So what difference do you all think he will make?

[Brother None]

Maybe I am expecting to much of the world. I'd rather expect too much of every single person than agree to being baby sat by a government. Freedom is independence. Disagree with that all you want. While some regulation is needed I don't think people should count on it.

You still haven't answered my question. How?

 

[Crni Vuk]

....

Well would be interesting to know who the right person would be in your opinion.

As a historian I hate that question too. Because we don't really know. No matter how much history you analyse, it is hard to say because so much happens independently of great minds. Like, I dunno, the way the Civil War was not initially about the abolition of slavery but became so simply by lasting longer than it should, and that Lincoln would have been "fine" with just quarantining instead of abolishing slavery had the option existed.

It's easier to say when someone is wrong than when someone is right; Herbert Hoover was wrong because he was too inactive in mindset to actively battle the recession. In Cold War politics, Kennedy was wrong because he was too belligerent for the frail world-balance that existed. Nixon was right because he was the opposite of Kennedy, and Reagan was right because he had the same mindset as Kennedy but at a more appropriate time.

On the outside, Obama looks wrong because of the times. Because he's neither a reformer nor a conservative, and the US needs either one. He talks like a reformer, but for all his career he hasn't acted like one. If he does reform, then yes, maybe he'll turn out to be the right guy, but as it is, he's too halfway between nowhere, and that's the worst kind of guy...

Well. At that point one can at least say. With him or without him. There will still aways be a nother day.

Now with economical instability and political changes (or the lack of it) it might be a bit hard to judge. But I think nothing so far what happens is really much out of the regular way. As to a large extend for the last 50 years till the comunistic block colapsed many parts happend to advance in a relatively save ambience caused by the balance of cold war and nuclear arsenal. Nuclear weapons did for sure not prevented wars. But it keeped a stability as it as well meant a danger for the leaders. One has only just to look on Europe. Europe faced such a long period of almost 60 years in peace. If one just imagines how many times war enraged either between France, Germany, Brittain or Italy and other parts of Europe. I tend to believe that the situation at the moment is in the line of the usual progression. There are always issues to overcome.

If Obama is the right person in this complicated time? I dont know it. Hes probably not the saviour everyone makes out of him. He probably can do a lot wrong, and he certainly will. But I also believe that he can do a lot of things right as well. Now even Nixon which is hated by a lot managed a few things during his period. I think, that I have read he was responsible for a improvement in the Chinese-US relationship. Now I seriously ask my Self what Obamas predecessor Bush did really outstanding in his time as President? Cant remember really anything right now.

What is now really noteworthy are the circumstances. I mean one has just to think a few decades back. The history and its slights changes over time. I cant say how it is for different places compared to the US. But here in Germany a lot of people are geting rather "cynical" which is sad, really. A few older people I know which have been members of the generations in the 60s and been members of Student activism think that anyting that happend was without a reason and nothing changed. How did nothing changed? We have a female as cancellor in Germany! A half black as President, and a female was even in the elections (now what ever if one likes or disslike Hillary, she was still a female).

I say. What ever if Obama is the right men or not or if positive things will come out. There is already a positive change. The situation that lead to his election. In my eyes already huge improvement over the last 50 years.

I predict nothing will change.

There are always changes. And things HAVE already changed if one is just looking at the progress. I mean if Obama would have loost there was a relatively big chance that a female might have become the new President.

Considering how things have been not long ago, well if that is NOT a change then I dont know what.

Frankly of course one should not interpret to much in it. But still its a important jump. In my eyes at least.

 

[CriticalCheck]

Maybe I am expecting to much of the world. I'd rather expect too much of every single person than agree to being baby sat by a government. Freedom is independence. Disagree with that all you want. While some regulation is needed I don't think people should count on it.

You still haven't answered my question. How?

Every person in the world spends time growing. The population as a body need to be baby sat. I believe that we should concentrate on this fact and educate them to be more independent. Like many of the conservatives I know I believe we should educate people to be independent. There is no greater freedom than being able to choose for oneself.

In the modern world with the sheer number of people living on earth we do need government, we do need laws. At the same time we shouldn't look to get our hands held while the government walks us across the street.

Maybe your argument isn't what I think it is but what I'm understanding it as is "People are stupid so we have to make sure the stupid people are taken care of." If I'm wrong please forgive me and please explain better. But my argument is "People are stupid so we have to make sure to teach the people ways to be independent."

