11
   

If and when do you think this stimulus plan will work?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 05:30 pm
@Chumly,
Chumly wrote:
Quote:
c) Even if your claim is true that we will never "achieve true total costs" by what measure would you dismiss the consideration that ecological suicide is a fair price to pay?


I never said anything about "ecological suicide." As far as our ecology is concerned, it's up to the government(s) and the consumers.

Quote:
d) You appear to be preoccupied with driving using the rear view mirror! So-called "Human nature" is not fixed, it's malleable given upcoming and even present technologies.


Of coarse, human nature is "not fixed." Whoever made that claim? I didn't. What I said was that most Americans have followed the Joneses in their consumption habits; they stopped savings and consumed at the expense of their personal retirement security.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 05:41 pm
Well, back to the stimulus plan. The bill passed. Banks receiving federal money have bonus caps, limiting them to 1/3 of annual salary. That's all employees, and it's retroactive. You gotta love Chris Dodd.

Oh, on the same front page of today's (Saturday) WSJ, good ol' GM is back in line for more money. "Give us the money, or we go bankrupt". Sounds like extortion, but I recall several pessimistic a2k posters predicted exactly this.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 05:46 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:

"Give us the money, or we go bankrupt". Sounds like extortion, but I recall several pessimistic a2k posters predicted exactly this.


Roger, this shouldn't surprise ANYONE!
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 05:49 pm
@maporsche,
I don't see anyone around here being surprised.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 05:50 pm
@roger,
How can we be surprised at what our government does - or doesn't do? LOL
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 06:13 pm
@cicerone imposter,
a) You have optimism exceeding pragmatism and are not assessing supply and demand in the context of capitalism, if you truly believe that "it's up to the government(s) and the consumers." at least as governments and consumer now stand. The fact of the matter remains that (economic ideologies aside) it's irresponsible leverage to only pay for a small fraction of a product's costs in the hopes that somehow present day "government(s) and the consumers." will miraculously sponsor the balance of those costs at some indeterminate point in time.

b) Sorry CI, but you made the direct claim that human nature is fixed (in the context given) when you said "Human nature as it is will always live for today".
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 06:17 pm
@roger,
When you say "Well, back to the stimulus plan." A more apt name for the plan would be debt monetization!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 06:38 pm
@Chumly,
That's rhetorical; you don't know the difference?
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 07:21 pm
Thanks, ci, for starting this topic which is close to what I threatened to do after the other economics thread turned into a spitting match amongst the few remaining posters. Good luck on keeping it civil.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 07:51 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Holistic" is an ideal we will never achieve in life. The world's wealth is held by just a few at the top, and that's not going to change no matter what happens to all the economies of the world.


revolutions have a way of rubbing out those at the top of the old order, or at least their assets....you assume that wealth will not be challenged, that the threat of disruption to the economy and thus everyone's best interest will keep the masses in line.

ummmmm, when the kids grow up and figure out that they have been robbed, and when the economy already sucks, such threats will get little traction. Those who have nothing much more to lose will not be coerced. Someone long ago said that a little revolution now and then is necessary, and thus it is.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 07:54 pm
@hawkeye10,
"Robbed" by who's standards?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 08:01 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Robbed" by who's standards?


by measure of the historic standards for generational responsibilities for one thing. Even if it was not the standard those who don't have the opportunity for the way of life that they have been made accustomed to or been promised tend to be highly volatile. These are the folks that often are willing to burn everything down. Did you not live through the riots of 1967? You should know of that which I speak.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 08:12 pm
@hawkeye10,
Those were mostly isolated to Watts, and the conditions in those days for blacks. Can you identify for us who the current group(s) are who will resort to that kind of violence based on their economic disadvantages?

The current economic crisis are hurting even many of the so-called rich.

There has always been the haves and the have nots, and that's not going to change based on riots.
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 08:35 pm
@cicerone imposter,
You might want to review your history from the 60's. There's a long, long list of outbreaks of violence all over the country. The sparks that ignited most of them were in protest of police brutality, poverty, racial discrimination, and the assassination of the leaders who attempted to seek justice and change via peaceful means. Similar events and similar sparks occurred in the 80's in England and in the early 2000s in Australia.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_riots_related_to_urban_decay

