Democrats Suck

Quote:

http://www.mises.org/story/2479
Those of us who loathe Republicans, especially Republican presidents, have some hope against hope that the Democrats will nominate a candidate who can save us from the certain doom of eternal Republican rule. Sadly, it seems that Bill Clinton, as much as we hated him at the time, was the last of a kind: a fairly normal and plausibly electable Democrat. In retrospect, he seems like the model of the moderate social democrat.

Hey, he signed off on welfare reform, a capital gain tax cut, and decentralized speed limit control. Also, he at least had the acumen to pull out of wars gone wrong (are there any other kind?). He cut government payrolls and reduced the deficit dramatically. Would that Republican presidents show such restraint!

(One reason that Democrats make better presidents: they actually believe in government, dummies that they are. And so they tend to want to make it work better and more efficiently on behalf of their voters, who are tightly connected to the public sector. The Republicans, in contrast, don't believe in government and so they are happy to steal everything in sight, wreck the budget, detonate the bombs, etc.)

Now, one might argue that a bad Democrat is better than any Republican, and I'm open to that idea. For one thing, a Democratic president inspires Republicans to be better than they would otherwise be. They suddenly remember, for example, that government is the problem and not the solution, that government spends and taxes and regulates too much, and they even cultivate skepticism about foreign intervention.

But just look at the crew the Dems have assembled for this year! What a mess of hucksters, victim-group politicos, and anti-capitalistic wackos. Maybe they would be tamed in office, but they sure are a scary crew otherwise. It can be depressing, to be sure, but let us remember that the root of the problem is not the individuals in question but the ideology that underlies the raison d'être of the modern Democratic Party, at least at the national level.

That ideology is socialism. I know what you are thinking: these guys aren't socialists, for it's been years since any prominent Democrat openly advocated the nationalization of all industry. So triumphant have free markets been that they don't even believe in this stuff anyway.

That's true enough but it sidesteps the reality that there is no economic activity that these people don't favor regulating to the nth degree. They talk of privacy and civil rights, but when it comes to commerce, they recognize no right of privacy and no individual rights. All property is up for grabs to control and meld in the name of national well-being.

That's the practice, but what about the underlying theory? Here too, socialism of the old sort is gone. But the socialist theory of society still burns brightly. Their model is that in the state of nature, meaning in a state of freedom, all is conflict and cruelty. Pathology and ugliness are everywhere. The government is necessary to step in at every level of society to resolve these otherwise intractable conflicts and manage our way into the new epoch of human well-being.

The old conflict view of society posited a perpetual clash between workers and management. That idea survives to some truncated extent in the Democrats' love of labor unions. But since unions constitute a tiny and dwindling sector within the labor market, and only thrive in the public sector, this idea takes a back seat to many other and crazier ideas.

You will recognize them. They believe that a deep and intractable rift separates the sexes such that one is always dominating the other, and so legislation and regulation is always needed to even the score and make up for past wrongs. The same is true of the races, and natives and immigrants, and the abled and disabled. None of these people can possibly work out their differences on their own. They need deep institutional change — even social revolution ushered in by elites — in order to bring about dramatic, Hegelian-style advances.

So it with man's general relationship with the environment. They posit an abiding conflict between the two, such that if one ascends, the other must descend. That is why all moves toward human prosperity are ultimately regretted as an attack on precious natural resources that should be left undisturbed. This is a Marxist idea: life under freedom is a prize fight in which everyone is throwing punches. All appearances of contentment are illusory. The job of the state is to decide winners and losers, while our job is to obey the authority and come to a consciousness that the expropriators must be expropriated.

Only this conflict model explains why these people can't imagine, for example, that business and consumers can have a cooperative relationship rather than an antagonistic one. So it is in every area of life. Even the most long-lasting institutions, such as the family, are seen as fundamentally pathological and exploitative. The same is true in international relations: they don't like Republican wars that much, but offer no model of internationalism that can replace the view that it is always and everywhere war by someone against someone, and so the only way to stop war is to wage one.

Such is the view of today's Left. They have never come to terms with the great insight of the old liberal revolution, which is that society is self managing over the long term. People can work out their problems. Human relationships are characterized most often as cooperative rather than antagonistic. People, not bureaucrats, know what is best for their own; and pursuing their self interest is compatible with, and even enhances, social well-being.

Such propositions are entirely rejected by most of the Democratic hopefuls. It's true too that Republicans have their own objections to the old liberal view, but we'll save these for another day. For now, suffice to say that party elites among the Democrats regard regular Americans as the problem and not the solution, so it is no surprise that they continue to have problems finding candidates for whom people are willing to vote. Think of it: They suppose all these awful things about the structure of the society in which we live and act, and then they ask us--the incompetent, pathological, unenlightened masses--to vote for them.

The heck of it is that the policies they promote end up bringing about conflict where none existed, and thus makes society reflect the very reality that they posit as their underlying theory. Their cure is the very disease that they sought to eradicate.

Let us remember that the core problem, in the end, is ideological and not personal. Uproot the underlying anti-liberal assumptions of the Democrats, make them Jeffersonian once again, and you would have a viable party. Until then, they will be hopelessly stuck in the mire at the national level, as depressing as that is to admit.

The Austrian view aside, what do you think about the Democratic tendency to bill society as a system of constantly competing demographics? Do you even think they have such tendencies?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

The Austrian view aside, what do you think about the Democratic tendency to bill society as a system of constantly competing demographics? Do you even think they have such tendencies?

It's certainly how I've been educated at my liberal arts school. The Marxist model, or at the very least an ideological model under Althussier's revision, is one that makes a great deal of sense to me. I tend to see things in terms of constant conflict as a result.

Originally Posted by Article

life under freedom is a prize fight in which everyone is throwing punches. All appearances of contentment are illusory. The job of the state is to decide winners and losers, while our job is to obey the authority and come to a consciousness that the expropriators must be expropriated.

Though, I would say that the job of the state is more a way of providing contingency plans, rather than constant enforcement. If something is brought to the state's attention as a point of contention, then it gets taken care of. If not, then it's worked out without federal management. I think that's how most dems would represent the function of a government.

Quote:

So it is in every area of life. Even the most long-lasting institutions, such as the family, are seen as fundamentally pathological and exploitative. The same is true in international relations: they don't like Republican wars that much, but offer no model of internationalism that can replace the view that it is always and everywhere war by someone against someone, and so the only way to stop war is to wage one.

I'm not sure how the author got here, though. It doesn't seem to take into account efforts at diplomacy by both parties, which have only become tertiary to war in recent years. Even Nixon went to China.
Nor does it seem to take into account that a socialist view under the banner of the democrats would say the family is more sacred than the government itself. In that sense, it's no more exploitative than church or school.

Of course, that brings us back to using the Marxist base.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Which considers the family an artificial construct. There's a lot of thought floating around that socialist policies are actually the primary cause for the destruction of families, because they create an artificial case of economic rationale, where one doesn't need children to support oneself in old age, and that one shouldn't take care of one's own parents in old age. Society and the government does that for you. It's thought that this the primary cause in the severe drop of birth rates in America and especially Europe.

Quote:

It doesn't seem to take into account efforts at diplomacy by both parties, which have only become tertiary to war in recent years. Even Nixon went to China.

We weren't at war with China.

It seems that diplomatic efforts at solving conflicts are only undertaken when politicians think that they can't win. The political fiasco that Somalia created certainly wasn't foreseen beforehand. If anything, the only reason we haven't intervened in the Middle East in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is out of fear of not only Israel's military but the fear of activating a nuclear tripwire.

LBJ is still held up as a hero for "evening the odds" in race conflict but used a fabricated incident to engage us in a real bullets conflict.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

We weren't at war with China.

Well, we were at war with communism, and China must have known it, so at least in my mind it was a generous and preventative gesture. And then in the midst of it he secretly bombed the North Vietnamese while telling the American public they would be pulling out. So at the very least I think we can agree it's not so much a democratic state of mind as a purely political one, LBJ not withstanding.

You know, I'm not sure what I was thinking saying that family was valued more than government under Marxism. But I think the tendency these days is for people to want to be self-sufficient rather than to rely on the government. It's a question of whether people actually realize that Social Security is going to be drained dry. Most people know it, in a peripheral sense, but to what extent they know it is up for debate.

And I would say that being self-sufficient doesn't have to indicate a destruction of the family so much as a change in what is considered "natural."

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

Well, we were at war with communism, and China must have known it, so at least in my mind it was a generous and preventative gesture. And then in the midst of it he secretly bombed the North Vietnamese while telling the American public they would be pulling out. So at the very least I think we can agree it's not so much a democratic state of mind as a purely political one, LBJ not withstanding.

Right. You also have to consider it within the context of Beijing antagonizing itself with Moscow. Nixon jumped at the opportunity to make China a Soviet antagonist if not a strategic ally.

Quote:

And I would say that being self-sufficient doesn't have to indicate a destruction of the family so much as a change in what is considered "natural."

Right, but I'm saying that the change in what is conisdered "natural" is due to artificial influences, such as the welfare state. It used to be that having children was an insurance policy for old age, but now that everybody fronts the bill for each other, people only have children and raise families because they want to.

Actually I think I'm kinda confused by what you mean when you say "self-sufficient."

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Right, but I'm saying that the change in what is conisdered "natural" is due to artificial influences, such as the welfare state. It used to be that having children was an insurance policy for old age, but now that everybody fronts the bill for each other, people only have children and raise families because they want to.

Actually I think I'm kinda confused by what you mean when you say "self-sufficient."

Well, I'm talking about middle-class, average Joe American who doesn't necessarily rely on things like welfare. It makes sense for him to cooperate with a corporation that will give him as many benefits as he can manage, and government never really gets involved. Hopefully Joe's smart enough to be saving for retirement by age 30, but if not, well, yeah, then he's going to appeal to the government.

But, since things aren't looking up for Joe in that case (back to social security), he's gonna want to make sure as much of his money as possible gets into a 401K, and he's not going to want to have kids (or at least, not many) because he doesn't meet the requirements for welfare.

In other words, self-sufficient means his labor equates to his dollar, as much as possible.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Brady's Article

Hey, he signed off on welfare reform, a capital gain tax cut, and decentralized speed limit control. Also, he at least had the acumen to pull out of wars gone wrong (are there any other kind?). He cut government payrolls and reduced the deficit dramatically. Would that Republican presidents show such restraint!

Yet he also raised income tax in all brackets, put forth a superficial ban on assault weapons, and engaged in military conflicts to detract from his failure as a chief of state.

Originally Posted by Brady's Article

Let us remember that the core problem, in the end, is ideological and not personal. Uproot the underlying anti-liberal assumptions of the Democrats, make them Jeffersonian once again, and you would have a viable party. Until then, they will be hopelessly stuck in the mire at the national level, as depressing as that is to admit.

In order to become Jeffersonian on some level, the Dems need to undergo 100 years of reactionary movement. Jefferson's attitudes towards central gov't compared to that of modern Dems is 180 out.

Originally Posted by Devo

The problem with any of this party-line thinking is many are ignoring the fact that we have major blowback coming our way. The CIA's incursions into other countries are going to bite us back in the ass and we need a president who can handle the fallout.

You're still reading that Chalmers Johnson book aren't you.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

Yet he also raised income tax in all brackets, put forth a superficial ban on assault weapons, and engaged in military conflicts to detract from his failure as a chief of state.

It's a comparative argument. When put into comparison with recent Republican presidents, Clinton isn't so bad. There's an article by Robert Higgs called No More Great Presidents you might enjoy.

Also I guess everyone's in agreement that Republicans suck or what?

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Also I guess everyone's in agreement that Republicans suck or what?

Nah, I can't say that I'm in agreement with that. Republicanism has undergone some changes in the last 10 years or so that I'm not thrilled about. They really need to get back to their roots and decrease the reach of central government and continue to keep private business as unregulated as possible.

Thanks for the link.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Meth

Nah, I can't say that I'm in agreement with that. Republicanism has undergone some changes in the last 10 years or so that I'm not thrilled about.

So, your response to the idea that Republicans suck is to... disagree, by saying that their current form is unappealing to you, which APPEARS to be agreement but ISN'T because Republicans from the PAST don't suck and those are the ones that COUNT, or—

Also? "Detract" != "Distract"

I will leave your actual arguments alone because they are SADFACE.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

Yet he also raised income tax in all brackets, put forth a superficial ban on assault weapons, and engaged in military conflicts to detract from his failure as a chief of state.

Wait, when exactly did he FAIL as a chief of state?

I seem to recall the national debt actually stabilizing under the Clinton administration. Not to mention his foreign policy was kick ass compared to Bush, both Jr. and Sr. We had actually met with Kim Jong Il, got him to sign Agreed Framework and, oh wait, he wasn't starting wars to fill corporate coffers.

I'm not a republican or a democrat, but it's fairly obvious that outside of an extra-marital affair (which I could really give two-shits) and a real-estate scandal, Clinton was much better than anything the republicans have had to offer since Reagan, possibly Ford.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Duo Maxwell

I seem to recall the national debt actually stabilizing under the Clinton administration. Not to mention his foreign policy was kick ass compared to Bush, both Jr. and Sr. We had actually met with Kim Jong Il, got him to sign Agreed Framework and, oh wait, he wasn't starting wars to fill corporate coffers.

These are all duties as a chief executive. A chief of state is a figurehead... the embodiment of a great American... basically what you do in your personal life. The sex scandal deal resulted in his impeachment for perjury, making him a lousy chief of state.

And no he didn't fill corporate coffers, but he did get involved in Bosnia in order to take attention off the Lewinsky scandal. I also don't credit Clinton with the economic success of the nation as many do. If anything, he probably stifled some of the economic growth that took place during the 90s with his tax hikes.

The roles of chief of state and chief executive are seperate in other world gov'ts. Like in the UK, the Queen embodies all that is noble and prim and proper, yet she has virtually no real authority. The chief executive then, is the Prime Minister, as he's the guy who's actually responsible for getting the job done.


And Pang, modern republicanism has undergone such change, that it's difficult to even label it as republicanism anymore. To make a blanket statement like "Republicans suck" is far to overreaching. To say that would imply that Abe Lincoln sucks cause he was a republican. Modern republicans are such in name only. Their ideology has changed to the point, where they should be labeled as something else entirely. Really, the same goes for the Dems as the views of Hillary Clinton and say Harry Truman (both Dems) are drastically different.

I remember reading a Regan speech or interview once where he talked about his early involvement in the Democratic party. He said that he didn't leave the party, but that the party left him.

To answer the question more clearly though, yes, the current republican party sucks.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

To make a blanket statement like "Republicans suck" is far to overreaching. To say that would imply that Abe Lincoln sucks cause he was a republican.

No, but then again Rockwell and other Austrians aren't fans of Abe either.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

These are all duties as a chief executive. A chief of state is a figurehead... the embodiment of a great American... basically what you do in your personal life. The sex scandal deal resulted in his impeachment for perjury, making him a lousy chief of state.

Oh, come off your high horse. He lied about having an affair. So what? 99% of men would too. That one event doesn't make someone a bad chief of state.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

We often find that the ideals we worship in the caricature of the "Great American" turn out to be nothing more than a facade, anyway.

I'm not going to pass moral judgment on Clinton. Yeah, he lied, he lied underoath and to his people, not something I admire. The affair itself I could care less about. Although, I will admit that he did pick someone rather unfitting of the most powerful man in the free world to have an affair with, though.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Duo Maxwell

We often find that the ideals we worship in the caricature of the "Great American" turn out to be nothing more than a facade, anyway.

True. Our values are no greater than anyone else's and equally meaningful/meaningless in value...

AMERICA:but hey, we have *money and nice cars and beautiful trophy wives! Aren't we fantastic?

EVERYONE ELSE: Who gives a shit? Douchebag.

I find my sentiments following the latter in most regards.

So you have mastered the stock market, have a wife with bigger tits than Elvira and drive an 2007 escalade to work every day.How utterly impressive. (Except for the tits part, I wish I had Elvira's tits.)

At any rate, self indulgent self importance is quite a sickening aptitude for any culture and America has mastered this rather unsensibly. While millions of people are starving the world over, and can't get a clean supply of water to survive, here we are in America, considering a boycott when a Starbucks just might happen to go out of business. (though we all know that will never happen.)

AMERICA: I need my latte frappucino! I can't survive without it! The very prospect of thinking about it is causing me to break out in hives!

EVERYONE ELSE: Good. Douchebag. Speaking of hives, why don't you go ahead and replace that silver spoon with a beehive?

I can understand why much of the world resents America. We have the money and influence to do good in the world, but choose not to.

As for the whole liberal vs. conservative thing...every party has its share of radicals and disgustingly putrid iealogical sensibilities along with it. Each/every side has its own hidden agenda and wishes to impose that upon the average indigineous person, sometimes in a forcible offhand way.

At the center of it, when the potential to do good is possible, it is often revealed that politicians expect the masses to participate in a certain standard of conduct while exempting themselves from the same general practice. Take energy conservation for instance. Its a great idea and can help save the environment but only if EVERYONE follows it. Setting an example by making a great movie and not holding oneself to the same standard, is a "convenient truth" here in America.

For instance: Al Gore contributed in the making of the film 'Inconvenient Truth' and brought to many people's attention the horrible dangers of global warming. While I agree with the message and the dangers present, I find it highly absurd that Gore would be so adamant in projecting these messages while not following them himself.

Quote:

Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

Practice like you preach, my good man.

And to make matters worse, Bush has hired one of his oil buddies as the head of the EPA. Whats that? Raise minimum Carbon Dioxide levels to help the oil industry to help produce a larger output and more revenue? What the hell! A few more billion plumes of toxic waste entering the atmosphere everyday is nothing to worry about, right? No one will notice.

Wrong.

Bush, Gore...they both suck balls. I prefer Gore because at least he is willing to make an effort to warn people of the dangers of the precarious environmental situation, while Bush just sits on his arse and rakes in the dough while half of the atmosphere goes up in flames.

Frankly, while all this talk of the environment is good and fine, I am much more worried about the people, who have proven that it is far more profitable to turn a deaf on the horrors of the real world that exists beyond white picket fence avenue. We are humans, are we not? Shouldn't we be taking care of each other before we go on trying to save the environment? I think we need to get our priorities straight here fellas.

My main scuple with politics and politicians in America, are the way they are causing problems by being continually divided for its own sake.

Lets get one thing straight: all politicians are full of shit. They are all vying for the minds/votes of the masses and they all resort to using lowdown contemptible tactics in order do so. Thats how politics survives and "prospers". Control. Everyone "benefits" from this process, right? In a perfect world, sure...but a perfect world is nowhere in sight. Its all going to hell, likely. Something isn't working. I am not sure whether this is a role of the political system or the people who believe in it...It is never been clearer than this age at how divided the United States is becoming. The main groups, Republicans and Democrats can't get anything done amidst the bickering that inflates sense of purpose and priority agendas. Republicans and Democrats...Pretty black and white. Green party? Yea, right. Any other alternatives? Maybe there are far more than 2 sides to every coin? I think the only way America can progress as a nation and provide help where it is needed is if an additional group comes along to stir things up. The lack of contention in the party formation basically means that the Republicans and Democrats hold the keys to all doors and choose not to open them if it doesn't fancy them...then again, adding an additional and equally capable party to the political scheme might make the process of political consensus far too complicated to comprehend...

Perhaps George Carlin was right when he said that the political system is always in a state of breaking down. Lefts vs. Rights, Democrats vs. Republicans...Perhaps our system is in a state of expectorant evaporation with doubt and the unknowing serving as the catalyst. It is unfortunate that
our society is so greatly reduced to a series of bobbing and weaving parties who aren't working towards the same goals, though that goes without saying.

However, I have never felt more unsettled because of it.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Quote:

We have the money and influence to do good in the world, but choose not to.

Stop the motherfuckin' presses - bullshit detected.

So you tell me that America does absolutely no good in the world whatsoever? That we give absolutely no kind of foreign aid to third world countries and at our own detriment, outsource industry and other things to other countries so people there can have jobs and a higher standard of living (albeit in exchange for cheaper goods)?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

RainMan - Gore invests heavily in ecological rebuilding and alternative energy and in fact his entire family is carbon-neutral. His message is not one of personal sacrifice - Global Warming cannot be solved on an individual level - it's that we need massive policy shifts. He DOES practice what he preaches.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Arainach

RainMan - Gore invests heavily in ecological rebuilding and alternative energy and in fact his entire family is carbon-neutral. His message is not one of personal sacrifice - Global Warming cannot be solved on an individual level - it's that we need massive policy shifts. He DOES practice what he preaches.

Even though that is understandable, there is something unsettling with a man who uses more power than any of us talking about its dangers.

Of course it can't be solved on an individual level... but Christ, the guy can at least limit his energy expenditure. I mean, get solar plates or something.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

He DOES. The stats on that article were collected before Gore started dramatic remodeling designed to cut energy usage.

Most amazing jew boots

Another problem you must consider, especially when talking about major shifts in energy infrastructure, is how many people have the money to invest in it.

I sure as hell don't, as much as I'd like to. Hybrid vehicles are still very expensive. I could get a Nissan 350Z (which is a sexy beast machine), for what I'd pay for a compact hybrid sedan. Not to mention, you completely ignore an entire market when you talk about hyrbid vehicles: the DIY people, myself included. I've never taken my car to a mechanic, unless I've convinced myself it's cheaper to do so than spend the time doing it myself.

You can't really work on a hybrid vehicle yourself. They're all factory supported and service is expensive as hell.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

Stop the motherfuckin' presses - bullshit detected.

So you tell me that America does absolutely no good in the world whatsoever? That we give absolutely no kind of foreign aid to third world countries and at our own detriment...

It isn't a question of bullshit, but misreading my statement. I wasn't being literal. Besides, we can do much more and have a responsibility to do far more than we have been. That doesn't necessarily mean giving American jobs to people overseas, in developed nations, as that affects very little of the world population. Given the circumstances of America's rather large unemployment, perhaps this wasn't the best way to "help" anybody.

Besides mentioning anything of an economic perspective in already established nations, how would you say we ARE helping the world?

This is the other problem. Clearly people have very strange views on how America is to hand out "aid". If it doesn't help America economically, then it isn't bothered with on a political level. There have been many instances where America was given a chance to do something good in the world (diplomatically, providing safety and sanctuary to entire scores of races being hunted down and destroyed because of hatred and other such things) and failed miserably. Have you seen Hotel Rwanda? I would advise you to check it out. Things like this happen all over the world, every day. That is what I mean.

Originally Posted by Arainach

RainMan - Gore invests heavily in ecological rebuilding and alternative energy and in fact his entire family is carbon-neutral. His message is not one of personal sacrifice - Global Warming cannot be solved on an individual level - it's that we need massive policy shifts. He DOES practice what he preaches.

So you are excusing him? As I said before, I like Gore helluva lot more than I like Bush for already stated reasons, but he isn't living in a way that he suggests that others adapt to. As a politican, this sets a horrific example for others to follow. You are right...something HUGE like global warming isn't going to be solved on an individual basis, but that still doesn't mean that anyone is exempt from scorn here.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

Given the circumstances of America's rather large unemployment, perhaps this wasn't the best way to "help" anybody

LOL? Which large unemployment are you talking about? You mean the ones thats at basically full? It's historically low now... How can i take any of your argument seriously when you don't know something as obvious as that?

Apparently you also don't understand the concept of outsourcing either. A job outsourced != job lost. It means an inefficient job is being replaced because it can be done more efficiently elsewhere. That leads us to focus on other things that we do best and transfer the unemployed to new efficient positions. Of course sometimes that might require a little education, but thats the cost you have to pay to stay ahead in a market economy.

I'm highly suspect you haven't taken any economics courses.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by xen0phobia

LOL? Which large unemployment are you talking about? You mean the ones thats at basically full? It's historically low now... How can i take any of your argument seriously when you don't know something as obvious as that?

I'm highly suspect you haven't taken any economics courses.

I failed to mention a time frame, though I do feel sheepish for contributing to such a poorly worded observation. I have not been following the economical status up to date, but I realize that 2006 and 2007 have been rather large years for growth, so it was a rather unwieldy statement, within that context. As for what I was loosely referring to, I think I am stuck back in 04-05 and was loosely speaking rather loosely (and possibly through my hat since NO, I have not taken a class in Economy) based upon such years in which employment rates were not very high.

Besides this, and again, I don't think its too much to ask to consider alternatives for providing worldly assistance than offering up only economical support. As I've mentioned that doesn't do a thing for undeveloped countries, where financial support is oftentimes most needed. Only helping those who are already economically "worthy" to begin with seems rather vile. Therein, lies a rather fundamental problem of the definition of "aid" based upon bias of wealth and therefore, entitlement. It probably doesn't take the casual observer of economics weekly magazine, to realize that there is a very serious problem at hand.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by RainMan

It isn't a question of bullshit, but misreading my statement. I wasn't being literal.

As for what I was loosely referring to, I think I am stuck back in 04-05 and was loosely speaking rather loosely (and possibly through my hat since NO, I have not taken a class in Economy) based upon such years in which employment rates were not very high.

Perhaps if you say what you mean, it would save you all the delicate backpeddling.

Originally Posted by RainMan

Besides this, and again, I don't think its too much to ask to consider alternatives for providing worldly assistance than offering up only economical support. As I've mentioned that doesn't do a thing for undeveloped countries, where financial support is oftentimes most needed.

So what in your view exactly qualifies as aid since economic support doesn't count? Are you talking specifically with regards to medical assistance? The sharing and donation of technology?

I think it's a difficult task to render true aid to any underdeveloped country. What we determine to be valuable in terms of rendering aid may be devastatingly destructive to a culture that we may not have taken the time to fully understand. When a state achieves the economic power, military force, and global influence on a level of the US, China, and the former Soviet Union, ethnocentrism is basically assumed. Countries like these look at undeveloped states as primitive in comparison crippled by a technological and industrial gap. For powerful states -who tend to be heavy handed- to bestow "aid" unavoidably results in an imposition of foreign unwanted values upon the undeveloped state. Even if they mean well, the difference in values is in contrast enough to create discord on some level.

Jam it back in, in the dark.