> Newb wrote:
> How about loosely controlled capitalism?
Nobody's talking about laissez faire, except for maybe Acolyte.
Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Posts by Justinian I
> Newb wrote:
> How about loosely controlled capitalism?
Nobody's talking about laissez faire, except for maybe Acolyte.
As Yell pointed out sarcastically.
In the American POV, freedom and a planned economy are a contradiction.
> Alan Statham wrote:
> There's a lot of historical debate around this subject, and most of the historians agree that the reason why americans don't have any real socialist movement worthy of the name is because it's been a protestant country ever since it existed. Protestants take a different approach towards poverty and economy, wich over the years have become internalised and almost invisible motives. Protestants, pronounced the best in calvinism see wealth and succes as the grace of God, wich makes them subconciously less tolerant towards poor and unsuccesful people.>>
Did you know that most Americans have a very weak commitment to their religion, and see their wealth as a result of their hard work? Did you also know that we really, really do not appreciate willful parasitic members of society? That's why we don't like poor people, because we tend to consider that they are people who make foolish decisions and become parasitic to our economy, and well, like any human being we don't like it when our hard earned money is going to support them. Now, to people who are parasitic but not because of their own incompetent or criminal decision making, such as someone born with a defect, we believe in social programs and taking care of them.
avo,
No I don't mind if people like sports or books. But then you pay your own money and go to a private organization. Don't force the tax payers to do it. As for books, I only said post modernism. It's idiotic nonsense that prevails in the liberal arts, but fails to respond to criticism from scientific and mathematical circles.
The basic principle that America needs to do is adopt no values and strictly commit to a pragmatic domestic and foreign policy. At the moment, America is a very idealist driven country. We have Obama who has appealed to a populist agenda, but whose policies would add to the all ready horrendous inefficiency of the nation. Then there are the religious right who commit to values that are a contradiction to pragmatism. For example, the idea that abortion should be banned would increase the stress on the state. Then there is the abstinence policy that is very unrealistic and causes people to be unable to make informed calculations of the risks they face when they are no longer able to remain abstinent (as what mostly happens). Not that religion isn't an extension of politics or an important tool, but never should it be considered above the practical realities faced by those who are making political decisions.
Unlike Obama, I have some solutions. Here are some of my recommendations.
Public Education:
1. Destroy the teacher's unions
- this will allow greater merit in the hiring process, and permit schools to fire poor teachers without the mile long of red tape imposed by the teacher's unions.
- As a consequence of improved merit of teachers, the students will be exposed to an optimal education considering the practical limitations.
2. "No public funding until frivolous expenses are cut."
-Public funding can not go to pay for frivolous costs that are causing our public education to be unnecessarily expensive. For example, remove the sports teams, the swimming pools, outdoor stadiums and music programs. We can keep the gyms for gym class and that's it.
3. Higher standards
-Our education standards are pathetic. We need to raise them, and have a greater focus on math and science.
4. No more post-modernism
-It's bs and pollutes the minds of our young.
Economy:
1. Less regulation
-With less government intervention, the greater efficiency and thus better service consumers receive.
2. Relax environmental standards
-Using natural gas as a substitute to coal is inefficient and raises prices.
3. Build more nuclear power plants
-It's efficient, clean, and safe.
4. Drill domestic oil
-With more supply, the lower the price.
5. Let Toyota overwhelm America's auto industry
-Lets face it, America's auto industry sucks. Force them to be competitive or be whiped out.
Law and Order:
1. Clear laws that everyone understands
-The law codes are ridiculous
2. Raise the harshness of punishment
-Face it, repeat felons are parasites and will always be. Execute them.
3. Prompt executions
-If you're going to have a death penalty, don't make it inefficient and more costly than life imprisonment.
Government:
1. Turn it in to an efficient machine
-Government exists because it delivers services. It doesn't exist as part of a social contract, by God, or whatever else. Fact is, a government that can not deliver comes to ruin. If you want to remain in power, then you need to efficiently and effectively deliver. This also means reducing the size of government in order to be efficient and cutting back on red tape.
