Politics & Media
#1
Posted 16 March 2011 - 12:39 AM
#2
Posted 16 March 2011 - 01:39 AM
Or do I have no idea what I'm talking about and I just put my foot in my mouth
#3
Posted 16 March 2011 - 02:05 AM
It'd be like redistribution of wealth, but amongst countries instead, and redistribution of wealth has always been a stupid, awful, horrible idea anyway.
#5
Posted 16 March 2011 - 08:25 AM
Toasty, on 15 March 2011 - 07:22 PM, said:
They may make it through alright, but they'd be severely hurt economically. Something I'm sure they don't want to do.
Therefor, I'm not too worried about China attacking America (economically or otherwise). Though I think we shouldn't have ever gotten into debt with them in the first place.
I said China's recovery would be faster, not that they wouldn't be hurt. The US relies on so many imports of materials and otherwise for their products whilst China has just about everything they need right under their noses, meaning productivity wouldn't take as much of a hit, it'd just cause some cost-push inflation as a result of higher demand for local raw materials.
Also Zeypher and WD, nononono stupid silly people.
WD:
Money exists in digital form. There is VERY little physical money in an economy, money is literally created by banks by adding 0's to accounts, called credit creation. Each bank has a cash ratio, which is how much physical cash they hold in comparison to how many digital loans/investments they have. This basically allows money to be created.
Say a bank has a 10% cash ratio, and $10,000 is deposited. The bank would hold $1000 of this in cash and the other $9000 in loans/investments. Then say an extra $2k is deposited, which initially is held straight in cash, giving $3000 cash, with 25% cash ratio (total is 12k) . However in order for the bank to profit, it needs to lower its cash ratio back down to it's original level, 10%. It cannot just get rid of the cash, so it has to increase it's loans and investments to $27,000 to reach a total of $30k and retain the 10% cash ratio.
The money supply is one of the main causes of inflation, according to the monetarist view (Milton Friedman) but controlling it is nigh on impossible. Yes, creating more money causes aggregate demand (all the demand in the economy) to rise, causing a universal price rise. This is demand-pull inflation, where more demand exists in the economy than there is supply. Yes you're correct in assuming more money= inflation but it is not printed. Money is hardly ever printed to increase the money supply, only to replace the existing cash; notes typically last about 4-5 months before needing replacement. Coins obviously last a lot longer.
Zeypher: LOLOLOLOLNO.
That would essentially destroy the economy. Zeroing currency would destroy any and all digital money in circulation (so like 98% of all money). This would mean that basically everyone would have to start at no money. Physical assets and wealth would obviously remain but to zero multiple currencies and ADOPT a universal one throughout the world is just a terrible idea. Economies rely on fluctuating exchange rates to grow; the age old concept of buy low sell high. If everybody had the same currency internationally, trade would stagnate and economies would grow at a stable, but FUCKING SLOW rate.
Yes all debt would go away but so would all profit, all money, all everything. Germany did it in 1924 and it killed their economy until the 30's. On an international scale, it would destroy the world economy. Countries rely on international bonds as well, getting rid of debt wouldn't solve anything.
Toasty:
Redistribution of wealth isn't always a bad idea. Progressive tax works very well over here for the most part, the only downside is that it lowers motivation. I mean, 3 of the UK's richest people during the credit crisis had tax evasions that if were paid to the government, our £257 billion (I think) debt wouldn't exist because of tax revenue from both income and corporation.
But other measures of redistribution are pretty crap. On an international scale is unthinkable.
tl;dr FUCK YEAH ECONOMICS NERD
#6
Posted 16 March 2011 - 03:23 PM
#8
Posted 16 March 2011 - 04:30 PM
Zeypher, on 16 March 2011 - 03:23 PM, said:
I cant explain it any better than I already have. Hell, I dumbed it the fuck down especially.
Money= mainly numbers in computers. Resetting ALL OF THIS to 0 has very obvious consequences. I really cant break it down further.
#9
Posted 17 March 2011 - 01:02 AM
Indifference is a disease. Your view makes things easy, but is most certainly not "disease-free."
