ronthecivil Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 I would go with Romney but I am happy either way. Ideally with a democratic congress that will not rollback the tax increases from the fiscal cliff but will work with him to slash and burn the US government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 I would go with Romney but I am happy either way. Ideally with a democratic congress that will not rollback the tax increases from the fiscal cliff but will work with him to slash and burn the US government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 If the Dems actually won control of congress, i'd bet that the Pres. would be able to roll back the Bush tax-cuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanuckClown Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Economic booms and busts are inherent to our way of life - it matters not who is in power. People want to blame the last crisis on Bush, or Obama, or whomever. the reality is that mortgage backed securities became a reality for an entirely different reason. The increased polaraziation of wealth - a smaller middle class, a growing working/lower class and more billionaires than ever - resulted in more capital in the hands of fewer and fewer people. Of course, with said polarization a problem arises. What does one do with their capital? (After all, if it is not used to augment itself is ceases to become capital.) The first question is why is there a smaller middle class in N. America/West today? The reasons are numerous but I would suggest that the biggest reason would be due to the free trade agreements so typical since the 60s; which took hold like never before in the 80s. This was a reaction to the increased power of the middle class. They were receiving higher wages than ever before, and as a result profits were down. The easiest was to combat this was to break labour. This was done by way of opening up other labour markets. That is, increasing the supply of labour to the point whereby its pricce decreased. Interestingly enough this shift corresponds with the shift of power to Merchant and Fincance capital and the decrease of power in Production capital. Companies such as Wal-Mart and Visa have become bigger than ever, whereas most people have no idea as to the name of the Chinese company who made their jeans or hats and has since been branded and sold by another company. This have become possible because of the deregulation of markets. Moreover, companies like Visa, Mastercard and any other creditor grew and grew in part 'cause of the wage stagnation that resulted from the disciplining of labour. People continued to earn less relative to the cost of living but remained focused on a certain way of life/level of consumption. Hence, a crisis of effective demand (no one to buy goods) was avoided for a good amount of time. Moreover, as the geography of multinational companies grew and grew, the more important finance became. Having the right amount of money and the right speed and time became critical in order to ensure a seemless realization of profits. What this all amounts to, as I stated earlier, was record profits. The amount of capital accumulated by a small amount of people has become simply astounding. Here is the problem however. The more capital one accumulates the harder it becomes to find places to put it back into circulation. That is, there are less and less markets where one can realize a return. So what is one to do? The simplified version, in my opinion, is to invent a market. And there you have the birth of derivatives, sub-prime mortgages and so on. I have rambled for far too long, so I will only say this: It is in my opinion that not a single President, Prime Minister, Chancellor or what have you, in the past 30 years, could have stopped this trend from happening. There are certain things that could slow it: wars, natural disasters and so on (allowing for the reopening of markets), but aside from that politics is a sideshow with very little impact in my opinion. And for the Ron Paul lovers out there: being a libertarian would simply speed up the process highlighted previously. There is a reason the saying "a capitalist will sell you the rope you use to hang him with" exists. If markets are deregulated 100% then all hell would break loose. /rant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 And for the Ron Paul lovers out there: being a libertarian would simply speed up the process highlighted previously. There is a reason the saying "a capitalist will sell you the rope you use to hang him with" exists. If markets are deregulated 100% then all hell would break loose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossi Vaananen Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 ^ . A direction I could have responded with, although sadly this will only be responded with Zaibatsu's fluff. Well articulated CanuckClown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 ^ . A direction I could have responded with, although sadly this will only be responded with Zaibatsu's fluff. Well articulated CanuckClown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanuckClown Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 I would be about as worried about Ron Paul 100% deregulating the "markets" as I would be of Romney or Obama invoking a second holocaust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossi Vaananen Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Pot.. meet kettle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drybone Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 This thread has been of great amusement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Difference is I have two degrees and I'm starting a 3rd in September. So far you have just created smokescreen after smokescreen, insulting people, and calling educated responders "trolls". I've come to the realization I'm dealing with an 18 y/o who probably just finished some 100 level courses and feels smart by dropping the term Keynesian. I stand by what I've said, that Ron Paul isn't qualified and Gary Johnson isn't to be taken seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 I don't understand why markets is in quotations. Care to elaborate? As for the 100% deregualtion: the per centage doesn't matter. Any moving towards greater deregulation satisfies my point. Unless you care to articulate why I am wrong I don't see the point of you responding in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 You already lost your bet.. 2009-2011 came and went with no Bush tax cut rollback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 If the Dems actually won control of congress, i'd bet that the Pres. would be able to roll back the Bush tax-cuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoShowWilly Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 obama broke reddit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossi Vaananen Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 obama broke reddit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Actually they are getting rolled back as part of the fiscal clliff implementation at the end of the year. Only a last minute bipartisan agreement to get the budget balanced (ya right!) will stop it's implementation. So when congress comes back unless the Republicans have supermajorities in both houses you can expect the Democrats to have learned a thing or two from the Republicans and obstruct any and all efforts to restore the tax cuts. Ergo my view of wanting Romney and his VP to encourage spending cuts but enough democrats to ensure they don't waste that by simply wasting the savings on reversing the cuts. The states needs to get there books in order more than anything and I feel of the current options that would do the best. Mind you, if Obama gets elected he could have some fun on his own by simply rejecting every budget congress puts out and unless they had a super majority to push it past him anyways he could veto the fiscal cliff into being a long term policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoShowWilly Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Lol, he was pretty good today. He sure picked the right questions to answer, some of them were pretty loaded and some were ridiculous - "toilet paper in or out?" I guess the one that intrigued me most was the unemployed recent law school grad, and how Obama would fix that situation. I like the idea of promoting wind and solar energy programs. He also got a little shot at the Republicans with their proposed tax plan. His best answer was probably towards revisiting Super-PACs and ending Citizen United. Good showing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tystick Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Ha, and you really don't think Romney would have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tystick Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 I must have misread the OP.... I could have sworn the question was Obama or Romney. In fact, I was pretty sure that it specifically said no third options.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.