wouldn't want to move back to a half ruined city to live in a trailer either. Until the government gets projects under way to seriously rebuild homes and public areas outside the showcase parts of town, moving back is not a desirable option.

But this authority doesn't have the knowledge these individuals have, nor does it really have the power to make them act. Using the bits of information your authority can gather, it can make laws and try to force people to do stuff, but whenever these laws conflict with the interests of the individuals, you won't get what you were after. That's why the USSR failed and that's why Attlee's vision failed.

It's not about individuals for the most part. The real factors that need to be brought under control are the large scale agricultural, mining, financial and industrial concerns, since these are the tools of the nation. As tools, they can be deployed to the most productive ends. And corporate bodies have to obey the laws of the nation in which they operate (in a powerful nation) since they can simply be closed down, or otherwise penalised, for non-compliance.

I'd amend that to say that politicians hate the FairTax. It's a sure way to limit their power. But there are a number of elected representatives that are looking out for us instead of themselves. They are the co-sponsors of HB-25 and it's Senate counterpart, S-1025.

That leads to an interesting idea... The best way to pick the next Presidential candidate would be to look at the co-sponsors of the bill. Because you're looking at responsible individuals, you could just start down the list alphabetically and probably get a good President every time.

Yes the Fair Tax sponsors aren't out for themselves. Its not like the tax is a regressive one that taxes those with higher incomes, like Congressman and their various business associates, at a lower rate than it does the middle class. Oh wait....

Not all of a corporation's income comes from American customers. A company like Coca-Cola makes plenty on the international market, and there are plenty of very successful companies that don't sell much stuff directly to individuals. (When was the last time you bought something from Lockheed Martin?)
The point was that corporations never pay taxes, they just pass them on. Nothing in your post refutes that. Companies treat taxes as overhead expenses and expect each and every sale to pay its share of the overhead. It's just another one of those annoying necessities like keeping the lights on and paying the benefits...

Yes the Fair Tax sponsors aren't out for themselves. Its not like the tax is a regressive one that taxes those with higher incomes, like Congressman and their various business associates, at a lower rate than it does the middle class. Oh wait....
The tax is potentially a lot better than the current system of federal taxes. The combination of spending habits and prebates make the FairTax a reasonably progressive tax. It's actually a non-tax for anyone working and earning below the poverty line.

The point was that corporations never pay taxes, they just pass them on. Nothing in your post refutes that. Companies treat taxes as overhead expenses and expect each and every sale to pay its share of the overhead. It's just another one of those annoying necessities like keeping the lights on and paying the benefits...

But the poster I quoted was asking why the government didn't just directly tax customers, probably through sales tax. With corporate tax, the corporation will pass the cost along to whomever buys their products, whether it is an American individual, a Chinese individual, the American federal government, or another corporation.

But the poster I quoted was asking why the government didn't just directly tax customers, probably through sales tax. With corporate tax, the corporation will pass the cost along to whomever buys their products, whether it is an American individual, a Chinese individual, the American federal government, or another corporation.
To what point?

Then we get into the fact that American-based corporations are taxed on any and all income. If I sell in Europe, I pay taxes on those sales in Europe AND in America. If I sell in China, guess what? Yep, I pay taxes twice there, too. That's a scheme that not only passes along the taxes to the customers, but encourages the company to move its headquarters offshore.

Is it any surprise that when Chrysler and Mercedes merged, they didn't headquarter Daimler-Chrysler in the US?

In my not so expert opinion, I would suggest spending allot of money rebuilding the country's infrastructure. I would also invest more into cutting edge research and development via both universities and grants to the private sector. Then I would set out a more long term plan with trying to improve the education system.

To what point?

Then we get into the fact that American-based corporations are taxed on any and all income. If I sell in Europe, I pay taxes on those sales in Europe AND in America. If I sell in China, guess what? Yep, I pay taxes twice there, too. That's a scheme that not only passes along the taxes to the customers, but encourages the company to move its headquarters offshore.

Is it any surprise that when Chrysler and Mercedes merged, they didn't headquarter Daimler-Chrysler in the US?

Yes, if a corporation wants the property rights, legal protection, and to my mind excessive chuminess the US government provides it, then it has to pay taxes on its total income. If a corporation is not making a plurality of its income in the United States, there is really no reason it should be headquartered here anyway.
As for DaimlerChrysler, Daimler-Benz technically bought Chrysler, hence its German headquarters.

Myrmidonisia, you are awesome. I notice you are also from Georgia. Wanna hook up some weekend and party?
Thanks, but I'm AARP fodder. Are you at Tech?

Not all of a corporation's income comes from American customers. A company like Coca-Cola makes plenty on the international market, and there are plenty of very successful companies that don't sell much stuff directly to individuals. (When was the last time you bought something from Lockheed Martin?)

So then, when the u.s. gov taxes coca cola, its taxing millions of foreign customers? And when it taxes Lockheed Martin, its basically taxing itself?

Thanks, but I'm AARP fodder. Are you at Tech?

Hey, AARP, I think thats kind of funky. I could get into that.;)

but I go to Georgia College and State University.

You know, I never understood corporate tax. Corporations just pass their taxes on to their customers. Why not just tax the customers?

I am going to make an assumption here and tell me if I am wrong and this is not what it is in the US.

Corporate tax is a tax on the income made by the business.

Now if a company passed this tax on to their customers then the company would be receiving a higher income and paying more tax (in dollar amounts) thus according to this logic they would then raise the prices higher resulting in higher income and more tax and the cycle would continue.

