The World Economics Thread

Discuss events that have an impact on you and the world today. A home for honest, serious, and open discussion.

Re: The World Economics Thread

Unread postby Lord Yang Jiahua » Tue May 31, 2011 9:23 pm

WeiWenDi wrote:The last is the type I've personally found the most attractive, partly because it preserves individual action and choice while at the same time acknowledging that individual action always has ramifications beyond and outside the understanding of the individual human person. It acknowledges that individual human beings have legitimate needs beyond mere material sustenance (which is true - human beings also have need of art, music, literature, ritual, love) and accordingly makes provision for that. It also acknowledges that all human systems and all human activities are liable to error and abuse, something not acknowledged by Marx - there is no reason (either theoretically or empirically) to believe that, once given a position of immense power, the proletariat would not be as abusive as the bourgeoisie.

Thats interesting, so the Christian Socialism system preaches individualism,it does sound like a far cry from the middle ages version of Catholicism and Christianity, where everyone answered to the church and you were burned at the stake for thinking anything close to individualism.
The last part of the statement is a big duh!, because people when placed in a position of power will nearly always want it to serve their own ends, look at Stalin, he was worse than the Czars but did the same as them, by throwing people in camps and in prison, the deaths may be higher, but its not like he saw his position of power as a means to help the people, rather he used it to control everything and make everyone bend to his will, this also made him Very Peronioed(spelling) as to be being assasinated and or revolted against by his people. Just because this man was once a proletarian poor man didn't mean he was going to make any different a ruler than the Czars he so saught to elimanate.
Anyone have any revolutionary Economic/governmental theories of Their own thought they want to discuss?
"We Will Show Wu The Meaning of Fear!"-Cao Cao in DW6
"Politicians Are all the same all over, They Promise to build a bridge even when theres no river"-Nikita Khrushchev
User avatar
Lord Yang Jiahua
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:24 pm
Location: Well....Not entirely sure if its America anymore

Re: The World Economics Thread

Unread postby WeiWenDi » Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:16 am

Lord Yang Jiahua wrote:Thats interesting, so the Christian Socialism system preaches individualism,it does sound like a far cry from the middle ages version of Catholicism and Christianity, where everyone answered to the church and you were burned at the stake for thinking anything close to individualism.


:lol:

Actually, a lot of Christian socialism is based on the Middle Ages version of Christianity. For example, these guys - actually, reading a lot of the material on their pages (and on related others) was instrumental for me in changing my opinion of the Middle Ages. Honestly, there was so much deep thinking - and what's more, humane thinking - going on in the Middle Ages than any of us moderns are willing to credit to them, it's kind of mind-boggling. That's not to say it was a golden age or anything - you had nobles and bishops who could out-bastard a lot of our modern-day bastards - but it was hardly the benighted, oppressive, dog-eat-dog environment that many people by default assume it was.

Lord Yang Jiahua wrote:The last part of the statement is a big duh!, because people when placed in a position of power will nearly always want it to serve their own ends, look at Stalin, he was worse than the Czars but did the same as them, by throwing people in camps and in prison, the deaths may be higher, but its not like he saw his position of power as a means to help the people, rather he used it to control everything and make everyone bend to his will, this also made him Very Peronioed(spelling) as to be being assasinated and or revolted against by his people. Just because this man was once a proletarian poor man didn't mean he was going to make any different a ruler than the Czars he so saught to elimanate.


The word you're looking for is 'paranoid'! \m/ \m/

Gotta love classic Ozzy.

Anywho, it's true that Marxism didn't really take into account the issue of political power very well; but one has to at least hand it to Marx that he made the attempt, after he made the very true observation that markets do not arise spontaneously (contra Hayek and his ilk), but rather always appear in the vacuum left by the application of political force - whether enclosures or colonial disruption of foreign indigenous institutions. That said, I think Ruskin ran further with that observation when he asserted that in pure trade, there can be no profit - profit in trade is purely the result of the application of some kind of force or withholding of information.
Some more blood, Chekov. The needle won't hurt, Chekov. Take off your shirt, Chekov. Roll over, Chekov. Breathe deeply, Chekov. Blood sample, Chekov! Marrow sample, Chekov! Skin sample, Chekov! If I live long enough... I'm going to run out of samples.
User avatar
WeiWenDi
Hedgehog Emperor
 
