• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT3| 1,000 Years of Darkness and Nuclear Fallout

Status
Not open for further replies.

Diablos

Member
To be fair, Obamacare problems negatively impacted more people's immediate lives than the shutdown did.
So being threatened by a major US political party to default if their ransom (quite literally speaking) isn't met, triggering not only a national crisis but an international one as well, is less important than a glitchy website and embarrasingly bad health plans being shitcanned? That's your position?

Do you realize how unprecedented and outright barbaric the former is? It is behavior that is completely unacceptable for our nation given our (apparent) stature. The US died a little bit this year. We've got people from both sides of the aisle admitting things haven't been this dire since the Civil War. No matter how you spin it this is an ongoing crisis (and a manufactured one at that) which has implications that could harm us a lot more than the botched ACA rollout ever has or potentially could.
 
Honestly, I wouldn't even care at this point.

I'm starting to become apathetic of what happens when people get burned for their ignorance and stupidity.

This is a really bad attitude. No major policy change is gonna pass anytime soon 2008 was the last shot. But you have to grind though these years and make sure the other side doesn't gain any ground in their policy objectives. There can be small wins (bit of reversal on the sequester) during this period but there are very few periods like the 111th.

Also, It seems that too many people think politics are too centered on Washington and congress and especially political parties. There are many avenues to effect change when congress doesn't work. Look to the states where the dems have a good chance at undoing some of 2010 (Florida, Penn, Ohio, Michigan) even if congress does not change. That's progress for millions and will create better progress and a bench of future candidates for future elections.

One thing the left really needs to do is start to learn from movement politics rather than the party politics of washington. Look to the original progressive movement, look to civil rights, the gay rights movement and even the conservative movement to see how to really change things.
 
I think "the era of big government is over" was probably the stupidest thing said by a democratic politician in the last 20 years.

Its devoid of meaning and gave the rhetorical homefield advantage to the republicans that were kind of just coming out of in the warren/income inequality era of the party
 

Diablos

Member
I think "the era of big government is over" was probably the stupidest thing said by a democratic politician in the last 20 years.

Its devoid of meaning and gave the rhetorical homefield advantage to the republicans that were kind of just coming out of in the warren/income inequality era of the party
b-b-but Clinton shifted to the 'center' and "GOT THINGS DONE" (rolled over gutted the federal Government etc. while Gingrich got the last laugh).

We were better off having him than a GOPer, sure... and his political prowess will be vital for 2016 as it has been for so many things in the past... but his strategy of embracing the then-GOP's most populist positions and essentially leaving them with no framework whatsoever, I think, played a significant role in helping them become desperate and take even more hard-line positions.
 
So being threatened by a major US political party to default if their ransom (quite literally speaking) isn't met, triggering not only a national crisis but an international one as well, is less important than a glitchy website and embarrasingly bad health plans being shitcanned? That's your position?

Do you realize how unprecedented and outright barbaric the former is? It is behavior that is completely unacceptable for our nation given our (apparent) stature. The US died a little bit this year. We've got people from both sides of the aisle admitting things haven't been this dire since the Civil War. No matter how you spin it this is an ongoing crisis (and a manufactured one at that) which has implications that could harm us a lot more than the botched ACA rollout ever has or potentially could.

We were never going to default, as I said over and over during the shutdown. Whereas there are 5mil+ people who have lost their insurance plans and plenty of middle class people who can't afford anything on the exchange. So yes, I could definitely see why this has done so much damage.

I realize most people aren't fucked by the ACA, my point is that from a money perspective more people were hurt more by the ACA than the shutdown.
 

KingK

Member
WHY

A website not working is more critical than some 50 people who nearly caused another recession? Really?

Again:

bDsuuCU.gif


I know it is a year out, and I know these things can change on a dime. But given how insane the shutdown was and what the implications would have been had it not been resolved, it is downright terrifying that public opinion has already totally forgotten about that lesson and how toxic a small sect of the GOP is to not only the US but the global economy.

The fuck? So fucking up the code on a website launch for a program that's giving millions of people health care is a more severe transgression than shutting down the government and threatening a terrorist attack on the world economy if legislative demands to deny those millions healthcare aren't met? I mean, the GOP has been acting like cartoon villains more blatantly than I've ever seen in any political party in my life the last couple years, and half the country is eating it up. I don't get it.
 