So no companies do not pass corporate tax on to their consumers, however, other taxes or levy's such as an carbon tax or tariff (for exported or imported goods) or a license fee then you will see the company passing this onto their customers.

Now if a company passed this tax on to their customers then the company would be receiving a higher income and paying more tax (in dollar amounts) thus according to this logic they would then raise the prices higher resulting in higher income and more tax and the cycle would continue.


Corporate taxes are levied against profit not revenue. Profit is revenue minus costs.

Suppose we have a company called WidgetCo which makes Widgets (TM). Widgets cost $50 to make and are sold for $100 each and WidgetCo has exactly one customer - me.

Without any corporate tax, the profit formula looks like such when I buy a Widget:

Profit = $100 (price of Widget) - $50 (cost of manufacturing Widget)
Profit = $50

Now, we get a 10% corporate tax passed. WidgetCo anticipates the increased cost of this tax and raises the price of Widget accordingly. Because it's profits were $50 dollars last time, WidgetCo anticipates having to pay $5 in taxes the next time around. WidgetCo thus increases the price of Widget by $5, passing off the cost to the consumer. I buy another Widget:

Profit = $105 (price of Widget) - [ $50 (cost of manufacturing Widget) + $5 (cost of corporate tax) ]
Profit = $105 - $55
Profit = $50

The cost of the tax passed off to me, WidgetCo's profit is still $50. Profit remains constant, so there is no need to increase the tax again the next time around.

The tax is potentially a lot better than the current system of federal taxes. The combination of spending habits and prebates make the FairTax a reasonably progressive tax. It's actually a non-tax for anyone working and earning below the poverty line.

I don't thing anyone is satisfied with the current system of federal taxes. The prebates only make it progressive when you compare the poor to the middle class. Those with high income will pay fewer taxes as a percentage of their income than the middle class given that that they generaly have higher savings rates.

So then, when the u.s. gov taxes coca cola, its taxing millions of foreign customers? And when it taxes Lockheed Martin, its basically taxing itself?Pretty much.

let it colapse and then start over without the fed (fedral reserve bank, incase anyone is unfamiliar with this context of the term, which is a consortum of banking intrests to which the treasury is mostly subcontracted) and without the corporatocracy.

=^^=
.../\...

fedral reserve bank, incase anyone is unfamiliar with this context of the term, which is a consortum of banking intrests to which the treasury is mostly subcontracted
If you happen to be unfamiliar with it, don't listen to this guy, because the only thing worse than not knowing is thinking you know but believing the wrong thing.

Fix US economy plan:

Nationalization of bourgeois means of production, and handing them over to the workers who work them.

Abolition of wage labor so workers get the full value of their labor, and a system of production based on 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'.

Full unionization and expropriation of the petty-bourgeois as managers, and replacement by democratic worker structures.

A strongly progressive or gradated tax system with clear confiscatory taxation on the rich as a transition to the complete abolition of the unemployed reserve of labor into a popular economy based upon predetermined plans for development and social goals, not arbitrary abstract 'growth' of a few hundred bourgeois executives.

Nationalization of banking and finance sector, control of and use of credit to be held in monopoly by councils and representative functions of the people democratically as a whole, and use of productive credit to build socialization of industry and exchange, and for economic empowerment of the poor and education programs.

Basing the Federal Reserve value currency rating upon real material conditions instead of abstract figures of foreign currencies.

Fix US economy plan:

Nationalization of bourgeois means of production, and handing them over to the workers who work them.


Someone had to use the B word at some point, Neu Leonstein ;)

I don't thing anyone is satisfied with the current system of federal taxes. The prebates only make it progressive when you compare the poor to the middle class. Those with high income will pay fewer taxes as a percentage of their income than the middle class given that that they generaly have higher savings rates.
I think you're taking a narrow and unrealistic view of income and taxation. I'm fairly sure that as incomes go up, it's not all taxable. I know I do many things to keep from being taxed on every dollar I make -- from contributing to our 401k to investing in tax-exempt mutual funds. My wife and I probably have an AGI around $150,000, but I'm sure we only pay tax on about half of that.

So, given that there's a unofficial limit on how much income can be taxed and that it varies from person to person, one really can't categorically state that we have a strictly progressive system of taxation now. Taxing retail sales, without exemptions and exceptions is a far more universal way of levying the tax. Adding the prebate makes it equitable.

I'm not kidding myself that a FairTax will ever replace the income tax. Not until the day that the chairman of the House Ways and Means committee signs on as a co-sponsor. Until that day, I'll keep voting for Mr Linder and sending a few dollars to the FairTax organization to keep the idea alive.

I think you're taking a narrow and unrealistic view of income and taxation. I'm fairly sure that as incomes go up, it's not all taxable. I know I do many things to keep from being taxed on every dollar I make -- from contributing to our 401k to investing in tax-exempt mutual funds. My wife and I probably have an AGI around $150,000, but I'm sure we only pay tax on about half of that.

So, given that there's a unofficial limit on how much income can be taxed and that it varies from person to person, one really can't categorically state that we have a strictly progressive system of taxation now. Taxing retail sales, without exemptions and exceptions is a far more universal way of levying the tax. Adding the prebate makes it equitable.

When did I say that the actual existing tax system was progressive to any significant degree? Warren Buffet is taxed less as a percentage of his income than his secretary. The prebates add equity only when comparing the poor to the middleclass. Compared to those with higher income its a regressive tax.

1. Abolish sales tax
2. No progressive income taxes
3. Print less money
4. No more welfare of any kind.(Counts for 1 trillion out of 3 trillion dollars this year)
5. No war on drugs
6. Replace mandatory Spanish classes with mandatory economics.
7. Raise standards in general for schools.