2. Low, flat income tax
-The Fair Tax is dumb, but so is our current one. Fact is it isn't progressive and never will be, and it's so complicated we might as well substitute it with a low flat tax with the minimum number of deductions. That will simplify the system and increase investments in the economy (no capital gains tax/more money in people's pockets with lower tax). It will also reflect the smaller, more efficient government.
Foreign Policy:
1. General
-Challenging the Russians and forcing them to side with the Chinese against us is very dumb. So is entangling our ground forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and thinking we can bring democracy to a land without a middle class. We not disturb the peace of other great powers by mingling in the affairs of their peripheral zones (countries you influence), and expect that they leave ours alone too (South Americans are our toys). This means leaving Eastern Europe to Russia.
2. Cooperate with the other great powers
-It is in both side's interests to cooperate, rather than America acting with a unilateral foreign policy. Pulling stuff in Eastern Europe is only building formidable alliances against us, and is definitely not a strategic move.
3. Mobility and Terror
-The military policy of "overwhelming force" is the most idiotic military idea ever created. Mobility and Terror has frequently defeated overwhelming force. Consider the Carthaginians completely destroying the Roman army at Canae by being more mobile and having tactical superiority. Also consider how the Bulgarians were able to defeat the 80,000 strong Byzantine army by being more mobile and surrounding them. Even better, consider Ghengis Khan. The Mongol army really wasn't that large or able to occupy the empire it did. It was just very fast, and very ruthless. This advantage allowed it to defeat very power empires that relied on strength, such as the Persian Empire, and command the loyalty of its subjects. America has the most powerful airforce in the world, and it should use the mobility and terror this can offer. This would allow us to strike hard anywhere, preventing anyone like Hugo Chavez from challenging our imperial grip. By entangling ourselves in two countries with "overwhelming force," we commit ourselves to higher casualties and higher expenses - and make ourselves vulnerable to other political forces who wish to undermine our power. It's cheaper in terms of $ and life for us to use mobility and terror with our air force. Our ground forces should be used to occupy strategic locations.
4. Defend the anarchism of international politics
-Silly Europeans and other countries tend to think that there can be active international courts. We should have no interest in that, and continue to respect the old ways, where international justice was carried out by an "anarchistic peerage." If you were a big bulley who threw his weight around, alliances would form to limit or oust you. If you were total slime, you would be judged and punished by that peerage. As a result, we should not compel other states to form alliances against us by being big bullies. The world is now changing, other powers can challenge the US economically and furthermore the world is also economically interdependent. Having a more diplomatic and cooperative foreign policy can thus be a lot cheaper and more effective, but at the same time a powerful "mobility and terror" military can be a useful tool to achieve our goals.
And those are some of my ideas for now.
More inheritance tax. Tax the blazes out of the upper middle class. Tax dividends.
More student aid. Even more for students who participate in the peace corps!
I don't download. I go to youtube.
Emperor Augustus was skinny and sickly. In some battles, he even had to command his troops while laying in bed. Nevertheless, the victorious triumvir lived to be 77 years old. And for those who don't know history, Augustus was Rome's first Emperor, and many senators predicted he would die from poor health long before he was an autocrat.
"Hello, my name is x, and I am running to be your elected x.
I want to be x, because as Henry Kissinger said, power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. I want power, and to keep and maintain it I recognize that I need to demonstrate my capability to eliminate my competition. To do that in a guaranteed way requires me to deliver more efficient service expected of my office than anyone else. For me, the simple rule is that if I do a good job, if I deliver good services, the more powerful I become and the harder it is for anyone to challenge me. If I don't, I am just like any other politician.
In order to deliver good service, I recognize that I first need to identify the most efficient solution given my practical limitations, and then identify the means to reach that outcome. To identify those means, I have to rely on experience - to stick to observations and the facts. In other words, I am a pragmatist, and will aim for the outcome that delivers the best service, and I will reach that destination with the minimum possible resources - whether that is diplomacy or calculated strategic maneuvers.
