Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
hide menu
Latest users (2): mrketchupboy, youregaylol, anonymous(28).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#1555 - pokemonstheshiz ONLINE (06/19/2012) [-]
What happened to America (no offense to anyone else, I just don't know that much about foreign government) ? Corporation influence on politics is "deniable" but pretty obvious. Is there no way to seperate human greed from politics? We try to say Communism is horrible because the people at the top restrict everyone else and have all the say in government, but aren't we nearing the same thing? At what point did we become this way, if any specific point, and how can we stop it? Or is greed inherently indistinguishable from human nature, and can never be at least managed?
#1647 to #1555 - Mentoman (06/19/2012) [-]
Personally, I think it is lack of national pride. After the unfortunate event that was the Vietnam War, I think that we became disillusioned with our nation.
User avatar #1649 to #1647 - pokemonstheshiz ONLINE (06/19/2012) [-]
I'm failing to see how that would lead to corporate manipulation over the government. Care to expand that?
#1650 to #1649 - Mentoman (06/20/2012) [-]
Oh wait, thats what this thread is about? Must have misread it. Sorry about that.
User avatar #1651 to #1650 - pokemonstheshiz ONLINE (06/20/2012) [-]
It's all cool, what did you think I said?
#1662 to #1651 - Mentoman (06/20/2012) [-]
Why was America declining as a whole. That is still a valid issue. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
User avatar #1583 to #1555 - reaganomix (06/19/2012) [-]
Separating greed and politics- no. Where ever there is some sort of money involved there will be greed ie; NJ School system. It will remain this way as long as government has so much clout. Corporations will use government to restrict competition and free trade.

Personally, I feel we can stop the growing influence of corporations is by limiting the size of government. If corporations are lobbying and controlling government, it makes no sense to increase the scope of government. The government shouldn't subsidize industries and allow businesses to fail.
User avatar #1561 to #1555 - airguitar (06/19/2012) [-]
And to answer the greed question, YES, greed is an inherent part of human nature. People place themselves and their families above all else, it has existed since the time of cavemen and always will exist. Communism and Socialism are systems that try to eliminate greed. They may seem ideal but since they stray from human nature, they will always fail. A communist country will fall far behind a free market economy over the span of a century in terms of GDP and technology. Capitalism is the only system that actually rewards "greed". Because people want money, they produce goods and services to earn that money. However, in the process, the goods they produce also benefit the people who buy them- making everyone better off.
User avatar #1563 to #1561 - pokemonstheshiz ONLINE (06/19/2012) [-]
But isn't the increasing gap between the rich and the poor just kind of shutting off the public from having its full say in politics? The rich (especially the banks) are exploiting the system for massive profits, which only worsens the problem
User avatar #1565 to #1563 - airguitar (06/19/2012) [-]
I personally think people don't understand the gap of wealth that well, just as they don't understand what a "trade deficit" actually is. Just because the rich are getting richer doesn't mean the poor aren't getting richer too. I think people just have trouble seeing this most of the time and blame capitalism for it.
User avatar #1574 to #1572 - airguitar (06/19/2012) [-]
I went through the first half of the page and just stopped because I simply don't have time and know what I will see. I started responding but ended up writing a huge ass rant so I just decided to delete it all. Basically the summary of my feelings are: I would much rather be "manipulated" by corporations than be manipulated by the government. And considering that around 40% of GDP, and growing, is in the form of government spending (a statistic you will not find on a Keynsian news article), I think that is an adamant concern. And don't get my started about bailouts.

