It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
None of them. The country is so polarized right now, and the government is dysfunctional. It's funny, because everywhere all you hear is "vote the bums out" when it comes to Congress. Yet what we see is the same cast of characters being voted in. Why? Well, most people whine about OTHER states' representatives, and they have no vote or control over them being there.
We say that we have a representative form of government, but we really don't. Over 90% of the representation is made up of people who do not represent me. It's laughable and frustrating at the same time. For a long time, one of the most powerful men in government was guy who was elected into his position by a tiny district in Ohio. In no way did he represent the will of the American people, just the will of a tiny subsection of Ohio. Gotta love it.
Furthermore, with the two chambers of congress set up the way they are, our rural citizens in sparsely populated states have more representation (per capita) than those living in cities and more densely populated states. Yep. People in Kansas have a greater say (in proportion) than people in California. Again: gotta love it.
The only way things will happen is if one party controls the white house and both chambers of congress. This is the only way Obamacare got through. The Republicans controlled government for six years, 2000-2006, and we got a glimpse of what that unchecked economic and military vision got us. The mess that Obama and the Democrats inherited couldn't be fixed in sixteen months (as we Americans expect immediate gratification)...and so, back went the Republicans in congress in 2010. And the stalemate has been there ever since.
"Change has to come from the right"
So since the Republicans have far too much power, you should vote for their candidate to strengthen their monopoly even further? Sounds a bit too pragmatic and cynical to me.
Trump might be a rebel and not the Republican elite's dream scenario, but I don't share your hopes that whatever changes he'll implement will be for the benefit of "the little man". On the contrary...
Whatever changes Donald Trump manages to make will be for the benefit, and solely for the benefit, of one Donald J. Trump.
I can't believe how effective he's been at making the "little man" believe that he's on their side.
Well, I tell you. The 'little man' is so angry and disappointed, that they switch their vote to even the weirdest persons available. And if it gets accompanied by some entertainment too, then you have a winning combo.
There are more examples of that in the past 200 years which show us where people can switch to, if a democracy or state is on the bring of loosing its entire future prospect of healthy prosperity.
But natural laws of supply and demand have governed all economies since time immemorial.
It's the only economic law that matters. Price points, margins etc are all governed by supply and demand.
Bureaucracy driven, government-run wealth re-distribution schemes corrupt the natural market forces which determine supply and demand.
Thus in a prosperous free society, which is what we are always trying to build, government's role should obviously be kept to the mimimum.
People need jobs. Only vibrant economic activity creates jobs.
Government has a very important role to play primarily in maintaining law and order and public safety standards.
An enforcable justice system is vital so that criminals don't end up running the economy, which they will do if they are not kept in check (Mexico).
An economy isn't going to work too well, if everyone has to arm themselves with a gun or a baseball bat to collect their accounts payables.
It's very simple. There are two pivotal moments in the history of the western world from the past two decades.
1. 9/11. It injected the necessary dosis of fear into the people of countries that can be considered part of the 'classic west'.
2. The financial crisis of 2008. That in essence never really stopped but keptlowering welfare and prosperity in the western world until now.
3. The immigrant crisis in Europe, which started in 2015 (and with it also a smaller immigrant crisis on the USA-Mexico border).
Those three pivotal moments in recent history has basically injected fear into the minds of the people. And they were also responsible of the downfall of prosperity and welfare, and with it the slow but gradual destruction of the middle class in Netherlands, Australia, France....and the USA.
Donald Trump is not the start of it all. He's merely a logical result of the above three pivotal moments in recent history.
Before Donald Trump there was already the rise of Pim Fortuyn (murdered in 2002) and Geert Wilders in The Netherlands (risen to power around 2005, when he founded the right-wing populist party PVV). Before Donald Trump there were already the Tea Party and Sarah Palin. Before Donald Trump there was Marine Le Pèn of Front National, a woman who got rid of the anti-semitism, but who swapped it with an anti-Muslim agenda. Before Trump there was....basically all of the above.