My view of the world isn't to just sit to the side and hope that something good happens because we are making laws to take care of the people. My view of the world is to stand up and teach the people how to take care of themselves.

I've done all I can to explain it for now. If you don't understand it at least you've heard my ideas. Maybe one day something will happen and you'll understand that what I'm saying isn't just republican free market political bullshit. Perhaps one day you'll see that I'm promoting wide spread education and independence of each and every person.

I'm promoting that each and every person educated with the tools to survive alone bring a lot more to a society. School doesn't give us these tools. I went through school and honestly it's just a grind for everybody there. I only had three teachers who taught me life lessons. I thank them for that. Without them I would have been tied up and blind folded through life. Without their advice I wouldn't have the tools to protect myself and survive.

 

[iii]

I feel the democrats will give you a fish every time you are hungry. I feel the republicans believe in teaching you how to fish and putting you in charge of yourself.

I feel somebody should give him a fishing rod in the first place.

 

[CriticalCheck]

Buy your own fishing rod.

You have a job. >_<

 

[iii]

Buy your own fishing rod.

You have a job. >_<

If I have a job, why would I need somebody to feed me with a fucking fish to survive in the first place?

The Free Market is an ideal type that never existed. It didn't exist in in the stone age and it doesn't exist nowadays.

I am not talking about the state baby sitting citizens but I am talking about creating international standards an laws for everybody to move our existing experiment of the Free Market Theory closer to the ideal type of it.

You might consider that your concept and definition of freedom isn't the only one that exists. So be careful to assume that everybody defines it the same way.

I for felt overprotected, unfree and patronized while I lived in Columbus, Ohio. In Moscow you could at least bribe the cops if they decided to be dicks that day.

Have you ever thought about the fact that you are from a country with a strong common law and equity legal system? Your perception of what a state can and as to do might be quite different if you compare it to states with a long tradition of civil law. (Got to love it)

 

[Crni Vuk]

Strange how this moved from Obama to the "free market".

Though one should not get dazzled by the word "free" in Free Market. As it doesnt make one really free. Not the consumer. Definetly not.

I am not saying that Germany is a perfect economy and its far away from a perfect society (actualy German people like it when the bureaucracy makes everything ... which is the reason why Germany has lots of it ... sadly), but the Social market economy as how it originated in west Germany is in my eyes a very good compromise between companies and the consumer were the Gouvernement has a important role representing the people (ideally).

A market without restrictions, namely a "free" market will be a very bad condition for the consumer. Neither to many regulations in the market are good but no one at all are neither a healty evolution. Now I am far away from a professional. But as said if you just let the market allow without any regulations grow in a direction that could be easily dictated by indiviuals like a just big enough company it will not lead to a inherently better market.

As someone said once. Its neither good if a prise is to high or too low. Products of high Quality should not be cheap, and products of low value not expensive.

 

[CriticalCheck]

Two things. The example about "teaching him to fish" doesn't just apply to fishing. It's a generic term for teaching someone what to do. Second, it was a joke. Your response was hardly serious. So I figured I might as well say something with the same under tone.

Finally I'll clear this up again. No one is saying we want a free for all no regulation market. There is a fine line between acceptable regulation and over regulation. We have to decide what that line is. I've been saying that we shouldn't flood it with regulation. We shouldn't let the government hold on our hands through everything.

We DO need laws that make the market fair. Once the market is fair and has all possibilities outlined every person has the ability to make an educated decision. Free market is a market that is controlled by supply and demand. Not one that has no restrictions. One of the things about supply and demand is the scarcity doesn't have to be high for it to be priced for it's quality.

 

[iii]

I have read and wrote enough papers about international political economy theory to understand the concept of the Free Market.

What I was trying to point is that there are allways going to be inderpendences between politics and economy that will distort our beloved supply and demand mantra.

And I get your whole "educate them" argument, but I fail to see any reasonable explanation why the Democrats are the "Fish-Givers" from your point of view.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Cause everyone knows that all democrats are liberal wieners

Talking about sterotypes you know

Just joking you know

 

[CriticalCheck]

I don't think that democrats are bad people. I just think democrats are kind of light with things. Universal health care, better benefits for social security or unemployment. Things like that are what I'm talking about. Why offer that? Can't we agree that if the individual didn't have that safety net they would work harder? I know people can fall on hard times and we should help them but I don't think it should be such a big government thing.