I do know about this problem, but I discount it largely and I don't think you can blame it on capitalism when our economy has been more than 50% government spending in the past (I believe during WW2 time). I know you share some of the same vies as me, I just think you should find a less biased article, there are two sides to everything and the positive side shows the U.S. (including the poor here) as the 1% and the rest of the world as the 99%.
User avatar #1629 to #1574 - pokemonstheshiz ONLINE (06/19/2012) [-]
Yeah, sorry about the bias of the article. I tend to ignore bias in things and just get the crucial information out, and this was the first one that came to mind about the gap.
User avatar #1630 to #1629 - airguitar (06/19/2012) [-]
I mean some of it the info isn't bad but I think you need to look at the bigger picture sometimes. I find some writers to pick and choose what they present too much. For example, this author criticizes the government, but for spending to LESS. They need to learn about what a "national debt" is.
User avatar #1635 to #1630 - pokemonstheshiz ONLINE (06/19/2012) [-]
Sorry, I was just using it to show the increase in the gap, which is something I think would decrease by reducing the size of government.
User avatar #1640 to #1635 - airguitar (06/19/2012) [-]
No, no problem dude. I just thought you might have been one of the people that freak out over key words like that. What is your opinion on "trade defecit"s, if you have one?
User avatar #1641 to #1640 - pokemonstheshiz ONLINE (06/19/2012) [-]
I think that it's one of the things causing the gap. Short term it's obviously better to import, but I think we need to start thinking long term here, and start to become self sufficient.
User avatar #1644 to #1641 - airguitar (06/19/2012) [-]
That's actually the opposite of what I believe and I only brought it up because it is a major talking point of Krugman and similar authors (like the one from your article). There is a lot i would have to say to explain it, but I believe that countries that are good at a certain industry (specialized) should be the ones producing in that industry while we specialize in an industry better suited for our people (service sector).

Like you said, it can lead to problems with not being able to self sustain yourself- but if you don't do this then U.S. consumers will just continue importing cheaper goods from abroad while the government tries to subsidize dying industries (like the automotive industry, with an exception of Ford). I wont go on because I will probably end up talking forever again.
User avatar #1646 to #1644 - pokemonstheshiz ONLINE (06/19/2012) [-]
But if we decline in industrial production, what jobs are there? There's a limited number of corporate jobs and specialized jobs. Won't that lead to even higher unemployment rates?
User avatar #1656 to #1646 - airguitar (06/20/2012) [-]
Not necessarily. There is no real "limit", it may seem that way, but as production of the world grows where specialized people in foreign countries produce manufactured goods, there's more service jobs needed. There will always be certain types of unemployment as an industry dies (I think structural unemployment) where there is a period of time, maybe a few months, where a new industry is created. This new industry arises because it is one the country is better at, say accounting here.

This may sound bad to the automotive workers in Detroit, but the reality is wages are too high in America for our cars to be able to compete with China's (especially since they don't abide by intellectual rights for car designs and just steal them designs from American car manufacturers). So this temporary unemployment is due to the market reacting to this production disadvantage and adjusting by new jobs being created elsewhere. The current recession has other factors like expectations being very bad for the market and like you've mentioned; government intervention.

And honestly, this is straying from the original point, this is the labor market shifts, not trade deficits XD.
User avatar #1658 to #1656 - pokemonstheshiz ONLINE (06/20/2012) [-]
I don't think it's straying from the point at all. A change in one would logically cause change in the other. I think that, ironically enough, I'm actually the one thinking short termed here lol. But I can't help but thinking that it would still at least slightly increase unemployment in short term being that people with manufacturing skills are ill equipped for the service jobs :/ It will sort itself out in the long run, education becoming more oriented toward those types of jobs and more places to gain experience, but it's going to kick the present manufacturers asses.
User avatar #1663 to #1658 - airguitar (06/20/2012) [-]
You just worked out the economics of it yourself. And that is the hard part, since politicians want to get re-elected, they try to take the easiest (or most appealing) route for their constituents. This means trying to help dying industries and poorly managed companies because it might get you votes.. Even though the industry will still deteriorate without government subsidies.