When did I say that the actual existing tax system was progressive to any significant degree? Warren Buffet is taxed less as a percentage of his income than his secretary. The prebates add equity only when comparing the poor to the middleclass. Compared to those with higher income its a regressive tax.
Maybe never. Maybe I don't know what your point is. And maybe a tax that lets everyone keep what they earn isn't all bad.

Maybe never. Maybe I don't know what your point is. And maybe a tax that lets everyone keep what they earn isn't all bad.

The biggest 'tax' on production is the capitalist system itself, in which the worker can produce something entirely themselves and then only receive a tiny portion of it as a wage so the boss can keep them alive to keep working. How about giving workers full self-determination over the products of labor? I support an end to social-parasitism.

The biggest 'tax' on production is the capitalist system itself, in which the worker can produce something entirely themselves and then only receive a tiny portion of it as a wage so the boss can keep them alive to keep working. How about giving workers full self-determination over the products of labor? I support an end to social-parasitism.

You seem to be confusing 21st century America with 19th century Britain. It's a common mistake, I myself often wake up believing the year is 1832 and I am in Manchester, but a mistake, nonetheless.

You seem to be confusing 21st century America with 19th century Britain. It's a common mistake, I myself often wake up believing the year is 1832 and I am in Manchester, but a mistake, nonetheless.

So what you mean to say is that I cannot answer your statement so I will troll?

So what you mean to say is that I cannot answer your statement so I will troll?

I belive an accurate translation was,

"Your economic views are somewhat outdated and would be more in line with Industrial era Britain than the modern developed world."

But apparently it went over your head. I didn't find it quite so elaborate.

I belive an accurate translation was,

"Your economic views are somewhat outdated and would be more in line with Industrial era Britain than the modern developed world."

But apparently it went over your head. I didn't find it quite so elaborate.

If anything the development of modern industrial society brings such contradictions into more fruition than they were in the 18th century, not less.
But then again, I guess you are one of those fooled by the bread and circuses of the bourgeois, and refuse to see exploitation.

But then again, I guess you are one of those fooled by the bread and circuses of the bourgeois, and refuse to see exploitation.

Yeah, I guess so. Woe is me.

So what you mean to say is that I cannot answer your statement so I will troll?
No, I meant...well, this is what I meant:

"Your economic views are somewhat outdated and would be more in line with Industrial era Britain than the modern developed world."


There are scenarios close to this in the modern world today, but the United States is not one of them. For one thing, there are much fewer workers anyway, most of the low-paying jobs provide service, not manufactured goods. And how can a Wal-Mart employee "own" their greeting?
There is also a difference between the capitalists of today and those of yesteryear. Nowadays, most large corporations are run by management, not the people who own them. Henry Ford was probably the last great American capitalist-entrepreneur on a large scale.

Maybe never. Maybe I don't know what your point is. And maybe a tax that lets everyone keep what they earn isn't all bad.

All taxes reduce one's purchasing power whether on income, consumption, property, ect. I dont see what your point is.

The biggest 'tax' on production is the capitalist system itself, in which the worker can produce something entirely themselves and then only receive a tiny portion of it as a wage so the boss can keep them alive to keep working. How about giving workers full self-determination over the products of labor? I support an end to social-parasitism.
I've been reading along and you've been entertaining. I didn't think there was anyone left that could spout such nonsense.

In what industry can a worker conceive, develop, build, market, and sell a product entirely on his own?

The only fair tax is no tax at all.

I love you.

Fix US economy plan:

Nationalization of bourgeois means of production, and handing them over to the workers who work them.

Abolition of wage labor so workers get the full value of their labor, and a system of production based on 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'.

Full unionization and expropriation of the petty-bourgeois as managers, and replacement by democratic worker structures.

A strongly progressive or gradated tax system with clear confiscatory taxation on the rich as a transition to the complete abolition of the unemployed reserve of labor into a popular economy based upon predetermined plans for development and social goals, not arbitrary abstract 'growth' of a few hundred bourgeois executives.

Nationalization of banking and finance sector, control of and use of credit to be held in monopoly by councils and representative functions of the people democratically as a whole, and use of productive credit to build socialization of industry and exchange, and for economic empowerment of the poor and education programs.

Basing the Federal Reserve value currency rating upon real material conditions instead of abstract figures of foreign currencies.

In other words, you would "fix" it by destroying it.

In other words, you would "fix" it by destroying it.

Destroy bourgeois property, yes, do you own bourgeois property? I highly doubt that, somehow I doubt bourgeois proper would come on NSG. I highly suspect you have petty personal possessions and somehow feel you have 'property' because of this. It's so sad that people like you will willing defend the property rights of others than yourself, whom you personally have no material interest in defending.

Destroy bourgeois property, yes, do you own bourgeois property? I highly doubt that, somehow I doubt bourgeois proper would come on NSG. I highly suspect you have petty personal possessions and somehow feel you have 'property' because of this. It's so sad that people like you will willing defend the property rights of others than yourself, whom you personally have no material interest in defending.

You're making an uninformed assumption here. Plus...you're jumping down the throat of anyone who even slightly disagrees with you. It makes you look like an ass, man.

Destroy bourgeois property, yes, do you own bourgeois property? I highly doubt that, somehow I doubt bourgeois proper would come on NSG. I highly suspect you have petty personal possessions and somehow feel you have 'property' because of this. It's so sad that people like you will willing defend the property rights of others than yourself, whom you personally have no material interest in defending.