Staying out of politics is paramount to forfeiting your right to vote, which is the basis for every "free" nation (regardless of claims that our votes don't count, because they do). Even if you do vote, if you don't bother to think about who you're voting for, you might as well just not vote at all. It would in fact be worse for you to vote without thinking, than to not vote at all.
But I'd much rather see everyone interested in decided who it is that they want leading the country, because the people who lead our country, are the people who decide what is you're allowed to do, what powers the government has, and what your tax money get's put to use doing.
Caael, on 16 March 2011 - 08:25 AM, said:
Redistribution of wealth isn't always a bad idea. Progressive tax works very well over here for the most part, the only downside is that it lowers motivation. I mean, 3 of the UK's richest people during the credit crisis had tax evasions that if were paid to the government, our £257 billion (I think) debt wouldn't exist because of tax revenue from both income and corporation.
But other measures of redistribution are pretty crap. On an international scale is unthinkable.
I'd say it's always a bad idea on the basis that your forcing people to simply give their money away to other people.
I have no problem with giving money to people less fortunate than me, but I do have a problem with it when the government takes my money and does it for me. Giving should be done on a personal basis, and face-to-face if at all possible. Having someone else hand out your money for you almost entirely undermines the purpose of giving in the first place.
Though I'll agree that a flat-tax bracket style system wouldn't work very well (at least here in America). This is solely because there is a minimum required income to be able to live, and that doesn't change regardless of income. So a 10% tax would hurt a person with a $20k salary more than it would a person with a $40k salary.
But yes, China would recover more quickly than the US. That is obvious. My point, is that I highly doubt the Chinese government would be willing to take any economic hit whatsoever. Because of that, they're not likely to act on the debt that they've bought from us (at least not yet).
#10
Posted 17 March 2011 - 09:47 AM
The services listed are also non-rival; 'consuming' said service does not reduce the quantity available for others. You personally may prefer to give money face to face but a) I dont fully believe that B) Governments cant assume that everyone will so tax is used to make it universal. As to your undermining comment, you Americans have it fucking light compared to our tax system and we dont bitch nearly as much.
I'm not saying you'r an advocate of privately run everything (if you do have these views though, you're an idiot) but tax is required. Progressive income tax is the best way for a government to collect revenue.
You also fail to understand the way tax works. It's not a tax of your total income, its a tax on the money OVER a certain bracket. Therefore the example you used is moot; assuming a 10% tax at a bracket of $10k, anything over is taxed 10%. This means the $20k earner gets $19k and the $40k earner gets $37k so aggregately speaking, the higher earner loses out more.
There has to be a basic rate somewhere, and it's established pretty well here at least.
And agreed on China.
#11
Posted 17 March 2011 - 12:30 PM
#12
Posted 17 March 2011 - 01:41 PM
#13
Posted 17 March 2011 - 06:15 PM
@Icy:
The basics of politics are pretty simple to grasp. Probably the most imminently relevant to you is how your tax dollars are being spent. When it comes to that, there's numerous categories where the money is being spent. Military, Social Programs, Government Salaries, Public Utilities, Education, etc.
Military: Do you think it's necessary to have a well-funded and equipped army? If we do have one, we're less likely to be pushed around by other countries, or attacked. But some argue that there aren't enough threats out there to render our current military spending budget relevant. They say cuts are in order.
Social Programs: Most of these have to do with paying people's bills when they can't work, taking care of the elderly who have retired, providing healthcare for those who can't afford it, etc. Some people (like myself) argue that these programs do more harm than good, since they're simply abused by the people who are able to take advantage of them, and say cuts are in order. Others say that these are necessary since there aren't enough affordable options in the private sector.
Government Salaries: Pretty simple; government workers need to be payed. The question is, how much? Some might argue that the salaries of government officials and workers are bloated, others say they're just fine.
Public Utilities: The roads you drive on are maintained through your tax money. As are the water and electric utilities. Bridges, dams, energy projects (hyrdo-electric, wind, nuclear, etc.) all receive funding from the government. How much of your money do you want going towards these?
Education: Public education is pretty important. Without it, many people wouldn't be able to go to school, and having a well-educated populous is important for keeping your country competitive with other countries. Many people say that our educational system is under-funded, and I'd actually have to agree on this one, since I experience it first-hand.
