103 replies to this topic

[biknut]

I really like the idea of term limits. I think that would go a long way to help with a lot of the governments problems. If you know you're now going to be there after your term is up, you'd have a lot more incentive to do the right thing instead of what would help get you re elected.

[Connor MacLeod]

I wonder if any of the anti-immigrant crowd would change their tune if they knew that the immigrants are helping ameliorate an otherwise ugly demographic blowup?

You don't think people crossing U.S. borders illegally is a problem? What do you think should be done with the U.S. immigration laws?

Edited by Connor MacLeod, 29 July 2008 - 07:12 AM.

[niner]

I worry a bit about wanderer's idea that character is more important than intelligence. While I firmly believe that character is important, it is very easy to fake. Americans are very easy to scam on the "character" issue. You just wear a flag lapel pin all the time, and never change your mind even when the facts change, and people will think you have character. You can be stupid and fascistic, and countless people will extol you because "at least you know where he stands". Intelligence is at least harder to fake. While a president needs a very different skill set than a Nobel Laureate, it is important that they not be an idiot.

Obviously people can't run on the character platform, and I've never proposed that they should. I do, however, believe that American's need to be much, much more critical of those who want to run for office. Ideally, it wouldn't be an either/or proposition, niner. Hopefully we can find intelligent people of character. We have had hundreds of brilliant 'statesmen/stateswomen' in the last 50 years, and none of them have had the character (presidents particularly) to make a personal career sacrifice for the good of the nation and reform these systems. (positions in government should not be considered careers)

Even if a President or some number of Congresspersons want to change the system, they still have to get the rest of them to go along. Some of the changes that you mention would require constitutional change, which is even harder. This really goes beyond character. As they say, "it's structural".

I don't propose trying to decide which among a group of candidates has the 'best' character. My idea is to reform the system such that persons of questionable character are no longer so attracted to government positions. Heavy campaign finance reform, salaries lowered to what the average American makes, strict term limits (which would require ALL public servants to actually have a real job to go back to), increasing the total number of congressmen/women tenfold or more (which would make it impractical for large corporations to attempt to influence the government with money), and other such reforms would tend to make positions in government less attractive than used car sales or law.

These are really interesting ideas. I like the idea of more representatives. Given modern technology, this should be feasible, though it would be a nightmare to enact the changes. Campaign finance reform is essential. Reducing salary to some ridiculously low amount seems a bit extreme. You don't want to chase away all the good people because they just can't afford to do it. They ought to get what a low level executive in the private sector gets, which is probably more than they get today. Term limits I have mixed emotions about. Terms should be at least long enough to amortize the "learning the ropes" time, and the system should be designed to maintain institutional memory. Another thing they ought to do is not only get rid of gerrymandering, but they might even want to use anti-gerrymandering to ensure that all districts were competitive races. If congresspeople never got to run a second time, that would eliminate a lot of spinelessness and pork. It would also remove a certain degree of accountability to the voter, although I suppose there's always impeachment. "Constituent Services" should probably be banned or fobbed off on someone else.

Undoubtedly there are people who study political systems and have some ideas about what does and does not work. Is there any academic consensus on an ideal form of government? If so, what would it look like?

[wanderer]

This reminds me of the oil situation. For decades, a small number of people have tried to encourage energy conservation, the development of efficient vehicles, etc, but it's not until people are in pain that things really start to happen. No pain, no gain...

This, and virtually every other issue that we have put off dealing with for decades, could have been dealt with long ago if we had a cleaner government. The way I see it, gays and lesbians, gun owners, the various minorities, the various majorities, straight guys and girls, people of various religions, people of no religion, anti-religious people, liberals, conservatives, environmentalists, animal rights activists, honestly every single American has at least this one thing in common: Our interests are not being served by the lip service of the current corrupt duopoly. When things get really bad, I look forward to seeing all of the groups put aside their petty differences to unify for JUST long enough to kick the bastards out. We can, of course, get right back to fighting and hating each other if we like, once we fix certain holes in the system that allow, even encourage, such corruption, but I doubt the divisions in America will ever get quite as bad again.

An interest point that most Americans seem unaware of: Originally our system was such that, in presidential elections, the person with the most votes became president and the RUNNER-UP became vice president. NOT your 'running-mate'. As long as I can remember, in EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR half of the people say "If _____ wins, I'm moving to Canada.", and the other half say the same thing about the other candidate. No matter who wins, half of America is angry. And both halves hate each other. The Us vs. Them mentality benefits the parties, but it hurts the American people and it hurts our future. Just imagine if we reimplemented that system. What if parties ceased to be? If the majority vote-winner became president, and the runner-up became vice president, the OVERWHELMING majority of Americans would feel represented in the Executive Branch. Indeed, we would be forced to see those who embody our values and ideas work closely as a team with those who embody the values and ideas of others. I imagine it would be helpful in healing the wounds in our society that seem to be getting worse and worse.

[niner]

I wonder if any of the anti-immigrant crowd would change their tune if they knew that the immigrants are helping ameliorate an otherwise ugly demographic blowup?

You don't think people crossing U.S. borders illegally is a problem? What do you think should be done with the U.S. immigration laws?

Sure it's a problem. If it wasn't ridiculously hard to become a citizen, they wouldn't want to break the law. In the late 1800's to early 1900's, we let in millions. That turned out pretty well in the long run, although I'm not proposing a free-for-all. The point is that we need immigrants. Not only do they work cheap, but they and their children will keep our society functioning when we are all older. I can understand that people are concerned about a change in American culture if we get too many immigrants, although I think the culture is pretty strong. I don't want to see a situation where we have multi-generation non-English speakers, like Quebec. That's just a recipe for trouble. Immigration only builds a strong society when there is a reasonable amount of assimilation.

[wanderer]

Even if a President or some number of Congresspersons want to change the system, they still have to get the rest of them to go along. Some of the changes that you mention would require constitutional change, which is even harder. This really goes beyond character. As they say, "it's structural".

"They" are the problem. "They" say they would love to be more responsible with regards to the environment, but they can't get the "others" to follow along. "They" say they would like to fix any given problem, but because of the opposition of "others" they can't make any progress. I think it is ridiculous to expect any product of the system to fix the system, or a part of the problem to endeavor to fix the problem. Congress won't adopt any of my ideas until either a) a particularly strong, independent, visionary president comes along and forces the change by inspiring and waking up the American people, or b) a horrible disaster like none in recent memory wakes the people up and causes them to clamor for real change.

These are really interesting ideas. I like the idea of more representatives. Given modern technology, this should be feasible, though it would be a nightmare to enact the changes. Campaign finance reform is essential. Reducing salary to some ridiculously low amount seems a bit extreme. You don't want to chase away all the good people because they just can't afford to do it. They ought to get what a low level executive in the private sector gets, which is probably more than they get today.

More representatives is certainly feasible, but, as you said, it would be tough to enact the changes. The question is, though, would it be worth it? But as far as reducing the salaries to just what the average American makes, I don't think it is the slightest bit extreme. Especially with all of the perks, they could live on it, just like the rest of us do. Look at the Presidency, for example. The president gets $400,000 a year, but has no lodging, food, or travel expenses. You have about as luxurious a life as one could desire... for free. PLUS a huge salary. The POINT is that we don't want people attracted to government positions for the salary and perks! I've already explained my position about what sort of person I believe is better for government positions at length.


