Why do you hate Bush?

[megxyz128]

i'm in!

[xoNoDoubt69]

Can i be the president of this club?

[call me andrew]

no i am. i'm probly more fucking ignorant than you.

[xoNoDoubt69]

no fair!

[Narbus]

war does get the economy going.

it creates jobs, and therefore people are making money to put back into the economy which renews it. this does not happen over a short period of time, nor did i say that it did. i haven't said that it would happen overnight, i just said that it will happen.

thats how the world works kid, and theres nothing you can do to change it.

Except to point out that after WWI ended, the freeing of capital from government use caused prices to inflate heavily, prompting the government to raise interest rates to prevent inflation. The sharp increase led to recession, and eventually the great depression. The long term effects of the war was a depression, not a boom.

Also, it was losing the war and the economic slump in Germany that followed that allowed Hitler and the Nazi party to take control. That war CLEARLY didn't help Germans.

narbus - government is inherently unhealthy to the economy. every dollar they spend would be better spent by the free market.

regulations, while in theory may appear to correct certain, uhm, less then ideal circumstances created by the market, in practice often end up being applied in a fashion not intended which have drastic consequences.

as a libertarian, i'm sure you'd agree that the record breaking spending by clinton and bush have not been very beneficial to the economy

I don't know that I agree with this. I can see any number of completely feasable scenarios where regulations are essential to an economy. Regulation against monopolistic practices, for example, or regulations promoting truth in advertising (particularly when advertising how safe a product is to use).

I do think that government spending is rather ridiculous right now, yes.

[Henrietta]

Regulations are needed to keep our economy going. Of course they can be abused, but so can every other thing on the planet. End of story.

yep, you should all join it

Including yourself.

[wanan]

i do not think a surplus in the coffers of the state is any way to show positive economic progress.

let me assure you, there is very little the state can do that will positively effect the market, in fact, nearly nothing. clinton, bush, gore, whoever, none of these men can manipulate the free market in any other way but <b>down</b>.

and please, while i'm no fan of w, he didn't call homosexuals "sinners", he said "we're all sinners". by that same clever media logic, we could construe a quote from him calling every minority group a sinners.

what, heh, you have to realize is that gwb is not alone in his view of homosexuality. in fact, the majority of americans feel the same way. that's why clinton didn't move on it either.

your o-so-perfect democracy is what prevents homosexuals from marriage. not the president. and, according the moral subjectivism that comes with democracy, if the majority of citizens believe homosexuality is wrong, it is.

GWB responded "we are all sinners" in response to gay marriage and lifestyle, therefore implying that homosexuals are sinners. I guess everyone can take their own meanings from that phrase.

You are quite right, a large part of America is against gay marriage and homosexuality in general. That doesn't make it right. The majority in this case is the religious right, and Bush is supporting this bigotry. The USA prides itself as the land of the free and so on, yet is discriminating against the gay/lesbian minority just as it did other minorities in the past. If we follow your reasoning than black people or women would still not be allowed to vote today.

[mosaik]

I don't know that I agree with this. I can see any number of completely feasable scenarios where regulations are essential to an economy. Regulation against monopolistic practices, for example, or regulations promoting truth in advertising (particularly when advertising how safe a product is to use).

I do think that government spending is rather ridiculous right now, yes.

Now before i start, my education on the complicated subject of economics is limited to one government course. but even so:

In an unregulated market, new firms will continue to enter the market as long as there remains one penny of profits to be made. A monopoly would NEVER exist for long in a free market, because the profits made by a single firm controlling 100% of any market share would be too tempting for other market players to resist.

only one body can actually enforce and maintain a monopoly: government.

as for advertising, if you lie about the safety of your product in your commercials, word of mouth will do you in. your reputation will suffer and your profitability will lapse. you will lose ground to your competitors, and slowly your business will fail, assuming you keep up your dishonest practices.

Businesses do care about their reputations. Kobe Bryant was recently dropped by sprite as their spokesperson. Why? I have a funny feeling it has to do with his pending rape trial.

Regulations are needed to keep our economy going. Of course they can be abused, but so can every other thing on the planet. End of story.

No, it is not "end of story."

Economics are like any other science - they have laws. the market has laws. Do you really believe that you have disproven free market economics by saying "regulations are needed"?

You haven't. Your tone irritates me, espeically because i have a strong feeling that your education on free market economic principles is even thinner then mine. if you're so sure that it's "end of story" i'd like to hear WHY. and do better then "regulations are needed"

[Sufjan Stevens]

Just ignore her. She's a fucking bitch.

[Ignignokt]

i must say "badass cass" isnt very badass...

