I think that issue has been more than raised. Could we please just get back to discussing the contents of the report by the NIC as the report is provided in full at the following link given earlier: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-file...2025_FINAL.pdf

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: what a cheap shot frame

That's all well and good, a great number of liberals feel the same way, but what alternative is there? There will always be a market, and the worst things you can do to a market are to attempt to centralize control of it or drive it underground. The results are never pleasant for the rest of us.
So, while I will admit that you have a good point in saying that markets are not perfect and that marketing makes the issue of consumption a bit more difficult for the average person, I have yet to see any better ideas.

I wouldn't agree with the sweeping generalization above as many CEO's have a vested interest not only in their industries and companies but also in the welfare of their workers. Of course, many do not, and you also make a good point here. However, the worst examples of these types of CEO's tend to manifest themselves in large industries that consistently fail and yet cannot die because of Federal regulation. It is extraordinarily difficult to start a business in the U.S. because of the sums of money for licensures, permits, and legal representation involved and this only eliminates competition to companies that have become inefficient and no longer satisfy people's needs. I should know a bit about that, I work for one of them.

If you'll alow me to meander for a short while, the freight railroad system in the U.S. is a customer's worst nightmare. The railroads own the rail lines, and these lines are extremely expensive, and often impossible, to produce more of. Furthermore, only a handful of major railroads exsist, and they essentially have a monopoly over land-based heavy transport. Since our customers generally own large, expensive facilities, they can't exactly pack up and move elsewhere. The result is that we consistently overcharge them and deliver their goods late. After all, they can't go anywhere else. However, even then, capitalism forces them to choose the most efficient path, as transporting huge quantities of goods by truck is often uneconomical. In this particular case, deregulation is needed in the form of "freeedom of access legislation" where any railroad can use any track without a fee. The result would be that railroads would actually have to compete with each other for customers, and the consumers, as well as the most efficient railroads, would benefit more. This approach was tried with the energy industry, but the Feds forgot the all-important step of getting their hands off of the generating facilities, so results were mixed.

Surely, you must be joking. Modern multinational corporations operate this way all the time, and generate a great deal of wealth not only for themselves but also for subsidiary corporations and investors and employees all the time. The alternative is to put such an industry in the hands of the state, and there are a lot of countries, including India, Russia, and China, that will produce a lot of examples as to why this is a bad idea. Large corporations do have their problems, but profitability and longevity generally have a direct link except where the state is involved.

It could be argued that the legal industry, for which I have nothing but disdain, is actually the largest "industry" in the U.S., but that's neither here nor there. The average citizen, thanks to the technological marvels provided entirely by private industry, has access to virtually all of the information in the world in the space a few seconds, thanks to the internet. As the complexity of markets increases, so does the consumer's ability to cope. Finding the best price and value for an item is hardly a full-time job, it's just a few keystrokes away.
If someone can't be bothered to spend a few minutes evaluating their purchase decisions in the information age, I have no sympathy for them.


If i had never heard anything you ever said before, this statement alone would be enough to convince me that you are a liberal. The U.S. auto industry is nothing more than a dinosaur waiting to be confined to the dustbin of history, because the U.S. no longer has a manufacturing economy, but a service economy. The next step is a corporate economy, which our representatives are working hard to counteract, because auto manufacterers have lobbyists, too.

For a country like the U.S., where cheap industry labor is rarely available, but the economy is (generally) strong and the currency is also comparitively strong, the next logical step for any company is to transition to an international corporate nature where labor is outsourced and the administration simply places itself in the location where its' ventures are the most economically feasible. We shouldn't fear a transition to this type of economy. Should the U.S. embrace a lenient and business-friendly economic policy (no corporate taxes, simple licensure procedures, simple, but strong and effective legal codes to prevent fraud and theft) it matters little where the goods are actually produced, because the lion's share of profit from production comes here anyway.

Blue-collar factory jobs become service industry jobs, and the entire economy moves up a step, benefitting all of us. Some disagree with that asessment, but the GNP per capita (despite our increasing population) and the PPP per capita says otherwise.