Andy andy andy, you're always good for a laugh. :D

I'd be careful, Kontor it seems like Andaras accuses people of flaming frequently...

I'd be careful, Kontor it seems like Andaras accuses people of flaming frequently...

You're new here, so I'm going to take the time an explain things.

Andaras is...different. He has many opinions that other posters find controversial. Like Stalinism. His discussions with other posters can get heated at times.

You're new here, so I'm going to take the time an explain things.

Andaras is...different. He has many opinions that other posters find controversial. Like Stalinism. His discussions with other posters can get heated at times.


I've noticed...

He seems so...indoctrinated. It's kinda scary to think that there are people like him out in the world. I'm not trying to flamebait here, he just appears rather extreme.

I've noticed...

He seems so...indoctrinated. It's kinda scary to think that there are people like him out in the world. I'm not trying to flamebait here, he just appears rather extreme.

His opinions are extreme for this forum. That doesn't make them necessarily less valid then any of the more mainstream ideas that exist on this forum, it just makes them a natural focal point for rather heated discourse.

His opinions are extreme for this forum. That doesn't make them necessarily less valid then any of the more mainstream ideas that exist on this forum, it just makes them a natural focal point for rather heated discourse.

Well, it definetly seems so from what I've browsed on the forum. It'd be interesting to get into a political discussion with him...although I think I'll step lightly for awhile being the newbie that I am.

Stop allowing any more houses to be built, and don't print any money for a while, so that your currency is actually worth something again.

When I heard they were going to print more money I slapped my forehead in disgust. Sure fire way to devalue and already devaluing currency. Where did these people get their PhDs from?

When I heard they were going to print more money I slapped my forehead in disgust. Sure fire way to devalue and already devaluing currency. Where did these people get their PhDs from?

The University of Michigan.

Well, it definetly seems so from what I've browsed on the forum. It'd be interesting to get into a political discussion with him...although I think I'll step lightly for awhile being the newbie that I am.

Probably a good idea. Just stay low for awhile, get a feel for how NSG works. Surely, don't be afraid to voice your opinion, but try not to make any enemies for at least the first thousand posts.

Probably a good idea. Just stay low for awhile, get a feel for how NSG works. Surely, don't be afraid to voice your opinion, but try not to make any enemies for at least the first thousand posts.

Definetly. On this issue...I'd say the economy would probably be helped by reducing the amount of money funneled into the Iraq War. Have their government assume more security responsibilities. And closing some loopholes in the US tax code.

Corporate taxes are levied against profit not revenue. Profit is revenue minus costs.

Yes you are quite right it is on profit and not revenue, but that is profit before tax corporation calculate their profit as revenue minus costs and then they are taxed on that. So my original point still stands

I would cut spending and taxes drastically and immediately. No government funding of any type of health care for anyone. No more Medicare, Medicaid, or medi-anything. The most inefficient, wasteful boondoggles in the history of the country. I would abolish the department of education. The individual states can run their university systems, and local communities need to be in charge of their local schools. I would abolish the department of agriculture. Individual states can administer their own agricultural departments. Social Security, gone! The only thing more inefficient that a government rate of return of 1% annually on "your" retirement funds is surpassed only by the increased cost of government subsidized health care.

I would immediately abolish the alternative minimum tax, institute the "fair tax" for individuals, abolish all taxation on small companies that employed 25 people or less, and cut the corporate tax rate in half while speeding up the depreciation table to encourage modernization and capital investment. I would immediately double the gasoline tax to reduce dependence on gasoline as a primary fuel source for transportation.

When will fools figure out that bigger government and higher taxes don't solve a thing and destroy the fabric of society.

When will fools figure out that bigger government and higher taxes don't solve a thing and destroy the fabric of society.

Probably never. The lower class will always look to the government to solve problems. The private sector is more efficient in many ways...I just wish my government would apply that to education. America is lagging behind many other developed countries in that area.

There were some pretty big news yesterday: the Fed is essentially bankrolling a rescue package for Bear Stearns.

Bear Stearns is an investment bank that was particularly aggressive on promoting and making money off subprime mortgages, and they were the first big victim of the crisis as it appeared. That was just two of their hedge funds, while now it looks like the bank itself is short on cash and might not be able to pay out all its various obligations.

So JPMorgan (my future employer? :p) and the Fed have started a bail out process for them.

My question to you is: is that the way to go? Should they suffer the consequences of their actions, or does the stability of the financial system come first?

All taxes reduce one's purchasing power whether on income, consumption, property, ect. I dont see what your point is.
I agree with that. I just figure taxes are inevitable and they ought to be as painless as possible.

Krugman (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,541868,00.html) is going off on a rant. I mean, he's certainly got something of a point when he points out that something went wrong, but criticising is one thing - actually doing it better quite another. Whenever people talk about regulation regarding this current situation, they're talking out of their arse. No one knew what was going to happen and regulation would, as always, have been lagging after the fact and fixed nothing.

Also: JPMorgan bought Bear Stearns for a pittance. Nobody's quite sure yet whether it's even worth that little, but I still like that they took the risk and used the opportunity to get their hands on some capabilities and resources they wanted to get for some time.

Well, it definetly seems so from what I've browsed on the forum. It'd be interesting to get into a political discussion with him...although I think I'll step lightly for awhile being the newbie that I am.

If you don't spell (too) badly and you don't get into too many unwinable positions you'll be fine. Remember, you'll never get a bigger post count if you don't post. ;)


Edit: Also, not lying helps alot.

