spaceshipcrayons wrote:When will the "change" bullshit end? I can't believe the amount of suckers who fall for this scam. He's just another puppet (for the New World Order) who wants to steal your hard earned dollars and support the same agendas presidents have for decades.
"another puppet for the New World Order" ? - sounds like something you could read at rense.com, or some other Nazi website.
But let's just pretend I'd take you seriously for a second: If you call him a puppet you basically say that he's got no personal vision, nor any moral views whatsoever. At the same time you imply that the president of the United States should rule as a dictator, king or kaiser. - But he's part of an elected administration. His power is split among several democratic institutions. There's the senate, the president's own party, federalism, etc. pp. - All there to
prevent him from ruling like some kind of a king.
I wonder where you take the observation that the new president will "support the same agendas presidents have for decades" ? - I admit that upon a closer inspection his agenda doesn't seem all that revolutionary as some of his speeches might suggest, and he's certainly no socialist or communist as some label him, but overall I have the impression that his agenda actually might be a "change" of direction of about 180° on quite a lot of things.
Jeeba Jabba wrote:Yay for liberalism. demand accountability from your mayor when your favorite restaurant closes down.
Not sure I understand this comparision: If my favorite restaurant closes, it hardly won't affect other restaurants (quite the opposite actually, they'd benefit from me as a new customer), nor the country's economy (and thus everyone living there).
Now, I am not and never been a fan of spending billions of tax payers' money to save a private company, but I strongly support buying out a previously privately held company to save it from bankruptcy, thus saving the infrastructure in its region to allow a slower transition. - Even more so if it's a bank and its bankruptcy affects half of the world's infrastructure. - In fact I think that all banks should be held by the state, regions, towns or cooperatives.
I also would support strict regulations on what's possible in terms of financial transfers, credit loans, insurance, company mergers, stock market trades, etc. pp.
Actually, now that I am thinking about it, I heard this comparision a lot, but it's still wrong: A country's economy isn't a company. The German words would be "Betriebswirtschaft" (administration of a company) and "Volkswirtschaft" (administration of a country's economy, that's what Marx wrote about). There are at the very least two significant differences between the two: A) A company can't print its own money. And B) A country can't kick out 30% of its citizens if it runs into the red.
The major problem with capitalism itself is that its sole purpose, its only goal is to make profit out of everything (and nothing) - and that as quickly as possible, but at least faster than others. That's its nature. - That also means that neither the bank managers nor anyone else is to blame for anything - they only did what's been necessary to increase profit. The only one to blame is the democratically elected government, the administration. If they don't do what they've been elected for - representing the interest of the voters, setting rules to stay in control over any privately held companies - I can't understand how anyone could blame the banks, the managers, or the Chinese.
Insane homebrew collector.