Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Butcher on February 06, 2012, 11:44:26 AM
-
edited
-
Nothing would make me happier then Hugo Chavez getting whacked around by the British military... Except for maybe Israel smacking around Iran a bit.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2096978/Falkland-Islands-Venezuela-threatens-Britain-Hugo-Chavez-vows-Argentina.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2096978/Falkland-Islands-Venezuela-threatens-Britain-Hugo-Chavez-vows-Argentina.html)
Venezuela threatens Britain over Falklands as its president vows to side with Argentina
Inflammatory promise comes in run-up to 30th anniversary of 1982 conflict
Foreign Secretary insist deployment of warship and Prince William is 'entirely routine'
By MAIL FOREIGN SERVICE
Last updated at 12:58 AM on 6th February 2012
Comments (487)
Share
Venezuela's left-wing president has raised the stakes over the Falkland Islands by pledging his armed forces would fight alongside Argentina in any conflict with Britain.
The inflammatory promise from Hugo Chavez came in the run-up to the 30th anniversary of the April 1982 invasion of the islands by Argentina.
At the same time, Foreign Secretary William Hague insisted the deployment of a British warship and Prince William to the Falklands was ‘entirely routine’.
I guess Venezuela and Argentina think Britain would be alone in this conflict I mean after all Australia, Canada, and the United states are no way going to react to a threat to Britain. Nope none!
Britain wouldn't need our help or anyone else's to stomp both countries into the ground. :lol
-
Much like the last time, the Royal Navy will completely shut down these countries with a TEZ. After 2 months of no imports or exports, even without ground support, it will be over.
I predict a bunch of Royal Navy submarines returning to port with a broom and a pirate flag run from the extended periscope.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/readers/2011/02/01/foto201_1.jpg)
-
Good topic but IN!
-
Good topic but IN!
Yeah just re-read the article, better to leave it blank and delete it.
-
its just posturing for their domestic politics. they should know that trying to take the falklands again would be A Very Bad Idea.
-
Good topic but IN!
ditto
:cheers: Oz
-
I still dont really follow the logic of restricting oil sales to the UK to try to force us to give up a territory which ... has 60m barrel oil reserves.
huh? :headscratch:
-
LOL! how is Venezuela going to get its troops over there? I don't think their navy has that many row boats.
ack-ack
-
Nothing would make me happier then Hugo Chavez getting whacked around by the British military... Except for maybe Israel smacking around Iran a bit.
Hugo Chavez is president of Venezuela
Cristina Fernández is the president of Argentina
-
LOL! how is Venezuela going to get its troops over there? I don't think their navy has that many row boats.
ack-ack
A while back they were giving the Russians a huge discount on oil in return the russians got to parade a few old warships around on a training mission with the Venezuelans. What I do know is they have 6 thrown away missile frigates from the Italian navy. I think they were commissioned in the early 80s, they come with a handful of SSM's and a few surface to air missiles.
A handful of Diesel submarines, I would say Kilo class since Russia has been giving them away for years to anyone that wants them.
The Russian navy wasn't to happy with the exercise, basically they found out quick the Venezuelan Navy couldn't row a boat straight let alone join them in a military exercise, I believe it was ended after 3 days.
One the Frigates was suppose to be attacked by an Northrop F-5 (yes this is their primary attack plane..stop laughin!)
Anyhow the Frigate forgot to turn on its Air Search radar, and ended up being sunk in the war game, as well as one of the Submarines suppose to ambush the russian guided missile destroyer - ran aground on coral reef.
I am curious if Venz is ever going to sell those F-16s to Iran, it was mentioned a while back and Venz basically blew it off as a joke saying they'd sell whatever they want. Not sure what threat the US made towards that deal, however I know the US doesn't allow the sale of its equiptment to other countries and must be expressly written for it.
Sure as hell know they won't allow Venz to sell it to Iran, curious what the US would do if they tried - I am guessing intercept the ship sent to pick them up.
-
Sure as hell know they won't allow Venz to sell it to Iran, curious what the US would do if they tried - I am guessing intercept the ship sent to pick them up.
I'd love to see film of that - the insertion team would have to be half seals, half lawyers specialising in international contract and maritime law :lol
-
Sure as hell know they won't allow Venz to sell it to Iran, curious what the US would do if they tried - I am guessing intercept the ship sent to pick them up.
We'd probably do nothing, I highly doubt Venezuala or Iran have the capability to maintain those F-16's without U.S. aid and support. And selling them off would alienate their supply of replacement parts. The F-16's would become hangar queens within a couple of years just doing regular maintainence. Even with BVR weapon systems and the birds and training to use them, I'll place my bet on American Fighter Pilots over anyone else in the world any day of the week. :airplane:
I'd love to see film of that - the insertion team would have to be half seals, half lawyers specialising in international contract and maritime law
Hit it in the middle of the atlantic crossing with a torpedo, blame it on the Bermuda Triangle having gone on vacation for a couple days. :noid
-
Nothing would make me happier then Hugo Chavez getting whacked around by the British military... Except for maybe Israel smacking around Iran a bit.
Why would want that to happen? Do you even know the guy...?
Oh that's right, just another sheep buying the western media bull hook line and sinker...
-
The history of excessive monetary policy is almost always war. The more things change, the more they stay the same. This cycle of failed monetary policy leading to war goes back many centuries. It is a european game played like a symphany, orchestra or a Super Bowl winning New York Giants drive.
Boo
PS I highly doubt war happens over the Falklands though give it 8-10 years, a big time war is brewing. And I'm not talking some little Iraq thing.
-
Excessive monetary policy in what direction, exactly? Low inflation or high inflation? Isn't money as it stands today a rather recent invention, which would bar it from explaining things like 1066 or the Conquistadores' war against the Aztecs?
-Penguin
-
haha, its power and the retention of = )
-
Why would want that to happen? Do you even know the guy...?
Oh that's right, just another sheep buying the western media bull hook line and sinker...
Perhaps you should do some in depth research on the guy and re-educate those of us who know a thing or two about the socialist-elite? In the interim, I'll keep what I know of him, and my information about him comes from sources far more reliable that any news media can provide, I will take what I know of him and maintain my current position on the socialist dicktator which is of exactly as he as earned: a little man in charge of a poor country trying to show his might by shooting his mouth off when in actuality he is just trying to hide his 2 inch (when erect) tallywacker.
-
If it gets hot, I hope that the Brits let the U.S. help out some this time.
-
lol. classic little men syndrome. they know they're small but wanna talk big to a bigger guy. but before long they get their jaw slapped clean off their face and run away..I can see that happening here
-
I predict a thread lock IN 5, 4, 3, 2morrow morning.
-
One the Frigates was suppose to be attacked by an Northrop F-5 (yes this is their primary attack plane..stop laughin!)
The Argies proved at great cost that an A-4 armed with general purpose bombs can still sink naval assets
If it gets hot, I hope that the Brits let the U.S. help out some this time.
The US helped last time
Tronsky
-
Hugo Chavez is president of Venezuela
Cristina Fernández is the president of Argentina
I'm guessing you didn't read the article.
ack-ack
-
Excessive monetary policy in what direction, exactly? Low inflation or high inflation? Isn't money as it stands today a rather recent invention, which would bar it from explaining things like 1066 or the Conquistadores' war against the Aztecs?
-Penguin
Gold was the reason for the Cortez and his conquistadors in conquering the Aztec empire and for other Spaniard and Portugese adventurers doing the same in the New World. He who has the gold...
ack-ack
-
If it gets hot, I hope that the Brits let the U.S. help out some this time.
We did help out the last time. We let the Brits use our base in the Azores to launch their bombing missions out of, we also supplied them with munitions and intelligence (communication intercepts and satellite intelligence).
ack-ack
-
Gold was the reason for the Cortez and his conquistadors in conquering the Aztec empire and for other Spaniard and Portugese adventurers doing the same in the New World. He who has the gold...
ack-ack
That still doesn't answer my question. Men have done bad things throughout history for money, sex, and power. I still don't see what monetary policy has to do with it.
-Penguin
-
I'm guessing you didn't read the article.
ack-ack
The Article was removed by the OP.
-
I still don't see what monetary policy has to do with it.
-Penguin
Because you're either blind or choose not to see it.
ack-ack
-
I personally think that since the Soviets, the Iranians and the Chinese all have next generation reverse engineered variants of the Exocet missile, any full blown wars with naval power are going to be VERY interesting this century.
-
Nothing would make me happier then Hugo Chavez getting whacked around by the British military... Except for maybe Israel smacking around Iran a bit.
Few things would make me happier than for the US to stop being Israel's little b itch :old:
You may want to remember:
- Last Spring, Rose Gottemoeller, an assistant secretary of state and Washington's chief nuclear arms negotiator, asked Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel refused.
- The United Nations passed a resolution calling on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to submit to inspections. Israel refused.
- The IAEA asked Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to submit to inspections. Israel refused.
- Iran's formal notification to the IAEA of the planned construction of the backup fuel-rod facility underscores that Iran is playing by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which Iran has signed.
- Iran allows IAEA inspections of all its facilities.
- The IAEA and all 16 United States Intelligence Agencies are unanimous in agreement that Iran is not building and does not possess nuclear weapons.
- In 1986, Mordachai Vanunu blew the whistle and provided photographs showing Israel's clandestine nuclear weapons factory underneath the reactor at Dimona.
- Israel made the same accusations against Iraq that it is making against Iran, leading up to Israel's bombing of the power station at Osirik. Following the invasion of 2003, international experts examined the ruins of the power station at Osirik and found no evidence of a clandestine weapons factory in the rubble.
- The United Nations has just released the Goldstone Report, a scathing report which accuses Israel of 37 specific war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza earlier this year. Israel has denounced the report as "Anti-Semitic (even though Judge Goldstone is himself Jewish, but a common response to any kind of criticism against Israel).
Since the 1979 Iranian revolution and the downfall of the US Puppet Ruler the Shah, Iran has been an Islamic state. In that interval of time, 1979 to the present, Iran has not invaded anyone. Not once. People of all religions live in peace in Iran, even Jews, who find life so comfortable in Iran they refused an offer by the government of Israel to emigrate!
In the same period of time, Israel, a self-declared Jewish state,
- attacked Iraq in 1981, bombing the power station at Osirik, claiming it was a clandestine weapons factory. Subsequent examination of the ruins following the 2003 invasion proved Israel had lied.
- In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon. This led to the Massacres at Sabra and Shatilla.
- In February 2003 Israel staged incursions into Gaza and Nablus.
- In September 2007 Israel bombed Syria, again insisting they were destroying a clandestine weapons laboratory. Again there was no evidence to support Israel's claims.
