< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3152 OF 5550 ·
|May-14-12|| ||frogbert: <Why would Europeans/Scandinavians be important?>|
not "important". anyone who represents an outside, different view might be worth listening to for that exact reason: they offer a different pov than your own.
why is "our" view so different than yours? that's the interesting thing. that we're "european" or "scandinavian" is of little importance - in itself. the interesting part is how and why we see things differently.
so, why is it?
|May-14-12|| ||diceman: <kb2ct:>
Did you live in NJ at a younger age?
(the Valvo story)
|May-14-12|| ||diceman: <frogbert:
so, why is it?>
Whereís the reciprocity, should they listen, learn from my ideas?
Do they have different responsibilityís?
Can a small country be a superpower?
Is a 20 year old single guy in America the same as a
married father of 4?
What should I learn form poor people in impoverished 3rd world countries?
Its pretty simple, you do things and they either work or they donít.
Sometimes the fix takes care of itself.
(debt explosion, collapse of USSR)
|May-14-12|| ||HeMateMe: Put <Dice> on ignore, as I did. Simplest solution.|
|May-14-12|| ||patzer2: <Frogbert><...any individual government (or president) is likely to get too much of the blame or too much of the credit for effects of global conjunctures that essentially are out of their control, and this to a much higher degree than any us president would admit, whether democrat or republican.> Good comment! Presidents are rarely responsible for the economic conditions (e.g. financial crisis) they inherit. However, economists, historians, and, most importantly, the electorate judge them for the effectiveness of their response to those econonomic conditions.|
President Obama's "Bush drove the car (i.e. economy) into the ditch" makes for good political rhetoric, but it's not objective or sound economic analysis. It's political stump speech demagougery with which few, if any, professional economists would agree.
Ken Rogoff says perhaps the best analysis of the current financial crisis is Rahuram Rajan's 2010 book "Fault Lines, How Hidden Fractures Still Threaten the World Economy." I would agree, and also suggest, that Reinhart and Rogoff's 2009 book, "This Time is Different" also offers an objective look at potential causes of the current financial crisis, demonstrating how it fits the pattern of previous similar financial crises (e.g. "The Big Five" since WWII which preceeded this one).
The one thing both books have in common is that they don't get into the political blame game. To the extent they suggest policy changes (or examine potential past mistakes) there's plenty of improvement to be found in both US political parties and in other financial institutions (e.g. US Federal Reserve, International Monetary Fund, US & China Trade policies etc.).
|May-14-12|| ||diceman: <patzer2:
President Obama's "Bush drove the car (i.e. economy) into the ditch">
Was it a GM model?
|May-14-12|| ||patzer2: <Diceman> Good response to <Frogbert>. Enjoyed both of your comments, and the positive exchange about the insights of Scandinavians & Europeans. |
The experience and insights of others can be important and helpful. But even more important is integrating and applying those insights to our own unique situation.
|May-14-12|| ||patzer2: <Was it a GM model?> If that stands for "Government Motors," I suppose it might have been Obama's imaginary car in the ditch. When Union benefits and votes are on the line, the Democratic Party insists it needs a government "fix."|
Of course Ford has a better idea!
|May-14-12|| ||frogbert: dice, you weren't asked to "learn" anything from me or anyone else. you were challenged to explain why our views on what represents "capitalism", "socialism", "freedom" and so on are seemingly so different. if you think europe is too small and irrelevant compared to the us, and that we can't possibly understand or relate to political ideologies that all came into existence in europe and how they might be perceived differently over there due to your role as "global police and defenders of democracy", then there's something wrong, either with how you think or with your knowledge. just try to answer my question(s) instead of resorting to evasive actions.|
"everything's so different over here" doesn't fly and isn't an answer to what i asked you.
|May-14-12|| ||frogbert: patzer2, taking your cue, it doesn't make more sense to hold obama responsible for the continued problems in the <global economy> than it does blaming them on bush in the first place. but if there's one thing the republicans want to talk about in the presidential election, then it is how obama has failed to fix the global economy and by extension the us economy. except that the rhetorics will short-cut the dependency on the global economy, of course.|
my guess: whoever wins the election will eventually get credit for improving matters for us citizens - *way* too much credit.
