A New World Order - Balance of Power?

BWhite · 2005-01-20 13:44:17

Adam Smith's real target was hand in glove alliances between the wealthy and government. It's called mercantilism.

And that is what America has today, rather than genuine capitalism. When GOP pundits like Larry Kudlow invoke Adam Smith's name, his corpse spins like a top. :;):

There is no level playing field because the good ole' boys from Yale have rigged the game. Good ole' boy Kerry is merely more willing to toss the rest of us some scraps. Bush/Cheney won't share.

= = =

A new and interesting tidbit. Before Castro came to power the Bush family had some large land holdings in Cuba.

I seem to recall reading (in the last few days) that Castro's geologists NOW claim to have struck oil on that same land.

Would it be a conflict of interest for GWB to regime change Castro and then re-claim the stolen land after the Marines finish mopping up?

= = =

Just say NO!

To http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-new … sts]Sponge Bob Square Pants

:band:

Edited By BWhite on 1106250881

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-20 13:55:39

There is no level playing field because the good ole' boys from Yale have rigged the game. Good ole' boy Kerry is merely more willing to toss the rest of us some scraps. Bush/Cheney won't share.

The guy that talked about raising taxes is more willing to toss us some scraps than the guy who cut taxes?

I don't know how much the average millionaire gained off this, but I know a few low income workers and a poor single mother who got to keep a little more of their money.

But we didn't punish the rich in the process, so none of it matters for those "fighting for the little guy".

Would it be a conflict of interest for GWB to regime change Castro and then re-claim the stolen land after the Marines finish mopping up?

Now you've hit close to one of my story ideas.

Euler · 2005-01-20 15:00:23

I question the sincerity of the belief in equality deep in the hearts of much of the Left as well. These are after all the people who think we need the government to take care of our healthcare, retirement, and general welfare; presumably becaue we're too stupid to do it for ourselves and only through their benign leadership can we survive.

The problem is not that people are too stupid to take care of themselves, the problem is that we live in an unpredictable world and sometimes you can get screwed even if you do everything right. Government acts as a sort of all-purpose insurance policy.

I don't know how much the average millionaire gained off this, but I know a few low income workers and a poor single mother who got to keep a little more of their money.

They save money on taxes only to be gouged by higher interest rates and other negative economic effects that are caused by budget deficits.

P.S.: I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. remains "in the driver's seat" for another solid 100 years yet. But not much beyond that.

I would be surprised by that. If current trends continue and we continue to rely solely on our own strength, I think that our driver’s seat will be usurped in about ten years.

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-20 15:10:48

The problem is not that people are too stupid to take care of themselves, the problem is that we live in an unpredictable world and sometimes you can get screwed even if you do everything right. Government acts as a sort of all-purpose insurance policy.

In theory, only like any other insurance policy there comes a point where it doesn't make economic sense for you to keep paying the premiums.

What we currently have is, to use the old car insurance example again, people forced to pay for collision coverage even if they don't drive.

I'm not saying we need to immediately cut all social programs, but we do need to examine what's needed and what isn't, what works and what doesn't, and restructure accordingly with the idea in mind that we must justify every expense to the people who are paying for it.

They save money on taxes only to be gouged by higher interest rates and other negative economic effects that are caused by budget deficits.

So since they're gonna get screwed either way we might is well do it right up front eh? :;):

But seriously, this overlooks an important point. What causes budget deficits?

If you said "tax cuts" you're dead wrong. Spending causes deficits. Cutting taxes while raising spending is stupid, but tax cuts aren't the damaging side of that equation.

That's one of my beefs with Bush, he spends money like a . . . drunken sailor.

I was going to say "Congressional Democrat" but in the interests of reaching out . . . :;):

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1106255487

Euler · 2005-01-20 15:56:38

But seriously, this overlooks an important point. What causes budget deficits?
If you said "tax cuts" you're dead wrong. Spending causes deficits. Cutting taxes while raising spending is stupid, but tax cuts aren't the damaging side of that equation.

Both tax cuts and spending contribute to the budget deficit. If you cut taxes enough you will have a budget deficit no matter how much you decrease spending.

I was going to say "Congressional Democrat" but in the interests of reaching out . . .