- In 2006, Israel attacked Lebanon, killing 1200, mostly civilians, several UN observers, and littering the landscape with land mines on their way out.
- In February 2008 Israel again raided Gaza, killing over 100. HAMAS agreed to a cease fire and kept it for 6 months until November 4, when Israel again attacked without warning, killing 6 HAMAS members, and launching operation CAST LEAD. 1300 Gazans, mostly civilians, were killed. Israel lost 13 soldiers. Violations of international law included the use of White Phosphorus incendiary bombs against civilians and non-military targets. The United Nations investigated, but Israel refused to cooperate.
- In May 2010, Israel attacked an international aid flotilla bringing food and medical supplies to Gaza in international waters. 9 people were murdered including an American from New York.
In the same period of time, the United States, officially a secular nation but predominantly Christian, attacked El Salvador (1980), Libya (1981), Sinai (1982), Lebanon (1982 1983), Egypt (1983), Grenada (1983), Honduras (1983), Chad (1983), Persian Gulf (1984), Libya (1986) , Bolivia (1986), Iran (1987), Persian Gulf (1987), Kuwait (1987), Iran (1988), Honduras (1988), Panama (1988), Libya (1989), Panama (1989), Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru (1989), Philippines (1989), Panama (1989-1990), Liberia (1990), Saudi Arabia (1990), Iraq (1991), Zaire (1991), Sierra Leone (1992), Somalia (1992), Bosnia-Herzegovina (1993 to present), Macedonia (1993), Haiti (1994), Macedonia (1994), Bosnia (1995), Liberia (1996), Central African Republic (1996), Albania (1997), Congo/Gabon (1997), Sierra Leon (1997), Cambodia (1997), Iraq (1998), Guinea/Bissau (1998), Kenya/Tanzania (1998 to 1999), Afghanistan/Sudan (1998), Liberia (1998), East Timor (1999), Serbia (1999), Sierra Leon (2000), Yemen (2000), East Timor (2000), Afghanistan (2001 to present), Yemen (2002), Philippines (2002) , Cote d'Ivoire (2002), Iraq (2003 to present), Liberia (2003), Georgia/Djibouti (2003), Haiti (2004), Georgia/Djibouti/Kenya/Ethiopia/Yemen/Eritrea War on Terror (2004), Pakistan drone attacks (2004 to present), Somalia (2007), South Ossetia/Georgia (2008), Syria (2008), Yemen (2009), etc. etc. etc. etc.
So, who is the danger to world peace?
-
Don't forget the bombing of the US Marine barracks in Beirut or the Liberty Incident... aside from students storming the US Embassy, to my knowledge Iran has never attacked the United States in a military fashion. The same can't be said about our Allies...
-
The Argies proved at great cost that an A-4 armed with general purpose bombs can still sink naval assets
The US helped last time
Tronsky
The A4s were shot down in droves because they all assigned as bombers.
They approached my dad to work as an advisor on the a4 before the war broke out since he has 1000 hours in type but he wisely stayed put in naval reserve and delta air lines.
If the argentines had used a pure fighter loadout with missiles and guns on a few, the harriers would have had big trouble.
-
So, who is the danger to world peace?
Here is a short list of those that were...........
El Salvador (1980), Libya (1981), Sinai (1982), Lebanon (1982 1983), Egypt (1983), Grenada (1983), Honduras (1983), Chad (1983), Persian Gulf (1984), Libya (1986) , Bolivia (1986), Iran (1987), Persian Gulf (1987), Kuwait (1987), Iran (1988), Honduras (1988), Panama (1988), Libya (1989), Panama (1989), Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru (1989), Philippines (1989), Panama (1989-1990), Liberia (1990), Saudi Arabia (1990), Iraq (1991), Zaire (1991), Sierra Leone (1992), Somalia (1992), Bosnia-Herzegovina (1993 to present), Macedonia (1993), Haiti (1994), Macedonia (1994), Bosnia (1995), Liberia (1996), Central African Republic (1996), Albania (1997), Congo/Gabon (1997), Sierra Leon (1997), Cambodia (1997), Iraq (1998), Guinea/Bissau (1998), Kenya/Tanzania (1998 to 1999), Afghanistan/Sudan (1998), Liberia (1998), East Timor (1999), Serbia (1999), Sierra Leon (2000), Yemen (2000), East Timor (2000), Afghanistan (2001 to present), Yemen (2002), Philippines (2002) , Cote d'Ivoire (2002), Iraq (2003 to present), Liberia (2003), Georgia/Djibouti (2003), Haiti (2004), Georgia/Djibouti/Kenya/Ethiopia/Yemen/Eritrea War on Terror (2004), Pakistan drone attacks (2004 to present), Somalia (2007), South Ossetia/Georgia (2008), Syria (2008), Yemen (2009), etc. etc. etc. etc.
:aok
-
Here is a short list of those that were...........
El Salvador (1980), Libya (1981), Sinai (1982), Lebanon (1982 1983), Egypt (1983), Grenada (1983), Honduras (1983), Chad (1983), Persian Gulf (1984), Libya (1986) , Bolivia (1986), Iran (1987), Persian Gulf (1987), Kuwait (1987), Iran (1988), Honduras (1988), Panama (1988), Libya (1989), Panama (1989), Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru (1989), Philippines (1989), Panama (1989-1990), Liberia (1990), Saudi Arabia (1990), Iraq (1991), Zaire (1991), Sierra Leone (1992), Somalia (1992), Bosnia-Herzegovina (1993 to present), Macedonia (1993), Haiti (1994), Macedonia (1994), Bosnia (1995), Liberia (1996), Central African Republic (1996), Albania (1997), Congo/Gabon (1997), Sierra Leon (1997), Cambodia (1997), Iraq (1998), Guinea/Bissau (1998), Kenya/Tanzania (1998 to 1999), Afghanistan/Sudan (1998), Liberia (1998), East Timor (1999), Serbia (1999), Sierra Leon (2000), Yemen (2000), East Timor (2000), Afghanistan (2001 to present), Yemen (2002), Philippines (2002) , Cote d'Ivoire (2002), Iraq (2003 to present), Liberia (2003), Georgia/Djibouti (2003), Haiti (2004), Georgia/Djibouti/Kenya/Ethiopia/Yemen/Eritrea War on Terror (2004), Pakistan drone attacks (2004 to present), Somalia (2007), South Ossetia/Georgia (2008), Syria (2008), Yemen (2009), etc. etc. etc. etc.
:aok
:rofl
-
Few things would make me happier than for the US to stop being Israel's little b itch :old:
You may want to remember:
- Last Spring, Rose Gottemoeller, an assistant secretary of state and Washington's chief nuclear arms negotiator, asked Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel refused.
- The United Nations passed a resolution calling on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to submit to inspections. Israel refused.
- The IAEA asked Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to submit to inspections. Israel refused.
- Iran's formal notification to the IAEA of the planned construction of the backup fuel-rod facility underscores that Iran is playing by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which Iran has signed.
- Iran allows IAEA inspections of all its facilities.
- The IAEA and all 16 United States Intelligence Agencies are unanimous in agreement that Iran is not building and does not possess nuclear weapons.
- In 1986, Mordachai Vanunu blew the whistle and provided photographs showing Israel's clandestine nuclear weapons factory underneath the reactor at Dimona.
- Israel made the same accusations against Iraq that it is making against Iran, leading up to Israel's bombing of the power station at Osirik. Following the invasion of 2003, international experts examined the ruins of the power station at Osirik and found no evidence of a clandestine weapons factory in the rubble.
- The United Nations has just released the Goldstone Report, a scathing report which accuses Israel of 37 specific war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza earlier this year. Israel has denounced the report as "Anti-Semitic (even though Judge Goldstone is himself Jewish, but a common response to any kind of criticism against Israel).
Since the 1979 Iranian revolution and the downfall of the US Puppet Ruler the Shah, Iran has been an Islamic state. In that interval of time, 1979 to the present, Iran has not invaded anyone. Not once. People of all religions live in peace in Iran, even Jews, who find life so comfortable in Iran they refused an offer by the government of Israel to emigrate!
In the same period of time, Israel, a self-declared Jewish state,
- attacked Iraq in 1981, bombing the power station at Osirik, claiming it was a clandestine weapons factory. Subsequent examination of the ruins following the 2003 invasion proved Israel had lied.
- In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon. This led to the Massacres at Sabra and Shatilla.
- In February 2003 Israel staged incursions into Gaza and Nablus.
- In September 2007 Israel bombed Syria, again insisting they were destroying a clandestine weapons laboratory. Again there was no evidence to support Israel's claims.
- In 2006, Israel attacked Lebanon, killing 1200, mostly civilians, several UN observers, and littering the landscape with land mines on their way out.
- In February 2008 Israel again raided Gaza, killing over 100. HAMAS agreed to a cease fire and kept it for 6 months until November 4, when Israel again attacked without warning, killing 6 HAMAS members, and launching operation CAST LEAD. 1300 Gazans, mostly civilians, were killed. Israel lost 13 soldiers. Violations of international law included the use of White Phosphorus incendiary bombs against civilians and non-military targets. The United Nations investigated, but Israel refused to cooperate.
- In May 2010, Israel attacked an international aid flotilla bringing food and medical supplies to Gaza in international waters. 9 people were murdered including an American from New York.
In the same period of time, the United States, officially a secular nation but predominantly Christian, attacked El Salvador (1980), Libya (1981), Sinai (1982), Lebanon (1982 1983), Egypt (1983), Grenada (1983), Honduras (1983), Chad (1983), Persian Gulf (1984), Libya (1986) , Bolivia (1986), Iran (1987), Persian Gulf (1987), Kuwait (1987), Iran (1988), Honduras (1988), Panama (1988), Libya (1989), Panama (1989), Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru (1989), Philippines (1989), Panama (1989-1990), Liberia (1990), Saudi Arabia (1990), Iraq (1991), Zaire (1991), Sierra Leone (1992), Somalia (1992), Bosnia-Herzegovina (1993 to present), Macedonia (1993), Haiti (1994), Macedonia (1994), Bosnia (1995), Liberia (1996), Central African Republic (1996), Albania (1997), Congo/Gabon (1997), Sierra Leon (1997), Cambodia (1997), Iraq (1998), Guinea/Bissau (1998), Kenya/Tanzania (1998 to 1999), Afghanistan/Sudan (1998), Liberia (1998), East Timor (1999), Serbia (1999), Sierra Leon (2000), Yemen (2000), East Timor (2000), Afghanistan (2001 to present), Yemen (2002), Philippines (2002) , Cote d'Ivoire (2002), Iraq (2003 to present), Liberia (2003), Georgia/Djibouti (2003), Haiti (2004), Georgia/Djibouti/Kenya/Ethiopia/Yemen/Eritrea War on Terror (2004), Pakistan drone attacks (2004 to present), Somalia (2007), South Ossetia/Georgia (2008), Syria (2008), Yemen (2009), etc. etc. etc. etc.