The goal of the U.S. now, while it still holds some semblance of economic dominance, should be to embrace free-market policies for once and attract every type of business around the globe. This approach worked marvelously well for the Southeast Asian Tigers, and one can only imagine the effect such a policy would have in a nation like the U.S.
Naturally, our European friends would likely not be far behind, or at least, they need not be, given the typical strength of the collective European economy.

While I don't have a solution for the whole world, and indeed, noone does, the U.S. and other first-world nations still have the ability to remain powerful engines of economy.

Taking a pessimistic point of view, the above might be considered an economists' version of utopia, but the fact remains that economic growth must continue one way or another, as long as it is driven by an expanding population and the resultant need for resources.

Economic success is most effective in a free market, where companies compete for customers, resources and labor. It has long been a source of perplexion to me as to why liberals, who supposedly seek to improve the plight of common people, consistently champion shortsided measures that slow the economy and reduce competition for labor, which in turn reduces wages. Tariffs, corporate taxes, and the state's obsession with inhibiting competition by making it difficult for venture capitalists to start competing businesses, all harm the plight of the common laborer, as less economic activity means that his services are not in demand as much.
Furthermore, the nationalization of industries harms the economy significantly, as they typically are not as efficient as their private counterparts, for obvious reasons, and actually remove wealth (in the form of taxation) from the populace in order to operate.

At the last, I will ask you this; If decisions relating to economy are not to be trusted to the market, and its' millions upon millions of representatives who vote with their money, who should it be entrusted to? How will you ensure that the right people are appointed to govern such a complex system? What do you do when they fail?

As much as I would love to see someone come along and provide all the answers for a perfect economic system, such a person does not exsist, and any arguments to the contrary can be easily dismantled and even supported by historical precedent and common sense. So now I wait for some ingenious response as to how the world's economic problems can be solved by more intervention by the enlightened few who actually understand the unfathomable number of factors that affect the economy.

I wouldn't worry about the USA's Intel position will be in 20 years.:nope:


I'd be worrying if I lived in a country that constantly bashs and attacks the USA, if it were still on the face of the Earth in 20 yrs.

History has a nasty habit of repeating itself. When the World has hit rock bottom as it seems to be heading.

There's always a Hitler, Stalin, ect, or someone even worse bideing their time and waiting in the wings. And God or whom
ever help us.

Their will be a Nuclear War, it's inevitable. :dead:

It will be Short, Decisive, and bring about a New World Order.

Whether anyone of us will be around to see it is another matter.

The accusations of one German and the predominant belief in the history of the world wars are hardly the same, but I'll give you that. Sky does say some inflammatory things on occasion, as we all do, from time to time. I just don't like personal attacks.

I, too am in favor of returning to an isolationist policy, as our efforts are obviously not appreciated to any great extent. While I don't believe that we will ever do so, thanks to the noble efforts of our generally worthless representatives, should some nation ever require our help again, I hope that we can remember the lessons we've learned:D

Cheers, friend

Almost as worrying as the thought of Silent Hunter 5 with new code.

Skybird, as much as I share your anger and disgust at the current US, a lot of it's politics and it's unbelieveable ignorance to the rest of the world, the reason for this anger is anchored in my respect for this country. If it were Russia, Iran, China or any other country we'd be talking about here, whose agendas and conditions are much worse, I do not feel the same energy towars these as the US. I suppose these emotions stem from simply expecting something better of it, an afterglow of what it once stood for, liberty, freedom, human rights and optimism in face of even the harshest crisis, born out of it's legacy. Even if that is no more, it's kind of a love/hate relationship out of hopes that the light is still there somewhere. Think Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader if you want for an emotional comparison. Obama gave that back to a degree, but what comes has to be seen.

Churchill once said "count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else".

America can only have the kind of influence you describe, if countries like Germany allow that influence to take hold. If you want someone to blame for your lot in life, try looking in the mirror. No Country has disgraced itself more on this planet than Germany.

Yanno, at younger ages, I was ashamed upon hearing that, admitting immidiate defeat. Later, I tended to get angry and dispute. Later again I used to smile and be humerous about it. Now, seriously, I am too tired of that guildtrip to show any other reaction then boredom.

