It's a big challenge for Obama - he's more "ideologically pure" than Clinton was, so we'll see if he's willing to compromise at all to get anything done for his side. If he wants to be reelected, he'll have to run to the right.
Ugh, I HATE first-past-the-post. It's a good way to get someone who was voted by 30% of the people to represent the other 70%. 50%+1, thankyouverymuch.
Except there's a SOUTH Korea with a rather NICE economic situation, plenty of innovation, a bit cleaner government, and booming trade. It's not all that far.
I doubt that "morals" enter into it when you're talking about the Chinese government. More than likely, North Korea is a GIANT liability, and they are more or less passively pushing to draw North Korea into the real world slowly so that they don't have to waste resources keeping it afloat. The Chinese won't actively promote revolution or anything there, but they won't suppress anything against Kim Jong "license to" Il or his government there, either.
Good insight. The Chinese lose as much as we do if something like that occurs. Militant Islamists may see that as a goal, but I doubt there are as many "hackers" on their side that know much about what they're doing to really cause something along those lines.
I agree here - I think the Chinese are more trying to settle on economic dominance rather than military. They're not invading, they're trying to buy. Unfortunately, they're in a precarious position - they loaned us all this money and really can't do a whole lot if we decide to default.
Full employment really isn't truly obtainable; the problem is that we cannot "incentivize" unemployment to the level that people don't look for jobs or seek to create one for themselves because it's more worthwhile to be on the dole - which is where we may be at right now to some extent.
Our complaint is that there seems to be more focus from the left on that social welfare net - which also keeps people more subservient to the state - than to a better solution, which is employment. Unfortunately, when poor people get jobs, they tend to get more money and more freedom.
You'd THINK college would do that, but I have seen a bit too many college-educated leftists doing the parroting, and you just have to look at the voting record of uneducated minorities to see that there are sheep on both sides.
We're currently dealing with mistakes by those "less conservative" economists as well. Sorry, I'm just REALLY disillusioned with modern Keyneseists.
And yeah, I should have used "libertarian" than "libertine." Overthought that one.
Ummm....CEO's of Fortune 500 companies don't walk around with degrees in Psychology and History.
The WORST economics people that I have seen are theorists and Keynesians - economic leftists. I'm not any sort of strict Austrian or monetarist by any means, but I keep wondering how they keep getting influence after what they said couldn't happen - inflation AND high unemployment - occurred in the 1970s. Techies are fiscally conservative. How is that wrong?
College degrees get paid more - true - but you don't have to have one to be a successful businessperson. Bill Gates?
I think that it's more about what we believe that he WOULD do given half a chance. If you look at some policies and appointments, there is least a decent argument that he wouldn't oppose a European-ish socialism in the US.
It's the left that gets to define "better educated" in most cases - particularly in light of degrees that don't produce much (liberal arts). Techies are notoriously more libertine on financial matters than the academic left.
The other side of that issue is that there are plenty of producers - small businesspeople, regularly employed - who don't have as much college education but more experience making money.
I call BS.
You're using the mentality of the 1900s labor movement that pits management vs. labor. It's outdated, and it's one reason why manufacturing in the US has dwindled (the main being labor costs in other countries that we really can't compete with in any scenario).
Laughable, at best. We probably would have had each of those in turn. The elements that arose for each of those instances wouldn't have been quelled by an international body of nations with no enforcement ability, large corruption, and the willingness to place the worst nations in leadership positions.
Slashdot Mirror
An oversimplification. Clinton had to sign on to a lot of what a Republican Congress was doing, and the "balanced budget" is a bit of a misnomer.
It's a big challenge for Obama - he's more "ideologically pure" than Clinton was, so we'll see if he's willing to compromise at all to get anything done for his side. If he wants to be reelected, he'll have to run to the right.
Ugh, I HATE first-past-the-post. It's a good way to get someone who was voted by 30% of the people to represent the other 70%. 50%+1, thankyouverymuch.