So, who is the danger to world peace?
:rofl
I'm trying to think of a word that fits you that I can post here,.... but I cant. All I can do is laugh at you! :lol :rofl
-
Coombz, that's probably most distorted and implausible piece of propaganda I have ever read and that's saying something. How exactly did the US attack, Kuwait, East Timor, Bosnia, Saudi Arabia etc. I definitely remember the Georgia thing. The Americans disguised themselves as Russians so successfully that the Russians still think they invaded. :rofl
I would remind there are other sources than whatever website you got that from! :aok
But what's that got to do with Argentina and Falklands? In any case it's all bluff. The usual guff from a regime in trouble trying to find an external enemy to blame. In any case the Argentine military is so rundown. It couldn't even mount an attack on the Falklands without being massacred. It's all bluff and bluster. They still operate A4s and Mirages, the same ones used in 1982. The Brits have Typhoons. Enough said!
-
"Since the 1979 Iranian revolution and the downfall of the US Puppet Ruler the Shah, Iran has been an Islamic state. In that interval of time, 1979 to the present, Iran has not invaded anyone. Not once. People of all religions live in peace in Iran, even Jews, who find life so comfortable in Iran they refused an offer by the government of Israel to emigrate!"
:headscratch: :bhead :furious
You can't be serious. www.liveleak.com search string IRAN , iran modesty police, iran protest etc.... Dude...wow. You know how many guys are dead or missing limbs because of components manufactured and imported by Iran to Iraq?
"In the same period of time, the United States, officially a secular nation but predominantly Christian, attacked:"
El Salvador (1980) Incorrect. SF aided the gvt of El Salvador
Libya (1981), Yes, in response to incursion to US carrier group in internationally recognized international waters
Sinai (1982), LOZLZ seriously man, you just cant cut and paste from http://www.historyguy.com/use_of_american_military_forces_1981_to_1990.htm, The MFO is MULTINATIONAL... lol MULTINATIONAL.... geez
Lebanon (1982 1983)On August 21, 1982, President Reagan reported the dispatch of 80 marines to serve in the multinational force to assist in the withdrawal of members of the
Palestine Liberation force from Beirut. The Marines left September 20, 1982.
Egypt (1983): After a Libyan plane bombed a city in Sudan on March 18, 1983, and Sudan and Egypt appealed for assistance, the United States dispatched an AWACS electronic surveillance plane to Egypt. CLEARLY ANOTHER ATTACK
Grenada (1983) Cutting off the cuban springboard to Angola.... sucks to be us I suppose.
Honduras (1983):In July 1983 the United States undertook a series of exercises in Honduras that some believed might lead to conflict with Nicaragua CLEARLY ANOTHER ATTACK
Chad (1983): On August 8, 1983, President Reagan reported the deployment of two AWACS electronic surveillance planes and eight F-15 fighter planes and ground logistical
support forces to assist Chad against Libyan and rebel forces. :lol CLEARLY ANOTHER ATTACK
Persian Gulf (1984): On June 5, 1984, Saudi Arabian jet fighter planes :lol , aided by intelligence from a U.S. AWACS electronic surveillance aircraft and fueled by a U.S. KC-10 tanker, shot down two Iranian fighter planes over an area of the Persian Gulf proclaimed as a protected zone for shipping.
Libya (1986) See above, similar incident
Bolivia (1986) U.S. Army personnel and aircraft assisted Bolivia in anti-drug operations :lol
Tired of cutting and pasting:
Attacked:
Panama
Kuwait into southern Iraq
Afghanistan
Iraq
Aided foreign or as part of multinational operation:
Somalia
Balkans
etc....etc... etc....
You have zero credibility following this post. FAIL.
Here is the bottom line coombzy, we have put at risk our treasure and our security, most of the times to benefit our economic interests, but we do have a humanitrian side. The sincere two part question I have for you is this:
Should we intervene in Syria? Why?
Also, I lived in Argentina and South America in and around the Falklands Islands Campaign. I recall the Junta weakening and deciding they needed a war to unify the country and strengthen their position. They picked what they perceived to be a low hanging fruit. A clear illustration of a lack of national resolve, unlike the brits, was their unwillingness to commit their sub or carrier. Anyway.
-
edited for phone spazzery
hmm I should have known that if I put the stuff about the US in it would completely sidetrack things :lol my mistake...I should have just kept it to the Israel vs Iran (which is already off topic enough)
DD, you know a lot more about this stuff than me, and I have a lot of respect for you. So I will put the trolling aside for a short while... ;) Basically I was just trying to point out the hypocrisy in all the US media focus on Iran atm when the actions of your buddy Israel are far more worrying. The media and govt is desperately trying to paint Iran as a big threat, so that you'll do Israel's dirty work for them, when nothing could be further from the truth (and even if they are building nukes, why shouldn't they have them when so many other powers do? Wouldn't you want nukes as a deterrent if Israel and the US were rattling their sabres at you, given their histories?).
I just don't understand why you're giving Israel so much money and using your military to help enact their will in the Middle East - you can probably explain it to me with your superior knowledge :pray further edit: I guess I'm being dense, the obvious answer is that it's because you are allies :bhead
he who sups with the devil should use a long spoon and all that :devil ;)
-
:rofl
I'm trying to think of a word that fits you that I can post here,.... but I cant. All I can do is laugh at you! :lol :rofl
How about SmokinLoon :old:
-
Hugo Chavez will be assassinated by conflicts end....
*Runs from CIA
:noid
-
Coombzy, consider this when thinking of Israel. How long have they possessed nukes? When have they threatened to use them? Has their prescence been a deterrent to attack?
On Iran: I could care less if the Iraninans developed nuclear technology. If they are able to create a viable reactor which generates power despite our attempts to undermine them, so be it. That is certainly a point of national pride for them. If they ever created a viable nuke, the probability of them using it is also pretty slim. They and all surrounding countries are infinately aware that any use of a nuke in the middle east = the economic end for the middle east.
So, lets look at risk vs gamble, risk being something you can mitigate with an action vs a gamble which is a risk which has elements you cannot mitigate:
If Iran posses a nuke, would they be inclined to use it? All their rhetoric says "Yes". Since you cannot mitigate their rhetoric on what your gut is telling you, you have to put steps to take the problem away, which is getting to the nuke. So, sanctions abound.
What is the only thing that would lead Israel to use one of theirs? ^^^^^^^^^^
Remember that even when Israel was backed into a corner, the war stayed conventional. The Tom Clancy book Sum of All Fears was just a book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel
Lets face it, no country is infallible and we americans have a saying, "My country, right or wrong" (a bastardization of a Stephen Decatur toast BTW)
-
:salute
good quote, I think we all have a little bit of that attitude in us
I also like "patriotism is the last resort of scoundrels" *insert shida's pot stirring gif* ;)
-
Few things would make me happier than for the US to stop being Israel's little b itch :old:
Amen brother.
-
:salute
good quote, I think we all have a little bit of that attitude in us
I also like "patriotism is the last resort of scoundrels" *insert shida's pot stirring gif* ;)
It depends on what the patriotism is used for. For instance, if someone says:
"Let's give aid to Tchad! For Old Glordy!" that's quirky, but not a danger. On the other hand, if someone were to say, "Let's nuke Tchad! For Old Glory!" that's clearly whack. However, I've found that moral free agency, even in the face of peer pressure, is preferable to patriotism because you keep your opinions and participate when you agree with the idea (barring legal requirements). Ironically, the notion of moral free agency as a way of life is central to the political system of the US (see Supreme Court rulings such as those on the Pledge of Allegiance). So therefore, at least in the US, saying "my country, right or wrong," is the very antithesis of patriotism because the idea of the US is not to have citizens defer moral judgments to their leaders.
-Penguin
-
I like it when Penguin posts, it makes me sound less pompous :aok
-
Here is a short list of those that were...........
El Salvador (1980), Libya (1981), Sinai (1982), Lebanon (1982 1983), Egypt (1983), Grenada (1983), Honduras (1983), Chad (1983), Persian Gulf (1984), Libya (1986) , Bolivia (1986), Iran (1987), Persian Gulf (1987), Kuwait (1987), Iran (1988), Honduras (1988), Panama (1988), Libya (1989), Panama (1989), Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru (1989), Philippines (1989), Panama (1989-1990), Liberia (1990), Saudi Arabia (1990), Iraq (1991), Zaire (1991), Sierra Leone (1992), Somalia (1992), Bosnia-Herzegovina (1993 to present), Macedonia (1993), Haiti (1994), Macedonia (1994), Bosnia (1995), Liberia (1996), Central African Republic (1996), Albania (1997), Congo/Gabon (1997), Sierra Leon (1997), Cambodia (1997), Iraq (1998), Guinea/Bissau (1998), Kenya/Tanzania (1998 to 1999), Afghanistan/Sudan (1998), Liberia (1998), East Timor (1999), Serbia (1999), Sierra Leon (2000), Yemen (2000), East Timor (2000), Afghanistan (2001 to present), Yemen (2002), Philippines (2002) , Cote d'Ivoire (2002), Iraq (2003 to present), Liberia (2003), Georgia/Djibouti (2003), Haiti (2004), Georgia/Djibouti/Kenya/Ethiopia/Yemen/Eritrea War on Terror (2004), Pakistan drone attacks (2004 to present), Somalia (2007), South Ossetia/Georgia (2008), Syria (2008), Yemen (2009), etc. etc. etc. etc.
:aok
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
I like it when Penguin posts, it makes me sound less pompous :aok
I don't see what's pompous about saying that it's better judge the actions of one's country oneself than simply to defer moral judgment to one's leaders.
-Penguin
-
I don't see what's pompous about saying that it's better judge the actions of one's country oneself than simply to defer moral judgment to one's leaders.
-Penguin
You did miss the entire point of the quote and start pompously giving your opinion on something pretty much irrelevant ;---)
But I forgive you, as you have good spelling and grammar :cheers:
-
Isn't that the point of the quote? Perhaps I misunderstood... care to enlighten me?
-Penguin
-
It's not about whether patriotism is a good thing or a bad thing, the guy was talking about pretend patriotism for the purpose of excusing, or promoting, actions that would otherwise be distasteful to people
that's not a great explanation but I hope you get the gist of it. I'm sure you can look it up somewhere and find a better worded explanation.