If you want your fake, hearty idealist, then don't vote for me. But if you want results, then I am your man.
Vote for x. Vote for results."
PS: x is a variable, and we are assuming that the office of x is a high political office.
I am wondering because though no politician says something like this, I have noticed that people sometimes respond favorably to others when they declare their selfish intentions unapologetically. And also, there is a rationale behind providing good service as a way to become more powerful. It is kind of like a business. A business that is more efficient than its competitors can eliminate them and be more profitable.
> Alan Statham wrote:
> Oh right, Justinian, blaming it all on the "working class" and how ignorant they are, is crap. A proper educational system should solve all those problems, rather than amplifying them. You sound horribly social darwinistic there.>>
Regardless, in the US intelligence and income differ greatly from class to class.
It's not that Americans are stupid, that's an unfair generalization. However, we have a very large working class, and only 25% of the population even have a college degree. What makes this really sad is that our universities really aren't that difficult to get through. I can tell you from personal experience, that not only do working class students complain about their education costs (which is actually affordable), the vast majority of them are very ignorant and religious. They flood the universities inspired with the American dream that one day they will live a better life, force the universities to drop their standards to accommodate the influx of stupid people, and then fail out financially broke. To give you an idea of how stupid working class people in America are. I was the only upper middle class student in a class of 30, and none of them were able to answer the professor's question of what the Cuban Missile Crisis was. I decided not to answer (correctly) for several seconds but I saw all puzzled faces. In that class I also gave a speech on real politik, assuming they would know who Otto von Bismarck, Metternich, and at least Henry Kissinger were, but I only had puzzled faces. My grade was dropped as being inappropriate for the audience - I over estimated their intelligence.
On the other hand, upper middle class Americans take their education seriously, and are able to reason abstractly. It comes to no surprise to me that most the high achievers, people pursuing science or other academic careers, came from upper middle class families in my experience. Furthermore, they are able to reason abstractly, and discuss intellectual topics.
I don't know how large the working class in Europe is, or how ignorant they are. But I can tell you that my upper middle class Danish friend said that working class Danes are also stupid. Though the US has a large working class, it is still unfair to represent all Americans as being like them. Upper middle class Americans are very different, as is the quality of our education. You should look at America not as a big lump of ignorant people, but as a country with an excess population of working class citizens. You should also consider that each state has unequal education. For example, South Carolina is pathetic, while Minnesota (which is culturally Scandinavian/German) has one of the best public education systems in the nation.
My point: Working class people are stupid everywhere, and the quality of education substantially differs state to state.
Alan,
Lol. Well if that were the case, then the Nazis would have never been prosecuted because they were not part of the UN, and the genocidal maniacs being charged now would have left the UN during their term of office as head of state.
Yes the US uses the UN as an arm of its power.
And glad you admit that the EU supports a strong UN. That reinforces my conviction that Europeans are responsible for the increasingly active role of international courts, when 10 years ago these activities would have been thought to be unthinkable. Moreover, a stronger UN would actually increase the power of European states, because it would undermine the the major powers that use it as their little puppet and enable Europeans to be the center of a powerful organization of international justice. Yes the location of the courts is important for inferring who has power. The UN building is located in the US, hehe. And the little third world countries probably don't want a strong EU either, because they are frequently guilty of "war crimes." Really, the only countries who would want a strong UN, apparently, would be located in Europe.
So what if the Europeans were skeptical of UN during its beginning, the world is different than it was 60 some years ago.
Yes there is a power game with the UN, especially by the world's major powers. But nonetheless a strong UN is dangerous, and it should be kept weak.
In short:
The EU supports a strong UN
The UN is growing stronger
The US and other major powers have reason to want a weak UN
Third world countries have reason to want a weak UN
What does this say about Europe?
