Warning: political thread

[nebuchanezzar]

We have a small, privately owned central banking system. It exists for the purpose of creating perpetual debt for profit. No matter what stop gap measures anyone comes up with they cannot succeed in the long term. Even though our constitution states that Congress has the right to create money it doesn't. Try looking deeper for root causes.
The owners of America are quite happy with the situation. I will give a story as an analogy and then step away from this topic.
'Do you know how to catch
wild pigs?
'You catch wild pigs
by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the
ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the
free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a
fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming.
When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn
again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to
that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all
four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The
pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the
gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.
Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run
around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon
they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it
that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for
themselves, so they accept their captivity.

Step back and look at the forest, not the trees. I wont be back to argue/explain/debate as I don't enjoy how sweaty my flame-retardant gear is. Keep discussing though by all means.

[Kanyatta]

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

No wonder congress has an 8% approval rating or whatever below W number they are getting. And just think, we are about to trade in a president with a 28% approval rating for one with a low-to-mid teens approval rating.

Kind of strange how someone, as they're in the Senate, can have a 51% approval rating, but then, as soon as he becomes a viable presidential candidate, it drops like a rock... Also, Obama is respected around the world, who is the first American politician since LBJ to do that.

Even though his approval rating may be low, he still leads McCain by about 5 points in the polls. Also, Congress's job approval rating is 18%, as of July 8th of this year.

[Winterclaw]

Originally Posted by Kanyatta

Mostly because of the trend the Republicans have been setting the last 20 or so years, allowing big corporations do to whatever they want under the radar and get away with it. How about Exxon gaining record profits this quarter (again) and yet their stocks are down 14%? Almost every large corporation is going the way of Enron, and the Republicans are encouraging it with more tax breaks. Many of the hardest working Americans in factories all over the US are getting paid shit while the people in front offices of corporations are making millions and paying next to nothing in taxes.

Fair enough. I will say that profits aren't always related to stock preformance. Another thing to remember is most large corporations are neither republican nor democrat; they are oppertunists and most donate to both parties. Republicans help them via tax-cuts. Democrats help them via favorable regulations that prevent smaller businesses from becoming bigger businesses.

I'm not saying making a lot of money is bad, I'm just saying if your drapes cost more than the average American salary, you probably can afford to pay a bit more in taxes.

IMO the rich are already paying a rate that is beyond what's fair. We should be happy they tolerate it.

[Chthon]

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

Sure, progessive taxation is fine. But what happens when you get around the 70,000 to 130,000 tax brackets? Assume a dual income household, with each making 35-60k a year. The household on the 130,000 end gets really screwed because of their tax bracket.

I remember watching "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" and realizing that one contestant was in a very difficult spot. If they walked away with the money they had, they were put into the maximum tax bracket and would end up actually losing money and would have a total net income lower than if they had not played the game show. They fortunately ended up getting the next question right, which despite putting them into the maximum, gave them enough money that even with the tax rate at maximum they still made money.

People at the higher end of the 'very rich' don't get screwed, it's the households making 130-150k in the maximum tax bracket that get really housed by progressive taxation.

I think you might be misunderstanding how progressive taxation works, because the scenario you describe where making more money makes you worse off is absolutely not possible. Going up a bracket does NOT mean that all of your income gets taxed at the higher rate; only the portion of your income above the bracket breakpoint (and below the next bracket breakpoint) gets taxed at that bracket's rate. If you are sitting right on the breakpoint and then you earn one more dollar, that one last dollar is taxed at the higher rate, but all the dollars you've earned before that are not.