-
I thought, and still think, that my post addressed that quite nicely. Perhaps you were thinking of a different quote. I was talking about "my country, right or wrong," not "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel". Perhaps I got the two muddled in my head a bit, but I think you understand what I was saying.
-Penguin
-
Many reasons that lead to war, economics is wrapped in virtually every one of them. 1066 and the Normans, not sure. There are some interesting, deep reads regarding the Spanish empire and the massive influx of Aztec gold and prices in Europe. Inflation raged for almost a century.
Means of exchange have been present in almost all cultures going back a few thousand years. Everything from shells to round rocks, bird feathers, etc. Gold and silver were settled on because the other means of exchange had a tendency to fall apart over time. Gold and silver just need a good shine and voila, back to normal.
Paper as a form of currency actually began with the Knights Templar and the first Crusade to Jerusalem way back when, roughly a thousand years. The Templars kept gold in their castles and in exchange for interest they would give a traveler an encoded receipt in England that could be cashed in Italy, Germany, France, Jerusalem, etc. This protected travelers, enriched the Templars, an order envowed to poverty.
Over time this grew into modern day fiat currency, inflation, fractional banking, bank runs, ruin, excess, war and the whole lot of it. When I use the "excessive monetary policy" don't confuse that for inflation. You have two tools, monetary and fiscal. Too much of one can be a bad thing. We have been in a run world wide for a few decades now, with a massive heap over the last decade. It would seem the devil may be coming due. One way out of this mess is a soft default. Others include war. The bigger the bubble, the bigger the mistake in trying to deflate reality.
Just my two cents.
Boo
-
How about SmokinLoon :old:
Ya know, I'm a smart fellow. I truly am. But for the life of me I can not seem to grasp the concept of what your trying to say. Please elaborate.
-
Many reasons that lead to war, economics is wrapped in virtually every one of them. 1066 and the Normans, not sure. There are some interesting, deep reads regarding the Spanish empire and the massive influx of Aztec gold and prices in Europe. Inflation raged for almost a century.
Means of exchange have been present in almost all cultures going back a few thousand years. Everything from shells to round rocks, bird feathers, etc. Gold and silver were settled on because the other means of exchange had a tendency to fall apart over time. Gold and silver just need a good shine and voila, back to normal.
Paper as a form of currency actually began with the Knights Templar and the first Crusade to Jerusalem way back when, roughly a thousand years. The Templars kept gold in their castles and in exchange for interest they would give a traveler an encoded receipt in England that could be cashed in Italy, Germany, France, Jerusalem, etc. This protected travelers, enriched the Templars, an order envowed to poverty.
Over time this grew into modern day fiat currency, inflation, fractional banking, bank runs, ruin, excess, war and the whole lot of it. When I use the "excessive monetary policy" don't confuse that for inflation. You have two tools, monetary and fiscal. Too much of one can be a bad thing. We have been in a run world wide for a few decades now, with a massive heap over the last decade. It would seem the devil may be coming due. One way out of this mess is a soft default. Others include war. The bigger the bubble, the bigger the mistake in trying to deflate reality.
Just my two cents.
Boo
Fiat money is older than that. The Romans are the ones that figured out that it doesn't matter what backs the money, all that matters is who controlls the quantity. They issued cheap coin made of brass and copper that wasn't based on the actual value of the metal, but was based on the faith and credit of the nation and they flourished. It wasn't untill Julius Ceasar opened the door back up for the goldsmiths by minting gold coins that their economy was ruined and the empire fell. Then there was the whole British tally stick system...It's funny that nowadays in response to all the banking bs in the US people are moving toward gold and silver which just makes it easier for the bankers to screw them.
-
Fiat money is older than that. The Romans are the ones that figured out that it doesn't matter what backs the money, all that matters is who controlls the quantity. They issued cheap coin made of brass and copper that wasn't based on the actual value of the metal, but was based on the faith and credit of the nation and they flourished. It wasn't untill Julius Ceasar opened the door back up for the goldsmiths by minting gold coins that their economy was ruined and the empire fell. Then there was the whole British tally stick system...It's funny that nowadays in response to all the banking bs in the US people are moving toward gold and silver which just makes it easier for the bankers to screw them.
Can you point me in the direction of reading material on the Roman currency? I'd be interested to read it.
Boo
-
Many reasons that lead to war, economics is wrapped in virtually every one of them. 1066 and the Normans, not sure. There are some interesting, deep reads regarding the Spanish empire and the massive influx of Aztec gold and prices in Europe. Inflation raged for almost a century.
Means of exchange have been present in almost all cultures going back a few thousand years. Everything from shells to round rocks, bird feathers, etc. Gold and silver were settled on because the other means of exchange had a tendency to fall apart over time. Gold and silver just need a good shine and voila, back to normal.
Paper as a form of currency actually began with the Knights Templar and the first Crusade to Jerusalem way back when, roughly a thousand years. The Templars kept gold in their castles and in exchange for interest they would give a traveler an encoded receipt in England that could be cashed in Italy, Germany, France, Jerusalem, etc. This protected travelers, enriched the Templars, an order envowed to poverty.
Over time this grew into modern day fiat currency, inflation, fractional banking, bank runs, ruin, excess, war and the whole lot of it. When I use the "excessive monetary policy" don't confuse that for inflation. You have two tools, monetary and fiscal. Too much of one can be a bad thing. We have been in a run world wide for a few decades now, with a massive heap over the last decade. It would seem the devil may be coming due. One way out of this mess is a soft default. Others include war. The bigger the bubble, the bigger the mistake in trying to deflate reality.
Just my two cents.
Boo
Now when you refer to monetary and fiscal policy, I'm still confused. Monetary policy is the set of laws and ideas that govern the regulation of the money supply. Fiscal policy is the same, only with regard to the budget. Perhaps you refer to Normative Keynesian economics vs. Monetarism. Too much Keynes leaves you with ballooning inflation, but the monetarist supply side ideas never panned out either; the deficit ballooned as taxes were cut and interest rates were hiked. You also have to factor in the age of the population. A young population will favor lower interest rates because young people borrow more often than they invest, while an old one will favor higher interest rates because they invest more often than they borrow. The US population has been aging without a sufficient increase in the retirement age, so we saw a dramatic shift to supply-side economics because the old people (who vote more often anyway) pressed for monetarism.
However, as far as I can tell, both Keynesian and supply-side economics are too broad. The government shouldn't just lower taxes overall during a recession; it should lower taxes on the industries that will benefit the country (and for larger countries, the world) the most. Furthermore, it should not boost aggregate (overall) demand, but rather boost specific demand in the same areas that it lowered taxes on in order to lead to full employment with a far lower increase in inflation when compared to doing it to the whole economy. Finally, it should tax the most profitable industries during good times and squirrel the money away in gold or other stable investments in order to be able to spend during the crashes that are endemic to capitalism (not a knock on the overall theory, but the irrational exuberance of the 1990s proves that steady growth leads to such bubbles). In this way, the government normalizes the high and low ends of the business cycle in order to achieve steady, long-term growth with inflation very close to population growth.
-Penguin
-
Personally I think we are all riding one big pendulum that sways back and forth in all matters of human affairs. If you read "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" http://www.amazon.com/Extraordinary-Popular-Delusions-Madness-Crowds/dp/051788433X (http://www.amazon.com/Extraordinary-Popular-Delusions-Madness-Crowds/dp/051788433X) which was written over 100 years ago but reads just like today, you'll begin to realize that nothing is ever new and we seem to ping pong back and forth between skepticism and gullibility over the years. On the grisly subject of war I think it was George Carlin that said we all like to fight and we have a war and get all upset and say "ooh that was terrible lets not do that again" then a few years go by and we get all tough and want to fight again. Frankly I am pretty sure when(if?) we have another real war,(not the asymmetric kind, but something between world powers,) its not going to be like we plan for or imagine and its going to be really bad. If you read "The Gun", http://www.amazon.com/Gun-C-J-Chivers/dp/0743270762 (http://www.amazon.com/Gun-C-J-Chivers/dp/0743270762) , and reflect on the part the covers the Maxim gun and WWI I think you get a foretaste of what will happen to us in a global conflagration only on a bigger scale than the european conflict. I imagine some kind of substitution of information technology, genetics and robotics for the machine gun and just let your mind wander down that ugly little path. In the face of this I wonder if technologies like the carrier group are going to go the way of the cavalry charge.
-
OT much?
-
Or, we realize the mistakes of the past and continue on the path toward global prosperity and freedom.
-Penguin
-
Or, we realize the mistakes of the past and continue on the path toward global prosperity and freedom.
-Penguin
That would be the preferred outcome but I'll settle for valium in the water supply and free xboxes for everyone.
-
On the grisly subject of war I think it was George Carlin that said we all like to fight and we have a war and get all upset and say "ooh that was terrible lets not do that again" then a few years go by and we get all tough and want to fight again.
best George Carlin quotes here :D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q
"The reason they call it the American dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it"
-
Penguin, I'm just impressed. Either you are a briliant little budding Keynsian at 15. Or you are really 50+ and still pretty good. Or you are part of the Obama-list serve, in which case I'm disappointed. If you need to ask what the list-serve is, that's a good sign.
Agreed on the Keynesian idea causing inflation, though that isn't here in full force yet. If they can't manage the next step it will. As for the supply side not working either, Gingrich and Clinton pulled that one off rather well. Pretty decent economy with spending controlled. The big criticism of Reaganonmics, where supply side came into lingo, does not accurately reflect spending increases.
You have some pretty prescriptive ideas for how to handle the economy with targeted tax cuts and hikes. There is a massive risk of hubris in this. People far, far more intelligent and with far better and timely information have been down this road before. It has not worked for them, why do you think you could pull it off? Obama stimulus 1.0 was actually Bush stimulus 5.0. Each case was bigger, more targeted and better then the last. Between Bush and Obama we have $9 trillion of stimulus and here we are, real unemployment hovering around 15%: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/print.pl/news.release/empsit.t15.htm (U6 is the accurate number, though economists who have been critical of how the BLS calculates numbers note that using methodology prior to Clinton's adjustment in 1994 place full unemployment at roughly 22%.)
Quick note. Fiscal policy would be the Fed buyback program, or keeping interest rates at Zero. A great example of Monetary Policy designed to spur targeted aggragate demand is the pathetic "Cash for Clunkers." Monetary policy puts money into the overall economy, fiscal does it primarily through appropriations.
-
:lol Venezuela will aid Argentina...