Alan,
I don't see how national autonomy and economic interdependence are mutually exclusive. We can trade and so on, and forget having an organization that attempts to supercede the power of states. Issuing and enforcing international law is a no no. Making trade agreement, communication, and resolving differences is fine.
Yes there are heads of states who are nasty, but none or few of them compare to the total slime like Stalin or Hitler. Before the UN, states used political means to deal with an imperialist or scumbag. They didn't trust them and they formed coalitions to destroy them or create a balance the power. What you did affected your relations with your neighbors. These recent acts of the UN are setting a dangerous precedent where nation states no longer have the autonomy they once had, and are instead subject to the power of a much larger organization.
In other words, I am in favor of a weak UN. A strong UN is threatening. I am also saying that European actions suggest a favor for a strong UN, because their media criticizes the independent actions of the US and Russia and Russian agents assassinate vocal European journalists, and the first victims of the expansion of the UN's role as a judicial power are targeting former heads of state in Eastern Europe. Furthermore, the other major powers are probably not involved, because the US, Russia, and China act very independently from the UN and seem to be vigilant of it performing such a role. All this leads to European involvement, although yes, it is only conjecture. But I think it is a sound conjecture given Europe's history and apparent attitudes toward the UN.
Dragon,
Yes. Read my reasoning.
Alan,
That security council history only reinforces what I said. The US uses political means to accomplish its objectives. The US' veto record only demonstrates that it has protected its interests from the UN, not that it uses it necessarily to advance its interests. And who do you suppose brought up the challenges to US foreign policy? Europe. After all, it's always some European journalist that challenges the US or Russia, and then gets killed by Russian agents.
Primo,
For the most part, the UN has been relatively inactive in international law after WW2 with a few exceptions. Lately it has expanded beyond its largely inactive and ceremonial role.
But yes. I believe in the limited role of the UN. It should operate much like the concert of Europe, not as the power above states.
Primo,
Yes, how dare they arrest war criminals. The problem with this is that the issuing and enforcement of "international law" is a violation of national autonomy. It is the rudiments of an organization that could potentially pose a great threat to national autonomy in the future. I stand against any organization that would subvert the autonomy of nations by superceding the power of the state. It must be stopped immediately.
The US at least does it the old fashion way. We don't like you, we use political means to accomplish our objectives.
I am saying that the increasing activity of the "international court" is disturbing. Playing a ceremonial role and being relatively inactive since WW2 is one thing, but it's recent charging of "war criminals" and enforcement of "laws in war" is disturbing. Not that I condone the acts of "war criminals," but I certainly condemn the increasing size and activity of the international court as a threat to national autonomy.
The purpose of the UN should be to serve as a means of communication and cooperation among nations, not as an organization that supercedes the power of states.
As for the Europeans behind this. I think it is, because neither the US, Russia, China, or any other major power would give a hoot based on their past activities. I suspect, in fact, that European influence in the UN is responsible for all of this. The US is vigilant of the UN, and the other major powers really just don't care about this type of thing, and it would run contrary to their own interests. The Europeans have also been known to use the UN as a means of exercising their power and opposing the US and Russia.
Yep, I am pretty confident it's the Europeans who are responsible for this kind of thing. It sounds just like their kind of dirty work, taking the moral high ground and using the UN to exercise and expand their power.
Lately, the Europeans have illustrated that they are the most insolent sobs in the world. They think that they are enlightened and entitled to issue and enforce an international law. Seriously, wtf?
It's time that countries tell the EU what's up and that we do not recognize any attempt to subvert national autonomy by an active international court.
Yes there are heads of state who are just total slime. But you deal with them like we did in the past, you depose of them through political means and political justifications. The new way of doing so - by an international law and developing an international police force - that's just disturbing.
It seems the Euros haven't stopped their Imperialist ways after all.