So I find it entirely logical what is happening now. And again, on certain aspects it reminds me of the Interbellum (1918-1940).
But isn't that the "magic" of American political history in general? Conservative and right wing doctrines that the working class are more or less brainwashed to believe solemnly works in their favor? Total and utter submision to the force of the economical business elite and capitalism is a central part of American culture I'd say. We have a good example of it above. "Major cooperations and business owners always work in the interest of the people... except for in Mexico, that is... The more power they have, the more prosperous is the life for everyone." Incredibly naive I think, but it is the back bone of the American cultural identity.
And you've just nailed why Sanders will ultimately become our next President- TPTB believe this statement.
They fear change....
;)
Anyone agrees?
----
@jobo, then you and I will have to disagree, and hopefully still stay friends.
Bottom line - of the 3 in the game right now, he's the best hope for real change for the better, in my view. What people don't seem to understand is he is a patriot. He's not a financial asset stripper like Mitt Romney. He is a dealmaker, but he's also a builder. The Right & the money men were all over Mitt like a dirty underpant. They are scared of Trump, just like the Left is scared of Bernie. Both can pull people in the right direction, if they choose to. The power is entirely in their hands to do good with. As I said, I'm cautiously optimistic. I'm not jumping from the rooftops. I'm not cowering in fear either. There is a difference.
----
I don't have a problem with Bernie. The man has integrity. That's a tremendous attribute for a leader. I just don't see it happening. Sorry man.
I don't want to be offensive but it's your minimalist govenrment that is corrupt, and by far more so then, i.e. Germany, with a 'wealth re-distribution' system in place. Even those 'communist' French stand above the US:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult
The basic reason is that most 'wealth re-destribution' systems as you call them are aimed at long term wealth growth. Free education is meant to create a more intelligent acting and thus efficient workforce. Minimum wages are meant not to 'equal wealth' or give away money, but to give workers the opportunity to not worry about getting food on the table for the next day, but plan ahead. Beeing less stressed and better rested those employees are more efficient.
I know Americans don't like this line of thinking for it is 'communist' 'wrong' and more-over not rewarding on the short run. And so it doesn't correspond to the 'from poor to riches' American dream, once created by European immigrants then living in a system that corresponds to the one you have now and fleeing that because of lack of prospects.
We're all good... until the day you actually vote for Trump... then I'm not sure anymore... ;) :)>-
Seriously, that was excellent, dude! =D>
Basically what I am saying is that if you want a prosperous society you do need to create conditions that are optimum for vigorous economic activity. A strong economy requires continuous bartering of goods and services. What drives such activity of course are the time honored laws of supply and demand.
Ie if you are going to bring a product to market there better be a demand for your product or you won't sell anything and it you want to serve an identified market demand, then you need supply obviously. High demand low supply of course will raise prices.
Low demand and over supply will lower prices.
Wide demand and varied plentiful supply, will create economies of scale with vigorous competition, varied business models with varying price points and margins, as suppliers compete for market share. This is healthy for the consumer as they have much choice.
Without this activity you have no economy.
Government has a role to play in the economy by creating an ordered civilized society governed by rule of law, otherwise the criminals take over.
Public safety standards have a role to play as well. Basically you need a framework whereby criminal or fraudulent activity can be policed.
These roles for government actually strengthen your economy, because otherwise it would fall apart into a law of the jungle mentality.
Only once you have an economy as described above, do you even have a tax base.
Now this is where the debate comes in and its a legitimate and necessary discussion in any free society. ie what role does government play. How big should it be.
I think in the interests of efficiency as much power should be devolved to states and from there to local government. Much more democratic and less power to pigs at trough.
In a non-free society government has all the power to distribute as it pleases. The people serve the government not the otherway round.
