Thread: Bush's address

Well you've go an election coming up soon, so maybe you'll get lucky and get a Democrat this time.

700 billion, thats about $2000 per citizen, sounds like they are going to play favorites on which banks get bailed out, and which ones go through 'natural economic attrition'.

Maybe they should treat the illness, not the symptoms. Turn the economy around, reign in the oil companies and the price of oil, and these problems with people defaulting on loans will mostly go away on its own.

Originally Posted by indigo0086

HITLER!!!

I totally (like in total war) take offense at this.
I take offense at the fact you you missed to mention the thousands of victims, especially jews.
I also take offense at the fact that I missed to mention the other victims that weren't jews.
I also take offense at the fact that I took offense at something I said.
You insensitive clod!
Let's talk about religion

Well I like this discussion. Keep in mind, I'm not asking rhetorical questions, I'm asking real questions...ultimately I feel that economy is something I do not really understand that well. Also, I've had an almost impossible time putting forth my questions/comments without making a huge number of assumptions.

Aside from government jobs, it is the only place that jobs come from. Hating the rich and wanting to tax them relentlessly is not economically helpful.

A) If there exists a scenario where it is undisputed that the rich are plenty rich, but still choosing to hire foreign workers because it is cheaper at the time, is it ok for the Government to step in to put up legal barriers to such activity?

and :

B) Assuing creating jobs in another country helps that country's economic development, is it possible that market economics would naturally resolve the situation stated in A; namely that as the other country's economy expands, it becomes less economically attractive to send jobs there (due to increased cost of living, the equalizing of the two currencies, etc). And, if you agree with the first part of B, if it's determined that expanding the other country's economy is not in the best interests of your country, e.g. due to military/political reasons, should your Government step in and put up legal barriers to such activity.

How far do you think Government regulation should go? e.g. was the Government's hand in punishing Microsoft (which I believe was about breaking up their monopoly) a good idea?

After reading The World is Flat by Friedman, I got the feeling that the globalization of our markets may actually be the best mechanism for a couple of important things: spreading wealth worldwide and preventing epic conflicts on the scale of the world wars (due to the increasingly interconnected nature of the world markets where any disruption could prove disastrous to each side's economies).

I guess in fairness, the other view is that capitalism is the cause of much of the pain and misfortune in the world, and a cause for many wars. I just think that spurring economic development in, say, China, where roughly 1/6th of the world population lives has probably brought more people out of poverty than, say, charities being sent to Africa.

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

If there exists a scenario where it is undisputed that the rich are plenty rich, but still choosing to hire foreign workers because it is cheaper at the time, is it ok for the Government to step in to put up legal barriers to such activity?
...
Assuing creating jobs in another country helps that country's economic development, is it possible that market economics would naturally resolve the situation stated in A; namely that as the other country's economy expands, it becomes less economically attractive to send jobs there (due to increased cost of living, the equalizing of the two currencies, etc). And, if you agree with the first part of B, if it's determined that expanding the other country's economy is not in the best interests of your country, e.g. due to military/political reasons, should your Government step in and put up legal barriers to such activity.

I believe that bringing the third world up to our economic level in this way is beneficial to us in the long run. So yes I think that we should allow for exporting jobs (that's a whole other can of worms.. hope it doesn't derail the discussion). People do get carried away with the outsourcing topic. While nationalism is nice, it shouldn't stop us from employing those overseas. There's a lot that capitalism can do for the rest of the world and in turn the rest of the world will eventually benefit us.

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

How far do you think Government regulation should go? e.g. was the Government's hand in punishing Microsoft (which I believe was about breaking up their monopoly) a good idea?

Capitalism or not, there are limitations. Watching for monopolies is one of those areas. I think that the govt. can be heavy handed with Microsoft sometimes though.

Originally Posted by robwhit

The right to be wrong is important. It's part of life to be wrong and to learn from it. So I agree on that basis alone that the "my way or you're wrong and should be shunned" attitude is not helpful.



As for bailing them out, why not just let capitalism take its course? That's what it's for, right?

When it means the poor suffer from unemployment and high cost of living yes, btu when it means the rich become poor, they change their tune, suddenly its a huge national emergency. Can't really blame them, who would want to live the way most of us do when you are used to spending $700,000 on a dress. The wealthy inthis country, adn the world, need a hard dose of reality, the human race does not exist to serve their petty vanities.

My view is they haven't needed us in the past so why do they need us now? They send half the middle class jobs elsewhere and try to eliminate the middle class altogether and now they are saying they need the middle class. As some have told me at past industrial jobs "I guess they will have to learn to make do with less." Sort of different now that the situation is turned around.

Arguing politics on a forum like this is a complete waste of time and energy.

When isn't it a waste of time and energy? I'm just interested in the various opinions out there and have no intention of creating a flame war or a huge debate. Nothing wrong with healthy debate as long as it does not turn personal. I guess the presidential candidates should remember that as well.

feeling good about hurting the rich is short sighted.

- the rich invest their excess $$ in companies
- companies use investment to expand
- expansion = jobs
- more jobs is the best way to help the poor