The Argies;
Bad econonic decisions ruining your country? Want to ge elected again?
Simples, Drum up support by having a bash at Britain.
Gotta love the 'promise of revenge' vote.
It worked for Adolf Hitler.
Hugo Chavez;
Military Dictator. People always agree, even when your catastophically wrong and don't have the means.
Simply - Deluded
It didn't work for Adolf Hilter... Barbarossa anyone?
I say The British have been very polite over this, as always. I know for a fact if an American was incharge the words "Bring it" and "Biatch" would most certainly be used.
-
Or, we realize the mistakes of the past and continue on the path toward global prosperity and freedom.
-Penguin
Market liberalization since the late 1970's has helped tens of millions climb out of the grinding poverty created by central planners and all their grand designs. India is revolutionizing itself. China has had 300 million plus enter into rough parity with West middle class. Mistakes of the past include insistance that a few can possibly know all things for all people.
Boo
-
Political threads are OK now?
-
Political threads are OK now?
If it wasn't for Politics, AcesHigh wouldn't exist :D
-
If it wasn't for Politics, AcesHigh wouldn't exist :D
^this. Hope they don't lock this thread, i'm actually having fun reading it. :aok
-
I wouldn't say this is political, economic and no one is throwing anything partisan. Should be ok, but that's just me.
Boo
-
Political threads are OK now?
Well in that case...
America = Vinnie Barbarino
U.K. = Arnold Horshack
Argentina = Freddie "Boom Boom" Washington
With a special appearance by Hugo Chavez as Juan Epstein.
Bring it biatches!
-
Well in that case...
America = Vinnie Barbarino
U.K. = Arnold Horshack
Iran = Freddie "Boom Boom" Washington
Bring it biatches!
:rofl :rofl
-
I forgot this thread was about the Argies and some worthless island.
Programming subject to change.
-
Didn't the British offer independence to the Falkland Islands and they chose to stay a part of the United Kingdom?
-
Penguin, I'm just impressed. Either you are a briliant little budding Keynsian at 15. Or you are really 50+ and still pretty good. Or you are part of the Obama-list serve, in which case I'm disappointed. If you need to ask what the list-serve is, that's a good sign.
Agreed on the Keynesian idea causing inflation, though that isn't here in full force yet. If they can't manage the next step it will. As for the supply side not working either, Gingrich and Clinton pulled that one off rather well. Pretty decent economy with spending controlled. The big criticism of Reaganonmics, where supply side came into lingo, does not accurately reflect spending increases.
You have some pretty prescriptive ideas for how to handle the economy with targeted tax cuts and hikes. There is a massive risk of hubris in this. People far, far more intelligent and with far better and timely information have been down this road before. It has not worked for them, why do you think you could pull it off? Obama stimulus 1.0 was actually Bush stimulus 5.0. Each case was bigger, more targeted and better then the last. Between Bush and Obama we have $9 trillion of stimulus and here we are, real unemployment hovering around 15%: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/print.pl/news.release/empsit.t15.htm (U6 is the accurate number, though economists who have been critical of how the BLS calculates numbers note that using methodology prior to Clinton's adjustment in 1994 place full unemployment at roughly 22%.)
Quick note. Fiscal policy would be the Fed buyback program, or keeping interest rates at Zero. A great example of Monetary Policy designed to spur targeted aggragate demand is the pathetic "Cash for Clunkers." Monetary policy puts money into the overall economy, fiscal does it primarily through appropriations.
I am, in fact, 15, and I read an economics textbook for fun at night (no joke). I have almost every theory in there memorized, but they never get old for some reason; each time I read them, I find something new. I guess that's why the debate still rages; if there were one single idea that solved all the problems, then there'd be nothing left to argue. On a side note, is it Key-knee-zian or Kay-knee-zian? I say it the first way, but the teacher says it the other. I certainly hope that I'm not on anyone's list-serve; I heard of one guy who made this tiny (I'm talking like $5) contribution to the Republican party, and his mailbox has been overflowing with ads ever since! :O
My idea for the stimulus-hike system would be for the government to buy low (buy stock) and sell high (sell stock), but I don't know if they could then justify having insider information like they do now. If they could keep the insider information, though, then they could avoid the efficient market hypothesis. Unfortunately, that would then circumvent the fundamental principle that makes capitalism itself possible: The rule of law. If the government rose above the law (by giving itself the right to insider information while barring others from doing so in its own self-interest), then the risk of hubris could approach infinity as time approached five minutes later. Dang, you have a point there. However, the government could treat its insider trading like its monopoly on violence: necessary for survival. Then things might get better.
Perhaps I've tried to shoehorn New Trade Theory into internal economics. The big issue with it was that of hubris. However, if it worked for Japan's auto industry, then perhaps it could work here as well. Now my thought would be that instead of just adjusting taxes, the government would use direct transfer payments (loans, not grants) that hopeful start-ups would compete for in order to maintain a low barrier to entry in nascent fields. As collateral for these loans, the start-ups would give the government stock. However, the risk of hubris remains as the government continues to act on the market. However, the fundamental assumption of the existence and degree of market imperfection remains central to such ideas.
I don't know how much longer we can discuss the topic of government intervention in a forum that bans politics, though. Perhaps if we refrain from referencing the present the discussion can avoid breaking the rules.
-Penguin
-
Well in that case...
America = Vinnie Barbarino
U.K. = Arnold Horshack
Argentina = Freddie "Boom Boom" Washington
With a special appearance by Hugo Chavez as Juan Epstein.
Bring it biatches!
OOOOOOOOOOH!!!! OOOOOOOOOOOOH!!!!
-
http://mises.org/daily/5904/Will-Currency-Devaluation-Fix-the-Eurozone
Penguin, give this a shot. Doesn't answer the question but a great essay with a few observations to consider. I lean Austrian, mostly due to the strong sense of restraint and humility to accept no one can know everything. If you get bored FA Hayek's, "The Road to Serfdom." Schumpter has a great book on 'Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy.'
Boo
-
This thread is odd.
Penguin if you're like this at 15. What will you be like at 50. President? Can I invite you to come to Ireland and take over the country. You make more sense than that monkeys we elected last time. Our government has a unique attitude to high unemployment. Higher and higher taxes and encouraging people to emigrate.
Maybe we should copy the Argies and claim the Isle of Man as ours!
-
http://mises.org/daily/5904/Will-Currency-Devaluation-Fix-the-Eurozone
Penguin, give this a shot. Doesn't answer the question but a great essay with a few observations to consider. I lean Austrian, mostly due to the strong sense of restraint and humility to accept no one can know everything. If you get bored FA Hayek's, "The Road to Serfdom." Schumpter has a great book on 'Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy.'
Boo
I guessed that you were with Friedman due to the focus on inflation, but now that look at your post again, I can see Hayek's influence. Doubtless, the market is central to a successful economy; my point was to use the government to prevent financial accelerators from creating depression or speculative bubbles, and then spur (or deflate) both sides of supply and demand if and when they do happen. For example, if you've got a huge demand-side orange bubble, then raising taxes on oranges will help protect entrepreneurs from staking their fortunes erroneously. On the other hand, if it isn't a bubble at all, then all you'll end up doing is creating a dead-weight loss that could strangle growth. This is where Hayek would come in, stating that predicting this is impossible because the market is too vast to regulate effectively. On the other hand, can it really be said that we cannot make any collective economic decisions? The labor reform laws of the late 19th and early 20th centuries certainly helped to end exploitation. So it's not so much a question of kind, but degree.
On the issue of the Euro, the more powerful evidence is less the typical of Keynesian expansionary policy, but the mention that half the proposed expansion has already occurred without a subsequent increase in activity. However, this devaluation is not the result of an increase in supply (loose monetary policy) but a decrease in demand due to a slowing European economy. In that sense, the article confuses a decrease in demand with an increase in supply. However, expanding the money supply is just too broad a fix for too narrow a problem. The key is not to attempt to influence aggregate demand for European goods by expanding the money supply, but identifying which industries can be abandoned (e.g., complex lending), and which will create new growth (perhaps green energy). There is also the issue of a supply-side crisis having toasted the European economy, not a downturn in demand, so boosting aggregate demand via expansionary policy would really mess things up because it would be a misapplication of Keynes' normative theory. On the other hand, performing a revamp of roads, canals, and other means of infrastructure could spur the lagging industrial development that the article mentioned via improved efficiency, and help to revive the flagging supply-side.
While Hayek had a point about the inefficiencies of long-term command or socialist economies, there is also the fact that we can become aware of things that will influence economic growth by performing careful experiments and examinations. For instance, taxing anything that moves really doesn't help much due to dead-weight loss, but not taxing enough starves the government of the funds that it needs to do the things that no-one can profit from directly (roads, highways, the military, education, welfare, unemployment, care for the poor) without really fracking up the system. While some inequality is unavoidable, it is well-known that continued under-regulation and under-taxation will create unimaginable horror for the imperfect competitors that compose the majority of the economy for the benefit of a very narrow few that often squirrel their money away or spend it on charity (which, while noble, isn't as effective as creating new small business to employ the destitute) or extravagant luxuries.
On the other hand, no-one could have predicted Apple or Microsoft in anything but the most general terms. Steve Jobs have a 2.6 (+-.1) GPA and dropped out of college, by all measures he was bound for poverty. However, his entrepreneurship saved his hide and we all got nicer things to boot. So attempting to manipulate the economy like a marionette will not generate good results, either. It is vital, however, to avoid the expression of self-interest in ways that hurt us, like exploitative labor or predatory lending. There's no profit in that, but it's all-important in order to prevent general suffering; therefore, the government must take action to prevent such practices. A good example would be Ben Bernanke saying that anti-fraud regulation wasn't needed due to market forces; however, not everyone spends much time worrying if their lender is actively trying to screw them, and those that do don't have the resources to effectively detect it.
The real goal, then is to use regulation to create an economy where self-interest and rational choice can only be expressed via competition among companies and entrepreneurs, and not malicious practices or massive swings in economic output (e.g., the Great Depression). Thereby, consumers and the notion that competition creates more for everyone are protected, and the economy is protected from damage. To accomplish such goals, it is important to keep inspectors rotating through and give them incentives of prestige to report malicious actions, and prevent the 1% (a necessary part of the economy) from stopping the flow of wealth back to small businesses and entrepreneurs (where it is needed to maintain competition-based growth). I actually drew up a diagram of that last idea, if you'd like to see it.
-Penguin
-
Points made very well. The problem is the centralized nature of the solutions. Can government ever act quick enough to respond to fluxuating food prices to penalize speculative orange growers? And should government? The fact is if an orchard farmer were to shift all of their production to oranges and there is overproduction, that is penalty enough. It will likely wipe them out as they have a massive supply of oranges that they struggle to give away for free. Your answer is that on top of being wiped out by overproduction government supply the coup de grace by taxing whats left and ensure his next effort is to get in line at the soup kitchen.
The grand deceipt of so many theories of economics is not that they are entirely wrong, but that can centrally plan the entire economy. It has been attempted many times and failure is the constant answer.
Ben Bernake is so brilliant at running monetary policy yet he placed his own home on the market about 6 months after the bubble popped. This means that we have entrusted him with so many millions of jobs, paychecks for grocery bills and yet he cannot even get his own home right. The grand deceipt. I worry you insist you can prescibe the economy as well if not better.
The final analysis of Keynesian economics and the ilk is where we are at right now. They insist they can play the economy like a fiddle. If so, then our current state of affairs is intentional. If not, they are beyond arrogant. No matter how many mathematical formulas they produce in then end they are always making excuses for what went wrong.
I would suggest we are no wiser then those that have already failed.
-
It is true that mistakes have led to the position we are in right now. However, what are the other options? If we let the economy roam wild, then these things will still happen because investors will be committing the hubris. However, my point is less in line with central planning than neoclassical growth; government intervention should be limited to the short term for a particular field. For example, wild lending practices should be countered with heavier taxes and regulation on lending for a few years, not decades. Thereby the market is corrected from a dangerous path, but is allowed to return to business as usual as soon as the craziness passes. As for the orange farmer, the idea is to catch him before it gets out of hand, and then let him either try to grow at a normal rate or compete for a loan to start over in a new field, which would get him re-employed sooner and keep consumers happy (perhaps someone just discovered a great place to grow potatoes!). I certainly don't mean to try to play the economy 'like a fiddle,' that's like trying to outguess every investor on the stock exchange forever: Consumer goods would be very scarce or overly abundant. The idea is to smooth out bubbles and depressions by opening doors via loans (not transfers) and siphoning off the money from periods of irrational exuberance (which can deflate bubbles without as much pain) in order to help the market respond to shocks even more quickly by providing capital, but letting the market decide 'the next big thing'. There is an institution that does part of it, I believe that it's called the Small Business Grant Administration, or something to that effect. However, once these periods of unrest are over, the market is generally a stable, honest place filled with industrious people trying to make their way in the world. It's not like these bubbles happen everywhere, all the time. They happen every few generations or so, but when they do happen, they really destabilize things, and that's where the government can step in to keep the economy moving as a whole.
-Penguin
-
(http://www.allstarsclan.net/forums/style_emoticons/default/offtopic.gif)
-
Oddly, that makes me think of Occupy Wall Street.
-Penguin
-
Well worded though what you are advocating is a big part of what we are dealing with now. In the small world of economists the Mecca of employment is the Federal Reserve. This is the entity tasked with 'smoothing over the bubbles' since 1913 and have managed to produce little noticeable change. We now call them recessions or depressions, prior to they were called panics. The happen with near the same frequency though hit harder.
The biggest concern I see with smoothing the bumbs, beyond the obvious that the very best have not pulled it off is the moral hazard created. If anything Wall Street has learned risky behaviour will be rewarded. We are now in the vicious cycle of privatizing profit, socializing loss. More of the same...
Larry Summers recently note debt and spending got us into this mess though only more debt and spending will get us out. We've gone from the $250m "Bridge to Nowhere" to "Cash For Clunkers." A dairy farmer with common sense would encourage us to stop digging in that hole we've found ourselves.
If debt worked Bush/Obama would certainly have solved it.
Boo
-
*Sniff* ... *Sniff*
So much Bullshi....
:banana:
-
I'm not advocating sustained deficits and debt.
Loss is inevitably socialized via the loss of major corporations. One thing that we're doing now is having larger corporations plan their own demises by outlining what to do if they fail catastrophically. A major part of the bubble was the sustained deregulation of the financial system. There was no 'playing it like a fiddle' there; we let that sector run its course and it blew up. Canada, for counter-example, maintained tighter regulation and the banks did not fail as badly. That's not to say that Canada doesn't have its own problems, but it is very similar to the US in other regards, which rules out the other significant variables. Clearly, at least in the financial sector, there is a need for tight regulation.
However, like you said, moral hazard is an issue. This moral hazard is only present if the solution to market failure is propping up failed companies and allowing investors to still collect their money. On the other hand, if the government had a plan for what to do in the event that large corporations failed, then it could better re-train employees of those corporations to work somewhere else, or prepare them to become entrepreneurs themselves because it wouldn't be so focused on preventing a depression. Imagine if all those banks had failed and just collapsed; there'd be chaos and no-one would learn anything from it. It's the difference between amputating a gangrenous limb and just hoping that it falls off, the former is far safer because there is a measure of control, whereas the latter carries the possibility of death by gangrene. Therefore, having a plan for when the sand hits the fan that doesn't involve propping a corporation up, but rather preventing its fall from damaging anyone but the investors will greatly limit the 'socialized loss' while eliminating 'moral hazard' of the corporation's collapse. In short, prevention is cheaper then treatment, but not going to the doctor is the most expensive choice of all.
-Penguin
-
Let's be clear about something. Our current state of affairs is not due to a lack of governmentleading to cowboy capitalism, free markets run amuck. Every step of our current situation is due to government economists making big picture, centralized decisions for the entire economy. The housing bubblewas created by both monetary and fiscal policies with a massive dose of government ensured moral hazard. Now that government economists have created this mess we now need more government economists picking winners and losers to get out of this mess.
Mom and pop did not create this. Lobbyisys, politicians and flunky economists did. This is the single greatest denial of the Keynesian side of the debate. Reality cannot be negotiated.
Boo
-
This is the entity tasked with 'smoothing over the bubbles' since 1913 and have managed to produce little noticeable change.
Except for the 98% decline in the US Dollars purchasing power, the Looting of American Gold reserves both Public and Private to pay for the debt incurred from borrowing from the Fed, the myriad of taxes and statues we now pay to finance the bankruptcy of this nation to our creditors the Fed, and the reemergence of the Gilded Gentry lording over the population and controlling vast swaths of both the markets and the government using both to stifle competition at the detriment of the consumer, but the enrichment of the few... Nothing has changed.
For some reason it sounds really funny to call us a "Free Market".
:noid
-
Let's be clear about something. Our current state of affairs is not due to a lack of governmentleading to cowboy capitalism, free markets run amuck. Every step of our current situation is due to government economists making big picture, centralized decisions for the entire economy. The housing bubblewas created by both monetary and fiscal policies with a massive dose of government ensured moral hazard. Now that government economists have created this mess we now need more government economists picking winners and losers to get out of this mess.
Mom and pop did not create this. Lobbyisys, politicians and flunky economists did. This is the single greatest denial of the Keynesian side of the debate. Reality cannot be negotiated.
Boo
Yes, there were centralized decisions: To deregulate. That was the theme of the 90s: Finance unleashed. The whole idea was to let the markets do their thing and see if the Austrians were right all along. As we can see, they weren't, much like the Keynesians were wrong in the 70s due to stagflation. However, Mom and Pop were central to the mortgage crisis that fueled this whole debacle. It was a regular occurence for people to buy too much house and lie about their income in order to qualify for the mortgage. That's not to say that there weren't dishonest dealings by bankers, but no-one made anyone take those mortgages. Mom and Pop were not innocent bystanders to a Keynesian collapse; they were active participants in a speculative bubble that nearly broke the back of the world financial system.
The banks themselves dealt wrongly, too, by over levering and over extending their reach into many different areas. Examples include AIG, who used insurance to invest in funds that also had mortgage money in them. However, they did this by their own free choice, something that the government made very clear that it wanted to test during the 90s, with all the talk about boys outgrowing their trousers, etc. and needing more room (i.e., less regulation). The government wasn't going around proposing all this very dangerous investment, rather, it simply let the market roam free, and the market blew up. That is a speculative bubble caused by a lack of regulation, not a failed plan of government planners.
I don't mean to be rude, and almost I'm sure that it was merely a slip of the key, but I feel that I must call a spade a spade. Your argument against government intervention borders on conspiracy theory. There was no ensured moral hazard; don't you recall how much a surprise it was when the bailout came? If by picking winners and losers, you mean shutting down dishonest or defunct banks, then that is a necessary step in any situation. Especially after the govenment made a 'big picture descion' not to regulate, as you suggest that it should, there is a need to search through the miles-thick stacks of paperwork that no-one had ever cared to peruse earlier. Again, the only big picture decision made was to adopt a policy of laissez faire.
-
Double Post, I know. However, there are points that I forgot to make, and I hope that you can forgive the unsightliness of having two posts in a row.
I never said that I was arguing for central planning or Keynesian economics. The former is untenable over the long term (unless it's something like general development, etc.) while the latter is woefully incomplete with regard to precision. I do argue for government intervention in economic functions that are unprofitable but necessary, which includes having a good knowledge of the record systems and business strategies of corporations large enough to create damage the whole economy if they fell suddenly and unexpectedly. Furthermore, even if I were arguing for central planning, the mortgage crisis that has nearly destroyed our financial system was the result of consistent, persistent deregulation of the financial sector. Lenders such as Lehman Brothers, AIG, and others argued that it was time to take what they felt was an unnecessary burden off lenders and borrowers, and allow the market to determine what to do. Even Ben Bernanke felt this way: He argued that laws against fraud were unnecessary because market forces would remove those who committed such acts. Needless to say, Burnie Madof swiftly refuted Bernanke's claims with his enormous Ponzi scheme.
Therefore, there is no reason to argue that the financial crisis was caused by any complicated plan of bumbling politicians, economists, and, as you put it, a Guilded Gentry. The only thing that caused it was removing the financial controls that had kept lending and investment in check for decades, and continue to do so in countries such as Canada. Now, while I'm almost sure that the tone of your post was a slip of the tongue, I feel that it is time to call a spade a spade. The way in which you present your argument of complicated plans of powerful men gone awry having caused our troubles and a Gilded Gentry lording over all borders on conspiracy theory. That's not to belittle you or your post, but I thought that this was a debate about the Austrian school of thought, and not whether there has been a behind-the-scenes scheme to damage us all. What especially troubles me is that you have not made a comment on the very core tenet of the Austrian school: The impossibility of predicting the various preferences of the populace via a central agency. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but in The Road to Serfdom, Hayek makes an argument against socialism, and not financial regulation; this would be very much in line with how he wrote stinging critiques of that economic policy well into his late eighties. Since this debate concerns matters of finance, then the Austrian school is irrelevant due to its focus on consumer goods, or you have misunderstood or worse, misconstrued its arguments.
-Penguin
-
You've basically made my point. Economists pushed for deregulation and Big Business lobbied for it using their political influence (hordes of money), was able to make stupid decisions that SHOULD have been corrected by market forces, as Bernake and others argued, while they (Bernake and Others) did the opposite and looted trillions from the public to reign in the chaff, rather than allow it to be scattered to the wind.
We have Fascism wrapped in the American Flag, where the businesses, the regulators, and the government are all interchangeable at any point in their careers. The only effective way of keeping a handle on this would be to think of it as Quantum Economics. You have to see the players in every possible seat and base your decisions on that, knowing that depending on when you take your measurement they'll be a CEO, a Regulator or a Congressman.
-
Conspiracy theory, yes and that's how I intended it. I've discussed and debated this for 20+ years and when it comes down to a growing field in economics it's a rough choice for them. A choice they cannot win but to jump to insults. And I am not saying you are insulting me. About ten years ago I had an economist storm off a stage when given his Faustian options. His first response was to ask about my tin foil hat, Mel Gibson's movie had just come out.
The field of economics has convinced itself and now trying to convince the world that they have this down to an exact science just like the laws of physics, algebra, chemistry, etc. Literally, there is no more guessing about how humans will respond to inputs or changing environments, they have it absolutely nailed down just like A+B=C.
Their claim they have this nailed to an exact science (as opposed to a social science, or observed science like political science, anthropology, etc): IF they have this nailed to an exact science then either our current state of affairs was planned (conspiracy theory) OR they in fact do NOT have this nailed down to an exact science. My point, they do not. They will frequently get close but always find themselves explaining their errors with a promise of 'we won't do that again.'
With Austrians know that they are somewhat split, so it is more of a common discussion among Austrians. Some are hard core Gold Standard, while others are more flexible and would be happy with Gold pegging or some version of that. I am in this camp, always happy to hear a better way. Throughout history there have been many instances of 'free market currency' or competing currencies and all of them engaged in fractional practices. Hence, even when left to its own devices fractional banking to some degree happens.
The underlying issue for Austrians is anything that addresses monetary policy. Those are the goggles we wear.
How an Austrian sees where we are at today.
During the 1990's Congress (both parties) expanded the Community Reinvestment Act put into place during the Carter years. Essentially, this requires all financial institutions to put some of their profit back into the community. The original intent was to help build parks, expand hospitals, etc. During the 1990s the changes took a much more decisive turn. They wanted all Americans to enjoy home ownership so the new interpretation was that of lending money to people who would otherwise not qualify for a home loan. This is where the whole "Subprime" market began. Prior to this "subprime" loans were not regulated but by the free market and basically on private money engaged in the practice. When I say private money, I mean rich people making private loans outside of the banks and government regulators. Interesting, not too many of these loans took place though we also didn't see the resulting financial harm.
Back to the Community Reinvestment Act, there is a provision of law loosely based on the Sherman Antitrust Act of the 1890s that ultimately leads to Federal Government approval to expand ones banking practices. Essentially, if you want to open more branches of your bank you have to gain government approval. What Congress threatened was that banks had to either provide a percentage of their overall loans to risky home loans or they would not gain approval to expand their banks. In the business world they have a couple sayings that say it all. 'You are either coming or going' and 'either go big or go home.' The point being, if you are not growing in some way your market and base is being eaten by your competitors. When Congress threatened the life blood of competition what were the banks to do? If they didn't, their competitor would so...
They did insist on a safety net. What they got was assurances from Congress that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would buy up these loans, ultimately government would guarantee that if/when these loans went belly up the tax payer would clean up the mess. At one point Fannie/Freddie was guaranteeing 50% of all home loans in America. This was huge.
Government regulations insisted, on pain of business death that the market do what it would not normally do, with the moral hazard of tax payer cleanup.
The next step in this was the early 2000s and the ease of money. At one point the expansion of the monetary supply was so dramatic, credit made so easy homeloans were given out...holy cow. They had a loan they called a "liar loan." It required a credit check. Other then this, no documentation of what is claimed on the loan, no verification of anything other then a credit score. I'm from Las Vegas, they had billboards where banks were giving Liar Loans to people at 125% of appraised value!!! In-freaking-sane! The home is worth $200k and the bank would give you a loan of $250k. Needless to say, this was both a monetary and finacial bubble that had to pop. Entirely created by government intervention in the market. Let me add that these loans were not going fast enough for the administration circa 2000 so they changed fractional banking reserve rates to 2.5%. That means if someone deposits $100 you could turn around and extend credit out to $2,500.
Most traditional economic schools of thought pick up at the point that these loans got into the bigger market. Bundled with good loans, housing prices out of control, credit based on credit, ultimately backed by "toxic" loans based on heavily influenced home appraisals. This is certainly a massive house of cards. At its roots, government intervention. The issues you speak of are nothing more then the second and third quarter.
There is a great reading on the Mississippi bubble, which is currency. It is France circa 1700 and has at its roots pegged currency, toxic backing, etc. Good reading. Basedon France's territorial claim to the Mississippi region prior to our War of Independence and purchase under Jefferson.
This is a fun discussion.
Boo
-
PS I should add that what I have described in short is an almost textbook example of Fascism.
Let me be clear I am not saying Clinton, Bush, Obama, Rangel, Frank, Dodd, etc are Nazis. There is not a perfect one sentence, agreed upon definition of fascism though plenty of examples.
Hitler (the biggest, best example of fascism) noted that 'it was not important to own the cow (Marxism) but instead control the decision of the person who owned the cow.' Hence, fascism was Marxism-lite (central control) where private industry helped implement the social goals of the state.
In this case the social goal of "the State" was home ownership. Government could either form its own home creation industry and provide free homes or government could use market forces to implement this goal for them.
Step one, require industry to act in a manner consistent with the goals of "the State." Step two, implement monetary and fiscal policies that will enable this to take place. Step three, guarantee the actions of industry against risk.
Many in Nazi Germany were fabulously wealthy under a Marxist regime. Watch Schindler's List for a real example of it.
I know, dicey discussion points but worthwhile to consider.
-
This last financial disaster was caused by the derivatives market. The reason you could get a liar loan was not that GSAs would back it. The reason you could get a liar loan is that the creation of synthetic securities needed them. In the worst cases, google Magnetar Trade, they were needed to create products that were intended to fail in order to profit from default swaps. You can lay the fault of the crisis at the governments feet in the sense that government absolutely failed, (fails,) to regulate the derivatives market. Individuals in government understood the danger, google Brooksley Born, but other Individuals blocked them. I think the question that we can't really answer is what would have happened if AIG and their ilk hadn't been bailed out? Its easy to think that the excesses would have crashed to earth and things would have sorted themselves out however I'm very skeptical.
Oh yeah, Las Malvinas fueron, son y seran!
Now thats a cause worth dying for.
-
Fascism is a lot more than central economic decision making; it involves a heavy militarization of society and an aggressive imperialist foreign policy. Neither of these is present in the US. While there were invasions of other countries, the last 'conquest' (military occupation and later annexation) in US history was that of the interior of the West. Society has seen increased security, but it's hardly comparable to the shocking images of Hitler Youth marching with shovels or other such events. While there has been central planning in response to lobbying, consider the idea that if you or I were to advocate Austrian economics to the government then we too would be part of the system that you describe as malignant. There's no way to get rid of lobbying, be the government despotic or democratic, those with resources, guile, and determination will make their voices heard.
The moral hazard that you argue caused the crash was not present until September 2008. The crash had already happened, and the government was trying to pick up the pieces by injecting money into the economy. The Community Reinvestment Act was far less likely than other lenders to engage in subprime lending, for further information on the subject, see http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf (http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf) What's more, when they did make one of these loans, they were half as likely to sell them as the market (same source as before). That's not crony capitalism, that's playing it safe.
On the pressure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to take risks, when I looked at Wikipedia, their description of insuring almost half the loans in the US was not a number, but rather shown as "dubious-discuss". They also decreased the number of subprime loans that they insured as the bubble got bigger (see http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html#ixzz12xTyWY91A (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html#ixzz12xTyWY91A)), which means that if there was any conspiracy, then the conspirators were either cowardly or incompetent in their pursuit of a mortgage bubble. The more likely reason is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were trying to avoid an explosion.
Now that's not to say that there wasn't corruption, of course there was. Money was flowing from investors to politicians and back again through donations and legislation, respectively; however, it can hardly be expected that such corruption would have had the time to so influence the government that it could be blamed entirely for the crisis. However, I would like to know what exactly you wanted the government to do. Clearly the bubble had its own origins in the financial system (MBS was nothing new, and the Credit-Default Swap was entirely a private invention) so there had to be a change in order to prevent a crash.
With regard to gold-standard vs. fiat money, though fiat money is inherently unstable and gives power to the government (not always a bad thing, especially with environmental and health regulation), so does the gold-standard, especially as the population increases. The removal of even a few pounds of gold from the system could easily drive up its price in a country of 300 million. Furthermore, if gold were used as a standard, inflation would still exist, but on the other side of the decimal point. There would be a need for ever smaller units of money in order to keep consumer purchasing power from overcoming the means of production, much like there is a need for ever higher wages and salaries in order to keep up with inflation in a fiat money system. Money becomes ridiculously weird as the economy grows because it has to represent an ever growing value with a number.
An interesting point that I thought was interesting was the difference between GDP with the bubble included and with the bubble removed. The bubble accounted for all but 1% of GDP growth, which can mean one of two things; either the US has reached a steady-state economy or we were so distracted with home equity extraction that we forgot to build new factories. It's probably a bit of both, which interestingly vindicates Endogenous growth and handily explains the need for improved education in order to continue growing without a rapidly expanding economy. Until we can colonize other planets, the world may become an information and innovation economy, as opposed to a factory-oriented one for a long time.
@pembquist
Certainly, the derivatives market was exempt from regulation. Again, laissez faire fails to recognize the limits to human reason and we get a crash, thus highlighting the need for regulation that keeps people acting rationally. Behavioral economics really hits this point home with books like "Nudge" that show how we often make decisions based on no information at all. For instance, if you show up at work, and your boss gives you a card to write down your contribution for your 401k, and the number 3 is on the card, then you will likely not go lower than a 3% contribution. It also works in cafeterias, where food closer to the cash register is bought more often, regardless of stated preferences.
back to mthrockmor:
Again, the idea of economics being an exact science is not true, yet. It's like learning to ride a bicycle. Sure, you should rightfully fear the quickly spinning spokes and chain, but not turning the handlebars for fear that you'll crash is no way to learn. You'll crash anyway and still not know how to ride. The science of economics works the same way. We try something, it works or doesn't work, and then we see what we can do better next time. It takes a while and isn't very efficient, but unless the knowledge just falls down out of the sky, there's no other way but to try.