Diablos

Member
We were never going to default, as I said over and over during the shutdown. Whereas there are 5mil+ people who have lost their insurance plans and plenty of middle class people who can't afford anything on the exchange. So yes, I could definitely see why this has done so much damage.

I realize most people aren't fucked by the ACA, my point is that from a money perspective more people were hurt more by the ACA than the shutdown.
That we even got so close to defaulting -- political prose or not -- is cause enough for serious concern. You don't play games like that with the global economy (though for some politicians in DC, it was war, which is even more unsettling). It's like going to the G-20 and waving an automatic rifle around promising war even though you end up doing nothing; it harms your reputation and makes you look like a complete loon who simply cannot be taken seriously. Every time we do this we damage our standing in the world just a little more. It gives even more credence to, for example, global economists and other superpowers throwing up their hands and realizing that yes, it is time to stop making the USD a reserve currency. You can't possibly tell me that there's no risk to this type of behavior the GOP is solely responsible for, that it isn't damaging to the American public like some ACA rollout woes have been (and frankly the ACA 'damage' to the American health insurance policyholder is really overblown, UNLIKE unprecedented perverse obstructionism by the GOP which is a lasting, real threat to our nation).

The ACA, despite its issues and Obama's inability to ensure a smooth rollout after three hard-fought years (an embarrassment to say the least) still ties into a just and noble cause: ensuring as many Americans as possible have access to health care, and are granted protections against the worst practices witnessed in the insurance industry.

What does the shutdown speak to? Unadulterated greed, hatred, ideology. It did nothing for the economy. It did nothing for political discourse. It did nothing to help any single American or improve their quality of life, yet it cost us at least $24 billion and, again, only further hinders our reputation and credibility. It never had a goal other than being as obstructionist as possible, US economy and government be damned.

As for PPACA, every major social program rolled out in the US has had problems. That doesn't make it an inherently bad thing particularly when you take a step back and look at what it was designed to do.

I'm tired of people blaming Obama's leadership qualities or lack thereof. Maybe he's not as good of a leader as we would have hoped, but there comes a point where you, as a member of the House, as a Senator, as a Governor, as a fucking lobbyist, have to be a rational human being and not resort to such barbaric tactics just because you don't like the guy in the White House. What we've seen this year by some of these people is beyond the pale, and there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for it. NONE. The only way Obama can be a "good leader" to an alarming amount of people is if he completely rolls over and gives into GOP demands.
 
The GOP hates Obama so much that they were willing to fuck over the 1% (nevermind the 99%) in the process.

Let that sink in for a moment.

The party of the rich hates one man so much that they're willing to fuck over everyone

If there was ever one question I wanted to ask 'Bams and get the absolute 100 percent truth is to why he continues to want to work with these ass clowns.
 

Diablos

Member
Pretty much, I'd love to know too.

To take PD's position and say "nah, they'll never really go as far as defaulting" is like saying there's no harm in a suicidal person having only one leg over the ledge. Nothing to worry about, right?
 
WHY

A website not working is more critical than some 50 people who nearly caused another recession? Really?

Again:

bDsuuCU.gif


I know it is a year out, and I know these things can change on a dime. But given how insane the shutdown was and what the implications would have been had it not been resolved, it is downright terrifying that public opinion has already totally forgotten about that lesson and how toxic a small sect of the GOP is to not only the US but the global economy.

That we even got so close to defaulting -- political prose or not -- is cause enough for serious concern. You don't play games like that with the global economy (though for some politicians in DC, it was war, which is even more unsettling). It's like going to the G-20 and waving an automatic rifle around promising war even though you end up doing nothing; it harms your reputation and makes you look like a complete loon who simply cannot be taken seriously. Every time we do this we damage our standing in the world just a little more. It gives even more credence to, for example, global economists and other superpowers throwing up their hands and realizing that yes, it is time to stop making the USD a reserve currency. You can't possibly tell me that there's no risk to this type of behavior the GOP is solely responsible for, that it isn't damaging to the American public like some ACA rollout woes have been (and frankly the ACA 'damage' to the American health insurance policyholder is really overblown, UNLIKE unprecedented perverse obstructionism by the GOP which is a lasting, real threat to our nation).