Certainly, some aspects of politics can be mind-bogglingly complicated. But most of the time, it's as simple as breaking it down into separate parts, and deciding what you support, and what you don't support. Then vote accordingly.
But most importantly, at least pay partial attention to the news, and get your info from more than one outlet (preferably from two opposing outlets if possible).
#14
Posted 18 March 2011 - 09:38 AM
Toasty, on 17 March 2011 - 06:15 PM, said:
@Icy:
The basics of politics are pretty simple to grasp. Probably the most imminently relevant to you is how your tax dollars are being spent. When it comes to that, there's numerous categories where the money is being spent. Military, Social Programs, Government Salaries, Public Utilities, Education, etc.
Military: Do you think it's necessary to have a well-funded and equipped army? If we do have one, we're less likely to be pushed around by other countries, or attacked. But some argue that there aren't enough threats out there to render our current military spending budget relevant. They say cuts are in order.
Social Programs: Most of these have to do with paying people's bills when they can't work, taking care of the elderly who have retired, providing healthcare for those who can't afford it, etc. Some people (like myself) argue that these programs do more harm than good, since they're simply abused by the people who are able to take advantage of them, and say cuts are in order. Others say that these are necessary since there aren't enough affordable options in the private sector.
Government Salaries: Pretty simple; government workers need to be payed. The question is, how much? Some might argue that the salaries of government officials and workers are bloated, others say they're just fine.
Public Utilities: The roads you drive on are maintained through your tax money. As are the water and electric utilities. Bridges, dams, energy projects (hyrdo-electric, wind, nuclear, etc.) all receive funding from the government. How much of your money do you want going towards these?
Education: Public education is pretty important. Without it, many people wouldn't be able to go to school, and having a well-educated populous is important for keeping your country competitive with other countries. Many people say that our educational system is under-funded, and I'd actually have to agree on this one, since I experience it first-hand.
Certainly, some aspects of politics can be mind-bogglingly complicated. But most of the time, it's as simple as breaking it down into separate parts, and deciding what you support, and what you don't support. Then vote accordingly.
But most importantly, at least pay partial attention to the news, and get your info from more than one outlet (preferably from two opposing outlets if possible).
I'm not the one you need to tell; I'm the one going to study politics in University in september.
Just a very basic form of both economic theory (market system, national economy, fiscal vs monetary) with politics thrown in would be enough education. It sickens me how many people in the UK know so little about the economy. Very few people know that Gordon Brown technically brought us out of recession (brought us into a positive GDP % change) and said that he was the one who put the UK into recession, which is completely wrong as it was a whole sequence of exogenous shocks that shook the global economy. Ignorance like this shouldn't exist.
#15
Posted 18 March 2011 - 04:34 PM
Caael, on 18 March 2011 - 09:38 AM, said:
Kinda like Republicans insisting that Clinton put us into the recession we have now. :lol:
Edit: Also, guys, if you're going to quote a big wall of text please put it in spoiler tags.
#18
Posted 20 March 2011 - 05:51 AM
Toasty, on 17 March 2011 - 06:15 PM, said:
And more importantly, Icy, whatever you do, don't get your info from FoxNews.
Toasty, how does it make you feel knowing these are the people representing your side of the political spectrum;
#20
Posted 20 March 2011 - 02:00 PM
Probably explains a lot about my mental state :lol:
#21
Posted 20 March 2011 - 03:54 PM
Zeypher, on 19 March 2011 - 06:55 PM, said:
I think putting together a multi-trillion dollar "stimulus" package, and healthcare reform, and flooding the market with a trillion more dollars has done a lot more to harm the economy than the war on terror ever has.
That said, Bush wasn't one of my favorite presidents anyway (though I'd certainly rather have him than Obama).
ThankMeLater, on 20 March 2011 - 05:51 AM, said:
I like how 99% of all the videos people use to poke fun at Fox contain entirely nit-picky things. Beck still has more research behind his claims than most of the left-wing journalists combined.
#22
Posted 20 March 2011 - 05:20 PM
He admitted his whole show was just an act and that he was basically a right wing troll, that conservatives actually took seriously.
Any media in the US is bias in some way or another so I tend to rely on non-US sources for US news.
