Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[skeptik]

No. Not necessarily anyway. I figured somebody would ask that. But no.

 

[Dak]

Pragmatic meaning looking at things that are actually possible and going with the best of all logical and realistic possibilities. There are times when holding out for an ideal too long without compromise does more to jeopardize the realistic possibility of that ideal ever coming to fruition than it is to acknowledge that there are steps that need to be taken to get there first.

Ok, I can agree with that. But I have seen almost no compromising steps to less government in my lifetime. Tons of laws need to come off the books, beaurocracies dismantled, taxes removed etc.

Current political compromise has amounted to the equivalent of "give us your wallet and I let you live" back alley mugging "compromise", or "do you want half a bag, or a whole bag of shit". Compromise involves each side getting something they want, and the less government side hasn't gotten that in years.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

No. Not necessarily anyway. I figured somebody would ask that. But no.

Just checking.

 

[skeptik]

Ok, I can agree with that. But I have seen almost no compromising steps to less government in my lifetime. Tons of laws need to come off the books, beaurocracies dismantled, taxes removed etc.

Current political compromise has amounted to the equivalent of "give us your wallet and I let you live" back alley mugging "compromise", or "do you want half a bag, or a whole bag of shit". Compromise involves each side getting something they want, and the less government side hasn't gotten that in years.

You mean the Republicans have been lying to us? I guess the government doesn't get smaller just by campaigning on a platform of smaller government...those bastards!

 

[Dak]

You mean the Republicans have been lying to us? I guess the government doesn't get smaller just by campaigning on a platform of smaller government...those bastards!

Who are you talking to?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I found this interesting since I don't follow the Chinese economy much. Maybe someone better informed than I can help me understand it better.

China has now become the biggest risk to the world economy

Far from taking over as the engine of growth from an exhausted West, China is making matters worse. Its "beggar-thy-neighbour" policies continue to play havoc with global trade and risk tipping the world into a second leg of the Great Recession.

"The inherent problems of the international economic system have not been fully addressed," said China's president Hu Jintao. Indeed not. China is still exporting overcapacity to the rest of us on a grand scale, with deflationary consequences.

While some fret about liquidity-driven inflation, Justin Lin, World Bank chief economist, said the greater danger is that record levels of idle plant almost everywhere will feed a downward spiral of job cuts and corporate busts. "I'm more worried about deflation," he said.

By holding the yuan to 6.83 to the dollar to boost exports, Beijing is dumping its unemployment abroad – "stealing American jobs", says Nobel laureate Paul Krugman. As long as China does it, other tigers must do it too.

Western capitalists are complicit, of course. They rent cheap workers and cheap plant in Guangdong, then lobby Capitol Hill to prevent Congress doing anything about it. This is labour arbitrage.

At some point, American workers will rebel. US unemployment is already 17.5pc under the broad "U6" gauge followed by Barack Obama. Realty Track said that 332,000 properties were foreclosed in October alone. More Americans have lost their homes this year than during the entire decade of the Great Depression. A backlog of 7m homes is awaiting likely seizure by lenders. If you are not paying attention to this political time-bomb, perhaps you should.

President Obama said before going to China this week that Asia can no longer live by shipping goods to Americans already in debt to their ears. "We have reached one of those rare inflection points in history where we have the opportunity to take a different path," he said. Failure to take that path will "put enormous strains" on America's ties to China. Is that a threat?

It is fashionable to talk of America as the supplicant. That misreads the strategic balance. Washington can bring China to its knees at any time by shutting markets. There is no symmetry here. Any move by Beijing to liquidate its holdings of US Treasuries could be neutralized – in extremis – by capital controls. Well-armed sovereign states can do whatever they want.

If provoked, the US has the economic depth to retreat into near autarky (with NAFTA) and retool its industries behind tariff walls – as Britain did in the 1930s under Imperial Preference. In such circumstances, China would collapse. Mao statues would be toppled by street riots.

Mr Hu sounded conciliatory last week. China is taking "vigorous" steps to cut reliance on exports, still 39pc of GDP. "We want to increase people's ability to spend," he said.

Beijing is indeed boosting pensions and extending health insurance to the countryside so that people feel less need to save, but cultural revolutions take time. All we have seen so far are "baby steps", says Morgan Stanley's Stephen Roach.

The reality is that much of Beijing's $600bn stimulus has been spent building yet more plant and infrastructure so that China can ship yet more goods, or has leaked into property and stocks.