The ACA, despite its issues and Obama's inability to ensure a smooth rollout after three hard-fought years (an embarrassment to say the least) still ties into a just and noble cause: ensuring as many Americans as possible have access to health care, and are granted protections against the worst practices witnessed in the insurance industry.

What does the shutdown speak to? Unadulterated greed, hatred, ideology. It did nothing for the economy. It did nothing for political discourse. It did nothing to help any single American or improve their quality of life, yet it cost us at least $24 billion and, again, only further hinders our reputation and credibility. It never had a goal other than being as obstructionist as possible, US economy and government be damned.

As for PPACA, every major social program rolled out in the US has had problems. That doesn't make it an inherently bad thing particularly when you take a step back and look at what it was designed to do.

I'm tired of people blaming Obama's leadership qualities or lack thereof. Maybe he's not as good of a leader as we would have hoped, but there comes a point where you, as a member of the House, as a Senator, as a Governor, as a fucking lobbyist, have to be a rational human being and not resort to such barbaric tactics just because you don't like the guy in the White House. What we've seen this year by some of these people is beyond the pale, and there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for it. NONE. The only way Obama can be a "good leader" to an alarming amount of people is if he completely rolls over and gives into GOP demands.
:lol
 
They sure aren't, and it's a pity that CNN is the only polling outfit out there.
What's interesting is the numbers with women are about the same as they were 2 months ago, all the movement in this poll came from men.

I'm just saying as a white male I wouldn't be opposed to eliminating male suffrage.
 
What's interesting is the numbers with women are about the same as they were 2 months ago, all the movement in this poll came from men.

I'm just saying as a white male I wouldn't be opposed to eliminating male suffrage.

Alternately, eliminate male suffrage except if they have proof of at least one non-white person in their biological ancestry within 2 generations.
 
The healthcare fiasco would have been avoided if some competent private companies had done it.

Like a partnership between visa and a large retailer that is comfortable selling with millions of consumer transactions. Someone everyone trusts, like target.
 

Diablos

Member
The healthcare fiasco would have been avoided if some competent private companies had done it.

Like a partnership between visa and a large retailer that is comfortable selling with millions of consumer transactions. Someone everyone trusts, like target.
Ah ha ha.

Like I said in the other thread, when I was 22 or something (and not much credit history) I applied for a card and was denied. Somehow I was still a part of the breach, so I get free credit monitoring for a year according to an e-mail I just got from Target. lol
 
Damn, that CNN poll is all over the webby webs. Are they not aware of the fact that there are other pollsters?
Yeah funny how the polls that still had Dems leading weren't mentioned nearly as much. CNN's findings are a clear outlier.

Btw Karl Rove made his predictions for 2014 - a gain of 1 in governorships by the Democrats, a gain of 6-10 seats in the House by Republicans and control of the Senate will come down to a runoff election in Louisiana. The governors' prediction is pretty optimistic considering Corbett (PA), Snyder (MI), Scott (FL) and LePage (ME) are all in the shithole while Arkansas is the only obvious pickup for the GOP. The House prediction is more or less in Sabato's ballpark, though in the best way for Republicans (realistically I think it'll be 6-10 for the Democrats unless the tide changes), and the Senate scenario is plausible but funny because it basically concedes Kay Hagan's going to win in North Carolina.

But we all know the networks will call Ohio too early so who knows.
 
PD Porn alert:

WASHINGTON -Michelle Obama has had enough. According to a bombshell new report, the First Lady and Barack Obama are sleeping in separate White House bedrooms. Michelle is also preparing to boot her hubby of 21 years out of their ritzy Chicago home - and seriously discussing divorce.

“The smart money says the marriage is doomed,” a source told the National Enquirer. “Barack and Michelle have had a rocky go for years and mainly stayed together for their daughters and his political career. “But now Michelle is mad AS hell. She feels violated in front of the whole world, and screamed at him, ‘I’ve had enough.’ “She’s met with divorce lawyers and told Barack that she wants a life apart from him. “Michelle will stay in the White House for the rest of Barack’s term for appearances’ sake, but she made it clear they’ll be leading separate lives.