Term limits I have mixed emotions about. Terms should be at least long enough to amortize the "learning the ropes" time, and the system should be designed to maintain institutional memory.

I agree about the institutional memory idea. Staggering elections takes care of this. I also agree that terms should be 'long enough'. I would like to see somewhat longer terms, but one and ONLY one term allowed. Impeachment and removal from office should be understood to be real options to the American people. I think that the value of 'learning the ropes' is dangerously overestimated, however. The 'ropes' are tying us down to the old, inefficient, corrupt 2-party system that has brought us to the unenviable point we find ourselves in, and will more than likely escort us all the way to disaster's door over the next 10 years or so. If you have read my several, and long, posts today, you would understand that I am not a big fan of any of the presidents of the last 50 years, nor am I a huge fan of McCain or Obama. They are both products of the system. Anything that cannot be readily digested by the system is either vomited out, or will sit in the stomach like a penny swallowed by a child. I will leave it to you to infer exactly what I think of people who pass through the system successfully and make it into power. One of Obama's points that I wholeheartedly agree with, however, is that experience in the system is not necessarily a good thing.


Undoubtedly there are people who study political systems and have some ideas about what does and does not work. Is there any academic consensus on an ideal form of government? If so, what would it look like?

I study political systems, and I have lots of ideas about what does and does not work. There isn't really any sort of consensus, though. People who think on and study these things tend to be philosophical types, and their ideas are often impractical and difficult to implement. It seems to me that a democracy with highly educated and interested voters, with a system that keeps the government fluid with new people constantly coming in (and getting rid of 40-year kidney-stone-like senators), would be an ideal system.

[Cody]

Agreed. Not only that though. With Obama in office, say hello to 12 dollar gas my friend! I support the war, too. Theres more who support the war than tv makes it seem. Most stations are run by democrats. Therefore, bias runs rampant.

This is kinda random, but who thinks we should drill for oil/natural gas? To me (Actually in fact too), our country is being crippled by gas prices. As gas goes up, everything goes up with it! How do you think the food gets to stores for you to buy? Gas, man. When gas goes up, the cost of most other things rises, too. It's a horrible chain reaction. It's pillaging and raping the economy.

Yeah, damn Democrats caused these gas prices. We ought just take 'em all out and shoot 'em. I totally hear you, Cody. Obama will probably cause 20 dollar gas! We'll all be breakin' rocks in the hot sun. Those of us with enough gonads to resist will find ourselves in Democrat Re-education camps. There will be a giant screen TV with Hillary or some other feminazi constantly berating us. I suspect that they will castrate us, too. Jesse Jackson's already talking about it, so you know it's coming. Of course they will take our guns away. That's the first thing they do. Either that or there will be enough soy in the drinking water to make us all gay.

Lol, well to be honest I agree with that. I just can't tell if your bring sarcastic or not. If you aren't, then AMEN BROTHER!

Well Cody, I was being sarcastic, but I'll stop that, since it's the wrong approach. This is a reality-based forum, so let's get reality based. What exactly do you mean by "communist"? Are you talking about state ownership of the means of production? That's not happening here. Are you talking about "redistribution of wealth"? At the moment we have the largest gap between the rich and the rest of us since shortly before the crash of '29. The wealthy in America enjoy the lowest tax rates in the developed world. In the late 40's/early 50's, the McCarthy era, America was probably about as "anti-communist" as a country could be. Yet at that time, the wealthy were taxed heavily and the middle class had a tremendously good deal. Or are you talking about an increase in totalitarianism? You might be on to something there; there has been a serious erosion in civil liberties since Bush/Cheney arrived. With American citizens being spied on without a warrant, locked up without charge, and being subjected to search and seizure in the name of "security", we do seem to live in a more totalitarian world. That's not communism, though. Communism is an economic system.

It's fine. It was kinda funny. I was just being an oblivious a**hole .

Well, America's going communtist is many different ways, Niner. But the biggest one you said to me that shows the big picture of what I meant by "communist", was the totalitarianism shift. It's so crazy how they're allowed to just listen to our conversations. Now, everytime I hear a click in my friggin' phone I'm like,"Crap, is the government listening or something!?" But I do believe that the totalitarianism is a little piece of communism. Just my opinion. It's actually what I meant when I said communist. Communism isn't just an economic system. It influences EVERYTHING in the country that it's used in. For example, listening in on people's conversations would be a normal thing.

I just don't believe they should be able to listen in on people. Soon, they're gonna start encoaching on rights. They already are. The right to bear arms (The right to arm bears ).

But anyways, I don't believe that they should be able to do that, or search houses in the name of security.

Well son, if America didn't have such a hard on for war and control freakism worldwide the gov could never really have any excuse for spying on us in the first place.

The less we interfere in the world the more transparent a government we can have. War will always threaten our civil liberties. Cold hard fact. The best we can do for humanity is focus on loving our neighbors as ourselves, good works as well as consentrating on technology. Coercion and violence is a waste of our time and resources and just doesnt work. It just makes a few of the elites rich. .....Vampires.

We need more countries in this world that leads through its own example without resorting to coercion and shady deals with thugs in 'helping' other countries. Beacon of light. Prove what works through our own example and not force..

I am a conservative that just can't vote Republican. I won't vote dem either. I am a libertarian because I don't like war or coercion. I am a classical liberal but the libertarian party is much closer to my poltical philosophy.

Dude. 911. We didn't interfere then. The world isn't a magical place where everyone gets a long. That's a dream world that's very far away. I wish it wasn't, but it is.

[sumphilosopheô]

Agreed. Not only that though. With Obama in office, say hello to 12 dollar gas my friend! I support the war, too. Theres more who support the war than tv makes it seem. Most stations are run by democrats. Therefore, bias runs rampant.

This is kinda random, but who thinks we should drill for oil/natural gas? To me (Actually in fact too), our country is being crippled by gas prices. As gas goes up, everything goes up with it! How do you think the food gets to stores for you to buy? Gas, man. When gas goes up, the cost of most other things rises, too. It's a horrible chain reaction. It's pillaging and raping the economy.

Yeah, damn Democrats caused these gas prices. We ought just take 'em all out and shoot 'em. I totally hear you, Cody. Obama will probably cause 20 dollar gas! We'll all be breakin' rocks in the hot sun. Those of us with enough gonads to resist will find ourselves in Democrat Re-education camps. There will be a giant screen TV with Hillary or some other feminazi constantly berating us. I suspect that they will castrate us, too. Jesse Jackson's already talking about it, so you know it's coming. Of course they will take our guns away. That's the first thing they do. Either that or there will be enough soy in the drinking water to make us all gay.

Lol, well to be honest I agree with that. I just can't tell if your bring sarcastic or not. If you aren't, then AMEN BROTHER!