Another huge problem is that when paying for this stuff, politicians hate taxing the people because then the people may not re-elect them. So that's where all the borrowing comes from... If people think companies do things out of self-interest, I present Exhibit A: Self-interested representatives.
User avatar #1665 to #1663 - pokemonstheshiz ONLINE (06/20/2012) [-]
So are you in favor of higher taxes, or just while fixing the economy? I myself am quite torn at this aspect, I think the government needs a larger revenue right now, but I feel they will just take that excess and blow it rather than paying off the debt. Or should we just keep taxes as they are (implying there is large spending cuts in both scenarios)?
User avatar #1666 to #1665 - airguitar (06/20/2012) [-]
Well, for starters I say NO increase in taxes, under no circumstance. But our main problem is the deficit still because we can barely pay off the interest. So I would support cutting back government services to the public in favor of this debt, taxes can remain somewhat constant and slowly be lowered- not even the most extreme thinkers believe that a sudden change will do any good.

I say no to higher taxes because higher taxes is wasted money. This is because the government is TERRIBLE at allocating money. However, we do need to work up major surpluses and I am not all that familiar in how the hell the U.S. would get out of some of its obligations (medicare and welfare and such).

Keep in mind that's on problem, I speculate we are still headed to a recession/depression in 10 years unless the banking industry and housing market are fixed because they are both in the same position they were prior to 2007.
#1556 to #1555 - knokmo (06/19/2012) [-]
im actually glad you brought this up. that little thing where the government is controlled by business is called lobbying like in runescape ;-) and it is illegal but there is no agency that controls it. Also communism would never work in america, the idea that everyone is equal is the most aarogant principle ever conceived. if you want to know why being a commy is so damn bad read some AYN RAND. Bitch is crazy.
User avatar #1558 to #1556 - pokemonstheshiz ONLINE (06/19/2012) [-]
I didn't mean we were becoming communist, I just meant we were similar in that we are losing our say in the government. I actually did know it was called lobbying though, the pic is from the movie Thank You For Smoking (based on a book of the same name) and it's about a lobbyist for tobacco. It's quite cynical and well done in my opinion. But why is there nothing to stop lobbying? I think corporations should stop being treated as people, that would be a good start.
User avatar #1671 to #1669 - pokemonstheshiz ONLINE (06/20/2012) [-]
Then why don't you?
User avatar #1672 to #1671 - logickid (06/20/2012) [-]
cause im lazy :3
#1673 to #1672 - pokemonstheshiz ONLINE (06/20/2012) [-]
and it was honestly more of a question than an argument   
also have this gif
and it was honestly more of a question than an argument
also have this gif
User avatar #1560 to #1558 - airguitar (06/19/2012) [-]
It started with the Great Depression and only got worse over time. FDR is hailed as a great president, I wont even go into some of the detail about the depression but it is an important fact that he expanded the role of government GREATLY. IT wasn't all his fault either, no one understood why the depression kept dragging on. This led to government taking a much bigger role and each subsequent recession afterwards led to more and more government intervention that was accompanied by big banks being bailed out leaving them above the law. Knokmo's suggestion of reading Ayn Rand is a good one. Her book "atlas Shrugged" in particular.

Basically, there is no such thing as eternal "small government". Once a government is given power it will expand that power over time. That is why libertarians, like myself, suggest that government be stripped of power so that the PEOPLE, the essence of a country, can be free.
User avatar #1562 to #1560 - pokemonstheshiz ONLINE (06/19/2012) [-]
I'm libertarian myself actually, but with the amount big business has invested in lobbying and media control, I don't think they'll just take it sitting down. You probably noticed, Ron Paul kind of got shut out in the election, partially because Fox didn't support him very much. Could it be because his presidency could have cause their company to suffer long run?
User avatar #1564 to #1562 - airguitar (06/19/2012) [-]
They would have supported him if he had a chance of winning I think and if he backed their beliefs. However, Ron Paul does not belong in the Republican party. He only is republican because he wants smaller government. In all actuality, him being president wouldn't change enough of the lobbying process for Fox to be influenced, in fact he would maybe benefit Fox by lowering taxes.

Your "they wont take it sitting down" comment is a good point too. The bussinesses will try to influence the congressmen to do otherwise. That's what's different about Paul though, he isn't someone who can be influenced by lobbying. He sticks to his beliefs harder than any other legislator I've ever seen and that's one reason I love him.
 Friends (0)