I'm going to give a more detailed post later... but until then, could you please flesh out your argument as to why day trading causes prices of stocks to artificially increase?  Remember... a day trader will sell off every stock they purchase within the day, which means if their purchase increases the price of the stock, their subsequent sale of the stock will decrease the stock's price.  What uniquely differentiates the financial market from conventional supply/demand economic theory?

This should be interesting...

If it becomes official, I expect election polling updates! 

Hasn't taken pollution down to zero!

@kingsnine

There is such a thing as property tax, but I don't believe it is used at the federal level.  I dunno why. 

> twosidedeath wrote:

> i fail to see how blaming something suggests a solution, but thank you for your point of veiw

If by "blaming something" you mean a policy (like what dpenguins did), then you have a problem.

If we can summarize that X policy causes Y, and Y is bad... and thus blame X for Y... preventing or undoing X can either reverse Y or prevent another instance of Y.

In Dpenguins case, he cited a logical statement that a specific policy caused the economic crisis.  Whether it's true or not can be debated.  But if, through debate, we can identify that the policy in question did trigger the economic crisis, it stands to reason that avoiding that policy would avoid future economic crises. 

@twoisdeath and CrazyOne

First of all, I don't agree with either of your statements.  The two-party system has managed to survive for... 200 years.  Kind of a long time for an unsustainable system to continue.

But anyway, that's not really why I made this post.  What both of you are engaging in is the same terrible politics which creates the problems you're worried about.  When we ask about the causes, and solutions, to economic crises and the best solution someone can come up with is to overturn non-economic sectors of a society, they really aren't engaging in economic policymaking.  Instead, either you're using the crisis to justify your own beliefs (you begin with the assumption that the two-party system is bad, and cite only slightly related issues as the cause of the crisis to justify your thesis) or you're simply grasping at straws in coming up with actual policy prescriptions.

Either way, your prescriptions don't help.  The best you can hope for with those policy prescriptions is that someone who knows what to do will magically appear and make everything better.  It doesn't work that way, because it still relies on people like you to vote... people who either don't know or don't care about the workings of the economy and ways that it will be fixed.  Long story short... even if a two-party system is removed, you'll still have a screwed up economy because people such as yourselves who aren't evaluating the economic issue aren't able to effectively vote for good economic policy... and the problem repeats itself.

***************************************

Okay, now that my slight rage post is done, let me try to better explain what I mean... If you understood the above, you can ignore this:

Regardless of whether or not your political prescription is adopted to solve the crisis, economic solutions will be needed (stock investors won't suddenly say "We have a multiparty democracy... quick, let's hire another 2 million workers, drop the price of oil, and fix the banking industry!").

Instead, the best case scenario for your idea is that better politicians come into play to make better economic decisions.  However, your system (just like two-party democracy) relies on the voters, as they are the ones with the power to hire and fire.  As a result, without actually knowing the best economic decision, your policy equates to restructuring government in the hopes that someone magically comes and fixes the economy, without going through the work of actually figuring out how to best fix the economy.  Even if your multiparty system was adopted, the result would be that you would get your multiparty system, then say "Um... okay, now what?"

> EmperorHez wrote:

> how about blaming BOTH sides for having some part in causing the debt problems?

Well... how is each side to blame?  Before asserting both need to take responsibility, you should at least state the specific action for which each side is uniquely responsible.

What makes you think mods don't check?

If you have a substantiated case of account sitting suspected... you can report it to them!

I always thought of them as planets with places of some cultural significance... religious locations, tourism, or something of that sort...

Yeah... I'm with Flint on the Twilight Zone thing.  I don't even know what the hell's going on anymore.

*throws in the towel*

You know...

I always find it interesting when one person claims another is a drone of a group of other people that agree with them... when the person making said argument is stating an opinion with its own set of people which agree with him (MSNBC, Rachel Maddow, etc).  Kind of hurts the argument that someone else in a two-sided issue is a "mindless drone" when the alternative to being part of one massive ideology... is to join an opposite massive ideology. 

Oh, right... and bad play to not go into sources.  I'm trying to find good sources on this either way, but I know what I'll find will be charged as politically biased one way or another... so I'm trying to find government websites. 

*challenges AA and Einstein to post sources on the debt*

I'm going through and looking through them right now as well.