Well Cody, I was being sarcastic, but I'll stop that, since it's the wrong approach. This is a reality-based forum, so let's get reality based. What exactly do you mean by "communist"? Are you talking about state ownership of the means of production? That's not happening here. Are you talking about "redistribution of wealth"? At the moment we have the largest gap between the rich and the rest of us since shortly before the crash of '29. The wealthy in America enjoy the lowest tax rates in the developed world. In the late 40's/early 50's, the McCarthy era, America was probably about as "anti-communist" as a country could be. Yet at that time, the wealthy were taxed heavily and the middle class had a tremendously good deal. Or are you talking about an increase in totalitarianism? You might be on to something there; there has been a serious erosion in civil liberties since Bush/Cheney arrived. With American citizens being spied on without a warrant, locked up without charge, and being subjected to search and seizure in the name of "security", we do seem to live in a more totalitarian world. That's not communism, though. Communism is an economic system.

It's fine. It was kinda funny. I was just being an oblivious a**hole .

Well, America's going communtist is many different ways, Niner. But the biggest one you said to me that shows the big picture of what I meant by "communist", was the totalitarianism shift. It's so crazy how they're allowed to just listen to our conversations. Now, everytime I hear a click in my friggin' phone I'm like,"Crap, is the government listening or something!?" But I do believe that the totalitarianism is a little piece of communism. Just my opinion. It's actually what I meant when I said communist. Communism isn't just an economic system. It influences EVERYTHING in the country that it's used in. For example, listening in on people's conversations would be a normal thing.

I just don't believe they should be able to listen in on people. Soon, they're gonna start encoaching on rights. They already are. The right to bear arms (The right to arm bears ).

But anyways, I don't believe that they should be able to do that, or search houses in the name of security.

Well son, if America didn't have such a hard on for war and control freakism worldwide the gov could never really have any excuse for spying on us in the first place.

The less we interfere in the world the more transparent a government we can have. War will always threaten our civil liberties. Cold hard fact. The best we can do for humanity is focus on loving our neighbors as ourselves, good works as well as consentrating on technology. Coercion and violence is a waste of our time and resources and just doesnt work. It just makes a few of the elites rich. .....Vampires.

We need more countries in this world that leads through its own example without resorting to coercion and shady deals with thugs in 'helping' other countries. Beacon of light. Prove what works through our own example and not force..

I am a conservative that just can't vote Republican. I won't vote dem either. I am a libertarian because I don't like war or coercion. I am a classical liberal but the libertarian party is much closer to my poltical philosophy.

Dude. 911. We didn't interfere then. The world isn't a magical place where everyone gets a long. That's a dream world that's very far away. I wish it wasn't, but it is.

We have a very long history of mucking about in the middle east. We should only defend America in my opinion. Not other countries. Advances in technology could help solve a lot of the worlds problems. Our time and resources should be spent on technology and not so much on "defense". In my opinion advances in technology could reduce world conlflicts.

[PWAIN]

One way that we can fix (and are fixing, in fact) our problems with social programs is to fix the demographic imbalance by bringing in young immigrants. I wonder if any of the anti-immigrant crowd would change their tune if they knew that the immigrants are helping ameliorate an otherwise ugly demographic blowup?

Intresting thread.

As a non American, I find your concerns about immigration intresting. I live in Australia and we have currently got a population of 21 million. Our last million came about after only 3 years and our next million is projected to take around 3 more years but I suspect that it is more like 2.5 years or less as our migrant intake is shooting up. For the US to take a similar proportion of people, you would need to take in around 12 million in 3 years or around 4 million per year. My understanding is that you currently take in around 1 million a year.

Like most developed countrys, Australia faces the demographic time bomb. It is being handled in a number of ways, the first of which is discussed above - massive immigration increase. About 17 years ago, Aus woke up to the problem and part of the solution was to introduce "Superannuation" which is basically a compulsory private pension scheme. Everyone has to pay a minimum of 9% of their income into the scheme, but the money stays in an account in their name and is usually invested in shares or other financial instrument. Upon retirement (min age applies), the person can cash in this money and use it for their retirement. If you did not accumulate enough money, then you can still access the government pension but it is declining in value and will not be an attractive option but it will keep you alive. This means that the amount of people claiming the government pension will reduce as a percentage over time although the numbers will probably be around the same as now. The government has also been putting money from surplusses aside to pay for public sector pension liabilities that it faces in the future.

It is not a perfect solution but it is a start. We also have the PBS or pharmacutical benefits scheme which bulk buys medications and then we can buy at subsudised prices. This means that prices could be negotiated and a best price found but since the free trade agreement (between Aus and US), a lot of the ability to negotiate best price has been stripped from our PBS.

It is probably worthwhile noting that communism has never been practiced or probably better to say achieved. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics never was able to become the Union of Soviet Communist Republics. They only ever achieved an extreem form of socialism and spent much time trying to achieve communism and plan for how that was to come about. Communism didn't fail, it never really existed, but we can say that extreem socialism did fail. I believe that there is a clearly defined difference between communism and socialism.

Experience has shown me that there are usually extreems and that extreems are seldom the answer. A middle ground tends to be the best path and this seems to be reflected in the move to the centre of politics in most successful countrys around the world. Most people feel that the social experiments are over and simply want stability. A slightly but not overly socialist capitalist democracy seems to be the path chosen by the majority in many countrys. These days the changes are mostly about minor adjustment to suit current circumstances. The US has traditionally not favoured any form of socialism but that has changed gradually. This seems to be the cause of considerable friction among those who feel betrayed. The majority dictates what happens in the US and the majority is moving more and more behind the socialist mantra. This doesn't mean that everyone agrees and there is a large minority who speak out. They are however unlikely to change much. The poor outnumber the rich so their voice gets heard loudest.

As for a radical person comming in to shake things up and change things around, short of homeland war or some other major disaster, it will not happen. People will stick with the status qou and any radical will be sniffed out long before they get close to the oval office. Even if one got in, without a large amount of support, they would not last long and their news laws would be scrapped in short order.

I write this as a person that tends toward the right but keeps a very open mind to the left too.

[niner]

The US has traditionally not favoured any form of socialism but that has changed gradually. This seems to be the cause of considerable friction among those who feel betrayed.

The first major social program was social security, passed by FDR, 1935. Then Medicare, by LBJ, 1965. Both were old style Democrats. The next large social program was the medicare Drug benefit, by GW Bush in 2003. Bush is a Republican. Social programs used to be a reason for right wingers to hate democrats, but now they can hate themselves, too.

The majority dictates what happens in the US and the majority is moving more and more behind the socialist mantra. This doesn't mean that everyone agrees and there is a large minority who speak out. They are however unlikely to change much. The poor outnumber the rich so their voice gets heard loudest.

This doesn't sound like the country I live in. The rich have the biggest megaphone, so their voice gets heard the loudest. They both hire lobbyists and shape public opinion through the news and information outlets that they control. The wealthy are quite adept at circumventing true democracy.

As for a radical person comming in to shake things up and change things around, short of homeland war or some other major disaster, it will not happen. People will stick with the status qou and any radical will be sniffed out long before they get close to the oval office. Even if one got in, without a large amount of support, they would not last long and their news laws would be scrapped in short order.

I agree.

[wanderer]

As for a radical person comming in to shake things up and change things around, short of homeland war or some other major disaster, it will not happen. People will stick with the status qou and any radical will be sniffed out long before they get close to the oval office. Even if one got in, without a large amount of support, they would not last long and their news laws would be scrapped in short order.