Democrats do have a reputation as being big spenders, but it is not entirely deserved. It is interesting that spending/GDP decreased every year that Clinton was president and has increased every year that Bush has been president.

Grypd · 2005-01-20 16:03:47

What we have to realise is that like the more advanced countries in Europe the USA is shedding a lot of what was called the blue collar Industrial manufacturing jobs. These jobs are going to countries like India and China as there costs in wages and weaker enviroment/pension laws allow increased profits. This is the result of what is a Global economy. But it will hardly be permanent as like the western world these countries will become less and less a good option for this manufacturing as they develop till the point as we are it is painful as jobs start to leave them.

But with Industrial automation getting more and more efficient and smaller it is likely that India and China may find that they will struggle to remain as strong if they stay purely as Industrial giants. It will not be too far in the future where a designer in his lab will download to an almost purely automated factory the product to be created and it can be made almost on site or very nearby so saving expensive transport costs.

Trebuchet · 2005-01-20 16:16:54

It will not be too far in the future where a designer in his lab will download to an almost purely automated factory the product to be created and it can be made almost on site or very nearby so saving expensive transport costs.

That day is arriving faster than you think. In fact, it's already arrived to a degree with current rapid prototyping devices - it's just mass production that's slow and requires a massive factory and an army of workers.

Here would be my big prediction: The music industry is complaining about people pirating music right now. I predict that in ten years, Nike will start complaining about people pirating *shoes*. And in thirty years, General Motors will be filing lawsuits against people pirating whole cars.

Grypd · 2005-01-20 17:12:42

That day is arriving faster than you think. In fact, it's already arrived to a degree with current rapid prototyping devices - it's just mass production that's slow and requires a massive factory and an army of workers.
Here would be my big prediction: The music industry is complaining about people pirating music right now. I predict that in ten years, Nike will start complaining about people pirating *shoes*. And in thirty years, General Motors will be filing lawsuits against people pirating whole cars.

I agree and it does show how the world has changed.

We are suffering the pain at the moment of how so many manufacturing jobs are leaving the shores of the western world and going to a "cheaper" to operate climate.

Still it is worth noting how the people who design these devices the scientists and inventors are heading. For many years Europe suffered what was called the "Brain Drain" where many very bright people left to go for the big research grants that could be gained in the USA. This though has stopped some of it due to changes in policies by the current administration but a lot has to go to a renewed sense of science in Europe. If anything this "Brain Drain" has reversed. Still for the up and coming countries like India and China it is worth noting they are losing there brightest to both Europe and the USA. So in science endeavours it seems the western world still leads. (not counting Japan).

The future is as they say is the undiscovered country and it is really hard to make out. We can gain some insite from the general trends and try to apply it to history to see if we can see the pattern that forms.

My prediction. We will have a more unified Europe and it will become a superpower. China has the potential and the will and I believe it will be one too. But these superpowers and I still include the USA will be tempered by the smaller countries who will form treaty organisations like OPEC to ensure that as they have most of the resources that these superpowers require that they get the most out of it. It will be who can influence these countries that will show who really rules the planet.

BWhite · 2005-01-20 17:22:43

I was taught to treat words like "Liberty" and "Freedom" and "Justice" as sacred - - words and ideas we tread around with caution and respect and aspire to implement. Words we approach with humility.
Early in life I learned that words mean different things to different people and "Justice", "Freedom" and "Liberty" don't necessarily travel together.

Thucydides wrote that in times of crisis "words change from their ordinary meaning"

When Bush talks about "exporting liberty" I am reminded of Tacitus:

"They create a desert and call it peace." Tacitus commenting on the Roman conquests.

BWhite · 2005-01-20 23:49:16

The last time a president was elected for a 2nd term with a Republican majority in both houses of Congress was 1928.

In 1929 . . . .

Trebuchet · 2005-01-21 00:46:09

The last time a president was elected for a 2nd term with a Republican majority in both houses of Congress was 1928.
In 1929 . . . .

Because, as we all know, one event establishes a pattern. Right? Right! The flaws with that 'reasoning' are such that you should go play in the sandbox with Errorist until you wise up. Yeesh. You might as well blame something on a particular alignment of the stars.