5) The housing market is still falling, destroying wealth and confidence in the process.

IMO the housing market was unjustifiably high and it's a good thing that it's coming down. It's ridiculous that the average price for a home in, say, LA County, is $500K+. And part of the reason for these ridiculous prices is the ease in which people were able to get loans to pay them.

Another problem is oil prices. And here, I have a proposal. IMO a lot of the high price per barrel today is due to speculators driving the price up for no good reason. So, I would institute the following requirement: in order to be allowed to bid for an oil futures contract, all bidders must prove that they are prepared to actually accept delivery of the oil they bid on, and must actually do so once the contracts come due. If you bid on 1000 barrels of oil, you must take delivery of and store the oil when the time comes to pump it out of the ground.

I submit that this requirement will force speculators whose only interest is buying and selling paper contracts out of the market, and thus help drive down oil prices. Lower oil prices will have a positive impact on the US economy.

Probably never. The lower class will always look to the government to solve problems. The private sector is more efficient in many ways...I just wish my government would apply that to education. America is lagging behind many other developed countries in that area.

The countries we are lagging behind also have public education, it just is better funded. Your arguement fails.


If the government atually gave a shit about public education, arguably the backbone of our country (and a well educated demos is the backbone of democracy) we wouldnt have a problem.

IMO the housing market was unjustifiably high and it's a good thing that it's coming down. It's ridiculous that the average price for a home in, say, LA County, is $500K+. And part of the reason for these ridiculous prices is the ease in which people were able to get loans to pay them.

Another problem is oil prices. And here, I have a proposal. IMO a lot of the high price per barrel today is due to speculators driving the price up for no good reason. So, I would institute the following requirement: in order to be allowed to bid for an oil futures contract, all bidders must prove that they are prepared to actually accept delivery of the oil they bid on, and must actually do so once the contracts come due. If you bid on 1000 barrels of oil, you must take delivery of and store the oil when the time comes to pump it out of the ground.

I submit that this requirement will force speculators whose only interest is buying and selling paper contracts out of the market, and thus help drive down oil prices. Lower oil prices will have a positive impact on the US economy.


You know, that idea actually makes some sense...

I highly doubt that, somehow I doubt bourgeois proper would come on NSG.

Why is that?

Why is that?

not enough monocles and top hats in these parts

not enough monocles and top hats in these parts
I thought the bourgeois were the "self-made" prosperous types. Sort of like Marrakech and me... among others.

I thought the bourgeois were the "self-made" prosperous types. Sort of like Marrakech and me... among others.

Everyone who disagrees with Andaras and/or doesnt buy into his revisionist history is a member of the bourgeois

Damn subprime mortgages and damn president Clinton. He just wanted to brag about how many new home owners he had under his presidency. Now all these losers are defaulting on their mortgages and the government has a plan to fix it? Respect the free market and don't try to fix I say.

*snip*
From what I read, it seemed like there was a literal run on the bank. In fact, I think the Washington Post article even used the phrase "run on the bank." If this was true, if Bear Stearns would not only fail but bring others down with it, I think aid from the government is necessary.

And what do you mean by calling J.P. Morgan Chase your future employer? Have you applied to work there?

Damn subprime mortgages and damn president Clinton. He just wanted to brag about how many new home owners he had under his presidency. Now all these losers are defaulting on their mortgages and the government has a plan to fix it? Respect the free market and don't try to fix I say.
Once upon a time, lenders could redline a zip code and just refuse to lend to anyone from there. Then some social do-gooder decided that it was unfair to deny a person a loan just because was a bad risk. Presto -- we lend money to poor people and they default. Duh!

Once upon a time, lenders could redline a zip code and just refuse to lend to anyone from there. Then some social do-gooder decided that it was unfair to deny a person a loan just because was a bad risk. Presto -- we lend money to poor people and they default. Duh!

ah, i see. zip codes = primary determinants of risk. its so obvious. and/or fucking racist.

also, your post doesn't address the actual fundamental problem involved in the current economy.

ah, i see. zipcodes = accurate determinants of risk. its so obvious. and/or fucking racist.

also, your post doesn't address the actual fundamental problem involved in the current economy.
But we didn't have the number of loan defaults that we do now. That's what happens when the government steps in and tries to dictate to business. We get crap.

1. Pull out of Iraq
2. Stop helping nations that don't help us
3. Get out of the UN and force them to pay their parking tickets
4. Drill our own oil (we have plenty of it)
5. Put a higher income tax rate on people who can afford it
6. Put the army to use on the borders!!!

The countries we are lagging behind also have public education, it just is better funded. Your arguement fails.


If the government atually gave a shit about public education, arguably the backbone of our country (and a well educated demos is the backbone of democracy) we wouldnt have a problem.

It's not the amount of funding but how it is applied. Other countries apply the principle of competition...schools are forced to do better because tax dollars are attached to students, which means parents get the choice of where their kids go. In the US, students are force to go to the school they are zoned for...which means public schools have no reason to try and improve. They get federal money reguardless of how the kids are doing (baring a significant number failing the classes).

Edit: Another example of how the amount of funding does not matter; My school system was recently given a block grant of a couple million to spend however they saw fit to improve education. You know what they did? Squandered it all on a bunch of football stadiums. Funding means nothing if it's misapplied.

And what do you mean by calling J.P. Morgan Chase your future employer? Have you applied to work there?
Not yet. I can't start work proper until I finish uni at the end of 2009. I am preparing an application for an internship with them though. And tonight there's a corporate cocktail event in the city that I'm going to, and they'll be there. Which means I'll be wearing a suit (:eek:).