I am not describing a system above. I am describing the basic rules of supply and demand that govern all buying and selling. They are timeless and immutable and need be understood
The dilemma with wealth distribution is that it always involves a tradeoff. As government forcibly takes wealth from the natural supply and demand equation and puts it somewhere else, the action will have an immediate effect of suppressing the economy to some degree.
Wealth redistribution is not a system per se. Its just what you do, item by item, when you move money out of the economy by force of law and put it somewhere else to serve some other agenda.
Clearly a cost-benefit analysis then comes into play. Does the benefit offset the harm to the broader economy.
And this need be done on an item by item basis.
And now we enter into a discussion on the nature of government and this where things get contentious and wars start ie real wars with guns and planes as men battle for control of government and the power to shape society in their vision.
Socialism has been thoroughly debunked. A command economy run by central planners does equal breadlines. Government cannot bring products to market with any degree of efficiency. You need a business model to bring any product to market including vitals such as food. There is a whole supply chain of economies that needs to be maintained to get the potatoes out of the ground and into baskets on the shelves.
Government is hamstrung by its bureaucratic approach. Economic efficiencies need to be maintained all thru the process otherwise the trucks delivering the food run out of gas etc etc There is no end to the supply-and-demand supply chain variables that need be managed by the various suppliers involved in getting the product to market and it is in constant flux.
So the point I am making is that in a prosperous society the role of government should be kept to a minimum because government is not an efficient manager of wealth and is certainly not a generator.
It is bureaucratic. It generates no wealth of its own. It only redistributes wealth which is created by economic activity.
The debates we have in free society is what tradeoffs do we live with. That debate in never ending.
The big problem that I have with big government, never mind its natural inefficiency and thus real potential for bloat and waste, is that big government is also an obvious respository for corruption.
Everyone with an agenda wants a piece of it including business. Monopolies and attendant price-fixing, can only be achieved via collusion between government and business. Business can't stamp out competition on its own.
It needs force of law or a big stick (which is why you need law and order)
The potential for government payoff and corruption is real and tangible. In fact ,given the nature of man, its unavoidable.
The more of this kind of activity you have, the more damage is done to the natural economy which is governed by supply and demand.
The other problem with government is when it gets obsessed with pursuing various and sundry agenda. They may seem well intentioned but very few pass an actual cost-benefit analysis.
I can give an example of a company I used to do work with.
Provincial government decided it was going to pay for re-training programs. Naturally all training institutes of any stripe jump on the bandwagon or porkwagon.
I worked with one place to secure the government pork. Over the life of the program, a couple of years, we pulled in a few millions in pork dollars, which wasn't bad for what had been a fairly modest operation finding its way in the natural economy.
We got fat, rather the owner did, I only got my fees which was fair.
Problem was, we were serving an artificial demand. We only got all these customers because their way was paid for by the government program to the tune of $8,000 each which was the most we could get per customer.
We had to create a two tier operation. Those that were getting the gov money attended in the day. We called them full-time.
The real economy serviced those who attended at night part-time. They paid $4,000 out of their own pocket and worked for a living. The sales people pitched a program compatible with their work hours.
The difference in customer was night and day. The day bunch was populated by numerous slackers. The night bunch were smartly dressed and demanding value for their cash. The instructors were always complaining about the difference and not wanting to work the day if there was a choice. Few of the day crew would realize any benefit from the program. They had no actual skin in the game.
The whole thing was a joke serving some mad government re-training scheme meanwhile all this cash is being diverted from the real economy into this phony economy financed by wealth redistribution.
Then, there is all the cash required to pay the armies of government workers required to administer these nutso basically no-benefit programs.
And that is the real cost of bloated government. It is the cost of maintaining the massive inefficient bureaucracies needed to administer everything.
The provincial Drive Clean beast we have here is another boondoggle from top to bottom sucking money out of the natural economy and fattening the auto-shop industry, at the expense of other sectors, as if that industry sector needs help.
And these are only programs that I am familiar with. Tip of the iceberg. Imagine all the other porking that is going on
I think its only prudent that the government beast be kept in check. It has a role to play of course. We don't want a Mad Max post apocalyptic anarchy-type economy.
