Who ya voting for?

[MachineGhost]

For me, it comes down to a choice between a pro-war white guy beholden to Wall Street and finance capitalism and a pro-war black guy beholden to Wall Street and finance capitalism.

Technically, Obama is bi-racial, not black.

[MediumTex]

For me, it comes down to a choice between a pro-war white guy beholden to Wall Street and finance capitalism and a pro-war black guy beholden to Wall Street and finance capitalism.

Technically, Obama is bi-racial, not black.

Bi-racial, and largely raised by a white family.

[dkalder]

Sometimes if you become sick enough, it requires something radical like surgery or chemo in order to survive.  You may take a step or two back, but it's your only choice.

Greece is at a place, where they have two choices:

1. Drop from the Euro and inflate

2. Austerity

Either way, standard of living has to come down.  I think either path ends up in the same place.

There is no other path forward for them unless the can somehow convince the German voters to keep subsidizing their standard of living.

The German voters have no say in this matter, believe me. The politicians of all major parties are dead set on subsiding the Mediterranean - indefinitely and no matter the cost. This fact drove me to implement the PP for myself in the end. Who knows, how this will play out!
Currently Switzerland takes most of the money from the Mediterranean in (from private sources) and has to buy German government bonds in return to defend the 1.20 EUR/SFR. The rest is flowing directly into Germany by Mediterranean individuals parking their private wealth in German property. Additionally, the trade deficit with the Mediterranean will never be recovered.
Basically, Germany is donating away it's wealth and real wages have been shrinking since ten years.

The result will be a poor, but even more competitive economy. I guess, it will be just mostly foreign owned, then.

[craigr]

The result will be a poor, but even more competitive economy. I guess, it will be just mostly foreign owned, then.

When the Euro came out people said it would protect Europe from ever going to war again. I felt however that when the Euro finally explodes it could in fact lead to the exact opposite. So many conflicts have been started over economic issues.

[MediumTex]

The result will be a poor, but even more competitive economy. I guess, it will be just mostly foreign owned, then.

Wait a second!

That sounds like what we're doing in the U.S. as well.

[MachineGhost]

Romney is a turncoat?  An anti-politician politician?  Or an elitist?

When he does talk about his time here as governor, it’s usually to pump up his bipartisan bona fides or brag about how he balanced the budget without raising taxes. (Strictly speaking, this is true, though helpfully devoid of context: All Massachusetts governors are constitutionally required to balance the budget, and while Romney technically may not have raised taxes, he did hike fees on a variety of government services.) What he does not discuss are the hugely successful bills he passed, like universal healthcare and an assault-weapons ban. Obviously, he also does not mention just how unpopular he was when he left office.

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/ ... tts/print/

[dkalder]

The result will be a poor, but even more competitive economy. I guess, it will be just mostly foreign owned, then.

When the Euro came out people said it would protect Europe from ever going to war again. I felt however that when the Euro finally explodes it could in fact lead to the exact opposite. So many conflicts have been started over economic issues.

You mean like Greece sending its German-sponsored tanks and submarines right back, just armed and ready? Well, I think as long as there are still people living who have experienced the last grand war, there will be no real war. The most important thing is that no resentments between the French and the German people reoccur. Interesting enough, the cultural ties between Germany on the one hand and Italy and Spain on the other seem tighter today than between France and Germany, because of tourism and a lot of migration in case of GER <-> ESP&IT.
Economically, the Mediterranean is not that important. Spain may fall, Italy has always somehow made its way and has enormous private wealth. But Europe will stand and fall with the economy of France. When Paris shambles, the world will shake in response ... That day I will be glad about the 25% gold in the PP!
I lived in France once for half a year and I am not sure if they are really ready for todays global economy. But enough of diverting the topic of this thread  .

[craigr]

The result will be a poor, but even more competitive economy. I guess, it will be just mostly foreign owned, then.

When the Euro came out people said it would protect Europe from ever going to war again. I felt however that when the Euro finally explodes it could in fact lead to the exact opposite. So many conflicts have been started over economic issues.

You mean like Greece sending its German-sponsored tanks and submarines right back, just armed and ready?

No. I'm thinking more like govt. overthrows internally and perhaps escalating up from there. There is simply no way the Euro will remain viable into the future. I love Germany and I love Italy, but they are wholly incompatible in how they conduct their affairs. This is plainly obvious to any tourist who spends even day in each country. I can't imagine why these countries (and all the others) would want to be married to each other under one currency. It can only end in tears, and probably will.

[MediumTex]

"When you take an economy that is already sick and impose austerity, it's the equivalent of the practice of putting leeches on people who already have a serious illness.  It only tends to make it worse, regardless of the intentions behind it."

The question is what made the economy that sick in the first place. If unsustainable spending and bloated government made us that sick then how can it be the cure?

What made the economies sick is asset bubbles fueled with cheap credit provided by central banks and financial regulatory regimes that have been captured by the industries they are supposed to be regulating.

Plus, in countries like Greece there is a multi-century tradition of defaulting on sovereign debt, so that is perhaps just a tradition of political incompetence, rather than a symptom of unsustainable spending and bloated government.  I would say that ANY government is, by definition, engaging in unsustainable spending and is bloated.  The term "bloated government" is redundant.  It's like saying "the fat man is fat."

[brick-house]

reub wrote: 

"When you take an economy that is already sick and impose austerity, it's the equivalent of the practice of putting leeches on people who already have a serious illness.  It only tends to make it worse, regardless of the intentions behind it."

The question is what made the economy that sick in the first place. If unsustainable spending and bloated government made us that sick then how can it be the cure?

I think GW Bush and his gang need to take some accountability for the mess they made.  Didn't GW Bush inherit a surplus then cut taxes while dramatically bloating government (Medicare part D, Department of Homeland Security, Two never ending wars complete with Nation Building, No Child Left Behind, etc.)?    Didn't GW let the bankers run wild until they got too big to fail?  Didn't GW reduce individual liberty with the Patriot Act?  Imagine if he was able to privatize social security in time for the market crash of 08-09? 

IMHO, the republican party lost the mandate from heaven under Bush.  Romney just seems like a third GW Bush term.

Who am I voting for? I am in a swing state and I am writing in Ron Paul.  If Obama wins, then hopefully the Republican party establishment will be purged of the knuckleheads and neo cons. 

[doodle]

Deleted

[doodle]

MT,

There is an assumption in this statement

I would say that ANY government is, by definition, engaging in unsustainable spending and is bloated.

that productive labor and the allocation of society's human capital is the sole authority of the private sector. I would disagree.

Karl Marx in his labor theory of value stated that all products in capitalism are commodities. One of the ways (besides exchange value) that they are valued is their "use value". For example, shoes are useful for protecting ones feet.

The problem becomes that once humans basic necessities are covered, additional products provide lower marginal increases in happiness to the point where say whether one has 15 or 16 pairs of shoes has no appreciable affect on a person's overall happiness and well being. Yet, because of a fundamental mis-wiring in the human DNA, we continue to dedicate an enormous amount of labor and capital to purchasing enormous quantities of products that have essentially no "use value" under the assumption that more is better or that they will make us happier. This is the same type of mentality that applies to drug addicts who are always looking for the next fix. The great thing about the government or social spending however is that we are able to direct capital and labor (although it doesn't always turn out this way....) to larger more long term products that might not have a monetary payoff...but will result in a happier society.

This is a tough argument and I haven't made it well, but I am merely trying to raise the point that maybe modern capitalism is mis-allocating a tremendous amount of resources by duping consumers into believing they can buy their way to happiness because the survival of the capitalist system requires that every man, woman, and child become a consumer first and foremost. Is that truly in line with our fundamental nature as humans or a perversion created by the system we are raised in?

[craigr]

Yet, because of a fundamental mis-wiring in the human DNA, we continue to dedicate an enormous amount of labor and capital to purchasing enormous quantities of products that have essentially no "use value" under the assumption that more is better or that they will make us happier.

Who is to say the lady that owns 15 pairs of shoes isn't happier owning them than the lady that owns one pair? The problem with your idea is the assumption that someone else knows what will make another person happy. I am probably happier having a large plasma TV for instance than a 10" black and white model. But should we have stopped innovating once the black and white TV was invented because of an arbitrary notion that it wouldn't make people happier?

The great thing about the government or social spending however is that we are able to direct capital and labor (although it doesn't always turn out this way....) to larger more long term products that might not have a monetary payoff...but will result in a happier society.

The government is the WORST at allocating capital effectively to create happiness. Unless you mean spending billions a year firing Hellfire missiles into third-world countries boosts happiness and massive domestic entitlement programs to purchase elections makes those person's lives better. I don't believe these things.

This is a tough argument and I haven't made it well, but I am merely trying to raise the point that maybe modern capitalism is mis-allocating a tremendous amount of resources by duping consumers into believing they can buy their way to happiness because the survival of the capitalist system requires that every man, woman, and child become a consumer first and foremost. Is that truly in line with our fundamental nature as humans or a perversion created by the system we are raised in?

I've traveled to a ton of countries and I'll put capitalism up against the most utopian grand plans from government any day of the week! I've seen people in some third-world locales that would love to have even a single pair of shoes and would pass out at the idea of being able to have a wide selection of them. Capitalism may mis-allocate capital from time to time, but it has a built-in feedback loop for bad ideas: Bankruptcy. Government when it fails just wants to spend more to try to get a bad idea to work!

But for that matter, why do we need all this selection of food even? Why not just dictate we'll all have white bread? After all, are you that much happier being able to eat Rye bread? Or how about a single kind of car that is government dictated for look, style, fuel efficiency, etc. I don't see the reason why a big truck would make someone happier for instance. Who cares if they work on a farm and need to haul hay bales. They can just strap them on top of their Chevy Volt and be like everyone else, right?

[Pointedstick]

Yet, because of a fundamental mis-wiring in the human DNA, we continue to dedicate an enormous amount of labor and capital to purchasing enormous quantities of products that have essentially no "use value" under the assumption that more is better or that they will make us happier.

...

The great thing about the government or social spending however is that we are able to direct capital and labor (although it doesn't always turn out this way....) to larger more long term products that might not have a monetary payoff...but will result in a happier society.

The problem with this line of thought is that it requires other people to know what is in our best interest better than we do (since we have apparently purchased many things that are not in our own best interest). But therein lies a contradiction: if we cannot be trusted to make certain decisions for ourselves, how is it any improvement for other people who know even less about us to make these decisions on our behalf? Are they not made of the same DNA that we are that apparently has this flaw?

[Pointedstick]

All of this discussion is moot because as of the latest PP polling results, Romney holds a 9.6% lead. The real discussion should be about why Obama's campaign has failed to capture the hearts and minds of our group. Is he out of touch?

One one hand, we should probably thank him for being so kind to the big banks and keeping the stock market doing well. Also, the continual spending is good for our treasuries, and he hasn't done anything to change around the headcount at the Fed whose policies have been so good to our gold.

On the other hand, he clearly believes that government is either the solution to every problem, or else a helpful partner to everyone trying to solve those problems. And he's been Bush II on the subject of civil liberties and foreign policy.

I think he's definitely out of touch with much of this crowd in terms of policy, even though I think we can appreciate his contributions to our portfolio returns. 

[dualstow]

The great thing about the government or social spending however is that we are able to direct capital and labor (although it doesn't always turn out this way....) to larger more long term products that might not have a monetary payoff...but will result in a happier society.

Although it doesn't always turn out this way, indeed.
Who was it that said, "Communism is a wonderful idea that doesn't work."

[doodle]

Craig,

While I think that capitalism is highly adept at certain things, I also think that the system is fundamentally flawed in other regards and must be tempered by a balancing hand. There are issues with inequality, tragedy of the commons, alienation of workers, cycles of boom and bust etc. etc. that the system poorly deals with and doesn't necessarily self correct on its own.

I also believe that capitalism has the ability to shape human nature and behavior, rather than the other way around. In other words, we serve the system, rather than the system serving us. It becomes our master, and we it's slave. I have no doubt that capitalism will continue to undergo changes and revisions in the future as mankind begins to butt up against certain physical realities on this planet. To think otherwise is to make the argument that we have reached the end of history. As we have seen with previous civilizations and religions, that is rarely the case.

[doodle]

Marx believed that the internal contradiction in the capitalist structure of society would inevitably lead to crisis and it's downfall. Here are some of Marx's predictions. A few seem to ring true:

- Workers wages will tend to fall to subsistence level.
- Profits will tend to fall.
- Competition will lead to large companies swallowing up small ones; this would be opposed by growing numbers of workers
- More people will be forced into the working class
- The capitalist system will lead to greater divisions in society
- There will be more and more severe economic crises.

Marx read a lot of and was influenced by the British economists of the time such as Smith and Ricardo so it's important to understand what these guys thought about laissez-faire capitalism to understand where Marx was coming from. Here is Noam Chomsky's interpretation of Smith's invisible hand:

Throughout history, Adam Smith observed, we find the workings of "the vile maxim of the masters of mankind": "All for ourselves, and nothing for other People." He had few illusions about the consequences. The invisible hand, he wrote, destroys the possibility of a decent human existence "unless government takes pains to prevent" this outcome, as must be assured in "every improved and civilized society." It destroys community, the environment, and human values generally—and even the masters themselves, which is why the business classes have regularly called for state intervention to protect them from market forces. (...)
and rather interestingly these issues were foreseen by the great founders of modern economics, Adam Smith for example. He recognized and discussed what would happen to Britain if the masters adhered to the rules of sound economics -- what's now called neoliberalism. He warned that if British manufacturers, merchants, and investors turned abroad, they might profit but England would suffer. However, he felt that this wouldn't happen because the masters would be guided by a home bias. So as if by an invisible hand England would be spared the ravages of economic rationality. That passage is pretty hard to miss. It's the only occurrence of the famous phrase "invisible hand" in Wealth of Nations, namely in a critique of what we call neoliberalism.[27][28]

[MediumTex]

doodle,

RE Marx, one thing I'll bet he wouldn't have predicted would be that in capitalist countries obesity would be a bigger problem among the poor than starvation.

To a person in the 19th century I'm sure the whole concept of poor people battling obesity would have seemed utterly ridiculous.

The one thing that capitalism does very well is increase production.  In a world of increasing production it is almost inevitable that all of society will benefit simply because the only point to increasing production is if there is some mechanism for increased consumption at the end of the line.  Clearly the rich will benefit more than the poor in many cases, but look at the typical U.S. factory from 100 years ago and a U.S. factory today and they are very different places.  Today's factories are cleaner, have better lighting, are typically climate controlled, run much more efficiently, employ workers with much higher skill levels and the workers earn a much higher wage.

Marx was a deep and subtle thinker, but as Harry Browne reminds us it's just very hard to predict the future, and I think that Marx got some of it right and some of it wrong.  Ironically, western democracies have probably implemented elements of Marxism much more effectively and completely than any communist state ever did.

I think that much of Marx's thinking was very idealistic and not very realistic about the real world, while the dictators and thugs who have adopted Marxist theories as cover for their brutal tyranny in the last 100 years were VERY realistic about the potential for Marxism to legitimize what would otherwise just be another manifestation of tyranny and oppression. 

[craigr]

Marx believed that the internal contradiction in the capitalist structure of society would inevitably lead to crisis and it's downfall. Here are some of Marx's predictions. A few seem to ring true:

First I will admit that my blood boils when I see people quote Marx. His ideas resulted in the deaths of millions of people around the world, impoverishment of many more, and even today he is quoted in academia as a hero. 

- Workers wages will tend to fall to subsistence level.

Where has this happened? In China right now wages are increasing at a far faster and rapid rate than they ever did under Communism. Same thing happened in other parts of the world. Are you arguing that people in the US have a lower standard of living than those in Cuba or Venezuela and live on subsistence levels?

- Profits will tend to fall.

For old weak companies that do not innovate and adapt to new competition only.

- Competition will lead to large companies swallowing up small ones; this would be opposed by growing numbers of workers

Tell that to Blockbuster and Hollywood video that were taken out by that young buck Netflix. Tell that to DEC that was wrecked by the emergence of the Personal Computer. Tell that to American Big Auto that saw the emergence of Toyota and Honda 40 years ago. Competition drives innovation and weeds out ineffective management so the resources can go to what works.

- More people will be forced into the working class

So they're starting off where? Dirt poor and moving up to working class and now have more money and resources to spend to improve their lives by buying new things they enjoy? How is that bad?

- The capitalist system will lead to greater divisions in society

No. Marxist class warfare leads to division. You want to see division? Go to a country with a poorly functioning economy that is largely government controlled. You will find a very small very rich elite, a very tiny middle class, and a very huge underclass. This is what communist systems do.

- There will be more and more severe economic crises.

I'll take living with the worst of 2008's real estate bust than living in the best days in Soviet Russia. A friend of mine worked for the Peace Corps and was over there shortly after the collapse. He returned home a year later and went into a US supermarket. He said that if the average Russian citizen were to walk in and see the sheer bounty of selection we had in our society they would pass out at the sight.

But enough complaining about the evils of free markets. Show me one example where a tightly controlled government economy beats out one that is more free market oriented. Bonus points if that government isn't killing/reeducating their own citizens as a matter of course.

[doodle]

His ideas resulted in the deaths of millions of people around the world, impoverishment of many more, and even today he is quoted in academia as a hero.

I'd say no more than Einstein's ideas resulted in the creation of the atomic bomb. Marx believed that capitalism would unwind itself through its own internal contradictions following a natural process.

Western imperialism and capitalism have their own track record of destruction as well to account for.

[doodle]

Competition will lead to large companies swallowing up small ones; this would be opposed by growing numbers of workers

Tell that to Blockbuster and Hollywood video that were taken out by that young buck Netflix. Tell that to DEC that was wrecked by the emergence of the Personal Computer. Tell that to American Big Auto that saw the emergence of Toyota and Honda 40 years ago. Competition drives innovation and weeds out ineffective management so the resources can go to what works.

Generally I would argue that we have seen a movement towards larger and larger companies. The food space is one example. You might think you are consuming a mom and pop product but the reality is that it is owned by one of the big food conglomerates. These companies shape everything from our diets and cultural eating habits to our agriculture practices. Profit growth is maintained through acquisitions.

[doodle]

I view Marxism as advocating a more organic evolution of a system than a revolutionary overthrow.

Human nature is not a fixed thing, but alters with social and economic conditions. Society and its values and behaviors therefore can be changed by altering the economic system. Marx was maybe too optimistic about human nature, but that doesn't discount his philosophy entirely.

Under capitalism we might appear to be free, but the economic system we live under in fact controls our work, politics, and shapes our values, morals, and ideals. Studies indicate that depression and alienation in the western world have risen since the 1950's despite the fact that we are materially richer. As capitalism has globalized we have seen a gutting of local economies and communities. People didn't choose to have their communities upended...rather, it resulted from seemingly free decisions made by individuals. Unfortunately, always elevating short term individual desires over longer term considerations about what might be best for society can lead to "tragedy of the commons" type scenarios.  The consequences of global laissez faire capitalism haven't always been positive.

We can't predict how technology will change our society in the future. Perhaps work will cease to exist at all as robots take over all production and services. However, as long as 10 percent of the population holds 99 percent of the wealth on this planet based on a economic model that stipulates exponential growth in a finite system, future crisis are virtually assured.

[Pointedstick]

Unfortunately, always elevating short term individual desires over longer term considerations about what might be best for society can lead to "tragedy of the commons" type scenarios.

Could you perhaps describe what it might look like in a society where long-term societal considerations were elevated above short-term individual desires? Or point to one where this is already the case?

[MachineGhost]

All of this discussion is moot because as of the latest PP polling results, Romney holds a 9.4% lead. The real discussion should be about why Obama's campaign has failed to capture the hearts and minds of our group. Is he out of touch?

36 votes is not statistically significant, but I'm afraid we don't have 100+ regulars lurking here.