Come on, just one paragraph - Page 12 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Botnst · #**166** 08-26-2005, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

I'm no economist. I just get tired of people like Sean Hannity obsessing over trivia such as whether the rescession started at the end of Clinton's term or at the beginning of Bush's term.

I stand to be corrected, but I suspect that a poll of objective economists would support the view that Clinton didn't do such a bad job with the econony, despite resistance from the Republicans. For example, the accounting scandals that were going on during the 1990s were caused in part by Newt Gingrich's successful efforts to weaken the laws governing the accounting industry. Gingrich had help from right-wing Democrats (most prominently, Joe Lieberman), but it was a Republican initiative.

The .com thing was good and bad. If you're going to blame Clinton for the bad, at least give him some credit for the good. That's all I'm trying to say.

IMO, presidents just happen to be in office when things go good or bad. If they go for the good, the president and his party jump up and down saying, "me, me, me!" If things tank, they say, "My predecessor did it!"

Hey, how many of us gave-back that tax cut? Show of hands?

Bot

GermanStar · #**167** 08-26-2005, 08:56 PM

I think Jimmy Carter is an exception.....

Botnst · #**168** 08-26-2005, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GermanStar

I think Jimmy Carter is an exception.....

He's exceptional.

A264172 · #**169** 08-26-2005, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

1. How 'bout you write that thar thesis thingy and get back to us on it.

2. Or maybe if you ask them one subject and thread at a time, use small words and short sentences, with no nested, dependent clauses, then people will play with your questions.

3. Call me crazy, but I have a sneaky little suspicion that you're playing a game here, aren't you? Like, maybe you already have some ideas along these lines?

4. Why not show us yours first?

Bot

As to #1) I need to do a lot more reading before I get the time for solving the worlds problems in so formal a fashion. As to #2) I can barely follow 2 threads at a time… and yes I might not be so interested in the answers I get. When it comes to #3 I am definitely being sneaky and if you are willing to remember that it was you and not me that suggested the term ‘some ideas’ -as in not many more than that than- I could agree with #3 completely.

4) Are we throwing our core principals under the bus by insisting on desired results over a way of 'doing business'? (or can a serf participate in a truly free market?)
Free markets do require the absence of coercion. Whether the presence of a large Navy ‘off the coast’ constitutes coercion as far as a free market is concerned I’m not sure.(No clue.)
When there is no more oil, or when oil can no longer keep pace with the worlds energy requirements what have we established that could hold up in a New World order?
Not much yet as far as the ME is concerned.
If we do not win this war (and by 'win this war' I mean -the spread of free and democratic societies-) will we be left with a counter-swing of the pendulum?
Of this I am almost certain. Absent oil nuclear power will become much more ‘wide spread’ and it is only a matter of time before some unaccounted for capabilities become radical. Non-democratic societies and the corrupt pseudo-democratic societies are the cultivators of population explosion, poverty and desperation. Eventually these two trends will combine to force ‘desperate measures’ on some side’s part. And make what is ‘unthinkable’ a ‘matter of necessity’. Oil today is like a nuclear weapon. It powers the worlds Industry, Armies, and Quality of life. Threat of it’s removal is a catastrophe greater in scope than modern war and natural disaster so the ‘stage is set’.
And lastly... How do you create a free and democratic society?
For this I think you need respect. If a child misbehaves and is denied nothing where is the respect? Respect comes from the experience of consequence. But America’s foreign policy makers don’t seem to care about discipline or applying equal measures of justice when due. “No elections this year? Well then no more planes and tanks. Can you say embargo? Hope your not deposed.” Maybe its not that they don’t care so much as they are afraid of the consequences. After all king _____ has his finger on the oil button and he might nuke us.
Why are we ‘setting ourselves up’ to be the enemy of this king’s subjects? We should be their solution.

Do I have any answers? No. Just some Ideas. And don’t ask for footnotes. Now can I hear a cowbell?

Botnst · #**170** 08-26-2005, 09:55 PM

"4) Are we throwing our core principals under the bus by insisting on desired results over a way of 'doing business'? (or can a serf participate in a truly free market?)"
Free markets do require the absence of coercion. Whether the presence of a large Navy ‘off the coast’ constitutes coercion as far as a free market is concerned I’m not sure.(No clue.)"

Who is a serf in this instance?

I agree with your answer, except I think there are plenty of clues. In the absence of a strong, determined naval presence, piracy is the rule. Trade is dangerous. In history, imperial power (Greece, Rome, Spain, France, Britain) suppresses piracy and all nations benefit from that suppression. They may not benefit from other aspects of the imperium, but that one is historically appreciated by all nations except those that live by piracy or protect it or benefit from it. Piracy still occurs and it is lucrative. Vessels passing from the Indian Ocean to the Pacific are occasionally subjected to piracy and those guys can be murderous. No navy of consequence patrols the area to suppress the piracy.

Under a benign power, a deepwater, powerful navy is a great deterrent to piracy. A strong navy is also a deterrent to transoceanic war. Supremacy at sea provides safe borders to a maratime nation. Ask England. Or us.