“She’s moving into one of the vacant bedrooms in the family’s private living quarters, and she’s preparing to move his clothes and personal things out of their million-dollar house in Chicago.” Michelle was left furious after Barack was photographed brazenly flirting with Denmark’s dishy female prime minister, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, during the service for former South African president Nelson Mandela. Obama, 52, laughed and whispered with the 46-year-old Danish beauty throughout the solemn ceremony, at one point cavalierly caressing her shoulder. “Barack already had enough headaches with his public approval rating plummeting after the disastrous rollout of his ‘Obamacare’ health plan. Now he’s walked smack into the worst marital crisis of his life,” said the White House insider..

http://www.nation.com.pk/entertainment/25-Dec-2013/obama-michelle-living-apart

I highly recommend clicking that link and reading the comments.

These people are missing so many screws, hah.
 
Yeah funny how the polls that still had Dems leading weren't mentioned nearly as much. CNN's findings are a clear outlier.

Btw Karl Rove made his predictions for 2014 - a gain of 1 in governorships by the Democrats, a gain of 6-10 seats in the House by Republicans and control of the Senate will come down to a runoff election in Louisiana. The governors' prediction is pretty optimistic considering Corbett (PA), Snyder (MI), Scott (FL) and LePage (ME) are all in the shithole while Arkansas is the only obvious pickup for the GOP. The House prediction is more or less in Sabato's ballpark, though in the best way for Republicans (realistically I think it'll be 6-10 for the Democrats unless the tide changes), and the Senate scenario is plausible but funny because it basically concedes Kay Hagan's going to win in North Carolina.

But we all know the networks will call Ohio too early so who knows.

Rove says Hagan's safe?
she's doomed

(too easy)
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Here's some non-shitty polling:

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Dec. 3-8 among 2,001 adults, finds majorities say it is more important to maintain spending on Social Security and Medicare and programs to help the poor than to take steps to reduce the budget deficit. Nearly seven-in-ten (69%) say it is more important to maintain current Social Security and Medicare benefits than to reduce the deficit, while 59% prioritize keeping current levels of spending for programs that help the poor and needy over deficit reduction.

The numbers on the poor are pretty surprising to me. After all the years of the right-wing shitting on the poor and poor-related programs, I thought the number would be far lower. Faith in humanity slightly restored.
 
Here's some non-shitty polling:



The numbers on the poor are pretty surprising to me. After all the years of the right-wing shitting on the poor and poor-related programs, I thought the number would be far lower. Faith in humanity slightly restored.
This poll also had Democrats leading the generic ballot by 4.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Ryan added, "What I love about the pope is he is triggering the exact kind of dialogue we ought to be having."

Ryan said he did not consider Francis a Marxist, as talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh alleged. Ryan said Francis grew up under the Peronist movement in Argentina, where the state took a leading role in the economy.

"The guy is from Argentina, they haven't had real capitalism in Argentina," Ryan said. "They have crony capitalism in Argentina. They don't have a true free enterprise system."

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statep...sino-b99167734z1-236595381.html#ixzz2odGrz5He

You know, I hear that sort of thing all the time from right-wingers, but how does crony capitalism differ from a free enterprise system?
 
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/12/overlooked-trends-of-2013-101491.html?hp=pm_2

The most underappreciated and dangerous development of this past year has been the fusion of left and right populism in the United States. The simplest way to see this is to note three events. First, the left wing of the Democratic Party and the Tea Party members (who no longer have any coherent ideology) have joined forces to oppose the expansion of free trade agreements, all on the shortsighted view that free trade spells the loss of jobs at home, without any awareness of the huge growth that results. Second is the endless calls for further redistribution made by Pope Francis on the one hand and Paul Krugman on the other. In this instance, gains from cooperation are denigrated as “trickle-down economics.” Third, the systematic destruction of the patent system is supported by a coalition that unites big business, staunch libertarians and liberal leaders in and out of government. In all those cases, the classical liberal ideals of open borders, free trade, voluntary exchange and private property take a back seat to short-term initiatives that will only lead to further economic stagnation and higher levels of unemployment. Right now, this coalition looks to be unstoppable. Unless the trend is reversed, the United States shall enter into a prolonged period of gradual decline.

what
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statep...sino-b99167734z1-236595381.html#ixzz2odGrz5He

You know, I hear that sort of thing all the time from right-wingers, but how does crony capitalism differ from a free enterprise system?