Whoever asked why it went from Obama to Free market. Right now economics is one of the big things we are all speculating about. Why wouldn't it be a very important topic?

Of course there will be some things that distort supply and demand. My point is that we have it why not make it work the best we can? People will NEVER have an economical system that they can be 100% content with. If we have one that we are used to that makes the world go round why not work to get as much contentment out of it as we can?

Maybe your solution to this is giving more power and responsibility to the government. My solution to this is putting more responsibility and accountability in the people. Democrats believe in power of the masses. Many republicans believe in power of the individual.

This connects straight into my long ago point. Wouldn't you rather be one WITH everyone else instead of just one OF everyone else? If we are all individuals who work together we become one moving entity. If we are just one of the people in the pack we roam around within.

I guess the way I see it is if every person was an individual with all the tools to survive then the entire country would benefit so much it would be simply amazing. I'm going to go make some freaking lasagna so if you want a good example of this I'll explain it when I return.

 

[iii]

I can't help myself but republicans like you make me feel like a communist everytime i have a discussion with them, although I consider myself a conservative liberal by German standarts.

Don't get me wrong you have your opinion and its ok and fine, but I have had plenty of these discussions with colleauges of you and all with no result.

I am a bit tired of these ideological trench fights.

 

[CriticalCheck]

Haha. Isn't that what it boils down to in the end?

Ideology.

 

[Sander]

I don't think that democrats are bad people. I just think democrats are kind of light with things. Universal health care, better benefits for social security or unemployment. Things like that are what I'm talking about. Why offer that? Can't we agree that if the individual didn't have that safety net they would work harder? I know people can fall on hard times and we should help them but I don't think it should be such a big government thing.

This is an interesting but typical American outlook. If you look at the many social-democratic countries in Western Europe, this is exactly how it works, and it works very well (in any case, much better than what the US or indeed most 'completely' free market coutnries use).

But it's also a cultural thing, American culture perhaps isn't fit for that kind of government. The problem is that America currently has, in many aspects, a middle-of-the-road system that works worse than either 'extreme'.

Of course there will be some things that distort supply and demand. My point is that we have it why not make it work the best we can? People will NEVER have an economical system that they can be 100% content with. If we have one that we are used to that makes the world go round why not work to get as much contentment out of it as we can?

I was unaware that the current economic system the US employs works, as opposed to collapsing into a huge bowl of shit.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I don't think that democrats are bad people. I just think democrats are kind of light with things. Universal health care, better benefits for social security or unemployment. Things like that are what I'm talking about. Why offer that? Can't we agree that if the individual didn't have that safety net they would work harder? I know people can fall on hard times and we should help them but I don't think it should be such a big government thing.
...

I respect your opinino and I see your point.

Now while I know that you can not use one system and just right away apply it on every nation, particularly not the US. But one thing is remarkable we here in Germany pay a lot less for health care compared to the US and still have better support by it in General. Of course talking here about it all in "relation" not just a straight comparision I know that Germany is 26 times smaller compared directly to the US afterall but with this in mind we still pay less if one takes all the difference in consideration.

We have those "social security" in Germany here aprox for the last 50 or 60 years and it worked for us. I would never want to miss those things in Germany. I am of course talking about the "German" economy here, nothing in relation with the US. What is working for Germany has not to work for the rest of the world of course. Infact certain solutions would be totally inappropiate cause of the differencs in the culture and perception. I heard in Finland they have a extremly well done school system. But I doubt it could be directly used here.

Anyway. What ever now if more or better social security would work for the US or now is a different question. But I definetly dont think that more social safety and support by the gouvernement is inehrently a bad thing. Or that it would lead to "lazy" people working less hard. One should not forget that most people, if not even almost "all" people feel much better with a "good" job in the first place. Now the question is just. Why should someone work in a very hard job with "bad" payment? Obvously, no one would, except he has to do it. But frankly not everyone should be "forced" to do every job for every payment. Its of course a bit more complicated then that, but maybe you get what I mean,

 

[CriticalCheck]

I don't think it is a common American way of thinking or else Ron Paul would be president and we would have changes that support these ideas.

