This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

McCain vs. Obama

Liquidus Zeromus

Intervention was necessary to keep the economy from falling further. People who say that government economic intervention is bad, what is the alternative?
You say that the economy "rights itself out" in the end, but not before severe damage is done. Intervention can protect economies from collapse, and it also helps those who would suffer, all the time.
The question is of getting the balance between intervention and non-intervention right, not of the government sitting back whilst the economy collapses. The boom-bust cycle does alot of harm to economies, more than you might realise. People aren't just put out of jobs and companies out of profits, companies lose corporate memory and progress is stalled. It's not very helpful at all, and measures can be taken to keep it to a minimum.

Actually it is government intervention that drives boom/bust cycles. Regulation/deregulation being a primary cause. Further to this, one of the biggest factors behind boom/bust cycles is the Federal Reserve... or more generally, a fiat monetary system controlled by a central bank. The concentration of boom/busts over the past 40 years or so, when otherwise it would have taken centuries for the same amount of cycles to play out, is in a large part a direct consequence of these factors. The biggest player in the world wide debt markets is the US government... you think bankers have been bidding down prices of debt? How do you think the US government managed to rack up $13tn+ in obligations? Essentially, the US government has started off the biggest bull market in debt the world has ever seen. The credit crunch is merely an indication of the unwinding of this process. Also, this is why Ronald Reagan was one of the biggest economic failures in US Presidential history... he basically hoodwinked the entire US electorate when it came to fiscal conservatism.

Successive intervention by government only exaggerates and accelerates the boom/bust cycle, it does not abate and prevent them.

Reply 441

eBBZ

4

Sarah Palin is a dangerous individual.

Whereas Bush has plunged us into war after war without much intellectual thought, Palin knows exactly what she is doing - her imperialist aggression seems to dwarf the child like naivety of Bush and is far more dangerous - would lead straight to a head on collision with Russia methinks.

Reply 442

ssk2

10

eBBZ

Sarah Palin is a dangerous individual.

Whereas Bush has plunged us into war after war without much intellectual thought, Palin knows exactly what she is doing - her imperialist aggression seems to dwarf the child like naivety of Bush and is far more dangerous - would lead straight to a head on collision with Russia methinks.

Don't use words if you don't know what they mean. 'Imperialist aggression'? What on earth do you mean? If you're talking about Palin saying that if Georgia were a NATO member, the rest of NATO would be duty bound to act if Russia invaded Georgia, what is wrong with that?!

Reply 443

eBBZ

4

ssk2

Don't use words if you don't know what they mean. 'Imperialist aggression'? What on earth do you mean? If you're talking about Palin saying that if Georgia were a NATO member, the rest of NATO would be duty bound to act if Russia invaded Georgia, what is wrong with that?!

Don't be so naive. You think she gives a toss about NATO or the rights of Georgia?

It is all about the power game to her - squeeze eastwards towards the Russian border, cat and mouse, provoke the Russians like they have been doing for years with NATO.

I think you are hostage to the anti-russian, pro-western press that dominates our country.

And FYI i know exactly what I mean when i use the phrase 'imperialist aggression.'

Reply 444

favh

^^ Quite, the interventionism is being blamed as the cause of these problems, not necessarily as a bad response to them (though there's a strong argument for that, too).

Oswy

Yeah, but there's a certain kind of libertarian for whom anything less than absolute free markets and zero government is communism. The rest of us know this is a distortion growing out of one-dimensional idelogical commitment, but for them it's a truth to be repeated with zeal. Such libertarians are, ironically, no different to hard-line communists.

No libertarian has said anything resembling this on this thread or the liberty/safety thread; I have said exactly the opposite. I think DrunkHamster is right to call you a troll.

Reply 445

favh

Russia is a pretty abhorrent country. I can't say I would oppose aggressive, imperialist moves by the West to contain it.

Reply 446

EndangeredSpecies

Bismarck

Yes, because clearly lobbies have no influence in Britain. Your anti-American is pathetic.

They have no where near the same amount of influence as America. America is barely a democracy.

My anti-American is pathetic? OK i'll tell my anti-American you think he is pathetic. Could you be anymore of a cliche?

Reply 447

RyanT

15

My opinion of the US is pretty low, it'll sink further on this - Bush might be a dick, but he isn't anywhere near as bad as Palin. But my opinion is so low theres not much lower it can get before it gets classed alongside Israel/Georgia, its pretty damn close right now.

It would rise a lot if Obama won however.

Reply 448

naivesincerity

2

It won't change. I'll still think they voted for the person primarily because of social conservatism and what is seen by them as being a good American. Like the last few times. I can't recall elections before that so god knows how Clinton won.

Reply 449

L i b

19

Darkened Angel

There are no credible arguments for it. The early fetus is not concious, it is not even aware of its existence

I've addressed this previously: neither are the sleeping, the unconscious or the mentally ill. Unless you advocate killing them, then I'm afraid your argument lacks consistency.

, it is merely a bunch of cells, just like the skin cells, etc.

Or, indeed, like you.

Why? We force people to look after their children once they are born.

No we don't, children can be given away for adoption.

Yes, we do. There are child neglect laws, again this much is fact. True, children can be given up for adoption - if someone chooses to accept them. If they do not, and there is no viable alternative to the mother caring for the child - as when it is within the womb - then a responsibility is placed on the mother to care for it.