Posts: 3858
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:09 am
Location: L'Étoile du Nord

Re: The World Economics Thread

Unread postby Lord Yang Jiahua » Wed Jun 01, 2011 10:14 pm

WeiWenDi wrote:Actually, a lot of Christian socialism is based on the Middle Ages version of Christianity. For example, these guys - actually, reading a lot of the material on their pages (and on related others) was instrumental for me in changing my opinion of the Middle Ages. Honestly, there was so much deep thinking - and what's more, humane thinking - going on in the Middle Ages than any of us moderns are willing to credit to them, it's kind of mind-boggling. That's not to say it was a golden age or anything - you had nobles and bishops who could out-bastard a lot of our modern-day bastards - but it was hardly the benighted, oppressive, dog-eat-dog environment that many people by default assume it was.

This is mainly due to the fact of the Inquisiton, in which we hear stories of women and Men who were innocent getting tortured or killed or burned at the stake, this is also due to the fact that we hear chroniclers who detail things like the First Crusade saying that after the siege of Jeruselum the Streets were knee-deep in blood, which of course must be a exaggeration, but... Due to the more gruesome stories overshadowing the actually good in the middle ages, people in the Modern age tend to think it as a brutal dog eat dog age of history.

Hmm...what are the exact facts of the republican proposed budget in Congress, because i still keep hearing Obama's Administration saying its going to cut medicare or is it medicaid?

Nice discussion emperor Cao Pi of wei you taught me something about a period in history i only thought i knew, Thank You. :D
Oh and don't think i don't know Chinese, i can read write and speak it therefore i can tell weiwendi would translate into emperor wen of Wei, who is Cao Pi.
Personally id love to see you and Shik or laojim duke it out of an issue like you have in so many other threads, provides good information and nice debating. :lol:
"We Will Show Wu The Meaning of Fear!"-Cao Cao in DW6
"Politicians Are all the same all over, They Promise to build a bridge even when theres no river"-Nikita Khrushchev
User avatar
Lord Yang Jiahua
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:24 pm
Location: Well....Not entirely sure if its America anymore

Re: The World Economics Thread

Unread postby WeiWenDi » Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:09 am

Lord Yang Jiahua wrote:This is mainly due to the fact of the Inquisiton, in which we hear stories of women and Men who were innocent getting tortured or killed or burned at the stake, this is also due to the fact that we hear chroniclers who detail things like the First Crusade saying that after the siege of Jeruselum the Streets were knee-deep in blood, which of course must be a exaggeration, but... Due to the more gruesome stories overshadowing the actually good in the middle ages, people in the Modern age tend to think it as a brutal dog eat dog age of history.


All of which is certainly true, granted. All the same, I think you'll find most eras in history have been like that - the Renaissance, when the Inquisition kicked into overdrive and massacred tonnes of Jews and Muslims, particularly in Spain; the eras of colonisation and empire; the devastating wars of modernity (WWI and II) and the age of the atom bomb... we've made progress, sure, but not all of it was the warm and fuzzy kind. :)

Lord Yang Jiahua wrote:Nice discussion emperor Cao Pi of wei you taught me something about a period in history i only thought i knew, Thank You. :D
Oh and don't think i don't know Chinese, i can read write and speak it therefore i can tell weiwendi would translate into emperor wen of Wei, who is Cao Pi.
Personally id love to see you and Shik or laojim duke it out of an issue like you have in so many other threads, provides good information and nice debating. :lol:


:lol: Well, fair cop. Yes, I named myself after 曹魏文帝.

Funny story, though - you see how my site rank is 'Hedgehog Emperor'? On the Chinese language thread there was a time when I misspelled my username as 猬文帝 (as in hedgehog, 刺猬) rather than 魏文帝, and didn't catch it because the font I was using at the time was so small. Lady Wu duly made fun of me for that, and the name kind of stuck. I should consider using a Sonic avatar...