-Penguin
-
With the US military present in well over 100 foreign countries with over 800 bases you will find that many around the world do not agree with this point. A country does not have to occupy to demonstrate control to the same degree as conquest. Likely not a popular statement on the boards of a military themed game but there it is. We no longer like to call it an empire but instead hegemony. Stratfor has a great paper on it about the "Republic clashing with the Empire." It is too obvious for any to see I suppose.
As for the moral hazard, the crash is not when the hazard began. The hazard began the moment they began issuing loans to those who would, under normal conditions not be able to obtain. That hazard on steroids began in the early 2000 time frame. The size and scope of failure didn't register until 2008. The implosion is evidence of moral hazard, not the beginning of it.
Wikipedia is great "101" for just about any discussion, though as we see frequently with discussion about which plane should be added, Wiki generally comes up short. Below is a graph prepared by Credit Suisse based on data provided by the Federal Reserve. I am going to trust them over Wikiepedia.
(http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/4452/householdchart.gif)
Shot at 2012-02-12
Even now Freddi and Fannie are underwriting home loans up to $740k. I'm not certain we have learned too much, though the earlier quote by Larry Summers becomes, once again, very applicable.
In an odd twist, one can only guess why the last minute rush by FHA to approve even more loans when it became obvious it was going to implode. For some it was last minute profits, for others the ridiculous hope that more of the same would prevent the day of reckoning.
Boo
-
EDIT: The high US presence in many areas is the result of a destabilized world in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Now, I'm certainly not proud of such a wide military presence, and it's certainly not necessary in many cases, I agree. However, those bases were not set up for their own sake, scores of them are the remnants of old garrisons in foreign wars, such as those from WWII and the Cold War, or are part of military alliances such as the UN or NATO. The world is becoming global, but I agree, we should be good neighbors and start taking our troops out of Berlin, Warsaw, and other decades'-old war-zones that are no longer flash-points.
A high percentage of household mortgage debt held is not an indicator of subprime lending, sure, there is some subprime in there, but certainly not even a third of it in the case of Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac. You also have to count in the ignoring of the Glass-Steagal Act that put the debt of commercial banks into hot water regardless of where it came from by allowing them to invest more heavily in areas unrelated to subprime lending, such as insurance. The 'meddling' that we did was not in the positive sense, we took a regulated system that worked well and produced profits and deregulated it. Market forces, combined with a misguided notion of the necessity of home ownership quickly made it bubble and kablamo, we have ourselves a financial crisis. That's not meddling as much as it is just doing something stupid. Meddling would be implementing the Glass-Steagal Act.
-Penguin
-
Fascism is a lot more than central economic decision making; it involves a heavy militarization of society and an aggressive imperialist foreign policy. Neither of these is present in the US.
Aggressive foreign policy? Check, that is of no question.
Militarization of the country...? Pretty big check in a lot of peoples eyes. Tazings for talking back are so common now its almost funny. People generally accept that cops can kill with impunity. Didn't The pres just sign the NDAA? There's tons of articles related to local police forces getting hand me down automatic rifles, body armor, armored personnel carriers etc.
Fascism I believe is good way to describe what is happening in America. = (
-
The increase in firepower and armor of cops is a necessity to combat the increasing number of heavily armed criminals (the increase is caused by population growth). However, cops aren't big fans of having to wear and carry that stuff, so it generally stays in the back seat of the cruiser or with the SWAT team for when it's needed. Consider the opposite; would you want a whole bunch of criminals with Tec-9's, Uzi's, and other assorted cheap automatic weapons running around with the police being unable to stop them without calling in the National Guard? It's a necessary evil, if that.
I'd like to see organizations such as the Hitler Youth and the overturning of the Supreme Court ruling that made saying the Pledge of Allegiance optional before I even said, "that's too much," much less invoke Fascism. Now, there's a strong current of nationalism in the US, but it's not even close to Hitler's Germany or Mussolini's Italy. Even though Wiki isn't scholarly, it's just about as accurate and provides a huge store of knowledge. So if you really want to say that the US is fascist, try these on for size:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Fascism)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Fascism)
Let's rattle off a couple examples. There is little to no direct propaganda, schools do not teach military drills, the dress code isn't restrictive, FOIA got passed, etc., etc., How the US is fascist is beyond me. Describing it as such lessens the weight of the term.
@infowars: There is no comma between 'aggressive' and 'imperialist' for a reason: An aggressive imperialist foreign policy is one of military conquest and subjugation.
@all: Fascism, militarism, or whichever 20th century radical totalitarian political trend that you argue is present in America, you have neglected that these policies are ones of 'hard' power (power exerted overtly) but the examples that you provide are of 'soft' power (covertly or implicitly exerted power) which does not validate the use of such terms.
-Penguin
-
Fascism is a lot more than central economic decision making; it involves a heavy militarization of society and an aggressive imperialist foreign policy. Neither of these is present in the US.
:headscratch: :rofl
PS I should add that what I have described in short is an almost textbook example of Fascism.
Let me be clear I am not saying Clinton, Bush, Obama, Rangel, Frank, Dodd, etc are Nazis. There is not a perfect one sentence, agreed upon definition of fascism though plenty of examples.
Hitler (the biggest, best example of fascism) noted that 'it was not important to own the cow (Marxism) but instead control the decision of the person who owned the cow.' Hence, fascism was Marxism-lite (central control) where private industry helped implement the social goals of the state.
In this case the social goal of "the State" was home ownership. Government could either form its own home creation industry and provide free homes or government could use market forces to implement this goal for them.
Step one, require industry to act in a manner consistent with the goals of "the State." Step two, implement monetary and fiscal policies that will enable this to take place. Step three, guarantee the actions of industry against risk.
Many in Nazi Germany were fabulously wealthy under a Marxist regime. Watch Schindler's List for a real example of it.
I know, dicey discussion points but worthwhile to consider.
:aok :noid
-
:headscratch: :rofl
:aok :noid
Oh no, he laughed, my psyche is shattered! :rolleyes:
:P
All kidding aside, if you'd like to join the debate, feel free. :)
-Penguin
-
The increase in firepower and armor of cops is a necessity to combat the increasing number of heavily armed criminals (the increase is caused by population growth). However, cops aren't big fans of having to wear and carry that stuff, so it generally stays in the back seat of the cruiser or with the SWAT team for when it's needed. Consider the opposite; would you want a whole bunch of criminals with Tec-9's, Uzi's, and other assorted cheap automatic weapons running around with the police being unable to stop them without calling in the National Guard? It's a necessary evil, if that.
Crime has decreased so dramatically in the US over the last 20 years it has some people baffled as for the reason. High power assault rifles are not being used in your typical crimes. I don't see the need to arm our peace keepers like the military. Here's wiki for ya.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
What hasn't decreased and actually increased is how much crime is reported and dramatized. Which begs a question... WHY? Is it maybe that fear really does help control people.
Whether it's labeled as fascism or not its definitely some sort of corporate/military conspiracy with very few winners and whole bunch of losers...
-
so how is this related to the disputed sovereignty of the falkland islands? :headscratch:
-
This has grown to two good discussions. The first centers around economic activity, the second around an agreed upon definition of fascism.
I jumped the gun a bit on a comment. Fascism is associated with nationalism though does not require foreign military adventurism. The seeming inevitability is the long accepted fact that war is the ultimate authority of "the State." The most basic definition is something along the lines of corporatism in alliance with government to implement the goals of state.
In any case, America the country I love and have worn the uniform of is most certainly heavily engaged in this arena. Since will not have a formal declaration of "fascism or not" from DC everyone gets their own opinion. As for me...
If we took a time machine to 1938 this would be a very different discussion. Fascism was a wonderful tool to restore a nations economic health. Hitler was named Times Man of the Year. It took the concentration camps of Europe to question the concept.
If any, we practice a far happier version without eugenics though clearly Crony Capitalism is on steroids.
Boo
-
Penguin, this is a great discussion. Do me a favor if you get bored. What are your thoughts about this?
http://www.freebanking.org/2012/02/09/the-other-bagehot/
Boo
-
Crime has decreased so dramatically in the US over the last 20 years it has some people baffled as for the reason. High power assault rifles are not being used in your typical crimes. I don't see the need to arm our peace keepers like the military. Here's wiki for ya.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
What hasn't decreased and actually increased is how much crime is reported and dramatized. Which begs a question... WHY? Is it maybe that fear really does help control people.
Whether it's labeled as fascism or not its definitely some sort of corporate/military conspiracy with very few winners and whole bunch of losers...
It's not that there are more crimes, it's that the likelihood of officers meeting a crazy person with an automatic have increased due to the number of people increasing. It also has to do with tactics- suppressing fire is difficult with a semi-automatic pistol, so having an AR-15 with a happy switch back at the station can close the gap while SWAT gets there. I certainly wouldn't feel too confident about storming a building if the other guy's head were still up. Body armor is necessary to keep up with the increased power of munitions due to advances in gun making. No surprise there. Also, why not? Having something to keep the lead out and the guts in never hurts if you're on the beat.
However, the increase in reported crime is actually fairly logical. People react more strongly to negative information, so networks try to scare the pants off us in order to keep us watching. It's not so much evil as slick.
On fascism, I think we're really more concerned with corruption than whether we should get our right shoulders nice and limber. Moral hazard was present after the crash, mismanagement by everyone from high officials to Mom and Pop preceded it, and corruption was fairly stable throughout. Now that's not to say that urging banks to lend to subprime borrowers isn't about as asinine as drinking battery acid for want of whiskey, but I think that we can rule out conspiracy in this case.
If it's any consolation, a genuine (though self-admitted) conspiracy exists in public schools, they're supposed to turn students into patriots... it stinks!
-Penguin
-
Penguin, this is a great discussion. Do me a favor if you get bored. What are your thoughts about this?
http://www.freebanking.org/2012/02/09/the-other-bagehot/
Boo
[/quote
Yikes! That is rather off-the wall, but interesting nonetheless. While concentrating power makes change easier, it can also make mistakes far more difficult. I'd argue that free banking is a good idea with regard to actual lending, but it can make currency and interest rates precariously variable. A system like that of the US seems to solve the problem nicely, but right regulation is a must to prevent greed from eating away at the financial sector.
-Penguin