Except there's a SOUTH Korea with a rather NICE economic situation, plenty of innovation, a bit cleaner government, and booming trade. It's not all that far.
I doubt that "morals" enter into it when you're talking about the Chinese government. More than likely, North Korea is a GIANT liability, and they are more or less passively pushing to draw North Korea into the real world slowly so that they don't have to waste resources keeping it afloat. The Chinese won't actively promote revolution or anything there, but they won't suppress anything against Kim Jong "license to" Il or his government there, either.
Good insight. The Chinese lose as much as we do if something like that occurs. Militant Islamists may see that as a goal, but I doubt there are as many "hackers" on their side that know much about what they're doing to really cause something along those lines.
I agree here - I think the Chinese are more trying to settle on economic dominance rather than military. They're not invading, they're trying to buy. Unfortunately, they're in a precarious position - they loaned us all this money and really can't do a whole lot if we decide to default.
Full employment really isn't truly obtainable; the problem is that we cannot "incentivize" unemployment to the level that people don't look for jobs or seek to create one for themselves because it's more worthwhile to be on the dole - which is where we may be at right now to some extent.
Our complaint is that there seems to be more focus from the left on that social welfare net - which also keeps people more subservient to the state - than to a better solution, which is employment. Unfortunately, when poor people get jobs, they tend to get more money and more freedom.
You'd THINK college would do that, but I have seen a bit too many college-educated leftists doing the parroting, and you just have to look at the voting record of uneducated minorities to see that there are sheep on both sides.
We're currently dealing with mistakes by those "less conservative" economists as well. Sorry, I'm just REALLY disillusioned with modern Keyneseists.
And yeah, I should have used "libertarian" than "libertine." Overthought that one.
Who gets to define "intelligence?"
Ummm....CEO's of Fortune 500 companies don't walk around with degrees in Psychology and History.
The WORST economics people that I have seen are theorists and Keynesians - economic leftists. I'm not any sort of strict Austrian or monetarist by any means, but I keep wondering how they keep getting influence after what they said couldn't happen - inflation AND high unemployment - occurred in the 1970s. Techies are fiscally conservative. How is that wrong?
College degrees get paid more - true - but you don't have to have one to be a successful businessperson. Bill Gates?
The GM and Chrysler bailouts were practically that at one point; he's also explicitly stated a preference for single-payer health care.
Yeah, but he hit a big loss on the Hillarycare expansion.
Only after being pushed by one the few semi-conservative congresses in the US.
I think that it's more about what we believe that he WOULD do given half a chance. If you look at some policies and appointments, there is least a decent argument that he wouldn't oppose a European-ish socialism in the US.
Really?
Fiscal conservatism - spending less than we take in - is "stupid?"
Small government is "stupid?"
Here's the other side of that problem.
It's the left that gets to define "better educated" in most cases - particularly in light of degrees that don't produce much (liberal arts). Techies are notoriously more libertine on financial matters than the academic left.
The other side of that issue is that there are plenty of producers - small businesspeople, regularly employed - who don't have as much college education but more experience making money.
I call BS. You're using the mentality of the 1900s labor movement that pits management vs. labor. It's outdated, and it's one reason why manufacturing in the US has dwindled (the main being labor costs in other countries that we really can't compete with in any scenario).
I don't have to click NEARLY enough times for this to be really about Diablo.
Are the German unions as idiotic politically and economically as the American ones?
Nope. We're one of the few that moderately call for reform in the UN (John Bolton regularly made them unhappy by doing this).
A prime example is putting any muslim nation - such as Iran - on the human rights committee (much less chairing the thing).
Thunderdome.
Laughable, at best. We probably would have had each of those in turn. The elements that arose for each of those instances wouldn't have been quelled by an international body of nations with no enforcement ability, large corruption, and the willingness to place the worst nations in leadership positions.
For some here, that would still be too good for him.