Anyway, it would be fun to see Shik or laojim come here and discuss. laojim and I, I think, agree on a lot of things. For that matter, Shik and I agree on a lot of things, we just disagree on a lot more. :)
Some more blood, Chekov. The needle won't hurt, Chekov. Take off your shirt, Chekov. Roll over, Chekov. Breathe deeply, Chekov. Blood sample, Chekov! Marrow sample, Chekov! Skin sample, Chekov! If I live long enough... I'm going to run out of samples.
User avatar
WeiWenDi
Hedgehog Emperor
 
Posts: 3858
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:09 am
Location: L'Étoile du Nord

Re: The World Economics Thread

Unread postby Lord Yang Jiahua » Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:49 pm

Here's a toss up....

Currently President Obama is fairly balanced in the approval rating as per CNN, 47-49 percent approve vs dissapprove respectively, mainly what the reason for the balance is jobs, Now someone please tell me What congress is actually preventing Obama from passing/ what has he done to make Jobs for this Country?
Then someone tell me what those republicans want to do to make jobs and we can have a neat debate comparing the two, i read Romney wants to do reganomics on this country, eek, that will be a big disaster.
"We Will Show Wu The Meaning of Fear!"-Cao Cao in DW6
"Politicians Are all the same all over, They Promise to build a bridge even when theres no river"-Nikita Khrushchev
User avatar
Lord Yang Jiahua
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:24 pm
Location: Well....Not entirely sure if its America anymore

Re: The World Economics Thread

Unread postby Zhuanyong » Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:46 pm

Lord Yang Jiahua wrote:Here's a toss up....

Currently President Obama is fairly balanced in the approval rating as per CNN, 47-49 percent approve vs dissapprove respectively, mainly what the reason for the balance is jobs, Now someone please tell me What congress is actually preventing Obama from passing/ what has he done to make Jobs for this Country?
Then someone tell me what those republicans want to do to make jobs and we can have a neat debate comparing the two, i read Romney wants to do reganomics on this country, eek, that will be a big disaster.


Actually Obama isn't too far from considering Reaganomics to save himself--

Desperate Obama eyes Reagan tax cuts to save economy and re-election

One thing I found interesting in the article was:

Overall, 6 in 10 give Mr. Obama failing grades on the economy, the budget deficit and the national debt. Notably, nearly two-thirds of political independents said they did not like the way he was handling the economy and a majority expressed strong disapproval.

The poll’s most revealing political finding: Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the GOP front-runner for the 2012 presidential nomination who has made the economy and jobs his top campaign issues, now leads Mr. Obama among registered voters by 49 percent to 46 percent.


Of course, that also depends on who was polled to make up for those statistics.
Avatar: N/A

[No comment]
User avatar
Zhuanyong
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 5355
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 8:58 pm
Location: If I told you, would it really matter?

Re: The World Economics Thread

Unread postby Lord Yang Jiahua » Wed Jun 08, 2011 2:19 am

I asked because if the Presidential 2012 thread is getting shifted to economics then i want it here, not there.

Zhuanyong wrote:Actually Obama isn't too far from considering Reaganomics to save himself--

Desperate Obama eyes Reagan tax cuts to save economy and re-election

One thing I found interesting in the article was:
NOOOOOOOO, don't do it!!!, you'll ruin the country more so than it already is!! Screw reelection, think of the people Mr. President!!
God damn, someone tell Mr.Obama to go visit Camden NJ or Flint MI and then tell him to do reaganomics on the economy!
Zhuanyong wrote:Of course, that also depends on who was polled to make up for those statistics.
I hate polls, its like asking 100 people what they think of Obama's tenure as president, and 90 of them say he's doing poorly, which isn't accurate because there are 300 million people in this country, and the margin of error on asking so few people and taking it as the opinion of the entire nation is extremeely high!
"We Will Show Wu The Meaning of Fear!"-Cao Cao in DW6
"Politicians Are all the same all over, They Promise to build a bridge even when theres no river"-Nikita Khrushchev
User avatar
Lord Yang Jiahua
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:24 pm
Location: Well....Not entirely sure if its America anymore

Re: The World Economics Thread

Unread postby TooMuchBaijiu » Wed Jun 08, 2011 2:45 am

Lord Yang Jiahua wrote: NOOOOOOOO, don't do it!!!, you'll ruin the country more so than it already is!! Screw reelection, think of the people Mr. President!!
God damn, someone tell Mr.Obama to go visit Camden NJ or Flint MI and then tell him to do reaganomics on the economy!