1960s
Rochester 1964 race riot
24-26 July 1964[5]
Philadelphia 1964 race riot
28-30 August 1964, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, Allegations of police brutality sparked the Columbia Avenue race riots.[5]
Watts Riots
11 August 1965, Los Angeles, California, USA, The McCone Commission investigated the riots finding that causes included poverty, inequality, racial discrimination and the passage, in November 1964, of Proposition 14 on the California ballot overturning the Rumford Fair Housing Act, which established equality of opportunity for black home buyers.[6]
Hough Riots
18 July 1966, Cleveland, Ohio, USA, The underlying causes of the riots may found in the social conditions that exist in the ghettos of Cleveland.[7]
Racial tension in Omaha, Nebraska
5 July 1966, North Omaha, Nebraska, USA, More than 500 black youth gathered to protest the absence of recreation programs and jobs storm a local business district, throwing rocks and bricks at Jewish-owned businesses in the area. The National Guard is called in after three days of random violence and organized raids.[8]
1967 Newark riots
12 July 1967, Newark, New Jersey, USA, Factors that contributed to the Newark Riot: police brutality, political exclusion of blacks from city government, urban renewal, inadequate housing, unemployment, poverty, and rapid change in the racial composition of neighborhoods.[9]
1967 Plainfield riots
14 July 1967, Plainfield, New Jersey, USA
12th Street riot
23 July 1967, Detroit, Michigan, USA, The origins of urban unrest in Detroit were rooted in a multitude of political, economic, and social factors including police abuse, lack of affordable housing, urban renewal projects, economic inequality, black militancy, and rapid demographic change.[10]
Minneapolis-Saint Paul, USA, Fall 1967
Racial tensions boil over in North Minneapolis as whites continue to leave the decaying core of the inner city bound for the suburbs.
1968 Chicago, Illinois riots
In Chicago, violence erupted in the black ghetto on the west side, eventually consuming a 28-block stretch of West Madison Street. Looting and arson took place primarily in the corridor between Roosevelt Road on the south and Chicago Avenue on the north.
1968 Washington, D.C. riots
4 April 1968, Washington, D.C., USA, A report from National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders identified discrimination and poverty as the root causes of the riots that erupted in cities around the nation during the late 1960s and in Washington, DC in April 1968[11]
Baltimore riot of 1968
4 April 1968, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Glenville Shootout
23 July 1968, Cleveland, Ohio, USA, Shootout between black militant organization led by Ahmed Evans and Cleveland Police Department attracted large and hostile black crowds that caused a 4 day long riot
Stonewall riots
June 1969, New York, New York, a turning point for the modern gay rights movement
1969 North 24th Street Riots
24 June 1969, North Omaha, Nebraska USA, An Omaha police officer fatally shoots a teenager in the back of the head during a gathering of youth in local public housing projects. Many youth and adults from the local African American community gather in the local business district, routinely burning and otherwise destroying non-Black-owned businesses.[12]
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 08:43 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Those who have nothing much more to lose will not be coerced. Someone long ago said that a little revolution now and then is necessary, and thus it is.


Hawkeye....I love it. I will join the revolution.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 08:46 pm
@cicerone imposter,
What is changing in American society is that the numbers of minorities are slowly overtaking the numbers of the race that has been in power for centuries and now there is a struggle between those that wish to retain that power while in the minority and those whose growing majority enables them to obtain some of that power.

It isn't just a dangerous economic time our country is in. It is also a dangerous social and political struggle. That is why Barack Obama keeps harkening back to Abraham Lincoln. As a country, we've got to figure out how to live and prosper with each other or we'll lose these united states we call our country.
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 08:49 pm
Did yall happen to listen to the testimony of Dennis Blair, the new Director of National Intelligence? I think it was Friday.
I think the Congressional panel expected him to list as the biggest threats to U.S. national security as being Al-Qaida, Iran, Iraq etc, etc in that region.
But no. Blair (not someone whom I know about but I probably should learn more about) said the the biggest threat to the U.S. is the worldwide economic instability. There is rapidly rising unemployment which can't be offset by increased welfare spending by the countries affected.
This, he suggested, could lead to political instability, civil unrest and violence. There could be a large flow of refugees from impoverished/violence stricken countries to other places.

If yall are interested in my source for this, go to NPR.org and select Morning Edition for Saturday. The almost 5 minute report is in there. I can't remember the title but it should be fairly obvious.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 08:50 pm
@Butrflynet,
Butrflynet, I'm sure there were many riots in the 60s in the US that included race, police brutality, gangs, homophobia, and some economic issues, but I also believe we've come a long way since those days in almost all areas of equality and progress.

I can just look at my own life and experiences, and see the many progress made in many areas of jobs in both government and commerce, race relations, and achievements.

There are still many cities in our country where violence exists, and I'm not here to deny there are still problems.

I'm only saying that the current economic crisis hits all levels of class in our society including the rich. That's also true of many developed countries including Europe and Asia.

We still have police "violence" even in our area where a man was recently killed by a taser gun.

I don't think the majority of our citizens will demonstrate through violence because of this economic crisis. That's only my opinion.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 10:03 pm
@Butrflynet,
Quote:
What is changing in American society is that the numbers of minorities are slowly overtaking the numbers of the race that has been in power for centuries and now there is a struggle between those that wish to retain that power while in the minority and those whose growing majority enables them to obtain some of that power


you need look no further than what happened to Hillary...she had the wealth locked up, she had the power with her, and this nobody Obama started a grass roots organization from nothing and beat her with mass persuasion and small donations. This is why Hillary was so shocked and pissed, by everything that she knew she had won the race in jan 08 before a vote had been casted.

the ground beneath the old guard is turning to sand as we speak. What most don't understand even yet is that there will be no going back, and that the changes already in motion will be MASSIVE!
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 10:30 pm
@hawkeye10,
Massive change? How so?
 

Related Topics

Where is the US economy headed? - Discussion by au1929
The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/01/2021 at 01:13:00