But I dont want to get into a political debate that's been done dozens of times before on this forum. Bill O'Reilly though is a disgusting human being. Not because of his politics but because of his **** personality. Telling that guy that HE himself was more angry about his father being killed in 9/11? What a despicable person.
#23
Posted 21 March 2011 - 10:05 AM
Toasty, on 20 March 2011 - 03:54 PM, said:
That said, Bush wasn't one of my favorite presidents anyway (though I'd certainly rather have him than Obama).
I like how 99% of all the videos people use to poke fun at Fox contain entirely nit-picky things. Beck still has more research behind his claims than most of the left-wing journalists combined.
Nitpicky things? Bill O'Reilly took the statement "didn't Bush senior provide weapons to the Middle East that in turn were used against America" as "Bush junior planned and orchestrated the attacks that took place on 9/11" and proceeded to insult and attack the credibility of his guest, eventually throwing him off the show because he poked holes in Bill 's logic and made him look like a fool on national television.
I'm not attacking the right as a whole, merely Fox News and the reporters they chose to air. Bill O'Reilly and Glen Beck should be nowhere near a camera, not because of their views, but because of the way they chose to express them and the way they treat guests. There's an almost ten minute video on youtube of Fox reporters cutting the mic of the person they were speaking to due to the views they were expressing. Pretty much anybody that isn't a complete right winged nut gets their mic cut on Fox News.
#26
Posted 21 March 2011 - 05:22 PM
#27
Posted 21 March 2011 - 05:24 PM
Toasty, on 21 March 2011 - 03:37 PM, said:
To be honest, I don't watch O'Reilly much, but I've never seen or noticed anyone getting their mic cut in an interview on Fox. And though I agree Bill can be hard on his guests, I've never seen Beck act harshly toward his. Regardless, O'Reilly is one of the more reasonable anchors on television. I've seen many more liberal reporters who are much worse (and almost always sarcastic and arrogant to a fault) than I've seen conservative ones.
Anyway, tl;dr you're all too used to listening to liberal media, so of course you have those opinions. And of course you'll say the same about me and conservative media. So this whole argument is largely a moot point.
Can you just accept that Conservative commentators DO have some flaws? We get it, you dont like lefties. Doesn't make you perfect. I'm not nearly as left wing as I used to be. Cant stand Michael Moore, cant stand quite a few people on the left of the spectrum. You can say that we've all been "brainwashed by liberals" all you want, I'd say when it comes to political commentary i'm fairly neutral.
Nowadays actually, I'd say i'm fairly contextual on most issues. I dont take a universal left or right stance, it completely depends on the issue at hand. I'm pro intervention in Libya (a somewhat right wing view) as Gadaffi is going slightly out of control. I'm pro contractionary economic policy at the current time (though my views of the economy are incredible complex, not even worth trying to evaluate if they're left or right) . I dont particularly affiliate myself with any UK party as I believe every party has valid points. If I was to choose, it'd be Labour. Not because of their policies but because of the image of Ed Milliband; his down-to-earth, awkward and very placid persona hilghlights the fakeness of Cameron.
I have left-leaning views on some subjects; I believe the Iraq war was wrong in execution. The underlying reasons are incredible complex and I neither condone nor support the cause, but the handling of it was horrible. I'm pro-Wikileaks; I think its massively wrong that Governments internationally are using a sex scandal as a scapegoat to bring Assange down.
tl;dr- Toasty stop trying to categorise me. Left and right politics are fading in the mainstream and ceasing to exist as they're fairly old archetypes. Politics are entirely situational and contextual. Blindly sticking to a side wont get you anywhere. Adaptation is key.
#28
Posted 22 March 2011 - 07:36 PM
Caael, on 21 March 2011 - 05:24 PM, said:
Nowadays actually, I'd say i'm fairly contextual on most issues. I dont take a universal left or right stance, it completely depends on the issue at hand. I'm pro intervention in Libya (a somewhat right wing view) as Gadaffi is going slightly out of control. I'm pro contractionary economic policy at the current time (though my views of the economy are incredible complex, not even worth trying to evaluate if they're left or right) . I dont particularly affiliate myself with any UK party as I believe every party has valid points. If I was to choose, it'd be Labour. Not because of their policies but because of the image of Ed Milliband; his down-to-earth, awkward and very placid persona hilghlights the fakeness of Cameron.