Much libertarian thinking is also flawed because it doesn't understand that government does have a role to play in maintaining a vibrant productive economy.
Goverment though is like a big candy store, but if it you can keep its size to manageable levels you get less people stuffing their faces and less rotten teeth and rotten business.
The less pork to go around the less pigs getting fat.
And yes I do support free public education for grade school and high school Is that really a discussion? News to me if it is), but not free post secondary. Adults can pay their own way if they want it that bad. Its not a need, its a want.
I don't support public health care. Our system is terrible. Its not even free. There is no shortage of user fees not to mention the health tax. It's hoplessly debt ridden, riddled with doctor and nurse protests.
We need a regulated system of private health insurance and force a health tax on those that are too negligent to purchase private health insurance, and of course a free package for those in need, but that's always been the case, so thats not a discussion.
Maybe I'll publish a book someday. Interview numerous business and governent types and see what we can conclude.
I'll put a picture of a big hog on the front gorging at trough.
Call it maybe, Can we keep the Pork in its Pen?
subtitled can we get from here ?
back to here?
the leaner porkers are much cuter
@ross Sorry for the lecture. I got the whole day off and nothing going on, on the Young Bond or Uncle threads, so extra time to pound on keyboard.
Your points are well made. I like to hammer on the lets keep the piggies lean and frisky theme and same for the economy -keep it frisky too.
It's a juggling act but we keep trying.
Kicking, squealing Gucci little piggy"
-Radiohead
And working as a civil servant I'm only too familliar with politics and government spending sprees.
I'll give a extract of my way of thinking, and the logical results of this.
Firstly, government is there to create a safe environment for (all the) people, a level playing field, not only in an economic sense, but in a social one too. Further more it has to protect us (society) from any form of collective danger (and private as well, but you could put that under level playing field too, it's called police).
So healthcare should be free, as you can't participate in society if you're sick. Capitalism doesn't work here for there's no going to a different supplier if the one you started with is no good. It's hard sueing your doctor when you're dead.
Education should be free, as it gives you the chance to participate to your fulles capabilities in society. Creating a level playing field.
Minimum wages are a must too, as stated above, for they create a level playing field. If thos means your business can't survive, then it isn't adding enough value to society to live. That's capitalism for you.
Government should also make laws against, i.e. pollution. For it's protection of society in the long run. Of course this is hard to recognise for anyone looking no further then the next five years, but that's what government is for: protection in the long run.
Now this line of thinking isn't new, it's classic liberal, but I understand that term has gotten a bad taste in the US. Why I don't know, but it has.
If you ask me, Bernie Sanders is classic liberal, and that's not socialist at all. Why he called himself that is beyond me, but again, I know these terms get a different meaning when you cross the pond.
On corruption, by the way: we have rules in place where private parties (weather persons or companies) are limited to what they can donate to political parties and individuals (and how much a private person may spend on his own campain). I think, with rules like that, your politics too would be completely different, and your politics far less influenced by short-term thinking.
Another interesting note on the sideline: about 80% of the German economy is run by family businesses. Those are companies (with billions in revenue) owned by families who've run those for (more then one) generation(s). Interestingly enough these are all very capable of getting through economic crises, because they work and think in long-terms. Weather it be investments or taking out money from the company. It's one of the reasons their economy wasn't hit that hard, even though they're often industrial. Another thing: they still keep a lot of production within Germany, preferring innovation over cheap labour.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-a-much-worse-threat-than-brexit/2016/06/05/d2423794-2990-11e6-ae4a-3cdd5fe74204_story.html
The only fear they have is that a lot of bets have been set the wrong way, and may have to be unwound quickly.
Ask yourself the question: Which presidential candidate will bring more uncertainty and more risks to the financial markets and the short- and long-term stability of the country?