Nolio,
Oh I disagree. It makes you more qualified than a victim of racial profiling. The reason is that your emotions color the topic much less, enabling you to have a fresher, more objective analysis. With a careful scientific investigation, the evidence will guarantee a conclusion. A wrong conclusion is due to either false reasoning or insufficient evidence. The former is a very real risk among an actual victim. As I mentioned my Indian friend, he blamed all his problems on racism. His emotions clouded his reasoning, but when I analyzed his problems further his problems were due to very different causes. I have also noticed that the racist attribution is very common among minority groups of lower classes.
Not that racism and racial profiling don't happen, but I think they are overblown. I think what we consider racial profiling is really class profiling. My middle class black friend has negligible problems with racial profiling and racism, and so does my Asian aunt. Yes my Asian aunt has been assumed to be a terrorist before, but in most cases she receives the treatment of her class, a woman of the upper middle class who earns a six figure income. The same is true of my black friend, who is very middle class. He is not treated like someone in the hood.
Second, white people who can be inferred as being in a lower class are perceived the same way. I also have a white acquaintance from the working class who has a nice sports car, he has a lease for it, and he is consistently pulled over by the police for asinine reasons like a warning that his tabs expire in a few weeks.
With the evidence available to me, it seems to me that racism and racial profiling is much rarer than its made out to be. Most of the cases are class profiling and classism. Now I agree that black people have a harder time persuading the police and citizenry that they are hard working, educated, and not from a lower class, but it can be pulled off and the harassment severely reduced to the point of being negligible.
I am actually ignorant of this question. That's why I'm asking. Are black people discriminated against by law enforcement and citizens in the US for the only reason of being black?
Thoughts?
My immediate thought is no. This talk about discrimination is not due to race, but appearance. You dress like you're from the hood, you get treated like you're from the hood. I think this because I have a friend who, though white, was discriminated against by police for dressing like a "punk." I have also heard of teenage discrimination, but I never was discriminated by police, probably because I act civilized, dress appropriately, and don't drive like an idiot.
Secondly, I have an Indian friend who could never get hired because he dressed inappropriately. He blamed it on racism. I told him to stop applying for Target in a suit, and dress a little more casually. He was finally hired at the next place he applied to.
My best friend is also black. Though he has been a target of racial slurs, he has no problems getting hired, with the police, or with his all white neighbors. What separates him apart is that he is intelligent, articulate, and minds his appearance (doesn't dress like some person in "da hood").
> Question wrote:
> ... I guess most of us were not around during the great depression. Virtually every country in the world was suffering. You think 5-10% unemployment is bad what happens when the global average for "developed" economies approach 25-35%. This "short term" pain that we are seeing is NOTHING. But if it gets worse it can get alot wosre.>>
Who cares? The poor people can just build more Hoovervilles, and there will be more prostitutes and thus lower prices.
I know this sounds very strange, but I got laid, because of a tornado. It knocked out the power and scared the hell out of everyone. Being that the apartment complex had no ac anymore and it was very hot/humid outside, the girls were scared. I was like one of few people who had a flashlight, and one of the girls ended up letting me bang her.
Actually that last part was a lie. I was making fun of New York which had a surge of pregnancies after a power outage.
I only talked to girls. Then I called my parents at 11:00 pm and told them I was coming home.
However, what's funny is that I was taking a nap during the tornado, which was happening at 8:00. The sirens were on and it could have been seen from my window, I'm lucky it didn't come my way and instead took out a turkey farm a few blocks down.
> Black_Wing wrote:
> Well Put Mace.
As well, US owned holdings overseas are about 2.5-3 times the foreign holdings of proper US Property.
Even so, 7B is a mere pittance.
US EXPORTS grew at 2.5% last qtr as well. Cheaper dollar, makes for attractive US Products.
Yeah and the devaluing of my assets. Do you think I appreciate that a whole lot?
Well if the US goes down, I have family in Europe who will bail me out.
Funny huh? After a hundred years we still have contact with our family across the Atlantic Ocean.
One possibility is that your wireless card is inferior to the one on the other laptop. Try using your computer in another location with wi fi.
Imperial Forum → Posts by Justinian I
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.