GraemeSkinner · 2005-01-21 01:49:54

*America's been proud for a long time. And every civilization falls eventually. The sun used to rise and set on the British Empire. It doesn't anymore. (No offense to the Brits here).

Well someone could have told me!

Graeme

Grypd · 2005-01-21 09:44:48

So we have an inaugural speach from Bush which mentions freedom 27 times in the 16 minutes of its length but it was this part which causes me the most interest.

The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands

Does this mean that Bush and his administration will go after Iran and North Korea. But will the USA go alone or will other countries follow?

Palomar · 2005-01-21 10:04:53

So we have an inaugural speach from Bush which mentions freedom 27 times in the 16 minutes of its length but it was this part which causes me the most interest.
The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands
Does this mean that Bush and his administration will go after Iran and North Korea. But will the USA go alone or will other countries follow?

*Graeme: It was just an analogy. Okay? I didn't intend to imply that nobody here knew that or that I was being "informative" somehow.

Dick Morris (former Clinton adviser) was interviewed on Bill O'Reilly's show last night. Morris seems to think it's okay for the U.S. to try and "plant" democracy abroad as that's the only way to ensure a democracy survives. Totalitarian states (North Korea, Iran) were mentioned by comparison, and he also made the statement that no democratic nation ever starts a war. :hm:

Just thought I'd mention it.

--Cindy

GraemeSkinner · 2005-01-21 10:11:13

*Graeme: It was just an analogy. Okay? I didn't intend to imply that nobody here knew that or that I was being "informative" somehow.

I know, I was just being the weak comic relief (must have been too weak though )

Graeme

Palomar · 2005-01-21 10:34:23

*No problem. It's sometimes difficult to discern humor online and I honestly thought I'd made you angry. Just wanted to clear the air.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-01-21 11:21:23

Question:

The inauguration included a National Prayer Service, formally recognized by the President. At that service, this was said:

Offering one prayer, the Rev. Billy Graham said he believed God had a hand in Bush's re-election.

President Bush was present at this event. If he leaves Graham's statement unchallenged, does that mean Bush himself believes God guided his re-election?

Or is he playing things both ways?

Telling the religious people, yup God chose me to be President but doing it via surrogates so he can deny this with more secular citizens.

Is this troubling?

Edited By BWhite on 1106328181

Palomar · 2005-01-21 11:37:08

Question:
The inauguration included a National Prayer Service, formally recognized by the President. At that service, this was said:
Offering one prayer, the Rev. Billy Graham said he believed God had a hand in Bush's re-election.
President Bush was present at this event. If he leaves Graham's statement unchallenged, does that mean Bush himself believes God guided his re-election?
Or is he playing things both ways?
Telling the religious people, yup God chose me to be President but doing it via surrogates so he can deny this with more secular citizens.
Is this troubling?

*Most (if not every) evangelical Christian -- whether individually or by sect -- that I knew growing up in my childhood church firmly believe that it is God who decides/chooses the world's leaders.

-edited-

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-21 15:25:16

*Most (if not every) evangelical Christian -- whether individually or by sect -- that I knew growing up in my childhood church firmly believe that it is God who decides/chooses the world's leaders.

Let's accept this premise for the moment, now ...

President Bush was present at this event. If he leaves Graham's statement unchallenged, does that mean Bush himself believes God guided his re-election?
Or is he playing things both ways?
Telling the religious people, yup God chose me to be President but doing it via surrogates so he can deny this with more secular citizens.
Is this troubling?

If the evangelicals, a significant portion of Bush's base, believe that God chooses leaders it's in Bush's interest not to directly challenge that assertion. He doesn't have to face election again but losing support among his base can still hurt his agenda. If a surrogate echoes the "God Votes Bush" sentiment, whether on their own or as part of an orchestrated plan Bush has political reasons for not challenging it.

But since he himself doesn't say as much it means one of two things. Either he believes it but knows it's politically damaging to say as much (God looks at polls?) and therefore let's it stand to shore up his base while not pushing it to the point of losing secular supporters, or he doesn't believe it but knows the evangelicals can be counted on if they believe he's one of them.

Either way he's a shrewd politician and contrary to the popular caricature, he's no fool.