According to Wikipedia:

Wikipedia said:
Crony capitalism is a term describing an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials.

"Free enterprise" redirects to "Capitalism," which is:

Wikipedia said:
an economic system in which trade, industry and the means of production are controlled by private owners with the goal of making profits in a market economy.

Laissez-faire economists, according to Wikipedia's article on crony capitalism,

Wikipedia said:
oppose crony capitalism as well, disparaging governmental favors as incompatible with a true free market. Laissez-faire advocates criticize the term as an ideologically motivated attempt to cast what is in their view the fundamental problem of government intervention or “investments” as an avoidable aberration; free-market advocates refer to governmental favoritism as "crony socialism", "venture socialism" or "corporatism, a modern form of mercantilism" to emphasize that the only way to run a profitable business in such systems is to have help from corrupt government officials. Even if the initial regulation was well-intentioned (to curb actual abuses), and even if the initial lobbying by corporations was well-intentioned (to reduce illogical regulations), the mixture of business and government stifle competition, a collusive result called regulatory capture. In his book The Myth of the Robber Barons, Burton W. Folsom, Jr. distinguished those that engage in crony capitalism—designated by him "political entrepreneurs"—from those who compete in the marketplace without special aid from government, whom he calls "market entrepreneurs" who succeed "by producing a quality product at a competitive price"

Investopedia defines "crony capitalism" as follows:

Investopedia said:
A description of capitalist society as being based on the close relationships between businessmen and the state. Instead of success being determined by a free market and the rule of law, the success of a business is dependent on the favoritism that is shown to it by the ruling government in the form of tax breaks, government grants and other incentives.

Here's how David Stockman described "crony capitalism" in an interview by Bill Moyers in 2012:

David Stockman said:
Crony capitalism is about the aggressive and proactive use of political resources, lobbying, campaign contributions, influence-peddling of one type or another to gain something from the governmental process that wouldn't otherwise be achievable in the market. And as the time has progressed over the last two or three decades, I think it's gotten much worse. Money dominates politics.

And as a result, we have neither capitalism or democracy. . . .

We have crony capitalism
, which is the worst. It's not a free market. There isn't risk taking in the sense that if you succeed, you keep your rewards, if you fail, you accept the consequences. Look what the bailout was in 2008.

There was clearly reckless, speculative behavior going on for years on Wall Street. And then when the consequence finally came, the Treasury stepped in and the Fed stepped in. Everything was bailed out and the game was restarted. And I think that was a huge mistake.

...

And I think it's important to put the word crony capitalism on there. Because free-market capitalism is a different thing. True free-market capitalists never go to Washington with their hand out. True free-market capitalists running a bank do not expect that every time they make a foolish mistake or they get themselves too leveraged or they end up with too many risky assets that don't work out, they don't expect to go to the Federal Reserve and get some cheap or free money and go on as before.

They expect consequences, maybe even failure of their firm, certainly loss of their bonuses, maybe the loss of their jobs. So we don't have free-market capitalism left in this country anymore.
We have everyone believing that if they can hire the right lobbyist, raise enough political action committee money, spend enough time prowling the halls of the Senate and the House and the office buildings, arguing for their parochial narrow interest -- that that is the way that will work out. And that is crony capitalism. It’s very dangerous and it seems to be becoming more embedded in our system.

Nicholas Kristof distinguished the terms in a New York Times op-ed in 2011:

Nicholas Kristof said:
I’m as passionate a believer in capitalism as anyone. My Krzysztofowicz cousins (who didn’t shorten the family name) lived in Poland, and their experience with Communism taught me that the way to raise living standards is capitalism.

But, in recent years, some financiers have chosen to live in a government-backed featherbed. Their platform seems to be socialism for tycoons and capitalism for the rest of us. They’re not evil at all. But when the system allows you more than your fair share, it’s human to grab. That’s what explains featherbedding by both unions and tycoons, and both are impediments to a well-functioning market economy.

...

Capitalism is so successful an economic system partly because of an internal discipline that allows for loss and even bankruptcy. It’s the possibility of failure that creates the opportunity for triumph. Yet many of America’s major banks are too big to fail, so they can privatize profits while socializing risk.

