Quote :

"Ever since 1945, the US has regarded itself as the leader of the “free world”. But the Obama administration is facing an unexpected and unwelcome development in global politics. Four of the biggest and most strategically important democracies in the developing world – Brazil, India, South Africa and Turkey – are increasingly at odds with American foreign policy. Rather than siding with the US on the big international issues, they are just as likely to line up with authoritarian powers such as China and Iran. The US has been slow to pick up on this development, perhaps because it seems so surprising and unnatural. Most Americans assume that fellow democracies will share their values and opinions on international affairs. During the last presidential election campaign, John McCain, the Republican candidate, called for the formation of a global alliance of democracies to push back against authoritarian powers. Some of President Barack Obama’s senior advisers have also written enthusiastically about an international league of democracies. But the assumption that the world’s democracies will naturally stick together is proving unfounded. The latest example came during the Copenhagen climate summit. On the last day of the talks, the Americans tried to fix up one-to-one meetings between Mr Obama and the leaders of South Africa, Brazil and India – but failed each time. The Indians even said that their prime minister, Manmohan Singh, had already left for the airport. So Mr Obama must have felt something of a chump when he arrived for a last-minute meeting with Wen Jiabao, the Chinese prime minister, only to find him already deep in negotiations with the leaders of none other than Brazil, South Africa and India. Symbolically, the leaders had to squeeze up to make space for the American president around the table. . . . So what is going on? The answer is that Brazil, South Africa, Turkey and India are all countries whose identities as democracies are now being balanced – or even trumped – by their identities as developing nations that are not part of the white, rich, western world. All four countries have ruling parties that see themselves as champions of social justice at home and a more equitable global order overseas. Brazil’s Workers’ party, India’s Congress party, Turkey’s AKP and South Africa’s African National Congress have all adapted to globalisation – but they all retain traces of the old suspicions of global capitalism and of the US. Mr Obama is seen as a huge improvement on George W. Bush – but he is still an American president. As emerging global powers and developing nations, Brazil, India, South Africa and Turkey may often feel they have more in common with a rising China than with the democratic US."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3ef8f012-f969-11de-8085-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1

1/4/2010 11:59:45 PM

I guess that is normal. The more capitalist a country is, the more popular it is (j/k).

1/5/2010 12:05:19 AM

This is only natural, I think.

Americans have become more xenophobic and protectionist over the past decade, which is going to make other countries dislike us.

But as those other countries develop, they’re going to be able to challenge us in our last great stronghold, the creative fields. It becomes increasingly more likely that the next google, microsoft, or Apple is going to come out of India or Brazil (but not China, because their culture hates creativity) as time goes on.

1/5/2010 12:09:06 AM

It's a lot easier to be the good guy when your big competition is the Soviets.

On top of that, I'm sure that many emerging markets view us as the enemy of capitalism after the financial meltdown.

1/5/2010 12:31:28 AM

Quote :

"Americans have become more xenophobic and protectionist over the past decade, which is going to make other countries dislike us"

By this logic, other countries should absolutely hate China.

1/5/2010 12:31:53 AM

The chinese aren’t xenophobic in the same sense.

1/5/2010 12:44:21 AM

Quote :

"The chinese aren’t xenophobic in the same sense."

And what sense would that be? China is, and has always been, far more xenophobic than anyone else.

1/5/2010 2:34:21 AM

Let's look at some realities here:

China is pouring money into Africa and South America, which may do something to explain South Africa and Brazil's affinity, such as it is, for that nation.

India is only naturally going to side with rivals of Pakistan -- in this case, Iran.

None of this has much to do with the fundamentals of American foreign policy, at least insofar as it has existed for decades now. I personally favor working much, much harder to buddy up with India, as well as combating Chinese influence in Latin America and Africa, but such action would represent a radical shift.

You may notice that I have ignored Turkey. That's because I'm not particularly pleased with the Turks and would rather not speak about their atrocities douchebaggery foreign policy.

1/5/2010 4:25:49 AM

We call ourselves "capitalist," but we're not. Sure, these other growing economies in Asia and Indonesia are "communist," but at least the governments there are smart enough to let entrepreneurs survive. There are so many taxes and regulations in the United States that it would be very difficult for any young person to go out on their own and start a business. It just doesn't happen anymore. Maybe those other countries don't have the same civil liberties, but they're definitely more economically free, and the people there are saving and producing - kind of like we used to do.

