US Society Failing?

Discuss.

yep the economy is gonna tank soon i bet

Its due to globalization... and no party offers a solution to this but the constitution party, as far as I know.

Protectionism doesnt help much either in the global economy sense. I'm all for free trade, as long as its fair, and in the case of Canada/US relations, its not fair. Canada gets screwed over more often than not. And the U.S then still whines about losing jobs.

>>4
Of course we 'whine' about losing jobs... so much of our manufacturing sector that provides jobs is being sent overseas to countries like China.  What's wrong with protectionism? Yeah it might make our stuff non competitive with other countries, but does it really matter anyways? Our businesses can just exist and do business with Americans in the USA.  What's wrong with this?

>>5
Problem is China. Expoliting third world was never problem. They didn't have quality workers nor facilities, but Chinese do and they do the job with slave wages. Answer is international trade embargo against Chinese. That would crash market, but we need to do it.

>>6
Or better still encourage the growing educated middle classes of China to be libertarian. Slowly China will evolve into a democracy and enact minimum wage laws, then we don't need to worry at all.

This can be done by voting libertarian and being a shining example of the strength of our ideals to the world.

all of you need to DIE

>>8
all of you need to DIE, except >>7 for being totally correct and really great*

fix'd

lol chinese libertarians

Eventually china will become as well off as other western countries, and it will have to raise its minimum wage, or just keep forcing its currency value down. Either way, eventually china will have to forgo being the production pwerhouse as it is, much like west.

>>11 Not within our lifetime... unless our economy tanks.

>>7
But what if our economy gets fucked up because of us pouring so much capital into China instead of reinvesting it in the USA? Couldn't we also be a shining example of prosperity for the world if we closed off the borders, put up tariffs on imported goods, and in general just sit here and be prosperous? The world economy seems dangerous and uncertain..  We could still be that same shining beacon of prosperity while having tariffs and international trade barriers.

>>13 My guess is that this is nth times more complex than most who have ever posted on this board can fathom. Then again, the amount of dollars in China is one of the reasons you can go to war with Iran if you want to/the zionist-jacobins convinces you to.

>>14
"My guess is that this is nth times more complex than most who have ever posted on this board can fathom."

In your own words give me a brief description (150 words minimum) of the effect of the encouraged industry catalogue and the assimilation of Hong Kong on the Chinese economy between 1991 (the fall of the soviet union) and 2001 (september 11th).

>>15 Ghe... Nf. Hemmm.... Black or blue ink?

Isolationism is the typical American answer, and it has proved time and again that America can't handle it.  Believe it or not, America exports goods, and those goods play a significant role in our pseudo-imperial economy.  The problem is, if you put up protective tariffs, foreign nations put them up as well to spite you, and both sides lose. 

As technology develops futher, manufacturing and other services will be eventually replaced by machines, rather than cheap workers, this is an inevitibility that isolation can't stop.

Foreign money invested in lesser developed countries is highly beneficial to them no matter how little, it adds surplus money to their economies, encourages entrepreneurship, and will eventually raise the standard of living in those countries, at which point, the foreign interest will cease, as the workforce demands higher wages and has other oppurtunities for jobs should they not meet those demands.

>>17
Depends on whether the government spends the surplus on russian tanks and palaces or re-invests it. Also the US is not pseudo-imperial since it does not use physical force to coerce others, the tryants in other countries are the ones who stamp on their own people's faces and call the US imperialist.

>>18 It used to be an empire, and it seems to have reached second wind now after the decrease in atrocities that started after the Cold War.

>>19
But it isn't an empire. The US lost more than it put into Vietnam and gained more by letting Japan rule themselves, if anything the US prospers by being as far as possible from an empire and all the supposed evil capitalists and republican senators know this and are vehement in stopping imperialist activity. Compared to actual empires of the time, nameley the empire of China and it's south east asian vassal states and the soviet empire with it's colonies in Cuba and across africa, it is obvious that the US's self-evident libertarian principles are the key to it's success. The US itself is just a collection of states, all of them them equivalent plucky underdogs sticking it to the evil socialist empires.

>>20 "all the supposed evil capitalists and republican senators know this and are vehement in stopping imperialist activity" This is now. The CIA is still a terror organization and America is doing nothing to clean up what it committed itself to during the Cold War.
" is obvious that the US's self-evident libertarian principles are the key to it's success." Pop-pop-populism. The subfascist regimes America supported caused indescribable misery and pain for people who made the mistake of democratically electing the wrong party (insert Florida 2000 or Mexico 2006 reference)
"The US itself is just a collection of states, all of them them equivalent plucky underdogs sticking it to the evil socialist empires." As much as you salivate to the image of young idealists with big rifles in raccoon hats traversing the Montana wild in pursuit of an invading Soviet force, the US can never be described as plucky. Hypocritical, well-meaning, unreliable and manipulative, yes. But underdogs? Uhuh. Uhuhuhuhuh.

>>21
Are you talking about Nicaragua? A bunch of thugs took over promising democracy, but after 8 years of rule it looked as though the population wanted to vote in a non-leftist political party so the Sandinastas start brutalising the population and intimidating political opponents. The US stepped in to preserve democracy, the sandinastas were voted out in free and fair elections and now the US is the bad guy.

Also the US are the underdogs, they are a nation of people kicked out of europe, asia and africa, the unwanted huddled masses yearning to breathe free! Even native americans were kicked out of their land. The competition between pepsi and coke was so fierce the cold war became a pawn in their game, these are the classic properties of the underdog.

As much as you salivate to the idea of wearing a beret and tromping through the jungle with an AK47, intimidating villages for the better good in the fallacious belief that the dictatorship of the proletariat will actually work and this is all justified, the true underdogs are the plucky entrepeneurs who gave people what they really want, televisions, air conditionners, convertibles, microwaves, designer clothes, telecommunications etc etc.. People who actually make a difference.

Think about it, does anyone consider Ghengis Khan on a daily basis? He was an absolute genius, his achievements were on a super-human scale, armies that had been refined to the pinnacle of medieval warfare were wiped away by his warriors, his empire stretched from sunrise to sunset. However 200 years later he was forgotten, just a mythical figure. 200 years after Isaac Newton, Richard Arkwright and certainly 200 years after Benz, Gray and Bell people will still be affected by their ideas in every day life.

The US is a plucky underdog because it influences the lives of everyone on the planet without having to pull a gun to their head.

>>22 "The leftist Sandinistas (the FSLN) took power from the Samoza family dictatorship after a long civil war and formed a government in 1979. The Sandinista government organized a literacy drive to prepare the largely illiterate electorate for elections, instituted social reforms like agrarian reform, universal healthcare, universal education, social welfare, industrialisation, and then coordinated Nicaragua's first multiparty election in 1984, at which time the Sandinista's won a large majority of the popular vote. The country faced a violent insurgency by the Contras, significant elements of which were mercenary-terrorist armies organized, trained and funded illegally by the United States (The United States and the Nicaraguan Revolution. The National Security Archive, The George Washington University; The Contras, Cocaine, and Covert Operations / Documentation of Official U.S. Knowledge of Drug Trafficking and the Contras. The National Security Archive, The George Washington University). By the time of the next elections in 1990, the Sandinistas lost the mandate to rule and assumed the role of Nicaragua's primary opposition party." However, I should mention that the Sandinistas violated human rights of many Indians and shelled villages that were taken by the Contras as punishment. The Contras were worse though. The Contras would never have allowed democratic elections or utilitarian sweeping social changes. The Sandinistas later seceded to the Autonomy Law of 1987, making it the first Latin American country "to officially recognise its multiethnic nature, guaranteeing the economic, cultural, linguistic and religious rights demanded by the indigenous groups of the Atlantic Coast.". That's recognition that the indigenous US indians didn't really get.
"As much as you salivate to the idea of wearing a beret and tromping through the jungle with an AK47, intimidating villages for the better good in the fallacious belief that the dictatorship of the proletariat will actually work and this is all justified, the true underdogs are the plucky entrepeneurs who gave people what they really want, televisions, air conditionners, convertibles, microwaves, designer clothes, telecommunications etc etc.. People who actually make a difference." None of the countries the CIA imposed their own version of free trade on really enjoyed it, becuase this was a package deal in which oppressive ultra-right regimes were installed to ensure that US interests could do whatever.
"The US is a plucky underdog because it influences the lives of everyone on the planet without having to pull a gun to their head." First, this is a partial lie, second, your presence on this earth is not necessarily a net good and it sure as fuck isn't sustainable.

