用户名: 密码:
新用户注册
监管者: Vikings 
 Politics

Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.


All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..

As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.

Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!


*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."


每页的消息:
讨论板列表
您未权限在该板张贴消息。只有最低脑兵级别的会员才允许张贴在该板。
状态: 所有人能发表
帖子搜索:  

5. 十月 2012, 17:23:01
Übergeek 바둑이 
题目: American elections: a choice between two economically inept candidates
Übergeek 바둑이修改(5. 十月 2012, 17:26:50)
Watching the debate two days ago, I was struck by some things. First, Americans have turned the entire electoral process into a reality TV show like American idol. All that is missing is a panel of judges to give criticism and pointers to the contestants. Well, media spinners fill that role.

Second thing I noticed, both candidates are incapable of offering anything new. They keep flogging the same dead horses. Tax breaks for the rich, Obamacare, a burgeoning deficit (for which they blame each other when in reality decades of rule by both political parties are to blame for it), etc.

However, the third thing, and most alarming thing, is how economically inept the candidates are. Both are incapable of addressing the real root causes of the economic problems affecting the United States. The candidates were incapable of mentioning the simple fact that the American economy is in trouble because the United States consumes a lot more than it produces and satisfying that hunger for consumption means that the USA must manufacture products and produce commodities overseas.

Among the more stupid comments I heard was this Romney quote:

"But I'm not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for."

This kind of quote is a reflection of the economic ineptitude of Romney and those who advise him on econmic matters. To say that the USA "borrows" from China to pay for the deficit is ludicrous. The real reason why the USA owes money to China is because American consumers buy 50 billion dollars of Chinese-made goods per month, while China barely buys any American-made goods. In order to balance the trade accounts, the American government is forced to issue billions of dollars in treasury bills to China. It is either that or hard currency (such as gold). Consequently, why would China buy American-made goods when they manufucture cheaply everything themselves? This is not about market protectionism, but about a simple economic reality that the manufacturer of goods has the economic power in his hands as opposed to the consumer of goods.

Mitt Romney is disingenous in playing the fear-mongering game. He never told the public that what they should really do is to stop buying Chinese-made goods. He also never told the public that the real problem is that American manufacturers continue to manufacture in cheap labour markets with lax legislation.

By Romney's logic, the USA is also borrowing money from Canada and Saudi Arabia to pay for the deficit. After all, those two are America's largest suppliers of oil and natural gas and every American is consuming those commodities. Should Romney tell people that the USA should stop borrowing from Saudi Arabia or Canada? There are other countries that sell commodities to the USA too.

Obama's ineptitude is evident in the fact that he was incapable of rebutting to Romney's comment. The closes Obama came to that was saying that tax breaks should go to companies that create jobs in America and not overseas, and this comment was largely ignored by the Media and dismissed by Romney as something that would hurt businesses.

This is not surprising since Romney himself "outsourced" production from his companies to overseas in the past and at least part of his multimillion dollar fortune came from profits derived by dismissing American workers and producing in cheap labour markets. Romney the hypocrite fear-mongers about China and makes a killing producing cheap over there. Why is it that Democrats say little about it? Because they are just as guilty of the same and nobody wants to kill the hen that laid the golden egg of maximum profits though cheap labour, and subsequent American unemployment.

Like I said before, this election (like most elections after Kennedy's death) is a choice between bad and worse, and politicians count on an apathetic and uninformed public to make the worst possible choice.

5. 十月 2012, 17:42:30
Bwild 
题目: Re: American elections: a choice between two economically inept candidates
Übergeek 바둑이: are you saying the US government purchases all the oil and commodities..then resells it to suppliers who in turn sell to the public?

9. 十月 2012, 19:08:23
Übergeek 바둑이 
题目: Re: American elections: a choice between two economically inept candidates
Bwild:

> are you saying the US government purchases all the oil and commodities..then resells it to suppliers who in turn sell to the public?

I was getting tot he fact that Romney has been castigating China and saying that the USA "borrows" money from China to pay for the dificit. In reality the debt to China is the result of massive consumption of goods manufactured in China, rahter than the government borrowing money directly from the Chinese government.

Then I drew a parallel to the consumption of oil and natural gas. Romney says nothing about how the foreign debt is increasing as a result of oil and gas consumption from places like Saudi Arabia and Canada.

In answer to your questions, yes and no. The American government does not profit from buying and selling oil, but it controls the supply of oil through what is called the strategic reserve. This is a reserve of crude oil, distillates and gasoline that are kept in inventory in case there is ever scarcity of those products. It was created during the Opec crisis in the 1970s. IN practice, the profits remain in the hands of oil companies. If the American government was profitting from oil, there would be no soverign debt!

5. 十月 2012, 18:23:45
Mort 
题目: Re: is a choice between bad and worse, and politicians count on an apathetic and uninformed public to make the worst possible choice.
Übergeek 바둑이: I think it's more a case of the 1% rely on an "us and them" system.. divide and conquer. For if the stupid "us and them" died and it became "us" then the US would change.

"Romney the hypocrite fear-mongers about China and makes a killing producing cheap over there."

And the Chinese are dying and fighting over the hours they are having to work. Have prices really dropped though? Or is the middle men getting a greater wad, going by Apples profits.. I'd say they are getting fat on sweat shop factories.

5. 十月 2012, 19:22:05
Iamon lyme 
题目: Re: American elections: a choice between two economically inept candidates
Übergeek 바둑이: [ Watching the debate two days ago, I was struck by some things. First, Americans have turned the entire electoral process into a reality TV show... ]

Seriously, you are just now understanding this? This realisation didn't strike you when seeing phony debates on news programs where only one side was represented, or in campaign adds tailored to fit only one narrative? The debate between Romney and Obama was the first time we Americans have been treated to something that didn't look like a phony reality show, but now you recognise how the media has been mostly just putting on a show?

I'm not surprised by this new found "revelation" of yours, I'm just surprised at how easy you make it for booger eating gubbers like me to see through such a thin veil of deception.

日期和时间
在线的朋友
最喜欢的讨论板
朋友群
每日提示
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, 版权所有
回顶端