Jump to content

Avaron

Members
  • Content Count

    321
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Avaron

  1. except that it is exactly the principle on how the financial cooperation between states and betwees states and world economy worked for the last century... that's absolutely right. and the governement itself doesn't want to create wealth. but it wants to create the right conditions on which the hard work, ingenuity, productivity and trade can create wealth. since the economy itself isn't able to do it quick enough to save jobs (let alone create new ones) and existences right now, due to the crisis.
  2. no, not at all. but i like a certain level of control in few key spots, so that it is possible to avoid huge swings in employment, and therefore save people's livelihood. it's not all the time about the value of what is produced. i think the life of the people is more important. i just think it's not fair that a worker in detroit looses his job after 30 years of hard work and may get in real financial trouble just because his bosses were too dumb to move the company into 21st century. maybe because they are highly educated experts who do know a little more about economy than the average joe (i
  3. the answer is so simple that i hesitated to give it to you. you won't like it.the people simply spend it on the wrong things (if they spend it, and not just save it).just look at your automobile inustry: the people are not going to buy lots of cars these days, but that's what has to happen if you not want the industry to crush. now the free market rules that if the industry has to go down, so be it, that's the free market. but what's with the jobs of hundreds of thousands of people which are directly or indirectly connected with the car industry? just let hundreds of thousands of people loose
  4. i agree with bob. 85 only copy-pastes textx from conservative blogs as if that proves anything. at least when you post texts to prove something, use a neutral source with statistical and scientifical proven facts...
  5. see, i foresaw your answer almost 100% correctly... That's right. But obviously it's not the case anymore. The usa are one of the most indebted countries in the world. obviously the usa are not alone responsible for this world crisis, but the collapse of your bank system (letting lehman brothers go broke!) in the first place made the crisis that big.and i truly understand the point with the way of life and approach. it's not over. but the world has changed, the conditions are not the same anymore. you need to adapt, and as always, not everybody is going to like it... you're underestimating
  6. the problem is: the governement is the only institution that has the possibility to face the actual problems.
  7. there is a difference between having another opinion on how it should be done and not trusting governement at all.discussion is relatively worthless, if the latter is the case...
  8. looking at you national debt, your grandchildren will have to pay anyway.sure, obama's economic policy takes (gambles on?^^) the risky but (if successful) fast way to recover.the safe but slow way that most conservative people prefer, where everything equals out in the long run, would be possible, too. but it may take too long, since the danger of bankrupcy is very imminent these days...in other words: obama goes all in with a pair and an open-ended straight flush draw and hopes to hit. he is the favourite though^^.
  9. your really believe that? everyone does. selling hightech devises everywhere around the world. of course, they can be used for bad things, like almost everything.ok, we stop trading on the "free world market" as soon as you stop to support guys like bin laden and saddam who will turn into problems in the future. deal? definition please. as far as i know, there are no officiall "terrorist states" existing. hmmm, i always thought that of Mercedes Benz...
  10. ok... we germans build the best cars in the world. if we stop selling them, you want to invade germany?
  11. oh well, there are lots of countries without christian based governement that are doing quite well...and i hate the argument that "atheist" (= communist, in your argumentation) countries failed. they were atheist ideologies, that's a difference. religion was forbidden by governement, but that doesn't mean that there was no religion at all. the DDR had a great religious movement in the underground. and i doubt that stalin & co were able to eliminate religion everywhere in their country.they failed because the communist system itself failed in keeping an economy going. they simply went broke
  12. sources? all i know is that we had normal trade contacts, but stopped them after the un resolution.
  13. kinda funny. you guys can argue that the governement should not be involved in anyhing (not even governing?^^), because it's against "personal freedom". and then you argue, that your country is or should be a religious state, therefore in control of the most personal thing. can please someone describe to me the difference between these two types of "personal freedom"?
  14. Sorry guys, can't convert it. doeasn't work with 8-game, it seems. anyway: here is the hand:PokerStars Game #23769866934: 8-Game (Omaha Pot Limit, $0.05/$0.10) - 2009/01/10 22:34:48 CET [2009/01/10 16:34:48 ET]Table 'Gemma X' 6-max Seat #3 is the buttonSeat 1: paperrose ($11.38 in chips) Seat 2: lonewolfslt ($10.06 in chips) Seat 3: kjeld.j ($2.90 in chips) Seat 4: slow0000 ($8.03 in chips) Seat 5: robert124 ($14.12 in chips) Seat 6: Avaron ($9.04 in chips) slow0000: posts small blind $0.05robert124: posts big blind $0.10*** HOLE CARDS ***Dealt to Avaron [Qh 6h Js Jc]Avaron: calls $0.10paperr
  15. to be accurate, most of the mess we see today in those areas are the results of the (failed) colonial policies and the fact that france and gb left the place suddelny without cleaning the mess they created. and after that the international community came and drew borders without recognizing tribal areas etc. ab bit just like in africa but with other circumstances, of course.
  16. am I wrong, or wasn't the new deal a programm after the great depression and built to recover from it? and wasn't it the new deal that laid the cornerstone for american prosperity after WWII?
  17. the world needs no "world leader" anymore. when will you leave this cold-war-argumentation behind? the world needs cooperation nowadays.btw: have you read the report of your agencies about the political development in the world until 2025?
  18. sarkozy is just testing the waters how obama will react, just like medwedew did. this will come from a couple more leaders soon, expecially from Japan, China, India, Iran, Syria, Israel... even the UK i think, because Brwon needs to do something to distinguish himself facing elections soon...
×
×
  • Create New...