I can understand why Bewolf hates the USA. :yep:




WE WHUPPED YOUR A$$ !!! GOOD !!! TWICE :p

Here's a quote that sums up your country and it's world contribution:

OH FATHERLAND FATHERLAND
SHOW US A SIGN
YOUR CHILDREN HAVE WAITED TO SEE
TO MORNING WILL COME WHEN THE WORLD IS MINE
TOMORROW BELONGS TO ME!

An attack against my country is an attack against me as a citizen of that country. You'll forgive me if I don't ignore it all the time...

I remain more hopeful. It only takes the right combination of events and leaders to make it happen and once it does it'll be far more difficult to reverse course again.

I think you have stepped over the line with that one, this thread has gotten way out of hand.

I would like to remind you it was their war, our parents and grandparents, not ours.

While I agree that the comment was over the top, WW2 was not just our fathers war. We still feel the effects of it today and so will our children and their children.

The fact of the matter is that it's the German members here, those who have the least right to point fingers and accuse anyone of anything, who continually refer to the US in an offensive manner.

Their constant whining and complaining gets old.

That said, this will be my last post in the thread.

Yes I agree we do still feel the effects, and so do they. However, maintaining old hatred and bigotry does not help matters. These are not the same Germans, Italians, Russians or Englishmen etc... that started that war 69 years ago and for us to continue the hatred cheapens the sacrifice of the brave soldiers that fought to bring to an end the most bloody conflict the world has ever seen.

p.s.

I am not interested in country bashing, we (the English) have been allies with the U.S. for many decades now and we have not allways seen eye to eye on many subjects, however i think they have a better track record than we have due to our empire building days. Don't get me wrong I am proud to be an Englishman but, we have a dark and bloody past.

I agree. And actually I had a very high respect and sympathy for the ideaos on which america was founded, for long time of my life. The Us could be so much better. But I also remember the very personal insultings and attacks I had to take when saying in the past that the US of today has distanced itself very, very far from the ideals of it's founders, and that the US of the second world war is very different from the US of today. Now seeing the immense damage the american model causes in the world, the costs needed to be payed and compensated by others - and at the same time America claiming it has no reason to change, and that it all works nice and well and that the failures of the past just happened because what caused the failures has not been allowed to unfold in enough unlimited fashion, my attitude towards the Us is changing. More and more the monumental arrogance and stubborness of this country dominates the impression I got of it. This change started sometime in the recent past, maybe one, maybe two years ago. Before that, for the 20-25 years before, I would have described my attitude as "critical, but well-meaning and hopeful" towards the US on an intellectual level, and as "friendly" on an emotional level. Today i must say, on an intellectual level it is "highly critical, disgusted and disappointed", and on an emotional level "neutral, tending to be very distanced". My old basic sympathies that even remained mostly unchanged during the first years of Bush and the Iraq war, and the better part of my life, is fading, and qickly so.

there is a golden myth at heart of this promise America is about, a myth about a noble dragon guarding a precious treasure. But it turns out the old dragon is dead since long, the guard now is just a pack of aggressive rats with rabies, and the treasure is some dirt and some rocks, alleged to be turned into gold in a better future once everybody has been bitten by the rats.

To say it in a poet's words:

Entzauberung.


( Ent|zau|be|rung f -, -en breaking of the / a spell (+gen on); (fig auch) deprivation of mystique; (von Vorstellungen) shattering, destruction
© Langenscheidt KG, Berlin und München und HarperCollins Publishers Ltd )

Wow, I'm just getting ready for work, and I have a headache reading this. Good points to almost one & all. I will leave you with my belief: the Fed's get away with certain things over states and to industries as well. It's the carrot and stick method. I'll give you one example. The speed limit. Fed's thought 55 mph on highways were safest for vehicles to travel. Yet, they couldn't legislate this upon the states (10th amendment) so..... they would cut off transportation funding, if the state would not toe the line. Same thing with the subprime loans. If you do not take x amount of crap loans then we will not lend you money. They had a safety net, the tax payer in the guise of Freddie and Frannie. All they are doing now is cutting out the middle man. :o

:rotfl: :rotfl: cause they started 2 world wars ? how about the US who has invaded 21 countries in the past 65 years?