 

# Twenty percent of Americans think the sun orbits the earth. Seventeen percent believe the earth revolves around the sun once a day (The Week, Jan. 7, 2005).
# Our workers are so ignorant and lack so many basic skills that American businesses spend $30 billion a year on remedial training (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004). No wonder they relocate elsewhere!
# Lack of health insurance coverage causes 18,000 unnecessary American deaths a year. (That's six times the number of people killed on 9/11.) (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005.)
# Twelve million American families--more than 10 percent of all U.S. households--"continue to struggle, and not always successfully, to feed themselves." Families that "had members who actually went hungry at some point last year" numbered 3.9 million (NYT, Nov. 22, 2004).
# The United States has lost 1.3 million jobs to China in the last decade (CNN, Jan. 12, 2005).
# U.S. employers eliminated 1 million jobs in 2004 (The Week, Jan. 14, 2005).
# Three million six hundred thousand Americans ran out of unemployment insurance last year; 1.8 million--one in five--unemployed workers are jobless for more than six months (NYT, Jan. 9, 2005).
# As of last June, the U.S. imported more food than it exported (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004).
# Bush: 62,027,582 votes. Kerry: 59,026,003 votes. Number of eligible voters who didn't show up: 79,279,000 (NYT, Dec. 26, 2004). That's more than a third. Way more. If more than a third of Iraqis don't show for their election, no country in the world will think that election legitimate.
# Forty-three percent of Americans think torture is sometimes justified, according to a PEW Poll (Associated Press, Aug. 19, 2004).

>>24 From what I've heard, the economy is rebounding a little now thanks to the tax cuts. Could be gobblygook but we shall see. The stock market and the economy always fares better under democrats so there are no few precedents.

[aa]　　                 ∧＿∧　　 ／￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣
  　　　　　　　　　 （　´∀｀）　＜ Shit all fuckposters
  　　　　　　　　／　　　　|　　　 ＼＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
  　　　　　　　/ 　　　 　 .|　　　　　
  　　　　　　 / "⌒ヽ |.ｲ |
  　　　＿＿ |　　　.ノ | || |＿＿
  　 .　　　 ノく＿＿つ∪∪　　 ＼
  　　　＿（（＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿_＼
  　　 ￣￣ヽつ￣￣￣￣￣￣ | |￣
  　　　＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿__| |
  

>>24

"Bush: 62,027,582 votes. Kerry: 59,026,003 votes. Number of eligible voters who didn't show up: 79,279,000 (NYT, Dec. 26, 2004). That's more than a third. Way more. If more than a third of Iraqis don't show for their election, no country in the world will think that election legitimate."

There is nothing wrong with this.  So 80 million (or thereabouts) just don't care.  So what? Those who do care went out and voted, and more people who care voted for Bush.  Too bad, liberals lost.  Quit whining.

>>27

What makes you think he's even talking about liberals? Why don't you just shut the fuck up already, you sound like a GOP propaghanda machine, all you do is repeat the same two-party bullshit ad naseum. I KNOW you're in your 30s, or else you wouldn't be talking like this. My prediction: Once all you old fucks die, world will be much better.

I'd take more liberals seriously if they were about solving america's problems instead of using bigotry against fellow americans and myself.

>>23
"The Contras were worse though. The Contras would never have allowed democratic elections or utilitarian sweeping social changes."
So where were the people who were simply political opponents of the Sandinasta? Oh I see, there were none, since all opponents of the Sandinastas were involved in shady CIA drug trafficcing scams and were rightfully persecuted and beaten bloody by Sandinasta thugs for committing the crime of free spee... drug trafficing.

Also if the Sandinasta were so great why did they need to commit political oppression to stay in power? Oh wait, I forgot, I guess the population of Nicaragua didn't know what was good for them and the Sandinastas did the only honourable thing of forcing them to accept their rulership.

Please forgive me for my insolence Chairperson Xel.

Seriously though, don't get me wrong. I don't think all opponents of the Sandinasta were angels, I am not a neo-conservative, but I'm not a paranoid marxist either. I only believe in the truth. Which is that the US intervention sent Nicaragua away from the course of totalitarianism, Nicaragua in recent years has done enormous amounts to reduce corruption in the government and the Sandinastas are now just another political party instead of a savage milita.

