The debates on the Debates

so, in ace world, there is no economic crisis. there are only mean people who say negative things because they don't like capitalism. so the crisis is statements that claim there is a crisis. and since "facts" are irrelevant, there we are.

and if you don't know what the imf does, ace, that does not bode well for your "interpretation" of the pretty picture you bit.

 

The concept "economic crisis" is il-defined. I described that in the US marginal economic activity in the small business sector is in crisis, which has a impact on job growth. Most sectors of the US economy are doing fine, this includes the big bank Wall St. financial sector, running higher than norm profit margins. On the contrary many small regional financial institutions are have a tough time competing given current regulations - thanks President Obama and liberals. Again, Romney did a good job of explaining the regulatory environment affecting financial institutions in the debate.

I know enough about history to know that some will use "economic" issues to divide and promote political agendas. If you choose not to question, that is you, however, I will always question those who have an agenda.

Facts are that world economies are growing. I asked you to define "crisis", if economic growth fits into your definition of economic crisis - we disagree. Is that difficult to grasp?

 

ace--how about you actually look at some of the imf data on the recent economic crisis--you know, the one caused by the sort of capitalism you support for metaphysical reasons, preferring simple shit to reality and all as you like to point out when you imagine it suits you.

Press Release: IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde Calls for Action Now to Secure Global Recovery

of course lagarde could be using the word crisis to "support some political objective" and likely didnt consult you in order to arrive at an ace-suitable "definition" of crisis.

of course, the imf also sees a need to reconstruct the transnational financial system in order to prevent idiots who are all markety market from creating another total fiasco:

IMF Survey: Safer Global Financial System Still Under Construction, Says IMF

but this is all out there in reality, ace. that complicated place. far from your imaginary world in which any positive movement in economic activity can be taken out of context and made over into whatever you want it to mean. but you just have fun in your private little world ace. i'm sure there's no crisis in there.

 

"caused" - care to explain that? How did capitalism cause the economic crisis (as you would define it)? Seems to me the cause was grounded in inept centralized management of economies (ie - government). The nature of capitalism is that there will be winners and losers, capitalism is equipped to handle this and does it well. Seem to me you pull stuff out of thin air.

What is a greater global risk - global economic activity (or lack of) or global political/religious unrest? Then explain how I am clueless and you are not.
--- merged: Oct 5, 2012 at 5:36 PM ---
Just read the two articles you cited. Seems that the IMF is mostly concerned with big business financial activity and world regulation of those markets. All this is meaningless to the Zambian villager with a small farm and a few goats in need of a well for fresh water to improve the quality of his life.

 

Well said, Rogue.

Ace,

Corporations enjoy the benefits of operating in the US because we the people have decided it's in our best interests to allow them to. Same goes for our system of government.

We have the ultimate authority to impose upon them, whatever rules and regulations are necessary to keep them operating in our best interests.

It's becoming more and more difficult to assert that authority, but it is still ours nonetheless. Most of your comments lead me to believe that you would prefer we drop the right of authority altogether, where corporations are concerned. Based on the naive belief I'm sure, that the machine spitting out the economic by-product of our democracy not only never breaks down but actually runs better without an inspection schedule and program of regular maintenance.

If you've ever worked in a manufacturing environment, you must know how silly this is.

 

Traders engage in a a zero sum game. given two sides of a speculative trade there is the up side and the down side. If I speculate on the value of a mortgage and you take the opposite trade - either I profit or you do. A big part of the problem was when law makers allowed traditional commercial banks to engage in investment banking activity resulting in the mixing of funds - so some banks risked the money of others. Compounding this problem was regulators allowing high leverage in these activities. What was the "cause"? In simple terms to me the cause was the cover of regulation that allowed some to take excessive risk and others to fail to do proper due diligence - i.e., if it is wrong regulators won't let me do it and if it is wrong regulators won't let them do it. The principle of caveat emptor was suspended. In true free markets those who enter the market unaware do so at their own peril, and those participants pay the price.

Give me capitalism any day of the week compared to centralized government trying to micro-manage exchange in the market. Individuals should succeed or fail based on their own merit and willingness to do their homework. If a transaction is too complicated for an individual they should avoid it. The role for government is to handle fraud, disputes and crime.
--- merged: Oct 7, 2012 at 1:50 PM ---

I am not a fan of the "corporate entity". The human race and capitalism did pretty well prior to the flood of corporations starting in the 1900's. And i am certainly not a fan of Fortune 500 type companies that have lost any connection with real people being accountable for the acts of the corporation. I believe corporations have evolved as a form of hybrid solution to a hybrid economic system that is neither free market based capitalism or true centralized control. I see pluses and minus in both extremes and what we have kind of in the middle. There is no perfect system, they all have weaknesses. I prefer the type of market that existed when Henry Ford ran Ford Motor company. there were about 250 US automotive companies all competing and innovating in a relatively free market. today there are two and perhaps a half and they can not compete without government assistance. But they are big, too big, too big to fail.

 

Bill Maher
Hello 9-1-1? There's an old man beating a child on my tv.

 

after watching more of the vp debate than i had any intention of doing, it was more than passing strange listening to the lame punditocracy informing me about something that they apparently watched which was quite different from what i had just watched. then i realized--this is david brooks and mark shields. who gives a fuck what those two mediocrities think. then i decided to watch baseball, which seemed a better sporting event.

 

The punditocracy at BBC had obviously watched an entirely different debate than I as well. If fresh-faced Ryan held his own against the well- seasoned VP, I'm the resurrected John the Baptist.
--- merged: Oct 12, 2012 at 12:47 AM ---
They should have trained the chimp to at least appear as if he was listening to what the moderator as well as his opponent was saying. No matter the question or flow of debate conversation, it was almost like he had a mental rubber band in his head that kept jerking him back to his talking points. The most bizarre thing I've ever seen. For a while, I questioned whether he'd been fitted with a first generation positronic brain.

 

I think Ol'Joe cleaned his clock on everything but style. He kept interrupting, flashing a smile while rolling his eyes. No need for the soap opera dramatics in my mind. Just let the facts speak for themselves. Of course he's playing to the average "undecided voter" who must be made up of only the nearly brain dead at this point. So maybe he needs to act like "look I can draw out for you in crayons if that's what you need."

Most of the media I've seen in the 20 minutes or so that I've been up seems to think it was a draw.

 

I've already voted. Why the hell should I torture myself by watching debates? It's hard enough on my blood pressure to drive around this town and see all these stupid fucking Romney flags flying around on people's cars like it's a fucking college football game. Look how proud I am to be a regressive troglodyte! We walk amongst morons, yo.

 

joe just plowed through ryan with interrupts and grins kinda how romney did to obama. the difference was obama looked weak while staring at the podium while ryan kept his head up.

 

I watched a little bit.

More non-answers from the Romney ticket, more conflating and flip-flopping - yet they're the ones to get us "on track". Would someone please explain to me how you can say you have the solutions when you don't actually know how to achieve the goals you spout? Some republicans around me are spouting that Biden was arrogant and rude and it's another reason to vote for Romney.

:shrug: I can't honestly see how anyone can call Biden arrogant when watching someone like Ryan speak. He comes across as smug and narcissistic. Douchebag seems to fit quite well in his regard. Oh wait, I'm an "independent" so my shit don't count.

 

Main thoughts on this one:

* Watching Biden and Ryan, it was like man and boy during large parts of the debate
* Biden overdid the laughing and eye-rolling as a tactic. While I quite enjoyed it (and some of it was highly effective), I thought he was even more effective when he showed his anger and focus (as he did around the time Syria was discussed). When he did that, he shredded Ryan, in my opinion.
* I can see how some of the "undecided" might find Biden's style in the debate arrogant and condescending at times. Style could work against him, even though the substance was there.
* Both sides were "economical with the truth" at times. Well, they ARE politicians, I guess.
* Ryan was surprisingly open on the abortion question. That could be an eye-opener for undecided voters.
* Ryan completely ignored some questions and started his closing remarks instead. Will people have noticed and objected? Not sure.
* Overall, I would say Biden "won". Ryan did OK but at times looked out of his depth. It will all come down to how the undecided saw it.
* The moderator in this one was much better than the last.
* Obama needs to do well in the next debate.

 

Joe Biden proved beyond a doubt that he is not the bumbling gaff machine the Right have been trying to paint him as being. His grasp of the issues and the relative ease with which he communicated them was no less impressive last night than when he debated in the 2008 Dem primaries. Because he has the capability of thinking on his feet, he was able to give pertinent answers to questions posed by the moderator. His ridicule of his opponent was appropriate and what real live people are likely to do when the utterly ridiculous is being served up as the truth.

Paul Ryan appeared stiffly robotic and insincere even during his "homey regular guy" moments. He was out of his league on the issues 75% of the time and rather than even try and debate them, he scurried back into the safe and familiar boneyards of personal demagoguery and right wing talking points. When called upon to veer from the script (taped to the inside of his eyelids) and respond to questions requiring a modicum of thought, he couldn't manage to pull it off - mostly due to the fact that he never appeared to be listening to anything other than the tape running through his own head.

I see this morning that the debate is being referred to as draw with neither candidate dominating. Pretty much bullshit but I have a theory as to why this might be the case.

Obama did not do as well as Romney in their debate last week.
Democrats were upfront in their acknowledgement of that.
Ryan did not do as well as Biden in their debate last night
Republicans would never acknowledge such a thing.

Pretty much points out the major difference between Democrats and Republicans. One party lives in the real world, the other, on another planet.