[wanan]

I haven't read through every page of this thread so forgive me if this link has been posted: http://www.bushorchimp.com

I thought it was good for a laugh

[gerri_cherry]

You are quite right, a large part of America is against gay marriage and homosexuality in general. That doesn't make it right. The majority in this case is the religious right, and Bush is supporting this bigotry. The USA prides itself as the land of the free and so on, yet is discriminating against the gay/lesbian minority just as it did other minorities in the past. If we follow your reasoning than black people or women would still not be allowed to vote today.

thank you. that's what i'm trying to get across. separation between church and state. and america has gotten so far, why go back? oh i dunno why i worry about the states. thank god for Canada and the Charter.

[Narbus]

Now before i start, my education on the complicated subject of economics is limited to one government course. but even so:

Same here. but even so:

In an unregulated market, new firms will continue to enter the market as long as there remains one penny of profits to be made. A monopoly would NEVER exist for long in a free market, because the profits made by a single firm controlling 100% of any market share would be too tempting for other market players to resist.

only one body can actually enforce and maintain a monopoly: government.

I'm going to disagree here, kinda. Of course any business can, at any time, try and sneak into "controled territory." Let's use WalMart as an example. I want to open a pharmacy. I figure that being a local will encourage people to come in more and trust my judgement more than some faceless corporation, so I open a small drug store. The WalMart down the street notices this, and drops their prices ridiculously low, even to the point where they're losing money on each sale. Since WalMart has so many other stores out there generating profit, they can afford to do this for the few months it takes to put me out of business.

This is not a far-fetched example, either, WalMart has been on the receiving end of multiple lawsuits accusing them of this exact behavior.

I can try and jump into a profitable area, yes. But I greatly doubt I'd be able to compete, is the point.
Anyone with coding knowledge could write up a webbroweser, like Netscape did. But if Microsoft, which is run on something like 90%+ of all computers in the world, decides to alter their OS to make it impossible for a third party browser to be installed, I'm screwed.

as for advertising, if you lie about the safety of your product in your commercials, word of mouth will do you in. your reputation will suffer and your profitability will lapse. you will lose ground to your competitors, and slowly your business will fail, assuming you keep up your dishonest practices.

Another example, from real life: Enron. They screwed people out of millions through lies and altered books. The low end staff were screwed out of their pensions and such, and the CEO and the like walked with millions.
Oh damn, I have to have the second best caviar this weekend at my French Villa. Poo.

Businesses do care about their reputations. Kobe Bryant was recently dropped by sprite as their spokesperson. Why? I have a funny feeling it has to do with his pending rape trial.

I agree. I also believe that many businesses follow the "If no one knows about it, it's fine" practice when dealing with public relations, and the "well, it's a pain in the ass to do anything about it, so people will go along with it," practice. Such as Microsoft. A huge number of security issues associated with their OS, but it just keeps selling, because it's what people are used to. People are used to WalMart, so it'll be hard to convince them to come see me. People are used to being irrational, so it's hard to convince them otherwise, etc etc etc.

[Lando]

I just prefer it shaved okay? Does that make me a bad person? It's not that I hate bush... It's just not my preference...

[mosaik]

I'm going to disagree here, kinda. Of course any business can, at any time, try and sneak into "controled territory." Let's use WalMart as an example. I want to open a pharmacy. I figure that being a local will encourage people to come in more and trust my judgement more than some faceless corporation, so I open a small drug store. The WalMart down the street notices this, and drops their prices ridiculously low, even to the point where they're losing money on each sale. Since WalMart has so many other stores out there generating profit, they can afford to do this for the few months it takes to put me out of business.

This is not a far-fetched example, either, WalMart has been on the receiving end of multiple lawsuits accusing them of this exact behavior.

I can try and jump into a profitable area, yes. But I greatly doubt I'd be able to compete, is the point.

This is all valid. Wal Mart could, and probably has, put small pharmacies out of business by price slashing. A few points, however:

a) lower prices are good for the consumer. if lower prices are what it takes to keep Wal-Mart's monopoly intact, then the consumer profits.

b) no small, mom & pop startup company could come in and compete with a giant like wal-mart for anything then like .001% of the market share. To compete with wal-mart, it would take an already successful individual who wants more success.

c) in the long run, as long as wal-mart was making profits, other firms would continue to enter and exit the market in an attempt to grab their market share - unless government regulations make that impossible/too expensive.

I'm not saying a mega-business like Wal-Mart couldn't keep a large (80-90%) share of their market for decades. but if they decided to jack up the prices and start selling shitty products, other people would capitalize on that error.

example of government monopoly in action: air canada. most canadians recognize that as a dirty word. they charge too much, their service is notorious for it's poor quality and best of all, they're tax funded... and always broke.

ugh.

Anyone with coding knowledge could write up a webbroweser, like Netscape did. But if Microsoft, which is run on something like 90%+ of all computers in the world, decides to alter their OS to make it impossible for a third party browser to be installed, I'm screwed.

Yes you are. Unless you write your own OS, and it's better, and you have enough capital to push it.

I'm not saying that an unregulated market would make competing with incumbents like MS or Wal-Mart easy. But it would be possible, probably moreso then it is today with the anti-trust regulation.

I mean, think about it. Is anybody competing with them right now?

Another example, from real life: Enron. They screwed people out of millions through lies and altered books. The low end staff were screwed out of their pensions and such, and the CEO and the like walked with millions.
Oh damn, I have to have the second best caviar this weekend at my French Villa. Poo.

I don't know that much about the Enron scandal, but i remember that Bush and Cheney were mentioned an awful lot. It was dirty business, right? The CEO's were white collar criminals who probably weren't prosecuted because of their friends in the white house.

Unless i'm totally wrong. which is possible.

I agree. I also believe that many businesses follow the "If no one knows about it, it's fine" practice when dealing with public relations, and the "well, it's a pain in the ass to do anything about it, so people will go along with it," practice. Such as Microsoft. A huge number of security issues associated with their OS, but it just keeps selling, because it's what people are used to. People are used to WalMart, so it'll be hard to convince them to come see me. People are used to being irrational, so it's hard to convince them otherwise, etc etc etc.

All very true. As I've said before, competing with a giant like Microsoft would require you to already have a whole bunch of money, and a damn good product. You'd have to work twice as hard for every customer as MS would in the begining, but if you were selling a superior product eventually the market would be yours.

[call me andrew]

you knoow... my computer came with netscape on it. and it blows. i'm sorry, but ie is the best browser. i've had them all. and yeah. capitalism is cruel, but its our reality and the fairest system i guess.

[megxyz128]

I just prefer it shaved okay? Does that make me a bad person? It's not that I hate bush... It's just not my preference...

oh my ...

[Narbus]

This is all valid. Wal Mart could, and probably has, put small pharmacies out of business by price slashing. A few points, however:

a) lower prices are good for the consumer. if lower prices are what it takes to keep Wal-Mart's monopoly intact, then the consumer profits.

b) no small, mom & pop startup company could come in and compete with a giant like wal-mart for anything then like .001% of the market share. To compete with wal-mart, it would take an already successful individual who wants more success.

c) in the long run, as long as wal-mart was making profits, other firms would continue to enter and exit the market in an attempt to grab their market share - unless government regulations make that impossible/too expensive.

Yes, it'd be good for the consumer for the three or four months that it takes for me to go under. But I doubt WalMart will leave those prices that low very long afterwards. It's an unpleasant cycle, and without an established retailer who can compete (which is rarer than you think, KMart had to declare bankruptcy recently because it couldnt' compete with WalMart's prices) then it's one that can continue indefinately. New store moves in-> Lower prices-> store goes under-> raise prices, and there's nothing to do about it, since WalMart's the only store in the area, so they can charge what they like.

example of government monopoly in action: air canada. most canadians recognize that as a dirty word. they charge too much, their service is notorious for it's poor quality and best of all, they're tax funded... and always broke.

ugh.

Airlines around here aren't that great, either. They just keep blowing money on crap and then crying to the government and getting more. Bah.

Yes you are. Unless you write your own OS, and it's better, and you have enough capital to push it.

Like Mac? Or Linux? Or any other OS that doesn't crash as often, and doesn't have the giant security bugs that currently exist but the pain and cost of switching OS's is simply to prohibitive to warrant it because MS makes things that are just barely good enough?

I don't know that much about the Enron scandal, but i remember that Bush and Cheney were mentioned an awful lot. It was dirty business, right? The CEO's were white collar criminals who probably weren't prosecuted because of their friends in the white house.

Unless i'm totally wrong. which is possible.

Well, obviously, the lack of government and regulation that would make it worthless for them to have friends on Capitol Hill would also result in a lack of laws to prosecute them in the first place, so either way they walk with millions, and screw their employees.

All very true. As I've said before, competing with a giant like Microsoft would require you to already have a whole bunch of money, and a damn good product. You'd have to work twice as hard for every customer as MS would in the begining, but if you were selling a superior product eventually the market would be yours.

Again, Linux and Mac's.

[call me andrew]

lando's right. its like 4598372 times better.

[wanan]

thank you. that's what i'm trying to get across. separation between church and state. and america has gotten so far, why go back? oh i dunno why i worry about the states. thank god for Canada and the Charter.

Yeah, that's one of my biggest fears about Bush. His administration has been labelled as the most faith based ever and that really scares me. Granted I have very strong feelings about organised religion (as in, I think the world would be a better place without it. I don't think you need the bureacracy of religion in order to have faith in God, or something greater than yourself), but nevertheless a seperation is needed. There would be so much more pain and discrimination and hatred in this world if government and religion were bound together. It would be a step back into the dark ages.