Canadian And US Dollar At Par

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
She pays now and she would pay later. What is the difference from her standpoint?
[/quote]
The difference it that this protectionism specifically benefits oil corporations and not consumers. It prevents competition in the market by artificially setting the price of oil low so that there is no incentive to produce alternative means.

This hurts consumers because we could have already had a cheaper fuel source had competition been instituted in the '70s during the “oil crisis” instead of growing the military to protect corporations.

This sword comes with two very dangerous, sharp edges: corporatism and inflation.

42

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
She pays now and she would pay later. What is the difference from her standpoint?

The difference it that this protectionism specifically benefits oil corporations and not consumers. It prevents competition in the market by artificially setting the price of oil low so that there is no incentive to produce alternative means.
…[/quote]

Interesting point.

43

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

What wasn’t clear about what I wrote? If your neighbor spends most of his income buying weapons to protect the whole neighborhood, it stands to reason that you can buy a new boat, car, vacation etc while he goes broke protecting you. Should you ‘man up’ and part with a few of your dollars or just call his President names and shit?

[/quote]

It’s simple, policy of Peace costs a lot less than War.
Foreign policy of conflict costs a lot of money and sadly future generations of Americans will have to bear those costs.

Was invasion of Iraq necessary?
What was the state of US economy in 2002?
Who are the big contributors to Republican Party funds?

The US economy is mighty and could have recovered simply by spending resources on public works, health care, and education similar to FDR’s plan for the great depression.

War in Iraq and the economic recovery in the United States were not a coincidence. Since war stimulates the economy, Bush attacked Iraq under false pretense. But why?

Because the Republican Party is largely funded by the military contractors. So war was the stimulus that tax and interest rate cuts couldn’t achieve on their own.

The US economy did not suffer from protecting other countries from ‘evil’. It ran up a crippling foreign trade deficit because of its own citizens greed for goods from other countries i.e. China, Canada, Mexico and Saudi Arabia.

During periods of economic prosperity real estate gets hot, so to fund their spending habit for food, cars, boats and vacations, Americans over mortgaged their homes. Hence once the real estate bubble burst the house of IOU cards fell, and that’s the main reason why the US Dollar tanked.

Not because Headhunter said so. In fact, his arguments are so weak; he couldn’t carry a debate in a paper bag.

Will the US economy recover? Yes it will indeed. But it may take a while though, maybe until after the next election.
As your Canadian neighbor I sincerely hope it happens soon.
God bless America and all other countries too.
God bless World Peace.

44

Has anyone noticed an interesting similarity between debt and obesity? Both stem from excess consumption and neither is healthy.

Is it just a coincidence that both have reached alarming new levels especially in the America. Canada is only slightly better on the obesity front. Economically, it’s too early to tell but as your NAFTA trading partner our economy trails US cycles by only about 18 months.

Fiscal responsability and healthy eating habits could be the solution to many problems in US and Canada.
What are you thoughts?

Tip of the hat goes to LIFTICVSMAXIMVS, for some very interesting and well thought out points. RESPECT

45

Our food supply is corrupted. Chemicals are put into the food to make it addictive. Fast food is notorious for this.

Since the food industry has lots of $$$$$$$$, there will never be any ‘cure’ or whatever for obesity. There’s too much money to make off the cattle. Same for cancer, heart disease and all that — too much cash to make.

Capitalism, in its pure form, is magnificent. When you get a mixed economy, you get our world today. Sad…

46

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Our food supply is corrupted. Chemicals are put into the food to make it addictive. Fast food is notorious for this.

Since the food industry has lots of $$$$$$$$, there will never be any ‘cure’ or whatever for obesity. There’s too much money to make off the cattle. Same for cancer, heart disease and all that — too much cash to make.

Capitalism, in its pure form, is magnificent. When you get a mixed economy, you get our world today. Sad…[/quote]

They would also add it in an anarcho capitalist paradise.

They just could not force you to eat it, and they can`t now.

47

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
She pays now and she would pay later. What is the difference from her standpoint?

The difference it that this protectionism specifically benefits oil corporations and not consumers. It prevents competition in the market by artificially setting the price of oil low so that there is no incentive to produce alternative means.

This hurts consumers because we could have already had a cheaper fuel source had competition been instituted in the '70s during the “oil crisis” instead of growing the military to protect corporations.

This sword comes with two very dangerous, sharp edges: corporatism and inflation.[/quote]

Mises, Bastiat, you read them all didn`t you?

48

[quote]orion wrote:
Mises, Bastiat, you read them all didn`t you?
[/quote]

I am still working though them. It has been very eye opening so far.

49

[quote]orion wrote:
billy martin wrote:
I have a feeling the dollar isn’t done slipping yet…we’re being raped by this war and all the crooked businesses engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wasting our tax dollars like theres a money tree out there thats always full for the picking.

There actually is a money tree out there.

The US government gives them T-bonds, the Fed creates money out of thin air.

It´s magic!

[/quote]

haha. the most interesting eco chapter. Why is there poverty again? After learing how the money system worked I couldn’t help but think organized barter would be a better deal.

50

[quote]texasguy1 wrote:
orion wrote:
billy martin wrote:
I have a feeling the dollar isn’t done slipping yet…we’re being raped by this war and all the crooked businesses engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wasting our tax dollars like theres a money tree out there thats always full for the picking.

There actually is a money tree out there.

The US government gives them T-bonds, the Fed creates money out of thin air.

It´s magic!

haha. the most interesting eco chapter. Why is there poverty again? After learing how the money system worked I couldn’t help but think organized barter would be a better deal. [/quote]

Which is all a commodity money basically is.

51

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Capitalism, in its pure form, is magnificent.[/quote]

Yes, there is little more magnificent than seeing children working 16-hour days in a coal mine.

Pure beauty.

52

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
When one destroys the usefulness of an object and has to reproduce that object there is no profit.[/quote]

Only if the entity paying to replace the object is the same entity who broke it.

When post-war rebuilding occurs, it is generally private companies that get paid by populations to rebuild.

Profit occurs. In abundance. To think otherwise is naive.

If no one ever profited from wars, they’d be a lot less of them.

53

[quote]pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Capitalism, in its pure form, is magnificent.

Yes, there is little more magnificent than seeing children working 16-hour days in a coal mine.

Pure beauty.
[/quote]

Those little children were the product of feudalism where they either toiled the fields, prostituted themselves or died.

The factories made them visible because it attracted them to the cities with their relatively easy, clean and safe labour.

A few decades after capitalism started people where rich enough to send their children to school even though the population had doubled yet again.

So yes, pure beauty.

PS: The children doing the really nasty and dangerous work where orphans under government care that could not change employers like the free children could.

Children were also forced into less safe conditions because goverment linked subsidies to the prohibition of child labour which ensured that children only found work in the older, less safe factories.

The pleasures of socialism and government intervention.

54

[quote]pookie wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
When one destroys the usefulness of an object and has to reproduce that object there is no profit.

Only if the entity paying to replace the object is the same entity who broke it.

When post-war rebuilding occurs, it is generally private companies that get paid by populations to rebuild.

Profit occurs. In abundance. To think otherwise is naive.

If no one ever profited from wars, they’d be a lot less of them.
[/quote]

Yes, but the “economy” as it is usually put does not profit, in fact it takes a major hit.

55

[quote]orion wrote:
Those little children were the product of feudalism where they either toiled the fields, prostituted themselves or died.[/quote]

There were children in coal mines in America in the early 20th century… I don’t know where you’re getting your info from, but feudalism had been absent from the picture for quite some time at that point.

You can try and pretend like unbridled capitalism doesn’t lead to inhuman excesses, but I don’t think many are going to buy it.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I like capitalism and think it’s overall the best system; but I’m also able to see where it can derail and go very wrong in some cases. Trying to prove that it’s perfect in every way and that meddling with it only leads to worse problems is naive.

56

[quote]orion wrote:
Yes, but the “economy” as it is usually put does not profit, in fact it takes a major hit.[/quote]

That major hit is felt by mostly be the poor. So it really doesn’t matter much, as long as the rich are getting richer and more powerful.

If you have ten and I have one, it doesn’t really matter if it costs a hundred and a score for you to have forty and me to have none. As long as you’ve got more than before, you’re all for war.

57

[quote]pookie wrote:

Profit occurs. In abundance. To think otherwise is naive.

If no one ever profited from wars, they’d be a lot less of them.
[/quote]

Yes, the military industrial complex profits off the backs of taxpayers; then the contractors and bankers profit off of inflation when the government prints money to pay for rebuilding. It’s a real boon for Joe-shit the Rag-Man selling oranges out of the trunk of his car.

Inflation is not good for the economy…it is especially not good for those with last access to newly printed money.

This is real basic stuff here–what you aren’t seeing is all the new business that could have been created. For example, instead of having to build a new bridge we could have had the old bridge and new roads. Instead we rebuild the bride and have to make due with old roads. It’s a net loss for all but the people who work in construction and bomb making.

58

[quote]pookie wrote:
Yes, there is little more magnificent than seeing children working 16-hour days in a coal mine.

Pure beauty.
[/quote]

So in a pure capitalist society we forget children? Do you honestly believe this a capitalist problem or an ethics problem? There is a problem but capitalism has little to do with the lack of morality of the individual.

59

[quote]pookie wrote:
orion wrote:
Those little children were the product of feudalism where they either toiled the fields, prostituted themselves or died.

There were children in coal mines in America in the early 20th century… I don’t know where you’re getting your info from, but feudalism had been absent from the picture for quite some time at that point.

You can try and pretend like unbridled capitalism doesn’t lead to inhuman excesses, but I don’t think many are going to buy it.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I like capitalism and think it’s overall the best system; but I’m also able to see where it can derail and go very wrong in some cases. Trying to prove that it’s perfect in every way and that meddling with it only leads to worse problems is naive.

[/quote]

I would not go that far, I just think it is important to point out that in order to have the resources to send children to school you have to have the economy produce that resources first.

So the only way to deal with the worst excesses of capitalism is to use the resources capitalism provides.

60

[quote]orion wrote:
I would not go that far, I just think it is important to point out that in order to have the resources to send children to school you have to have the economy produce that resources first.

So the only way to deal with the worst excesses of capitalism is to use the resources capitalism provides.[/quote]

That’s ridiculous. You’re saying that capitalism cannot work unless it has first exploited children.

Capitalism works just fine even if you don’t let children get exploited first. That historically, it did not always start off that way doesn’t make it a prerequisite.

In fact, that children were exploited before laws prevented it just shows that capitalism has to be regulated in some manner or fairness will be traded away for profit just like anything else.