But we didn't have the number of loan defaults that we do now. That's what happens when the government steps in and tries to dictate to business. We get crap.

oh those poor bankers. they are just being victimized by the mean old nasty government. its sad, really. wait, no, that's retarded. the banking world's insiders have been making a fucking killing on all of this. they know damn well what they are doing, and they know damn well that when the bill comes due they won't have to pay it.

Not yet. I can't start work proper until I finish uni at the end of 2009. I am preparing an application for an internship with them though. And tonight there's a corporate cocktail event in the city that I'm going to, and they'll be there. Which means I'll be wearing a suit (:eek:).
Good luck! :)

The biggest 'tax' on production is the capitalist system itself, in which the worker can produce something entirely themselves and then only receive a tiny portion of it as a wage so the boss can keep them alive to keep working. How about giving workers full self-determination over the products of labor? I support an end to social-parasitism.

Read Atlas Shrugged. Please, for god's sake, read it.

Stop printing money, lower/eliminate foreign aide, secure our borders and deport illegal immigrants in order to cut out the large costs of supporting non-citizens, export more/import less, nationalize foreign companies, cut back on government spending by limiting the government, etc.

Read Atlas Shrugged. Please, for god's sake, read it.

Thats terrible. No one should be subjected to...that.

Read Atlas Shrugged. Please, for god's sake, read it.

You've managed to bring up one of the few things that make Andaras look normal. Congratulations.

Stop printing money, lower/eliminate foreign aide, secure our borders and deport illegal immigrants in order to cut out the large costs of supporting non-citizens, export more/import less, nationalize foreign companies, cut back on government spending by limiting the government, etc.

you seem to have misread. the question involves fixing the usian economy.

Stop printing money, lower/eliminate foreign aide, secure our borders and deport illegal immigrants in order to cut out the large costs of supporting non-citizens, export more/import less, nationalize foreign companies, cut back on government spending by limiting the government, etc.

I agree with you, friend. Can I call you friend?

oh those poor bankers. they are just being victimized by the mean old nasty government. its sad, really. wait, no, that's retarded. the banking world's insiders have been making a fucking killing on all of this. they know damn well what they are doing, and they know damn well that when the bill comes due they won't have to pay it.

Another reason why the government should not interfere with the free market. Banking lobbyists screw tax-payers.

Read Atlas Shrugged. Please, for god's sake, read it.
Or you can just read the handy summary I have provided below:

You are wrong; Ayn Rand is right. Do what she says.
I think this captures the theme of the book nicely.

Not yet. I can't start work proper until I finish uni at the end of 2009. I am preparing an application for an internship with them though. And tonight there's a corporate cocktail event in the city that I'm going to, and they'll be there. Which means I'll be wearing a suit (:eek:).

Good, now NSG will finally have an insider in one of the country's largest banks. We have already taken control of the Internet market (http://www.thotmarket.com), it won't be long before the real one is ours.

How subprime killed Bear Stearns (http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/17/news/economy/gothere/index.htm?postversion=2008031716)

Lehman rout tests Fed's resolve (http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/17/news/lehman.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008031714)
The Fed's resolve to defend the stressed-out U.S. financial system was put to an early test Monday when investors bet that Lehman Brothers could be the next Wall Street giant to fall.

The brokerage firm saw its shares drop as much as 39% in early trading in wake of JPMorgan Chase's $2-a-share purchase of Bear Stearns (BSC, Fortune 500). Monday's selloff took Lehman (LEH, Fortune 500) shares to $24.50, down from $39 Friday, before they staged a mild recovery.

[...]

The inability of big domestic players to come to the rescue of their struggling peers could presage a second wave of sovereign wealth fund investments. Big U.S. trade partners such as Dubai, China and Abu Dhabi have funneled billions of dollars into money-losing bets on U.S. companies such as Citi (C, Fortune 500), Morgan Stanley (MS, Fortune 500) and Blackstone (BX). But Ehrenberg believes they will be back for more, though - only at much better terms.

Fannie, Freddie may get some slack (http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/17/news/companies/Fannie_Freddie.ap/index.htm?postversion=2008031719)
The federal regulator that oversees Fannie (FNM) and Freddie (FRE, Fortune 500) has been discussing with them an arrangement in which the cash cushion they are required to maintain - now nearly $20 billion for the two - could be reduced, several people familiar with the matter said Monday. Under a deal that could be announced as soon as this week, the freed-up money would be put into buying mortgages of struggling borrowers so they could refinance into more affordable loans, these people said.

Wall Street's pink slip parade (http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/17/news/companies/job_cuts/index.htm?postversion=2008031717)
Through February of this year, 18,000 jobs have already been lost in the hard-hit mortgage markets, according to research firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas, accounting for an overwhelming majority of the 22,000 jobs lost in the financial sector overall.

But analysts said Monday they expect 15,000 to 30,000 more job losses by the end of the year in the financial sector, including half of Bear Stearns' 14,000 workers following JPMorgan Chase's (JPM, Fortune 500) impending takeover of the company.

Not nice, but at least it's not boring.

Not yet. I can't start work proper until I finish uni at the end of 2009. I am preparing an application for an internship with them though. And tonight there's a corporate cocktail event in the city that I'm going to, and they'll be there. Which means I'll be wearing a suit (:eek:).

Hope it went well for you. Good luck! I'm sure you will do fine... stick with a neat, sharp suit and you can't go wrong (well you can but don't worry about that)

I think this captures the theme of the book nicely.