Credit has exploded. Allocated by Maoist bosses for political purposes, it has become absurd. China is rolling as much steel as the next eight producers combined. It is churning more cement than the rest of the world. Fixed investment is up 53pc this year. Once you know that Hunan authorities have torn down two miles of modern flyway so that they can soak up stimulus by building it again, or that the newly-built city of Ordos is sitting empty in Inner Mongolia, you know what must come next.

Pivot Asset Management said lending has touched 140pc of GDP, "well beyond" levels that have led to crises in the past. With the revolution's 60th birthday out of the way, the central bank has begun to tighten. New yuan loans halved in October. So be careful. Pivot said a hard-landing in China could prove as traumatic for world markets as the US sub-prime crash.

The world economy is still skating on thin ice. The West is sated with debt, the East with plant. The crisis has been contained (or masked) by zero rates and a fiscal blast, trashing sovereign balance sheets. But the core problem remains. The Anglo-sphere and Club Med are tightening belts, yet Asia is not adding enough demand to compensate. It is adding supply.

My view is that markets are still in denial about the structural wreckage of the credit bubble. There are two more boils to lance: China's investment bubble; and Europe's banking cover-up. I fear that only then can we clear the rubble and, very slowly, start a fresh cycle.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...me-the-biggest-risk-to-the-world-economy.html

 

[Dak]

If provoked, the US has the economic depth to retreat into near autarky (with NAFTA) and retool its industries behind tariff walls

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED TO DO! After bringing all our military assets home.

 

[skeptik]

Who are you talking to?

I was making a joke about the fraud that the Republican party is actually for small government. 'Twas meant to be funny.

 

[Dak]

I was making a joke about the fraud that the Republican party is actually for small government.

WELL DER!...........Just kidding.

 

[cookiecutter]

The short-sightedness and niavety in these sentences speak volumes.

lol stop talking to me

Pragmatic meaning looking at things that are actually possible and going with the best of all logical and realistic possibilities. There are times when holding out for an ideal too long without compromise does more to jeopardize the realistic possibility of that ideal ever coming to fruition than it is to acknowledge that there are steps that need to be taken to get there first.

I tl;dred the rest of this thread but I did like this post.

And vihris what I meant Libertarianism when I said unreasonable and unrealistic (or whatever the exact quote was). As a political philosophy it is on the margins of American political life and from what I can tell it is even worse off in Europe. This lets Libertarians attack the imperfect system of either the left or the right, but be invulnerable because their ideas are purely theoretical. We haven't experienced the trauma of massive welfare cuts and all the crazy shit libertarians talk about so it's hard to criticize. Dakryn or Cythraul can say "Bush increased the debt, Obama bailed out the banks" but there have been no successful libertarian politicians to criticize.

I think this phenomenon probably has something to do with Ron Paul's popularity but that's just speculation.

 

[Dak]

lol stop talking to me

Way to back up your position. Wonder why I said what I did? I will tell although I know you don't care anyway.

He wants to pass some sort of health care bill. He wants to withdraw from Iraq.

#1. "Some Sort". So who cares how shitty it is as it's "some sort" of health care bill. You obviously don't. Next to utter laziness. V5 asked me why I am still in the US, I would ask you the same but you aren't (yeah yeah I know, just for college).

#2. Well of course he needs to pull troops from Iraq, because they are needed to fight other needless wars of aggression. Our military policies haven't changed one damn bit under Obama, easily evidenced if through nothing else than by him keeping ROBERT FUCKING GATES.

As a political philosophy it is on the margins of American political life

Yeah, the principles of the Founders of a country are on the margins. Fucking fantastic (/sarcasm), although I won't exactly disagree. However, that margin is growing, as neocon and socialistic agendas prove suicidal.

and from what I can tell it is even worse off in Europe.

Ever consider that it is because of the history of monarchies/oligarchies and dictatorships that the people haven't even been in a position to consider or champion libertarianism?

However, as soon as some Europeans got a few thousand miles away from the oligarchies (prior to the industrial age), guess what happened?

I think this phenomenon probably has something to do with Ron Paul's popularity but that's just speculation.

 

[-CC-]

This thread is full of fail.

 

[cookiecutter]

Dak, it's 2am and I still don't know whether to respond seriously or continue trolling you. I'll figure it out tomorrow I guess.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

While you're at it, go back over my previous post and tell me if you still feel Obama is "all you've got" for a Presidential candidate.

 

[Blind Guardian]

Do you think voting for minor or independent politicians is an example of jeopardizing the realistic possibility of progress by holding out for an ideal?