"Also if the Sandinasta were so great why did they need to commit political oppression to stay in power? Oh wait, I forgot, I guess the population of Nicaragua didn't know what was good for them and the Sandinastas did the only honourable thing of forcing them to accept their rulership." The sandinistas committed a popular revolution, and the Contras used the same tactics as them (just more often) and would have been ready to aid and abet the same type of "privatization" that lately was such a smashing success in Iraq. The nature of the Sandinista's oppression has already been supplied (by me) and the only reason I prefer them over the Contras is because all proxies the CIA had supported until then had *greater* tendencies to make people's lives "interesting" in a very Chinese manner than any of the evil socialists they were paid to combat.
"Also if the Sandinasta were so great why did they need to commit political oppression to stay in power? Oh wait, I forgot, I guess the population of Nicaragua didn't know what was good for them and the Sandinastas did the only honourable thing of forcing them to accept their rulership." The people of Nicaragua were worse of before the popular revolution, yet this doesn't clean the hands of the Sandinistas. Didn't say that, but I did remind everyone that all ultra-right proxies of the CIA before the Contras had erected hell on earth and allowed liquification of the economies in every country they took over. The Contras were no different.
"Please forgive me for my insolence Chairperson Xel." No I won't. Flee to Florida and whine, bitch.
"Which is that the US intervention sent Nicaragua away from the course of totalitarianism, Nicaragua in recent years has done enormous amounts to reduce corruption in the government and the Sandinastas are now just another political party instead of a savage milita." The Nicaraguans kindly gave the Sandinistas the finger partly because their policies weren't the best for the country, partly because America had used terrorism against Nicaragua ever since it had the temerity to resist the Contras. Why do you think it is still a party and not ripped out of the ledgers and purged from the schoolbooks? Because the CIA failed to put their own version of Stalin in charge.

>>28 You see? That's why there's a huge criticism on the two-party system

>>31
"the CIA had supported until then had *greater* tendencies to make people's lives "interesting" in a very Chinese manner than any of the evil socialists they were paid to combat."
What the fuck? The CIA are Chinese now?

"The people of Nicaragua were worse of before the popular revolution, yet this doesn't clean the hands of the Sandinistas. Didn't say that, but I did remind everyone that all ultra-right proxies of the CIA before the Contras had erected hell on earth and allowed liquification of the economies in every country they took over. The Contras were no different."
I'm assuming the evidence to back this up will follow?

""Please forgive me for my insolence Chairperson Xel." No I won't. Flee to Florida and whine, bitch."
Oh I see, so now I am an evil capitalist boogeyman too, is it because I disagree with you? Whatever you say Chairperson Xel!

"Why do you think it is still a party and not ripped out of the ledgers and purged from the schoolbooks? Because the CIA failed to put their own version of Stalin in charge."
Oh I see, Nicaragua no longer executes people who disagree with the government because the CIA failed to overthrow the Sandinastas. Wait.. Didn't the US presence begin after the Sandinastas started terrorising Nicaragua? Wouldn't that mean the Sandinastas were the cause of the political oppression? Oh well, who am I to question logic. Since I've been branded a boogeyman when I say something the opposite must be true.

>>33 http://www.amazon.com/Overthrow-Americas-Century-Regime-Change-Hawaii-Iraq/dp/0805078614/sr=1-1/qid=1157048168/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-7211199-9106308?ie=UTF8&s=books There we are, one of the best books I've read. Basically, the reason I had my doubts about the War on Bad wasn't the credibility of the Islamistic fundamentalists as real enemies but rather the conscience of the invading force.
"Oh I see, Nicaragua no longer executes people who disagree with the government because the CIA failed to overthrow the Sandinastas. Wait.. Didn't the US presence begin after the Sandinastas started terrorising Nicaragua? Wouldn't that mean the Sandinastas were the cause of the political oppression? Oh well, who am I to question logic. Since I've been branded a boogeyman when I say something the opposite must be true." Kinda fail. see, the Sandinistas were put in charge by the people. Then those that piped up got smoted by the Sandinistas while said party was rebuilding the country and helping the poor after Samozo. The the CIA wanted to impose the Contras, who used the same tactics and would have been as healthy for the Nicaraguans as the American proxies in Haiti, Brazil, Iran etc was for those people. As the Sandinistas were allowed to stay they got democratically thrown out, proving that American intervention wasn't needed in the first place.

>>34
Spoiler: Democracy took place because the American Army was there to stop the Sandinistas from planting a guy with an ak47 next to each voting booth.

Oh and one last thing, show at least some recognition of the following straightforward simple argument or you will essentially be admitting you are an ignorant extremist.

It wasn't a war between 2 sides, it was a war between a patchwork of fluid groups of people that individuals had varying and often widely changing degrees of association with. The major competitors were the following.

The Nicaraguan people (libertarians)
The Sandinistas (assholes)
The Contras (assholes)

According the Contras the situation looked like this.
The Sandinistas (evil commies)
The Contras (good guys)

According to the Sandinistas the situation looked like this.
The Sandinistas (good guys)
The Contras (evil fascists)

You will notice both the Sandinistas and Contras had a manichean world view, believing a person is either one of them or part of a supremely evil enemy. This is because they were both assholes as I mentionned in brackets earlier.