Screw re-election, and give the presidency to someone who'll probably go that route with even fewer reservations?

Okay, well, I must admit that Reaganomics actually was a good idea in Reagan's first term. It cut taxes and brought America back out of the stagnation it was in. Believe it or not, things were in many ways worse in the late seventies than they are now. At least Carter could run a mostly balanced budget, though. (Possibly because he was taxing 70% on top earners, but that's what was keeping the economy stagnant in the first place.)

The problem here is that Obama couldn't repeat what Reagan did if he tried. Reagan reduced taxes on top earners from 70% to 50%. Obama's at 35% right now. Now, the GOP would like you to think that cutting taxes will stimulate the economy, but that's exactly what they did in Reagan's last year, cutting the top percentage all the way down to 28% in 1989. (It would later be raised to 31%) And why did his Republican successor get voted out in 1992? Because of the economy. As low as taxes are compared to what they've been in the past, lowering them further would have a negligible, if any positive effect.

And the other tenets of supply-side economics, deregulation and free trade, are showing themselves to be a blight on the American economy. That's the reason why Camden and Flint and Good God Detroit are in the trouble they're in-nothing's stopping the corporations from hiring cheap labor in the Third World. This isn't just Reagan's fault, either...it was Clinton that signed NAFTA, which caused immense damage to American industry, and (as conservatives love to remind me) put pressure on the banks to make risky loans to working-class citizens to get those mortgages they couldn't afford.

So Obama and Congress have two options. Deregulate and lower taxes (the status quo and then some), which'll probably just make things worse, or tighten regulations and raise taxes, which in addition to being politically suicidal might have unpredictable negative effects on the economy. So everyone talks about cutting government spending, but nothing ever gets cut because when they find any cuts that would actually make a difference, someone's out there screaming foul. And besides, government belt-tightening without any other reforms does diddly-squat and, you guessed it, may even make things worse.

What's the term that describes our position? "Morton's Fork?" Or is "up shit's creek" more appropriate?
I don't write fanfic, but if I did it would involve Zhou Yu and Zheng He fighting to win the heart of Lai Choi San. Then I'd make them join forces to fight Ming the Merciless, who secretly works for Master Li. I'd squeeze Lu Bu in there somehow.
User avatar
TooMuchBaijiu
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1469
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:15 am
Location: In 1939, chasing Frida Kahlo with a Gillette

Re: The World Economics Thread

Unread postby WeiWenDi » Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:34 am

TooMuchBaijiu wrote:Screw re-election, and give the presidency to someone who'll probably go that route with even fewer reservations?

Okay, well, I must admit that Reaganomics actually was a good idea in Reagan's first term. It cut taxes and brought America back out of the stagnation it was in. Believe it or not, things were in many ways worse in the late seventies than they are now. At least Carter could run a mostly balanced budget, though. (Possibly because he was taxing 70% on top earners, but that's what was keeping the economy stagnant in the first place.)


Soooo... the choice for the poor basically becomes, you get to starve slowly by degrees under a Democratic presidency, or starve quickly and all at once under a Republican one? :?

See, the problem I have with Reaganomics all-around is that for the deficit it was disastrous, for the already poor and underserved it was even more disastrous, and for the middle class consumers and large businesses who benefitted most, it was pretty much just a quick fix which failed to solve the underlying institutional problems of stagflation, and created and exacerbated several other deep-level institutional problems. Unpopular as it made him, Jimmy Carter had it pretty much dead-on with his 'malaise' speech at the height of the stagflation crisis - we had become culturally narcissistic and dependent on foreign debt and foreign petrol as a result of a political culture which had come to fetishise domestic consumerism and macro-level growth. Reaganomics pretty much proved Carter right, by way of making us even more dependent, narcissistic and crass with regard to the plight of the poor. Now we've gotten to the point where we have to choose between two political ideologies - socially-liberal 'progressivism' and economically-liberal 'conservatism' - which are both totally unable to address the underlying cultural and institutional problems which led to our economy's collapse (and will without a doubt do so again, if left unchecked).
Some more blood, Chekov. The needle won't hurt, Chekov. Take off your shirt, Chekov. Roll over, Chekov. Breathe deeply, Chekov. Blood sample, Chekov! Marrow sample, Chekov! Skin sample, Chekov! If I live long enough... I'm going to run out of samples.
User avatar
WeiWenDi
Hedgehog Emperor
 