1/5/2010 8:37:22 AM

*losing

1/5/2010 9:20:56 AM

Quote :

"Americans have become more xenophobic and protectionist over the past decade, which is going to make other countries dislike us."

While our foreign policy over the last decade hasn't exactly helped our relations with the developing world, I think the main difference is that unlike a decade ago, the developing world now has an alternative to the West for investment and foreign aid in the likes of China. They no longer have to put up with the conditions placed upon them by Western nations and Western dominated institutions like the World Bank and the IMF. At very least, they now have another party that they can play off against the West, and these nations are milking it for what its worth (and I can't blame them, if I were ruling a developing state, I would do the same thing).

1/5/2010 1:37:13 PM

Quote :

"We call ourselves "capitalist," but we're not. Sure, these other growing economies in Asia and Indonesia are "communist," but at least the governments there are smart enough to let entrepreneurs survive. There are so many taxes and regulations in the United States that it would be very difficult for any young person to go out on their own and start a business. It just doesn't happen anymore. Maybe those other countries don't have the same civil liberties, but they're definitely more economically free, and the people there are saving and producing - kind of like we used to do."

Social progression and personal economic freedom are greater in the United States then any other country.

1/5/2010 8:11:36 PM

Quote :

"Social progression and personal economic freedom are greater in the United States then any other country."

Our social progress is alright, I guess...in certain states. Certainly not better than countries like Canada, or European countries. Do you disagree?

We have high taxes in this country. Businesses are burdened with massive amounts of regulation. Do you think it's just coincidence that production is leaving the country? What do you think is going on in emerging markets? Are they just getting lucky? No. They can operate with low overhead. You can't do that here, but at one point, you could. That's what allowed the United States to become an economic giant. Now that we're trying to regulate and legislate away every problem, the country is going to shit.

1/5/2010 9:17:33 PM

Quote :

"Do you think it's just coincidence that production is leaving the country?"

Business have to turn a profit before they are taxed. They however can have huge losses trying to pay for labor, which is basically why production left the country.

Cheaper to ship raw materials to China, build it, and ship it here than to build it here. No brainer on what a profit driven enterprise is going to do.

The problem is, DC let Wall Street get entirely out of control and grow into a beast that has #1) Attracted some of the nations brightest to its allure of easy money for doing...nothing? and #2) rewarded corporations that are should just be a means to an end but have become the ends themselves.

scud is a perfect example. I don't know his entire story, but I know he is smart as shit...and was employed (possibly still is) writing algorithms so that investment houses can skim money from the populace. How is that value added for the economy? Consider if his brain was employed producing something that the rest of the world would be interested that actually makes a positive impact on their lives, not something that is designed to enhanced the P&L activities of a corporation that is doing nothing more than shuffling money around...and failing that getting bailed out by taxpayers (the real root cause of the malinvestment).

1/5/2010 9:25:17 PM

Quote :

"Business have to turn a profit before they are taxed. They however can have huge losses trying to pay for labor, which is basically why production left the country."

Right, NPOs don't get taxed, but businesses that simply fail to make a profit do get taxed. Plenty of businesses do make profit, though. It's not always a huge profit...if they don't make profit, they don't get to stay in business. The problem is that no one is going to choose to run a company here when they could just move it somewhere else and have it cost half as much. Because of minimum wage and high taxes, you'd have to be stupid to keep a manufacturing business in the United States.

Quote :

"The problem is, DC let Wall Street get entirely out of control and grow into a beast that has #1) Attracted some of the nations brightest to its allure of easy money for doing...nothing? and #2) rewarded corporations that are should just be a means to an end but have become the ends themselves."

I'm not really sure how this stems from your first point. Operating costs are driving businesses out of the country. That's because of lack of regulation? How many people are out there "writing algorithms" to skim money off of transactions? Is that the reason that American companies can't compete? We did pretty well without all the regulations in the 19th and early 20th century. The problem is not lack of regulation. The problem is that there's absolutely no incentive to run a business here, other than convenience.

[Edited on January 5, 2010 at 9:35 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on January 5, 2010 at 9:36 PM. Reason : ]

1/5/2010 9:35:08 PM

Quote :

"Because of minimum wage and high taxes, you'd have to be stupid to keep a manufacturing business in the United States. "

It's like you didn't read anything I type. Certain businesses that aren't labor intensive would probably come back here if our tax rates were lowered drastically. Tax evading practices would drop which theoretically would end up as investment of some form in the country. But so long as oil is cheap enough that we can ship raw materials and finished goods back and forth, labor intensive manufacturing in this country is dead.