BWhite · 2005-01-21 15:54:04

http://washingtontimes.com/world/200501 … 1r.htm]New link to the original story.

Britian agrees to lifting EU arms embargo on China.

The story also talks about a $2 billion military contract Britain signed with a European company after a rift over access to US military technology.

Grypd · 2005-01-21 20:45:57

I had heard about this it came out at the same time as this was in the newspapers in the UK
http://www.thisisoxfordshire.co.uk/oxfo … .html]News Article

It really will come down to one day Britain deciding to go either towards Europe or to the USA. At the moment its a bit like being a table tennis ball. Sometimes being in the middle can make the two sides go closer. Sometimes it means one or more sides dont trust you as you are not totally on "their" side. Well it seems at the moment the USA does not trust Britain and so Britain is pushed towards Europe. And as Europe gets stronger so will Britains ability to act if it is to remain a "good" European. Maybe we should go neutral like switzerland! Of course their is the elections this year and there are parties that will if they gain power withdraw us from the EEC and there are parties that would have us remove ourselves from Iraq too. Its the old chinese curse interesting times.

And if anyone is interested in Pakistan the goverment are very pleased with there new main battle tank which they have developed ahead of there rivals the Indians with the Help of the Chinese and the Ukraine. They turned to the Chinese when France refused to sell them components after they started development of nuclear weapons. The other thing about this tank is apparently its hitech optics and control devices are supposed to simply have been developed from western designs they had got hold off.

Euler · 2005-01-21 21:14:02

And if anyone is interested in Pakistan the goverment are very pleased with there new main battle tank which they have developed ahead of there rivals the Indians with the Help of the Chinese and the Ukraine. They turned to the Chinese when France refused to sell them components after they started development of nuclear weapons. The other thing about this tank is apparently its hitech optics and control devices are supposed to simply have been developed from western designs they had got hold off.

Does it have the laser self-defense system? I know that the Chinese are putting it on their newest tanks, but it is surprising that they would export such a new technology to Pakistan.

BWhite · 2005-01-22 17:23:41

http://www.expatica.com/source/site_art … e]Rumsfeld & Germany

Rumsfeld has informed the German government via the US embassy he will not take part at the Munich Security Conference in February, conference head Horst Teltschik said.
The New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights filed a complaint in December with the Federal German Prosecutor's Office against Rumsfeld accusing him of war crimes and torture in connection with detainee abuses at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

I guess the Germans declined to summarily dismiss the complaint.

Edited By BWhite on 1106436303

Euler · 2005-01-24 14:22:26

Sino-Indian http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti … ]strategic dialogue

"They emphasised the need for making international relations democratic in order to face this challenge. Both sides agreed that the trend towards multi-polarity was conducive to international peace and should be encouraged."

Translation: they agreed to work together to counter US influence.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-08-07 08:01:26

Putin Warns West Current World Order Is Over and New Era Is Coming

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-putin-m … er-1726686

BRICS In The New World Energy Order: Hedging In Oil Geopolitics

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdoshi … opolitics/

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-08-07 08:02:05)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2005-01-20 13:44:17

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#52 2005-01-20 13:55:39

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#53 2005-01-20 15:00:23

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#54 2005-01-20 15:10:48

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#55 2005-01-20 15:56:38

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#56 2005-01-20 16:03:47

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#57 2005-01-20 16:16:54

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#58 2005-01-20 17:12:42

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#59 2005-01-20 17:22:43

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#60 2005-01-20 23:49:16

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#61 2005-01-21 00:46:09

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#62 2005-01-21 01:49:54

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#63 2005-01-21 09:44:48

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#64 2005-01-21 10:04:53

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#65 2005-01-21 10:11:13

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#66 2005-01-21 10:34:23

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#67 2005-01-21 11:21:23

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#68 2005-01-21 11:37:08

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#69 2005-01-21 15:25:16

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#70 2005-01-21 15:54:04

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#71 2005-01-21 20:45:57

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#72 2005-01-21 21:14:02

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#73 2005-01-22 17:23:41

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#74 2005-01-24 14:22:26

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

#75 2022-08-07 08:01:26

Re: A New World Order - Balance of Power?

Board footer