Yes, people tend to go out of their way to ignore problems until the problems reach a point when they are impossible to ignore. In general, the masses will do their best to maintain the status quo until things get so bad that they have no choice but to act. I realize this, which is why I posited that the US will go down one of two paths over the next decade: Either a courageous, brilliant, visionary leader will rise up, inspire the people to action, and begin to deal with the problems facing the nation before it hits rock-bottom, OR the US will hit rock-bottom, and the people will rise up of their own accord and begin to deal with the problems that they can no longer ignore.

You will notice that either way the great changes I would love to see require a "large amount of support" from the people. The question is will it happen sooner, inspired by a great leader, or later, inspired by a large-scale national disaster which could have been avoided.

I have really enjoyed the discussion over the last couple of days in this forum. It was nice talking with you guys. I'm just getting warmed up, and I would love to delve deeper into these topics... but reality beckons. In order to begin to fuel any sort of meaningful change in the world, especially if you plan to do it from outside the 'system', you need to have lots of money. I am going to try to be disciplined and get back to focusing on business and generating wealth.

Edited by wanderer, 30 July 2008 - 06:01 AM.

[Connor MacLeod]

Here's an article in from the People's Weekly World by Joelle Fishman, chair of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) political action commitee, throwing her support behind Barak Obama and the Democratic party:

Oh for godsake. Shall we hunt down a list of fascists, criminals, and faux-religious manipulators that support McCain? The Reverend Sun Myung Moon, Divine King of all Creation and GOP pal extraordinaire? This is utterly irrelevant. Please talk about actual announced policies or correct historical facts, and don't waste our time with trivia.

No, it's no irrelevant. You made the claim that the Republican party is socialist, but it is obvious to anyone with a pulse that the vast majority of communists or socialists who end up casting a vote for a candidate of either of the two major parties are going to cast their vote for a Democrat. In fact with Obama as the Democrat candidate, I'm pretty confident the Democratic party will actually be pulling a bit more of the Stalinst vote than usual.

Of course, if you want to claim that McCain will be picking up more of the white supremacist vote than Obama, I certainly won't argue with that (though I think Ron Paul will actually end up carrying the bulk of that.) That doesn't mean that McCain is a white supremacist, nor does the fact that commies are working the phones for Obama mean that he's a communist. But still, I think its reasonable to assume that each of these groups has a pretty good picture of which party or candidate is more likely to butter their bread, and in 2008 it seems a safe bet that socialists all across the fruited plains, be they Marxist, Marxist-Leninist, Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist, or whatever, will be going for Obama over McCain at least 500 to 1.



Does Sun Myung Moon preach that the U.S. created AIDS as a means of carrying out genocide on black people? You'd have to be a real idiot to listen to a pastor that taught something like that on Sunday mornings, eh?

[biknut]

I think its reasonable to assume that each of these groups has a pretty good picture of which party or candidate is more likely to butter their bread, and in 2008 it seems a safe bet that socialists all across the fruited plains, be they Marxist, Marxist-Leninist, Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist, or whatever, will be going for Obama over McCain at least 500 to 1.

This is absolutely true. Socialist and communist leaning voters always vote Democrat, never Republican.

Also what niner points out about the rich controlling the media and therefore controlling the way the masses tend to think is mostly true. Unfortunately 90% of the media is left wing. That has had a large effect on how we've ended up where we are today. Even Republician politicians are buying into the propaganda and moving to the left in the hopes of gaining some votes.

[niner]

I think its reasonable to assume that each of these groups has a pretty good picture of which party or candidate is more likely to butter their bread, and in 2008 it seems a safe bet that socialists all across the fruited plains, be they Marxist, Marxist-Leninist, Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist, or whatever, will be going for Obama over McCain at least 500 to 1.

This is absolutely true. Socialist and communist leaning voters always vote Democrat, never Republican.

Also what niner points out about the rich controlling the media and therefore controlling the way the masses tend to think is mostly true. Unfortunately 90% of the media is left wing. That has had a large effect on how we've ended up where we are today. Even Republician politicians are buying into the propaganda and moving to the left in the hopes of gaining some votes.

People on the left think that 90% of the media is right wing... I think that much of the media is owned by large corporations, and those corporations tend to know what side their bread is buttered on.

[niner]

Here's an article in from the People's Weekly World by Joelle Fishman, chair of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) political action commitee, throwing her support behind Barak Obama and the Democratic party:

Oh for godsake. Shall we hunt down a list of fascists, criminals, and faux-religious manipulators that support McCain? The Reverend Sun Myung Moon, Divine King of all Creation and GOP pal extraordinaire? This is utterly irrelevant. Please talk about actual announced policies or correct historical facts, and don't waste our time with trivia.

No, it's no irrelevant. You made the claim that the Republican party is socialist, but it is obvious to anyone with a pulse that the vast majority of communists or socialists who end up casting a vote for a candidate of either of the two major parties are going to cast their vote for a Democrat. In fact with Obama as the Democrat candidate, I'm pretty confident the Democratic party will actually be pulling a bit more of the Stalinst vote than usual.

Of course, if you want to claim that McCain will be picking up more of the white supremacist vote than Obama, I certainly won't argue with that

I guess I wasn't being clear enough. I do not claim that the Republican party is socialist. I was replying to a claim that the Democratic party was socialist because they enacted a social program. I pointed out that the Republicans have also enacted social programs, so by the earlier poster's logic, that made them "socialist". "Socialist" is a rather scary term to be throwing around, since it is freighted with the spectre of Soviet Communism and all that entails, yet I agree that we need a term for the type of society that the entire developed world has or is moving toward, which is a social democracy. Are the Democrats "more social" than the Republicans? Certainly. Does that mean they are Communists, Marxists, or Evil? Certainly not, nor are Republicans as a group fascists, religious hypocrites, or evil.

On the topic of irrelevancy, you are claiming that being favored by a fringe group taints you with the evil that such a fringe group represents? Is that essentially it? Then by your logic, McCain and others on the right are "White Supremacists? Or they lean toward White Supremacy? You see, this is why I consider this line of argument irrelevant. Everyone agrees that Democrats are "on the left", and Republicans are "on the right". I would argue that America's definition of where the center lies has moved substantially to the right over the past 40 years, such that many Democrats are today to the right of many republicans of 50 years ago. However, both sides have their fringe groups, and carried to the extreme of the fringe, both are pretty damn ugly. Those fringes have little if anything to do with the policies of the people near the center.

[Connor MacLeod]

On the topic of irrelevancy, you are claiming that being favored by a fringe group taints you with the evil that such a fringe group represents? Is that essentially it?

No, the point was that if the Republicans were socialist (as I believe you claimed in another post - though perhaps I misunderstood the context), they would have more support from actual socialists. But it is the Democrats, not the Republicans who carry that vote. In any case, Communists and White Supremacists both don't get a whole lot of love from either party, but still they'll take what they can get.

[Futurist1000]

I do think this country is heading towards more socialism and I don't think it will be good economic wise. I tend to prefer a libertarian style government. Just because I prefer that style of government, doesn't mean I think their should be no regulation of the markets. Our coutry is obviously not a free for all and we do need to have laws and regulations (police etc.).