About your second point, I don't typically make constrained arguments (I ramble, sorry).

The lack of regulation is a piece of "we let Wall Street take over" decision making directions in our economy. No longer were banks simply making loans to up and coming entrepreneurs and simply being a middle man for those with money to invest and those that needed it but rather they became an animal that cut corners, lobbied DC for favorable terms, and outright lied to the world in order to grow their coffers fantastically. They did this without actually making or doing anything of worth. They weren't even providing valuable services as they happily sold investments they were shorting to unsuspecting investors. Starting with the mania of the .com era, potential brilliant minds became attracted to the Wall Street easy money mecca and people that potentially could be solving 21st century problems that results in something America can produce aren't thinking about those problems, they are thinking about how they can fleece the public without getting caught or through dubious means.

A friend of mine is a textile grad from NCSU, he worked at Abercrombie & Fitch corporate for awhile...now he is an oil trader (thanks to a connection he made at AF). What value does oil trading add to society such that vast numbers of people are involved in pushing buttons on a computer attempting to beat someone else somewhere else in the world playing the same game?

1/5/2010 9:47:19 PM

Quote :

"It's like you didn't read anything I type. Certain businesses that aren't labor intensive would probably come back here if our tax rates were lowered drastically. Tax evading practices would drop which theoretically would end up as investment of some form in the country. But so long as oil is cheap enough that we can ship raw materials and finished goods back and forth, labor intensive manufacturing in this country is dead."

We could still have labor intensive manufacturing in this country. In fact, we need it. There is a large population of people that don't have anything to offer except physical labor. Of course, many of those people now work in retail/service sector, usually providing piss poor customer service of some sort. We're experiencing over-consumption, and under-production. We need to make things that other countries want to buy. We aren't doing that. I mean, I know the position: "Oh, the United States doesn't need to make anything! We produce good ideas!" Unfortunately, that's bullshit, and it's not going to last.

We can have production again, and we will need it, but it isn't going to start until government gets out of the way and allows it to be economically feasible again. Otherwise, the era of "American made products" is going to come to an end entirely. It's amazing it didn't end sooner, knowing how shitty American cars are.

Quote :

"The lack of regulation is a piece of "we let Wall Street take over" decision making directions in our economy. No longer were banks simply making loans to up and coming entrepreneurs and simply being a middle man for those with money to invest and those that needed it but rather they became an animal that cut corners, lobbied DC for favorable terms, and outright lied to the world in order to grow their coffers fantastically."

We didn't let Wall Street take over, the federal government did. Governments and huge corporations usually have no problem colluding with each other if it means they can benefit from it. That's what happened. We're getting raped by the TBTFs, but whose fault is that? They did the reasonable thing. There's nothing wrong with banks giving out loans. That's what allows people to start businesses. The problem is that banks started giving out trillions of dollars in loans that were not productive in any way. The money was borrowed, and then used for consumption. There was nothing to show for it.

You can't blame banks for lobbying the government and trying to get favors. A lot of people do that. The government should be providing discipline, not caving to the demands of corporations. The fact is, if government wasn't guaranteeing deposits and the Federal Reserve wasn't providing cheap or free money to the banks, they wouldn't have been able to give out all these loans. Remember when you actually had to sell your business idea to a bank? They didn't want to give out a loan and have it defaulted on. There was no expectation that they'd be bailed out. The bank had a certain amount of money in reserves, and they were only going to give that out if they really thought the borrower would see it to completion.

Now, part of the problem here is fractional reserve banking. Without that, runs on the bank wouldn't be a problem, because there would actually be confidence in the banks reserves. We're so far down the rabbit hole at this point that it's not worth addressing that issue anytime soon, though.

I don't see a problem with trading, but you do apparently. Trading for profit is not anything new. You think people just recently started buying things, expecting them to become more valuable at some later time, at which time they would sell it? Or selling things, with the intent of buying them back later at a lower price? I see nothing wrong with that, as long as it's all voluntary.

[Edited on January 5, 2010 at 10:14 PM. Reason : ]

1/5/2010 10:12:42 PM

I think "Free World" is kind of a misnomer.....

1/5/2010 10:28:08 PM

Quote :

"Our social progress is alright, I guess...in certain states. Certainly not better than countries like Canada, or European countries. Do you disagree?"

Yes I do. Canada excluded, European societies are closed and exclusive.