To be fair, thats also the theme of "Das Capital"

Read Atlas Shrugged. Please, for god's sake, read it.
... no, don't, it's crappily written and entirely without any form of merit.

To be fair, thats also the theme of "Das Capital"

Not in the slightest.

Stop printing money, lower/eliminate foreign aide, secure our borders and deport illegal immigrants in order to cut out the large costs of supporting non-citizens, export more/import less, nationalize foreign companies, cut back on government spending by limiting the government, etc.

Except deporting all the illegal immigrants would destroy the US economy.

... Atlas Shrugged...
Rabble, rabble, rabble!
Take it somewhere else, guys.

Take it somewhere else, guys.

Yeah, we're the objectional ones here :D

ah, i see. zip codes = primary determinants of risk. its so obvious. and/or fucking racist.
But if they're a generally accurate determinant of risk, why shouldn't lenders be permitted to employ them?

Oh, and Ragnar Danneskjöld is my hero.

It's not the amount of funding but how it is applied. Other countries apply the principle of competition...schools are forced to do better because tax dollars are attached to students, which means parents get the choice of where their kids go. In the US, students are force to go to the school they are zoned for...which means public schools have no reason to try and improve. They get federal money reguardless of how the kids are doing (baring a significant number failing the classes).

Edit: Another example of how the amount of funding does not matter; My school system was recently given a block grant of a couple million to spend however they saw fit to improve education. You know what they did? Squandered it all on a bunch of football stadiums. Funding means nothing if it's misapplied.

Ooooo! School vouchers redistribute resources from nonparents to parents and from the rich to the poor. How very liberal/social democratic of you.

Except deporting all the illegal immigrants would destroy the US economy.
You need to think that through. Especially if the alternative is giving the now illegal residents legal status. If they're not "in the shadows", then they are going to want better pay and everything else that goes along with legal employment.

I would replace our fiat "money" with hard currency; repeal each and every form of taxation; do away with all wage and price controls; reduce government spending in all areas to a bare minimum (ideally, $0.00); privatize anything and everything; do away with all tariffs, subsidies, etc. and adopt genuine free trade; end our military presence abroad; end the stupid "War on Drugs"; open our borders; get corporations out of bed with the government; toss out just about any form of regulation imaginable; and, if possible, dissolve the federal government.

Ron Paul posts on Nationstates?

This is a problem that needs to be addressed on many levels.

1. Cut federal spending and try to restore some balance to our trade deficit.
2. Reduce the amount of money put into the system thereby lowering inflation and increasing the value of our currency.
3. Cut corporate welfare programs. The point of capitalism and the free market economy is that things work on a system of supply and demand. If people are selling shit that no one wants to buy they should discontinue the production of these products. Let the market and personal ingenuity decide if a business/industry lives or dies. More money goes to corporate welfare than goes to actually welfare.
4. Remove personal income taxes for federal and state governments. Institute a flat sales tax applicable to everyone. Still leave items like food and basic necessities tax free. You consume more so you pay more. You don't get special treatment because you are wealthy. If you have the ability to earn a great wage then you should have no problem paying this tax. The amount of tax you pay is equal to that of others. If you buy a Ferrari you pay more than a Hyundai.
5. Repeal the Estate tax entirely. Forcing someone to give up wealth on items that have already paid taxes on is nonsense. If I paid taxes on the purchase my of my home you should not tax me again when I die. You get your money once from one person. If I sell it to someone else than fine.
6. Create work programs coupled with job training to help fix the nation's infrastructure. Giving people the skills they need to make a living is a great part of this approach. Shoring up our infrastructure is also a great thing. If these people have skills to make money, and a public project to work to make $, this will put more $ into the economy.

But if they're a generally accurate determinant of risk, why shouldn't lenders be permitted to employ them?

because they are irrelevant - they have no causal connection to anything at all. at best - and this involves imagining the practice to be far less clearly racist than it actually was and is - it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what the source of risk is and how it comes about. the practice just amounts to saying that a person who might otherwise be eligible for a loan when judged on the same criteria used for everybody else cannot get one on the basis of an illegitimate, irrelevant, and clearly discriminatory special criteria.

You need to think that through. Especially if the alternative is giving the now illegal residents legal status. If they're not "in the shadows", then they are going to want better pay and everything else that goes along with legal employment.

yeah, and?

"let it be"

yeah, and?
I see you didn't heed my advice. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so we'll go real slow.

Why would deporting all illegal residents from the United State, assuming it was possible, ruin the economy?

because they are irrelevant - they have no causal connection to anything at all. at best - and this involves imagining the practice to be far less clearly racist than it actually was and is - it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what the source of risk is and how it comes about. the practice just amounts to saying that a person who might otherwise be eligible for a loan when judged on the same criteria used for everybody else cannot get one on the basis of an illegitimate, irrelevant, and clearly discriminatory special criteria.
But that's your value-judgement talking.

If I can improve the disposition of my customer pool by removing from it a group of people who, on balance, are riskier borrowers, I've improved my business. I've made a sound business decision that has positive consequences both for me and for my customers.

We often make people move to get their kids into better schools. Why can't we do that with loans, too?

Stop printing money, lower/eliminate foreign aide, secure our borders and deport illegal immigrants in order to cut out the large costs of supporting non-citizens, export more/import less, nationalize foreign companies, cut back on government spending by limiting the government, etc.
... So you want the government to stop printing money, lower or eliminate foreign aid, secure the borders, and deport millions of people, as well as regulating imports and exports... and then you say "limit the government". Think your shit through.

