Avaron
-
Content Count
321 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Avaron
-
-
-.-henry, believe it or not, but i don't like the governement being involved in too much things any more than you do. but when we're talking about being realistic, we have to accept that under the actual circumstances no other way is possible. i'm a pragmatic here.and i'm not talking about "governement jobs". i'm talking about job creation for the free market, since the free market isn't able to create jobs fast enough right now. that's the point with the whole "help to dig itself out"-thing. but in a way you're right. it's understandable that you question what kind of jobs are created. but imo, the more jobs in a wider spectrum are created, the better. sure, a skatepark, walkways around casinos or renovating a steamboat seems unecessary. but it's about the companies that have to do that. as long as they get assignments, they at least don't fire people. and the more work they have, the better the chance that they may even hire new employees. job creation.anf besides of that, i just was saying that even governement jobs are done by normal people, who will spend their earned money and therefore contribute to the economy. so if during the process a couple more governement jobs are created as well, it's certainly not a bad thing overall.I was talking about market theory either. I was discussing a very specific scenario: one in which the government creates "jobs" for thinks that nobody wants. I used the example of digging holes and filling them back in, but you could use more realistic examples, such as polka museums, or crucifixes dipped in piss, or whatever other spending program you can find that only exists because someone with connections wanted it.So let's use polka museums. Should we make the tax rate, say, 99% and hire everyone to build polka museums in every town? Is that economic stimulus? With all that money, we could probably pay everyone $100/hour. Is this good economic policy or bad? Will it stimulate the economy or destroy it? -
you're missing my point, i wasn't talking about market theories.i was simply trying to say that in a crisis every created job counts. doesn't matter if it's in building streets, saving art/culture or anything else, as long as it is putting money in the circuit. that's the goal.and i was trying to defend the poor guys that work for governement (NOT necessarily the politicians!). must be a hard life, simply trying to do your job while the whole country seems to hate you...Follow this thought through a bit. According to your theory, the govt should have a 100% tax rate, and hire two teams -- half of Americans dig holes, the other half fill them in.These people will earn money, spend it and get the economy going.How is this scenario different from a free market economy?Think hard, it's a fundamental question.
No. The best thing to do with public money during a recession is a) to spend and invest it in a way that makes it possible for economy to dig itself out of the hole. B ) to make sure the errors in the system that caused the problem are corrected.No, the best thing to do with public money during a recession is to use it to create 'better' wealth, such as producing materials, goods, or services which are wanted/needed. -
and BG, you seem to forget that these "governement job" are still done by real people who will spent the earned money. that's the whole point about job creation. getting people to have money, so they can spend it. and that's what is getting the economy going.
-
alway the same with immigration. desperate people wouldn't have to cross borders illegally if immigration were easier, it's that simple.and as for the argument "we don't want/need more immigrants": do i really have to remind americans that immigration is +EV?and as for the argument of immigrated criminals: well, that's just a matter of law enforcement...and i'm totally with henry in this discussion^^ well, besides the general governement hate.
-
we probably have more in common than you would like to admitSee EG, that should tell you more about your position than anything I write.
-
i actually think he is right on this one^^
-
i'm too lazy to do research on the US now, but in europe a lot of key industries (phone, railway, mail, certain banks...) back in the 70s and early 80s were public enterprises until the privatization "boom" during the reagan/thatcher era. i believe, it was similar in the US.since the world (or at least the g20^^) agrees that economy can't be the same anymore, i (and a lot of economists i read in newspapers lately) predict we'll see a comeback-of-the-state light...huh? -
it does. it's clearly a part of barry's strategy what i've seen on hsp. people don't shove that much against him, because they know he'll run it just once. so they're not willing to take a chance, when they know barry has them beat and the have a draw.it comes down to how much you want to (take a) risk...How often you run something should never change your thought process on a hand. Ever. -
[ ] does get ironyExactly Bob! But they will soon have to as the EU project is going to unravel soon. Luckily here in the UK, the British National Party is picking up votes and support. Soon the people will be free and there will be a return to democracy.Keep spreading the word brother!! -
better get used to it. i predict that in 2-3 years when this crisis is solved, we'll see al lot (not the majority) of so-called key industries back in the hands of states...After 35 years in America, I never thought I would see this. I still can't quite believe we will sit by as this crisis is used to hand control of our economy over to government. But here we are, on the brink. Clearly, I have been naive. -
[ ] does understand the british political systemJust to correct you BG, it is prime minister of the UK - England doesn't have a prime minister or governing body. It is a nation which the political elite in Britain seek to wipe out of existence.I would suggest that when the English people finally wake up and realise what has been done to them systematically(and for what ends), the last thing anyone over here would want to be is a mainstream politician...And I wouldn't worry about whatever Obama gives to Gordon Brown - he is unelected and part of a political elite who care nothing about the British people. -
...i really hope that is a bad joke...I guess this was humour. Good one. If it was an attempt at serious political response, I'd say this:If you were holding me to the dictionary definition (even though checky didn't use it that way), then while it is true that the English have not lost the vote in the UK parliament, they have less 'civil rights' in the politically complex society which would make my question valid.They do not have a Parliament. Therefore they do not have an independent voice. Therefore they are being told they are not a nation. A nation being told they are not to have a voice any more, having never voted for this. I'd say that's disenfranchised... -
i don't speculate on what it was, to find that out is the job of the local law enforcement agency. and as long as nothing else is proven, i view this as a murder as they happen all over the world all the time. there had been murders with beheading before, and sure, it shows that the murderer is in some way mad. but it does not always have to do something with his religion, just because it's the most obvious possibility.Yes it does, in terms of this discussion, and get off your relativist high-horse. Fundamentalist islamic influence is a dangerous force against life and human rights in this world, and while you can pick and choose examples from other religions and cultures, nothing changes that fact...if Islam was the only religion on earth OR if every other religion inspired even more violence, it doesn't change the fact that this was most likely an honor killing inspired by a cultural fundamentalism deeply intertwined with Islam. Period.