Let's take an example to make sure we're all clear on this. I'm going to use the 2007 tax code, since that's what I happen to have lying around my desk right now. Let's say we have a couple filing jointly with an employment income of $500,000. (Yeah, they're rich.) That would put them in the 35% bracket. Does that mean that they pay 35% of $500,000 (= $175,000) in income taxes? NO, IT DOES NOT. Rather they pay 10% of the first $15,650 (= $1,565); plus 15% of the next $48,050 (= $7,207.50); plus 25% of the next $64,800 (= $16,200); plus 28% of the next $67,350 (= $18,858); plus 33% of the next $153,850 ( = $50,770.50), plus 35% of any income beyond that (The portion of their income over the last breakpoint is ($500,000 - $349,700 = ) $150,300, and 35% of that is $52,605). The end result is somewhat lower ($147,206).

Here's the 2007 bracket breakpoints for married, filing jointly:
10% of the portion of your income $0 to $15,650, PLUS
15% of the portion of your income $15,650 to $63,700, PLUS
25% of the portion of your income $63,700 to $128,500, PLUS
28% of the portion of your income $128,500 to $195,850, PLUS
33% of the portion of your income $195,850 to $349,700, PLUS
35% of the portion of your income above $349,700.

Play around with the numbers a little, and you should be able to prove to yourself quite easily that it is never possible to come out worse off on your income taxes because you made more money.

[Snow Bunny]

I agree with your last point Winterclaw

[mrmango]

This is great reading for someone who wants more views. Thanks.
(and Norway looks hot, lol irony)

[ty3c]

I'm votting for john mccain, because when I think about Obama and his friends and his way of wanting to run things

I picture this: Obama= Hitler

Hitler offered change as part his ideas, well he gave change alright... 14 million people died under his murderous way of running things, six million of them where jewish people who did NOTHING wrong.

if people really want change... I fear that they will get thier wish..........

btw people, kim jong ll also was elected, as well as hitler and i'm sure many more

if you're a rep or a dem, do us a favor dont vote for obama, vote for a 3rd or dont vote. thanks

p.s ron paul was my fav, but he refused to run as a 3rd and in doing so lost my vote.

[Lord Sojar]

Seriously though, I am not seeing all this tax increase hype with Obama. He is going to raise my taxes significantly. I don't care. If it will help balance out the country and help people who work 2 jobs live better quality of life, I am all for it. Wealthy people need to stop being so selfish... you can't take money with you when you die. You can pass it on, but that is just spoiling whoever you will it to. Anyone making over 3 million a year should be ashamed if they suggest paying higher taxes is wrong. SHAME.

Obama is Hitler? Yes, clearly... Obama wants to release the powers that were given to the executive branch and empower the Judicial branch again. The Bush administration believed that the executive branch should have most of the power, and the courts were forgotten (and not to mention politicized...). The Supreme Court of the United States is the balancing act, and is the best part of our government system. Belittling them is sad and disgusting. Remember, Obama teaches Judicial Law.... he knows how important the courts are and how they help balance the system. Biden doesn't want the powers Chenney has, and has made that VERY CLEAR. The Executive Branch needs a significant cool down on this 8 year power trip they have been on. Power to the Supreme Court to interpret what is legal for the government to do! They keep big brother in his place.

[Winterclaw]

Seriously though, I am not seeing all this tax increase hype with Obama. He is going to raise my taxes significantly. I don't care. If it will help balance out the country and help people who work 2 jobs live better quality of life, I am all for it. Wealthy people need to stop being so selfish...

A few things.

First is that even though you are okay with your taxes up, maybe someone else isn't okay with his taxes going up. It isn't fair to the other guys who either don't want their taxes to go up or can do more good for the community if their taxes were lower. If you want to pay more, you have that option... the IRS will let you overpay. You can even return your refund to them.

Second of all its questionable that raising taxes will help, right now there isn't enough money flowing (reason for the bailout) and taking more money out of the pockets of businesses that are either hurting or can't get credit isn't going to help them any. Another thing to keep in mind is that amount of revenue our government is more closely linked to GDP than tax rate and increasing taxes could slow GDP growth.