Posts: 3858
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:09 am
Location: L'Étoile du Nord

Re: The World Economics Thread

Unread postby TooMuchBaijiu » Wed Jun 08, 2011 4:58 am

WeiWenDi wrote:Soooo... the choice for the poor basically becomes, you get to starve slowly by degrees under a Democratic presidency, or starve quickly and all at once under a Republican one? :?


Well, 'ere's a way of puttin' it.

See, the problem I have with Reaganomics all-around is that for the deficit it was disastrous, for the already poor and underserved it was even more disastrous, and for the middle class consumers and large businesses who benefitted most, it was pretty much just a quick fix which failed to solve the underlying institutional problems of stagflation...


Yes, a quick fix. While I think Reagan & co. were right on when they opted to loosen the government's grip on the economy in the late seventies, they foolishly kept it there long after the stagnation subsided and America got its groove back, for lack of a better term. While Carter's government's grip was too firm, Reagan's was soft, too soft, and the whole thing began to unravel by the end of his administration. Reaganomics should've merely been a four-year stimulus program meant to get America back on its feet before returning not quite to Carter-era liberal policies but certainly to a more financially responsible state. I mean, even my own paleo-conservative of a father admits Reagan probably shouldn't have run in '84. And just maybe if Reagan was all there mentally in his second term he wouldn't have gone so far off the deep end.

and created and exacerbated several other deep-level institutional problems. Unpopular as it made him, Jimmy Carter had it pretty much dead-on with his 'malaise' speech at the height of the stagflation crisis - we had become culturally narcissistic and dependent on foreign debt and foreign petrol as a result of a political culture which had come to fetishise domestic consumerism and macro-level growth.


Sure, he was right. But sacrifices are haaarrd! Seriously, Carter was probably the last president to seriously attempt to deal with our excesses, and few can say he didn't see what was coming. But he perhaps should have, were it possible, to try to tackle one problem at a time. People won't accept being body-slammed with the consequences of their indulgences all at once. And they won't accept that it's their own responsibility. Summer's coming. I bet if you're anything like me, you might have made some personal promises to take this time to get in shape or learn a new language or climb a mountain, and you're do it all, man, you're going to be the motherf---kin' master. But chances are, you won't accomplish anything near what you want to, because of the immense amount of sacrifice necessary to accomplish those grandiose ambitions. I know what you'll tell me, it was school, it was work, you broke your leg, hostage situation this, excuses, excuses. But don't be disappointed, you're only human. What's worse, you're an American. It's almost like you were screwed even before you started.

Reaganomics pretty much proved Carter right, by way of making us even more dependent, narcissistic and crass with regard to the plight of the poor.


Sure, I agree, but...

Now we've gotten to the point where we have to choose between two political ideologies - socially-liberal 'progressivism' and economically-liberal 'conservatism' - which are both totally unable to address the underlying cultural and institutional problems which led to our economy's collapse (and will without a doubt do so again, if left unchecked).


Objectivist, did you finally kill WWD and assume his identity? Because while I'm certain he wasn't a liberal, I'd be very surprised to see him make a claim that the Republican party (or "conservatism") espoused an economically liberal platform. 'Cause I hardly see how the "Everything Must Go" mentality of the Republican party could be considered anything but laissez-faire capitalism.
I don't write fanfic, but if I did it would involve Zhou Yu and Zheng He fighting to win the heart of Lai Choi San. Then I'd make them join forces to fight Ming the Merciless, who secretly works for Master Li. I'd squeeze Lu Bu in there somehow.
User avatar
TooMuchBaijiu
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1469
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:15 am
Location: In 1939, chasing Frida Kahlo with a Gillette

PreviousNext

Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved