Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

Obama nearly there

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bruce: I might have another look at this later. I was at a wedding yesterday and my hangover has just gone into overdrive. That's what comes with filling yourself with booze on top of an inadequate paltry meal. :lol:
 
I won't get into a long polemic about this but:

The US desparately needs a President who actually gives a toss about the 50M plus who live below the poverty line in his country - perhaps one who is prepared to make a difference (or try)

McCain comes across as a misogynist and we (the world that is) would just get another Bush albeit somewhat more intelligent version.

TD
 

ToffeeDan said:
I won't get into a long polemic about this but:

The US desparately needs a President who actually gives a toss about the 50M plus who live below the poverty line in his country - perhaps one who is prepared to make a difference (or try)

McCain comes across as a misogynist and we (the world that is) would just get another Bush albeit somewhat more intelligent version.

TD
Click to expand...

I agree on your first point. To be honest, though, I think that McCain is a better deal than Bush. Bush, who, contrary to popular opinion, is a bright man (look at his education) was in power for all the wrong reasons. This was part of the Bush family calling and he was just too weak a character to take on the job. Mccain, on the other hand, strikes me as someone with a moral compass of his own. He'll say what he means, and he'll even upset his own party in doing so. I disagree with the man on key issues but I don't doubt that he means well. His problem is his age. The president should be young enough to be aiming for two terms in office. McCain might not even get through the first term given that people in their 70s rarely have the stamina that is demanded for this position.
 
Bruce Wayne said:
I agree that the government does have a say in the markets you mention, but I don't think it should do. The use of agricultural subsidies in America and Europe has probably done more than anything to consign Africa to a life of poverty as it effectively bars these markets for sale of African produce. Add in the politically motivated support of the biofuel industry and you have the current food situation, especially when you consider that the barring of GM food in Europe is a political issue.
Click to expand...

Bruce, just because it is the case that subsidies can damage an industry worldwide, doesn't mean that, therefore, subsidies always damage an industry worldwide. I don't think anyone would claim that there never comes a time when protectionism is wrong and counterproductive. But when done properly it can lift an ailing industry off its knees and allow for a period of transition to occur whereby the infrastructure of an area is gradually changed so that other more competitive industry is encouraged to build.

Likewise with finance. You won't find me advocating the free market as a permanent bed of roses. I fully expect certain companies to go bust, but the key thing is that it allows people to learn from their mistakes. I believe the government should have let NR go to the wall. They knew full well what they were doing and messed up. Tough titties as far as I'm concerned. Do you think the financial sector will be quite as scared about making similar mistakes again now that the treasury have effectively said they will bail out any failing institution in future?
Click to expand...
Letting Northern Rock go to the wall would have been a disaster. Not least because the perception that there is nothing as safe as the banking industry breeds the ideal in the public that our financial institutions are safe, and worthy of investing money in. One point, though, is that NR was mismanaged. Now I'm not an economist but I would imagine that the sort of trading going on there, could easily have been picked up by the banking industry (Bank of England under government directives, perhaps?). Effectively, we're talking about more government meddling, not less.

As for telecoms, if you go back to the pre-millenium years when broadband was trying to be rolled out, the main stumbling block was BT, the ex government monopoly, that still acted like it was a state monopoly and tried to hold back smaller broadband companies in order to protect its own position. Look up local loop unbundling if you want to find out more.
Click to expand...
Like I said, I've no problem with market doing what it does best, if indeed that means doing what is best for the country as a whole, not just a few individuals. One point I'd pick up on is that you claim that smaller broadband companies were held back by BT in order to protect its position. This sort of practice is the cornerstone of capitalism. Look at the way Microsoft operates. It's well known that it will, given the opportunity, crush opposing initiatives, or at least buy them up and sit on them (i.e. would Microsoft allow an operating system to be built that would be superior to windows, could run on a PC and would cost pennies to install?)


Well that's kinda conjecture isn't it as we have precious little change to trial such a service. You mention museums, I was reading just this morning about universities in Europe and how massively underfunded they are compared to American universities, with of course most US universities relying on the privately funded contributions from alumni. Now no doubt you'll say how American universities exclude the poor or something, but the very same article stated how around twice as many Americans have degrees as Europeans.
Click to expand...
If government stopped funding museums in the UK it would be unlikely that business would suddenly take up the slack and provide alternative funds. What is wrong with a system whereby government, business and the individual feel compelled to support these projects?

And regarding your second point, you provided figures for Europe, not the UK. But what I can say is that a degree in the UK is usually better than one obtained from the States. When I was at university the American exchange students seemed to be under the impression that their master's degree was similar to our bachelor's degree with honours. Obviously, this wouldn't equate to the top American universities, which are, frankly, the best in the world.


So it would seem to be possible wouldn't it? When you also consider the number of cultural institutions that were built and funded by the Rockefellers of this world in the 1900's. As mentioned in previous threads, when the government take several hundred billion from Britons in taxes each year for 'charitable' causes then is it really surprising that individuals don't have as much spare money to contribute themselves?
Click to expand...
Are you seriously telling me that the general man in the street would give money to charity to any more than a minor degree if not forced by the government? People are fundamentally wrapped up in their day-to-day lives and compassion for others, whilst a real emotion, rarely features more than fleetingly.

[Getting tired Zzzzzzzzz]

So free will, does it exist? :lol:
 
The irony in the timing of this thread and the discussion of healthcare.

For the first time in my entire 41 year life, I spent a few days in a hospital.

Got admitted on Friday and was released today. Had a partially collapsed lung (Pneumothorax). They had to insert a tube into my chest cavity to let the air trapped between the lung and chest wall out so that the lung could reinflate.

Great doctors and nurses. Loved the main doctor who did all the work on me. I'm looking forward to my part of the bill after insurance takes care of it's part.

So, to recap, no more discussion of healthcare related items in the future :lol::lol::lol:
 
Just be gald you didn't get the battlefield version of that! They stick a tap in your chest with a little valve on it, so you can let the air out when the pressure builds up. No a permanent fix, but it will do until you get to a hospital!!!!
 

Bruce, just because it is the case that subsidies can damage an industry worldwide, doesn't mean that, therefore, subsidies always damage an industry worldwide. I don't think anyone would claim that there never comes a time when protectionism is wrong and counterproductive. But when done properly it can lift an ailing industry off its knees and allow for a period of transition to occur whereby the infrastructure of an area is gradually changed so that other more competitive industry is encouraged to build.
Click to expand...

I would :D We have to remember the motivations of governments. Most acts of protectionism are done on political grounds. Would NR have been saved if they were in the heart of London rather than the North-East? I have my doubts. It also does little to save the dying firm either, it merely wastes tax payer money allowing the company to stagger on a few years longer producing products that weren't deemed good enough by their customers in the first place.

Like I said, I've no problem with market doing what it does best, if indeed that means doing what is best for the country as a whole, not just a few individuals. One point I'd pick up on is that you claim that smaller broadband companies were held back by BT in order to protect its position. This sort of practice is the cornerstone of capitalism. Look at the way Microsoft operates. It's well known that it will, given the opportunity, crush opposing initiatives, or at least buy them up and sit on them (i.e. would Microsoft allow an operating system to be built that would be superior to windows, could run on a PC and would cost pennies to install?)
Click to expand...

I think it's evidence of humanity rather than any public/private split. If you concentrate power in the hands of the few the chances are it will corrupt. This is why competition is so important and why monopolies, public or private, are so bad for the customer.

If government stopped funding museums in the UK it would be unlikely that business would suddenly take up the slack and provide alternative funds. What is wrong with a system whereby government, business and the individual feel compelled to support these projects?
Click to expand...

I guess we'll never know :) It's not the fact that people are compelled to help out, it's that people are forced to help.

And regarding your second point, you provided figures for Europe, not the UK. But what I can say is that a degree in the UK is usually better than one obtained from the States. When I was at university the American exchange students seemed to be under the impression that their master's degree was similar to our bachelor's degree with honours. Obviously, this wouldn't equate to the top American universities, which are, frankly, the best in the world.
Click to expand...

Of the top 20 universities in the world, just 2 are from England (Oxbridge). That's obviously not to say that all American universities are good in the same way that many of the English poly's are poor. But the best US institutions are better than the best British/European ones, and a large part of that is down to the superior funding they enjoy. It's also the case that some 35% of Americans are graduates compared to around 15-20% in Europe, which considering America spends around 2% of GDP on higher education compared to below 1% in Europe. Private donations are a major part of that.

Are you seriously telling me that the general man in the street would give money to charity to any more than a minor degree if not forced by the government? People are fundamentally wrapped up in their day-to-day lives and compassion for others, whilst a real emotion, rarely features more than fleetingly.
Click to expand...

I think so yes, providing the charity shows value to society. Billions are donated to charity each year by individuals. In addition the likes of the local sports sector would simply not exist with out volunteers giving up their time. People do, and would continue to give up time to others if given the opportunity, but with tax so high how can people afford it?
 
:lol: I think we're getting into a stalemate here, Bruce. You say, I say, you say, I say etc, etc.

One thing I have to pick you up on, though, is that I do actually say that the top American universities happen to be the best in the world.

At least we are all agreed on one thing, including TX, which is we all want Obama in the White House! :lol:
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top