Republicans vs. Democrats-From Financial Industry Perspective

kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > CFAchief Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > - Horrible approach to the environment (I do > not > > want an oil drilling rig in front of my beach, > I > > do not want those forest clear cut - especially > > when it is not a solution, even temporary) > > > I love this. So Democrats would rather corrupt > governments in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and > South America with no environmental standards > produce the world’s oil, while the nation with the > least corrupt and most effective regulator in the > world–the United States–limits or bans itself > from producing oil. The environmentalist argument > is dead. It simply lacks logic. Really? The whole argument is that US is not a good regulator, where they want to drill for less than 1% of national oil supply, which will make 0% of difference in the world oil markets, while it will have a significant impact on ecosystems (Anwar, Close-shore drilling). Now their argument has no logic, it is just that according to Sarah Palin, God wants her to have an oil pipe across Canada. Conservation (you don’t need that SUV) and alternative energy is the only way US economy can be more efficient in the face of declining global world production and increased energy demand. Less than 1% of global world supply, to be produced in 10-15 years, is not an answer.

Right, conservation is the only way out. You tell that to 310 million American consumers with a negative savings rate that they should not use dyers; rather, they should dry their clothes on a clothesline. Or that they should buy a $50,000 solar panel.

kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > christmaths, no, transparency.org is fine. It can > rank nations like Switzerland (in the pocket of > Nazis) ahead of the U.S. all it wants. So what is your source for your claim that the US is the least corrupt country in the world? How is 65 year old war time history relevant to current corruption? > The fact > is, the environmental argument is a dead one. Maybe, maybe not. I don’t really care. > And > transparency.org’s own ranking prove it No they don’t. What are you, 15?

Both parties are terrible on economic policy. The notion that the Republicans are more fiscally conservative than the Dems went out the window with Reagan (who, like W, campaigned on a samller-government platform, only to betray it with massive expansion of the government). Both parties are huge spenders - but at least the Dems are interested in spending some $ at home rather than on reckless foreign policy. Both parties cynically buy votes with other people’s money which they have no right to take, only to foist the debt on future generations. It’s pretty sad to see that most people in this thread completely reject individual freedom for complete government control in pretty much every aspect - education, environment, especially the financial sector. I’m not going to take the time to address all of the fallacies posted here, but merely say look around at the result of such policies in action - the smoking rubble of our once-great country. kkent, your claim that the government destroys everything it touches is true, but rings somewhat hollow given that you work for a quasi-governmental organization that has helped to engineer one of the biggest financial disasters in our country’s history, while doling out millions to criminally-negligent executives.

im a Whig

ron paul is the only true limited govt,fiscal conservative remaining in congress/gop. too bad everyone thinks he is a kook. most GOPers dont realise that being anti-war is also tied into fiscal conservatism. you cant go on fighting wars all over the place and balance the fiscal budget at the same time.i dont see anyone other than ron paul addressing the real issues.but he is so whiny and he looks like a grandpa unlike studly mitt romney or maverick changemen like mcbama.

Black Swan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I had a manager start talking politics and ask me > what I thought. I told him I think all > politicians are garbage to me. They lack any > signs of real knowledge or intelligence and could > not rise beyond warehouse management in the real > world but claim to be able to run a country. The > only reason our system works is because between > the partisanship and the branches checks and > balances our system “usually” prevents these > morons from doing excessively retarded. It’s just > a giant televised circus and in my mind holds no > value beyond that of entertainment. isnt it ironic BS, that we all think politicians are garbage, but we implicity trust that the govt knows what it is doing and is always working in our interest?. wheres that disconnect coming from. the govt is made up of exactly those morons whom you heap scorn upon

If you believe in capitalism and free markets and you are a modern-day Democrat, then you are either grossly misinformed or you are bi-polar. Even republicans are way too far left these days, to the point that we basically have a Democrat right and a Democrat left party. You can argue that supporting either is bad, but to support Democrat left is just, well…

since WW2 govts all over the world have grown in size and influence because even intellectuals like Keynes believed in govt being a major influence on the economy.no wonder true free markets never existed after that. exceptions probably would be estonia since 1991 or probably the bahamas

Why would Free market ever exist? Governments are there to protect the people, not finding out the best approach/ways to live and make money. As much as I dislike about both parties, Bush + McCain + Palin basically shows that they have just enough economic knowledge to successfully play Simcity 2000. How does off-shore drilling lower gasoline prices? I don’t know, but I see it like how much oil-refineries have benefiitted the people of Java, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. Anyone who believes that offshore drilling is the solution to energy crisis needs to go through Econ1A.

kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > CFAchief Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > - Horrible approach to the environment (I do > not > > want an oil drilling rig in front of my beach, > I > > do not want those forest clear cut - especially > > when it is not a solution, even temporary) > > > I love this. So Democrats would rather corrupt > governments in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and > South America with no environmental standards > produce the world’s oil, while the nation with the > least corrupt and most effective regulator in the > world–the United States–limits or bans itself > from producing oil. The environmentalist argument > is dead. It simply lacks logic. ouch, ignorance rears its ugly head. their are plenty of well run goverments that provide for unlimited opportunity and social mobility. The failure of american government’s of both stripes has more to do with the overall political infrastructure in place not that there is less or more government. You have a very fundamentalistic (is that a word?) way of looking at things.

kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > CFAchief Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > - Horrible approach to the environment (I do > not > > want an oil drilling rig in front of my beach, > I > > do not want those forest clear cut - especially > > when it is not a solution, even temporary) > > > I love this. So Democrats would rather corrupt > governments in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and > South America with no environmental standards > produce the world’s oil, while the nation with the > least corrupt and most effective regulator in the > world–the United States–limits or bans itself > from producing oil. The environmentalist argument > is dead. It simply lacks logic. also, you guys dont really have any oil resources that could be anyhting more then a drop in the bucket. Don’t even bother mentioning shale oil, it would just prove you don’t have a clue.

ancientmkt, your way of thinking frankly sort of scares me. Government exists to protect people from attack, not to manage their finances - by Government I mean how the US was designed to be. The more govt manages finances, the worse off the common good, and the eventual restructuring of human and corporate behavior towards risk, such that people are subsidized to take unnecessary risks and counterparties get screwed in a supposed “fair market” deal. And please, explain to me how drilling does not affect gas prices. This will be news to all of us who recently were exposed to losses in copper related stocks that “might” be affected by a newfound source of copper.

Dsylexic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > since WW2 govts all over the world have grown in > size and influence because even intellectuals like > Keynes believed in govt being a major influence on > the economy.no wonder true free markets never > existed after that. exceptions probably would be > estonia since 1991 or probably the bahamas True free markets, have never and can never exist. Economics is an axiomatic science like philosphy, yes true free markets can be great in theory, but inorder to get that theory to work you have to build assumptions into the model. The three biggest assumptions that free markets are based upon are inconceivible. You would need all actors in the economy to be completely rational, human nature eliminates that possibility. You would need all actors to have perfect forsight and for no information assymetry to exist, impossible, no one can see into the future and the distribution of knowledge could never be equal unless we all shared the same brain. Finally all economic actors must be equal and unable to influence the system to their advantage, human interaction at its most base level is frought with power relations, theres no way you could organize a political system governing 300 million people without some tendency to oligarchy. So yes, if you are a market fundamentalist like ron paul you are a kook. not to say he isn’t right about alot of things.

kkent Wrote: > I love this. So Democrats would rather corrupt > governments in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and > South America with no environmental standards > produce the world’s oil, while the nation with the > least corrupt and most effective regulator in the > world–the United States–limits or bans itself > from producing oil. The environmentalist argument > is dead. It simply lacks logic. Report: Federal regulators literally in bed with oil execs - Texas on the Potomac http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/houstonchronicle/txpotomac/~3/389934192/report_federal_regulators_lite.html … I guess US is a least corrupt and most effective regulator. I bet it is just a liberal media conspiracy. We all know Houston Chronicle is a communist rag.

Reagan slowed non-military discretionary spending. His military spending is understandable since trying to match it caused the collapse of the USSR and the end of the cold war. The economic benefit of that far outweighed the military spending. If people want to vote for universal healthcare, more power to them. It will just hasten the collapse of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, which will bring real change.

SeanC Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dsylexic Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > since WW2 govts all over the world have grown > in > > size and influence because even intellectuals > like > > Keynes believed in govt being a major influence > on > > the economy.no wonder true free markets never > > existed after that. exceptions probably would > be > > estonia since 1991 or probably the bahamas > > True free markets, have never and can never > exist. > > Economics is an axiomatic science like philosphy, > yes true free markets can be great in theory, but > inorder to get that theory to work you have to > build assumptions into the model. The three > biggest assumptions that free markets are based > upon are inconceivible. You would need all actors > in the economy to be completely rational, human > nature eliminates that possibility. You would need > all actors to have perfect forsight and for no > information assymetry to exist, impossible, no one > can see into the future and the distribution of > knowledge could never be equal unless we all > shared the same brain. Finally all economic actors > must be equal and unable to influence the system > to their advantage, human interaction at its most > base level is frought with power relations, theres > no way you could organize a political system > governing 300 million people without some tendency > to oligarchy. nonsense. free marker economics doesnt make any particular assumption about rationality.the assumption by rothbard etc is that human beings act towards their goals -which are often different from other human beings. thus even schizos and suicide bombers are rational. what you are describing is the assumption of the efficient market people. too much collectivist koolaid has been imbibed lin the last 100 years eading people to distrust freedom

Ron Paul for Prez…

Both parties are a train wreck… I’ll agree with kimmer…: “Ron Paul for Prez”! His only flaw was his lack of action on a man made problem: the environment…

Another good site: www.factcheck.org Shows how all politicians are pure garbage. How can they get away with making such false statements?? They are really banking on uneducated Americans…