I've been thinking about this. I've been voting for my ideal party, however this is a minor party, part of a bloc which I'm not fond of at all, with the exception of this particular party. Some would say that I'm throwing my vote away. Still I think that if you simply consider yourself a "realist", you wouldn't bother voting in the first place, because after all your single vote doesn't tip any scales. I say always aim for your ideals, voting is meant as a demonstration of ideals in the first place.

 

[Dak]

I've been thinking about this. I've been voting for my ideal party, however this is a minor party, part of a bloc which I'm not fond of at all, with the exception of this particular party. Some would say that I'm throwing my vote away. Still I think that if you simply consider yourself a "realist", you wouldn't bother voting in the first place, because after all your single vote doesn't tip any scales. I say always aim for your ideals, voting is meant as a demonstration of ideals in the first place.

Where is my "standing ovation" emoticon?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

More on how "some sort of health care bill" may end up more disastrous for us than the already-broken health care system we've got:

Health 'Reform' Gets a Failing Grade

Our health-care system suffers from problems of cost, access and quality, and needs major reform. Tax policy drives employment-based insurance; this begets overinsurance and drives costs upward while creating inequities for the unemployed and self-employed. A regulatory morass limits innovation. And deep flaws in Medicare and Medicaid drive spending without optimizing care.

Speeches and news reports can lead you to believe that proposed congressional legislation would tackle the problems of cost, access and quality. But that's not true. The various bills do deal with access by expanding Medicaid and mandating subsidized insurance at substantial cost—and thus addresses an important social goal. However, there are no provisions to substantively control the growth of costs or raise the quality of care. So the overall effort will fail to qualify as reform.

I did some quick reading on the Massachusetts health care reform the above guy refers to, and came across this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Care_in_Massachusetts#Outcomes

In February 2008 the Boston Globe reported that Commonwealth Care covered 169,000 people and had a projected cost of $618 million for the fiscal year. By June 2011 enrollment is projected to grow to 342,000 people at an annual expense of $1.35 billion. The original projections were for the program to ultimately cover approximately 215,000 people at a cost of $725 million.

In March 2008 the Boston Globe reported that some "safety-net" hospitals serving low-income individuals in urban areas were facing budget shortfalls due to the combination of reduced "free-care" payments from the state and low enrollment in Commonwealth Care. The reduced state payments anticipated that by reducing the number of uninsured people Commonwealth Care would reduce the amount of charity care provided by hospitals. In a subsequent story that same month the Globe reported that Commonwealth Care faced a short-term funding gap of $100 million and the need to obtain a new three-year funding commitment from the federal government of $1.5 billion. The Globe reported that a number of alternatives were under consideration for raising additional funding, including a $1 per pack increase in the state's cigarette tax. Health care costs in the state were rising at an annual rate of 10 percent, and the state budget deficit was $1.3 billion.

So yeah, it's going to take more than just "Universal Health Care" to steer our health system out of the shitter. It's going to take an actual effort at controlling costs (aside from, you know, just cutting coverage short). Considering how much bullshitting is going on in Congress over this bill, we could easily end up worse than before with this wonderful new 'reform' we're getting.

 

[Dak]

Obama warns of double dip recession

The president is in Beijing as part of his tour through several Asian countries to address economic challenges. He spoke candidly about the precarious balancing act his administration is trying to perform. He wants to spend money to kick-start the economy, but at the same time is in danger of creating too much red ink.

Obama warned the United States' climbing national debt could drag the country into a "double-dip recession," though he said he's still considering additional tax incentives for businesses to reverse the rising unemployment rate.

"There may be some tax provisions that can encourage businesses to hire sooner rather than sitting on the sidelines. So we're taking a look at those," Obama told Fox News' Major Garrett.

"I think it is important, though, to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession."

Talk about speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

 

[cookiecutter]

While you're at it, go back over my previous post and tell me if you still feel Obama is "all you've got" for a Presidential candidate.

Yes because the US does not have proportional representation or coalitions so a third party candidate will not win. The 2000 election springs to mind.

 

[skeptik]

While you're at it, go back over my previous post and tell me if you still feel Obama is "all you've got" for a Presidential candidate.

Can you clarify what you mean by this? I mean, if you're saying "I go into the voting booth and I see an option for Obama, but I also see an option for several other people," then obviously you're right. But if you mean to suggest that one could realistically hope for the election of the Constitution or Socialist party's candidate, then I'm going to have to disagree. When is the last time a United States president has come from outside the current mode of the two-party system? There is a very real sense in which, for those who lean toward the left, Obama is "all you've got," with respect to the presidency. Surely you can at least agree that McCain was not a better option for said person? Beyond that, I don't really know what you mean when you fault cookiecutter's statement, and I'd like you to elaborate and explain what you meant by it.