It seems so often, though, that "regulation" means boneheaded interference in the free market. France for instance is finally getting rid of some of its idiotic policies (35 hour work week, making it impossible to fire anyone, too high a minimum wage).

Here's one of Obama's "plans for America"

It's baaaack!! Yes, "comparable worth," which faded out around the same time the Bay City Rollers were disbanding, is making a comeback, under the euphemism "pay equity". To wit: the Fair Pay Act of 2007. Introduced by Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) in April (Illionois Sen. and Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama is one of 15 co-sponsors) the Act notes the existence of wage differentials between men and women.

In the first edition of my favorite economics textbook, there was a section on "comparable worth." Eventually, my editor suggested I take it out, on the grounds that economic logic had finally killed off this bad idea. But like Lord Voldemort in the first Harrry Potter book, the idea was weakened, but not dead.

I think Obama is more leftist than he actually portrays himself. This comparable worth is pure communism. I don't care that much for McCain, but I can't say that Obama's economic policies look too appealing in comparison.

Though what do you guys think about the fact that there is some truth to what the left/democrats say about wealth being accumulated in a few hands.

For instance here's a case study. Perez Hilton has a popular blog http://www.perezhilton.com/. This guy makes 800,000 a year for what? Does he really produce 800,000 dollars worth of value?

Bill Gates did some good stuff, but he didn't necessarily create that much worth that he now owns. He skimmed a little from all the people working underneath him. Those are the types of people that should be taxed more, but they are probably a small minority.

People like doctors, engineers etc. who make a lot of money are actually creating wealth/value through what they do. That's the problem though, democrats rarely distinguish properly between those who create wealth and those who are just lucky. That is difficult to do though. How do you reduce these inequities in wealth without stifling innovation or the will to go out and create wealth? Communism and socialism for that matter tend to be very good at stifling innovation. To often socialist policies reduce the incentive to do anything. With communism people have zero incentive to get ahead, thus very little wealth is produced overall.

And niner, I realize the republicans have not been good at balancing the budget and clinton did a good job in that respect. However, just because he did it, I don't think the democrats can always be counted on to balance the budget.

Look at california. A lot of it is due to too many welfare policies. Sure the governor is a republican, but until recently the democrats were still planning a universal healthcare that would have cost the state billions more, until they realized it was fiscally infeasible. Schwarzenegger may very well be just an inept impotent idiot who didn't do shit to fix the out of control spending. I would place a lot of the blame on the democrats, though.
Budget Deficit

Democrats oppose the deep cuts to education and health services needed to balance the budget without new funding. Instead, the conference committee proposes higher tax rates for the wealthiest residents.

Now I won't argue that the Bush tax cut brings in more tax revenue. It doesn't.

However, I know what will happen. The democrats will increase taxes, but the wealthy and bussiness will flee to a better state (or country) . I'm mostly reffering to california here, however it could perhaps happen on a country wide level.

The Democrats' proposed budget would reinstate two higher income tax brackets for residents and close tax loopholes that benefit the wealthy and corporations. That money would be used to restore $1.8 billion for health and human services and $1.5 billion for education that was cut under the governor's 10 percent across-the-board approach to cuts.

Highest per capita tax burden among the larger states. Another indicator of California's tax burden is its ranking on a per capita basis. In other words, how much does each Californian pay in state taxes compared to their counterparts across the country? The most recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau indicates that Californians pay an average of $2,392 in state taxes. As shown below, California imposes the highest per capita state tax burden among the eight largest states.

Higher taxes tend to drive businesses out of state, thereby deteriorating future revenues.

California Business Tax Climate ranked 47th in the nation. How does the state fare in terms of taxes on business? The Tax Foundation ranked California's business tax climate the 47th in the nation for 2008, based on 113 factors and taking into account the state's five major business taxes in effect as of July 1, 2007. In addition to higher taxes, California also has more rigid labor rules, stricter business regulations, less reliable energy supplies, and higher building and construction costs – all factors that businesses use in their decisions to expand and relocate outside the state.

California is further along than the rest of the country in socialist leftist respect. Venezuela is our future. Same thing is happening there, Chavez not understanding economics is instituting a lot of communist policies. However all the wealth creators are leaving the country in droves (bussinesses and the wealthy).

Recent immigrants tend to be fiscal drain niner in Europe and the US. That's one of the reasons that our poverty rate and uninsurance rate has increased. Europe is finally figuring out that if 40% of immigrants are living off the dole they won't be helping to sustain the socialist pyramid scheme they got going. California has more poor immigrants which lead to more socialist policies. More immigration will only exacerbate the problem. There is certainly a difference between skilled and unskilled immigrants economic wise.

So far this has been ok, mainly because scientific innovation has been creating so much wealth that some socialism is somewhat feasible from an evolutionary stable strategy perspective. I can't say for certain, though, that it will always be like that.

If we can get a president that knows how to fashion an evolutionary stable strategy from both a societal and indivual perspective then I would definitely vote for him.

Edited by hrc579, 31 July 2008 - 12:08 AM.

[niner]

I do think this country is heading towards more socialism and I don't think it will be good economic wise. I tend to prefer a libertarian style government. Just because I prefer that style of government, doesn't mean I think their should be no regulation of the markets. Our coutry is obviously not a free for all and we do need to have laws and regulations (police etc.).

It seems so often, though, that "regulation" means boneheaded interference in the free market. France for instance is finally getting rid of some of its idiotic policies (35 hour work week, making it impossible to fire anyone, too high a minimum wage).

I agree that boneheaded over-regulation is bad. Likewise, severe non-regulation that leads to economic calamity is also bad. There's such thing as a happy medium here. America is really a long, long way from France. We don't want to go there, and I don't think we will. We also don't want to emulate such havens of low taxes and deregulation as Somalia.

Here's one of Obama's "plans for America"

(stuff from Greg Mankiw)

I think Obama is more leftist than he actually portrays himself. This comparable worth is pure communism. I don't care that much for McCain, but I can't say that Obama's economic policies look too appealing in comparison.

I'm not sure how saying that you can't pay women less for the identical position just because they are women is communism, but from my poking around, it looks like this legislation, which apparently has gone nowhere, is not really needed. Obama's co-co-co-sponsorship of this bill was probably more pandering to Hillary supporters than anything else. I would have more respect for Mankiw if he didn't twist statistics into lies in order to make ideological points. (He did this on a different topic)

Though what do you guys think about the fact that there is some truth to what the left/democrats say about wealth being accumulated in a few hands. [...]

People like doctors, engineers etc. who make a lot of money are actually creating wealth/value through what they do. That's the problem though, democrats rarely distinguish properly between those who create wealth and those who are just lucky. That is difficult to do though. How do you reduce these inequities in wealth without stifling innovation or the will to go out and create wealth? Communism and socialism for that matter tend to be very good at stifling innovation. To often socialist policies reduce the incentive to do anything. With communism people have zero incentive to get ahead, thus very little wealth is produced overall.

Democrats may not distinguish this, but Republicans seem to distinguish it in the wrong direction. Republicans favor regressive payroll taxes and higher rates of tax on earned income, the income that you get from working at a job. They apply the lowest rates to Capital Gains and Dividends, the money that you make by virtue of having money. They would argue that people who put capital at risk are creating more value than people who work, or in other words create value. The Republicans have certainly been successful at rewarding capital far more than labor. At least people who work largely do it in our country, while people who invest do it all over the world, often benefiting other countries rather than our own.

