This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.

Welcome to Our Community

Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.

the USA thread -

Discussion in 'Dark Tranquillity' started by La Rocque, May 11, 2007.

  1. DisplayofCharacter

    DisplayofCharacter Are You Scared Enough?

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    647
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Northern New Jersey (at Uni)
    When it was all said and done, I'm not extremely impressed by the results of Super Tuesday. Clinton and Obama are still neck and neck, though I though Obama had a good showing, he won more states overall than Clinton did, he just didn't win more "big" states (population-wise, I assume) like California, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. What I find disappointing is for the Democratic party to be almost in the exact same spot it was going in - in an almost 50/50 split. Obama gained a little bit of ground, but certainly not enough for a lead. While interesting, I think this just means the Democratic party is going to have to wait.

    For the Republicans: Nominate McCain already and get it over with. Huckabee is lulz-worthy (especially his economic policies - that's a head trip), and Romney won't be able to pull it out at this point.

    (IMO)
     
  2. QRV

    QRV historyphobic

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2005
    Messages:
    872
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Yeah, that's why I decided not to change it.
     
  3. DisplayofCharacter

    DisplayofCharacter Are You Scared Enough?

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    647
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Northern New Jersey (at Uni)
    Obama won a primary and a caucus last night/yesterday to take his winning streak up to ten straight. Just thought it was interesting, they're saying now that Clinton has to take Texas or Ohio to have a shot again.

    Also, Fidel Castro stepped down. Bush wants a democratic change, which is unlikely. The Cuban government has been said to want to elect Fidel's (younger) brother Raul. Likely this will not end the US embargo.

    Just thought I just update the thread.
     
  4. MagSec4

    MagSec4 .:..::.: :.::..:.

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Messages:
    5,107
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Bogotá & New york
    ORly? in Cuba?

    The U.S. is such a child about things sometimes..
    [size=-2](My official contribution to "the USA thread")[/size]
     
  5. QRV

    QRV historyphobic

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2005
    Messages:
    872
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    #1 Cuba has been a socialist zombie for almost 20 years, so Fidel's resignation (and eventual death) doesn't mean but the end of its artificial breather.
    #2 Obama talked about lifting the embargo (although I don't find it trusty at all).
    #3 Raúl Castro is a very weak leader (plus he's really old, so he won't last much).
    #4 Who gives a shit?
     
  6. MagSec4

    MagSec4 .:..::.: :.::..:.

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Messages:
    5,107
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Bogotá & New york
    Your sister does.
    She told me last night she was planning to move to Cuba after Easter.
     
  7. QRV

    QRV historyphobic

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2005
    Messages:
    872
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    It's such a good thing I don't have a sister, else she'd be leaving for the Cuban dream of becoming a really good but pennyless doctor.

    Seriously, I know people who have done that. Don't know how can they manage to live in such a depressing place. (I know Mexico is no paradise - but really, Cuba? that sucks)
     
  8. Siren

    Siren Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2001
    Messages:
    9,341
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You'd be surprised with how many greek communists think of Cuba as paradise, bring Cuba as an example of how communism is good and works, and have their dream vacation in Cuba (of course they come back).
     
  9. QRV

    QRV historyphobic

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2005
    Messages:
    872
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Well, it could have worked, but the embargo fucked things up for them. That and the fact no government wanted to have anything to do with a leader who was ready to sacrifice the entire island just to bring down the US of A and win a definitive victory for communism (even Krushev was afraid of him). Other than that, yeah, Cuba has a great education system, almost no corruption and a model organization.

    Many Latin American communists also think of Cuba as a paradise. And they're mostly radical, undisciplined and violent idiots. Really, the place is so fucking depressing that normally there's a bunch of women waiting for foreigners at the airport, each hoping to marry one of them so they can get out of there. I once had a Cuban teacher and I told him I was planning a small trip to Cuba, and he gave me a really big bunch of medicines to deliver to his family. As it turned out, I couldn't go there, but some friends of mine did and delivered the medicines. When they came back, they told me nothing but really sad tales, specially those of my teacher's family. They didn't have a particularly comfortable vacation there.

    Cuba is a doomed island, with or without Fidel. But communist enthusiasts need not worry: Vlad Putin is stringing together the old Soviet Union, so we can expect either a new Cold War or a Third World War.
     
  10. DisplayofCharacter

    DisplayofCharacter Are You Scared Enough?

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    647
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Northern New Jersey (at Uni)
    I do, to spur on conversation as it just did. :p

    I thought it was interesting though. I was half-expecting a US military coup to implant some "democratic" seeds.

    USA shot down that spy satellite today too. I wonder what was on it that required its destruction. I know they said its because of hazardous materials, but I think that's a partial truth. Decaying orbit FTW.
     
  11. La Rocque

    La Rocque I am that I am

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    an exit to eternal summer slacking
    Another holier-than-thou politician aka 'Client 9' gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar,
    another hypocrite bites the dust :heh:
     
  12. La Rocque

    La Rocque I am that I am

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    an exit to eternal summer slacking
    Let's see ...
    AIG gets $85 billion
    Bear Stearns $29 billion
    Fannie May/Freddie Mac $200 to $500 billion
    there are more, plus the US Treasury wants to bail out banks
    in foreign countries who took on risky investments(loans)

    Why bail out these money grubbing scum?
    Failure is part of how Capitalism works
    We're turning into a Socialist Country

    Now McCain is not going to campaign for president
    or debate Obama as scheduled
    so he can be in DC to help solve this problem
    he and the Republicans caused
    I wonder if Obama's lead in the polls has anything to do with his running away?
     
  13. rahvin

    rahvin keeper of the flame

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    17,576
    Likes Received:
    245
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    safe but not far from the city
    But he's still putting Obama in a bit of a pickle: will people be able to understand that avoiding the debate is not necessarily a sign of exceptional concern with the economy?
     
  14. Matse

    Matse Customized individuum

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    929
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Not really, maybe the costs of the war and the not so good economy enhanced the problems now, but the biggest cause were banks that did not realize what they did and the world economy that is slowing down currently mainly due to rising prices for raw materials.
     
  15. Ozzloaf

    Ozzloaf Art Geek

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,771
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    The McCain going to DC thing is SOOOOO stupid.
    You understand that McCain is senator... NOT an economist. He has NO fucking power to stop the economy crisis. As little power as we do.
    I think he's just scared to debate Obama. :lol:
     
  16. Taliesin

    Taliesin Immaturity Aside

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2002
    Messages:
    6,313
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The Kop!
    Ahmagawd.. go look in the basement.. I think the russians are here!

    The question is not whose fault it was, the question is, what makes most sense now that the shit's hit the fan. Now I dont even pretend to know what's the best solution, but these companies handled a lot of money and provided a lot of services, for a lot of people. Letting those companies die would mean make the money and services die for those people, too. The question is, what would hurt more, the money pumped into those companies or to let them die. Maybe hyena has a more elaborated opinion on this ;)
     
  17. hyena

    hyena counterclockwise

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2002
    Messages:
    6,913
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    -
    yeah, i do. :)

    i am in a hurry as of now so i'll be very brief and try not to be too technical.

    the reason behind the current crisis can be summarized in "bad regulation", IMHO. this doesn't mean that market economies need to be constrained further; it just means that the existing laws have not been enforced correctly, party because of greed and largely because of ignorance. in most countries, the law mandates that banks have to hold a buffer of capital which immunizes them against losses connected to loans they give out. this buffer is calculated by looking at the value of the loans and weighting them to take risk into account: i.e. if i lend 100 euros to the European Investment Bank, which is a supernational institution financed by European governments, with a default risk that approximates zero, i really just need to hold - say - 1 euro as precautionary capital (probability-weighted expected loss). on the other hand, if I lend 100 euros to my neighbor, who is a known gambler and drug addict, i need to stock 100 more euros against it, assuming that his probability of defaulting on me is 1. now, this is a very simplistic example, but it's the gist of what happened: loans were not correctly weighted for risk, also thanks to the inherent complexities of the originate-to-distribute model, hence the disaster. supervisors couldn't keep up with financial technology and had no idea as to how the weights had to be corrected; pressure on the part of over-greedy banks made the rest.

    as for whether failure or bailout is a better solution, i cannot give an answer as an economist as it's a political problem. it's really just a question of opinions. letting the US financial system fail, as it is, would almost certainly mean - besides impoverishment of specific individuals - a major shift in the balance of power between the US, China and Russia. look at the past week: Lehman fails, the Chinese cut their interest rates, the Orange Coalition in Ukraine collapses. Then the Chinese buy 20% of the new Morgan Stanley bank holding group, the Russians fire guns in the Caucasus, Congress works on the bailout. Now, whether one considers these shifts as inevitable or would rather keep the balance of power in favor of the US and, largely speaking, the West (although I'm not sure at all of this, maybe less of America means more of Europe, this is completely unclear to me) it's just a matter of politics, so everyone is going to have a different opinion independent of the technicalities.
     
  18. Lina

    Lina kickass elizabethan style

    Joined:
    May 2, 2001
    Messages:
    11,123
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Maryland, U.S.
    Yes, but there was no government oversight because of Republicans' push for deregulation.
     
  19. stizzleomnibus

    stizzleomnibus Decisively Human

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2008
    Messages:
    467
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    The Void
    An interesting thing to note about the "Republican" push for deregulation. Having done my reconnoitered the internet, it would appear that, while the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was in fact proposed by Republicans, it passed on a largely bipartisan vote. The Dems got behind it in exchange for support for changes to the Community Reinvestment Act (which some feel forced risky lending, though I don't really think that banks needed to be strong-armed into that anyway). The GLB Act and the amendments to the CRA were both signed by a Democratic president.

    I'm not taking a side here. Politicians, and the wealthy businessmen that own them, are rarely working for anyone but themselves.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
     
  20. Lina

    Lina kickass elizabethan style

    Joined:
    May 2, 2001
    Messages:
    11,123
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Maryland, U.S.
    You're right that Clinton is also to blame for signing it. But it had a veto-proof majority in Congress, so his veto would've only been symbolic. In an effort to save his reputation after the whole Monica Lewinsky thing, he probably felt pressured to "accomplish" stuff, so on his instruction the congressional Democrats at least insisted upon the CRA language that Gramm had resisted for years -- a throw-them-a-bone kind of thing.

    But both the House and Senate voted along party lines on the original bills before the conference committee, so to say that Democrats are as much in favor of deregulation and less oversight as Republicans is totally disingenuous. That said, I wish the Democrats had stuck to their guns rather than giving in to the accusations of being "obstructionists" and compromising. Fuck compromise.
     

Share This Page