|May-14-12|| ||tpstar: Jim Bartle and diceman are a pair
Who love to debate fair and square
They both get the blues
From watching Fox News
Two cases of election year despair
Now dice should be nicer to Jim
But chances of that are quite slim
A shooting so tragic
By a crazed white Hispanic
Don't wear your Trayvon hoodie to the gym
|May-14-12|| ||diceman: <frogbert: dice, you weren't asked to "learn" anything from me or anyone else.>
I asked you about learning?
If no one wants to learn why care what you do?
Is this a one way street?
Is America supposed to only learn from the world or can America also teach?
Is the world far to superior to learn from us?
< you were challenged to explain why our views on what represents "capitalism", "socialism", "freedom" and so on are seemingly so different.>
I cant explain why our democrats think the way they do?
Iím supposed to explain the rest of the world?
Youíre taking about anything from political agendas to the constitution
to stupidity and ignorance.
One guy saying this is how its done only happens in Obamacare.
What freedom is, is in our founding documents, if you remember we were Europe,
we left Europe, were not Europe, Europe has kings and queens.
Remember also, that we have both liberal and conservatives in America,
our views arenít even consistent within America, let alone the rest of the world.
<if you think europe is too small and irrelevant compared to the us, and that we can't possibly understand or relate to political ideologies that all came into existence in Europe>
Well we need to look at what we are talking about?
Should we examine China without looking at its population?
You cant talk about countries in isolation.
<just try to answer my question(s) instead of resorting to evasive actions>
What you call <evasive actions> comes from not understanding your question
not understand what you are asking.
My response got this response from patzer2:
<patzer2: <Diceman> Good response to <Frogbert>. Enjoyed both of your comments, and the positive exchange about the insights of Scandinavians & Europeans.>
So Iím giving both <good> responses and <evasive> responses depending
on which side of the fence youíre on.
Iím not even sure how this works?
How do we learn?
Do the American people demand it?
|May-14-12|| ||diceman: <frogbert: you were challenged to explain why our views on what represents "capitalism", "socialism", "freedom" and so on are seemingly so different.>|
The simple answer is someoneís wrong or someone has different responsibilities, needs.
You cant only look at whatís being done, you have to look at if it works?
You cant say ďthis is how play chessĒ in isolation, at some point you need to look at game results.
Have you won a game.
Why are you getting the results youíre getting?
Difference is ok if its working.
Fischer didnít play like Tal, but both are legends.
You seem to imply theres one way to do something?
|May-14-12|| ||Jim Bartle: kb2ct: "You might want to consider changing browsers.|
I recently discovered that FireFox has a spell checker useful for message boards."
Once again, I did not complain about typos. Diceman did.
|May-14-12|| ||cormier: http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings...|
|May-14-12|| ||cormier: NATO urged to probe deaths of Libyan civilians killed during air strikes|
|May-14-12|| ||kb2ct: |
Mike Valvo and I grew up in upstate NY in a small town called Guilderland Center. Though it is a suburb of Albany, we both played at the Schenectady chess club.
|May-14-12|| ||diceman: < kb2ct:
Mike Valvo and I grew up in upstate NY in a small town called Guilderland Center.>
Interesting, my family had property in Greenwood lake,
and I had relatives in Pine Bush NY, that was as far as I got into upstate.
|May-14-12|| ||patzer2: <frogbert:><patzer2, taking your cue, it doesn't make more sense to hold Obama responsible for the continued problems in the <global economy> than it does blaming them on Bush in the first place...and by extension the us economy.> One of my favorite economists, Professor ken Rogoff, appears to be somewhat sympathetic to that point of view, indicating in several interviews that he's not particularly critical of President Obama as the US reaction (e.g. in terms of deficit spending, the growth of public debt) to the current financial crisis has been on par with that of five other severe (e.g. with global impact) post WWII financial crises.|
However, as I indicated earlier, historians, economists and the US electorate (e.g. in the upcoming Nov 2012 general election) will hold President Obama, who has been in office now for over three years, responsible for the economic and social policies (e.g. Obamacare, which the President touted as "reducing the deficit") he's implenented or tried to implement (e.g. cap and trade, higher taxes) in response to the crisis.