what do we know about the background story and his mindset when he was doing it? maybe he was out of control, mad and in some kind of murderous frenzy and in that state of mind, people tend not to think very logically. what do we know?just to make it clear: i don't think that it is impossible that his muslim background could play a role. but i don't want to prejudge, but wait for evidence.Unbelievable that you even took the time to post this intellectually-absurd question set. If the husband just wanted to kill the wife, there are cleaner, more efficient, and less evidence-leaving ways of doing it. Morever, it was done in a method that is represented in the historical record by muslim men committing honor killings (btw, this guy is a pakistani, not an arab). -
does that really matter? does the fact that he beheaded his wife make it a worse murder than a bullet in the head?Avaron, or FCP Bob, why do you think this man chose beheading as the method of the murder? -
there's a reason why i didn't bring up the UN as a example. obviously this institution needs to be reformed.and by the way: as far as i know, the us left the human rights convention. and rejoined it, i just read it 2 days ago.and: the race convention is supposed to be an open discussion forum. it's not supposed to be anti or pro anything.What's not to like? A global government kind of like the UN only with more power. The UN that voted the US off the human rights commission and voted Sudan, Lybia, and Syria on. The UN who sponsors an anti-Semitic, anti-American convention every year calling in environmental conference or conference on race relations. This would not just be a matter of letting the inmates run the asylum, it would be akin to turning it over the most violent of the criminally insane. On second thought. No thanks. -
at least it seems so. but i disagree, i think globalisation will in the long run lead to more wealth in the world - so far H is indeed right. but i think the only form of globalisation that could do that is the form of one "global governement/state" in a worldwide democratic system (H won't like it though^^) - but this is utopia obviously, at least for the near future...Globalization will not save us - it will end us. -
not at all. we just call it "old-fashioned image of the family".Sorry, but to suggest (which is how I read this sentence) that the level of misogyny is the same in Muslim countries as it is in Western countries, is ridiculous. -
If there is one thing I learned from this... it's that all muslims are seriously crazy.
yeah... and christians never kill people...I think it's also now pretty obvious that all of islam teaches violence. -
as a foreigner and resident of the world biggest export nation with the third biggest national economy, that "only" needs 50 billions in a span of two years as a stimulus, i actually laughed a couple of minutes. good one.seriously, i wondered if you are a pighead and just argueing for the sake of it. the last couple of posts and this unqualified comment proved to me that you're just a poor stupid idealist, completely out of touch with the reality, and an arrogant douche. i never want to get personal in dicussions, but now i had to.As a foreigner and resident of a second-world country, I would think that you would support open trade, as it is your country's best hope of joining the first world. -
-
-
please explain this further. does the growth of governmental institutions (creates by the way lots of jobs...) always create crony capitalism?because the only way i could imagine that, is, if the governement favors certain industries (maybe up to the point where it controls them, although this is not necessary) and therefore make them built a cartel to only work together. obviously that is something that should not happen...Your observation has historical data backing it, although I don't know of anywhere that it is collected in one place for those with short attention spans. But yeah, crony capitalism doesn't work, and is probably the leading cause of economic damage in this country. Things in this category include favorable tax laws and regulation, and market-distorting subsidies.Unfortunately, many of the problems from crony capitalism are blamed on free markets, when in reality it is the expansion of government that allows crony capitalism to exist. -
well, we're surely on a turning point in the world. just like the era of colonisation went down, the era of strong national states and the american leadership of the 20th century is definetly going down. we're facing new problems in economy and world politics, problems we're not able to fix for ourselves but only if we work together. it could be the era of the united nations, or at least of growing cooperation between states and federations (UN, EU, Arab League, ...). and i even think russia will calm down, at the latest if this kgb-generation is not in office anymore. and i hope we can get along with "this religion"I dont buy it. Everyone keeps telling me it will be fine.....but social security costs more every year, health care costs more every year, our debt goes up every year and our main industry seems to be pushing money around and hoping the house of cards doesnt collapse.Compound that with the rapid world growth of a religion that hates our guts; rampant overpopulation everywhere; a resurgently belligerent Russia; a somehow worsening Middle East situation......well I'll stop because I feel sad.I am not saying America is going to fall into an abyss or collapse like Rome. Just saying that I think we have seen the peak and we will never be back., because i still believe that it is not the majority of muslims that hate the western world.
-
i wouldn't be that pessimistic. america will be fine. it just needs to make any necessary adjustements for the future now. things aren't the same anymore. and that's actually something every country has to learn these days...My end statement is simple.....I dont think we are ever going to really fix this. I think America has peaked and will never get back to where it was in the late 20th century. I hope I am wrong.
The **official** Stimulus Spending Thread
in Politics, Economics and News
Posted