And niner, I realize the republicans have not been good at balancing the budget and clinton did a good job in that respect. However, just because he did it, I don't think the democrats can always be counted on to balance the budget.

I've been accused of being a "Clinton lover". This is decidedly not the case, but as the only Democratic administration of the past quarter century, I have to bring him up when right wingers present the myth that Democrats are fiscally irresponsible. Over this time period, 100% of Republican administrations have not balanced the budget, and 100% of Dem administration have. Since there's only one Dem, and three Rep, the statement "Republicans will not balance the budget" has a higher likelihood of being true than "Democrats will"... I'm not really intending to use Clinton in a predictive sense, but rather in a myth-busting sense.

Now I won't argue that the Bush tax cut brings in more tax revenue. It doesn't.

It is really refreshing to hear this from someone who is not on the left.

However, I know what will happen. The democrats will increase taxes, but the wealthy and bussiness will flee to a better state (or country) . I'm mostly reffering to california here, however it could perhaps happen on a country wide level.

I know what you are talking about. In Philadelphia, there are local income taxes and a bunch of taxes on businesses that have driven both business and high-paid people out of the city for years, leaving behind a mess o' gun totin' crackheads. (Recent mayors are slowly reversing this, but the city is addicted to the tax revenue and it's hard to quit.) You can't have radically different levels of taxation when it is relatively trivial to move away. However, I am not at all concerned that this will happen on the national level because first of all, Obama has already laid out his tax policy, and there are not any massive, unfair tax increases. Obama intends to roll back some of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy while cutting taxes for the middle class. The ultimate tax rates on the wealthy will simply not be bad enough to make anyone leave the country who wasn't already planning on it. I believe that his policies are relatively business-friendly as well. I hate to keep bringing Clinton up, but I remember when he raised taxes. The stock and bond markets loved it. The economy rocked and I made a lot of money. The reason I bring this up is to illustrate a point: The right level of taxation is good for the economy. If taxes are too high, then incentives are squashed and the economy suffers. If we had marginal tax rates of 70 or 90%, it would probably be true that cutting taxes would stimulate the economy. However, just as the right amount of a drug is good and too much is too much... the right seems to have gotten this one badly wrong. When tax revenues are barely able to keep up with expenses, if you cut taxes, the end result is currency debasement, not economic stimulus. This is one of the reasons that everything is so damned expensive today; the dollar has been inflated all to hell. This is just not a regime where more tax cuts will help. Assuming we can't cut spending, and all evidence points in that direction, then we actually need higher taxes, and the only point is who is going to pay them? Paris Hilton or the guy who fixes cars for a living? A scumball hedgefund operator or a high school teacher? Obama's breaks go to the car mechanic and the teacher, while McCain's breaks go to Paris and the Hedgefund operator.

Recent immigrants tend to be fiscal drain niner in Europe and the US. That's one of the reasons that our poverty rate and uninsurance rate has increased. Europe is finally figuring out that if 40% of immigrants are living off the dole they won't be helping to sustain the socialist pyramid scheme they got going. California has more poor immigrants which lead to more socialist policies. More immigration will only exacerbate the problem. There is certainly a difference between skilled and unskilled immigrants economic wise.

Yes, this could be a problem if you let in too many unskilled people. There are some Latino immigrants around here. I have to assume that most of them are illegal, but it doesn't really bother me because these people are working their asses off. And a hell of a lot of them have some skills, like construction or cooking. There are some serious non-assimilation problems with Muslim immigrants in France, for example. I would not like to see that kind of thing going on here. In parts of California we may have already tipped over the edge in building permanent non-English speaking communities, I dunno. I think assimilation is important. The real problem will occur if children of immigrants can grow up and not learn our culture and language. I think the odds of that are probably not super high, but it's a situation we should strive to avoid for the benefit of all of us.

If we can get a president that knows how to fashion an evolutionary stable strategy from both a societal and indivual perspective then I would definitely vote for him.

I don't understand why this would be good. It seems like a recipe for stasis, for one thing. Game theory in general is not a perfect model for human behavior because it ignores the very human trait of empathy. Nash was schizophrenic, wasn't he? He might have had an impaired notion of empathy. Just a thought. Robert Axelrod thinks that sociopathy can be explained as the result of a combination of ESS's.

Thanks for an interesting post, hrc579.

[Futurist1000]

I'm not sure how saying that you can't pay women less for the identical position just because they are women is communism

It's not for identical positions. It's for positions that are considered "comparable", whatever that means. So basically the bill would require that mostly male dominated occupations pay the same as mostly female dominated occupations. So a truck driver couldn't make more than a librarian assuming they had the same education and experience. However, there are many factors that determine how much someone gets paid, so I think the free market is much better at deciding wages than the government. Many economists think it would have the same impact as the minimum wage on hiring levels. Fewer women would be able to get jobs.

Activists then argued that the principle of equal pay for equal work should be extended to "comparable worth": different jobs, but jobs that were judged comparable, should also have to pay the same. I recall a television show long ago that used as an example tax assessors and librarians. Tax assessors were mostly males and they earned more than librarians, mostly female, did. But according to a multidimensional test devised by work experts, the education, intellect, and skills required to be a librarian were comparable to those required to be a tax assessor. A comparable worth law would thus make it illegal to pay librarians less than tax assessors.

Yes, this could be a problem if you let in too many unskilled people. There are some Latino immigrants around here.

I don't personally have a problem with immigration per se. I just think we should be slowing it down to some extent. I think people use the increase in poverty rate as an instigator to institute more socialist policies which I think may do more harm than good. The increase in poverty rate is probably partly due to immigration.

Poverty and Immigration

Consider: From 1990 to 2006, the number of poor Hispanics increased 3.2 million, from 6 million to 9.2 million. Meanwhile, the number of non-Hispanic whites in poverty fell from 16.6 million (poverty rate: 8.8 percent) in 1990 to 16 million (8.2 percent) in 2006. Among blacks, there was a decline from 9.8 million in 1990 (poverty rate: 31.9 percent) to 9 million (24.3 percent) in 2006. White and black poverty has risen somewhat since 2000 but is down over longer periods.

I don't understand why this would be good. It seems like a recipe for stasis, for one thing.

I was thinking more along the lines of preventing societal/economic negative outcomes, not stasis per se. I think the fact that the US is composed of competing states is beneficial in many ways. If one state enacts taxes that are too high, then people and bussiness will leave the state for another state. Giving more power to the federal government will stop this evolutionary mechanism at a societal level. One state can enact a bill, if its successful then other states enact it. Competition is a recipe for success in many ways. I was thinking using stuff from evolutionary theory to create a better government. Maybe I'll do another post about this topic.

Game theory in general is not a perfect model for human behavior because it ignores the very human trait of empathy.

I think empathy can be explained by evolutionary theory.

sociopathy can be explained as the result of a combination of ESS's.

I would imagine that sociopathy would be selected against in the current climate. Do women really want to go out with sociopathic males? Selection may also be occuring on a societal level. Many sociopaths probably end up in jail. Female tastes alone might be the driver in selecting males who were more empathetic, at least I would hope so.