I have left-leaning views on some subjects; I believe the Iraq war was wrong in execution. The underlying reasons are incredible complex and I neither condone nor support the cause, but the handling of it was horrible. I'm pro-Wikileaks; I think its massively wrong that Governments internationally are using a sex scandal as a scapegoat to bring Assange down.
tl;dr- Toasty stop trying to categorise me. Left and right politics are fading in the mainstream and ceasing to exist as they're fairly old archetypes. Politics are entirely situational and contextual. Blindly sticking to a side wont get you anywhere. Adaptation is key.
Never said conservative anchors were perfect, but I find it ridiculous that people claim O'Reilly and Beck are horrible excuses for human beings when there's plenty who are just as bad in left-wing media.
As for "adaption being key," I respond with "derp." Of course it is. Anyone with half a brain know that no side is right 100% of the time. Heck, I favor a progressive tax bracket because I know a flat tax would likely put too much strain on the lower classes.
However, if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. To that end, I'm a firm believer in that the US Constitution should be changed as little as possible. It was never meant to be a "fluid" document, and treating it as such is an absolute recipe for disaster. The more changes you allow to be made to it, the more corruption you'll find in the government. And as a whole, changes made to the constitution will, directly or otherwise, promote more corruption and harm than it will good.
So basically, change isn't bad, but running your platform on the notion that you'll bring "change" to the country is foolish and near sided. The only change that needs to be done is the trimming of the government. General welfare should be left to the people to figure out. The more the government gets involved, the more lazy, selfish, and dependent on the government the people will get.
#29
Posted 22 March 2011 - 07:48 PM
#30
Posted 22 March 2011 - 08:22 PM
Glenn Beck the clinically insane (or the biggest troll on earth)
You... either haven't sat down to actually watch Fox News and defend it on principle, or you actually enjoy it as a propaganda machine.
#31
Posted 22 March 2011 - 08:46 PM
#32
Posted 22 March 2011 - 08:52 PM
#35
Posted 22 March 2011 - 10:51 PM
More proof of O'Reilly's douche baggery:
#36
Posted 23 March 2011 - 07:42 AM
Toasty, on 22 March 2011 - 07:36 PM, said:
As for "adaption being key," I respond with "derp." Of course it is. Anyone with half a brain know that no side is right 100% of the time. Heck, I favor a progressive tax bracket because I know a flat tax would likely put too much strain on the lower classes.
However, if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. To that end, I'm a firm believer in that the US Constitution should be changed as little as possible. It was never meant to be a "fluid" document, and treating it as such is an absolute recipe for disaster. The more changes you allow to be made to it, the more corruption you'll find in the government. And as a whole, changes made to the constitution will, directly or otherwise, promote more corruption and harm than it will good.
So basically, change isn't bad, but running your platform on the notion that you'll bring "change" to the country is foolish and near sided. The only change that needs to be done is the trimming of the government. General welfare should be left to the people to figure out. The more the government gets involved, the more lazy, selfish, and dependent on the government the people will get.
Been listening to Skindred have we?
I still say Right Wing anchors are worse, purely because they're more mainstream therefore more people buy into their bullshit. Yeah you get Michael Moore and conspiracy theorists gaining support but not to the extent of O'Reilly and Beck. People are fucking fanatical about them, treating them as messiahs of politics.
I'm a firm believer that anybody who interprets the constitution word for word is a backwards idiot. It's 200+ old, there is no way everything can still stand up true with that amount of time passed. I dont think anyone is trying to 'change' it, just put a more modern perspective on it to make it much more contextual. I wont go into details but there you go.
I stand for less bullshit in politics, both policy and political intrigue that goes on. I DO believe in smaller, more transparent government with more freedom of individual BUT welfare has been proved time and time again by every political economist in the past century to be a necessity in a modern economy. Keynes said it, Friedman said it. Welfare provision cannot be left to the public, it would simply not work that way. Yeah the system is currently flawed but that's a bureaucracy and systematic problem, not a fundamental problem in the system itself. It just needs re-organisation and simplification.
Plus the benefit system can be altered to control unemployment which is huge benefit of having it under government control.
#37
Posted 23 March 2011 - 06:18 PM