Quote :

" We have high taxes in this country. Businesses are burdened with massive amounts of regulation. Do you think it's just coincidence that production is leaving the country? What do you think is going on in emerging markets? Are they just getting lucky? No. They can operate with low overhead. You can't do that here, but at one point, you could. That's what allowed the United States to become an economic giant. Now that we're trying to regulate and legislate away every problem, the country is going to shit. "

You're stringing so much shit together with a prayer any of it will stick. It won't. Taxes in this country are most definitely not higher then EU member states. Production isn't leaving the United States because of taxes and until you can provide conclusive evidence aside from punditry, I'm not going to even bother explaining why.

1/6/2010 2:33:36 PM

Quote :

"Yes I do. Canada excluded, European societies are closed and exclusive."

Let's go back and define "social progression," because apparently, I don't know what you're talking about.

Quote :

"You're stringing so much shit together with a prayer any of it will stick. It won't. Taxes in this country are most definitely not higher then EU member states. Production isn't leaving the United States because of taxes and until you can provide conclusive evidence aside from punditry, I'm not going to even bother explaining why."

And EU is basically heading in the same direction as the United States, but maybe at a slower rate. What would count as "conclusive evidence" that high costs of operation are causing businesses to leave the country? It should be obvious. What's your explanation? Why is production exploding in the emerging markets and dwindling here?

1/6/2010 2:37:06 PM

its not just taxes, its labor and regulation and everything else. Its the same reasons textiles left and the same reasons the paper industry left.

Automated manufacturing is the future of manufacturing in the us, if it has a future at all.

1/6/2010 2:49:15 PM

and im not saying blah blah get rid of minimum wage get rid of taxes get rid of regulation, im saying those things have an impact on business. We aren't going to get rid of them any time soon so those businesses probably wont come back any time soon.

1/6/2010 2:54:00 PM

Quote :

"Let's go back and define "social progression," because apparently, I don't know what you're talking about."

Advancing a person's economic and social status is what I was thinking.

Quote :

"It should be obvious. What's your explanation? Why is production exploding in the emerging markets and dwindling here?"

Cheaper labor is the primary motivator. US corporations are taxed and regulated regardless of where their workers are (double taxed, as their offices in foreign countries also can fall under the tax code of that country). Unless you think its a reasonable idea to have American labor work for the equivalent of a dollar a day, the US will never be competitive on this point. Ever.

In a free economy, it never makes sense to manufacture anything expensively when it can be done so cheaply. This has very little to do with regulation and everything to do with market economics. The free market, which everyone in here embraces, does not favor American workers and never will. To remain competitive, the US has to be innovative and develop technologies and products that require highly trained workers and can't be manufactured cheaply.

1/6/2010 2:56:14 PM

i dont think anywhere here is arguing we should lower taxes or get rid of labor laws in order to keep shitty manufacturing jobs here. We should be fixing the education system to get people out of those jobs before they disapear and we should stop propping up the failed businesses that continue to use those manufacturing models.

1/6/2010 2:59:56 PM

Which has nothing do with government regulation, taxes, liberalism, or BARRACK HUSSIEN OBAMA.

Rather, those are ancient American faults that have been around for decades.

1/6/2010 3:02:31 PM

taxes = larger government = more prone to abuse.

My views on the subject come down to this: properly used, taxes could fix our education system, provide cheap, clean energy, and put this country into sound financial shape. The reality is they're just going to waste it on whatever the pet project of the week is.

The auto bailouts and the bank bailouts are good examples. So is the healthcare disaster.

I'd rather the money not go to the fed at all, and see it get put into private investment in new industries.

1/6/2010 3:13:29 PM

There is a complete lack of leadership in this country and all everyone cares to do about it is post on message boards. The result is people who actually know how to do shit start a business, take a shitload of money from the fed, and then laugh when the retards we've voted into office try to stop them with the most convoluted regulations and half-baked ideas (ex: cap and trade, Copenhagen climate summit).

[Edited on January 6, 2010 at 3:21 PM. Reason : a]

1/6/2010 3:18:57 PM

hmm lets put a tax on poor people who heat their homes with fossil fuels and then give tax credits to our friends in the coal and oil industry!!!


ooh ooh i've got a better one!!! Lets go jerk each other off over in europe instead of actually creating functional legislation! We could encourage businesses and individuals to generate their own power, but fuck that!!! We'd get less tax revenue if we did that!!!

1/6/2010 3:24:58 PM

NUCLEAR POWER?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!? BUT THATS FUCKING EVIL MAGIC!! WE CANT HAVE THAT SHIT!!

1/6/2010 3:31:06 PM

America, Thou Art Loosed!

1/6/2010 3:33:27 PM

Quote :

"There is a complete lack of leadership in this country and all everyone cares to do about it is post on message boards. The result is people who actually know how to do shit start a business, take a shitload of money from the fed, and then laugh when the retards we've voted into office try to stop them with the most convoluted regulations and half-baked ideas (ex: cap and trade, Copenhagen climate summit)."

Really? And what data are you analyzing to come to a conclusion on the effectiveness of American leadership? The effectiveness of any leader can only be judged after the results of his or her decisions are apparent and that usually happens over long term. Your perception, ironically, stems from 24h news and message boards.

1/7/2010 1:31:22 PM

I dont know, I think looking at some of the pending or passed legislation is pretty reasonable. Saying "hey you cant possibly critique that legislation until 10 years from now" is pretty weak. The auto industry bailouts were a complete waste of tax payer money in order to prop up a US industry that needs desperately to change. I mean if you want some facts, how about GM's stock price? How about that they cant find anyone to buy their worthless assets?

GM was bound for bankruptcy long before they got bailed out and, as expected, the bailout did nothing to prevent the bankruptcy. So why give them they money?

It was the same with the banks. They had tons of bad assets and instead of letting the big guys fail and letting the strong banks pick their bones for the good bits, the fed bailed them out. These already huge banks used that money to consolidate the industry to the point where we now have fewer and much larger banks. So if someone happens again its bound to be even worse. We had the opportunity to replace the "too big to fail" guys with smaller banks that would have had much less individual influence in politics, and much more need to compete over customers.

Then lets take a look at cap and trade. Supposed to fix carbon emmissions and increase green power production, except that it starts out by handing off freebies to random oil and coal producers. The system for distribution is based on who has the best lobbiests. Add to that that it effectively taxes anyone who has to heat their homes with fossil fuels. Many of whom cant afford to pay their current bills, let alone upgrade to more efficient systems. It also doesn't count nuclear among the "green" power sources, despite the fact that its the only type of power source capable of actually replacing coal and oil.

And then everyone heads of to europe where they sit around and do nothing all day. If the US wanted to end carbon emissions its really fucking easy and it starts with credits for individuals and businesses to install wind/solar/geothermal systems. Not the garbage couple thousand here, couple thousand there things we have now, but serious credits. Like 100% of cost on a system up to 150% of capacity. Combine that with forcing local power distributors to allow these people to put excess power on the grid for sale or credit. Phase out oil/coal with nuclear plants. Everyone generates the power they need. When wind/solar doesn't work, nuclear handles the load.

There are only a few people in congress even willing to talk about nuclear, the rest are all either idiots or belong to coal/oil. Hell, even Obama, who I had such high hopes for, has completely put off nuclear. This guy is supposed to be science over bullshit, but I haven't seen it.

And then theres the mother of all disasters, our current healthcare bill. It was poorly thoughtout from the start. Adding more insurance wont fix the insurance problem. The cost problem starts at the point of care, not at the insurance companies. I havent seen any plans designed to tackle costs. Only the public option plan and the expand medicare plan, both of which add to the deficit and dont touch on the issue of cost. Its much easier to say "well, if the EVIL INSURANCE COMPANIES wont pay for it then the government will!!" then to say "well, that hospital charged $500 to have tv in the room, maybe we should fix all these little costs" or "this country is so unhealthly because of our massive corn subsidies and lack of exercise".

And thats not even mentioning our education system which completely fails the poor or our wellfare system that gives them just enough to stay alive long enough to vote.

Politicians wont get votes for long term fixes because it means short term sacrifices.

1/7/2010 3:51:41 PM

hahahhaha hooksaw w/ the winning reference

1/7/2010 11:48:00 PM

Let loose the dogs of war "Free World"

1/8/2010 12:10:42 AM

Quote :

"Hell, even Obama, who I had such high hopes for, has completely put off nuclear. "

huh?

where are you getting this from?

because there have been several new permits recently for new nuclear plants: http://www.ajc.com/business/federal-permit-clears-way-124628.html

Obama has been cool about nuclear plant in the public eye, but whoever’s behind the scenes hasn’t been doing anything to really thwart nuclear.

And Cap n Trade was one thing that could have helped with pushing us towards greener energy, if it hadn’t been gutted a bit by the deniers:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/21/falling-carbon-price-higher-energy-bills

Quote :

"It was the same with the banks. They had tons of bad assets and instead of letting the big guys fail and letting the strong banks pick their bones for the good bits, the fed bailed them out. These already huge banks used that money to consolidate the industry to the point where we now have fewer and much larger banks. So if someone happens again its bound to be even worse. We had the opportunity to replace the "too big to fail" guys with smaller banks that would have had much less individual influence in politics, and much more need to compete over customers."

This is very easy to say, but you have to imagine you’re the president. I GUARAN-DAMN-TEE you would have pushed for a bailout too (and probably every single rational person reading this thread).

Because if the biggest banks lose liquidity, that means everyone who had investments with them go down too, and the people who relied on them go down too. You are literally talking about the FDIC kicking in AT A MINIMUM, with financial failures across the board as a side effect. This wasn’t just rich people and their money, this was all of our moneys (not that a lot of those same scumbags didn’t make out like bandits in the bailout… because they did). There was no such thing as a “stronger bank” in this scenario, only the odd lucky bank.

Quote :

"Its much easier to say "well, if the EVIL INSURANCE COMPANIES wont pay for it then the government will!!" then to say "well, that hospital charged $500 to have tv in the room, maybe we should fix all these little costs" or "this country is so unhealthly because of our massive corn subsidies and lack of exercise”. "

Hospitals don’t charge $500 for TV because they are bilking you, it’s because they have to cover all the people without insurance. The healthcare bill would have helped with this issue.

It’s funny, but it seems a lot of the problems you’re complaining about would be fixed by the solutions that you are also complaining about



[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 12:38 AM. Reason : ]

1/8/2010 12:29:41 AM

^Closing of Yucca Mountain was really the big thing that painted him as anti-nuclear, even if he isn't entirely against nuclear power.

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 12:31 AM. Reason : .]

1/8/2010 12:31:12 AM

Quote :

"When it gets down to it — talking trade balances here — once we've brain-drained all our technology into other countries, once things have evened out, they're making cars in Bolivia and microwave ovens in Tadzhikistan and selling them here — once our edge in natural resources has been made irrelevant by giant Hong Kong ships and dirigibles that can ship North Dakota all the way to New Zealand for a nickel — once the Invisible Hand has taken away all those historical inequities and smeared them out into a broad global layer of what a Pakistani brickmaker would consider to be prosperity — y'know what? There's only four things we do better than anyone else: music movies microcode (software) high-speed pizza delivery"

1/8/2010 8:17:37 AM

Quote :

"microcode (software) "

India

1/8/2010 12:32:38 PM

I think the great untapped resource of the United States is the land that could be used for agricultural purposes. Now, for the past 30 years or so, agriculture hasn't exactly been booming. I think that will change. There's a good chance that food prices are going to go way up in the future.

http://business.asiaone.com/Business/My%2BMoney/Opinion/Story/A1Story20100106-190014.html

In that article, Jim Rogers talks about how there will be food shortages in 2010. He's been very bullish on commodities, and he has a good track record.

1/8/2010 12:40:18 PM

Arguably we do aerospace stuff better than anybody else.

But yeah, not really that much.

1/8/2010 1:32:15 PM

Compensation is dictated by productivity, which is a product of technology, education, liberty, and capital accumulation. Therefore, other countries can rise to our standard of living, but there is nothing they can do short of war that can reduce our productivity and thus standard of living.

All they can do is affect the margins, such as driving up the price of resources (nothing we can do to stop them short of war) or shifting market power within our own society (poorer manufacturers, wealthier miners, lower interest rates on Government Bonds, etc).

1/8/2010 1:46:43 PM

Quote :

"And Cap n Trade was one thing that could have helped with pushing us towards greener energy, if it hadn’t been gutted a bit by the deniers realists"

there ya go

1/8/2010 1:58:54 PM

It's about time we loosed them. Captivity sucks. Especially when your name is "the free world".

1/8/2010 2:13:06 PM

Quote :

"The healthcare bill would have helped with this issue."

no it won't. it will just shift the costs even higher. The health care bill does nothing to actually address the cost. it just tries to get people insurance. Unfortunately, insurance is part of the problem for the high costs. Only a liberal would argue that more of the problem is the solution

1/8/2010 3:02:52 PM

Actually I'm pretty sure that outside of Congress and insurance companies, nobody in the country thinks that healthcare bill is worth the paper its written on.

1/8/2010 3:04:53 PM

Consider it loost.

1/9/2010 12:50:24 PM