I still think we are spinning our tires pretty hard here. My entire point so far revolves around the idea of independence. It seems like a lot of the rebuttal is simply "Nope. Because it hasn't worked in the past." But I don't see any example of the hypothetical I'm proposing in history.

More than regulation reform I first believe in educating the people. Think of the boy scouts. You get ranked based on merit. You get taught all the things you need to know. Once you are taught all these things you now know the theory of surviving in the wild. You get chances to go on trips to get experience in the practicality of what you learn.

Why wouldn't it make sense to teach people not just History, Math, Economics, but real life lessons in school? I don't think it's that we don't want to do that. I think it's that many people just don't know how to do it.

 

[TyloniusFunk]

Uncanny Wishfull Thinking

Regarding what people are talking about:

Independence is not a normal human ambition, but one acquired through persecution; it is unteachable. "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."


Regarding the topic of this thread:

The economy will not recover this year. Approaching the 2010 midterms will be the worst point before it really starts improving again. (Don't you people know "The Economy" is just an elaborate CIA plot to defraud the Chinese?) This will allow Republican gains to minimize Democratic majorities in the house of representatives allowing Obama the opportunity to coalition build towards real change. Wedge issues will fade; appreciable scientific advances with stem cells and nanotechnology will make frequent headlines; a new impetus of thrift will unlock some of the wasted potential nestled in the technological devices proliferated over the past decade. Looking longer term, spending initiatives in education will reinstate the U.S. amongst the leading world educators as outsourcing dwindles; the health insurance industry will be nationalized based on laws/precedents created in the next two years for the banking industry and Obama will deliver Universal Healthcare* six months before his successful reelection. After that, it's all up to chance. Oh, and, by the way, George W. Bush will host his own baseball talk show.

*Definitions of Universal may differ from person to person.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I don't think it is a common American way of thinking or else Ron Paul would be president and we would have changes that support these ideas.

I still think we are spinning our tires pretty hard here. My entire point so far revolves around the idea of independence. It seems like a lot of the rebuttal is simply "Nope. Because it hasn't worked in the past." But I don't see any example of the hypothetical I'm proposing in history.
....

I doubt less social security would make people more "Indpeneded" if that is what you mean. Again I can only judge with my mindset that is minted from a "German" point of view in social structurs and economy. We as Germans are usualy extremly proud about our "freedom" and "rights" we are usualy know as super liberal ... of some sort.

To say it that way removing of the social rights would mean for me as well removing the indpenendence. People eventuely worry more about their job then life making decisions not for them self and in favour for their family but anyting to keep their job. It already starts to happen here. And that is a extremly bad evolution. Its not so much to take away from people the ability to "think for them self" but about to have them a network of safety in some way that prevents them from thinking about "nothing else" then how to survive. I know a few people that had bad luck and need fight for their survival. They have been pushed out from their company after accidents which left them heavily handicaped and sadly cause of a few bureaucratic issues they have to fight for every penny to speak so cause a few laws have been "tightened" as some believed it just is wasted money. They have now no time or even power anymore to work for a new training that might help to get a job they can do regardless of the handicap. And from where to get the money for it anyway? Since most of it is either for food, the apartment or the children. That has nothing to do with indepence in my eyes. Its pushing people in dependence.

...
Why wouldn't it make sense to teach people not just History, Math, Economics, but real life lessons in school? I don't think it's that we don't want to do that. I think it's that many people just don't know how to do it.

Nothing wrong about that. And can only agree with.

 

[CriticalCheck]

I understand that some people can fall on hard times and that is outside of their power. I'm not saying they shouldn't have anything for those people. People with disability are completely separate from a physically and mentally healthy person when it comes to social programs.

A few things I would purpose would be a work fair system and unemployment handled on a state or local level to insure that the compensation would be enough for that place.

 

[aronsearle]

I'm sorry, but lol. You just invalidated your own argument. No country has striven for small government as much as the US has consistently for 20 years - even the Clinton administration was barely a break in that. No country has accrued a debt as massively or run national fiscal policy as badly as the US (well, except some corrupt African countries I guess). Over those 20 years of striving for small government and being led by "fiscal conservatives", you've quadrupled your national debt

The UK has something stupid like 300% GDP of debt, and a large intrusive government.

The US has striven for small government.

maybe all this proves is that it is not the size that matters but what you do with it :boom boom: