Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: arun gera who wrote (67131)	10/13/2010 7:04:33 AM
From: elmatador	1 Recommendation Respond to of 218065

the invention of the machine gun and the failure of the military to recognize it significance in the decades leading up to WWI, considering it useful only against tribesmen and other "primitives", led directly to the horrific slaughter of WWI and the static warefare of the trenches. amazon.com Well, that civilization was not an easy affair...

To: arun gera who wrote (67131)	10/13/2010 7:17:43 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 218065

"if we end up with a Congress and a White House that fail to re-chart our course over the next two years, it is clear who the winner will be. It will not be the person sworn in as president in 2013. It will be China, Brazil, and India. They are loving" The GOP's Disastrous Ideas Why Brazil, India, and China will be thrilled if Republicans win the midterms. By Eliot Spitzer Updated Tuesday, Oct. 12, 2010, at 1:45 PM ET House Minority Leader John Boehner"There you go again." Those now-famous words pretty much sealed the deal in the Ronald Reagan-Jimmy Carter debate in 1980 and proved what we have seen over and over: In politics, charm and wit usually count more than facts and logic. After Reagan's victory, we set out on a path of deregulation and tax cuts, a 30-year run on borrowed money and borrowed time that ended horribly in 2008. We know now where we stand in terms of what matters: a jobs crisis, declining middle-class incomes, structural federal budget deficits, trade deficits, and on and on. And what do Republicans offer now? The Pledge to America, the guiding document of the surging Tea Party, and the resurgent Republican Party, is about as vapid a document as one can imagine. It is nothing more than an offer of candy to kids on Halloween, with no concerns about what happens after the sugar high wears off. Its numbers simply do not add up, and its deregulatory language is remarkable in the context of the past several years we have lived through. I asked one of the perceived sensible leaders of the conservative movement where the spending cuts would come from to balance the massive tax cuts offered to all citizens. He proposed two areas: the National Endowment for the Arts and public radio. It was a good laugh line, at least. These two suggested cuts—traditional conservative targets—total about $250 million, less than 1/100 of 1 percent—less than 1/10,000th—of a federal budget that totals about $3.5 trillion. Not what a true executive would consider major areas of budget concern. Realizing that this answer didn't really measure up, he then tried to suggest that privatizing Social Security—letting people out of the government system—would be the answer. No sane person thinks that would have worked out well for our seniors over the past couple of years. Sometimes simple facts are worth repeating: During the Clinton years, marginal tax rates were raised to restore fiscal sanity, leading to federal budget surpluses, and 23 million jobs were created. During the George W. Bush presidency, marginal rates were cut, the budget was left with a severe structural deficit, only about 1 million jobs were created, and we descended into an economic cataclysm. There is no simple causal relationship to any of this, of course, especially since global macro trends have a greater impact on the American economy every year. But the simple mantra of the Tea Party and the Republican Party—low taxes and government deregulation will lead to economic vitality—is demonstrably counterfactual. Many of us had presumed that after the events of the last two years the appeal of pseudo-libertarianism would have worn off. The image of Wall Street being bailed out should have restored some sense to the debate, challenging everybody to refocus on a more rational conversation about when, how, and why government intervention in the market could work. Surely the role of a "smart" government—investing in the infrastructure and social capital necessary for long-term competitive success while setting reasoned rules to insure competition and fair play, and limit risk of over-leveraged excess in the market—would make sense to people. Could we not agree that the current demand-side crisis—with an effective unemployment rate hovering in the low teens and corporations sitting on close to $2 trillion of cash—requires another stimulus of some significant magnitude to put the 20 million unemployed back to work? And could we not also recognize that as soon as the economy stabilized, we would have to take dramatic action to restore sanity to entitlement programs that are simply unaffordable over a 25-year time horizon? Can we not oppose bonus bailouts and bridges to nowhere without opposing building the modern equivalent of the Erie Canal or the interstate highway system—the critical tunnel between New Jersey and New York, for instance? Unfortunately, it appears not. I really don't care whether Christine O'Donnell is a witch. I do care about her plan to make us competitive in a global economy. I really don't care that she didn't go to Yale, but I do wonder how she thinks we can prevent another financial sector meltdown if we don't change banking rules. We had better face up to a stark and uncomfortable reality: The clock is running out on our status as the world's dominant political and economic power. Platitudes, make believe, and hoping it will be so are not going to carry us any further. We have three weeks to make this choice. Because if we end up with a Congress and a White House that fail to re-chart our course over the next two years, it is clear who the winner will be. It will not be the person sworn in as president in 2013. It will be China, Brazil, and India. They are loving every minute of this.

To: arun gera who wrote (67131)	10/14/2010 12:02:04 PM
From: Maurice Winn	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218065

Indeed, there have been so-called "Christian" barbarities. You might have heard of the Spanish Inquisition too. Jim Jones? My point was the cultural norms of the British Empire were defensive of human rights and that China NOW [not hundreds of years ago or even 30 years ago] has not got that cultural bias towards universal human rights. Check out Darfur for example. When the British defence of civil life was withdrawn from India, there was carnage between Moslems and Hindus which continues to this day. India was so lucky to have the wonderful British supply cultural practices which enabled great development of India which unfortunately stopped when they left. Fortunately though, swarms of Indians with their english skills were able to escape to the economic powerhouses of the [somewhat more] free world. For example - China's colonialism in action: news.bbc.co.uk Arun, what matters is where we go from here not what barbarities were inflicted on people in times gone by. Chinese colonialism will NOT involve common law and the likes of the British Empire. The reason the Commonwealth Games are held is because the British Empire was a good thing. We don't have the German Empire Games, enjoying the happy homilies of Nazi ideology. The Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere Games have poor attendance. Countries get kicked out of the British Commonwealth, they don't leave. I know it's fashionable these days to be against Rudyard Kipling but life would be a lot better for any number of people if he was their ruler instead of the local yokel kleptocratic megalomaniac they ended up with instead of Queen Elizabeth II. How many people died at Salem and how many died during partition of India into Pakistan and Bangladesh? Mqurice