Third is it's no business of yours if wealthy people are generous or not. They earned their money, they deserve to do with it as they wish. If congress wants more money, they can get a part time job on their days off and give that money to the government. You shouldn't forget either that as of now, the rich are already paying most of the taxes. Something like 50% of all taxes are paid by the top 5%. I also see taxes as slavery and while a small amount is necessary, raising taxes too high is immoral. When the 16th amendment was created, the people trying to push it on the nation said it wouldn't go higher than 4%. Some of the people who were against it were scared it would reach a rather low by today's standards 20%.

Fourth, letting people keep what they earn will encourage them to earn more, do more work, create more jobs, etc than if you handcuff them with taxes. One of the big reasons why Reagan was for tax cuts is because when he was in the movie business he was told not to make more than 3 films a year by his fellow actors because anything more than that and the government would end up taking all his pay from those extra movies.

Fifth, many of the social programs are unconstitutional and should be religated to the states to each have their own as they see fit. The 10th amendment religates anything not specifically empowered to the federal government to the states. Thus if the people of California want a social security or medicare, it should be the state of California who creates its own program and is responsible for its upkeep and finance, not the federal government. If they want universal healthcare, that's fine as long as only California pays for it for the benifit of California residents.

Obama is Hitler?

Aside from genocide, unless you count abortion, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama and Hitler aren't that dissimular in terms social programs. I mean Hitler was a pro-union enviromentalist who was heavily favored by the college crowds and full believed in a state-run education system (where he got his hitler youth from). I have a book with some of his social policies, maybe I'll dig out the info. Initially the communists in Germany voted for him because they thought his socialist policies were a good step towards creating a communist Germany as opposed to the other guy.

[Lord Sojar]

Winter, the point is, the upper class can afford a tax increase. The middle class needs to be stimulated, in order to have more purchasing power, thus stimulating businesses, which in turn have more money to invest. While this is a very simplified view of the scenario, the fact is, sometimes economy basics are what drive economy; Keynesian economics 101! When said large companies make money from middle bracket Americans using their liquid assets as purchasing power, the rich make more money, offsetting the increased taxes. Our economy is, in part, in this slump because of extremely reduced retail and service spending. This is the reason you are seeing a huge decrease in specific companies across the stock market. Starbucks is a great example; they closed 600+ stores, their stocks have gone down the tubes, because people do not have the money for high end coffee.

To accuse Obama of socialism because he wants to stop privatizing that is destroying us (because Capitalism is good until it interferes with government) We are not even truly capitalistic, considering the buy out. The buy out is the most socialistic thing this country has done in a longtime... Regulations must be put in place to keep greed from destroying most of the country. This is why communism doesn't work, and this is why letting capitalism run the countries basic functions doesn't work either; greed.

And at the comments Michelle made... those were put through the republican spin machine a few too many times... political spin is horrible... Same with William Ares! Who CARES?! Obama knows him, they don't go play polo together every weekend and go out for guys night out on Fridays. The fact is, as Michelle pointed out recently, that if you are involved in Chicago politics, you have some connection with William Ares; period, end of discussion. His former pastor is a fruit cake... Obama clearly denounced what he said, and has disowned him. Reverend Wright is a nutjob... that I will agree with. Obama isn't the best candidate we have ever had, but he isn't the worst. Frankly, no one involved in the major political scene right now is a good choice, because of our current situation. Obama is, however, smart. Religion is a silly concept in politics, and should be BANNED from relations with said system. It has no place in decision making, and it is insane to think it had one to begin with. Being logical and analytical is superior on all fields when dealing with politics. Emotion is nice, but leave it at the door please. Obama can use his mind, not his feelings. That is biggest flaw I see with the current incarnation of the Republican party; they are so damn religious and ethical. Ethics be damned! Humans will only evolve if we remove petty ethics from things, and strive to improve our technology. I am technocrat, so that is my thought process. We should be thinking about bettering ourselves through technology, not religion.

I am by no means saying religion in and of itself is bad. Please do not take it that way. I am simply stating that putting it into politics stops progress, which infuriates me.

Originally Posted by ty3c

if you're a rep or a dem, do us a favor dont vote for obama, vote for a 3rd or dont vote. thanks

Do WHO a favor? You? Your friends who agree with you? The republican party. No one can tell what is going to happen. This attitude that Obama is evil has got to go though. Telling people not to vote for someone because you relate them to one of the most horrible people and mass murderers in history is wrong. Tell people not to vote based on hard facts and logic, not on ideals or concepts. This illogical madness must stop.

Using an analytical view of things, one can see the only logical choice is Obama. He is the greater of the two once you run things through the equations. Quite simply put; it comes down to logic. You either elect a man who uses numbers and logic or a man who uses religion and conceptualism as their base. These are facts... John McCain is smart, but he uses too much feeling and emotion, too much idealism, and is far too abstract to help with the current situation. He would be a good president under different circumstances, however. What we need is someone who is cold and exacting in their operation, who uses statistics and measurement. Obama is known for doing that. McCain is known for using ethics and morals, which vary from person to person. We need logic, not emotion.

Idealism is great, until it gets in the way of progress. A systematic and aggressive push into technology is what is required. We must make the US high tech, low ethic. In an ideal world, we wouldn't have people angry with anything that pushes society forward, but we don't live in that world. We live here, and we must put our ideals aside for the time being, and use fact, and by that means, logic. Logic gets results, idealism gets ratings. If half of this country could wise up and get over these morale blockades, we would have a life expectancy of 150, extremely advanced nano/pharmaceutical technology, and a cutting edge technocratic infrastructure. Nuclear power, BUILD IT. Screw the damn "green" alternatives! Build the nuclear power plants, and use that power to further research and development of "greener" solutions. Onward with progress!

[Turbobusa]

I find it weird to start a restructuring plan when the country actually runs an economic stimulus plan.
That's kind of contradictory.
I don't know I just started an economics class, so if someone is willing to explain me...

Rahja, you mentionned keynesianism, what do the candidates actually think of it?
Tendency seems to go against it atm.

[Lord Sojar]

Yes, it seems to be forgotten by too many; sadly... I am a technocrat though, so ignore me. I think only in terms of pure logic. You could almost call me an android, minus the fact I do have emotion and use it, mainly for sadistic purposes...

[Fril Estelin]

Originally Posted by Rahja the Thief

John McCain is smart, but he uses too much feeling and emotion, too much idealism, and is far too abstract to help with the current situation.

If I may mention a point in the middle of this very interesting discussion (and I'm all in favor of Obama tbh), McCain is using logic, not just plain old First-order logic (that you know all well with logic gates ;P). He's using higher order logics, just as modal logics, logic where modalities such as "I believe" and "I know" are expressed as operators in addition to the default one in First-order logic ("It's a fact that").

In simple words: McCain is appealing to the vast majority of people, he's using what people can understand, beliefs, emotions, subjectivity. I hate this guy, but I'd be a fool not to know that this is a winning strategy. Yet, I hope Obama will win and I wish all USA-ians to get this great guy as their first black president. It'll have a positive impact all over the world (but militaro-industrial lobbies won't be happy all over the world).

[Avarre]

I should run for president. Not in the US though, rather hang out here and make 7 figures a year while doing no work.

[Master Fuhon]

On the thread topic, it's not the presidents job to deal with a crisis that's going to happen more than 8 years from now. Even if you wanted it to be, he wouldn't be qualified to do it. The people who need to be handling the projected problems of 2040+ should be learning now so that they can be part of the president's cabinet when the time comes around to deal with future problems. Right now, we can only limit ourselves to one economic specialist, so we need to pick someone who can tackle a current major problem.

This is an issue about dedicating one's life to a single specific cause to make sure he can do it better than anyone else. Find someone willing to do that for this cause and hope he started some time ago.

On trying to tax the rich to pay off debts:

Everyone wants to tax the rich, but the problem has been collecting the taxes. The rich don't make income from one place; they make it from various sources. And those sources are not always reported. This is where the McCain camp fails to get the message through of what they are trying to do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDB...eature=related
I was trying to find an unedited video of the moderator during democratic primaries telling Obama why his capitol gains tax increase has never worked. Capital gains tax frequently refers to the sales of stocks and bonds. People get filthy rich off of stocks and bonds. We should be exploiting the low capital gains tax for the good of the people, not closing this loophole. Even if someone manages to correct Obama's policies, there is an irrational thought process behind most of his ideas.

If the rich can make money off of it, the government needs to learn from them. In our blind hatred for the rich we can't even see the obvious of how we can make our own situation better. Obama feeds the emotion of blaming other people for our current circumstances; this is not rational thought.

On Obama, likely next president right now:

This is the guy with the lead in popular vote right now, so he has more people connecting with what he says than McCain does. I'll give him this point, this is a time we need more of what the Democrats are saying than the Republicans. But we also need a better way of doing it than what the Democrats are proposing.

Obama will set the standard of electing the most untested, inexperienced people who make the most promises into leadership. Even if we luck out with him (and he turns out to be the magical perfect candidate that people claim he is) we are going to fall for this until we elect some complete fraud who ruins everything. When George Bush ran in 2000 against McCain, he had more funding than any other candidate and he ran his campaign purely on the same attacks you see in this election. If you don't believe this stuff will infest our government in the future you already missed it: McCain picked Sarah Palin because he knew what dumb reasons people voted for. Obama crushed his democratic competition in the primaries because of money.

I have alot more to say about why I can't cast a vote for Obama (but it's off-topic), and I would rather choose from the same line of corrupt politicians. At least they are the best of the corrupt politicians by some standard, and they don't get a free pass in our election process for appearing to be something different.

Edit: Forgot to add the usual part about trying to increase taxes on businesses. They cut jobs, lower salaries, and raise the prices on their products to make up for it. This is like biting the hand that feeds you.

[Snow Bunny]

Originally Posted by Rahja the Thief

Winter, the point is, the upper class can afford a tax increase.

With Wall Street floundering and billions of dollars evaporating, oh ok. As a personal example, my parents' savings have been 85% wiped out, so RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO you.

Our economy is, in part, in this slump because of extremely reduced retail and service spending.

It's mainly because of buyers and sellers being dishonest with each other but OH OK.

To accuse Obama of socialism because he wants to stop privatizing that is destroying us (because Capitalism is good until it interferes with government) We are not even truly capitalistic, considering the buy out.

A. That wasn't even a sentence.

B. He has explicitly stated, "To redistribute wealth." That is socialism, like it or not. He's factually the most left candidate in the history of the US.

His former pastor is a fruit cake... Obama clearly denounced what he said, and has disowned him. Reverend Wright is a nutjob... that I will agree with.

Yet Obama was content to allow him to preach to him for several decades until it blew up into his face.

Ethics be damned!

As per your user title, "You're an idiot." Ethics form the basis of our legal code.

If half of this country could wise up and get over these morale blockades, we would have a life expectancy of 150, extremely advanced nano/pharmaceutical technology, and a cutting edge technocratic infrastructure.

We'd all have PhDs and get paid by nVidia RIGHT?

RIGHT?



Your passionate denunciation of logical points leads me to my critique of you and your thoughts.

I will end up voting for Obama only because of McCain's track-record of voting with Bush, but not for any of the reasons you have stated.

[Winterclaw]

Originally Posted by Rahja the Thief

Winter, the point is, the upper class can afford a tax increase.

And most males can afford to lose an eye, a hand, a kidney, a lung, and a testicle, but that doesn't mean you should force them to have such things removed. Just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should, it doesn't mean that it is right.

The middle class needs to be stimulated, in order to have more purchasing power, thus stimulating businesses, which in turn have more money to invest.

Not the federal government's responsiblity at all, much less to the degree that the left want to take it.

I don't see how the middle class is stimulated when the rich people fire them because their taxes go up. I also don't see how the middle class is stimulated when the federal government makes it harder for small businesses to be created or to expand. If you have a business with 5 people making the average amount of money, you are at Obama's proposed new breakpoint.

When said large companies make money from middle bracket Americans using their liquid assets as purchasing power, the rich make more money, offsetting the increased taxes. Our economy is, in part, in this slump because of extremely reduced retail and service spending.

Yet increasing taxes will cause round of firing, and reduce the number of new projects that would create jobs, which will hurt the economy and the people and you end up with a zero net gain.

This is the reason you are seeing a huge decrease in specific companies across the stock market.

No, people are just panicing.

Starbucks is a great example; they closed 600+ stores, their stocks have gone down the tubes, because people do not have the money for high end coffee.

That and starbucks has too many locations to begin with and grew more than their base could handle.

To accuse Obama of socialism because he wants to stop privatizing that is destroying us (because Capitalism is good until it interferes with government) We are not even truly capitalistic, considering the buy out. The buy out is the most socialistic thing this country has done in a longtime... Regulations must be put in place to keep greed from destroying most of the country. This is why communism doesn't work, and this is why letting capitalism run the countries basic functions doesn't work either; greed.

Obama is a socialist based on the party he is in and the policies he supports. The buyout was a bad mistake and the only reason it happened is because Bush and too many republicans forgot how to be capitalists.

You say regulations need to be put in place, but IIRC Fanny and Freddy were regulated by the government to a degree and the government helped pushed subprime lending. So if you let the government regulate it, they are still going to screw things up and then blame the other party.

political spin is horrible... Same with William Ares! Who CARES?!

On 9-11 before the planes hit, he wished he blew up more. When recently asked if he regretted his bombings he didn't respond.

The fact is, as Michelle pointed out recently, that if you are involved in Chicago politics, you have some connection with William Ares; period, end of discussion.

Which shows how screwed up the windy city is.

Obama is, however, smart.

Intelligence isn't everything nor is it the only thing. You can be smart and still be a screw up.

Religion is a silly concept in politics, and should be BANNED from relations with said system. It has no place in decision making, and it is insane to think it had one to begin with.

Most countries that ban religion end up violating other human rights (China, the Soviet union, etc). If a person is religious he has a right to act on his faith. If he want to use his religion to help guide his decision making, why should we judge him on the fact he using religion without any other qualifications.

Being logical and analytical is superior on all fields when dealing with politics.

Governing people can't be done with logic alone and one person's logic might contradict anothers.

That is biggest flaw I see with the current incarnation of the Republican party; they are so damn religious and ethical. Ethics be damned!

Yeah, let's throw them african-americans back in chains; who cares about the ethics if it's good for the economy? While we are at it, we can throw hispanic-americans and whites who aren't politically convenient to the new order into slavery with them.

Humans will only evolve if we remove petty ethics from things, and strive to improve our technology. I am technocrat, so that is my thought process. We should be thinking about bettering ourselves through technology, not religion.

I am by no means saying religion in and of itself is bad. Please do not take it that way. I am simply stating that putting it into politics stops progress, which infuriates me.

Technology could be a secular religion. There's some food for your thoughts.

[I pwnd U]

I have an Uncle who is considered "upper class" and when I was visiting him a week and a half ago we were talking. The amount that they would be taxing him is insane. Basically he would be turning his paycheck right back over to the government. It's just not a good idea, more people will suffer from it than prosper imo.

And I am middle class, not upper fyi.

[Lord Sojar]

That isn't true... The tax bracket will simply shift and the highest (richest) will be taxed more. Bunny, you do not need to drag who I work for into this, it is irrelevant.

Fanny and Freddy were regulated very little by the US government. Each time deregulation has happened, said commodity has undergone massive price hikes and been heavily displaced.

Panic doesn't cause this type of economic slump. Reduced quarterly earnings, expensive health care plans (distributed by businesses to their employees), and enormous raw material cost increases are the main reason the business sector is suffering. Panic causes 500-700 point drops on the stock market over the course of 2-4 days, typically rebounding after 1-2 weeks. The DJIA is down to 8378 dollars according to my ticker. That represents a 2000+ point loss over a 6 month period. Panic is not the primary factor, which is not to say it doesn't play a role. Companies reporting horrific earnings reports is one of the big reasons, with multiple causations for those earnings. All of my stocks are in the bucket, most being in the technology sectors. Specifically, it makes me want to cry seeing my 401k lately.

Whatever the solution is, it isn't going to happen quickly. The DJIA, Nasdaq and S&P will continue to bleed red until the measures the government has taken take effect. The .5% interest drop will take about 12-16 months to see the effect of, but that will help on a huge scale. The tax system needs to be adjusted to facilitate a modern economy. It is based on an aging premise and antique systems. Social security is also an antiquated system that needs serious revision, else the program will end and the money will be lost to many younger payees.

None of us know the solution, and quite frankly, I don't think anyone in the world truly knows exactly what can fix this. What we need to do is continue our focus on technologies that will help advance culture, cut costs, and get rid of those who value money so much, they are willing to sacrifice the very planet that sustains them. We need to focus on advancing manufacturing processes, synthetic material production, alternative energy, hyper computing, and robotics. If the US can become a world leader in these fields, we will increase our exports substantially, bolstering our economy in return. KISS principle is quite nice.

[Master Fuhon]

Originally Posted by Rahja the Thief

Panic doesn't cause this type of economic slump. Reduced quarterly earnings, expensive health care plans (distributed by businesses to their employees), and enormous raw material cost increases are the main reason the business sector is suffering. Panic causes 500-700 point drops on the stock market over the course of 2-4 days, typically rebounding after 1-2 weeks. The DJIA is down to 8378 dollars according to my ticker. That represents a 2000+ point loss over a 6 month period. Panic is not the primary factor, which is not to say it doesn't play a role.

Warren Buffet disagrees. He made 8 billion in about a month based off this market that appears to be fundamentally bad. To try to use logic to define logically inconsistent systems is a life-wrecking mistake. I can't give you a percentage, but just know that emotion > logic when it comes to the stock market and many other things. Note his advice: "Be greedy when others are fearful." He makes his fortune off understanding emotion, he's probably one of the best people alive at understanding greed.

The logic > all philosophy emerged from ancient greece and has carried on to ideas like rationalism and empiricism. In fact, it's beginning to wear at this point like most ancient schools of thought. Star Trek portrayed a charicature of a superior being that only used logical thought (Dr. Spock). But humans have never been this way. Neuroscience (while still in it's infancy) has already begun tests that show psychopathic tendencies to occur when the emotional parts of the brain function poorly. There is already evidence that killers have full understanding of logical right and wrong, yet have trouble experiencing emotion when things are wrong. Dr. Spock was fake because good decision making requires an emotional function that is not inferior.

In other words, humans are not fully logical beings. Systems created by humans can only be as logical as the humans who created them. Human emotion will always temper things; so it's more important to have a superior emotional function than to suppress one. Trying to ignore the dominant emotional aspect of the markets is the fastest way to lose money. I would also credit the recent mental health problem boom as being part of the ideal that tries to encourage people to suppress emotions at an early age from schooling.

I've been trying to figure out what went wrong with the housing markets, but basically it looks like greed became a major player. People were looking to start cashing in big on the dealing of homes, and the whole system became just like the stock market. The prices of homes went up to try to make the business more profitable, and at the same time, that pushed many people out of the market for buying homes. Without players, there is no money to be made, so the shady loans were given to get more people back into the game. At some point, the government needed to step in and say we can't be playing greed games with the things people need to survive (food & shelter). But this is an obvious drawback of unregulated capitalism.