Botnst · #**171** 08-26-2005, 09:57 PM

"If we do not win this war (and by 'win this war' I mean -the spread of free and democratic societies-) will we be left with a counter-swing of the pendulum?
Of this I am almost certain. Absent oil nuclear power will become much more ‘wide spread’ and it is only a matter of time before some unaccounted for capabilities become radical. Non-democratic societies and the corrupt pseudo-democratic societies are the cultivators of population explosion, poverty and desperation. Eventually these two trends will combine to force ‘desperate measures’ on some side’s part. And make what is ‘unthinkable’ a ‘matter of necessity’. Oil today is like a nuclear weapon. It powers the worlds Industry, Armies, and Quality of life. Threat of it’s removal is a catastrophe greater in scope than modern war and natural disaster so the ‘stage is set’."

I agree.

Botnst · #**172** 08-26-2005, 10:03 PM

"When there is no more oil, or when oil can no longer keep pace with the worlds energy requirements what have we established that could hold up in a New World order?
Not much yet as far as the ME is concerned."

I agree. Worse, when petroleum resources start the downward decline, IMO, the world's population will be around 10 Bn. Even worse, the major arable lands are in the hands of increasingly monocultural production. Most farmers in industrial countries buy food at a grocery. They haven't the knowledge, skills, or means of producing crops without agri chemicals and tractors. It takes years to train a team to plow and a skilled hand to do it. My father-in-law knows how but his plowhorse died 7-8 years ago. He's the only man I know who knows how to plow and he's in his seventies.

Without motive force and without ag chemicals, about 7 billion people will not have food or means of production. The presence of that much rotting flesh will be a health hazard for the remaining 3 bn people.

Bot

Botnst · #**173** 08-26-2005, 10:07 PM

Part A. "And lastly... How do you create a free and democratic society?
For this I think you need respect. If a child misbehaves and is denied nothing where is the respect? Respect comes from the experience of consequence.

Part B. But America’s foreign policy makers don’t seem to care about discipline or applying equal measures of justice when due. “No elections this year? Well then no more planes and tanks. Can you say embargo? Hope your not deposed.” Maybe its not that they don’t care so much as they are afraid of the consequences. After all king _____ has his finger on the oil button and he might nuke us.
Why are we ‘setting ourselves up’ to be the enemy of this king’s subjects? We should be their solution."

Part A I agree with. It's the consequent where we part company. I have a feeling we are not going to agree on this. Having been in that argument so many times on this forum already, I find it too tiresome to engage again.

Bot

peragro · #**174** 08-26-2005, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

I'm no economist. I just get tired of people like Sean Hannity obsessing over trivia such as whether the rescession started at the end of Clinton's term or at the beginning of Bush's term.

I stand to be corrected, but I suspect that a poll of objective economists would support the view that Clinton didn't do such a bad job with the econony, despite resistance from the Republicans. For example, the accounting scandals that were going on during the 1990s were caused in part by Newt Gingrich's successful efforts to weaken the laws governing the accounting industry. Gingrich had help from right-wing Democrats (most prominently, Joe Lieberman), but it was a Republican initiative.

The .com thing was good and bad. If you're going to blame Clinton for the bad, at least give him some credit for the good. That's all I'm trying to say.

Agreed. I would ask you the courtesy of doing the same with Mr. Bush. It seems, according to many reputable sources, that the economy is doing quite well now. Of course, things may tank at any time, such is life. But to be in the situation that it is now after the "pop" of the bubble and 9/11 (which was as much an economic attack as physical) is truly remarkable.

peragro · #**175** 08-26-2005, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

"If we do not win this war (and by 'win this war' I mean -the spread of free and democratic societies-) will we be left with a counter-swing of the pendulum?
Of this I am almost certain. Absent oil nuclear power will become much more ‘wide spread’ and it is only a matter of time before some unaccounted for capabilities become radical. Non-democratic societies and the corrupt pseudo-democratic societies are the cultivators of population explosion, poverty and desperation. Eventually these two trends will combine to force ‘desperate measures’ on some side’s part. And make what is ‘unthinkable’ a ‘matter of necessity’. Oil today is like a nuclear weapon. It powers the worlds Industry, Armies, and Quality of life. Threat of it’s removal is a catastrophe greater in scope than modern war and natural disaster so the ‘stage is set’."

I agree.

I agree as well. It is important that we help foster a democracy in the middle east. Rather than the politics of the past 100 years in the region which was to prop up a despot (but he was our despot). I think what we are doing now is the first time we've come close to trying this. Without trying it there is a sure chance of failure (i.e. you can't win the lottery if you don't play).

A couple of things though. Nuclear power does not equal nuclear weapons; although the technology is a stepping stone - hence the worry of Iran. I would like to see alternate forms of energy produced. I think we can do this unless we become a backwater castrated county. Losing Iraq could be the catalyst for that. Barring that, or in addition to that, I'd like to use up the Middle East's oil first, then Canada's, then ours. It's a much more strategic thing to do. Cruel to the Middle East? Possibly, but they have many years to plan for this. Perhaps rather than buy the humongous palaces and fine cars they could take thier gigantic profits and invest in alternate energy sources. That would put them in the drivers seat. However, I hope we do it first. I think our form of government is much kinder than theirs.

A264172 · #**176** 08-26-2005, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

...I have a feeling we are not going to agree on this. Having been in that argument so many times on this forum already, I find it too tiresome to engage again.

Bot

Thanks for the response. I won't trouble you to drag over the corpse again beyond my last retort.