MoreFeasts
Member
Obama is an admirer of Reagan, and whether he realizes it or not, he is following the tradition of trickle down economics and taking it to a whole new level.
Ronald Reagan; Savior or Scum
- Thread starter Harambe
- Start date
Life expectancy is at an all-time high. Crime is at an all-time low. People are living more comfortably than ever. The environment of the developed world is getting better each year (air and water pollution, forests health and coverage, etc). The U.S. is still the main source of innovation world-wide. The U.S. is still, far and away, the most significant player in the science and technology sector.
Are there problems? Of course. A government that conspires with business elites to ensure their continued benefiting of the status quo at the expense of others. A broken congress that is occupied by people with zero interest in governing, and total interest in using their position for personal gain. Abuse of executive power to establish an indiscriminate surveillance blanket. A military industry that requires the endless creation of conflict in order to stay in business, despite living in a world where war is largely a relic of the past. And plenty else.
But I wouldn't say that we're doomed or in the ****house. There will always be problems, and the vast majority of today's problems are caused by a manipulated market that disproportionately benefits the entrenched players. It isn't a free market, and I don't think a truly free market is a much better solution anyway. A freer market where companies can live and die in fair competition, and a strong government with a purely bureaucratic administrative and peace-keeping purpose would serve us much better.
Are there problems? Of course. A government that conspires with business elites to ensure their continued benefiting of the status quo at the expense of others. A broken congress that is occupied by people with zero interest in governing, and total interest in using their position for personal gain. Abuse of executive power to establish an indiscriminate surveillance blanket. A military industry that requires the endless creation of conflict in order to stay in business, despite living in a world where war is largely a relic of the past. And plenty else.
But I wouldn't say that we're doomed or in the ****house. There will always be problems, and the vast majority of today's problems are caused by a manipulated market that disproportionately benefits the entrenched players. It isn't a free market, and I don't think a truly free market is a much better solution anyway. A freer market where companies can live and die in fair competition, and a strong government with a purely bureaucratic administrative and peace-keeping purpose would serve us much better.
Nowadays, industry protections are enshrined in law. However, even when they weren't, major industries were able to protect themselves. It's always the middle class that suffers in the downturns.
Capitalism hates free markets. Unfettered, capitalists have always done what they could to destroy them.
I was pointing out a parallel that exposes many on the left for the hypocrites they are. It was a condemnation of both systems.
I don't know that we protect industry in downturns. Some get saved for the greater good i.e. Detroit, but most are left to fend for themselves. Even the banking system was left to its own demises in 2008 until the pressure reached collapse point.
I think people in general make a mistake by conflating banking with a free market economy. There's been plenty of discussion about the end of capitalism ever since TARP. However, banking is tied to government, born out of it, and is not a free market in the least. It is a facilitator for capitalism and must be backstopped in order for markets to flourish. Banking is part of a government construct that fosters a vibrant private economy.
The question shouldn't be between backstopping our banking system vs. sitting on our hands as everything collapses. That would be stupid. The question should be centered around how to liquidate banking entities without disturbing the markets or bailing out investors. Dodd-Frank has gone a long way towards allegedly solving these issues, so maybe we can all start having faith in the system again some day soon. Banks are highly capitalized right now and are supposed to have their own liquidation plans to solve things before the FDIC cracks them open.
MoreFeasts
Member
Getting tired of your **** middle class. Stop your whining. Poor people got it a lot worse than you.
Absolutely. The working poor also suffer, although not to the same comparative degree between boom and bust. The impoverished suffer more, but to an even lesser comparative degree.
MoreFeasts
Member
Sorry for splitting hairs, but I still disagree on "comparative degree". If you go from poor to losing everything, that is worse than going from middle class to middle class in a downturn.
I'm tired of people with a good job, a good home, and a 3% mortgage complaining about money because the tuition for their kids private schools or whatever went up. Government has spent 10 years subsidizing their mortgages, purchases, tax bill, investments , and retirement portfolio. You say when someone is already at the bottom there is not much more to fall, but that is not true in reality. Poor people suffer more. The middle class just complain out of habit. They are actually doing very well.
I'm tired of people with a good job, a good home, and a 3% mortgage complaining about money because the tuition for their kids private schools or whatever went up. Government has spent 10 years subsidizing their mortgages, purchases, tax bill, investments , and retirement portfolio. You say when someone is already at the bottom there is not much more to fall, but that is not true in reality. Poor people suffer more. The middle class just complain out of habit. They are actually doing very well.
Last edited:
MoreFeasts
Member
Upon giving this a little reflection, in my experience the more money people have, the more they tend to complain about money.
![[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]](/data/avatars/m/2/2497.jpg?1511131091){kind=avatar}
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Well-Known Member
Serious questions:
What indices are you using to define "suffering"? Since you're using quantitative language with respect to suffering, what methods are you using to measure it?
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Well-Known Member
Morefeasts,
Feel free to answer those questions from your perspective. Thanks.
Feel free to answer those questions from your perspective. Thanks.
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Well-Known Member
I'm a little surprised to see certain posters using the notion of a "free market" as some sort of measuring rod against the status quo. Can't we ditch that notion for good? Capitalist States have ALWAYS been serious meddlers, and the "free market" idea has always been a sort of heaven -- a distraction for the weak from the conflictual and highly differential conditions in which value is actually created and CERTAIN methods of value creation sustained.
It's hard to see how the interests of the middle and poorer classes have been anything but placated to. To talk in heavy puffs about who suffers more is sort of embarrassing when the tippy-top of the elite have been making out soooo well.
It's hard to see how the interests of the middle and poorer classes have been anything but placated to. To talk in heavy puffs about who suffers more is sort of embarrassing when the tippy-top of the elite have been making out soooo well.