I think as a society we should find ways to make people more empathetic and intelligent as well.
My neuroscience/neurotechnology blog.

Edited by hrc579, 31 July 2008 - 06:56 PM.

[Snapple]

Is it just me, or does anyone else feel like America is going a little socialist on us? What do you guys think?

I'm sorry, is this supposed to be an even slightly intelligent question? It sounds like a slow 10th grader trying to make a point at the dinner table. And the right wing responses... besides politics, the naive inanity of the opinions is rather shocking.

Oh, and as for "is America going a little socialist" your answer is, as always, yes--for the wealthy. America has always been socialist for the wealthy, and rather fiercely capitalist for the poor.

The guys here on Wall Street thank you for your self-defeating idiocy, though. They appreciate your doing their bidding, though they hardly need the help.

Sucker.

Edited by Snapple, 01 August 2008 - 01:02 AM.

[Cody]

Is it just me, or does anyone else feel like America is going a little socialist on us? What do you guys think?

I'm sorry, is this supposed to be an even slightly intelligent question? It sounds like a slow 10th grader trying to make a point at the dinner table. And the right wing responses... besides politics, the naive inanity of the opinions is rather shocking.

Oh, and as for "is America going a little socialist" your answer is, as always, yes--for the wealthy. America has always been socialist for the wealthy, and rather fiercely capitalist for the poor.

The guys here on Wall Street thank you for your self-defeating idiocy, though. They appreciate your doing their bidding, though they hardly need the help.

Sucker.

Oh I'm sorry, can you please explain to me how to speak properly? You know, since you seem to know what you're talking about when it comes to vibrations on the vocal cords, or in this case, typing properly.

By the way, thanks for your opinion, oh perfect one.

And thank you everyone else. I actually really enjoyed reading all the responses.

[niner]

I'm not sure how saying that you can't pay women less for the identical position just because they are women is communism

It's not for identical positions. It's for positions that are considered "comparable", whatever that means.

OK, I looked further into it. The proposal is idiotic, you are absolutely correct. I guess that's why it didn't go anywhere, thank god. I can't believe that there are still people who think that pay differentials in "comparable" positions like librarian and tax assessor are due to sexist discrimination, but there you go. It's very disappointing that Obama signed onto this thing. It sounds very much like he was pandering to feminist Hillary supporters. At least I hope he was. I could speculate that his calculus was: "This bill won't go anywhere, so there's no harm in being one of the co-sponsors, but I'll win points with the Hillary crowd." I've not heard anything in his policy proposals that make it sound like he is economically boneheaded. If I saw him seriously pushing something like this I would have a much harder time supporting him.

I don't understand why this would be good. It seems like a recipe for stasis, for one thing.

I was thinking more along the lines of preventing societal/economic negative outcomes, not stasis per se.

OK, but I think it would be tremendously difficult to derive policies that were ESS's.

sociopathy can be explained as the result of a combination of ESS's.

I would imagine that sociopathy would be selected against in the current climate. Do women really want to go out with sociopathic males? Selection may also be occuring on a societal level. Many sociopaths probably end up in jail. Female tastes alone might be the driver in selecting males who were more empathetic, at least I would hope so.

If only. Women tend to like sociopaths. People with psychopathic personalities tend to be charming and successful, not the Ted Bundy / Hannibal Lecter type that we tend to think of first. They are more likely to be found in the executive wing than in the cell block. A great article about psychopaths among us.

I think as a society we should find ways to make people more empathetic and intelligent as well.
My neuroscience/neurotechnology blog.

I think that's a great idea.

[caston]

Christianity and the new testament was designed to stop or slow progress towards a biological singularity. i.e. don't sleep with your neighbors wife and holy trinity was a mechanism to prevent paternity fraud and runaway, narcissistic, competition amongst males carrying genes that came from out of space.

Homosexuals are unable to get pregnant and thus are exploited as workers and soldiers just like the sterile females in the ant hive. Their sexual orientation was decided by their mother. This revolution is happening as we speak.

Males will be faced with the choice of becoming a cuck or a bull. I'd like to argue that becoming a bull will only grant you tempory safety as you will be in escalating competition amongst other bulls resulting in the complete destruction of the environment.

The left is actually trying to stop or slow the revolution not trying to bring it about.

Please see my post.

http://www.revleft.o...?t=85210&page=2

Those that help save as many lives as possible will be lifted to live amongst the galactic civilizations that try to stop this. Those that stay will continue to live on earth as it eventually becomes like venus.

My idea how we might be able to save as many people as possible is through baptisms. The new testament will give us advice.

We have nothing to lose but our souls and we have the universe to win! Workers unite!

Edited by caston, 02 August 2008 - 02:00 AM.

[Connor MacLeod]

Christianity and the new testament was designed to stop or slow progress towards a biological singularity. i.e. don't sleep with your neighbors wife and holy trinity was a mechanism to prevent paternity fraud and runaway, narcissistic, competition amongst males carrying genes that came from out of space.

Homosexuals are unable to get pregnant and thus are exploited as workers and soldiers just like the sterile females in the ant hive. Their sexual orientation was decided by their mother. This revolution is happening as we speak.

Males will be faced with the choice of becoming a cuck or a bull. I'd like to argue that becoming a bull will only grant you tempory safety as you will be in escalating competition amongst other bulls resulting in the complete destruction of the environment.

The left is actually trying to stop or slow the revolution not trying to bring it about.

Please see my post.

http://www.revleft.o...?t=85210&page=2

Those that help save as many lives as possible will be lifted to live amongst the galactic civilizations that try to stop this. Those that stay will continue to live on earth as it eventually becomes like venus.

My idea how we might be able to save as many people as possible is through baptisms. The new testament will give us advice.

We have nothing to lose but our souls and we have the universe to win! Workers unite!

Umm...that's pretty crazy stuff. Are you in cahoots with Abolitionist?

[caston]

lol I wasn't Christian I just read parts in the bible that seem directly related to my interpretation of the communist manifesto. I actually linked to page 2 of that thread so it goes back further. First it's people saying wtf... then a few people saying maybe we should be open minded and it's an interesting theory but probably not correct.. then it's just me posting stuff loll..

And that God guy that controls the whole universe and got Mary pregnant and she had that son Jesus.. what a cad lol

But what about democracy in China? China has probably the worlds largest proletarian population. First thing to go after the revolution is the one child policy, the next thing that happens is a populations arms race. I think our society is already getting ready for this.

Edited by caston, 02 August 2008 - 09:31 AM.

[wanderer]

Well what about democracy in China. China has probably the worlds largest proletarian population. First thing to go after the revolution is the one child policy, the next thing happens is a populations arms race. I think our society is already getting ready for this.

Decades of a one-child policy. You would do well to think a bit more on what effects that will have on China's future. After some more thought, I believe you will find that your conclusions are ignoring some important consequences of this policy.

You aren't too far out assuming that there will be revolution in China, though. If the oppressive, inflexible, stuck-in-the-past pseudo-communist government is too slow in providing more real freedom to the people, there is a good chance that there will be significant revolution of some sort in China in the next decade or so.

The important fact that you're ignoring is that decades of the one-child policy has brought China to the point where it will be facing the world's worst baby boom crisis, starting in about 10 years. The incredible economic growth China has seen, particularly in the last decade, is already slowing. It will soon level out. When the young, relatively healthy workers that have been fueling its growth begin to get old, sick, and weak, when they start being more of a liability than an asset, everything is going to crash. In the matter of a few years, the majority of China's workforce will become useless. And with so few young, healthy workers, it doesn't take a genius to realize that China is doomed. The baby boom situation is going to really hurt lots of countries (mostly developed countries that have had decades of low birthrates), but China is by far going to be the most affected.

What does this likely mean for China's future? Well, the crash is unavoidable. If, by some chance, the CCP surprises the world and enacts real democratic reforms before then, the crash might merely result in a democratic flushing of the government. However, if there aren't any democratic avenues available to the people, I think it is likely that we will see violent revolts. (and I think you're right: the one-child policy will go... just decades too late to help)

As far as an arms race goes, I think that it's very unlikely. After the inevitable crash, the turmoil and lack of money will pretty much guarantee China will not be initiating any sort of arms race. ... Unfortunately, however, it is possible that we could be looking at something much worse. If there are widespread revolts (due to a lack of democratic avenues for the people to effect change in the government), the Chinese government could very well splinter. China's enormous military may split into numerous factions under powerful military leaders, all vying for control. Some of these leaders will have access to China's nuclear arsenal. The nuclear weapons would have little practical use for them... and realizing that post-crash China will find itself in a position with little in the way of economic resources, and a lot in the way of useless nuclear weapons, it seems quite possible that these military leaders might decide to put the nuclear weapons they have access to on the international market.

Current CCP leaders don't do this because they have lots to lose, and a few million dollars isn't worth it. Post-crash, however, the powerful warlords would have little to lose, and the millions they could fetch for the nukes would be infinitely more useful than the nukes themselves. It seems reasonable to assume that terrorists will eventually get their hands on nukes, but it could happen as soon as 10 years from now.

The coming crisis in China is inevitable. If sufficient democratic reforms are enacted prior to the crash, however, the Chinese system might remain relatively stable, even in the midst of such a profound depression. If for no other reasons than to delay the coming of suitcase-nukes for a few more years, we should do all we can to encourage democratic reforms in China (in a legitimate, peaceful manner).

[niner]

Current CCP leaders don't do this because they have lots to lose, and a few million dollars isn't worth it. Post-crash, however, the powerful warlords would have little to lose, and the millions they could fetch for the nukes would be infinitely more useful than the nukes themselves. It seems reasonable to assume that terrorists will eventually get their hands on nukes, but it could happen as soon as 10 years from now.

This assumes that the US is either too weak or too clueless to outbid the terrorists. If we allow ourselves to get into either of those states, then maybe we deserve whatever happens. Maybe getting nuked would get us to wake up and mend our ways, although if 9-11 is any indication, it will just serve as an entre for a new American Hitler.

The coming crisis in China is inevitable. If sufficient democratic reforms are enacted prior to the crash, however, the Chinese system might remain relatively stable, even in the midst of such a profound depression. If for no other reasons than to delay the coming of suitcase-nukes for a few more years, we should do all we can to encourage democratic reforms in China (in a legitimate, peaceful manner).

If democratic reform is the magic potion that fixes a huge demographic error... I'm not so sure that it is. Millions of angry young men roaming the country without wives or families is not a recipe for social stability. Democracy only tends to work well when a number of systems are in place: Educated, stable populace, which implies a level of demographic balance. Functioning economic system with reasonable prosperity for all, without wild variation in wealth between classes. Civic culture, rule of law, free press, culture of reality rather than propaganda, etc. China's not there yet, although I note that we are slipping away from there in some regards, as well.

[Connor MacLeod]

Maybe getting nuked would get us to wake up and mend our ways, although if 9-11 is any indication, it will just serve as an entre for a new American Hitler.

Stuff White People Like #4

[niner]

Maybe getting nuked would get us to wake up and mend our ways, although if 9-11 is any indication, it will just serve as an entre for a new American Hitler.

Stuff White People Like #4

I knew that was going to get people going. OK, I Godwinned. So sue me. While you're at it, explain why it is not essentially true that a traumatic event two orders of magnitude worse than 9-11 would not give rise to a new level of fascism heretofore unseen in this country. Then explain why Bush isn't a fascist who took advantage of 9-11 to lead us on a reckless Messianic Crusade that has been our most costly war ever and greatest strategic blunder ever.

[wanderer]

This assumes that the US is either too weak or too clueless to outbid the terrorists. If we allow ourselves to get into either of those states, then maybe we deserve whatever happens. Maybe getting nuked would get us to wake up and mend our ways, although if 9-11 is any indication, it will just serve as an entre for a new American Hitler.

Try to imagine what the situation in the US will most likely look like in 10-15 years. Due to the demographic situation that you are obviously aware of, there is a very real possibility the the US will be in the midst of its own economic crisis. It is also possible that Chinese military leaders have been so indoctrinated by CCP propaganda that they would rather sell to a terrorist for a lower price than sell to the US and protect a democracy. I'm not sure how much you know about China, but I lived and studied there for a year, and my degree is in Politics/International Relations. The Chinese people loved America and were enthusiastically pushing for democratic reforms until 1989. The government, not willing to give up its authoritarian stranglehold on power, cracked down, killed, imprisoned, and threatened people until the cries for democracy were quieted. Since then, by employing shameless manipulation of the media and education, the CCP has gradually brought the Chinese people to a point where many have come to hate the US and democracy and blame us for everything they are suffering through. It is so ridiculous that if it weren't such a tragedy, it would almost be funny.

And be careful what you wish for. Sure, if the US were nuked, it would probably bring the country together like nothing else. But, if you hate the tiny wars we are currently engaged in, you should realize that it could bring Americans to the point where they would back a comprehensive purging of all the dangerous elements in the world, all dictatorships, any countries pursuing a nuclear program, and all Islamic countries. 9/11 only killed about 3,000 people, but it hurt us enough that even the most liberal democrats supported Bush, even liked him (though not for very long). Imagine if New York City were completely wiped off the face of the map by a suitcase nuke. With that many people dead, nearly every single person in America would have a close, perhaps 1 or 2 degrees of Kevin Bacon, connection to someone who died. It would make it that much more real to each of us, and that much harder to get over.

If democratic reform is the magic potion that fixes a huge demographic error... I'm not so sure that it is. Millions of angry young men roaming the country without wives or families is not a recipe for social stability. Democracy only tends to work well when a number of systems are in place: Educated, stable populace, which implies a level of demographic balance. Functioning economic system with reasonable prosperity for all, without wild variation in wealth between classes. Civic culture, rule of law, free press, culture of reality rather than propaganda, etc. China's not there yet, although I note that we are slipping away from there in some regards, as well.

These are some good points, niner. I think you are underestimating the power of the illusion of democracy, however. In a democracy, change is possible without revolution. And the illusion of democracy allows for the illusion of change without a revolution. Either is normally sufficient to keep violent revolution at bay. And as I said in the passage that you responded to, sufficient democratic reforms MIGHT be able to keep China from splintering and sinking into a civil war.

Edited by wanderer, 03 August 2008 - 08:01 AM.