The question US voters will be asking is whether those response were appropriate and whether they leave us better off or worse off in the future (e.g. over the next four years beginning in Jan 2013).
The presumptive Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, argues that while President Obama certainly didn't cause the economic crisis, he made it worse. He also argues that he has a better plan for addressing the current US economic problems. If recent polls, showing Romney with a small lead over Obama, are any indicator, he's finding a receptive audience among the US electorate.
P.S.: Despite the fact that there will be political rhetoric from both US parties trying to assign blame or fault for the problems in the economy, I think (or at least hope) that for most US voters and responsible critics of US economic policy, the focus will be on deciding which Presidential candidate offers the best plan for fixing the problems in the US economy to provide stronger economic growth. To the extent the debate can get away from the blame game (e.g. who drove the car into the ditch etc.), we'll all be better off.
|May-14-12|| ||patzer2: <tpstar> Enjoyed your poem. I enjoy a lot of both <JB> and <Diceman>'s posts (e.g. <Diceman>'s witty comments on liberalism and Obama's policies; <Jim Bartle>'s attempts to reach accross the ailse and enguage in intelligent dialogue with conservatives).|
However, and maybe it's just me, I think their most enlightening and entertaining posts are the ones not directed at each other.
|May-14-12|| ||frogbert: <I asked you about learning?>|
diceman, you did. you wrote:
<Whereís the reciprocity, should they listen, learn from my ideas?>
but i didn't say you should <learn> anything from anybody else or their "ideas" - i challenged you to *explain* an observable difference.
<So Iím giving both <good> responses and <evasive> responses depending on which side of the fence youíre on.>
the relevant difference isn't "being on different sides" of any proverbial fence. the relevant difference is who asked the question; it was i, not patzer2. hence, i guess i'm in the better position to judge if your response answered my question or not.
in fact, you nearly seem to evade parts of your own, previous post! again, i did not imply or say that you're supposed to learn anything from europe, i simply challenged you to go into some <detail> about why *you* think it is that you and i (and several europeans with me) put different labels on the economic politics of the current us president - that is, if you *really* think "marxism" or "socialism" are accurate in any normal sense of the words. if you simply want to call the rhetorics off and say that obama first and foremost is a proponent of capitalism, then that's fine too.
<You seem to imply theres one way to do something?>
certainly not. i imply no such thing. i challenged you to reflect a little, maybe to put the demagogery and propaganda on hold for a brief moment and simply think aloud, in a way that possibly would demonstrate your capability of thinking out of your normal box.
as i said, it was a *challenge* - one that you so far have evaded.
|May-14-12|| ||Jim Bartle: Patzer: Do you really enjoy diceman's constant references to the "ghetto," which imply there were no ghettoes (or much smaller ghettoes) in the United States before the mid-60s?|
|May-14-12|| ||frogbert: <The question US voters will be asking is whether those response were appropriate and whether they leave us better off or worse off in the future>|
unfortunately i don't think any voters anywhere are capable of doing such a rational analysis as you suggest. with anywhere i mean in any country anywhere in the world.
patzer2, do you seriously have that amount of trust in the rationality of voters? in particular when nearly everyone on the republican side of the electional campaign will focus on here and now and provide the stock answer "no" to your question. i mean, professional economical analysts may be opinionated, but essentially *none* of them can tell 100% for certain what the right recipe is. the average voter doesn't really have a clue, does s/he?
|May-14-12|| ||kb2ct: |
Obama, the first gay president??
|May-14-12|| ||HeMateMe: Don't tell his wife.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3152 OF 5550 ·