Since they were both assholes I take neither view very seriously. However you take the Sandinistas view seriously for some stupid ass reason I don't really care about anymore. If you want me to stop wiping the floor with you in this debate, start taking the Nicaraguan people's perspective.

"The Nicaraguan people (libertarians)" Fail number one.
Many Nicaraguans point to the 1972 earthquake that devastated Managua as the final 'nail in the coffin' for Somoza [citation needed]. Some 75% of the city was destroyed, and Somoza's brazen corruption, mishandling of relief (which prompted Pittsburgh Pirates star Roberto Clemente to personally fly to Managua on December 31, 1972, a flight that ended in his tragic death) and refusal to really rebuild Managua flooded the ranks of the Sandinistas with young disaffected Nicaraguans who no longer had anything to lose[citation needed]: The January 1978 assasination of Pedro Joaquin Chamorro by the National Guard further propelled the Sandinistas forward in their struggle against Somoza by leading many middle and upper class Nicaraguans to see the Sandinistas as the only hope for ridding the country of the brutal Somoza regime. The Sandinistas, supported by many locals, elements of the Catholic Church[citation needed], regional and European governments and through large scale clandestine Soviet and Cuban assistance[2] took power in July of 1979. Somoza abandoned the country and his National Guardsmen, and eventually ended up in Paraguay, where he was assassinated in September of 1980 by members of the Argentinian Revolutionary Workers' Party[3]. The key large scale programs of the Sandinistas included a massive literacy campaign (March-August, 1980) and a sweeping agrarian reform that put land into the hands of many formerly landless peasants."
"Following their seizure of power, the Sandinistas ruled Nicaragua for roughly 12 years from 1979 to 1990, during which time they established *democratic elections* and a national constitution, among other sweeping *populist* reforms." Well, like your mother, your argumentation just got raped (first ass, then pussy). It was an effort-less raping (probably because your argumentation, much like your mother, was begging for it.)

So while not producing any evidence you contend that the popularly  Sandinistas were as evil as the Contras because they hated the Contras as much as they hated the Sandinistas. You assume the Nicaraguans wanted a free market and copies of Atlas Shrugged for all. You assume that the Contras, unlike every other "totalitarian on the people, laissez-faire against the US companies"-fascists the CIA had funded uptil then, would be nicer to the Nicaraguans than the Sandinistas. Amusing. Then you use "extremist" as a derogatory term which is actually a compliment, especially when coming from you and you fail to admit that your country actually had to resort to direct terrorism (rather than proxy terrorism) to actually get the Sandinistas out in the '90s. "We love democracy so much we're going to make your lives miserable until you stop voting for the people that defended you against a Nicaraguan Mussolini, gave you democracy, literacy and all the other things you needed."
I have already admitted that the Sandinistas were bad. I have also shown that the other option was Americas subfascist solution, justifying Sandinista resistance. You only cause me a diminishing numbness in the stomach region now.

>>36
So the Nicaraguan people wanted to be executed for disagreeing with the Sandinistas? Don't be stupid. The Nicaraguans by definition are libertarian.

>>37 When government spending on the poor is a POPULAR policy, then they are not libertarians, no. Is somebody keeping a bucket under the fail? I don't want my shoes ruined.

>>38
"When government spending on the poor is a POPULAR policy, then they are not libertarians, no."
What? Are you saying libertarians don't support popular policies? Libertarianism is simply giving power to the people, the Sandinistas were nice to begin with, but obviously this honeymoon period didn't last long and when the time came for the public to vote them out they were too corrupted to let that happen. This might have something to do with the transition from democracy to communism that marxists love so much, transition from democracy to totalitarianism more like...

"Is somebody keeping a bucket under the fail? I don't want my shoes ruined."
When you actually construct a rational argument maybe then you can declare "i r winr4r". More likely though I will agree with you because you would be correct and we would both be winners, that is when you construct a rational argument of course.

" This might have something to do with the transition from democracy to communism that marxists love so much, transition from democracy to totalitarianism more like..." The Sandinistas got democratically voted out of power once the Contras were gone. The US had to spend tax-payer money on the opposition and to terrorize the population until this happened.
" Are you saying libertarians don't support popular policies?" No, because we are often educated enough to realize that consensus has no objective value.
"When you actually construct a rational argument maybe then you can declare "i r winr4r". More likely though I will agree with you because you would be correct and we would both be winners, that is when you construct a rational argument of course." Are you consciously trying to make me feel superior or are you really this much of a shame to your country?