As to nationalising foreign companies - aye, nice one, way to stop any kind of investment into the US straight away. Which you guys really, definitely need at this point, because American money is flowing out of the US and into China and India. You then stop any money going into the US, and it's basically sad times ahoy.

Okay, Bernanke cut the rate by .75% rather than the full percent people expected. Perversely, Wall Street (http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/18/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm?postversion=2008031817) suddenly changed its tune and thought that was an awesome idea because it didn't signal panic as much. And the fact that Lehman Brothers made it through the day in one piece probably contributed too.

Still, inflation is above 4%, interest rates now at 2.25%. So in effect, they're negative. Normally you'd say "don't bother with another cut, if people don't borrow now, they won't borrow at all" but consumers haven't actually been reached by it because the banks just take all the cash they can get and then don't lend it on.

Weird...and no good for monetary policy. Bernanke can keep coming up with new ideas (he started lending directly to investment banks now and now accepts any investment-grade mortgage-backed stuff rather than just AAA) for a little while longer, but ultimately nothing he does can fix the underlying problem, which is the housing market. Until the foreclosures stop (and this is where Bush and Congress should probably get involved now) people won't put any fixed numbers on mortgage-backed securities and they won't buy them regardless of the price. And until that market comes back, the credit market will stay still and there's nothing Bernanke can do about the recession.

Funnily enough though, because Wall Street had such a good day the US Dollar spiked and gold fell. So if you listened to Sel Appa...;)

Oh, and JPMorgan made a cool $472 million profit in a day thanks to Bear Stearns going from $2 to $6. If they were to sell, that is, which they won't.

Funnily enough though, because Wall Street had such a good day the US Dollar spiked and gold fell. So if you listened to Sel Appa...;).

Gold prices generally rise during a recession and fall during a boom times. His advice was poor given that historical trend.

Why would deporting all illegal residents from the United State, assuming it was possible, ruin the economy?

depending on how it was done, it might not, actually. but presumably because we suddenly would lose a significant portion of the workforce doing productive work, and would simultaneously throw bajillions of dollars down the fucking toilet to actually pull it off. well, and the riots and civil unrest caused by me and mine.

But that's your value-judgement talking.

sure. it is also the correct value-judgment. we ought not allow various important social institutions to reject things on the basis of irrelevant criteria. this is a matter of basic justice.

We often make people move to get their kids into better schools. Why can't we do that with loans, too?

so in order to get a loan, one must first own a home elsewhere. are you honestly going to tell me you don't see the slight issue there?

sure. it is also the correct value-judgment. we ought not allow various important social institutions to reject things on the basis of irrelevant criteria. this is a matter of basic justice.
There are no correct value-judgements. As I pointed out, the criterion was indirectly relevant as it did improve the general disposition of the potential borrowers.

If it hadn't, then you could credibly claim that the criterion was irrelevant.
so in order to get a loan, one must first own a home elsewhere. are you honestly going to tell me you don't see the slight issue there?
You need not own a home elsewhere, you need just have residence elsewhere. Again, we already do this for schools.

God339, I use Atlas Shrugged for toilet paper when I run out of Adam Smith.

There are no correct value-judgements.

sure there are, on pain of nazis.

As I pointed out, the criterion was indirectly relevant as it did improve the general disposition of the potential borrowers.

If it hadn't, then you could credibly claim that the criterion was irrelevant.

how indirect are you allowing and how little improvement? because when we allow indirect proxies, we may see some improvement under a whole host of regimes but we also unfairly rule out people who are deserving on every directly relevant criteria. the fact that something is of minor benefit to a bank is not a good justification for allowing them to do it.

You need not own a home elsewhere, you need just have residence elsewhere. Again, we already do this for schools.

we shouldn't make people move to get their kids into better schools. this system is actually one of the ongoing problems facing society.

besides, moving isn't free. why should people who would get loans if they lived anywhere else have to incur fairly significant expenses that nobody else does? what could possibly make that just?

and redlining goes farther than just homes. it means there is no money for loans to businesses that operate or would like to operate in redlined areas, no loans for improvements. essentially, it declares an area a dead zone, and then goes about making sure that it dies, all on the basis of race.

But that's your value-judgement talking.

If I can improve the disposition of my customer pool by removing from it a group of people who, on balance, are riskier borrowers, I've improved my business. I've made a sound business decision that has positive consequences both for me and for my customers.

We often make people move to get their kids into better schools. Why can't we do that with loans, too?So if there was a zip code that had a particularly high crime rate, would it be acceptable to arrest everyone who lived in that zip code? I mean, if it resulted in positive consequences for the people living in the nearby zip codes.

So if there was a zip code that had a particularly high crime rate, would it be acceptable to arrest everyone who lived in that zip code? I mean, if it resulted in positive consequences for the people living in the nearby zip codes.
That's a difference in kind. You're missing the action/inaction distinction, again.

This is why you think it's wrong not to throw a rope to a drowning person.

That's a difference in kind. You're missing the action/inaction distinction, again.

This is why you think it's wrong not to throw a rope to a drowning person.Whether or not there is an action/inaction distinction doesn't mean the distinction is necessarily relevant.

Whether or not there is an action/inaction distinction doesn't mean the distinction is necessarily relevant.
Let's change your example a bit. I'd be content with an increased police presence in that area, or even surveillance cameras that didn't exist where the crime rate was lower.

Let's change your example a bit. I'd be content with an increased police presence in that area, or even surveillance cameras that didn't exist where the crime rate was lower.So then a correlation to loans might be to raise interest rates on the loans for people from the 'high-risk' zip code, but not to deny people from there loans outright.