Perhaps there's 'nothing new' to be read from that article, but I believe we should take these concerns a bit more serious. Donald Trump is a charming man, but everything he has said so far...lacks a certain understanding of the complexity of running a country.
Saying that a country should bee dealt with similar to real estate businesses, is something financial markets do not like to hear. What will Trump do if he's really aiming at a Greece-like default, like he has said on so numerous occasions? Is it true? Does he mean it? And if not? What policies does he have to prevent a real default? Voting for Trump inevitably means uncertainty and more risks to the future of the USA.
Fear mongering? No way. I think these are valid questions. Yes, eventually the elections will decide what will happen. But not in my lifetime I have seen such a risky presidential candidate so close to win the elections. Not even Barry Goldwater comes close to it.
Your apocalyptic warnings about this and Brexit don't sway me I afraid. Things have a way of sorting themselves out.
I've already mentioned why the US president has limited powers domestically, & I'm not going to repeat it here.
If Trump is as dangerous as you presume, then he will lose the election.
But it's not apocalyptic. Far from it I think. Why do you say that actually. Why do you use the word apocalypse. Obviously we won't have an apocalypse, even IF Trump gets elected. But the risks and uncertainties with a vote for Trump will stay predominant, unless Trump really gets more specific with his policy ideas.
If he can't mount a proper general election campaign with details on the issues and how he plans to address them (including working with Congress) then as I've said before, people will hold their noses and vote for Hillary. The same will happen if he self-destructs or implodes (which is possible but not definite).
So you shouldn't be all that concerned about it.
I should be concerned. I am a voter. I am supporting a democracy. And in a well-functioning democracy the thing that could be more destructive to democracy are uneducated voters who just think it's "fun" to get Trump elected. I empower myself. I read all the issues. I indulge in the issues. And when that is happening I carefully state my arguments why I vote for a specific presidential candidate.
More people should do that, instead of waiting until a candidate like Trump comes up with more details about the plans he's tweeting about. More people should indulge themselves into the issues, instead of waiting for what a man like Trump or a woman like Clinton will do for you.
Like Kennedy once said: "Do not ask what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country". Too many times voters were sitting back...and only voted for a man with a funny hairdo, a funny moustache or big boobs. And if you then blame others except yourself, you are yourself part of the (financial) mess we are in now.
Perhaps they see something in both of these candidates that you don't? I don't see them jumping up and down saying the world is coming to an end or that Hillary voters are twats though.
You may empower yourself and come to one conclusion. You should give those who come to a different one through different means a little more respect, given that most people seem to feel that politicians inevitably let them down and say one thing to get elected only to govern in a completely different fashion.
Why should I be more respectful if you are actually using the word "twat" for Hillary voters, when I just say that Trump voters should understand a bit better if they elect a president who wants to default a country similar to how he defaults investor companies in the real estate business.
I describe and articulate why I think what voters should think off. You call me a "twat". I may sound direct and sometimes harsh. And I may use historical comparisons. The thing I don't get is this: Why does Bores Johnson gets away with making WW II comparisons, and I don't? Simple: I'm standing for values that currently are much harder to sell. It's great to be a Trump supporter these days. But if you support Hillary, you suddenly are a twat.
I call it intellectual default really. Because no one can't come up with one proper, good argument why I might be wrong. You, @bondjames, are also beating around the Bush. You are also evading the specifics. I call it severe intellectual loss. Try to come up with some well-defined ideas and specifics how YOU would improve and 'waterproof' the USA in such a way that you and your children can still benefit from prosperity and welfare.
There is an angry group of voters who will be disappointed with the outcome, no matter who wins. Trump seems to be self-destructing daily and Hillary will win by default. But that still doesn't address the problems people feel about. The U. S. has moved to the left on a number of issues like gay marriage, immigration laws, etc... Many have not accepted an African American in charge and a woman as President is beyond the pale.
Let's see whether all this interest and outrage increases voter turnout or will voters revert back to what they always do--sit at home and whine.