Again, fact. To argue against it lacks consistency.

if abortion was made illegal then the pressures on child care will rise significantly but the demand for adopting kids will stay the same. It is a very bad option.

Whether it leads to negative social consequences is neither here nor there. We do not lessen an existing right to life for convenience, or else we probably would start executing the most vulnerable members of our society, as your arguments would seem to advocate.

Fair enough if people are against abortion but if other people want to abort their child then they have every right to.

I evidently disagree.

The same can be said about you.

Only if you intend to rely on childish rhetoric rather than actual debate.

Reply 450

L i b

19

zanejamal

Thats different because in those instances you have the capacity to be self aware.

No you do not. You quite simply cannot be catatonic and self-aware, or in a coma and self-aware.

I would also argue that even in those scenarios you have given there is a level of self awareness in the subconscious i.e. in these states you still recognise your existance.

I'd argue that's complete rot.

An early stage fetus is not a sentient being and so you cant really use the term 'killing' as it is by definition not alive in the first place.

I'm afraid you're flying in the face of biological fact here. I can talk of killing skin cells quite properly, as they are alive.

By the same argument you have given, masturbation should also be illegal as you are destroying potential life - the sperm have just as much of this so called 'right' to live as the fetus does.

I have already answered this point. Potentially being something is quite clearly not the same as being something - and aiming this nonsense argument is about as ridiculous as aiming it at someone who believes any murder should be unlawful.

I am potentially a criminal, that does not mean I can be put in prison for it.

Reply 451

Liquidus Zeromus

17

That is a fallacy. Have you not heard of inflation and interest rates? At the peak of boom periods, prices will often start to inflate due to increased consumer spending power. This in turn reduces consumer and overall economic confidence, as people spend less. You did not know that? It is largely human psychology which drives business cycles. Often, modern governments take intervention to keep booms and recessions to a minimum. They still, happen, but not as badly as in the Great Depression, far from it.
Yes, the federal reserve had some bad policies back then, but it's kept inflation largely under control. Recessions are alot worse if the government doesn't try to keep inflation down. Prices increase, people are left without jobs. Lending should be more conservative.
One reason behind the credit crunch is poor lending regulations. Couple that with the seemingly unlimited greed of the banks, and the whole nation is going to end up drowning in debt. Lend to risky borrowers, get the most interest.
I agree on that point about Reagan though.
The overall shift to the financial market isn't helpful, either.
Britain's economy in particular has become too dependent on the financial industry. We need to diversify.

The effects of government intervention vary. If it simply involves subsidising companies and giving out massive handouts, then the problem probably won't be solved. Puts a big hole in the budget. Rather, tax and interest rate cuts are the way it's been done in Britain for a while now, I think. Ideally, there should be a buffer to allow for tax cuts without spending cuts. Tax more than is spent.
That should be combined with relatively low tax rates in the first place and only spending with actual funds, not credit. The government probably spends a significant amount of public money on paying off debts anyway. Not exactly value for money spending.

Reply 452

zanejamal

1

L i b

No you do not. You quite simply cannot be catatonic and self-aware, or in a coma and self-aware.

Why ? Being self aware simply means being aware of your existance. If you have the ability to think then you are self aware. People can think / dream in coma's or when sleeping. Also even if this is not the case, someone in a coma can regain that ability. An early stage fetus does not have the systems in place for this - it doesnt have a nervous system / identifiable brain etc.

L i b

I have already answered this point. Potentially being something is quite clearly not the same as being something - and aiming this nonsense argument is about as ridiculous as aiming it at someone who believes any murder should be unlawful.

I am potentially a criminal, that does not mean I can be put in prison for it.

What are you talking about ? Isn't your whole defence based on the fact that the fetus has potential to develop into a sentient being ?

I am saying that if you compare abortion to infanticide then you can do the same for masturbation or protected sex which doesnt lead to a child, as the sperm is ultimately destroyed. This sperm/egg is no different to the fetus, does that mean the government should ban masturbation or non-child baring sex.

Reply 453

Adam83

12

thank god for America.

Reply 454

Master Polhem

15

Bismarck

Yes, because clearly lobbies have no influence in Britain. Your anti-American is pathetic.

To be fair the European Parliament has a lot more lobbies than the British Parliament. I am not sure if that puts any perspective onto the whole matter just wanted to point it out.

Reply 455

Captain Crash

9

favh

Then how does your definition of capitalism differ from the definition of a mixed market?

Because mixed markets play have a greater role of government involvement than capitalist. Like DH said, it's a spectrum from capitalism to socialism with mixed in the middle. Now the point is that a country 95% of the way along the spectrum towards capitalism won't be totally capitalist because it isn't 100% there. Therefore there will be some factors not under the control of the free market, but it would be ludicrous to define such a country/person as not capitalist/Scottish.

Reply 456

History Lost in Physics

11

Bismarck

Coincidentally, what does it say about Britain that it doesn't even have a black man running for a top leadership position? :rolleyes:

Not much - black people make up a much higher percentage of the population of america than they do of britain.

Reply 457

naivesincerity

2

Bismarck

8% of Brits are not white, so it's really not that much different to 12% of Americans being black.

Ha! Slick phrasing of facts there. Spin worthy of Alistair Campbell.

Reply 458

Master Polhem

15

Bismarck

8% of Brits are not white, so it's really not that much different to 12% of Americans being black. So where are all your non-white leaders? Who's the highest non-white elected official in Britain?