The upshot is that financial institutions boost leverage in search of supersize profits and bonuses. Banks pretend that risk is eliminated because it’s securitized. Rating agencies accept money to issue an imprimatur that turns out to be meaningless. The system teeters, and then the taxpayer rushes in to bail bankers out. Where’s the accountability?

...

So, yes, we face a threat to our capitalist system. But it’s not coming from half-naked anarchists manning the barricades at Occupy Wall Street protests. Rather, it comes from pinstriped apologists for a financial system that glides along without enough of the discipline of failure and that produces soaring inequality, socialist bank bailouts and unaccountable executives.

It’s time to take the crony out of capitalism, right here at home.

Now all that's just from the first page of search results for "crony capitalism." I'm sure someone with a deeper knowledge of economics can further elucidate the distinction.
 

Joe Molotov

Member
Now I have the title for my new book.

The Far Left and the Tea Party: An Unstoppable Coalition

Coming soon to the trunk of my car in the parking lot at the mall.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Now all that's just from the first page of search results for "crony capitalism." I'm sure someone with a deeper knowledge of economics can further elucidate the distinction.

I mean, I get the technical distinction, but I guess my question is, how does a supposedly free market system NOT end up as crony capitalism? I could be wrong, but I can't think of any instance in U.S. history where that wasn't the case.
 

Sibylus

Banned
I mean, I get the technical distinction, but I guess my question is, how does a supposedly free market system NOT end up as crony capitalism? I could be wrong, but I can't think of any instance in U.S. history where that wasn't the case.
Did you know magical thinking is literally magic? Much transformative. Such believe. Wow.
 
I mean, I get the technical distinction, but I guess my question is, how does a supposedly free market system NOT end up as crony capitalism? I could be wrong, but I can't think of any instance in U.S. history where that wasn't the case.

That's only because we've never had a true free market, man. In LibertarianDreamWorld, the market will work perfectly, monopolies won't develop, and everyone will earn what they deserve via the magic of supply and demand.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
I mean, I get the technical distinction, but I guess my question is, how does a supposedly free market system NOT end up as crony capitalism? I could be wrong, but I can't think of any instance in U.S. history where that wasn't the case.

Let's be clear on one point: initially, I took your question to concern the concepts involved. Now, I take your question to concern practical outcomes. What you refer to as the "technical distinction" is important, since the distinction between the concepts is important. If the "free enterprise system" concept is distinct from the "crony capitalism" concept, then the fact that one has inevitably resulted in the other doesn't necessarily mean that the one must inevitably result in the other. Instead, we can ask why that has been the outcome in the past, and try to devise a way to avoid it.*

As to your current question, I think the answer depends to an extent on the meaning of "crony capitalism." If you're going to have a state more than minimally involved in regulating business, regulatory capture (one of the meanings given to "crony capitalism" in the sources I quoted) and lobbying (another) are probably inevitable. If you're going to have a state more than minimally involved in ensuring the strength of aggregate economic indicators, then it seems very likely that that state will seek to bail out private businesses wtshtf (bailouts being an example of "crony capitalism" given in the sources quoted). Less inevitable, I think, is "crony capitalism" as political-benefits-for-politicians'-friends, though I'd guess US history (or world history generally) doesn't provide much support for that thought.

Now, in the context of Ryan's statement (which I've heard from other conservatives), the relevant question would be: Is there a distinction between U.S. economic policy ("real capitalism" or a "true free enterprise system," as Ryan would presumably describe it) and Argentinian economic policy ("crony capitalism," in his words) that can call into question the applicability of the pope's statements to the U.S. (or, more broadly, outside of Argentina)? That's an interesting question, and if anyone has some thoughts on it, I'd love to read them.

Did you know magical thinking is literally magic? Much transformative. Such believe. Wow.

That's only because we've never had a true free market, man. In LibertarianDreamWorld, the market will work perfectly, monopolies won't develop, and everyone will earn what they deserve via the magic of supply and demand.

You two called each other before school to coordinate, didn't you?

*As an analogy, consider George Lucas' statement that "All democracies turn into dictatorships."
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
I mean, I get the technical distinction, but I guess my question is, how does a supposedly free market system NOT end up as crony capitalism? I could be wrong, but I can't think of any instance in U.S. history where that wasn't the case.

