• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Sanders dominates Clinton in California with 61.25%

Regardless of what we think is optimal. The continuation of the current policies will lead us in a negative direction. sanders proposes the same/similar policies that FDR proposed. So while you may not agree with sanders and think that there is a better direction (which there probably is) none of the candidates are proposing anything that will actually work except sanders be it sub optimal or not. so I don't really understand why you think it will wreck the economy when history has shown that his policy's will generally strengthen the economy.

You won't find me happy with any of the candidates. But BS is an exponent of a very malvolent populism clad in unreal promises and socioeconomic policies of hidden threat.
The problem with socialism is that it does not "actually work" at all well. As "history shows" it will generally take quite some time to ruin a country as governments can access relatively large amounts of money to patch over the problems. The longer this takes the greater the imbalances and lager damage to populations becomes.
 
You won't find me happy with any of the candidates. But BS is an exponent of a very malvolent populism clad in unreal promises and socioeconomic policies of hidden threat.
The problem with socialism is that it does not "actually work" at all well. As "history shows" it will generally take quite some time to ruin a country as governments can access relatively large amounts of money to patch over the problems. The longer this takes the greater the imbalances and lager damage to populations becomes.

Clearly our current system doesn't work. Clearly De-regulation and lazzaiz-fare style economies doesn't work (Great Depression). And as you say FDR style policies don't work, so what exactly do you think works. Because insofar as this thread all I have seen is people saying that socialism doesn't work without 1. backing up that claim or 2. suggesting an alternative that would work better
 
Clearly our current system doesn't work. Clearly De-regulation and lazzaiz-fare style economies doesn't work (Great Depression). And as you say FDR style policies don't work, so what exactly do you think works. Because insofar as this thread all I have seen is people saying that socialism doesn't work without 1. backing up that claim or 2. suggesting an alternative that would work better

I am not so sure that "clearly our current system doesn't work". That is the mantra that is puffing through many heads right now. But it is quite questionable. After all, the country is wealthier than any similar one and the poor have as much buying as the poor in countries like Germany do, while paying for the security system of international trade and travel and many other things that other countries use. BS does not solve the problems this involves.

You are demanding proof of the outcome of the Great Competition of Systems that was decided in the last century? A large number of countries organized themselves along socialist lines in great variation. They have all run into reality. Some went down and other staggered on. But if you follow the European models in the West that were less aggressively socialist you will find that they are all scaling back their social programs, because they are not sustainable. The reasons are easy for economists to see, if they want to. But you will have to put in some work, because even easy things of this kind have a lot of detail one needs to know.
 
Last edited:
I am not so sure that "clearly our current system doesn't work". That is the mantra that is puffing through many heads right now. But it is quite questionable. After all, the country is wealthier than any similar one and the poor have as much buying as the poor in countries like Germany do, while paying for the security system of international trade and travel and many other things that other countries use. BS doe not solve the problems this involves.

Now I am not an economist, however I think it can be reasonably stated that if you choose to look at the economy as a whole at this moment yes we are doing fine and are system does appear to work, but I don't just look at the economy as a whole at this moment. I prefer to look at trends and analyze individual markets, and if I am correct in my understanding of other economist, we are looming on another depression.

We know that the overall stock market is going down. large drops then a series of small increases that never seems to offset the large drops. This brings in high trader volume and volatility which further destabilizes an already unstable market.

It is also a bad sign if the NYSE advance/decline has peaked and is now declining, although the S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average continue higher. This dynamic indicates that although the selective market indices are rising, the much broader market is foundering. It indicates that overall market performance is being driven by a minority of companies. There are other markets where we have other warnings.

please correct me on anything I may have wrong as I stated previously I am not an economist
 
Now I am not an economist, however I think it can be reasonably stated that if you choose to look at the economy as a whole at this moment yes we are doing fine and are system does appear to work, but I don't just look at the economy as a whole at this moment. I prefer to look at trends and analyze individual markets, and if I am correct in my understanding of other economist, we are looming on another depression.

We know that the overall stock market is going down. large drops then a series of small increases that never seems to offset the large drops. This brings in high trader volume and volatility which further destabilizes an already unstable market.

It is also a bad sign if the NYSE advance/decline has peaked and is now declining, although the S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average continue higher. This dynamic indicates that although the selective market indices are rising, the much broader market is foundering. It indicates that overall market performance is being driven by a minority of companies. There are other markets where we have other warnings.

please correct me on anything I may have wrong as I stated previously I am not an economist

There are rather large imbalances in the international and national economies. That much is true. We also have spent much more, run up inordinate debt and committed larger sums, than we should have. Rates are near zero as is real inflation. There is more money around than the economy can use. That way we are not as immunized to economic shocks, as we should be.

And there are a number of shock waiting to happen. The Brics are wobbling with China on the brink. The EU has an absurd currency system and imbalances it seems not able to manage. In South America important economies are teetering.

So the stock market is reacting. That is, what you would expect.
 
Well someone's certainly frustrated. The primary is essentially over and no Sanders wont win Calfornia with 61% of the vote lol.

Your 2 opinions and 1 incorrect approximation have been noted.
 
There are rather large imbalances in the international and national economies. That much is true. We also have spent much more, run up inordinate debt and committed larger sums, than we should have. Rates are near zero as is real inflation. There is more money around than the economy can use. That way we are not as immunized to economic shocks, as we should be.

And there are a number of shock waiting to happen. The Brics are wobbling with China on the brink. The EU has an absurd currency system and imbalances it seems not able to manage. In South America important economies are teetering.

So the stock market is reacting. That is, what you would expect.

And is such a negative reaction a bad sign of an impending economic collapse? at least in certain markets? and if there are such large imbalances shouldn't we attempt to regulate them before they cause such negative affects on the economy?
 
Your 2 opinions and 1 incorrect approximation have been noted.

Is there any chance you wont allege voter fraud if Clinton wins California? Also by what margin do you think Sanders will win New Jersey?
 
And is such a negative reaction a bad sign of an impending economic collapse? at least in certain markets? and if there are such large imbalances shouldn't we attempt to regulate them before they cause such negative affects on the economy?

Regulate them? Which markets?
 
Regulate them? Which markets?

There are rather large imbalances in the international and national economies. That much is true. We also have spent much more, run up inordinate debt and committed larger sums, than we should have. Rates are near zero as is real inflation. There is more money around than the economy can use. That way we are not as immunized to economic shocks, as we should be.

And there are a number of shock waiting to happen. The Brics are wobbling with China on the brink. The EU has an absurd currency system and imbalances it seems not able to manage. In South America important economies are teetering.

So the stock market is reacting. That is, what you would expect.



these economies with large imbalances. the markets that capitalism has failed to self regulate, for example banking.
 
these economies with large imbalances. the markets that capitalism has failed to self regulate, for example banking.

Banking? The financial markets and companies are among the most highly regulated sectors in the world. Get real. The problem is not that banks are under regulated. It is that governments have created a maze of regulation that doesn't work and possibly is itself a cause of the problems.
 
Banking? The financial markets and companies are among the most highly regulated sectors in the world. Get real. The problem is not that banks are under regulated. It is that governments have created a maze of regulation that doesn't work and possibly is itself a cause of the problems.

They are so regulated that they become too big to fail and then proceeded to be allowed to make risky investments with my money causing the government to bail them out? are there dumb regulations that simply make business harder to do without any positive development, i am as in favor of getting rid of those as i am of breaking up anything that is to big to fail and regulating markets that do a **** job of regulating themselves, or directly affect public health.
 
They are so regulated that they become too big to fail and then proceeded to be allowed to make risky investments with my money causing the government to bail them out? are there dumb regulations that simply make business harder to do without any positive development, i am as in favor of getting rid of those as i am of breaking up anything that is to big to fail and regulating markets that do a **** job of regulating themselves, or directly affect public health.

Anything to big to fail? Many countries fit that category and there are a number teetering at the brink.
 
That is pretty sad. I mean, Clinton is bad news. There is no doubt about that. But the socialist BS is not what we need running the country. The Europeans tried it and lost their shirts. Why in God's name would we want to wreck the economy with something that has been shown to be the wrong way?

The Europeans lost their shirts? No they haven't, the most democratic socialist nation on earth- Denmark, has a thriving economy, and it's people are considered some of the happiest on the planet. I don't think democratic socialism would work here, but saying left leaning policies haven't worked for Europe is not accurate. They haven't worked for some countries- Greece took it way too far way too fast, but the rest are a slow progression. Clinton also isn't bad news. What about Clinton do you dislike? She is a centrist, and obviously much more honest than Trump.
 
The Europeans lost their shirts? No they haven't, the most democratic socialist nation on earth- Denmark, has a thriving economy, and it's people are considered some of the happiest on the planet. I don't think democratic socialism would work here, but saying left leaning policies haven't worked for Europe is not accurate. They haven't worked for some countries- Greece took it way too far way too fast, but the rest are a slow progression. Clinton also isn't bad news. What about Clinton do you dislike? She is a centrist, and obviously much more honest than Trump.

Denmark is a small country little larger than a city, in fact with a relatively homogenous population. In spite of that it has a lower gdp per capita than the US and much less than more thriving areas there and happiness is rather a wishy washy index that is rather hard to compare. But I admit Denmark is not one of the EU countries I have had a lot to do with or studied in detail. Germany or Greece are two i have. And in both social programs have had to be rolled back leaving the populations that had made their life plans based on the government pledges under insured, sinking health care availability and with much reduced cash flow, while faced with the prospect of further falling standards of living. The young are handicapped by zero interest on savings and the elderly cannot change anything anymore.
Norway says it must exploit gas and oilfields in deep-water environmentally protected habitat that is the largest breeding and fishing grounds for the EU, if it wants to keep up payments on its social programs and Finnland is preparing termination of the programs and their replacement by a minimum income system. The reason again is that the present social system is unsustainable.
 
Anything to big to fail? Many countries fit that category and there are a number teetering at the brink.

Breaking up a country doesn't make any sense seeing as that is the thing that is affected by the too company that is to big to fail.
 
Denmark is a small country little larger than a city, in fact with a relatively homogenous population. In spite of that it has a lower gdp per capita than the US and much less than more thriving areas there and happiness is rather a wishy washy index that is rather hard to compare. But I admit Denmark is not one of the EU countries I have had a lot to do with or studied in detail. Germany or Greece are two i have. And in both social programs have had to be rolled back leaving the populations that had made their life plans based on the government pledges under insured, sinking health care availability and with much reduced cash flow, while faced with the prospect of further falling standards of living. The young are handicapped by zero interest on savings and the elderly cannot change anything anymore.
Norway says it must exploit gas and oilfields in deep-water environmentally protected habitat that is the largest breeding and fishing grounds for the EU, if it wants to keep up payments on its social programs and Finnland is preparing termination of the programs and their replacement by a minimum income system. The reason again is that the present social system is unsustainable.

is a system of corruption and and economic collapses sustainable? we should try balancing economic ability of the country and social programs. yes, of course struggling EU economies should roll back social programs and instead invest that money in economic growth, then when they can go back to affording it move social programs up again, it doesn't have to be socialism or capitalism it can be a fluid mixed economy.
 
Breaking up a country doesn't make any sense seeing as that is the thing that is affected by the too company that is to big to fail.

Maybe. But it also does not make sense to allow the country to run up a debt that could make the question virulent.
 
is a system of corruption and and economic collapses sustainable? we should try balancing economic ability of the country and social programs. yes, of course struggling EU economies should roll back social programs and instead invest that money in economic growth, then when they can go back to affording it move social programs up again, it doesn't have to be socialism or capitalism it can be a fluid mixed economy.

No. Collapse is not sustainable. All you can hope for at the end is a dead cat bounce finale. ;)

"Social programs" that are only there to fortify the efficiency of the society are not really social programs. Social activity is consumptive by its very nature. Were the program to stabilize the economy, that would be investment and depending on the details possibly a public good. It is important to make the distinction between investment and consumption in this respect. The line is usually blurred by governments to be able to argue the policies they want to promise in order to be reelected.
 
And he has NO hope of winning !!! :lamo

Very good now we can focus on the Congressional races.

Since Gary Johnson will probably draw more voters from Trump than Clinton and because the Republicans are outnumbered Demographically Clinton has it and the Republican Party has been turned in on themselves for their behavior.

Ryan has six more months as Speaker.

Lets go out and vote Democrat (how boring.)

Where are you Trump Democrats?

Trying to support both Parties equally? Well, there'll be none of that.

When the Democrats screw up then I'll get to to do this to them too but I'm not looking for them to screw up.
 
Very good now we can focus on the Congressional races.

Since Gary Johnson will probably draw more voters from Trump than Clinton and because the Republicans are outnumbered Demographically Clinton has it and the Republican Party has been turned in on themselves for their behavior.

Ryan has six more months as Speaker.

Lets go out and vote Democrat (how boring.)

Where are you Trump Democrats?

Trying to support both Parties equally? Well, there'll be none of that.

When the Democrats screw up then I'll get to to do this to them too but I'm not looking for them to screw up.

What will change they screwed up every time !:lamo
 
What will change they screwed up every time !:lamo

How have the Democrats screwed up?

I admit Benghazi was pretty sick but who would have intended this happening even the Reprobates who cut funding except after the fact.

They screwed up by loosing in 2000.

They let Bush do the hard job, but he screwed up and gave Obama a hard job.

Now let's all be very nice to the lady, the first woman President and give her everything she asks for except a ban on assault weapons. If she signs a ban on assault weapons then she screwed up. The American people need to be well armed and it would be just time for Trump and you would have Trump for the Tribulation (2020.)
 
Last edited:
Maybe. But it also does not make sense to allow the country to run up a debt that could make the question virulent.

I agree with you in general but a country plays by different rules, it makes no sense to run a country like a business as a business is for a profit and a government is supposed to be for its citizens, when a company runs up vasts amounts of debt it should go under and be swallowed by better run businesses with better products and or services. Said company should not be bailed out by the government, and if the company is so big that it failing would drag the economy under the water that company is too big to exist. It doesn't make sense to do that with a country because the country is the large object that these corporations and people prop up to say a country is to big to fail doesn't make any sense because all country's are too big to fail
 
Back
Top Bottom