Belief that eventually the advantages of competition will outweigh the advantages of co-operation. Which yeah, historically isn't true at all.

EDIT: Wait, my definition of crony capitalism is wrong. I thought it also included co-operation between businesses in the same industry
 

Sibylus

Banned
Federal judge upholds NSA's vast telephone data collection (Timothy M. Phelps, LAT)
The decision by Pauley, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Clinton, contrasts sharply in both conclusion and tone with a decision issued just a week earlier by U.S. District Court Judge Richard J. Leon in Washington, who declared the NSA’s program unconstitutional.

Both rulings are expected to be appealed, Leon’s to the D.C. Circuit and Pauley’s to the New York-based 2nd Circuit. Ultimately, whichever side loses in the appeals courts likely will ask the Supreme Court to review the case.

Leon, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, said he could not imagine a more “indiscriminate and arbitrary invasion” of the 4th Amendment’s protection from unreasonable searches. He called the NSA’s vast database of telephone call records an almost “Orwellian technology.”

Pauley, by contrast, said the NSA’s collection did not violate any constitutional rights. Relying on a 1979 Supreme Court precedent that Leon had brushed aside as outdated, Pauley said that the records the NSA has collected – information such as which numbers are called from which other numbers and how long the calls last – have no protection under the Constitution’s guarantee against unreasonable searches.

Scalia reported thrilled at having another thing to poop nonsense into.
 
Barack Obama opened the blinds of his window and sighed. Snow, again. This was his home, not far from the very streets and alleys he helped organize as a young man. Yet despite the familiarity, he felt out of place. It was a feeling Obama had known all his life, and as he watched snow flakes slowly descend from a foreboding sky he couldn't help but laugh bitterly. Snow in place of sand; a horrible trade, yet Obama had made worse deals with John Boehner.

The country believed that he was in Hawaii, with his family for their annual Christmas vacation. In reality, Michelle and the girls had gone without him. Obama sat down on his bed in Chicago; a few Secret Service members were outside the door, ever his shadow. He had played cards with them the night before, listening to their life stories. It seemed as if each member of the Service sacrificed so much to protect him. Family, friends, love, even their lives if needed. His senior Secret Service agent had once been married, and even had two daughters. Yet he had lost them due to the demands of his job, first as a Navy SEAL and then as a Secret Service member. The agent's hair was as white as the snow outside of Obama's house, and he wondered whether he would suffer a similar fate.

Helle. A simple name. Easier to remember than her hypinated last name, Thorning-Schmidt. Obama rubbed the coal out his eyes as he remembered the day that resulted in his current predicament. It was just a photo. A simple request, one which was asked often of Obama. He had allowed Helle to take his picture, and even posed with her. Michelle was furious, yet to this day Obama could not understand why. His wife had known him for more than twenty years, and no doubt knew he had remained faithful. "Unlike her," Obama whispered to himself, emotionless. In truth, Helle's innocent request had entertained him in a way he hadn't been in months. It was good to have a friend again.

Yet he felt no attraction to her. In truth, she reminded him of someone else. Her blonde hair, the way her eyes exploded with life, her laugh. They were comforting and encouraging, like a father's hug or being tucked in by a loving parent - feelings Obama had never known. In truth, these traits had been missing from his life since January. He remembered it like yesterday. "Once again, thank you for saying yes so many years ago. Something tells me you'll be back here in a few years..." They walked through a beautifully lit hall of the White House - his hands nervously in his pocket, hers at her sides. Hands in need of embrace. She laughed, and the hall seemed to lighten even more. "That's a long ways off. I could be back earlier than that, for events." Obama smiled. "I would like that." He had hugged her afterwards, an embrace that seemed to last forever. And with that, she walked out of the White House, out of his life.

The rest of the year was hell, from one disaster to another. He had managed to keep things together for his first few years, with her at his side. Like a child trying to impress the loving parent he had never had, he had tried his best to prove to her that he was up to the job. Yet without her presence, Obama had retreated deep into himself. He couldn't take it anymore. He reached for his phone, which was on the dresser; no one had called to wish him Merry Christmas. He dialed a number, and held his breath.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom